Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The interpersonal response to depression as a function of two levels of intimacy Franche, Renée-Louise 1986

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 F72.pdf [ 6.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097262.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097262-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097262-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097262-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097262-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097262-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097262-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097262-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097262.ris

Full Text

THE INTERPERSONAL RESPONSE TO DEPRESSION AS A FUNCTION OF TWO LEVELS OF INTIMACY by RENEE-LOUISE FRANCHE A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 12 September 1987 ® Renee-Louise Franche, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Psychology The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: 12 September 1987 ABSTRACT Coyne's interactional formulation of depression (Coyne, 1976) states that the demands for support of the depressed individual are initially met with understanding but that over time, depressed persons engender increasingly negative reactions from others. The rejection of the depressed person is said to be mediated by a depressed mood induction in the other person. Coyne's model is primarily concerned with interactions involving family and friends of the depressed person, but in the past it has consistently been tested in laboratory situations examining interactions between strangers. The present study attempted to examine subjects' reactions to interaction with a depressed person, within the context of simulated relationships between friends or between strangers. It distinguished between compliance and initiation as expressions of rejection, and investigated the controversial issue of whether or not rejection is mediated by a depressed mood induction. An exploratory aspect of the study involved an inquiry into the potential role of interpersonal needs in the response to depressed individuals. The study was twofold: in the first part, the stimulus consisted of a videotaped interaction between two trained actresses portraying a depressed woman and a non-depressed woman in the experimental condition, and two non-depressed women in the control condition. In the second part, the same interactions were described in written scenarios. Subjects were instructed to imagine themselves as the non-depressed person interacting with the target person, as either strangers or best friends. Thus, the ii study consisted of two parallel 2 X 2 designs. Subjects completed the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist, the Wessman-Ricks Depression-Elation Scale, and the Mehrabian-Russell Semantic Differential at pretest and posttest to measure mood induction. Need for nurturance and need for autonomy were measured at pretest with the Interpersonal Adjective Scale, the Jackson Personality Research Form and the Campbell Need Scale. Posttest acceptance-rejection measures included a modified version of the Opinion Scale and the Impact Message Inventory. Results indicated that interactions with depressed individuals elicit a diffuse negative mood, more so in the context of relationships between friends, in the case of the written scenarios method. Depressed. targets were also more rejected than non-depressed targets, but contrary to predictions intimacy decreased the degree of rejection. Rejection was not differentiated into the two concepts of compliance and initiation; however, results pointed to two distinct aspects of rejection - a behavioral aspect and a perceptual one. Mood induction appeared to be related only to the perceptual aspect of rejection, and not to the more salient behavioral one. The contribution of interpersonal needs to rejection appears equivocal; if indeed needs play a role in the mediation of rejection, need for nurturance seems to be more involved than need for autonomy. Although no Method effects were predicted, levels of intimacy were apparently not successfully reproduced in the videotaped stimuli. The two methods at times iii yielded different results, and further research will clarify their respective external validity. In light of the results of the present study, Coyne's model was in part supported but appears to be in need of serious revisions concerning the mediation of rejection and the effect of intimacy on rejection. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii List of Tables :. vii List of Figures viii Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 Method 14 Results 25 Discussion 57 Bibliography 82 Appendix A: Consent Form 90 Appendix B: Scripts for the Videotaped Interactions 93 Appendix C: Scenarios for the Written Interactions 102 Appendix D: Multiple Affective Adjective Checklist I l l Appendix E: Wessman-Ricks Depression-Elation Scale 115 Appendix F: Semantic Differential 119 Appendix G: Interpersonal Adjective Scale 123 Appendix H: Need Scale 127 Appendix I: Opinion Scale 129 Appendix J: Impact Message Inventory 134 Appendix K: Manipulation Check for Subjects 140 Appendix L: Manipulation Check (objective raters) 142 Appendix M: Pretest MANOVA Summary Table for the MAACL and W-R Mood Scale 145 Appendix N: Pretest ANOVA Summary Tables for the Semantic Differential 147 v Appendix O: Summary Table of Reliability of Compliance and Initiation 151 Appendix P: Means and Standard Deviations 154 Appendix Q: Table of Correlations 157 Appendix R: MANOVA Summary Table for the MAACL and the W-R Mood Scale 160 Appendix S: ANOVA Summary Tables for the MAACL and the W-R Mood Scale 162 Appendix T: ANOVA Summary Tables for the Semantic Differential 167 Appendix U: MANOVA Summary Table for the IMI and the Opinion Scale 171 Appendix V: ANOVA Summary Table for the IMI and the Opinion Scale 173 Appendix W: MANOVA Summary Table for the Need Scales 180 Appendix X: Table of Correlations Between Need Measure and Dependent Measures 182 Appendix Y: MANOVA Summary Table for the IMI and the Opinion Scale 184 Appendix Z: ANOVA Summary Tables for the IMI and the Opinion Scale with the IAS-WA as a Covariate 186 vi List of tables Table 1: Regression Analysis: Mood Measures Predicting Rejection 48 Table 2: Regression Analysis: Mood Index Score and Semantic Differential Predicting Rejection 50 Table 3: Regression Analysis: Mood Measures and Needs Predicting Rejection 53 Table 4: Regression Analysis: Mood Index Score, Semantic Differential^  and Needs Predicting Rejection 55 Table 5: Regression Analysis: Mood Measures and IMI Predicting the Opinion Scale 69 Table 6: Regression Analysis: Mood Measures and the Opinion Scale Predicting the IMI 71 Table 7: Regression Analysis: Mood Measures, the Opinion Scale. and Needs Predicting the IMI 74 Table 8: Regression Analysis: Mood Measures, the IMI,and Needs Predicting the Opinion Scale 75 vii List of figures Figure 1: Target X Intimacy Interaction - MAACL 30 Figure 2: Target X Prepost Interaction - MAACL and W-R Mood Scale 32 Figure 3: Intimacy X Method X Prepost Interaction 35 Figure 4: Intimacy X Method X Prepost Interaction - Pleasure Scale 38 Figure 5: Intimacy X Method X Prepost Interaction - Dominance Scale 41 Figure 6: Target X Method Interaction - IMI 46 Figure 7: Target X Intimacy Interaction - MAACL and Pleasure Scale 62 <5> viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Several individuals have helped me in their own ways to complete this thesis. I am grateful to my research advisor, Dr. Keith Dobson, who unfailingly provided valuable guidance and productive discussions at all times. I wish to thank Dr. Dimitri Papageorgis and Dr. Jennifer Campbell for serving on my thesis committee and for their insightful comments. Finally, I am thankful to Anna Fritz who showed an active interest in my research and encouraged me in many ways, and to Yves Amyot for his help with the graphics, his generous support, and wise perspective on my work. ix INTRODUCTION While depression has traditionally been conceptualized as a closed and internal system sustained by biological or cognitive mechanisms, the role of significant others in depression has recently been examined, with an emphasis regarding the maintainance of depressive symptomatology. This interest in interpersonal factors has been spurred by Coyne's interactional formulation of depression (Coyne, 1976a) in which he argued that the demands for support of the depressed individual are initially met with understanding but that over time, they gradually engender increasingly negative reactions from others. The depressed individual becomes aware of these negative reactions and consequently emits even more depressive symptoms such as dependency and helplessness to elicit support The ensuing downward depressive spiral can develop in such a way that eventually the non-depressed other will emit some ungenuine supportive messages while the depressed individual begins to distrust all communications. The bulk of the research has studied interactions between strangers in various contexts as an analogue for interaction between a depressed person and a significant other. The present study attempts to compare the reactions of subjects when interacting within a simulated context of a long-term friendship, or as strangers, with the purpose of examining the validity of previous research and its accuracy in addressing the issue of Coyne's model. The study consists of a general literature review concerning interpersonal responses to depressed individuals as well as behavioral and cognitive characteristics of depressed individuals, followed by the main hypotheses of the study. The method of the experiment is then presented, followed by the results and a discussion of their implications. 1 2 Literature Review This section will examine certain aspects of the interaction between non-depressed subjects and depressed persons or "targets": the negative mood-inducing quality of the interaction, the rejection of the target by the subject, and possible mediators of rejection. The first empirical test of Coyne's model examined the reactions of 45 female undergraduate subjects following a telephone conversation with either a depressed outpatient or a normal control (Coyne, 1976b). Women interacting with depressed patients were more hostile, anxious, depressed, and rejecting following the conversation. Coyne's interpretation was that the interaction with the depressed individual created depressed mood in the subjects which in turn mediated the rejection. Similar results were obtained when college students interacted via an intercom with confederates who enacted either a depressed or a non-depressed role (Hammen & Peters, 1978). Since the original research, numerous studies have challenged the robustness of Coyne's model. Several studies have failed to show that an interaction with depressed individual elicits a dysphoric mood. Howes and Hokanson (1979) studied face-to-face interactions between college students and either depressed, non-depressed, or physically ill confederates and found no significant induction in the subjects' post-interaction mood. Similar results were obtained in other studies with college students as both subjects and targets (Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Joffe & Dobson, 1986). In a replication of Coyne's initial study (Coyne, 1976b), King and Heller (1984) also reported not finding any evidence of mood induction. Strack and Coyne (1983) however, did report 3 negative mood induction following the interaction with a depressed college student Finally, students have been shown to be dysphoric after viewing tapes of either schizophrenic or depressed inpatients, although no significant difference was found between these two groups (Boswell & Murray, 1981). In general, when mood induction has been observed, it consists of a general diffuse negative mood (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976a; Strack & Coyne, 1983). This diffuse mood suggests that interactions with depressed targets do not specifically result in induced depression, and that negative mood induction is not specific to interactions with depressed targets, but may be characteristic of interaction with mentally disturbed individuals in general. Further research is needed to elucidate the question of mood induction; between whom does it occur and under what conditions? An interesting observation is that studies finding significant mood induction are often the ones involving the most distance between subject and target (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978; Strack & Coyne, 1983), using means such as telephones, intercoms, or videotapes. The distance established by either a lack of visual representation of the target or by the absence of a live interaction may not promote positive feelings such as compassion or sympathy, and may facilitate one's focus on negative emotions. Concerning the rejection of depressed individuals, results appear more consistent across studies, when one considers both behavioral and self-reported rejection. Self-reported rejection, measured by unwillingness to engage in further activities with the target, was obtained in several studies (Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Strack & Coyne, 1981), one of them reporting it only for male targets (Boswell & Murray, 1981). Four studies failed to obtain self-reported 4 social rejection (Dobson, 1987; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Joffe & Dobson, 1986; King & Heller, 1984), although Gotlib and Robinson found evidence of verbal and nonverbal manifestations of rejection during the interaction between subject and target, as did Howes and Hokanson (1979). The literature demonstrates that rejection occurs across a variety of targets: confederates (Hammen & Peters, 1978; Howes & Hokanson, 1979), mildly depressed college students (Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Strack & Coyne, 1983), outpatients (Coyne, 1976b), and inpatients (Boswell & Murray, 1981). All interactions occured between strangers, a point to which further discussion will be devoted later. Variation of method of exposure similarly demonstrated the robustness of the rejection phenomenon; videotaped interview (Boswell & Murray, 1981), conversations (Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978), and live interactions (Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Strack & Coyne, 1983) have al produced the rejection phenomenon. The last aspect of Coyne's hypothesis concerns the relationship between mood induction and social rejection. He suggested that induced negative mood mediates the social rejection of depressed individuals. Few studies support this theoretical relationship. Two studies obtained social rejection of targets with no significant mood induction in the subjects (Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982), while other studies found non-substantial correlations between mood factors and social rejection (eg., Boswell & Murray, 1981). Some studies, however, have substantiated the relationship with significant correlations (Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978) which argues for further attention to the issue. 5 Overall, the research suggests that interactions with depressed targets sometimes induce a diffuse negative mood which generally does not limit itself exclusively to a depressed mood. Apparently, the negative mood is not essential in the events leading to rejection, whether the latter takes form in refusal to engage in further activities with the depressed target, or in verbal and non-verbal rejection during the interaction. What then characterizes an interaction leading to social rejection? More importantly, would a better understanding of the phenomenon of rejection offer some explanation pertaining to the disparate results concerning rejection and its mediation? Generally speaking, although researchers have distinguished between verbal, non-verbal and self-reported expression of rejection, they have adopted a narrow and unidimensional approach to the concept of rejection. Indeed, rejection can be conceptualized as two distinct processes: a behavioral one - avoidance, and an evaluative one - dislike. The former may have an instrumental function of distancing, while the latter may be a means of expression (Gurtman, 1986). This raises the possibilies that the two processes may be independent, that the presence of one does not necessarily entail the presence of the other (Gurtman, 1986), or that dislike • mediates subsequent avoidance (Howes & Hokanson, 1979). Moreover, the behavioral dimension of avoidance can be further broken down into a continuum of active avoidance versus compliance. Past studies have bypassed compliance, which involves a more passive-aggressive style of rejection, where one does not actively seek out the other, but feels obligated to comply with the demands of the other. Coyne's initial model (1976a) was. more congruent with this style of rejection, where the non-depressed individual felt obligated and bound by the 6 relationship with the depressed person to comply to the latter's demands, but would not initiate activities. Coyne stated that continued interaction with a depressed person elicited rejection. He was referring to the continued interaction of friends and family of depressed individuals. The depressed individual uses symptoms to seek feedback in the testing of the quality and nature of the relationship: "The persistence and repetition of the symptoms is both incomprehensible and aversive to members of the social environment However, the accompanying indication of distress and suffering is powerful in its ability to arouse guilt in others and to inhibit any direct expression of annoyance and hostility from them ..." (Coyne, 1976a, p.34). It is likely that more intimate and stable relationships is where such a phenomenon will develop, and that rejection may be expressed in a more subtle passive-aggressive style. It is highly questionable to what extent the past research on strangers' interactions is relevant to Coyne's model. In fact, it has been demonstrated that both depressed and non-depressed people behave differently towards strangers in contrast to intimates in a stressful situation: they display sadness when stressed by an intimate, but not by a stranger (Meyer & Hokanson, 1982). Coyne's model states that depressives are initially met with support and understanding; however, studies reporting rejection from strangers appear to contradict this prediction. Although the latter observed phenomenon remains interesting, it raises the possibility that depressive symptomatology is not only maintained through close relationships, but also through day-to-day interactions with strangers. A further question concerns the value of analogue studies. Some critics refer to these studies as "the errors of the third kind" (Doerfler & Chaplin, 1985; Mitroff 7 & Featheringham, 1974), where "one conducts the wrong experiment and thus provides illusory support for one's theoretical conjectures" (Mahoney, 1978, p.660). Coyne's model is primarily concerned with the interactions involving family and friends of the depressed person, but has consistently been tested in laboratory situations examining interactions between strangers. Before we accept any notions of Coyne's interactional model, it is essential to evaluate the validity of the past studies and to attempt to address the core of the model. This evaluation will serve two functions; firstly, it will permit us to reassess the research contributions to the issue, and secondly, by addressing the model more directly it may elucidate some of the inconsistencies pertaining to mood induction, social rejection, and mediation of rejection. To achieve the above goals, the present study will compare the response of subjects asked to imagine themselves interacting with a stranger or an intimate other.either depressed or non-depressed. It will assess differences pertaining to the presence of mood induction, the characteristics of rejection, and the mediators of rejection. Behavioral and Cognitive Characteristics of Depressives The manipulation of the current study involved viewing videotapes and reading scenarios of interactions between depressed and non-depressed individuals, and between two non-depressed individuals; these interactions were conducted by professional actors. Scripts were based on research concerning the well established differences between the behavior of depressed and non-depressed individuals. 8 The behavior of depressed individuals is often construed as relatively deficient in general social competencies manifested as a precursor of the depression or as part of the symptomatology. While this view has generally been supported by the research (Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin & Barton, 1980; Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973; Youngren & Lewinsohn, 1980), a review of the literature will specify the nature of these deficiencies in the overlapping areas of behavioral, verbal, and cognitive characteristics. In the past years, a number of studies have reported differences between depressed and non-depressed individuals on several behavioral measures: depressives demonstrate less eye contact (Hinchliffe, Lancashire, & Roberts, 1971a), slower speech rate (Hinchliffe, Lancashire, & Roberts, 1971b), fewer illustrators -hand motions coherent with the intent of the conversation, and more adaptors - involuntary hand motions such as hand rubbing (Ekman & Friesen, 1974). Most of these studies involved very few subjects and used inpatients only, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. In a more recent study (Youngren & Lewinsohn, 1980), depressed outpatients maintained less eye contact and showed less pleasant and less aroused facial expressions; these differences were significant compared to normals, but not to subjects with high MMPI profiles, suggesting that they were partially attributable to psychological disturbance. Furthermore, depressives have been found to smile less, have more monotonous speech and more "adaptors" during interaction (Gotlib & Robinson, 1982). Some clinicians still advocate the use of these depression-associated behaviors in the assessment of depression (Rehm, 1985), thereby supporting their validity. 9 Passivity, a widely accepted symptom of depression, manifests itself both individually and interpersonally. Isolation, withdrawal, retardation of gait and of general behavior, decreases in the volume of the voice as well as inability to act and to make decisions are characteristic of depressives (Grinker, Miller, Sabskin, Nunn & Nunnally, 1961). The loss of interestand the decrease in energy and motivation (Mendels, 1970) are also described by Beck (1967) as "paralysis of the will". In terms of verbal content during interactions, depressed individuals have been found to communicate more self-devaluation, sadness, helplessness, and general negative content than non-depressed persons (Blumberg & Hokanson, 1983; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Sacco, Blumberg, & Landrum, 1980) as well as less neutral content (Blumberg & Hokanson, 1983; Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973). Several investigations, however, have failed to find strong differences in conversational content between depressive and control subjects (Coyne, 1976b; Youngren & Lewinsohn, 1980), although results were in the predicted direction. The subtleness of group differences may be due to the superficiality of conversations between two strangers in a laboratory setting, as well as to the sub-clinical level of depression of targets. Finally, although few studies have looked at the degree of self-disclosure of depressed persons, Coyne (1976b) was struck by the willingness of the depressed patients to discuss very personal issues, which were often inherently depressing. Cognition is involved in all conversations and represented an important area of consideration in the writing of the scripts of the current study. Beck's well known model (1967) of the depressive cognitive triad consists of three components: a negative view of the world, of oneself and of the future. Each component can be 10 conceptualized in more concrete terms. The negative view of the world can be exemplified by such statements as "things are just bound to get worse", "everybody is just out there for themselves", etc. Negative views of oneself typically involve helplessness , self-blame, low self-esteem, and guilt Negative view of the future refers to a sense of hopelessness and despair. Verbal complaints of hopelessness and self-devaluation have been found to be more present in depressed than non-depressed individuals (Blumberg & Hokanson, 1983; Youngren & Lewinsohn, 1980). Moreover, research reporting higher "negative content" in depressives' conversations, are implicitly referring to verbalization of the cognitive triad. It appears reasonable to assume that the cognitive triad is held and expressed publicly in depressives' conversation. In summary, depressive symptomatology is evident in all of the three areas examined: behavioral, verbal and cognitive. Few studies have examined to what degree these areas are correlated with each other, but for the purpose of the present study, it is most important to realize that they are present to a varying degree in most depressed individuals. Summary The research suggests that interactions with depressed targets sometimes induce a diffuse negative mood in the normal subjects. Rejection of the targets occurs across a variety of targets, but the mediators of rejection are still unclear. Indeed, diffuse negative mood in subjects does not always accompany rejection. 