Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of verbal reinforcement and experimenter self-disclosure on personality tests Arlett, Christine 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 A75_4.pdf [ 2.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093389.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093389-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093389-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093389-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093389-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093389-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093389-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093389-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093389.ris

Full Text

THE INFLUENCE OF VERBAL REINFORCEMENT AND EXPERIMENTER SELF-DISCLOSURE ON PERSONALITY TESTS. By CHRISTINE ARLETT B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y of L e i c e s t e r , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1974 In presenting 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 of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission for extensive copying of 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 granted by the Head of 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 understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date r. A b s t r a c t Experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and v e r b a l reinforcement of s u b j e c t d i s c l o s u r e during an i n t e r v i e w were both p r e d i c t e d to r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d s u b j e c t d i s c l o s u r e i n a subsequent t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , . as compared with d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s to the s u b j e c t s to be more open.. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t hat f o r male s u b j e c t s , v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t had the p r e d i c t e d e f f e c t , but experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e did. not..Female s u b j e c t s were found to be more disclosive.~..than male s u b j e c t s . i n g e n e r a l , but were r e l a t i v e l y u n i n f l u e n c e d by. the experimenter treatment c o n d i t i o n s . Experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . w a s . s h o w n to r e s u l t i n an i n c r e a s e i n s o c i a l e v a l u a t i v e a n x i e t y and i n more favo u r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s of. the s e l f and o f . t h e experimenter i n the s u b j e c t s concerned. Both of these f a c t o r s are d i s c u s s e d as having counteracted any modeling. ,. e f f e c t of.... experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f , t h e r e s u l t s i n terms.of an i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t sex, experimenter sex and experimental c o n d i t i o n s i s proposed. and. the i m p l i c a t i o n s t h i s has f o r the r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e , which.in g e n e r a l has ignored such v a r i a b l e s as s u b j e c t and experimenter sex, are d i s c u s s e d . i l l Table of Contents a b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables i v Acknowledgement v I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Method 7 Hypotheses 17 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 18 R e s u l t s 19 D i s c u s s i o n 30 B i b l i o g r a p h y 34 Appendix A 37 Appendix B 38 Appendix C 40 L i s t of Tables Table I : Anovas, with a p r i o r i orthogonal comparisons, f o r measures of s u b j e c t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e (F v a l u e s ) . 20 Table II : Separate sex anovas f o r measures of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e (F v a l u e s ) . 21 Table I I I : Anovas with a p r i o r i comparisons f o r a n x i e t y measures (F v a l u e s ) . 24 Table IV : Anovas, with a p r i o r i orthogonal comparisons, on measures of s u b j e c t p e r c e p t i o n of the experimenter (F v a l u e s ) . 26 Table V : F a c t o r Matrix of measures of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . 28 Table ?I : Pearson c o r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between length o f i n t e r v i e w and dependent measures. 29 V 4£j$£2w ledgeme nts I p a r t i c u l a r l y wish to., thank .Allan Best whose advice and encouragement have been, i n v a l u a b l e to me at every stage i n the development of t h i s t h e s i s . My thanks a l s o t o B r i a n L i t t l e f o r h i s c r i t i c a l comments and s u g g e s t i o n s during the planning and manuscript stages. In a d d i t i o n , my thanks to Ralph Bakstian and V i r g i n i a Green f o r t h e i r help with the. s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data. F i n a l l y , my thanks t o Ross f o r t a k i n g on so much of the drudgery without complaint, and to him and the c a t s f o r t h e i r support whenever the end disappeared from s i g h t . 1 Introduction There i s growing evidence t h a t responses on p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are i n f l u e n c e d by a number of extraneous f a c t o r s such as the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the experiment (e.g. Orne, .1969), experimenter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g. H a r r i s , 1971; Rosenthal, 1969) and experimenter b i a s e f f e c t s (Rosenthal, 1966; Rosenthal, 1969), To the extent t h a t such v a r i a b l e s remain, u n s p e c i f i e d , the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y c f . t e s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l i n e v i t a b l y be l i m i t e d and i t s v a l i d i t y decreased. One f a c t o r which would i n t u i t i v e l y appear tc be of importance i n t h i s c o n t e x t , i s the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n s between the s u b j e c t and the experimenter p r i o r to the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y as a p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w i s common p r a c t i c e i n the c l i n i c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t e s t s . Only one experimental study has been published i n t h i s area, that of Jourard and Kormann (1968). C o l l e g e students were p r e t e s t e d with the Edward*s Pe r s o n a l Preference Schedule (EPPS). Half the group spent 30 minutes ^ g e t t i n g to know" the experimenter, while the other h a l f d i d not. R e t e s t i n g cn the EPPS r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n scores f o r the former group and not f o r the l a t t e r . The study may be c r i t i c i z e d on s e v e r a l grounds,. F i r s t l y , the.independent v a r i a b l e of " g e t t i n g t o know" the experimenter needs f u r t h e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n as i n t h i s case i t confounds time spent with the experimenter with the process of i n t e r a c t i o n with the.experimenter. Secondly, the experimenter-s u b j e c t i n t e r a c t i o n s presumably i n v o l v e not only s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e 2 on the part of the experimenter, but a l s o s o c i a l reinforcement and a v a r i e t y of o t h e r - f a c t o r s and the r e l a t i v e importance of each of these needs to be a s c e r t a i n e d . T h i r d l y , although an i n t e r v e n i n g - v a r i a b l e . o f i n c r e a s e d . s u b j e c t openness i s presumed to be r e s p o n s i b l e . f o r the change .in s c o r e s , t h i s has yet t c be demonstrated. F o u r t h l y , the c o n t r o l group is , i n a d e q u a t e i n l i g h t o f the Hawthorne e f f e c t (lana p.121, 1969) .: an a t t e n t i o n placebo c o n t r o l ..is necessary before the d i f f e r e n c e s may be f i r m l y a t t r i b u t e d . t o the .experimental c o n d i t i o n . F i n a l l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p , between change scores and s u b j e c t and experimenter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s ignored. . .Thus, although the.importance of "gcodM rapport i s s t r e s s e d by most textbooks on t e s t i n g (e.g. A n a s t a s i , 1961 ; Cronbach, 1970), there i s almost no. experimental evidence as to how q u a l i t y of r a p p o r t i n f l u e n c e s the t e s t r e s u l t s . Experimental s t u d i e s of i n t e r v i e w i n g techniques have shed some..light on the impact of v a r i o u s experimenter behaviours on the amount of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e shown by. s u b j e c t s . One of the v a r i a b l e s , t h a t has r e c e i v e d a great deal c f a t t e n t i o n i s s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e on the p a r t . o f e i t h e r the experimenter or a separate model. . T h i s has been c o n s i s t e n t l y found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e s e l f d i s c l o s u r e on the. p a r t o f . the s u b j e c t , (e.g. H a r l a t t , 1971; Powell, 1968; Dcster, 1972; M c A l l i s t e r S K i e s l e r , 1974;. Doster S Brooks, 1974). Powell (1968) demonstrated that w h i l e . s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e