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  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  freely available for reference copying  of  department  this or  publication  partial fulfilment  of  British Columbia,  I agree  and study.  thesis for scholarly by  of this  his  or  her  Department of  Psychology  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  1  August  1989  requirements that the  I further agree  purposes  representatives.  may be It  thesis for financial gain shall not  permission.  Date  the  is  that  an  advanced  Library shall make it  permission for extensive  granted  by the  understood be  for  allowed  that without  head  of  my  copying  or  my written  PAGE i i  Abstract  The p r e s e n t study examined b e h a v i o r a l , c o g n i t i v e , physiological differences  m o t i v a t i o n a l , and  between shy and non-shy female s u b j e c t s  a s o c i a l encounter w i t h a same-sex c o n f e d e r a t e .  involved in  The encounter took the  form  of a s t r u c t u r e d d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n 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. of  The r e s u l t s  showed t h a t the shy s u b j e c t s  spoke f o r s h o r t e r p e r i o d s  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  regardless to the  of what had been d i s c l o s e d to them f i r s t .  low i n t i m a c y c o n f e d e r a t e  partners. arousal,  The shy s u b j e c t s  t h e i r p a r t n e r s to a l s o  Both shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s , The shy s u b j e c t s  Thus,  intimacy, they  overdisclosed  and u n d e r d i s c l o s e d to the high i n t i m a c y one as  compared t o the non-shy s u b j e c t s . themselves and expected  of  however,  were more n e g a t i v e  be more negative  were e q u a l l y p o s i t i v e  about them.  about t h e i r  a l s o r e p o r t e d h i g h e r l e v e l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l  and i n d i c a t e d t h a t they used a p r o t e c t i v e s t y l e of  self-presentation  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 s u b j e c t s . confederate  and observer r a t i n g s of the s u b j e c t s  p a t t e r n s of r e s u l t s ,  differences  framework of the s t u d y .  which were  Taken t o g e t h e r ,  f a c t o r s may e x i s t which c o n t r i b u t e s to the individual.  presented somewhat  i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n the  the r e s u l t s  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 ,  shy  about  The different larger  suggest t h a t a complex  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 interpersonal d i f f i c u l t i e s  of  the  PAGE  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  L i s t of T a b l e s  iv  L i s t of F i g u r e s  v  Acknowledgements  vi  Introduction  1  Shyness  1  Self-Disclosure  6  Self-Presentation  12  The P r e s e n t Study  14  Hypotheses  17  Method S u b j e c t s and D e s i g n Overview S t i m u l u s M a t e r i a l s and Procedure Dependent V a r i a b l e s  21 21 22 28  Results  32  Discussion  49  References  63  L i s t of Appendixes  68  Appendix  69  PAGE i v L i s t of T a b l e s Table 1. T a b l e 2. T a b l e 3.  T a b l e 4. T a b l e 5. Table 6.  S u b j e c t s * R a t i n g s of S e l f : Interpersonal Adjective Correlations  35  S u b j e c t s * R a t i n g s of P a r t n e r : Interpersonal Adjective Correlations  36  S u b j e c t s ' R a t i n g s of R e f l e c t e d S e l f : Interpersonal Adjective Correlations  36  C o n f e d e r a t e s ' R a t i n g s of S u b j e c t s : Interpersonal Adjective Correlations  37  O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s of S u b j e c t s : Interpersonal Adjective Correlations  37  Followup U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s : Intimacy Subjects' Disclosures  of the 40  Table 7.  Intimacy  Table 8.  Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r the Shyness by I n t e r a c t i o n : Jourard Intimacy Values  Intimacy  Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r t h e Shyness by I n t e r a c t i o n : O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating  Intimacy  Table 9.  V a l u e s of the S u b j e c t s '  Disclosures  42  Table 10.  P h y s i o l o g i c a l Arousal Factor  T a b l e 11.  F a c t o r M a t r i x f o r 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  T a b l e 12.  Table 13.  40  Matrix  S u b j e c t s ' S e l f - R e p o r t Measures: F o l l o w u p U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on t h e Main E f f e c t f o r Shyness C o n f e d e r a t e and Observer R a t i n g s of the S u b j e c t s : F o l l o w u p 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  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' Disclosures  Panel A  J o u r a r d Intimacy Values  Panel B  O v e r a l l Intimacy R a t i n g s  41  PAGE v i  Acknowledgements  The author i s e s p e c i a l l y  g r a t e f u l to Lynn Alden f o r her help and  encouragement d u r i n g every stage of t h i s  project,  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 a d v i c e and s u g g e s t i o n s . also  I am  indebted to Nadina Dodd, A r g i r o K o t s a l i s , T e r r y - A n n Sander, and C h r i s t i n e  Shields  f o r t h e i r a b l e and d e d i c a t e d s e r v i c e  as r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s .  PAGE 1 Introduction An e a r l y o b s e r v a t i o n about human b e h a v i o r remark i n h i s P o l i t i c s :  "man  i s contained  in Aristotle's  i s by nature a s o c i a l a n i m a l " , an  t h a t c o n t i n u e s t o be v a l i d t o t h i s day.  observation  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 p e r s o n a l 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 ties.  T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n an i n c r e a s e d 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  t h a t p e r t a i n t o the p r o c e s s 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 p e r v a s i v e 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  i n a p p r o p r i a t e o v e r t b e h a v i o r s as w e l l as e m o t i o n a l , p h y s i o l o g i c a l , cognitive distress in social situations.  often  and  A l t h o u g h much has been l e a r n e d about  shyness t o t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , much i s s t i l l the shy i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n t from those who  unknown about e x a c t l y what makes a r e not shy.  a d d i t i o n t o r e v i e w i n g the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e on s h y n e s s ,  T h i s paper, i n w i l l a l s o examine  and r e v i e w 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 , 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 t o shyness.  Further, i t w i l l present  and  the  r e s u l t s of a s t u d y which i n t e g r a t e d these v a r i o u s dimensions i n an attempt t o i n c r e a s e our u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of  shyness.  Shyness The development of shyness r e s e a r c h can be viewed i n terms of t h r e e t e m p o r a l l y o v e r l a p p i n g , but c o n c e p t u a l l y and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n c t phases (Jones, Cheek, & B r i g g s , 1986). which shyness was  F i r s t , t h e r e was  the d e s c r i p t i v e phase, i n  a n a l y z e d by m e d i c a l 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 b a s i s of c a s u a l and c l i n i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s .  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 r e p o r t on "morbid s h y n e s s " t o the B r i t i s h M e d i c a l S o c i e t y i n 1896 consequences  i n which he c o n s i d e r e d as p o s s i b l e causes and  of shyness such f a c t o r s as h e r e d i t y , e x c e s s i v e s e l f -  c o n s c i o u s n e s s , the d i s r u p t i o n of s o c i a l e n c o u n t e r s , and i m p a i r e d r e l a t i o n s h i p development  ( C a m p b e l l , 1896).  Another d e s c r i p t i v e approach t o shyness  was  e x e m p l i f i e d by p s y c h o a n a l y t i c w r i t e r s such as Hampton (1927) and Lewinsky (1941).  L e w i n s k y , f o r i n s t a n c e , c o n c l u d e d t h a t shyness r e p r e s e n t e d  u n c o n s c i o u s l y b l o c k e d a g g r e s s i o n among n a r c i s s i s t i c and r i g i d  personality  types. The second phase i n the s t u d y 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 r e c e n t y e a r s , i n d i v i d u a l s a r e 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 o u t s i d e of t r a d i t i o n a l groups and f a m i l y t i e s .  T h i s i n t u r n has l e d t o shyness becoming  i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t , and d i s r u p t i v e , c o n d i t i o n .  an  Surveys i n d i c a t e t h a t a t  l e a s t 90% of i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t 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 t h a t 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 t o l a t e 1970s s e v e r a l p o p u l a r books on shyness which c o n t a i n e d b o t h e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e and commonsensical the g e n e r a l p u b l i c .  a d v i c e were w r i t t e n f o r  Some of the more p o p u l a r books were G i r o d o ' s Shv? You  Don't Have t o Be (1978), Help f o r Shv People and Anyone E l s e Who a t Ease on E n t e r i n g a Room F u l l of S t r a n g e r s ( P h i l l i p s , 1980), Shyness  ( P o w e l l , 1979), Conquer Shyness  Ever F e l t  111  Overcoming  (Teear, 1977), Shy Person's Guide t o a  Happier Love L i f e (Weber & M i l l e r , 1979), Shyness: What i t i s and What t o do About i t (Zimbardo, 1977), and The Shy C h i l d The t h i r d , and o n g o i n g , phase  (Zimbardo & R a d l , 1981).  i n the s t u d y 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 i n c r e a s e i n  PAGE 3 the number of r e p o r t s p u b l i s h e d  i n research  journals.  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  As noted p r e v i o u s l y ,  b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s have a l l  been s u g g e s t e d as parameters of importance i n s h y n e s s .  Although  researchers  have o n l y r e c e n t l y begun t o i d e n t i f y the p o t e n t i a l causes and consequences of s h y n e s s , t h e y have a l r e a d y produced a f a i r l y voluminous body of Therefore,  literature.  o n l y m a t e r i a l which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y germane t o the p r e s e n t  study  w i l l be examined i n t h i s paper. The  i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o 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  e x t a n t s t u d i e s , Borkovec, Stone, O ' B r i e n , 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 a n x i o u s males t h a n  h e t e r o s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s males d u r i n g 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 , arousal (1983).  ( i n c r e a s e d 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  non-  elevated Kozak  I n a s t u d y which i n v o l v e d 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 ,  T u r n e r , and  Dancu (1985) found t h a t p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i v i t y o c c u r r e d  f o r the  shy s u b j e c t s i n most of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . They r e p o r t e d , however, t h a t i t a l s o occurred  t o some e x t e n t among the non-shy s u b j e c t s .  B e i d e l and  colleagues  f e l t t h a t the p h y s i o l o g i c a l mechanism t h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  groups was  l a t e n c y to h a b i t u a t i o n .  Previous  nonverbal behaviors;  conversational styles.  i n t o shy and  the  r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t s t h a t shyness i n v o l 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 responsive  her  non-shy groups and  talk less, initiate  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  P i l k o n i s (1977) d i v i d e d c o l l e g e  students  found t h a t the shy male s u b j e c t s tended t o  fewer c o n v e r s a t i o n s , and  d u r i n g an u n s t r u c t u r e d  less  look l e s s a t the o t h e r  s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . D a l e y (1978) found t h a t  person shy  i n d i v i d u a l s made l e s s eye c o n t a c t and had a lower f r e q u e n c y of response than did  t h e i r non-shy c o u n t e r p a r t s .  S i m i l a r l y , Mandel and  Shrauger (1980)  PAGE 4 r e p o r t e d t h a t 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 behavior,  in their  social  i n c l u d i n g t h e i r l a t e n c y t o respond and time spent c o n v e r s i n g .  a l s o found t h a t shy s u b j e c t s engaged i n l e s s eye c o n t a c t , s m i l e d l e s s , evidenced  l e s s f a c i a l expressiveness.  during unstructured  Cheek and Buss (1981) r e p o r t e d  They and  that  i n t e r a c t i o n s , shy s u b j e c t s tended t o t a l k l e s s , a v e r t  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 . t o u c h i n g f a c e ) than d i d t h e i r non-shy c o u n t e r p a r t s .  Shy as compared t o 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 u t t e r a n c e s t h a t express  their  of  o b j e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n ( L e a r y , Johnson, & K n i g h t ,  1984). Recent c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h has d i s c o v e r e d 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 t o n e g a t i v e l y e v a l u a t e the q u a l i t y of t h e i r s o c i a l performance ( C l a r k & A r k o w i t z , 1975), s e t e x c e s s i v e l y h i g h s t a n d a r d s  f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of t h a t  performance ( C r a i g h e a d , K i m b a l l , & Rehak, 1979), remember more n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about themselves (O'Banion & A r k o w i t z , 1977), endorse a frequency  of n e g a t i v e s e l f s t a t e m e n t s (Cacioppo,  higher  G l a s s , & 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 p a t t e r n s of a t t r i b u t i o n about the causes of s o c i a l successes  and  failures  (Girodo, Dotzenroth,  & S t e i n , 1981).  