11 When examining the concept of behavioral rejection more closely, two poles can be distinguished: passive-aggressive compliance and direct rejection. It appears that Coyne's initial model is more congruent with the former style of rejection, where a person already involved in a relationship with the depressed person will reluctantly comply to his/her demands. Because Coyne's model has been repeatedly tested by studying interactions between strangers, there is a pressing need to evaluate the validity of the past studies and to address the core of the model by comparing responses to depressed individuals of both strangers and intimate others. One aspect of the interpersonal dynamics of depression that has been inadequately researched is the extent to which interpersonal needs mediate the interactions between depressed persons and non-depressed persons. One could hypothesize that a person with high needs of autonomy and low needs of nurturance would resent even more the demands and responsibility placed on him/her by an intimate depressed individual. Winch (1958) attributed interpersonal attraction to complementary needs, such as nurturance and succorance, between the two persons that are attracted to each other. His theory has been applied mainly to mate-selection in married couples; it implies that both parties involved in the interaction are seeking to satisfy their own needs through the other person. One can transpose Winch's model to the interaction between two intimate persons, depressed and non-depressed. By definition, the depressed person is demanding and succorant If the non-depressed person is not nurturant, neither individuals' needs 12 are met In the case of intimate pairs, the lack of satisfaction can be even more frustrating, resulting in rejection. Needs can be conceptualized as personality mediators in individuals' responses to a depressed person. One aspect of the current study involved exploratory analyses of the mediating roles of the need for autonomy and the need for nurturance in social rejection and mood induction following interaction with a depressed person. Six hypotheses were evaluated regarding the type of response of subjects elicited by depressives. Hypothesis one Based on Coyne's model, interaction with depressed targets would induce a diffuse negative mood in the subjects. Hypothesis two The negative mood induction, as a result of interaction with depressed targets, would be stronger at the high level of intimacy. Hypothesis three The rejection of depressed targets would be stronger at the high level of intimacy. Hypothesis four a) Subjects in the context of friends would manifest the rejection of the depressed target through a passive-aggressive rejection where they would comply to the target's demands but would not seek them out b) Subjects in the context of strangers would manifest more direct rejection of the 13 depressed target Hypothesis five Based on results of past research, rejection would not be mediated by negative mood induction in the case of strangers. Hypothesis six As the subject's need for autonomy increased and need for nurturance decreased, the negative mood induction would be stronger and the rejection of depressed targets would be stronger. METHOD Design The present study was comprised of two parallel parts where one part used videotapes as the stimuli and the other used written scenarios. The first part compared the responses of subjects to four videotaped interactions performed by professional actresses. One condition consisted of an interaction between a depressed woman and a non-depressed woman; the other control condition portrayed two non-depressed women. Within each condition, subjects were asked to imagine themselves as one of the non-depressed persons on the screen interacting with the other person on the screen, as either strangers or best friends. The design of this part of the study was therefore a 2 (Depressed/Non-depressed) by 2 (Level of Intimacy) Completely Randomized Factorial design (Kirk, 1982). In the second part, a parallel 2 X 2 design was used where subjects read a scenario of the same interactions as in the first part, incorporating a description of the non-verbal behavior of the actresses. As in the first part, one condition consisted of an interaction between a depressed woman and a non-depressed woman; the other control condition portrayed two non-depressed women. Within each condition, the subjects were asked to imagine themselves interacting with either a stranger or a best friend, according to the scenario. 14 15 Subjects The final sample consisted of one-hundred and sixty undergraduate women were recruited for the study by means of appeals made to large undergraduate classes and notices posted on campus bulletin boards. Each participant signed a statement of informed consent (Appendix A). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the 2 X 2 cells in one of the two parts of the study, yielding 20 subjects per cell. The groups were assessed for equivalence on pretest measures of mood and need for autonomy and nurturance. The reasons for choosing same-sex female dyads in the study will be examined. People's reactions to depression may vary, depending on whether they are dealing with a depressed female or male and the implications of these issues for the present study will first be considered. It appears that when a pair of individuals includes a depressed individual, opposite-sex dyads may be more sensitive to negative mood induction effects and more prone to rejection responses than same-sex dyads (Hammen & Peters, 1978); including them in a research design would increase the sensitivity of the design. It is possible however that this phenomenon reflects more social stereotype issues, rather than depression per se. Moreover, opposite-sex dyads are also strongly subjected to biasing effects of physical attractiveness, which would constitute an important confounding variable; same-sex dyads tend to be more immune to the effects of attraction. For these reasons, it seemed wiser to adopt a more conservative attitude by using 16 same-sex dyads. Due to the limitations of the study, the experimenter had to choose to use either male or female same-sex dyads. As depressed women outnumber depressed men by as much as 1.6 to 2 times (Weissman & Klerman, 1977), it seemed appropriate to choose the most representative sex. There are certain drawbacks to this approach. Firstly, some studies suggest that depressed males elicit more rejection than depressed females (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Hammen & Peters, 1977, 1978). It seemed reasonable to suspect that the design's sensitivity may be decreased by using female same-sex dyads. However, another well designed study did not support differences between male and female same-sex dyads (Howes & Hokanson, 1979). Secondly, the use of female same-sex dyads obviously limits the generalizability of the results to other interactions involving males. Stimulus Material In the first part, subjects watched a five to seven minute videotape of a conversation between two females from the vantage point of one of the non-depressed females. Four scripts were generated (Appendix B). Two of these portrayed a depressed female interacting with a non-depressed female; these scripts were very similar in content apart from references made to the type of relationship involved. The verbal and non-verbal behavior of the depressed person was based on research results concerning depressives' behavior. In the second control condition, the two other videotapes portrayed an interaction between two non-depressed females. Again, the 17 content was similar apart from reference made to the type of relationship involved. All tapes involved the same situation and events surrounding the targets, so that only affective reactions, behavior, and interpretations of events varied between the depressed and non-depressed target The same two actresses enacted the scripts, so that any differences could not be attributed to differences in personal characteristics. All stimulus materials were recorded and played back on a Sony Color Monitor VCR. The advantage of using videotapes as opposed to confederates or other subjects was of course the control of the content of the conversation across the levels of intimacy, and the assurance that the depressives' role would be adequately enacted. The disadvantage was that one lost the possibility of recording the subjects' verbal and non-verbal rejection behaviors which would occur during the interaction. Moreover, one also ran the risk that the subjects would be unable to imagine the target as their best friend. The effects of viewing videotapes per se have not been investigated, although videotapes have been used to study the interpersonal model of depression. Hoehn-Hyde, Schlottman and Rush (1982), for example, had depressed and normal subjects observe videotapes of positive, negative, and neutral feedback directed to them or to others, within the context of vocational, marital or peer relationships. They were asked to imagine the person as either their boss, husband, or friend and react to them as such. Results of that study indicated that the "induction of reality" with the use of videotapes was strong enough to yield the predicted effects (Hoehn-Hyde et al., 1982). The present study incorporated in the second part the parallel use of written 18 scenarios to compare the two methods (Appendix C). The scenarios reflected exactly both the verbal and non-verbal content of each of the videotapes. It was easier for subjects to imagine themselves interacting with another person, in that they were not exposed to visual cues that could perhaps confuse them. However, it was possible that the interaction might not have been as vivid as with the videotapes. By examining the results using both methods, any biases that had been created by the use of a particular method could be investigated. A manipulation check on how real the conversations appeared was used for both methods. Moreover, the videotapes and the scenarios were rated by graduate students on the dimension of mood to insure that both conditions accurately represented both depressed and non-depressed moods. Measures Pretest measures were administered to assess prior mood, need for autonomy and need for nurturance. Posttest measures were administered to reassess mood, and to assess the subjects' reaction to and evaluation of the target Mood Three measures were used to assess mood: the Today form of the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL; Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965, Appendix D), the Wessman-Ricks 10-point elation-depression scale (W-R mood scale; Wessman & Ricks, 1966, Appendix E), and a semantic differential instrument developed by Mehrabian and 19 Russell (1974, Appendix F). The MAACL yields three subscales - depression, anxiety, and hostility - that have been used by several researchers (Coyne, 1976b; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; King & Heller, 1984) to assess mood in response to real or imagined social interaction with depressed or non-depressed targets. The MAACL subscales have each demonstrated high correlations with related self-report measures and with observer ratings (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965). All three subscales have shown significant test-retest reliability coefficients in patient populations but not in normal populations. Although briefer versions of this scale reduce the high inter-correlations among the subscales, the full version has been recommended for use with relatively homogeneous samples because of its extended range and corresponding sensitivity to differences. The Wessman-Ricks depression/elation scale has also been used to assess mood in response to depressed interpersonal behavior (Hammen & Peters, 1978). Wessman and Ricks (1966) do not provide psychometric data for their scale. The scale asks the respondent to endorse one of ten mood statements. The semantic differential scale developed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) assesses mood according to three orthogonal factors: pleasure, dominance, and arousal. The scale's structure has been confirmed by factor analysis (Russell, Ward & Pratt, 1981). Evidence has suggested that the three factors of pleasure, dominance, and arousal can. adequately define all emotional states (Russell & Merahbian, 1977). This instrument was included as a more comprehensive measure of mood. 20 Need for autonomy and nurturance To assess subjects' need for autonomy, the short form of the Interpersonal Adjective Scale (IAS; Wiggins, 1979, Appendix G) was used. The IAS shows the best circumplex structure of any of the instruments derived from Leary's (1959) conceptualization (Kiesler, 1983). The short form of the IAS consists of 64 interpersonal adjectives representing 16 interpersonal dimensions. The scales were designed to assess interpersonal traits. The two dimensions used in this study were the Cold-Quarrelsome factor (DE) and the Warm-Agreeable factor (LM) which are found to load highly on Murray's needs of autonomy and nurturance. In addition, items of the Jackson Personality Research Form (PRE; Jackson, 1967, Appendix H) as well as of the Campbell Need Scale (Campbell, 1959, Appendix H) were combined to assess Murray's need for autonomy. Need for nurturance was assessed by the Jackson PRF. The Jackson PRF test-retest reliability for each of the 14 bipolar scales ranges from .80 to .96. Self and peer ratings correlate for all scales significantly at the .01 level. Moreover, this scale is not nearly so markedly influenced by acquiescence and desirability as are many other personality scales. No psychometric data is available for the Campbell Need Scale. Social Perception Two measures were administered to assess social perception. Acceptance/rejection was assessed by a 14-item scale adapted from the Opinion scale (Appendix I) used by Coyne (1976b), Gotlib and Robinson (1982), Winer, Bonner, 21 Blaney and Murray (1981), and Youngren and Lewinsohn (1980). In order to assess compliance to and initiation of activities with the target, the phrasing of the items was modified. Twenty items reflecting either compliance or initiation were given to seventy undergraduate students who judged if the questions were asking about compliance, initiation or neither. Fourteen items were chosen based on which questions demonstrated the most agreement and reflected compliance and initiation of a similar action. Each item (e.g. "Would you accept an invitation for dinner at this person's place?" ) was rated by subjects on a six-point scale ranging from "definitely yes" to "definitely no". Social impact and perceptions of the target were assessed by the Impact Message Inventory (IMI; Kiesler, Anchin, Perkins, Chirico, Kyle, & Federman, 1975, 1976, Appendix J), which was also used for a similar purpose by Howes and Hokanson (1979). The inventory assesses a person's perceptions of a target individual on the basis of the target's impact on the person, i.e. feelings and cognitions evoked by the target during a dyadic interaction. It consists of 90 items (e.g. "when I am with this person she makes me feel that I should do something to put her at ease", and responses may range from "not at all" (1.0 points) to "very much so" (4.0 points). There are 15 subscales, each measuring a dimension of interpersonal style (Dominant, Competitive, Hostile, Mistrustful, Detached, Inhibited, Submissive, Succorant, Abasive, Deferent, Agreeable, Nurturant, Affiliative, Sociable, Exhibitionistic). The score for each subscale is the arithmetic mean of the scores for the six items comprising the scale, and thus can range from 1.0 to 4.0. The 15 subscales can be grouped in a circular array composed of four quadrants: friendly-dominant (exhibitionistic, sociable, nurturant), friendly-submissive (agreeable, affiliative, deferent, submissive), 22 hostile-dominant (hostile, mistrusting, competitive, dominant), and hostile-submissive (succorant, abasive, detached, inhibited). On all the posttest measures, instructions reminded the subject of the type of relationship involved (stranger or best friends). Procedure Subjects were instructed that the study was investigating how people respond to different interpersonal styles in social interaction. After completing a consent form they were asked to complete a preliminary set of questionnaires measuring mood: MAACL (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965), W-R mood scale (Wessman & Ricks, 1966), and semantic differential (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Needs for autonomy and nurturance were assessed with the Interpersonal Adjective Scale (Wiggins, 1979), the Jackson Personality Research Form - partial (Jackson, 1967), and the Campbell Need Scale -partial (Campbell, 1959). Subjects who participated in the first part of the study were then asked to watch the videotape, with the following instructions: "Now you'll just have to watch a videotape of two persons talking together. Try to imagine yourself as being the woman whose face you cannot see. Really try to imagine that vou are talking with a) this new person you've just met 5 minutes ago b) one of your best friends" In the case of friends: "Remember that her behavior is the typical way she's been 23 behaving for the last two months." For all subjects: "Pay attention to how you feel and how you react to her. Keep in mind that she is: a) a stranger b) one of your closest friends One of the four videotapes was presented. Subjects who participated in the second part of the study were asked to read one scenario with the following instruction: "Now you'll just have to read a conversation between two persons talking together. When you read it, try to imagine that you are the person refered to as "I". Really try to imagine that .you are talking with a) this new person you've just met 5 minutes ago b) one of your best friends" In the case of friends: "Remember that her behavior is the typical way she's been behaving for the last two months." For all subjects: "Pay attention to how you feel and how you react to her. Keep in mind that she is: a) a stranger b) one of your closest friends." One of the four written scenarios was read by the subject Assignment of the subjects to condition was made randomly. After viewing the videotape or reading the scenario, subjects completed measures assessing mood (MAACL, W-R mood scale, semantic differential), and their reaction to the target (Opinion scale, 24 Impact Message Inventory). On top of each of the questionnaire, the subjects read: "Keep thinking about your conversation with a) the stranger b) your best friend Subjects filled out the manipulation check (Appendix K) on how real the interaction appeared to them and how well they could imagine themselves in the interaction. These question were answered on a 5-point Likert scale with "very unrealistic" and "very realistic" as anchor points, or with "very difficult" and "very easy" as anchor points. Any subjects scoring 2 or below was excluded from the study. The same is true for subjects who could not identify correctly the level of intimacy of the conversation. A total of 64 subjects were excluded from the study for the above reasons. Chi-square analyses revealed no difference in the number of subjects excluded in both methods (X =1.69, ns). However, there were significantly more subjects excluded from the friends condition than from the strangers condition (X*" = 7.63, p<.01). This finding is not surprising in that subjects may find it more difficult to imagine a friend than a stranger in the given experimental context The high number of excluded subjects is somewhat problematic. A computation of their means on the MAACL and on the Opinion Scale seemed to indicate that they reacted in a generally more negative fashion than the subjects included in the study. This reaction may have been due to not being able to conform to the experimenter's demands. Future analyses could involve all 224 subjects to examine empirically whether or not the inclusion of all subjects would alter the results. RESULTS Prior to the principal analyses of this study, preliminary analyses included a manipulation check of the four videotapes through ratings by experts in the field of depression. Also, equivalence or the pretest measures was verified by doing a 3-way MANOVA on all pretest measures of the MAACL subscales and of the Wessman-Ricks mood scale (W-R mood scale), and by doing an ANOVA on each of the three subscales of the Mehrabian-Russell semantic differential. The reliability and factor structure of the Compliance and Initiation subscales of the Opinion scale were examined by a reliability procedure and a principal component analysis. The major hypotheses of the study were assessed through a series of multivariate and univariate procedures. Mood effects and reaction to the targets were explored by doing MANOVAs on the MAACL and on the W-R mood scale, as well as by ANOVAs on the Mehrabian-Russell subscales, and by a MANOVA on the IMI and Opinion subscales. Separate ANOVAs were conducted if necessary, followed by appropriate multiple comparisons to investigate interaction effects. The multiple comparisons consisted of t-tests conducted with the alpha level stepped down according to the Bonnferroni method, based on the number of all possible comparisons for a given interaction effect Finally, multiple regressions were done to examine the predictor variables of the reactions to the target Concerning the exploratory aspect of the thesis, the four need measures were examined as to their relationship to other variables and were included in regression analyses. 25 26 Manipulation Check Three graduate students and one faculty member, blind to the conditions, rated the four videotapes and the four written scenarios on a 7 point Likert-scale on level of realism of the interaction and level of depression of the target. The ratings were subjectively judged to be acceptable, reflecting adequate levels of realism of the interaction and of depression in the target (see Appendix L for means). Equivalence of Groups on the Pretest Measures Equivalence of pretest measures of the eight cells was assessed by conducting a 3-way MANOVA on the pretest measures of the MAACL and the W-R mood subscales. The between factors consisted of Target, Intimacy and Method. One main effect for Method was found to be significant (Wilks' lambda =.93, £(4,149)= 2.94, j2< .05) (see Appendix M), but no subsequent ANOVA for the Method effect was found to be significant: the MAACL depression subscale ANOVA yielded nonsignificant results (F(l,152) = .62, ns) as did the MAACL anxiety subscale (F(l,152)= 1.41, ns), the MAACL hostility subscale (F (1,152)= .17, ns), and the W-R mood scale (F(l,152) = 1.99, ns). Given that the three subscales of the semantic differential - Pleasure, Dominance, Arousal - are conceptually different, three separate ANOVAs were conducted on the pretest measures, yielding no significant differences (see Appendix N). Overall, equivalence on pretest measures was obtained to a satisfactory degree as no pretest differences among the 8 cells could be found. 