on.the p a r t of the.experimenter led to an i n c r e a s e i n . both, p o s i t i v e and negative d i s c l o s u r e s by the s u b j e c t , a r e f l e c t i o n - r e s t a t e m e n t technique l e d to an i n c r e a s e 3 i n n e g a t i v e d i s c l o s u r e alone and a p p r o v a l - s u p p o r t i v e statements made no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of s u b j e c t s e l f - d i s c l c s u r e . On the other hand,, there i s some question .. as t c the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f . probing and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e techniques, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the . i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d i s .of an i n t i m a t e nature . (Cozby, 1973). Increase i n sub j e c t ..disclosiveness due to experimenter, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c a r r i e s over w i t h i n an i n t e r v i e w (Jourard S J a f f e e , 1970) . and i t i s . t h e r e f o r e , reasonable to p r e d i c t . t h a t responses.to t e s t m a t e r i a l s . p r e s e n t e d subsequent to the i n t e r v i e w would be s i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d . . Jourard (1969) has,argued t h a t experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e s u l t s i n . greater, honesty on the part of the s u b j e c t , basing t h i s o n e q u i t y theory (Adams, 1965), which, proposes that the amount of... i n f o r m a t i o n provided i n a d i a d i c s i t u a t i o n i s always balanced on each s i d e (Jourard, 1971). However, Cozby (1973) has p o i n t e d .out t h a t .this..need, not n e c e s s a r i l y apply to an experimental s e t t i n g where the s u b j e c t expects the s i t u a t i o n to be i n e g u i t a b l e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , such,a p r e d i c t i o n could be based on modeling theory -whereby .the ..experimenter i s seen as modeling s e l f d i s c l o s i v e behaviour .as a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour f o r the s u b j e c t i n ~ t h a t s i t u a t i o n . I t i s important to note at t h i s p o i n t t h a t 'modeling 1 i n t h i s case . i s used..in a. much more gen e r a l sense- than... i n Bandura's paradigm (e. g. . Bandura, 1971), i n that the response.to b e . i m i t a t e d . i s . not a s p e c i f i c behaviour , but r a t h e r a.category of s e l f d i s c l o s i v e behaviours. However, to the extent that the modeling l i t e r a t u r e ' s f i n d i n g s can be 4 e x t r a p o l a t e d t o t h i s more general form of modeling, they-would suggest that i t ;should..serve-to . f a c i l i t a t e s e l f r d i s c l c s u r e as t h i s i s an., already established..response pattern.. (Bandura, 197.1) . Thus M a r l a t t (1971) and - M c A l l i s t e r - a n d . K i e s l e r (1974) have both i n t e r p r e t e d . the i n c r e a s e i n . s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . , by s u b j e c t s f o l l o w i n g experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a modeling e f f e c t . Increased s e l f - d i s c l c s u r e might a l s o be expected i n l i g h t of the i n c r e a s e d c l a r i t y .ofthe.demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c f the s i t u a t i o n . S u b j e c t s , i n an experiment tend to t r y to guess what the .hypotheses being t e s t e d a r e , and then a c t so as to confirm them,, unless they are,too obvious, i n which case the 'screw you e f f e c t ' comes i n t o . o p e r a t i o n and l e a d s . t o , t h e opposite behaviour (Orne, 1969 ;,.Masling, 1966; Riecken, 1962) . Thus, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e by the experimenter may .be seen e i t h e r i n a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g c ontext a s . m o d e l i n g . r e s u l t i n g i n the f a c i l i t a t i o n of a behaviour p a t t e r n a l r e a d y i n the s u b j e c t ' s r e p e r t o i r e , or as a means of c l a r i f y i n g the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of .the.experiment f o r the s u b j e c t . In general,.authors have neglected to deal with t h i s i s s u e adeguately.. For example, Doster's (1972) study which examined the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p r e t r a i n i n g on i n c r e a s i n g s u b j e c t s * . d i s c l o s i v e n e s s , . compared„ .role r e h e a r s a l and an o b s e r v a t i o n a l model with d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s , and used as a c o n t r o l a c o n d i t i o n with minimal i n s t r u c t i o n s , thus l e a v i n g the e f f e c t , of., detailed... i n s t r u c t i o n s ( i . e . c l a r i f i e d demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) ...alone- undetermined. F u r t h e r , M c A l l i s t e r and K i e s l e r (1974) used . a combination of a model and d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s so as to 'maximize a modeling e f f e c t ' . 5 The present, study c o n t r a s t s experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e with a c o n d i t i o n .. r e c e i v i n g d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s so as to e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t s of d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s alone. Another v a r i a b l e which has r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n i n i n t e r v i e w i n g i s t h a t . o f v e r b a l reinforcement. There i s . d i r e c t evidence r e g a r d i n g the i n f l u e n c e of t h i s . v a r i a b l e on subsequent t e s t r e s u l t s . , Tobias ( c i t e d i n Masling, 1966) r e i n f o r c e d the word • dog»-during-.an i n t e r v i e w , and. observed an . i n c r e a s e i n animal responses on a .Rorschach administered subsequently. Reinforcement of.emotional-words i n a - p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w has been shown t o l e a d .to a decrease ..in MHPI anxiety scores (Krasner,... 1965, p222) .Krasner s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e r p r e t s t h i s as a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the d e m a n d . c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - o f the experiment. A t h i r d c o n d i t i o n o f reinforcement of s e l f - r e f e r e n c e statements was t h e r e f o r e added to t h i s study. . In summary, t h i s study examined the . i n f l u e n c e of v a r i o u s experimenter, behaviours during an i n t e r v i e w on s u b j e c t s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e i n a s u b s e q u e n t t e s t i n g . s i t u a t i o n . Three experimental treatment, ..conditions were compared .: experimenter s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e , reinforcement c f s e l f - r e f e r e n t statements and d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s . Two c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s were a l s o i n c l u d e d : a control..interview c o n d i t i o n where the . .interview was conducted with no experimenter d i s c l o s u r e . a n d . m i n i m a l . s o c i a l reinforcement and a no i n t e r v i e w , minimal i n s t r u c t i o n s c o n d i t i o n . . T h e f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were .. made. F i r s t l y , i t was hypothesized t h a t i n c r e a s e d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e would be.revealed i n both a q u a n t i t a t i v e i n c r e a s e i n the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n given 6 and i n . an i n c r e a s e i n . the amount of negative i n f o r m a t i o n r e v e a l e d . Secondly, i t was hypothesized that, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e would be i n v e r s e l y . r e l a t e d to the amount.of an x i e t y present d u r i n g the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . T h i r d l y , i t was hypothesized, that the experimental c o n d i t i o n s .would, i n f l u e n c e . the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of the experimenter,.This . i s based on Jourard and Friedman*s (1970). f i n d i n g , t h a t experimenters who d i s c l o s e d were viewed .more p o s i t i v e l y . . . i n . g e n e r a l . than those who d i d not. F i n a l l y , . i t was hypothesized t h a t s u b j e c t sex would i n t e r a c t with treatment-conditions... Although some.studies report no sex d i f f e r e n c e s , those that, do r e p o r t d i f f e r e n c e s have found females to.be more . d i s c l o s i v e than.males (Cozby, 1973; L i t t l e , 1967) and i t was . t h e r e f o r e p r e d i c t e d , t h a t t h i s ..relationship wculd.be confirmed.. .It was .also p r e d i c t e d , however, . that males would, be more s u s c e p t i b l e to i n f l u e n c e by both experimenter s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e and v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t as the experimenter was female. 