Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Behavioral, cognitive, motivational, and physiological aspects of shyness in a disclosure reciprocity… Meleshko, Kenneth George Andrew 1989

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 M52.pdf [ 4.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097873.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097873-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097873-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097873-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097873-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097873-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097873-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097873-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097873.ris

Full Text

BEHAVIORAL, COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SHYNESS IN A DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY PARADIGM By KENNETH GEORGE ANDREW MELESHKO B.A., The University of Alberta, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 CD Kenneth George Andrew Meleshko, 1989 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. Department of Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 1 August 1989  DE-6 (2/88) PAGE i i Abstract The present study examined b e h a v i o r a l , c o g n i t i v e , m o t i v a t i o n a l , and p h y s i o l o g i c a l d i f ferences between shy and non-shy female subjects involved in a s o c i a l encounter with a same-sex confederate. The encounter took the form of a s t ruc tured dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n within a t r a d i t i o n a l d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y paradigm. The r e s u l t s showed that the shy subjects spoke for shorter periods of time and maintained a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y middle l e v e l of int imacy, regardless of what had been d i sc losed to them f i r s t . Thus, they overdisc losed to the low intimacy confederate and underdisclosed to the high intimacy one as compared to the non-shy subjec t s . The shy subjects were more negative about themselves and expected the ir partners to a l so be more negative about them. Both shy and non-shy subjec t s , however, were equa l ly p o s i t i v e about t h e i r par tners . The shy subjects a l so reported higher l eve l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l , and indicated that they used a pro tec t ive s t y l e of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n as compared to the a c q u i s i t i v e s t y l e used by the non-shy subjec ts . The confederate and observer ra t ings of the subjects presented somewhat d i f f e r e n t patterns of r e s u l t s , d i f ferences which were interpreted within the larger framework of the study. Taken together, the r e s u l t s suggest that a complex r e l a t i o n s h i p between b e h a v i o r a l , c o g n i t i v e , mot iva t iona l , and p h y s i o l o g i c a l factors may ex i s t which contr ibutes to the in terpersona l d i f f i c u l t i e s of the shy i n d i v i d u a l . PAGE i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i L i s t of Tables i v L i s t of Figures v Acknowledgements v i I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Shyness 1 S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e 6 S e l f - P r e s e n t a t i o n 12 The Present Study 14 Hypotheses 17 Method 21 Subjects and Design Overview 21 Stimulus M a t e r i a l s and Procedure 22 Dependent V a r i a b l e s 28 Results 32 Discuss i o n 49 References 63 L i s t of Appendixes 68 Appendix 69 PAGE i v Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. L i s t of Tables Subjects* Ratings of S e l f : I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s Subjects* Ratings of Partner: I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s Subjects' Ratings of R e f l e c t e d S e l f : I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s Confederates' Ratings of Subjects: I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s Observers' Ratings of Subjects: I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s Followup U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s : Intimacy of the Subjects' D i s c l o s u r e s Intimacy Values of the Subjects' D i s c l o s u r e s Simple Main E f f e c t s for the Shyness by Intimacy I n t e r a c t i o n : Jourard Intimacy Values Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r the Shyness by Intimacy I n t e r a c t i o n : O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating P h y s i o l o g i c a l Arousal Factor M a t r i x Factor Matrix for the P r o t e c t i v e and A c q u i s i t i v e S e l f - P r e s e n t a t i o n S t y l e Scale Subjects' Self-Report Measures: Followup U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on the Main E f f e c t f o r Shyness Confederate and Observer Ratings of the Subjects: Followup U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on the Main E f f e c t f o r Shyness 35 36 36 37 37 40 40 42 42 43 45 46 49 PAGE V L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e 1. Intimacy of the S u b j e c t s ' D i s c l o s u r e s as a f u n c t i o n of Shyness and the Intimacy of the Confederates' D i s c l o s u r e s 41 Panel A Jourard Intimacy Values Panel B O v e r a l l Intimacy Ratings PAGE v i Acknowledgements The author is e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to Lynn Alden for her help and encouragement during every stage of t h i s p r o j e c t , and would l i k e to thank D i m i t r i Papageorgis and Dan Perlman for t h e i r advice and suggest ions. I am a lso indebted to Nadina Dodd, A r g i r o K o t s a l i s , Terry-Ann Sander, and C h r i s t i n e Shie lds for t h e i r able and dedicated serv ice as research a s s i s t a n t s . PAGE 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n An e a r l y observation about human behavior i s contained i n A r i s t o t l e ' s remark i n h i s P o l i t i c s : "man i s by nature a s o c i a l animal", an observation t h a t continues to be v a l i d to t h i s day. A r a p i d l y changing and i n c r e a s i n g l y mobile s o c i e t y , however, has n e c e s s i t a t e d the development of important and ongoing personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s beyond those of t r a d i t i o n a l groups and f a m i l y t i e s . This has r e s u l t e d i n an increased i n t e r e s t i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s that p e r t a i n t o the process and development of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . One of the most r e l e v a n t and pervasive problems i n the development of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s shyness, which can r e s u l t i n t i m i d and o f t e n i n a p p r o p r i a t e overt behaviors as w e l l as emotional, p h y s i o l o g i c a l , and c o g n i t i v e d i s t r e s s i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Although much has been learned about shyness to t h i s point i n time, much i s s t i l l unknown about e x a c t l y what makes the shy i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n t from those who are not shy. This paper, i n a d d i t i o n to reviewing the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e on shyness, w i l l a l s o examine and review the l i t e r a t u r e on i n t e r p e r s o n a l judgements, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , and s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n as i t r e l a t e s to shyness. F u r t h e r , i t w i l l present the r e s u l t s of a study which i n t e g r a t e d these various dimensions i n an attempt to increase our understanding of shyness. Shyness The development of shyness research can be viewed i n terms of three temporally overlapping, but c o n c e p t u a l l y and methodologically d i s t i n c t phases (Jones, Cheek, & B r i g g s , 1986). F i r s t , there was the d e s c r i p t i v e phase, i n which shyness was analyzed by medical and p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s on the PAGE 2 basis of casual and c l i n i c a l observations. Harry Campbell, a B r i t i s h p h y s i c i a n , d e l i v e r e d a d e t a i l e d report on "morbid shyness" to the B r i t i s h Medical S o c i e t y i n 1896 i n which he considered as p o s s i b l e causes and consequences of shyness such f a c t o r s as h e r e d i t y , excessive s e l f -consciousness, the d i s r u p t i o n of s o c i a l encounters, and impaired r e l a t i o n s h i p development (Campbell, 1896). Another d e s c r i p t i v e approach to shyness was e x e m p l i f i e d by psychoanalytic w r i t e r s such as Hampton (1927) and Lewinsky (1941). Lewinsky, f o r i n s t a n c e , concluded t h a t shyness represented unconsciously blocked aggression among n a r c i s s i s t i c and r i g i d p e r s o n a l i t y types. The second phase i n the study of shyness was i t s p o p u l a r i z a t i o n . For a v a r i e t y of s o c i a l reasons i n recent years, i n d i v i d u a l s are more than ever r e q u i r e d t o i n i t i a t e new f r i e n d s h i p s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s outside of t r a d i t i o n a l groups and f a m i l y t i e s . This i n turn has led to shyness becoming an i n c r e a s i n g l y important, and d i s r u p t i v e , c o n d i t i o n . Surveys i n d i c a t e t h a t at l e a s t 90% of i n d i v i d u a l s report f e e l i n g shy o c c a s i o n a l l y and 40% i n d i c a t e that shyness sometimes c o n s t i t u t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t problem f o r them (Zimbardo, 1977). As a r e s u l t , i n the mid to l a t e 1970s s e v e r a l popular books on shyness which contained both e m p i r i c a l evidence and commonsensical advice were w r i t t e n f o r the general p u b l i c . Some of the more popular books were Girodo's Shv? You  Don't Have to Be (1978), Help for Shv People and Anyone Els e Who Ever F e l t 111  at Ease on E n t e r i n g a Room F u l l of Strangers ( P h i l l i p s , 1980), Overcoming  Shyness (Powell, 1979), Conquer Shyness (Teear, 1977), Shy Person's Guide to a  Happier Love L i f e (Weber & M i l l e r , 1979), Shyness: What i t i s and What to do  About i t (Zimbardo, 1977), and The Shy C h i l d (Zimbardo & Radl, 1981). The t h i r d , and ongoing, phase i n the study of shyness i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s of the c o n s t r u c t and has been marked by an increase i n PAGE 3 the number of reports published i n research j o u r n a l s . As noted p r e v i o u s l y , p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l , negative c o g n i t i o n s , and b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s have a l l been suggested as parameters of importance i n shyness. Although researchers have only r e c e n t l y begun to i d e n t i f y the p o t e n t i a l causes and consequences of shyness, they have al r e a d y produced a f a i r l y voluminous body of l i t e r a t u r e . Therefore, only m a t e r i a l which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y germane to the present study w i l l be examined i n t h i s paper. The information with respect to the r o l e of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l i n the e t i o l o g y and maintenance of shyness i s somewhat meagre. In one of the few extant s t u d i e s , Borkovec, Stone, O'Brien, and Kaloupek (1974) found t h a t h e a r t r a t e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n h e t e r o s o c i a l l y anxious males than non-h e t e r o s o c i a l l y anxious males during a b r i e f i n t e r a c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , elevated a r o u s a l (increased h e a r t r a t e ) was noted by Lang, L e v i n , M i l l e r , and Kozak (1983). In a study which involved a s e r i e s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t a s k s , B e i d e l , Turner, and Dancu (1985) found that p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i v i t y occurred f o r the shy subjects i n most of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . They reported, however, that i t a l s o occurred to some extent among the non-shy s u b j e c t s . B e i d e l and her colleagues f e l t t hat the p h y s i o l o g i c a l mechanism th a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the groups was l a t e n c y to h a b i t u a t i o n . Previous research suggests t h a t shyness invol v e s a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and nonverbal behaviors; s p e c i f i c a l l y , l e s s e f f e c t i v e and l e s s responsive c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s t y l e s . P i l k o n i s (1977) d i v i d e d c o l l e g e students i n t o shy and non-shy groups and found that the shy male su b j e c t s tended to t a l k l e s s , i n i t i a t e fewer conversations, and look l e s s at the other person during an unstructured s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Daley (1978) found that shy i n d i v i d u a l s made l e s s eye contact and had a lower frequency of response than d i d t h e i r non-shy counterparts. S i m i l a r l y , Mandel and Shrauger (1980) PAGE 4 reported that t h e i r shy and non-shy groups d i d i n f a c t d i f f e r i n t h e i r s o c i a l behavior, i n c l u d i n g t h e i r l a t e n c y to respond and time spent conversing. They a l s o found that shy subjects engaged i n l e s s eye contact, smiled l e s s , and evidenced l e s s f a c i a l expressiveness. Cheek and Buss (1981) reported t h a t during unstructured i n t e r a c t i o n s , shy subjects tended to t a l k l e s s , a v ert t h e i r gaze more, and engage i n more s e l f - m a n i p u l a t i o n ( i . e . touching t h e i r face) than d i d t h e i r non-shy counterparts. Shy as compared to non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s have a l s o been shown t o e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of utterances that express o b j e c t i v e information (Leary, Johnson, & Knight, 1984). Recent c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l research has discovered s e v e r a l other d i f f e r e n c e s between shy and non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s . Shy i n d i v i d u a l s have been found to n e g a t i v e l y evaluate the q u a l i t y of t h e i r s o c i a l performance (Clark & Arkowitz, 1975), set e x c e s s i v e l y high standards for the e v a l u a t i o n of that performance (Craighead, K i m b a l l , & Rehak, 1979), remember more negative information about themselves (O'Banion & Arkowitz, 1977), endorse a higher frequency of negative s e l f statements (Cacioppo, Glass, & M e r l u z z i , 1979), and engage i n p a t h o l o g i c a l patterns of a t t r i b u t i o n about the causes of s o c i a l successes and f a i l u r e s (Girodo, Dotzenroth, & S t e i n , 1981). In terms of the perception of shyness by others, P i l k o n i s (1977) found that shy as compared to non-shy c o l l e g e students were rated by observers as more shy, l e s s r e l a x e d , l e s s a s s e r t i v e , and l e s s f r i e n d l y . Mandel and Shrauger (1980) reported t h a t shy subjects were rated as l e s s p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e and l e s s i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y s k i l l f u l than t h e i r non-shy counterparts. S i m i l a r l y , Cheek and Buss (1981) reported t h a t the shyness scores of female dyadic p a r t i c i p a n t s were c o r r e l a t e d with partner r a t i n g s f o r shy, tense, i n h i b i t e d , and u n f r i e n d l y . In a study of videotaped monologues, Jones, PAGE 5 Cavert , and Indart (1983) found that a targe t ' s shyness scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y corre la t ed with judges' ra t ings of shyness and anxiety and i n v e r s e l y corre la t ed with rat ings of poise and t a l e n t . Another re levant issue to the ro l e of shyness in i n i t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s concerns the accuracy with which shy persons process s o c i a l feedback and, hence, the degree to which they are aware of t h e i r in terpersona l impact on others . It appears that a s er i e s of s tudies by Jones (Jones, 1981; Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981; Jones, Hobbs, & Hockenbury, 1982; Jones, Sansone, & Helm, 1983) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y re levant here in l i g h t of the moderate c o r r e l a t i o n s between shyness and lone l iness that have been reported by severa l inves t iga tors (Cheek & Busch, 1981; Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981; Maroldo, 1981). Jones found that high lone ly as compared to low lone ly subjects tended to: rate themselves more negat ive ly fo l lowing dyadic in terac t ions with s trangers , rate t h e i r partners more negat ive ly , and indicate that they expected t h e i r partners to rate them more negat ive ly . Despite t h e i r expectations however, l one ly subjects were r a r e l y d i f f e r e n t i a l l y judged on any of several r a t i n g s ca l e s . A study by Jones and Briggs (1984) had shy and non-shy subjects p a r t i c i p a t e in various group a c t i v i t i e s a f ter which they were asked to rate themselves and t h e i r fe l low group members on severa l in terpersona l dimensions ( i . e . f r i e n d l y , t a l k a t i v e , warm, e t c . ) . The ra t ings were made from each of three perspec t ives : (1) s e l f ra t ings (2) r e f l e c t e d s e l f ra t ings—that i s , how the p a r t i c i p a n t s expected to be rated by other members of t h e i r group (3) ra t ings of other group members. Their r e s u l t s showed that for the most part shyness was inverse ly c o r r e l a t e d with s e l f and r e f l e c t e d s e l f r a t i n g s . That i s , high shyness was associated with r a t i n g oneself and expecting to be rated in a negative fashion ( i . e . less f r i e n d l y , less warm, e t c . ) . In PAGE 6 a d d i t i o n , shyness was s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with r a t i n g others more n e g a t i v e l y , and w i t h more negative r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d by other group members. A recent study u t i l i z e d a v a r i a t i o n of the experimental paradigm employed i n the Jones and B r i g g study (Alden & Meleshko, 1988). Subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s t r u c t u r e d dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n s which included a l l four p o s s i b l e combinations of shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s . F o l l o w i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n , they were asked to r a t e themselves ( s e l f r a t i n g ) , t h e i r partner (partner r a t i n g ) , and themselves as they thought t h e i r partner would r a t e them ( r e f l e c t e d s e l f r a t i n g ) on s e v e r a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s ( i . e . a t t r a c t i v e , f r i e n d l y , e t c . ) . Consistent w i t h previous r e s u l t s , the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d that the shy subjects perceived themselves, and expected others to perceive them, i n a negative f a s h i o n . This occurred, however, i n the absence of any a c t u a l negative e v a l u a t i o n by t h e i r p a r t n e r s . A second f i n d i n g which a l s o was not c o n s i s t e n t with previous r e s u l t s , was t h a t the shy subjects d i d not r a t e t h e i r partners more n e g a t i v e l y than d i d t h e i r non-shy counterparts. S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e R e c i p r o c a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s a form of shared i n t e r p e r s o n a l exchange that i s seen as necessary i n the development and maintenance of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . People cannot enter i n t o s o c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s with others without r e v e a l i n g something of themselves, or being a f f e c t e d by what others r e v e a l to them. I t i s t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l nature of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e t h a t has made i t such an important c l a s s of behavior. There are a v a r i e t y of conceptual d e f i n i t i o n s employed i n the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e l i t e r a t u r e , each d e f i n i n g a somewhat d i f f e r e n t subset of s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior. However, i n PAGE 7 essence, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s the act of v e r b a l l y r e v e a l i n g oneself to another and i n a broad sense i t may best be defined as "any information about him/herself which Person A communicates to Person B" (Cozby, 1973). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , as a concept, o r i g i n a t e d i n the e x i s t e n t i a l and phenomenological p h i l o s o p h i e s of H u s s e r l , Heidegger, S a r t r e , Buber, and Merleau-Ponty (Chelune, 1979). In terms of i t s p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r i g i n s , i t can be traced back to 1948 when Kurt Lewin speculated about d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n i t i a l openness with s t r a n g e r s , and intimacy between f r i e n d s , i n Germany and the United States (Lewin, 1948). One of Lewin's students, i n f l u e n c e d by h i s p e r s o n a l i t y theory (Lewin, 1935), developed an instrument to measure the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of s e l f - i n f o r m a t i o n . She considered an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to r e v e a l a p a r t i c u l a r item of information as an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i t r e s i d e d i n a more c e n t r a l l a y e r of the p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e (Rickers-Ovsiankina, 1956). A f t e r t h i s e a r l y i n t e r e s t of Lewin and h i s student however, i n t e r e s t i n s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e waned. Unlike the o r i g i n s of many other concepts i n psychology, the beginnings of extensive research i n t o the concept of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can be a t t r i b u t e d to one i n d i v i d u a l , Sidney M. Jourard. In the l a t e 1950s, Jourard became i n t e r e s t e d i n studying the mentally healthy p e r s o n a l i t y rather than the maladjusted one. I n i t i a l l y Jourard, a p r a c t i s i n g p s y c h o t h e r a p i st, was p r i m a r i l y concerned with the i m p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e for mental h e a l t h . Although Jourard suggested that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e and mental h e a l t h was c u r v i l i n e a r , with e i t h e r too much or too l i t t l e d i s c l o s u r e being a s s o c i a t e d w i t h poor mental h e a l t h , he concluded that i n most instances the more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e the b e t t e r (Jourard, 1958a). Jourard a s s e r t e d t h a t f u l l and open communication promotes growth and " i n a h e a l t h y i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p an i n d i v i d u a l i s w i l l i n g and able to PAGE 8 communicate a l l of h i s r e a l s e l f to the other person" (Jourard, 1958b). Correspondingly, n e u r o t i c i n d i v i d u a l s are unable to know or d i s c l o s e t h e i r r e a l s e l v e s . Jourard's (1959) demonstration of the r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t , which i s the tendency of persons i n a d i s c l o s u r e exchange to match each other i n terms of intimacy and amount, may be considered the point a t which the i n t e r e s t i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e on the par t of p s y c h o l o g i s t s was r e k i n d l e d . Since t h a t time, s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has become an important area f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l research, p r i m a r i l y i n response to the provocative f i n d i n g s of Jourard's s t u d i e s . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s used to r e f e r to both a p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t and a process v a r i a b l e that occurs during i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s (Cozby, 1973). The i n i t i a l p e r s o n a l i t y research involved numerous attempts by Jourard and others to demonstrate a r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c l o s u r e and personal adjustment. Many of the s t u d i e s used the Jourard S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e Questionnaire (JSDQ) as the measure of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and the Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (MMPI) as the index of mental h e a l t h . The only c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g from these s t u d i e s was that low d i s c l o s e r s scored higher on the MMPI s o c i a l i n t r o v e r s i o n ( S i ) subscale (Jourard, 1971; Mullaney, 1964). Jourard (1971) found a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c l o s u r e (on the JSDQ) and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. In a d d i t i o n , a study using the Pedersen P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory (Pedersen & Higbee, 1969) and another using a c l i n i c a l p opulation (Mayo, 1968) found that d i s c l o s u r e on the JSDQ was ne g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to ne u r o t i c i s m . P e r s o n a l i t y researchers have a l s o examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c l o s u r e and more s p e c i f i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . E x t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l , on the Rotter I-E Scale , was as s o c i a t e d with l e s s reported d i s c l o s u r e on the JSDQ (Ryckman, Sherman, & Burgess, 1973). D i s c l o s u r e was n e g a t i v e l y PAGE 9 c o r r e l a t e d w i t h need for approval as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale among c o l l e g e females (Brundage, Derlega, & Cash, 1977; Burhenne & M i r e l s , 1970) and males i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d i n a p s y c h i a t r i c h o s p i t a l (Anchor, V o j t i s e k , & Berger, 1972). A study with i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d s c h i z o p h r e n i c s found that t r a i t a n x i e t y was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with d i s c l o s u r e (Anchor, V o j t i s e k , & P a t t e r s o n , 1973). In a d d i t i o n , a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between scores on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and d i s c l o s u r e among c o l l e g e females was a l s o found (Duckro, Duckro, & B e a l , 1976). A study using a be h a v i o r a l measure of d i s c l o s u r e , however, found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c l o s u r e and t r a i t a n x i e t y and a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c l o s u r e and s t a t e a n x i e t y (Post, Wittmaier, & Radin, 1978). In ge n e r a l , most of these p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e c o r r e l a t e s have not been r e p l i c a t e d when behav i o r a l measures of d i s c l o s u r e are used rather than the JSDQ (Vondracek, 1969). Two f i n d i n g s , the " r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t " and the " l i k i n g e f f e c t " d i d emerge from the e a r l y s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e research (see reviews by C h a i k i n & Derlega, 1974; Cozby, 1973). These two e f f e c t s served i n t u r n to s t i m u l a t e research i n t e r e s t i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a process v a r i a b l e i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t , or as i t i s sometimes known the dyadic e f f e c t , r e f e r s to the tendency of a t a r g e t person to match the o r i g i n a l speaker's l e v e l of d i s c l o s u r e . The l i k i n g e f f e c t i s the tendency of a r e c i p i e n t to evaluate more p o s i t i v e l y , and to be more a t t r a c t e d t o , a speaker who d i s c l o s e s more than to one who d i s c l o s e s l e s s . The t y p i c a l l a b o r a t o r y r e c i p r o c i t y experiment places the subj e c t i n a d i s c l o s u r e exchange s i t u a t i o n o s t e n s i b l y to study c o n v e r s a t i o n , acquaintanceship, or f i r s t impressions. The subject's partner i s a confederate who s t a r t s the dyadic exchange by making e i t h e r a high or a low PAGE 10 intimacy d i s c l o s u r e . The sub j e c t ' s own d i s c l o s u r e a f t e r l i s t e n i n g to the confederate's d i s c l o s u r e i s the dependent v a r i a b l e . Measures of l i k i n g and a t t r a c t i o n are a l s o f r e q u e n t l y obtained. The r e s u l t s of t h i s manipulation are as robust and r e l i a b l e as any found i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e : s u bjects d i s c l o s e more i n t i m a t e l y a f t e r hearing the high intimacy d i s c l o s u r e and tend to give more p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s to the high intimacy confederate (Archer, 1979). While most of the i n i t i a l s t u d i e s i n t h i s area focussed on the a c t u a l mechanisms of d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y and the l i k i n g e f f e c t , s e v e r a l more recent s t u d i e s have attempted to examine the i n f l u e n c e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s may play. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n t e r e s t has been shown i n determining which i n d i v i d u a l s may d i s p l a y n o n r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e patterns and unusual i n t e r p e r s o n a l judgments. A study by C h a i k i n , Derlega, Bayma, and Shaw (1975) examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between n e u r o t i c i s m and d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y . Based on the r e s u l t s from a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study by Mayo (1968) of d i s c l o s u r e among h o s p i t a l i z e d n e u r o t i c s , these i n v e s t i g a t o r s suggested that n o n r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e patterns would be more common f o r n e u r o t i c s than f o r normals. College students s c o r i n g high and low on the n e u r o t i c i s m dimension of the Maudsley P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory were s e l e c t e d as " n e u r o t i c s " or "normals", r e s p e c t i v e l y , and were asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a study i n which they communicated with a confederate who made e i t h e r a low or high intimacy d i s c l o s u r e . As p r e d i c t e d , the confederate's d i s c l o s u r e intimacy l e v e l i n t e r a c t e d with n e u r o t i c i s m . Normal subjects r e c i p r o c a t e d the intimacy of the confederate, d i s c l o s i n g more h i g h l y to the intimate than to the s u p e r f i c i a l confederate. Neurotic s u b j e c t s , however, were unaffected by the confederate's intimacy as t h e i r d i s c l o s u r e s were v i r t u a l l y the same i n both c o n d i t i o n s . The authors PAGE 11 f e l t that n e u r o t i c s e i t h e r have d i f f i c u l t y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g s i t u a t i o n a l cues for appropriate d i s c l o s u r e , or t h e i r preoccupation w i t h t h e i r own problems simply i n t e r f e r e s with an appropriate response. Chelune, S u l t a n , and Williams (1980) showed that f o r female s u b j e c t s , l o n e l i n e s s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to an un w i l l i n g n e s s to s e l f - d i s c l o s e to others i n h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . Solano, Batten, and P a r i s h (1982) i n v e s t i g a t e d the a c t u a l d i s c l o s u r e behavior of l o n e l y and non-lonely c o l l e g e students (as measured by the UCLA Loneliness S c a l e ) . They hypothesized that l o n e l y people not only perceive themselves as not having d i s c l o s e d , but a l s o a c t u a l l y do have d i f f i c u l t y i n g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g personal i n f o r m a t i o n . Their r e s u l t s showed that l o n e l y and non-lonely s u b j e c t s do indeed d i f f e r i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , both s e l f - p e r c e i v e d and a c t u a l . A recent study examined s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among shy and non-shy female c o l l e g e students (Alden & Meleshko, 1988). This study d i d not u t i l i z e a confederate, but instead had the subjects p a r t i c i p a t e i n s t r u c t u r e d dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n s which included a l l four p o s s i b l e combinations of shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s . In terms of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , there were no d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups i n regard to e i t h e r past s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e or the intimacy l e v e l of the t o p i c s they d i s c l o s e d on, with both shy and non-shy subjects choosing r e l a t i v e l y non-intimate t o p i c s . The d u r a t i o n of the su b j e c t ' s d i s c l o s u r e s , however, was s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by t h e i r own s t a t u s as w e l l as the s t a t u s of t h e i r p a r t n e r . The non-shy su b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d longer d u r a t i o n s than d i d the shy s u b j e c t s . The s t a t u s of t h e i r partner, however, a f f e c t e d the dur a t i o n of both the non-shy and shy s u b j e c t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the non-shy subjects spoke for s h o r t e r periods of time when they i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a shy partner than when they i n t e r a c t e d with a non-shy partner; the shy subjects spoke f o r longer PAGE 12 periods of time when they i n t e r a c t e d with a non-shy partner than when they i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a shy one. The c u r r e n t study i s an extension of t h i s recent study by Alden and Meleshko. In the present study, however, an experimental c o l l a b o r a t o r was used to manipulate the intimacy of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , thereby more c l o s e l y approximating the c l a s s i c d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y paradigm. S e l f - P r e s e n t a t i o n According to s o c i o a n a l y t i c theory, there i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between the motive f o r acceptance, approval, and p o p u l a r i t y ("getting along") and the motive to acquire power, c o n t r o l , and s t a t u s ("getting ahead") (Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985). Because the s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s instrumental t o g e t t i n g along are o f t e n incompatible with the s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s f o r g e t t i n g ahead, i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s are i n h e r e n t l y problematic. In most s i t u a t i o n s , to "get along" only r e q u i r e s that an i n d i v i d u a l act i n such a way as to avoid d i s a p p r o v a l . To "get ahead" however, an i n d i v i d u a l may need to adopt more a c t i v e and manipulative forms of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . Another theory ( A r k i n , 1981), which post u l a t e d t h a t there are two a f f e c t i v e - m o t i v a t i o n a l bases f o r s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n , i s both more e x p l i c i t and more amenable t o e m p i r i c a l v a l i d a t i o n . A r k i n (1981) e l u c i d a t e d two s t y l e s of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n , p r o t e c t i v e and a c q u i s i t i v e , which a r i s e from two separate and unrelated m o t i v a t i o n a l systems. P r o t e c t i v e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n i s an attempt to avoid d i s a p p r o v a l and i s as s o c i a t e d with s o c i a l a n x i e t y , r e t i c e n c e , and conformity, while a c q u i s i t i v e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n serves to enhance favoured treatment i n future circumstances. Although the p r o t e c t i v e and a c q u i s i t i v e PAGE 13 self-presenters may behave similarly in a particular social situation, they are guided by different motives, and their attendant affective reactions can therefore be expected to be different. In order to test Arkin's (1981) theory of self-presentation, i t was necessary to develop an adequate measure of subjects' tendencies to adopt each of the two styles. A study by Wolfe, Lennox, and Cutler (1986) attempted to test Arkin's theory by u t i l i z i n g the Concern for Appropriateness scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) and the 13-item Self-Monitoring scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). Specifically, they felt that the Concern for Appropriateness scale and its two subscales, Protective Social Comparison and Protective Variability, would enable them to examine protective self-presentation; and the Self-Monitoring scale and its two subscales, Ability to Modify Self-Presentation and Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviour of Others, would enable them to measure acquisitive self-presentation. In their study, Wolfe et al (1986) demonstrated that the two scales were essentially orthogonal, and correlated with measures of self-esteem, social anxiety, shyness, and sociability in the directions expected of measures of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. It was essential that the two scales be orthogonal, as they are supposedly measuring two separate and independent systems of motivation. While these results were promising, they did not go very far toward supporting the conjecture that the Lennox and Wolfe scales are valid measures of the motives of self-presentation—something that the authors acknowledge. In the present study, we wished to examine the concepts of protective and acquisitive self-presentation in the context of self-disclosure. Social situations involving self-disclosure seem especially l i k e l y to evoke these two styles of self-presentation. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that PAGE 14 although the two types of s e l f - p r e s e n t e r s may a c t u a l l y e x h i b i t f a i r l y s i m i l a r behaviors, t h e i r motives and attendant a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s may be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . This t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n may help e x p l a i n why, although v i r t u a l l y no one would argue t h a t the i n t e r p e r s o n a l experience i s v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r shy and non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s , some s t u d i e s have found very l i t t l e In the way of a c t u a l b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The Present Study To summarize, previous research suggests that shyness i s a r e l a t i v e l y common feature of p e r s o n a l i t y and experience that i s a s s o c i a t e d with a v a r i e t y of unpleasant p h y s i o l o g i c a l , c o g n i t i v e , and a f f e c t i v e responses to s o c i a l s t i m u l i as w e l l as c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r a l inadequacies. In an extension of these previous f i n d i n g s , c l i n i c a l l y o r i e n t e d I n v e s t i g a t o r s have r e c e n t l y begun to introduce and evaluate treatment s t r a t e g i e s designed to a l l e v i a t e the problematic aspects of shyness. Although the treatment s t r a t e g y deemed appropriate depends to a large extent on how i n d i v i d u a l researchers conceptualize shyness, most of the c l i n i c a l l y r e l e v a n t research has focussed on e i t h e r s o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g designed to a l l e v i a t e b e h a v i o r a l d e f i c i t s (Twentyman & M c F a l l , 1975; M a r z i l l i e r , Lambert, & K e l l e t t , 1977; Alden & Cappe, 1986), or on the c o g n i t i v e treatment of the negative s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , f a u l t y a t t r i b u t i o n s , d i s t o r t e d t h i n k i n g , u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s , and i r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s that appear t o accompany shyness (Kanter & G o l d f r i e d , 1979; Malkiewich & M e r l u z z i , 1980; Glass & Shea, 1986). The research up to t h i s point i n time has shown th a t both s o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g and c o g n i t i v e approaches are e f f e c t i v e In the treatment of shyness. PAGE 15 The re su l t s of these treatment outcome studies have been somewhat equ ivoca l , however, in the sense that ne i ther one of these treatment s t ra teg i e s has been shown to be super ior to the other . E s s e n t i a l l y , they both work, but in less than an absolute fash ion . This has led some researchers to recommend that further e m p i r i c a l ana lys i s be conducted to determine the exact nature of the behavioral and cogni t ive d i f ferences s p e c i f i c to shyness. P a r t i c u l a r l y re levant here is a review by Alden and Cappe (1986) in which they note that the behaviora l d i f ferences between shy and non-shy groups have u s u a l l y involved behaviors such as eye contact , s m i l i n g , or conversat ional pauses that are not so much process s k i l l s , in the sense of complex chains of responses to be learned, as they are behavioral expressions of anx ie ty . They recommend that future research should focus on o ther -d irec ted process v a r i a b l e s rather than on se l f - focused d i s c r e t e , molecular behaviors . Consistent with t h i s and the recommendations of other researchers , the present study was designed to invest igate behaviora l performance, in terpersonal percept ion and judgement, and p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l , among shy and non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s during a s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Arguably, one of the most important process var iab le s in the development of in terpersona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s is mutual s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . The present study employed a s tructured dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n as the experimental paradigm in an attempt to determine whether d i f ferences in d i s c lo sure r e c i p r o c i t y e x i s t between shy and non-shy subjec ts . In t h i s study we began to invest igate the factors that might underly d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y . Most previous s tudies have concluded that i f a behaviora l d i f ference e x i s t s , i t i s the r e s u l t of a s k i l l s d e f i c i t . Some of these s tud ie s , however, have neglected to consider the p o s s i b i l i t y that shy i n d i v i d u a l s may be capable of a behavior but for some reason refuse to exh ib i t i t . This study examined much more c l o s e l y the issue PAGE 16 of whether an ac tua l s k i l l s d e f i c i t e x i s t s , or i f whether what appears to be a behavioral inadequacy may a c t u a l l y be a r e s u l t of a cogni t ive d e f i c i t or d i s t o r t i o n . If the shy subjects do not rec iprocate the confederate's d i s c l o s u r e , the study w i l l determine whether or not they recognized the d i f ference in int imacy, and i f they recognized the d i f f e r e n c e , why they s t i l l f a i l e d to rec iproca te t h e i r par tner ' s intimacy l e v e l . While intimacy of d i sc lo sure i s often the major focus in r e c i p r o c i t y s tud ie s , many fee l that amount of d i s c l o s u r e i s a l so an important f a c t o r . Therefore , cons i s tent with t h i s view an a d d i t i o n a l behavioral measure, the durat ion of the subjec t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s , was a l so recorded. A s e l f - r e p o r t p h y s i o l o g i c a l arousa l scale (Chambless, Caputo, B r i g h t , & Gal lagher , 1984) was included to determine whether d i f ferences in phys io -l o g i c a l r e a c t i v i t y e x i s t . In l i g h t of the problems inherent in s e l f - r e p o r t measures, a more object ive measure of p h y s i o l o g i c a l arousa l would have been p r e f e r a b l e . As i t was extremely important that the dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n be as natura l as poss ib le however, i t was decided that object ive p h y s i o l o g i c a l measurement would be detr imental as i t would make the i n t e r a c t i o n seem excess ive ly a r t i f i c i a l . The study a l so examined severa l cogni t ive fac tors r e l a t i n g to in terpersonal percept ion and judgement. A s er i e s of in terpersona l r a t i n g tasks examined how the subjects perceived themselves, t h e i r par tners , and how they expected t h e i r partners to perceive them. This allowed the experimenter to determine whether the self- image of the shy and non-shy subjects d i f f e r e d . The confederate and observer ra t ings of the subjects examined whether shy subjects are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y evaluated by others . While some previous research suggests that shy i n d i v i d u a l s a l so negat ive ly evaluate t h e i r partners , other research suggests that t h i s i s not the case. As the "partners", due to the PAGE 17 use of confederates , were the same for both shy and non-shy subjects , the experiment w i l l help c l a r i f y these previous equivocal f i n d i n g s . Recently , in t ere s t has been shown into the mot ivat ional aspects of d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . The theory which has received the most a t t en t ion e luc idates two s ty l e s of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n , protec t ive and a c q u i s i t i v e (Arkin 1981). The e x i s t i n g research has e i ther focused on developing scales to measure the cons truc t s , or has u t i l i z e d them as independent v a r i a b l e s . These concepts of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n seem e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to the present study, as there may be mot ivat ional d i f f erences behind the s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n of shy and non-shy subjec ts . Rather than u t i l i z i n g protec t ive and a c q u i s i t i v e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n as independent v a r i a b l e s , the present study attempted to s i t u a t i o n a l l y modify these concepts and u t i l i z e them as dependent v a r i a b l e s . If d i f f erences are found between the shy and non-shy subjec t s , i t would not only lend credence to the v a l i d i t y of these s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n cons truc t s , but a l so p o s s i b l y provide an explanat ion for any behaviora l d i f f erences that may ex i s t between the groups. Hypotheses 1. Duration and Intimacy of the Subjects ' Disc losures Previous research suggests that both a main e f fec t for shyness and a shyness by intimacy i n t e r a c t i o n should occur for the durat ion of the subjec t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s . The non-shy subjects should d i s c l o s e for a longer period of time than the shy subjects in both the high intimacy and low intimacy c o n d i t i o n s , leading to a main e f fec t for shyness. Previous PAGE 18 d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y research suggests that there may a lso be an i n t e r a c t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the non-shy subjects should d i s c l o s e for a longer period of time in the high intimacy condi t ion than in the low intimacy one, while the shy subjects may e x h i b i t s i m i l a r durat ions in both intimacy c o n d i t i o n s . One of the most robust f indings in the psycho log ica l l i t e r a t u r e re la te s to the phenomenon of d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y . This i s the tendency of normal subjects to match the intimacy l e v e l of a confederate's d i s c l o s u r e . It i s expected that the non-shy subjects in t h i s experiment w i l l conform to the r e c i p r o c i t y p r i n c i p l e and match both the low and high intimacy confederate d i s c l o s u r e s , leading to a main e f f ec t for int imacy. An i n t e r a c t i o n i s a l so expected, however, as i t i s hypothesized that the shy subjects w i l l e x h i b i t non-rec iproca l d i s c l o s u r e pat terns . It i s f e l t that t h i s may take the form of low intimacy d i s c lo sures by the shy subjects in response to both the high and low intimacy confederate d i s c l o s u r e s . Previous research with shy subjects and c l i n i c a l exposure to shy pat ients has led the author to be l ieve that the shy i n d i v i d u a l may have a p a r t i c u l a r problem with int imacy. Prov id ing a further basis for t h i s hypothesis are a study by Chaik in et a l (1975) which found non-r e c i p r o c a l patterns of d i s c lo sure for neurot ic subjects and one by Trower (1980), which found that s o c i a l l y u n s k i l l e d pat ients were b e h a v i o r a l l y cons is tent even in the face of others ( the ir partners) changing t h e i r behavior . 2. Pos td i sc losure Subject Se l f -Report Measures These measures include the subjects ' ra t ings of s e l f , partner , and r e f l e c t e d s e l f on severa l in terpersona l b i p o l a r adjec t ive s c a l e s , the PAGE 19 p h y s i o l o g i c a l arousal s c a l e , and the protec t ive and a c q u i s i t i v e s e l f -presentat ion s c a l e . Previous research suggests that there should be a main e f f e c t for shyness here. Shy subjec t s , as compared to non-shy subjects , should report higher l eve l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l , evaluate themselves, and expect t h e i r partners to evaluate them, more negat ive ly , and u t i l i z e a p r o t e c t i v e , rather than an a c q u i s i t i v e s t y l e of s e l f -presentat ion . There may a l so be an i n t e r a c t i o n . While there is no previous research in t h i s regard , i t i s hypothesized that the shy subjects may report higher l eve l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l arousal in the high intimacy confederate d i s c l o s u r e cond i t ion than in the low intimacy one. The non-shy subjects are expected to d i s p l a y the same l e v e l of arousa l in both c o n d i t i o n s . It is f e l t that t h i s may be one r e s u l t of the shy subjec t s ' hypothesized i n a b i l i t y to match the high intimacy d i s c lo sures of the confederates . It i s a l so hypothesized that th i s i n a b i l i t y to match confederate intimacy may cause the shy subjects to evaluate themselves, and expect t h e i r partners to evaluate them, more negat ive ly in the high intimacy condi t ion than in the low intimacy one. Another very robust psycho log ica l f ind ing i s the " l i k i n g e f fec t" . This i s the tendency for subjects to evaluate a confederate who d i s c lo se s in an intimate fashion more p o s i t i v e l y than one who d i sc lo se s in a non-intimate fash ion . Previous research suggests that a main e f f ec t for shyness should not occur as both shy and non-shy subjects should rate t h e i r partners equa l ly in the low intimacy c o n d i t i o n . However, e i ther a main e f f ec t for intimacy or an i n t e r a c t i o n i s expected. The non-shy subjects should rate the confederate in the high intimacy d i s c l o s u r e condi t ion more p o s i t i v e l y than the confederate in the low intimacy one. PAGE 20 If the shy subjects d i s p l a y the same pattern of partner eva lua t ion , there w i l l be a main e f fec t for int imacy. However, i f the shy subjec t s , as hypothesized, show higher l eve l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l arousa l and more negative s e l f evaluat ions in the high intimacy c o n d i t i o n , i t i s poss ib le they may a c t u a l l y evaluate the high intimacy confederate more negat ive ly . If t h i s i s the case, there would be an i n t e r a c t i o n here. 3. Confederate and Observer Ratings of the Subjects Previous s tudies paint a somewhat confusing p ic ture as to whether shy i n d i v i d u a l s are perceived in a negative fashion by others . In genera l , i t appears that i f t ra ined ra ters are u t i l i z e d , shy subjects are indeed more negat ive ly evaluated than are non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s . It would seem, however, that i t i s more important to determine how shy i n d i v i d u a l s are perceived by peers and i n d i v i d u a l s they meet on a d a i l y b a s i s . The r e s u l t s are somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y in t h i s regard. This study d id not t r a i n the confederates and observers on the in terpersona l r a t i n g s , but instead allowed them to rate the subjects in a subject ive manner. Neither a main e f f ec t nor an i n t e r a c t i o n was expected here. It i s hypothesized that the shy subjects and the non-shy subjects w i l l be evaluated e q u a l l y , as the untrained confederates and observers should funct ion more as peers than as t ra ined r a t e r s . PAGE 21 Method Subjects and Design Overview Female students (n=489) in several introductory psychology classes at the University of British Columbia completed the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1979) as part of a larger questionnaire package. A widely used measure of shyness, the SAD consists of 28 true-false items designed to measure social avoidance and social distress. Scores range from 0 to 28 with higher scores reflecting a greater degree of social avoidance and distress. Watson and Friend (1969) reported the following data in support of the r e l i a b i l i t y and homogeniety of the SAD: (1) mean point-biserial item-total correlation of .77 (2) KR-20 of .94 (3) one-month test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of .68. A one-month test-retest correlation of .86 was obtained by independent investigators (Girodo, Dotzenroth, & Stein, 1981). Those with SAD scores <. 2 (approximately the lower quartile; 24.7%) were classified as potential non-shy subjects, while subjects with SAD scores > 12 (approximately the upper quartile; 21.7%) were classified as potential shy subjects. To eliminate extraneous variability, married students and students over the age of 22 were eliminated from the subject pool. The 100 volunteer subjects, who received partial course credit for their participation, were later contacted by telephone and a mutually convenient time was arranged for them to participate in an experimental session. Both shy and non-shy subjects were randomly assigned to the high or low intimacy confederate disclosure experimental conditions. The 50 non-shy subjects were between 17 and 20 years of age (Mean=18.28), and had SAD scores 0 <_ 2 (Mean=0.90). The 50 shy subjects were between 17 and 22 years of age (Mean=18.50), and had SAD scores 12 < 27 (Mean=17.06). PAGE 22 During the experimental sess ions , which u t i l i z e d a dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n paradigm, subjects a l t ernated with a female confederate in d i s c l o s i n g information about themselves. The confederate always spoke f i r s t and e i ther d i s c lo sed information that was r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l and non- int imate , or quite personal and h igh ly int imate . Thus, the experiment u t i l i z e d a 2 (subject s ta tus : shy or non-shy) x 2 ( l e v e l of confederate d i s c l o s u r e : h i g h or low intimacy) f a c t o r i a l des ign . Stimulus M a t e r i a l s and Procedure When the subject a r r i v e d for the experiment, she was greeted by the experimenter and seated so that she faced a female confederate across a small coffee t a b l e . To enhance the decept ion, the confederate a r r i v e d three minutes a f t er the subject was scheduled to be there and apologized for being l a t e , s t a t i n g that her c la s s had been across campus. On those occasions when the subject was more than 3 minutes l a t e , the confederate entered the room and was a lready seated when the subject a r r i v e d . The experimental room contained two comfortable lounge type c h a i r s , lamps, end t a b l e s , and a coffee t a b l e . Every attempt was made to make the s e t t i n g as comfortable and n a t u r a l i s t i c as p o s s i b l e . The subject and confederate were given c l ipboards conta in ing a subject consent form, i n s t r u c t i o n s , and a top ic l i s t . After the consent forms were s igned, the experimenter read through the i n s t r u c t i o n s (Appendix 1) with the dyad. The subjects were presented with the r a t i o n a l e that the experiment was a study of d i f f e r e n t conversat iona l s t ra teg ie s employed by people in f i r s t -meeting s i t u a t i o n s . They were t o l d that the study would e n t a i l them having a s h o r t , s t ruc tured i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e i r partner , who was presented as a fe l low subjec t . The subjects were ins tructed to choose a top ic from the PAGE 23 provided top ic l i s t , write a number beside the top ic i n d i c a t i n g which d i s c lo sure i t was ( i . e . f i r s t , second, e t c ) , and then d i s c l o s e on that top ic to t h e i r par tner . They were t o l d to then l i s t e n while t h e i r partner chose a t o p i c and ta lked about i t . They were ins truc ted to a l t ernate back and for th u n t i l both of them had chosen, and d i sc lo sed on, 4 t o p i c s . It was s tressed that they were to l i s t e n , and not ask quest ions , when t h e i r partner was speaking. The subjects were t o l d that time was not a major issue and that when they had sa id a l l they had to say, that was f i n e . In the in tere s t s of maintaining temporal schedul ing c o n s t r a i n t s , however, i t was mentioned that on the "upper end", they should t r y to l i m i t any given d i s c l o s u r e to 3 to 4 minutes. Using pre-ass igned subject numbers i t was arranged so that the confederate would always s e l f - d i s c l o s e f i r s t . This was "natura l ly accomplished" by g i v i n g the confederate the high subject i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number in a "high number s t a r t s f i r s t " arrangement. The subjects were t o l d that the male experimenter would be behind a one way m i r r o r , o s t ens ib ly to monitor the conversat ion . It was s tressed that they were not being audio or video taped in any manner. A previous study found t h i s to be less offensive to the subjects than was the presence of a tape recorder (Alden & Meleshko, 1988) . x At t h i s po in t , the experimenter asked i f there were any quest ions . To enhance the decept ion, the confederate asked a quest ion r e l a t i n g to top ic s e l e c t i o n . After answering x In the present study, a question on the s tructured debr i e f ing form asked i f the subjects would f ee l more comfortable (1) with the experimenter behind the one-way m i r r o r , (2) being audiotaped, but having no one behind the m i r r o r , or (3) whether there would be no d i f ference between the two. Although the nature of the data c o l l e c t i o n does not al low conclusions to be drawn, i t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 68 subjects preferred the experimenter behind the m i r r o r , 14 indicated a preference for being audiotaped with no one watching, and 18 f e l t there would be no d i f f e r e n c e . There was no d i f f erence between the various c o n d i t i o n s . PAGE 24 t h i s quest ion , and any the subject may have asked, the experimenter t o l d them to turn to the top ic l i s t . They were t o l d to take t h e i r time and examine the top ic l i s t c a r e f u l l y while the experimenter l e f t the room and went to the observation g a l l e r y . Af ter an appropriate period of time to "examine" the t o p i c s , the confederate began her f i r s t d i s c l o s u r e . Confederates and Observers: The experiment u t i l i z e d two female confederates , each of whom in terac ted with approximately an equal number of subjects in a l l c o n d i t i o n s . There were a l so two female observers . The observers were seated behind a one-way m i r r o r , out of the subjects ' s i g h t . The experimental room was equipped with a sound system by which the observers could l i s t e n to the i n t e r a c t i o n . Once again , care was taken so that the two observers were equa l ly balanced across both confederates and c o n d i t i o n s . The confederates and observers were b l i n d to the hypotheses and experimental des ign . During the i n t e r a c t i o n , both the observer and the confederate ( s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y , while she pretended to number her next top ic choice) rated each of the subjec t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s for intimacy using a v e r b a l l y anchored 7 point L i k e r t s c a l e . Discuss ion Topics and Manipulat ion of Confederate Intimacy: The top ic l i s t (Appendix 2) contained 19 items which had been prev ious ly rated for intimacy and was comprised of an approximately equal number of low, medium, and high intimacy top ics (Jourard, 1971; Appendix 1 2 ) . 2 In the low intimacy c o n d i t i o n , the confederates d i s c l o s e d on uniformly non-intimate top ic s ( topics 9, 16, 11, 17 : Mean intimacy = 4.705). They discussed r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l issues and revealed l i t t l e , i f anything, of a personal or emotional nature (Appendixes 2 The o r i g i n a l top ic l i s t contained 21 items. It was f e l t , however, that two of the topics were inappropriate and as a r e s u l t items 4 and 7 were de le ted . PAGE 25 11, 12, 13, 14). In the high intimacy condition, the confederates began with a medium intimacy topic and proceeded to disclose on increasingly more intimate ones (topics 7, 5, 10, 3 : Mean intimacy = 3.21). The information they revealed was private, personal, and emotional in nature (Appendixes 15, 16, 17, 18). Derivation and Validation of Disclosures: The confederates* disclosures were scripted so that the nature and content of their disclosures would be the same for a l l the subjects within a given intimacy condition. It was essential that the subjects accurately perceived the difference in intimacy between the disclosures in the two conditions. Although a difference in intimacy was essential, i t was f e l t that a minimal difference between the scripts for the two conditions should be achieved in terms of their (a) appropriateness for a first-meeting situation, and (b) degree of positiveness or negativeness they conveyed. To address these issues, the four research assistants rated each i n i t i a l script, and any subsequent revisions, on 7-point Likert scales which assessed: not intimate/very intimate, unrevealing/revealing, negativity/ positivity of content, inappropriateness/appropriateness for a f i r s t meeting situation, and unlikeable/likeable perception of a person disclosing such material. The high intimacy scripts were perceived as more intimate (Mean=6.5) and more revealing (Mean=6.25) than were the non-intimate scripts (Means=3.0 and 3.75 respectively). While the non-intimate scripts were seen as slightly more appropriate for a f i r s t meeting situation (Mean=5.75) than were the highly intimate scripts (Mean=4.25), they were seen as being equally positive in content (Means=6.0 and 6.25 for the low and high intimacy scripts respectively). Further, a person would be seen as almost equally likeable whether they disclosed the non-intimate material (Mean=5.5) or the highly PAGE 26 intimate material (Mean=6.25). This Indicates that the two sets of scripts were indeed perceived differently in terms of intimacy, but that there was l i t t l e or no difference in their positivity or appropriateness. The non-intimate disclosures ranged between 203 and 237 words (Mean=217) and took an average of 80.41 and 79.81 seconds to deliver, for the f i r s t and second confederate respectively. The highly intimate disclosures ranged between 197 and 251 words (Mean=224) and took an average of 85.74 and 87.08 seconds to deliver, once again for the f i r s t and second confederate respectively. Checklists were developed to determine whether subjects within each intimacy condition were being presented with substantially the same material, or content, by the confederates (Appendixes 19 and 20). The checklists summarized major content areas and consisted of between 12 and 15 items for each disclosure. As the confederates spoke, the observers placed a check mark beside each content item the confederate mentioned, or l e f t blank those that they missed. The two women who served as confederates had practised extensively and were able to provide verbatim accounts of the four high intimacy and four low intimacy disclosures. The confederates were also trained in terms of behavioral and verbal response issues. They were to s i t back in their chair, maintain good but not constant eye contact, and listen attentively while the subject spoke. Ideally, they were to maintain an attentive, but emotionally neutral faci a l expression. The confederates were to be careful, however, that their facial expression matched the nature of the subject's disclosures when deemed necessary (i.e. i f the subject made a joke, they would smile). They were not to comment or speak in response to the subject's disclosure unless i t was absolutely unavoidable. On these occasions, they were to try and use a non-committal type of expression (i.e. un huh, umm, etc.) PAGE 27 P o s t d i s c l o s u r e Impressions and D e b r i e f i n g : A f t e r the completion of the i n t e r a c t i o n , the experimenter re-entered the room and gave both the subject and the confederate the p o s t d i s c l o s u r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . At t h i s p o i n t , o s t e n s i b l y so that t h e i r r a t i n g s of each other would be c o n f i d e n t i a l , the confederate was taken to another room. This was accomplished by saying that the person who was "lucky" enough to speak f i r s t was a l s o "lucky" enough to be the one to move. The confederate asked i f she should take her books and coat with her and was t o l d that she should, as i t was l i k e l y she and her partner would f i n i s h the questionnaires at d i f f e r e n t times. The subjects rated themselves, t h e i r p a r t n e r s , and themselves as they f e l t t h e i r partner would r a t e them ( r e f l e c t e d s e l f ) on s e v e r a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s . They a l s o completed s c a l e s designed to measure p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l and s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s t y l e ( p r o t e c t i v e and a c q u i s i t i v e ) . The confederate and observer a l s o independently rated the subjects on the same i n t e r p e r s o n a l b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s and rated t h e i r o v e r a l l , or g l o b a l , impression of the intimacy of the subject's d i s c l o s u r e s . A f t e r the subject completed the p o s t d i s c l o s u r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the experimenter conducted a s t r u c t u r e d , funnel type d e b r i e f i n g designed to probe for subject s u s p i c i o n . Due to s u s p i c i o n s that t h e i r partner was a c t u a l l y a confederate, the data of three subjects was removed from any subsequent s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. F o l l o w i n g the d e b r i e f i n g , the subjects were informed of the nature of the experiment, asked to maintain c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , given t h e i r experimental p a r t i c i p a t i o n c r e d i t s l i p s , thanked for p a r t i c i p a t i n g , and dismissed. P i l o t Study: A p r e l i m i n a r y study (n=12) was conducted u t i l i z i n g subjects with SAD scores of between 6 and 8. Their data were not included i n the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses reported i n t h i s paper. The p i l o t study served three PAGE 28 major purposes. F i r s t , although the confederates had e x t e n s i v e l y p r a c t i s e d t h e i r d i s c l o s u r e s , t h i s allowed them to " f i n e tune" t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n . I t a l s o allowed the experimenter to observe any beh a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two confederates and make appropriate adjustments. Second, an examination of the data provided by the manipulation check allowed the experimenter to determine t h a t the experimental manipulation appeared to be s u c c e s s f u l . T h i r d , the intimacy r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s by the confederates and observers were examined. They were discussed and s l i g h t adjustments i n u t i l i z i n g the s c a l e s were made u n t i l i t was f e l t that i n t e r r a t e r agreement was acceptable. Dependent V a r i a b l e s There were 3 major cate g o r i e s of dependent measures: (1) Duration and intimacy of the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s , (2) P o s t d i s c l o s u r e subject s e l f - r e p o r t measures, (3) p o s t d i s c l o s u r e confederate and observer r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s . There were s e v e r a l measures w i t h i n each of these c a t e g o r i e s . 