In terms of the p e r c e p t i o n of shyness by o t h e r s , P i l k o n i s (1977) found t h a t shy as compared t o non-shy c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s were r a t e d by o b s e r v e r s 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  less friendly.  as  Mandel and  Shrauger (1980) r e p o r t e d t h a t shy s u b j e c t s were r a t e d 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 c o u n t e r p a r t s .  S i m i l a r l y , Cheek and Buss (1981) r e p o r t e d t h a t the shyness s c o r e s of female d y a d i c p a r t i c i p a n t s were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h p a r t n e r r a t i n g s f o r shy, i n h i b i t e d , and u n f r i e n d l y .  In a s t u d y of v i d e o t a p e d  tense,  monologues, J o n e s ,  PAGE 5  C a v e r t , and I n d a r t (1983)  found t h a t a t a r g e t ' s  s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with j u d g e s '  talent.  i s s u e to the r o l e of shyness i n i n i t i a l  concerns the a c c u r a c y with which shy persons process s o c i a l hence,  the degree  others.  to which they are aware of t h e i r  I t appears that a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s  Freemon, & Goswick, 1981; Helm,  1983)  Jones,  Hobbs,  1981). to:  by Jones  & Hockenbury,  c o r r e l a t i o n s between shyness and l o n e l i n e s s (Cheek & Busch,  1981;  Jones,  strangers, expected  (Jones, 1982;  Jones,  Jones,  Sansone, &  moderate  Freemon, & Goswick, 1981;  more n e g a t i v e l y  following dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n s and i n d i c a t e t h a t  t h e i r p a r t n e r s to r a t e them more n e g a t i v e l y . however,  of s e v e r a l r a t i n g  lonely subjects  Despite  Maroldo,  participate themselves  (1)  warm, e t c . ) .  self  how the p a r t i c i p a n t s expected  ratings  their  rate  i n t e r p e r s o n a l dimensions  The r a t i n g s were made from each of (2)  reflected  Their results  p a r t shyness was i n v e r s e l y c o r r e l a t e d with s e l f h i g h shyness was a s s o c i a t e d fashion  subjects  self  ratings—that  is,  to be r a t e d by other members of t h e i r group  r a t i n g s of other group members.  in a negative  they  a f t e r which they were asked to  and t h e i r f e l l o w group members on s e v e r a l  friendly, talkative,  That i s ,  with  scales.  i n v a r i o u s group a c t i v i t i e s  three p e r s p e c t i v e s :  tended  were r a r e l y d i f f e r e n t i a l l y judged on any  A s t u d y by Jones and B r i g g s (1984) had shy and non-shy  rated  1981;  t h a t have been r e p o r t e d by s e v e r a l  r a t e t h e i r p a r t n e r s more n e g a t i v e l y ,  expectations  (3)  feedback a n d ,  Jones found t h a t h i g h l o n e l y as compared t o low l o n e l y s u b j e c t s  r a t e themselves  (i.e.  interactions  i n t e r p e r s o n a l impact on  i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t here i n l i g h t of the  investigators  were  r a t i n g s of shyness and a n x i e t y and  i n v e r s e l y c o r r e l a t e d with r a t i n g s of p o i s e and Another r e l e v a n t  shyness s c o r e s  (i.e.  showed t h a t for the most  and r e f l e c t e d  with r a t i n g oneself  self  ratings.  and e x p e c t i n g to be  l e s s f r i e n d l y , l e s s 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 w i t h r a t i n g o t h e r s more  n e g a t i v e l y , and w i t h more n e g a t i v e  r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d by other group members.  A r e c e n t s t u d y u t i l i z e d a v a r i a t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l i n the Jones and  B r i g g s t u d y (Alden & Meleshko, 1988).  i n s t r u c t u r e d dyadic  Subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d  i n t e r a c t i o n s which i n c l u d e d a l l f o u r p o s s i b l e  c o m b i n a t i o n s 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 , t h e y  were asked t o r a t e themselves ( s e l f r a t i n g ) , t h e i r p a r t n e r and  paradigm employed  (partner r a t i n g ) ,  themselves as t h e y thought t h e i r p a r t n e r 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 , friendly, etc.).  Consistent  with previous  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the shy s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d perceive  them, i n a n e g a t i v e  of any a c t u a l n e g a t i v e a l s o was  fashion.  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 t h e m s e l v e s , and  This occurred,  e v a l u a t i o n by t h e i r p a r t n e r s .  not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s  r e s u l t s , was  expected o t h e r s  to  however, i n the absence A second f i n d i n g which  t h a t the shy s u b j e c t s  not r a t e t h e i r p a r t n e r s more n e g a t i v e l y than d i d t h e i r non-shy  did  counterparts.  Self-Disclosure 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 s h a r e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l exchange t h a t i s seen as n e c e s s a r y i n the development and maintenance of s o c i a l relationships.  People cannot e n t e r  into s o c i a l transactions with  others  w i t h o u t r e v e a l i n g something of t h e m s e l v e s , or b e i n g a f f e c t e d by what r e v e a l t o them. made i t such an conceptual  others  I t i s t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l n a t u r e of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e t h a t i m p o r t a n t c l a s s of b e h a v i o r .  has  There are a v a r i e t y of  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 s u b s e t of s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g b e h a v i o r .  However, i n  PAGE 7 e s s e n c e , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s the a c t of v e r b a l l y r e v e a l i n g o n e s e l f t o a n o t h e r and  i n a broad sense i t may  b e s t be d e f i n e d as "any  h i m / h e r s e l f which P e r s o n A communicates t o P e r s o n B"  i n f o r m a t i o n about (Cozby, 1973).  S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , as a c o n c e p t , 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  p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l 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 M e r l e a u - P o n t y (Chelune, 1979). be t r a c e d back t o 1948  I n 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  when K u r t Lewin s p e c u l a t e d about d i f f e r e n c e s i n  openness w i t h s t r a n g e r s , and  i n t i m a c y between f r i e n d s , i n Germany and  U n i t e d S t a t e s (Lewin, 1948).  One  initial the  of Lewin's s t u d e n t s , 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 t h e o r y (Lewin, 1935), d e v e l o p e d an i n s t r u m e n t  t o 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 c o n s i d e r e d an u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o r e v e a l a p a r t i c u l a r i t e m of i n f o r m a t i o n 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 o f the p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e ( R i c k e r s - O v s i a n k i n a , 1956).  After  t h i s e a r l y i n t e r e s t of Lewin and h i s s t u d e n t 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. U n l i k e the o r i g i n s of many o t h e r c o n c e p t s i n p s y c h o l o g y ,  the b e g i n n i n g s  of  e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h 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 t o one  i n d i v i d u a l , S i d n e y M. J o u r a r d .  In the l a t e 1950s, J o u r a r d became  i n t e r e s t e d i n s t u d y i n g the m e n t a l l y h e a l t h y p e r s o n a l i t y r a t h e r 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 psychotherapist,  was  p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h 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 f o r mental health.  Although  J o u r a r d suggested t h a t 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 , w i t h 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 b e i n g 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 i n s t a n c e s the more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e the b e t t e r ( J o u r a r d , 1958a). J o u r a r d a s s e r t e d t h a t f u l l and  open communication promotes growth and  "in 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 a b l e t o  PAGE 8 communicate a l l o f h i s r e a l s e l f t o the o t h e r p e r s o n " ( J o u r a r d ,  1958b).  C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , n e u r o t i c i n d i v i d u a l s a r e unable t o know or d i s c l o s e t h e i r real selves.  J o u r a r d ' s (1959) d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t , which  i s t h e tendency o f persons i n a d i s c l o s u r e exchange t o match each o t h e r i n terms o f i n t i m a c y and amount, may be c o n s i d e r e d  the p o i n t 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 t h e p a r t o f 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 t i m e , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e has become an i m p o r t a n t a r e a 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 t o t h e p r o v o c a t i v e  f i n d i n g s of Jourard's  studies. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s used t o r e f e r t o 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 The  i n i t i a l p e r s o n a l i t y research  interpersonal  i n t e r a c t i o n s (Cozby, 1973).  i n v o l v e d numerous a t t e m p t s by J o u r a r d and  o t h e r s t o 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 p e r s o n a l adjustment.  Many o f t h e s t u d i e s used t h e J o u r a r d  Self-Disclosure  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (JSDQ) as t h e measure o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and t h e M i n n e s o t a M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y (MMPI) as t h e index o f mental h e a l t h . only consistent higher 1964).  The  f i n d i n g from these s t u d i e s was t h a t low d i s c l o s e r s s c o r e d  on t h e MMPI s o c i a l i n t r o v e r s i o n ( S i ) s u b s c a l e ( J o u r a r d , 1971; M u l l a n e y , 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 t h e Tennessee S e l f - C o n c e p t S c a l e .  In a d d i t i o n , a study  using  the P e d e r s e n P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y (Pedersen & Higbee, 1969) and another a c l i n i c a l population  using  (Mayo, 1968) found t h a t d i s c l o s u r e on t h e JSDQ was  negatively related to neuroticism. P e r s o n a l i t y researchers  have a l s o examined t h e 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 c o n t r o l , on t h e R o t t e r  I-E S c a l e , was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e s s r e p o r t e d  on t h e JSDQ (Ryckman, Sherman, & Burgess, 1973).  l o c u s of  disclosure  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 f o r a p p r o v a l as measured by t h e Marlowe-Crowne  Social  D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e among c o l l e g e females (Brundage, D e r l e g a , & 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 , & B e r g e r , 1972). schizophrenics disclosure  A study with i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d  found t h a t 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  (Anchor, V o j t i s e k , & P a t t e r s o n ,  c o r r e l a t i o n between s c o r e s on t h e T a y l o r  1973).  with  In addition, a p o s i t i v e  M a n i f e s t A n x i e t y S c a l e 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). using a behavioral  A study  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 n e g a 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 and s t a t e a n x i e t y  ( P o s t , W i t t m a i e r , & R a d i n , 1978).  In general,  most o f 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 n o t been r e p l i c a t e d when behavioral  measures of d i s c l o s u r e a r e used r a t h e r than t h e JSDQ (Vondracek,  1969). Two f i n d i n g s , t h e " r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t " and t h e " 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 r e s e a r c h (see r e v i e w s by C h a i k i n 1974; Cozby, 1973).  & Derlega,  These two e f f e c t s s e r v e d i n t u r n t o 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 p r o c e s s v a r i a b l e i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l relationships.  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 t h e d y a d i c  e f f e c t , r e f e r s t o the tendency of a t a r g e t person t o match the o r i g i n a l s p e a k e r ' 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 t h e tendency of a  r e c i p i e n t t o e v a l u a t e more p o s i t i v e l y , and t o 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 t h a n t o 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 p l a c e s t h e s u b j e c t 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 t o s t u d y a c q u a i n t a n c e s h i p , or f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s .  ina  conversation,  The s u b j e c t ' s  partner  isa  c o n f e d e r a t e who s t a r t s t h e d y a d i c exchange by making e i t h e r a h i g h or a low  PAGE 10 intimacy d i s c l o s u r e .  The s u b 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 t o t h e  c o n f e d e r a t e ' s d i s c l o s u r e i s t h e dependent v a r i a b l e . a t t r a c t i o n are a l s o frequently obtained.  Measures of l i k i n g and  The r e s u l t s of t h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n a r e  as r o b u s t and r e l i a b l e as any found i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s c l o s e more i n t i m a t e l y a f t e r h e a r i n g t o g i v e more p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s  the h i g h  literature:  subjects  i n t i m a c y d i s c l o s u r e and tend  t o the high intimacy confederate  (Archer,  1979). While most of t h e i n i t i a l s t u d i e s i n t h i s a r e a f o c u s s e d on t h e a c t u a l mechanisms o f 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 r e c e n t s t u d i e s have attempted t o examine t h e 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 p l a y .  