Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of same-sex and opposite-sex models of self-disclosure in a counseling analogy Christie-Dobbs, John 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 C48_4.pdf [ 4.43MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055721.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055721-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055721-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055721-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055721-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055721-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055721-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055721-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055721.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS OF SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX MODELS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE IN A COUNSELING ANALOGY by John Christie-Dobbs B.A. Columbia University, 1970 A thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t the requirements for the degree of' Master of Arts i n The Faculty of Graduate Studies School of Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA g) John Christie-Dobbs, 1977 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requ i rement s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r 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 c o p y i n g 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 g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha t c o p y i n g 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 g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Counselor Education The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 June 8, 1978 i i Abstract The paper i s a study of the effectiveness of videotape models used to stimulate s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among subjects i n a counseling analogy. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t examines the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of same-sex and opposite-sex models among male and female subjects. A secondary purpose i s to discuss the usefulness of such modeling as a precounseling treatment. Twenty-four male and 24 female university students viewed one of four videotape models: same-sex, low-disclos-ing; same-sex, high-disclosing; opposite-sex, low-disclosing; or opposite-sex, high-disclosing. The subjects were then .v asked to discuss the three topics which were discussed by the models; school l i f e , family l i f e , and s o c i a l l i f e . Their discussions were scored i n three 4-minute periods for number of s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g statements. Subjects also rated the models on four scales: intimacy, masculinity, l i k i n g , and psycho-l o g i c a l adjustment. Modeling high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was seen to be e f f e c t i v e i n stimulating subjects to make more s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g state-ments i n their own discussions. Opposite-sex models of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were more e f f e c t i v e than were same-sex models for both male and female subjects. Overall, female subjects self-disclosedT.moret'tkaraMdrrimales . riErraticr:rates< of s.elf— d i s c l o s u r e over time were observed among s u b j e c t s who viewed a h i g h l y s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g model. S e v e r a l u n p r e d i c t e d but s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e -s u l t s were obtained, p a r t i c u l a r l y from analyses of v a r i a n c e of the r a t i n g s s u b j e c t s made of the models. These r e s u l t s tended to suggest some evidence of s e x - r o l e s t e r e o t y p i n g of the models' s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g b e h a v i o r . The v a l i d i t y of some of the f i n d i n g s from the study was a l s o q uestioned i n the l i g h t o f these u n p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s . Suggestion i s made f o r f u r t h e r study; i n p a r t i c u l a r , r e p l i c a t i o n of the study with c o n t r o l s on c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s i s recommended. The paper i n c l u d e s a d i s c u s s i o n of the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of videotape modeling of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a p r e c o u n s e l i n g treatment. While there are i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t such modeling i s e f f e c t i v e i n an experimental s e t t i n g , f u r t h e r study of i t s r e -finements i s suggested. F i n a l l y , c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s g i v e n to the e t h i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of such p r e c o u n s e l i n g treatments, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the e x i s t e n t i a l or n o n - d i r e c t i v e c o u n s e l o r . iv Table ofContents Chapter 1: Introduction. 1 Chapter 2: Review of Literature. Self-disclosure 5 Precounseling treatments 1° Chapter 3: Objectives, hypotheses, assumptions. Objectives I 6 Hypotheses ^ 7 Assumptions 2 1 Chapter 4: Method. Subjects ^ 4 Models 2 5 Measure 2 6 Procedure 2 8 Scoring 31 Chapter 5: Results. Discussion of tables 3 2 Discussion of figures 4 0 Tests of hypotheses 5 8 , Recapitulation 6 6 Chapter 6: Discussion. Effectiveness of modeling 6 9 Sex of the subject 7 7 Ratings of the models 7 9 Chapter 7: L i m i t a t i o n s and Suggestions. L i m i t a t i o n s Suggestions f o r f u r t h e r study Chapter 8: C o n c l u s i o n s . B i b l i o g r a p h y . Appendix A: Consent form. Appendix B: Haymes 1 s c a l e Appendix C: R a t i n g s c a l e instrument Appendix D: I n s t r u c t i o n s t o the experimenter v i L i s t of Tables Table I Mean of c e l l disclosure scores by sex subject (S), sex of model (M), and dis closure l e v e l of model (D) i n three re peated measures (R) Table I* Summary analysis of variance of sub-jec t s ' disclosure scores Table I I I Rated intimacy of model's disclosure Table *EV Rated masculinity of model Table V Rated l i k i n g of model Table VI Rated psychological adjustment of mode Table y i l Correlation of subjects' t o t a l d i s -closure scores with t h e i r ratings of models V l l L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e 1 Mean d i s c l o s u r e score per segment f o r male and female s u b j e c t s under c o n d i t i o n s of same-sex (SS) or oppos i t e - s e x (OS) model, f o r two c o n d i t i o n s of d i s c l o s u r e modeling F i g u r e 2 S u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e score per segment under c o n d i t i o n s o f same-sex (SS) or opposite-sex (OS) model f o r h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g models F i g u r e 3 S u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e scores per segment under c o n d i t i o n s of same-sex (SS) or op p o s i t e - s e x (OS) model f o r l o w - d i s c l o s i n g models r F i g u r e 4 Subjects 1 d i s c l o s u r e scores bycsegmerits of repeated measures (R) under c o n d i t i o n s of h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g and l o w - d i s c l o s i n g models F i g u r e 5 Male s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e scores by seg-ments of repeated measures (R) under con-d i t i o n s of same-sex or oppos i t e - s e x model F i g u r e 6 Female s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e scores by seg-ments of repeated measures (R) under con-d i t i o n s of same-sex or opposite-sex model F i g u r e 7 S u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under c o n d i t i o n s of h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g same-sex or h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g o pposite-sex model F i g u r e 8 ' Subjects 1 d i s c l o s u r e scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under c o n d i t i o n s of l o w - d i s c l o s i n g same-sex or l o w - d i s c l o s i n g o pposite-sex model V1X1 Figure 9 Rated intimacy of model's discussion for male (M) or female (F) model under two conditions of modeled disclosure Figure 10 Rated masculinity of two models by male and female subjects under conditions of modeled high (H) and low (L) disclosure ix Acknowledgements I must thank Frank C o l i s t r o and Peter Ballantyne for t h e i r otherwise thankless duty of scoring a l l those tapes. In more general terms, I'd l i k e to express my gratitude to a l l those people wo pa r t i c i p a t e d i n the study as sub-jects;, they came knowing l i t t l e of what would be asked of • them. They came because they are just nice people. I owe a r e a l debt to the members of my committee: Bob Conry, who was my seeing-eye dog through the t r i a l s and t r i b u l a t i o n s of dealing with dat o l 1 debble, data; Sharon Kahn, whose enthusiasm for the study kept me i n -terested; and Bob Tolsma, who kept me honest by i n s i s t i n g I do i t as well as I could. Most of a l l , I have to thank my wife, Donna. In every sense of i t , without her, i t would never have happened. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction This study, examines tithe r-relative- e f f ec.tivenessoofr same-sex and different-sex models of s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior on male and female college students i n a counseling analogue. Over the past several decades a great deal of research i n psychotherapy has been devoted to means of speeding up the change process. Lengthy analytic therapy has gradually been rejected i n favor of more rapid d r r c o s t - e f f i c i e n t ap-proaches to therapy: Rational-Emotive Therapy, group therapy, marathon encounter, and e s p e c i a l l y behavior modification. It cannot be denied that such exploration has made counseling and psychotherapy increasingly available to large numbers of c l i e n t s for whom analytic therapy would be f i n a n c i a l l y im-possible. Of course, such developments are simply i n the con-text of the t r a d i t i o n a l philosophy of s o c i a l services; serr . vices change i n order to better serve the c l i e n t . However, Singer (1969), answering contemporary attacks on an a l y t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d therapy, suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that therapy may not be so f l e x i b l e as modern theorists suggest: Our impatience and our " s c i e n t i f i c " t r a d i -tionalism frequently lead us to actions whose implications were not examined and are 2 p o t e n t i a l l y detrimental to man. (Intro-duction, p. xx) One may wonder i f , i n our e f f o r t s to speed up the actual process of counseling, we may not have changed i t by discard-ing the theraputic elements that give i t value: the process of self-examination and i t s attendant increased self-aware-ness. The bulk of the modern research on the theraputic pro-cess has concentrated on the ongoing events of therapy from the f i r s t session to the l a s t ; r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e attention has been paid to f a c i l i t a t i n g the course of therapy by pretherapy treatments. Clearly, rapid therapy i s more l i k e l y with a "good" c l i e n t than with a " d i f f i c u l t " one. It could be sug-gested that there may be some ways of preparing or pretraining c l i e n t s for what i s to them the novel experience of therapy and thus circumventing at least some of the resistance which i s often experienced i n early sessions. This study suggests that i f i t i s not possible to speed up the theraputic process by adjusting i t to f i t the c l i e n t , i t may be possible to adjust the c l i e n t to f i t the process. E s s e n t i a l l y , he could be trained to be a "good" c l i e n t ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , he may be taught to increase his l e v e l of s e l f -disclosure before the f i r s t session of therapy. Increased 3 s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n the f i r s t session could circumvent at least some of the resistance which can be expected i n the c l i e n t for whom therapy i s a completely new experience. The ethics of such a practice may be questionable to some, and this point w i l l be discussed further. However, assuming that such a precounseling treatment i s e f f e c t i v e — and review of the • literaturesindi(ea*es'cfehisig.Si §©-j-the speci-f i c conditions for the treatment have remained i n s u f f i c i e n t l y studied. This thesis deals with one s p e c i f i c precounseling t r e a t -ment: videotape modeling to increase c l i e n t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . One set of conditions for the treatment are considered: the sex of the model r e l a t i v e to the sex of the subject. It asks whether s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , which t r a d i t i o n a l l y has been consid-ered a sex-influenced behavior, can more e f f e c t i v e l y be i n -creased by a same-sex or an opposite-sex model. The study uses a 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance to analyze the effects of sex of the model, sex of the sub-je c t s , disclosure l e v e l of the model, and time on subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Its inherent l i m i t a t i o n i s that i t uses a single-session experimental analogy for the experience of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n a counseling session. As a r e s u l t , i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y to the actual process of counseling may be 4 limited. Despite this l i m i t a t i o n , i t can be suggested that coun-seling-analogue studies are v a l i d p i l o t studies for important new treatments. If i t i s desirable for the c l i e n t to s e l f -disclose i n counseling or psychotherapy, then any reasonable means to this end must be considered seriously. 5 Chapter 2  Review of the Literature  Self-Disclosure Since 1958, when Jourard began to publish results of studies on the construct " s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e " , i t has become the focus of a great deal of t h e o r e t i c a l speculation and research inquiry. Yet two major reviews of the l i t e r a t u r e on s e l f - d i s -closure (Cozby, 1973; Goodstein and Reinecker, 1974) give am-ple evidence that r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known with any c e r t a i n -ty about this seemingly cardinal behavior. Theorists suggest that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s an important correlate to personal adjustment and mental health. For Buber (1965) and T i l l i c h (1952), s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s the process by which man learns to understand himself. Horney (1950) stresses the lack of frank s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n neurotics; several re-searchers stress the importance of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e to general mental health (Fromm, 1955; Mowrer 1961; Jourard, 1964, 1971). Among Rogers' (1961) defined q u a l i t i e s of the s e l f -actualized i n d i v i d u a l i s the a b i l i t y to reveal himself to others. This description by Rogers i s , i n fact, a paraphrase of Jourard's (1964, 1968, 1971) d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as "the process by which one person makes aspects of himself known to another person" (1971, p. 4). 