UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Relationship among identified problem areas, choice of helpers, and sex-role differentiation in grade… Joy, Peter W. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 J69.pdf [ 6.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054625.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054625-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054625-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054625-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054625-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054625-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054625-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054625-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054625.ris

Full Text

RELATIONSHIP AMONG IDENTIFIED  PROBLEM AREAS,  CHOICE OF H E L P E R S , AND S E X - R O L E DIFFERENTIATION  IN G R A D E E L E V E N S T U D E N T S  by P E T E R W. J O Y B.A.(Hons.),  Queen's U n i v e r s i t y ,  1972  A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF MASTER OF A R T S  in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Education  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE UNIVERSITY  OF BRITISH  August,  (c)  COLUMBIA  1983  P e t e r W.  Joy,  1983.  OF  >E-6  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree .that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  department o r by h i s o r her  granted by  the head o f  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be  allowed w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  (3/81)  Columbia  written  ABSTRACT This  research  study  investigates,  a  group  grade  identified  p r o b l e m s , d i s c l o s u r e l i k e l i h o o d on t h e s e p r o b l e m s , Students,  role orientation tionnaire lem f o r  by  (Part  self-reported  variables: and  the  significant,  I of  the  study),  how  likely  b o t h t h e main e f f e c t  between  though  they  identified  s e x of  problem  student  was not  for  would  identified  and  sex  the  study,  actions  p r o b l e m was s i g n i f i c a n t . there  with  orientation  were  regards  significant to  be to  number  of  complexity subjects  significant  higher  of c o n d i t i o n a l i t y  in  this  study  for  report  are  The  effects  sex  order  and  and  lower  interactions  helper,  which  This  that  of  the  degree  what the  complex.  (ii)  of  were  effect  order  psychological  self-disclosure.  antecedents  and  students  topic  and  the  is t h e  indicate  the the  self-disclosure  biological sex and  i s , a n d to whom  self-disclosure  inter-  is to s a y t h a t  their  of  sex-role  What is most n o t a b l e , h o w e v e r ,  sex-role orientation,  disclosing.  student  o n l y the main  d e p e n d s s p e c i f i c a l l y on who t h e y a r e in t e r m s of t h e i r psychological  study).  problem  When  of t h e d i s c l o s e r , g e n d e r a n d l o c a t i o n of t h e  p r o b l e m t o p i c to be t a l k e d a b o u t .  talk  In the s e c o n d a n d l a r g e r p a r t  main  biological  of  significant.  were grouped b y psychological sex-role orientation, for identified  ques-  to w h i c h e a c h of e l e v e n p r o b l e m t o p i c s was a p r o b -  P a r t I of t h e s t u d y , interaction  choice  means o f a t w o - p a r t  a b o u t e a c h o f t h e p r o b l e m t o p i c s , a n d w i t h whom ( P a r t II o f t h e In  eleven  biological sex and p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e x -  (Bern, 1978), were a s k e d by  the extent them  grouped  of  181  the  helper.  among a n u m b e r  of  students,  of  relationships  with  are  varied  they and  TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page  i  Abstract  ii  List of Tables  vi  List of Figures  ix  Acknowledgements  x  CHAPTER '•.I  II  INTRODUCTION  1  Background and Rationale for Study Identified Problems Self-Disclosure Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure  1 2 3 6  Purposes of Study General Purposes Specific Purposes  8 8 9  Importance, Significance and Uniqueness of This Study Importance Significance Uniqueness of This Study  10 10 10 11  Definition of Terms  12  REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Identified Problems Self-Disclosure Psychological Sex-Role Orientation X Self-Disclosure  (iii)  17 17 17 17 18  Identified Problems Identified Problems Identified Problems X Gender . . . . . . . . Identified Problems X Psychological Sex-Role Orientation . Self-Disclosure Self-Disclosure Measuring Self-Disclosure Self-Disclosure Main Effects Lower Order Interactions Higher Order Interactions . . . Psychological Sex-Role Orientation . . . . . . . Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Androgyny - Background Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Identified Problems Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure Summary of Literature Identified Problems Self-Disclosure .Psychological Sex-Role Orientation, Identified Problems and SelfDisclosure Ill METHODOLOGY Description of Subjects  IV  18 18 19 20 21 21 22 2 3  25 33 38 39 39 41 41 45 45 46 51 54  . . . . . . . . . . . .  54  Description of Measurement Instruments Measurement of Identified Problems . . . . . Measurement of Self-Disclosure Bern Sex-Role Inventory  55 56 59 62  Data Collection Procedures .  67  Data Analysis Correlational Approach Analysis of Variance .  68 68 69  RESULTS  71  Identified Problems  7 1  (iv)  Self-Disclosure  74  Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure  V  103  DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion of Results Identified Problems Self-Disclosure . . Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Limitations Recommendations for Future Research Implications and Conclusions  121  .  121 121 122 126  . . . .  128 128 129 131  BIBLIOGRAPHY  133  APPENDIX  .  138  Part I  140  Part II  142  Part III  150  (v)  LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 2 3  4 5  6  7  8 9  10  11  Page Selected Demographic Characteristics of Mission, Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada  . .  55  Four Themes and Eleven Problem Topics Instrument: Identified Problems  . .  56  Percentage of Subjects in Various Sex-Role Groups for a 1975 Sample of Stanford Undergraduates as Defined by a Median Split of Both Masculinity and Femininity . . . . . . Summary Table - Identified Problem and Sex of Student - Analysis of Variance  65 .  72  Means and Significant Differences of Identified Problems For Students Grouped by Sex .  73  Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Identified Problems and Sex of Student  74  Summary Table - Problem, Sex of Student, Gender of Helper and Location of Helper Analysis of Variance  75  Mean Disclosure Scores on Problems for Students Group by Sex  . . . . . .  76  Rank Order, Mean Disclosure Scores and Significant Difference Levels Between Likelihood of Problem Disclosure  77  Pearson Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients for All Students Between Seriousness of Identified Problems and Likelihood of Disclosure on These Same Problems . . .. •  79  Pearson Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients For Males Between Seriousness of Each Identified Problem and Likelihood of Disclosure on That Same Problem . . . . . . . . .  81  (vi)  12  13 14 15  16 17  18  19 20 21 22  23  24  Pearson Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients for Females Between the Seriousness of Each Identified Problem and Likelihood of Disclosure on That Same Problem . . . .  82  Mean Disclosure Scores to Male and Female Helpers For Students Grouped by Sex . . . . . . . .  85  Mean Disclosure Scores to Friends, Parents and School Personnel For Students Grouped by Sex . . . .  86  Rank Order, Mean Disclosure Scores and Significant Difference Levels for the Interaction: Sex of Student X Location of Helper  87  Gender of Helper X Location of Helper Design Into Six Targets  88  Rank Order, Mean Disclosure Scores and Significant Difference Levels Between Six Targets  89  Mean Disclosure Scores to Helper Gender X Helper Location (Friends, Parents, School Personnel) For Students Grouped by Sex .  90  Rank Ordering and Mean Disclosure Scores to Seven Helpers For Students Grouped by Sex  91  Summary Table - Problem and Sex of Student Analysis of Variance For Helper, No One . . . . . .  93  Mean Problem Disclosure Scores to Helper No-One For Students Grouped by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . .  94  Rank Order, Mean Disclosure Scores and Significant Difference Levels Between Likelihood of Problem Disclosure to Helper, No One . . . .  95  Mean Disclosure Scores and Significant Difference Level Notation Between Sex of Student For Each Problem to Each Helper by Gender and Location  97  Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between BSRI Masculinity and Femininity Scores for Male, Female and All Students for Eleven Identified Problems  (vii)  v  . . . .  105  25 26 27 28  29  30 31  32 33  34  Distribution of Students According to Sex and Bern Grouping  107  Summary Table - Identified Problems and Bern Grouping of Student - Analysis of Variance  108  Rank Order, Mean Scores and Significance Difference Levels Between Identified Problems  . . .  109  Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between BSRI Masculinity and Femininity Scores For Male, Female and All Students X Likelihood of Problem Disclosure  Ill  Summary Table - Problem, Bern Grouping of Student, and Gender and Location of Helper Analysis of Variance . . .  113  Mean Disclosure Scores to Male and Female Helpers For Students Grouped by the BSRI  114  Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between BSRI Masculinity and Femininity Scores for Males, Females and All Students to Helper No One, and All Combinations of Helpers  116  Mean Disclosure Scores to Helpers by Location For Students Grouped by the BSRI  118  Mean Disclosure Scores to Helper by Gender X Helper by Location For Students Grouped by the BSRI  119  Summary Table - Problem and Bern Grouping of Student - Analysis of Variance for Helper, No One  120  (viii)  LIST OF FIGURES  Self-Disclosing Communication Model: Tubbs and Baird (1978)  (ix)  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I Dr.  J.  wish  to  e x p r e s s my  B a n m e n , a n d to  the  gratitude  to  the  members o f t h e  chairman committee,  of  my Drs.  committee. R.  a n d W. B o r g e n f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e , e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d p a t i e n c e .  (x)  Conry  1  CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION  I  BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY This study,  and the literature related to it, can best be  understood if it is thought of as exploring three separate but related topics:  (1)  identified problems: problem areas typical to  students at large, and then when they are differentiated by gender and  psychological  sex-role  orientation;  (2)  self-disclosure:  the  extent to which students as a whole and students grouped by gender are likely to self-disclose on particular problem topics, and who they are likely to choose as helpers, when helpers (targets) are differentiated sex-role  by gender and location; and ( 3 ) psychological  orientation  students  1  and  differentiated  self-disclosure:  the  extent  by a measure of psychological  to  which sex-role  orientation are likely to self-disclose on particular problem topics, and who they are likely to choose as targets. What follows is a very brief summary of the literature related to these themes and a critical look at the limitations of this literature.  Implied in these limitations are invitations to do further  research.  Though the outline above appears to focus on students as the disclosing population and the population with problems, and the sample measured in this study is a grade eleven student population, at times my literature review and interpretation of this research will not be limited to just a student population.  Identified 1.  Problems  Identified Only  a  Problems  limited  determining and  there  amount  exists only  it  evident  not  clearly  population,  lation,  would  people  (or  see  unspecified Identified  as  what  have  problems  of  in  our  to  matter  a  any  vary  general,  1978)  that  literature, eleven  student  popu-  problems  according  1971),  at  grade  Presumably,  reflect  society  as  to  that  age  well  and  as  whereas,  females  were j u d g e d  Psychological  Hill a n d D e r k s e n  of  ranked  other  and  that  judged  to  Educational  to be  serious-  most  concerns;  most c o n c e r n e d  Contrastingly,  according  have  be  to g e n d e r  about  Snyder,  (1972), u s i n g a s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n , in  found  students'  problems.  (1975), of  were  Relations).  t h e r e to be no d i f f e r e n c e self-rating  students  sex-stereotypes  (males  Vocational  problems.  in  From the  problems  found university  about  difference  students  (LaFromboise,  (Jourard,  worried  measure  directed  Problems X G e n d e r  ness  Cinn  to  been  variables.  (1968)  Social  has  population.  theirs.  stages  Hartman  existed  study  o r f o r that  students)  developmental  typical  one  eleven  is  research  problem areas  considers a grade  student  2.  of  in a b e h a v i o r a l  identified  between  the  problems, sexes  in  rather found  than  self-report  practically  presentation  of  no  actual  With are  the availability  not  able  significantly  to  of only  determine  if  these three  male  studies,  students  different problems than their  we  experience  female  counter-  parts. 3.  Identified Problems X Psychological S e x - R o l e This  is a n u n t a p p e d  area.  ture  to  factors  relate  the  psychological sex-role  Nothing of  Orientation  exists  in  identified  the  litera-  problems  and  orientation.  Self-Disclosure 1.  Main Effects In  the  self-disclosure  consistent the  single-factor  topic,  research  and  we  about  less  topics  each of the  more  males  than  1977);  females  tend  (Jourard,  and to  that, receive  discloser,  make  (Jourard,  (Jourard  the  the  nature  target,  the  of t h e  partially  discloser  more  Cosby,  it  1973;  is r e p o r t e d  disclosure  (Jourard,  1971),  and that  than  1971; R i v e n b a c k , 1 9 7 1 ; M o r g a n , 1 9 7 6 ) .  age of  and  DeForest  males We a l s o  h a v e some r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t t a r g e t p r e f e r e n c e with  to  1976; L o m b a r d o  as t a r g e t s , more  some  to d i s c l o s e  1971;  of  report  B e r z o n s k y , 1979; tend  fairly  collection  females  M o r g a n , 1976; G i l b e r t a n d W h i t e n e c k , Lavine,  this  assuredness,  that individuals  intimate  several  instance,  Lombardo and  1980);  find  From  relative  for  we  for  target.  significantly  1958;  Stone,  trends  with  that,  self-disclose Lasakow,  the  can,  assumptions  and  literature,  varies  and  that  discloser  and  relationship  between  the  b a s e d on t h e  behavior  of t h e  target,  is  n of  great  importance  T u b b s and B a i r d , 2.  Lower O r d e r  (Jourard,  1970;  LaFromboise,  1978;  1978).  Interactions  When we c o n s i d e r  interactions  between,  for  instance,  the  2 gender  of  the  discloser,  the  intimacy  and  valence  level  3 of the t o p i c , the  a n d the g e n d e r a n d location  interacting  behavior  clear.  It  support  a significant  of  topic  seems  (Morgan,  more  1976;  and  these  there  is  factors  target,  becomes  sufficient  research  (that  about  O'Neill,  Whiteneck,  females intimate  Fein, 1976;  Velit  report  to  and  disclose  topics  than  males)  and  Frank,  1976;  Lombardo  and  Berzonsky,  of  discloser X valence level of topic a n d , b y its n a t u r e ,  one  study  two  studies  inconclusive.  (DeForest and  and R a p p , gender consider  1981)  of  ' V a l e n c e r e f e r s to p o s i t i v e , a n d Whiteneck, 1976).  gender  Stone,  inconclusive  1980, a n d  interaction, of  considers  Similarly  that contemplate  target a  1976)  study  gender  is  Whiteneck,  to  level  1979; a n d D e F o r e s t a n d S t o n e , 1 9 8 0 ) , b u t o n l y one (Gilbert  less  g e n d e r of d i s c l o s e r X i n t i m a c y  relationship  significantly  Gilbert  that  of  of the  Gerdes,  Gehling  a g e n d e r of discloser X and  discloser  negative or neutral  are  X  three  studies  location  of  value of a topic  that target  (Gilbert  3 L o c a t i o n r e f e r s to t h e t y p e o f p e r s o n b e i n g m e n t i o n e d . L o c a t i o n s may r e f e r to g e n e r i c t y p e s s u c h a s p a r e n t s o r f r i e n d s o r t h e s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s u c h a s m o t h e r o r c l o s e s t female f r i e n d .  5 interaction  (Morgan,  Lombardo and and  Lavine  1976;  Lavine, shows  Gilbert  1977).  a  and  O n l y the  significant  a u t h o r s d o not i n t e r p r e t  Whiteneck,  it.  work  of Lombardo  interaction  and  gender  of  discloser  these  T h e r e is v i r t u a l l y n o t h i n g i n  the l i t e r a t u r e to i n d i c a t e what m i g h t be e x p e c t e d a  1976;  X gender  of  target,  in either  or  gender  of  d i s c l o s e r X location o f t a r g e t i n t e r a c t i o n . Morgan  (1976),  and  both found significant a pattern, were  than  main effect rather  to  receive  other  negative targets  they  were  acquaintances  with  1976).  subsequent  we  have  a  gender  of discloser  significant  difficult  reader  related  is  an  research.  found  the  It  case  did  intimates or  expected  any  intimate  of  the  to  of  lives  hold  in  Whiteneck  the  these  and  trend  will  as  when  in o u r  and  between  to  positive  matter  the  Gilbert  what  valence,  (Gilbert  people  to i n t e r p r e t a n d t h e y indication  dis-  opposed  that  X target,  friends  intimate  to  relationship  Though  topic  seem  as  revealing  disclose  strangers  relationship X  of  to  not  intimate d i s c l o s u r e f o r t h o s e  whom  are very  were  the  (1976)  where  more  tendency  content)  when  reserving  In  (the  much  Whiteneck,  Whiteneck  populations,  significantly  targets.  for valence  than  and  topic X target interaction  for their u n i v e r s i t y  reported  closure  Gilbert  factors,  relationships  r e a l l y d o not expect  in  give  future  research.  V/hen interactions  entertaining between  significant  two  self-disclosure  and  three-way  variables,  what  b e c o m e s i m p o r t a n t is n o t so m u c h t h e tions  of  these  significant  are happening. ally  for  thinkers (1976)  the  field  study  a complex  interacting  study  and  process of  one  that  of  of  the  and  is  Tubbs  current Whiteneck  multidimensional  factors."(p.32)  and  It  (1978)  self-disclosure  upon  follows  justified  Baird  interpersonal  contingent  they  condition-  most  Gilbert that "a  that  of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e is b o t h  required,"(p.317), " t h a t the  two  articulate.  conclude from their  assert, is  that  o  interpreta-  rather,  This indicates a complexity  a p p r o a c h to t h e and  interactions:  self-disclosure in  specific  a  then,  number that  of  future  r e s e a r c h in this area s h o u l d be of a d e s i g n that will allow the  probing  of  a  number  of  interacting  self-disclosure  factors. C.  Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure 1.  Psychological Sex-Role  Orientation  In t h e l a s t t e n y e a r s o r so t h e r e part of a number  h a s b e e n a move o n  of social scientists  (Block,  1973;  the  Bern,  1974; Bern, M a r t y n a a n d W a t s o n , 1976; B e r n , 1977; S p e n c e and  Helmreich,  1978)  to  reject  the  traditional  stereotypic  t r a i t s a n d b e h a v i o r s t h a t h a v e b e e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h males a n d females ( e . g . , t h a t males a r e " i n s t r u m e n t a l "  (Parsons  and  whereas,  Bales,  1955)  and  "agentic"  females a r e  "expressive"  "communal"  (Bakan,  views the  are  both  sex-role  (Parsons and  1966)),  limiting and dichotomy  (Bakan,  because, inaccurate.  (that  traits  1966); Bales, to  1955)  them,  and these  Perpetuation associated  of  with  masculinity and femininity are at bi-polar ends of a single continuum) fails to allow for the fact that someone could be "androgynous": that is, have  been  associated  Proponents  of  have access to traits that  with  maleness  an androgynous  and  way  femaleness.  suggest  that  an  androgynous individual is able to call on a wide range of responses according to what is most appropriate in a given situation. develop  Pursuing this theme,  an  instrument  to  and wishing to  measure  psychological  androgyny, Bern (1974, 1976 and 1978) created the Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). masculinity  and  femininity  Bern's assumptions are that are  both  conceptually  and  statistically independent. Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure Compared to the volume of research that has been done to link gender of discloser with other variables of selfdisclosure, little research has been attempted that considers psychological sex-role orientation as a measure of the subject and of what there is, most of the findings are inconclusive. found  the  instrument, Disclosure  Bern only the  (1977),  in a  significant BSRI  Questionnaire  regression  correlation  (1974)  and  (1971)  was  the  analysis,  between Jourard  that  total  her Selfself-  disclosure in men was positively related to masculinity. Unlike what might have been expected according to role theory;  e.g.,  (Parsons  and  Bales,  1955),  femininity  8 did  not  correlate  n e e d to b e  self-disclosure.  of  a  claim t h a t  self-disclosure  second  study,  the results  study  a d i s c l o s u r e main effect  subject  X  target  this  interacting sex  Though  work  and  research  behavior  X intimacy  does  between  role-orientation  and a  not  in  typed X  androgsex of  of topic  clearly  1976)  this  androg-  significant level  rela-  illustrate  and  that  sex-role  exists  Bern's m e a s u r e o f  (BSRI,  Lavine  support  sex of subject  interaction, level  there  for subjects  as a s i g n i f i c a n t  X androgyny  tionship,  cal  gender.  as well  level  findings  is more a f u n c t i o n o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l  biological  yny  Lombardo  of their  than  ynous,  Bern's  retested.  Authors (1977),  with  the  psychologithese  other  variables. Finally, nothing  in t h e i r  androgynous than was  Gerdes,  and  Rapp  (1981)  found  r e s e a r c h to s u p p o r t t h e i r h y p o t h e s i s  males  sex-typed  Gehiing  would  males  significantly  self-disclose  n o r that  related  to  more  psychological  any  other  that  intimately sex-typing  factor  of  self-  disclosure.  II  PURPOSES OF STUDY A.  General  Purposes:  T h e general 1.  what  purposes gender  students  of this  and  r e s e a r c h w e r e to f i n d o u t :  sex-role  differentiated  see a s t h e i r most s e r i o u s  problems;  grade  eleven  2.  to what extent they say that they are likely to talk about these problems; and  3.  with whom they are likely to talk.  Specific Purposes: Specifically, the questions this study will attempt to answer are: 1.  (a) Are some problem topics seen to be more serious for males than females?  (b) Do females appear to be more  troubled with problems in general than males? 2.  (a)  Are some problem topics more likely to be talked  about by females than males?  (b) Are females more likely  to talk about more problems in general than males? Are subjects,  (c)  regardless of gender, more likely to talk  about some problem topics than others? 3.  (a)  To what degree does statement of seriousness of  problem  topic  problem topics? H.  correlate  with  likelihood  of  discussing  (b) Do males and females differ?  Are males and females equally likely to choose the same helpers for their problems, and how does identity and/or sex of helper appear to influence choice?  5.  How does an individual's score  on Bern's measure of  psychological sex-role orientation (BSRI, 1978) relate to an individual's (a)  seriousness of problem topics,  (b)  likelihood of talking about problem topics, and (c) choice of helper?  10 III  IMPORTANCE, SIGNIFICANCE AND UNIQUENESS OF THIS A.  Importance I b e l i e v e t h a t it is i m p o r t a n t  to d o t h i s  study  to e x t e n d  what  has p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d o n e .  G a p s e x i s t in t h e r e l a t e d  literature  as o u t l i n e d  section " B a c k g r o u n d and  Rationale  for B.  STUDY  in t h e p r e v i o u s  Study."  Significance This  study  (those  should  working  guidance  in  and  school  related  the  grade  gender,  field  with  psychologists,  personnel  eleven  are be  may  students'  likelihood helpers.  it  as  their  that of  to  both  high  teachers,  most  school  whole,  personnel  expect  develop  in  a  problems  with whose  it is to p r o v i d e a s o u n d i n g b o a r d f o r s t u d e n t s ,  should  in  to  field  Inventory it  of  particular,  Because the  how  to  More  sense  be s e n s i t i v e to t h i s a n d r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h . the  for  according  problems.  different  personnel,  that  have an idea of  and  serious  discussing  Guidance  to  students:  administrators,  I would  a  practitioners  school  may be h e l p f u l  students,  important  different  significance  research community.  report  function  the  counsellors,  etc.),  what  have  often  does  score, this  relates  to  not  have  access  a  Bern  person  Sex-Role  measure of psychological a n d r o g y n y  self-disclosure  is  unlikely  to  be  of  and much  practical use. I would interested interacts  anticipate  in e v e r y t h i n g  that the  research community  would  a b o v e as well a s how t h e B S R I  w i t h t h e two new m e a s u r e s o f i d e n t i f i e d  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e that have been developed for this  (1978)  problems study.  be  and  Uniqueness of this Study This study is uniquely different from the rest of the literature in the following ways: 1.  The instruments used in this study to measure identified problems and self-disclosure are unique to this study.  2.  The population measured is a grade eleven population rather than a first year university population upon which so much of the identified problems and self-disclosure literature is based (see Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature).  3.  Most of the self-disclosure  literature either sums over  problems to give a total self-disclosure score or scales items.  In this study,  I have attempted to limit the  number of problem topics so that some of the ways they interact with other variables of self-disclosure  can be  looked at on more of an individual basis. H.  In this research design, the factor, helper or target has two levels,  location (friend, parent and school person-  nel), and gender (male and female); whereas, in the rest of the research, helper has had just one level: that is, who the target is.  Typically, targets have been specified  as closest male friend, mother, father, spouse and so on. 5.  In this study, "no one" is a choice as a target person. That is, one could choose not to disclose to anyone on a given problem topic.  "No one" as a choice does not exist  anywhere else in the literature.  6.  Nowhere  in the  l i t e r a t u r e is t h e r e  list o f i d e n t i f i e d  problem topics  a correlation between a  and  subjects'  likelihood of  d i s c l o s i n g on t h e m . 7.  Very  little  ships  among  ables of  DEFINITION Each  of  these or  OF  the  items  a  1.  and  sex-role  study  the  orientation  relationand  vari-  the  is  made  in  this  between  operational  study.  the  For  conceptual  definition  and  some  of  definition  how  the  term  to  those  In  terms  research.  literature, that  this  used  Problems  the  identified  people  research,  extent  Eleven  is  to t h i s  problems  to  stimulus.  identify  grade  is e a c h  problem  grades"  2.  terms  distinction  what  to  TERMS  Identified  of  literature  self-disclosure.  specifically  In  in the  psychological  following  construct,  relates  exists  "problems  as  being  eleven  o f the  topics,  problems  following  sexual  See t h e A p p e n d i x ,  theirs.  students  ranging of  refer  Part  are  asked  a problem for  from  "difficulty  adjustment,"  are  "to  you?" with the  I.  Self-Disclosure The  term  (1964), which that  "self-disclosure,"  refers occurs  may  to  a  during  describe  (Rickers-Ovsiankina, Marlowe,  1964),  and  originally  personality  construct  interaction a  person  1956),  coined  with are  and  others. "social  "revealingness"  "openness"  (Dreyfus,  by  Jourard  a  process  Like  terms  accessibility" (Crowne  and  1967).  West  13 and Zingle process  (1969)  of  d e s c r i b e the  self-disclosure  dimension of personality individual himself  personality  nicely:  he  r e f e r s to t h e e x t e n t  communicates  with  and  "Self-disclosure  reveals personal and private  as  construct  or  to w h i c h  information  relates  as  to  a an  about  others."  (p.439) Problems or Problem Topics In t h e l i t e r a t u r e ,  problems or problem topics either  to p r o b l e m s p e o p l e i d e n t i f y as b e i n g t h e i r s , have disclosed upon  presented form,  In to  or those  ( a s in t h e c a s e of t h e J o u r a r d  Disclosure Questionnaire, the f u t u r e .  refer  Self-  1971) o r w o u l d d i s c l o s e u p o n  terms of this s t u d y ,  students  they  for  each of  eleven problems seven  helpers  in are  in  the  Problems  are  " H o w l i k e l y w o u l d y o u be to t a l k t o  about  each  of  the  following  l i s t e d in t h e A p p e n d i x , P a r t Helper or  Target  Helper  target  listener  or in  a  there  are  female  friend,  refers  to  problems?" II.  the  self-disclosure  seven  targets:  father,  school  personnel  further  subdivided  location  (their  generic  situation.  closest  mother,  (female) by  p e r s o n c h o s e n to  gender class,  parents or school p e r s o n n e l ) .  no  (male  study,  friend,  closest  personnel  (male),  one. and  whether  the  this  male  school  and  In  be  Targets female)  they  are  and  are by  friends,  14 Gender or Sex Gender  or  sex  refers  discloser or target.  to  biological  gender  of  either  a  B i o l o g i c a l l y , a p e r s o n c a n be male o r  female. Location In  this  the  research,  target,  location  whether  the  refers  to  person,  the by  generic  class  description,  of  is  a  f r i e n d , parent or school p e r s o n n e l . Psychological Sex-Role Conceptually,  this  term  behavioral orientation sex-typed  Orientation refers  (masculine or feminine),  this  research,  (see  the  the  psychological  and  or a blend of these to  or androgynous  Bern S e x - R o l e  Appendix,  a  t h a t a p e r s o n may h a v e t h a t may be  y i e l d an undifferentiated  femininity  to  Part  s c o r e as well  III)  orientation.  Inventory  yields  a  feminine, a n d r o g y n o u s or  1973)  masculinity  as a categorization  one's psychological sex-role orientation:  (Bern,  In  and  according  either  to  masculine,  undifferentiated.  Masculine M a s c u l i n e is a c a t e g o r y  that d e s c r i b e s an i n d i v i d u a l  significant psychological and behavioral inclination the  characteristics  egory  within the  of BSRI  the  masculine  (1978)  refers  w i t h a h i g h s c o r e on the i n s t r u m e n t ' s a r e l a t i v e l y low s c o r e on t h e f e m i n i n e  sex-role. to t h o s e  with  towards  This  cat-  individuals  masculine scale and scale.  15 9.  Feminine Counter  to  scribes  masculine,  an  individual  behavioral feminine  with  inclination  sex-role.  gorized  feminine  feminine  have  the  BSRI  a  a  category  significant  towards  In t h e  is  high  de-  psychological  and  characteristics  (1978),  score  feminine scale a n d a r e l a t i v e l y  that  of  individuals  on  the  the cate-  instrument's  low s c o r e on t h e  masculine  scale. 10.  Androgynous In  the  has  BSRI  a high  feminine and  scale.  person  both  the  a  instrument's androgyny  balance  female  categorized  and  and  in  behaviors  further  flexibility  and  assumes  high  a  level  as  associated  of  masculine  and  means b o t h male  allows  (other  androgynous  capacity  characteristics  T h e state o f a n d r o g y n y  engage  males  one:  and  demands.  on  a  Conceptually,  in  male  freely  (1978),  score  female  both  Androgyny  to  the  exhibit situation  both genders  with  factors  males  or  fe-  permitting)  psychological  and  to  a  social  competency. 11.  Undifferentiated Someone ment  categorized  (BSRI,  1978)  undifferentiated w o u l d be one with  the  m a s c u l i n e a n d feminine  the  research,  be  the  lowest  (Spence, behavioral  subjects of  on  the  Helmreich strategies  scales.  classified four  and with  Bern  the  Bern  low s c o r e s  instruon  both  A c c o r d i n g to  some  of  undifferentiated  tend  to  categories  Stapp,  1975)  low  apparent  on  and  self-esteem demonstrate  probability  for  16 successful O'Brien,  social outcomes  (Kelly,  Caudill,  Hathorn  1977).  Sex-Typed  Individuals  S e x - t y p e d individuals (typed either masculine or are  those  thought  who  to  be  B a s e d on t h e (1978),  conform  to  associated  results obtained  ambitious,  feminine-typed  To  are motivated  behavior  arrogant  behaviors  males  or  Wiggins and  individuals  be  and  sex-typed,  to m a i n t a i n  females. Holzmuller  appear  to  calculating;  be where  and  that  to  do  they  l e v e l of  presumably  individuals  a self-image of either  masculine  so,  suppress  seem  might  sex-typing  to  need  consider  inappropriate for their g e n d e r . a high  traditional  either by  feminine)  s u b j e c t s a p p e a r to be a g r e e a b l e , w a r m a n d  extroverted.  feminine,  the  with  masculine-typed  dominant,  or  and  undesirable  Bern (1975)  does not  to  or  suggests that  facilitate  a  person's  general or psychological development. Sex-Role Stereotypes Similar with  to  role  sex-typing, casting  sex-role  traditionally  stereotypes thought  to  have be  w i t h t h e w a y a man o r a woman s h o u l d b e . typing,  maintenance  capacity  of  both  of  men  sex-role and  potential as human b e i n g s .  women  do  associated  A s with sex  stereotypes to  to  realize  limits  the  their  full  17 CHAPTER  II  REVIEW O F T H E R E L A T E D  I  LITERATURE  INTRODUCTION The  author  study  has  into  chosen  three  Self-Disclosure,  classify  broad  and  Self-Disclosure.  to  areas:  (C)  Within  the (A)  each  of  Identified This  these  by B.  this  Problems,  Sex-Role broad  to  (B)  Orientation  areas,  there  X  exists  follows:  Problems  section  whole  relevant  Identified  Psychological  u n d e r l y i n g c o m p l e x i t i e s o u t l i n e d as A.  literature  and  refers  then  to  more  gender and by  problem areas specifically  psychological  typical  when  sex-role  they  to  students  are  as  a  differentiated  orientation.  Self-Disclosure This,  the  body  of  interest the  most  literature in  measuring  the  closer level  section,  that  factors factor,  of  attempts  concerns  self-disclosure,  self-disclosure, for  complex  its  with  correlates  with  self-disclosure,  discloser,  gender  and valence  is  topic  most  a  a  the  massive long-time  mental  health,  m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l model  main a n d i n t e r a c t i n g and  target.  pertinent;  a r e most i m p o r t a n t ; a n d  location a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p a r e  review  itself  and the significant of  to  relevant.  for  effects  For the topic,  for t a r g e t ,  of  dis-  intimacy gender,  18 C.  Psychological Sex-Role Orientation X Self-Disclosure The  development  sex-role  over  orientation  time  and  of  subject,  choice of  this section of the  interest  androgyny,  search that relates a n d r o g y n y of  the  target  and  in  the  psychological  interacting  re-  l e v e l s to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , g e n d e r and  topic  are  the  themes  within  review.  U p o n c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e s e s e c t i o n s , a " S u m m a r y of t h e S t a t e o f Art"  w i l l a t t e m p t to c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e w h a t a r e t h e most  and valuable f i n d i n g s in the related  II  the  noteworthy  literature.  IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS Identified Problems; Identified Problems X G e n d e r ; Identified P r o b lems X P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e x - R o l e A.  Orientation  Identified Problems Some,  but  not  determining school,  problem  community  best w o r k s , problem using  a great  the  areas  (1968)  regardless  Mooney  college  ities. ment,  gender  body,  indicated  Relations, and  LaFromboise (1978), found  in  her  fifty  at  levels.  the  Two  LaFromboise (1978), of  student.  (1950),  found they  p r o b l e m s in t h e a r e a s o f A d j u s t m e n t al-Psychological  students  in  at  high of  the  consider Hartman,  attempting  to  p r o b l e m s of a f i r s t a n d s e c o n d y e a r  student  problem areas, students  has been d i r e c t e d  university  and of  to  Problem Checklist  locate t h e most p r e v a l e n t community  typical  college and  Hartman  areas  d e a l of a t t e n t i o n  her  non-Indian  were  of  the  having  eleven  the  to C o l l e g e W o r k ,  Social  using  that  most  Person-  and  Recreational  Activ-  own  self-report  instru-  grade eleven and  twelve  19 students the  (similar  three  would  like  future,  most to  in  age to  common talk  problem  the  population  problems  about  making  were,  in my  that the in  students  order,  a decision, and  study) said  problem  a  that they  about  personal  my  problem.  P r e s u m a b l y , p r o b l e m s v a r y a c c o r d i n g to age a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a l stage of the i n d i v i d u a l  ( J o u r a r d , 1971).  is  what  not  clearly  evident  problems  From the literature are  most  important  it for  s t u d e n t s w h e n g e n d e r is not a f a c t o r . Identified Problems X Gender In  Hartman's study  ranked  by  (1968)  university  when seriousness of problems  students,  males  V o c a t i o n a l a n d E d u c a t i o n a l as t h e i r lem;  females  Social  it  Psychological  whereas ness. and  ranked  it  ranked eighth  student  out  Relations  These different female  eleven  out  ranked  in  work,  Future:  s e c o n d most s e r i o u s of  ranked  eleven.  females.  of  eleven;  males in  serious-  third  of e l e v e n f o r  prob-  For  out  r e s p o n s e s on the p a r t of H a r t m a n ' s male  sample  may  reflect  sex-stereotypes  h a v e e x i s t e d i n s o c i e t y : men " s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y " interested  the  were  and  cial-psychological relations.  females  more  that  h a v e b e e n more  concerned  with  so-  F i n a l l y , H a r t m a n f o u n d t h a t males  s e l f - r e p o r t e d to h a v e more p r o b l e m s t h a n females a n d a l s o more serious  ones.  Hartman  does  not  attempt  to  interpret  these  findings. On the other a  study  would  to  learn  seek h e l p ,  h a n d , S n y d e r , Hill and D e r k s e n (1972), more  about  from  whom  university  d e v e l o p e d s e v e n t y q u e s t i o n s to t a p  in  students thirteen  p r o b l e m a r e a s a n d f o u n d t h e r e to be no d i f f e r e n c e a c c o r d i n g to  20 gender  in  students'  self  rating  of  problem  topics.  This,  o b v i o u s l y , f a i l s to s u p p o r t H a r t m a n ' s f i n d i n g s . In a d i f f e r e n t w a y , C i n n (1975) university  undergraduate  class'  in h i s s t u d y j u x t a p o s e d a  estimation  of  problems  that  male a n d female s t u d e n t s w o u l d h a v e a g a i n s t t h e a c t u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p r o b l e m s to t h e i r year  period  cording Though on  to  and  found  gender  there  there  in  be v e r y  students'  typical  female  relationships,  vocational-educational), vocational-educational alcohol,  to  little difference  presentation  of  anger,  problems  and  and  drugs  and  emotionality  sixteen  in nature  such  male  and others  sex),  estimation  as  physical  (none  were  problems having  in c o n t r a s t  to  (eight  to d o  the  p r o b l e m d i f f e r e n c e s e s t i m a t e s a b o v e , in a c t u a l f a c t ,  with  fifty-one there  o n l y a p r e s e n t a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e a c c o r d i n g to g e n d e r in t h r e e of  seventy-five  significant self-report behavior  possible  complaints.  What  may  h e r e is t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e measure and exhibited  the  must  actual  be  the  behavior more  be  results of  of  was out most  exhibited.  valid  ac-  problems.  w a s a g r e e m e n t of males' a n d f e m a l e s '  thirty-five  complaints,  university counselling center over a  the The  the  two  measures. Identified Problems X Psychological Sex-Role  Orientation  N o t h i n g e x i s t s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t r e l a t e s to i d e n t i f i e d lems a n d how t h e y tation.  (The  orientation I,  interact  with  prob-  psychological sex-role orien-  concept and construct  of  psychological sex-role  h a s b e e n e x p l a i n e d to a d e g r e e e a r l i e r  a n d w i l l r e c e i v e f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n l a t e r in t h i s  in  Chapter  chapter.)  21 SELF-DISCLOSURE A.  Self-Disclosure:  It  has  been  assumed  psychologists to  positive  even  if  Why t h e I n t e r e s t a n d C o r r e l a t e s w i t h M e n t a l Health  that  by  a  "appropriate"  therapeutic  a person  is  not  a  prerequisite  Jourard  for  (1963),  a  (Maslow,  indicative  a repression  in  to at  healthy  actualization of  (Egan,  involved  concerned 1954), of  body  of  thinking  that  the  healthy  is t h e  and  relationship  the  reasons the topic  helping  C o s b y (1973),  further,  psychotherapy,  personality with  to  allow  the  concept  that  self  inability  and  low  1959).  of  self-  disclosure to  grow  is p a r t o f t h e  self-actualized  person.  basis of  of  is  as a normal  It  much  client and therapist.  of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  other  (Jourard,  proposed  Jourard  (1964)  is  the  this whole  openness  This  is one  is of i n t e r e s t  and  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e to b e g r o w t h f u l ,  is  others  to  (Drag  E g a n (1975), T u b b s a n d B a i r d (1978))  a t e , " a n d t h a t if the relationship receiver  leads  of  many  professionals.  Wisely t h o u g h ,  that for  and  that encourages g e n u i n e n e s s ,  between  and  least one " s i g n i f i c a n t "  philosophical  b o d y of " t a l k " t h e r a p y  therapists  1975),  person and that responsible self-sharing behavior  of  self-disclosure behavior  outcome  o n e ' s r e a l s e l f to be k n o w n is  certain  not  inappropriate  trusting  context  ( e . g . , television), Self-disclosure  a  has  in  recognize "appropri-  between the discloser and  one,  which  it m u s t be  (1971),  the  or  if  it  disclosure  is  a  socially  takes  t h e n t h e e x p e r i e n c e may b e a h a r m f u l been  made a p o s i t i v e  value,  the  place one.  something  to  22 be f o s t e r e d ( E g a n , 1 9 7 5 ) , b u t  " m o r e " o p e n n e s s may not n e c e s -  s a r i l y mean " b e t t e r . " In  relationship  virtually  every  literature, .50,  yet  to mental  type  of  health,  relationship  no c o r r e l a t i o n  Cosby  has been  reported  a n d most a r e m u c h l o w e r .  (1973)  says  reported  between  health that  seems  the to  two  A c c o r d i n g to J o u r a r d  be  persons with  identified)  are  variables of curvilinear.  positive  mental  characterized  by  in  the  has been g r e a t e r  a n d s u p p o r t e d b y C o s b y (1973) a n d E g a n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , t h e ship  that  than  (1964), relation-  self-disclosure and  mental  Cosby  (1973)  hypothesizes  health  (given  they  high  disclosure  can  to  a  be few  s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s a n d medium d i s c l o s u r e to o t h e r s in t h e s o c i a l environment; (again  whereas,  assuming  characterized  a  by  individuals  suitable  either  who  are  identification  high  or  low  poorly  can  be  disclosure  adjusted  made) to  are  virtually  e v e r y o n e in t h e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . Measuring Self-Disclosure jburard's  Self-Disclosure Questionnaire  earlier forms  (1971)  and  its  ( 1 9 5 8 , 1961) a l l t h o u g h t to b e r o u g h l y  various  equivalent  ( C o s b y , 1973) a r e e v e n t o d a y b y f a r t h e most f r e q u e n t l y self-report However, last  "paper as w i t h  fifteen  Strong, Frank  and many  years,  Hendel and  of  similar  (Plog Bratton  measure  these  of  instruments  (1965),  West  (1971),  self-disclosure. developed  and  O'Neill,  (1976), and LaFromboise (1978)),  o f some c r i t i c s s t r o n g ty  pencil"  Zingle Fein,  Cosby  in  the  (1969),  Belit  and  there lies on the  part  reservations about the predictive  instruments.  used  (1973),  citing  validi-  considerable  23  r e s e a r c h , maintains tive  validity  naire)  of  t h a t t h e r e is l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f t h e  the  JSDQ  (Jourard  Self-Disclosure  a n d t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s h o u l d , be m e a s u r e d  a n d u s e d as a d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e . pencil  measures  self-disclosure, the  of and  questionnaire  correlate highly  do  i f we a r e g o i n g  to  must  Question-  behaviorally  He a s s e r t s t h a t p a p e r  self-disclosure  measures  predic-  be  not  relate  use them  developed  to  at so  and  actual  all,  then  that  they  with the subjects' actual d i s c l o s u r e .  This  may  o r may not b e p o s s i b l e . Lubin  and Harrison  thought-provoking group  study  self-disclosing  Jourard  (1964)  behavior  with  an  Questionnaire  inventory  scores and actual  only  (p  .05).  yet  where they attempted  Self-Disclosure  .13  have an o l d ,  This  to p r e d i c t  early  and  nevertheless  form  found  self-disclosing behavior is  evidently  support  small  of  the  that  the  correlated  for  Cosby's  contention. Self-Disclosure:  A General O v e r v i e w and a Model  B e f o r e d e a l i n g w i t h some o f t h e s p e c i f i c main e f f e c t s self-disclosure sex-role helper)  (e.g.,  orientation  of  problem, subject,  gender and  and  location  to  psychological and  and the possible lower o r d e r interactions  related  gender  between  of  these  f a c t o r s , it may b e i m p o r t a n t to c o n s i d e r a s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e model offered this  by  model  Tubbs can  and  serve  disclosure  literature  latest  best  and  multidimensional  Baird both  review  literature  (1978). as and  is  phenomenon.  an as  In  a figurative  introduction a conclusion  considering Tubbs  to  sense,  this in  that  self-disclosure  and  Baird,  self-  in  the as  a  their  2a literature  review,  after  considering  some  twenty  years  self-disclosure r e s e a r c h , conclude that the process of  interper-  s o n a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e is a c o m p l e x one t h a t is c o n t i n g e n t number to  of interacting  disclose.  not  to  (People do  nationality, the  and  that effect  These  personality  religion,  relationship  a person's  make a c o n s c i o u s c h o i c e  self-disclose.)  background  of  factors  gender  of  factors  (Jourard,  between  the  (e.g.,  1971)),  discloser  whether  or  (1)  the  age,  race,  the  nature  (2)  and  upon a  "decision"  include:  discloser  of  the  receiver  which might include t r u s t and acceptance (Mellinger,  1956)  something  "openness  begets (a)  (1970)  openness,"  the  risky  Jourard  is  context reaction  content  (3)  of  disclosed  calls  the  the before  "reciprocity"  where  discloser's perception  disclosure the  more  where  generally  intimate,  i n w h i c h t h e d i s c l o s u r e is m a d e , a n d (6) or  acceptance,  feedback rejection,  v i s u a l l y in F i g u r e  1.  to or  the  whatever.  disclosure: The  of  model  (5) the  and  receiver, the the  less social  receiver's  confirmation, is  presented  25  Nature of Relationship  Discloser  Content  Receiver  Feedback  Social  Setting  Figure 1 S e l f - D i s c l o s i n g Communication M o d e l : T u b b s a n d B a i r d (1978) Though  T u b b s a n d B a i r d a r e alone in p r e s e n t i n g  a  conceptual  m o d e l , t h e y a r e not a l o n e in r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a  complex  clude, their of  phenomenon.  because research  of  and  Main E f f e c t s : 1.  significant  is  both  Whiteneck's  detail later in t h i s D.  two  and  Whiteneck  three-way  "that a multidimensional  self-disclosure  Gilbert  Gilbert  justified  research  will  be  con-  interactions  approach and  (1976)  to  the  in  in  study  required."(p.347) examined  in  more  chapter.  The Discloser, The Topic, The  Target  The Discloser T h o u g h numerous and varied studies have been over  the  between  last  twenty  certain  years  aspects  to of  measure  the  self-disclosure  conducted relationship and  the  26 discloser and  (e.g.,  Lasakow,  (Jourard,  age  (Jourard,  1958);  1961(b));  1961(a));  nationality  birth  order  race  (Plog,  (Jourard  1965);  (Diamond a n d  religion Hellkamp,  1 9 6 9 ) ; a n d s o c i a l c l a s s ( M a y e r , 1967)) a n d m o r e  recently,  psychological  Lombardo  sex-role  orientation  a n d L a v i n e , 1977; C e r d e s , far  the  most  (Bern,  1977;  C e h l i n g , and R a p p ,  1981),  r e s e a r c h has related  to g e n d e r  of  the  and  reported  that  by dis-  closer, (a)  Gender Jourard  Lasakow  (1958)  females  h a v e h i g h e r d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e s t h a n males a n d most o f the dozens of studies since then have s u p p o r t e d  this  finding.  and  Of  Berzonsky  the  (1979),  G e r d e s et a t . found and  to  most  current  DeForest and  (1981).  scores  Lombardo  Stone  (1980).  and  In some c a s e s t h e r e h a s b e e n  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  female  are  (1969), B r o o k s (1974), Gilbert and Whiteneck  (1976).  O'Neill,  (1977),  Frank  Lombardo and Lavine (1977)); study  that  closure.  reports In  turn,  a m p l e e v i d e n c e to significant  total  West  male Zingle  Velit and  (1965),  between and  Fein,  (Plog  differences  (1976), however,  significantly it  is  maintain  disclosure  Bern  greater  suggested that  there male  that  there  no  dis-  there  exists  differences  is  is  actual  between  the  sexes. To  look  further,  however,  this  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may be more c o m p l i c a t e d .  pattern It  of  appears  27 that  certain  a s p e c t s of  differentiate may n o t . (1976)  between  self-disclosure are  likely  males a n d females w h i l e  to  others  F o r e x a m p l e , M o r g a n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , O ' N e i l l et a l .  and  Lombardo  and  Berzonsky  (1979)  found  t h e m a i n e f f e c t f o r g e n d e r o f t h e d i s c l o s e r n o t to be significant, when  items  Gilbert for  but  were  and  not  for  value),  for  (1976)  found but  (positive,  were  on  intimacy.  significant,  valence  males  became s i g n i f i c a n t  scaled  Whiteneck  gender  scaled  gender  the  when  neutral  significantly  Similarly, main  effect  items  were  or  more  items  negative  likely  than  females to d i s c l o s e p o s i t i v e valence s t a t e m e n t s . There support  is  some  evidence  significant  (Lombardo  and  that  is  this  interaction  gender  Lavine,  not  in  as  between  X  1977);  strong gender  the  literature  target however,  a  interaction it  appears  phenomenon  of  the  to  as  the  discloser  and  topic. Interactions considered  in  with  gender  more d e t a i l  this literature  in  of  discloser  will  be  subsequent sections of  review.  The Topic It is g e n e r a l l y f o u n d t h a t t h e r e is a n i n v e r s e between the  topic  intimate  the  amount  such that topics  Jourard's findings  disclosed and individuals  (Cosby, (1971)  the  relationship  intimacy  level  disclose less about  1973).  More  of  more  specifically,  f o r t h e most p a r t s t a n d :  infor-  28  mation one's  about  one's work,  attitudes  disclosed  more  financial  status,  Morgan level a  (1976)  (two  tastes,  toward  religion,  than  information  personality  hobbies,  interests  politics and the about  and  u s i n g the J S D Q  one's  body.  (1971)  like sex  Since  intimacy  main  effect  Jourard,  scaled for  showing  intimacy  Lombardo and  found  intimacy  three  topical  and  sex)  Lavine  to  (1977)  using  be s i g n i f i c a n t .  categories  and  three  opinions,  tastes  and  separate  analysis  of  (mother,  father,  as as  variance male  and  for  (1971)  designated  (personality,  non-intimate  each  friend,  body,  (attitudes  work) of  and four  and  re-  Similar-  JSDQ  When t h e y  intimate  interests,  best  the  found  subjects  v e a l e d r e l a t i v e l y l e s s a b o u t more i n t i m a t e t o p i c s . ly,  are life,  l e v e l s - h i g h i n t i m a c y a n d low i n t i m a c y )  significant  and  and did  a  targets  best  female  f r i e n d ) , t h e y f o u n d the intimacy factor s i g n i f i c a n t with all targets:  non-intimate  topics  were  reported  as  being  d i s c l o s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h a n i n t i m a t e t o p i c s . Gilbert  and  Whiteneck  (1976)  add  another  valuable  perspective when they c o n s i d e r , as part of the topic, themes  personalness (intimacy  level of  the  content)  valence (posit!veness or negativeness of the content). a four-way  repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  levels of p e r s o n a l n e s s : non-intimate, three  valence:  positive,  In  intimate,  intimate;  and  n e g a t i v e ; two l e v e l s o f g e n d e r o f d i s c l o s e r , a n d they  of  and  (three  and  levels of target)  levels  moderately  the  neutral  f o u n d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t  five for  29 both  personalness and  personal  the  valence.  statements,  the  More  more  exactly,  likely  they  the would  d i s c l o s e d a n d t h e more p o s i t i v e t h e s t a t e m e n t s , t h e er  likelihood  they  would  be  disclosed.  less be  great-  However,  this  i s s u e is n o t a s s i m p l e as t h e a b o v e may lead u s to t h i n k . Gilbert  and  Whiteneck  found  personalness  and  non-intimate  statements,  occurs  in  negative; of  the  valence  following  whereas, for  disclosure  the  also  significant,  the  likelihood  order:  intimate  occurs:  interaction  of  factors choice  of  this  of  work  target  and  intimate  including their  this  fancy  topic  is  though  interaction  the  worthy  work  of  likelihood  and  neutral.  relationships.  gender  of  the  age of  the  with  chapter.  of mention  t h r e e most i m p o r t a n t that  they  would  like  before  (3)  mention different  a to  personal what  the  current  to  talk (2)  about  Cf  these  in  her  (similar the  reported  order:  (1)  problem making a decision,  problem.  extent  were  leaving  study)  common p r o b l e m s t h a t t h e y  p r o b l e m a b o u t my f u t u r e , and  in  and  personalness  LaFromboise (1978).  population  Other  disclosure  fifty non-Indian grade eleven and twelve students to  and  negative disclo-  a n d v a l e n c e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r in t h i s Less  the  positive  for  disclosure neutral  statements,  G i l b e r t and Whiteneck suggest that h i g h l y s u r e s may b e r e s e r v e d f o r  meaning  positive,  negative,  between  LaFromboise problems  from each other in t h e i r  are  ranking.  makes  no  significantly  30 The Target (Gender, Location, Relationship) (a)  Gender There  is  a  support  that  disclosure Jourard, this  considerable  than 1971;  women  and as  Gerdes, ation  target.  They  effect  what  seemed  is,  versation. intimately more  to  most  subjects  condition females  to in  (two  (high  level)  targets. responded longer  typically  (1981)  offer  target  had  behavior no  -  and  who  themselves  High  level  more  low): con-  disclosed  significantly low-level  disclosure  condition  low  may to,  in  of  had  intimately  their  the  Rather,  target  who  of  variable  high  the  the  significant  their  targets  those  explan-  beyond  person.  was  of  an  goes  study  than  happen  see  However,  levels  It  (1966)  as  men.  were  counterparts.  such  than  level  than  and  nurturing,  actual  of  disclosure  be  their  sex  Bakan  that  the  S u b j e c t s who  significantly  1969;  more  important  self-disclosing  disclosing  Rapp  found  condition  the  to  phenomenon  due  disclosure  to more  Zingle,  theorists  and  socialized  gender  main  and  role  expressive  this of  that  (1955)  Gehling and  variable  literature  significantly  (West  in  Bales  and  for  of  R i v e n b a c k , 1 9 7 1 ; M o r g a n , 1976)  being  emotional  receive  males  seems p r o b a b l e  Parsons  that  females  degree  as  and  level  be  the  targets,  spoke  disclosure case  that  disclose  more i n t i m a t e l y t h a n m e n , b u t G e r d e s et a l . s a y t h a t  31 that  is  a  gender. the  factor  of  their  behavior  and  not  T h i s s t u d y c a n a l s o be t a k e n a s to  phenomenon  of  reciprocity  their  support  mentioned  earlier  where "openness begets openness" ( J o u r a r d , 1970). Location In  terms  of  location of  target,  that  is t h e  type  of  p e r s o n t h e t a r g e t i s a s o p p o s e d to t h e g e n d e r o f t h e target, age  t h e c h o i c e o f t a r g e t seems to c h a n g e w i t h t h e  of  the  subject.  