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 d e t e r m i n i n g  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 i n t e r p e r s o n a l judgments.  d i s c l o s u r e p a t t e r n s and u n u s u a l  A s t u d y by C h a i k i n , D e r l e g a , Bayma, and Shaw (1975)  examined t h e 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 t h e r e s u l t s from a c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d y 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 , t h e s e i n v e s t i g a t o r s suggested t h a t disclosure patterns  nonreciprocal  would be more common f o r n e u r o t i c s than f o r normals.  C o l l e g e s t u d e n t s s c o r i n g h i g h and low on t h e n e u r o t i c i s m d i m e n s i o n of t h e Maudsley P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y 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 s t u d y i n which t h e y communicated w i t h a c o n f e d e r a t e who made e i t h e r a low or h i g h  intimacy  disclosure. As p r e d i c t e d , t h e c o n f e d e r a t e ' s d i s c l o s u r e i n t i m a c y neuroticism.  Normal s u b j e c t s  reciprocated  the intimacy  level interacted  with  of t h e c o n f e d e r a t e ,  d i s c l o s i n g more h i g h l y t o t h e i n t i m a t e than t o t h e s u p e r f i c i a l c o n f e d e r a t e . Neurotic  s u b j e c t s , however, were u n a f f e c t e d  by the c o n f e d e r a t e ' s i n t i m a c y 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 t h e same i n both c o n d i t i o n s .  The a u t h o r s  PAGE 11 f e l t t h a t 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 f o r appropriate d i s c l o s u r e , or t h e i r preoccupation i n t e r f e r e s w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e  w i t h t h e i r own problems s i m p l y  response.  Chelune, S u l t a n , and W i l l i a m s (1980) showed t h a t 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 t o an u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o s e l f - d i s c l o s e t o others i n hypothetical s i t u a t i o n s .  Solano,  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 b e h a v i o r students  B a t t e n , and P a r i s h (1982) o f l o n e l y and n o n - l o n e l y c o l l e g e  (as measured by t h e UCLA L o n e l i n e s s S c a l e ) .  They h y p o t h e s i z e d  that  l o n e l y people not o n l y p e r c e i v e themselves as not h a v i n g d i s c l o s e d , b u t 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 p e r s o n a l  information.  T h e i r r e s u l t s showed t h a t l o n e l y and n o n - l o n e l y 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 , b o t h s e l f - p e r c e i v e d and a c t u a l . A r e c e n t s t u d y 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 confederate,  (Alden & Meleshko, 1988).  T h i s s t u d y d i d not u t i l i z e a  but i n s t e a d had the s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e i n s t r u c t u r e d d y a d i c  i n t e r a c t i o n s w h i c h i n c l u d e d a l l f o u r p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s of s h y and non-shy subjects.  I n terms o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , t h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s between the  groups i n r e g a r d t o e i t h e r p a s t s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e or t h e i n t i m a c y l e v e l o f t h e t o p i c s t h e y d i s c l o s e d on, w i t h both s h y and non-shy s u b j e c t s r e l a t i v e l y non-intimate  topics.  choosing  The d u r a t i o n o f t h e s u 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 s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d l o n g e r d u r a t i o n s t h a n d i d  the s h y s u b j e c t s .  The s t a t u s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r , however, a f f e c t e d t h e d u r a t i o n  of b o t h t h e non-shy and s h y s u b j e c t s .  S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e non-shy s u b j e c t s  spoke f o r s h o r t e r p e r i o d s o f time when they i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a s h y p a r t n e r  than  when t h e y i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a non-shy p a r t n e r ; t h e s h y s u b j e c t s spoke f o r l o n g e r  PAGE 12 periods  of time when t h e y i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a non-shy p a r t n e r  than when t h e y  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 s t u d y i s an e x t e n s i o n  Meleshko.  of t h i s recent  s t u d y by A l d e n and  I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , however, an e x p e r i m e n t a l c o l l a b o r a t o r was  used t o m a n i p u l a t e t h e i n t i m a c y  of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , t h e r e b y more c l o s e l y  a p p r o x i m a t i n g t h e 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.  Self-Presentation According t o s o c i o a n a l y t i c theory, motive f o r a c c e p t a n c e , a p p r o v a l , motive t o a c q u i r e & Cheek, 1985).  there  i s a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e  and p o p u l a r i t y ( " g e t t i n g a l o n g " ) and t h e  power, c o n t r o l , and s t a t u s  ( " g e t t i n g ahead") (Hogan, J o n e s ,  Because t h e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n s t r u m e n t a l  are o f t e n incompatible  w i t h t h e 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,  interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are inherently problematic. t o "get a l o n g " disapproval.  t o g e t t i n g along  I n most s i t u a t i o n s ,  o n l y r e q u i r e s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l a c t i n such a way as t o a v o i d To "get ahead" however, an i n d i v i d u a l may need t o adopt more  a c t i v e and m a n i p u l a t i v e  forms of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n .  Another t h e o r y ( A r k i n , 1981), which p o s t u l a t e d  t h a t t h e r e a r e 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 s e p a r a t e and  unrelated  m o t i v a t i o n a l systems.  attempt t o a v o i d d i s a p p r o v a l and  conformity,  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  and i s a s s o c i a t e d  with s o c i a l anxiety,  reticence,  w h i l e 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 e r v e s t o enhance f a v o u r e d  treatment i n future circumstances.  A l t h o u g h t h e 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 s i m i l a r l y in a particular s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , they  are guided by d i f f e r e n t motives, and their attendant a f f e c t i v e reactions  can  therefore be expected to be d i f f e r e n t . 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 s t y l e s .  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).  S p e c i f i c a l l y , they f e l t that the Concern for Appropriateness scale and subscales,  Protective Social Comparison and Protective V a r i a b i l i t y , would  enable them to examine protective self-presentation; and the scale and  i t s two  i t s two subscales,  S e n s i t i v i t y to the Expressive  Self-Monitoring  A b i l i t y to Modify Self-Presentation  and  Behaviour of Others, would enable them to  measure a c q u i s i t i v e self-presentation. In their study, Wolfe et a l (1986) demonstrated that the two scales were e s s e n t i a l l y orthogonal, and correlated with measures of self-esteem,  social  anxiety, shyness, and s o c i a b i l i t y in the directions expected of measures of protective and a c q u i s i t i v e 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 v a l i d 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  a c q u i s i t i v e self-presentation in the context of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Social situations involving s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e seem e s p e c i a l l y l i k e l y to evoke these styles of self-presentation.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that  two  PAGE 14 a l t h o u g h t h e two types o f 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  similar  b e h a v i o r s , t h e i r motives and a t t e n d a n t 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 different.  T h i s t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n may h e l p e x p l a i n why, a l t h o u g h  no one would argue t h a t t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e  virtually  i svastly different for  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 v e r y l i t t l e  In the way o f  actual behavioral differences.  The P r e s e n t Study To summarize, p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h suggests  t h a t shyness i s a r e l a t i v e l y  common f e a t u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y and e x p e r i e n c e t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a v a r i e t y of u n p l e a s a n t  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  s t i m u l i as w e l l a s c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r a l i n a d e q u a c i e s .  to social  I n an e x t e n s i o n o f these  p r e v i o u s 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 t o i n t r o d u c e and e v a l u a t e t r e a t m e n t s t r a t e g i e s d e s i g n e d t o a l l e v i a t e t h e p r o b l e m a t i c a s p e c t s o f shyness.  A l t h o u g h the t r e a t m e n t s t r a t e g y deemed  a p p r o p r i a t e depends t o a l a r g e e x t e n t on how i n d i v i d u a l r e s e a r c h e r s c o n c e p t u a l i z e s h y n e s s , most o f the c l i n i c a l l y r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h has f o c u s s e d 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 behavioral 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; A l d e n & Cappe, 1986), o r on t h e c o g n i t i v e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e n e g a t i v e 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 t h a t appear t o accompany shyness (Kanter & G o l d f r i e d , 1979; M a l k i e w i c h & M e r l u z z i , 1980; G l a s s & Shea, 1986). The r e s e a r c h up t o t h i s p o i n t i n time has shown t h a t both s o c i a l t r a i n i n g and c o g n i t i v e approaches a r e e f f e c t i v e In the treatment  skills  o f shyness.  PAGE 15  The r e s u l t s however,  of these treatment  outcome s t u d i e s have been somewhat  i n the sense t h a t n e i t h e r  one of these treatment s t r a t e g i e s has  shown to be s u p e r i o r to the o t h e r . than an a b s o l u t e  fashion.  b e h a v i o r a l and c o g n i t i v e r e l e v a n t here  Essentially,  specific  t o shyness.  i s a review by Alden and Cappe (1986)  skills,  that  discrete,  that  of a n x i e t y .  to  They recommend  on o t h e r - d i r e c t e d process v a r i a b l e s r a t h e r  molecular behaviors.  the recommendations of other r e s e a r c h e r s , investigate  i n which they note  i n the sense of complex c h a i n s of responses  f u t u r e r e s e a r c h s h o u l d focus  than on s e l f - f o c u s e d  Particularly  s m i l i n g , or c o n v e r s a t i o n a l pauses  be l e a r n e d , as they are b e h a v i o r a l e x p r e s s i o n s that  the  between shy and non-shy groups have u s u a l l y  i n v o l v e d b e h a v i o r s such as eye c o n t a c t , are not so much process  to recommend t h a t  be conducted to determine the exact nature of  differences  the b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s  been  they both work, but i n l e s s  T h i s has l e d some r e s e a r c h e r s  further empirical analysis  equivocal,  b e h a v i o r a l performance,  C o n s i s t e n t with t h i s and  the present  study was designed  to  i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n 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 d u r i n g a s o c i a l interaction. Arguably, of  one of the most important process  interpersonal relationships  variables  i s mutual s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .  i n the  development  The present  study  employed a s t r u c t u r e d d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n as the e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm i n an attempt to determine whether d i f f e r e n c e s between shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s . factors  deficit.  In t h i s  t h a t might u n d e r l y d i s c l o s u r e  concluded t h a t  however,  reciprocity exist  study we began to  reciprocity.  i f a behavioral difference  Some of these s t u d i e s ,  in disclosure  exists,  investigate  the  Most p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s it  i s the r e s u l t  have n e g l e c t e d  of a  to c o n s i d e r  have  skills  the  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t shy i n d i v i d u a l s may be capable of a behavior but f o r some reason r e f u s e  to e x h i b i t  it.  T h i s study examined much more c l o s e l y  the  issue  PAGE 16  of whether an a c t u a l s k i l l s behavioral  deficit  exists,  inadequacy may a c t u a l l y be a r e s u l t  distortion.  If  disclosure, difference  the study w i l l determine whether i n i n t i m a c y , and i f  disclosure  is  often  amount of d i s c l o s u r e  the major focus  logical  1984)  the  why they  still  While i n t i m a c y of  in r e c i p r o c i t y studies,  many f e e l  that  Therefore, consistent  the d u r a t i o n of  physiological arousal scale was  the  with  subjects'  preferable.  In l i g h t  of the problems i n h e r e n t  Bright, &  in physio-  in  self-report  measure of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l would have  As i t was extremely  n a t u r a l as p o s s i b l e  (Chambless, Caputo,  i n c l u d e d to determine whether d i f f e r e n c e s  a more o b j e c t i v e  however,  important t h a t  been  the d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n be as  i t was d e c i d e d t h a t o b j e c t i v e  measurement would be d e t r i m e n t a l as excessively  the d i f f e r e n c e ,  intimacy l e v e l .  