27 Opinion Scale As the Opinion scale used in this study was modified from previous research (Gotlib and Robinson, 1982) the reliability of the two new subscales - Initiation and Compliance - was examined and a principal component analysis was conducted. For both scales, Cronbach's alpha level was .93. When combined, they yielded a Cronbach alpha level of .96 (see Appendix O). The principal component analysis of the Opinion scale revealed one factor, accounting for 67.8% of the variance. Despite the result of the principal component analysis, the two scales of Compliance and Initiation were used separately in later analyses to explore possible differences between the two conceptually different scales and to follow the initial purpose of the study. Mood Effects - MAACL and W-R mood scale A table of means and standard deviations for each of the eight cells can be found in Appendix P. Correlations between mood measures and between measures of acceptance-rejection can be found in Appendix Q. A 4-way split-plot factorial design (Kirk, 1982) was used for the MAACL and W-R mood scales. The between factors consisted of Target, Intimacy and Method, whereas the within factor was the Prepost one (see Appendix R). A significant main effect for Target (Wilks' lambda = .87, £(4,149)= 5.34, £ _ < .001) and a trend for a Target X Intimacy interaction (Wilks' lambda = .94, £(4,149)= 2.39, £ < .08) were found. The Prepost effect was also significant (Wilks' lambda = .62, £(4,149)= 23.17, p< .001), as were the Method X Prepost interaction (Wilks' lambda = .93, £(4,149)= 2.91, £ < .05) and a Target X Prepost interaction (Wilks' lambda = .75, £ (4,149)= 28 12.40, p< .001). A trend for an Intimacy X Method X Prepost interaction was also found (Wilks' lambda = .94, £(4,149)= 2.17, p < .08). Target Effect The Target effect was found significant in all separate ANOVAs for the pre and post measures of the MAACL and W-R mood scale (see Appendix S). The ANOVA comparing the MAACL depression level for depressed (M= 17.24) and non-depressed (M= 15.31) conditions yielded an £(1,152) of 10.74 (p< .001). Similarly, the depressed group was significantly more anxious (M= 8.09) on the MAACL anxiety subscale than the non-depressed group (M= 7.05) (E_(l,152)= 7.80, p< .01). As for the MAACL hostility subscale, the depressed group was associated with more hostility (M= 8.87) than the non-depressed group (M = 7.58), yielding an £(1,152) of 11.47, (p< .001). The depressed condition (M= 5.69) was also significantly different from the non-depressed condition (M= 6.17) for the W-R mood scale (£(1,152)= 15.73, (p< .01). In all cases, the depressed condition was associated with higher degrees of affect than the non-depressed condition. Target X Intimacy Interaction This interaction was found to be significant for the three separate ANOVAs done on the MAACL and non-significant for the W-R mood scale (see Appendix S). The MAACL depression subscale yielded an £(1,152) of 6.64 (p< .05), the MAACL anxiety subscale an £(1,152) of 4.20 (p< .05), and the MAACL hostility subscale an 29 £(1,152) of 8.18 (p< .01). Multiple comparisons done by t-tests were conducted with the alpha level stepped down to .0125, to explore the Target X Intimacy interaction. They revealed the same pattern in all of the MAACL measures (see Figure 1): in the depression subscale, the only significant multiple comparison was the one comparing the depressed/friends condition with the non-depressed/friends condition (t (78)= 3.84, £ < .001), where the depressed condition was associated with more depression than the non-depressed one. A similar pattern emerged for the MAACL anxiety subscale where the depressed/friends condition was significantly different from the non-depressed/friends condition (t (78)= 3.08, p< .01). The MAACL hostility subscale yielded the same results where the depressed/friends condition was significantly more hostile than the non-depressed ones (t (78)= 4.49, $< .001). Prepost Effect This effect was found significant in separate ANOVAs for the MAACL depression subscale (£(1,152)= 62.68, .p< .001), where posttest measures were significantly higher (M= 18.48) than pretest measures (M= 14.07) (see Appendix S). The MAACL anxiety subscale yielded similar results (£(1,152)= 30.36, j2< .001) as the posttest measures were also higher (M= 8.47) than at pretest (M= 6.66). Moreover, the W-R mood posttest measures (M= 5.54) were also lower than at pretest (M = 6.32) (£(1,152)= 47.36, £ < .001). For these three measures, higher levels of affect were detected in posttest measures. FIgura 1 T a r g e t x I n t i m a c y I n t e r a c t i o n M A A C L D a p r t t i l o n S c o l * * 1 4 .33 D N D M A A C L A n x l a t y S e a l * 5 . 8 4 a.6 4 D N O M A A C L H o s t i l i t y S c a l t D N D D: d i p r«3i« d N D : n o n - d « p r * n « d 3 t r a n Q « r » g r o u p * f r U n d t g r o u p 31 Target X Prepost Interaction This interaction was found significant in all separate ANOVAs done on the four mood measures (see Appendix S). The MAACL depression subscale yielded an £(1.152) of 23.43 (p< .001); the MAACL anxiety subscale yielded an £(1,152) of 33.81 (p< .001); the MAACL hostility subscale yielded an £(1,152) of 27.89 (p< .001; the W-R mood scale yielded an £(1,152) of 40.08 (p< .001). Multiple comparisons examining the Target X Prepost interaction (see Figure 2) showed that for the MAACL depression subscale, the posttest measures were significantly higher than the pretest measures for the depressed condition (t (79)= -8.15, p< .001) and that the posttest measures of the depressed group were significantly higher than for the non-depressed group (t (158)= 5.74, £ < .001). Clearly, the depressed condition induced more depression in the subjects than the non-depressed condition did. The same pattern of the interaction was found for the MAACL anxiety subscale. The posttest measures were significandy higher than the pretest measures for the depressed condition (t (79)= -7.73, £ < .001); moreover, the posttest measures were significantly higher for the depressed group than for the non-depressed group (t (158)= 5.94, j2< .001). The W-R mood scale yielded similar results where the posttest measures were significantly lower than the pretest ones for the depressed group (t (79)= -4.90, p< .001) and where posttest measures were significantly lower for the depressed group SCORES SCORES 33 than for the non-depressed group (t (158)= 5.47, £ < .001). The MAACL hostility subscale yielded slightly different results. As in the previous scales considered, the posttest measures were significantly higher in hostility than the pretest ones for the depressed group (t (79)= -4.90, j2< .001) and the posttest measures of the depressed group were significantly higher than the ones for the non-depressed group (t (158)= 5.47, p< .001). However, for the non-depressed group, the posttest measures were significantly lower than the pretest ones (t (79)= 2.61, £ < .01). The latter results indicated that on the one hand, the depressed condition elicited hostility, and that on the other hand, the non-depressed condition decreased hostility. Method X Prepost. Interaction This interaction yielded only a trend in the separate ANOVA of the W-R mood scale (F(l,152) = 3.71, .p< .08) (see Appendix S). Multiple comparisons showed that the posttest scores (M= 5.43) were lower than pretest scores (M= 6.43) when using the video method (t (79)=5.59, p< .001). The same was true for the read method (t (79)= 3.04, JJ< .01) with posttest measures (M= 5.63) being lower than pretest measures (M= 6.20). Both methods were not significantly different either at pretest (t (158)= -1.04, ns) or at posttest (t (158)= 1.41, ns). Intimacy X Method X Prepost Interaction 34 This interaction was significant in the separate ANOVAs for the MAACL depression subscale (£(1,152) = 4.22, p< .05), and for the W-R mood scale (£(1,152)= 6.14.P < .05). There was also a trend in the separate ANOVA for the MAACL anxiety subscale (£(1,152)= 3.28, p< .08)(see Appendix S). Because this was a 3-Way interaction with eight possible comparisons, the alpha level was stepped down to .00625, according to the Bonnferroni method. T-tests for the MAACL depression subscale indicated that for the strangers/video group, the posttest scores of depression were higher than the pretest scores (t (39)= -6.43, j2< .001). Moreover, the posttest measures of the friends/video group were significantly higher than the pretest measures for the same group (t (39) = -3.1342< .006). For the friends/read group, the posttest scores were also significandy higher than the pretest scores (t (39)= -3.34, p< .006). For the strangers/read group there was no difference between the pretest and posttest measures (t (39)= -2.54, ns) Finally, there was no differences found between the posttest scores of the friends/read group and the strangers/read group (t (78)= 1.09, ns) (see Figure 3). A similar pattern was found for the W-R mood scale. For the strangers/video group, the posttest measures were lower than the pretest scores, (t (39)= 4.73, j2< .001). The posttest measures of the friends/video group were also lower than the pretest measures (t (39)= 3.26, j2< .006). For the friends/read group, the posttest measures were lower than the pretest measures (t (39)= 3.36, p< .006); however, the pretest and posttest measures of the strangers/read group were not F i g u r e 3 35 I n t i m a c y x M e t h o d x P r e p o s t I n t e r a c t i o n MAACL Oppression Sca l t MAACL Anxtsty Seals W - R Mood Seals 8.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.2 -J 6., •' " I 5.9 -5.7 -j 5.6 1 5.5 -I 5.4 -i 5.3 -j 5.2 -j 5 4 -f r l a n d s / ' v l d a o g r o u p f H a n d s / r o o d g r o u p + • t r a n g a r a / v t d a e g r o u p Hv s t r o n g o r a / r * a d g r o u p 36 significantly different No difference was found in the posttest measures between the friends/read group and the strangers/read group (t (39)= 0.63, ns) (see Figure 3). The results of the separate ANOVAs for the MAACL depression and W-R mood scales suggest that the read method potentiates differences between friends and strangers groups, whereas the video method does not The ANOVA for the MAACL anxiety subscale yielded slightly different results, as the only significant t-test was the one comparing the posttest scores with the pretest scores of the friends/read group (t (39)= -3.33, p< .006) (see Figure 3). Mood effect - Mehrabian-Russell Semantic Differential A 4-Way ANOVA was done on each of the three dimensions of the semantic differential to investigate the possible effects and interactions due to the between factors of Target, Intimacy and Method and to the within factor of Prepost Pleasure The Target main effect was significant (F(l,152) = 21.54, p< .001) where depressed targets (M= 2.77) elicited less pleasure than non-depressed targets (M = 5.86) (see Appendix T). A trend for a Target X Intimacy interaction was found (F (1,152)= 3.30, p< .08). Multiple comparisons showed that the depressed/friends group was associated with 37 significantly lower levels of pleasure (M= 1.63) than the non-depressed/friends group (M= 5.93), (t (78)= -4.40, p< .001), however the difference between the depressed (M= 3.91) and non-depressed (M= 5.79) conditions for the strangers group was nonsignificant (t (78)= -2.09, ns). The Prepost effect was found to be significant (£(1,152)= 85.00, £ < .001); the posttest measures yielded significantly less pleasure (M= .53) than the pretest measures (M= 8.10). The Target X Prepost interaction was also significant (£ (1,152)= 26.88, p< .001). Multiple comparisons revealed that for the depressed group, the posttest measures (M= -3.14) were significantly lower than the pretest measures (M= 8.69) (t (79)= 11.43, £ < .001), however the posttest measures of the non-depressed group (M= 4.20) were not significantly different from the pretest measures (M=7.51) (t (79)= 2.56, ns). Moreover, the depressed group had significantly lower posttest measures than the non-depressed group (t (158)= -6.67, p< .001). The Intimacy X Method X Prepost interaction was also present (£(1,152) = 6.12, 42 < .05) (see Figure 4). The friends/read condition elicited significantly less pleasure at posttest than the strangers/read condition (t (78)= -2.82, p< .006), although the difference between posttest scores of the friends/video group and those of the strangers/video group was non-significant (t (78)= .65, ns). Moreover, the pre and post scores of the strangers/video group were significantly different (t (39)=5.85, p< .001) as were the ones for the friends/video group (t (39)= 3.76, p< .001). However, the pre and post scores for the strangers/read were not significantly different (t (39)= Figure 4 i n t i m a c y x M e t h o d x P r e p o s t I n t e r a c t i o n i Post + strang«rs/vtd«o <i strangers/road • friends/vldeo group * friends/read group 39 2.72, ns), whereas for the friends/read group they were significanlty different (t (39)= 4.77, 42 < .001). The read method appears to potentiate differences due to level of intimacy at posttest Arousal The effect for Intimacy was significant (F.(1,152)= 4.99, 42 < .05), as the friends condition was associated with more arousal (M= .93) than the strangers condition was (M= -.63). The Prepost effect was also significant (E (1,152)= 7.24 , (p< .01) as posttest measures of arousal (M= .99) were higher than pretest measures (M= -.70) (see Appendix T). The Target X Prepost interaction was also significant (F(l,152), =4.71, j>< .05). Multiple comparisons demonstrated that the difference between pretest measures (M= -1.00) and posttest measures (M= 2.04) of non-depressed groups was significant (t (79)= -3.72, 42< .001), however the difference between pretest (M= -.39) and posttest measures (M= -.06) of the depressed groups was not (t (79)= -.34, ns). Therefore, interaction with non-depressed targets increases arousal, while interaction with depressed targets does not. Dominance The Prepost effect was apparent where posttest measures of dominance (M= 4.53) were higher than pretest measures (M= 2.12) (1(1,152)= 20.19, p< .001) (see 40 Appendix T). The Intimacy X Prepost effect was also significant (£ (1,152)= 8.20, 42 < .01). The t-test revealed that posttest measures of the friends group (M= 5.76) were significantly higher than posttest measures of the strangers group (M= 3.30) (t (158)= 2.66, 42 < .01). Other multiple comparisons were nonsignificant The Intimacy X Method X Prepost interaction was significant (£(1,152)= 6.92, 42 < .01) (see Figure 5). Multiple comparisons revealed that the only significant differences were at posttest between the friends/video and the strangers/video groups (t (78)= 2.91, 42 <. .006) and between the pre and post measures of the friends/video group (t (39)= -5.74, 42 < .001). All other comparisons were nonsignificant These results suggest that the video method potentiates differences in dominance between friends and strangers. IMI and Opinion Scale A 3-Way MANOVA was conducted on the four IMI quadrants and on the two subscales of the Opinion scales - the Initiation and the Compliance scales (see Appendix U). The between factors were Target Intimacy and Method. This analysis yielded a significant main effect for Method (Wilks' lambda = .83, £(6,146)= 5.05, 42 < .001), for Intimacy (Wilks' lambda = .61, £(6,146)= 15.66, 42 < .001), for Target (Wilks' lambda = .62, £(6,146)= 15.05, p< .001) and a significant Target X Method interaction (Wilks' lambda = .89, £ (6,146)= 3.09, 42 < .01). Other interactions were non-significant Figure 5 41 I n t i m a c y x M e t h o d x P r e p o s t I n t e r a c t i o n Semantic Differential Dominance Scale Pre Post • f r i e n d s / v i d e o g r o u p + s t r a n g e r s / v l d e o o f r i e n d s / r e a d g r o u p - s t r a n g e r s / r e a d 42 Method Effect In the following separate ANOVAs for each of the six measures of acceptance-rejection (see Appendix V), a trend was found for the Method effect for the Initiation subscale (£(1,152) = 3.60, 42 < .08). This effect was also significant for the IMI friendly-dominant quadrant (£(1,152) = 9.37, jp< .01) and for the IMI hostile-submissive quadrant (£(1,152)= 13.67, £ _ < .001). In all cases, the read method elicited a more positive approach to the target, that is, more initiation (M= 25.60), more friendly-dominant (M= 11.79), and less hostile-submissive responses (M= 12.71). The video condition elicited more negative reactions: less initiation (M = 23.42), less friendly-dominant (M= 10.77), and more hostile-submissive responses (M= 12.71). Intimacy Effect This main effect was found to be significant in five of the six separate ANOVAs done on acceptance-rejection measures (see Appendix V). These ANOVAs were for the Initiation subscale (£(1,152)= 74.69, j2< .001), the Compliance subscale (E(l,152)= 74.97, 42 < .001), the IMI friendly-dominant quadrant (£(1,152)= 20.02, 42 < .001), the IMI friendly-submissive quadrant (£(1,152)= 28.36, 42 < .001), and the IMI hostile-dominant quadrant (£(1,152)= 14.59, £ < .001). In all cases, the friends condition elicited more positive reactions, that is, more initiation (M= 29.50), more compliance (M= 32.03), more friendly-dominant (M = 12.03), more friendly-submissive (M= 13.37), and less hostile-dominant responses (M= 10.04). The strangers elicited less initiation (M= 19.53), less compliance (M= 22.45), less friendly-dominant (M = 10.53), less friendly-submissive (M= 11.84), and more hostile-dominant responses (M=11.55). 43 Target Effect Significant effects or trends were found for this effect for all of the six separate ANOVAs done on the acceptance-rejection measures. The Initiation ANOVA yielded a significant effect (F(l,152) = 6.94, j2< .01), as did the IMI friendly-dominant ANOVA (F(l,152) = 30.70, p< .001), the IMI hostile-submissive ANOVA (F(l,152) = 47.80, p< .001), and the IMI hostile-dominant ANOVA (F(l,152) = 16.33, p < .001). A trend was found for the IMI friendly-submissive quadrant (F(l,152) = 3.07, p< .08) and for the Compliance scale (F(l,152)= 2.75, £ < .09). All these differences pointed towards a more positive reaction to non-depressed targets, that is more initiation (M= 26.03), more compliance (M = 28.16), more friendly-dominant (M= 12.21), more friendly-submissive (M= 12.86), less hostile-submissive (M= 12.10), and less hostile-dominant responses (M= 10.06). The depressed targets elicited more negative reactions: less initiation (M= 23.00), less compliance (M= 26.32), less friendly-dominant (M= 10.35), less friendly-submissive (M= 12.35), more hostile-submissive (M= 14.71), and more hostile-dominant responses (M= 11.59). Tatget X Method Interaction This interaction was found significant in five of the six separate ANOVAs on 44 the acceptance-rejection measures (see Appendix V). The Initiation subscale yielded a significant effect (£(1,152)= 6.27, p< .05), as did as the Compliance subscale (£(1,152)= 4.55, j2< .05), the IMI friendly-dominant quadrant (£(1,152)= 15.44, £ < .001), the IMI friendly-submissive quadrant (E(l,152)= 6.64, 42 < .05), and the IMI hostile-dominant quadrant (£(1,152)= 5.08, 42 < .05). Multiple comparisons for each of these scales revealed varying results (see Figure 6). For the Initiation subscale, the only significant difference was between the depressed and non-depressed groups of the read condition (t (78)= -3.19, 42 < .01) where the depressed condition elicited less initiation. The difference between the two methods for the non-depressed group was nonsignificant (t (78)= -2.49, ns). A similar pattern of interaction was obtained for the Compliance subscale, but none of the multiple comparisons were significant IMI friendly-submissive scores were significantly lower for the depressed group in comparison to the non-depressed group, for the read condition (t (78)= -2.68, 42 < .01). No significant difference between the two methods emerged for the non-depressed group (t (78)= -1.77, ns). IMI hostile-dominant scores yielded the same results: the depressed condition elicited significantly more hostility than the non-depressed group, for the read condition (t (78)= 4.47, 42 < .001). No other differences were significant The IMI friendly-dominant quadrant offered slightly different results. As in previous analyses of acceptance-rejection measures, the depressed group showed F i g u r e 6.1 T a r g e t x M e t h o d I n t e r a c t i o n In i t i a t i on 0 N D C o m p l t a n c * -" H , . ,_ 0 N D D: d * p r « » * « d N O : non-gtpritltd v l d v o g r o u p t r o o d g r o u p Figure 6 .2 T a r g e t x M e t h o d I n t e r a c t i o n ( c o n t i n u e 0 : d « p r « a « « d N O : n o n - d t p r t i i « d O v l d . o g r o u p r , o d g r o u p 47 significantly lower scores of the friendly-dominant quadrant than the non-depressed group, for the read condition (t (78)= -6.37, p< .001). However, in this case, there was a significant difference between the two methods used for the non-depressed groups (t (78)= -4.25, p< .001) where the read method clearly elicited more friendly-dominant than the video method, for the nondepressed group. Overall, the read method potentiated differences between depressed and non-depressed conditions. Regression Analyses Two sets of stepwise regression analyses were conducted to investigate predictors of reactions to targets. In the first set of regression analyses (see Table 1), the predictor variables were the difference between pretest and posttest scores of the. three subscales of the MAACL, of the W-R mood scale, and of the three dimensions of the semantic differential. These seven variables were used to predict initiation, compliance, and the four quadrants of the IMI. Both Compliance and Initiation were predicted by higher scores of the arousal difference. The friendly-dominant quadrant was predicted by lower scores of the MAACL hostility difference and by higher scores of the W-R mood difference. Lower scores of the MAACL depression difference predicted the friendly-submissive quadrant, whereas lower scores of the pleasure and higher scores of the dominance difference predicted the hostile-submissive quadrant The hostile-dominant quadrant was predicted by lower scores of the pleasure difference. In most cases, the variances explained by these regression results were small. Table lx Summary of regression analysis Dependent variables Predictor variables Initiation Compliance F D FS HS H D Depression difference «• -.23 Anxiety difference Hostility difference -.20* W-R mood difference • .14 Pleasure difference -.45 • •* -.36 Arousal difference ••• ••* .30 .28 Dominance difference •* .24 2 Multiple R .09 .08 .13 .05 .19 .13 j K . 0 5 jK.01 jK.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 49 A principal component analysis was done on the pre-post differences of the three MAACL subscales and of the W-R mood scale to obtain a mood index score for each of the subjects. The second set of regression analyses used this mood index score and the pre-post differences of the three subscales of the semantic differential to predict the same six dependent measures of acceptance-rejection (see Table 2). Again, higher scores of the arousal difference predicted both Initiation and Compliance. Lower scores of the mood index predicted both friendly-dominant and friendly-submissive quadrants. The hostile-submissive quadrant was predicted by lower scores of the pleasure and of the arousal differences. The hostile-dominant quadrant was predicted by lower scores of the pleasure difference. Again, the variance explained was rather small. Exploratory Component - the needs for autonomy and nurturance  Equivalence of Need Measures A 3-Way MANOVA was conducted to ensure equivalence of cells of the four measures of needs: the Jackson's need for autonomy, the Campbell and Jackson's need for nurturance, the IAS Warm-Agreable dimension (WA), and the IAS Cold -Quarrelsome dimension (CQ). The between factors consisted of Target, Intimacy, and Method (see Appendix W). The main effect for Intimacy was significant (F(4,149)= 2.75), p< .05). A closer examination of this main effect in separate ANOVAs revealed that it was nonsignificant for need for autonomy (f(1,152)= .30, ns), for need for nurturance Table 2, . Summary of regression analysis Dependent variables Predictor variables Initiation Compliance F D FS HS H D Mood Index score Pleasure difference Arousal difference .30 ••• .28 -.34 . -.20 -.45 • •* -.36 Dominance difference • • -.24 2 Multiple R .09 .08 .12 .04 .19 .13 B<.05 JJ<.01 j}<.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. o 51 (£(1,152)= 3.23, ns) and for the • IAS-CQ (£(1,152)= .70, ns). However, it was significant for the IAS-WA dimension (£(1,152)= 4.09, £ < .05), where scores were higher in the friends condition (M= 50.40) than in the strangers condition (M= 48.57). Correlations between need measures and rejection measures, as well as between need measures and mood measures, were examined (see Appendix X). The IAS-WA dimension was significanfly correlated with all of the acceptance-rejection measures, apart from the hostile-dominant quadrant Based upon the significant difference of the IAS-WA scores at pretest and the pattern of correlations with the dependent measures, the IAS-WA scores were used as a covariate in the other analyses of acceptance- rej ection. A 3-Wav MANOVA of the Acceptance-Rejection Measures A 3-Way MANOVA of the rejection measures was conducted with the IAS-WA dimension used as a covariate. The between factors were Target Intimacy, and Method. The results paralled those of the MANOVA without the covariation (see Appendix U). There was a main effect for Method (Wilks' lambda = .83, £(6,146) = 5.04, £ < .001), for Intimacy (Wilks' lambda = .63, £(6,146)= 14.55, p< .001), for Target (Wilks' lambda = .62, £(6,146)= 14.83, j>_< .001) and a Target X Method interaction (Wilks' lambda =.89, £(6,146)= 3.02, j2< .01) (see Appendix Y). The results in the following separate ANOVAs (see Appendix Z) were essentially the same as in the ones omitting the IAS-WA covariate (see Appendix V). 52 Some levels of significance were reduced: a trend for a Method effect on initiation was no longer present, as were the trends for a Target effect on friendly-submissive quadrant and on Compliance. Regression Analyses A regression analysis was conducted with the four need measures as predictors of mood measures (the MAACL, the W-R mood scale and the semantic differential). No predictors were found to be significantly related to any of the dependent variables. The same sets of stepwise regression as earlier were conducted with the four need measures added to the predictor variables. The predictor variables of the first set of regression analyses included pre-post differences of the MAACL, of the W-R mood scale and of the semantic differential, as well as the four need measures (see Table 3). The dependent variables were the Initiation and Compliance subscales, and the four IMI quadrants. Lower scores of the MAACL hostility subscale difference and higher scores of the arousal difference and of the need for nurturance predicted Initiation. Higher scores of the arousal difference, of the need for nurturance and of the IAS-WA, predicted Compliance. Friendly-dominant responses were predicted by lower scores of the MAACL hostility difference, and by higher scores of the W-R mood difference and of the need for nurturance. The friendly-submissive quadrant was predicted by higher scores of the MAACL depression difference and of the IAS-WA. Lower scores of the pleasure difference and higher scores of the dominance difference predicted Table 3. Summary of regression analysis Pependenc variables Predictor variables Initiation Compliance F D FS HS H D Depression difference «• .23 Anxiety difference Hostility difference • -.16 • -.19 W - R mood difference .24 Pleasure difference -.45 • •• -.39 Arousal difference • •* .25 *•• .28 Dominance difference Need for autonomy Need for nurturance .25 .22 .19 • -.16 IAS W - A • .17 .20 * -.19 IAS C - Q 2 Multiple R .17 .18 .17 .09 .19 .21 B<.05 £ < - 0 1 jK.