1. Duration and intimacy of the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s The experimenter used a stopwatch to measure the du r a t i o n ( i n seconds) of each of the subject's d i s c l o s u r e s . This measure was the average of each s u b j e c t ' s four d i s c l o s u r e s with a l e v e l of accuracy of one-tenth of a second. There were 3 d i f f e r e n t measures of the intimacy of the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s . The modified Jourard Topic L i s t contained 19 t o p i c s with corresponding intimacy values ranging from 2.21 to 4.98. The mean of the intimacy values corresponding to the four d i s c l o s u r e s of each subject was u t i l i z e d as one measure of intimacy. While t h i s provided a measure of the intimacy of d i s c l o s u r e , the experimenter noticed i n a previous study PAGE 29 (Alden & Meleshko, 1988) that d i s c l o s u r e s on the same t o p i c o c c a s i o n a l l y v a r i e d i n terms of intimacy. For example, one s u b j e c t s t a t e d t h a t the unhappiest moment in her l i f e was when she went back to a s t o r e to get a dress she r e a l l y l i k e d and found that i t had been s o l d . The unhappiest moment f o r another s u b j e c t was the day her brother , who had been mentally i l l f o r some time, committed s u i c i d e . To address t h i s problem, the present study contained two a d d i t i o n a l measures of the intimacy of the su b j e c t s * d i s c l o s u r e s . A confederate and an observer r a t e d each of the s u b j e c t ' s d i s c l o s u r e s fo r intimacy on a 7-point L i k e r t s c a l e (Appendixes 8 and 9). This s c a l e was d e s c r i p t i v e l y anchored (Appendix 10) as i t was hoped t h a t i n accordance with previous s t u d i e s , i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y would be s u f f i c i e n t l y high as to a l l o w confederate and observer r a t i n g s to be averaged across s u b j e c t s . The mean of the r a t i n g s f or the four d i s c l o s u r e s of each s u b j e c t c o n s t i t u t e d the second measure of s u b j e c t intimacy. A f t e r the c o n c l u s i o n of the i n t e r a c t i o n , each s u b j e c t was a l s o r a t e d by a confederate and an observer on t h e i r impressions of the s u b j e c t ' s o v e r a l l intimacy (Appendixes 8 and 9, number 9). This comprised the t h i r d measure of the intimacy of the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s . I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was a l s o computed on t h i s g l o b a l measure of s u b j e c t intimacy. 2. P o s t d i s c l o s u r e s u b j e c t s e l f - r e p o r t measures The s u b j e c t s completed 5 d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e / r a t i n g forms a f t e r the completion of the d i s c l o s u r e p o r t i o n of the experiment. They r a t e d themselves (Appendix 3), t h e i r p a r t n e r s (Appendix 4), and themselves as they f e l t t h e i r partner would r a t e t h e m — r e f l e c t e d s e l f — ( A p p e n d i x 5). PAGE 30 These ratings consisted of a variety of interpersonal bipolar adjectives which were basically positive versus negative in nature. Previous research has shown that these ratings should show robust patterns of intercorrelations across these three perspectives. However, correlations were computed for these ratings to ensure that the patterns of intercorrelations were indeed present, and robust enough, that composite scores could be obtained for self, partner, and reflected self. A self-report physiological arousal scale (Appendix 6) was modified from one which was designed for use with individuals suffering from panic attacks (Chambless et a l , 1984). Some of the symptoms were not considered applicable to the present study and sample, and thus were deleted. The individual items on this scale are additively combined to yield a total score for physiological arousal. Due to the modification of the original scale, however, a principal components analysis was conducted to determine whether the psychometric properties of the scale had been compromised by the modifications. A self-report scale was developed to measure protective and acquisitive styles of self-presentation (Appendix 7). The selected items were modified to reflect the nature of the experimental paradigm. This mainly involved integrating phrases such as "during the conversation, "My partner", "the topics", into the items. Consistent with the recommendations of Wolfe et al (1986), items were selected from the Concern for Appropriateness Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) and the 13-item Self-Monitoring Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). The experimenter also utilized items from the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969), as i t was felt that some of the items from this scale reflected the motivational aspects of protective self-presentation not PAGE 31 captured in the Concern for Appropriateness Scale. Modification of the items from the Ability to Modify Self-Presentation subscale of the Self-Monitoring Scale yielded 7 items designed to measure acquisitive se l f -presentation. Protective self-presentation was measured by modifications of items 5, 6, 8, and 15 from the Concern for Appropriateness scale and items 7, 8, 14, and 25 from the FNE scale. The psychometric properties of these scales have been extensively examined previously. As modified subsets of their items were used in this study, however, analyses were conducted to examine psychometric a s p e c t s ot the protective and acquisitive measures. 3. Postdisclosure confederate and o b s e r v e r r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s The confederates and observers independently rated the subjects on the same interpersonal bipolar adjectives that the subjects rated themselves, their partners, and their reflected selves. It was expected that these ratings would show a pattern of intercorrelations similar to the subjects' ratings, thus allowing composite scores to be obtained. As i t was f e l t that the impact of being involved in the interaction as compared to being behind the one-way mirror might have a differential effect, interrater r e l i a b i l i t i e s were not computed for these ratings. Instead, the ratings of the confederates and the observers were considered distinct and were s t a t i s t i c a l l y examined independently. In addition, the confederates also completed 3 items (Appendix 8, numbers 10, 11, 12) designed to measure how at ease, or comfortable, they f e l t during the dyadic interactions. PAGE 32 Results PRELIMINARY ANALYSES  Subject Selection A 2 (shyness) x 2 (confederate intimacy) ANOVA on the subjects' SAD scores produced the expected significant main effect for shyness, F, 1 (5j,=749.92, p <.001. It also produced two unexpected outcomes, a main effect for intimacy, F(x,9S>=5.01, p <.05, which was further qualified by a significant shyness by intimacy interaction, Fti,9a>=7.35, p <.01. Subsequent analyses revealed that, although subjects had been randomly assigned, the SAD scores of the two cells of shy subjects were significantly different (Means=18.52 for the low intimacy shy subjects and 15.60 for the high-intimacy shy subjects). To determine whether this difference affected the pattern of results, two additional groupings of subjects were a r t i f i c i a l l y created in which the SAD scores did not significantly differ between the two conditions 3. A l l major s t a t i s t i c a l analyses conducted in the study were repeated on these two groups. While actual probability values varied somewhat, in no instance was a significant (or non-significant) result from the i n i t i a l analyses reversed. Therefore, the experimenter feels that the experimental manipulation, and not the difference in SAD scores, accounts for the results of this study. 3 The f i r s t grouping of subjects was created by dropping the 4 shy subjects in the low intimacy condition with SAD scores >_ 24 as there were no shy subjects in the high intimacy condition with SAD scores >. 24. This resulted in the shy subjects in the low intimacy condition (n=21) having a mean SAD score of 17.29 while the shy subjects in the high intimacy condition (n=25) had a mean SAD score of 15.60. The second grouping was created by matching the SAD scores of shy subjects in the two conditions. This resulted in the shy subjects in the low intimacy condition (n=20) having a mean SAD score of 17.04 while the shy subjects in the high intimacy condition (n=20) had a mean SAD score of 16.36. PAGE 33 Manipulation Checks In order to provide a satisfactory test of the hypotheses, i t was essential that the subjects in the high and low intimacy conditions differed in their assessments of how intimate and revealing their partner's disclosures were. The form on which the subjects rated their partners included two items designed to assess the manipulation of confederate intimacy: using a 7-point Likert scale, subjects rated (a) unrevealing/revealing (b) non-intimate/very intimate. A 2 (shyness) x 2 (confederate intimacy) MANOVA of these two items produced only one significant outcome, a main effect for confederate intimacy, F<2,9i>=94.06, p <.001. Followup univariate F-tests revealed that subjects assigned to the high intimacy condition reported that their partners were significantly more intimate (Mean=5.74) than did subjects assigned to the low intimacy condition (Mean=2.86), F(:L,92>=188.51, p <.001. They also reported that they were significantly more revealing (Means=5.96 and 4.38 respectively), F(1,92>=46.20, p <.001. Thus, the manipulation of confederate intimacy was effective. Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y Interrater r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the verbally anchored intimacy ratings of each of the subjects' disclosures were .92, .90, .84, and .86 for the 4 combinations of confederates (2) and observers (2). The r e l i a b i l i t y for the global rating of subject intimacy computed over a l l ratings was .85. For some of the subjects (n=24), both of the observers were present so that i t could be determined whether they were using the intimacy ratings in a substantively similar manner. The observer/observer r e l i a b i l i t i e s were .95 and .92, for the anchored and global intimacy measures respectively. In view of these satisfactory levels of interrater r e l i a b i l i t y , confederate and observer PAGE 34 ratings of the intimacy of the subjects' disclosures were averaged prior to the final data analyses. Confederate Consistency Checks As the number of items on the checklists designed to examine the consistency of the confederates' presentation in terms of disclosure content varied, i t was decided to use percentages to f a c i l i t a t e comparisons. The f i r s t confederate included 99.81% (Range:98.3% to 100%) and 99.29% (Range:96% to 100%) of the content in her low intimacy and high intimacy disclosures respectively. The second confederate included 96.10% (Range: 93.10% to 100%) and 97.57% (Range: 90% to 100%). This suggests that the subjects within a given intimacy condition were presented with virtually the same content by the confederates. As two confederates were utilized in the experiment, a l l major multivariate analyses were conducted with the confederate as a factor. The 2 (confederate) x 2 (shyness) x 2 (intimacy) MANOVA'S produced no main or interaction effects for the confederate variable and thus i t will not be mentioned in the subsequent analyses. Composite Scores for the Interpersonal Bipolar Adjectives To determine whether the interpersonal bipolar adjectives could be additively combined, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed independently for the subjects' ratings of self, partner, reflected-self, and for the confederate and observer ratings of the subjects. It was necessary that the pattern of correlations be the same for the subjects' ratings of self, partner, reflected self, and the confederate and observer ratings of the PAGE 35 subjects for composite scores to be utilized. The correlation coefficients can be seen in Tables 1 to 5. Table 1. Subjects' Ratings of Self: Interpersonal Adjective Correlations Attractive/ Unattractive Friendly/ Unfriendly Likeable/ Unlikeable Interesting/ Boring Attractive/ Unattractive 1.00 .52""" _ _ * K W .50 Friendly/ Unfriendly 1.00 .58""" .42""" Likeable/ Unlikeable 1.00 .57""" Interesting/ Boring 1.00 Shy/Not Shy Anxious/Calm .66*"" "=p <.05; ""=p <.01; """=p <.001 PAGE 36 Table 2. Subjects' Ratings of Partner: Interpersonal A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y L i k e a b l e / U n l i k e a b l e I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e 1.00 .31"* .42**" .22" F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y 1.00 .62""" .23" L i k e a b l e / Unlikeable 1.00 .41 I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring 1.00 Shy/Not Shy Anxious/Calm . 45 *=p <.05; **=p <. 01; *""=p <.001 rable 3. Subjects ' Ratings of Re f l e c t e d S e l f : I n terpersonal A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y L i k e a b l e / U n l i k e a b l e I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e 1.00 _ _ * * rt . 56 - _ * * n . b6 .44 F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y 1.00 .69*"" .49 L i k e a b l e / U n l i k e a b l e 1.00 _ . * fa it . O 1 I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring 1.00 Shy/Not Shy Anxious/Calm .64*"" "=p <.05; "*=p <.01; "**=p <.001 PAGE 37 Table 4. Confederates' Ratings of Subjects: I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e  C o r r e l a t i o n s A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y L i k e a b l e / U n l i k e a b l e I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e 1.00 .82""" . bo F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y 1.00 .60""" . 44 L i k e a b l e / Unlikeable 1.00 .73"** I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring 1.00 Shy/Not Shy Anxious/Calm .70""* "=p <.05; ""=p <.01; """=p <.001 Table 5. Observers' Ratings of Subjects: I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y L i k e a b l e / U n l i k e a b l e I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring A t t r a c t i v e / U n a t t r a c t i v e 1.00 .45 .64""" .50""" F r i e n d l y / U n f r i e n d l y 1.00 c _ » » n • OJ . . a * « • b l L i k e a b l e / U n l i k e a b l e 1.00 I n t e r e s t i n g / Boring 1.00 Shy/Not Shy Anxious/Calm .81""* "=p <.05; *"=p <.01; "*"=p <.001 PAGE 38 The a t t r a c t i v e / u n a t t r a c t i v e , f r i e n d l y / u n f r i e n d l y , l i k e a b l e / u n l i k e a b l e , and i n t e r e s t i n g / b o r i n g r a t i n g s were a l l moderately to h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d . They were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d , with v i r t u a l l y a l l (27 of 30) of the c o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t at p <.001. This suggested that the s u b j e c t s , confederates, and observers a l l tended to use these r a t i n g s i n s u b s t a n t i v e l y the same f a s h i o n . Beyond the s t a t i s t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , there a l s o appears to be a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between these a d j e c t i v e s . They seem to comprise part of what might be termed an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r p e r s o n a l image on a p o s i t i v e versus negative continuum. Therefore, i t was decided to a d d i t i v e l y combine the scores on these items i n t o a composite score of " I n t e r p e r s o n a l Image". The anxious/calm and shy/not shy r a t i n g s a l s o showed a robust p a t t e r n of moderate to high c o r r e l a t i o n s with a l l of the c o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t at p <.001. Once again, there appears to be a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n a d d i t i o n to the s t a t i s t i c a l one. These r a t i n g s appear to c o n s t i t u t e what might be termed i n t e r p e r s o n a l comfort versus discomfort. Thus, i t was decided to a d d i t i v e l y combine the scores on these items i n t o a composite score f o r "Inter p e r s o n a l Comfort". The confederate a l s o rated how at ease, or comfortable, she was during the i n t e r a c t i o n . The three items were a l l scored so that a higher score i n d i c a t e d a more p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g ( i . e . uncomfortable-1; comfortable-7). The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s f or these three items were .76, .65, and .84, a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at p <.001. This i n d i c a t e s that the confederates u t i l i z e d these items i n a s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , thus a l l o w i n g them to be a d d i t i v e l y combined. PAGE 39 DEPENDENT VARIABLES Analyses of the Duration and Intimacy of the Subjects' Disclosures The duration of the subjects' disclosures and the 3 measures of the intimacy of their disclosures were analyzed by means of a 2 (shyness) x 2 (confederate intimacy) MANOVA. The MANOVA produced three significant outcomes, a main effect for shyness, F(4,93>=6.85, p <.001, a main effect for intimacy, F(4,93,=14.51, p <.001, and a shyness x intimacy interaction, F<4,93)=4.42, p <.005. Duration of the Subjects' Disclosures: Followup univariate F-tests revealed a main effect for shyness, F (i, 9 e)=22.24, p <.001, and a main effect for intimacy, F(i, 9 6 )=11.10, p <.001. The non-shy subjects disclosed for a significantly longer period of time (Mean=119.89 seconds) than did the shy subjects (Mean=86.66 seconds). Both shy and non-shy subjects, however, were more disclosive, in terms of duration, in response to the high intimacy confederate (Mean=115.02 seconds) than they were in response to the low intimacy one (Mean=91.54 seconds). Intimacy of the Subjects' Disclosures: The followup univariate F-tests revealed that while there were no significant main effects for shyness for the three measures of the intimacy of the subjects' disclosures, there were significant main effects for intimacy, and significant shyness by intimacy interactions. These can be seen in Table 6. PAGE 40 Table 6. Followup U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s : Intimacy of the Subjects' D i s c l o s u r e s Main E f f e c t : Confederate Intimacy Source MS df F E. Jourard Intimacy Values 6.03 (1,96) 51.40 < .001 Mean Ratings of Each D i s c l o s u r e 50.20 (1,96) 45.42 < .001 O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating 63.20 (1,96) 39.95 < .001 I n t e r a c t i o n : Shyness x Confederate Intimacy Source MS df E E Jourard Intimacy Values .62 (1,96) 5.31 < .05 Mean Ratings of Each D i s c l o s u r e 3.90 (1,96) 3.53 > .05 O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating 11.90 (1,96) 7.52 < .01 The main e f f e c t s f o r confederate intimacy r e f l e c t the f i n d i n g that s u b j e c t s who i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a h i g h l y intimate confederate were more intimate i n t h e i r own s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s than were those who i n t e r a c t e d with a non-intimate confederate on a l l three intimacy measures (Table 7). Table 7. Intimacy Values of the Subjects' D i s c l o s u r e s Low Intimacy High Intimacy Non-Shy n=25 Shy n=25 Tot a l n=50 Non-Shy n=25 Shy n=25 Tot a l n=50 Jourard Intimacy Values Ratings of Each D i s c l o s u r e O v e r a l l Intimacy Ratings 4.45 2.05 2.02 4.25 2.43 2.56 4.35 2.24 2.29 3.80 3.86 4.30 3.92 3.45 3.45 3.86 3.66 3.88 Note: A higher number reflects a more non-intimate disclosure on the Jourard intimacy values, contrary to the other two intimacy measures where a higher number reflects a more intimate disclosure. This type of outcome i s one that i s t y p i c a l l y c i t e d as evidence for a d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t . Thus, as hypothesized, the very robust e f f e c t of d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y was indeed operative i n t h i s study. PAGE 41 In terms of the hypotheses guid i n g t h i s research, the more i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t was the shyness x confederate intimacy i n t e r a c t i o n . Followup u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s revealed that two of the intimacy measures produced s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s (Table 6). These i n t e r a c t i o n s are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1, Panel A (Jourard Intimacy Values) and Panel B ( O v e r a l l Intimacy R a t i n g ) . Figure 1. Intimacy of the Subjects' D i s c l o s u r e s as a Function of Shyness and  the Intimacy of the Confederates' D i s c l o s u r e s Panel A: Jourard Intimacy Values Panel B: O v e r a l l Intimacy Ratings 0 O non-shy 0 •# shy Low Intimate High Intimate Low Intimate High Intimate Confederate Intimacy These f i g u r e s show th a t the shy subjects were somewhat l e s s intimate than the non-shy subjects when exposed to the h i g h l y intimate confederate, but were somewhat more intimate than the non-shy subjects when exposed to the non-intimate confederate. The shyness x intimacy i n t e r a c t i o n for the t h i r d measure of subject intimacy (the mean intimacy of each subject's four PAGE 42 d i s c l o s u r e s ) , was only m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F, x, 9 6>=3.53, p -.06, but e x h i b i t e d the same pa t t e r n of r e s u l t s . Subsequent simple main e f f e c t s analyses revealed a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f or the Jourard intimacy values (Table 8) and the o v e r a l l intimacy r a t i n g s (Table 9) r e s p e c t i v e l y . Table 8. Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r the Shyness by Intimacy I n t e r a c t i o n :  Jourard Intimacy Values Source MS df £ P. Shyness at Low Intimacy .4802 1 4.09 <.05 Shyness at High Intimacy .1741 1 1.48 >.05 E r r o r .1173 96 Table 9. Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r the Shyness by Intimacy I n t e r a c t i o n :  O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating Source MS dj. F P. Shyness at Low Intimacy 3.645 1 2.30 >.05 Shyness a t High Intimacy 8.820 1 5.58 <.05 E r r o r 1.582 96 The simple e f f e c t s analyses of the Jourard values i n d i c a t e s that the shy subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more intimate than the non-shy s u b j e c t s when exposed to a non-intimate confederate. The analyses of the o v e r a l l intimacy r a t i n g revealed t h a t the shy subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s intimate than the non-shy s u b j e c t s when exposed to the h i g h l y intimate confederate. When examined s e p a r a t e l y , these two r e s u l t s tend to suggest a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of n o n - r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e f o r the shy s u b j e c t s . The key here, however, i s t h a t taken together the measures of the intimacy of the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s s t r o n g l y suggest that the shy su b j e c t s d i s p l a y n o n - r e c i p r o c a l PAGE 43 disclosure as compared to the non-shy subjects. Although the exact pattern is not conclusively shown by these results, the results do tend to suggest that the shy subjects are more moderate in their disclosure. Specifically, they are more intimate than the non-shy subjects in response to the non-intimate confederate, but less intimate than the non-shy subjects in response to the highly intimate confederate. Analyses of the Postdisclosure Subject Self-Report Measures The subjects rated themselves, their partners, and their reflected selves, and scores for interpersonal image and interpersonal comfort were obtained for each of these three perspectives. They also completed a physiological arousal scale, and a scale which measured protective and acquisitive self-presentation styles. As the physiological arousal scale was a modified version of the original, a principal components analysis was conducted. This analysis revealed the presence of single factor accounting for 50.2% of the variance. The factor loadings can be seen in Table 10. Table 10. Physiological Arousal Factor Matrix Item Number Item Factor Loading 2 Heart beating faster .85 3 Feeling short of breath .77 6 Lump in throat .77 8 Dry throat .73 1 Pressure in chest .69 5 Butterflies or knot in stomach .64 7 Sweating .61 The results of the principal components analysis strongly suggested that the individual items could be additively combined to yield a total score. PAGE 44 A principal components analysis was also conducted on the scale which measured protective and acquisitive self-presentation styles. The unrotated factor structure indicated that a two factor solution was optimal. A varimax rotation revealed that the protective items loaded on a f i r s t factor accounting for 31% of the variance, while the acquisitive items loaded on a second factor accounting for 17% of the variance. The exact factor loadings can be seen in Table 11. PAGE 45 Table 11. Factor M a t r i x f or the P r o t e c t i v e and A c q u i s i t i v e S e l f - P r e s e n t a t i o n S t y l e Scale Item t Factor Item Factor Loadings 1 Factor 2 10 Because I was u n c e r t a i n about what t o do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , I looked to my partner f or cues. .78 -.19 8 I t a l k e d about the same things my partner d i d because I di d n ' t want t o appear f o o l i s h . .71 -.19 14 During the con v e r s a t i o n , I t r i e d to behave i n such a way that I wouldn't draw a t t e n t i o n to myself. .71 -.20 12 I watched my partner's r e a c t i o n s because I was a f r a i d she might f i n d f a u l t with me. .69 -.16 4 I was c a r e f u l about what I s a i d because I was a f r a i d t h a t I might say or do something wrong. .63 .04 13 I t a l k e d about things I wanted to t a l k about, re g a r d l e s s of what my partner did.(R) .57 .23 6 I t a l k e d about things I thought my partner wanted me to t a l k about. .53 .32 15 I d i d n ' t t a l k about the t o p i c s I wanted to because I was a f r a i d my partner would disapprove of them .52 -.01 3 I was able to c o n t r o l the way I came across to my partner so that I gave the impression I wanted t o g i v e . .04 .79 7 I had no d i f f i c u l t y making a good impression during the conversation because I f e l t i t was to my advantage to do so. -.17 .70 1 Once I knew what the s i t u a t i o n c a l l e d f o r , i t was easy f o r me to regula t e my behavior. -.18 .65 9 I enjoyed t a l k i n g about myself i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n because I f e l t c o n f i d e n t that my partner was i n t e r e s t e d i n what I was saying. -.43 .59 2 I t r i e d to pay a t t e n t i o n to the r e a c t i o n s of my partner to avoid being inappropriate.(R) .40 .59 5 I f I f e l t t h a t I wasn't g i v i n g the impression I wanted to g i v e , I f e e l I could have e a s i l y changed i t . -.06 .57 11 Regardless of what my partner d i d , I f e l t t hat I could c o n t r o l the s i t u a t i o n . -.39 .55 Note: (R) denotes items scored i n a reverse d i r e c t i o n PAGE 46 The 9 p o s t d i s c l o s u r e subject s e l f - r e p o r t measures were analyzed by means of a 2 (shyness) x 2 (confederate intimacy) MANOVA. The MANOVA produced two s i g n i f i c a n t outcomes, a main e f f e c t f o r intimacy Fo, ee>=2.59, p <.05, and a main e f f e c t f o r shyness Fo, 8s>=10.19, p <.001. Followup u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on the intimacy main e f f e c t revealed two s i g n i f i c a n t outcomes; the s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s of t h e i r p a r t n e r s ' i n t e r p e r s o n a l image, F, x, 9 6,=6.18, p <.05, and t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l comfort, F ( 1 . , 9 B ) =8.39, p <.005. The h i g h l y i n t i m a t e confederates were seen as having a more p o s i t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l image (Mean=24.30) than were the non-intimate confederates (Mean=23.10). They were a l s o evaluated more p o s i t i v e l y i n terms of t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l comfort (Means=12.06 and 11.08 r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the high and low intimacy confederates). This i s the type of outcome t y p i c a l l y c i t e d as support f o r the " l i k i n g e f f e c t " . Thus, as hypothesized, t h i s very robust p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t was present i n t h i s study. Of greater i n t e r e s t was the main e f f e c t f o r shyness. The outcomes revealed by the followup u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s are shown i n Table 12. Table 12. Subjects' Self-Report Measures: Followup U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on the  Main E f f e c t f o r Shyness Source MS df F S e l f - R a t i n g (a) I n t e r p e r s o n a l Image (b) I n t e r p e r s o n a l Comfort 353.44 309.76 (1,96) (1,96) 36.49 51.86 <.001 <.001 R e f l e c t e d S e l f - R a t i n g (a) I n t e r p e r s o n a l Image (b) I n t e r p e r s o n a l Comfort 345.96 292.41 (1,96) (1,96) 38.86 63.80 <.001 <.001 P h y s i o l o g i c a l Arousal 789.61 (1/96) 22.92 <.001 S e l f - P r e s e n t a t i o n S t y l e (a) A c q u i s i t i v e (b) P r o t e c t i v e 1,459.24 1,528.81 (1,96) (1,96) 44.70 31; 59 <.001 <.001 PAGE 47 The non-shy subjects were significantly more positive about their own interpersonal image (Mean=21.54), and interpersonal comfort (Mean=10.66), than were their shy counterparts (Means=17.78 and 7.14 for image and comfort respectively). The non-shy subjects also f e l t that their partners were going to be more positive about them in terms of both interpersonal image (Mean=21.04) and interpersonal comfort (Mean=10.48) than were the shy subjects (Means=17.32 and 7.06 for image and comfort respectively). In addition to more negative self and reflected self ratings, the shy subjects also reported being more physiologically aroused (Mean=16.14) than did the non-shy subjects (Mean=10.52). The non-shy subjects were more lik e l y to u t i l i z e an acquisitively motivated style of self-presentation (Mean=34.38) than were the shy subjects (Mean=26.74). Conversely, the shy subjects were more lik e l y to use a protective style of self-presentation (Mean=28.55) than were their non-shy counterparts (Mean=20.74). These two results complement each other nicely as they tend to suggest that an individual uses one of the styles, in the relative absence of the other. Taken together, these results suggest several things. The shy subjects see themselves, and expect others to see them, more negatively in the sense of both interpersonal image and comfort. They report being more physiologically aroused, and appear to u t i l i z e a largely protective style of self-presentation . Analyses of the Confederate and Observer Ratings of the Subjects The confederates and observers rated the subjects on both their interpersonal image and comfort. The confederates also rated how comfortable PAGE 48 they themselves f e l t during the i n t e r a c t i o n s . The f i v e measures of confederate and observer r a t i n g s were analyzed by means of a 2 (shyness) x 2 (confederate intimacy) MANOVA. The MANOVA produced two s i g n i f i c a n t outcomes, a main e f f e c t f o r intimacy, F ( s,«»2>=3.04, p <.05, and a main e f f e c t f o r shyness, F (»,»a>38.69, p <.001. Followup u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on the intimacy main e f f e c t revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t outcome for the confederates' r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s ' i n t e r p e r s o n a l image, ••F(i,9«)=5.-87, p <.05. The confederates had a more p o s i t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l image of the subjects i n the high intimacy confederate d i s c l o s u r e c o n d i t i o n (Mean=20.78) than of the sub j e c t s i n the low intimacy one (Mean=18.36). As the su b j e c t s i n the high intimacy confederate d i s c l o s u r e c o n d i t i o n were a l s o more intimate themselves, t h i s i n d i c a t e s that the " l i k i n g e f f e c t " operated on the confederates' r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s ' i n t e r p e r s o n a l image. The l i k i n g e f f e c t d i d not extend to the confederates' r a t i n g s of the su b j e c t s ' i n t e r p e r s o n a l comfort. The absence of a s i g n i f i c a n t outcome here for the observers' r a t i n g s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l image and comfort i n d i c a t e s that the " l i k i n g effect'? d i d not play a r o l e i n t h e i r r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s . The outcomes of the followup u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on the shyness main e f f e c t are shown i n Table 13. PAGE 49 Table 13. Confederate and Observer Ratings of the Subjects: Followup  Univariate F-tests on the Main Effect for Shyness Source MS df F Confederates' Ratings of Subjects (a) Interpersonal Image (b) Interpersonal Comfort 127.69 384.16 (1,96) (1,96) 5.12 39.03 < < .05 .001 Observers' Rating of Subjects (a) Interpersonal Comfort 151.29 (1,96) 28.95 < .001 Confederates' Rating of Self-Comfort 114.29 (1,96) 4.43 < .05 The confederates were more positive in their ratings of the non-shy subjects' interpersonal image (Mean=20.87) and interpersonal comfort (Mean=11.46) than they were in their ratings of the shy subjects (Means=18.44 and 7.54 for image and comfort respectively). The observers were also more positive in their ratings of the non-shy subjects' interpersonal comfort (Mean=12.08) than they were in their ratings of the shy subjects (Mean=9.62). There was no significant difference, however, in the observers' ratings of the subjects' interpersonal image. In addition to being more positive about the non-shy subjects in terms of both their interpersonal image and comfort, the confederates themselves fel t more comfortable during their interactions with the non-shy subjects (Mean=18.02) than they did with the shy subjects (Mean=15.88). Discussion It is worthwhile noting that there were no significant main effects for shyness on any of the three measures of the intimacy of the subjects* PAGE 50 d i s c l o s u r e . That i s , shy su b j e c t s were n e i t h e r more nor l e s s intimate than were non-shy s u b j e c t s . Instead, d i f f e r e n c e s appeared only when the intimacy l e v e l of the confederate's d i s c l o s u r e was considered. The shyness x confederate i n t e r a c t i o n s suggest t h a t the shy sub j e c t s appeared to maintain a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y middle l e v e l of intimacy, regardless of what may have been d i s c l o s e d to them f i r s t . In c o n t r a s t , non-shy su b j e c t s used the confederate's intimacy as a cue, or i n d i c a t o r , regarding what was appropriate f o r t h e i r own d i s c l o s u r e , and then c l o s e l y matched t h i s with a s i m i l a r l e v e l of intimacy. Thus, r e l a t i v e to the non-shy s u b j e c t s , shy su b j e c t s tended to o v e r d i s c l o s e to the low intimacy confederate and underdisclose t o the high i n t i m a c y one. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study s t r o n g l y suggest that shyness i s r e l a t e d to non-r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e , rather than to any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y high or low l e v e l of d i s c l o s u r e . These r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t with two previous s t u d i e s t h a t have examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mental h e a l t h and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . In a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study concerned with the r e c i p r o c i t y norm, Mayo (1968) found that h o s p i t a l i z e d n e u r o t i c s reported n o n - r e c i p r o c a l patterns of d i s c l o s u r e w i t h others more than d i d normal s u b j e c t s . In a study u t i l i z i n g a d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y paradigm, Chaiken et a l . (1975) found a pa t t e r n of n o n - r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e f o r n e u r o t i c subjects s i m i l a r to the patterns e x h i b i t e d by the shy subj e c t s i n t h i s study. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the n e u r o t i c s were l e s s intimate i n response to a h i g h l y intimate confederate and more intimate i n response to a non-intimate confederate than were the normal s u b j e c t s . Although there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n f o r the d u r a t i o n of the sub j e c t s * d i s c l o s u r e s , , there were main e f f e c t s f o r both shyness and intimacy. The main e f f e c t f o r intimacy, i n the absence of a shyness by intimacy i n t e r a c t i o n , i n d i c a t e s t h a t both shy and non-shy subjects d i s c l o s e d f o r longer periods of time i n response to the high intimacy confederate than they d i d i n PAGE 51 response to the low Intimacy one. The main e f f e c t for shyness, however, revealed t h a t the shy su b j e c t s spoke f o r sho r t e r periods of time than d i d the non-shy s u b j e c t s , but that t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was c o n s i s t e n t across intimacy c o n d i t i o n s . Thus, b e h a v i o r i a l l y , we see that the shy subjects spoke f o r sh o r t e r periods of time, and r e c i p r o c a t e d the confederates' intimacy to a l e s s e r degree, than d i d the non-shy s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n to the b e h a v i o r i a l i s s u e s , t h i s study a l s o examined s e v e r a l other f a c t o r s p o t e n t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o shyness. Previous s t u d i e s have reported somewhat c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s as t o how shy i n d i v i d u a l s perceive themselves, perceive o t h e r s , and how others perceive the shy i n d i v i d u a l s . For example, one study (Jones & B r i g g s , 1984) reported that shy su b j e c t s n e g a t i v e l y evaluated t h e i r p a r t n e r s , but another study (Alden & Meleshko, 1988) found no d i f f e r e n c e between the partner r a t i n g s of shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s . Although s e v e r a l s t u d i e s ( P i l k o n i s , 1977; Cheek & Buss, 1981; Jones et a l . , 1983) have reported a r e l a t i o n s h i p between shyness and being n e g a t i v e l y evaluated by one's p a r t n e r , another study (Alden & Meleshko, 1988) found no d i f f e r e n c e , suggesting t h a t shy i n d i v i d u a l s may not be u n i v e r s a l l y n e g a t i v e l y evaluated by others. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses used i n some of these s t u d i e s have been c o r r e l a t i o n a l i n nature and, thus, have examined r e l a t i o n s h i p s r a t h e r than absolute d i f f e r e n c e s between the experimental groups (Jones et a l . , 1983; Jones & B r i g g s , 1984). I t seems, however, that even a f t e r t a k i n g t h i s i n t o account, there are unexplained d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e s u l t s i n v a r i o u s s t u d i e s . Upon f u r t h e r review, i t appears that there are two major f a c t o r s which may be somewhat more complex than they have been conceptualized to t h i s p o i n t i n time. The f i r s t f a c t o r concerns the a d j e c t i v e s which have been used to o b t a i n the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r a t i n g s * These a d j e c t i v e s have tended to vary PAGE 52 from study to study. Of even greater importance, however, is that most studies have failed to consider that different dimensions may underlie what appear to be a group of related adjectives. The present study has shown that individuals do indeed seem to u t i l i z e various adjectives in a similar fashion, thus suggesting the presence of different underlying dimensions. The patterns of correlations suggest there are at least two major dimensions which underlie the bipolar adjectives used in this study, interpersonal comfort and interpersonal image. Negative ratings on one dimension do not necessitate negative ratings on another dimension, nor do they justify global conclusions of negative (or positive) evaluation. Shy subjects may be rated negatively on the comfort dimension, for example, yet be perceived as positive on the image dimension. Thus, we can see that viewing different adjectives as measuring a single, positive versus negative dimension, may have contributed to the conflicting results obtained in various studies. The second major factor relates to contextual variables in the various studies. Was there an actual face-to-face interaction between the experimental participants and, i f so, what was the nature and format of the exchange? Were the individuals evaluating the shy subjects interactively involved with them, or were they a removed, and possibly affectively neutral, rater or observer? By considering these various facets separately, we might be better able to interpret and understand the differences which occur. For example, Cheek and Buss (1981) obtained peer ratings following a brief, unstructured interaction while Alden and Meleshko (1988) also used peer ratings, but they followed a structured interaction. On the other hand, Pilkonis (1977) utilized the ratings of confederates who were involved in the interaction and two types of observers who were not involved, those who were PAGE 53 present and viewed the encounter l i v e , and those who viewed the encounter on videotape. The main e f f e c t f o r intimacy found f o r the s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s of t h e i r partner's i n t e r p e r s o n a l image and comfort i s quite i n t e r e s t i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n the absence of e i t h e r a main e f f e c t for shyness or an i n t e r a c t i o n . Both the shy and non-shy subjects were more p o s i t i v e about the i n t e r p e r s o n a l image and comfort of the h i g h l y intimate confederate than they were about the image and comfort of the non-intimate confederate. Thus, both shy and non-shy subjects conformed to one of the most robust e f f e c t s found i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , the " l i k i n g e f f e c t " . In a d d i t i o n , the absence of a main e f f e c t f o r shyness, or an i n t e r a c t i o n , i n d i c a t e s that the shy i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s study d i d not n e g a t i v e l y evaluate t h e i r p a r t n e r s , or f i n d them l e s s a t t r a c t i v e , than d i d the non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s . This study a l s o found that shy subjects were more negative, and expected t h e i r partners to be more negative, about both t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l image and comfort. This outcome i s c o n s i s t e n t with r e s u l t s reported by Jones and Briggs (1984) and Alden and Meleshko (1988). I t was hypothesized that shy subjects may have been more negative about themselves i n the high intimacy c o n d i t i o n than i n the low intimacy one, l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of t h e i r hypothesized non-r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e i n the high intimacy c o n d i t i o n . As we have seen, however, the shy subjects tended to e x h i b i t n o n - r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e , as compared to the non-shy s u b j e c t s , i n both the high and low intimacy c o n d i t i o n s . Thus, the presence of a main e f f e c t f o r shyness here appears to be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r n o n - r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e i n both confederate intimacy c o n d i t i o n s . I t appears t h a t shy i n d i v i d u a l s see themselves, and expect others to see them, as being more i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y uncomfortable (anxious, shy). The shy PAGE 54 subjects also have, and expect others to have, a negative sense of their interpersonal image (unattractive, unfriendly, boring, and unlikeable). This dimension would appear to comprise, in part, what is often referred to as self-esteem. One can only empathize with individuals who must enter a social encounter with a negative sense of self-image and a sense of interpersonal discomfort, both of which w i l l be perceived by their partner. Although shy individuals expect others to perceive them negatively, a key question is whether this actually occurs. The results in this study suggest that i t may depend on the extent of the raters' involvement in the interaction: are they an actual participant or a removed observer? The shyness main effect for the confederates' ratings of the subjects interpersonal image and comfort, suggests that the shy subjects are indeed perceived more negatively by those who interact with them. The confederates viewed the shy subjects more negatively in terms of both their interpersonal image (unattractive, unlikeable, unfriendly, and boring) and their interpersonal comfort (anxious and shy). Equally important, the confederates themselves fel t less comfortable when interacting with the shy subjects than with the non-shy subjects. This causes one to wonder i f shy individuals may exhibit certain behaviors that enable others to identify the shy person's interpersonal discomfort and whether, once this identification is made, i t necessarily results in other people not only feeling more uncomfortable with the shy individuals, but of having a more negative impression of their interpersonal image. The observers' ratings of the subjects provide a somewhat different perspective on this issue. The observers, similarly to the confederates, rated the shy subjects as more interpersonally uncomfortable than the non-shy subjects. They did not, however, perceive the shy and non-shy subjects any PAGE bb differently in terms of their interpersonal image. Thus, although the observers saw the shy subjects as being less comfortable in terms of self-presentation (more anxious and shy), they did not view them as less interpersonally attractive. This suggests that shy individuals do exhibit certain behaviorial cues that allow their interpersonal discomfort to be identified and evaluated but that, once identified, the shy individual's interpersonal discomfort does not necessarily lead to a more negative evaluation of her interpersonal image. Why was the experience different for the confederates as compared to the observers? That the confederates were in the room and interacting with the shy subjects seems to be the obvious answer, but i t is an answer that begs the question. Interestingly, there was also a intimacy main effect for the confederates' ratings of the subject's interpersonal image, indicating that the confederates were subject to the "liking effect"; they had a more positive interpersonal image of the subjects in the high intimacy condition. There was no main effect for intimacy for the observers' ratings of the subjects. Taken together, this suggests that the confederates were more affected by the nature and intimacy of the subjects' disclosures than were the observers. Keeping in mind both this, and the fact that the shy subjects displayed non-reciprocal disclosure as compared to the non-shy subjects in both conditions, a possible interpretation is suggested for the shyness main effect for the confederates' ratings of the subjects' interpersonal image, and their ratings of how comfortable they themselves were. The differences in the confederate and observer ratings of the subjects indicates that i t is not so much the shy individuals* interpersonal discomfort that caused people to feel less comfortable with them and subsequently evaluate them more negatively, as i t is PAGE 56 their non-reciprocal disclosure. Basically, i t is what they say, not how they say i t . The subjects' self-report of their physiological arousal examines another important dimension of shyness. There was a main effect for shyness for this measure, revealing that the shy subjects in both the high and low intimacy conditions reported being more physiologically aroused than their non-shy counterparts. It was hypothesized that as a result of their non-reciprocal disclosure, the shy subjects in the high intimacy condition would report higher levels of physiological arousal than the shy subjects in the low intimacy condition. As the shy subjects, however, exhibited non-reciprocal disclosure in both confederate intimacy conditions, i t is not surprising, and indeed consistent, that their reported level of physiological arousal would be similar in both conditions. The author realizes that the measure of arousal was a self-report rather than a physiological one. There is no way to know whether the shy subjects were experiencing higher levels of arousal as would be reflected on physiological measures. It would seem, however, that arousal as reflected by the subject's self-report would s t i l l have implications for the shy individual's performance. Higher levels of perceived arousal are consistent with the shy subjects' view of themselves, and their reflected-selves, as being more interpersonally uncomfortable. It is also possible that the shy subjects' higher levels of physiological arousal provided the cues that were utilized by the confederates and observers in their ratings of the shy subjects' interpersonal discomfort. This last point is only speculative, however, as the design of the present study was not conducive to a more concrete conclusion in this regard. PAGE 57 An extremely interesting result, and one that is consistent with many of the other outcomes in this study, relates to the subjects* self-report as to whether they utilized an acquisitive or a protective style of self-presentation during the interaction. There were main effects for shyness on both the protective and acquisitive self-presentation measures. Specifically, the non-shy subjects were more lik e l y to u t i l i z e an acquisitive style of self-presentation than were the shy subjects, while the shy subjects were more like l y to u t i l i z e a protective style than were the non-shy subjects. It seems then, that the shy subjects largely utilized a protective self-presentation style in the relative absence of an acquisitive style. The non-shy subjects, on the other hand, appear to have mainly used an acquisitive style of self-presentation in the relative absence of a protective style. Arkin (1981) postulated that although the protective and acquisitive self-presenters may behave similarly in a particular social situation, they are guided by different motives, and their attendant affective reactions can therefore be expected to be different. Acquisitive self-presentation is a positive portrayal of the self motivated by a desire to enhance favoured treatment in future circumstances by garnering approval. Protective self-presentation might best be conceptualized as a conservatism motivated by an attempt to avoid disapproval. Implicit in this, is that individuals who rely on each style should exhibit distinctive patterns of behavior and affect that are consistent with their motives. In the present study, the non-shy subjects indicated they utilized an acquisitive style of self-presentation during the interactions. Other aspects of the study showed that they spoke for a relatively longer period of time and reciprocated the confederate's intimacy level in both the high and low intimacy conditions. They were more positive, and expected others to be more PAGE 58 positive, about both their interpersonal image and comfort. The confederates not only fe l t more comfortable with the non-shy subjects, they were also more positive about their interpersonal image and comfort. The non-shy subjects also reported relatively low levels of physiological arousal. This pattern of results seems quite consistent with Arkin's view of the socially competent and confident acquisitive self-presenter attempting to enhance favoured treatment in future circumstances. The shy subjects indicated they utilized a largely protective style of self-presentation during the interaction. They also spoke for a relatively shorter duration and exhibited non-reciprocal disclosure, as compared to the non-shy subjects, in response to both the highly intimate and non-intimate confederates. Especially important was that, as a rule, their disclosures tended to maintain a characteristically middle level of intimacy. They reported higher levels of physiological arousal and were more negative, and expected others to be more negative, about both their interpersonal image and comfort. The confederates were indeed more negative about the shy subjects in terms of their interpersonal image and comfort, and were also themselves more uncomfortable when interacting with the shy subjects. Here as well, we see that this pattern of results is largely consistent with Arkin's conceptualization of the conservative, socially hesitant, protective sel f -presenter attempting to avoid disapproval. The question remains to be answered as to why shy individuals have developed non-reciprocal patterns of self-disclosure. F i r s t , perhaps shy individuals simply do not perceive the situational cues that should influence their disclosure. The fact that there was no difference between the shy and non-shy subjects in their perception of how revealing and intimate their partners were, suggests that this is not the case. The shy subjects were just PAGE 59 as accurate as the non-shy subjects in their perception of how intimate and revealing their partners were. A second, basically s k i l l s d e f i c i t explanation would be that shy individuals accurately perceive the situational cues, but lack the s k i l l s necessary to reciprocate the intimacy. This explanation also seems to f a l l somewhat short. It does not appear that shy individuals are unable to disclose, but rather that they are unable to reciprocate disclosure to the same extent as do non-shy individuals. Taken together, this indicates that shy individuals accurately perceive the intimacy difference and have the s k i l l s necessary for reciprocity, but for some reason s t i l l f a i l to display reciprocal patterns of disclosure. There appear to be three possible explanations as to why shy individuals f a i l to reciprocate disclosure to the same extent as do non-shy individuals. It is possible that shy individuals may be unaware of the social norms prescribing when people should disclose, and when they should not; or they may be aware of them, but due to excessive self-preoccupation, or perhaps motivation, may s t i l l f a i l to observe them. Unfortunately, the design of the present study does not allow us to determine whether or not shy individuals are aware of the social norms prescribing appropriate disclosure. This potential explanation will have to be addressed in future studies. A second possibility is that shy individuals may be so self-preoccupied with their own anxiety and problems that they do not realize that they are exhibiting non-reciprocal disclosure. There seems to be a fair amount of merit to this explanation as the shy individuals in this study reported higher levels of physiological arousal as well as negative cognitions and affect. The shy individual may have a history of such unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships that she develops a pattern of moderate disclosure, regardless PAGE 60 of the situation. She may feel that by u t i l i z i n g such a pattern of disclosure, she will not be labelled cold and superficial as i f she did not disclose at a l l . At the same time, she will not risk the ridicule of overdisclosure. This defensive, conservative strategy would appear to be very consistent with the finding that the shy subjects maintained a characteristically moderate level of disclosure and indicated that they utilized a largely protective style of self-presentation. Thus, i t seems that shy individuals may enter social situations with very different motives than non-shy individuals. Further, these motivational differences may have major implications for the shy individual's interpersonal d i f f i c u l t i e s . As directionality cannot be assumed, i t may also be possible that non-reciprocal disclosure plays a causal role in shyness. Certainly, the social consequences (withdrawal, rejection, etc.) resulting from a failure to follow reciprocal patterns of disclosure would be devastating. It may well be that shyness and associated symptoms such as physiological arousal, negative cognitions, and motivational differences, are consequences, rather than causes or co-effects, of the individual's failure to follow reciprocal patterns of disclosure. Unfortunately for the shy individual, this pattern of behavior may prevent her from forming meaningful relationships with others. If she overdiscloses at the wrong time, she w i l l e l i c i t rejection and withdrawal from others. On the other hand, she may be unable to form close attachments with others as a result of her failure to disclose when i t is appropriate to do so as part of a developing relationship. The generalizations made by the author must be qualified due to certain limitations of the present study. First, although the paradigm closely approximated a first-meeting situation, i t was, nonetheless, s t i l l a somewhat PAGE 61 structured and a r t i f i c i a l interaction. In addition, i t represents only one of a potential range of social-evaluative interactions which individuals must enter. Thus, i t remains to be shown that these results are consistent across a variety of interpersonal situations. A more stringent limitation on generalizability is the fact that a l l the subjects and both confederates were women. While there is no a priori reason to believe that a similar pattern of results would not be obtained for mixed or male dyads, once again this cannot be assumed. Another facet, which is not so much a limitation of the present study as i t is a suggestion for future studies, relates to the fact that only one personality disposition (shyness) was utilized as an independent variable. Due to the complexity of the questions addressed here, in retrospect the inclusion of several other personality dispositions as independent variables may have allowed for a more concise interpretation of the results. Self-consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) and sociability (Cheek & Buss, 1981) are two which seem particularly relevant, and which should be considered in any future studies of this nature. Consistent with the recommendations of Alden and Cappe (1986), and the results of this study, future research should continue to focus on other-directed process variables rather than on self-focused, discrete, molecular behaviors. The process variables appear to have much greater implications for the interpersonal impact and d i f f i c u l t i e s of the shy individual. Both future research and treatment programs should also be cognizant that behaviorally, the key issue may not be a d e f i c i t in the absolute sense so much as i t may be an appropriateness, or normative d e f i c i t . In summary, the purpose of this study was to examine possible behaviorial, cognitive, motivational, and physiological differences between shy and non-shy PAGE 62 individuals involved in a social encounter. The results indicate that shy individuals do indeed exhibit behavioral differences. As compared to the non-shy subjects, the shy subjects spoke for shorter periods of time, overdisclos-ed to the low intimacy confederate, and underdisclosed to the high intimacy one. The shy subjects had a negative impression of their own interpersonal image, and a sense of interpersonal discomfort, both of which they fe l t would be perceived by their partner. Although both the confederates and observers did indeed perceive the shy subjects' interpersonal discomfort, only the confederates had a negative perception of their interpersonal image. This suggests that shyness, in and of i t s e l f , does not necessarily lead to global negative evaluation by others. Interestingly, the shy subjects not only did not negatively evaluate their partners, they actually conformed to the "liking effect" and were more positive about the highly intimate confederate than they were about the non-intimate one. The shy subjects also reported higher levels of physiological arousal in both intimacy conditions. Taken together, the results partially support a position suggesting that the actual motivations, and purpose, of shy individuals in social situations may differ from the motivations and purpose of non-shy individuals. Specifically, the shy subjects used a protective style of self-presentation in the relative absence of an acquisitive style, while the non-shy subjects mainly used an acquisitive style of self-presentation in the relative absence of a protective style. PAGE 63 References Alden, L . , & Cappe, R. (1986). Interpersonal process t r a i n i n g for shy c l i e n t s . In W. Jones, J . Cheek, & S. Briggs ( E d s . ) . Shyness:  Perspect ives on Research and Treatment (pp 343-355). New York: Plenum Press A lden, L . , & Meleshko, K .G. (1988). Shyness: Se l f d i s c l o s u r e and s o c i a l percept ion . Unpublished manuscript. Anchor, K . N . , V o j t i s e k , J . E . , & Berger, S . E . (1972). S o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y as a p red ic tor of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e in groups. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,  and P r a c t i c e , 9, 262-264. Anchor, K . N . , V o j t i s e k , J . E . , & Pa t te rson , R . L . (1973). T r a i t anx ie ty , i n i t i a l s t r u c t u r i n g and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e in groups of sch izophrenic p a t i e n t s . Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and P r a c t i c e , 10, 155-158. Archer , R . L . (1979). Role of p e r s o n a l i t y and the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . In G. Chelune ( E d . ) . S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . San F r a n c i s c o , CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. A r k i n , R.M. (1981). S e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s t y l e s . In J . T . Tedeschi ( E d . ) , Impression Management Theory and S o c i a l Psycho log ica l Research, (pp. 311-333). New York: Academic P r e s s . B e i d e l , D. , Turner , S . , & Dancu, C. (1985). P h y s i o l o g i c a l , cogn i t ive and behaviora l aspects of s o c i a l anx ie ty . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 109-117. Borkovec, T . D . , Stone, N.M., O ' B r i e n , G . T . , & Kaloupek, D.G. (1974). Eva luat ion of a c l i n i c a l l y re levant target behavior for analog outcome research . Behavior Therapy, 5, 503-513. Brundage, L . E . , Der lega, U . J . , & Cash, T . F . (1977). The e f f e c t s of p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and need for approval on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n , 3, 409-413. Burhenne, D., & M i r e l s , H.L. (1970). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e in s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e essays . Journal of Consul t ing and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 35, 409-413. Cacioppo, J . T . , G l a s s , C . R . , & M e r l u z z i , T .V . (1979). Sel f -s tatements are s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s : A cogni t ive response a n a l y s i s of heterosexual s o c i a l anx ie ty . Cogni t ive Therapy and Research, 3, 249-262. Campbell , H. (1896). Morbid shyness. The B r i t i s h Medical J o u r n a l , 2, 805-807. C h a i k i n , A . L . , & Der lega, V . J . (1974). S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press . C h a i k i n , A . L . , Der lega, V . J . , Bayma, B . , & Shaw, J . (1975). Neurot ic ism and d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y . Journal of Consul t ing and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 4_3, 13-19. PAGE 64 Chambless, D.L., Caputo, G.C, B r i g h t , P., & Gallagher, R. (1984). Assessment of fe a r of fear i n agoraphobics: The body sensations questionnaire and the agoraphobic c o g n i t i o n s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . J o u r n a l of Co n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology. 52, 1090-1097. Cheek, J.M., & Busch, CM. (1981). The i n f l u e n c e of shyness and l o n e l i n e s s i n a new s i t u a t i o n . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n . 