or  confederate's  or not they r e c o g n i z e d  i s a l s o an important f a c t o r .  reactivity exist.  measures,  the  deficit  was a l s o r e c o r d e d .  A self-report Gallagher,  what appears to be a  of a c o g n i t i v e  they r e c o g n i z e d  view an a d d i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r a l measure,  disclosures,  whether  the shy s u b j e c t s do not r e c i p r o c a t e  f a i l e d to r e c i p r o c a t e t h e i r p a r t n e r ' s  this  or i f  physiological  i t would make the  i n t e r a c t i o n seem  cognitive  relating  artificial.  The study a l s o examined s e v e r a l  i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n and judgement.  factors  A s e r i e s of  interpersonal rating  t a s k s examined how the s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t h e m s e l v e s , they expected  t h e i r p a r t n e r s to p e r c e i v e  to determine whether The c o n f e d e r a t e  the s e l f - i m a g e  them.  t h e i r p a r t n e r s , and how  T h i s allowed  the  experimenter  of the shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s  and observer r a t i n g s  s u b j e c t s are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y e v a l u a t e d  differed.  of the s u b j e c t s examined whether by o t h e r s .  While some p r e v i o u s  suggests t h a t shy i n d i v i d u a l s a l s o n e g a t i v e l y  evaluate  r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t  As the  this  to  i s not the c a s e .  shy research  their partners,  other  " p a r t n e r s " , due to  the  PAGE 17  use of c o n f e d e r a t e s , experiment w i l l Recently, different  were the same for both shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s ,  h e l p c l a r i f y these p r e v i o u s e q u i v o c a l f i n d i n g s .  interest  has been shown i n t o the m o t i v a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of  s t y l e s of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n .  attention elucidates acquisitive  The t h e o r y which has r e c e i v e d the most  two s t y l e s of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n ,  ( A r k i n 1981).  independent v a r i a b l e s .  These concepts  a p p l i c a b l e to the p r e s e n t s t u d y , behind the s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n  focused on  or has u t i l i z e d them as  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  as there may be m o t i v a t i o n a l  of shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s .  u t i l i z i n g 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  and u t i l i z e  p r o t e c t i v e and  The e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h has e i t h e r  d e v e l o p i n g s c a l e s to measure the c o n s t r u c t s ,  variables,  the  differences  Rather than  as  independent  the p r e s e n t s t u d y attempted to s i t u a t i o n a l l y modify these them as dependent v a r i a b l e s .  shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s , these s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n  If d i f f e r e n c e s  concepts  are found between  the  i t would not o n l y lend credence to the v a l i d i t y of  constructs,  f o r any b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s  but a l s o  p o s s i b l y p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n  t h a t may e x i s t between the g r o u p s .  Hypotheses  1.  D u r a t i o n and Intimacy of the S u b j e c t s '  Disclosures  P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t both a main e f f e c t  for shyness and a  shyness by i n t i m a c y i n t e r a c t i o n should occur f o r the d u r a t i o n of subjects'  disclosures.  The non-shy s u b j e c t s  p e r i o d of time than the shy s u b j e c t s intimacy c o n d i t i o n s ,  should d i s c l o s e  the  for a longer  i n both the high i n t i m a c y and low  l e a d i n g to a main e f f e c t  for s h y n e s s .  Previous  PAGE 18  d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t there may a l s o interaction.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , the non-shy s u b j e c t s  longer p e r i o d of time i n t i m a c y one,  be an  should d i s c l o s e  i n the high i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n than i n the  w h i l e the shy s u b j e c t s  for a low  may e x h i b i t s i m i l a r d u r a t i o n s i n both  intimacy c o n d i t i o n s . One of the most robust f i n d i n g s relates  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 .  of normal s u b j e c t s disclosure. will  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  It  to match the  i s expected  intimacy l e v e l  of a  t h a t the non-shy s u b j e c t s  This  is  the  tendency  confederate's in this  experiment  conform t o 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 h i g h  intimacy confederate d i s c l o s u r e s , An i n t e r a c t i o n i s a l s o e x p e c t e d , shy s u b j e c t s that t h i s subjects  will  l e a d i n g to a main e f f e c t however, as  it  is hypothesized that  exhibit non-reciprocal disclosure patterns.  may take the form of low i n t i m a c y d i s c l o s u r e s i n response  disclosures. shy p a t i e n t s  has l e d the author to b e l i e v e  have a p a r t i c u l a r problem w i t h i n t i m a c y .  reciprocal  of d i s c l o s u r e  and c l i n i c a l  felt  shy  even i n the face  for  and one by Trower  were b e h a v i o r a l l y  ( t h e i r p a r t n e r s ) changing t h e i r  behavior.  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 These measures reflected  self  i n c l u d e the s u b j e c t s '  on s e v e r a l  to  (1975) which found non-  for n e u r o t i c s u b j e c t s  of others  exposure  Providing a further basis  (1980), which found t h a t s o c i a l l y u n s k i l l e d p a t i e n t s consistent  is  t h a t the shy i n d i v i d u a l may  are a s t u d y by C h a i k i n et a l  patterns  by the  It  the  to both the high and low i n t i m a c y c o n f e d e r a t e  P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h w i t h shy s u b j e c t s  t h i s hypothesis  for i n t i m a c y .  r a t i n g s of s e l f ,  interpersonal bipolar adjective  p a r t n e r , and scales,  the  PAGE 19  physiological presentation main e f f e c t subjects,  arousal scale, scale.  and the  and a c q u i s i t i v e  P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t t h e r e  for shyness h e r e .  Shy s u b j e c t s ,  should report higher  themselves, and expect t h e i r and u t i l i z e  protective  a protective,  s h o u l d be a  as compared to  l e v e l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l  non-shy  arousal,  p a r t n e r s to e v a l u a t e them, more  r a t h e r than an a c q u i s i t i v e  self-  evaluate  negatively,  s t y l e of  self-  presentation. There may a l s o be an i n t e r a c t i o n . in t h i s regard,  it  is hypothesized  l e v e l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l disclosure  arousal  While there  that  c o n d i t i o n than i n the  felt  that  low i n t i m a c y one.  t h i s may be one r e s u l t  that  this  The non-shy  of the shy s u b j e c t s '  low i n t i m a c y  i n the  is  the  tendency  i n an i n t i m a t e intimate  of the c o n f e d e r a t e s .  the  "liking  for s u b j e c t s to e v a l u a t e a c o n f e d e r a t e  in  effect". who d i s c l o s e s  than one who d i s c l o s e s  i n a non-  P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t a main e f f e c t  partners equally for  partners  h i g h i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n than  finding is  f a s h i o n more p o s i t i v e l y  fashion.  main e f f e c t  It  i n t i m a c y may  shyness s h o u l d not occur as both shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s s h o u l d their  It  one.  Another v e r y r o b u s t p s y c h o l o g i c a l This  subjects  hypothesized  cause the shy s u b j e c t s t o e v a l u a t e t h e m s e l v e s , and expect t h e i r  the  higher  confederate  i n a b i l i t y to match c o n f e d e r a t e  to e v a l u a t e them, more n e g a t i v e l y  research  of a r o u s a l i n both c o n d i t i o n s .  i n a b i l i t y to match the h i g h i n t i m a c y d i s c l o s u r e s i s a l s o hypothesized  no p r e v i o u s  the shy s u b j e c t s may r e p o r t  i n the h i g h i n t i m a c y  are expected t o d i s p l a y the same l e v e l is  is  i n the  low i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n .  i n t i m a c y or an i n t e r a c t i o n  subjects should rate  the c o n f e d e r a t e  c o n d i t i o n more p o s i t i v e l y  is  expected.  i n the  rate  However, e i t h e r  i n the h i g h i n t i m a c y  than the c o n f e d e r a t e  for  The non-shy disclosure  low i n t i m a c y  one.  a  PAGE 20  If  the shy s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y the same p a t t e r n of p a r t n e r e v a l u a t i o n ,  will  be a main e f f e c t  for  However,  if  the shy s u b j e c t s ,  as  hypothesized,  show higher  l e v e l s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l and more  negative s e l f  evaluations  i n the  they may a c t u a l l y e v a l u a t e If  3.  intimacy.  this  is  the c a s e ,  the  high i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n ,  high i n t i m a c y c o n f e d e r a t e  t h e r e would be an i n t e r a c t i o n  Confederate and Observer R a t i n g s of the P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s p a i n t a somewhat i n d i v i d u a l s are p e r c e i v e d appears t h a t negatively however,  if  that  it  is  more  possible negatively.  here.  Subjects  c o n f u s i n g p i c t u r e as to whether  i n a n e g a t i v e f a s h i o n by o t h e r s .  t r a i n e d r a t e r s are u t i l i z e d ,  evaluated  it  shy s u b j e c t s are  than are non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s .  i s more important to determine  are somewhat  c o n t r a d i c t o r y in t h i s  t r a i n the c o n f e d e r a t e s  and o b s e r v e r s  i n s t e a d allowed them to r a t e the s u b j e c t s a main e f f e c t  indeed more  I t would seem,  that  the shy s u b j e c t s and the  as the u n t r a i n e d c o n f e d e r a t e s than as t r a i n e d  raters.  T h i s study d i d not  in a subjective here.  non-shy s u b j e c t s w i l l and o b s e r v e r s  The  interpersonal ratings,  nor an i n t e r a c t i o n was expected  it  how shy i n d i v i d u a l s are  regard.  on the  shy  In g e n e r a l ,  p e r c e i v e d 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 . results  there  It  is  manner.  but Neither  hypothesized  be e v a l u a t e d  equally,  should f u n c t i o n more as  peers  PAGE 21 Method Subjects and Design Overview Female students (n=489) in several introductory psychology classes at the University of B r i t i s h 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 s o c i a l avoidance and s o c i a l d i s t r e s s .  Scores range from 0  to 28 with higher scores r e f l e c t i n g a greater degree of s o c i a l 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: t o t a l c o r r e l a t i o n of .77 r e l i a b i l i t y of .68. by independent  (2) KR-20 of .94  (1) mean p o i n t - b i s e r i a l item(3) one-month test-retest  A one-month test-retest correlation of .86 was obtained  investigators (Girodo, Dotzenroth, & Stein, 1981).  Those with SAD scores <. 2 (approximately the lower q u a r t i l e ; 24.7%) were c l a s s i f i e d as potential non-shy subjects, while subjects with SAD scores > 12 (approximately the upper q u a r t i l e ; 21.7%) were c l a s s i f i e d as potential shy subjects.  To eliminate extraneous v a r i a b i l i t y , married students and students  over the age of 22 were eliminated from the subject pool.  The 100 volunteer  subjects, who received p a r t i a l course credit for their p a r t i c i p a t i o n , 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 e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n s , paradigm,  subjects  which u t i l i z e d a d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n  a l t e r n a t e d with a female c o n f e d e r a t e  i n f o r m a t i o n about themselves.  in disclosing  The c o n f e d e r a t e always spoke f i r s t and e i t h e r  d i s c l o s e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was r e l a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l and n o n - i n t i m a t e , or q u i t e p e r s o n a l and h i g h l y i n t i m a t e . (subject  status:shy  or non-shy)  low i n t i m a c y ) f a c t o r i a l  Thus,  x 2 (level  the experiment u t i l i z e d a 2 of c o n f e d e r a t e d i s c l o s u r e : h i g h or  design.  Stimulus M a t e r i a l s and Procedure When the s u b j e c t a r r i v e d f o r the experiment, she was g r e e t e d by the experimenter and seated so t h a t she coffee after  table.  faced a female c o n f e d e r a t e a c r o s s a s m a l l  To enhance the d e c e p t i o n , the c o n f e d e r a t e a r r i v e d t h r e e  the s u b j e c t was scheduled to be there and a p o l o g i z e d f o r b e i n g  s t a t i n g t h a t her c l a s s had been a c r o s s campus. s u b j e c t was more than 3 minutes l a t e ,  late,  On those o c c a s i o n s when the  the c o n f e d e r a t e entered the room and was  a l r e a d y seated when the s u b j e c t a r r i v e d . comfortable  minutes  The e x p e r i m e n t a l room c o n t a i n e d two  lounge type c h a i r s , lamps, end t a b l e s ,  and a c o f f e e  table.  Every  attempt was made to make the s e t t i n g as c o m f o r t a b l e and n a t u r a l i s t i c as possible. The s u b j e c t and c o n f e d e r a t e were g i v e n c l i p b o a r d s c o n t a i n i n g a s u b j e c t consent  form,  signed,  the experimenter read through the  dyad.  i n s t r u c t i o n s , and a t o p i c l i s t .  