6 While the v a l i d i t y of the construct has been generally accepted, i t seems d i f f i c u l t to make any generalizations re-garding i t s relationship to l i k e l y influences such as culture, n a t i o n a l i t y , age, sex, or p a r t i c u l a r psychological factors. One d i f f i c u l t y seems to be that no completely accepted opera-t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s evident i n the l i t e r a -ture; as a r e s u l t , comparisons between studies are problema-t i c . Jourard (1971) alone l i s t s f i f t e e n d i f f e r e n t scales to measure s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Certain studies weight disclosures for "intimacy value"; others do not. Another factor compli-cating research on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , as G i t t e r and Black (1976) revealed, i s the question of how to score s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s which are not, i n fact, genuine. F i n a l l y , i t would seem d i f -f i c u l t to correct for the m u l t i p l i c i t y of the above-mentioned l i k e l y factors i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n any one study except by the use of unwieldy numbers of subjects. As an example of this point, and of particular, concern to this research, i s the possible influence of sex on the l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Numerous studies demonstrated c l e a r l y that females s e l f - d i s c l o s e more frequently than do men (Jourard, 1964, 1971; Jourard and Lasakow, 1958; Jourard and Richman, 1963; Hood and Back, 1971). However, numerous studies have also found no difference between sexes i n the 7 l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e (Dimond and Hellkamp, 1969; Plog, 1965; Vondracek and Marshall, 1971; Kohen, 1975). The only resolution offered for t h i s dilemma i s Plog's (1965) sugges-t i o n that the demonstrated sex difference i s peculiar to the southern United States, where the studies with that finding were performed. Perhaps only two generalizations regarding s e l f - d i s c l o -sure have been established i n r e p l i c a t e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n . One i s that individuals s e l f - d i s c l o s e more to people they l i k e (Fitzgerald, 1963; Jourard, 1964, 1971). While th i s i s not a remarkable finding, i t does present a complicating factor i n research on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n dyads. The other estab-lis h e d fact, i s that i t i s possible to manipulate levels of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e through experimental treatments (Myrick, 1969; Stone and Gotlib, 1975; Stone and Stebbins, 1975). Evidence has been presented that an i n d i v i d u a l i s more l i k e l y to s e l f - d i s c l o s e to others who s e l f - d i s c l o s e to him (Ehrlich and Graeven, 1971; Jourard and J a f f e , 1970; Powell, 1968), or, as Jourard (1971) puts i t , "Disclosure begets disclosure" (p. 37). Jourard (1964) theorized that this e f f e c t was one of r e c i p r o c i t y , or mutual reinforcement, and suggested that s e l f -disclosure i n a dyad i s an i n d i c a t i o n that the d i s c l o s e r i s i n 8 a nonthreatening po s i t i o n , opening the way for further d i s c l o -sure by the l i s t e n e r . Cozby (1973) agrees with t h i s p o s i t i o n , but Goodstein and Reinecker (1974) note: The question arises as to whether the mutu-a l i t y of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s better conceived of as an instance of r e c i p r o c i t y or of model-ing. ,,. .without mutual reinforcement, (p. 61) Certainly s o c i a l learning, or modeling, would serve as a more parsimonious description of this e f f e c t than would Jourard's far more complicated explanation by r e c i p r o c i t y . Thelen and Brooks (1976) and other investigators have discovered sup-port for this suggestion. Bandura (1965) has described the process of modeling i n the following way: New responses are acquired or the character-i s t i c s of exis t i n g response repetoires are modified as a function of observing the be-havior of others and i t s r e i n f o r c i n g con-sequences, (p. 3) Most forms of imitation involve response. . . learning, i n which the subject combines be-havioral elements into r e l a t i v e l y complex novel responses s o l e l y by observing the performance of s o c i a l models, without any opportunity to perform the model's behavior i n the exposure setting and without any r e i n -forcers ^ administered either to the models or to the observers, (p. 5) There i s no need to search for enigmatic, psychological mechanisms and elusive, dy-namic variables i n accounting for learning by observation, imitation, or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , (p. 48) Even a summary of research into vicarious learning would be lengthy and out of place i n this work. I t w i l l simply be noted at this point that the greater portion of research into the process has dealt with far less complex behaviors than s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Nevertheless, a number of reports have re-cently appeared which indicate the influence of modeling on complex verbal behaviors: Concreteness (Stone and Jackson, 1975) , r e f l e c t i o n of feelings (Uhlemann> Lea, and Stone, 1976) , and interpersonal openness (Whalen, 1969). These studies report varying degrees of success which Whalen at-tributes to the presence or lack of specific;' instructions ac-companying the models for more complex tasks. Green and Mar-l a t t (1972) concurred with Whalen i n t h e i r use of modeling and 10 i n s t r u c t i o n s to e l i c i t d e s i r e d a f f e c t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e v e r -b a l i z a t i o n s . M a r l a t t (1971), however-, notes: Modeling procedures may be a u s e f u l technique i n i n f l u e n c i n g d e s i r e d performance i n ambiguous i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g s such as are found i n i n d i -v i d u a l and group psychotherapy. . . . This would p a r t i c u l a r l y be the case when d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s to the int e r v i e w e e cannot be used because o f the complicated nature o f the r e -sponse, or when e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n s may i n t e r -f e r e w i t h the intended nature o f the therapu-t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p , (p. 27 5) C l e a r l y , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e would seem t o be a v e r b a l behav-i o r equal i n complexity to those mentioned above. There i s evidence, moreover, t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , along w i t h other b e h a v i o r s d e s i r a b l e i n c o u n s e l i n g and psychotherapy, can be i n c r e a s e d i f a p p r o p r i a t e l y modeled i n an experimental s e t -t i n g . P r e c o u n s e l i n g treatments. Research i n t o the use of models to i n c r e a s e s u b j e c t s ' l e v e l s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can be seen i n the broader context of r e s e a r c h i n t o methods of p r e p a r i n g p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t s f o r 11 counseling. Stone and Jackson (1975) c r e d i t Truax with stimulating i n t e r e s t i n such research i n a series of lectures i n 1961. Truax, Carkhuff, Wargo, Kodman, and Moles (1966) noted that the business of the counselor i s to f a c i l i t a t e v e r b a l i z a t i o n and c a l l e d for further research into methods of f a c i l i t a t i n g a variety of verbal e f f e c t s . Since then, the use of models to teach desirable v e r b a l i -zations has received a great deal of research attention and has been shown to e f f e c t i v e l y increase t o p i c a l talk time (Duke and Frankel, 1971), a f f e c t statements (Schwartz and Hawkins, 1965), problem-admitting (Marlatt, Jacobson, Johnson, and Mor-r i c e , 1970), information-seeking (Myrick, 1969), vocational exploration (Krumboltz and Schroeder, 1965; Krumboltz and Thoresen, 1964), and other behavioral s k i l l s (Higgens, Ivey, and Uhlemann, 1970; Marlatt, 1972). Whalem's (1969) research into the use of models to promote interpersonal openness has already been mentioned. Patterson (1966) has noted that c l i e n t s who avoid talking about themselves are the least successful, and thus i t seems natural to encounter recent research into means of f a c i l i t a t - . ing s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n counseling and "psychotherapy. It i s cl e a r that the developers of many counseling t h e o r i e s — i n c l u -ding Rogers, Perls, E l l i s , Freud, and others—regard c l i e n t 12 s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as v i t a l to the success of counseling or therapy. Rogers (1957) notes for example that as a necessary condition of therapy, "The therapist must experience an em-pathic understanding of the c l i e n t ' s i n t e r n a l frame of re-ference" (p. 100). I t may, i n fact, be said that for some theorists a high l e v e l of c l i e n t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s not only necessary but s u f f i c i e n t for successful therapy. If s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can be taken to be at least a requi-s i t e for successful counseling or psychotherapy, i t can then-, be assumed that the sooner the c l i e n t "catches on" to the ex-pectation that he must s e l f - d i s c l o s e , the sooner he w i l l begin to reap the benefits of h i s sessions. Not only, then, would some economy be possible i n the number of sessions per c l i e n t , but as well the problem of premature termination by d i s s a t i s -f i e d of- impatient c l i e n t s .might be somewhat a l l e v i a t e d . Recent research into the use of models i n counseling an-alogies to stimulate s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has suggested that video-tape models are an e f f e c t i v e treatment (Stone arid Gotlib, 1975; Stone and Stebbins, 1975). H0wever, i t should be noted that t h i s research i s i n the t r a d i t i o n of using same-sex models, assumedly to f a c i l i t a t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the model. In the l i t e r a t u r e , female models are used with female subjects (Krumboltz, Varenhorst, and Thoresen, 1967), and male models 13 are used for male subjects (Krumboltz and Schroeder, 1965; Doster, 1972; Green and Marlatt, 1972; Stone and Gotlib, 1975; Whalen, 1969). While the use of same-sex models may-be f a c i l i t a t i v e i n the stimulation of other verbalizations, i t is possible that for a verb a l i z a t i o n so allegedly sex-linked as s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e t h i s may not be so simple a case. One study (Derlaga and Chaikin, 1976) has found that male models who s e l f - d i s c l o s e are seen by both males-and females as less well adjusted than male models who do not s e l f - d i s c l o s e . The possible impact of this finding on the sex of the model used to stimulate s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s not yet known. Common sense would indicate, however, that subjects are less l i k e l y to imitate the behavior of a model whom they perceive as less than well adjusted; i f this were a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o -sure, the e f f e c t would be to at least s l i g h t l y decrease the sel f - d i s c l o s u r e of subjects who were asked to imitate the model. Further complicating the recent l i t e r a t u r e on the effects of modeling s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s a flaw that can be noted i n the design of Stone and'Gotlib*s (197 5) study. They investigated the effectiveness of modeling and d i f f e r e n t degrees of i n -struction on subjects' l a t e r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . The design pro-vided, i n terms of modeling, an experimental group which ob-14 served a model and a c o n t r o l group which d i d not. T h e i r f i n d -i n g , t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n c r e a s e d among the experimental group, i s equivocated by the f a c t t h a t the experimental group r e c e i v e d not only the obvious a t t e n t i o n of the experimenters, but as w e l l had a d d i t i o n a l time to compose themselves b e f o r e . beginning the task o f s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g . I t i s p o s s i b l e , then, t h a t the i n c r e a s e d l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n the e x p e r i -mental group was a product of i t s members f e e l i n g more com-f o r t a b l e and accepted i n the experimental s e t t i n g than d i d s u b j e c t s i n the c o n t r o l group. In s h o r t , w h i l e Stone and Got-l i b 's study may demonstrate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of watching a videotape as a p r e c o u n s e l i n g treatment, i t does not r i g o r o u s l y demonstrate t h a t modeling s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s an e f f e c t i v e treatment. T h i s study was conducted, i n p a r t , to c o r r e c t the flaw noted i n the study conducted by Stone and G o t l i b . F u r t h e r , i t attempts to examine more c l o s e l y the s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s f o r modeling s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s concerned w i t h the sex o f the model r e l a t i v e to the sex of the s u b j e c t . By the nature o f i t s d e s i g n i t a l s o r e p r e s e n t s an attempt to con-t r i b u t e f u r t h e r t o r e s e a r c h on sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - d i s c l o -s ure. F i n a l l y , i t was designed to r e p l i c a t e the f i n d i n g s o f 15 Derlaga and Chaikin (1976) that male models of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e are judged by observers to be less well adjusted than nondis-closing male models. The rationale for such a study i s implied i n Heller's (1969) comment: The purpose of c l i n i c a l laboratory research i s to determine what factors produce change, under what conditions they operate best, and how they should be combined to produce an e f f e c t i v e theraputic package, (p. 524) 16 Chapter 3 Obj ectives Four objectives may be defined for th i s study: 1. It i s an attempt to determine whether the use of a videotape model i s s u f f i c i e n t to increase the amount of s e l f -disclosure of subjects. Such a finding would correct the flaw noted i n the design of Stone and Gotlib (1975). 2. I t attempts to determine whether subjects of both sexes are more influenced i n t h e i r r e s u l t i n g s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e by a model of t h e i r own sex or by a model of the opposite sex. 3. It investigates whether Jourard's (1958) finding that females s e l f - d i s c l o s e more than do males can be upheld for Canadian students investigated i n this study. Stone and Stebbins (1975) found no such difference i n Ontario. 4. It attempts to determine the reaction of subjects to the apparent emotional s t a b i l i t y of two models, male and f e -male, i n high- and low-disclosing conditions. Such a study i s i n r e p l i c a t i o n of Derlaga and Chaikin (1976). Hypotheses Several hypotheses are tested i n the study. Each w i l l be stated i n i t s n u l l form followed by the anticipated alterna-tiv e . 17 1. The f i r s t hypothesis (H^) i s stated as follows: Subjects exposed to a videotape model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w i l l , i n imitating the model, themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e s t a t i s t i c a l l y no more frequently than w i l l subjects exposed to a . model of low s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , as determined' by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . The alternative to th i s hypothesis (H^_a) i s suggested by the work of Stone and Stebbins (1975) and Stone and Gotlib (1975). I t i s stated as follows: Subjects exposed to a videotape model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w i l l , i n imitating the model, themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y high rate than w i l l subjects exposed to a model of low s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . 2. The second hypothesis to be tested i s stated i n i t s n u l l form (H2) as follows: When presented with models exhibiting high s e l f -disclosure, subjects who are exposed to a model of t h e i r own sex w i l l themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e 18 s t a t i s t i c a l l y no more frequently than w i l l subjects exposed to a model of the opposite sex, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e -The alternative to this hypothesis (H 2_ a) i s suggested by the assumption of modeling theory that a model of the same sex as the subject allows greater i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and increases the l i k e l i h o o d that the model w i l l be imitated: When presented with models exhibiting high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , subjects who are exposed to a model of the i r own sex w i l l themselves s e l f -disclose at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher rate than w i l l subjects exposed to a : model of the opposite sex, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . The t h i r d hypothesis (H^) to be tested i s : There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e between male and female subjects o v e r a l l , as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . The alternative (H-, _) to this hypothesis i s generated i n j "~ a 19 view of the mass of research which indicates that females s e l f - d i s c l o s e more than do males. However, as a great deal of research indicates that there i s no difference between males and females i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , this alternative i s non-d i r e c t i o n a l and i s stated as follows: There w i l l be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the amount of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e between male and female subjects o v e r a l l , as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . 4. The fourth hypothesis (H^) to be tested may be stated as follows: S t a t i s t i c a l tests of significance w i l l indicate no difference i n the judged emotional s t a b i l i t y of the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g male model as opposed to that of the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by subjects' ratings on a 9-point scale. The alternative (H^.g) i s generated on the basis of the work of Derlaga and Chaikin (1976) : S t a t i s t i c a l tests of significance w i l l i n -dicate that the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g male model was judged less emotionally stable 20 than was the h i g h l y s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by sub-je c t s 1 r a t i n g s on a 9-point s c a l e . 