7 Method i i DEPENDENT MEASURES.. £i Measures of S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ^ Measures of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses: a) i n c r e a s e d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n a q u a n t i t a t i v e i n c r e a s e i n . i n f o r m a t i o n provided by the s u b j e c t , b) i n c r e a s e d s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . w i l l f u r t h e r be r e f l e c t e d i n an i n c r e a s e . i n the amount of unfavourable i n f o r m a t i o n about h i s / h e r s e l f which each s u b j e c t p r o v i d e s , and c) .where.the s u b j e c t . i s . g i v e n the choice of l e v e l s of intima c y at which to r e s p o n d , . i n c r e a s e d . s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the choice of the more i n t i m a t e l e v e l . The three -instruments which were s e l e c t e d t c provide measures of ..these three f a c e t s of.. s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were an a d j e c t i v e - c h e c k l i s t (A.CL.),, the. Marlowe- Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e (M.C.) and a modified form of the Repertory Te s t (Rep. T e s t ) . (i) Jk<i.j§£tive C h e c k l i s t ^ ..Subjects have been found to be h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t i n . the number of a d j e c t i v e s which they check c f f as s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e . f r o m any given l i s t (Gough 8 H e i l b r u n , 1965). I t i s proposed that t h i s i s at l e a s t i n . p a r t a f u n c t i o n o f . t h e i r chosen l e v e l of . s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n an experimental s e t t i n g , i n which case .increased . s e l f r d i s c l o s u r e would be r e f l e c t e d i n an increased., t o t a l .. number . . . o f a d j e c t i v e s checked. The number of unfavourable a d j e c t i v e s checked was hypothesized t c r e f l e c t 8 p r o b a b i l i t y of d i s c l o s u r e of negative m a t e r i a l . A f u r t h e r measure c f the amount of negative i n f o r m a t i o n provided i s the e x t e n t . o f the discrepancy between the s u b j e c t s * d e s c r i p t i o n s of themselves and those of t h e i r i d e a l s e l v e s , t h a t i s , between how they saw themselves.at t h a t time and how they would m o s t . l i k e to be. This.was.obtained ,by asking the s u b j e c t s to complete the c h e c k l i s t twice, once checking those a d j e c t i v e s f e l t t o be s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e and once checking those d e s c r i p t i v e of how they would most l i k e to be. The c h e c k l i s t u s e d . c o n s i s t e d of the s e v e n t y - f i v e a d j e c t i v e s l i s t e d as .favourable and the s e v e n t y - f i v e l i s t e d as unfavourable i n the manual of the Gough A d j e c t i v e . C h e c k l i s t . (Gough and Heilbrun,..1965), combined into.one a l p h a b e t i c a l l y ordered l i s t . Three measures were d e r i v e d , as d i s c u s s e d above: .. (a) t o t a l number of a d j e c t i v e s - c h e c k e d (ACLSELF), (b) r a t i o of .the number.of negative a d j e c t i v e s checked to the t o t a l number of a d j e c t i v e s checked (ACLNEG), (c) .the t o t a l number of a d j e c t i v e s which .were checked e i t h e r as s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e but not i d e a l - s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e or as i d e a l - s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e but not s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e (AC! S-IS). l i i l H § £ l 2 J!§zCrowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale,. The Marlcwe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale i s intended to assess the tendency f o r s u b j e c t s * . t o r e s p o n d . i n a s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e d i r e c t i o n . An i n v e r s e . r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o b a b i l i t y of s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e and M.C. s c o r e s was p o s t u l a t e d . 9 l i i i J.fie£ertorj T e s t ^ . T h i s t e s t was developed i n the. context of P e r s o n a l C o n s t r u c t Theory ( K e l l y , 1955, L a n d f i e l d , 1971), but i n t h i s case... i t was used,..solely as a means of observing the l e v e l of i n t i m a c y . a t which s u b j e c t s would choose to respond when they were given that c h o i c e . There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence .that the c o n s t r u c t s chosen by s u b j e c t s may be s o r t e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s such as p s y c h o l o g i c a l , p h y s i c a l i s t i c .and. r o l e , ( L i t t l e , 1967).. ,It i s proposed that these r e p r e s e n t . d i f f e r e n t , .points on... a. continuum of inimacy with p h y s i c a l i s t i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t i n g the extremes..Thus s c o r e s o n - t h i s continuum would be r e f l e c t i v e of subject s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e . - The- .Rep. T e s t c a l l s f o r a s u b j e c t to s t a t e ways i n which any two elements of s u c c e s s i v e t r i a d s d i f f e r from the t h i r d . In t h i s case, .seven elements were used (see.Appendix ft) and f i f t e e n c o n s t r u c t s , or dimensions, were., e l i c i t e d . f o r each s u b j e c t . Choice of .elements, (e.g. .'someone. I f e e l uncomfortable with') and. the i n c l u s i o n o f . the ' s e l f element, i n each t r i a d were designed to .increase., the p u l l f o r . r e v e a l i n g c o n s t r u c t s and thus i n c r e a s e the tendency f o r defensiveness.,.Constructs e l i c i t e d were rated on a f o u r p o i n t . s c a l e by two-.independent r a t e r s to e s t a b l i s h l e v e l o f . i n t i m a c y . Thus p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s , such as . • aggressive-^shy ', were r a t e d . most.highly (3) and p h y s i c a l ones, such .as 'young-old * were;rated..zero., A s i m i l a r s c o r i n g system has been ...shown t o . .have ..high i n t e r judge r e l i a b i l i t y (McPherson, Barden S Buckley, 1970). A t o t a l score was obtained f o r each s u b j e c t by summing r a t e d l e v e l s of intimacy (SCORE). 10 T h i s t o t a l , score- was... p r e d i c t e d to i n c r e a s e with i n c r e a s e d s u b j e c t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . An a l t e r n a t i v e s c o r i n g system using the dichotomous c a t e g o r i e s of i n t i m a t e and non-intimate was r e j e c t e d on the .basis t h a t , the i n t e r - j u d g e r e l i a b i l i t y on a sample of questionnaires.was found to b e . - c o n s i d e r a b l y lower than t h a t found f o r the system d e s c r i b e d above. In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s were asked.to r a t e themselves, t h e i r i d e a l . s e l v e s and the experimenter on a s i x . p o i n t s c a l e f o r each of .these . c o n s t r u c t s . .A discrepancy score.. was obtained between the s e l f - a n d the . i d e a l s e l f r a t i n g s f o r each s u b j e c t (RT S-IS). As d i s c u s s e d above, _ t h i s . was considered .. to. be an index of the amount of negative i n f o r m a t i o n ..provided and . thus a measure of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . The r a t i n g s r e l a t i n g to the experimenter w i l l be d i s c u s s e d below. Mi i f i x l ^ i l Me«L§ures._ . . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was. p r e d i c t e d to be i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to the- amount of a n x i e t y present i n the t e s t i n g , s i t u a t i o n . Two t e s t s were used.as i n d i c a t o r s of a n x i e t y l e v e l : the . . s t a t e - t r a i t .anxiety i n v e n t o r y (STAI) and the f e a r of n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s c a l e (FNE). a ) S t a t e - T r a i t Anxiety Inventory ( S p e i l b e r g e r , Gorsuch 6 Lushene,...... 1968) . T h i s test.. y i e l d s one measure of s t a t e , i . e . present, l e v e l s of.... a n x i e t y . and one of t r a i t , i . e . h a b i t u a l , l e v e l s . . o f a n x i e t y . T r a i t a n x i e t y was p r e d i c t e d to i n c r e a s e -with i n c r e a s i n g s u b j e c t openness, whereas s t a t e a n x i e t y s c o r e s were p r e d i c t e d to decrease as a f u n c t i o n of the reduced 11 ambiguity of the experimental s i t u a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with a l l three experimental c o n d i t i o n s as compared to the c o n t r o l s . b).Fear of Negative E v a l u a t i o n Scale (Watson 6 F r i e n d , 1969). The FNE i s . designed, t o . y i e l d a measure of s o c i a l -e v a l u a t i v e a n x i e t y . Again, s c o r e s were p r e d i c t e d to be lower i n the experimental c o n d i t i o n s . £i P§I£§£li°£ of the Experimenter.. Measure of the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of the experimenter were d e r i v e d from the Sep. Test i n . the- form of. d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e s between (i) the s u b j e c t s ' s e l f - r a t i n g s and t h e i r r a t i n g s of the ..experimenter and ( i i ) the s u b j e c t s ' - i d e a l , s e l f . . r a t i n g s . and t h e i r r a t i n g s of the experimenter. I t was hypothesized that s e l f r d i s c l o s u r e by the experimenter, would l e a d .to. a .smaller discrepancy between the i d e a l . , s e l f and the experimenter r a t i n g s and. a. corresponding larger.... d i s c r e p a n c y between the s e l f and the experimenter r a t i n g s . 