The s u b j e c t s  After  the consent  i n s t r u c t i o n s (Appendix 1) w i t h the  were presented w i t h the r a t i o n a l e t h a t the experiment was  a s t u d y of 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 employed by people meeting s i t u a t i o n s . short,  in f i r s t -  They were t o l d t h a t the s t u d y would e n t a i l them having a  s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e i r p a r t n e r ,  fellow subject.  forms were  The s u b j e c t s  who was presented as a  were i n s t r u c t e d to choose a t o p i c from the  PAGE 23  provided t o p i c disclosure  it  list, was  to t h e i r p a r t n e r .  w r i t e a number beside  (i.e.  first,  speaking.  listen,  The s u b j e c t s  and d i s c l o s e d  on,  and not ask q u e s t i o n s ,  on t h a t  topic  4 topics.  back and f o r t h  It was  stressed  when t h e i r p a r t n e r was  were t o l d t h a t time was not a major i s s u e and t h a t  when they had s a i d a l l they had to s a y ,  t h a t was f i n e .  m a i n t a i n i n g temporal s c h e d u l i n g c o n s t r a i n t s , the  and then d i s c l o s e  They were i n s t r u c t e d to a l t e r n a t e  both of them had chosen,  t h a t they were to  etc),  i n d i c a t i n g which  They were t o l d to then l i s t e n while t h e i r p a r t n e r chose a  t o p i c and t a l k e d about i t . until  second,  the t o p i c  however,  In the  interests  of  i t was mentioned t h a t on  "upper end", they s h o u l d t r y t o l i m i t any g i v e n d i s c l o s u r e t o 3 to 4  minutes. Using p r e - a s s i g n e d s u b j e c t would always s e l f - d i s c l o s e the c o n f e d e r a t e starts  numbers i t was arranged so t h a t the  first.  the high s u b j e c t  f i r s t " arrangement.  was s t r e s s e d  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number i n a "high number were t o l d t h a t the male  ostensibly  to monitor the c o n v e r s a t i o n .  t o be l e s s o f f e n s i v e  experimenter asked i f t h e r e were any q u e s t i o n s .  x  to the s u b j e c t s  of a tape r e c o r d e r (Alden & Meleshko, 1 9 8 8 ) .  confederate  experimenter  t h a t they were not being audio or v i d e o taped i n any manner.  p r e v i o u s s t u d y found t h i s presence  T h i s was " n a t u r a l l y accomplished" by g i v i n g  The s u b j e c t s  would be behind a one way m i r r o r ,  confederate  x  than was  At t h i s  point,  It A  the the  To enhance the d e c e p t i o n ,  asked a q u e s t i o n r e l a t i n g to t o p i c s e l e c t i o n .  After  answering  In the p r e s e n t s t u d y , a q u e s t i o n on the s t r u c t u r e d d e b r i e f i n g form asked i f the s u b j e c t s would f e e l more c o m f o r t a b l e (1) with the experimenter behind the one-way m i r r o r , (2) being a u d i o t a p e d , but having no one behind the m i r r o r , or (3) whether there would be no d i f f e r e n c e between the two. Although the nature of the data c o l l e c t i o n does not a l l o w c o n c l u s i o n s t o be drawn, i t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t 68 s u b j e c t s p r e f e r r e d the experimenter behind the m i r r o r , 14 i n d i c a t e d a p r e f e r e n c e for being audiotaped with no one watching, and 18 f e l t t h e r e would be no d i f f e r e n c e . There was no d i f f e r e n c e between the various conditions.  the  PAGE 24  this  question,  and any the s u b j e c t  to t u r n to the topic  list  topic  the experimenter  left  the room and went to  A f t e r an a p p r o p r i a t e p e r i o d of time to  the c o n f e d e r a t e  told  began her f i r s t  Confederates and O b s e r v e r s :  "examine"  behind a one-way m i r r o r ,  u t i l i z e d two female  observers.  confederates,  out of the s u b j e c t s '  The o b s e r v e r s  sight.  Once a g a i n ,  e q u a l l y balanced a c r o s s and o b s e r v e r s  interaction,  (surreptitiously,  and c o n d i t i o n s .  both the  observer and the  The  disclosures  for  design.  rated  i n t i m a c y u s i n g a v e r b a l l y anchored 7  scale.  and was comprised of an a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal number of intimacy topics the c o n f e d e r a t e s  (Jourard, disclosed  1971;  little,  Appendix 1 2 ) .  2  i f anything,  They d i s c u s s e d  low,  In the  on u n i f o r m l y n o n - i n t i m a t e  : Mean i n t i m a c y = 4 . 7 0 5 ) .  2  were  confederates  The t o p i c  (Appendix 2) c o n t a i n e d 19 items which had been p r e v i o u s l y r a t e d for  revealed  the  confederate  D i s c u s s i o n T o p i c s and M a n i p u l a t i o n of Confederate I n t i m a c y :  17  to  w h i l e she pretended to number her next t o p i c c h o i c e )  each of the s u b j e c t s ' point L i k e r t  could l i s t e n  were b l i n d t o the hypotheses and e x p e r i m e n t a l  During the  were seated  care was taken so t h a t the two observers  both c o n f e d e r a t e s  in a l l  The e x p e r i m e n t a l room  was equipped with a sound system by which the o b s e r v e r s interaction.  the  disclosure.  The experiment  There were a l s o two female  the  the  each of whom i n t e r a c t e d with a p p r o x i m a t e l y an e q u a l number of s u b j e c t s conditions.  them  They were t o l d to take t h e i r time and examine  c a r e f u l l y while the experimenter  observation g a l l e r y . topics,  list.  may have a s k e d ,  list  intimacy  medium, and high  low i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n ,  topics  ( t o p i c s 9,  relatively superficial  of a p e r s o n a l or emotional nature  16,  11,  i s s u e s and  (Appendixes  The o r i g i n a l t o p i c l i s t c o n t a i n e d 21 items. I t was f e l t , however, t h a t two of the t o p i c s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e and as a r e s u l t items 4 and 7 were deleted.  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). they revealed was private, personal, and emotional i n nature  The information (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  e s s e n t i a l , i t was f e l t that a minimal difference between the s c r i p t s for the two conditions should be achieved i n terms of their (a) appropriateness for a first-meeting s i t u a t i o n , and (b) degree of positiveness or negativeness conveyed.  they  To address these issues, the four research assistants rated each  i n i t i a l s c r i p t , and any subsequent revisions, on 7-point L i k e r t scales which assessed: not intimate/very intimate, unrevealing/revealing, negativity/ p o s i t i v i t y of content, inappropriateness/appropriateness for a f i r s t meeting s i t u a t i o n , and unlikeable/likeable perception of a person d i s c l o s i n g such material. The high intimacy s c r i p t s were perceived as more intimate (Mean=6.5) and more revealing (Mean=6.25) than were the non-intimate s c r i p t s (Means=3.0 and 3.75 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  While the non-intimate s c r i p t s were seen as s l i g h t l y more  appropriate for a f i r s t meeting s i t u a t i o n (Mean=5.75) than were the highly intimate s c r i p t s (Mean=4.25), they were seen as being equally positive in content (Means=6.0 and 6.25 for the low and high intimacy s c r i p t s 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 s c r i p t s  were indeed perceived d i f f e r e n t l y in terms of intimacy, but that there was l i t t l e or no difference in their p o s i t i v i t y or appropriateness. The non-intimate disclosures ranged between 203 and 237 words (Mean=217) and took an average of 80.41  and 79.81  second confederate respectively.  seconds to d e l i v e r , for the f i r s t and  The highly intimate disclosures ranged  between 197 and 251 words (Mean=224) and took an average of 85.74 and 87.08 seconds to d e l i v e r , 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 s u b s t a n t i a l l y 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 l i s t e n a t t e n t i v e l y while the subject spoke.  Ideally, they were to maintain an attentive, but emotionally  neutral f a c i a l expression.  The confederates were to be c a r e f u l , however, that  their f a c i a l 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 t r y 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 : i n t e r a c t i o n , the e x p e r i m e n t e r r e - e n t e r e d and  A f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n of the  the room and gave both the s u b j e c t  the c o n f e d e r a t e t h e 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 t h a t 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 c o n f e d e r a t e was t a k e n t o a n o t h e r room.  T h i s was a c c o m p l i s h e d by s a y i n g  that  the person who was " l u c k y " enough t o speak f i r s t was a l s o " l u c k y " enough t o be the one t o move.  The c o n f e d e r a t e asked i f she s h o u l d  take her books and coat  w i t h her and was t o l d t h a t she s h o u l d , as i t was l i k e l y she and her p a r t n e r would f i n i s h  the questionnaires  a t d i f f e r e n t times.  The s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s , t h e i r p a r t n e r s , and themselves as t h e y 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  bipolar adjectives.  felt  interpersonal  They a l s o completed s c a l e s d e s i g n e d t o 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 acquisitive).  The c o n f e d e r a t e and o b s e r v e r a l s o i n d e p e n d e n t l y r a t e d the  s u b j e c t s on t h e 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 r a t e d t h e i r or g l o b a l , i m p r e s s i o n  overall,  of t h e i n t i m a c y o f the s u b j e c t ' s d i s c l o s u r e s .  A f t e r t h e s u b j e c t completed t h e 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 , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r conducted a s t r u c t u r e d , f u n n e l type d e b r i e f i n g d e s i g n e d t o probe for  subject suspicion.  confederate,  Due t o s u s p i c i o n s t h a t t h e i r p a r t n e r was a c t u a l l y a  t h e d a t a o f t h r e e s u b j e c t s 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 t h e d e b r i e f i n g , t h e s u b j e c t s were informed of  the nature o f the e x p e r i m e n t , asked t o m a i n t a i n experimental  c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , given  their  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 f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g , and  dismissed. Pilot  Study:  SAD s c o r e s  A p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y (n=12) was conducted u t i l i z i n g s u b j e c t s  o f between 6 and 8.  s t a t i s t i c a l analyses  reported  T h e i r d a t a were not i n c l u d e d i n the i n t h i s paper.  The p i l o t  s t u d y served  three  with  PAGE 28 major purposes.  F i r s t , although  the c o n f e d e r a t e s  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 a l l o w e d them t o " f i n e tune" t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n .  It  a l s o a l l o w e d t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r t o observe any b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two c o n f e d e r a t e s  and make a p p r o p r i a t e a d j u s t m e n t s .  of the d a t a p r o v i d e d by the m a n i p u l a t i o n determine t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  Second, an  examination  check a l l o w e d the e x p e r i m e n t e r t o  manipulation  appeared t o be s u c c e s s f u l .  T h i r d , the i n t i m a c y 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 c o n f e d e r a t e s and  observers  were examined.  They were d i s c u s s e d and s l i g h t a d j u s t m e n t s 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 t h a t 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 c a t e g o r i e s of dependent measures: (1) D u r a t i o n and i n t i m a c y of t h e 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 s u b j e c t 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 c o n f e d e r a t e  and o b s e r v e r  r a t i n g s of t h e 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.  D u r a t i o n and i n t i m a c y of t h e s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s The  e x p e r i m e n t e r used a stopwatch t o measure t h e d u r a t i o n ( i n seconds)  of each o f the s u b j e c t ' s d i s c l o s u r e s .  T h i s measure was the average o f  each s u b j e c t ' s f o u r d i s c l o s u r e s w i t h a l e v e l of a c c u r a c y  o f o n e - t e n t h of a  second. There were 3 d i f f e r e n t measures of t h e i n t i m a c y of t h e s u b j e c t s ' disclosures.  The m o d i f i e d J o u r a r d T o p i c L i s t c o n t a i n e d  corresponding  i n t i m a c y v a l u e s r a n g i n g from 2.21 t o 4.98.  intimacy values corresponding  19 t o p i c s w i t h The mean of t h e  t o the f o u r d i s c l o s u r e s o f each s u b j e c t was  u t i l i z e d as one measure of i n t i m a c y .  While t h i s p r o v i d e d 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) t h a t 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 i n t i m a c y . unhappiest  F o r example, one s u b j e c t s t a t e d t h a t t h e  moment i n her l i f e was when she went back t o a s t o r e t o g e t a  dress she r e a l l y l i k e d and found t h a t 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 b r o t h e r , who had been m e n t a l l y 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 c o n t a i n e d two a d d i t i o n a l measures of the i n t i m a c y of the subjects* disclosures. 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  for i n t i m a c y on a 7-point L i k e r t s c a l e (Appendixes 8 and 9 ) . T h i s 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 p r e v i o u s 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 t o a l l o w c o n f e d e r a t e averaged a c r o s s s u b j e c t s .  and observer r a t i n g s t o be  The mean of the r a t i n g s f o r 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 c o n f e d e r a t e  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 i n t i m a c y (Appendixes 8 and 9, number 9 ) . T h i s comprised the t h i r d measure of the i n t i m a c y 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 p a r t n e r would r a t e t h e m — r e f l e c t e d  self—(Appendix 5).  