7, 572-577. Cheek, J.M., & Buss, A.H. (1981). Shyness and s o c i a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 41, 330-339. Chelune, G.J. (1979). S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . San F r a n c i s c o , Ca: Jossey-Bass Inc. Chelune, G.J., S u l t a n , F.E., & W i l l i a m s , C L . (1980). L o n e l i n e s s , s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e , and i n t e r p e r s o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g  Psychology. 27, 462-468. C l a r k , J.V., & Arkowitz, H. (1975). S o c i a l a n x i e t y and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n of i n t e r p e r s o n a l performance. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 36, 211-221. Cozby, P.C. (1973). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : A l i t e r a t u r e review. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n . 29, 73-91. Craighead, W., K i m b a l l , W., & Rehak, P. (1979). Mood changes, p h y s i o l o g i c a l responses, and sel f - s t a t e m e n t s during s o c i a l r e j e c t i o n imagery. J o u r n a l  of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. £7, 385-396. Daley, S. (1978). Behavioral c o r r e l a t e s of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l  of S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 17, 117-120. Duckro, R.,. Duckro, P., & B e a l , D. (1976). R e l a t i o n s h i p s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and mental h e a l t h i n black females. Journ a l of Co n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology. 44./ 940-944. Girodo, M. (1978). Shy? New York: Pocket Books. Girodo, M., Dotzenroth, S.E., & S t e i n , S.J. (1981). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n bias i n shy males: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r self-esteem and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . C o g n i t i v e  Therapy and Research. 5, 325-338. Gla s s , C.R., & Shea, C A . (1986). C o g n i t i v e therapy f o r shyness and s o c i a l a n x i e t y . In W. Jones, J . Cheek, & S. Briggs (Eds.). Shyness:  Per s p e c t i v e s on Research and Treatment (315-327). New York: Plenum Press. Hampton, F.A. (1927). Shyness. Journ a l of Neurology and Psychopathology, 8, 124-131. Hogan, R., Jones, W., & Cheek, J.M. (1985). S o c i o a n a l y t i c theory: An a l t e r n a t i v e to a r m a d i l l o psychology. In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.), The S e l f  and S o c i a l L i f e , (pp. 175-198). New York: Norton. Jones, W.H. (1981). L o n e l i n e s s and s o c i a l contact. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  Psychology. 113, 295-296. PAGE 65 Jones, W.H., & B r i g g s , S.R. (1984). The s e l f - o t h e r discrepancy i n s o c i a l shyness. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.). The S e l f i n Anxiety, S t r e s s , and  Depression (pp 93-107). Amsterdam: North Holland. Jones, W.H., Cavert, C , & I n d a r t , M. (1983, August). Impressions of shyness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Anaheim, CA. Jones, W.H., Cheek, J.M., & B r i g g s , S.R. (1986). Shyness: P e r s p e c t i v e s on  Research and Treatment. New York: Plenum Press. Jones, W.H., Freemon, J.E., & Goswick, R.A. (1981). The p e r s i s t e n c e of l o n e l i n e s s : S e l f and other determinants. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 49, 27-48. Jones, W.H., Hobbs, S.A., & Hockenbury, D. (1982). L o n e l i n e s s and s o c i a l s k i l l s d e f i c i t s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 42, 682-689. Jones, W.H., Sansone, C , & Helm, B. (1983). Loneliness and i n t e r p e r s o n a l judgements. P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n , 9, 437-441. Jourard, S.M. (1958a). Personal Adjustment: An Approach Through the Study of  Healthy P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: MacMillan. Jourard, S.M. (1958b). A study of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . S c i e n t i f i c American, 198, 77-82. Jourard, S.M. (1959). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and o t h e r - c a t h e x i s . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 59, 428-431. Jourard, S.M. (1971). S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e : An Experimental A n a l y s i s of the  Transparent S e l f . New York: W i l e y - I n t e r s c i e n c e . Kanter, N.J., & G o l d f r i e d , M.R. (1979). R e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of r a t i o n a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g and s e l f - c o n t r o l d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n f o r the r e d u c t i o n of i n t e r p e r s o n a l a n x i e t y . Behavior Therapy. 10, 472-490. Lang, P.J., L e v i n , D.N., M i l l e r , G.A., & Kozak, M. (1983). Fear behavior, fear imagery, and the psychophysiology of emotion: The problem of a f f e c t i v e response i n t e g r a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 276-306. Leary, M.R., Johnson, K.A., & Knight, P.D; (1984, August). S o c i a l A nxiety and  Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Toronto. Lennox, R.D., & Wolfe, R.N. (1984). R e v i s i o n of the s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g s c a l e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 46; 1349-1364. Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: McGraw-Hill. PAGE 66 Le v i n , K. (1948). The s o c i a l distance between i n d i v i d u a l s i n the United States and Germany. In K. Lewln (Ed.), Resolving S o c i a l C o n f l i c t s . New York: Harper & Row. Lewinsky, H. (1941). The nature of shyness. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, 32, 105-113. Malkiewich, L.E., & M e r l u z z i , T.V. (1980). R a t i o n a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g vs. d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n with c l i e n t s of di v e r s e conceptual l e v e l : A t e s t of a c l i e n t treatment matching model. Journal of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 27. 453-461. Mandel, N.M., & Shrauger, J.S. (1980). The e f f e c t s of s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e statements on h e t e r o s o c i a l approach i n shy and non-shy males. Cognitive  Therapy and Research, A, 369-381. Maroldo, G.K. (1981). Shyness and l o n e l i n e s s among c o l l e g e men and women. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 48., 485-486. M a r z i l l i e r , J.S., Lambert, C , & K e l l e t t , J . (1976). A c o n t r o l l e d e v a l u a t i o n of systematic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and s o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g f or s o c i a l l y inadequate p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . Behavior Research and Therapy, 14, 225-238. Mayo, P.R. (1968). S e i t - d i s c l o s u r e and neurosis. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 7, 140-148. Mullaney, A.J. (1964). R e l a t i o n s h i p s among s e l f - d i s c l o s i v e behavior, p e r s o n a l i t y , and f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 24, 4290. O'Banion, K., & Arkowitz, H. (1977). S o c i a l a n x i e t y and s e l e c t i v e memory f o r a f f e c t i v e information about the s e l f . S o c i a l Behavior and P e r s o n a l i t y , 5 321-328. Pedersen, D.M., & Higbee, K.L. (1969). P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, 78, 81-89. P h i l l i p s , G. (1980). Help f or Shy People. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Spectrum. P i l k o n i s , P.A. (1977a). Shyness, p u b l i c and p r i v a t e , and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to other measures of s o c i a l behavior. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y , 45, 585-595. P i l k o n i s , P.A. (1977b). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of  P e r s o n a l i t y , 45, 596-611. Post, A.L., Wittmaier, B.C., & Radin, M.E. (1978). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a fu n c t i o n of s t a t e and t r a i t a n x i e t y . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 46_, 12-19. Powell, B. (1979). Overcoming Shyness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rickers-Ovsiankina, M.A. (1956). S o c i a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y i n three age groups. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 2, 283-294. PAGE 67 Ryckman, R .M. , Sherman, M .F . , & Burgess, G.D. (1973). Locus of con t ro l and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of pub l ic and pr iva te information by co l l ege men and women. Journal of Psychology, 84, 317-318. Solano, C . H . , Bat ten , P . G . , & P a r i s h , E . A . (1982). Lonel iness and patterns of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 43, 524-531. Teear, C H . (1977). Conquer Shyness. Well ingborough, England: Thomas & Co. Trower, P. (1980). S i t u a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the components and processes of behavior of s o c i a l l y s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d p a t i e n t s . Journal of  Consul t ing and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 48, 327-339. Twentyman, C . T . , & M c F a l l , R.M. (1975). Behaviora l t r a i n i n g of s o c i a l s k i l l s in shy males. Journal of Consul t ing and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 43, 384-395. Vondracek, F.W. (1969). Behavioral measurement of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Psycho log ica l Reports , 25, 914. Watson, D. , & F r i e n d , R. (1969). Measurement of s o c i a l - e v a l u a t i v e anx ie ty . Journal of Consul t ing and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 33, 448-457. Weber, E . , & M i l l e r , J . (1979). Shy Person's Guide to a Happier Love L i f e . New York: Symphony P r e s s . Wolfe, R . N . , Lennox, R .D . , & C u t l e r , B . L . (1986). Get t ing along and ge t t ing ahead: Empi r i ca l support for a theory of pro tec t ive and a c q u i s i t i v e s e l f -p resen ta t ion . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 50(2), 356-361. Zimbardo, P . G . (1977). Shyness: What i t i s . What to do About i t . New York: Addison-Wesley. Zimbardo, P . G . , & Rad l , S . L . (1981). The Shv C h i l d . New York: McGraw-Hi l l . PAGE 68 List of Appendixes 1. Instructions 69 2. Topic List 70 3. Subjects' Self-Rating Form 71 4. Subjects' Partner-Rating Form 72 5. Subjects' Reflected-Self Rating Form 73 6. Physiological Arousal Rating Scale 74 7. Protective/Acquisitive Rating Scale 75 8. Confederate Ratings of Subjects Form 78 9. Observer Ratings of Subjects Form 79 10. Intimacy Scale Verbal Anchors 80 11. Non-Intimate: First Confederate Disclosure 81 12. Non-Intimate: Second Confederate Disclosure 82 13. Non-Intimate: Third Confederate Disclosure 83 14. Non-Intimate: Fourth Confederate Disclosure 84 15. High-Intimate: First Confederate Disclosure 85 16. High-Intimate: Second Confederate Disclosure 86 17. High-Intimate: Third Confederate Disclosure 87 18. High-Intimate: Fourth Confederate Disclosure 88 19. Non-Intimate: Confederate Disclosure Content Checklist 89 20. High-Intimate: Confederate Disclosure Content Checklist 91 PAGE 69 Appendix 1. INSTRUCTIONS When people meet and begin to get to know each other they u s u a l l y do i t by t a l k i n g about themselves. This i n v o l v e s both speaking and l i s t e n i n g . In t h i s study, we are l o o k i n g a t d i f f e r e n t c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s t h a t people use when they f i r s t meet someone. We would l i k e you to get to know each other, to t a l k about y o u r s e l f and l i s t e n as your partner t a l k s about h e r s e l f so th a t you become b e t t e r acquainted. We need to s t r u c t u r e t h i s somewhat, so what we would l i k e you to do i s to take turns t a l k i n g and l i s t e n i n g . I w i l l give you a l i s t of some t o p i c s f o r you to t a l k about. The person w i t h the higher i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number w i l l go f i r s t . That person w i l l choose one of the t o p i c s and t a l k b r i e f l y about i t . The other person's task i s to l i s t e n . Then the other person w i l l choose a t o p i c and t a l k about i t while the person who spoke f i r s t now becomes the l i s t e n e r . Because we must s t r u c t u r e t h i s somewhat, we must ask th a t you do not speak or ask questions when i t i s your turn to be the l i s t e n e r . As w e l l , when you have s a i d a l l you have t o say on a t o p i c , maybe l e t your partner know by saying something l i k e " f i n i s h e d " or "your t u r n " . You w i l l continue to a l t e r n a t e back and f o r t h u n t i l you have both chosen and spoken on 4 t o p i c s . As you choose each t o p i c , please place a number beside i t i n d i c a t i n g whether i t was the f i r s t one you pi c k e d , the second, e t c . As I s a i d , we want you to get to know each other. Please be as honest and open as you can. Try to be as s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and t r u t h f u l with the other person as you hope they w i l l be with you. PAGE 70 Appendix 2. 1. What are your views on the way a husband and wife should l i v e t h e i r marriage? 2. What are your usual ways of d e a l i n g with depression, a n x i e t y and anger? 3. What are the a c t i o n s you have most r e g r e t t e d doing i n your l i f e and why? 4. What are the ways i n which you f e e l you are most maladjusted or immature? 5. What are your g u i l t i e s t s e c r e t s ? 6. What are the h a b i t s and r e a c t i o n s of yours which bother you at present? 7. What are the sources of s t r a i n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the opposite sex (or your marriage)? 8. What are your f a v o r i t e forms of e r o t i c p l a y and sexual lovemaking? 9. What are your hobbies, how do you best l i k e to spend your spare time? 10. What were the occasions i n your l i f e on which you were the happiest? 11. What are the aspects of your d a i l y l i f e t h a t s a t i s f y and bother you? 12. What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of y o u r s e l f give you cause f o r pri d e and s a t i s f a c t i o n ? 13. Who are the persons i n your l i f e whom you most resent; why? 14. Who are the people with whom you have been s e x u a l l y i n t i m a t e . What were the circumstances of your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h each? 15. What are the unhappiest moments i n your l i f e ; why? 16. What are your preferences and d i s l i k e s i n music? 17. What are your personal goals for the next 10 years or so? 18. What are the circumstances under which you become depressed and when your f e e l i n g s are hurt? 19. What are your most common sexual f a n t a s i e s ? PAGE 71 Appendix 3. S e l f - R a t i n g We are i n t e r e s t e d i n how you would rat e your behavior during t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . Please r a t e y o u r s e l f on each of the items below. For example, on item 1, i f you saw y o u r s e l f as being a t t r a c t i v e during the d i s c u s s i o n , you would c i r c l e a 1 or a 2. The more a t t r a c t i v e you perceived y o u r s e l f to be during the d i s c u s s i o n , the lower the number you would c i r c l e . The same t h i n g a p p l i e s i f you perceived y o u r s e l f as u n a t t r a c t i v e . The more u n a t t r a c t i v e you perceived y o u r s e l f to be, the higher the number you would c i r c l e . Your r a t i n g s are completely c o n f i d e n t i a l and are coded only by number, so t r y to be as frank and honest as you can. BE SURE THAT EVERY ITEM IS ANSWERED. u n a t t r a c t i v e u n f r i e n d l y open calm unrevealing l i k e a b l e boring not shy 1. a t t r a c t i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. f r i e n d l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. clo s e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. r e v e a l i n g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. u n l i k e a b l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. i n t e r e s t i n g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please answer the f o l l o w i n g question. 9. How intimate were you during the i n t e r a c t i o n ? That i s , how personal was the infor m a t i o n about y o u r s e l f t h a t you gave t o your par t n e r . Was the information you d i s c l o s e d extremely p r i v a t e and personal or was i t f a i r l y s u p e r f i c i a l ? not very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely i n t i m a t e (average) intimate PAGE 72 Appendix 4. Partner Rating We are i n t e r e s t e d i n how you would ra t e your partner's behavior during t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . Please r a t e your partner on each of the items below. For example, on item 1, i f your partner s t r i k e s you as a t t r a c t i v e , you would c i r c l e a 1 or a 2. The more a t t r a c t i c e you b e l i e v e her to be, the lower the number you would c i r c l e . The same t h i n g a p p l i e s i f you regard her as u n a t t r a c t i v e . The more u n a t t r a c t i v e you b e l i e v e her t o be, the higher the number you would c i r c l e . Your r a t i n g s are completely c o n f i d e n t i a l . The other person w i l l not see these r a t i n g s , so t r y to be as frank and honest as you can. BE SURE THAT EVERY ITEM IS ANSWERED. 1. a t t r a c t i v e 1 2 3 ' 1 5 6 7 u n a t t r a c t i v e 2. f r i e n d l y 1 2 3 ' 1 5 6 7 u n f r i e n d l y 3. c l o s e d 1 2 3 * 1 5 6 7 open 4. anxious 1 2 3 i 1 5 6 7 calm 5. r e v e a l i n g 1 2 3 ' 1 5 6 7 unrevealing 6. u n l i k e a b l e 1 2 3 i 1 5 6 7 l i k e a b l e 7. i n t e r e s t i n g 1 2 3 ' 1 5 6 7 boring 8. shy 1 2 3 < 1 5 6 7 not shy Please answer the f o l l o w i n g question. 9. How intima t e was your partner? That i s , how personal was the information she gave you. Was the information your partner d i s c l o s e d of an extremely p r i v a t e and personal nature or was i t f a i r l y s u p e r f i c i a l ? not very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely intimate (average) intimate PAGE 73 Appendix 5. Partner's Perception of You Please rate how you b e l i e v e your partner saw you during the d i s c u s s i o n . That i s , how do you think your partner would r a t e you on these items. For example, on item 1, i f you b e l i e v e your partner saw you as being a t t r a c t i v e , you would c i r c l e a 1 or a 2. The more a t t r a c t i v e you b e l i e v e your partner saw you as, the lower the number you would want to c i r c l e . The same t h i n g a p p l i e s t o u n a t t r a c t i v e . I f you b e l i e v e t h a t your partner saw you as u n a t t r a c t i v e , you would c i r c l e a high number. The more u n a t t r a c t i v e you b e l i e v e she saw you as, the higher the number you would want to choose. Your r a t i n g s are completely c o n f i d e n t i a l and are coded only by number, so t r y to be as frank and honest as you can. BE SURE THAT EVERY ITEM IS ANSI I f t h i s i s n ' t c l e a r , please ask for f u r t h e r help. 1. a t t r a c t i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 u n a t t r a c t i v e 2. f r i e n d l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 u n f r i e n d l y 3. cl o s e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 open 4. anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 calm 5. r e v e a l i n g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unrevealing 6. u n l i k e a b l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l i k e a b l e 7. i n t e r e s t i n g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 boring 8. shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not shy Please answer the f o l l o w i n g questions. 9. Do you b e l i e v e your partner saw you as being intimate during the d i s c u s s i o n . That i s , d i d your partner perceive you to be d i s c l o s i n g extremely p r i v a t e and personal information or f a i r l y s u p e r f i c i a l information? not very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely i n t i m a t e (average) intimate PAGE 74 Appendix 6, INSTRUCTIONS These items deal w i t h c e r t a i n b o d i l y sensations you may or may not have been experiencing during the conversation you j u s t had with your partner. Remember when completing these questions t o answer according to how you f e l t d u r i ng the conversation/ NOT according to how you now f e e l . Read the f o l l o w i n g items and i n d i c a t e t o what extent you were experiencing each of the b o d i l y sensations by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number. For example>- on item 1, i f you f e l t no pressure i n your chest during the conversation you would c i r c l e a 1. I f you f e l t a f a i r amount of pressure, you might c i r c l e a 4 or 5. I f you f e l t an extreme amount of pressure, you would c i r c l e a 7. PLEASE BE SURE THAT EVERY ITEM IS ANSWERED. Pressure i n chest: not a t a l l 1 2 extreme Heart beating f a s t e r : not at a l l 1 2 extreme F e e l i n g s h o rt of breath: not a t a l l 1 2 3 extreme D i z z i n e s s : not a t a l l 1 2 3 4 extreme B u t t e r f l i e s or knot i n stomach: not at a l l 1 2 3 4 extreme Lump i n t h r o a t : not a t a l l 1 extreme Sweating: not at a l l 1 extreme Dry t h r o a t : not a t a l l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extreme PAGE 75 Appendix 7. To what extent does each of the f o l l o w i n g statements a c c u r a t e l y describe your f e e l i n g s and r e a c t i o n s during the conversation? 1. Once I knew what the s i t u a t i o n c a l l e d f o r , i t was easy f o r me to regulat e my behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 2. I t r i e d to pay a t t e n t i o n t o the r e a c t i o n s of my partner to avoid being i n a p p r o p r i a t e . COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE I was able to c o n t r o l the way I came across to my partner so that I gave the impression I wanted to g i v e . COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE I was c a r e f u l about what I s a i d because I was a f r a i d t h a t I might say or do something wrong. COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 5. I f I f e l t t h a t I wasn't g i v i n g the impression I wanted to g i v e , I f e e l I could have e a s i l y changed i t . COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 6. I t a l k e d about things I thought my partner wanted me to t a l k about. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPLETELY FALSE SOMEWHAT FALSE SOMEWHAT TRUE COMPLETELY TRUE PAGE 76 I had no d i f f i c u l t y making a good Impression during the conversation because I f e l t i t was t o my advantage to do so. COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 8. I t a l k e d about the same things my partner d i d because I di d n ' t want to appear f o o l i s h . COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE I enjoyed t a l k i n g about myself i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n because I f e l t c onfident t h a t my partner was i n t e r e s t e d i n what I was say i n g . COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 10. Because I was u n c e r t a i n about what to do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , I looked to my partner f o r cues. COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 11. Regardless of what my partner d i d , I f e l t t h a t I could c o n t r o l the s i t u a t i o n . COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 12. I watched my partner's r e a c t i o n s because I was a f r a i d she might f i n d f a u l t with me. COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 13. I t a l k e d about things I wanted to t a l k about, regardless of what my partner d i d . COMPLETELY FALSE SOMEWHAT FALSE SOMEWHAT TRUE COMPLETELY TRUE PAGE 77 14. During the conversat ion , I t r i e d to behave in such a way that I wouldn't draw a t t e n t i o n to myself . 1 2 3 4_ 5 6 7 COMPLETELY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE 15. I d i d n ' t t a l k about the top ics I wanted to because I was a f r a i d my partner would disapprove of them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPLETELY FALSE SOMEWHAT FALSE SOMEWHAT TRUE COMPLETELY TRUE PAGE 78 Appendix 8. CONFEDERATE RATINGS OF SUBJECTS How intimate were the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s ? F i r s t D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate Second D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate T h i r d D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate Fourth D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate 1. a t t r a c t i v e 2. f r i e n d l y 3. close d 4. anxious 5. r e v e a l i n g 6. u n l i k e a b l e 7. i n t e r e s t i n g 8. shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i terms of 1 2 the 3 f o l l o w i n g behavloi 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely intimate extremely intimate extremely intimate extremely intim a t e items, u n a t t r a c t i v e u n f r i e n d l y open calm unrevealing l i k e a b l e boring not shy 9. How intimate was the s u b j e c t . That i s , how personal were the t o p i c s she discu s s e d . Were they h i g h l y personal and intimate or were they s u p e r f i c i a l . very nonintimate 1^  extremely intim a t e Rate how you f e l t d u r i ng the i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s u b j e c t . 10. comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 uncomfortable 11. i n a p p r o p r i a t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 appropriate 12. anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 calm PAGE 79 Appendix 9. OBSERVER RATINGS OF SUBJECTS How intimate were the s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s ? F i r s t D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Second D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate T h i r d D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate Fourth D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate extremely intimate extremely intimate extremely intim a t e extremely intimate Rate the su b j e c t s i n terms of the f o l l o w i n g b e h a v i o r a l items. 1. a t t r a c t i v e 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. f r i e n d l y c l o s e d anxious r e v e a l i n g u n l i k e a b l e i n t e r e s t i n g shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 u n a t t r a c t i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 u n f r i e n d l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 open 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 calm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unrevealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l i k e a b l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not shy How intimate was the s u b j e c t . That i s , how personal were the t o p i c s she discussed. Were they h i g h l y personal and intimate or were they s u p e r f i c i a l . very nonintimate extremely intim a t e PAGE 80 Appendix 10. I n t i m a czzy S c a l e A n . c z n o nz s 1. V e r y N o n i n t i m a t e The person t a l k e d about very s u p e r f i c i a l i s s u e s . She s a i d nothing about h e r s e l f that was of a perso n a l , emotional, s e c r e t , or embarrassing nature. For ins t a n c e , she discussed movies, music, what she i s t a k i n g at u n i v e r s i t y , what she does with her spare time, or s u p e r f i c i a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of h e r s e l f and/or f a m i l y . 3. S o m e w h a t N o n i n t i m a t e The person t a l k e d about somewhat more personal i s s u e s , but not at an intimate l e v e l . G e n e r a l l y , she s a i d very l i t t l e about h e r s e l f that was of a pe r s o n a l , emotional, s e c r e t , or embarrassing nature. For in s t a n c e , she discussed career and f a m i l i a l g o a l s , what her boyf r i e n d i s l i k e , minor c o n f l i c t s w i t h her parents, or minor disagreements with her s i -b l i n g s . 5. S o m e w h a t I n t i m a t e The person t a l k e d about some f a i r l y intimate i s s u e s , but tended to do so i n a d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r than an emotional or personal manner. She s a i d things about h e r s e l f that were q u i t e personal, emotional, s e c r e t , or embarrassing, but perhaps not c o n s i s t e n t l y so, or perhaps i n a fas h i o n that made you f e e l she was hol d i n g something back. For instance, she described her parents d i v o r c e , f a m i l y problems, or f a i l i n g a t school without a c t u a l l y r e v e a l i n g her personal f e e l i n g s and emotions. V e HZ y X n t i m a t e The person t a l k e d about some very intimate i s s u e s . She s a i d things about h e r s e l f that were of an extremely p e r s o n a l , emotional, s e c r e t , or embarrassing nature. For instance, she discussed r e l a t i o n s h i p problems, s e r i o u s c o n f l i c t s with her parents, f e e l i n g s of g u i l t or inadequacy, death of a f a m i l y member, or aspects of her parents' d i v o r c e that bother her. PAGE 81 Appendix 11. Non-Intimate: F i r s t D i s c l o s u r e Topic #9: What are your hobbies; how do you best l i k e to spend your time? Read t o p i c . W e l l , there are a l o t of things I l i k e to do, but t o t e l l you the t r u t h , now that I've s t a r t e d u n i v e r s i t y I don't have q u i t e as much spare time as I used t o . Let's see ... I don't e x e r c i s e r e g u l a r l y , ... as f a r as working out or running, but I do l i k e s p o r t s . In the winter I l i k e to s k i . I l i k e b a s e b a l l and pl a y i n a co-ed league. I t ' s more of a "fun" league than a r e a l competitive one, which i s n i c e . I l i k e to swim and I love the sun and the beach. Whenever i t ' s nice i n the summer, I t r y to spend as much time as I can out s i d e . I l i k e spending time with my f r i e n d s , maybe going to a movie, or a c l u b , or a party. The clubs are nice because you can dance, and I love dancing. But p a r t i e s are nice too because i t ' s e a s i e r to t a l k t o people and get to know them. I enjoy r e l a x i n g a t home sometimes as w e l l . I l i k e to read, f i c t i o n u s u a l l y . I guess my f a v o r i t e author would be Stephen King. I'm not that b i g on watching T.V., but I u s u a l l y t r y t o watch the Cosby Show and L.A. Law. PAGE 82 Appendix 12. Non-Intimate: Second D i s c l o s u r e Topic #16: What are your l i k e s and d i s l i k e s i n music? Read t o p i c . I guess what I l i k e to l i s t e n to r e a l l y depends on the mood I'm i n . I r e a l l y l i k e INXS a l o t , e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r o l d e r s t u f f . And U-2 .... t h e i r concert l a s t year was p r e t t y good. George Michael and Bon Jove aren't bad e i t h e r . Oh, I a l s o l i k e Tracey Chapman, she's r e a l l y got something to say. I a l s o r e a l l y l i k e some of the older music from the 60*s. I guess some of my f a v o u r i t e s would be the R o l l i n g Stones, the Doors, Led Zeppelin, and Rod Stewart. I enjoy c l a s s i c a l music i f I'm i n the r i g h t kind of mood. I don't l i s t e n to i t very o f t e n , but i t can be r e a l l y r e l a x i n g once i n a wh i l e . Let's see ... I don't r e a l l y hate anything, but there are d e f i n i t e l y some types of music t h a t I'd rat h e r not l i s t e n t o . I don't l i k e opera, ... (look down) ... I hate to say I t (smile) but I f i n d i t boring. That might be because I don't r e a l l y understand i t . I l i s t e n to heavy metal once i n a whi l e , but I don't l i k e the r e a l l y hard core s t u f f . What e l s e ... oh, except f o r K.D. Lang I don't l i k e country music, and I a b s o l u t e l y despise T i f f a n y . I a l s o can't stand l i s t e n i n g to top 40 d i s c o type music on s t a t i o n s l i k e LG73 e i t h e r . W e ll, I guess t h a t ' s about i t , ... your t u r n . PAGE 83 Appendix 13. Non-Intimate: T h i r d D i s c l o s u r e Topic #11: What are the aspects of your d a i l y l i f e t h a t s a t i s f y and bother you? Read t o p i c . W e l l , one of the biggest aspects of my l i f e r i g h t now i s u n i v e r s i t y . I t ' s more i n t e r e s t i n g than high s c h o o l . I t ' s more c h a l l e n g i n g and you f e e l l i k e you're l e a r n i n g something here. Mind you, Math 100 i s n ' t t h a t great, but the r e s t of the courses are okay. I enjoy my L i t course, ... and my Psych course i s p r e t t y good too. I'm making new f r i e n d s here and the profs aren't t h a t bad. One t h i n g I l i k e i s that no one t e l l s you what to do. You can study or eat when you want. I t would be nice t o have a car though; i t ' s such a pain having to take the bus. I t ' s always packed and you have to stand while i t crawls through t r a f f i c . I t wouldn't be as bad i f you could get a seat, at l e a s t you could read. And the bus d r i v e r i s always s i t t i n g there i n h i s s h i r t , with the heat cranked up, while everyone e l s e j u s t about d i e s . I have to get up e a r l i e r now too, which i s n ' t very t h r i l l i n g e i t h e r . I t ' d be great i f I could get a place of my own near the u n i v e r s i t y . Then I wouldn't have to get up so e a r l y or take the bus. W e l l , ... I guess t h a t ' s about i t . PAGE 84 Appendix 14. Non-Intimate: Fourth D i s c l o s u r e Topic #17: What are your personal goals f o r the next ten years or so? Read t o p i c . I guess everyone's goal i s to get t h e i r degree. A f t e r t h a t , w e l l ... I'm not sure. I'd s o r t of l i k e to s t a r t working, ... but I'd a l s o r e a l l y l i k e to do some t r a v e l l i n g . I've always wanted to go to Europe and A u s t r a l i a . A f t e r I graduate i t would be great to go to Europe for 6 months and then to A u s t r a l i a f o r another 6 months. There are so many i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s to see and do i n Europe. I've always wanted to see P a r i s , and i t ' d be great to spend some time i n S w i t z e r l a n d i n the A l p s . And A u s t r a l i a , what can I say. There are beaches and sun, and more beaches and more sun. And I j u s t love t h e i r accents. Don't ask me how I'm going to a f f o r d i t , but i t would be n i c e . I guess I ' l l probably wait and see what I f e e l l i k e i n my 4th year and then decide what to do. I l i k e Vancouver and would l i k e to s t a y here, but i f I was o f f e r e d a good job somewhere e l s e I'd d e f i n i t e l y go. I could always move back l a t e r i f I missed i t . L et's see, what e l s e ... I'd l i k e t o get married some day, but not f o r a long time. I t would be nice to f i n i s h school and do a l i t t l e t r a v e l l i n g f i r s t . I guess you could say my main p r i o r i t y i s to do some t r a v e l l i n g i n the next 10 years. W e l l , I guess t h a t ' s about i t . PAGE 85 Appendix 15. High Intimacy: F i r s t D i s c l o s u r e Topic #7: What are the sources of s t r a i n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n your r e l a t i o n s h i p with the opposite sex? Read t o p i c . I've been going out with the same guy f o r the past year now. We get along p r e t t y w e l l i n a l o t of ways; he's a u n i v e r s i t y student too and we l i k e a l o t of the same t h i n g s . But l a t e l y , I've s t a r t e d to wonder i f I care about him as much as I thought I d i d . He j u s t doesn't seem ... very a f f e c t i o n a t e I guess. I t r e a l l y bothers me that he never gives me a k i s s , or a hug, j u s t on the spur of the moment. And i n p u b l i c , he never touches me, or l e t s me touch him, when there are other people around. And even though we've been going out f o r a year, he j u s t ... w e l l ... doesn't seem very committed. I keep g e t t i n g the f e e l i n g he f i t s me i n t o h i s schedule, ra t h e r than f i t t i n g h i s schedule t o us. L i k e , ... h e ' l l cancel our plans i f something comes up with the "guys". But h e ' l l never cancel something with them i f I r e a l l y want to do something. I guess what i t r e a l l y i s , i s th a t he th i n k s i n terms of " I " , instead of "we". A c t u a l l y , I don't f e e l as c l o s e to him any more ... I don't f e e l l i k e I need him the way I used t o . He's always saying we should maybe go out with other people. To t e l l you the t r u t h , I th i n k that might be a good idea. Considering how many good l o o k i n g guys there are out there, I think I'm going to have a l o t more fun than he t h i n k s . PAGE 86 Appendix 16. High Intimacy: Second D i s c l o s u r e Topic #5: What are your g u i l t i e s t s e c r e t s ? Read t o p i c . Let's see, my g u i l t i e s t s e c r e t s ... w e l l I've always had t h i s t h i n g f o r whips and chains, [ s m i l e J . Only k i d d i n g , j u s t checking to see i f you're paying a t t e n t i o n . A c t u a l l y i t was something t h a t happened l a s t summer. I t o l d my Mom th a t I was going camping to the Okanogon with my g i r l f r i e n d f o r a couple of weeks, but I r e a l l y went to P e n t i c t o n with a bunch of my f r i e n d s and our boy f r i e n d s . I t was gre a t ! We'd spend a l l day on the beach suntanning and s l e e p i n g and then p a r t y a l l n i g h t . God, i t was p r e t t y w i l d . I t was the f i r s t h o l i d a y I've even been on th a t I needed to r e s t up a f t e r . I guess the reason I f e e l so g u i l t y about i t i s because I l i e d to my Mom. We've always been open with each other and I've always been honest with her. I t ' s almost l i k e she's an older s i s t e r sometimes, as w e l l as a mother. I've never l i e d to her before, at l e a s t not about something major. I ' l l probably t e l l her about i t some day. I'm not sure when, but some day. I guess t h a t ' s not very " g u i l t y " , huh? The whips and chains t h i n g probably would have been a l o t more i n t e r e s t i n g [ s m i l e ] . PAGE 87 Appendix 17. High Intimacy: T h i r d D i s c l o s u r e Topic #10: What were the occasions i n your l i f e on which you were the happiest? Read t o p i c . A c t u a l l y , the happiest I've ever been has been the past month [pause; look down). My mom and dad got back together again. [Look up] They've been separated f o r the past couple of years. I t ' s so nice to have a " f a m i l y " again. Everybody's so happy; we're a l l walking around the house with smiles on our faces. My mom and dad seem r e a l l y happy. They're always together; I think they r e a l l y missed each other. They're always s m i l i n g and laughing, I haven't heard my mom laugh l i k e t h a t i n ages. She's been l i k e a d i f f e r e n t person s i n c e dad came back; she had been so " s e r i o u s " and down a l l the time before. They're l i k e a couple of k i d s , I keep c a t c h i n g them k i s s i n g and hugging a l l the time, sometimes i n the strangest p l a c e s . I'd never r e a l i z e d before the "romantic p o s s i b i l i t i e s " a laundry room had. I t sounds s t u p i d , but even our dog seems happier. I t ' s hard to d e s c r i b e ; i t ' s j u s t nice to be around the house ... to have a f a m i l y again. I've s t a r t e d to spend more time at home. I had s t a r t e d going out a l o t because i t j u s t ... I don't know ... d i d n ' t f e e l r i g h t at home. But now i t ' s j u s t great. PAGE 88 Appendix 18. High Intimacy: Fourth D i s c l o s u r e Topic #3: What are the a c t i o n s you have most r e g r e t t e d doing i n your l i f e and why? Read t o p i c . When my dad l e f t , ... a f t e r my dad l e f t , I refused to t a l k t o him or see him. He used to come over for supper once every couple of weeks, but I would always go out. When he phoned I wouldn't t a l k to him. My mom and s i s t e r s a i d I should t a l k to him; they kept t e l l i n g me that he loved me, but I j u s t c ouldn't. I was so mad at him, I f e l t t h a t everything was h i s f a u l t . I couldn't understand why he wanted to hurt us, ... I convinced myself that he was having a great time going out with a l l s o r t s of e x c i t i n g women. I t got to the point where I f e l t t hat I r e a l l y hated him. Then when he moved back i n , i t was r e a l l y awkward f o r a w h i l e . I was so happy that he was back, that our f a m i l y was together again; but I s t i l l hated him. F i n a l l y , one night we had a r e a l long t a l k . I s t a r t e d to r e a l i z e t h a t my mom was j u s t as much to blame f o r the sep a r a t i o n as he was. And I found out that he d i d n ' t have such a great time; he spent more time s i t t i n g a t home c r y i n g than he d i d going out. And when I r e a l i z e d how much he loved me, and j u s t how badly I'd hurt him, I f e l t p r e t t y bad. We both s t a r t e d c r y i n g and I r e a l i z e d I r e a l l y d i d n ' t hate him; I love him very, very much. We understand each other b e t t e r , and we're c l o s e r now than we ever were, so I guess i t wasn't a l l bad. Appendix 19. Confederate's Name: Observer's Name: Subject # N O N - I N T I M A T E #1: Hobbies, How You Spend Your Time s t a r t e d u n i v e r s i t y not as much spare time don't e x e r c i s e r e g u l a r l y l i k e s p o r t s s k i p l a y b a s e b a l l fun league spend time outside out with f r i e n d s c l u b s ; l i k e dancing p a r t i e s ; get to know people read; f i c t i o n Stephen King not b i g on T.V. watch Cosby Show and L.A. Law #2: L i k e s & D i s l i k e s i n Music depends on mood I'm i n INXS U-2, concert was i n c r e d i b l e George Michael, Bon Jove older muxic from 60's Stones, Doors, Zeppelin, e t c . c l a s s i c a l music o c c a s i o n a l l y types I don't l i k e opera: boring don't understand opera heavy metal once i n a while don't l i k e country despise T i f f a n y don't l i k e Top 40 d i s c o type PAGE 90 83: D a i l y L i f e more i n t e r e s t i n g more c h a l l e n g i n g , f e e l l i k e you l e a r n something don't l i k e Math 100 l i k e L i t and Psych making new f r i e n d s no one t e l l s you what to do study or eat when you want nic e to have car bus i s a pain always packed nice t o get seat bus d r i v e r , s h i r t , heat cranked up have to get up e a r l i e r great to get place near u n i v e r s i t y #4: Personal Goals get degree s t a r t working l i k e to t r a v e l Europe f o r 6 months; A u s t r a l i a f o r 6 months i n t e r e s t i n g things i n Europe P a r i s S w i t z e r l a n d and Alps beaches and sun, more beaches and more sun love t h e i r accents how to a f f o r d i t decide i n 4th year l i k e t o s t a y i n Vancouver, but would move could always move back get married some day main p r i o r i t y i s some t r a v e l l i n g Appendix 20. Confederate's Name: Observer's Name: Subject #: H I G H I N T I M A C Y #1: Problems With Boyfriend going out f o r past year thing s i n common wondering i f I care as much doesn't seem a f f e c t i o n a t e . k i s s or hug on spur of moment no touching i n p u b l i c doesn't seem committed c a n c e l l i n g plans t h i n k s I , not we not as c l o s e go out with other people good l o o k i n g guys #2: G u i l t i e s t Secret whips and chains happened l a s t summer t o l d mom about t r i p with g i r l f r i e n d went with boyfriends suntanning and s l e e p i n g on beach p a r t y i n g a l l night had t o r e s t up a f t e r g u i l t y because I l i e d to mom never l i e d about something major l i k e o l d e r s i s t e r as w e l l as mom t e l l her someday whips & chains b e t t e r PAGE 92 83: Happiest Occasion past month mom and dad back together a f t e r 2 years nice to have f a m i l y again everybody happy and s m i l i n g think they missed each other always together mom had been so s e r i o u s mom l i k e d i f f e r e n t person now l i k e a couple of k i d s laundry room (romantic p o s s i b i l i t i e s ) even dog happier spending more time a t home #4: Actions You Have Most Regretted refused t o see dad go out when he came over refused to t a l k t o him on phone mom & s i s t e r s a i d "he loves you" mad; f e l t e v e r ything was h i s f a u l t great time; going out with e x c i t i n g women f e l t I hated him awkward when he moved back long t a l k one night mom was as much to blame he d i d n ' t have great time; c r y i n g how much I loved him; how much I'd hurt him both s t a r t e d c r y i n g ; r e a l l y love him p o s i t i v e aspects 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097873/manifest

Comment

Related Items