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 54 hostile-submissive responses. Lower scores of the pleasure difference, of the need for nurturance and of the IAS-WA predicted hostile-dominant responses. Differences with previous analyses omitting the need measure in the predictor variables did occur. They included the contribution of the MAACL hostility subscale to Initiation, and a noticeable contribution of need for nurturance and of the IAS-WA to the dependent measures, apart from hostile-submissive. When looking at the variance explained, the scales mostly affected by the addition of the need scales were Compliance and Initiation, as well as the hostile- dominant quadrant The second set of regression analyses was used to predict the same dependent variables, but this time including the mood index scores in the predictors, as well as the semantic differential differences and the need measures (see Table 4). Initiation scores were predicted by the higher scores of the arousal difference and of the need for nurturance; Compliance was predicted by the same variables, as well as by higher scores of the IAS-WA. Both friendly-dominant and friendly-submissive quadrants were predicted by lower scores of the mood index and by higher scores of the need for nurturance. Lower scores of the pleasure difference and higher scores of the dominance difference predicted hostile-submissive responses. Lower scores of the pleasure difference, of the need for nurturance, and of the IAS-WA predicted hostile-dominant responses. When contrasted with the previous regression analyses omitting the need measures, this present analysis showed the contribution of the need for nurturance as Table 4.  Summary nf regression analysis Dependent variables Predictor Variables Initiation Compliance F D FS HS H D Mood Index Score *«• -.35 -.21 Pleasure difference ••• -.45 -.39 Arousal difference **• .29 .28 Dominance difference »•• .24 Need for autonomy Need for nurturance .24 • •* .22 .17 • •• .19 • -.16 IAS W - A * .17 -.19 IAS C - Q 2 Multiple R .14 .18 .15 .08 .19 .21 p<.05 jK.01 B<001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 56 being the dominant one, as well as the IAS -WA, in the prediction of the dependent variables. Again, the only dependent variable not predicted by the needs was the hostile-submissive quadrant Furthermore, the dependent variables mostly affected by the addition of the need measures, in terms of variance explained, were the initiation and compliance scales, as well as the hostile-dominant quadrants. DISCUSSION After reviewing the major findings, the results will be examined in this section to determine if they support each of the six hypotheses. Methodological implications of the current study are then discussed, followed by suggestions for future research. Hypothesis 1: Mood induction following interaction with depressed targets Results strongly support the first hypothesis that a negative mood induction would follow interaction with a depressed target A definite negative mood induction resulting from interaction with depressed targets was evident in all MAACL measures, in the W-R mood scale, and in the semantic differential pleasure scale. The nature of the mood induction supports the notion that depressed individuals elicit diffuse negative mood, that is hostility and anxiety as well as depression. These results replicate the findings of previous research (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978; Strack and Coyne, 1983). However, the issue remains controversial due to other studies not reporting mood induction (Dobson, 1987; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Joffe & Dobson; 1986; King & Heller, 1984). If one attempts to explain these varying results by examining possible effects due to the dependent measures used, it becomes apparent that dependent measures are generally uniform, where the MAACL is most often utilized. Moreover, it appears that on the one hand, four of the five studies reporting negative findings (Dobson, 1987; Gotlib & Robinson,1982; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; 57 58 Joffe & Dobson, 1986) examined direct interaction between college students. On the other hand, three (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976; Hammen & Peters, 1978) of the four studies reporting positive results used methods of interaction involving more distance such as videotapes and telephone, with either depressed patients or confederates acting as depressed. Two possibilities emerge as to what facilitates mood induction: either the distance involved in the interaction is responsible for the different results or the target is acting more convincingly clinically depressed. Both methods of the present study involve distance between the subject and the target, and both yield an expressed mood induction following interaction with the depressed targets. This supports the idea that more distance between subjects and targets facilitates the report of mood induction. The implications of this method effect are not clear. On the one hand, such a lack of physical and/or visual proximity is not present in our habitual daily interactions with others, which therefore weakens the external validity of the stimulus. On the other hand, it is true that subjects viewing a videotape or reading a text may not be as self-conscious as a subject involved in an actual interaction; the former may be able to focus more on the target and may be more inclined to be aware of his own reactions to the target, therefore strengthening the external validity of the measures. Unfortunately, this interpretive dilemma is not solvable with the available data and further research unambiguously comparing direct interaction with a method involving more distance is needed. The behavior of targets, the second possible factor accounting for mood induction, is more plausible than the methodological factor. Whether the target is 59 actually a clinically depressed patient or not appears to be relevant to the varying results; but only three studies (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976b; King & Heller, 1984) have used clinically depressed targets, rendering conclusive statements difficult Yet if one adds to this category the studies using trained actors as clinically depressed targets, the overall results become more interesting. In fact, when including the present study, four of the six studies using depressed patients or trained actors yielded positive results (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976b; Hammen & Peters, 1978), whereas two did not (Howes & Hokanson, 1979; King & Heller, 1984). The present study adds further support to the idea that the portrayal of clinical depression can induce negative mood more successfully than the portrayal of mild depression found in college students. Results also show that interaction with non-depressed targets has no effect on mood, apart from a decrease in hostility and an increase in arousal. The relative absence of mood changes for the non-depressed condition may be due to the similarity in content of the four conditions, which limits the amount of reported positive events in the non-depressed condition. In summary, whereas non-depressed targets elicit very few mood effects, there is a strong negative mood induction due to interaction with depressed targets. This mood induction is hypothesized to be the result of interaction with realistic models of depression, and possibly to a method of presentation involving more distance between the target and the subject Hypothesis 2: Mood induction in function of intimacy It was predicted that in responding to depressed targets, subjects in the 60 friends condition would experience a stronger mood induction than strangers: that is, intimacy would increase the reactivity of the subjects to depressed targets. This hypothesis is not directly supported by. the results, in that the predicted Target X Intimacy X Prepost interaction was not found. Nevertheless, the Target X Intimacy interaction that was found for the three MAACL subscales and for the Pleasure dimension of the semantic differential, strongly supports hypothesis 2. Indeed, subjects in the friends condition were differentially affected by the depressed and non-depressed targets; they showed more negative mood induction when interacting with a depressed target In contrast, subjects in the strangers condition reacted with a mid-range mood induction to interactions with both depressed and non-depressed targets. Yet the absence of a Target X Intimacy X Prepost interaction is somewhat problematic. Visual inspection of the pre and post patterns of the interaction reveals that the pattern is different at pretest level (see Figure 7). One plausible explanation is that the pretest pattern is not different enough from the posttest pattern to warrant a significant Prepost component to the interaction. Restraints imposed on the content of the conversations seriously limited the amount of positive content of the non-depressed conversation. The non-depressed target was meant to be neutral, not in a particularly elevated mood. Therefore, the induction of positive mood was restricted for subjects in the friends/non-depressed condition at posttest, which may explain the absence of a Prepost component to the interaction. The Intimacy X Method X Prepost interaction points to an overall greater reactivity in the read condition of subjects in the friends condition. More specifically, Figure 7.1 T a r g e t x I n t i m a c y I n t e r a c t i o n 63 with the read condition subjects in the friends context are more affected than strangers by interactions with targets in general. This increase in reactivity is reflected by higher degrees of affect in the MAACL depression subscale, in the W-R mood scale, and in the Pleasure semantic differential. However, the difference between friends and strangers was not present with the videotape method. The videotape method involves more constraints in one's construing of the interaction than the read method, and the content of the videotapes are intended to be quite similar. Although efforts were made to make the levels of intimacy distinct, subjects may have experienced a similar level of intimacy with the videotape method, regardless of instructions. An interesting finding was that subjects of both levels of intimacy with the videotape method responded as did subjects in the friends/read condition; that is they demonstrated an increase in affect at posttest Therefore, it appears plausible that the strength of the videotape method may overpower effects due to intimacy, where targets in the strangers condition disclose too much personal information. More discussion will be devoted later to the role of the two methods in the results obtained. Finally, regardless of the method used, friends generally elicited more arousal1 and more dominance in subjects, which again supports the concept of friends increasing reactivity in subjects. Further, with the read method, individuals appear to display a wider range of affect when interacting with friends, rather than with strangers. This phenomenon is even more pronounced when the reaction is to a depressed individual, which corroborates the prediction derived from Coyne's model. 1 Again the Intimacy effect for arousal was present without the Prepost component A similar rationale as described earlier applies to this case where the pretest pattern is not different enough from the posttest pattern to warrant a Prepost effect 64 Hypothesis 3: Rejection as a function of intimacy As reported in previous research (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Coyne, 1976b; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Hammen & Peters, 1978; Howes & Hokanson, 1979; Strack & Coyne, 1983) and as predicted, depressed targets were more rejected than non-depressed targets. This result was obtained only with the read method, whereas both depressed and non-depressed targets were rejected with the videotaped method. The hypothesis stating that friends would reject more strongly the depressed targets than strangers do was not supported, in that no Intimacy X Target interaction was found. In fact, subjects generally rejected less in the friends. condition than in the strangers condition. This result is open to speculations concerning its meaning and its origin. Contrary to predictions, intimacy may not increase rejection of depressed targets, but rather decreases it However, the imperfections of the design of the present experiment do not warrant such a hasty conclusion. It may be difficult for subjects to fully appreciate the months or years spent knowing this hypothetical person, as is required to correctly assess Coyne's model. Subjects may respond in a manner they expect they would adopt in such a hypothetical situation but may not be as accepting in reality. Coyne's model clearly identifies a sense of guilt in the person rejecting a depressed significant other. But one should bear in mind that the levels of intimacy were portrayed well enough to elicit greater mood induction in the friends condition. Therefore, it is possible that good friends indeed do not reject one another when one of them is depressed. 65 Different possibilities emerge pertaining to which types of relationships are subject to Coyne's model. First as stated in the model, it is possible that only significant others with prolonged interaction with a depressed other will display rejection; this is contradicted by previous studies where strangers were rejected, and by the present study where friends rejected less than strangers. Secondly, all depressed individuals may be equally rejected but the results of the present study do not support this hypothesis due to the friends' higher acceptance. Thirdly, intimacy may indeed decrease rejection as described in the present study; however, a fourth hypothesis remains, where depressed individuals elicit rejection in the context of both strangers and of extremely intimate relationships (e.g. couples), but due to different processes. Depressed strangers are rejected solely due to their immediate aversive state of depression, whereas for the intimate couple, the aversiveness of depression is compounded by the prolonged interaction with the depressed individual. In the latter hypothesis, friends experience a lesser amount of exposure to each other than a couple, and also have more of a commitment to be accepting than strangers. This speculation may explain why subjects in the present study in the friends condition demonstrated more acceptance towards targets than in the strangers condition. In summary, rejection of depressed targets is a rather robust phenomenon. However, the present study does not permit to extend conclusions to the role of intimacy in rejection of depressed targets. Future research is needed to narrow down the application of Coyne's model to specific relationships. Hypothesis 4: Compliance and Initiation It was hypothesized that the construct of behavioral rejection could be divided 66 in two poles of compliance and initiation, and that strangers and friends would vary in the levels they would demonstrate towards depressed targets. This prediction is not supported by results which showed rejection as one unified factor. Furthermore, although friends rejected less than strangers, there is no difference in the pattern of rejection demonstrated between friends and strangers condition, when considering all the measures of acceptance-rejection, that is, the two Opinion subscales and the IMI quadrants. Considering that the new modifications brought to the Opinion scale were unsuccessful in measuring two concepts of initiation and of compliance, no conclusions can be drawn in regards to Coyne's description of a more passive-aggressive rejection from friends towards depressed individuals. Hypothesis 5: Mediation of rejection The hypothesis that rejection would not be mediated by mood induction is based on the results of several previous studies (Boswell & Murray, 1981; Gotlib & Robinson, 1982; Howes & Hokanson, 1979) discussed earlier. The present study shows that intimacy facilitates mood induction but that intimacy is associated with lower levels of rejection. Therefore, if one construes rejection as a unified phenomenon, it appears that negative mood induction does not mediate rejection. However, the regression analyses done on each individual measure of rejection 67 offer a alternative pattern. Friendliness (friendly-dominant and friendly-submissive quadrants) is mediated by lower levels of negative mood induction; its opposite, hostility (hostile-dominant and hostile-submissive quadrants), is predicted by lower levels of pleasure induction, a measure significantly correlated with the MAACL and W-R mood scale. Compared to the Opinion scale, the IMI quadrants represent the less behavioral components of rejection, reflecting attitudes and cognitive statements about the social impact of the target Therefore, mood induction appears to mediate the perception of the target The only exception to this finding is the role of dominance induction, a measure less strongly correlated with mood measures, in the prediction of the hostility-submissive quadrant Dominance appears to be more conceptually related to the submissive aspect of the quadrant than to the hostile aspect In contrast arousal induction mediates compliance and initiation, the behavioral components of rejection. The more one is interested in another individual, the more one's behavior will reflect that interest One should be cautious in interpreting these results, in that the variance explained in the rejection measures is modest suggesting that other factors may act as mediators of rejection. Nevertheless, the fact that two aspects of rejection are related to two separate mediating phenomena supports the proposition that rejection is a multidimensional concept: "However, under the umbrella of rejection may be two distinct processes: attempts to distance oneself from the other (i.e. avoidance) and/or affectively based evaluative reactions (i.e. dislike). A more complex view of rejection therefore should include both a spatial dimension (approaching vs avoiding) and an evaluative dimension (liking vs disliking); the former may be instrumental, having the primary function of restoring 68 comfortable levels of intimacy in the interaction , whereas the latter may be merely expressive in nature" (Gurtman, 1986, p.100). It appears that the evaluative dimension of rejection or the social impact of the target, is mediated by mood induction, whereas the "spatial dimension" or behavioral dimension of rejection is mediated by arousal, or how interested one is in another individual. According to results discussed earlier (Hypothesis 4), these two dimensions are in synchrony with each other; that is, they demonstrate similar levels of rejection at a given time, and reflect similar changes in rejection depending on whether it is a depressed or non-depressed individual to whom the rejection is directed. From these findings emerges a new hypothesis: it is possible that negative perceptions of the target, mediated by mood induction, in turn mediate behavioral rejection towards the target This possibility was investigated by conducting a regression analysis where the two Opinion scales were predicted by the difference between pretest and posttest scores of the three subscales of the MAACL, of the W-R mood scales, and of the three dimensions of the semantic differential, as well as by the four IMI quadrants (see Table 5). Both Initiation and Compliance were predicted by lower scores of the pleasure difference, higher scores of the arousal difference, and lower scores of the hostile-dominant quadrant Initiation was predicted by higher scores of the friendly-dominant quadrant, whereas Compliance was predicted by higher scores of the friendly-submissive quadrant This analysis showed that the IMI quadrants explained a large part of the variance of the Opinion scale, in addition to the mood measures' 69 Table 5, Summary of regression analysis Dependent variables Predictor variables Initiation Compliance Depression difference Anxiety difference Hostility difference W-R mood difference Pleasure difference * -.13 * -.15 Arousal difference *** .20 »** .22 Dominance difference -Friendly- dominant »** .27 Friendly- submissive *** .26 Hostile- submissive Hostile-dominant *** -.51 *** -.46 Multiple R 2 .47 .38 • •* *** p<.05 p<.01 p<.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 70 contribution. More specifically, the hostile-dominant quadrant was the dimension demonstrating the most substantial contribution to the Opinion scale scores. Thus the idea that negative perception of the target could mediate behavioral rejection is supported by the results, but the correlational nature of the evidence certainly does not allow to make any conclusive statements. In fact, one could raise the possibility that the behavioral rejection comes first, followed by the negative perception of the target; however, this idea appears contrary to most psychological theories incorporating cognitive-perceptual components. Moreover, a regression analysis was conducted where the dependent variables were the four IMI quadrants, predicted by the mood measures and the two Opinion subscales (see Table 6). High scores of Initiation predicted friendly-dominant and friendly-submissive quadrants, whereas lower scores predicted hostile-submissive and hostile-dominant quadrants. Friendly-dominant responses were predicted by high W-R mood difference scores; friendly-submissive responses were predicted by low depression difference scores and low pleasure difference scores. Both hostile-submissive and hostile-dominant quadrants were predicted by low scores of pleasure difference; the hostile-submissive quadrant was also predicted by high dominance difference scores. This analysis showed that mood measures and the Opinion scale jointly did not explain a large portion of the variance of the IMI quadrants, apart from the hostile-dominant quadrant The overall configuration of variance explained for all quadrants was less promising than for the regression predicting the Opinion scale, with the IMI quadrants and mood measures as predicting variables. 71 Table 6. Summary of Regression Analysis Dependent variables Predictors FD FS HS HD Depression difference -.30 Anxiety difference Hostility difference W-R mood difference ••• .23 Pleasure difference * -.21 ••• -.41 ••* -.27 Arousal difference Dominance difference • *• .25 Compliance \ Initiation • •• .43 •*• .38 -.21 ••• -.54 Multiple R 2 .28 .21 .24 .41 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 72 In summary, negative mood induction mediates only the negative perceptions of the target, whereas behavioral aspects of rejection are mediated by a lack of induced arousal. A second possibility is raised whereby negative perceptions, mediated by mood induction, in turn mediate the rejection behavior. Due to the correlational data used to investigate the above hypothesis, and to the issue of the directionality of the relationship, the hypothesis does no more than point to a future area of research. Hypothesis 6: The role of the needs for autonomy and nurturance Although no previous research has studied the role of personality characteristics of persons rejecting depressed individuals, a first attempt was made in this study to examine the role of the need for autonomy and need for nurturance. It was predicted that higher levels of need for autonomy and lower levels of need for nurturance would be associated with more negative mood induction and more rejection towards depressed individuals. No relationship whatsoever was found between needs and mood induction. Only the need for nurturance was related to rejection, whereas the need for autonomy was not A higher need for nurturance facilitated a more accepting attitude towards targets. The hypothesis examining the role of the IMI in the mediation of behavioral rejection was investigated further by conducting a regression analysis where predictor variables were the difference between pretest and posttest scores of the three subscales of the MAACL, of the W-R mood scale, of the semantic differential, as well as by 73 the four IMI quadrants and the four need measures. These variables predicted the two Opinion subscales, Compliance and Initiation (see Table 8). In comparison to the similar regression analysis omitting the need measures, this present analysis demonstrated no increment in the variance explained. The same was true for the regression analysis having mood measures, Opinion subscales and need measures predict the four IMI quadrants (see Table 7). The addition of the need for nurturance to the predicting variables did explain more variance in the first set of regressions, that is the planned regression analyses reviewed in the results section. Yet as shown above, it did not show any incremental contribution in the second set of regression investigating the mediation of the Opinion scale by the IMI quadrants. These results may be due to the need for nurturance's high correlations with the rejection measures, also used as predictors in the second set of analyses. The results generate two possibilities: if future research shews the social impact of the target and the behavioral aspects of rejection to be two simultaneous phenomena, then the interpersonal needs of the rejecting person appear to be important mediating factors as is illustrated in the first set of regressions. However, if the negative perceptions measured by the IMI were indeed found to mediate the behavioral aspects of rejection, they would be in fact sufficient to do so without the contribution of needs. The present study suggests on the one hand that people's stable characteristics, such as need for nurturance, may play a role in their response to others, but that on 74 Table 7. Summary of Regression Analysis Dependent Variables Predictors FD FS HS HD Depression difference -.30 Anxiety difference -.18* Hostility difference W-R mood difference ••• .23 Pleasure difference • -.21 ••• -.41 -.40 Arousal difference Dominance difference *»• .25 Compliance Initiation ••* .43 *•• .38 •* -.21 •«» -.52 Need for nurturance Need for autonomy IAS W-A - • -.14 IAS C-Q Multiple R 2 .28 .21 .24 .45 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 75 Table 8. .Summary of Regression Analysis ^ .Dependent variables Predictor Variables Initiation Compliance Depression difference Anxiety difference Hostility difference W-R mood difference Pleasure difference 2> Arousal difference .18* .19 Dominance difference Friendly- dominant .25 Friendly-submissive ••• .24 Hostile- submissive Hostile-dominant *»* -.45 -.39 Need for nurturance • .13 .16* Need for autonomy IAS W-A IAS C - Q Multiple R 2 .47 .38 *£<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported. 