The  pattern  according  to  J o u r a r d (1971) seems to be one w h e r e t h e p r e f e r e n c e target  of  mother,  children  is  their  parents,  a n d as a d o l e s c e n c e is  typically  reached, the  their amount  o f d i s c l o s u r e to p a r e n t s is r e d u c e d a n d d i s c l o s u r e to same-sex  friend  relationships riage,  the  there and  is  are  increased.  commenced,  As  heterosexual  culminating  in  mar-  s p o u s e becomes t h e c l o s e s t c o n f i d a n t  are further closest  decreases in c o n f i d i n g  same-sex friends.  to  and  parents  Hence the  shift  is  f r o m p a r e n t s to f r i e n d s to s p o u s e . Knowledge what  might  research all  of  it,  this  otherwise  results.  preference  can  be  pattern  subject  (West  Snyder  et  Morgan,  of  and  al., 1976;  pattern  seem to  helps be  us  vastly  T h e r e s e a r c h , without distilled  to  according Zingle,  1972;  1969;  Gilbert  Lombardo  support to  interpret  the  divergent going this  age  into  target of  the  Rivenback,  1971;  and  Whiteneck,  1976;  and  Lavine,  1977;  32 Fromboise, lation,  1978).  In t e r m s o f a g r a d e  one might  cation  to  be  personnel,  expect  in o r d e r ,  given  target  preference  friend,  these  three  eleven  parent  popuby  lo-  and  school  to  choose  categories  from. Relationship The  nature  and  receiver  target and  of  a n d how  of  Baird  level and  is,  of the relationship  course,  (1978)  o f intimacy  the  between  discloser  extremely  see  "trust  between  perceives  important.  Tubbs  and acceptance,"  the discloser  a n d t a r g e t a s being  the  and target,  which  subject  to  Jourard  (1971) a n d L a F r o m b o i s e (1978)  Using procity, from  a  the k e y s  extent  t h e term  Jourard  one  is  amount  disclosure  Fromboise  (1978)  twelve  most helper  could  slightly: a  tends  found  quality  have.  that  to  vice-versa. her grade  Jourard's  (1971)  opinion  a  Laeleven  prospective  for women,  strong  the  was t h e  or  is  to  t h e amount o f  trustworthy  population,  reci-  stimulus  correspond  within  this..  self-disclosure  target  person  that  support  powerful  and  being  disclose.  a  in a n a d u l t target  that  to  given  population,  important  claims  to t h e  to e x p l a i n  from the o t h e r a n d t h a t  received  of  effect"  t h e most  disclosure  to  chooses  "dyadic  (1971)  person  self-disclosure  for  the  " r e c i p r o c i t y " or r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e on the part  both discloser  and  the discloser  differs liking  correlate  of  33 disclosure;  w h e r e a s , f o r men k n o w l e d g e o f t h e  other  p e r s o n is most i m p o r t a n t . Lower O r d e r 1.  Interactions  G e n d e r of Discloser X T o p i c (Intimacy and Valence) As  introduced  in the  previous  sections,  "The  Discloser"  a n d " T h e T o p i c , " some r e s e a r c h ( M o r g a n , 1976; O ' N e i l l et al.,  1976;  Gilbert  Berzonsky, that  by  Whiteneck,  1976;  Lombardo  of  considering  disclosure  the  topics  intimacy  and/or  (defined  valence  earlier)  summing a c r o s s all d i s c l o s u r e t o p i c s , there  and  by  is a t e n d e n c y  to mask a c t u a l  sexual differences  Morgan's study  (1976) i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s n i c e l y ,  (a)  and  1979; a n d D e F o r e s t a n d S t o n e , 1980) s u g g e s t s  not  aspects  and  in disclosure  patterns.  Intimacy In  a 2x2x4  (two of  repeated  levels of sex of subject;  topic  (high  (mother,  significant  low); best  friend),  (reviewed  significant.  closing  and  father,  opposite-sex  be  measures analysis of  significantly  intimate  topics,  gender  differences  topics.  S e x , however,  cant.  in  friend  found  found  than  there  to  were  was f o u n d  target  and  intimacy  females  disclosure  intimacy  levels of  and intimacy  were  less  where  four  same-sex  earlier)  Males  two levels of  and  Morgan  variance  no of  best to  be  X sex  report  to  dis-  concerning significant non-intimate  not to be  signifi-  T h a t i s , total self d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e s a c c o r d i n g  to s e x w e r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different.  34 Similarly, Berzonsky found  et  al.  (1976),  Lombardo  and  ( 1 9 7 9 ) , a n d D e F o r e s t a n d S t o n e (1980)  similar  intimacy  O'Neill  patterns:  significant  sex of  all  subject  X  l e v e l of t o p i c i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h females b e i n g  w i l l i n g to r e v e a l o n items r a t e d i n t i m a t e more t h a n  males.  significantly  A s with Morgan's r e s u l t s ,  O'Neill  et a l . f o u n d t h e main e f f e c t f o r s e x not to be  signif-  icant. Valence Gilbert  and  Whiteneck  (1976)  take  a  slightly  more  c o m p l i c a t e d a p p r o a c h to t h e s e x o f s u b j e c t X t o p i c o f disclosure intimacy and  issue with  level of topic  valence  content). having  rather  l e v e l s as in  three  levels,  in  (1979)  and  Berzonsky Gilbert  and  the  intimate) neutral the  and  review,  three  negative). what  negativeness the  case  topic  of  case  of  design  has  (1976) (1976),  Lombardo Stone three  moderately  significant  -  of  valence  In  terms  of this  reviewed  earlier)  and  (1980), levels  intimate  levels  i s most p e r t i n e n t  the  variable  of and  (positive, section  of  (notwithstanding  that personalness, valence and their interaction all  both  of  Morgan  DeForest and  (non-intimate,  and  considers  a n d O ' N e i l l et a l .  the  Whiteneck's  personalness  or than  (intimate or non-intimate), : or  that  (what they call personalness)  (positiveness  Hence,  two  a design  is  that  s u b j e c t X p e r s o n a l n e s s was not s i g n i f i c a n t ;  were  sex  of  whereas.  35 sex  of  subject  Interaction  valence  was.  (The  three  way  of s e x X p e r s o n a l n e s s X v a l e n c e was  significant.) valence  X  The authors  interaction  signifi-  c a n t l y l e s s l i k e l y t h a n females to d i s c l o s e on  positive  although  showing  both  males  sex X  being  statements,  as  see t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  not  sexes were  to d i s c l o s e n e g a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s . v a l e n c e main e f f e c t  (positive  equally  likely  In o t h e r w o r d s ,  disclosures being  the more  l i k e l y t h a n n e g a t i v e d i s c l o s u r e s ) seemed to b e e x a g g e r a t e d f o r females a n d m i n i m i z e d f o r m a l e s . G e n d e r of Discloser X T a r g e t (a)  Gender of Discloser X Target (by Gender) As  mentioned  unanimous effect, sure  earlier,  support  for  is c o n s i d e r a b l e b u t  the  gender  of  target  t h a t females r e c e i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  than  nearly  males.  There  as d e f i n i t i v e  particular  gender  interaction. two  there  To  pertinent  in  of  is n o t , the  discloser  this  studies  X  main  more d i s c l o -  however,  literature  to  anything  maintain  gender  of  a  target  researcher's  knowledge,  exist,  of  only  DeForest  and  S t o n e (1980)  a n d G e r d e s et a l . (1981) a n d t h e y  find  very  interaction  similar  those  not  results.  In  both  studies,  t h o u g h t h e main e f f e c t s f o r g e n d e r o f d i s c l o s e r w e r e significant  (females  self-disclosing due this  to  sex  section  than  of of  were males),  significantly they  target  person.  this  literature  found More  no  more effects  important  review  is  that  for in  36 neither  case  was  there  found  to  be  g e n d e r of discloser X g e n d e r of target (b)  G e n d e r of Discloser X T a r g e t As  argued  with  earlier,  Jourard  location)  it  (1971),  shifts  (by  seems that  significant  interaction,  Location)  reasonable  to  accept,  preference of target  w i t h age f r o m  parents  (by  to f r i e n d s  to  s p o u s e a s o n e moves f r o m c h i l d h o o d , t o a d o l e s c e n c e to m a r r i a g e a g e , r e s p e c t i v e l y .  This trend,  however,  does not c o n s i d e r the sex of the d i s c l o s e r a n d one  does,  (1976)  no  definitive  pattern  emerges.  and Gilbert and Whiteneck  gender  (1976)  discloser  X  Lombardo  (reviewed  target and  earlier)  interaction  Lavine  and  not  (1977)  to  Morgan  both  o f d i s c l o s e r to be n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t ,  be s i g n i f i c a n t  when  the  found  target  to  gender  of  be  significant.  a  significant  found  interaction between these factors t h o u g h they do interpret the  it.  not  C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e r e is no i n d i c a t i o n  literature  as  to  what  one  might  expect  g e n d e r of d i s c l o s e r X location of t a r g e t  in  in a  interation.  Topic X Target Morgan found  (1976)  and  significant  Gilbert  topic  X  and target  Whiteneck  (1976)  interaction.  Morgan,  u s i n g a repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (two of discloser gender and  low  X  four  best  opposite-sex  X two  levels of topic  levels  intimacy:  levels of  target:  best  same-sex  friend,  mother,  and  father),  s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r i n t i m a c y  both  high  friend, found  (reviewed earlier)  a  and  37 a significant eighteen  effect  for  target.  Within  his  population  to t h i r t y - t w o y e a r o l d c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ,  d i s c o v e r e d (not s u r p r i s i n g l y c o n s i d e r i n g target X  age  of  subject  trends)  there  that  intimacy  items  sure  to  friends,  than  parents, and significantly  for  both  w e r e no d i f f e r e n c e s  significantly  of  Morgan  preference  high  and  low  between  disclo-  d i s c l o s u r e to  friends  l e s s d i s c l o s u r e to  fathers  more  than any other targets.  Within his intimacy level of topic  X  pattern  target  interaction  received  significantly  ents  with  and  friends  effect  of  the  and  interactions earlier),  intimate  for  disclosure  low  target  than  significant target  intimacy  for  (1976), intimacy  main  effects  parents The for  X  X  target,  due  to  when  acquaintance but  than the  for  and  significant  valence  (reviewed  X  target  T h e y explain that greater  intimate  target  their  personalness,  valence  p e r s o n a l n e s s (a  personalness  dichotomize  earlier)  personalness  non-intimate  exaggerated  to  par-  topics.  using to  personalness X valence X target.  making  friends  w a s more p r o n o u n c e d  (reviewed  personalness  main effect  where  disclosure than  between  Whiteneck  rather  found  emerged  items. and  valence  valence  less  preference for  Gilbert  topic,  more  differences being  high intimacy  and  a  is  a  likelihood  and the of  disclosure)  is  stranger  or  is no l o n g e r p r e s e n t w h e n t h e t a r g e t  is  a spouse (they have five targets: s t r a n g e r , acquaintance, parent,  f r i e n d , and spouse).  38 With  regard  tiveness  or  to v a l e n c e X t a r g e t ;  negativeness  of  the  that  content  is, X  the  posi-  target,  the  main e f f e c t d u e to v a l e n c e (a g r e a t e r l i k e l i h o o d o f m a k i n g positive  rather  than  exaggerated for  negative  friends and spouses. target  intimate  and the  differences  was  slightly  d i s c l o s i n g to a c q u a i n t a n c e s a n d  while differences were g r e a t l y  X  disclosure)  It  valence  there  are  r e d u c e d w h e n d i s c l o s i n g to  seems t h a t in b o t h p e r s o n a l n e s s X  relationship  parents,  target  interactions,  with the target  within  either  the  is,  the  the  more  less  the  personalness  or  valence factors. Notably,  Gilbert  and  three-way  interaction,  According  to  the  them,  personalness  actions.  They  action  is  from  and  however,  significant  deviations  data follows  target  say,  there  that the  because  of  significant  some u n e x p e c t e d  X  target.  described target  three  way  interand  Interpretation  o t h e r t h a n to  variations  in  in  inter-  exaggerations  these combined t r e n d s .  were  a  trends  valence  t h i s t h r e e - w a y interaction is d i f f i c u l t that  have  personalness X valence X  the  X  Whiteneck  of  report  likelihood  o f d i s c l o s u r e to s t r a n g e r a n d a c q u a i n t a n c e t a r g e t s . Higher Order 1.  Interactions  G e n d e r of Discloser X T o p i c X T a r g e t Morgan closer though  (1976) X  did  intimacy Gilbert  not  find  level  and  of  a significant topic  Whiteneck  X  gender  target  (1976)  found  of  dis-  interaction, such  an  39 interaction topics. to  using  valence  differentiate  the  disclosure  While t h e r e was not a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t  gender  target  of  the  discloser,  interaction,  valence (reported interaction.  It  strength  the  bination  of  there earlier)  nor  was  a significant a  significant  due  gender  X  gender  X  and gender X valence X  target  s e e m s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e a u t h o r s , t h a t  of both  valence  main  effect  varied  gender and target.  likelihood of making sures  to  was g r e a t e s t  positive when  rather  They than  females w e r e  as  a  the  com-  interpret  the  negative disclo-  projecting  disclo-  s u r e to s t r a n g e r s a n d a c q u a i n t a n c e s a n d w h e n males w e r e projecting They  disclosure  hypothesize  cialization,  norms  to  parents,  that for  perhaps  personalness  study, X  due  appropriate  valence and target are different In t h e i r  friends  neither  target  and  to  spouses.  different  disclosure  so-  relating  to  f o r males a n d f e m a l e s .  the interactions of g e n d e r X  nor  gender  X  personalness  X  v a l e n c e X t a r g e t w e r e f o u n d to be s i g n i f i c a n t .  PSYCHOLOGICAL SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION A.  Psychological ground  Sex-Role  Orientation  F o r at l e a s t t h e l a s t t w e n t y - f i v e ers  and  theorists  have  been  and  Androgyny  a  difference  significantly  more  found, about  for  Back-  y e a r s , psychological researchattempting  to  explain  b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n males a n d f e m a l e s . is  -  instance,  themselves  that  than  When  females do  possible  males  there  disclose (widely  no  supported  as  frequently  interpreted  the  way  eties,  demonstrated  males a n d  that the  females  we u n d e r s t a n d  that  are  h a v e b e e n t a u g h t to a d o p t  been  charged  outside the  world  of  being  and acting  responsibility  of  Put another  the  are as a result  of  Western  on  Bakan  been  (Parsons  the  men  representatives  behalf, to  rein-  " e x p r e s s i v e " roles  Bales s u g g e s t that  its  soci-  whereas  family's  attending  way,  is  behaviors  needs of the family a n d maintaining it.  it  In  "instrumental"  Parsons and  with  chapter),  males h a v e t r a d i t i o n a l l y  women  1955).  this  socialized.  for  Bales,  learning  in  differences  forced  and  the  earlier  and  women  physical  in  the  have  had  and  emotional  harmonious relations  (1966)  uses the  terms  have  within  "agency"  a n d " c o m m u n i o n , " where " a g e n c y , " for h i m , reflects a sense of self  and  is  manifested  self-expansion; selflessness,  and  space  and  a n d communion  femininity. Witkin  All Often  Other  (1974),  "field  respectively. sexes.  on the  self-protection, other  F o r B a k a n , a g e n c y is i d e n t i f i e d  or  (1964)  the  "communion,"  masculinity,  principles  self-assertion,  hand,  refer  it  to  one  w i t h male p r i n c i -  is i d e n t i f i e d  with  feminine  r e s e a r c h e r s , s u c h as E r i k s o n  dependence"  attempt  and  implies  a c o n c e r n w i t h o t h e r s a n d a d e s i r e to b e at  with others. ples or  and  in  to  "outer" verses  explain the  verses  "inner"  "independence,"  differences  between  w a s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t i f males a r e  this,  females m u s t be t h a t . More recently, Bern,  Martyna  and  some r e s e a r c h e r s ( B l o c k , 1973; Bern, 1974; Watson,  1976;  Bern,  1977;  H e l m r e i c h , 1978) h a v e r e j e c t e d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  Spence  and  conceptualization  11  that masculinity  and femininity  and  the  traits  associated with  them a r e b i p o l a r e n d s o f a s i n g l e c o n t i n u u m a n d t h a t a p e r s o n is  either  masculine  or  feminine,  but  not  both.  Bern  (1974)  e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e s e x - r o l e d i c h o t o m y h a s s e r v e d to o b s c u r e t h e hypothesis  that  individuals  might  be  "androgynous,"  that  both masculine and feminine, both a s s e r t i v e and y i e l d i n g , instrumental  and  expressive,  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of  the  depending  various  on  behaviors.  t i o n o f a n d r o g y n y , a c c o r d i n g to h e r ,  the  both  situational  A further  implica-  is t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l  may  b l e n d the above complimentary modalities into a s i n g l e a c t : instance, warrant  being it,  a b l e to f i r e  an employee if  the  is,  for  circumstances  b u t d o i n g so w i t h s e n s i t i v i t y f o r t h e h u m a n emotion  t h a t t h e a c t may p r o d u c e . ( B e r n , 1 9 7 7 ) . Psychological S e x - R o l e Orientation and Identified  Problems  No l i t e r a t u r e e x i s t s to r e l a t e t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s . Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure There  are  three  relationship  studies  between  in  the  literature  psychological  that  sex-role  consider  orientation  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , one o f w h i c h is v a l i d i n t e r m s o f a correlation 1981)  (Bern, 1977), another  which  has  (Lombardo and  two  L a v i n e , 1977)  main  effects,  and  w h i c h u n c o v e r s some  main e f f e c t s a n d t w o a n d t h r e e - w a y  from  the  her own i n s t r u m e n t , variance  no  data  generated  the BSRI  significant  total  a  Rapp, third  interesting  interactions.  Bern ( 1 9 7 7 ) , d o i n g o n e - w a y a n o v a s a n d m u l t i p l e analyses  and  significant  (Cerdes, Cehling and  significant  the  from  the  JSDQ  regression (1971)  and  (1974), f o u n d in h e r a n a l y s i s of disclosure  difference  due  to  42 gender  of  subject.  In  the  multiple  regression analysis  only  o n e s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n e m e r g e d : t o t a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n men was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to m a s c u l i n i t y , a r e low i n m a s c u l i n i t y  (i.e.,  s u g g e s t i n g t h a t men w h o  feminine or u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  men)  may be more i n h i b i t e d a b o u t d i s c l o s i n g p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n others.  Interestingly,  assumptions  of  role  in  Bern's s t u d y ,  theory,  was  not  femininity,  given  significantly  to the  correlated  w i t h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e in e i t h e r males o r f e m a l e s . In a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 b e t w e e n s u b j e c t s f a c t o r a l sex  of  subject  X  androgynous  verses  the  sex  (1974)  and  measuring  self-disclosure  p s y c h o l o g i c a l sex role orientation  not  role  X d i s c l o s u r e level  p e r s o n , h i g h v e r s e s l o w ) , G e r d e s et a l . (1981)  BSRI  found  (biological  sex-typed  concept of subject X biological sex of target of target  design  using  "behaviorally"  to be  significant,  b u t s e x o f s u b j e c t to be s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h females s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g more t h a n  males.  subject was not not s u p p o r t  Psychological sex-role orientation found  to b e s i g n i f i c a n t  the a u t h o r s ' original  Sex  of  target  p e r s o n was not  and consequently  hypothesis that  males w o u l d s e l f - d i s c l o s e more i n t i m a t e l y found  X sex  of did  androgynous  than s e x - t y p e d males.  to  be s i g n i f i c a n t  though  t h e main e f f e c t f o r d i s c l o s u r e c o n d i t i o n ( h i g h v e r s e low d i s c l o sure  of  the  reciprocity interactions nothing  to  significantly  target)  effect. between lead u s  was In  this  any to  of  highly  significant  work, the  there  were  supporting no  variables and there  believe that  the  significant is  really  psychological sex type  r e l a t e d somehow to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .  is  H3  Lombardo that the  and  r e s u l t s of their  more a f u n c t i o n der.  Lavine  In t h e i r  of  (1977),  work  on  the  other  suggest that  using a 2 (sex of subject)  claim  self-disclosure  psychological sex-role than  f i r s t of a t w o - p a r t s t u d y ,  hand,  biological  is  gen-  Lombardo and Lavine,  X 2 (androgyny  level of subject)  X  4 (target) unequal n analysis of v a r i a n c e , f o u n d s e x of subject n o t to b e s i g n i f i c a n t b u t subject  with  reotyped  a main e f f e c t f o r a n d r o g y n y  androgynous  persons.  A  persons  target  disclosing  main  effect  more was  than  a n d L a v i n e do not nificant  sex of subject  this.  with  significant  interaction was f o u n d t h o u g h  interpret  ste-  found  f r i e n d s b e i n g d i s c l o s e d more to t h a n p a r e n t s a n d a sex of subject X target  level of  Lombardo  More complicated is a  X androgyny  level X t a r g e t  sig-  interaction  w h e r e a n d r o g y n o u s males r e p o r t e d to d i s c l o s e m o r e to  mothers  than  for  stereotyped  males  but  there  was  no  difference  fe-  males. In Lavine, anovas  the  second  taking of  2  the  (sex  of  their  same d a t a , of  subject)  intimate a n d non-intimate) or  sex-typed)  for  two-part ran X  four  X 2 (androgyny  e a c h of f o u r  targets:  significant  preference  to  effect  all  disclose  subject matter. best  for  non-intimate  F o r the t a r g e t s ,  female f r i e n d indicating  targets,  there that  the  subjects  level  level mother,  clearly  n  of  -  topic  androgynous father,  to  best factor  illustrating  information  over  the  intimate  b e s t male f r i e n d  be a n a n d r o g y n y  categorized  and  unequal  O n l y the intimacy  father,  was f o u n d  Lombardo  separate  2 (intimacy  male f r i e n d , a n d b e s t female f r i e n d . was  study,  and main  androgynous  reported that they  w o u l d d i s c l o s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h a n  sex-typed counterparts. subject  significant  female f r i e n d s X  androgyny  significant found  in  X  relation  androgyny to  sex-typed  females;  differences  between  the  sex-typed  intimacy father.  there  intimate but  not  though  level  topic  of  Here  no  to  significantly  was  topics  females  on  disclosed  fathers  more  than  significant  males  information  a  androgynous  sex-typed  androgynous  to  subjects  found,  were  and  more  s e x of  more o n n o n - i n t i m a t e  androgynous  more males  X  were  target,  And,  disclosed  No s i g n i f i c a n t  whereas,  topics.  significantly  females  interactions  females d i s c l o s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  intimate  that  did males.  level  sex  O n l y to b e s t female f r i e n d w a s s e x o f  indicating  than  their  than  non-intimate  information. Lombardo  and  Lavine's work,  the  most  sophisticated  t h e s e t h r e e s t u d i e s , is somewhat d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t , through  it,  Lombardo  using  and  the  Lavine  BSRI claim  d i s c l o s u r e is a f u n c t i o n As  far  (1976) their  and  data  the  contention  is s t i l l  (1971).  that  o f s e x - r o l e a n d not b i o l o g i c a l  as I am c o n c e r n e d , t h i s  though,  JSDQ  suggests  in  self-  gender. debate.  H o w e v e r , t h e s e a u t h o r s s a y i n g t h a t a n d r o g y n o u s males t e n d be  similar  to  females  itively appealing.  in  self-disclosure patterns  of  seems  to  intu-  45  SUMMARY OF A.  LITERATURE  Identified Problems 1.  Identified Problems There  is  types  very  of  problems  (identified tified  little  though  vary  support this  the  that  problems).  problems  marginal  in  literature  people  for this  age  (Jourard,  is not c o n c l u s i v e .  articulate  as  being  hypothesize  and  gender  the theirs  that  and  iden-  there  1971; H a r t m a n ,  is  1968)  M o r e r e s e a r c h n e e d s to b e  conducted that considers these 2.  identify  One might with  to  factors.  Identified Problems X Gender Hartman's  fifteen y e a r old s t u d y  to b e " s e x - r o l e s t e r e o t y p e d " the in  Future:  Vocational and  seriousness,  eleven.  and  for  (1968)  reflects what  r e s p o n s e s w h e n males E d u c a t i o n a l two  females  Similar differences  it  between  placed  out  look  ranked  of  eleven  eleven out  the sexes e x i s t e d  of for  t h e t o p i c S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s w i t h females s e e i n g t h e s e p r o b l e m s a s m u c h more s e r i o u s t h a n m a l e s . other  h a n d , in a similar s t u d y ,  (1972)  found  there  g e n d e r in s t u d e n t s ' In study, the  what this Ginn  results  (1975) of  his  to  according  "self-rating"  of problem  topics.  researcher found  a marked  self-report  counselling  center  e.g.,  considers  over  Lubin  of  problems  to  period.  Harrison  and a This  (1964),  to  important  discrepancy  instrument  a year and  a very  the  Derkson  difference  presentation  -  Hill and  no  behavioral  others  be  Snyder,  On  between  the  actual  university work and  and  Cosby  46 (1973)  -  c a l l to  question  report  instruments  self-disclosure. in p u r s u i n g identified 3.  that  predictive  measure  identified  R e s e a r c h e r s may v e r y  a self-report  validity  of  self-  problems  well b e  and  inaccurate  t y p e o f m e a s u r e m e n t to m e a s u r e  problems.  Identified Problems X Psychological Sex-Role Nothing  exists  relationship  in  that  the  literature  may  exist  and psychological sex-role B.  the  to  indicate  between  Orientation the  identified  type  of  problems  orientation.  Self-Disclosure 1.  Why the I n t e r e s t a n d C o r r e l a t e s With Mental Health "Appropriate" and  is  "talk  the  underpinning  therapy."  between  It  is  self-disclosure  curvilinear 2.  self-disclosing behavior of  much  of  expected and  the  that  mental  whole the  good  body  of  relationship  health  ( J o u r a r d , 1964; C o s b y , 1973; E g a n ,  may  be  1975).  Measuring Self-Disclosure The Jourard  Self-Disclosure Questionnaire  earlier  are the  forms  measures.  most w i d e l y  T h e y a n d all o t h e r  (1971)  and  used paper and  its  pencil  paper and pencil measures  may b e d o u b t f u l i n t e r m s o f p r e d i c t i v e 3.  is c o n s i d e r e d  validity.  S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e : A General O v e r v i e w a n d a Model T u b b s a n d B a i r d (1978)  present an interesting  a b l e model a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p r o c e s s o f  and v a l u -  interpersonal  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e is a c o m p l e x one t h a t is c o n t i n g e n t  upon a  number  position  comes  of  interacting  from  Gilbert  factors. and  Support  Whiteneck  for  (1976)  this who,  in  an  47 excellent s t u d y ,  a r e d r a w n to d e d u c e " t h a t a  sional  to  approach  the  study  of  multidimen-  self-disclosure  is  both  justified and r e q u i r e d . " S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e : Main Effects (a)  The Discloser Gender  as a d e s c r i p t o r  received  more  Evidence  is  Western both  of the  attention  practically  society  volume  than  any  conclusive  self-disclose  and  discloser has b y  intimacy  other that  than  do  factor.  females  in  more  in  significantly  level  far  their  male  counterparts. (b)  The Topic It  is g e n e r a l l y  tionship  found  between the  that there amount  is a n i n v e r s e r e l a -  disclosed and the  inti-  macy l e v e l o f the t o p i c s u c h t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d i s c l o s e less  about  Cosby,  intimate  1973; M o r g a n ,  1976;  Lombardo  Whiteneck effects level  more  in the of  expect:  the  likely they  of  and  1977).  a valuable study, for  both  and  with  personal the  Gilbert  and  found  main  (intimacy  (positiveness  results  as  we  statements,  the  w o u l d be d i s c l o s e d a n d t h e more  the statements,  the greater  disclosed.  