PAGE 30 These ratings consisted of a variety of interpersonal bipolar adjectives which were b a s i c a l l y positive versus negative in nature.  Previous  research has shown that these ratings should show robust patterns intercorrelations across these three perspectives.  of  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 s e l f , partner, and reflected s e l f . A s e l f - r e p o r t physiological arousal scale (Appendix 6) was from one which was attacks  modified  designed for use with individuals s u f f e r i n g from panic  (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 a d d i t i v e l y combined to y i e l d a t o t a l score  for physiological arousal.  Due  to the modification of the o r i g i n a l  scale, however, a p r i n c i p a l components analysis was  conducted to determine  whether the psychometric properties of the scale had been compromised by the  modifications. A s e l f - r e p o r t scale was  developed to measure protective and  a c q u i s i t i v e styles of self-presentation (Appendix 7). were modified  to r e f l e c t the nature of the experimental paradigm.  mainly involved partner",  The selected items This  integrating phrases such as "during the conversation,  "the topics", into the items.  Consistent  "My  with the  recommendations of Wolfe et a l (1986), items were selected from the Concern for Appropriateness Scale Self-Monitoring  (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984)  Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984).  The experimenter also  u t i l i z e d items from the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale Friend, 1969), as i t was  and the 13-item  (FNE;  Watson &  f e l t 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 A b i l i t y to Modify Self-Presentation subscale of the SelfMonitoring Scale yielded 7 items designed to measure a c q u i s i t i v e s e l f presentation. of  Protective self-presentation was measured by modifications  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  aspects  ot  the protective and a c q u i s i t i v e measures.  3.  Postdisclosure confederate  and o b s e r v e r r a t i n g s  of  the subjects  The confederates and observers independently rated the subjects on the same interpersonal bipolar adjectives that the subjects rated their partners, and their reflected selves.  themselves,  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  felt  that the impact of being involved in the interaction as compared to being behind the one-way mirror might have a d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t , interrater reliabilities  were not computed for these ratings.  Instead, the ratings  of the confederates and the observers were considered d i s t i n c t and were statistically completed  examined independently.  In addition, the confederates also  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 produced the expected s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for shyness, p <.001.  scores  F, 5j,=749.92, 1(  It also produced two unexpected outcomes, a main e f f e c t for  intimacy, F , >=5.01, p <.05, (x  9S  which was  further q u a l i f i e d by a s i g n i f i c a n t  shyness by intimacy interaction, F i,9a>=7.35, p <.01. t  Subsequent analyses  revealed that, although subjects had been randomly assigned, the SAD scores of the two c e l l s of shy subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t the low intimacy shy subjects and 15.60  (Means=18.52 for  for the high-intimacy shy subjects).  To determine whether this difference affected the pattern of r e s u l t s , additional groupings of subjects were a r t i f i c i a l l y  created in which the  scores did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r between the two c o n d i t i o n s . 3  s t a t i s t i c a l analyses conducted  two SAD  A l l major  in the study were repeated on these two groups.  While actual p r o b a b i l i t y values varied somewhat, in no instance was a significant  (or non-significant) r e s u l t 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 t h i s 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 s a t i s f a c t o r y test of the hypotheses,  i t was  essential that the subjects in the high and low intimacy conditions d i f f e r e d in their assessments of how were.  intimate and revealing their partner's disclosures  The form on which the subjects rated their partners included two  items  designed to assess the manipulation of confederate intimacy: using a 7-point L i k e r t scale, subjects rated (a) unrevealing/revealing intimate.  A  (b)  non-intimate/very  2 (shyness) x 2 (confederate intimacy) MANOVA of these two  produced only one s i g n i f i c a n t outcome, a main effect for confederate F<2,9i>=94.06, p <.001.  items  intimacy,  Followup univariate F-tests revealed that subjects  assigned to the high intimacy condition reported that their partners were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more intimate (Mean=5.74) than did subjects assigned to the low intimacy condition (Mean=2.86), F , 2>=188.51, p <.001. (:L  9  They also reported  that they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more revealing (Means=5.96 and respectively), F , >=46.20, p <.001. (1  intimacy was  92  4.38  Thus, the manipulation of confederate  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, combinations  of confederates  .90,  .84, and  (2) and observers (2).  .86 for the 4  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  anchored and global intimacy measures respectively.  .92, for the  In view of these  s a t i s f a c t o r y 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 f i n a l 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  and 97.57% (Range: 90% to 100%).  100%)  This suggests that the subjects within a  given intimacy condition were presented with v i r t u a l l y the same content by the confederates. As two confederates were u t i l i z e d in the experiment, a l l major multivariate analyses were conducted with the confederate as a factor. (confederate) x 2 (shyness) x 2 (intimacy) MANOVA'S produced  The 2  no main or  interaction effects for the confederate variable and thus i t w i l l not be mentioned in the subsequent analyses.  Composite Scores for the Interpersonal Bipolar Adjectives To determine whether the interpersonal bipolar adjectives could be a d d i t i v e l y combined, Pearson correlation c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed independently for the subjects' ratings of s e l f , partner, r e f l e c t e d - s e l f , 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 s e l f , partner, reflected s e l f , and the confederate and observer ratings of the  PAGE 35 subjects for composite scores to be u t i l i z e d .  The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s  can be seen i n Tables 1 to 5.  Table 1.  Subjects' Ratings of S e l f : Interpersonal Adjective Correlations Attractive/ Unattractive  Attractive/ Unattractive  1.00  Likeable/ Unlikeable  1.00  Likeable/ Unlikeable  _ * K  .58"""  .42""" .57"""  1.00 Shy/Not Shy  Anxious/Calm ""=p <.01;  .66*"" """=p  <.001  W  .50  1.00  Interesting/ Boring  Interesting/ Boring _  .52"""  Friendly/ Unfriendly  "=p <.05;  Friendly/ Unfriendly  PAGE 36 Table 2.  Subjects'  R a t i n g s of P a r t n e r : Attractive/ Unattractive  Attractive/ Unattractive  1.00  Friendly/ Unfriendly  Interpersonal Adjective  Friendly/ Unfriendly  .31"*  1.00  Likeable/ Unlikeable  Likeable/ Unlikeable  Correlations  Interesting/ Boring  .42**"  .22"  .62"""  .23"  1.00  Interesting/ Boring  .41  1.00 Shy/Not Shy  Anxious/Calm *=p <.05;  r a b l e 3.  . 45  **=p <. 01;  *""=p <.001  S u b j e c t s ' R a t i n g s of R e f l e c t e d Correlations  Attractive/ Unattractive  Attractive/ Unattractive  Friendly/ Unfriendly  1.00  . 56  Friendly/ Unfriendly  _ _ * * rt  1.00  Likeable/ Unlikeable  Likeable/ Unlikeable - _ * * n  Interesting/ Boring .44  .69*""  .49 _ . * fa it . O1  1.00 Shy/Not Shy  Anxious/Calm  Adjective  . b6  1.00  Interesting/ Boring  "=p <.05;  Self: Interpersonal  .64*""  "*=p <.01; "**=p <.001  PAGE 37 T a b l e 4.  C o n f e d e r a t e s ' R a t i n g s of S u b j e c t s : Correlations Attractive/ Unattractive  Attractive/ Unattractive  Friendly/ Unfriendly  1.00  Friendly/ Unfriendly  1.00  Likeable/ Unlikeable  Interpersonal  Adjective  Likeable/ Unlikeable  Interesting/ Boring  .82"""  . bo  .60"""  . 44  1.00  Interesting/ Boring  .73"** 1.00  Shy/Not Shy Anxious/Calm "=p <.05;  T a b l e 5.  ""=p  .70""* <.01;  """=p  <.001  O b s e r v e r s ' R a t i n g s of S u b j e c t s : Attractive/ Unattractive  Friendly/ Unfriendly  1.00  .45  Attractive/ Unattractive Friendly/ Unfriendly  1.00  Likeable/ Unlikeable  Likeable/ Unlikeable .64"""  c  _ » » n  • OJ  Interesting/ Boring .50""" . . a* «  • bl  1.00  Interesting/ Boring  1.00 Shy/Not Shy  Anxious/Calm "=p <.05;  Interpersonal Adjective Correlations  *"=p  .81""* <.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 highly correlated.  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 , w i t h v i r t u a l l y a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t a t p <.001. c o n f e d e r a t e s , and o b s e r v e r s a l l tended the same f a s h i o n .  T h i s suggested  They  (27 of 30) of the t h a t the s u b j e c t s ,  t o use these r a t i n g s i n s u b s t a n t i v e l y  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 , t h e r e a l s o appears t o  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 t o comprise p a r t 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 v e r s u s n e g a t i v e continuum.  T h e r e f o r e , i t was d e c i d e d t o a d d i t i v e l y combine  the s c o r e s on these items i n t o a composite s c o r e of " I n t e r p e r s o n a l Image". The a n x i o u s / c a l m and shy/not  shy r a t i n g s a l s o showed a r o b u s t p a t t e r n of  moderate t o h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h 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 a t p <.001.  Once a g a i n , t h e r e appears t o 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  t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l one.  These r a t i n g s appear t o 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 v e r s u s d i s c o m f o r t .  Thus, i t was d e c i d e d t o  a d d i t i v e l y combine t h e s c o r e s on these items i n t o a composite s c o r e f o r " I n t e r p e r s o n a l Comfort". The c o n f e d e r a t e a l s o r a t e d how a t ease, or c o m f o r t a b l e , she was d u r i n g the interaction.  The t h r e e items were a l l s c o r e d so t h a t a h i g h e r s c o r e  a more p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g ( i . e . u n c o m f o r t a b l e - 1 ;  comfortable-7).  indicated  The  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r these t h r e e items were .76, .65, and .84, a l l s i g n i f i c a n t a t p <.001.  T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the c o n f e d e r a t e s 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 t o 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 s i g n i f i c a n t  outcomes, a main e f f e c t for shyness, F ,9 >=6.85, p <.001, a main effect for (4  3  intimacy, F , ,=14.51, p <.001, and a shyness x intimacy interaction, (4  93  F< ,93)=4.42, p <.005. 4  Duration of the Subjects' Disclosures:  Followup univariate F-tests revealed a  main effect for shyness, F i , ) = 2 2 . 2 4 , p <.001, and a main effect for (  intimacy, F ( i ,  96)  9e  = 1 1 . 1 0 , p <.001.  The non-shy subjects disclosed for a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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 d i s c l o s i v e , in terms of duration, i n 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 s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for shyness for the three measures of the intimacy of the subjects' disclosures, there were s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for intimacy, and s i g n i f i c a n t 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 : Disclosures  Main E f f e c t :  Confederate  Intimacy  Source Jourard Intimacy Values Mean R a t i n g s o f Each D i s c l o s u r e Overall Intimacy Rating Interaction:  I n t i m a c y of t h e S u b j e c t s '  MS  df  F  6.03 50.20 63.20  (1,96) (1,96) (1,96)  51.40 45.42 39.95  df  E  Shyness x C o n f e d e r a t e  Source  E. .001 .001 < .001 < <  Intimacy MS  J o u r a r d I n t i m a c y Values .62 Mean R a t i n g s of Each D i s c l o s u r e 3.90 O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating 11.90  (1,96) (1,96) (1,96)  E  5.31 3.53 7.52  .05 .05 < .01 <  >  The main e f f e c t s f o r c o n f e d e r a t e i n t i m a c y r e f l e c t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t 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 i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e were more i n t i m a t e i n t h e i r own s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s t h a n were those who i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a noni n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e on a l l t h r e e i n t i m a c y measures (Table 7 ) . Table 7.  Intimacy Values of the Subjects' D i s c l o s u r e s Low I n t i m a c y  Jourard Intimacy Values R a t i n g s of Each D i s c l o s u r e O v e r a l l Intimacy Ratings Note:  High I n t i m a c y  Non-Shy n=25  Shy n=25  Total n=50  Non-Shy n=25  Shy n=25  Total n=50  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  A higher number r e f l e c t s a more non-intimate disclosure on the Jourard intimacy values, contrary to the other two intimacy measures where a higher number r e f l e c t s a more intimate disclosure.  T h i s type o f outcome i s one t h a t i s t y p i c a l l y c i t e d as e v i d e n c e disclosure reciprocity effect.  for a  Thus, as h y p o t h e s i z e d , t h e v e r y r o b u s t 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 o p e r a t i v e i n t h i s  study.  PAGE 41 In terms of the hypotheses g u i d i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h , the more i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t was  the shyness x c o n f e d e r a t e  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 r e v e a l e d t h a t two of the i n t i m a c y measures produced significant interactions  (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  F i g u r e 1, P a n e l A ( J o u r a r d I n t i m a c y V a l u e s ) and P a n e l B ( O v e r a l l  Intimacy  Rating).  