76 the other hand, other models incorporating more levels of mediation of rejection may offer more parsimonious explanation of the phenomenon without the contribution of interpersonal needs. The contradictory nature of the results does not warrant any conclusive statements. The task for future researcher is now to narrow down the role of personal characteristics in the responses to others, and to examine which characteristics are the most important, that is which ones should be included in research on interpersonal responses to depression. Methodological considerations Although it was not anticipated, the two methods - videotapes and texts - at times yielded different results. The read method potentiated differences in mood induction between friends and strangers, and differences in rejection between depressed and non-depressed conditions, whereas these distinctions were not present with the videotaped method. Furthermore, the read method yielded more acceptance than did the videotapes. These methodologir,al implications can be subsumed under one explanation based on the more controlled nature of the videotapes. The lack of difference in mood induction in friends and strangers for the videotaped method may have been due to a blurring of the intimacy level in the videotapes: the amount of disclosure, both of affect and of personal events, was equal between friends and strangers. Moreover, the visual portrayal of an unknown person may have interfered with the subjects' ability to imagine their real friend, in the friends condition. Secondly, the portrayal of the target's affect was more controlled in the videotapes, where the tone, 77 speed and affect of conversation was provided. In the read method, subjects imagined these components which gave them an opportunity to use their own schemas to construct a model of interaction they were accustomed to. They may therefore have reduced in the read method the amount of affective disclosure and the level of intimacy involved in the stranger's condition, which would explain the subject's lack of mood induction with strangers. Morever, the strength of the videotaped stimulus, involving visual and auditory portrayal of a live interaction, may have overriden intimacy effects and yielded a strong mood induction for both levels of intimacy, equal to the level found in the friends/read condition. Regarding the rejection measures, the read method generally elicited more positive responses than did the videotape for initiation, as well as for the friendly-dominant and hostile-submissive quadrants. The Method effect was subsumed in the more general Target X Method interaction where both methods generated similar reactions to depressed targets, but where the read method elicited more acceptance towards non-depressed targets. The common element between the depressed and non-depressed targets were the objective events in their life. What differentiated them were their reactions to these circumstances. In the videotapes, although the non-depressed target portrayed being in a "mid-range" mood, the negative content of her conversation appeared to be more noticeable than her affective reaction to the described events; therefore, she may have conveyed the impression that she was complaining about her negative personal circumstances. On the contrary, in the read method, the content of the conversation and affective state are both read and given equal salience. Therefore, the affective 78 state of the non-depressed target was clear and may have been more precisely identified by the subject; words such as "assertive, calm, friendly" were used which clearly gave a more positive depiction of the non-depressed target, and may explain the more accepting attitude of subjects in the read method. From this discussion, it is apparent that both methods offer advantages and disadvantages. The videotapes provided better control of all the components of the interactions and offered a more adequate depiction of clinical depression, through verbal and non-verbal channels of information. However, in this study these enhancements of internal validity seem to be achieved at the expense of the correct portrayal of levels of intimacy. The read method allowed subjects to imagine themselves interacting with their own friends and to provide various aspects of the interactions, which yields more realistic portrayal of levels of intimacy and enhances external validity. However, not all subjects have had experience with a clinically depressed individual, which limits their imaginary characterization of the depressed target Finally, in contrast to the multichanneled and overpowering nature of the videotapes, the weaker read method may elicit responses expected by subjects in such a hypothetical situation, explaining the greater acceptance towards targets with this method. At this point it is unclear to establish which of the two methods is more externally valid. Moreover, Coyne's model is based on repeated interactions with depressed individuals and it is questionnable whether or not this temporal dimension was adequately reflected by the two types of stimuli and their corresponding 79 experimental instructions. One could compare the two methods in future studies with real-life interactions between friends and between strangers. This alternative method is obviously more externally valid, but weaker in internal validity: less control is possible in terms of level of depression, content of interactions and duration of the relationship. Future Research Directions Taken together, the results of this study indicate that Coyne's model is supported to a certain degree in that depressed persons did induce a negative mood, more so in more intimate relationships, and depressed persons also elicited rejection. What did not support Coyne's model was that depressed persons elicited less rejection from friends than from strangers, a finding contradicting a crucial aspect of his theory. Finally, mediating factors of rejection were not clear, suggesting possible contribution of negative mood induction, perception of the target, and interpersonal needs. The methodological implications derived from the study invite further research in comparing methods used for the study of interpersonal responses to depression, to investigate their external validity. One could contrast the results obtained with videotaped, written and live versions of an interaction between a non-depressed person and a clinically depressed person. Variations of the level of intimacy would provide information on which method would be optimal to portray a specific type of relationship. Results supported a multidimensional concept of rejection, differentiating the negative perception of the target from the behavioral component It suggest that the 80 two dimensions should be measured separately in future research studying the phenomenon of rejection. Furthermore, the present study suggests that the social impact of the target, mediated by mood induction, in turn may mediate the behavioral component of rejection. This hypothesis could be investigated by designing a study where perceptions of the target would be manipulated: negatively or positively valenced information about the target would be given to subjects before they interact in a live or simulated way with the target The design could be extended to investigate in an experimental fashion the role of interpersonal needs in the mediation of rejection. As mentionned above, one condition could have two levels, one level promoting a positive perception of the target the other level promoting a negative one. A second condition could be added where the subjects would be divided into two groups: those high on a certain need, and those low on it Such a 2 X 2 design would compare levels of rejection of the four cells, to evaluate the contribution of needs and the contribution of negative perceptions of the target to behavioral rejection. Finally, it is essential to pursue studies comparing reactions to depressed individuals of both strangers and couples. Such research will be able to explore the possibility that depressed individuals get rejected in both situations, but due to different processes. Depressed strangers may elicit rejection due to the immediate aversiveness of the state of depression "where neither partner is committed in a way that he or she is likely to be deprived or deeply disappointed by the other's behavior...in the absence of (participants having) a confounding history of negative experiences with each other" (Coyne, 1985, p.231). Depressed spouses may elicit rejection due to the cumulative 81 effect of negative interactions over time, and despite the obligation and committment to accept one another. Coyne points out the strength and limitations of studying both types of relationship: "...studying marital interactions of depressed patients, one is limited to those patients whose marriages have endured, and what is observed is the product of repeated negative interactions. Without the data from the studies involving strangers, we would have less of a basis for assuming that we are not merely studying the effects of mate selection or of any pre-existing conflict or negative attitudes that depressed persons and their spouses have toward each other. "(Coyne, 1985, p.231). Such research appears promising and may also have important repercussions in treatment of depression, conceptualized within the context of a marital relationship (Gotlib and Colby, 1987). BIBLIOGRAPHY Azrin, N. H., Hutchinson, R. R., Hake, D.F. (1966). Extinction-induced aggression. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior. <>, 191-204. Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Beck, A. T. (1974). The development of depression: A cognitive model. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary  Theory and Research. Washington, D.C: Winston. Blumberg, S. R., & Hokanson, J. E. (1983). The effects of another person's response style on interpersonal behavior in depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 22, 196-209. Boswell, P. C , Murray, E. J. (1981). Depression, schizophrenia and social attraction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 42, 641-647. Campbell, M. M. (1959). The Primary Dimensions of Item Ratings on Scales Designed to Measure 24 of Murray's Manifest. - Needs. Unpublished manuscript University of Washington, Seattle. 82 83 Coates, D., & Wortman, C. B. (1980). Depression maintainance and interpersonal control. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer, Advances in Environmental Psychology. vol.2, Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. Coyne, J. C. (1976,a). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry. 22, 28-40. Coyne, J. C. (1976,b). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 35, 186-193. Coyne, J. C. (1985). Comment - Studying depressed person's interactions with strangers and spouses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 24, 231-232. Coyne, J. C , Kahn, J., Gotlib, I. H. (in press). Depression. In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family  Interaction and Psvchopathologv. New York: Plenum. Dobson, K. S. (June 1987). Cognitive appraisal of social impact rejection by anxious and depressed targets. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Conference, Vancouver, B.C. (in review). Doerfler, L. A., Chaplin, W. F. (1985). Type III error in research in interpersonal models of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 24, 227-230. 84 Ekrnan, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Nonverbal behavior and psychopathology. Im R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research. New York: Wiley. Gotlib, I. H. & Colby, C. A. (1987VTreatment of Depression: An Interpersonal Systems Approach. New York: Pergamon Press. Gotlib, I. H. & Robinson, L. A. (1982). Responses to depressed individuals: discrepancies between self-report and observer-rated behavior. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology. 21, 231-240. Grinker, R. P., Miller, J., Sabskin, M., Nunn, J. & Nunnally, J. D. (1961). The Phenomena of Depression. New York: Harper and Row. Gurtman, M. B. (1986). Depression and the response of others: re-evaluating the reevaluation. Journal of Abnormal Pvchologv. 25, 99-101. Hammen, C. L., & Peters, S. D. (1977). Differential responses to male and female depressive reactions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 4i, 994-1001. Hammen, C. L., & Peters, S. D. (1978). Interpersonal consequences of depression: responses to men and women enacting a depressed role. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology. £2, 322-331. 85 HinchlifTe, M. K., Lancashire, M., Roberts, F. J. (1971). Depression: defense mechanisms in speech. British Journal of Psychiatry. 118, 471-472. Hinchliffe, M. K., Lancashire, M., Roberts, F. J. (1971). A study of eye contact in depressed and recovered psychiatric patients. British Journal of Psychiatry. 112, 213-215. Hoehn-Hyde, D., & Schlottman, R. S., Rush, J. A. (1982). Perception of depressed psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, ifj, 209-212. Howes, M. J. & Hokanson, J. E. (1979). Conversational and social responses to depressive interpersonal behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 28, 625-634. Joffe, R., & Dobson, K. (1986). The temporal stability of social responses to depressed and non-depressed individuals. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia. Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form Manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologist Press. Kiesler, D. J., Anchin, J. C , Perkins, M. J., Chirico, B. M., Kyle, E. M. & Federman, E. J. (1975, 1976). The Impact Message Inventory. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University. 86 Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: a taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review. 2Q, 185-214. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press. Lewinsohn, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and  Research. New York: Wiley. Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel, W., Chaplin, W., Barton, R. (1980). Social competence and depression: the role of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. £2, 203-212. Libet, J. M., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1973). Concept of social skill with special reference to the behavior of depressed persons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 4fl, 304-312. Mahoney, M. J. (1978). Experimantal methods and outcome evaluations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 4£, 660-672. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Mendels, J. (1970). Concepts of Depression. New York: Wiley. 87 Meyer, B. E , & Hokanson, J. E. (1982). Situational influences on depressives' social behaviors. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University. Mitroff, I. I., & Featheringham, T. R. (1974). On systematic problem solving and the error of the third kind. Behavioral Science. 12, 383-393. Perkins, M. J., Kiesler, D. J., Anchin, J. C , Chirico, B. M., Kyle, E. M., & Federman, E. J. (1979). The Impact Message Inventory: a new measure of relationship in counselling/psychotherapy and other dyads. Journal of Counselling Psychology. 26, 363-367. Rehm, L. P. (1985). Assessment of depression. In M. Hersen and A. S. Bellack, Behavioral Assessment Pergamon Press. Russell, J. A., Mehrabian, A. (1977). A three factor theory of emotion. Journal of  Research and Personality. U, 273-294. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: a factor analytic study. Emotion and Behavior. JJ, 259-288. Strack, S., & Coyne, J. C. (1983). Social confirmation fo dysphoria: shared and private reactions to depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44, 798-806. Swensen, C. H. (1973). Introduction to Interpersonal Relations. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, & Co. 88 Weissman, M. M., & Klerman, G. L. (1977). Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry. 24, 98-111. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: the interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22, 395-412. Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology. New York: Wiley. Wiggins, J. S. & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: a structural model for the integration of personality research. Perspectives in Personality. 1, 1-47. Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate-selection: a study of complementary needs. New York: Harper & Row. Winer, D. L., Bonner, T. O., Jr., Blaney, P. H , & Murray, E. J. (1981). Depression and social attraction. Motivation and Emotion, i , 153-166. Youngren, M. A., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1980). The functional relation between depression and problematic interpersonal behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. £2, 333-341. 89 Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1963). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM 90 APPENDIX B: SCRIPTS FOR THE VIDEOTAPED INTERACTIONS 93 The qua l i t y of th i s microfiche i s heavily dependent upon the quali t y of the thesis submitted for microfilming. Please refer to the National Library of Canada target (sheet 1, frame 2) e n t i t l e d : CANADIAN THESES La qualitS de cette microfiche dSpend grandement de l a qualite de l a t h S s e s o u m i s e au microfilmage. Ve u i l l e z consulter l a c i b l e de l a B i b l i o t h g q u e n a t i o n a l e du Canada (microfiche 1, image 2) intitul§e: THESES CANADIENNES NOTICE AVIS Depressed/Nondepressed I n t e r a c t i o n - Stranger 94 A: (slouches down i n the c h a i r ) B : Is the a d v i s o r s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone? A: .Yeah.. B : I t h i n k I've been w a i t i n g for her f o r over h a l f an hour! ... Anyways, what are you here f o r ? A: ^ 1 t h i n k I'm going to drop this- b iology c l a s s I've taken. ^'It's.-so fciuch work; I'm never going to be able to lerfrn a l l that s t u f f about u n i c e l l u l a r organisms. There's a b s o l u t e l y nothing I could do to pass t h i s course. B: Have you t r i e d t a l k i n g to the prof, or T.A.? A: They're j u s t l i k e the rest of them: busy, busy, busy. I d i d n ' t even t r y - i t ' s not worth i t . ( s i g h ) You know, I don't know why_ I was accepted i n sciences because I 'never was good at i t . B: Well, you must have had the marks to get i n . A: Yeah, but I just got them because I was working a lot harder than everybody else. Now, I feel kind of g u i l t y about dropping this course, (sigh) I don't know what I should do. B: W e l l , maybe i t ' s going to leave you more time f o r your other courses. Which courses are you taking? A: • Other science courses and a psych one^, Psych + bio are O.K. but I can't say the same about c a l c u l u s and s t a t s . . . i t s a g r i n d and I have to take them! But I j u s t don't f e e l very motivated t h i s semester. I'm always t i r e d . I never have any energy to do anything The worst fs] when you get home, make dinner, /aj5?then you have to force y o u r s e l f to work. Last n i g h t , i n s t e a d of doing some reading for a course I've got to catch up w i t h , I j u s t sat around the apartme_nt„and watched T.V. Then I got even more depressed. I do t h i s a l l the time and I hate myself f o r I t . B: W e l l , sometimes you clo_ need to get your mind o f f school though. I know I r e a l l y need to go out with my f r i e n d s on F r i d a y night - i t j u s t helps me. Last weekend, I went to a new club downtown - the Venue. Have you been there ? A: W e l l , I don't go out that much anymore. I don't eyen -have the energy f o r t h a t . I t ' s j u s t not as fun as i t used to be. I always get the f e e l i n g I bore everyone to death. Besides, nobody ever c a l l s me anymore. I don't see how i t could r e a l l y get b e t t e r . - 2 -95 B: Uhmmm... Well, I know I've only met you, so It's not up to me to judge, but maybe things are not as bad as you think. Do you get along with your roommate? A: Yeah. She's O.K. She's j u s t not my type. She doesn't do that much l n the apartment e i t h e r . I'm always the sucker washing the dishes. I wouldn't even_try__to t a l k to her because she's so d i s t a n t . Somehow I always a t t r a c t that, kind of people - I bet the next one w i l l be j u s t the same. \ \ _ - *'.» . B: Yeah, that i s a hassle. I l i v e i n residence i n a s i n g l e room, so I don't have that problem, although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the privacy that I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e , the aquatic center, the squash courts too. And i t ' s r e a l l y nice to take an early morning swim without f e e l i n g rushed. A: Yeah. Actually I was on the swimming team last year. B: Oh yeah? Are you s t i l l on i t now because I was thinking of j o i n i n g i t . A: Well, I've just q u i t . I just didn't get a kick out of i t as much as i t used to. People were r e a l l y competitive. Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard t h i s senester to get up so e a r l y . Maybe I should s t a r t to do more sports again but, I don't know, I just don't f e e l l i k e i t . I'm so out of shape too, there's no way anybody would want me on t h e i r team. B: Oh great, I think she's f i n i s h e d with that phone c a l l . I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. Well, I hope things turn out O.K. f o r you. A: Thanks B: Bye! A: Bye. 0161d/7 Depressed/Nondepressed I n t e r a c t i o n - Beat Fri e n d 96 (slouches down l n the c h a i r ) A I I A Is the a d v i s o r s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone? A: Yeah B: I think I've been waiting for her for over half an hour! ... Anyways, what are you here for again? A: I think I'm going to drop my biology class. It's so much work; I'm never going to be able to learn a l l that stuff about u n i c e l l u l a r organisms. There's absolutely nothing I could do to pass this course. B: Have you tried talking to the prof, or T.A.? A: They're j u s t l i k e the rest of them: busy, busy, busy. I didn't even try - i t ' s not worth i t . (sigh) You know, I don't know why I was accepted i n s c i e n c e s because I n e v e r was good at i t . B: W e l l , you had the marks to get i n . A: Yeah, but I j u s t got them because I was w o r k i n g a l o t h a r d e r than e v e r y b o d y e l s e . Now, I f e e l k i n d of g u i l t y about d r o p p i n g t h i s c o u r s e , ( s i g h ) I don't know what I s h o u l d do. B: Well, maybe i t ' s going to leave you more time for your other courses. How x^re you doing in them? A: P s y c h +<^b^q^Jr^~?J(t!' but I can't say the same about calculus and st a t s . . . i t s a grind and I have to take them! But I just don't f e e l very motivated this semester. I'm always t i r e d . I never have any energy to do anything The w o r s t i s when you get home, make d i n n e r , and then you have to force yourself to work. Last night, instead of doing some reading for a course I've got to c a t c h up w i t h , I just sat around the apartment and watched T.V. Then I got even more depressed. I do this a l l the time and I hate myself for i t . B: Well, sometimes you do_ need to get your mind off school though. I know I re a l l y need to go out with some friends on Friday night - It just helps me. L a s t weekend, I went to a new club downtown - the Venue. Why didn't you come? A: Well, you know I don't go out that much anymore. I don't even have the energy for that. I t ' s just not as fun as i t used to be. I always get the feeling I bore everyone to death. Besides, nobody ever c a l l s me anymore. I don't see how i t could r e a l l y get better. B: Come on, I'm your friend - i t s not that bad! By the way, how's i t going with your roommate? - 2 - 97 A: She's O.K. She's jus t not my type. She doesn't do that much i n the apartment e i t h e r . I'm always the sucker washing the dishes. I wouldn't even t r y to t a l k to her because she's so d i s t a n t . Somehow I always a t t r a c t that kind of people -_I bet the next one w i l l be just the same. » • • • » ' B: Yeah, that i s a hassle. I l i v e i n residence i n a s i n g l e room, so I don't have that problem, although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the pr i v a c y that I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e , the aquatic center, the squash courts too. And I t ' s r e a l l y n i c e to take an e a r l y morning swim without f e e l i n g rushed. Are you s t i l l on the swimming team because I was thinking of j o i n i n g I t . A: Well, I've just q u i t . I just didn't get a k i c k out of i t as much as i t used to. People were r e a l l y competitive. Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard t h i s semester to get up so e a r l y . Maybe I should s t a r t to do more sports again but, I don't know, J_4iist-don.!-t._£e,el l i k e i t . I'm so out of shape too, there's no way anybody would want me on t h e i r team. B: Oh g r e a t , I t h i n k she's f i n i s h e d w i t h that phone c a l l . I ' l l be only a c o u p l e of m i n u t e s . W e l l , I hope t h i n g s t u r n out O.K. f o r you. I ' l l see you a r o u n d . A: Thanks B: Bye! A: Bye. "* 0161d/9 Nondepressed/Nondepressed I n t e r a c t i o n - Strangers 98 A: ( s i t s In chair) B: Is the advisor s t i l l talking on the phone? A: Yeap! B: I think I've been waiting for her for over half an hour! Anyway, what are you here for? A: I want to drop this biology class I've taken. It's r e a l l y a hard course and I'd rather take It next year when I have more time for I t . Right now, i t ' s too much for me to handle. B: Did you t a l k to the prof? or the T.A.? A: Yeah. Jeez, they're hard to get - they're never i n their o f f i c e ! But they were r e a l l y understanding. They offered to help me but I s t i l l f e l t I was better off postponing the course t i l l next year. I think i t ' s the best thing t o do. B: W e l l maybe i t ' s g o i n g to l e a v e you more time f o r y o u r o t h e r c o u r s e s . Which c o u r s e s a r e you t a k i n g ? A: O t h e r s c i e r . e e c o u r s e s and a psych one. I g u e s s t h e y ' r e O.K. P s y c h and b i o l o g y a r e g r e a t - r e a l l y interesting. I can't say the same a b o u t calculus and stats - i t ' s a grind! I have to take them, so might as well get them over with quickly. It's a tough semester but i f I make a real e f f o r t , I should be able to p u l l through i t - the worst part Is when you get home, make dinner, and then you have to force yourself to work! Sometimes I just feel l i k e slouching i n front of the TV! (laughs) B: Yeah, sometimes you do need to get your mind off school. I know I r e a l l y ne-ed t o go out w i t h my friends on Friday nights - i t j u s t helps me. L a s t weekend I went to a new club downtown - the Venue. Have you been there? A: W e l l , - I don't go out that much anymore. I'm usually exhausted by the end of the week. Sometimes I ' l l c a l l a friend to come over - we w i l l have a bit of wine and watch the late shows. I've never been that much of a big party g i r l - I l i k e i t better when there's 3 or A persons, not more. B: Do you have a roommate? A: Yeah, I do! She's O.K. She's just not my type. She doesn't do that much In the apartment either. I've had to have l i t t l e discussions now and then with her, and i t ' s a lot better now. There's no real f r i c t i o n , we're just d i f f e r e n t . - 2 -99 B: Yeah, i t can be a h a s s l e . I l i v e i n residence i n a s i n g l e room, so I don't have that problem, although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the p r i v a c y that I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e , the aquatic c e n t e r , the squash c o u r t s too. And i t ' s r e a l l y n i c e to take an e a r l y morning swim without f e e l i n g rushed. A: Yeah. A c t u a l l y , I was on the swimming team l a s t year. B: Oh yeah? Are you s t i l l on the swimming team now because I was t h i n k i n g of j o i n i n g i t . A: W e l l , I've j u s t q u i t . I j u s t d i d n ' t get a k i c k out of i t as much as I used t o. I j u s t f i n d the people r e a l l y c o m p e t i t i v e and i t kind of got t o me. Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard to get up so e a r l y ( l a u g h s ) . Now, I jog u s u a l l y j u s t before dinner and I've jo i n e d the h i k i n g c l u b which i s not competitive at a l l ! I l i k e i t . B: Oh g r e a t j I t h i n k she's f i n i s h e d w i t h that p h o n e - c a l l . I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. Well I hope things turn out O.K. f o r you. See you around.... A : Thanks ( s m i l e s ) . B: Bye 1 A: Bye] 0161d/2 Nondepressed/Nondepressed I n t e r a c t i o n - Best Friends 100 A: ( s i t s i n c h a i r ) 'r- ^ B: Is the a d v i s o r s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone? A: Yeap! B: I t h i n k I've been w a i t i n g f o r her f o r over h a l f an hour.' Anyway, what are you here f o r again? A: I want to drop t h i s b i o l o g y c l a s s I've taken. I t ' s r e a l l y a hard course and I'd r a t h e r take i t next year when I have more time f o r i t . R i ght now, i t ' s too much f o r me to handle. B: Did you t a l k to the prof? or the T.A.? A: Yeah. Jeez, they're hard to get - they're never i n t h e i r o f f i c e ! But they were r e a l l y understanding. They o f f e r e d to help me but I s t i l l f e l t I was b e t t e r o f f postponing the course t i l l next year. I t h i n k i t ' s the best t h i n g to do. B: Well maybe I t ' s going to leave you more time f o r your other courses. How are you doing i n them? A: I guess they're O.K. Psych and b i o l o g y are great - r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . I can't say the same about c a l c u l u s and s t a t s - i t ' s a g r i n d ! I have to take them, so might as w e l l get them over w i t h q u i c k l y . I t ' s a tough semester but i f I make a r e a l e f f o r t , I should be able to p u l l through i t - the worst part i s when you get home, make di n n e r , and then you have to f o r c e y o u r s e l f to work! Sometimes I j u s t f e e l l i k e s louching i n f r o n t of the TV! (laughs) B: Yeah, sometimes you do need to get your mind o f f s c h o o l . I know I r e a l l y need to go out with some f r i e n d s on F r i d a y n i g h t s - i t j u s t helps me. Last weekend I went to a new c l u b downtown - the Venue. Why d i d n ' t you come? A: W e l l j ^ I ^ d o n ' t go out that much anymore. I'm u s u a l l y exhausted by the end of the week. I c a l l e d a f r i e n d to come over - we had a b i t of wine and watched the l a t e shows. You know I've never been that much of a p a r t y g i r l - I l i k e I t b e t t e r when there's 3 or 4 persons, not more. B: By the way, how's i t going w i t h your roommate? A: She's O.K. She's j u s t not my type. She doesn't do that much i n the apartment e i t h e r . I've had to have l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n s now and then w i t h her, and i t ' s a l o t b e t t e r now. There's no r e a l f r i c t i o n , we're j u s t d i f f e r e n t . - 2 -101 B: Yeah, i t can be a hassle. In residence I don't have that problem, although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the privacy that I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e , the aquatic center, the squash courts too. And i t ' s r e a l l y nice to take an e a r l y morning swim without f e e l i n g rushed. Are you s t i l l on the swimming team now because I was thinking of j o i n i n g i t . A: Well, I've just q u i t . I j u s t didn't get a kick out of i t as much as I used to. I j u s t f i n d the people r e a l l y competitive and i t kind of got to me. Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard to get up so e a r l y ( l a u g h s ) . Now, I jog u s u a l l y just before dinner and I've joined the h i k i n g club which i s not competitive at a l l ' . I l i k e i t . B: Oh great, I think she's f i n i s h e d with that phone-call. I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. Well I hope things turn out O.K. f o r you. See you around.... A: Thanks ( s m i l e s ) . B: Bye! A: Bye: 0161d/l APPENDIX C: SCENARIOS FOR THE WRITTEN INTERACTIONS 102 103 You're waiting to see your advisor at school and a woman enters the wai t i n g room. She slouches down on the c h a i r and looks quite t i r e d . You ask her: You: "Is the advisor s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone?" Her: She answers "Yeah" without looking at you, staring at the f l o o r . You: "I think I've been waiting f o r her for over half an hour! ... Anyway, what are you here f o r ? " Her: (The woman t a l k s i n a quiet voice, very slowly and monotonously.) "I think I'm going to drop t h i s biology c l a s s I've taken. I t ' s so much work; I'm never going to be able to learn a l l that s t u f f about u n i c e l l u l a r organisms. There's absolutely nothing I could do to pass t h i s course." You: "Have you t r i e d t a l k i n g to the prof, or T.A.?" Her: "They're j u s t l i k e the rest of them: busy, busy, busy. I didn't even try - i t ' s not worth i t . (sigh) You know, I don't know why I was accepted In sciences, because I never was good at i t . " (Her face i s expressionless, blank). You: "Well, you must have had the marks to get i n . " Her: "Yeah, but I just got them because I was working a lot harder than everybody e l s e . Now, I f e e l kind of g u i l t y about dropping t h i s course, (sigh) I don't know what I should do." You: "Well, maybe i t ' s going to leave you more time for your other courses. Which courses are you taking?" (She s t i l l i s quite motionless, but s t a r t s swinging her feet nervously.) Her: Other science courses and a psych one. Psych and biology are O.K. but I can't say the same about c a l c u l u s and s t a t s - i t ' s a grind and I have to take them! But I don't f e e l motivated t h i s semester. I'm always t i r e d . I never have any energy to do anything. The worst i s when you get home, make dinner, and then you have to force yourself to work. Last night, instead of doing some reading for a course I've got to catch up with, I jus t sat around the apartment and watched T.V. Then I got even more depressed. I do t h i s a l l the time and I hate myself f o r i t . " You: "Well, sometimes you do need to get your mind off school though. I know I r e a l l y need to go out with my f r i e n d s on Friday night - i t j u s t helps me. Last weekend, I went to a new club downtown - the Venue. Have you been there?" (She looks even sadder. She looks at you occasionally but goes back to s t a r i n g somewhere else.) - 2 -104 Her: "Well, I don't go out that much anymore. I don't even have the energy fo r that. I t ' s just not as fun as i t used to be. I always get the f e e l i n g I bore everyone to death. Besides, nobody even c a l l s me anymore. I don't see how i t could r e a l l y get b e t t e r . " You: "Uhmm ... Well, I know I've only met you so i t ' s not up to me to judge, but maybe things are not as bad as you think. Do you get along with your roommate?" Her: "Yeah. She's O.K. She's just not my type. She doesn't do that much i n the apartment e i t h e r . I'm always the sucker washing the dishes. I wouldn't even t r y to talk to her because she's so d i s t a n t . Somehow I always a t t r a c t that kind of people - I bet the next one w i l l be j u s t the same." (She sounds f r u s t r a t e d and r e s e n t f u l as she says t h i s . ) You: "Yeah, that i s a hassle. I l i v e i n residence i n a s i n g l e room so I don't have that problem, although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the privacy that I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e , the acquatic center, the squash courts too. And i t ' s r e a l l y nice to take an ea r l y morning swim without f e e l i n g rushed." (She does not look very Interested but answers) Her: "Yeah. A c t u a l l y , I was on the swimming team l a s t year." You: "Oh yeah? Are you s t i l l on i t now because I was t h i n k i n g of j o i n i n g i t . Her: "Well, I've just q u i t . I j u s t didn't get a kick out of i t as much as I used to. People were r e a l l y competitive. Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard t h i s semester to get up so e a r l y . Maybe I should s t a r t to do more sports again but, I don't know, I just don't f e e l l i k e I t . I'm so out of shape too, there's no way anybody would want me on t h e i r team." You: "Oh great, I think she's f i n i s h e d with that phone c a l l . I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. Well I hope things turn out O.K. f o r you." Her: "Thanks." (with not a l o t of enthusiasm) You: "Bye I" Her: "Bye." ( f l a t l y ) 0161d/7 105 You're w a i t i n g to see your a d v i s o r at school and your best f r i e n d enters the w a i t i n g room. She slouches down on the c h a i r and looks q u i t e t i r e d . You ask her: You: "Hi.' Is the a d v i s o r s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone?" Her: She answers "Yeah" without l o o k i n g at you, s t a r i n g at the f l o o r . You: " I think I've been w a i t i n g f o r her f o r over h a l f an hour.' ... Anyway, what are you here f o r again?" Her: (Your f r i e n d t a l k s i n a q u i e t v o i c e , very slowly and monotonously.) "I t h i n k I'm going to drop my biology c l a s s . I t ' s so much work; I'm never going to be able to l e a r n a l l that s t u f f about u n i c e l l u l a r organisms. There's a b s o l u t e l y nothing I could do to pass t h i s course." You: "Have you t r i e d t a l k i n g to the prof, or T.A.?" Her: "They're j u s t l i k e the r e s t of them: busy, busy, busy. I d i d n ' t even tr y - I t ' s not worth i t . ( s i g h ) You know, I don't know why I was accepted i n s c i e n c e s , because I never was good at i t . " (Her face i s e x p r e s s i o n l e s s , b l a n k ) . You: "Well, you had the marks to get i n . " Her: "Yeah, but I j u s t got them because I was working a l o t harder than everybody e l s e . Now, I f e e l kind of g u i l t y about dropping t h i s course, ( s i g h ) I don't know what I should do." You: "Well, maybe i t ' s going to leave you more time f o r your other courses. How are you doing i n them?" (She s t i l l i s quite m o t i o n l e s s , but s t a r t s swinging her f e e t nervously.) Her: "Psych and b i o l o g y are O.K. but I can't say the same about c a l c u l u s and s t a t s - I t ' s a g r i n d and I have to take them.' But I don't f e e l motivated t h i s semester. I'm always t i r e d . I never have any energy to do anything. The worst i s when you get home, make d i n n e r , and then you have to f o r c e y o u r s e l f to work. Last n i g h t , i n s t e a d of doing some reading f o r a course I've got to catch up w i t h , I j u s t sat around the apartment and watched T.V. Then I got even more depressed. I do t h i s a l l the time and I hate myself f o r i t . " You: "Well, sometimes you do^ need to get your mind o f f school though. I know I r e a l l y need to go out w i t h some f r i e n d s on F r i d a y n i g h t - i t j u s t helps me. Last weekend, I went to a new c l u b downtown - the Venue. Why didn't you come?" (She looks even sadder. She looks at you o c c a s i o n a l l y but goes back to s t a r i n g somewhere e l s e . ) - 2 -106 Her: "Well, you know I don't go out that much anymore. I don't even have the energy for that. I t ' s just not as fun as i t used to be. I always get the feeling I bore everyone to death. Besides, nobody even c a l l s me anymore. I don't see how i t could r e a l l y get better." You: "Come on, I'm your f r i e n d . I t ' s not that bad! By the way, how's i t going with your roommate?" Her: "She's O.K. She's just not my type. She doesn't do that much i n the apartment either. I'm always the sucker washing the dishes. I wouldn't even try to talk to her because she's so distant. Somehow I always attract that kind of people - I bet the next one w i l l be just the same." (She sounds frustrated and resentful as she says t h i s . ) You: "Yeah, that i s a hassle. In residence I don't have that problem, although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the privacy that I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s close, the acquatic center, the squash courts too. And i t ' s r e a l l y nice to take an early morning swim without feeling rushed." Are you s t i l l on the swimming team now because I was thinking of joining i t . " Her: "Well, I've just quit. I just didn't get a kick out of i t as much as I used to. People were r e a l l y competitive. Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard this semester to get up so early. Maybe I should start to do more sports again but, I don't know, I just don't f e e l l i k e i t . I'm so out of shape too, there's no way anybody would want me on t h e i r team." You: "Oh great, I think she's finished, with that phone c a l l . I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. Well I hope things turn out O.K. for you. See you around..." Her: "Thanks." (with not a lot of enthusiasm) You: "Bye!" Her: "Bye." ( f l a t l y ) 0161d/9 107 You're waiting to see your advisor at school and a woman enters the waiting room She s i t s down on the c h a i r and smiles at you. You ask her: You: "Is the ad v i s o r s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone?" Her: She answers: "Yeap!" ( p e r k i l y ) . You: "I think I've been waiting for her f o r over 1/2 hour.' Anyway, what are you here f o r ? " Her: (The woman t a l k s a s s e r t i v e l y and calmly) "I want to drop t h i s biology c l a s s I've taken. I t ' s r e a l l y a hard course and I'd rather take i t next year when I have more time f o r i t . Right now, i t ' s too much f o r me to handle." You: "Did you t a l k to the prof? or the T.A.?" Her: "Yeah. Geez they're hard to get - they're never In t h e i r o f f i c e ! But they were r e a l l y understanding. They o f f e r e d to help me but I s t i l l f e l t I was be t t e r o f f postponing the course t i l l next year. I think i t ' s the best thing to do." (She appears f r i e n d l y towards you and i n a good mood.) You: "Well maybe i t ' s going to leave you more time f o r you other c l a s s e s . Which courses are you taking?" Her: "Other science courses and a psych one. I guess they're O.K. Psych and biology are great - r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . I can't say the same about the c a l c u l u s and s t a t s - i t ' s a grind! I have to take them, so might as well get them over with q u i c k l y . I t ' s a tough semester but i f I make a r e a l e f f o r t I should be able to p u l l through i t . " (She continues j o k i n g l y ) : "The worst part i s when you get home, make dinner, and then, you have to force y o u r s e l f to work! Sometimes I just f e e l l i k e slouching i n f r o n t of the T.V.!" (She laughs at th i s point.) You: "Yeah, sometimes you do need to get your mind o f f s c h o o l . I know, I r e a l l y need to go out with my f r i e n d s on F r i d a y n i g h t s - i t just helps me. Last weekend, I went to a new club downtown - the Venue - have you been there?" Her: (She answers a b i t s h y l y ) : "Well, I don't go out that much anymore. I'm u s u a l l y exhausted by the end of the week. Sometimes I ' l l c a l l a f r i e n d to come over - w e ' l l have a b i t of wine and watch the l a t e shows. I've never been that much of a big party g i r l - I l i k e i t better when there's 3 or 4 persons, not more." You: "Do you have a roommate?" Her: "Yeah, I do. She's O.K. She's just not my type. She doesn't do that much i n the appartment e i t h e r . I've had to have l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n s now and then with her, and i t ' s a l o t better now, there's no r e a l f r i c t i o n , we're just d i f f e r e n t . " - 2 - 108 "Yeah, i t can be a h a s s l e . I l i v e i n residence i n a s i n g l e room so I don't have that problem. Although sometimes I f e e l I s t i l l don't have the p r i v a c y I'd l i k e . But there are l o t s of advantages: the l i b r a r y i s c l o s e , the a q u a t i c c e n t r e , the squash c o u r t s , too. And i t ' s r e a l l y nice to take an e a r l y morning swim without f e e l i n g rushed." (She l i g h t s up and s a y s ) : "Yeah, a c t u a l l y , I was on the swimming team l a s t y ear." "Oh yeah? Are you s t i l l on I t now because I was t h i n k i n g of j o i n i n g i t . " " W e l l , I've j u s t q u i t . I j u s t d i d n ' t get a k i c k out of i t as much as I used to. I j u s t f i n d the people r e a l l y c o m p e t i t i v e and I t kind of got to me. " (She adds w i t h a s m i l e ) : "Besides, I f i n d i t r e a l l y hard to get up so e a r l y . " (She laughs.) "Now I j o g , u s u a l l y j u s t before dinner and I've j o i n e d the h i k i n g c l u b which i s not competitive at a l l . I l i k e i t . " "Oh g r e a t . I t h i n k she's f i n i s h e d w i t h that phone c a l l . I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. W e l l , I hope t h i n g s t u r n out O.K. f o r you." "Thanks." (She smiles.) "Bye I" Bye!" 109 You' re w a i t i n g to see your advisor at s c h o o l and your best f r i e n d of yours e n t e r s the w a i t i n g room She s i t s down on the c h a i r and smiles at you. You ask her: You: " H i . Is the advisor s t i l l t a l k i n g on the phone?" Her: She answers: "YeapI" ( p e r k i l y ) . You: " I th i n k I've been w a i t i n g f o r her f o r over 1/2 hour.' Anyway, what are you here f o r ? " Her: (Your best f r i e n d t a l k s a s s e r t i v e l y and ca l m l y ) " I want to drop my biology c l a s s . I t ' s r e a l l y a hard course and I'd ra t h e r take i t next year when I have more time f o r i t . Right now, i t ' s too much f o r me to handle." You: "Did you t a l k to the prof? or the T.A.?" Her: "Yeah. Geez they're hard to get - they're never i n t h e i r o f f i c e ! But they were r e a l l y understanding. They o f f e r e d to help me but I s t i l l f e l t I was b e t t e r o f f postponing the course t i l l next year. I th i n k i t ' s the best thi n g to do." (She appears to be i n a good mood.) You: "Well maybe i t ' s going to leave you more time f o r you other c l a s s e s . How are you doing i n them?" Her: " I guess they're O.K. Psych and b i o l o g y are great - r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . I can't say the same about the c a l c u l u s and s t a t s - i t ' s a g r i n d ! I have to take them, so might as w e l l get them over w i t h q u i c k l y . I t ' s a tough semester but i f I make a r e a l e f f o r t I should be able to p u l l through i t . " (She continues j o k i n g l y ) : "The worst part i s when you get home, make d i n n e r , and then, you have to for c e y o u r s e l f to work! Sometimes I j u s t f e e l l i k e s l o u c h i n g i n f r o n t of the T.V.!" (She laughs at t h i s p o i n t . ) You: "Yeah, sometimes you d_o need to get your mind o f f s c h o o l . I know, I r e a l l y need to go out with some f r i e n d s on F r i d a y n i g h t s - i t j u s t h e l p s me. Last weekend, I went to a new c l u b downtown - the Venue - why d i d n ' t you come?" Her: (She answers a b i t s h y l y ) : "Well, I don't go out that much anymore. I'm u s u a l l y exhausted by the end of the week. (She l i g h t s up.) I c a l l e d a f r i e n d to come over - we had a b i t of wine and watched the l a t e shows. You know I've never been that much of a b i g party g i r l - I l i k e i t b e t t e r when there's 3 or A persons, not more." You: "By the way, how's I t going w i t h your roommate?" Her: "She's O.K. She's j u s t not my type. She doesn't do that much i n the appartment e i t h e r . I've had to have l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n s now and then w i t h her, and i t ' s a l o t b e t t e r now, t h e r e ' s no r e a l f r i c t i o n , we're j u s t d i f f e r e n t . " - 2 -110 "Yeah, i t can be a hassle. In residence I don't have that problem. Although sometimes I feel I s t i l l don't have the privacy I'd l i k e . But there are lots of advantages: the l ibrary is close, the aquatic centre, the squash courts, too. And i t ' s really nice to take an early morning swim without feeling rushed. Are you s t i l l on the swimming team now because I was thinking of joining i t . " "Well, I've just quit . I just didn't get a kick out of i t as much as I used to. I just find the people really competitive and i t kind of got to me." (She adds with a smile): "Besides, I find i t real ly hard to get up so ear ly ." (She laughs.) "Now I jog, usually just before dinner and I've joined the hiking club which is not competitive at a l l . I l ike i t . " "Oh great. I think she's finished with that phone c a l l . I ' l l be only a couple of minutes. Well, I hope things turn out O.K. for you. See you around." "Thanks." (She smiles.) Bye!" APPENDIX D: MULTIPLE AFFECTIVE ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST 111 112 On this sheet you w i l l find words which describe different moods and feelings. C i r c l e the number of a l l which describe how you fee l right how, at this moment. 