them,  For  a  likelihood they  personal  1971;  Whiteneck,  personalness  valence  content)  less  (Jourard,  Gilbert  Lavine,  in  topic  content)  negativeness  1976;  and  (1976),  topics  X  and might more  positive would  be  valence  inter-  action also p r o v e d s i g n i f i c a n t , s u g g e s t i n g that  highly  48 negative  disclosures  may  be  reserved  for  intimate  relationships. The Target i  (Gender,  Location,  Relationship)  Gender Females more  in W e s t e r n  disclosure  1969; J o u r a r d ,  society  than  receive  males  significantly  (West  1971; R i v e n b a c k ,  and  1971;  Zingle, Morgan,  1976). ii  Location The  type  seems  of  to  Jourard (West  vary  Snyder,  who  with  (1971) and  the  Hill  and  age  1969;  Morgan,  chosen  as  of  the  discloser.  the  literature  and  target  Rivenback,  Derkson,  1976;  1977;  is  suggests,  Zingle,  Whiteneck, Lavine,  person  1972; 1976;  L a F r o m b o i s e , 1978)  1971;  Gilbert  and  Lombardo  and  supports  that  as t h e d i s c l o s e r moves f r o m c h i l d h o o d to a d o l e s cence  to  adulthood,  changes from parent to s p o u s e , iii  the  target  preference  to closest s a m e - s e x  friend  respectively.  Relationship The  nature  of  the  discloser and the erful determinant Baird  (1978)  acceptance," and  receiver,  relationship  between  t a r g e t may be t h e of self-disclosure.  site  factors  such  level of intimacy and  as  most  or  pow-  Tubbs  and  "trust  and  between  "reciprocity"  the  discloser reciprocal  49 disclosure  on  the  part  of  both  discloser  t a r g e t a s b e i n g the k e y s to t h e e x t e n t a  subject  uses  the  c h o o s e s to term  procity.  disclose.  "dyadic  to  which  Jourard  effect"  to  and  (1971)  explain  T h e more t r u s t i n g , a c c e p t i n g ,  reci-  intimate  a n d r e c i p r o c a l t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e more e x t e n sive  and  more  intimate  the  d i s c l o s u r e is  likely  to b e . Gender of Discloser X Topic (Intimacy and Valence) B y not c o n s i d e r i n g the intimacy a n d or v a l e n c e a s p e c t s of d i s c l o s u r e t o p i c s a n d b y s u m m i n g a c r o s s all t o p i c s , is  a tendency  disclosure and  subject  (1976),  and X  mask  patterns.  Frank  DeForest  to  Stone  intimacy  actual  Morgan  gender (1976),  Lombardo and (1980) level  t h a t females a r e w i l l i n g  all  of  intimacy  within  O'Neill, Fein,  Velit  B e r z o n s k y (1979),  found  topic  significant  interactions  to r e v e a l on items  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t h a n m a l e s . is an important  differences  there  This author  and  sex  of  indicating  rated  intimate  feels that  this  discovery and scaling topics according  should  be  a  part  Gilbert  and  of  any  new  to  self-disclosure  research. Similarly, significant suggests  sex that  of  subject  males  may  Whiteneck X  be  valence less  d i s c l o s e on p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t s .  likely  (1976)  found  interaction than  a  which  females  to  Scaling of topics a c c o r d -  i n g to v a l e n c e , t h o u g h not a s i m p o r t a n t  as intimacy l e v e l ,  may a l s o o f f e r d i r e c t i o n in new s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e s e a r c h .  50 G e n d e r of Discloser X T a r g e t (a)  G e n d e r of Discloser X T a r g e t (by G e n d e r ) In t h e two  studies that have considered this  (DeForest Rapp,  and  1981)  Stone,  neither  1980;  found  Gerdes,  a  discloser X gender of target strong  trends  for  the  interaction.  c l o s e r a n d g e n d e r of t a r g e t , different (b)  and  gender  of  G i v e n the  gender  I might  of  dis-  have expected  results.  G e n d e r of Discloser X T a r g e t ( b y Gilbert  Gehling  significant  main e f f e c t s ,  theme,  and  Whiteneck  not to be s i g n i f i c a n t ; (1977)  did  find  Given  the  literature  peoples'  (1976)  Location)  found  this  whereas, Lombardo and  significance without  c h o i c e of  interaction  and  the  target,  interpreting  ambiguous  I would  Lavine  expect  it.  nature, that  of any.  i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t h i s n a t u r e w o u l d not be c l e a r . Topic X Target Morgan found  (1976)  and  significant  case,  topic  topic:  does  rather,  for  Gilbert  topic not  X  refer  M o r g a n it  and  Whiteneck  (1976)  target  interaction.  to  subject  the  refers  In  matter  to i n t i m a c y  both each of  the  level and  for G i l b e r t a n d W h i t e n e c k , the themes of p e r s o n a l n e s s a n d valence.  With h i s e i g h t e e n to t h i r t y - t w o y e a r o l d c o l l e g e  s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n , not s u r p r i s i n g l y , M o r g a n (1976) friends than  received  parents,  but  significantly the  more  differences  intimate  between  found  disclosure  disclosure  p a r e n t s a n d f r i e n d s w a s l e s s f o r low i n t i m a c y i t e m s .  to  The  51 effect  of  preference  high intimacy  personalness  and  was more p r o n o u n c e d  and  Whiteneck  (1976)  and  valence  differentiate  to  using  significant personalness X target, personalness  Generally parallel  X  valence  speaking,  those  research the  target  to  target  for  items.  Gilbert  found  for  of  find is,  their  Morgan the  the  X  more  more  their  topics,  valence X  and  one  interpretations  we  the is  target  interactions.  and  intimate likely  factors  target  results (1976)  the  can  expect  relationship to  reveal  in  with highly  personal topics of negative v a l e n c e . 8.  Gender of Discloser X Topic X T a r g e t O n l y one p a r t o f one s t u d y has  shown  a  significant  this  of  discloser  pret.  A c c o r d i n g to t h e a u t h o r s , p e r h a p s d u e to norms for  appropriate  valence  and  target  Gilbert  and  Whiteneck's  finding  obtuse,  are  and  us  gender it  X  is  the  X  inter-  different  little value or  to  females.  valence  complex  X  and  direction  it. Orientation,  Sex-Role  Identified  Orientation  and  Problems  Androgyny  Some s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ( B e r n , 1974 a n d o t h e r s ) ed  topic to  males a n d  of  I find  for  1976)  disclosure relating  for  significant  stage  for research within  Psychological Background  different  interpretation  a n d at t h i s  Psychological Sex-Role Self-Disclosure  is d i f f i c u l t  X  interaction,  target  1.  gender  target  socialization,  and  (Gilbert and Whiteneck,  traditional  dichotomous  have  and  -  reject-  conceptualization  of  52 masculinity and  and  females  femininity  as  having,  and to  prefer  varying  to  think  of  degrees,  blends  qualities associated with each of masculinity a n d ty.  That  having  person,  whether  male  a balance of masculinity  or  female  males of  feminini-  by  gender,  and femininity,  is called  "androgynous." Psychological S e x - R o l e Orientation and Identified Problems No l i t e r a t u r e e x i s t s t h a t r e l a t e s t h e s e two  factors.  Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure (a)  T h e w o r k o f Bern (1977)  is i n t e r e s t i n g  regression  only  analysis  that o c c u r r e d  the  in h e r  in t h a t in h e r  significant  university  correlation  freshmen  population  was t h a t i n m e n , t o t a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w a s related  to  the BSRI  masculinity. (1974)  Femininity  as  positively  measured  by  was not c o r r e l a t e d to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  i n e i t h e r males o r f e m a l e s , as t h e l i t e r a t u r e may lead u s to e x p e c t . (b)  Gerdes,  Gehling and  measured  Rapp  self-disclosure  significant  relationship  (1981),  in  a study  "behaviorally," between  found  psychological  role orientation  and self-disclosure though  cant  subject  gender  of  X self-disclosure  that no sex-  a signifiinteraction  did exist. (c)  Lombardo and to  an  extent,  function  of  Lavine that  (1977)  claim a n d  self-disclosure  psychological  sex-role  may  demonstrate, be  more  orientation  a  than  biological g e n d e r . Lombardo and  In t h e f i r s t o f a t w o - p a r t  Lavine find  sex of  subject  s i g n i f i c a n t b u t t h e r e is s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r sex-role orientation.  As well,  study,  not  to  be  psychological  these authors  find  s i g n i f i c a n t sex of subject X a n d r o g y n y level X  a  target  interaction. In  the  second  of  their  two-part  study,  L o m b a r d o a n d L a v i n e , b y t h e w a y of s i g n i f i c a n t of  subject  X  intimacy  level  of  level interaction  to t h e t a r g e t  ynous  be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  their  males to  sex-typed counterparts  ironically, more  androgynous  revealing  intimate ynous  than  topics.  The  males t e n d  to  disclosure  patterns  topic  father,  females  to  be  and  this  be  topics  to  on  that  females  is a p o i n t  than and  significantly  females  suggest  similar  androg-  revealing  intimate  sex-typed authors  androgyny  found  more  on  X  sex  non-  androgin  that  selfshould  be h e l d i n m i n d . T h o u g h t h e a b o v e s t u d i e s g i v e u s some s u g g e s t i o n s , t h e y d o not  lead u s to a n y c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e  between disclosure.  psychological  sex-role  orientation  relationships and  self-  54  CHAPTER  III  METHODOLOGY  Facets of order:  the  methodology  d e s c r i p t i o n of  to  subjects,  be d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s  description  chapter  of m e a s u r e m e n t  are,  in  instruments,  data collection procedures and data a n a l y s i s .  I  DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECTS The  population  for  this s t u d y consisted of 181, l a r g e l y  sian,  f i f t e e n to s e v e n t e e n - y e a r - o l d g r a d e e l e v e n s t u d e n t s  high  school.  Mission  Senior  Secondary  School,  M i s s i o n is a s e m i - u r b a n t o w n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y three  miles  (69  Fraser River. were  female,  km.)  e a s t of V a n c o u v e r on  f r o m one  Mission,  B.C.  15,000 p e o p l e ,  forty-  the  in  Cauca-  north  bank  of  the  O f t h e 181 s t u d e n t s , s e v e n t y - n i n e w e r e male a n d 102 totaling  to  within  forty  of  the  entire  grade  eleven  p o p u l a t i o n e n r o l l e d in t h e i r s c h o o l , t h e o n l y s e n i o r s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l in t h e  immediate v i c i n i t y .  resource retail sents  sectors  in  the  1  immediate  and service activities further  Vancouver,  F o r e s t r y and a g r i c u l t u r e  demographic  a r e a and  provide  c o n c e n t r a t e d in M i s s i o n . information  on  Mission  are  the  chief  the  basis  for  Table 1 precompared  to  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and t h e c o u n t r y as a w h o l e so that t h e  r e a d e r can c o n s i d e r the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the sample p o p u l a t i o n .  O r i g i n a l l y , 193 s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s s t u d y . Questionnaires from twelve students were discarded because they were incomplete.  55  TABLE 1 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Mission. Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada Mission Population Average Income in Dollars % of Labor Force Unemployed % of Population Fifteen and Over With University Degrees Average Size of Families in Members % of Single Parent Families Reference:  14,997 10,313 9.4  Vancouver  B.C.  Canada  410,188 10,809 9.4  2,466,608 11,111 8.6  22,992,600 10,313 7.1  2.6  7.9  4.9  4.3  3.4 8.9  3.0 12.7  3.2 11.5  3.5 9.8  Census of Canada, 1976  T h e r e a d e r may c o n c l u d e t h a t r e s i d e n t s o f M i s s i o n a r e s l i g h t l y well-educated on other  than  less  those of V a n c o u v e r , b u t similar with V a n c o u v e r  c o u n t s as a r e t h e y  with measures f o r both t h e populations  of B r i t i s h Columbia a n d C a n a d a .  II  DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT In t h i s  study,  three  created b y this author  INSTRUMENTS  measurement  instruments  ( o n e to m e a s u r e i d e n t i f i e d  were  used, two  problems a n d one  2 to m e a s u r e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ) sure psychological sex-role  and a third,  the BSRI  (1978)  to m e a -  orientation.  2 T h e i d e n t i f i e d p r o b l e m m e a s u r e w a s o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n e d to p r e c e d e t h e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e measure, t h e t h i n k i n g being that if subjects were going to b e a s k e d a b o u t d i s c l o s u r e l i k e l i h o o d o n a s e t o f p r o b l e m s , o n e s h o u l d f i r s t a s k to w h a t e x t e n t t h e s e same p r o b l e m s e x i s t . These inventories c a n , h o w e v e r , be used together o r s e p a r a t e l y .  56 Measurement of Identified 1.  Development of Identified  Problems  Instrument  problems used in this s t u d y are f o u n d in T a b l e  2 , n u m b e r e d o n e to e l e v e n . grouped  into  four  main  Problems are "thought"  factors  to be  o r themes a s i l l u s t r a t e d .  No f a c t o r a n a l y s i s h a s b e e n d o n e o n t h i s s e t o f p r o b l e m s . T h e f o u r t h t h e m e , a d j u s t m e n t to s e l f a n d o t h e r s , h a s t w o subsets,  adjustment  ment to s e l f  to others  (interpersonal)  and adjust-  (intrapersonal).  TABLE 2 Four Themes and Eleven Problem Topics - Instrument: Identified Problems School Routine  1. 2. _  Money and Work  ~3.  Problems with finances and employment (current).  ~~4.  The future: choice of occupation and/or further study.  ~5. 6.  Difficult relations with family. Problems in getting along with friends. Boyfriend - girlfriend problems.  r  The Future  (Interpersonal) Adjustment to Self and Others  7. ~~8. (Intrapersonal)  Subjects  using  Difficulty with grades. Adjustment to school routine: attendance, homework, classes, teachers.  9. 10. 11.  Health and physical development problems. Problems with morals and religion. Uncomfortable feelings and emotions. Problems of sexual adjustment.  this  identified  problems  inventory  to  assess  presence or seriousness of possible problems a r e  asked,  " T o what extent  is each of t h e following a problem  57 for y o u ? "  ( F o r a copy of this instrument,  the  Appendix,  the  appropriate  from  one  Part  I.)  box  (not  at  Subjects  responded by  in a f i v e - p o i n t  all  a  please refer  problem)  Likert to  checking  scale  five  to  ranging  (very  much  a  problem). Because study,  it  that  problems  a  was  deemed,  suitable  (and  for  instrument  self-disclosure)  did  c h o s e to d e v e l o p t h e e l e v e n t o p i c above.  It  was  not  measure identified the  instruments  inappropriate serious  that  there  problems  purposes  to  measure  not  exist,  were  no  for  problem  and  to  fit  author to  instruments  to  rather,  thought or  both  self-disclosure  M o o n e y a n d C o r d o n (1950)  identified  (and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ) ;  large  this  referred  a grade eleven population too  of  the  instrument  that d i d exist were either  problem)  identified  the  to  (the  the  be  most  current  design  needs.  h a v e a 330 i t e m , e l e v e n  factor  h i g h s c h o o l f o r m o f t h e M o o n e y P r o b l e m C h e c k l i s t ; Warman (1961)  offers  Jourard the  a sixty-six  (1971)  presents a sixty  Jourard  LaFromboise the  all  these  of  (Plog,  measures, West  Derkson,  1972;  topics  them  in  problem  furnishes  Counselling  1965;  three  factor  item,  six  Self-Disclosure  (1978)  called  item,  and  and for  and  one to  differences.  Only  of and  instrument  Questionnaire.  However,  others  1975)  by  1969; have  different Snyder, too  many  be a b l e to c o n s i d e r the  form  item  Zingle,  Cinn,  factor  Questionnaire;  a fifty-one  Helping  instrument;  instrument  by  authors Hill  and  problem individual Strong,  58 Hendel and  Bratton  nine different worded  ih  (1971)  problem topics)  language  population,  seemed at all  understandable  (considered a very  of  the  works  to  a  grade  my  eleven  topic  particularly, and  eleven  the  have  Strong  et  themes. this  identified  Mooney  Strong  five  et  factors  adjustment  al.,  I  Hence,  instrument  related In  and  al.  and  the  problems  Cordon  (1971).  (items  have  to  self  been  2,  (1950),  From  3,  4,  Mooney  8 and  been  others);  influenced  selection of the has  and  by  problem  strongly  items  9);  (school  and  five  in  from  problem found  influenced  by  in the  literature. this  questionnaire,  there  has been an attempt  o r d e r t o p i c s , i n a loose s e n s e , f r o m intimate.  future  influenced  f r o m W a r m a n , I h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t w o main f a c t o r s and  more  w i t h some w o r d c h a n g e s , I h a v e i n c l u d e d  instrument  routine  were  topic in the l i t e r a t u r e ) ,  above  instrument:  and Cordon,  school routine,  cited  of  this  not all t o p i c s  has  problems.  development  (1961)  to  important  boyfriend-girlfriend  Warman  (it  a n d , b e s i d e s , I w i s h e d to i n c l u d e a few  themes s u c h a s a d j u s t m e n t  All  though  suitable  l e s s i n t i m a t e to  T o p i c s h a v e b e e n c h o s e n to  to  more  cover a range  of  t h e m e s t h a t m i g h t b e o f c o n c e r n to b o t h males a n d females at the g r a d e eleven l e v e l ,  and topics have been  a c c o r d i n g to w h a t may b e t h e i n c l u s i v e f a c t o r s o r as r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 2 .  grouped themes  59 2.  Reliability and Validity Only  marginal  instrument is  no  reliability  at t h i s t i m e .  statistical  stability  and validity  data e x i s t s for  In r e f e r e n c e to r e l i a b i l i t y ,  evidence  of  internal  u s e d o n l y o n c e , in this criticisms Chapter  laid II)  study.  against other  regarding  With  It  or  validity,  instruments  validity  of  has been  r e s p e c t to  self-report  predictive  there  consistency  of this measuring device o v e r time.  this  apply  (see  here  as  well. H o w e v e r , in t h e c a s e s o f c o n t e n t , c o n s t r u c t a n d f a c e validity,  arguments  measure. been  Because the  based  considered way,  it  clearly,  c a n be made to  largely  on  construct  appears,  at  and  no  in  r e s p o n d e n t s in the understanding  support  content  of  existing  instruments,  and  content  face  present  to  it  In  ask  has  can  the  the  did . any  study  current  instrument  valid.  value,  instances  this  the  of  c l a i m to h a v e  be  same  questions the  181  problems  it.  Measurement of S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e 1.  Development of Like the  identified  self-disclosure topics for  Instrument  (see  problems measure just d e s c r i b e d ,  instrument  the  selection,  uses the  Appendix, ordering  Part  and  same e l e v e n  II).  Previous  grouping  of  this  problem rationale  topics  also  applies. In would  this you  measure, be  to  talk  subjects to  are  asked,  •  about  "How  likely  each of  the  • following  60  problems?"  subjects  are  targets,  to  In  asked respond  a  repeated  seven to  times,  the  set  measures  for  of  helper  appears.  Ordering  of  seven  eleven  the top of each of seven p a g e s , the  fashion, different  problems.  name o f a  helpers  is  At  different  designed  such  t h a t t h e r e a d e r w i l l not c o m p a r e i n h i s m i n d h i s r e s p o n s e s from  one  target  father.  Target  f r i e n d ; mother; etc.;  to  the  next:  presentation  counsellor,  female  respond  checking  Likert  scale  (very  likely).  is  instance,  in  order:  mother  closest  male  father;  coach,  ranging  the  etc.;  female t e a c h e r ,  and  appropriate  from  one  no  one.  box  in  (very  female  Subjects a  six-point  unlikely),  to  six  T a r g e t s w e r e s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to s u g g e s t i o n s the  literature  and  that likely  targets  population  are  (Jourard, also  gender  1971;  in t h i s of  by  design  needs.  parents  and  and  Rivenback,  1971;  Morgan,  of  target  has  six  been  personnel  different  of  nature,  1976)  and as  helper  targets.  is  1969;  included  no o n e h a s b e e n i n c l u d e d as a s e v e n t h t a r g e t a s e n s e t h a t , b e c a u s e of t h e i r  student  Zingle,  C o m b i n e d , location  produce  is  G e n d e r of target  (West  design.  helper  school  important  gender  from  Indication  location for a g r a d e eleven  1971; L a F r o m b o i s e , 1978).  accordingly, factor  personal  friends,  considered  Jourard,  to  male t e a c h e r , male c o u n s e l l o r , male c o a c h ,  c l o s e s t female f r i e n d ;  by  for  a  and  Helper  because of  particularly  at  this  61 a s e n s e t h a t , b e c a u s e of t h e i r age,  some  selves felt  students  about  that  a  prefer  some more  nature,  to  keep  intimate  measurement  of  particularly completely  problem  this  at  to  topics.  phenomenon  this  themIt  was  might  be  helpful. The wording be  to  talk  problems?" Strong, (1978)  "How  likely  about  each  of  to was  chosen  Hendel use  of the question  a  because of  the  personal  and  Bratton  (1971)  similar  wording  that  a  West  tionnaire certain  different asks  topics  different  approach.  subjects  to  become  helpers,  the  indicate focus  and the JSDQ  indicate the extent  and the  of  likelihood; (1971)  have  Zingle's  extent  ques-  to  which  communication  (1971)  to w h i c h t h e y  following  LaFromboise  includes  and J o u r a r d  you  preference.  and  w h e r e a s . West a n d Z i n g l e (1969) slightly  would  with  asks subjects  h a v e t a l k e d to o r  to  made  t h e m s e l v e s k n o w n to a set o f p e o p l e on a s e t o f p r o b l e m s . T h e a p p r o a c h of S t r o n g et a l . a n d L a F r o m b o i s e ( a n d instrument)  asks  subjects  to  project  into  likelihood of d i s c l o s u r e (subjects p r o b a b l y personal past  knowledge  disclosing  approach  asks  does  the  JSDQ.  compare,  within  three  different  of a p a r t i c u l a r  behavior); subjects  to  There these  is  report  questioning  West  on  nothing  future  and their and  own  Zingle's  past  behavior,  as  the  literature  to  in the  validity  of  approaches,  though  I  that t h e y all p r o d u c e quite similar  on  d o so b a s e d on  helper  v/hereas.  instruments,  the  this  results.  these expect  62 2.  Reliability and As  with  the  Validity identified  d a t a e x i s t s on t h i s except  for  face  subjective  problems  measure,  no  self-disclosure instrument.  validity,  that  judgement),  it  and  appears  that  it  Similarly,  to  be o k a y  appears  questions clearly and include relevant targets, data  exists  dictive  for  this  validity  is  sures of this  measure.  lacking  type)  reliability  E v i d e n c e to  (this  is t h e  no  ask  validity  support  case  as is e v i d e n c e f o r  to  for  all  construct  in t h a t we d o not k n o w how well t h i s i n s t r u m e n t  (a  premea-  validity measures  the c o n s t r u c t of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Bern S e x R o l e 1.  The  Inventory  Instrument  Assuming opposite  that  masculinity  ends of  and  femininity  a single continuum  are  (Block,  not  1973;  M a r t y n a a n d W a t s o n , 1976; S p e n c e a n d H e l m r e i c h , Bern  (1974),  developed  (BSRI)  that  gives  traits.  Bern (1974)  the  separate  subjects "never  BSRI rate  or  is  on  almost  measures  traits,  composed  of  a seven-point never  neutral.  twenty  Two  Role  for  true  are  scores for  Bern, 1978),  Inventory  each  of  these  femininity  independent.  [of  o r a l m o s t a l w a y s t r u e [of m e ] . " line  Sex  argues that masculinity and  are logically and empirically The  Bern  at  feminine  sixty  adjectives  scale r a n g i n g me]" Twenty and  each subject  to  which  from  seven,  one,  "always  items a r e m a s c u twenty are  are  derived  rated from  63 the  results,  a  score  for  masculinity  and  a  score  for  femininity. A BSRI  researcher in  four  two  ways:  groups  ferentiated)  subjects  without  femininity  femininity  scores.  in  there  so,  searchers (1976), It  in  method. scores  androgynous or  the  that  multiple  by  or  using  (2) raw  into  undif-  her  analyze  masculinity and  analysis  instrument.  subjects  It  may  to  as  system  Heilbrun  to  used  for  classification  to be  many  been  median  determined,  c o r d i n g to t h e f o l l o w i n g  chart:  cat-  and a conse-  advocated Kelly  1979). by  and  and O ' B r i e n  re-  Worell (1977).  r e a s o n s , one of  them  androgyny.  approach,  grouping  the  is  (1976),  C a u d i l l , Hathorn  be  broad  (Pedhazur and Tetenbaum,  Kelly,  Once  to  uses masculinity  regression  assigning  classification  four-fold  have  BSRI, by  b e i n g t h a t it g i v e s a m e a s u r e o f  a  the  a p p r o a c h is p r e f e r a b l e to t h e c l a s s i f i c a -  such  continues  mends  by  subjects  can be a loss of information  the  and  For  classify  Bern (1977) a  loss of a c c u r a c y  Even  the  self-disclosure and  egories,  to  feminine,  scales of  scores  system  quent  either  classification  argued that this tion  (1)  scores generated  on the basis of relative scores on the m a s c u -  feminine  correlate  u s e the  (masculine,  line a n d  and  can  based  Bern (1976) on  masculinity subjects  median-split  a and are  recom-  femininity  grouped  ac-  64 Masculinity Score  A b o v e Median Femininity  A b o v e Median  Below Median  Androgynous  Feminine  Masculine  Undifferentiated  Score Below Median  For  instance,  someone to  have  above the  and  above  feminine As example  the  specified  be g r o u p e d median  particular  on  androgynous the  population  masculine median  would scale,  on  the  offers  an  scale. a guideline, of  her  undergraduates  Bern  grouping where  the  (1976), of  a  1975  median  n i n i t y s c o r e s were 4.89 a n d 4 . 7 6 ,  in  Table  3,  sample  of  masculinity respectively.  Stanford and  femi-  65 TABLE 3 P e r c e n t a g e o f S u b j e c t s in V a r i o u s S e x - R o l e C r o u p s f o r a 1975 S a m p l e o f S t a n f o r d U n d e r g r a d u a t e s as D e f i n e d b y a Median Split of Both Masculinity and Femininity  S e x Role  Males  Feminine  16%  34%  Undifferentiated  27%  20%  Androgynous  21%  29%  Masculine  37%  16%  Females  R e f e r e n c e : S c o r i n g P a c k e t : Bern S e x R o l e I n v e n t o r y R e v i s e d 4 / 7 6 One  might  expect  groupings  in  other  populations  to  be  somewhat s i m i l a r to t h o s e r e p r e s e n t e d a b o v e . 2.  Reliability and  Validity  C o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has gone into e s t a b l i s h i n g ity and validity  data for the  reliabil-  BSRI.  Bern (1974) c o m p u t e d c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a s s e p a r a t e l y the  masculine  normative  and  feminine  samples.  The  (masculine, a = .86;  scales scores  feminine,  Test-retest reliability  r  feminine  .90;  Concerning  the  and femininity between  r  =  .90;  empirical  each  were  of  and  two  reliable  androgynous,  estimates were masculine,  and  androgynous  i n d e p e n d e n c e of  the  s c a l e s , Bern f o u n d t h e i n t e r s c a l e  masculinity  her  highly  a = .82 a n d  a = .85). =  for  for  femininity  for  her  r  =  .93.  masculinity correlation Stanford  66 population -  to be f o r m a l e s , r = . 1 1 , a n d f o r  females, r =  .14, suggesting a true empirical independence. Validity  repeated  of  the  BSRI  has  experimentation.  been  Various  supported studies  through  have  shown  that subjects' behaviors were consistent with their  classi-  f i c a t i o n s on t h e B S R I  ( B e r n , 1974, 1975. 1 9 7 6 ) .  Lenney  instance,  (1976),  for  show  that  subjects consistently  show no p r e f e r e n c e f o r  feminine  where  activities,  preference As  well,  for  activities  Bern  (1975),  in  in  relation  to  androgyny  sex-typed  consistent a set  of  Bern a n d  androgynous masculine or  individuals  with  their  experiments  independence  and  show  genders. to  study  nurturance,  found only subjects classified androgynous displayed both a high  l e v e l of i n d e p e n d e n c e w h e n p r e s s u r e d to  conform,  a s well a s a h i g h l e v e l o f n u r t u r a n c e w h e n g i v e n a c h a n c e to p l a y w i t h a k i t t e n . The To  name  BSRI, two  however,  examples,  does  not  go without  Pedhazur and  criticism.  