5. Should H 4 be r e j e c t e d i n f a v o r o f H •4-a' i t would be p o s s i b l e t o examine whether the judged emotional s t a b i l i t y o f a model o f h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a f f e c t s the subsequent i m i t a -t i o n o f the model's h i g h l e v e l o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Common sense would suggest t h a t s u b j e c t s are l e s s l i k e l y t o i m i t a t e a model whom they c o n s i d e r to be e m o t i o n a l l y u n s t a b l e . A-f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s (H^), t h e r e f o r e , may be co n s i d e r e d i f i s r e j e c t e d i n fa v o r of H A_^. I t i s hy p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t S t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e w i l l i n -d i c a t e no d i f f e r e n c e i n the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of s u b j e c t s p r e s e n t e d w i t h the h i g h l y s e l f -d i s c l o s i n g male model compared t o the p e r -formance o f s u b j e c t s exposed to the h i g h l y s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by r a t e r s u s i n g the Haymes method of s c o r i n g s e l f ^ d i s c l o s u r e . The a l t e r n a t i v e (H 5-a ) may be s t a t e d : Subjects p r e s e n t e d w i t h the h i g h l y s e l f -d i s c l o s i n g male model w i l l themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e to a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -21 n i f i c a n t degree less than w i l l subjects presented with the highly s e l f - d i s c l o -sing female model, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f -disclosure . The l e v e l of significance adopted for s t a t i s t i c a l tests of the hypotheses i n this study w i l l be p < .05. Assumptions Numerous assumptions, of course, have been made i n both the rationale for t h i s study and i n the generation of i t s hy-potheses. Certainly there i s no c a l l for such a study i f the construct of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e cannot be seen as a measurable behavior which i s worthy of f a c i l i t a t i n g i n the course of counseling or psychotherapy. It i s assumed, therefore, that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s exhibited by d i f f e r e n t people i n varying degrees and i s not only measurable and desirable, but as well that i t i s manipulable by experimental treatments.. These as-sumptions have been shown to be well-founded i n the l i t e r a -ture. Another assumption within the rationale i s that use of a videotape model, i f e f f e c t i v e i n f a c i l i t a t i n g s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , would be a feasible precounseling treatment to apply. E t h i c a l considerations aside, c e r t a i n l y not every counselor has a v a i l -able funds or space to provide such a treatment for each c l i e n t . However, the cost of such media hardware and software as videotape equipment continues to decrease through e f f i c i e n t production. I t can be foreseen that as the u t i l i t y of such e-quipment becomes further established, the average counselor or psychotherapist may wish to make videotape as much a fix t u r e i n h i s o f f i c e as the audio tape recorder has become. Certain counselors and psychotherapists, of course, would r e s i s t the use of videotape models as being contrary to the i r t h e o r e t i -c a l orientation; t h i s study, however, elects to investigate modeling alone as a precounseling treatment l i k e l y to be ac-ceptable to most counselors of either d i r e c t i v e or non-di-rective orientation. Using si m i l a r reasoning, the experimental design rejects the use of s p e c i f i c instructions to the subjects to s e l f - d i s -close. Although Whalen (1969) and other have made an ex-ce l l e n t case for the greater effectiveness of s p e c i f i c i n -structions i n increasing subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i t seems l i k e l y that the use of such s p e c i f i c instructions i n a pre-counseling treatment would be considered by many counselors to be counterproductive to the establishment of the desired relat i o n s h i p s . F i n a l l y , i t i s assumed that circumventing c l i e n t r e s i s -tance to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s wise to do i n counseling and psy-chotherapy. Many change-oriented therapists tend to consider resistance as an unfortunate roadblock to what they perceive as the r e a l work of psychotherapy: behavior change. Much e f f o r t i n analytic forms of therapy, on the other hand, i s de-voted to analyzing the resistance, .'..including resistance tb ( . s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Singer (1969) notes: . '-The analysis of resistance i s therefore the therapist's expression of f a i t h i n an a l t e r -native i n l i v i n g ; the,patient 1s giving up resistance i s his admission that he sees such a p o s s i b i l i t y , (p. 241) Clearly, for Singer, analysis of the resistance i s part and parcel of the theraputic process. I t may be wise, then, to consider a p o s s i b i l i t y contrary to this study's assumption: perhaps i t i s more valuable to analyze low c l i e n t s e l f - d i s -closure i n psychotherapy than to increase i t through precoun-se l i n g treatments. 24 Chapter 4, Method Subjects. Twenty-four male and twenty-four female subjects were re-cruited from summer school classes at the University of B r i t -ish Columbia and at Langara College. Forty-three of the sub-jects were recruited from undergraduate classes and f i v e from a graduate class i n vocational counseling. Thirty-one of the undergraduates were recruited from a f i r s t - y e a r Intro-duction to Theater course, a humanities requirement at t h e i r college. The other 12 undergraduates were volunteers from among passers-by, or simply walked into the c l i n i c , attracted by notices regarding the study. A l l the subjects were between the ages of 19 and 30, and a l l volunteered af Geruanoof f er of £ f inanc-lali inducement. A l l subjects were to l d that the experiment:was a study of student attitudes and opinions, as related to three broad and non-threatening topics . Each received and signed a consent form, which i s reproduced i n Appendix A. Subjects were assigned randomly to one of eight sub-groups : 1. Low-disclosing male model—male subject. 2. Low-disclosing female model--female subject. 3. Low-disclosing male model--female subject. 4. Low-disclosing female model--male subject. 25 5. High-disclosing male model—male subject. 6. High-disclosing female model--female subject. 7. High-disclosing male model--female subject. 8. High-disclosing female model—male subject. Thus a 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l design was f i l l e d , with six sub-jects i n each c e l l to test the hypotheses . Six subjects withdrew i n the course of the study. Those who withdrew reported, f o r the most part, that they " j u s t couldn't t a l k into a tape recorder." None reported f e e l i n g threatened by the setting or by viewing the sample tapes; i n fact, each of the s i x described the tapes as "boring", "slow", or " d u l l " . These six subjects were replaced by further recruitment. The c e l l s i n the-design which they vacated were f i l l e d by ran-dom s e l e c t i o n from the new subjects. fSix. of the eight c e l l s were so affected. Models. A male and a female model were used for the experiment; each had previous acting experience and was in the same age group as the subjects. Two 6-minute videotape presentations were produced with each model. On one pair of tapes, each model spoke i n general terms about school l i f e , family l i f e , and s o c i a l l i f e . These video-tapes, the low-disclosing models, were further edited to mini-mize the expressed s e l f - d i s c l s o u r e as measured on a scale de-veloped by Haymes (1971) . (The scoring c r i t e r i a for this 26 s c a l e are reporduced i n Appendix B.) The tapes were scored on Haymes* s c a l e by one o f the judges t r a i n e d f o r the s tudy. As e d i t e d , the male model's l o w - d i s c l o s i n g tape scored 15 (of a p o s s i b l e 72) under a s l i g h t a d a p t a t i o n o f Haymes' s c o r i n g c r i -t e r i a . (Haymes o r i g i n a l l y scored tapes i n 30-second segments; as the tapes o f ( b o t h models and s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study were r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f , they were scored i n 10-second segments .) The female model's l o w - d i s c l o s i n g tape scored 16, a g a i n out of a p o s s i b l e 72. To produce the o t h e r tape with each model, the models were coached to maximize t h e i r s c o r i n g on Haymes' s c a l e . These h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g models were f u r t h e r e d i t e d and scored by one of the judges. Each tape scored 48 o f a p o s s i b l e 72. The models acted on the tapes i n a r e l a x e d , c o n v e r s a t i o n -a l , and spontaneous manner. While the g e n e r a l t o p i c s on the t a p e s — s c h o o l l i f e , f a m i l y l i f e , and s o c i a l l i f e — w e r e s p e c i -f i e d f o r the models, the s p e c i f i c content was not c o n t r o l l e d , as the models spoke ad. . l i b . However, no c o n t r o v e r s i a l o r e motionally-charged m a t e r i a l was evident on the tapes . Measure. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by Haymes (1971) as f a l l i n g i n t o one o f f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of v e r b a l i z a t i o n : ex-p r e s s i o n o f emotion and emotional processes; e x p r e s s i o n o f needs; e x p r e s s i o n o f f a n t a s i e s , hopes, dreams, e t c . ; and ex-p r e s s i o n o f s e l f - a w a r e n e s s . Haymes developed a s c a l e f o r measuring such responses, a s s i g n i n g a s c o r e o f two points when 27 such disclosures were grammatically of the f i r s t - p e r s o n type, and a score of one point when they were second-person s e l f -references (for example, " i t r e a l l y bothers you when..."). As has been noted, Haymes o r i g i n a l l y scored 30-second seg-ments of tapes with a 2, 1, or 0, depending on the highest-scoring disclosure i n that segment. In this study, tapes were rated i n 10-second segments. Users of Haymes' scale reported i n Jourard (1971) were able to establish i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y estimates above +.90 with r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e t r a i n i n g of the raters. No other psy-chometric information on Haymes1 scale i s available. The Haymes scale was chosen for use i n this study because i t minimizes factors such as degree of intimacy, voice i n f l e c -t i o n , genuineness, etc., which complicate the rating of s e l f -disclosure, and because high i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y (r_ > +.80) could be expected. Employing the procedure described by Stone and Gotlib (1975), two graduate students i n psychology were given copies of Haymes' scale to study and practiced rating 100 sample statements. The two judges then met with the researcher and differences i n t h e i r ratings of the sample statements were discussed. Variations i n the judging tended to result from "reading betwieen the l i n e s " of the sample statements. As both of the judges were experienced therapists, they were adept' at sensing implied meanings behind seemingly innocuous states-,, ments. A f t e r some discussion this problem was resolved when 28 the judges decided to score statements only on t h e i r face value. The judges were further trained by scoring segments of transcribed counseling interviews which were read aloud to them. The raters were then presented with a sample eight-minute tape of a spontaneous monologue and were asked to score i t . Their scoring was compared by means of the Pearson ^product-Moment coef f i c i e n t , . and the estimate of i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was r = +.86. A second instrument was developed f o r the study. This was a sheet of four 9-point :rating scales (see Appendix C) on which subjects were asked to rate the model on each of four f a c t o r s : the intimacy of the model's discussion, the model's masculinity, t h e i r l i k i n g of the model, and t h e i r im-pression of the model's psychological adjustment. Only the last-mentioned factor was intended to test an hypothesis; the other three were included to d i s t r a c t subjects from the pur-pose of the questionnaire. Procedure The experimenter was a young woman who was naive to the anticipated outcomes of the study. She followed a set of printed instructions as the procedure with each subject (see Appendix D) . Subjects were given appointments i n random order to one of two experiment rooms. Both rooms contained a videotape playback unit, a small audio tape recorder, and a signal lamp. A small audio tape recorder with a b u i l t - i n microphone was chosen f o r use to make the process of recording subjects' statements as unobtrusive as possible. When the subject was seated i n the experiment room, the experimenter s a i d : You are going to be asked to speak f o r f i v e minutes on each of three topics . What you say w i l l be recorded on this cassette machine and the tape w i l l be heard by an experimenter who does not know you. I t can be i d e n t i f i e d only by your code number. Please remember that you may withdraw at any time from the study. To give you an idea of the nature of the task, a sample videotape has been prepared. Let's watch i t now. The experimenter then played the appropriate videotape for the treatment condition assigned to that subject: either the same-sex high-disclosing model, or the same-sex low-dis-closing model, or the opposite-sex high-disclosing model, or the opposite-sex low-disclosing model. After the videotape was played, the experimenter placed three cards face down before the subject and, indi c a t i n g the signal lamp, s a i d : When you see the l i g h t f l a s h , I'd l i k e you to begin discussing the topic on the f i r s t card. After f i v e minutes, I w i l l f l a s h the lamp a-gain to sign a l you to begin discussing the 30 topic on the second card. After another f i v e minutes, the lamp w i l l f l a s h a t h i r d time to s i g n a l you to go on to the topic on the t h i r d card. I w i l l f l a s h the lamp again at the end of f i v e more minutes to s i g n a l you to stop. Do you have any questions? Questions were answered by r e f e r r i n g back to previous i n -structions . The experimenter then started the audio tape recorder i n the room, l e f t the room, and signaled the subject to begin the task. ?'7The^ca.tds d i r e c t i n g the- subjectKfco certain, topics read. s "school l i f e " , "family l i f e " , and " s o c i a l l i f e " ; these were the same topics discussed by the models on videotape. The order of discussion was randomized over the 48 subjects. After the signal to end the task--that i s , a f t e r each subject's three 5-minute discussions had been recorded--the experimenter reentered the room, switched o f f the audio tape recorder, and handed the subject the sheet/of four 9-point rating scales, saying: Think for a moment about the model i n the sam-ple videotape. Would you please rate the model on these scales. Be sure to mark every scale, even i f i t ' s only your best guess. When the rating task was completed, the subject was thanked f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g , asked not to discuss the experiment with future subjects, and dismissed. 31 Scoring The 48 audio tapes thus produced were assigned randomly to the two judges, 24 tapes each. Tapes were rated i n 10-second intervals f o r 12 of the 15 minutes on the tape, as described i n Stone and Gotlib (1975) ; only the "middle" four minutes on each topic was rated. The score sheets allowed f o r three subs cores--To pics 1, 2, and 3--and a t o t a l d i s c l o -sure score. Judges were naive to the experimental conditions under which the tapes were produced. For the purpose of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, subjects' ; ratings of the model they viewed were converted from an un-numbered scale to a scale of 0 to 8, with 0 indicating a low rating on the factor involved. 