1 active 34 devoted 67 interested 100 s a t i s f i e d 2 adventurous 35 disagreeable 68 i r r i t a t e d 101 secure 3 affectionate 36 discontented 69 jealous 102 shaky 4 afraid 37 discouraged 70 joyful 103 shy 5 agitated 38 disgusted 71 kindly 104 soothed 6 agreeable 39 displeased 72 lonely 105 steady 7 aggressive 40 energet ic 73 lost 106 stubborn 8 alive 41 enraged 74 loving 107 stormy 9 alone 42 enthusiastic 75 low 108 strong 10 amiable 43 fea r f u l 76 lucky 109 suffering 11 amused 44 fine 77 mad 110 sullen 12 angry 45 f i t 78 mean 111 sunk 13 annoyed 46 forlorn 79 meek 112 sympathet ic 14 awful 47 frank 80 merry 114 tame 15 bashful 48 free 81 mild 114 tender 16 b i t t e r 49 friendly 82 miserable 115 tense 17 blue 50 frightened 83 nervous 116 t e r r i b l e 18 bored 51 furious 84 obliging 117 t e r r i f i e d 19 calm 52 gay 85 offended 118 thoughtful 20 cautious 53 gentle 86 outraged 119 timid 21 cheerful 54 glad 87 panicky 120 tormented 22 c lean 55 gloomy 88 pat ient 121 understanding 23 complaining 56 good 89 peace f u l 122 unhappy 24 contented 57 good natured 90 pleased 123 unsociable 25 contrary 58 grim 91 pleasant 124 upset 26 cool 59 happy 92 po l i t e 125 vexed 27 cooperative 60 healthy 93 powerful 126 warm 28 c r i t i c a l 61 hopeless 94 quiet 127 whole 29 cross 62 hostile 95 reckless 128 wild 30 cruel 63 impatient 96 rejected 129 w i l l f u l 31 daring 64 incensed 97 rough 130 wilted 32 desperate 65 indignant 98 sad 131 worrying 33 destroyed 66 inspired 99 safe 132 young 113 On this sheet you w i l l find words which describe different moods and feelings. C i r c l e the number of a l l which describe how you feel right how, at this moment. Keep imagining you have just had a conversation with your best friend. 1 active 34 devoted 67 interested 100 s a t i s f i e d 2 adventurous 35 disagreeable 68 i r r i t a t e d 101 secure 3 affectionate 36 discontented 69 jealous 102 shaky 4 afraid 37 discouraged 70 joyful 103 shy 5 agitated 38 disgusted 71 kindly 104 soothed 6 agreeable 39 displeased 72 lonely 105 steady 7 aggressive 40 energetic 73 lost 106 stubborn 8 alive 41 enraged 74 loving 107 stormy 9 alone 42 enthusiastic 75 low 108 strong 10 amiable 43 fearful 76 lucky 109 suffering 11 amused 44 fine 77 mad 110 sullen 12 angry 45 f i t 78 me an 111 sunk 13 annoyed 46 forlorn 79 meek 112 sympathet ic 14 awful 47 frank 80 merry 114 tame 15 bashful 48 free 81 mi Id 114 tender 16 b i t t e r 49 friendly 82 miserable 115 tense 17 blue 50 frightened 83 nervous 116 t e r r i b l e 18 bored 51 furious 84 obliging 117 t e r r i fied 19 calm 52 gay 85 offended 118 thoughtful 20 cautious 53 gentle 86 outraged 119 timid 21 cheerful 54 glad 87 panicky 120 tormented 22 c lean 55 gloomy 88 patient 121 understanding 23 complaining 56 good 89 peace f u l 122 unhappy 24 contented 57 good natured 90 pleased 123 unsociable 25 contrary 58 grim 91 pleasant 124 upset 26 cool 59 happy 92 polite 125 vexed 27 cooperative 60 healthy 93 powerful 126 warm 28 c r i t i c a l 61 hopeless 94 quiet 127 who le 29 cross 62 hostile 95 reckless 128 wild 30 cruel 63 impatient 96 rejected 129 w i l l f u l 31 daring 64 incensed 97 rough 130 wilted 32 desperate 65 indignant 98 sad 131 worrying 33 destroyed 66 inspired 99 safe 132 young 114 On this sheet you w i l l find words which describe different moods and feelings. C i r c l e the number of a l l which describe how you feel right how, at this moment. Keep imagining you have just had a conversation with the stranger. 1 act ive 34 devoted 67 interested 100 s a t i s f i e d 2 adventurous 35 disagreeable 68 i r r i t a t e d 101 secure 3 affectionate 36 di scontented 69 jealous 102 shaky 4 afraid 37 discouraged 70 joyful 103 shy 5 agitated 38 disgusted 71 kindly 104 soothed 6 agreeable 39 d ispleased 72 lonely 105 steady 7 aggressive 40 energetic 73 lost 106 stubborn 8 alive 41 enraged 74 loving 107 stormy 9 alone 42 enthusiastic 75 low 108 strong 10 amiable 43 fearful 76 lucky 109 suffering 11 amused 44 fine 77 mad 110 sullen 12 angry 45 f i t 78 me an 111 sunk 13 annoyed 46 forlorn 79 meek 112 sympathet ic 14 awful 47 frank 80 merry 114 tame 15 bashful 48 free 81 mild 114 tender 16 b i t t e r 49 friendly 82 miserable 115 tense 17 blue 50 frightened 83 nervous 116 t e r r i b l e 18 bored 51 furious 84 obliging 117 t e r r i f i e d 19 calm 52 gay 85 offended 118 thoughtful 20 cautious 53 gentle 86 outraged 119 timid 21 cheerful 54 glad 87 panicky 120 tormented 22 c lean 55 gloomy 88 patient 121 understanding 23 complaining 56' good 89 peaceful 122 unhappy 24 contented 57 good natured 90 pleased 123 unsociable 25 contrary 58 grim 91 pleasant 124 upset 26 cool 59 happy 92 polite 125 vexed 27 cooperative 60 healthy 93 powerful 126 warm 28 c r i t i c a l 61 hopeless 94 quiet 127 whole 29 cross 62 hostile 95 reckless 128 wi Id 30 cruel 63 impatient 96 rejected 129 w i l l f u l 31 daring 64 incensed 97 rough 130 wilted 32 desperate 65 indignant 98 sad 131 worrying 33 destroyed 66 inspired 99 safe 132 young APPENDIX E: WESSMAN-RICKS DEPRESSION-ELATION SCALE 115 116 For the ten statements listed below, please circle the number of the one that best describes how elated or depressed, happy or unhappy you feel right now at this moment 10. Complete elation. Rapturous joy and soaring ecstasy. 9. Very elated and in very high spirits. Tremendous delight and buoyancy. 8. Elated and in high spirits. 7. Feeling very good and cheerful. 6. Feeling pretty good, "OK". 5. Feeling a little bit low. Just so-so. 4. Spirits low and somewhat "blue". 3. Depressed and feeling low. Definitely "blue". 2. Tremendously depressed. Feeling terrible, miserable, "just awful". 1. Utter depression and gloom. Completely down. All is black and leaden. For the ten statements listed below, please circle the number of the one that best describes how elated or depressed, happy or unhappy you feel right now at this moment, imagining you have just had a conversation with your best friend. 10. Complete elation. Rapturous joy and soaring ecstasy. 9. Very elated and in very high spirits. Tremendous delight and buoyancy. 8. Elated and in high spirits. 7. Feeling very good and cheerful. 6. Feeling pretty good, "OK". 5. Feeling a little bit low. Just so-so. 4. Spirits low and somewhat "blue". 3. Depressed and feeling low. Definitely "blue". 2. Tremendously depressed. Feeling terrible, miserable, "just awful". 1. Utter depression and gloom. Completely down. All is black and leaden. ! 118 For the ten statements listed below, please circle the number of the one that best describes how elated or depressed, happy or unhappy you feel right now at this moment, imagining you have just had a conversation with the stranger. 10. Complete elation. Rapturous joy and soaring ecstasy. 9. Very elated and in very high spirits. Tremendous delight and buoyancy. 8. Elated and in high spirits. 7. Feeling very good and cheerful. 6. Feeling pretty good, "OK". 5. Feeling a little bit low. Just so-so. 4. Spirits low and somewhat "blue". 3. Depressed and feeling low. Definitely "blue". 2. Tremendously depressed. Feeling terrible, miserable, "just awful". 1. Utter depression and gloom. Completely down. All is black and leaden. APPENDIX F: SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL 119 120 How do you f e e l r i g h t now? Each p a i r of words below d e s c r i b e s a f e e l i n g dimension. Some of the p a i r s may seem unusual, but you probably f e e l more one way than the other. Please put one check along each l i n e (Example: ; * ; ) to show how you f e e l r i g h t now. Please take your time to a r r i v e at an accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of your f e e l i n g s . Happy Stimulated C o n t r o l l i n g Annoyed Calm Influenced S a t i s f i e d F r e n z i e d In c o n t r o l M e l a n c h o l i c D u l l Awed Hopeful Wide Awake Dominant Bored Unaroused Guided Unhappy Relaxed C o n t r o l l e d Pleased E x c i t e d I n f l u e n t i a l D i s s a t i s f i e d S l u g g i s h Cared For Contented J i t t e r y Important D e s p a i r i n g Sleepy Submissive Relaxed Aroused Autonomous 0 2 1 1 b/l 121 How do you f e e l r i g h t now? Each p a i r of words below d e s c r i b e s a f e e l i n g dimension. Some of the p a i r s may seem unusual, but you probably f e e l more one way than the other. Please put one check along each l i n e (Example: ; * ; ) to show how you f e e l r i g h t now. Please take your time to a r r i v e at an accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of your f e e l i n g s . Keep imagining you have j u s t had a conv e r s a t i o n with your best f r i e n d . Happy Stimulated C o n t r o l l i n g Annoyed Calm Influenced S a t i s f i e d F r e n zied In c o n t r o l M e l a n c h o l i c D u l l Awed Hopeful Wide Awake Dominant Bored Unaroused Guided Unhappy Relaxed C o n t r o l l e d Pleased E x c i t e d I n f l u e n t i a l D i s s a t i s f i e d S l u g g i s h Cared For Contented J i t t e r y Important Despai r i n g Sleepy Submissive Relaxed Aroused Autonomous 0211b/A 122 How do you f e e l r i g h t now? Each p a i r of words below d e s c r i b e s a f e e l i n g dimension. Some of the p a i r s may seem unusual, but you probably f e e l more one way than the other. Please put one check along each l i n e (Example: ; * ; ) to show how you f e e l r i g h t now. Please take your time to a r r i v e at an accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of your f e e l i n g s . Keep imagining you have j u s t had a conversation with the s t r a n g e r . Happy Stimulated C o n t r o l l i n g Annoyed Calm Influenced S a t i s f i e d F r e n z i e d In c o n t r o l M e l a n c h o l i c D u l l Awed Hopeful Wide Awake Dominant Bored Unaroused Guided Unhappy Relaxed Cont r o l l e d Pleased E x c i t e d I n f l u e n t i a l D i s s a t i s f i e d S l u g g i s h Cared For Contented J i t t e r y Important Despairing Sleepy Submissive Relaxed Aroused Autonomous 0211b/2 APPENDIX G: INTERPERSONAL ADJECTIVE SCALE 123 124 INTERPERSONAL ADJECTIVE SCALES On the two pages that f o l l o w , you w i l l f i n d a l i s t of words that are used to desc r i b e people's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For each word i n the l i s t , i n d i c a t e how a c c u r a t e l y the word describes you. The accuracy w i t h which a word d e s c r i b e s you i s to be judged on the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e : I 1 1 ft I L L * Extremely Very Quite S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Quite Very Extremely Inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate i n a c c u r a t e accurate accurate accurate accurate Consider the word BOLD. How a c c u r a t e l y does that word d e s c r i b e you as a person? I f you think that t h i s word i s a q u i t e accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of you, w r i t e the number "6" to the l e f t of the item: 6 BOLD I f you t h i n k that t h i s word i s a s l i g h t l y i n a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of you, w r i t e the number "4" next to i t , i f i t i s very i n a c c u r a t e w r i t e the number "2", e t c . I f you are uncertain of the meaning of a word, r a i s e your hand and we w i l l d e f i n e i t f o r you. 0174M - 1 - 125 I 2 3 4_ I i Z I Extremely Very Quite S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Quite Very Extremely inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate accurate accurate accurate accurate (001) introverted (033) unargumentative (002) undemanding (034) tender (003) assertive (035) impolite (004) unauthoritative (036) timid (005) undeceptive (037) unbold (006) pleasant (038) forceful (007) kind (039) unvain (008) courteous (040) extroverted (009) shy (041) gentle-hearted (010) uncunning (042) persistent (Oil) u n c i v i l (043) companionable (012) ruthless (044) f r i e n d l y (013) d i s s o c i a l (045) unneighbourly self-confident (014) cordial (046) (015) genial (047) outgoing (016) approachable (048) boastful (017) dominant (049) bashful (018) a n t i s o c i a l (050) unseIfconscious (019) iron-hearted (051) undevious (020) enthusiastic (052) unsociable (021) self-assured (053) hard-hearted (022) cruel (054) wily (023) unsparkling (055) ex p l o i t a t i v e (024) overforward (056) impersonal (025) self-doubting (057) s l y (026) discourteous (058) neighbourly (027) guileless (059) uncooperative (028) unaggressive (060) distant (029) j o v i a l (061) cocky (030) flaunty (062) sympathetic (031) boastless (063) forceless (032) domineering (064) t r i c k y - 3 -Glossary of Interpersonal Adjectives 126 001 INTROVERTED - Introspective, Inward 002 UNDEMANDING - not Insistent or expectant of others 005 UNDECEPTIVE - not tricky 010 UNCUNNING - not sly or wily O i l UNCIVIL - not polite or c i v i l i z e d 013 DISSOCIAL - a n t i - s o c i a l , not sociable 018 ANTI-SOCIAL - not sociable 023 UNSPARKLING - not vivacious 024 OVERFORWARD - pushy, impudent 026 DISCOURTEOUS - rude 027 GUILELESS - honest, sincere 030 FLAUNTY - given to showing off 033 UNARGUMENTATIVE - not given to arguing 037 UNBOLD - not daring 039 UNVAIN - not conceited 040 EXTROVERTED - express emotions readily, outgoing 050 UNSELFCONSCIOUS - not i l l at ease or nervous 051 UNDEVIOUS - direct, frank, forthright 054 WILY - crafty, sly 056 IMPERSONAL - detached, cold, unsympathetic 063 FORCELESS - weak 065 UNBUSINESSLIKE - not methodical or e f f i c i e n t 066 UNCALCULATING - not shrewd or cunning 067 NONEGOTISTICAL - not conceited 068 UNGRACIOUS - not showing charm or courtesy 072 UNSLY - not crafty or underhanded 073 CONCEITLESS - not conceited or vain 081 UNCORDIAL - not warm or hearty 083 UNCRAFTY - not subtly deceitful or sly 084 UNINDUSTRIOUS - not hard-working or d i l i g e n t 087 ACCOMMODATING - obliging, doing favours for others 092 UNCHEERY - not cheerful 093 CALCULATING - shrewd or cunning 095 UNDEMONSTRATIVE - not showing feelings openly 097 UNSMILING - not showing pleasure or a f f e c t i o n 098 WARMTHLESS - not warm or tender 101 UNTHOROUGH - not completing things 103 UNREVEALING - not communicative, concealing 104 UNWILY - not crafty or sly 105 DELIBERATIVE - methodical or thoughtful 110 UNWILD - not reckless 114 UNSHY - not timid or bashful 116 OVERCUNNING - too sly or wily 118 PRETENSELESS - not arrogant, or given to outward show 123 INWARD - introverted, introspective 126 SELF-EFFACING - self-blaming, c r i t i c a l of oneself 0174M APPENDIX H: NEED SCALE 127 128 On this questionnaire, you will find several statements. Please indicate if they are true or false about you, generally speaking. Even if it may appear difficult at times, make a decision about all the statements. True False 1. I avoid responsibilities that will restrict my freedom. 2. When I am irritated, I let it be known. 3. It is very important to me to show people I am interested in their troubles. 4. I respect rules because they guide me. 5. I often take young people under my wing. 6. I don't spend much of my time talking with people I see everyday. 7. People like to tell me their troubles because they know I will help them. 8. I don't like it when friends ask to borrow my possessions. 9. I don't want to be away from my family too much. 10. I have little interest in leading others. 11. I find fault with those in authority over me. 12. Sometimes when a friend is in trouble, I cannot sleep because I want so much to help. 13. Several people have taken advantage of me but I always take it like a good sport. 14. I feel no great concern for the troubles of other people. 15. I make decisions without asking other people for their advice. 16. I have never done volunteer work for charity. 17. I truly enjoy myself at social functions. 18. If someone is in trouble, I try not to become involved. 19. I am not very insistent in an argument j APPENDIX I: OPINION SCALE 1 2 9 OPINION SCALE 130 KEEP THINKING ABOUT YOUR BEST FRIEND YOU'VE JUST TALKED WITH Answer the following questions by c i r c l i n g one of the numbers on the 6 - p o l a t Seal* given with each question. Work quickly. Your f i r s t impression is proDably thg best. ON THE SAME DAY OF THIS CONVERSATON: 1. Would you ask this person to play tennis with you (Assume y o u enjoy this sport)? 1 2 3 4 5 o def in i te ly defirUteiy no y e s 2. Would you accept i f this person asked to travel with y o u by train f o r a 3-hour tr ip? ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 def in i te ly def ini te ly no y e s 3. If this person invited you to see a play, would you accept? 1 2 3 4 5 6 def in i te ly def ini te ly no yes 4. If this person called you just to chat, would you l i s ten for a long time? 1 2 3 4 5 6 def ini te ly . def in i te ly no , yes 5. If this person asked you to go on a 1-week tr ip with her, would you accept? 1 2 3 ft 5 6 def in i te ly def in i te ly no y e s 6. Would you accept an invi tat ion from this person for a game of squash (assume you enjoy this sport)? def in i te ly no defini tely yes 7. Would you accept i f t h i s person asked you to work on a job with her? 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y ye R 8. Would you ask t h i s person to share an apartment with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no def i n i te.'.y yes 9. Would you accept an i n v i t a t i o n for dinner at t h i s person's place? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 10. Would you choose to s i t next to t h i s person on a 3-hour bus t r i p ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 11. Would you i n v i t e t h i s person to your home? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 12. Would you ask t h i s person to work on a school p r o j e c t with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 13. Would you i n v i t e t h i s person to see a movie with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no d e f i n i t e l y yes 14. Would you c a l l up t h i s person i just to tal k ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y no THANK-YOU d e f i n i t e l y yes 0219b/10 OPINION SCALE 132 KEEP THINKING ABOUT THE STRANGER YOU'VE JUST TALKED WITH Answer the fo l l o w i n g questions by c i r c l i n g one of the numbers on the 6-point scale, given with each question. Work q u i c k l y . Your f i r s t impression i s probably the best. ON THE SAME DAY OF THIS CONVERSATION: 1. Would you ask t h i s person to play tennis with you (Assume you enjoy ch.is sport") 1 2 3 __4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 2. Would you accept i f t h i s person asked to t r a v e l with you by t r a i n f o r a 3-hour t r i p ? d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 3. I f t h i s person i n v i t e d you to see a play, would you accept? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 4. If t h i s person c a l l e d you just to chat, would you l i s t e n f o r a long time? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no • yes 5. If t h i s person asked you to go on a 1-week t r i p with her, would you accept? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 6. Would you accept an i n v i t a t i o n from t h i s person f o r a game of squash (assume you enjoy t h i s sport)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y , d e f i n i t e l y no yes 133 7. Would you accept i f t h i s person asked you to work on a job with her? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 8. Would you ask t h i s person to share an apartment with you? 1 2 3 4 5 j d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 9. Would you accept an i n v i t a t i o n f o r dinner at t h i s person's place? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 10. Would you choose to s i t next to t h i s person on a 3-hour bus t r i p ? 1 \ 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 11. Would you i n v i t e t h i s person to your home? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 12. Would you ask t h i s person to work on a school project with you? 1 2 3 4 5 _ 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no • yes 13. Would you i n v i t e t h i s person to see a movie with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes 14. Would you c a l l up t h i s person just to t a l k ? 1 2 _3 4 5 ; 6 d e f i n i t e l y d e f i n i t e l y no yes THANK-YOU 0219b/12 A P P E N D I X J : I M P A C T M E S S A G E I N V E N T O R Y 134 Name : IMPACT MESSAGE INVENTORY (IMI - FORM II - 1976) Sex: 135 Age: Subject number: This inventory contains words, phrases and statements which people use to describe how they f e e l when interacting with another person. You are to respond to this Inventory by indicating how accurately each of the following items describes your reactions to the person you have just talked with. Respond to each item i n terms of how precisely i t describes the feelings t h i s person arouses in you, the behaviors you want to di r e c t toward her when she's around, and/or the descriptions of her that come to mind when you're with her. Indicate how each item describes your actual reactions by using the following scale: l=Not at a l l , 2=Somewhat, 3=Moderately so, 4=Very much so. In f i l l i n g out the following pages, f i r s t imagine you are i n thi s person's presence, i n the process of interacting with her. Focus on the immediate reactions you would be experiencing. Then read each of the following items and f i l l i n the number to the l e f t of the statement which best describes how you would be feeling and/or would want to behave i f you were a c t u a l l y , at this moment, i n the person's presence. At the top of each page, i n bold p r i n t , i s a statement which i s to precede each of the items on that page. Read this statement to yourself before reading each item; i t w i l l aid you in imagining the presence of the person. There are no right or wrong answers since different people react d i f f e r e n t l y to the same person. What we want you to indicate i s the extent to which each item accurately describes what you would be experiencing i f you were interacting right now with the stranger that you have just met. Please be sure to f i l l i n the one number which best answers how accurately that item describes what you would be experiencing. For example, i f an Item i s Somewhat descriptive of your reaction, f i l l i n the number 2 for Somewhat descr i p t i v e : 2 Thank you i n advance for your cooperation. The Impact Message Inventory was developed by Donald J. K i e s l e r , Jack C. Anchin, Michael J. Perkins, Bernard M. Chirico, Edgar M. Kyle, and Edward J. Federman of Vi r g i n i a Commonwealth University, Richmond, V i r g i n i a . Copyright c 1975, 1976 by Donald J. K i e s l e r 0169M/2 Name: IMPACT MESSAGE INVENTORY (IMI - FORM II - 1976) Sex: 136 Age: Subject number: This inventory contains words, phrases and statements which people use to describe how they f e e l when interacting with another person. You are to respond to th i s Inventory by indicating how accurately each of the following items describes your reactions to the person you have just talked with. Respond to each item i n terms of how precisely i t describes the feelings t h i s person arouses In you, the behaviors you want to direct toward her when she's around, and/or the descriptions of her that come to mind when you're with her. Indicate how each item describes your actual reactions by using the following scale: l=Not at a l l , 2=Somewhat, 3=Moderately so, 4=Very much so. In f i l l i n g out the following pages, f i r s t imagine you are i n this person's presence, i n the process of interacting with her. Focus on the immediate reactions you would be experiencing. Then read each of the following items and f i l l i n the number to the l e f t of the statement which best describes how you would be feeling and/or would want to behave i f you were act u a l l y , at t h i s moment, i n the person's presence. At the top of each page, i n bold print, is a statement which i s to precede each of the items on that page. Read this statement to yourself before reading each item; i t w i l l aid you in imagining the presence of the person. There are no right or wrong answers since different people react d i f f e r e n t l y to the same person. What we want you to Indicate i s the extent to which each item accurately describes what you would be experiencing i f you were interacting right now with your best-friend that you have just met. Please be sure to f i l l i n the one number which best answers how accurately that item describes what you would be experiencing. For example, i f an item i s Somewhat descriptive of your reaction, f i l l i n the number 2 for Somewhat descriptive: 2 Thank you i n advance for your cooperation. The Impact Message Inventory was developed by Donald J. K i e s l e r , Jack C. Anchln, Michael J. Perkins, Bernard M. Chirico, Edgar M. Kyle, and Edward J . Federman of V i r g i n i a Commonwealth University, Richmond, V i r g i n i a . Copyright c 1975, 1976 by Donald J. K i e s l e r 0169M/1 1 - Not at a l l 3 - Moderately so 137 2 - Somewhat 4 - Very much so WHEN I AM WITH THIS PERSON SHE MAKES ME FEEL 1. bossed around. 