Tetenbaum  (1978)  c l a i m t h a t in it t h e c o n s t r u c t s of m a s c u l i n i t y a n d  feminini-  ty  Caudrau  are  (1977)  not  challenges  independent. accepted and sex-role  clearly  In  operationally the sum,  widely  orientation.  assumption however,  defined;  and  that  the  the  BSRI  u s e d as a m e a s u r e o f  scales is  are  widely  psychological  67 DATA COLLECTION  PROCEDURES  Administration  of  the  three  measurement  instruments  just  r e v i e w e d took p l a c e in M i s s i o n S e n i o r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l i n a r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m s e t t i n g in e i g h t i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s p e r i o d s o v e r t w o  consecu-  tive  with  days.  Completion  structions,  took  of  students  the  three-part  between  thirty  questionnaire, and  forty  in-  minutes.  No  s t u d e n t s n e e d e d more t h a n t h e f o r t y m i n u t e - c l a s s p e r i o d to c o m p l e t e the  instruments. In  all  classes,  Instructions  testing  were-standard.  was  of  Part  written  I,  P a r t II  r e a d them o u t  and Part III).  instructions,  by  this  researcher.  S t u d e n t s w e r e a s k e d to r e a d d i r e c t i o n s  to t h e m s e l v e s w h i l e t h e a u t h o r dix,  conducted  any  new  loud  (see the  Appen-  Upon completion of the questions  that  may  have  review arisen  were a n s w e r e d . S t u d e n t s w e r e d i r e c t e d to o n l y (each section was d i f f e r e n t l y and when they  work  on one s e c t i o n at a  c o l o u r c o d e d ) , to w o r k  on their  had completed the section they were w o r k i n g  own, on,  s t o p a n d r e v i e w t h e i r a n s w e r s b u t not to g o o n u n t i l t h e y w e r e to d o s o .  A t the b e g i n n i n g of each s u b s e q u e n t s e c t i o n ,  were reviewed as outlined a b o v e .  time  to told  directions  A l l s t u d e n t s w o r k e d o n t h e same  s e c t i o n at t h e same t i m e . S t u d e n t s a p p e a r e d to questionnaire, naire, helper,  identified  h a v e no d i f f i c u l t y  problems.  six students had difficulty no o n e .  In  these  cases,  With p a r t  with part two  understanding the  situation until they indicated that they  of t h e  one of  question-  how to r e s p o n d  researcher understood.  the  reexplained  to the  68 It  was  vocabulary  anticipated  that  difficulties  for  the  BSRI  some o f  (1978)  this  might  grade  present  eleven  some  population.  A c c o r d i n g l y , a list of potentially  difficult words and their  meanings  and/or  on  students'  synonyms  reference.  were  Words  assertive,  written  listed  the  included:  blackboard  affectionate,  compassionate, adaptive, dominant,  for  conscientious,  tactful,  conventional,  y i e l d i n g , analytical, individualistic, gullible and solemn. questions  that  students  swered on an i n d i v i d u a l Finally,  toward  questionnaires  were  had  regarding  word  Any  meanings  were  the  the  end  picked  instruments,  were attended  an-  basis. of  up  each  by  the  class  period,  researcher.  all At  completed that  e a c h s t u d e n t w a s a s k e d i f he o r s h e h a d a n y q u e s t i o n s o r with  other  and  if  there  to at t h a t t i m e .  were  further  time,  problems  questions,  A l l s t u d e n t s w e r e d i s m i s s e d at  they the  same t i m e : n o n e w e r e d i s m i s s e d e a r l y .  DATA  ANALYSIS  Analysis  of  results  correlational  in  nature,  coefficients  were  surements taken  in  this  where  computed  research  design  different  main  where  and  Pearson  to  on d i f f e r e n t  present  compare  study  interacting  relationships  analyses effects  either:  product-moment  variables, or  several  were  for  correlation  between  (b)  followed a  of  variance  a  number  (a)  mea-  factorial examined  of  related  factors. A.  Correlational Approach Pearson product-moment  correlation  coefficients  to e s t i m a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n :  were  computed  69 1.  I d e n t i f i e d p r o b l e m s a n d s e x of s t u d e n t lb.  2.  Chapter  (research  question  I);  S e r i o u s n e s s of identified s u r e on p r o b l e m s  p r o b l e m s a n d l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c l o -  (research question  3a a n d 3 b ,  Chapter  I); 3.  Masculinity and  femininity  scores on  the  BSRI  tified problems (research question 5, C h a p t e r 4.  Masculinity and femininity  scores on the  and  iden-  I);  BSRI  and  likeli-  hood of problem d i s c l o s u r e for each of three g r o u p s : students,  female s t u d e n t s ,  a n d male a n d female  combined (research question 5 b , C h a p t e r I); 5.  Masculinity and femininity of  all  possible  combination  helpers, gender  x  by  gender,  location  and  BSRI  by  students  and choice  location,  (research  or  a  question  5c,  T h e U B C S t a t i s t i c a l P a c k a g e f o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s (1978)  was  Chapter  of  scores on the  male  I).  u s e d f o r c o m p u t i n g all o f t h e a b o v e . A n a l y s i s of Variance A  number of a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e p r o c e d u r e s were employed  to  examine the several factorial research d e s i g n s as l i s t e d : 1.  2.  A  2x11, sex of  student  X identified  search questions l a and l b .  Chapter  A  student  4x11,  Bern g r o u p i n g  of  problem design I); X  design (research question 5a, Chapter 3.  A 2x2x3x11, sex of student of  helper  1962),  X  where  problem each  identified  problem  I);  X g e n d e r of h e l p e r X location  "repeated student  (re-  is  measures d e s i g n " asked  about  (Winer,  likelihood  of  70 disclosure  on  the  same  problem  six  q u e s t i o n s 2 a , 2 b , 2c a n d 4 , C h a p t e r 4.  A 2 x 1 1 , sex of student are  asked  about  A  4x11,  where  disclosure  grouping  students  helper, 6.  Bern  are  asked  of  helper  (Winer,  Chapter Where  main  effects  or  level  rather  than  in  repeated  the  (Kirk,  .01  of  computing  .05  1968),  differed  The  student about  X  problem  disclosure  of s t u d e n t  one  design,  likelihood  helper  measures  questions  5b  to  and  X g e n d e r of  "repeated  (research  interactions  measures  subgroups  comparison  no  I);  problem  statistical  on t h o s e s t a t i s t i c a l l y  level  helper,  and  de5c,  I).  reached  procedure  X  1962),  procedures  a  to  students  no one ( r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 5 c , C h a p t e r I ) ;  location  sign"  I);  likelihood  of  A 4 x 2 x 3 x 1 1 , Bern g r o u p i n g X  (research  X problem d e s i g n , where  (research question 4, Chapter 5.  times  from  analysis  significance  l e v e l b e c a u s e of design),  significant significantly  significance  was  the  Dunn's  was e m p l o y e d .  (set  interactions  used  variance  at  the  power  multiple It,  from the  of  in  inherent  comparison  turn,  focused  to d e t e r m i n e others.  with  .01  which  Again,  Dunn's  the  multiple  procedure. UBC all  BMD2PV of  p r o c e d u r e s (items  the  computer  above  1-6).  unequal  program n  was  analysis  used of  for  variance  71  CHAPTER  IV  RESULTS  The themes: cal  results (1)  sex-role  themes,  of  identified  to  findings  and  the  will  IDENTIFIED  are (2)  in  Appendix,  R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 1:  a n a l y s i s of table:  then,  as o u t l i n e d  though  more  three  (3)  broad  psychologiwithin  in  these  Chapter  complete  I.  interpre-  V.  at  d e s i g n e d to m e a s u r e i d e n t i f i e d Part  the questionnaire  is e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g  arrive  questions  and  will be left u n t i l C h a p t e r  the  that when doing  To  into  PROBLEMS  follows  extent  first  self-disclosure, and  highlighted,  A copy of the instrument lems  organized  self-disclosure,  research  be  tations of these f i n d i n g s  I  study  problems,  orientation  according  Important  this  answers  variance  I.  The  the subject  a problem for  reader  will  was a s k e d :  prob-  remember "To  what  you?"  (a)  A r e some p r o b l e m t o p i c s s e e n to be more s e r i o u s f o r males t h a n females?  (b)  Do females a p p e a r to b e more bled with problems in g e n e r a l males?  for  these  was p e r f o r m e d  two  questions  yielding  the  a  simple  following  trouthan  two-way summary  72 TABLE 4 Summary T a b l e - I d e n t i f i e d Problem and Sex o f S t u d e n t Analysis of Variance  -  Sum o f Squares  df  Mean Square  Mean Sex Error  5,741.22 .39 545.57  1 1 179  5,741.22 .39 3.05  1,883.67 .13  .0000 .7206  Problem Problem X Sex Error  245.43 43.83 1,305.55  10 10 1,790  24.54 4.38 .73  33.65 6.01  .0000 .0000  Source  Tail Probability  F  n = 181 Accordingly, significant troubled  we f i n d t h a t b e c a u s e T a b l e 4 i n d i c a t e s t h a t s e x i s  in this study with  problems  not  ( p > . 0 1 ) , females d o n o t a p p e a r to b e more in  general  than  males  (research  question  lb). However, (tail probability  b e c a u s e of .0000),  a significant  problem  X  sex  we n e e d to look at t h e d a t a more  to a n s w e r r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n l a .  P l e a s e r e f e r to T a b l e 5 .  interaction carefully  73 TABLE 5 Means and S i g n i f i c a n t Differences of I d e n t i f i e d Problems For Students Grouped by Sex  p  1  P  2  P  3  P  4  P  5  P  6  P  V  7  P  9  p  io  P 11  Marginal Count  Males  2.35  2.30  2.00  2.30  1.68  1.28  1.63  1 .42 1.25  1.54  1.22  1.73  79  Females  1.98  1.57  1.92  2.34  1.90  1.17  1.68  1.37  1.99  1.33  1.70  102  *  *  2.14  1.89  1.28  1.71  181  Sign.Diff.  Marginal  Note:  1.42  * 1.96  2.33  1.81  1.22  1.66  1.39  1.35  S i g n i f i c a n t difference 1 evel = .36 * P = .01 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison Procedure ( K i r k , 1968)  1.80  n = 181  E v i d e n t l y , p r o b l e m s one a n d t w o , d i f f i c u l t y w i t h g r a d e s a n d ment to s c h o o l r o u t i n e , this  sample of  a r e s e e n to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  males t h a n  females a n d  f e e l i n g s a n d e m o t i o n s , is s i g n i f i c a n t l y males.  Pearson  evidenced  in  correlation  Table  6.  The  problem  adjust-  more s e r i o u s to  ten,  uncomfortable  more s e r i o u s f o r females t h a n  coefficients significant  support  this  correlations  pattern in  Table  as 6  p a r a l l e l t h o s e p r o b l e m c a s e s in T a b l e 5 w h e r e t h e r e is a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e x of  student.  74 TABLE 6 Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between I d e n t i f i e d Problems and Sex o f S t u d e n t  P  P  Sex  -.20*  * **  P<.01 p<.001  Note:  II  l  2  P  -.36**  3  P  -.03  4  P  .01  P  P  P  -.10  .02  -.03  5 .10  8  P *9  P *10  .10  .23*  P  ll  .09  n = 181  F o r t h e purposes o f t h i s Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n , males were coded 0 and f e m a l e s were coded +1.  SELF-DISCLOSURE The  r e a d e r will remember that  same as t h o s e f o r father,  mother,  personnel are each  (male),  asked, of  "How  the  instrument  identified closest  problems for d i s c l o s u r e are the  problems.  male  friend,  Helpers or targets closest  school personnel  (female)  likely  be to  following  would  you  problems?"  A  To. answer  these  (questions  3  and  copy  it  of  school  Subjects  to  about  this  self-disclosure  II.  (a)  A r e some p r o b l e m t o p i c s more l i k e l y to be t a l k e d a b o u t b y females t h a n males?  (b)  A r e females m o r e l i k e l y to t a l k a b o u t more p r o b l e m s in g e n e r a l t h a n males?  (c)  A r e s u b j e c t s , r e g a r d l e s s of g e n d e r , more l i k e l y t o t a l k a b o u t some p r o b lem t o p i c s t h a n o t h e r s ?  research 4),  friend,  a n d no o n e .  talk  is f o u n d in t h e A p p e n d i x , P a r t  Research Question 2:  female  include:  questions, is  and  appropriate  to  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e summary table. Table 7.  others  that  present  the  will  follow  following  75 TABLE 7 Summary Table - Problem, Sex of Student, Gender of Helper and Location of Helper - Analysis of Variance  Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  115,687.19 1,150.43 8,907.09  1 1 179  115,687.19 1,150.43 49.76  2,324.89 23.12  .0000 .0000  Location Location X Sex Error  4,087.59 217.54 5,943.98  2 2 358  2,043.80 108.77 16.60  123.10 6.55  .0000 .0016  Gender Gender X Sex Error  750.86 436.55 1,540.81  1 1 179  750.86 436.55 8.60  87.23 50.72  .0000 .0000  Location X Gender Location X Gender X Sex Error  88.58 14.48 2,605.55  2 2 358  44.29 7.24 7.28  6.09 .99  .0025 .3709  Prbblem Problem X Sex Error  3,859.37 64.56 4,984.69  10 10 1790  385.94 6.46 2.78  138.59 2.32  .0000 .0104  980.87  20  49.04  35.77  .0000  80.37 4,908.27  20 3,580  4.02 1.37  2.93  .0000  58.24  10  5.82  5.99  .0000  55.81 1,740.22  10 1,790  5.58 .97  5.74  .0000  40.89  20  2.04  2.35  .0006  55.54 3,118.23  20 3,580  2.78 .87  3.19  .0000  Source  Mean Sex Error  Location X Problem Location X Problem X Sex Error Gender X Problem Gender X Problem X Sex Error Location X Gender X Problem Location X Gender X Problem X Sex Error  n  181  F  Tail Probabi 1 i t y  76 Research Question 2:  The  answer  problem tail study  to  (a)  this  question  probability  report  to t a l k a b o u t  A r e some p r o b l e m t o p i c s more l i k e l y to be t a l k e d a b o u t b y females t h a n males?  that they  is  no.  e x c e e d s .01 are not  Because sex  (see T a b l e 7 ) ,  significantly  some p r o b l e m s .  However,  of  student  females in  more l i k e l y t h a n  for  the  reader's  X this  males  interest.  T a b l e 8 p r e s e n t s mean l i k e l i h o o d o f d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e s f o r males a n d females f o r e a c h of e l e v e n p r o b l e m s .  No a t t e m p t h a s b e e n made to  t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e l e v e l s on p r o b l e m s b e t w e e n s e x . TABLE 8 Mean Disclosure Scores on Problems f o r Students Grouped by Sex  P 1  P  2  P  3  P  4  P  5  P  6  P  7  P  8  P  9  P  10  P  11  Marginal Count  Males  3.48  3.28  3.22  3.79  2.77  2.50  2.57  2.68  2.28  2.42  2.03  2.82  79  Females  4.30  4.06  3.79  4.54  3.47  3.29  3.00  3.21  2.76  3.14  2.40  3.45  102  Marginal  3.94  3.72  3.54  4.22  3.15  2.97  2.81  2.98  2.55  2.82  2.24  3.18  181  - n = 181  R e s e a r c h Question 2:  (b)  A r e females more l i k e l y to t a l k  about  more p r o b l e m s i n g e n e r a l t h a n males? Because the factor (tail  probability  for  .0000:  disclosure score for (refer  s e x h a s b e e n f o u n d to be h i g h l y refer  to  Table  7)  and  because the  mean  females i s 3 . 4 5 a s c o m p a r e d to 2 . 8 2 f o r  males  to T a b l e 8 ) , t h e a n s w e r to t h i s q u e s t i o n is y e s .  indicate  that  females  significant  report  a  higher  total  disclosure  The results score  than  77 males a n d  that  females a r e  significantly  more  likely  than  males  to  t a l k a b o u t more p r o b l e m s in g e n e r a l . R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n 2:  S i n c e t h e main e f f e c t significant  (tail  (c)  f o r p r o b l e m as i l l u s t r a t e d  probability  .0000),  subjects,  regardless  of  likely  talk  "some"  to  about  A r e s u b j e c t s , r e g a r d l e s s of g e n d e r , more l i k e l y to t a l k a b o u t some p r o b lem t o p i c s t h a n o t h e r s ?  gender,  i n T a b l e 7 is  highly  we c a n h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t , self-report  problem  topics  that than  they others.  yes,  are  more Below,  Table 9, illustrates such a pattern. TABLE 9 Rank Order, Mean D i s c l o s u r e Scores and S i g n i f i c a n t Difference Levels Between Likelihood of Problem Disclosure  X  •  4  4.22  1  3.94  2  3.72  3  3.54  5  3.15  8  2.98  6  2.97  10  2.82  7  2.81  9  2.55  11  2.24  4  1  2  3  5  8  S i g n i f i c a n t difference l e v e l = .27 * p = .01 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison Procedure ( K i r k , 1968)  6  n  10  7  D  :  = 181  9  :  11  78 To  interpret  Table 9,  one s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h o s e p r o b l e m t o p i c s  in  b r a c k e t s below t h e a s t e r i s k s as b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y  l e s s l i k e l y to  disclosed upon than the headlining problem t o p i c .  We c a n see t h a t ,  for  instance,  problem  topic  4,  the  future,  is  significantly  more  l i k e l y to be t a l k e d a b o u t t h a n p r o b l e m t o p i c s 1, 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 6 , 7,  9  and  difficulty  11.  Similarly,  with  grades,  students  is  report  significantly  that  more  problem  likely  to  about than problem topics 3, 5, 8, 6, 10, 7, 9 and 11.  topic be  be  10, 1,  talked  The reader  may l i k e to c o n s i d e r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r o t h e r p r o b l e m t o p i c s o u t l i n e d in t h i s  table.  Research Question 3:  (a)  To what d e g r e e does statement of seriousness of problem topic c o r r e late with likelihood of discussing problem topics?  (b)  Do males a n d females d i f f e r ?  T o a n s w e r p a r t (a) o f t h i s q u e s t i o n , it is a p p r o p r i a t e to c o n s i d e r a total  population  seriousness of problems.  Pearson  correlation  problems and  between  the  two  variables,  l i k e l i h o o d o f d i s c l o s u r e on t h e s e same  T a b l e 10 p r e s e n t s t h e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s .  79 TABLE 10 Pearson Product - Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s For A l l Students Between Seriousness of I d e n t i f i e d Problems and Likelihood of Disclosure on These Same Problems  Seriousness of Each Identified Problem  Sum IP  -.09  -.08  .05  .01  .02  .02  .05  .09  .08  .06  .08  .03  IP  .07  .09  .12  .08  .05  .06  .05  .09  .11  .04  .06  .09  .05  .07  .13  .10  .10  .12  .02  .16  .16  .10  .12  .13  .00  .02  -.01  .03  .02  .04  .08  .19*  .12  .17  .13  .08  -.06  -.12  -.06  -.04  -.09  -.04  -.03  -.07  -.04  -.03  .00  .05  .07  .04 -.01  .03 -.02 -.02 -.00  -.07  -.06  -.02  .03  -.01  .06  .07  .01  .05  .08  .12  .03  -.07  -.07  .00  .05  .08  .04  .02  .13  .03  .09  .04  .03  .08  .11  .13  .09  .06  .07  .10  .05  -.01  .03  .04  .08  -.09  -.13  .09  -.03  -.09  -.04  -.00  -.07  -.20*  -.20*  -.05  -.18  -.02  -.07  .00  -.04  -.09  -.15  -.01  -.07  -.04  -.06  -.05  -.05  2  P 3  P 4  P 5  11  l p  io  , P  9  IP  8  ,P  7  , P  6  , P  5  % ,P  3  , P  2  ,P  1  P  1  P  P  6  P  .09  7  P  8  -.02 -.06  .03 -.02 -.02  .01  .01 -.06  .04 -.04 .02 -.09  .04 -.04 -.00 -.06  P  9  P  10  P  11  Sum P  Li kei ihood of Disclosure on Each Problem  *  p < .01  Note:  n = 181  Sum IP = Sum of extent of a l l i d e n t i f i e d problems Sum P = Sum of l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c l o s u r e of a l l problems  Most  relevant  to  this  question  is t h e e x t e n t  to w h i c h  the s e r i o u s -  n e s s of e a c h p r o b l e m c o r r e l a t e s w i t h t h e l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c l o s u r e o n t h a t same p r o b l e m .  In o t h e r w o r d s , i f s t u d e n t s j u d g e p r o b l e m 1 to  be a s e r i o u s i s s u e f o r t h e m , d o t h e y c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y s a y t h a t a r e l i k e l y to d i s c l o s e to a l a r g e e x t e n t on it?  they  R e f e r e n c e to T a b l e 10  80 indicates  that  only  school  routine,  extent  to  disclosure  is  which on  in  one  there  this  it.  is  And,  case,  any a  with  significant  serious  this  problem  correlation  problem  significant  and  Also,  the  worthy  less of  likely  noting  they is t h e  claim  to  the  correlation  n e g a t i v e o n e , m e a n i n g t h a t t h e more s t u d e n t s problem,  2,  be  adjustment between  the  likelihood (p<.01)  b e t w e e n t h e sum o f s e r i o u s n e s s o f all i d e n t i f i e d  is a  s e l f - d i s c l o s e on  lack of s i g n i f i c a n t  correlation  problems  of  is a  report that this  to  to  it.  (.03)  (Sum  IP)  a n d t h e s u m o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f d i s c l o s u r e on all p r o b l e m s ( S u m P ) . Research Question 3: The  answers  Pearson  to  this  (b) question  product-moment  populations.  D o males a n d females d i f f e r ? are  correlation  found tables  T a b l e s 11 a n d 12 f o l l o w :  in for  separate, the  shortened  male a n d  female  TABLE 11 Pearson Product - Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s For Males Between Seriousness of Each I d e n t i f i e d Problem and L i k e l i h o o d of Disclosure on That Same Problem  Sum IP ,P  11  ,P  10  .07 .12  '9 P  Seriousness of Each Identified Problem  IP  -.03  IP  \P  .10 .15  C  b  IP l f  .01  C  \  IP  3  IP  2  IP  1  -,.18 .08 -.06 .05  P  1  P 2  P P P 3 . 4 *5  P ^6  P P *7 *8  L i k e l i h o o d of Disclosure on Each Problem  *  p < .01  n = 79  P  9  P  P  P  10  82 TABLE 12 Pearson Product - Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s For Females Between the Seriousness of Each I d e n t i f i e d Problem and Likelihood of Disclosure on That Same Problem  Sum IP  .03  IP. 11  .07  IP. 10  .01  IP. Seriousness of Each Identified Problem  .07  IP.  .19  IP-  -.03  IP.  .05  IP  .08  IP.  .01  IP-  • 11 -.15  IP. .11  IP.  P  3  1  2  r  P  3  k  P  *5  P  K  6  P  P 7  P  £  P  P  9  P  10  P  11  S  u  m  P  Likelihood of Disclosure on Each Problem  *  p < .01  n = 102  According  to T a b l e s 11 a n d  12,  neither  Pearson correlations  show  t h e r e to be a n y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r males o r females b e t w e e n the  s e r i o u s n e s s of  each  identified  d i s c l o s u r e on t h a t same p r o b l e m . lation  between  females correlate  differ with  Sum to  IP a n d  the  Sum  degree  likelihood  of  problem  and  the  likelihood  N o r is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t P in  which  either  case.  seriousness of  discussing  these  corre-  Do males problem  problems?  of  and  topics  Because  83 neither  males  nor  females  show  significant  correlations  anywhere  w i t h i n t h e s e m a t r i c e s , it d o e s n o t a p p e a r t h a t t h e y d o d i f f e r icantly.  No f u r t h e r  significant  difference testing  has been applied  to t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e s 11 a n d Research Question 4:  The  question,  on  signif-  12.  A r e males a n d females e q u a l l y l i k e l y to c h o o s e t h e same h e l p e r s f o r t h e i r p r o b l e m s , a n d how d o e s i d e n t i t y a n d / o r s e x o f h e l p e r a p p e a r to i n f l u e n c e c h o i c e ?  the  surface  seemingly  simple,  in  fact  demands  some e x t e n s i v e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e s e a r c h d a t a .  It  a s k s u s to look at t h e main e f f e c t s f o r e a c h o f g e n d e r a n d  location  of  sex  helper,  student gender  and  at  X gender of helper  least of  some o f  helper;  the  interactions  sex of student  X location of h e l p e r ;  location of h e l p e r ;  between  X location  sex of student  p r o b l e m X g e n d e r of h e l p e r ;  of  helper;  X gender  problem X  o f h e l p e r ; p r o b l e m X g e n d e r X l o c a t i o n of h e l p e r ;  of  X  location  s e x of s t u d e n t  X  problem X g e n d e r of h e l p e r ; sex of student X problem X location of h e l p e r ; a n d s e x of s t u d e n t er.  (The  main  effects  X problem X g e n d e r X location of h e l p -  for  sex of  student  interaction  have been c o v e r e d t h r o u g h  related  this  to  question  which students, the h e l p e r ,  are  differentiated  no o n e ; a n d  two  and  problem  and  r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 2.)  more  issues:  (1)  the  their Also,  extent  to  b y s e x , c l a i m t h e y w o u l d r e s p o n d to are likely  to  d i s c l o s e to all s e v e n h e l p e r s w h e n h e l p e r s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d j u s t  by  (2)  the extent  to w h i c h t h e y  who t h e y a r e , r a t h e r than by g e n d e r a n d / o r location. For  reasons  of  literature review,  it  implied  above,  from  clarity  and  to  compliment  is p r o p o s e d t h a t q u e s t i o n the  simple  to  the  more  the  format  of  the  4 be a p p r o a c h e d a s complex:  that  is.  84  examination order  of main a n d l o w e r o r d e r  interactions  later.  interactions  B e c a u s e of the  first,  complexity  and  and  higher  obscurity  o f some of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t h a v e to d o w i t h p r o b l e m s ( t h e r e a r e e l e v e n l e v e l s of p r o b l e m ) , should  be d o n e o n l y  actions where  for  it is a l s o p r o p o s e d t h a t p o s t hoc a n a l y s e s some main e f f e c t s  interpretation  literature.  These,  location  of  helper  student  X gender  I  of  may be m e a n i n g f u l  suggest,  and  and  the  helper;  should  include  interpretable sex of  lower  order  in t h e the  light of  main  interactions  student  inter-  effect for  sex  X location of  the for of  helper;  g e n d e r o f h e l p e r X l o c a t i o n o f h e l p e r ; a n d s e x of s t u d e n t X g e n d e r X  location of h e l p e r .  student  X  significant  problem  X  differences  C e l l means w i l l be p r e s e n t e d f o r  t h e s e x of  gender  helper  of  helper  X  location  between sex of student  of  w i l l be m a r k e d ,  t h e r e w i l l n o t b e a n a t t e m p t to i n t e r p r e t t h e s e s i g n i f i c a n t levels.  but  difference  O t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t interactions with problems s u c h as location  o f h e l p e r X p r o b l e m ; l o c a t i o n of h e l p e r X p r o b l e m X s e x o f g e n d e r o f h e l p e r X p r o b l e m ; g e n d e r of h e l p e r student;  and  because this  and  of  location  their  of  obscure  helper  X  gender  student;  X problem X sex of  of  helper  interpretability,  will  not  not  students'  X  problem,  be a n a l y z e d  at  preference  of  time.  Gender of Helper Location of Helper Though  question  4  does  ask  about  t a r g e t s a c c o r d i n g to t h e main e f f e c t s o f g e n d e r a n d l o c a t i o n , themes  are  question.  worth Table  7  considering indicates  before  that  dealing  gender  of  directly  helper  is  with  these the  significant  85 (tail  probability  .0000). der  Table  2)  of  .0000),  as  13 o f f e r s  3.45,  location  of  helper  a mean d i s c l o s u r e to  significantly  2 . 9 0 to male h e l p e r s  is  (gender  greater  than  (tail  female  the  probability  helpers  disclosure  (gen-  score  of  1).  TABLE 13 Mean D i s c l o s u r e Scores t o Male and Female H e l p e r s F o r S t u d e n t s Grouped By Sex  Male Students (Sex 1)  Female Students (Sex 2)  Male Helpers (Gender 1)  2.76  3.00  2.90  Female Helpers (Gender 2)  2.88  3.90  3.45  Marginal  2.83  3.45  3.18  79  102  Count  Marginal  n = 181 Similarly, location: school  Table friends  are  =  d i s p l a y s mean  disclosure  (location  1), 3.76;  personnel (location  3 ) , 2.35.  Comparison (p  14  Procedure  .01) s u g g e s t i n g significantly  more  personnel  and  more t h a n  parents.  to  parents  Manipulation of D u n n ' s  that s t u d e n t s ,  parents  to  than  to h e l p e r s  ( l o c a t ion 2) , 3 . 4 2 ;  yields a significance  likely  scores  as a  d i s c i ose schoo1  d i f f e r e n c e level  friends  personnel but  and  Multiple of  g r o u p . report that to  by  .89 they  than  school  not  friends  86  TABLE 14 Mean Disclosure Scores to Friends, Parents and School Personnel For Students Grouped By Sex  Male Students (Sex 1)  Female Students (Sex 2)  Friends (Location 1)  3.20  4.20  3.76  Parents (Location 2)  3.19  3.60  3.42  School Personnel (Location 3)  2.10  2.55  2.35  Marginal  2.83  3.45  79  102  Count  Marginal  n = 181 S e x of S t u d e n t X G e n d e r o f H e l p e r P e r t i n e n t to t h e gender means  of  helper  presented  report that they  significant (tail in  interaction  probability  Table  13.  are significantly  b e t w e e n s e x of s t u d e n t  .0000 In  this  -  Table  7)  research  more l i k e l y  are  female  and  the  cell  students  to d i s c l o s e to  female  h e l p e r s t h a n to male h e l p e r s a n d more l i k e l y t h a n male s t u d e n t s d i s c l o s e to e i t h e r male o r female h e l p e r s . ison .01.)  Procedure suggests a significant No  other  interacting  cells.  significant  (Dunn's Multiple Compar-  difference  differences  to  exist  level of between  .80,  p =  the  four  87 S e x o f S t u d e n t X L o c a t i o n of H e l p e r Table  7 also  helper  indicates  interaction  a  (tail  significant probability  sex  of  .0016)  student (p  X  location  .01).  