2 i SUBJECTS.. P o t e n t i a l subjects.were randomly s e l e c t e d from a p o p u l a t i o n of f i r s t and second year ..university students. Each person was c o n t a c t e d by 'phone a n d a s k e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a study r e l a t i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l . d i f f e r e n c e s i n . . a t t i t u d e s . .The f i r s t f i f t y of each sex to agree became the s u b j e c t s f o r the experiment. l i DESIGN.. Subjects were randomly assigned to f i v e treatment 12 c o n d i t i o n s , with the c o n s t r a i n t t h a t each c o n d i t i o n c o n t a i n ten males and ten females. The f i v e c o n d i t i o n s were: (1) experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e (2) v e r b a l reinforcement of s u b j e c t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e (3) d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s (4) c o n t r o l i n t e r v i e w (5) no i n t e r v i e w . The.interview was designed to e l i c i t a l a r g e number of s e l f - d i s c l o s i v e - statements i n a short period of time. I t c o n s i s t e d of.a s e r i e s o f . b r i e f . d e s c r i p t i o n s of s i t u a t i o n s which had seemed, i n . pilot... work to. arouse a v a r i e t y of c o n f l i c t i n g f e e l i n g s (see Appendix B ) . These were read.out t o the s u b j e c t s i n . c o n d i t i o n s 1,2 and.4. They were asked to d e s c r i b e how they would . f e e l i n each case and t h e i r responses tape-recorded. Examples of the items are: . Item 1: Now, t r y t o . p i c t u r e y o u r s e l f a parent, l y i n g i n bed t r y i n g . t o . get to sleep.you've got a f i v e year o l d son. Tommy, who has just.come dcwn with mumps. He's i n . the bedroom next to yours, c r y i n g because he f e e l s so bad. How would you f e e l ? ...... . Item 6: Imagine that.you are d r i v i n g along a road and a young c h i l d , about f o u r or f i v e , runs out i n f r o n t of the c a r . You j u s t manage to avoid h i t t i n g the c h i l d a n d . p u l l over to the s i d e of the.road, You see.the c h i l d ' s mother y e l l i n g at the kid f o r having run i n t o the road. How would you f e e l ? i i i PROCEDURE.. Subjects were a l l seen i n d i v i d u a l l y by the same female 13 experimenter. They were asked to s i t at a desk f a c i n g the experimenter, and the f o l l o w i n g i n t r o d u c t o r y statement was made: "I am doing some r e s e a r c h on i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s , and mostly.what 1*11 be asking you to do i s . t c f i l l out some q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . " . . S u b j e c t s i n t h e t h r e e . c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r i n g i n t e r v i e w s (experimenter s e l f r d i s c l o s u r e , v e r b a l reinforcement and c o n t r o l i n t e r v i e w .conditions) were.then t o l d . " F i r s t of a l l , though, I am going to d e s c r i b e . a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s to you and ask you to t e l l me. how you would f e e l i f . y o u .were i n each.one. With your p e r m i s s i o n , 1*11 r e c o r d t h i s on t h i s tape r e c o r d e r . " The items of t h e, i n t e r v i e w . were.... then read out .to. the subject by the experimenter, and repeated on request . In . . c o n d i t i o n 1 (experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ) , the . .experimenter followed the su b j e c t ' s . r e s p o n s e to each item by.a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of how she would- f e e l . i n . t h a t . s i t u a t i o n . I n c o n d i t i o n 2 (verbal r e i n f o r c e m e n t ) , each s e l f - r e f e r e n t a f f e c t i v e , statement by the s u b j e c t , (e.g. "I'd be angry', 'I.would f e e l f r i g h t e n e d ' ) was r e i n f o r c e d .by an »?uh huh" by the experimenter. In. c o n d i t i o n 3 ( c o n t r o l . i n t e r v i e w ) , .there was n e i t h e r experimenter s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e .nor. s e l e c t i v e reinforcement, although a minimal amount ,of . r einforcement was maintained with an "uh huh" at the end o f each response. Subjects i n c o n d i t i o n .3 ( d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s ) were given the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s i n l i e u of the i n t e r v i e w . "Obviously, what I. get. out.of these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to how honest you are when you f i l l them out. So I'd l i k e ycu to 14 make a r e a l e f f o r t to be as open and honest as you can while you f i l l them out, so that the r e s u l t s I get w i l l be as v a l i d as p o s s i b l e . " A l l s u b j e c t s .were t r e a t e d i d e n t i c a l l y .from. t h i s p o i n t on ( s u b j e c t s i n c o n d i t i o n .5 .- no.interview - went s t r a i g h t from from the i n i t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s to the t e s t i n g . s t a g e ) . The f i r s t t e s t administered was. the modified, form of the Bep. T e s t . S u b j e c t s were. t o l d . I T h i s f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from ..the r e s t , and I»11 ..show . you how i t works. F i r s t of a l l . we need to choose seven people whom you know. Four of these, are .already g i v e n : your s e l f .- how you see y o u r s e l f now; your i d e a l . s e l f - .how you would.most l i k e tc be; your mother, and your f a t h e r . " . Two-inch cardboard squares.with these names p r i n t e d ..on them were l a i d out i n f r o n t o f . the s u b j e c t s . They were then t o l d "For the next t h r e e , names, I ' l l give ycu a d e s c r i p t i o n and ask_you t q . g i v e me the name.of a person you know who f i t s . t h a t . d e s c r i p t i o n . " . Each of the.three remaining element d e s c r i p t i o n s were read out to the s u b j e c t s and t h e i r responses w r i t t e n . down on two-inch squares of .cardboard. Subjects were then t o l d . M I am going to show you these three at a time, with your . ' s e l f ' . i n each s e t . Each.time, I.want.you to t e l l me one way i n which two. of the., three are a l i k e and the t h i r d one i s d i f f e r e n t . For . example,,here i s t h e . f i r s t one: can you t e l l me any way.in which two of these are a l i k e and the t h i r d one i s d i f f e r e n t ? " . A l l . f i f t e e n p o s s i b l e combinations were given to the s u b j e c t s i n the same random order. T h e i r responses were recorded 15 i n t r i p l i c a t e - o n s h e e t s . c o n s i s t i n g of f i f t e e n s i x p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e s with space f o r the b i p o l a r c o n s t r u c t s on e i t h e r s i d e . Once a l l f i f t e e n c o n s t r u c t s had b e e n . e l i c i t e d , s u b j e c t s were t o l d "Now I would..like you to r a t e y o u r s e l f on each of these., s c a l e s . " . They were handed the top sheet.and shown how to use the s c a l e s using one of the c o n s t r u c t s e l i c i t e d : "For example,, i f you see y o u r s e l f as very (independent), you'd put a cross.here.. .On the other hand, i f you see y o u r s e l f as very ( d e p e n d e n t ) y o u ' d put .a c r o s s here. T h i s space re p r e s e n t s somewhat„ (dependent) and this-somewhat. (independent). These two i n . the .middle r e p r e s e n t a . . l i t t l e (dependent) and a l i t t l e (independent). Do you understand?", once the s u b j e c t s had completed t h i s sheet,.. they were handed the next one and t o l d , "Now I'd l i k e you.to do the same t h i n g , but t h i s time f o r your i d e a l , s e l f , t h a t i s , how you would.most l i k e to be on a l l of these s c a l e s . •». Once . t h i s , was done, they were t o l d , " F i n a l l y , I'd like.,,you to complete t h i s sheet i n the same way, but t h i s time r a t i n g me on each of these s c a l e s . " . Subjects were then t o l d , "Now I.would l i k e you to f i l l i n the r e s t .. of these . q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Be sure to read the i n s t r u c t i o n s attached to each one.before f i l l i n g them out. I f t h e r e ' s , anything . you . don't understand, please ask me.". They were handed .the remaining q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n the f o l l o w i n g order - . f i r s t the.Marlowe-Crowne and.FNE which had been combined.into one form by-randomly i n t e r m i n g l i n g the items so as t c decrease t h e . tendency. f o r , response set . formation and shorten the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n time, second the STAI and f i n a l l y the ACL. 16 Once.they had completed these, the true nature of the experiment was e x p l a i n e d to them and any questions they had were answered. 