17. embarrassed f o r her. 2. d i s t a n t from her. 18. f r u s t r a t e d because she won't defend her p o s i t i o n . 3. s u p e r i o r to her. 19. loved 4. Important. 20. taken charge o f . 5. e n t e r t a i n e d . 21. d e f e n s i v e . 6. impersonal. 22. c u r i o u s as to why she avoids being alone. 7. l i k e an i n t r u d e r . 23. dominant. 8. i n charge. 24. welcome with her. 9. appreciated by her. 25. as important to her as others i n the group. 10. part of the group when she's 26. l i k e an impersonal audience. around. 11. c o l d . 27. uneasy. 12. forced to shoulder a l l the 28. as though she should do i t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . h e r s e l f . 13. needed. 29. admired. 14. complimented. 30. l i k e I'm j u s t one of many f r i e n d s . 15. as i f she's the c l a s s clown. 16. annoyed. Do Not Write Below This Line 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 0171M/1 1 - Not at a l l 2 - Somewhat 1. 4. 5. 6. 8. 10. 11. 12. 3 - Moderate ly so 4 - Very much so 138 WHEN I AM WITH THIS PERSON SHE MAKES ME FEEL THAT.., _I want to t e l l her to give 17. someone else a chance to make a decision. _I should be cautious about what 18. I say or do around her. _I should be very gentle with 19. her. _I want her to disagree with me 20. sometimes. I could lean on her for support. 21. I want to put her down. I'm going to Intrude. 1 should t e l l her to stand up for herself. I can ask her to carry her share of the load. _I could relax and she'd take charge. I want to stay away from her. _I should avoid putting her on the spot. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 13. I could t e l l her anything and 29. she would agree. I should do something to put her at ease. I want to point out her good qualities to her. _I shouldn't hesitate to c a l l on her. _I should't take her seriously. _I should t e l l her she's often quite inconsiderate. _I want to show her what she does i s self-defeating. _I should t e l l her not to be 60 nervous around me. _I could ask her to do anything. _I want to ask her why she constantly needs to be with other people. I want to protect myself. 14. I can j o i n i n the a c t i v i t i e s . 30. 15. I want to t e l l her she's obnoxious. 16. I want to get away from her. Do Not Write Below This Line I should leave her alone. I should gently help her begin to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for her own decisions. I want to hear what she doesn't l i k e about me. I should l i k e her. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 0171M/2 139 1 - Not at a l l 2 - Somewhat 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 3 - Moderately so 4 - Very much so WHEN I AM WITH THIS PERSON SHE MAKES ME FEEL THAT... she's nervous around me. she wants to be the center of 17. a t t r a c t i o n . 2. she doesn't want to get 18. involved with me. 3. she i s most comfortable with- 19. drawing i n t o the background when an issue a r i s e s . 4. she wants to pick my br a i n . 20. 5. she c a r r i e s her share of the 21. load. she wants me to put her on a 22. pedestal. she'd rather be alone. 23. she thinks she can't do any- 24. thing f or h e r s e l f . her time i s mine If I need i t . 25. she wants everyone to l i k e her. 26. she thinks i t ' s every person 27. f o r himself or h e r s e l f . _8he thinks she w i l l be . 28. r i d i c u l e d i f she as s e r t s h e r s e l f with others. she would accept whatever I 29. s a i d . whatever I d i d would be okay with her. she t r u s t s me. _she thinks other people f i n d hef i n t e r e s t i n g , amusing, f a c i n a t i n g and w i t t y . _she weighs s i t u a t i o n s In terms of what she can get out of them. she'd rather be l e f t alone. she sees me as s u p e r i o r . she's genuinely i n t e r e s t e d i n me. she wants to be with others. she thinks she's always i n co n t r o l of t h i n g s . as f a r as she's concerned, I could j u s t as e a s i l y be someone e l s e . she thinks she i s inadequate. she wants to be h e l p f u l . 30. she wants to be the charming one. she's car r y i n g a grudge. Do Not Write Below This Line she thinks I have most of the answers. she enjoys being with people. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 APPENDIX K: MANIPULATION CHECK FOR SUBJECTS 140 r 141 How r e a l i s t i c d i d the I n t e r a c t i o n appear t o you? 1 2 3 4 5 very q u i t e moderately q u i t e v e r y u n r e a l i s t i c u n r e a l i s t i c r e a l i s t i c r e a l i s t i c r e a l i s t i c How easy was It f o r you t o Imagine t h a t you were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n ? 1 2 3 4 5 v e r y q u i t e moderately q u i t e v e r y d i f f i c u l t d i f f i c u l t easy easy easy Did you Imagine you were t a l k i n g w i t h a: s t r a n g e r . b e s t f r i e n d . ( P l e a s e check one o f the items) p - r c i - d / 2 APPENDIX L: MANIPULATION CHECK (OBJECTIVE RATERS) 142 143 EXPERT OBSERVER'S RATINGS OF THE VIDEOTAPES C o n d i t i o n s Depressed Non- Depressed Rater F r i e n d s S t r a n g e r s F r i e n d s S t r a n g e r s L e v e l o f 1 4 6 1 1 Depress i o n 2 6 6 1 2 3 6 5 1 2 4 6 7 1 2 Mean 5.5 6.0 1.0 1.75 L e v e l o f 1 4 5 6 5 Re a l ism 2 2 4 6 6 3 6 6 4. 4 4 5 6 4 4 Mean 4. 25 5. 25 5.0 5.0 144 EXPERT OBSERVER'S RATINGS OF THE SCENARIOS C o n d i t i o n s Depressed Non-Depressed Rater F r i e n d s S t r a n g e r s F r i e n d s S t r a n g e r s L e v e l o f Depress Ion Hean .1 2 3 4 4 5 5.25 4 5 1 2 1.5 1 2 1.5 L e v e l o f Re a l ism 1 6 2 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 6 3 5 2 Hean 5 4.5 4 4 APPENDIX M: PRETEST MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE MAACL AND W-R MOOD SCALE 145 146 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRETEST MEASURES OF THE MAACL AND W-R MOOD SCALES Source o f V a r i a t i o n W i l k s lambda d f L T a r g e t z Intimacy z Method 0. 99 0 29 I n t i m a c y z Method 0.97 l 30 T a r g e t x Method 0.97 < l 03 T a r g e t x Intimacy 0.99 0 54 Method 0.93 2 94 I n t i m a c y 0.99 « 0 25 T a r g e t 0.97 1 14 * p. < 0.05 APPENDIX N: PRETEST ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL 147 148 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OF THE PRETEST SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL -PLEASURE SCALE Source o f V a r i a t i o n d f MS F T a r g e t x I n t i m a c y x Method 10.00 0. 230 I n t i m a c y x Method 50.63 1. 161 Targ e t x Method » 0. 10 0.002 Targe t x I n t i m a c y 3.03 0.069 Method 21.03 0 . 4B0 I n t i m a c y 4.90 0. 110 Ta r g e t 55. 27 1. 270 E r r o r 152 43.62 149 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OP THE PRETEST SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL - AROUSAL SCALE Source of Variation df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method 28 06 0. 71 Intimacy x Method 43 06 1. 09 Target x Method 20 31 0. 51 Target x Intimacy 0 51 0. 01 Method 29 76 0 . 75 Intimacy 12 66 0. 32 Target 15. 01 0. 38 Error 152 39 49 150 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OF THE PRETEST SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL -DOMINANCE SCALE Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method 15.01 0.55 Intimacy x Method 74.26 2.70 Target x Method > 37.06 1.35 Target x Intimacy > 35. 16 1. 28 Method 8.56 0. 31 Intimacy 15.01 0.55 Target 51. 76 1.88 Error 152 27.53 APPENDIX O: SUMMARY TABLE OF RELIABILITY OF COMPLIANCE AND INITIATION 151 SUMMARY TABLE OF RELIABILITY OF COMPLIANCE AND INITIATION SCALES I n i t i a t i o n Scale Item Mean sd Corrected Item-Total Alpha i f Item Corre la t ion Deleted 1 -3.53 1. .69 0, ,73 0.92 8 2.70 1, ,54 0. ,75 0.92 10 3.73 1. ,63 0, ,78 0.92 11 3.89 1, ,48 0, ,83 0.91 12 3. 24 • 1, ,40 0, ,68 0 . 93 13 4.06 1. ,45 0. ,83 0.91 14 3. 37 1, ,62 0, ,82 0.91 Alpha * 0.93 Compliance Scale Item Mean sd Corrected Item-Total Alpha i f Item Corre la t ion Deleted 2 3.69 1.62 0.82 0.92 3 4.20 1.37 0.81 0.92 4 4.23 1.37 0.77 0.92 6 2.98 1.61 0.80 0.92 6 4.36 1.46 0.75 0.92 7 3.53 1.31 0.71 0.93 9 4.26 1.43 0.80 0.90 Alpha = 0.93 153 INITIATION AND COMPLIANCE COMBINED Item Mean sd C o r r e c t e d I t e m - T o t a l A l p h a i f Item C o r r e l a t i o n D e l e t e d 1 3.53 1 69 0. .78 0.96 2 3.69 1, .62 0. ,84 0.96 3 4.20 1. .37 0 .81 0.96 4 4. 23 1, . 37 0. ,79 0.96 5 2.98 1, .62 0. .84 0.96 6 4. 36 1, .46 0. ,74 0.96 7 3.53 1. , 31 0 , .72 0.96 8 2.70 1, .54 0. ,74 0. 96 9 4. 26 1, .43 0. , 80 0. 96 10 3.73 1. 63 0. ,79 0.96 11 3.89 1. 48 0. 85 0.96 12 3.24 1, 40 0. 68 0.96 13 4.06 1. .45 0. 86 0.96 14 3. 37 1. 62 0. 83 0.96 Alpha » 0.96 APPENDIX P: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 154 REANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS DF ALL VARIABLES Variables Conditions 156 Digressed Friends Stringers V R Non^ Depressed Fritnds Strangers V R HAACL Depression Pre 14.00 5.98 3.55 5.06 13.00 4.32 14.00 6.48 13.50 5.21 14.25 6.35 14.45 5.10 15.60 3.13 Post 21.05 6.01 22.50 5.78 20.65 5.63 18.95 4.29 14.55 4.78 15.00 6.21 19.30 2.81 15.80 2.37 HAACL Anxiety Pre 6.90 3.71 5.40 2.87 6.40 2.92 6.20 3.38 7.05 3.01 6.40 4.01 7.50 2.92 7.45 2.43 Post 9.95 2.28 11.80 4.59 9.15 2.90 8.85 1.95 7.05 2.99 6.40 3.76 7.95 1.93 6.60 2.96 HAACL H o s t i l i t y Pre 8.10 3.47 7.90 2.63 7.25 2.04 7.95 2.85 8.00 3.11 7.50 3.31 8.20 8.95 3.39 1.84 Post 10.70 3.65 11.00 3.14 8.50 3.72 9.50 2.98 7.20 2.94 5.50 3.08 8.15 7.10 3.86 2.95 <U-R) Hood Pre 6.45 1.35 6.45 1.23 6.85 0.87 6.00 0.85 6.15 0.81 6.25 1.37 6.30 6.10 0.73 1.07 Post 4.70 1.12 4.55 0.99 5.10 1.16 5.40 1.09 6.15 0.98 6.15 1.18 5.80 6.45 1.00 0.60 Pleasure Pre 7.90 8.30 8.85 7.10 10.15 4.54 7.85 6.65 7.55 5.03 7.40 8.09 8.25 6.85 6.36 5.75 Post -3.85 6.82 -6.35 3.93 -2.20 7.35 -0.15 4.62 5.40 7.13 3.35 9.03 1.45 6.60 7.47 6.20 Arousal Pre -0.20 7.78 0.10 7.10 1.00 5.08 -2.45 5.43 -0.80 5.88 -0.75 6.49 -1.05 -1.40 5.58 6.43 Post 1.00 5.27 -0.05 5.50 0.05 5.35 -1.25 6.65 3.65 4.33 4.45 5.34 -0.95 1.00 5.58 5.91 Doainance Pre 1.15 6.06 4.55 5.31 2.80 3.96 2.25 6.23 0.65 3.63 0.90 6.05 2.95 1.70 5.33 4.72 Post 5.95 7.15 5.30 6.85 2.60 5.97 3.55 6.56 7.75 4.75 4.05 5.11 3.25 3.80 6.17 3.50 155 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ALL VARIABLES (CONTINUED) Variables Need for Autonomy Conditions Degrmd Friends 1.30 0.52 1.85 1.30 Strangers V R 1.40 0.88 1.63 1.18 Nondepressed Friends Stringers R V R 1.6S 1.18 1.70 0.98 1.70 1.62 1.3S 0.98 Need for Nurturance 6.35 1.42 6.4S 1.35 6.15 1.56 5.90 1.71 6.20 0.95 6.40 1.60 5.60 6.15 1.27 1.22 (IAS) Han-Agreeable 49.80 6.10 50.70 6.57 47.83 6.12 48.25 6.38 50.05 5.30 51.05 4.90 48.00 5.64 50.20 4.22 (IAS) Cold-Quarrel s o u 18.80 19.80 17.55 17.45 5.43 6.30 5.13 5.66 17.20 18.45 19.25 17.00 4.16 6.40 6.43 5.28 I n i t i a t i o n 27.05 28.13 19.65 17.15 7.45 6.79 8.20 6.16 29.25 33.55 8.77 6.07 17.75 23.60 7.62 6.8 C o m p l i a n c e 30.40 31.60 7.44 6.96 22.80 7.74 20.50 6.70 31.45 34.70 7.29 - 5.64 20.70 25.80 7.20 6.81 Friendly-Doiinant 10.58 11.30 2.37 2.16 10.41 1.65 9.11 1.46 12.31 2.50 13.95 2.36 9.76 2.03 12.83 2.22 Friendly-Subiissive 12.51 13.20 1.96 1.51 12.82 1.72 10.88 1.64 13.53 1.95 14.26 2.18 11.32 1.72 12.32 1.81 Hostile-Subiissiv* 14.75 14.72 2.38 2.01 16.02 1.89 13.36 2.51 12.88 2.86 11.98 2.29 12.77 2.68 10.78 2.26 Hostile-Doiinant 10.67 11.21 11.83 12.66 2.18 2.26 2.21 2.35 9.33 8.95 11.76 9.95 2.44 2.28 3.22 2.82 NOTE: Pre * pretest Post = posttest (leans are indicated on f i r s t line, standard deviations are indicated on second l i n e . APPENDIX Q: TABLE OF CORRELATIONS 157 TABIC OF CORRELATIONS; KTVEEN PRETEST HOOD MEASURES Hp AM Hos FHt P U lot Art HAACL feprtisiM — t.mtt 0.6SJW -0.63t« H>.72»» -0.36m -0.44ttt HAACl Aniitty — 0.63JJ* -0.31t« -0.63ltt -0.28M* -0.18H NAACt H o s t i l i t y 0.34IW -O.Sim -0.181$ -0.171 B-R Noorf — 0.74UJ 0.47*» 0.38m Pleasure — - 0.52U» 0.45$tt Dot in UK t 0.27m Arousal t | < 0.5 w i < o.oi m | < o.ooi 159 TABLE Of CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INI ANt OPINION SCALE Inl CM fl F3 HS HOI In i t i a t i o n — - 0.92W 0.4Bttt 0.41W -0.2MW -0.34Mt Cotflianca — - 0.43W 0.40W -O.lStt -0.43O Friendly-Doainamt — 0.73«l -0.11 -0.37M* Fr iMdly-8ubii«iiv» — 0.32WI -0.24ttt HostiU-Subftisiivf 0.48IU Hostilt-Doainant s e < o.os tt g < o.oi m g < 0.001 APPENDIX R: MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE MAACL AND THE W-R MOOD SCALE 160 161 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE MAACL AND WESSMAN-RICKS DEPRESSION-ELATION SCALE Source of Variation Wilks• Lambda df F Target x Intimacy x Method 0. 99 4 0. 31 Intimacy x Method 0. 96 4 1. 56 Target x Method 0. 97 4 1. 04 Target x Intimacy 0. 94 4 2. 39p Method 0. 99 4 0. 42 Intimacy 0. 97 4 1. 31 Target 0. 87 4 5. 34*** Prepost 0 . 62 4 23. 17 * * * Target x Prepost Intimacy x Method x 0. 99 4 0. 34 Intimacy x Method x Prepost 0. 94 4 2. 17p Target x Method x Prepost 0. 96 4 1. 72 Target x Intimacy x Prepost 0. 98 4 0. 77 Method x Prepost 0 . 93 4 2. 91* Intimacy x Prepost 0. 96 4 1. 73 Target x Prepost 0. 75 4 12. 40*** p p_ < 0.08 * p_ < 0.05 *** p_ < 0.001 APPENDIX S: ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE MAACL AND T H E W-R MOOD SCALE 162 163 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE MAACL DEPRESSION SCALE Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 1 5.25 0.19 Intimacy x Method 1 31.88 1. 15 Target z Method 1 3.40 0.12 Target z Intimacy 1 184.53 6.64* Method 1 0.53 0.02 Intimacy 1 15.75 0.57 Target 1 298.38 10.74*** Error 152 27.79 Prepost 1 1553.20 62.68*** Target z Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 0. 25 0.01 Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 104.65 4. 22* Target z Method z Prepost 1 19.50 0.79 Target z Intimacy z Prepost 1 58.65 2. 37 Method z Prepost 1 44.25 1.79 Intimacy z Prepost 1 0.15 0.01 Target z Prepost 1 580.50 23.43*** Error 152 24.78 * a < 0.05 «** p. < o.ooi 164 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE MAACL ANXIETY SCALE Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 1 0. 70 0.06 Intimacy z Method 1 1.13 0. 10 Target z Method 1 8.13 0.75 Target z Intimacy 1 45.75 4. 20* Method 1 0.53 0.02 Intimacy 1 0 . 90 0 .08 Target 1 85.08 7.80** Error 152 10.91 Prepost 1 261.00 30.36*** Target z Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 0 . 25 0.01 Intimacy z Method z Prepost i 28. 20 3. 28p Target z Method z Prepost 1 25.88 3.01 Target z Intimacy z Prepost 1 16.65 1.94 Method z Prepost 1 4.75 0.55 Intimacy z Prepost 1 24.75 2.88 Target z Prepost 1 290.70 33.81*** Error 152 8.60 p E. < 0.08 * p_ < 0.05 ** p. < 0.01 *** £ < 0.001 165 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE MAACL HOSTILITY SCALE Source of Variation df MS F Target z Intimacy Target x Target z Method Intimacy Target Error Prepost Target z Prepost Intimacy Target z Target z Method z Intimacy Target z Error Intimacy z Method z Method Method Intimacy Intimacy z Method z z Method z Prepost Method z Prepost Intimacy z Prepost Prepost z Prepost Prepost 1 152 152 0.11 15.31 23. 11 94.61 0.61 0. 11 132.61 11.56 18.05 0.20 0.80 18.05 18.05 6.05 5.00 217.80 7.81 0. 01 1. 32 2.00 8 . 1 8 * * 0.05 0.01 1 1 . 4 7 * * * 2. 31 0 .03 0.10 2. 31 2. 31 0.77 0.64 2 7 . 8 9 * * * ** R. < 0.01 *** p. < 0.001 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE WESSMAN-RICKS DEPRESSION-ELATION SCALE Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method ! 0.70 0.60 Intimacy z Method 1 0.00 0.00 Target z Method 1 1.9S 1.66 Target z Intimacy 1 1.95 1.66 Method 1 0.03 0.02 Intimacy 1 1.65 1.40 Target 1 18.53 15.73*** Error 152 1. 18 Prepost 1 48.83 47.36*** Target z Prepost Intimacy z Method z 1 0.15 0. 15 Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 6. 33 6. 14* Target z Method z Prepost 1 0.08 0.76 Target z Intimacy z Prepost 1 2. 28 2. 21 Method z Prepost 1 3.83 3.71p Intimacy z Prepost 1 1.95 1.89 Target z Prepost 1 4.33 40.08*** Error 152 1.03 p p_ < 0.08 * p_ < 0.05 *** p_ < 0.001 APPENDIX T: ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL 167 168 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL PLEASURE SCALE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method 1 27.03 0.77 Intimacy x Method 1 65.70 1.86 Target x Method 1 14.03 0.40 Target x Intimacy 1 116.40 3.30p Method 1 0.08 0.00 Intimacy 1 91.38 2.59 Target 1 759.53 21.54*** Error 152 35.27 Prepost 1 4582.88 86.00*** Target x Intimacy x Method x Prepost 1 0.53 0.01 Intimacy x Method x Prepost 1 330.08 6.12* Target x Method x Prepost 1 17.58 0.33 Target x Intimacy x Prepost 1 69.38 1.29 Method x Prepost 1 38.50 0.71 Intimacy x Prepost 1 41.33 0.77 Target x Prepost 1 1449.25 26.88*** Error 152 53.91 p p_ < 0.08 * p_ < 0.05 *** p_ < 0.001 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL AROUSAL SCALE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 1 28.20 0.73 Intimacy z Method 1 13. 20 0. 34 Target z Method 1 79.00 2.03 Target z Intimacy 1 37.13 0.96 Method 1 11.63 0.30 Intimacy 1 193.75 4.99* Target 1 44. 25 1.14 Error 152 38.83 Prepost 1 226.13 7.24** Target z Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 4.75 0.15 Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 31.88 1.02 Target z Method z Prepost 1 6.33 0. 20 Target z Intimacy z Prepost 1 50.40 1.61 Method z Prepost 1 18.53 0.59 Intimacy z Prepost 1 79.00 2.53 Target z Prepost 1 147.15 4.71* Error 152 31.23 * p. < 0.05 ** p_ < 0.01 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL 1 DOMINANCE SCALE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 1 32.51 0.83 Intimacy z Method 1 0. 20 0.005 Target z Method 1 66.61 1.71 Target z Intimacy 1 21.01 0.54 Method 1 1.25 0.03 Intimacy 1 68.45 1.76 Target 1 12.01 0. 31 Error 152 38.98 Prepost 1 465.61 20.19*** Target z Intimacy x Method z Prepost 1 0.05 0.00 Intimacy z Method z Prepost 1 159.61 6.92** Target z Method z Prepost 1 0.20 0.01 Target z Intimacy z Prepost 1 14.45 0.63 Method z Prepost 1 27.61 1. 20 Intimacy z Prepost 1 189.11 8.20* Target z Prepost 1 45.00 1.95 Error 152 23.06 ** p_ < 0.01 *** p_ < 0.001 APPENDIX U: MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE IMI AND THE OPINION SCALE 171 172 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OF THE IMI AMD OPINION SCALE Source of Var ia t ion Wilks Lambda df F Target z Intimacy z Method 0.94 6 1.47 Intimacy z Method 0.94 6 1.45 Target z Method 0.89 6 3.09** Target z Intimacy 0.97 6 0.75 Method 0.83 6 5.05*** Intimacy 0.61 6 15.66*** Target 0.62 6 15.05*** ** p_ < 0.01 *** p_ < 0.001 APPENDIX V: ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE EMI AND THE OPINION SCALE 173 174 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR FRIENDLY-SUBMISSIVE (IMI) Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method i 21.03 6. 31* Intimacy x Method 13.81 4. 14* Target z Method 22.17 6.64* Target x Intimacy 11.56 3.47p Method 0.S6 0.17 Intimacy 94.56 28.36*** Target 10. 25 3.07p Error 152 3. 33 p a - 0 . 0 8 * a < o.oi *** a < o.ooi 175 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR FRIENDLY-DOMINANT (IMI) Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method i 29. 76 6 58* Intimacy z Method » 0.85 0 19 Target z Method 69.78 15 44 « * * Target z Intimacy 4. 33 0 96 Method 42. 37 9 37** Intimacy 90.50 20. 02*** Target 138.76 30. 70*** Error 152 4. 52 * p_ < 0.05 ** p_ < 0.01 *** p_ < 0.001 176 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR HOSTILE-SUBMISSIVE (IMI) Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method i 6.01 1.06 Intimacy z Method 34.69 6. 10* Target z Method » . 0.10 0.02 Target z Intimacy 3.75 0.66 Method 77.70 13.67*** Intimacy 4.90 0.86 Target 271.70 47.80*** Error 152 5.68 * p_ < 0.05 *** p. < 0.001 177 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR HOSTILE-DOMINANT (IMI) Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method 7. 33 1. 17 Intimacy x Method 3. 23 0. 52 Target x Method 31.73 5. 08* Target x Intimacy 1.65 0. 26 Method 1.75 0. 28 Intimacy 91.13 14. 59*** Target 102.00 16. 33*** Error 152 6. 24 * E. < 0.05 *** a < 0.001 178 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR INITIATION (OPINION SCALE) Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 66. 31 1. 25 Intimacy z Method 10.51 0. 20 Target z Method • 333.51 6. 27* Target z Intimacy 23. 26 0.44 Method 191.41 3.60p Intimacy 3970.06 74.69*** Target 369.06 6.94** Error - 152 53. 16 p p_ « 0.06 * p_ < 0.05 ** p_ < 0.01 *** p_ < 0.001 179 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR COMPLIANCE (OPINION SCALE) Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method i 71.56 1. 46 Intimacy z Method 6.81 0. 14 Target z Method 223.26 4. 55* Target z Intimacy > 2. 26 0. 05 Method 131.41 2. 68 Intimacy 3676.81 74. 97** Target 135.06 2. 75p Error 152 49.04 P a " 0.09 * p_ < 0.05 *** p_ < o.ooi APPENDIX W: MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE NEED SCALES 180 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OF NEEDS FOR AUTONOMY AND NURTURANCE Source of V a r i a t i o n Wilks Lambda df F Target z Intimacy z Method 0 99 4 0 21 Intimacy z Method 0 98 0 64 Target z Method 0 98 0 71 Target z Intimacy 0 98 < 0 61 Method 0 98 0 68 Intimacy 0. 93 2 75* Target 0 99 4 0 33 * p. < 0.05 APPENDIX X: TABLE OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NEED MEASURE AND DEPENDENT MEASURES 182 183 TABLE OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NEED MEASURES AND DEPENDENT MEASURES Depre Afixi * Hosti H-R H Initi Coipl F-Dot F-Sub H-Doi H-Sub N*(d for AutoflOiy -0.02 0.02 0.12 -0.02 -0.11 -0.05 -0.01 0.01 0.12 0.16* Need for Nurturine* -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.07 0.25IU 0.27M* 0.151 0.19*1 -0.161 0.02 IAS Man-Agreeable -0.02 -0.10 -0.09 0.05 0.19!t 0.23*1 0.141 0.20U -0.05 -0.21U IAS Cold-Quarrelsoit 0.07 0.08 0.06 -0.08 -0.12 -0.12 -0.08 -0.11 0.06 -0.01 t p/< o.o5 tt g < o.oi tst e < o.ooi Pleasure Arousal Doiinante Need for Autonoiy -0.08 -0.00 0.05 Need for Nurturance -0.08 0.06 0.05 IAS Han-Agreeable -0.02 0.00 0.12 IAS Cold-Quarrel sow -0.06 0.00 -0.01 APPENDIX Y: MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR THE IMI AND THE OPINION SCALE ( 184 185 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OF THE OPINION SCALE AND IMI WITH THE IAS WARM-AGREEABLE AS A COVARIATE Source o f V a r i a t i o n W i l k s Lambda d f F Tar g e t x I n t i m a c y x Method 0 .94 6 1. 42 I n t i m a c y x Method 0, .94 6 1. 46 Target x Method 0. 89 6 3. 02** Tar g e t x I n t i m a c y 0. .97 6 0. 80 Method 0. 83 6 5. 04 * * * In t i m a c y 0. 63 6 14. 55*** Target 0. .62 6 14. 83*** * p_ < 0.01 *** P < 0.001 APPENDIX Z: ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE IMI AND THE OPINION SCALE WITH THE IAS-WA AS A COVARIATE i 186 187 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR FRIENDLY-SUBMISSIVE (INI) WITH THE IAS HARM-AGREEABLE AS A COVARIATE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method i 19.90 6.05* Intimacy x Method 14. 18 4. 31* Target x Method 20.83 6.33** Target x Intimacy 12. 28 3.73p Method 0. 18 0.06 Intimacy 82.50 25.08*** Target 9.02 2.74 Error 151 3. 29 p p_ < 0.08 • p_ < 0.05 ** p_ < 0.01 *** p_ < 0.001 188 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE POR FRIENDLY-DOMINANT (IMI) WITH THE IAS WARM-AGREEABLE AS A COVARIATE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method i 29. 13 6.42** Intimacy z Method 0. 89 0. 20 Target z Method 68. 65 15.14*** Target z Intimacy 4. 53 1.00 Method 40. 11 8.84** Intimacy 83. 88 18.49*** Target 136. 24 30.03*** E r r o r 151 4. 54 ** p_ < 0.01 *** p. < 0.001 189 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR HOSTILE-SUBMISSIVE (IMI) VITH THE IAS HARM-AGREABLE AS A COVARIATE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method » 6.02 1.05 Intimacy z Method 34.65 6.06* Target z Method 0. 10 0.02 Target z Intimacy 3.73 0.65 Method 76.66 13.40*** Intimacy 4.87 0.85 Target 270.42 47.27*** Error 151 5.72 * e. < 0.05 *** a < o.ooi 190 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR HOSTILE-DOMINANT (IMI) WITH THE IAS HARM-AGREEABLE AS A COVARIATE Source of V a r i a t i o n df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 6. 34 1.03 Intimacy z Method 2.96 0.48 Target z Method 29. 35 4.79* Target z Intimacy * 2.10 0.34 Method 0.67 0.11 Intimacy 74.34 12.13*** Target 95.69 15.62*** Error 151 6. 13 * a < 0.05 *•* a < o . o o i 191 AMOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR INITIATION (OPINION SCALE) WITH THE IAS WARM-AGREEABLE AS A COVARIATE Source of Var ia t ion df MS F Target x Intimacy x Method i 61. 14 1.15 Intimacy x Method 11. 37 0.21 Target x Method 320.06 6.03* Target x Intimacy 26.01 0.49 Method 167.11 3. 15p Intimacy 3700.26 69.75*** Target 348.62 6.57** Error 151 53.05 P a < 0.08 * a < 0.05 ** a < 0.01 *** a < 0.001 1 9 2 ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR COMPLIANCE (OPINION SCALE) WITH THE IA8 HARM-AGREEABLE AS A COVARIATE Source of Variat ion df MS F Target z Intimacy z Method 63.74 1. 32 Intimacy z Method 7.85 0. 16 Target z Method 207.46 4. 29* Target z Intimacy 3.67 0.08 Method 103.38 2. 14 Intimacy 3346.19 69.19*** Target 117.83 2.44 Error 151 48.36 * a < 0.05 * * * a < o.ooi 

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.831.1-0097262/manifest

Comment

Related Items