32 Chapter 5 Results The s t a t i s t i c a l design in this study constituted a 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l design with three repeated measures--the three 4-minute segments score d — o f subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o -sure. The design permitted not only analysis of variance of the main ef f e c t s , but also allowed f o r tests of si g n i f i c a n c e of the repeated measurement and of the interactions of the main effects and repeated measures f o r subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o -s ure. S i m i l a r l y , the 2 x 2 x 2 design allowed f o r analysis of variance in the subjects' ratings of the models on the four rating scales . The results of the study w i l l be reported f i r s t by exami-nation of tables and figures prepared from the results and then by s p e c i f i c t e s t i n g of the hypotheses . Table I . C e l l mean scores are reported i n Table I.. They have been broken down i n columns by three of the main e f f e c t s — s e x of the subject, sex of the model, and disclosure l e v e l of the mo-del—and i n rows by the fourth main ef f e c t , the repeated mea-surement. Each c e l l mean, then, represents the average scored s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among six subjects for a 4-minute scoring period . These means range from 0.00 to 19.17. The mean of this 33 Table I Mean of c e l l disclosure scores by sex of subject (S), sex of model (M), and disclosure l e v e l of model (H) in three re-peated measures (R) R l R2 R3 M l S l M2 M l S2 D L 6.33 6.00 4.33 D 2 0.00 0.83 0.33 J«M2 _ D L 8.67 4.33 15.67 D 2 0.00 4.50 7.50 D L 14.67 3 .67 19.17 D 2 4.83 2 .67 2 .33 D L 5.00 10.00 11.33 D 2 12.50 8.83 4.67 Note. S'^ : Male subjects S 2 : Female subjects M^: Male model M2: Female model D^: High-disclosing model D 2: Low-disclosing model R l 2 3* R e P e a t e ^ 4-minute intervals 34 distribution of c e l l means is 6.59, and the standard deviation is 5.15. A graph of the distribution would be skewed to the right, with 5.5 being the median score. The table does not seem to indicate a clear pattern of of scores, other than that i t can be observed that female sub-jects tended to scored higher than males and that three of the four highest c e l l means are found in the third of the repeated meas ures. Table i i . This table is a summary of the analysis of variance of the subjects' self-disclosure scores. Out of a total of f i f -teen main effects and interactions, four are s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant with p_ < .QS and three with p_ < .01 . Of the main effects only the repeated measures (R) was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant to a confidence criterion of p_<.05. Thus i t appears that subjects' self-disclosuresscores were affected by the sex of the subject (S") , the sex of the model (M), and the disclosure level of the model (D). Statis-t i c a l l y significant interaction effects are found in D x R, S x M x. R, S x M x R, and S x M x D x R. These interaction effects are shown in graphic representation in Figures 4, 1 - 3 , 5 - 6 , and 7 - 8 respectively. Table I I I . Table III summarizes the. analysis of .variance in the f i r s t of the four rating scales with which subjects rated the models. The analysis of variance of this rating—intimacy of 3 5 Table I I Summary a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e o f s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e scores (2 x 2 x 2 x 3) Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Main e f f e c t s : Sex df subject (S) 1 423.67 9.26** Sex of model (M) 1 193 .67 * 4.23 level (D) ** Model disclosure 1 905.01 19.78 Repeated measure (R) 2 112.84 2 .85 Interactions: S X M 1 79.51 1.74 S X D 1 4.34 0.09 M X D 1 171.17 3.74 S X R 2 38.55 0.98 M X R 2 45 .42 1.15 D X R 2 156.47 3.96* S X M x D 1 203.06 4.44* S X M x R 2 224.63 5.68** a X D x R 2 109.17 2 .76 M X D x R 2 22.29 0.56 S X M x D x R 2 131.90 3.34* Error for S, M, D 40 45.74 for S, M, D, R 80 39.53 *1<.05 **p_<.01 36 Table III Rated intimacy of model's disclosure ( 2 x 2 x 2 ) Source of Variation df MS F Main effects: Sex of subject (S) 1 0,21 0.01 Sex of model (M) 1 1.02 0.42 Model disclosure level (D) 1 25.52 10.47** Interactions: S x M 1 4.69 1.92 S x D 1 0.21 0.01 M x D 1 17.52 7.19" S x M x D 1 1.68 0.69 Error 40 2.44 *£ < .05 *J> < .01 37 the model's d i s c l o s u r e — i n d i c a t e s that D (disclosure l e v e l of model) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F (1, 40) = 10.47, p_< .01; also s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t was the M x D (sex of model x D) interaction, F_ (1, 40) = 4.11, p_ <.05. Almost no variance i n the ratings could be attributed to the sex of the subjects, F (1, 40) = 0.01, N.S. It would thus appear that subjects rated high-disclosing models as more intimate than low-disclosing models (mean i n t i -macy ratings of 5.25 and 3.79 res p e c t i v e l y ) . The M x D i n t e r -action i s graphically represented i n Figure 9. Table IV. The analysis of variance of rated masculinity of the model i s summarized i n Table IV. Both sex of the model, F_ (1, 40) = 4.11, p_<.05, and the S x D interaction, F (1, 40) = 4.11, p_<.05, were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I t should be p a r t i c u l a r l y noted that M was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n the d i r e c t i o n opposite to that suggested by common sense: the female model was rated as more masculine than was the male model, with mean ratings of 4.21 and 3.42 respectively. The S x D in t e r a c t i o n i s pictured i n Figure 10. Table V. On the t h i r d of the rating scales, subjects were asked to 38 Table IV Rated masculinity of model Source of Variation df MS F Main effects: Sex of subject (S) 1 6.02 3.29 Sex of model (M) 1 7.52 4.11' Model disclosure level (D) 1 3.52 1.92 Interactions: S x M 1 0.21 0.01 S x D 1 7.52 4.11' M x D 1 1.02 0.56 S x M x D 1 2.52 1.38 Error 40 1.82 39 Table V Rated liking of model Source of variation df MS F Main effects: Sex of subject (S) 1 6.75 2 .33 Sex of model (M) 1 16.34 5.65 Model disclosure level (D) 1 5.34 1.84 Interactions: S x M 1 1.34 0.46 S x D 1 0.34 0.12 M x D 1 0.84 0.30 S x M x D 1 4.08 1.41 Error 40 2.89 *P_<.05 40 rate how much they l i k e d the model. Table V summarizes the analysis of variance of these ratings. Only the M e f f e c t was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F_ (1, 40) = 5.65, p_ < .05. In this rating the male model was better l i k e d than the female, with mean ratings of 5.38 and 4.21 respectively. Table VI. This table provides a summary of the analysis of variance i n ratings of the psychological adjustment of the models. None of the main effects or interactions was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Table VII. Table VII provides a c o r r e l a t i o n of the t o t a l disclosure scores of s u b j e c t s — t h e sums of the repeated measures for each—with-the subjects' ratings of the models on the four ra-tin g scales.?: Correlations were calculated using the Pearson product-moment method. Interpretation of this table indicates l i t t l e or no c o r r e l a t i o n between subjects' t o t a l disclosure scores and th e i r ratings of the models on any of the scales. Figure 1. The analysis of variance i n subjects' disclosure scores was reported i n Table II using S (sex of subject) and M (sex of model) as main e f f e c t s . However, because one of the hypo-theses to be tested uses "same-sex model" and "opposite-sex 41 Table V j Rated psychological adjustment of model Source of variation df MS F Main effects: Sex of subject (S) 1 0.75 0.26 Sex of model (M) 1 0.34 0.11 Model disclosure level (D) 1 0.08 0.03 Interactions: S x M 1 0.00 0.00 S x D 1 0.08 0.03 M x D 1 3.00 1.03 S x M x D 1 3.00 1.03 Error 40 2.90 42 Table VII Correlations of subjects' total disclosure scores with their ratings of models Factors Total score (T) x T x Masculinity T x Liking T x Psychological r_ Intimacy +.14 - .17 + .15 Adjustment +.10 43 Fiqure 1 Mean disclosure score per segment for-male and female subjects under conditions of same-sex (SS) or opposite-sex (OS) model, for two conditions of disclosure modeling Segment d i s c l o -sure score (N = 48) 12-10 8 H 6A 4A 8.78 8.56 ? O12.50 Q 9.56 • 3.28 0.38 — r ~ SS OS 0 . Female subjects, high-disclosing model • —> Female subjects, low-disclosing model • .._ Male subjects, high-disclosing model ^ Male subjects, low-disclosing model Note. Points connected by lines for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes only. 44 model" as independent variables, Figure 1 was prepared to present data from Table II using these variables. Figure 1 pictures the disclosure scores i n the same-sex model and opposite-sex model conditions for males who viewed a high-disclosing model and for males who viewed a low-disclo-sing one. It also presents similar data for female subjects. This figure can be understood as a graph of the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t S x M x D in t e r a c t i o n from Table I I . Points on the figure are connected by lines for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes only, as c l e a r l y there can be no continuum along the h o r i -zontal axis. Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s several d i s t i n c t e f f e c t s . For male subjects disclosure l e v e l was d i s t i n c t l y higher among those who were presented with a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , regardless of the model's sex. Mean disclosure l e v e l per segment for male subjects i n the high-disclosure model condition was 7.56; i n the low-disclosure model condition i t was 2.19. As well, male subjects disclosed at higher levels after viewing a model of the opposite sex, whether or not the model was highly s e l f -d i s c l o s i n g . Mean disclosure l e v e l per segment for males with a female model was 6.78; with a male model i t was 2.97. To restate these points, for male subjects either the presentation of a high-disclosing model or the presentation of 45 a model of the opposite sex was followed by increased s e l f -disclosure. The figure shows d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s among f e -male subjects. An in t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the model and the model's disclosure l e v e l i s apparent. Afte r seeing a model of t h e i r own sex, female subjects disclosed at almost the same rate whether or not the model was highly s e l f - d i s -c l o s i n g . On the other hand, a great d i s p a r i t y can be seen i n the performance of female subjects who viewed a model of the opposite sex, depending on whether or not the model was highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g . Female subjects disclosed at a l e v e l congruent with the male model's disclosure l e v e l . Figures 2 and 3. These figures present the data from Figure 1 reported by disclosure l e v e l of the model. Figure 2 pictures the d i s c l o " sure scores of subjects who viewed a model of high s e l f - d i s -closure. Both male and female subjects i n t h i s condition re-acted s i m i l a r l y : they s e l f - d i s c l o s e d at a higher rate after viewing an opposite-sex model who was highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g . I t can also be seen c l e a r l y i n th i s condition that female subjects s e l f - d i s c l o s e d more than did males (mean disclosure scores per segment of 10.64 and 7.56 respectively.) Figure 3 represents the performance of subjects i n the 46 Figure ? Siubii'^etsdisclosure score per segment under conditions of same-sex (SS) or opposite-sex (OS) model for high-disclosing models 12 10 Disclosure 8 score (N = 24) 6 4 2-SS OS o Male subjects • : — Female subjects Note. Points connected by lines for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes only. ( 47 Figure 3 Subjects' disclosure score per segment under conditions of same-sex (SS) or opposite-sex (OS) model for low-disclosing models. Disclosure score (N = 24) 8< 6-4-2-8.67 0.38 • 3.28 SS i OS Male subjects • —Female subjects Note. Points connected by lines for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes only. 48 low-disclosure model condition. Here, female subjects who viewed a model of t h e i r own sex scored higher on s e l f - d i s c l o -sure than did males who viewed a same-sex model. Fiqure 4. Figure 4 pictures the v a r i a t i o n over time for subjects who viewed a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as opposed to those who viewed a model of low s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . I t i s , then, a graph of the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t D x R i n t e r a c t i o n found i n Table I I . Subjects i n the low-disclosing model condition disclosed at a r e l a t i v e l y low rate with l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n over time (mean scores by segments were 4.33, 4.21 and 3.71). Those who viewed a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , on the other hand, disclosed not only at a higher rate themselves but also with e r r a t i c v a r i a t i o n . Their mean scores were 8.67, 6.00, and 12.63 for three successive 4-minute scoring periods. Figures 5 and 6. These figures i l l u s t r a t e the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t 5 x M x R i n t e r a c t i o n found i n Table I I . Both figures graph the subjects' disclosure scores over time for subjects who viewed a same-sex model and for those who viewed an opposite-sex one. Figure 5 represents scores of male subjects; Figure 6 those of females. Figure 5 indicates l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n over time i n the 49 Figure 4 Subjects' disclosure scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under conditions of high-disclosing and low-disclosing models 50 Figure 5 Male subjects' disclosure scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under conditions of same-sex or opposite-sex model Disclosure score (N = 24) \2\ I0A 81 4 H 24 4.33 3.17 o .11.58 r Fit o 2 .33 Same-sex model • Opposite-sex model 51 Figure 6 Female subjects' disclosure scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under conditions of same-sex or opposite-sex model Disclosure score (N = 24) /CM 8 6-4-2-'9135 8.75 o .10.75 / ^ o 8.00 ^7 3.17 K2 Same-sex model Opposite-sex model 52 d i s c l o s u r e scores o f males who viewed a model of the same sex, but a l a r g e i n c r e a s e i n the t h i r d s c o r i n g p e r i o d f o r those who viewed a model of the opp o s i t e sex. F i g u r e 6 s i m i -l a r l y shows l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n over time f o r female s u b j e c t s who viewed a model of t h e i r own sex but g r e a t v a r i a t i o n f o r those who viewed a model of the opposite sex. Scores f o r the l a t t e r i n d i v i d u a l s were markedly lower i n the second segment. F i g u r e s 7 and 8. To f u r t h e r c l a r i f y the data r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e s 5 and 6, these f i g u r e s p i c t u r e the S x M x D x R i n t e r a c t i o n from Table I I by c o l l a p s i n g the S and M c o n d i t i o n s i n t o terms of "same-sex" and "opposite-sex" models. F i g u r e 7 graphs the segment d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e s over time f o r s u b j e c t s who viewed a h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g model. F i g u r e 8 i s a s i m i l a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n •for the l o w - d i s c l o s i n g model c o n d i t i o n . Examination o f F i g u r e 7 i d e n t i f i e s extreme v a r i a b i l i t y i n the response p a t t e r n over time f o r s u b j e c t s who viewed an opposite-sex model who was h i g h l y s l e f - d i s c l o s i n g . While s u b j e c t s who. viewed h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g same-sex models e x h i b i t some v a r i a b i l i t y over time, t h e i r v a r i a b i l i t y i s f a r l e s s s t r i k i n g . The i n t e r a c t i o n p i c t u r e d i n F i g u r e 8, the segment d i s c l o -sure scores o f s u b j e c t s i n the l o w - d i s c l o s i n g model c o n d i t i o n , 53 Figure 7. Subjects' disclosure scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under conditions of high-disclosing same-sex or high-disclosing opposite-sex model Disclosure sco re (N = 24) 18 16-14-12-10-8 6 4 2\ 17 .42 11.67 ^ 5.67 o 7.83 Same-sex model 0 Opposite-sex model 5 4 Figure 8 Subjects' disclosure scores by segments of repeated measures (R) under conditions of low-disclosing same-sex or low-disclosing opposite-sex model Disclosure score • X N = 24) o Same-sex model # Opposite-sex model 55 i s overshadowed i n much the same way. The figure indicates that i n thi s condition subjects who viewed a model of th e i r own sex decreased t h e i r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e over time, while those who viewed a model of the opposite sex increased i t . This i n -teraction, however, i s not strong when compared to that i n Figure 7. Clearly the bulk of the variance attributable to the S x M x D x R in t e r a c t i o n i n Table II can be traced to subjects i n the high-disclosing, opposite-sex model condition. Fiqure 9. This figure pictures the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t M x D int e r a c t i o n reported i n Table II I , the summary of analysis of variance i n the rated intimacy of the model's discussion. A-gain, points are connected by lines only for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes, as. no continuum i s implied along the hor i z o n t a l axis. Subjects perceived the high-disclosing model condition as being more intimate i n content than was the low-disclosing model condition. The high-disclosing models were rated 5.25 for intimacy; low-disclosing models were rated 3.79 on the average. FPwever, the figure indicates that almost a l l of the v a r i -ance i n rated intimacy i s attributable to the male model's high-disclosing videotape. This tape was rated at a mean of 6.0 out of a possible 8.0, while the other three tapes were 56 Figure :9 Rated intimacy of model's discussion "forv. male (M) or female (F) model under two conditions of modeled disclosure 6.00 4.50 • _ 9 Rated 4- 4 > 5 0 4 # 2 5 intimacy (N = 48) 2-F O High-disclosing model • Low-disclosing model Note. Points connected by lines for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes only. 57 rated 4.5, 4.25, and 4.5. In short, t h i s tape was judged to be more intimate than the other three. Although as indicated i n Table VII there was only a s l i g h t c o r r e l a t i o n o v e r a l l between subjects* t o t a l disclosure scores and t h e i r ratings of the models, the results pictured i n Figure 9 suggested that one more c o r r e l a t i o n be performed., The high intimacy r a t i n g of the male model's high-disclosing tape suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y that a c o r r e l a t i o n existed be-tween the disclosure scores of those subjects who viewed the male model's" tapes and t h e i r ratings of the intimacy of h i s discussion. That i s to ask, could subjects who viewed the male model have adjusted t h e i r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e relative5to t h e i r perception of h i s intimacy? The process could well have been one of these subjects imitating not the model's d i s -closure l e v e l so much as his intimacy and i n d i r e c t l y r a i s i n g t h e i r disclosure scores as a r e s u l t . This reasoning would suggest a one-tailed t e s t . "The -.correlation c o e f f i c i e n t between rated intimacy and t o t a l disclosure scores for subjects who viewed the male mo-del's tapes was calculated by the Pearson product-moment method. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t correlation/was^identi-f i e d , r = +.57, 23 df, p_<.005 for a one-tailed t e s t . 58 Fiqure 10. This figure graphs the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t S x D i n t e r a c t i o n reported i n Table IV, the summary of analysis of variance of the rated masculinity of the models. Most of the v a r i a t i o n of these ratings appears i n ratings of low-disclo-sing models by male subjects. These subjects rated t h e i r models to be more masculine (mean ra t i n g 4.83) than did sub-jects r ating the other models (mean ratings of 3.58, 3.5, and 3.33). To restate the point, males judged low-disclosing models to be p a r t i c u l a r l y masculine, whether the model was male or female. Tests of'Hypotheses  Hypothesis 1. The f i r s t hypothesis (H^) to be tested was stated: Subjects exposed to a videotape model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w i l l , i n imitating the model, themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e s t a t i s t i c a l l y no more frequently than w i l l subjects exposed to a model of low s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . The stated alternative (H., ^) to t h i s hypothesis was: 59 Figure 10:. Rated masculinity of two models by male and female subjects under conditions of modeled high (H) and low (L) disclosure Rated masculinity (N = 48) 4A T L Male subjects • Female subjects 60 Subjects exposed to a videotape model of high self-dtLsclosure w i l l , i n imitating the model, themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher rate than w i l l subjects exposed to a model of low-self-disclosure, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . Examination of the data i n Table II indicates r e j e c t i o n of H^ i n favor of i t s stated a l t e r n a t i v e . The e f f e c t of D (disclosure l e v e l of the model) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F (1, 40) = 19.78, p< .01. This indicates that the use of a videotape model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e increased the s e l f -disclosure of subjects who viewed the model. Mean s e l f - d i s -closure scores per segment of subjects who viewed the high-d i s c l o s i n g model was 9.10; for those who viewed the low-^dis-closing model i t was 4.08. This confirms the suggestion of the effectiveness of modeling s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e found i n Stone and Gotlib (1975). Hypothesis 2. The second hypothesis (H2) was stated: When presented with models exhibiting high s e l f -disclosure, subjects who are exposed to a model of t h e i r own sex w i l l themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e 61 s t a t i s t i c a l l y no more frequently than w i l l subjects exposed to a model of the opposite sex, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . Because the S x M x D (sex of subject x sex of model x disclosure l e v e l of model) in t e r a c t i o n shown i n Table II was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F (1, 40) = 4.44, p_<.05, r e j e c t i o n of H 2 i s indicated. $t would appear, then, that when pre-sented with models of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , subjects respond d i f f e r e n t l y depending on whether the model i s of t h e i r own sex. However, the stated alternative (H2_a) was: When presented with models exhibiting high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , subjects who are exposed to a model of t h e i r own sex w i l l themselves s e l f -disclose at a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y hi.gher rate than w i l l subjects exposed to a model of the opposite sex, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . This alternative must also be rejected on the basis of the data. In the high-disclosing model condition, an oppo-site-sex model was more e f f e c t i v e i n increasing subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e than was a same-sex model. Post-hoc examina-t i o n of c e l l means was possible through Dunn's Test (Kirk, 1968, p. 79); i n the high-disclosing model condition the two same-sex model c e l l s were compared with the two opposite-sex model c e l l s . The c r i t i c a l value for the comparison i n -volving these four c e l l s was 7.43. The difference between the two pa i r s was 7.72, indicating s t a t i s t i c a l l y greater e f f e c t i v e -ness for an opposite-sex model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . I t can be noted that M (sex of model) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , as can be seen i n Table I I . This indicates that the female model appears to have been more e f f e c t i v e i n stimu-l a t i n g subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e than was the male. Mean d i s -closure score per segment for subjects with a female model was 7.75; with a male model i t was 5.43, p_<.05. Hypothesis 3. The t h i r d hypothesis (Hg) to be tested was stated: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e between male and female subjects o v e r a l l , as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . The alternative (H 0_ 3) was: 63 There w i l l be a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the amount of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e between male and female subjects o v e r a l l , as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Examination of the data from Table II indicates S (sex of subject) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y .significant, F (1, 40) = 9.26, p_<.01; r e j e c t i o n of H^ i n favor of i t s stated alternative i s indicated. H was a non-directional hypothesis, as the l i -terature on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s contradictory regarding whether i t i s sex-biased. In t h i s study the mean s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e per segment of female subjects was 8.31; for males, 4.88. The. study, then, tends to support Jourard's (1964) e a r l i e r b e l i e f that females s e l f - d i s c l o s e more than do males. Hypothesis 4. The fourth hypothesis was stated: S t a t i s t i c a l tests of significance w i l l indicate no difference i n the judged emotional s t a b i l i t y of the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g male model as opposed to that of the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by subjects' ratings on a 9-point scale. The alternative was stated as H. : 4-a S t a t i s t i c a l tests of significance w i l l i n -dicate that the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g male model was judged less emotionally stable than was the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by subjects' ratings • ' on a 9-point scale. was tested s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n Table V I , the summary analysis of variance of the rated psychological adjustment of the models. As the M x D (sex of model x disclosure l e v e l of model) i n t e r a c t i o n was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the study f a i l s to r e j e c t H^. Hypothesis 5. The f i f t h hypothesis (H^) was stated: S t a t i s t i c a l tests of significance w i l l i n -dicate no difference i n the self-disclosure, of subjects presented with the highly s e l f -d i s c l o s i n g male model compared to the per:" J--- formance of subjects exposed to the highly s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by raters using the Haymes method of scoring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Its alternative (Hc_^) was stated: 65 Subjects p r e s e n t e d w i t h the h i g h l y s e l f -d i s c l o s i n g male model w i l l themselves s e l f - d i s c l o s e to a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t degree l e s s than w i l l s u b j e c t s p r e s e n t e d w i t h the h i g h l y s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model, as determined by r a t e r s us-'. v i n g the Haymes method of s c o r i n g s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e . H_ was generated under the assumption t h a t H. would be 5 4 r e j e c t e d . That i s , i t was assumed t h a t one of the models of h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e would be judged l e s s e m o t i o n a l l y s t a b l e than the o t h e r . I t would then have been p o s s i b l e to t e s t whether s u b j e c t s would as r e a d i l y i m i t a t e the h i g h - d i s -c l o s i n g b e h a v i o r of a model they judged to be l e s s e m o t i o n a l l y s t a b l e . As H 4 was not r e j e c t e d > : i t i s ^ i n t p o s s i b l e r - t o - t e s t H 5 u s i n g t h i s r a t i o n a l e . However, i t can be>seen i n Table I I t h a t the M x D (sex of model x d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l of model) i n t e r a c t i o n was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n i n f l u e n c i n g s u b j e c t s ' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s , F (1, 40) = 3.74, N.S. F u r t h e r , Table V n i n d i c a t e s t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n of s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s of the models' p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment w i t h the s u b j e c t s ' t o t a l d i s c l o s u r e scores was not s t r o n g , _ = +.10. These r e s u l t s 66 suggest f a i l u r e to r e j e c t Rated p s y c h o l o g i c a l a d j u s t -ment of the models d i d not seem to i n f l u e n c e s u b j e c t s ' s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e s c o r e s , nor d i d the i n t e r a c t i o n of the models' sex and d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l . R e c a p i t u l a t i o n of r e s u l t s of h y p o t h e s i s - t e s t i n g F i v e hypotheses were t e s t e d i n the study. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s : 1. S u b j e c t s ' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n c r e a s e d f o l l o w i n g p r e -s e n t a t i o n of a model of h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . 2. An o p p o s i t e - s e x model o f h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was more e f f e c t i v e i n s t i m u l a t i n g h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among sub-j e c t s . 3. Female s u b j e c t s s e l f - d i s c l o s e d more than d i d males. 4. N e i t h e r d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l nor sex of the model nor the i n t e r a c t i o n o f the two a f f e c t e d s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s of the models' p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment. 5. Ratings of the models' p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l l a t e d w i t h s u b j e c t s ' own d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l i n i m i t a t i o n of the models. N e i t h e r d i d an i n t e r -a c t i o n of the sex and the d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l of a model seem to i n f l u e n c e the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l s i n i m i t a t i o n . I t should be noted, however, t h a t obtained r a t i n g s of the models' " p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment" f e l l w i t h i n a v e r y narrow 67 range. This reduced the p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining a s t a t i s -t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n . Recapitulation of unpredicted re s u l t s In addition to the results of hypothesis-testing, a num-ber of other s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but unpredicted re-sul t s were obtained: 1. Male and female subjects responded d i f f e r e n t l y i n the experimental conditions. Female subjects adjusted t h e i r own l e v e l of se l f - d i s c l o s u r e congruent with that of the male model but when presented with a female model they did not seem to adjust t h e i r disclosure l e v e l s i m i l a r l y . Male sub-jects increased t h e i r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e either a f t e r viewing a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e or after viewing either model of the opposite sex. 2. The s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of subjects who viewed a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e increased, but i n an e r r a t i c manner over time. In p a r t i c u l a r , subjects! s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s were notably fewer i n the second scoring segment for subjects who viewed a model of the opposite sex. 3. There were only weak s t a t i s t i c a l 'correlations be-tween subjects' t o t a l disclosure scores and t h e i r ratings of the.imodels on any of the four scales o v e r a l l . 4. There was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t 'correlation 68 between the rated intimacy of the male model's tapes and sub-jects' own disclosure scores. The male model's high-disclo-sing videotape was rated more intimate than were the other three videotapes. 5. The female model was rated higher in masculinity than the male; the male model was better liked. 6. Male subjects rated models of low self-disclosure as more masculine, whether or not the model was male. 7. Presentation of a female model el i c i t e d greater self-disclosure among subjects. 69 Chapter 6 Discussion Effectiveness of modeling. The effectiveness of modeling i n increasing s e l f - d i s -closure, suggested by Marlatt (1971) and by Stone and Got-•tib (1975) was confirmed. Confirmation was necessitated by a flaw which has been noted i n the design of Stone and Got-l i b ' s study: "subjects i n t h e i r experimental condition re-ceived more experimenter attention than did subjects i n the control condition. The present study more c l e a r l y indicates that subjects who view a model of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e d i s -cuss topics using more s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g statements. Whalen (1969) expressed doubt that complex verbal be-haviors could be successfully learned by modeling without ad-d i t i o n a l and e x p l i c i t i n s tructions; the evidence of the pre-sent study i s to the contrary. In fact, subjects i n t h i s study did not even receive instructions which Green and Mar-l a t t (1972) characterized as "general i n s t r u c t i o n s " to: Talk f r e e l y about matters . . . When people get started t a l k i n g they discover that i t be-comes an in t e r e s t i n g experience . . . One often receives a great deal of s a t i s f a c t i o n from j u s t t a l k i n g , (p. 289) 70 While such i n s t r u c t i o n s appear to f a c i l i t a t e i n c r e a s e d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , the p r e s e n t study suggests t h a t they may not be necessary and t h a t modeling along can f a c i l i t a t e s e l f - d i s -c l o s u r e . I t p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r evidence t h a t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n dyads and groups i s i n c r e a s e d through simple modeling r a t h e r than through Jourard's (1964) c o n s t r u c t of r e c i p r o c i t y of openness. As w e l l , i t suggests t h a t modeling s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a p r e c o u n s e l i n g treatment may be s u f f i c i e n t to cause i n -c reased c l i e n t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and t h a t n o n - d i r e c t i v e coun-s e l o r s may not f i n d i t necessary to o v e r t l y i n s t r u c t the c l i e n t to s e l f - d i s c l o s e , i f the c l i e n t has had an o p p o r t u n i t y to observe an a p p r o p r i a t e model of h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study was the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g model of the same sex as the s u b j e c t would be more e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g the s u b j e c t ' s s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e , due to the g r e a t e r l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the model. T h i s seemed to be a reasonable assumption to make, g i v e n the r e p u t a t i o n of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a b e h a v i o r l i n k e d i n degree to sex. I t i s d i f f i c u l t , then, to account f o r the r e s u l t s of the study at f i r s t g l a n c e : the o p p o s i t e - s e x models were more e f -f e c t i v e i n the h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g c o n d i t i o n , and the female model was more e f f e c t i v e o v e r a l l . C l e a r l y a complex i n t e r a c t i o n of 71 factors i s involved i n such r e s u l t s . As has been described, male subjects responded i n both high- and low-disclosing model conditions i n a sim i l a r manner: the opposite-sex model was more e f f e c t i v e . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e for female subjects with a female model was very unstable and had l i t t l e relationship to whether the model was high-disclo-sing. A great difference occurred, on the other hand, i n t h e i r disclosure l e v e l a f t e r viewing a male model. I f he was high-disclosing, so were they; i f he did not disclose, they became more circumspect. In short, then, both the disclosure l e v e l and the sex of the model influenced subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , but male and female subjects responded d i f f e r e n t l y . Males adjusted t h e i r l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e according to that of the model, but were more open i n any case i f a female model was seen to have done the task. Females tended to adjust t h e i r l e v e l of s e l f -disclosure only when presented with a male model. Because th i s study was conceived i n the hopes of apply-ing the results to the use of models as a precounseling t r e a t -ment, i t i s p a r t i c u l a r value to discuss these results i n terms of an e f f e c t of same-sex and different-sex models i n the high-disclosing condition. Simply put, the results suggest that a counselor who wishes to f a c i l i t a t e c l i e n t s e l f - d i s c l o r 1 sure through use of a videotape model would be advised to keep on hand a model of each sex and to use the model of the oppo-s i t e sex with each c l i e n t . Such an approach seems to contra-d i c t a basic implication of modeling theory: that the better model i s one which f a c i l i t a t e s greater i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , hence a model of the same sex. There may be sound reasons, however, for the contrary approach suggested by t h i s study's r e s u l t s . The age group of the subjects may have been a relevant factor i n determining the greater effectiveness of opposite-sex models. Young adults often e s t a b l i s h t h e i r more i n t i -mate relationships with members of the opposite sex. Thus the experience of observing a member of the opposite sex d i s -close may have led them to reciprocate i n kind because they had been p r a c t i c i n g s i m i l a r r e c i p r o c a l disclosures with other members of the opposite sex. Perhaps younger or older sub-j e c t s , whose intimate relationships may tend to be with mem-bers of t h e i r own sex, would reciprocate more with a model of t h e i r own sex. I t i s also possible that a kind of sexual chauvinism was operating i n the response pattern of the subjects. There may have been a strong covert b e l i e f that " i f a woman (or man) can do i t , so can I". This i s not an outlandish suggestion, given the contemporary competitiveness between the sexes, 73 e s p e c i a l l y i n the under-30 age group. I t can also be suggested that the sex of the members i n a relationship i m p l i c i t l y affects the status of those members. Sex-role stereotyping '.tends to invest men with greater s t a t -us i n a relationship with women. This creates an asymetrical relationship i n which the member of greater s t a t u s — i n t h i s case the m a l e — f e e l s more at ease and i s thus more l i k e l y to be s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g , r e f l e c t i n g h i s power to control the r e l a -tionship. Although the study did not involve s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n , dyadic relationships, the experimental conditions can b© seen to have simulated a dyad.' In t h i s condition, then, males would f e e l more at ease s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g i n response to an as-sumedly lower-status female than i n response to a male of im-p l i c i t l y equal status. This would explain the results ob-. tained: males were more s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g following presenta-t i o n of a female model, whatever her own l e v e l of disclosure. Females i n t h i s study did not adjust t h e i r own disclosure l e v e l to that of the female model. Again, the symetry of the relationship with a female model may have had greater i n f l u -ence than the l e v e l of disclosure modeled. However, they exhibited a marked increase i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e when presented with a high-disclosing male model. The i m p l i c i t greater sta-74 tus of that model may have, for female subjects, pointedly defined that a high l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was c a l l e d f o r . In addition, a high-disclosing male i n North American society i s noteworthy. In being w i l l i n g to s e l f - d i s c l o s e , the male model may have provided r e l a t i v e l y more information about himself than the s i m i l a r l y s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g female model. That i s , he may have seemed, to female subjects at least, more s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g than the female model, simply because h i s high disclosure l e v e l was unexpected. Thus, a combination of im-p l i c i t status and unexpectedly high l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may account for the responding high disclosure of females i n the opposite-sex, high-disclosing model condition. Nevertheless, without further experimentation i t would be unwise to abandon the established assumption of modeling theory that subjects are more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y with and therefore imitate a model of t h e i r own sex. This study fea-tured a r e l a t i v e l y small number of subjects and only one model of each sex. The study's results may be generalizable only to the models used, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the fac t that the female model was judged to be more masculine than the male, although the male was better l i k e d . I t i s suggested as well that the s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of the sex of the model i s , simi-l a r l y , generalizable only to these models. In addition, there was no control for the exact content of the models* remarks other than that they focus on three broad t o p i c s . Jourard (1971) has c l e a r l y shown that intimacy of content i s a factor both i n perceived and measured s e l f -disclosure. In view of the fact that one model presentation was judged to be more intimate than the other three, i t i s clear that Haymes' s c a l e — a s used to control for models' s e l f disclosure—was unable to control for intimacy. I t i s , then, impossible to rule out that perceived s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may hav varied d i s t i n c t l y not only between models at both disclosure l e v e l s , but as well from topic to topic i n each modeling con-d i t i o n . This could have had marked ef f e c t s on subjects' subsequent .self-disclosure, confounding the obtained r e s u l t s . Also apparent i n the study were e r r a t i c variations over time i n the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s of the subjects; these v a r i a -tions seem most represented i n the performance of subjects who viewed a high-disclosing opposite-sex model, as has been shown. In p a r t i c u l a r , these subjects exhibited high s e l f -disclosure i n the f i r s t and t h i r d scoring segments but very low s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n the second segment. None of the con-t r o l l e d independent variables would seem to account f o r t h i s r e s u l t , and i t i s suggested that an uncontrolled v a r i a b l e — the order i n which subjects discussed the three topics—may 76 have been r e s p o n s i b l e . While the order of t o p i c s discussed was randomized over a l l s u b j e c t s , i t was not c o n t r o l l e d w i t h i n c e l l s . I t may be t h a t one of the t o p i c s — s c h o o l l i f e , f a m i l y l i f e , or s o c i a l l i f e — w a s more d i f f i c u l t than the other two to score on; i f t h i s t o p i c were f r e q u e n t l y the second t o p i c i n the c e l l s which viewed a h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g opposite-sex model, the r e s u l t would have been as p i c t u r e d : a d e f l a t e d score i n the second s c o r i n g p e r i o d and a r t i f i c i a l l y i n f l a t e d scores f o r the other p e r i o d s f o r these c e l l s . Only r e p l i c a t i o n w i t h t h i s v a r i a b l e c o n t r o l -l e d could c l a r i f y the matter f u r t h e r . F i n a l l y , two other p o s s i b l e and u n c o n t r o l l e d f a c t o r s may have i n f l u e n c e d s u b j e c t s ' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e over time. One— the l a c k of c o n t r o l s on the intimacy of the models' remarks on the three t o p i c s — h a s been noted; d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of modeled intimacy may have l e d subjects to s e l f - d i s c l o s e d i f -f e r e n t l y from t o p i c to t o p i c . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t there may simply be a rhythm to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , and t h i s rhythm may be r e f l e c t e d i n the v a r i a b i l i t y of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e scores over time. Subjects i n the h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g opposite-sex model c o n d i t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y , may have become more r e t i -cent a f t e r t h e i r i n i t i a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i n the f i r s t segment and then returned to h i g h s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w i t h equal or 77 greater f a c i l i t y a f t e r "resting" during the second segment. Sex of the subject. As noted i n the introduction, there i s a wealth of con-f l i c t i n g evidence of the influence of sex on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . One currently accepted resolution of t h i s dilemma i s Plog's (1965) suggestion that demonstrated sex differences i n s e l f -disclosure are a c u l t u r a l and regional anomaly and peculiar to the southern United States, where Jourard—who has pro-vided the bulk of the evidence suggesting a sex d i f f e r e n c e — has conducted h i s studies. I t i s tempting, then, to interpret the s i g n i f i c a n t sex difference i n o v e r a l l subject s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e which appears i n t h i s study as being l o c a l i z e d to B r i t i s h Columbia. I t could be suggested that the difference i s an e f f e c t of the rough-and-tumble "macho" image projected by male role models i n Western Canada. However, t h i s i s a temptation to be re-si s t e d , as several factors within the experimental design may well have created the e f f e c t . Ther experimenter was an a t t r a c t i v e young woman who may, inadvertantly, have made female subjects f e e l more comfortable i n approaching the task. Male subjects may have covertly be-l i e v e d — i n c o r r e c t l y — t h a t the experimenter would be l i s t e n i n g to t h e i r tapes and may have been more circumspect i n t h e i r 78 statements as a r e s u l t . Equally possibly, the judges—both male graduate students with experience as counselors—may have tended to f i n d s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g statements by male subjects to be overly f a m i l i a r and discounted them as being not "daring" enough to be scored. F i n a l l y , no confirmation i s available that Haymes1 scale i s as sensitive to the common d i c t i o n of males as i t i s to that of females. Relying as i t does on the manner of s e l f -expression for i t s scoring, the scale may not be an appro-p r i a t e measure for males. In short, the sex difference i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n d i -cated by t h i s study may be a r e f l e c t i o n of sex-biases i n the study rather than i n the subjects. Yet, while t h i s expla-nation would appear to be most l i k e l y , i t can also be re-c a l l e d that additional evidence of sex-role stereotyping by subjects appeared i n the rating scales. As has been de-scribed, males judging low-disclosing model tapes rated the model as more masculine, while female subjects perceived l i t t l e difference between high- and low-disclosing models. In combination with the fact that males i n t h i s study d i s -closed to a lesser degree than did females, i t i s possible to make a good case for the suggestion that, at l e a s t among the males i n the study, the sex-role stereotype of the 79 "strong, s i l e n t man" remains i n both behavior a n c L a t t i t u d e . Ratings o f the models. S e v e r a l of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r a t i n g s s u b j e c t s gave to the models have a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d ; the g r e a t e s t l i k e -l i h o o d i s t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s are g e n e r a l i z a b l e o n l y to the two models used. However, no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -f e r e n c e s were found i n the r a t i n g s o f the models' psycho-l o g i c a l adjustment, and the study f a i l e d to r e p l i c a t e the f i n d i n g s o f Derlaga nad C h a i k i n (1976). In t h a t study, 128 male and female s u b j e c t s r a t e d p r i n t e d "case s t u d i e s " o f four i n d i v i d u a l s f o r v a r i o u s f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment. L o w - d i s c l o s i n g female and h i g h - d i s c l o s i n g male c e n t r a l c h a r a c t e r s i n the case s t u d i e s were judged l e s s w e l l a d j u s t e d . C l e a r l y there are numerous d i f f e r e n c e s between the p r e s e n t study and t h a t o f Derlaga and C h a i k i n , foremost of which i s the use of real - m o d e l s . F a i l u r e t o r e p l i c a t e the e a r l i e r study may be r e l a t e d t o the p a r t i c u l a r models used, or t o there being a l e s s e r degree of d i f f e r e n c e between h i g h -and l o w - d i s c l o s i n g models i n t h i s study. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t s u b j e c t s are l e s s w i l l i n g t o c r i t i c a l l y judge an i n d i v i d u a l they can see, or when the sub-j e c t s themselves have j u s t completed the same task as the model, or when the judgement i s made alone r a t h e r than i n the 80 anonymity of a large group. F i n a l l y , the characters i n Der-laga and Chaikin's study were involved i n highly emotionally-charged s i t u a t i o n s — a car accident or the committal of the character's mother to a p s y c h i a t r i c h o s p i t a l — a n d the models i n the present study were discussing f a r less dramatic topics. Perhaps subjects i n t h i s study saw l i t t l e difference i n the content of the high- and low-disclosing models' presentations and judged them to be acceptably adjusted based on the con-tent of the material the models were d i s c l o s i n g . Perhaps judgements of psychological adjustment are based on the ap-proriateness of d i s c l o s i n g information of extremely sensi-t i v e content. The narrow range of rated psychological adjustment for the models has been noted; t h i s lack of v a r i a b i l i t y reduced the p o s s i b i l i t y of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t findings. How^ ever, i t i s also suspect, i n that the female model was rated as more masculine than the male. Such a response to the models i s i n some ways paradoxical. I t may be that subjects were unwilling to turn to extreme ratings i n the context of rating such an i l l - d e f i n e d yet portentious variable as "psy-chological adjustment." In conclusion, while the study f a i l e d to indicate that judged psychological adjustment of the model affects the 81 model's u t i l i t y for f a c i l i t a t i n g subjects' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , i t may simply be valuable to note i n terms of the hypothesis that common sense indicates a l i m i t to the degree of modeled se l f - d i s c l o s u r e which subjects w i l l imitate. A model whose se l f - d i s c l o s u r e may be considered inappropriately intimate, or whose presentation of himself thought inordinately trans-parent, may frighten o f f more counseling c l i e n t s than are helped. Modeling of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as discussed i n t h i s paper i s l i k e l y to be desirable only for the c l i e n t who i s new to counseling or psychotherapy. Such c l i e n t s may tend to ap-proach the experience with some trepidation i f not outright suspicion. For such individuals a gentle prod i n the d i -recti o n of greater s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may be appropriate; a plunge into the depths of the model's psyche i s not. One purpose of precounseling treatments i s , af t e r a l l , the a l l e v i a t i o n of some of the new c l i e n t ' s anxiety. 