17 J}I£2£h.eses (1) S u b j e c t s 1 openness, as measured by the number of a d j e c t i v e s checked on the a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t , s c o r e s , on the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l - D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e , s e l f - i d e a l s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y on the a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t and the Repertory T e s t , and the.number of p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s on the Repertory T e s t , w i l l be i n c r e a s e d by a l l three.experimental manipulations ( C o n d i t i o n s . 1,2 and 3) . .as ..compared with the two c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . (Conditions 4 and .5) Within t h i s a) s u b j e c t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 ..(experimenter . s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ) w i l l show g r e a t e r openness than those i n c o n d i t i o n s 2 and 3 (verbal c o n d i t i o n i n g a n d . . . d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n s ) ..and b) . .subjects i n the c o n t r o l i n t e r v i e w . c o n d i t i o n , (Condition 4) will...show g r e a t e r openness than those i n the no i n t e r v i e w c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n 5). <2) S u b j e c t s ' scores on the s t a t e anxiety s c a l e and cn the FNI were p r e d i c t e d to .be lower f o r . a l l three experimental c o n d i t i o n s than f o r t h e . c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s , and.within t h i s to be lowest i n the experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e c o n d i t i o n . (3) A main e f f e c t o f . s e x was p r e d i c t e d such t h a t females w i l l be more d i s c l o s i v e i n g e n e r a l than males. (4) .An i n t e r a c t i o n - e f f e c t of sex and c o n d i t i o n s was p r e d i c t e d such that the experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e nt techniques w i l l have a g r e a t e r e f f e c t on male s u b j e c t s than on females. 18 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s An a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d o u t . f o r each measure s e p a r a t e l y . An a p r i o r i d e c i s i o n was made to c a r r y out the f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l orthogonal comparisons: 1. C o n d i t i o n s 1,2 and 3 vs. C o n d i t i o n s 4 and 5 2. C o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 vs. C o n d i t i o n 3 3. C o n d i t i o n 1 vs. C o n d i t i o n 2 4. C o n d i t i o n 4 vs. C o n d i t i o n 5 A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out on the t e s t scores to determine whether a common mediating f a c t o r was present. F i n a l l y , the ..extent of the c o r r e l a t i o n between the scores obtained on each measure and the d u r a t i o n of the i n t e r v i e w was determined. 19 R e s u l t s I . A s e r i e s of anovas with m u l t i p l e comparisons were c a r r i e d out on each of the dependent measures. (a) Measures of s u b j e c t openness (see t a b l e 1 ) . Ho s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t , was found f o r any of the s i x measures s e l e c t e d as i n d i c a t o r s of s u b j e c t s ' w i l l i n g n e s s to d i s c l o s e . A tendency towards.a main e f f e c t c f sex was found f o r two of the dependent measures - d i s c l o s i v e n e s s of the Rep. Test c o n s t r u c t s . chosen (p=0.08) and .. the discrepancy of the s e l f -i d e a l s e l f r a t i n g s , . a g a i n on the Rep. Test (p=0 .07 ) , with female s u b j e c t s s c o r i n g higher than male s u b j e c t s . C o n d i t i o n - sex i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were found f o r three of the dependent measures: the t o t a l number of a d j e c t i v e s checked a s . r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of " s e l f . o n the. ACL (ACLSE1F, p= 0 . 0 5 ) , the number o f . n e g a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s checked, again on the s e l f s e c t i o n of the ACL. (ACLNEG, p=0 .Q4 ) , and to a c e r t a i n . e x t e n t on the s e l f - i d e a l , s e l f discrepancy.on the Rep.. Test (RT S-IS, p= 0 . 1 0 ) . Anovas were c a r r i e d out on these three measures f o r each sex s e p a r a t e l y (see t a b l e 2) . 20 TABLE I -: Anovas, With A P r i o r i Orthogonal Comparisons, For Measures Of Subject S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . (F Values) 1 1 —• T 1 T T R T 1 | 1 SCORE | MC | ACSELF | ACLNEG | RT S-IS|ACL S-IS| r -I H +~ f— H 4 1 ICOHDITION | 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.89 | 0.48 | 1.68 | 0.25 | V- + — + — — — r - + - 4- - -I \ 1123-45 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.62 | |12-3 | 0.50. | 0.86 | 0.42 j 0.12 | 1.36 | 0.02 | |1-2 | 0.41 | 0.19 | 1.22 | 0.61 | 4.55** | 0.34 | 14-5 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 1.89 | 1.19 | 0.11 | 0.03 | | SEX | 3.09* | 0.12 | 0.54 | 0.89 I 3.31* | 1.77 | r — + H - H +— H H 4 ICOHD.X SEX| 1.33 | 0.66 | 2.49** | 2.56** | 2.04* | 0.43 | r -\ r. H -r-. H r + 4 1 |SEX/123-45| 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.85 | 0.19 | 0.98 | 0.39 | ISEX/12-3 | 5.01** | 1.47 | 0.11 | 1.67 | 0.08 | 0.78 | ISEX/1-2 | 0.00 | 0.31 | 9.00***| 6.14***| 7.65***| 0.17 | ISEX/4-5 | 0.27 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 2.38 | 0.01 | 0.65 | I , L : L I J J L J * P<0.10 ** P<0.05 *** P<0.01 TABLE I I : Separate Sex Anovas For Measures Cf S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e (F Va l u e s ) . I — RT S-IS 3.37** 0.02 1.08 12.32*** 0.08 MALES | ACLSELF | ACLNEG _______ COND. | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j. 2.27* | 2.08* 123-45 | - i.- — II— I I . . mm -• —, ,.,.„ [i i. | 0.40 | 0.03 12-3 | 0.05 | 1.65 1-2 | 8.26*** | 6.51*** 4-5 | 0.38 | 0.72 _______ FEMALES| COND. | 1.09 | 1. 14 123-45 | 0.23 | 0.04 12-3 | 0.48 | 0.37 1-2 | 1.83 | 1.22 4-5 | 1.79 | 2.93* 0.41 1.06 0.38 0.20 0.03 * p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01 22 For males, t h i s y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t f o r one measure, s e l f - i d e a l s e l f d i screpancy on the Rep. Test (p=0.Q2), and a tendency towards s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the other two (p=0.08 f o r . t o t a l a d j e c t i v e s checked and p=0.09 f o r negative a d j e c t i v e s checked on the ACL). The orthogonal comparisons i n d i c a t e that t h i s r e s u l t s from the d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores between c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2. with c o n d i t i o n 2 scores being s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the c o n d i t i o n 1 scores and a l l other s c o r e s being i n t e r m e d i a t e and n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . For females, no s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t was found f o r any of the three measures. F i n a l l y , a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was found f o r the comparison . of c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 with c o n d i t i o n 3 f o r the d i s c l o s i v e n e s s score of the c o n s t r u c t s chosen f o r the Rep. T e s t . In t h i s case, s c o r e s f o r . c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n . s c o r e s . f o r c o n d i t i o n 3 with scores f o r c o n d i t i o n s 4 and 5 being i n t e r m e d i a t e and n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . A separate sex a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r males on t h i s comparison (p=0.05), but not f o r females. Thus . i t appears t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , females are more d i s c l o s i v e than males but t h a t they are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d ..by the treatment. c o n d i t i o n s . D i s c l o s i veness of male s u b j e c t s , on the other hand, i s i n c r e a s e d by v e r b a l reinforcement and decreased by experimenter s e l f d i s c l o s u r e . (b) Anxiety measures (see t a b l e 3) An i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between s u b j e c t sex and IKE scores 23 was found f o r the comparison of c o n d i t i o n s 1, 2 and 3 with c o n d i t i o n s 4 and 5 (p=0.05) such t h a t female scores were g r e a t e r i n the experimental c o n d i t i o n s over t h e . c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s and male scores were not. a f u r t h e r . tendency towards a main c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t was.found i n the comparison of c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2. (p=0.07), with c o n d i t i o n 1 s c o r e s being s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than c o n d i t i o n 2 scores. These r e s u l t s _ a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t with the Kopfstein.and K o p f s t e i n . (in press) f i n d i n g t h a t high FSE scores are c o r r e l a t e d with an i n c r e a s e i n negative s e l f - d i s c l c s u r e . . No . . . s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s :were. found f o r t r a i t a n x i e t y , whereas s t a t e a n x i e t y scores showed a trend towards being s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r f o r the three experimental c o n d i t i o n s (1,2 and. .3) ..as compared with the two c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s (4 and 5) (p=0.07) . Thus c l a r i f i c a t i o n of ..the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s does have the e f f e c t of making s u b j e c t s f e e l more comfortable. TABLE I I I : Anovas With A P r i o r i Comparisons f o r Anxiety Measures (F V a l u e s ) . I T • 1 • T 1 I | STATE | . TRAIT | FNE | r r H + ^ ICONDITION | 0.71 | 0.33 | 1.28 | , (- ., 4 -J 1123-45 | 2.72* | 0.32 | 1.03 | 112-3 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 0.62 | I 1-2 | 0.02 | 0.28 | 3.09* | I 4-5 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.38 | |_ ^ _ + _ 1 |SEX | 1.29 | 1.69 | 0.83 | |COND X SEX | 0.80 | 0.16 | 1.28 | JSex/123-45 | 0.57 | 0.12 | 3.79** | |Sex/12-3 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 1.13 | |Sex/1-2 | 1.70 | 0.11 | 0.77 | |Sex/4-5 | 1.23 | 0.12 | 0.00 | I L - 7 — • J -» p<0. 