Cell  of  means  f r o m T a b l e 14 a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1 5 . TABLE 15 Rank O r d e r , Mean D i s c l o s u r e Scores and S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e L e v e l s f o r the I n t e r a c t i o n : Sex o f S t u d e n t X L o c a t i o n o f H e l p e r  1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  Female S t u d e n t s X Friends (Location  1)  Female S t u d e n t s X Parents (Location  2)  Male S t u d e n t s X Friends (Location  1)  Male S t u d e n t s X Parents (Location  2)  X  1  4.20  *  2  3.60  3  Male S t u d e n t s X School P e r s o n n e l ( L o c a t i o n 3)  2.10  *  .  "1  S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e l e v e l = 1.47 * p = .01 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison P r o c e d u r e ( K i r k , 1968) Table  means  in  brackets  likely  to  occur  this more  study likely  subjects to  15,  one  below  than  should  the  the  to  that  to  than  n = 181  those  as b e i n g  For  students female  interaction  cell  significantly  interaction.  female  friends  p e r s o n n e l a n d male s t u d e n t s  consider  asterisks  headlining  report  disclose  6  3.19  2.55  interpret  5  3.20  Female S t u d e n t s X School P e r s o n n e l ( L o c a t i o n 3)  To  4  are  instance,  in  significantly  students  school p e r s o n n e l .  less  to  The only  school other  88 significant are  difference  significantly  is t h a t  more  likely  students to  report  d i s c l o s e to  that  female  parents  than  students are  male  s t u d e n t s to s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l . G e n d e r of Helper X Location of Helper Understood (male  and  parent targets. male  in  this  female)  and  school  Table  helper  design and  is t h a t  three  l e v e l s of  personnel)  16  below  crossed  two  when  location  location  merged  illustrates  with  levels of  1,  this  gender of  helper  helper  produce  six  translation.  friend,  of  yields  (friend, different  Gender closest  1,  male  f r i e n d ; g e n d e r 1, c r o s s e d w i t h location 2 , p a r e n t y i e l d s f a t h e r ,  and  so o n . TABLE 16 Gender o f H e l p e r X L o c a t i o n o f H e l p e r D e s i g n Into Six Targets  Location 1 (Friend)  Gender 1 (Male H e l p e r )  Gender 2 (Female H e l p e r )  C l o s e s t Male Friend  C l o s e s t Female Friend  Location 2 (Parent)  Father  Location 3 (School P e r s o n n e l )  The for  reader  will  Mother  School P e r s o n n e l (Male)  note  that Table 7 reports  the v a r i a b l e s g e n d e r of helper  ability  .0025)  School P e r s o n n e l (Female)  suggesting  that  a significant  X location of helper  students  (regardless  interaction (tail of  prob-  gender)  r e p o r t t h a t some h e l p e r s a r e p r e f e r r e d as t a r g e t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  more  89 than  others.  difference  Rank  order,  levels between  mean d i s c l o s u r e  six  location of helper interaction  targets  scores and  from the g e n d e r  significant of helper  X  are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 17.  TABLE 17 Rank O r d e r , Mean D i s c l o s u r e S c o r e s and S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e L e v e l s Between S i x T a r g e t s  X  3  1.  C l o s e s t Female F r i e n d  4.12  2.  Mother  3.73  3.  C l o s e s t Male F r i e n d  3.40  4.  Father  3.10  5.  School Personnel (Female)  2.50  6.  School Personnel (Male)  2.20  4  5  6  ]  S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e l e v e l = .96 * p = .01 n = 181 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison P r o c e d u r e ( K i r k , 1968) A s with p r e v i o u s tables of similar format, interpretation  is much  s a m e : t h e r e a d e r s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h o s e l a b e l l e d h e l p e r s in below t h e a s t e r i s k s as b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y to t h a n t h e h e a d l i n i n g h e l p e r s . as a g r o u p , closest and  female  they  are  friend  school personnel  than  their  (male);  more  father,  to t h e i r  brackets  l e s s l i k e l y to be d i s c l o s e d  For instance, students  significantly  the  likely  to  school  mother  report  that,  d i s c l o s e to  their  personnel  than  to e i t h e r  (female) school  p e r s o n n e l , a n d to t h e i r c l o s e s t male f r i e n d t h a n to s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l (male).  Notable  for  school  students' preference for  personnel  targets.  is t h a t  they  p l a c e lowest  in  90 Sex of Student X Gender of Helper X Location of Helper In  terms of the s e x of student  tionships. ability  X location o f helper  Table 7 suggests a nOn-significant  .3709).  significant  X gender  Accordingly,  difference  er's information,  there  will  interaction  (tail  relaprob-  b e n o a t t e m p t to t e s t  levels between c e l l s .  However,  for  for the read-  c e l l means a r e p r e s e n t e d below i n T a b l e 1 8 .  TABLE 18 Mean Disclosure Scores to Helper Gender X Helper Location (Friends, Parents, School Personnel) For Students Grouped By Sex  MALE STUDENTS (Sex 1) Male Helpers (Gender 1)  Female Helpers (Gender 2)  FEMALE STUDENTS (Sex 2) Male Helpers (Gender 1)  Female Helpers Marginal (Gender 2)  Friends (Location 1)  3.06  3.33  3.66  4.74  3.76  Parents (Location 2)  3.12  3.24  3.08  4.12  3.42  School Personnel (Location 3)  2.11  2.08  2.27  2.83  2.35  Marginal  2.76  2.88  3.00  3.90  n = 181  91 Sex of Student X Seven Helpers Put another  way and Including the helper,  no o n e . T a b l e  19 p r e -  s e n t s t h e d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e c e l l means to a l l s e v e n h e l p e r s f o r b o t h male a n d female  students. TABLE 19  Rank Ordering and Mean Disclosure Scores to Seven Helpers For Students Grouped by Sex  Male Students  Female Students  Marginal  C l o s e s t Female F r i e n d  3 . 3 3 (2)  4 . 7 4 (1)  4 . 1 2 (1)  Mother  3.24 (3)  4 . 1 2 (2)  3 . 7 3 (2)  C l o s e s t Male F r i e n d  3 . 0 6 (5)  3.66 (3)  3.40 (3)  No One  3 . 4 7 (1)  2.94 (5)  3.17 (4)  Father  3.12 (4)  3.08 (4)  3.10 (5)  School P e r s o n n e l  (Female)  2 . 0 8 (7)  2 . 8 3 (6)  2 . 5 0 (6)  School P e r s o n n e l  (Male)  2.11 (6)  2.27 (7)  2 . 2 0 (7)  2.91  3.38  Marginal n = 181  T h e r i g h t h a n d c o l u m n m a r g i n a l i n T a b l e 19  offers individual  target  preference  least p r e f e r r e d  for all  students numbers  in o r d e r regardless in  f r o m most of  parenthesis.  p r e f e r r e d to  gender. Rank  Rank order  order  is  preference  indicated for  by  individual  92 targets  w i t h i n s e x of s t u d e n t  are similarly  indicated by  numbers  parenthesis.  T h o u g h male a n d female s t u d e n t s  report that they  generally  agreement  ranking  (within  in one  or  two  in  their  preference  positions),  what  is  most  d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n male a n d female p r e f e r e n c e one.  For  males,  preference  over  no  one  all o t h e r  or  not  target  speaking  choices;  of  to  the  is  for  is  females  no for  fifth preference.  No a t t e m p t h a s b e e n made to t e s t  significant  difference  between  presented  in  Table  19  because  helper  the no  seven one  helper  means  no  their  one is t h e i r  levels  the  helper,  anyone  whereas,  are  targets  notable  for  in  means  have  a d d e d to t h e g e n d e r o f h e l p e r X l o c a t i o n of h e l p e r m o d e l .  been  No one  d i s c l o s u r e means h a v e come f r o m a s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s . H e l p e r , No O n e Again,  because the helper  of helper model, students target  were  represented  not in  analyzed Table  7.  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e for to t h i s  target.  no one d i d not f i t  the g e n d e r X  location  l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c l o s u r e r e s p o n s e s to within Rather,  the  large  Table  20  analysis  of  variance  a  separate  and  problems  presents  the v a r i a b l e s sex of student  this  93  TABLE 20 Summary Table - Problem and Sex of Student Analysis of Variance For Helper, No One  Mean Sex Error Problem Problem X Sex Error  Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  20,063.22 137.08 3,763.01  1 1 179  20,063.22 137.08 21.02  954.37 6.52  .0000 .0115  343.12 28.33 3,258.49  10 10 1,790  34.31 2.83 1.82  18.85 1.56  .0000 .1139  F  Tail Probability  n = 181 A s T a b l e 20 s u g g e s t s , s e x o f s t u d e n t i n t h i s s t u d y w a s n o t s i g n i f i cant These  (tail  probability  results  different  .0115),  suggest that  in their  n o r was problem  neither  disclosure  sex reports  patterns  when  X sex of  student.  to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  problems  a r e summed  o v e r , a n d t h a t males a n d females claim to r e s p o n d s i m i l a r l y i n t h e i r r e t i c e n c e to d i s c l o s e o n p a r t i c u l a r  problems.  significant  meaning t h a t  significantly  (tail  less  problem marginal discussion.  probability likely  to  .0000)  be talked  i n T a b l e 21 p r e s e n t s  P r o b l e m , h o w e v e r , is  about relevant  some p r o b l e m s a r e than  others.  The  c e l l means f o r t h i s  94 TABLE 21 Mean Problem Disclosure Scores to Helper No-One For Students Grouped by Sex  P  1  P  2  P  3  P  4  P  5  P  6  P  7  P  8  V  P  10  P  11  Marginal  Males  3.15  3.22  2.81  2.96  3.71  3.48  3.71  3.81  3.44  3.73  4.09  3.47  Females  2.41  2.35  2.50  2.12  3.29  3.06  3.15  2.99  3.33  3.37  3.73  2.94  Marginal  2.74  2.73  2.64  2.49  3.48  3.24  3.39  3.35  3.38  3.53  3.88  rank  ordering  n = 181  Table  22  disclose  represents on  particular  the  problem  topics  between the likelihood of d i s c l o s u r e .  of and  students' significant  reticence  to  differences  95 TABLE 22 Rank Order, Mean Disclosure Scores and S i g n i f i c a n t Difference Levels Between Likelihood of Problem Disclosure to Helper, No One  11  11  3.88  10  3.53  5  3.48  7  3.39  9  3.38  8  3.35  6  3.24  1  2.74  2  2.73  3  2.64  4  2.49  10  n = 181  S i g n i f i c a n t difference level = .53 * p = .01 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison Procedure ( K i r k , 1968)  The  r e a d e r n e e d s to be a w a r e t h a t d i s c l o s u r e to h e l p e r ,  s c o r e d in r e v e r s e to d i s c l o s u r e to t h e o t h e r though first  in  22 w i t h  the  s p o n d i n g to t h e q u e s t i o n , one:  highest  mean  "How likely  score,  would  That is  students  Students saying that they  to t h e m s e l v e s a b o u t open  about  intimate  topics  such  a r e most l i k e l y  is,  ranked are  y o u be to t a l k  t h a t i s , k e e p c o m p l e t e l y to y o u r s e l f a b o u t e a c h o f t h e  ing problems?"  be  six targets.  p r o b l e m t o p i c 1 1 , p r o b l e m s of s e x u a l a d j u s t m e n t , Table  no one is  re-  to  no  followto  keep  t o p i c s s u c h as p r o b l e m  10 a n d 11 a n d  as 3 a n d  consistent  4 is  entirely  (in  96 reverse)  with  helpers should  as  likelihood  of  represented  consider  those  having a significantly lining topic.  in  Table  topics  disclosure  8.  in  To  to  the  interpret  brackets  below  other  Table  the  way,  they  are  topic  11 t h a n  and  significantly  as  head-  less  likely  i n s t a n c e , t h a n t o p i c s 6 , 1, 2 , 3 a n d 4 .  playing more  on topics  one  asterisks  S t u d e n t s report that they are significantly  another  six  22  d i f f e r e n t d i s c l o s u r e likelihood than the  to d i s c l o s e on t o p i c 1 1 , f o r Put  problem  6,  with  semantics,  likely  to  1,  3 and  2,  d i s c l o s e to 4.  students helper  say  that  no one on  Please c o n s i d e r  other  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on d i s c l o s u r e l i k e l i h o o d . S e x of S t u d e n t X P r o b l e m X G e n d e r of H e l p e r X L o c a t i o n o f H e l p e r T h e f i n a l t a s k in r e s p o n s e to r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 4 is to c o n s i d e r t h e notable  significant  problem,  sex of  student,  (tail probability lem,  two  and  three  order  interaction  levels levels  sex of of  student,  location  for  between  g e n d e r of h e l p e r ,  .0000 - see T a b l e 7 ) .  l e v e l s of  significance  higher  all  of  variables:  and location of  helper  With e l e v e n l e v e l s of  prob-  l e v e l s o f g e n d e r of  helper  two  helper,  interacting  the  testing  cells  and  would  interpreting  be  laborsome,  d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t a n d w o u l d g o b e y o n d w h a t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r scope  of  this  with the  spirit  paper.  What  is o f  interest,  of r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n 4 ,  however,  and  the  keeping  is t h e w a y male a n d female  s t u d e n t s r e p o r t to d i f f e r on l i k e l i h o o d o f d i s c l o s u r e on e a c h p r o b l e m to  each  helper  disclosure  gender  scores and  sex of student (G1,  by  G2) and  and  significant  location.  Table  difference  level  23  displays  notation  mean  between  ( S 1 , S 2 ) f o r e a c h p r o b l e m to e a c h h e l p e r b y g e n d e r location  (L1,  L2, L3).  If  the  reader prefers,  how-  e v e r , he o r s h e c a n t r a n s l a t e male h e l p e r X f r i e n d i n t o c l o s e s t male  97 friend,  male  helper  X  parent  into  father,  male  helper  p e r s o n n e l i n t o s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l ( m a l e ) , a n d so o n . please  refer  significance scores  to  Table  levels  16.  No a t t e m p t  between  in t h a t t h e  marginal  interaction  n o t to be s i g n i f i c a n t .  For  X  translation,  h a s b e e n made to  male a n d  female  school  test  student  p r o b l e m X s e x of s t u d e n t  was  for mean  found  R e f e r to T a b l e 7. TABLE 23  Mean Disclosure Scores and S i g n i f i c a n t Difference Level Notation Between Sex of Student For Each Problem to Each Helper by Gender and Location  Problem 1: D i f f i c u l t y with grades.  MALE HELPER (G1)  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  Males (S1)  3.54  3.47  3.28  3.77  3.28  3.01  3.48  Females (S2)  4.08  3.99  3.34  5.37  4.81  4.19  4.30  *  *  *  *  *  98 Problem 2: Adjustment to school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  MALE HELPER (C1)  3  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  Males (S1)  3.25  3.29  3.09  3.71  3.53  2.78  3.28  Females (S2)  3.94  3.70  3.06  5.27  4.48  3.92  4.06  *  *  *  *  *  roblem 3: Problems with finances and employment (current).  MALE HELPER (G1)  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  Males (SI)  3.68  4.39  1.99  3.25  4.01  2.00  3.22  Females (S2)  3.78  4.28  2.18  4.70  4.95  2.82  3.79  *  99 Problem 4: The future : choice of occupation and/or future study.  MALE HELPER (C1)  FEMALE: HELPER (C2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend  Males (S1)  3.97  4.48  Females (S2)  4.28  4.47  un  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  3.28  3.94  4.33  2.76  3.79  3.73  5.23  5.11  4.44  4.54  *  *  *  *  Problem 5: D i f f i c u l t r e l a t i o n s with family.  MALE HELPER (CD  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  an  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  Males (S1)  3.01  3.25  1.62  3.41  3.57  1.78  2.77  Females (S2)  4.19  3.09  2.04  4.85  4.06  2.57  3.47  *  *  *  *  Friend  *  100 Problem 6:  Problems i n getting along with f r i e n d s .  FEMALE HELPER (C2)  MALE HELPER (GI)  Fri end (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (LI)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  Males (SI)  3.04  2.56  1.70  3.39  2.80  1.78  2.50  Females (S2)  3.78  2.67  1.90  4.95  3.97  2.47  3.29  Problem 7:  *  *  *  *  Boyfriend - gir l f r i end problems. FEMALE HELPER (G2)  MALE HELPER (C1 )  F r i end (LI)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Margi nal  F r i end (LI.)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel ' (L3)  Males (S1)  3.24  2.44  1 .53  3.85  2.57  1.81  2.57  Females (S2)  3.96  2.07  1 .61  5.05  3.24  2.08  3.00  *  *  *  101 Probl em 8: Health and physical development problems.  MALE HELPER (G1)  FEMALE: HELPER (C2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Males (S1)  2.75  3.05  2.23  2.76  3.28  2.03  2.68  Females (S2)  2.78  2.75  2.10  4.37  4.57  2.71  3.21  *  *  *  Problem 9:  Marginal  Problems with morals and r e l i g i o n .  MALE HELPER (C1)  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Males (S1)  2.44  2.75  1.49  2.52  2.84  1.65  2.28  Females (S2)  2.83  2.68  1.74  3.78  3.60  1.91  2.76  *  *  Marginal  102 Problem 10: Uncomfortable f e e l i n g s and emotions.  MALE HELPER (C1)  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  Friend (L1)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend  Males (S1)  2.53  2.47  1.57  3.38  Females. (S2)  3.79  2.50  1.92  4.64  *  an  •  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  2.82  1.76  2.42  3.72  2.25  3.14  *  *  *  Problem 11: Problems of sexual adjustment.  MALE HELPER (G1)  FEMALE HELPER (G2)  Friend (LI)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Friend (LI)  Parent (L2)  School Personnel (L3)  Marginal  Males (S1)  2.18  2.22  1.44  2.66  2.09  1.57  2.03  Females (S2)  2.89  1.70  1.34  3.96  2.78  1.75  2.40  *  *  *  *  S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e level = .39 * p = .01 n = 181 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison Procedures ( K i r k , 1968)  The X ing  r e a d e r w i l l n o t e t h a t of s i x t y - s i x c o m p a r i s o n s ( e l e v e n  six helpers), to  be  likely  forty-three to  problems  r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h females  disclose significantly Only  on  problem  more 11,  in  forty-two  problems  reportof  forty-three  situations.  of  adjustment,  d o male s t u d e n t s r e p o r t t h a t t h e y a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the  sexual more  103 likely  to  disclose  fathers.  their  fathers  than  female  A l s o o f n o t e is t h a t females r e p o r t  significantly and  to  more^ t h a n  males  to  the  students  to  their  l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c l o s u r e  helpers  closest  female  friend  m o t h e r o n a\[ e l e v e n p r o b l e m s . For  limited  the  purposes  use in the  of  this  study  l i g h t of t h e  and  literature,  b e c a u s e it this  w o u l d , be  of  researcher proposes  n o t to a r t i c u l a t e , at t h i s t i m e , a n y more o f t h e s p e c i f i c r e s u l t s  from  Table 23.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION AND Research Question 5:  Two  statistical  above question: linity  and  males,  How d o e s a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e on Bern's measure of psychological s e x - r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n ( B S R I , 1978) r e l a t e to a n i n d i v i d u al's (a) s e r i o u s n e s s o f p r o b l e m t o p i c s , (b) l i k e l i h o o d of t a l k i n g a b o u t problem t o p i c s , a n d (c) c h o i c e of h e l p e r ?  approaches have (1)  and  them with identified  been  s e l e c t e d to  help  s c o r e s from the  whole  problems,  the  student  Bern i n s t r u m e n t population,  the  (2)  an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e a p p r o a c h that will c o n s i d e r X  identified  each  of  correlates  likelihood of d i s c l o s u r e on  r e p o r t e d d i s c l o s u r e l i k e l i h o o d to d i f f e r e n t  Bern g r o u p i n g s  for  and  and  between  answer  a c o r r e l a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t h a t t a k e s > raw m a s c u -  femininity  females  SELF-DISCLOSURE  problems  levels of h e l p e r s , a n d  problems;  interactions  Bern g r o u p i n g s  p r o b l e m d i s c l o s u r e ' l i k e l i h o o d to h e l p e r no o n e ; a n d  X  Bern g r o u p i n g s  X p r o b l e m d i s c l o s u r e l i k e l i h o o d to h e l p e r s b y g e n d e r a n d l o c a t i o n . It from  is p r o p o s e d t h a t most m e a s u r e s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e w i l l b e t a k e n  the  correlational  procedure  (Pearson correlation  coefficients):  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e s u m m a r y t a b l e s will be p r e s e n t e d a s will  tables  104 illustrating  rank  orderings  a n d mean s c o r e s f o r  some  t h o u g h o n l y i n t h e c a s e s of main e f f e c t s f o r i d e n t i f i e d Bern g r o u p i n g  will  attempts  be made  to  test  for  interactions, problems and  and  demonstrate  significant differences between means. Research Question 5:  Table  (a)  How d o e s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e o n Bern's measure of psychological sex-role orientation (BSRI, 1978) r e l a t e to a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e r i o u s n e s s of problem topics?  24 e x p r e s s e s P e a r s o n p r o d u c t - m o m e n t  between  the  BSRI  masculinity  and  correlation  femininity  scores  females a n d all s t u d e n t s times e l e v e n i d e n t i f i e d p r o b l e m s .  coefficients for  males,  Identified  p r o b l e m s a r e t h e same l i s t o f e l e v e n p r o b l e m s t h a t h a v e b e e n u s e d throughout  this  study.  (Refer  to  the  Appendix,  r e a d e r will r e m e m b e r t h a t s t u d e n t s w e r e a s k e d , each of the following a problem for y o u ? "  Part  I.)  The  " T o what extent  is  105 TABLE 24 Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between BSRI M a s c u l i n i t y and F e m i n i n i t y S c o r e s f o r M a l e , Female and A l l S t u d e n t s For E l e v e n I d e n t i f i e d Problems  MALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern. .  •IP  3  I P  4  I P  5  I P  6  I P  7  I P  8  IP  -.13  -.17  .02  .04  -.00  .01  -.15  -.06  -.06  .06  _29**  -.17  -.13  .13  -.11  .00  -.11  -.27*  -.11  -.08  -.05  -.16  -.06  .05  -.02  .11  .02  .06  .05  -.32*  -.01  .14  .05  -.06  -.04  -.09  .05  .08  -.11  .00  -.01  -.13  .02  .14  .01  .02  -.01  -.16  .12  .09  -.03  -.03  .09  -.09  -.07  -.08  .03  -.13  •11  -.12  .13  -.18  .07  -.17*  .13  -.24  -.09  .05  -.04  -.06  correlations  within  2  I P  9  I P  10  I P  11  Sum IP  * p < .01 * * p < .001 Though close  MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  FEMALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  -.18*  -.07  n = 181 there  are  inspection  reveal any femininity  a  of  important  few it  significant  does  not  pattern(s).  correlate significantly  IP) f o r a n y  group.  suggest  any  unique  this  table.  discovery  or  N o r do s c o r e s o n m a s c u l i n i t y  or  with total i d e n t i f i e d  problems  (Sum  106 A n o t h e r a p p r o a c h to a n s w e r i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n is b y a n a n a l y s i s of  variance  (Bern,  procedure.  1976),  femininity  were  scores  androgynous  students,  categorized into  and  All  four  by  according  Bern  a  to  median-split their  groupings:  undifferentiated.  masculinity  masculine,  Specifically,  method  a  and  feminine,  person  typed  m a s c u l i n e s c o r e d a b o v e t h e median on t h e m a s c u l i n e s c a l e ( 9 6 . 0 0 , the  present  (94.67,  in  study) the  and  present  below  the  median  on  a  person  typed  study);  the  feminine feminine  in  scale scored  a b o v e t h e median on t h e f e m i n i n e s c a l e a n d below t h e m e d i a n on  the  masculine  the  scale;  a  person  m e d i a n on b o t h s c a l e s ;  typed  androgynous  and a person typed  below t h e median on b o t h s c a l e s .  scored  above  undifferentiated  T a b l e 25 d i s p l a y s t h e  scored  distribution  o f s t u d e n t s , i n t h i s s t u d y , a c c o r d i n g to s e x a n d Bern g r o u p i n g s .  TABLE 25 Distribution of Students According to Sex and Bern Grouping Count Row Percentage Column Percentage Total Percentage Group  Though  Male  Female  Masculine  31 75.6 39.2 17.1  10 24.4 9.8 5.5  41 22.7  Feminine  2 5.1 2.5 1.1  37 94.9 36.3 20.4  39 21.5  Androgynous  17 32.7 21.5 9.4  35 67.3 34.3 19.3  52 28.7  Undifferentiated  29 59.2 36.7 16.0  20 40.8 19.6 11.0  . 49 27.1  Column Total  79 43.6  102 56.4  181 100.0  there  is a f a i r l y  each of the four  each of the s e x e s .  males,  only  two fall  into  of the thirty-nine  and thirty-seven  equal  distribution  o f total  students  into  Bern g r o u p i n g s , t h e r e i s n o t a s m u c h o f a b a l a n c e  within  way,  Row Total  Most  striking  the category  is that  of  of feminine.  individuals grouped feminine,  a r e female.  seventy-nine Put another t w o a r e male  Bern's 1975 sample o f S t a n f o r d  g r a d u a t e s ( T a b l e 3) i s m u c h more e v e n i n i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n .  under-  108 T a b l e 26 p r e s e n t s a n a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r i d e n t i f i e d lems  X Bern g r o u p i n g  that  this  of student.  is a n a n a l y s i s  analyses of variance were female s t u d e n t  T h e reader  of variance  n e e d s to b e a w a r e  for all students.  not performed  prob-  Separate  f o r e a c h o f t h e male a n d  population.  TABLE 26 Summary Table - Identified Problems and Bern Grouping of Student - Analysis of Variance  Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  Mean Bern Error  5,726.72 9.93 536.03  1 3 177  Problem Problem X Bern Error  240.95 36.43 1,312.96  10 30 1,770  Source  F  Tail Probability  5,726.72 3.31 3.03  1,890.99 1.09  .0000 .3534  24.10 1.21 .74  32.48 1.64  .0000 .0164  n = 181 Bern  grouping  is  not significant  (tail  identified  p r o b l e m X Bern g r o u p i n g  however,  problem is significant,  probability  (tail p r o b a b i l i t y  problems  a r e s e e n to b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  than  others.  Table  mean  scores appear  done earlier differently.)  in this  27 p r e s e n t s  rank  more  order,  levels between identified in T a b l e chapter  5.  (This  n o r is  .0164) ( P . 0 1 ) ;  meaning that s t u d e n t s  some  significant difference  .3534)  report  that  s e r i o u s f o r them mean  problems.  analysis could  had research question  scores a n d T h e same have  2 been  been  worded  109 TABLE 27 Rank Order, Mean Scores and S i g n i f i c a n c e Difference Levels Between I d e n t i f i e d Problems  *  4  2.33  1  2.14  3  1.96  2  1.89  5  1.81  10  1.80  7  1.66  8  1.39  9  1.35  11  1.28  6  1.22  1  3  2  5  1  0  7  S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e l e v e l = .34 * p = .01 From Dunn's M u l t i p l e Comparison Procedure ( K i r k , 1968)  Students, lem 4 ,  the  r e g a r d l e s s of Bern g r o u p i n g , future:  c h o i c e of  8  9  n = 181  report that identified  occupation a n d / o r  further  prob-  study,  is  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a p r o b l e m f o r them t h a n p r o b l e m s 3 , 2 , 5 , 1 0 , 7 , 8,  9,  11  and  6.  Of  course,  the  reader  should  consider  p r o b l e m t o p i c s in b r a c k e t s below t h e a s t e r i s k as b e i n g be  significantly  lem t o p i c .  less serious for  those  reported  students than the headlining  to  prob-  110 Research Question 5:  As  in  the  answering  (b)  of  part  How d o e s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e o n Bern's measure of psychological sex-role orientation (BSRI, 1978) r e l a t e to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i k e l i h o o d o f talking about problem topics? (a)  of  this  question,  a  correlational  a p p r o a c h w i l l be p u r s u e d f i r s t ( t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h Bern m a s c u l i n i t y and  femininity  sure),  followed  scores correlate by  with  an a n a l y s i s of  likelihood  of  problem  v a r i a n c e to c o n s i d e r t h e  action between likelihood of problem d i s c l o s u r e and T a b l e 28 o f f e r s c o r r e l a t i o n s as l a b e l l e d .  disclointer-  Bern g r o u p i n g .  111 TABLE 28 Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s Between BSRI M a s c u l i n i t y and F e m i n i n i t y S c o r e s f o r M a l e , Female and A l l S t u d e n t s X L i k e l i h o o d o f Problem D i s c l o s u r e  MALE STUDENTS Ma s c . Fern.  p  l  P  2  P  3  P  4  P  5  P  6  P  7  P  8  P  9  P  10  P  ll  Sum P  .21  -.07  .13  -.04  .32**  .02  .18  -.01  .20  -.07  .32**  .13  .19  .02  .20  .00  .30**  .17  .20  .19  .21  .10  .34**  .20  .28*  .08  .18  .05  .37**  .09  .21  .18  .25*  .05  .36**  .18  .17  .19  .18  .13  . 26**  .05  .17  .22  .19  .09  . 