F i g u r e 1.  I n t i m a c y 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 I n t i m a c y of the C o n f e d e r a t e s ' D i s c l o s u r e s  P a n e l A: J o u r a r d I n t i m a c y V a l u e s  Low  Intimate  P a n e l B: O v e r a l l I n t i m a c y  0  O  non-shy  0  •#  shy  High I n t i m a t e Confederate  Low  Intimate  High  Ratings  Intimate  Intimacy  These f i g u r e s show t h a t the shy s u b j e c t s were somewhat l e s s i n t i m a t e than the non-shy s u b j e c t s when exposed t o the h i g h l y i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e ,  but were  somewhat more i n t i m a t e than the non-shy s u b j e c t s when exposed t o the  non-  intimate confederate.  The  shyness x i n t i m a c y i n t e r a c t i o n f o r the  third  measure of s u b j e c t i n t i m a c y (the mean i n t i m a c y of each s u b j e c t ' s f o u r  PAGE 42 d i s c l o s u r e s ) , was o n l y m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F, , >=3.53, p -.06, b u t x  96  e x h i b i t e d t h e same p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s . Subsequent s i m p l e main e f f e c t s a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s f o r t h e J o u r a r d i n t i m a c y v a l u e s (Table 8) and t h e o v e r a l l i n t i m a c y 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 t h e Shyness by I n t i m a c y J o u r a r d I n t i m a c y Values  Source Shyness a t Low I n t i m a c y Shyness a t High I n t i m a c y Error  Table 9.  MS  df  .4802 .1741 .1173  1 1 96  Interaction:  £  P.  4.09 1.48  <.05 >.05  Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r t h e Shyness by I n t i m a c y I n t e r a c t i o n : O v e r a l l Intimacy Rating  Source Shyness a t Low I n t i m a c y Shyness a t High I n t i m a c y Error  MS  dj.  3.645 8.820 1.582  1 1 96  F  P.  2.30 5.58  >.05 <.05  The s i m p l e e f f e c t s a n a l y s e s o f t h e J o u r a r d v a l u e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e shy s u b j e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t i m a t e than the non-shy s u b j e c t s when exposed t o a n o n - i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e .  The a n a l y s e s o f t h e o v e r a l l i n t i m a c y  r a t i n g r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e s h y s u b j e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s i n t i m a t e than t h e non-shy s u b j e c t s when exposed t o t h e h i g h l y i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e .  When  examined s e p a r a t e l y , these two r e s u l t s tend t o 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 h e r e ,  however, i s t h a t t a k e n t o g e t h e r t h e measures o f t h e i n t i m a c y o f t h e 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 t h a t t h e s h y s u 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 i s  not conclusively shown by these r e s u l t s , 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  o r i g i n a l , a p r i n c i p a l components analysis was conducted. revealed the presence of single factor accounting  This analysis  for 50.2% of the variance.  The factor loadings can be seen in Table 10. Table 10. Item Number 2 3 6 8 1 5 7  Physiological Arousal Factor Matrix  Item Heart beating faster Feeling short of breath Lump i n throat Dry throat Pressure i n chest B u t t e r f l i e s or knot in stomach Sweating  Factor Loading .85 .77 .77 .73 .69 .64 .61  The results of the p r i n c i p a l components analysis strongly suggested that the individual items could be a d d i t i v e l y combined to y i e l d a t o t a l score.  PAGE 44 A p r i n c i p a l components analysis was measured protective factor structure  also conducted on the scale which  and a c q u i s i t i v e self-presentation  indicated that a two  rotation revealed that the protective  styles.  factor solution was  The  unrotated  optimal.  items loaded on a f i r s t  A varimax  factor  accounting for 31% of the variance, while the a c q u i s i t i v e items loaded on a second factor accounting for 17% of the variance. can be seen in Table  11.  The  exact factor loadings  PAGE 45 T a b l e 11.  F a c t o r M a t r i x f o r t h e 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  F a c t o r Loadings Factor 1 Factor 2  t  Item  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 t o my p a r t n e r f o r c u e s .  .78  -.19  I t a l k e d about t h e same t h i n g s my p a r t n e r d i d because I d i d n ' t want t o appear f o o l i s h .  .71  -.19  14  During t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , I t r i e d t o behave i n such a way t h a t I wouldn't draw a t t e n t i o n t o m y s e l f .  .71  -.20  12  I watched my p a r t n e r ' 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 w i t h 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 s a y or do something wrong.  .63  .04  I t a l k e d about t h i n g s I wanted t o t a l k a b o u t , r e g a r d l e s s o f what my p a r t n e r d i d . ( R )  .57  .23  I t a l k e d about t h i n g s I t h o u g h t my p a r t n e r wanted me t o t a l k about.  .53  .32  I d i d n ' t t a l k about the t o p i c s I wanted t o because I was a f r a i d my p a r t n e r would d i s a p p r o v e o f them  .52  -.01  I was a b l e t o c o n t r o l t h e way I came a c r o s s t o my p a r t n e r so t h a t I gave the i m p r e s s i o n I wanted t o g i v e .  .04  .79  I had no d i f f i c u l t y making a good i m p r e s s i o n d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n because I f e l t i t was to my advantage t o do s o .  -.17  .70  1  Once I knew what t h e s i t u a t i o n c a l l e d f o r , i t was e a s y f o r me t o r e g u l a t e my b e h a v i o r .  -.18  .65  9  I e n j o y e d t a l k i n g about m y s e l f 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 t h a t my p a r t n e r was i n t e r e s t e d i n what I was s a y i n g .  -.43  .59  8  13 6 15  3  7  2  I t r i e d t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e a c t i o n s o f my partner t o 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 t h e i m p r e s s i o n I wanted t o g i v e , I f e e l I c o u l d have e a s i l y changed i t .  -.06  .57  R e g a r d l e s s o f what my p a r t n e r d i d , I f e l t I c o u l d c o n t r o l the s i t u a t i o n .  -.39  .55  11 Note:  (R) denotes items s c o r e d  i n a reverse  that  direction  PAGE 46 The 9 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 were a n a l y z e d by means of a 2 (shyness) x 2 ( c o n f e d e r a t e  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 i n t i m a c y F o , e > = 2 . 5 9 , p <.05, and a e  main e f f e c t f o r shyness F o , s > = 1 0 . 1 9 , p <.001. 8  F o l l o w u p u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on t h e i n t i m a c y main e f f e c t r e v e a l e d two s i g n i f i c a n t outcomes; t h e s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s '  interpersonal  image, F , , , = 6 . 1 8 , p <.05, and t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m f o r t , F . , x  p <.005.  96  ( 1  9 B )  =8.39,  The h i g h l y i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e s were seen a s h a v i n g 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 t h e n o n - i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e s (Mean=23.10).  They were a l s o e v a l u a t e d  more p o s i t i v e l y i n terms o f t h e i r  i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o m f o r t (Means=12.06 and 11.08 r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r t h e h i g h and low i n t i m a c y c o n f e d e r a t e s ) .  T h i s i s t h e type o f outcome t y p i c a l l y c i t e d a s  support f o r the " l i k i n g e f f e c t " . psychological  e f f e c t was p r e s e n t i n t h i s s t u d y .  Of g r e a t e r revealed  i n t e r e s t was t h e main e f f e c t f o r s h y n e s s .  by t h e f o l l o w u p  Table 12.  Thus, as h y p o t h e s i z e d , t h i s v e r y r o b u s t  The outcomes  u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s a r e shown i n T a b l e 12.  S u b j e c t s ' S e l f - R e p o r t Measures: F o l l o w u p U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on t h e Main E f f e c t f o r Shyness  Source  MS  df  Image Comfort  353.44 309.76  (1,96) (1,96)  36.49 51.86  <.001 <.001  Reflected Self-Rating (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  Physiological  789.61  (1/96)  22.92  <.001  1,459.24 1,528.81  (1,96) (1,96)  44.70 31; 59  <.001 <.001  Self-Rating (a) I n t e r p e r s o n a l (b) I n t e r p e r s o n a l  Arousal  Self-Presentation (a) A c q u i s i t i v e (b) P r o t e c t i v e  F  Style  PAGE 47 The non-shy subjects were s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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 respectively).  for image and comfort  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 s e l f and reflected s e l f ratings, the shy subjects also reported being more p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y aroused (Mean=16.14) than did the non-shy subjects (Mean=10.52). The non-shy subjects were more l i k e l y to u t i l i z e an a c q u i s i t i v e l y motivated style of self-presentation (Mean=34.38) than were the shy subjects (Mean=26.74).  Conversely, the shy subjects were more l i k 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 n i c e l y as  they tend to suggest that an individual uses one of the s t y l e s , in the r e l a t i v e 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 p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y  aroused, and appear to u t i l i z e a largely protective style of s e l f 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 t h e y themselves f e l t d u r i n g  the i n t e r a c t i o n s .  The f i v e measures o f  c o n f e d e r a t e and o b s e r v e r r a t i n g s were a n a l y z e d by means o f a 2 ( s h y n e s s ) x 2 ( c o n f e d e r a t e i n t i m a c y ) MANOVA. a main e f f e c t f o r i n t i m a c y ,  The MANOVA produced two s i g n i f i c a n t outcomes,  F ,«»2>=3.04, p <.05, and a main e f f e c t f o r (s  s h y n e s s , F »,»a>38.69, p <.001. (  F o l l o w u p u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on t h e i n t i m a c y  main e f f e c t r e v e a l e d  a  s i g n i f i c a n t outcome f o r t h e c o n f e d e r a t e s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e s u b j e c t s ' interpersonal  image, ••F(i, « =5.-87, p <.05. The c o n f e d e r a t e s had a more 9  positive interpersonal disclosure condition (Mean=18.36).  )  image o f t h e s u b j e c t s  i n the high  (Mean=20.78) than o f t h e s u b j e c t s  As t h e s u b j e c t s  i n the high  c o n d i t i o n were a l s o more i n t i m a t e  intimacy  intimacy  i n t h e low i n t i m a c y one  confederate d i s c l o s u r e  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 " o p e r a t e d on t h e c o n f e d e r a t e s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e s u b j e c t s ' image.  confederate  interpersonal  The l i k i n g e f f e c t d i d n o t e x t e n d t o t h e c o n f e d e r a t e s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e  subjects'  i n t e r p e r s o n a l comfort.  The absence o f 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  the  " l i k i n g effect'? d i d n o t p l a y a r o l e i n t h e i r r a t i n g s o f t h e s u b j e c t s . The outcomes o f t h e f o l l o w u p  a r e shown i n T a b l e 13.  image and c o m f o r t i n d i c a t e s  that  u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s on t h e shyness main e f f e c t  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 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  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 s i g n i f i c a n t 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  f e l 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 i s worthwhile  noting that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects for  shyness on any of the three measures of the intimacy of the subjects*  PAGE 50 disclosure.  That i s , s h y s u b j e c t s were n e i t h e r more nor l e s s i n t i m a t e than  were non-shy s u b j e c t s .  I n s t e a d , d i f f e r e n c e s appeared o n l y when t h e i n t i m a c y  l e v e l of t h e c o n f e d e r a t e ' s confederate  d i s c l o s u r e was c o n s i d e r e d .  The shyness x  i n t e r a c t i o n s suggest t h a t t h e s h y s u b j e c t s appeared t o m a i n t a i n 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 o f i n t i m a c y , r e g a r d l e s s of what may have been d i s c l o s e d t o them f i r s t .  I n c o n t r a s t , non-shy s u b j e c t s used t h e c o n f e d e r a t e ' s  i n t i m a c y as a c u e , or i n d i c a t o r , r e g a r d i n g what was a p p r o p r i a t e 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 w i t h a s i m i l a r l e v e l of i n t i m a c y . Thus, r e l a t i v e t o t h e non-shy s u b j e c t s , s h y s u b j e c t s tended t o o v e r d i s c l o s e t o the low i n t i m a c y c o n f e d e r a t e The  and u n d e r d i s c l o s e t o t h e h i g h i n t i m a c y one.  r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t t h a t shyness i s r e l a t e d t o non-  r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e , r a t h e r t h a n t o any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y h i g h 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 a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h two p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t h a t  have examined t h e 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 s t u d y concerned w i t h t h e 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 neurotics reported non-reciprocal patterns of d i s c l o s u r e w i t h o t h e r s more t h a n 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, C h a i k e n e t a l . (1975) found a 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 n e u r o t i c s u b j e c t s s i m i l a r t o the p a t t e r n s e x h i b i t e d by t h e s h y subjects i n t h i s study.