10 p<0.05 25 (c) P e r c e p t i o n o f the Experimenter (see Table 4 ) . An anova of the s e l f - experimenter discrepancy - scores obtained from the Rep. T e s t c o n s t r u c t s r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between c o n d i t i o n and s u b j e c t sex (p=0.003). A separate sex a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t f o r males (p=0.007). The orth o g o n a l comparisons i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s , i s p r i m a r i l y , due to the discrepancy s c o r e s f o r c o n d i t i o n . 1 being s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than t h o s e . f o r c o n d i t i o n 2 (p=0.001), although the d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n d i t i o n 4 and c o n d i t i o n 5 s c o r e s a l s o tend to s i g n i f i c a n c e (p=0.08), with c o n d i t i o n 5 s c o r e s g r e a t e r than c o n d i t i o n 4 s c o r e s . The i d e a l s e l f - experimenter.discrepancy scores, on the other hand, show a main c o n d i t i o n e f f e c t on the comparison cf c o n d i t i o n 1 with c o n d i t i o n 2 (p=0.05), with s c o r e s f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 being lower than those f o r c o n d i t i o n 2. I t thus appears t h a t experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e s u l t s i n more p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of the experimenter, as compared with v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t . TABLE IV : Anovas, With A P r i o r i Orthogonal Ccmpariso For Measures Of S u b j e c t P e r c e p t i o n Of The Experimenter (F V a l u e s ) , r T T 1 1 1 SELF-EXPT8. DISC. | IDEAL SELF - | | EXPTR. DISC. | 1 1 T ICONDITION | 0. 82 •I 1.56 i„ i ._ f — — — — — | J 1123-45 | 0. 21 I 0.04 |12-3 | 1. 01 I 1.30 | 1-2 | 1. 92 I 3.90** 14-5 | 0. 12 j 0.99 |SEX | 1. 04 ! 0.53 J j I 1 * T |COND X SEX | 4. 31*** 0.43 j ISEX/123-45 | 2. 21 + — 0.31 — 4 | SEX/12-3 | 0. 14 I 1.88 JSEX/1-2 | 11 .14*** J 0.00 ISEX/4-5 | 4. 24** I 1.81 1 L -±..., J ** P<0.05 *** P<0.01 o 27 In summary, the r e s u l t s suggest t h a t : (i) female s u b j e c t s are i n g e n e r a l more d i s c l o s i v e than males, but are not i n f l u e n c e d by the experimental c o n d i t i o n s ; ( i i ) the d i s c l o s i v e n e s s . o f male s u b j e c t s was i n c r e a s e d by v e r b a l reinforcement and decreased by experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ; ( i i i ) a l l three experimental c o n d i t i o n s r e s u l t e d ' i n s u b j e c t s f e e l i n g more at ease i n the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , but experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e l e d to a n . i n c r e a s e i n s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e a n x i e t y ; (iv) e x p e r i m e n t e r - s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ,led to more p o s i t i v e r a t i n g s of the experimenter ( i . e . the experimenter was r a t e d as more l i k e the s u b j e c t ' s i d e a l s e l f ) than d i d v e r b a l reinforcement. I I . A p r i n c i p a l . f a c t o r a n a l y s i s with i t e r a t i o n s was performed on t h e . s i x measures of openness. The r e s u l t s are summarized i n Table 5. The two f a c t o r s obtained were not r e a d i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n view of the high weightings of the two measures (ACLSELF and HC) on both f a c t o r s , o n e . t h i n g . i s c l e a r from t h i s a n a l y s i s , however, and t h a t . i s t h a t the measure of d i s c l o s i v e n e s s obtained from the Rep. Test i s of a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t nature than t h a t obtained from the other measures. One d i f f e r e n c e which stands out i s that the measure, of ...disclosiveness obtained from the Rep. Test i s one of depth of intimacy,. with s u b j e c t s choosing the l e v e l at which they wish to d i s c l o s e , ..whereas the other measures take the l e v e l of .intimacy as granted and assess the extent to which s u b j e c t s d i s c l o s e at t h a t l e v e l . T h i s i s i n accordance with the 28 d i s t i n c t i o n between breadth and depth dimensions of p e r s o n a l i t y made by Altman and T a y l o r (1973). TABLE V : Fac t o r Matrix.Of Measures Of S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . r T FACTOR 1 i | FACTOR , 2 I „ i | SCORE | 0.17 | -0 .16 — 1 I MC | -0 .48 I -0.23 | ACLSELF | -0 .63 | 0.67 | ACLNEG | 0.17 | 0.93 | RT S-IS | 0.40 | 0.10 | ACL S-IS | 0.94 I 0.15 L_ , i , _ j. i 29 I I I . The d u r a t i o n of the i n t e r v i e w was c o r r e l a t e d with a l l the dependent measures f o r the three groups with i n t e r v i e w s . No c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n of s i g n i f i c a n c e was. found, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h i s i s not a v a r i a b l e of major importance i n t h i s case (see t a b l e 6) . TABLE VI : Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Between Length Of Interview And Dependent Measures. COND 1 COND 2 SCORE | 0. 16 I 0.09 | 0. 02 | MC | -0. 12 I -0.04 | 0. 03 | KNE | 0. 01 0.33 } -0. 05 | STATE | -o. 06 0.36 | -0. 36 | TRAIT | -0. 00 0.41* | -0. 16 | ACLSELF | 0. 18 0.31 | 0. 27 | ACLNEG | 0. 21 0.07 | 0. 04 | RT S-IS | 0. 27 0. 13 | -0. 57** | IS-E DISC | -0. 21 -0.01 | 0. 18 | S-C DISC | 0. 13 0.04 J -0. 19 | ACL-S-IS «~ — 0 . 13 1 i — - 0 . 0 4 - -— 0. 3 3 J COND 4 — H * p<0.10 ** p<0.05 30 D i s c u s s i o n A c l e a r i n t e r a c t i o n was found between sex of su b j e c t and the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and of experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Thus male .subjects were found to become more d i s c l o s i v e f o l l o w i n g v e r b a l reinforcement of d i s c l o s i v e n e s s i n an i n t e r v i e w , and, i f anything, l e s s so f o l l o w i n g modeling of d i s c l o s i v e n e s s ; whereas female.subjects remained u n a f f e c t e d by e i t h e r c o n d i t i o n , although they were more d i s c l o s i v e o v e r a l l . That females should be more d i s c l o s i v e than males i s c o n s i s t e n t with, the l i t e r a t u r e i n ..this area (Cozby, 1973; L i t t l e , 1 9 6 7 ; L i t t l e , 1968). Although K o p f s t e i n and K o p f s t e i n ' s ( i n press) f i n d i n g t h a t females check o f f more negative a d j e c t i v e s was not supported by t h i s , study, the c o n t r a s t i n g f i n d i n g , t h a t females .revealed a g r e a t e r discrepancy between t h e i r . p e r c e i v e d s e l v e s and t h e i r i d e a l s e l v e s supports Pederscn and B r e g l i o ' s . .. (1968) , a n a l y s i s t h a t females choose a more i n t i m a t e l e v e l of d i s c l o s u r e without n e c e s s a r i l y using more words to do so. The most obvious way of i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s i s i n terms.of an i n t e r a c t i o n . between the .experimenter, sex, the s u b j e c t sex and the c o n d i t i o n s of experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and of. v e r b a l reinforcement of d i s c l o s i v e n e s s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g i s more potent when the experimenter and.subject sex d i f f e r than when they are s i m i l a r ; whereas modeling of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e seems to be mere potent when the ...experimenter ..and the sub j e c t are . of the same sex. U n f o r t u n e a t e l y , there has been very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out 31 i n t h i s area. As f a r as demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are concerned, the ambiguity r e s u l t i n g from the experimental c o n d i t i o n s .should be independent of the experimenter and s u b j e c t s e x . . I t . i s p o s s i b l e , however, t h a t the subject-experimenter sex i n t e r a c t i o n would.influence t h e . w i l l i n g n e s s of the s u b j e c t to comply with the p e r c e i v e d demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - t h i s , however, should r e s u l t i n .a„differential e f f e c t f o r c o n d i t i o n 3 over