27**  .12  .15  .13  .10  .08  .21*  .15  .32*  .23  .26*  .11  .40**  .10  .21  .12  .05  .06  .22*  .15  .25  .14  .23  .06  .37**  n = 181  o b v i o u s is  significant student eleven  MALE AND. FEMALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  .15  * p < .01 * * . p < .001 Most  FEMALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  the  correlations  population, problems  between  and  (including  hood)).  Only  the  probability  .001  very strong  two  and  consistent trend  femininity  reported  likelihood  Sum P (total  correlations  within  l e v e l , femininity  scores , of  problem  this  of positive  within  the  disclosure  on  disclosure  grouping  and problem 9,  do  total  not  problems  all  likelireach with  112 morals  and  religion  sexual adjustment.  and  femininity  They,  and  however,  problem  reach the  and are positively correlated with femininity cant correlations ninity  a p p e a r s to  h o o d of group, the  in T a b l e 2 8 . correlate  and  BSRI very  d i s c l o s u r e on a l l e l e v e n p r o b l e m s f o r a n d less s t r o n g l y  .01  problems  probability  as a r e all o t h e r  In s u m , t h e  positively  11,  students  level  signifi-  measure of  highly  of  with  femilikeli-  as a whole  f o r a few s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s w i t h i n e a c h of  male a n d female p o p u l a t i o n s .  a p p e a r s n o t to c o r r e l a t e  T h e BSRI measure of  significantly  masculinity  in a n y way w i t h l i k e l i h o o d  of  problem d i s c l o s u r e . Another  approach  to  answering  research question  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e as s h o w n in T a b l e 2 9 . population  has been categorized into four  trated earlier lem X  location  in T a b l e 2 5 . of helper  X  5(b)  Here the whole  student illus-  F a c t o r s b e c o m e : Bern g r o u p i n g  X  prob-  gender  problem,  helper.  Levels of  l o c a t i o n o f h e l p e r a n d g e n d e r o f h e l p e r remain t h e same as t h a t T a b l e 7 , as d o e s t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s a r e a s k e d , would  you  problems?"  be  to  talk  to  by  as  of  Bern g r o u p i n g s  is  '  about  each  of  "How  the  for  likely  following  113 TABLE 29 Summary Table - Problem, Bern Crouping of.Student, and Cender and Location of Helper - Analysis of Variance  Tail Probability  Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  118,569.59 1,327.07 8,730.46  1 3 177  118,569.59 442.36 49.32  2,403.86 8.97  .0000 .0000  Location Location X Bern Error  4,334.61 247.81 5,913.71  2 6 354  2,167.30 41.30 16.71  129.74 2.47  .0000 .0235  Cender Cender X Bern Error  911.06 114.77 1,862.59  1 3 177  911.06 38.26 10.52  86.58 3.64  .0000 .0140  Location X Cender Location X Cender X Bern Error  91.29 48.55 2,571.48  2 6 354  45.64 8.09 7.26  6.28 1.11  .0021 .3536  Problem Problem X Bern Error  4,054.82 155.83 4,893.42  10 30 1,770  405.48 5.19 2.76  146.67 1.88  .0000 .0028  Location X Problem Location X Problem X Bern Error  1,041.62 133.35 4,855.29  20 60 3,540  52.08 2.22 1.37  37.97 1.62  .0000 .0019  Cender X Problem Cender X Problem X Bern Error  56.15 46.91 1,749.12  10 30 1,770  5.61 1.56 .99  5.68 1.58  .0000 .0237  46.26  20  2.31  2.66  .0001  92.09 3,081.68  60 3,540  1.53 .87  1.76  .0003  Source  Mean Bern Error  Location X Cender X Problem Location X Cender X Problem X Bern Error  F  n = 181  *  Once  again,  BSRI  relates  question to  that  T a b l e 29 i n d i c a t e s t h a t  5(b)  asks  individual's  how  an  individual's  likelihood  Bern g r o u p i n g  of  score  problem  is s i g n i f i c a n t  (tail  on  the  disclosure. probability  114 .0000);  problem  grouping  X  is  problem  significant  (tail  is s i g n i f i c a n t  probability (tail  .0000);  probability  a n d Bern  .0028).  Mean  Bern g r o u p i n g d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e s summed o v e r a l l p r o b l e m s to a l l s i x helpers a r e p r e s e n t e d in the r i g h t hand marginal of T a b l e 30.  TABLE 30 Mean Disclosure Scores to Male and Female Helpers For Students Grouped by the BSRI Male Helpers (Gl)  Female Helpers (G2)  Marginal  Masculine  2.73  3.05  2.89  Feminine  3.03  3.85  3.44  Androgynous  3.21  3.90  3.55  Undifferentiated  2.61  3.00  2.81  Marginal  2.90  3.45  n = 181 Dunn's Multiple  Comparison Procedure ( K i r k ,  1968) s u g g e s t s a . 2 9  d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e r e to b e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n means at the  .01  level.  androgynous  Consequently,  a n d feminine  it  appears  are significantly  that  subjects  more  likely  grouped  to d i s c l o s e  o n a l l p r o b l e m s to a l l h e l p e r s t h a n t h o s e t y p e d m a s c u l i n e o r u n d i f ferentiated.  Subjects typed  a n d r o g y n o u s a n d feminine  seem to be  similar in the way they r e p o r t likelihood of d i s c l o s u r e as is the case for those typed masculine and undifferentiated.  115 As in  in the c a s e o f t h e a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d  Table  between  29  is  significant.  likelihood  of  Analysis  of  in T a b l e 7 ,  significant  problem d i s c l o s u r e remains the  problem  differences  same a s  that  presented in T a b l e 9. Significant interaction exists though  b e t w e e n Bern g r o u p i n g  in k e e p i n g with p r e v i o u s  regarding  signifi-  c a n t p r o b l e m X o t h e r v a r i a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s , a n a n a l y s i s o f it  (eleven  levels of problem X four  l e v e l s of Bern g r o u p i n g )  be i m p o r t a n t o r p a r t i c u l a r l y Research Question 5:  Again,  there  question, approach.  a  (c)  a r e two  rationale  and problem also  u s e f u l at t h i s  d o e s not seem to  time.  How d o e s a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e on Bern's measure of psychological sex-role orientation (BSRI, 1978) r e l a t e to a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s c h o i c e of helper?  a p p r o a c h e s t h a t c a n be u s e d to a n s w e r  correlational  approach,  and  an  analysis  of  T a b l e 31 m a k e s a v a i l a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s  the  BSRI  masculinity  all  students  X  all  and femininity the  different  scores for ways  to  variance between  males, females  consider  g e n d e r , b y l o c a t i o n , o r s p e c i f i c a l l y b y who t h e y a r e .  this  helpers:  and by  116 TABLE 31 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Between BSRI Masculinity and Femininity Scores for Males, Females and All Students to Helper No One, And All Combinations of Helpers  MALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  FEMALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS Masc. Fern.  Male Helper (Gl)  .10  .17  .10  .21  .07  .22*  Female Helper (G2)  .18  .30*  .16  .20  .04  .45**  Friend (LI)  .12  .35**  .14  .25*  .03  .45**  Parent (L2)  .13  .13  .05  .12  .04  .20*  School Personnel (L3)  .11  .13  .13  .13  .07  . 22*  -.05  .14  .11  .27*  Female Friend  .04  .05  .10  Father  .11  .07  Mother  .25  School Personnel (Male)  .19  School Personnel (Female)  .10  Male Friend  No One . * p < .01  -.10  -.01  .28**  .14  .00  .24**  .15  .10  •11  .11  .14  .16  .06  .50**  .19  -.03  .07  .08  .10  .18  .10  .13  .02  .29**  -.27*  .06  -.01  .03  .23**  ** P < .001  n = 181  117 As  with  scores cant two  the  and  correlations topic  correlations  between  disclosure in  BSRI  masculinity  (represented  T a b l e 31 a r e w i t h  and  in T a b l e 2 8 ) ,  femininity  femininity all  scores.  signifiAll  but  ( f e m i n i n i t y in t o t a l s t u d e n t s to h e l p e r no one a n d f e m i n i n i t y  males to h e l p e r no o n e ) a r e p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s . the  banner,  few  notable  helper,  male a n d female s t u d e n t s exceptions:  friend  and mother,  friend  and  male  lations  to  helper  question  femininity  friend.  was n o t  no how  one  male  and femininity  It  is  are  likely  negative  in  you  students  in  appropriate  would  Most occur under  ( t h a t is all s t u d e n t s )  in  with a  with  female  female s t u d e n t s  that that  in  significant to  be o p e n ,  this but  l i k e l y w o u l d y o u be to be c l o s e d o r k e e p to y o u r s e l f .  with  corre-  target rather,  the how  A s explained  e a r l i e r , d i s c l o s u r e to no one was s c o r e d in r e v e r s e to t h e o t h e r  six  helpers. The  other  way  analysis of v a r i a n c e . Bern g r o u p i n g ,  looking  at  this  question  is  of  course  by  T a b l e 29 s u g g e s t s s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s  for  p r o b l e m , l o c a t i o n , a n d g e n d e r , a n d as w e l l ,  cant lower o r d e r grouping;  of  interactions for  location X g e n d e r ;  signifi-  p r o b l e m X Bern  location X p r o b l e m ; and g e n d e r X p r o b l e m .  A l l of these  main e f f e c t s a n d l o w e r o r d e r i n t e r a c t i o n s h a v e b e e n a n a l y z e d a n d / o r d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r in t h i s Though  chapter.  interactions  for  gender  of  helper  X  Bern  grouping;  l o c a t i o n of h e l p e r X Bern g r o u p i n g ; a n d l o c a t i o n o f h e l p e r X g e n d e r of  helper  X  Bern g r o u p i n g  did  not  r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e in T a b l e 2 9 ,  c e l l means f o r t h e s e a r e p r e s e n t e d , f o r t h e T a b l e s 3 0 , 32 a n d 3 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .  reader's information,  T a b l e s 32 a n d 33 f o l l o w :  in  118  TABLE 32 Mean Disclosure Scores to Helpers by Location For Students Grouped by the BSRI Friends (LI)  Parents (L2)  School Personnel (L3) .  Marginal  Masculine  3.29  3.30  2.08  2.89  Feminine  4.26  3.64  2.42  3.44  Androgynous  4.28  .3.67  2.71  3.55  Undifferentiated  3.21  3.06  2.15  2.81  Marginal  3.76  3.42  2.35  n = 181  119 TABLE 33 Mean Disclosure Scores to Helper by Cender X Helper by Location For Students Grouped by the BSRI  CIosest Male Friend (C1,L1)  Closest Female Friend (G2,L1)  Father Mother (G1.L2) (G2,L2)  School Personnel (Male) (G1.L3)  School Personnel (Fema1e) (C2,L3)  Marginal  Masculine  2.98  3.60  3.14  3.45  2.06  2.11  2.89  Feminine  3.80  4.72  3.25  4.04  2.06  2.77  3.44  Androgynous  3.78  4.79  3.31  4.03  2.54  2.87  3.55  Undifferentiated  3.04  3.39  2.72  3.40  2.07  2.27  2.81  Marginal  3.40  4.12  3.10  3.73  2.20  2.50  3.18  n = 181  The  model a b o v e , o f c o u r s e , d o e s not c o n s i d e r d i s c l o s u r e l i k e l i h o o d  to h e l p e r , no o n e . main  effect  grouping  for  and  F o r no o n e . T a b l e 34 i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r  Bern  problem  significant  and  cell  differences  between  grouping reach means  problem  p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 22.  nor  the  significance. and topics  interaction Problem,  interpretation is  the  between  same as  the Bern  however,  of that  is  significant which  is  120  TABLE 34 Summary Table - Problem and Bern Grouping of Student Analysis of Variance For Helper, No One  Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  19,650. 70 62. 62 3,837. 48  1 3 177  377. 12 75. 91 3,210. 91  10 30 1,770  Source Mean Bern Error Problem Problem X Bern Error  F  Tail Probability  19,650. 70 20. 87 21. 68  906.,37 ,96  .0000 .4116  37. 71 2. 53 1. 81  20.,79 1.,39  .0000 .0761  n = 181 Left  to c o n s i d e r  interactions: location  from  location  of helper  student  interaction interactions, not  X  29 a r e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  of helper  X problem  X gender, of helper  As with the argument of  Table  regarding  problem  reviewed pursuit  be particularly  X  earlier,  of  X problem  X Bern  grouping.  of the significant sex  helper  X gender  it c a n be a r g u e d  here  that  of  at  this  time.  Rather,  what  helper  for these  of significance testing and interpretation useful  order  X Bern g r o u p i n g , a n d  interpretation  location  higher  is  would more  important is that t h e reader appreciates t h e complexity of c o n d i t i o n ally  for disclosure  Inventory.  for students  grouped  b y t h e Bern  Sex-Role  CHAPTER  DISCUSSION,  V  LIMITATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS  DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The broadly,  d i s c u s s i o n of into  Disclosure,  three  and  results  themes  (c)  the  not  research questions  be  repeated.  those  findings  most  important.  A.  Identified 1.  this  study  are  Identified  organized  Problems,  Sex-Role  first,  (b)  Self-  X  Self-  Orientation  t h e s e t h e m e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e s p e c i f i c s listed  earlier. of  Research questions  results  will  be  limited  r e s e a r c h e r c o n s i d e r s most  will  to  only  interesting  and  Problems  Identified The  (a)  Interpretation  that  this  Psychological  Disclosure, and then within of  of  Problems  factor  that,  identified  r e g a r d l e s s of  p r o b l e m s was s i g n i f i c a n t sex of  student,  suggesting  some p r o b l e m s  were  r e p o r t e d to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s t h a n o t h e r s . one  might  have  expected,  problem  choice of occupation a n d / o r f u r t h e r  four,  the  As  future:  s t u d y was reported  to  b e of g r e a t e s t c o n c e r n f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y b y p r o b l e m s to d o with more  s c h o o l , money intimate  reported would future,  be  to  in  and  work.  nature  the  be of c o n c e r n . most  school,  concerned work  and  Generally problem,  That with  grade topics  money  the  speaking, less  eleven to  makes  do  it  was  students with  sense,  c o n c u r s with the f i n d i n g s of LaFromboise (1978).  the  the and  122 2.  Sex of S t u d e n t The  factor  sex  of  student  suggesting, by group, to  have  found  more  that  females,  though  not  reach  significance  n e i t h e r males n o r females  problems  males  did  than  reported Snyder,  the to  Hill  other.  have and  reported  Hartman  (1968)  more  problems  Derksen  (1972)  than found  no d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e x e s . 3.  I d e n t i f i e d P r o b l e m s X S e x of S t u d e n t The identified significant  p r o b l e m s X s e x of s t u d e n t  with  males  reporting  to  be  c o n c e r n e d with problems one and t w o , matters,  and  troubled  than  feelings  females  and  reporting  males  with  emotions.  t h o s e o f H a r t m a n (1968)  to  These  significantly  was more  both school related  be  problem  interaction  significantly ten,  results  a n d may r e f l e c t  more  uncomfortable  roughly  parallel  societal s e x - r o l e  stereotypes. Self-Disclosure What  follows  interacting problem, tional  is  a  consideration  of  some  behaviors of the following  gender  results  of  helper,  between  and  of  factors:  location  s e r i o u s n e s s of  of  the  single  sex of helper.  identified  and  student, Correla-  problems  and  l i k e l i h o o d of d i s c l o s u r e on t h e s e same p r o b l e m s a r e i n c l u d e d i n item  four.  1.  Sex of,Student A s w i t h most o f t h e discloser  in  this  literature  study  and as a n t i c i p a t e d ,  was f o u n d  to  s e x of  be s i g n i f i c a n t  with  123 females  reporting  a  significantly  higher  total  disclosure  l i k e l i h o o d t h a n males.; Problem A s w i t h s e x o f s t u d e n t a n d as m i g h t h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d , problem  was  reporting disclose four,  that on  the  study  also  work.  they  to  problems  future:  choice  ranked  by  topics  be  were  some  was  followed  found  most  significant  significantly than of  others.  likely  to  be  subjects  more  likely  Problem  occupation  to d o w i t h  with  and/or disclosed  school r o u t i n e ,  topic  further upon,  money  T h e s e r e s u l t s follow t r e n d s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e  individuals  report  to  d i s c l o s e more  n a t u r e a n d l e s s a b o u t more intimate  about  topics  to  and  where of  this  topics.  Sex of S t u d e n t X Problem Unlike  what  literature, this  has the  been  sex  of  study  did  not  continued,  one  might  (e.g.,  amination  of  consistent  student  have  X  trend  problem  significance. observed  five  data  through  from  this  Had  males  the  the  does  to  intimate  Close not  in  trend  reporting  eleven).  study  in  interaction  l e s s t h a n females c o n c e r n i n g  topics the  fairly  reach  disclose significantly topics  a  ex-  reveal  such a pattern. Identified Problems X Problems Unlike  what  significant any  of  the  this  researcher  positive sample  Pearson  might  have  correlations  populations  between  expected,  were  no  evident  in  seriousness  of  124 identified  problems  and  likelihood  of  d i s c l o s u r e on  these  same p r o b l e m s . G e n d e r of H e l p e r As  e x p e c t e d , a n d in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e  literature,  of  helper  with  porting  was to  found  be  to  be s i g n i f i c a n t  significantly  more  likely  gender  subjects  to  re-  disclose  to  female h e l p e r s t h a n to male h e l p e r s . L o c a t i o n of H e l p e r Location friends cantly with  of and  more  helper  was  parents  being  than  found  to  be  preferred  as  school p e r s o n n e l .  suggestions  made  by  significant helpers  with  signifi-  These results  Jourard  (1971),  agree  results  of  r e l a t e d s t u d i e s , a n d what one m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d , g i v e n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e of s t u d e n t s at t h i s a g e . S e x o f S t u d e n t X G e n d e r of H e l p e r Results  of  this  interaction  indicate  a preference  on  the  p a r t o f b o t h male a n d female s t u d e n t s f o r female h e l p e r s , though  f o r males t h e p r e f e r e n c e is o n l y m a r g i n a l a n d  significant.  Given  this  surprising,  is  not  discloser  X  the  gender  of  strong  gender  though helper  no  of  helper  significant  interaction  not  effect, sex  of  in  the  exists  literature. G e n d e r o f H e l p e r X L o c a t i o n of H e l p e r When s e x of s t u d e n t a n d p r o b l e m a r e summed o v e r , of helper preference for friend,  mother,  sonnel  (female),  s t u d e n t s b e c o m e s : c l o s e s t female  c l o s e s t male f r i e n d , and  order  school  father,  personnel  school  (male).  perThese  125 results  fit  with  what  blends  preference  one m i g h t  for  female  have expected when  helpers  with  location  one pref-  e r e n c e s f o r s t u d e n t s at t h i s a g e . 9.  S e x of S t u d e n t X S e v e n H e l p e r s When h e l p e r location  of  no o n e is a d d e d to t h e g e n d e r o f h e l p e r helper  first choice for choice  no one  becomes a n  astounding  m a l e s , f i f t h c h o i c e f o r females a n d  overall.  accurate)  model,  What  is t h a t keep  is  this  group  interesting of  themselves  males and  (and  reports  that  they  no  one;  to  rather  t h a n d i s c l o s e to a n y o f t h e o t h e r h e l p e r s . b e c a u s e c e l l means f o r  disclose  fourth perhaps  prefer  tunately,  to  most  X  to  Unfor-  no one h a v e b e e n a d d e d  to t h e g e n d e r of h e l p e r X l o c a t i o n of h e l p e r m o d e l , l e v e l s have  not  between  been  established  targets.  The  for  above  significant represents  differences only  a  rank  ordering. 10.  S e x o f S t u d e n t X P r o b l e m X C e n d e r of H e l p e r X of H e l p e r Results  of  significant more  this  interaction  w i t h females r e p o r t i n g  than  males  situations.  Only  lems o f they  in  forty-two  in one c a s e ,  sexual adjustment,  are  have  significantly  more  proved  to  to d i s c l o s e  out on  of  plexity  results of this  of conditionality  for  sort  highly  significantly possible  problem e l e v e n ,  to  prob-  report  disclose  f a t h e r s t h a n female s t u d e n t s to t h e i r f a t h e r s . these findings,  be  sixty-six  d o male s t u d e n t s likely  Location  to  that their  Apart  from  indicate a high  com-  d i s c l o s u r e , and lend  support  126 to some o f t h e r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e  that encourages a multi-  d i m e n s i o n a l a p p r o a c h to t h e s t u d y of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Psychological Sex-Role Orientation and Self-Disclosure 1.  Correlation of BSRI Masculinity and With L i k e l i h o o d of P r o b l e m D i s c l o s u r e Unlike  the  results  disclosure scores, were  in  men  in this  related  disclosure  of was  study,  to  Bern  (1977)  positively  where  related  all s i g n i f i c a n t  femininity  scores,  in t h e a l l - s t u d e n t  Femininity  total  self-  to  masculinity  positive  correlations  including  group.  Scores  The  total  self-  r e s u l t s of  s t u d y a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a s s u m p t i o n s of r o l e  this  theory,  t h a t i s , t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w o u l d be a l i g n e d w i t h s c o r e s that  reflect  feminine  principles  rather  than  masculine  principles. 2.  Bern G r o u p i n g of S t u d e n t In t h e  four-factor  student helper, tern  X  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e :  problem  X  Bern g r o u p i n g  where  subjects  gender was  of  Even  associated terms),  with  it m i g h t  undifferentiated cantly  less  than  the  Bern  and  a  of of pat-  feminine  reported  likelihood  those t y p e d  masculine  though  t u r e is i n c o n c l u s i v e on t h i s c o u n t ,  location  suggesting  they  of d i s c l o s u r e , a s w a s t h e c a s e f o r undifferentiated.  X  androgynous  seemed to be s i m i l a r i n t h e w a y  and  helper  significant  typed  Bern g r o u p i n g  the  research  litera-  given the assumptions  groupings  (see  definition  of  have been anticipated that masculine and types  would  those typed  report feminine  to  disclose and  signifi-  androgynous.  127 Apart  from  that,  and  perhaps  equally  important  is  that  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  of s t u d e n t s in t h i s s t u d y b y s e x i n t o Bern  groupings  not  was  equal,  with  the  falling  into  the  groups  feminine  males,  into  the  groups  masculine  Females,  of  course,  had  earlier  majority  and  of  females  androgynous  and  and  undifferentiated.  reported  a  significantly  h i g h e r total d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e than males. C o r r e l a t i o n , of BSRI M a s c u l i n i t y With C h o i c e o f H e l p e r s As  with correlations  ninity  scores  and  correlations  topic  here  are  Strongest  are  population  between  helpers:  male  between  the  BSRI  related  helper,  personnel  significant helper,  no  correlations one.  in  and  Because  of  all-student the  following parent,  mother, any  femininity the  scores.  friend,  female f r i e n d ,  femi-  significant  the  helper,  with  and  all  Appropriately,  are  Scores  femininity  scores  female  (female).  again  to  correlations femininity  Femininity  masculinity  disclosure,  s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l , male f r i e n d , school  and  and  negative  scores  strength  of  and these  f i n d i n g s , a n d b e c a u s e t h e r e is n o t h i n g in the l i t e r a t u r e link  masculinity or femininity  scores with reported  o f t a r g e t s , it i s f e l t t h a t t h e s e a r e i m p o r t a n t  to  choice  results.  Bern G r o u p i n g X P r o b l e m X G e n d e r o f H e l p e r X of H e l p e r  Location  A s with the sex of s t u d e n t X problem X g e n d e r of helper X  location  significant  of  helper  interaction.  interaction, Even  so  without  was  this  a  interpreting  highly the  128 intricacies  of  this  interaction,  the  fact  that  important,  a n d no s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s e x i s t i n t h e  LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR F U T U R E A.  it  exists  is  literature.  RESEARCH  Limitations T h e most o b v i o u s l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e , o f c o u r s e , measurement tant,  all  instruments  three  themselves.  measurement  First,  instruments  and  are  most  the  impor-  self-report  in  n a t u r e a n d in b e i n g so h a v e q u e s t i o n a b l e p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y we d o not  know  behavior. author  to w h a t e x t e n t  Secondly,  are  new  the  and  r e s u l t s f r o m them  two  instruments  untested  other  reflect  created  than  their  this  in  this  use  Though they  a p p e a r to h a v e p e r f o r m e d  well, and  results  produced  generally  the  and  what  needs  makes  to  (1978),  be if  sense,  conducted  one  wants  the  BSRI  orientation,  more on a  is  consistent reliability  and  In  the  measure  of  psychological  probably  the  terms  students) broad  in  of one  best  one  class  center  not  enough  generalizations  Otherwise, satisfactory.  data  about  collection  data  of  the  be  BSRI  sex-role  instrument  grade to  testing  of  III).  elevens  (181 make  this  age.  analysis procedures  were  behavior  able  its  to  students'  and  of  (see C h a p t e r  sampling, is  case  the  literature  validity  them.  k i n d a v a i l a b l e , i n s p i t e of i t s l i m i t a t i o n s In  with  real  by  study.  are  -  at  Recommendations for Future Research C o n s i d e r a t i o n of the r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e ,  a n d e x a m i n a t i o n of  r e s u l t s from this s t u d y stimulate the following  ideas for  the  future  research: 1.  C o m b i n e some b e h a v i o r a l m e a s u r e s o f the  self-report  actual  problem  measures a r e a s of  from grade  s t u d e n t s c h o o s e as h e l p e r s . appear their  to  be most  parents,  brought  to  likely  self-disclosure with  this  study  eleven  students  to  d i s c l o s e to  counseling  their  of t r a i n e d  parent  to m o n i t o r  groups  volunteers  2.  would  be  counseling  group.  who  where  mothers  of  and  problems  one  or  two  Similarly, a  may a c t as o b s e r v e r s  and monitor actual problems b r o u g h t observers  and  peers  s t u d e n t v o l u n t e e r s act as t r a i n e d o b s e r v e r s . group  determine  B e c a u s e s t u d e n t s at t h i s a g e  it may be a p p r o p r i a t e  peer  to  home.  Ideally,  students  in  these  the  peer  T o i n c r e a s e the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h e r e s u l t s of a s t u d y like  this,  get  a  larger  grade eleven students. grade  eleven  classes  more  representative  sample  Sampling s t u d e n t s from from  different  communities  of  different in  the  Lower Mainland would achieve this e n d . 3.  To refine  both  instruments, This,  the  factor  in t u r n ,  identified analyze  problem and self-disclosure the  eleven  problem  topics.  could improve the w o r d i n g , o r d e r i n g ,  and  g r o u p i n g of p r o b l e m t o p i c s . 4.  To fit  with a very  problem  topics  important  a c c o r d i n g to  part of the intimacy  and  literature,  scale  valence levels.  130 As  well,  in  a  sized factors ageable  and  multi-factor  for  a n a l y s i s of  variance,  smaller  i n t i m a c y a n d v a l e n c e may be more m a n -  meaningful  than  the  one e l e v e n - l e v e l  factor  for problems that exists. 5.  To  compliment  the  literature,  particularly  Lombardo  and  Lavine (1977), c r o s s factors for sex of subject X a n d r o g yny  l e v e l o f s u b j e c t a n d a d d them to t h e e x i s t i n g p s y c h o -  logical  sex-role  orientation  X  produce a 2 x 2 x 1 1 x 2 x 3 yield  a  sex  problem By  of  subject  X  this,  disclosure  is  orientation  than  one c o u l d  more  a  factor  model.  androgyny  X g e n d e r of helper  doing  self-disclosure  level  design This  of  to  would  subject  X  X l o c a t i o n of h e l p e r d e s i g n .  test  function  the of  biological gender  contention  that  psychological (Lombardo  self-  sex-role  and  Lavine,  1977). 6.  Continue  research  femininity  scores  likelihood  of  that with  problem  correlates measures  disclosure,  BSRI of  masculinity  identified  and  choice  T h e s e r e s u l t s h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l of b e i n g v e r y  and  problems, of  helper.  fruitful.  IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Of  the  results  important for  generated  the  by  this  study,  research community,  two  stand  out  as  being  and a t h i r d has significance  f o r t h o s e w o r k i n g w i t h s t u d e n t s at t h e g r a d e e l e v e n l e v e l . A.  In t e r m s of r e s e a r c h , it is h i g h l y n o t a b l e t h a t b o t h analyses of variance interactions  four-factor  were s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e i r  most  131 complex  levels.  