82 Chapter 7 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study  Limitations. A clear l i m i t a t i o n i n t h i s study i s that the design i s not a wholly acceptable analogue for the experience of coun-s e l i n g or psychotherapy. This analogue does not "leet the guidelines for such research suggested by Strong (1971), who defines the "boundary" conditions of counseling, to which analogues should aspire, as "(a) A conversation (b) between persons of unequal status (c) of some duration i n which one p a r t i c i p a n t (d) i s motivated to change and (e)- may be psycho-l o g i c a l l y distressed" (p. 106). Hel l e r (1971), however, notes that approximation to the natural setting i s of less concern i n most recent analogue re-search, and Munley (1974) reviews how r a r e l y Strong's guide-li n e s have been met i n analogues reported i n the Journal of  Counseling Psychology. This study's design f i t s Munley's description of an "Audiovisual Study: C l i e n t Behavior De-pendent Variable" i n which the vicarious experience of coun-se l i n g allows the experimenter to minimize uncontrolled inde-pendent variables, circumvent e t h i c a l questions, standardize the treatment, and obtain more s p e c i f i c data than i n more n a t u r a l i s t i c settings. Nevertheless, the experimental con-83 d i t i o n s are c l e a r l y not i d e n t i c a l t o those of c o u n s e l i n g . A f u r t h e r t h r e a t to the e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of the e x p e r i -ment i s r e l a t e d to the s u b j e c t sample: 48 students i n one c i t y . Goldman (1976) among many others has p o i n t e d out the danger of g e n e r a l i z i n g to the g r e a t e r p o p u l a t i o n f i n d i n g s which are d e r i v e d from s t u d i e s o f a c o n v e n i e n t l y a c c e s s i b l e and l i m i t e d p o p u l a t i o n . P a r t i c u l a r l y , one may ask i f the be-h a v i o r of v o l u n t e e r s u b j e c t s i n t h i s experiment can v a l i d l y be r e l a t e d to the behavior of i n d i v i d u a l s who would be seeking c o u n s e l i n g or psychotherapy. On the other hand, the use of such s u b j e c t s i s v e r y f r e q u e n t i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of data c o l l e c t e d on them i s u s u a l l y accepted. The use of Haymes* s c a l e f o r measuring s u b j e c t s ' s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e r a i s e s f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s . I t s face v a l i d i t y i n measuring 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 as Haymes d e f i n e s i t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t , but no comparison i s a v a i l a b l e between Haymes" s c a l e and others designed to measure s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . One p o s s i b l e problem has a l r e a d y been noted: i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y i n j u d g i n g the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s o f both sexes has not been e s t a b l i s h e d . Another concern i s t h a t the s c a l e does not weight s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e s f o r degree of intimacy, as do Jourard's and 84 others', and i t can be said that the degree of intimacy i n se l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i s of equal or greater importance than num-ber i n assessing t h e i r value i n counseling. While the scale accounts for genuineness—the immediacy of f i r s t - p e r s o n s e l f -statements as opposed to second- or third-person statements which disclose i n a more defensive s t y l e (Roth and Kuiken, 1 9 7 5 ) — l i t t l e regard i s given to measuring intimacy except i n the general instructions to the judges. There are inherent problems i n scales purporting to judge degree of intimacy i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Judges, for ex-ample, can be misled by various vocal cues i n the verbal styles of subjects (Fischer and Apostal, 1975). A f a c i l e disclosure may seem weighty and intimate i f spoken afte r a pause, i n a h a l t i n g manner, or i n a low, throaty voice. An extremely intimate disclosure may be judged as less so i f delivered with some flatness of a f f e c t . Also, the intimacy of content can be e a s i l y misjudged; i d e n t i c a l statements could be considered a major revelation for one person, but mere i n t e l l e c t u a l i z a t i o n for another. Attempts to have sub-jects s e l f - r a t e the intimacy of t h e i r disclosures af t e r a session r e s u l t usually i n gross ratings of limited research value. Goodstein and Reinecker (1974) note that as a r e s u l t of such d i f f i c u l t i e s , recent researchers have tended to i g -85 nore intimacy values i n measuring s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Neverthe-less, as Haymes* scale was used to establish the l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n the model tapes, i t was not possible to control for the models* degree of intimacy. As has been noted, the rating scales revealed that one tape was judged to be more intimate than the others and that a high c o r r e l a -tion/existed between subjects' ratings of that model's i n -timacy and t h e i r own disclosure scores, thus confounding the study's findings. Although three of the four rating scales completed by subjects i n the study were unrelated to hypotheses, the curious results on some of them suggest some of the l i m i t a -tions of the study. Lack of controls on the models' i n t i -macy has been noted; i t may also be r e c a l l e d that the female model was judged to be more masculine than the male, with the mid-point of the scale between t h e i r mean scores. Addition-a l l y , the male model was better l i k e d . Clearly the results of the study may be generalizable only to these models. Another l i m i t a t i o n of the study can be seen i n that a l l measurements were taken i n the course of one b r i e f session. Any measured changes i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e would best be gener-a l i z e d only i n r e l a t i o n to a f i r s t session of counseling. I t seems unwise to suggest that a subject's l e v e l of s e l f - d i s -86 closure can be manipulated over a long term as a r e s u l t of a single b r i e f exposure to a model. The extreme v a r i a b i l i t y of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e over time for subjects i n the high-disclo-sing model conditions may be further evidence for t h i s p o s i -t i o n . In practice, the counselor who had f a c i l i t a t e d greater s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n the f i r s t session with a model would pro-bably f i n d i t necessary to further that gain by modeling s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e himself i n that and subsequent sessions. F i n a l l y , s i x of the o r i g i n a l 48 volunteers withdrew i n the course of the task, primarily, they reported, because they "just couldn't talk into a tape recorder." Withdrawal did not seem to be related to modeling condition, as s i x of the eight c e l l s were affected, but c l e a r l y a further sampling bias was defined: the only part i c i p a n t s were ones who would talk into a tape recorder for 15 minutes. And while i t i s l i k e l y that the process of tape recording s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s , even with an unobtrusive machine, affects the production of those s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s , t h i s l i m i t a t i o n may simply be a r e f l e c t i o n of the researcher's paradox: measuring the behavior changes that behavior. Suggestions for further study. The findings of the study can be seen to be equivocated by the lim i t a t i o n s mentioned above. In addition, as several 87 unexpected effects proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , r e p l i c a t i o n of the study would be advisable to resolve both substantive issues and questions of design. Among the substantive issues to be resolved, the greater effectiveness of opposite-sex models i n t h i s study i s fore-most. A less biased sample should be drawn i n further -studies. I f , as has been suggested, the sex of the model of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e l a t i v e to the subject i s a s i g n i f i c a n t variable i n the effectiveness of modeling the behavior, i t would be valuable to i d e n t i f y what combinations of model and subject are most e f f e c t i v e for various age groups, s o c i a l parameters., or c u l t u r a l backgrounds. E r r a t i c rates of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e over time suggest that the modeling e f f e c t i s not strong and may not be apparent af-ter the opening minutes of the i n i t i a l interview following presentation of the model. Future investigations are ne-cessary to determine whether these e r r a t i c rates were due to the uncontrolled content and intimacy of the models' remarks, the d i f f i c u l t y subjects may have experienced i n discussing one or more of the requested topics, or perhaps the i n f l u -ence of tempo of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s over the scoring periods. The p o s s i b i l i t y that the study simulated asymetrical dyads and thus d i f f e r e n t i a l l y affected male and female sub-88 j e c t s ' responding s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has been noted. Further investigation of the possible influence of asymetical status on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the context of sex-role stereotyping, i s suggested. Study of actual dyads may be a feasib l e route to c l a r i f i c a t i o n of th i s influence.. Another substantive issue i s the influence of perceived psychological adjustment of the model on subjects' s e l f -d isclosure. The gross ratings of "psychological adjustment" used i n t h i s study may have simply been i n s e n s i t i v e to v a r i -ations which might otherwise have been e l i c i t e d . F i n a l l y , no norms exi s t for s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among males and females i n western Canada; results of th i s study indicate the need to esta b l i s h such norms. This may be possible i n so c i o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d studies conducted i n vivo. Such studies could a d d i t i o n a l l y f a c i l i t a t e investigation of rated psychological adjustment of high- and low-disclosing i n d i -viduals of both sexes. A number of questions of design can be raised regarding t h i s study. Replication would demand greater control of a number of variables which may have influenced the r e s u l t s . This would probably require a larger number of subjects i n each c e l l to reduce the error term within c e l l s and to allow more independent variables to be manipulated. 89 Scoring c r i t e r i a which have been established as v a l i d , r e l i a b l e , and sex-fair should be u t i l i z e d . Possible v a r i -ance introduced by the judges could be controlled by having more than one judge score each tape and by having both sexes represented among the judges. One or more experimenters of each sex should be used to control the possible influence of the sex of the experimenter. Clearly, more than one model of each sex should also be used. 1 A scale which acceptably measures the intimacy of s e l f -disclosure should be used to control the expressed intimacy on the models' tapes and to score subjects' responses. I t would be equally valuable, perhaps i n a p i l o t study, to ex-amine the e f f e c t of intimate s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i n modeling. Of further value would be a study whichddetermined whether an increase i n the number of a subject's s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s repre-sented an increase i n the number of se l f - d i s c l o s u r e s which were intimate enough'.to be of value i n counseling. The order of topics to be discussed should be randomized within c e l l s as a possible control for the e r r a t i c rates of se l f - d i s c l o s u r e found among subjects i n t h i s study. Greater control over the content areas discussed might also i d e n t i f y whether certa i n topics are less l i k e l y to be scored as high-l y s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g . 90 F i n a l l y , as there i s a p r a c t i c a l application of such findings to precounseling treatments, the conditions under which subjects* s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s are measured should be more analogous to counseling, as suggested i n Strong's (1971) guidelines. Of p a r t i c u l a r concern may be the use .of s t i l l less obtrusive means of tape recording. In general, u n t i l i t i s possible to better determine the strength of the mod-el i n g e f f e c t both i n degree and over time, i t w i l l be im-possible to c l e a r l y gauge* i t s effectiveness as a precounsel-ing treatment. As methodology improves, however, i t may be possible to s i m i l a r l y explore the f a c i l i t a t i o n of other c l i e n t behaviors advantageous i n counseling: openness, gen-uineness, t o p i c a l talk time, goal directedness, and the l i k e . 91 Chapter 8 Conclusions The study has attempted to further investigate the use of videotape models to increase s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among " c l i -ents" i n a counseling analogy. Although several studies i n the past few years have investigated the effectiveness of videotape models for complex verbal behaviors, they have tended to f i n d modeling less e f f e c t i v e than the use of ex-p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s . One study, by Stone and Gotlib (1975), i d e n t i f i e d the effectiveness of modeling; a design flaw necessitated replication-. Further, the present study was designed to investigate the importance of the sex of the model i n using modeling to teach s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Results of the study confirmed the effectiveness of modeling i n increasing s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Opposite-sex models of high s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e . Other findings indicated that female subjects s e l f - d i s c l o s e d more than did males and that h i g h l y - d i s c l o s i n g males and low-dis-closing females were not judged by subjects to be less e-motionally stable, as suggested by Derlaga and Chaikin (1976). The study indicates that the effectiveness of models for complex verbal behaviors may depend on the sex of the model 92 r e l a t i v e to that of the subject. Further investigation of this influence seems appropriate not only for models of se l f - d i s c l o s u r e , but as well for e f f e c t i v e modeling of num-erous other verbal behaviors which can be seen as desirable i n counseling and psychotherapy. F i n a l consideration, as well, should be given to the ethics of applying precounseling treatments. Certainly many p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t s who could benefit from counseling and psychotherapy have been frightened away from seeking help because of misconceptions about what the experience involves. Many other new c l i e n t s can be seen to flounder for some time before learning that the core of the experience i s t h e i r own se l f - d i s c l o s u r e . In thi s sense, precounseling treatments— a gentle g u i d e — a r e a p o s i t i v e and f a c i l i t a t i v e service which counselors may provide i n the future. In another sense, however, i t can be suggested that the counselor who has stimulated s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has i n some way changed i t . In some way he has defined u n i l a t e r a l l y what i s i d e a l l y a mutually-defined r e l a t i o n s h i p . In doing so, i t may be asked, has he not changed that relationship by l i m i t -ing i t ? Metaphysical questions aside, i t i s evident that psycho-analysis and the neo-analytic therapies place great emphasis on analysis of resistances, including the transference. One 93 may question whether disposing of the resistances i s i n fact an unfortunate necessity which might be a l l e v i a t e d through pretheraputic treatments. Or i s , perhaps, the process be-tween therapist and c l i e n t of struggling for a relat i o n s h i p the very nature of therapy? Ofman (1976) notes that i n the view of the e x i s t e n t i a l psychotherapist, "We are separate and the dealing with that separateness . . . i s what a re-lationship i s a l l about." (p. 123) 'Perhaps i t i s well that the application of precoun-se l i n g treatments to f a c i l i t a t e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has remained so far i n the researcher's hands. What appears to be suc^; ce s s f u l i n the experiment room might best be considered at some length beofre i t i s t r i e d i n the counselor's o f f i c e . 94 Bibliography Bandura, A. Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learn-ing. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social  psychology (Vol. 2). N ew York: Academic Press, 1965. Buber, M. The knowledge of man. New York: Harper, 1965. Cozby, P.C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psycho- logical Bulletin. 1973, 79, 73 - 91. Derlaga, V.J. & Chaikin, A.L. Norms affecting self-disclo-sure in men and women. Hournal of Consulting and Cl i n i c a l  Psycho logy. 1976, 44, ^3'7>6 -.- 380. Dimond, R.E. &'Hellkamp, D.T. Race, sex, ordinal position of birth and self-disclosure in high school students. Psycho- logical Rebortsn 1969, 25, 234 - 238. Doster, J. Effects of instructions, modeling, and role re-hearsal on interview verbal behavior. Journal of Consulting  and Cl i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39, 202 - 209. Duke, M. & Frankel, A. Inside psychotherapy. Chicago: Markham, 1971. Ehrlich, H.J. & Graeven, D.B. Reciprocal self-disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 389 - 400. Fischer, M.J. & Apostal, R.A. Selected vocal cues and counselors' perceptions of genuineness, self-disclosure, and anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 92 - 96. Fitzgerald, M.P. Self-disclosure and expressed self-esteem, social distance, and areas-of-self revealed. Journal of  Psychology, 1963, 56, 405 - 412. Fromm, E. The sane society. New York: Rhinehart, 1955. Gitter, A.G. & Black, H. Is self-disclosure self-revealing? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 23, 327 - 332. Goldman, L. A revolution in counseling research. Journal of  Counseling Psychology. 1976, 23, 543 - 552. Goodstein, L.D. & Reinecker, V.M. Factors affecting self-disclosure: A review of the literature. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 7). New 95 York: Academic Press, 1974. Green, A.H. & Marlatt, G.A. Effects of instructions and . modeling upon affective and descriptive verbalization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1972, 80, 189 - 196. Haymes, M. Technique for measuring self-disclosure from tape-recorded interviews. In S.M. Jourard, Self-disclosure:  An experimental analysis of the transparent s e l f . New York: Wiley, 1971. Heller, K. Effects of modeling procedures in helping rela-tionships . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1969, 33, 522 - 526. Heller, K. Laboratory interview research as an analogue to treatment. In A.E. Bergen &nS.L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook  of psychotherapy and Behavior change: An empirical analysis. New York: Wiley, 1971. Hood, T.C. & Back, K.W. Self-disclosure and the volunteer: A source of bias in laboratory experiments. Journal of Person- a l i t y and Social Psychology. 1971, 17, 130 - 136. Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton, 1950. Higgens, W.E., Ivey, A.E., & Uhlemann, M.R. Media therapy -a programed approach to teaching behavioral s k i l l s . Journal  of Counseling Psychology. 1970, 17, 20 - 26. Jourard, S.M. A study of self-disclosure. Scientific Ameri- can. 1958, 198 (May), 77 - 82. Jourard, S .M. The transparent self . Princeton, N.J.: Van Nos-trand - Reinhold, 1964. Jourard, S.M. Disclosing man to himself. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand - Reinhold, 1968. Jourard, S.M. Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent s e l f . New York: Wiley, 1971. Jourard, S.M. & Jaffe,: P. Influences of an interviewer's disclosure on the self-disclosure behavior of the interviewee. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1970, 17, 252 - 257. Jourard, S.M. & Lasakow, P. Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1958, 56, 91 - 98. Jourard, S.M. & Richman, P. Disclosure output and input in 96 college students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1963, 9, 141 -148. Kirk, R.E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavior- al sciences. Monterey, CA.: BBrooks/Cole, 1968. Kohen, J.A.S. The development of reciprocal self-disclosure in opposite-sex interaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22, 404 - 410. Krumboltz, J.D. & Schroeder, W.W. Promoting career explora-tion through reinforcement. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1965, 44, 19 - 26. Krumboltz, J1}D. & Thoresen, C.E. The effect of behavioral counseling in group and individual settings on information-seeking behavior:'.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1964, 11, 324 - 333. Krumboltz, J.D.,&Varenhorst, B.B., & Thoresen, C.E. Non-verbal factors in the effectiveness of models in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 412 - 418. Marlatt, G.A. Exposure to a model and task ambiguity as de-terminants of verbal behavior in an interview. Journal of  Consulting and Cl i n i c a l Psychology. 1971, 36, 268 - 276. Marlatt, G.A. Task structure and the experimental modifi-cation of verbal behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 1972, 78, 335 - 350. Marlatt, G., Jacobson, E., Johnson, D., & Morrice, D. Effect •-of exposure to a model receiving evaluative feedback upon sub-sequent behavior in an interview. Journal of Consulting and  Clinical Psychology. 1970, 34, 104 - 112. Mowrer, O.H. The c r i s i s in psychiatry and religion. Prince-ton, N.J.: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1961. Munley, P.H. A review of counseling analogue research meth-ods . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1974, 21, 320 - 330. Myrick, R.D. Effect of a model on verbal behavior in coun-seling. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1969, 16, 185 - 190. Ofman, W.V. Affirmation and reality. Los Angeles: western Psychological Services, 1976. Patterson, C.H. Counseling. Annual Review of Psychology. 1966, 17, 79 - 110. 97 Plog, S.C. The disclosure of self in the United States and Germany. Journal of Social Psychology. 1965, 65, 193 - 205. Powell, W.J. Differential effectiveness of interviewer interventions in an experimental interview. Journal of Con- sulting and Cli n i c a l Psychology. 1968, 32, 210 - 215. Rogers, C.R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of theraputic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psych- ology. 1957, 21, 95 - 103. Rogers, C.R. On becoming .a person. Boston: Houghton, 1961. Roth, M., & Kuiken, D. Communication immediacy, cognitive com-patibility, and immediacy of self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22, 102 - 107. Schwartz, A.N. & Hawkins, H.L. Patient models and affect statements in group therapy. In Proceedings of the 73rd  Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C: A.P.A., 1965. Singer, E. Key concepts in psychotherapy. New York: Random House, 1965. Stone, G.L. & Gotlib, I. Effect of instructions and modeling on self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22, 288 - 293 . Stone, G.L. & Jackson, T. Internal-external control as a de-terminant of the effectiveness of modeling and instructions. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22, 294 - 298. Stone, G.L. & Stebbins, L.W. Effect of differential pretrain-ing on client self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psy- chology. 1975, 22, 17 - 20. Strong, S.R. Experimental laboratory research in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1971, 18, 106 - 110. Thelen, M.H. & Brooks, S.J. Social desirability and s.elf-disclosure: Both independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Cl i n i c a l Psychology. 1976, 44, 868. T i l l i c h , P. The courage to be. New Haven, CN.: Yale, 1952. Truax, C.B., Wargo, D.G., Carkhuff, R.R., Kodman. F., & Moles, E.A.. Changes in self-concepts during group psychotherapy as a function of alternate sessions and vicarious therapy pre-training in institutionalized mental patients and juvenile 98 delinquents. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1966, 30, 309 - 314. Uhlemann, M.R., Lea, G.W., & Stone, G.L. Effect of instruc-tions and modeling on trainees low in interpersonal-communi-cation s k i l l s . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1976, 23, 509 - 513. Vondracek, F.W. & Marshall, M.J. Self-disclosure and inter-personal trust: An exploratory study. Psychological Re- ports. 1971, 28, 235 - 240. Whalen, C. Effects of a model and instructions on group verbal behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical  Psychology. 1969, 33, 509 - 521. 99 Appendix A Each subject in the study signed a consent form before participating. The text of the form is reproduced below: CONSENT FORM You are being asked to participate in a research study involving student attitudes and opinions . The study is being done by John Christie-Dobbs as partial fulfillment of re-quirements for an M.A. in Counselling Psychology. While I cannot discuss the study in detail at this time, I can t e l l you that your participation would involve about a half-hour of your time. You w i l l be asked to discuss three topics for about six minutes each, and your discussion w i l l be tape-recorded. The topics are ones of concern to most students and are not embarrassing to most people. . Your tape w i l l be identified by code-number only, and no more than four or five people w i l l ever hear i t . It w i l l be erased after the study is completed. The study w i l l be conducted by appointment in the Edu-cation Clinic at U.B.C. If you would be willing to serve as a subject, please sign your name and write your phone number below. If you would like to receive a copy of the results of the study, please include your permanent address. I really appreciate your interest. Thank you. John Christie-Dobbs I have read the above proposal and agree to participate 100 as a subject in this study. I understand that I may withdraw from the study at. any time. S igned: Telephone: Please send a copy of the results of the study to Permanent Address: Appt. Time: Code .#: 101 Appendix B Haymes' technique for measuring self-disclosure from tape-recorded interviews (Jourard, 1971, p. 216 - 218) was adapted for use in this study. The original statement of the technique is reproduced here: Code and scoring manual for self-disclosure Self-disclosure w i l l include four major categories of res po ns e: 1. Expressions of emotion and emotional processes. 2. Expressions of needs. 3. Expressions of fantasies, strivings, dreams, hopes. 4. Expressions of self-awareness. Self-disclosure w i l l specifically exclude opinions about objects other than self unless the person obviously intends the opinion to be saying something about himself. Since this experiment deals with the acquaintance process, i t is only rarely that one comes across such inferential statements with-out their being followed up by a clarifying remark which is scorable under one of the categories below. Although much self-disclosure of the types described be-low is stated in the f i r s t person singular, i t is possible to make self-disclosing statements in the third person. Examples of both types are included below. Scoring procedures A score of 2 points w i l l be given to disclosures of the 102 defined types when they are f i r s t person references. A score of 1 point w i l l be given to the disclosures of the same types when they are reflexive third person refer-ences . These statements in the third person in which the word "you" is an obvious substitution for saying " I " . Non-reflexive third person references, such as "people always.i. ." in which the person is not really revealing any information about himself w i l l not be scored. For this experiment, ratings w i l l be given for each 30 seconds of interaction. In any 30-second segment, only the score for the maximally disclosing statement w i l l be used. In other words, i f a person makes 1, 2, or 10 2-point disclo-sures in any 30-second segment his score is 2 points for that segment. This avoids inaccurately scoring for speech pattern repetitions . Similarly, i f a person makes a 1-point statement and a 2-point statement in the same 30-second segment, his score is 2 points for that segment. Examples 1. Expressions of emotions and emotional processes: Irritation--"It really bugs me . . . ." "You get peeved at . . . ." " I t drives me crazy . . . ." Also references to being agitated, irritated, testy, etc. Anger, rage, hostility, hate, bitterness, resentment--"It gets me very angry when . . . ." "You (I) just naturally hate people like her." Excitement, involvement, concern, etc.--"l get a l l caught 103 up in . . . "It gets to me . . . ." " i t gets me goin' "I'm really close to my father." "I'm excited by . . . ." Also the opposite of involvement. "I cant-t seem to get into the material." "Boredom is one of my big problems." Sad, blue, apathetic, cheerless, depressed, grief, mourn-fu l , pensive, gloomy, etc.-- " I t depresses me when . . . ." "I get blue frequently." Happy, contented, delighted, feeling great, secure, feeling well (strong, confident, etc.), assured, pleased, jov-i a l , elated, euphoric, merry-- "I feel great when she . . . ." "You really feel good when . . . ." (Also the opposite of feeling well and strong, i.e., discussion of health problems, physical complaints, expression of general lack of the feeling of well being.) Expressions which have been leached of their emotional content are not scored. 2. Expressions of needs, demands made upon others i n contact with s e l f : "I demand a great deal of attention. 1 1 "I don't feel too motivated to do much of anything." " A l l I want is . . . .", These w i l l frequently be expressed in statement of self-awareness (see below). 3. Expressions of self-awareness, internal forces, pro-cesses, capabilities and/or the lack of them. "You (I) t e l l yourself that . . . ." "I rationalize that by . . . ." "That's one of my handicaps." "I don't panic easily." 1 1I get mad at myself . . . ." "I have the worst time with writing. " "It's not a natural thing for me . . . .11 " i t ' s 104 easy for me to . . . ." "It's really bad for me when I . . ." "I'm torn between . . . ." "I'm not mature." "I'm not too hot at . . . . " . "I can't possibly integrate a l l that stuff." "You (I) adjust to things . . . ." "I can think logically but math is impossible." "I identify with people who . . . ." "I get very sentimental when . . . ." "I'm a night-time person." 4. Expressions of fantasies, hopes, strivings, long-range plans, etc. "I've wanted to be a doctor since I was five years old." "I frequently dream that I'm . . . ." "I dream of the day when . . . ." Surprise, shock, astonishment, amazement. "She really shocked me t e r r i f i c a l l y with her openess ." "I love being surprised." Sorry, repentant, ashamed, guilty, etc. "I feel very guilty about . . . ." "I always feel sorry when . . . ." Pride, self-esteem, feelings of fulfillment, self-confi-dence. "I feel good about what I did for her." "I've been feeling great lately." Confused, perplexed, puzzled, cloudy, incoherent, dis-oriented, uncertain, etc. To be scored the statement must in-dicate some emotional disorientation or confusion, (i.e., "My math homework confuses me" is not scored.11) "Situations like that puzzle the hell out of me." "I just don't know how I feel about i t . " Anxious, tense, afraid, on edge, overrought, upset, dis-1 0 5 tressed, worried, etc. "I really get tense in situations like this." " I t worries me when . . . ." "She scares me." "You (I) get frightened when . . . ." Love, tenderness, affection, warmth, caring-for another, passion, arousal (sexual), etc. "I loved her before she . . . ." "I was so hunggup on her that I couldn't even . . . ." (Colloquial) 106 Appendix C At the end of their task, clients were asked to rate the model they had viewed on each of four scales. This instru-ment is reproduced below: RATING SCALE FOR MODEL Code #: ' T3?M»hkf 'foraammoment about the model you saw on the sample videotape. Would yo:u please rate the model on the following scales? Please be sure to mark every scale, even i f i t ' s only your best guess. Mark a point on the scale; do not mark between points. 1. How intimate was the model's discussion? not very t 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 very intimate intimate 2. How masculine/feminine was the model? very ' 1 » ' 1 1 ' 1 t very masculine feminine 3. How much did you like the model as a person? didn't * 1 * » 1 i 1 1 1 liked like a lot 4. Psychologically, how well-adjusted did the model seem? not well-'^ 1 1 ' 1 • ' 1 1 very well-adjusted adjusted Do you have any f i n a l comments on this procedure? 107 Appendix D The experimenter was naive to the expected outcomes of the study and to the specific experimental conditions. She carried out the experiment from a set of written instructions . These are reproduced below: 1. Check your l i s t of code numbers for the next sub-jr ject's code. Then set up the videotape for that code number. 2. Label4 one of the audio tape cassettes with the sub-ject's number and put i t in the tape recorder. Write the code number on one of the rating scale sheets. 3. In meeting the subject, be pleasant but not overly friendly; try to treat every subject alike. Lead him/her into the experiment room and seat him at thli desk. When seated, say: You are going to be asked to speak for five minutes on each of three topics. What you say w i l l be recorded on this cassette machine and the tape w i l l be heard by an experimenter who does not know you. It can be identified only by your code number. Please remember that you may withdraw from the study at any time. To give you an idea of the nature of the task, a sample videotape has been pre-pared. Let's watch i t now. 4. Turn on the videotape that hasi been assigned to that subject's code number. (Do not reveal that there are more than one videotape1.) Watch with the subject. Do not comment on the tape. 5. When the videotape ends, take the three topic cards 108 in the order assigned to that subject's code number and place them face down on the table in front of the subject. Point to the signal lamp and say: When you see the light flash, I'd like you to begin discussing the topic on the f i r s t card. After five minutes, I w i l l flash the lamp a-gain to signal you to begin discussing the topic on the second card. After another five minutes, the lamp w i l l flash a third time to signal you to go on to the topic on the third card. I w i l l flash the lamp again at the end of five minutes to signal you to stop. Do you have any questions? 6 . Answer only questions about the task i t s e l f , not about the experiment, the model, yourself, or the purpose of the study. Try to focus the subject on doing the task, rather than on the meaning of i t ; many people may need some reas-surance that they know what expected of them, but i f someone seems to need a great deal of encouragement or any urging, remind them that they can leave the study without creating any d i f f i c u l t y . In any case, try not to spend a lot of time with any one subject. tic. When the subject understands the task, start the tape machine, leave the room, and f l i p the signal switch. F l i p i t again after five minutes (exactly) and then after a-nother fi v e . After a total of fifteen minutes, f l i p the switch for the last time and re-enter the room. 8. Switch off the tape recorder. Hand the subject the rating scales sheet and say: Think for a moment about the model in the 109 videotape. Would you please rate the model on these scales? Be sure to mark every scale, even i f i t ' s only your best guess. 9. When this is finished, you can be as charming as you like, although it's s t i l l better i f you do not s p i l l the beans, about the other videotapes that the subject does not see. Thank him/her for cooperating, and request that they avoid discussing the experiment with future subjects . Check to see i f they want a copy of the f i n a l results, and then see them off. 10. F i l e both the rating scale and the audiotape. At this point you can set up the videotape for the next sub-ject and return to Step 1. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055721/manifest

Comment

Related Items