c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 which i s not found. ..Neither of the two s t u d i e s which examined the i n f l u e n c e of experimenter sex on the r a t e of v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g e x p l i c i t l y a nalyzed f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n between experimenter sex and s u b j e c t sex. alone (Binder,McConnell 8 Sjoholm, 1957; Sarason S Minard, 1963). Research f i n d i n g s , based, on the t r a d i t i o n a l modeling paradigm may only .be c i t e d i n d i r e c t l y i n connection with.a study such as t h i s one where t h e - d e s i r e d response i s not a d i r e c t i m i t a t i o n .of the_.model!s . a c t i o n s . .However, Bandura (1971) suggests t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as the.sex of the model may play a r o l e , i n determining.the. e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the modeling when the .value of the modeled b e h a v i o u r . i s u n c l e a r , i n which case same-sexed models should be more e f f e c t i v e . The c n l y study which.has any^bearing on t h i s d i d indeed f i n d t h a t male c h i l d r e n i m i t a t e d male models more than female models, whereas female c h i l d r e n i m i t a t e d both sexes e q u a l l y (Bandura,Ross, and Rcss, 1971, p86) . Thus, .although more evidence i s c l e a r l y needed i n t h i s a r e a , the r e s e a r c h that.has been done i s s u f f i c i e n t l y c o n s i s t e n t to p r o v i d e support f o r an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data i n terms of 32 an i n t e r a c t i o n between the c o n d i t i o n s , . t h e sex of the s u b j e c t and t h a t ., of the experimenter. T h i s has important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the other s t u d i e s i n t h i s area where, experimenter sex i s g e n e r a l l y i g n o r e d , and s u b j e c t s are of one sex only. An examination of the a n x i e t y measures taken suggests that f a r from, decreasing s o c i a l . e v a l u a t i v e . a n x i e t y s c o r e s , experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e increases.them. i t i s reasonable to propose that t h i s heightened f e a r of e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s i n s u b j e c t s being l e s s open than they would otherwise have been. F u r t h e r , i f one examines the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the s e l f , i d e a l , s e l f and experimenter r a t i n g s . o n the Rep. Test, and i f one assumes .that the i d e a l . . s e l f i s r e l a t i v e l y impervious to change by treatment e f f e c t s , then i t appears that experimenter s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e , at l e a s t as f a r as male. s u b j e c t s are concerned, l e a d s d s to .a more p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n c f both the experimenter and of. the ..self.. That experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e s u l t s i n s u b j e c t s f e e l i n g . more p o s i t i v e l y about the experimenter and about, themselves., i s o f . , obvious t h e r a p e u t i c importance. As regards t h i s study, however, i t suggests that the measures of openness themselves, biased as they are .towards d i s c l o s u r e of negative ..information, may be masking the e f f e c t of experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e on,subject.openness. T h u s . i f experimenter s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e . . r e s u l t s i n s u b j e c t s f e e l i n g b e t t e r about themselves, any increased-openness w i l l not be.revealed i n an i n c r e a s e i n the number of negative statements they make about themselves. Thus any modeling i n f l u e n c e of experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may have been masked by two other e f f e c t s : an i n c r e a s e i n 33 s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e a n x i e t y and a measurement a r t i f a c t r e l a t e d to the change i n . s u b j e c t s 1 s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . . In c o n c l u s i o n , t h i s study d i d not. f i n d support f o r the hypothesis... t h a t experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e r e s u l t s i n increased,, d i s c l o s u r e by., s u b j e c t s on tests., administered subsequently. On the other hand, v e r b a l reinforcement of s e l f -r e f e r e n t statements by a female experimenter.was found to have t h i s . e f f e c t f o r male.subjects, a l t h o u g h . n o t . f o r .female s u b j e c t s . P o s s i b l e , e x p l a n a t i o n s of the l a c k of a modeling e f f e c t are d i s c u s s e d above and.include the o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t , experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e l e d to both, an i n c r e a s e . i n s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e anxiety.and more f a v o u r a b l e s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s , i n the s u b j e c t s concerned... P r i m a r i l y , . however, t h i s . study provides a demonstration.of how.experimenter and subject. sex may i n t e r a c t with the experimental c o n d i t i o n s such that any f i n d i n g s based on only...one combination of these v a r i a b l e s has very l i m i t e d g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . 34 B i b l i o g r a p h y Altman, I. ana T a y l o r , D. A. S o c i a l p e n e t r a t i o n ^ The development of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Hew Ycrk7~Hclt7 R h i n e h a r t ' s Winston, 1973...- ~ A n a s t a s i , A. P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g . New.York: Macmillan, 1963. Adams, J . S. Inequity i n s o c i a l exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l _sj_cholc_y_ V o l . 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. . . . . . . . Bandura, A. .Psychotherapy based on modeling p r i n c i p l e s . In A. E. Bergin a n d . S . L . G a r f i e l d (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change. An e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s . New York: Wiley7"97l7~~ •" ~ -Bandura, A., Ross, D, 8 Ross,.S. A.. A comparative study of the s t a t u s envy, s o c i a l power and.. secondary reinforcement t h e o r i e s . o f i d e n t i f i c a t o r y l e a r n i n g . In A. Eandura (Ed.), _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 _ i _ _ _ _ o d e l i n _ d C o n f l i c t i n g t h e o r i e s _ Chicago: I l d Ine-Atherton,™971.~ . " '"~ Binder, A.., McConnell,.D. 8 Sjoholm, N. A. V e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g as a f u n c t i o n of experimenter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology,. 1957, 55, 309-3147" ~~~ Cozby, P. C.- S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : A l i t e r a t u r e review. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1973, ,79_ 73-91. Cronbach, L. E. E s s e n t i a l s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l ________ New Ycrk: Harper 6 Row, 19697™ " . ' '. ~ ." Doster, , J . A. E f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n s , modeling and r o l e r e h e a r s a l on i n t e r v i e w v e r b a l behaviour. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1972, 39_ 202-2097 Doster, J . A.., 6 Brooks S. J . Interviewer d i s c l o s u r e modeling, i n f o r m a t i o n r e v e a l e d and i n t e r v i e w e e v e r b a l behaviour. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 4 2, 420-426. . 7 ~ . . . ~ " " . . " " " " " , " " " Gough, H. D., 8 H e i l b r u n , A. B. The a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t manual^ Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s 1 Press, 1965. H a r r i s , S. I n f l u e n c e of s u b j e c t and experimenter sex i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 37, 2 9 ~ 2 9 ~ ~ "". J o u r a r d , S. H. The e f f e c t s of experimenters' s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e on s u b j e c t s ' behaviour. In C. S p i e l b e r g e r (Ed.) Current t o p i c s i n community and c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g y . New York: Academic Press7 "1969. ,~~ "~~~ " ~.~ . "*..... J o u r a r d , S. M. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : An experimental a n a l y s i s of the 35 t r a n s p a r e n t s e I f ^ New York: W i l e y - I n t e r s c i e n c e , 1971. J o u r a r d , S. M.,.S Friedman, B. Experimenter - su b j e c t " d i s t a n c e " and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l E§ZCholosXi 1970, I 5 X 278-282. J o u r a r d , S. H., 6 J a f f e e , P. E. I n f l u e n c e . o f an i n t e r v i e w e r ' s d i s c l o s u r e on the s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behaviour of in t e r v i e w e e s . J o u r n a l of Counseling P s ^ c h c l c a X i 1970, 1_7X 252-257. J o u r a r d , . S., M., S Kormann, L. A. G e t t i n g to know the experimenter and i t s e f f e c t on p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t performance. J o u r n a l of Humanistic Ps x*cholo<jv x 1968, 8 X 155-159. " " " " . 