A g a i n , this  suggests that future  research  t h i s a r e a s h o u l d be of a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l n a t u r e .  B.  factors.  Results  BSRI  scores and choice  of  the  correlation  between  the  problem d i s c l o s u r e , and the helper  are  very  Bern  interesting.  That  eleven  they  have  for the v a l i d i t y  oc-  of  the  c o n c e r n for those w o r k i n g in the field w i t h g r a d e  students  Generally,  is  students'  students  suggesting topic.  an  overal  the will  mother  domain  of  c h o o s e to  researcher  might  than  for  suggest  their  almost  students  any  school  peer counseling exist that  should  school  spend  personnel,  less  time  more time a s c a t a l y s t s to p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s counsel each other.  more topics  regardless  of  (thought  report  c l o s e s t female  to  targets.  o n most  is a s c h o o l r e l a t e d c o n c e r n  more  implications  personnel,  preference,  d i s c l o s e to  significantly  for  are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  school p e r s o n n e l ) ,  Obviously,  guidance  preference  c l o s e s t female f r i e n d  helper  E v e n if t h e t o p i c  be  reported  have said that they  l i k e l y to d i s c l o s e to t h e i r  they  scores and  instrument.  A n important  to  femininity  femininity  c u r r e d makes s e n s e , and lends s u p p o r t  C.  N o t to d o s o  w o u l d b e to mask i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n from  in  that  friend  or  personnel. here.  This  particularly  counseling for students  and to  132  BIBLIOGRAPHY  B a k a n , D. 1966. Bern,  T h e d u a l i t y of h u m a n e x i s t e n c e .  Chicago: Rand McNally,  S . L. T h e m e a s u r e m e n t of p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d r o g y n y . Journal 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 , 1974, 4 2 , 2 , 1 5 5 - 1 6 2 .  of  Bern, S . L. S e x - r o l e a d a p t a b i l i t y : " One consequence of psychological androgyny. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o 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 , 1975, 31, 634-643. Bern, S . L. O n t h e u t i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s f o r a s s e s s i n g psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 4 5 , 2 , 1 9 6 - 2 0 5 . Bern, S . L. Bern S e x - R o l e I n v e n t o r y . g i s t s P r e s s , 1978.  Palo A l t o :  Consulting  Psycholo-  Bern, S . L. and L e n n e y , S . S e x - t y p i n g and the avoidance of c r o s s sex behavior. J o u r n a l of P e r s o 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 , 1976, 33, 48-54. ~ B e r n , S . L . , M a r t y n a , V/. a n d W a t s o n , C . S e x - t y p i n g a n d a n d r o g y n y : Further explorations on the expressive domain. Journal P e r s o 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 , 1976, 3 4 , 5 , 1016-1023~  of "~  Block, J . H. C o n c e p t i o n s of s e x - r o l e s : Some c r o s s - c u l t u r a l a n d longitudinal perspectives. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1973, 28, 512-526. B r o o k s , L. I n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s of s e x a n d s t a t u s on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1974,^21 , 6 , 4 6 9 - 4 7 4 . Brown, W. F. E f f e c t i v e n e s s , of paraprofessionals: The P e r s o n a l a n d G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l , 1974, 5 3 , 4 , 2 5 7 - 2 6 4 . C h a i k e n , A . L. and D e r l e g a , V . J . Variables affecting the a t e n e s s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 4 2 , 5 8 8 - 5 9 3 .  appropriand Clinical  Constantinople, A . M a s c u l i n i t y - F e m i n i n i t y : an e x c e p t i o n to t h e dictum? P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1973, 8 0 , 4 , 3 8 9 - 4 0 7 . Cosby, P.C-. Self-disclosure: A B u l l e t i n , 1973, 7 9 , 2 , 73-91 .  literature  review.  C r o w n e , D. P. and Marlowe, D. The approval motive: ative dependence. New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1964.  evidence.  famous  Psychological  S t u d i e s in  evalu-  133 De F o r e s t , C . a n d S t o n e , C . L . Effects of sex a n d intimacy level on self-disclosure. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 8 0 , 2 7 , 1 , 93-96. Dimond, R. E . and H e l l k a m p , D. T . R a c e , s e x , o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n of b i r t h , a n d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e in h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . Psychological R e p o r t s , 1969, 2 5 , 235-238. Dreyfus, E. A . O p e n n e s s : A n examination of E x i s t e n t i a l i s m , 1967, 7, 309-317.  and  formulation.  Journal  Egan, C . The skilled helper: A model f o r s y s t e m a t i c h e l p i n g interpersonal relating. Monteray, California: Brooks/Cole P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , 1975. Erikson, E. Inner and outer D a e d a l u s , 1964, 9 3 , 1 - 2 5 .  space:  Reflections  on  and  womanhood.  C a u d r a u , P. F a c t o r - a n a l y s i s of t h e Bern s e x - r o l e i n v e n t o r y . Journal of 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 , 1977, 4 5 , 2 , 2 9 9 - 3 0 2 . C e l s o , C . J . and K a r l , N . J . Perceptions of " c o u n s e l o r s " a n d other h e l p g i v e r s : W h a t ' s in a label? J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 2 1 , 3 , 2 4 3 - 2 4 7 . G e r d e s , E. P . , G e h l i n g , J . D. and R a p p , J . N . T h e effects of sex a n d s e x - r o l e c o n c e p t on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . S e x - R o l e s , 1981, 7, 10, 989-998. G i l b e r t , S . and Whiteneck, G . G . Toward a multidimensional approach to t h e s t u d y of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Human C o m m u n i c a t i o n R e s e a r c h , 1976, 2 , 4 , 3 4 7 - 3 5 5 . Ginn,  R. O . Male a n d female e s t i m a t e s o f p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s o f men and women. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 2 2 , 6 , 518-522.  G r a y , D. H . and T i n d a l l , J . A . P e e r c o u n s e l l i n g : A n i n - d e p t h look training peer helpers. Accelerated Development I n c . , M u n c i e , I n d . , 1978. " Hartman, B . J . S u r v e y of college students' problems identified b y Mooney problem check list. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1968, 2 2 , 715-716. Heilbrun, A . D. Measurement of masculine and feminine s e x - r o l e i d e n t i t i e s as i n d e p e n d e n t d i m e n s i o n s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 4 4 , 2 , 1 8 3 - 1 9 0 . J o u r a r d , S. M . A g e t r e n d s in t e r l y , 1 9 6 1 , 7 , 1 9 1 - 1 9 7 . (a)  self-disclosure.  Merrill-Palmer  at ,-:  the  and  Quar"  134 J o u r a r d , S . M. Religious denomination l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1 9 6 1 , 8 , 446. ( b ) Jourard, S. M.  The transparent  Jourard, S. M. parent self.  self.  and  self-disclosure.  New Y o r k :  Psycho-  Van Nostrand,  1964.  S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : A n e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l y s i s of t h e New Y o r k : W i l e y - l n t e r s c i e n c e , 1971.  trans-  J o u r a r d , S . M. and Lasakow, P. Some f a c t o r s in self-disclosure. J o u r n a l 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 , 1958, 5 6 , 9 1 - 9 8 . K e l l y , J . A . , C a u d i l l , S . M . , Hathorn, S . and O ' B r i e n , G . C . Socially undesirable sex-correlated characteristics: A n d r o g y n y and adjustment. 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 , 1977, 4 5 , 6 , 1185-1186. K e l l y , J . A . a n d W o r e l l , J . New f o r m u l a t i o n s o f s e x r o l e s a n d androgyny: A critical review. J o u r n a l of 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 , 1977, 4 5 , 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 1 5 . Kirk,  R. E. Experimental d e s i g n : p r o c e d u r e s for the ences. B e l m o n t , C a l i f o r n i a : B r o o k s / C o l e , 1968.  behavioral  sci-  LaFromboise, T . A s u r v e y of I n d i a n s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e counseling experience. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, M a r c h , 1978. Lombardo, J . P. and B e r z o n s k y , M. D. S e x d i f f e r e n c e s in s e l f d i s c l o s u r e d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, 1 0 7 , 2 8 1 - 2 8 2 . Lombardo, J . P . and L a v i n e , L. D. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : A f u n c t i o n of sex o r s e x role? P a p e r p u b l i s h e d f o r t h e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New Y o r k , 1977, 2 0 p . Lubin, B. A modified version of the P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1 9 6 5 , 1 7 , 498.  self-disclosure  inventory.  L u b i n , B . and H a r r i s o n , R. L. P r e d i c t i n g small g r o u p b e h a v i o r w i t h 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 l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1964, 1 5 , 7 7 - 7 8 . ...... M a c c o b y , E . E . a n d J a c k l i n , C . N . T h e p s y c h o l o g y of sex S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975. Maslow, A . H. Mayer, J . E. 342-351.  Motivation  and personality.  Disclosing marital problems.  New Y o r k :  differences.  Harper,  1954.  S o c i a l C a s e w o r k , 1967, 4 8 ,  Mellinger, G . D. Interpersonal t r u s t a s a f a c t o r in communication. J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s v c h o l o q v . 1956. 5 2 . 3 0 4 - 3 0 9 .  135 Morgan, B. S. Intimacy of d i s c l o s u r e topics and sex d i f f e r e n c e s self-disclosure. S e x R o l e s , 1976, 2 , 2 , 1 6 1 - 1 6 6 . Mooney, R. L. and G o r d o n , L. V . T h e Mooney p r o b l e m c h e c k New Y o r k : P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n , 1950.  in  list.  O'Neill, S . , F e i n , D . , Velit, K. and F r a n k , C . S e x d i f f e r e n c e s in preadolescent self-disclosure. S e x R o l e s , 1976, 2 , 1 , 8 5 - 8 8 . Parsons, T . process.  and Bales, R. F. Family G l e n c o e : F r e e P r e s s , 1955.  socialization  and  interaction  Pedersen, D. M. and Higbee, K. L . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p to the target p e r s o n . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y , 1969, 1 5 , 2 1 3 - 2 2 0 . P e d h a z u r , E . J . a n d T e t e n b a u m , T . J . Bern s e x - r o l e i n v e n t o r y : A theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Personality a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, 3 7 , 6 , 996-1016. Plog,  S. C. T h e d i s c l o s u r e o f s e l f in the U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d T h e J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 6 5 . 1 9 3 - 2 0 3 .  Rickers-Ovsiankina, M. A . Social accessibility P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1956, 2 , 2 8 3 - 2 9 4 .  in  Rivenback III, W. H. Self-disclosure patterns P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971 , 2 8 , 3 5 - 4 2 . S n y d e r , J . F . , H i l l , C . E. and D e r k s e n , T . P. not u s e u n i v e r s i t y counselling facilities. P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 1 9 , 4 , 2 6 3 - 2 6 8 .  three among  age  Germany.  groups.  adolescents.  Why some s t u d e n t s do J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g ~  S p e n c e , J . T . , H e l m r e i c h , R. and S t a p p , J . R a t i n g s of self a n d peers on s e x - r o l e a t t r i b u t e s a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n to s e l f - e s t e e m a n d c o n ceptions of masculinity and f e m i n i n i t y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o 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 , 1975, 3 2 , 1 , 2 9 - 3 9 . Spence, J . T . and Helmreich, R. L. Masculinity and femininity: T h e i r sychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: n i v e r s i t y of T e x a s P r e s s , 1978.  e  S t r o n g , S . R . , Hendel, D. D. and Bratton, J . C . College students' views of campus h e l p - g i v e r s : C o u n s e l o r s , a d v i s e r s , and psychiatrists. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 18, 2 , 234-238. T u b b s , S . L . a n d B a i r d , J . W. E l e m e n t s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Paper p r e s e n t e d at the a n n u a l meeting of the C e n t r a l States S p e e c h A s s o c i a t i o n , C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , A p r i l 4 - 7 , 1978. Warman, R. E . D i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e c o u n s e l i n g o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1960, 8 , 3 , 2 6 9 - 2 7 4 .  role.  Journal  136 W a r m a n , R . E . T h e c o u n s e l i n g r o l e of c o l l e g e a n d u n i v e r s i t y c o u n s e l ing c e n t e r s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 8, 3, 231-238. W e s t , L . W. a n d Z i n g l e , H . W. A s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n v e n t o r y cents. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1969, 2 4 , 4 3 9 - 4 4 5 .  for  adoles-  Wiggins, J . S . and Holzmuller, A . Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior. J o u r n a l of 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 , 1978, 4 6 , 1, 4 0 - 5 2 . ' " Winer, B. J . Statistical principles M c G r a w - H i l l , 1962.  in e x p e r i m e n t a l  design.  Witkin, H. A. Social conformity and psychological I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 9 , 1 1 - 2 9 .  New  York:  differentiation.  137  A P P E N D I X  139  PART I  On t h e n e x t p a g e i s a l i s t o f 11 p r o b l e m t o p i c s t h a t a r e o f t e n a c o n c e r n t o p e o p l e y o u r age. P l e a s e i n d i c a t e , by c h e c k i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e box, the extent t o which each i s a problem f o r you. F o r i n s t a n c e , you m i g h t be a s k e d : To w h a t e x t e n t i s e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a problem f o r you? ( C h e c k (i/) t h e box w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o y o u r answer.)  not at all a problem  a)  Problem with money management.  LZ),  slightly a problem  somewhat a problem  n  2  n3  p  2  D  pretty much a problem  v e r y much a problem  a,  a a  3  I f y o u r a n s w e r i s t h a t a " p r o b l e m w i t h money m a n a g e m e n t " i s " n o t a t a l l a p r o b l e m " f o r y o u , c h e c k ( / ) b o x 1.  b)  Deciding  how  to  s p e n d t h e summer vacation.  J  ^  [_J  2  ,  .  •  r  |  |  |  |  3  4  j  1 [_J  £  Now t r y an- e x a m p l e on y o u r own. To w h a t e x t e n t i s " d e c i d i n g how t o s p e n d t h e summer v a c a t i o n " a p r o b l e m f o r y o u ? (Check (•) the box w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o y o u r answer.) I f you have any q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e r a i s e y o u r hand for further information. P r o c e e d t o t h e n e x t page.  140 To what e x t e n t i s each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a problem f o r you? box which i s c l o s e s t t o y o u r answer.) 1 not at all a problem  2 slightly a problem  L La u, a 1  1. 2.  3.  4.  5.  6-  7. 8.  9.  10.  11.  D i f f i c u l t y with grades. Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, classes, teachers.  a  Problems w i t h f i n a n c e s and employment (current).  a  a  u a a a  •  The f u t u r e : c h o i c e o f occupat i o n and/or f u r t h e r study. Difficult relations with family. Problems i n g e t t i n g along with f r i e n d s . Boyfriend-girlf r i e n d problems.  u a  pretty much a problem  5 v e r y much a problem  a a  a  a  •.  • a  a  • s  • 3  I—14  • s  • 3  Q  a  a • a  3  2  a  • 3  • 3  I—Ii  a  Uncomfortable f e e l i n g s and emotions. Problems o f sex?u a l adjustment. V  somewhat a problem  4  the  • a  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l develop- . ment problems.: Problems w i t h m o r a l s and religion.  3  (Check ( * 0  i Li-  a  • 3  n,  •5  • 3  u  a a  |  la  141 PART I I On t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s y o u w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d w i t h e x a m p l e s o f d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e y o u may c h o o s e t o t a l k t o a b o u t 11 p r o b l e m t o p i c s . What y o u a r e a s k e d t o -do i s t o i n d i c a t e how l i k e l y y o u w o u l d b e t o t a l k t o e a c h o f t h e s e p e o p l e a b o u t each o f these problems. I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f _ y o u h a d c e r t a i n p r o b l e m s , t h e n how l i k e l y w o u l d y o u be t o t a l k t o t h e p e r s o n i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e t o p o f t h e page about each o f these problems? For i n s t a n c e , y o u might be asked: How l i k e l y w o u l d y o u b e t o t a l k t o an o l d e r m a l e f r i e n d o f t h e f a m i l y a b o u t e a c h o# t h e f o l l o w i n g problems? (Check ( / ) t h e b o x w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o y o u r answer.)  very unlikely  quite unlikely  P i,  •1 a)  Problem w i t h money m a n a g e ment.  Q  }lllZ „?tZ" -i \ f r i e n d o f t h e f a m i l y about r  U  f  b)  ha  ±t 1S  u ?°  very likely  3  a  n i  • <  Q  n " " "° « «•>• o l d e r m amla l e a " p r o b l e m w i t h money m a n a g e m e n t " , c h e e k ( • / b o x 5 . q  U  l  t  e  l  i  k  e  l  y  t  h  u  l  d  • 3  o n y o u r own.  How l i k e l y  anyRation' "pleas/raS y o ^ a S contxnue u n t i l  a  somewhat q u i t e likely likely  •< •,  •  Deciding how t o s p e n d t h e summer vacation.  Now t r y a n e x a m p l e  somewhat unlikely  would  D  U  y o u b e t o t a l k t o * n TA  Q  5  i  n  r o V & ^ S T ' - k ^ J T , ^  you complete t h i s next section.  P  8  YOUR CLOSEST MALE FRIEND How l i k e l y w o u l d y o u be t o t a l k t o y o u r c l o s e s t m a l e f r i e n d a b o u t e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g problems? (Check (/) the box w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o your answer V  1  .  very unlikely  1.  D i f f i c u l t y with  2.  Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  a a,  grades.  .a  Problems w i t h f i n a n c e s and employment ( c u r r e n t ) .  4.  The f u t u r e : choice o c c u p a t i o n and/or further study.  of  Difficult relations with family.  6.  Problems i n g e t t i n g along with friends.  7.  Boyfriend problems.  8.  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l development problems.  9.  -  girlfriend  Problems w i t h morals and r e l i g i o n .  10. ' U n c o m f o r t a b l e f e e l i n g s and  11.  emotions.  Problems of adjustment.  sexual  4  3 quite unlikely  Q  •2.  somewhat unlikely  somewhat likely  quite likely  a  a  • 3  5  a  • s  a  3.  5.  2  a  a a  a a •  a a a a a  a • • •  Q •  • s  • 4  • s  4  3  a  I—L  a  2  a a  2  • 3  2  a  • s  a  • 4  •  5  143 YOUR MOTHER  How l i k e l y w o u l d y o u b e t o t a l k t o y o u r m o t h e r a b o u t e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b l e m s ? ( C h e c k (••) t h e b o x w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o y o u r a n s w e r . )  1  -  1. D i f f i c u l t y w i t h g r a d e s . 2.  Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  very unlikely  a a a  2  3  quite unlikely  a  4.  5.  6.  7.  (current)  The f u t u r e : choice of o c c u p a t i o n and/or further study. Difficult relations with family. Problems i n g e t t i n g along with friends. Boyfriend problems.  -  girlfriend  8.  Health and p h y s i c a l development problems.  9.  Problems w i t h morals and r e l i g i o n .  10. 11.  Uncomfortable and emotions.  feelings  Problems o f sexual adjustment.  a a a a  3. P r o b l e m s w i t h f i n a n c e s and employment  somewhat unlikely  a a •i  a a  a a  4  somewhat likely  quite likely  •  a  6  5  5  a'  • s  a  a • s  •a  • LJ  •  2 2  2  •  a a •  3  6  (  \Q  P. • s  4  a  •  • e  • 4  2  u  • s  a .a •  very likely  •a • 1  a • 4  a • s  •  5  a  >  6  144 A MALE TEACHER, MALE COUNSELOR, MALE COACH, E T C .  How l i k e l y w o u l d y o u b e t o t a l k t o a m a l e t e a c h e r , m a l e c o u n s e l o r , m a l e c o a c h , (Check ( • ) t h e box w h i c h i s c l o s e s t e t c . a b o u t e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b l <sms? to your answer.)  very unlikely  Q  1.  Difficulty  2.  Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  3.  4.  5. 6. 7. 1  8. 9.  10. 1.1.  with  j.  The f u t u r e : choice o c c u p a t i o n and/or f u r t h e r study.  |  '1  Problems w i t h finances | and employment ( c u r r e n t ) . |  | H  of '  1  Difficult relations with family.  | ~J I Ii  Problems, i n g e t t i n g along with friends.  I I  I  Boyfriend problems.  - girlfriend  I I  | 11  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l development problems.  | 1  j J-j  Problems w i t h morals and r e l i g i o n .  | I  I »1  Uncomfortable f e e l i n g s and e m o t i o n s .  I I  | )i  Problems  i  1  of sexual  adjustment.  I  grades.  j  3  2  1  |-j  [-j  quite unlikely  •,  somewhat unlikely  somewhat likely  a  •.  a a  a  •,  • a  Q  a  Q  n •  • • •  very likely  a  u  • s  • .  Q  '— o  a  • a  2  quite likely  6  ——^6  •a  a  5  4  • a  a  • a  a  _—6  a  I  6  I  • s  4  • s  •.  a  • a  •.  •a  2  • a  a  • s  •e  2  • a  R  • s  •e  145 YOUR CLOSEST  FEMALE  FRIEND  How l i k e l y w o u l d y o u b e t o t a l k t o y o u r c l o s e s t f e m a l e f r i e n d a b o u t e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g problems? ( C h e c k (•O t h e b o x w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o y o u r a n s w e r -)  1 very unlikely  a  1.  D i f f i c u l t y with  2.  Adjustment to school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  3.  4.  5.  6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.  grades.  Problems w i t h finances and employment ( c u r r e n t )  a .a  quite unlikely  • • 2  a  • 2  • 3  • 2  a  The f u t u r e : choice of o c c u p a t i o n and/or further study.  a  Q  Difficult relations with family.  a  •*•  Problems i n g e t t i n g along with friends. Boyfriend problems.  girlfriend  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l development problems. Problems w i t h morals and r e l i g i o n . Uncomfortable f e e l i n g s and e m o t i o n s . Problems of adjustment.  sexual  • 2  •i.  a a  somewhat unlikely  • 2  somewhat likely  a  a  2  5  4  3  2  6  quite likely  very likel)  • s  u • s  • a  a  • s  • a  'a  Q  1 — i f i  • 4  • s  • e  • 3  • 4  • s  • a  a  •  • s  • a  4  •  • 2  a  • 2  • 4  • s  • s  • 4  • s  •a  a  • 2  •  2  •  3  5  •.  • a  •a  14 6  YOUR FATHER  How l i k e l y problems?  w o u l d y o u be t o t a l k t o y o u r f a t h e r a b o u t e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g (Check t h e box w h i c h i s c l o s e s t t o your answer.)  1 very unlikely  Q 1.  D i f f i c u l t y with  2.  Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  11.  Difficult relations with family.  a  Problems i n g e t t i n g along with friends. Boyfriend problems.  -  girlfriend  a  Uncomfortable and e m o t i o n s .  feelings  Problems o f sexual adjustment.  a  •,  a  • a  • 3  somewhat likely  a  quite likely  • s  1 15  • a  •  3  • a  •  a  a a  3  • a • a  a a a  • a  •  • a  2 •  6  5  very likely  U  • 5  Q  • a  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l development problems. Problems w i t h morals and r e l i g i o n .  2  CO  5.  The f u t u r e : choice of o c c u p a t i o n and/or further study.  •  4  somewhat unlikely  1  4.  .a  Problems w i t h finances and employment ( c u r r e n t ) ,  quite unlikely  3  i  3.  a  grades.  2  3  • s  • s  • e  •.. • a  p. n • 5  • a  • 5  I  a a  •  6  (g  1  • a  • 4  a  • a  • 4  • s  • a  6  147 FEMALE TEACHER, FEMALE COUNSELOR,  A  How l i k e l y  would you be t o t a l k  FEMALE COACH, ETC.  t o a female teacher, female counselor,  coach, e t c . about each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g problems? closest  t o your  very unlikely  1.  Difficulty  2.  Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  4.  with'grades.  The f u t u r e : c h o i c e o f o c c u p a t i o n and/or f u r t h e r study. Difficult relations with family.  6.  Problems i n g e t t i n g along with friends.  8.  9.  10. 11.  a a a  Problems w i t h finances and employment ( c u r r e n t )  5.  7.  Boyfriend problems.  female  (»/) t h e b o x w h i c h i s  answer.)  girlfriend  a  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l development problems. Problems w i t h morals ' and r e l i g i o n . Uncomfortable and e m o t i o n s .  a  feelings  Problems of sexual adjustment.  quite unlikely  Q  a  5  somewhat unlikely  a  somewhat likely  PL  quite likely  • s  a  •  Q  a  • a  a •  6 very likely  U  6  • e  a  a a  3  2  1  3.  (Check  a  3  5  n • — J  • e  • s  a a,- a • 4  a  • e  • 4  a  • e  a • a •a  a •  3  • 4  • s  •e  a  a  •a  148  NO-ONE  your answer.)  1  n  e  c  K  1 very unlikely  K  Difficulty  2.  Adjustment t o school routine: attendance, homework, c l a s s e s , teachers.  3.  with  Problems w i t h  quite unlikely  a •  4.  The f u t u r e : choice of o c c u p a t i o n and/or further study.  5.  Difficult relations with family.  6.  Problems i n g e t t i n g along with friends.  7.  Boyfriend problems.  8.  9.  Q  girlfriend  H e a l t h and p h y s i c a l development problems. Problems with  11.  Uncomfortable and e m o t i o n s .  • a • a • a  feelings  P r o b l e m s of s e x u a l adjustment.  a  h  e  b  o  which i s c l o s e s t t o  x  3 somewhat unlikely  2  somewhat • likely  • 4  a  •  • a  • a  very likely  D  4  • s  • a  a  • a  • s  • a  • s  • a • a  a  •  6  • a  • 4  a  a a  quite likely  a  • 4  a  •  5  4  a  morals  and r e l i g i o n . 10.  a  • a a a a;  t  a a a  grades,  finances  >  2  • V 1.  y  • s  • e  • a  • a  • 4  a  • a  • 4  • s  • a  • a  • a  3  3  6  149  PART I I I On t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e , y o u w i l l characteristics. describe  b e s h o w n a l a r g e number o f p e r s o n a l i t y  I would l i k e you t o use those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n order t o  yourself.  That i s , I would l i k e  1 t o 7 , how t r u e o f y o u t h e s e v a r i o u s any  you t o i n d i c a t e , on a s c a l e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are.  Please  from  do n o t l e a v e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c unmarked.  Example: s l y M a r k a J. i f i t i s NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE t h a t y o u a r e s l y . M a r k a 2 i f i t i s U S U A L L Y NOT TRUE t h a t y o u a r e s l y . M a r k a 3 i f i t i s SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY TRUE t h a t y o u a r e s l y . M a r k a 4 i f i t i s OCCASIONALLY TRUE t h a t y o u a r e s l y . Mark a 5 / i f  i t i s OFTEN TRUE t h a t  you are s l y .  M a r k a 6 i f i t i s USUALLY TRUE t h a t y o u a r e s l y . M a r k a 7 _ . i f i t i s ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE t h a t y o u a r e s l y . Thus, i f you f e e l i t i s sometimes b u t i n f r e q u e n t l y t r u e t h a t y o u a r e " s l y " , never or almost never true  that you a r e " m a l i c i o u s " ,  t r u e t h a t you a r e " i r r e s p o n s i b l e " , and o f t e n  true  always o r almost  always  that you are "carefree",  then you would r a t e these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as f o l l o w s : Irresponsible  Sly Malicious Disregard  1  Carefree  t h e s m a l l numbers t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e b o x .  -3 _4  They a r e f o r s c o r i n g  only.  I f you a r e n o t sure about t h e meaning o f any o f t h e words on t h e next  page,  q u i e t l y ask your teacher  f o rhelp.  Do s o b y n o t d i s t u r b i n g  others.  150  1  2  1  !  Never or almost never true  Usually not true  Defend my own beliefs Affectionate Conscientious Independent Sympathetic Moody Assertive Sensitive to needs of others Reliable Strong personality Understanding Jealous Forceful Compassionate Truthful Have leadership abilities, Eager to soothe hurt feelings  3  Sometimes but infrequently true  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  Secretive  18 Willing to take risks Warm  4  19 20  Occasionally true  Adaptable Dominant  5  6  7  1  1  !  ?1 22  Tender Conceited  1  Often true  Usually true  j Always or almost always true  Flatterable Theatrical Self-sufficient  24  Willing to take a stand  Loyal Happy  ?F>  Love children Tactful Aggressive Gentle Conventional Self-reliant Yielding Helpful Athletic Cheerful Unsystematic  ?fi 27 ?8 ?9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  Analytical  38  Make decisions easily  Soft-spoken Unpredictable Masculine Gullible Solemn Competitive Childlike Likable Ambitious Do not use harsh language Sincere  Shy Inefficient  Individualistic  39 40  Act as a leader Feminine Friendly  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054625/manifest

Comment

Related Items