7 ~~ ~ K e l l y , G. A. The ESjcholocjj o f human c o n s t r u c t s A New Ycrk: Nort on, 1955. ~ " 7 , K o p f s t e i n , ..J. H. S K o p f s t e i n , D. C o r r e l a t e s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Siy.cholo^x 1973, 4 t x 1637" ™ ~ *~ Krasner, L..Verbal c o n d i t i o n i n g and psychotherapy. In L. Krasner S L. P. Oilman (Eds.) Research i n behaviour l o d i f i c a t i o n x New developments and i m p l i c a t i o n s ^ New York: H c l t , Shinehart, s Winston, 1965. Lana, fi. E. P r e t e s t s e n s i t i z a t i o n . In R. Rosenthal S R. L. Rosnow (Eds.) A r t i f a c t i n b e h a v i o u r a l r e s e a r c h ^ New Ycrk: Academic Press, 1969. L a n d f i e l d , A. W. Personal c o n s t r u c t systems i n psychotherapy. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971. L i t t l e , B. R. Age and sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of p s y c h o l o g i c a l , r o l e and p h y s i c a l i s t i c c o n s t r u c t s . . unpublished paper, Oxford, 1967. M a r l a t t , G.r A. Exposure to a model and task ambiguity as determinants o f v e r b a l behaviour i n an i n t e r v i e w . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g a n d . . C l i n i c a l Ps^cholocjx^ 1971 , 36 x 268-27 6. Masl i n g , J . R o l e - r e l a t e d . behaviour of the s u b j e c t and p s y c h o l o g i s t and I t s e f f e c t s upon p s y c h o l o g i c a l data. Nebraska Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n ^ .1966. M c A l l i s t e r , A., 6 K i e s l e r , D. J.-Interviewee d i s c l o s u r e as a f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t , task modeling, and i n t e r v i e w e r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s jcholog ^ x i° press. Mcpherson, F. M., ,Barden, V. & Buckley, F. The use of ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l * c o n s t r u c t s by a f f e c t i v e l y f l a t t e n e d s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Med i c a l Ejjchclccjy^ 36 Orne, M. ..T. Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the concept of g u a s i -c o n t r o l s . In R. Rosenthal 8 R. L. Rosnow (Eds.) A r t i f a c t i n bs]l§vioural r e s e a r c h ^ New York: Academic Press, 1969. Pederson, D. M., 8 B r e g l i o , V. J . P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of a c t u a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports^ 1968, 22 x 495-501. " Powell, W. J . J r . D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of i n t e r v i e w e r i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n an experimental i n t e r v i e w . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g ajad C l i n i c a l Psycholo(jv x 1968, 32 x 210-215T S p i e l b e r g e r , C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., 8 Lushene, R. S l e f -e y a l u a t i o n questionnaire., Palo A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press, .1968. . . . Riecken, H. W. A program f o r r e s e a r c h on experiments i n s o c i a l psychology. In N. F. Washburne (Ed.) d e c i s i o n s ^ values and 3roups.. V o l . 2 . New York: Pergamon Press, 19 62. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter e f f e c t s i n b e h a v i o u r a l r e s e a r c h ^ New York: .Appleton-Century-crofts, 1966. ~ ~ Rosenthal, . R. I n t e r p e r s o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s : E f f e c t s of the experimenter's hypothesis. In R. Rosenthal 8 R. L. Rosnow (Eds.) A r t i f a c t i n b e h a v i o u r a l r e s e a r c h . Hew York: Academic P r e s s , 19697 ~ ~ ~ " " Sarason, I. G., 8Minard, J . I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s u b j e c t , experimenter and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psy.cholocj.y.x 1963, 6 7 x 87-91. Watson, D.,. 8 F r i e n d , R. Measurement of s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e a n x i e t y . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychclcc|,y x 37 APPENDIX A z Elements used i n the Re£._ Test.,. (1) ' s e l f (2) ' i d e a l s e l f (3) 'mother' (4) ' f a t h e r ' (5) 'someone t h a t makes me f e e l good' (6) 'someone who makes me f e e l uncomfortable' (7) 'someone who makes me angry' 38 APPENDIX B _ The Interview 1. Now, t r y to p i c t u r e y o u r s e l f a parent, l y i n g i n bed t r y i n g to get t o s l e e p . You've got a f i v e year o l d son, Tommy, who has j u s t come down with mumps. He's i n the.bedroom next to yours c r y i n g because he f e e l s so bad. How would you f e e l ? 2. Again, I would l i k e you to imagine y o u r s e l f a parent, t h i s time of an e i g h t year o l d g i r l , Cathy. One day she i s l a t e coming home from s c h o o l and i s very upset when she gets i n . You f i n d out .she was picked up by a strange man and s e x u a l l y molested. How would you f e e l ? 3. Imagine t h i s time t h a t one of your parents d i e s and the other, now o l d and l o n e l y , asks i f he/she may come and l i v e with you. No other.member of the f a m i l y i s prepared to take them i n and the a l t e r n a t i v e i s an o l d age home. How would ycu f e e l ? 4. Now imagine that you are down i n Gastown and a woman, ho l d i n g a s i c k l y - l o o k i n g c h i l d by the hand, both c f them dressed i n s o i l e d , ragged c l o t h e s , comes up to you and asks you f o r money. How would you f e e l ? 5. Imagine t h a t you are i n Safeways, doing some shopping and you n o t i c e an o l d age pensionner p i c k i n g up a t i n of catfood and s l i p p i n g i t . i n her pocket. She loo k s up to see you s t a r i n g a t her. How would you f e e l ? 39 6. Imagine t h a t you are d r i v i n g along a road and a young c h i l d , about f o u r or f i v e , runs out i n f r o n t of the c a r . You j u s t manage to avoid h i t t i n g the c h i l d and. p u l l . o v e r to the s i d e of the road. You see the c h i l d ' s mother y e l l i n g at the k i d f o r having run i n t o the road. Bow would you f e e l ? 7. Imagine t h a t you have some o b j e c t at home that i s very p r e c i o u s to you - and breakable. A f r i e n d comes to v i s i t , b r i n g i n g her s m a l l c h i l d . The c h i l d s t a r t s to play with your p r e c i o u s o b j e c t and you warn him to be very c a r e f u l . S h o r t l y a f t e r , he breaks i t and immediately b u r s t s i n t o t e a r s . How would you f e e l ? 8. A f r i e n d of yours, someone you aren't very c l o s e t c , o f f e r s t o do you a s m a l l f a v c u r . Unexpected o b s t a c l e s a r i s e and i t t u r n s out s/he has.to go a long way out of h i s / h e r way i n order to f u l f i l l h i s / h e r promise. Without your knowing i t , the s m a l l favour has.turned i n t o a l a r g e favour - i t would, i n f a c t , have been e a s i e r f o r you to have done i t y o u r s e l f . How would you f e e l ? 40 Appendix C A Samples of Experimenter S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . Note;. T n e experimenter responses i n the c o n d i t i o n of experimenter s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were not s t r i c t l y s t a n d a rdized as i t was f e l t t h a t t h i s would d e t r a c t from, the spontaneity and genuineness f e l t to be. an important part of the v a r i a b l e of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . However, a l l the responses were s i m i l a r i n c ontent to those given below. 1. I'd be very upset - I ' d f e e l so h e l p l e s s s i n c e I'd presumably done e v e r y t h i n g I .could to help him. I guess i f he went on c r y i n g . f o r a long time, I'd even s t a r t f e e l i n g angry - j u s t because i t was making me f e e l so bad and there was nothing I c o u l d do. 2. I'd f e e l sad.- r e a l l y sad t h a t i t had happened, as well as angry at the guy who d i d i t . 3. I'd f e e l s o r r y f o r them.but I'd f e e l r e l u c t a n t to take them i n s i n c e i t o f t e n doesn't work out. I'd.be angry at the r e s t of the f a m i l y f o r p u t t i n g me on the s p o t , too. 4. T h i s happened to me once - and I r e a l l y f e l t angry at the woman f o r dragging her c h i l d around l i k e t h a t . 5. I*d f e e l r e a l l y s o r r y f o r her - and I'd f e e l p r e t t y angry and upset because of the way o l d people are t r e a t e d by our s o c i e t y . 41 6. I saw t h i s happen once, and I know that my immediate r e a c t i o n a f t e r the fe a r had died down was anger at the mother f o r y e l l i n g a t the c h i l d and sympathy f o r the c h i l d who was o b v i o u s l y a l s o f r i g h t e n e d . 7. I'd probably be angry a t the c h i l d ' s mother f o r not tak i n g i t away from him - and at myself, f o r the same reason. I'd f e e l s o r r y f o r the c h i l d h imself, s i n c e he was upset and c r y i n g . 8. T h i s happened to me q u i t e r e c e n t l y , and I found I was q u i t e angry with her f o r not t e l l i n g me about i t before she did i t . I th i n k i t .was because i t made me f e e l I owed her a large f a v c u r , when I.hadn't intended t o . I was g r a t e f u l too, of course, but I was s u r p r i s e d t h a t I a c t u a l l y f e l t annoyed with her. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093389/manifest

Comment

Related Items