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e n e u r o t i c s were l e s s i n t i m a t e i n  response t o a h i g h l y i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e non-intimate Although  confederate  and more i n t i m a t e i n response t o a  than were t h e normal s u b j e c t s .  t h e r e 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 t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e  s u b j e c t s * d i s c l o s u r e s , , t h e r e were main e f f e c t s f o r b o t h shyness and i n t i m a c y . The  main e f f e c t f o r i n t i m a c y , i n t h e absence o f a shyness by i n t i m a c y  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 s h y and non-shy s u b j e c t s d i s c l o s e d f o r l o n g e r p e r i o d s of time i n response t o t h e h i g h i n t i m a c y c o n f e d e r a t e  than they d i d i n  PAGE 51 response t o the low I n t i m a c y one.  The main e f f e c t f o r s h y n e s s , however,  r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e shy s u b j e c t s spoke f o r s h o r t e r p e r i o d s of time t h a n d i d the non-shy s u b j e c t s , but t h a t 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 a c r o s s conditions.  intimacy  Thus, b e h a v i o r i a l l y , we see t h a t the shy s u b j e c t s spoke f o r  s h o r t e r p e r i o d s of t i m e , and r e c i p r o c a t e d the c o n f e d e r a t e s '  intimacy to a  l e s s e r d e g r e e , t h a n d i d t h e non-shy s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n t o the b e h a v i o r i a l i s s u e s , t h i s s t u d y 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  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 p e r c e i v e perceive  o t h e r s , and how o t h e r s p e r c e i v e  one s t u d y (Jones & B r i g g s , 1984) r e p o r t e d evaluated  reported  themselves,  t h e shy i n d i v i d u a l s . F o r example, t h a t shy s u b j e c t s  negatively  t h e i r p a r t n e r s , but a n o t h e r s t u d y (Alden & Meleshko, 1988) found no  d i f f e r e n c e between the p a r t n e r  r a t i n g s of s h y 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 e t a l . , 1983) have r e p o r t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between shyness and b e i n g n e g a t i v e l y e v a l u a t e d  by  one's p a r t n e r , a n o t h e r s t u d y ( A l d e n & 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 e v a l u a t e d  by  others. The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s  used i n some of t h e s e s t u d i e s have been  c o r r e l a t i o n a l i n n a t u r e and, t h u s , 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 t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  Jones & B r i g g s , 1984).  groups (Jones e t a l . , 1983;  I t seems, however, t h a t even a f t e r t a k i n g t h i s i n t o  a c c o u n t , t h e r e a r e u n e x p l a i n e d d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e r e s u l t s i n v a r i o u s studies.  Upon f u r t h e r r e v i e w , i t appears t h a t t h e r e a r e two major f a c t o r s  which may be somewhat more complex t h a n t h e y have been c o n c e p t u a l i z e d point i n time.  to this  The f i r s t f a c t o r c o n c e r n s t h e a d j e c t i v e s which have been used  to obtain 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 t o v a r y  PAGE 52 from study to study.  Of even greater  studies have f a i l e d to consider  importance, however, is that most  that d i f f e r e n t dimensions may  appear to be a group of related adjectives.  underlie what  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 d i f f e r e n t 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 j u s t i f y global of negative (or positive) evaluation.  Shy subjects may  conclusions  be rated negatively  on  the comfort dimension, for example, yet be perceived as positive on the image dimension.  Thus, we can see that viewing d i f f e r e n t adjectives as measuring a  single, positive versus negative dimension, may c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s obtained in various  have contributed  studies.  The second major factor relates to contextual studies.  Was  there an actual face-to-face  experimental participants and, exchange?  to the  variables in the  various  interaction between the  i f so, what was  the nature and  format of the  Were the individuals evaluating the shy subjects i n t e r a c t i v e l y  involved with them, or were they a removed, and possibly a f f e c t i v e l y 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 b r i e f , unstructured  interaction while Alden and Meleshko (1988) also used peer  ratings, but they followed a structured interaction.  On the other hand,  Pilkonis (1977) u t i l i z e d the ratings of confederates who interaction and two types of observers who  were involved in the  were not involved, those who  were  PAGE 53 p r e s e n t 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 i n t i m a c y 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 p a r t n e r ' s i n t e r p e r s o n a l image and comfort  i s quite interesting, especially in  the absence of e i t h e r 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 .  Both the  shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s 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 i n t i m a t e c o n f e d e r a t e  comfort  of the n o n - i n t i m a t e  conformed t o one  confederate.  Thus, both shy and non-shy s u b j e c t s  of the most r o b u s t 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 " . f o r shyness,  than they were about the image and  In a d d i t i o n , the absence of a main e f f e c t  or an i n t e r a c t i o n , i n d i c a t e s t h a t the shy i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h i s  s t u d y d i d not n e g a t i v e l y e v a l u a t e 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 . T h i s s t u d y a l s o found t h a t shy s u b j e c t s were more n e g a t i v e , and  expected  t h e i r p a r t n e r s t o be more n e g a t i v e , about both t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l image and comfort.  T h i s outcome i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d by Jones and  (1984) and Alden and Meleshko (1988). may  I t was  hypothesized  Briggs  t h a t shy s u b j e c t s  have been more n e g a t i v e about themselves i n the h i g h i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n  than i n the low i n t i m a c y one,  l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of t h e i r h y p o t h e s i z e d  r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e i n the h i g h i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n .  non-  As we have seen,  however, the shy s u b j e c t s tended t o 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 t o the non-shy s u b j e c t s , i n both the h i g h and conditions.  low  intimacy  Thus, the presence of a main e f f e c t f o r shyness here appears t o  be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 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 t h e m s e l v e s , them, as b e i n g more i n t e r p e r s o n a l l y uncomfortable  and expect o t h e r s t o see (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). dimension would appear to comprise, self-esteem.  This  in part, what i s often referred to as  One can only empathize with individuals who must enter a s o c i a l  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 i s whether this a c t u a l l y occurs.  The results in this study suggest  that i t may depend on the extent of the raters' involvement interaction:  in the  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 themselves  (anxious and shy). Equally important, the confederates  f e l 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 i d e n t i f y the shy person's interpersonal discomfort and whether, once this i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s 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 d i f f e r e n t perspective on this issue.  The observers, s i m i l a r l y to the confederates,  rated the shy subjects as more interpersonally uncomfortable subjects.  than the non-shy  They did not, however, perceive the shy and non-shy subjects any  PAGE bb d i f f e r e n t l y in terms of their interpersonal image.  Thus, although the  observers saw the shy subjects as being less comfortable in terms of s e l f presentation  (more anxious and shy), they did not view them as less  interpersonally a t t r a c t i v e . This suggests that shy individuals do exhibit certain behaviorial cues that allow their interpersonal discomfort  to be  i d e n t i f i e d and evaluated  but that, once i d e n t i f i e d , the shy individual's  interpersonal discomfort  does not necessarily lead to a more negative  evaluation of her interpersonal image. Why was the experience d i f f e r e n t 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 e f f e c t for the  confederates'  ratings of the subject's  interpersonal image, indicating that  the confederates were subject to the " l i k i n g e f f e c t " ; they had a more positive interpersonal image of the subjects in the high intimacy condition. no main e f f e c t for intimacy for the observers' together, and  There was  ratings of the subjects.  Taken  this suggests that the confederates were more affected by the nature  intimacy of the subjects' disclosures than were the observers.  mind both t h i s , and the fact that the shy subjects displayed  Keeping in  non-reciprocal  disclosure as compared to the non-shy subjects in both conditions, a possible interpretation i s suggested for the shyness main e f f e c t 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 i s 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 i s  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 p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y aroused than their non-shy counterparts.  It was hypothesized  that as a r e s u l t 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 intimacy condition.  low  As the shy subjects, however, exhibited non-reciprocal  disclosure in both confederate  intimacy conditions, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , and  indeed consistent, that their reported level of physiological arousal would be similar in both conditions. The author r e a l i z e s 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 u t i l i z e d by the confederates and observers subjects' interpersonal discomfort.  in their ratings of the shy  This l a s t point i s only speculative,  however, as the design of the present study was concrete conclusion in this regard.  not conducive to a more  PAGE 57 An extremely interesting r e s u l t , and  one  that  is consistent  with many of  the other outcomes in t h i s study, relates to the subjects* self-report as to whether they u t i l i z e d an a c q u i s i t i v e or a protective presentation during the interaction. both the protective  style of s e l f -  There were main effects for shyness on  and a c q u i s i t i v e self-presentation  measures.  Specifically,  the non-shy subjects were more l i k e l y to u t i l i z e an acquisitive s t y l e of s e l f presentation than were the shy subjects, while the shy subjects were more l i k e l y to u t i l i z e a protective  style than were the non-shy subjects.  then, that the shy subjects largely u t i l i z e d a protective style in the r e l a t i v e absence of an a c q u i s i t i v e s t y l e .  It seems  self-presentation  The  non-shy subjects,  on the other hand, appear to have mainly used an a c q u i s i t i v e style of s e l f presentation in the r e l a t i v e absence of a protective  style.  Arkin (1981) postulated that although the protective presenters may  and  acquisitive s e l f -  behave s i m i l a r l y in a particular s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , they are  guided by d i f f e r e n t motives, and  their attendant a f f e c t i v e reactions  therefore be expected to be d i f f e r e n t . positive portrayal  can  Acquisitive self-presentation  is a  of the s e l f 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.  rely  Implicit in t h i s , i s that  individuals who  on each style should exhibit d i s t i n c t i v e patterns of behavior and are consistent  affect  that  with their motives.  In the present study, the non-shy subjects indicated a c q u i s i t i v e s t y l e of self-presentation  they u t i l i z e d an  during the interactions.  Other aspects  of the study showed that they spoke for a r e l a t i v e l y longer period of time and reciprocated  the confederate's intimacy l e v e l in both the high and  intimacy conditions.  They were more positive, and  low  expected others to be more  PAGE 58 positive, about both their interpersonal image and comfort.  The  confederates  not only f e 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 r e l a t i v e l y low levels of physiological arousal.  This pattern of  results seems quite consistent with Arkin's view of the s o c i a l l y competent and confident a c q u i s i t i v e self-presenter attempting to enhance favoured treatment in future circumstances. The shy subjects indicated they u t i l i z e d a l a r g e l y protective s t y l e of self-presentation during the interaction.  They also spoke for a r e l a t i v e l y  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.  E s p e c i a l l y important was  that, as a r u l e , their disclosures  tended to maintain a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y 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, s o c i a l l y hesitant, protective s e l f presenter attempting to avoid  disapproval.  The question remains to be answered as to why  shy individuals have  developed non-reciprocal patterns of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . F i r s t , perhaps shy individuals simply do not perceive the s i t u a t i o n a l cues that should their disclosure.  The  fact that there was  non-shy subjects in their perception of how  influence  no difference between the shy and revealing and  partners were, suggests that this is not the case.  intimate their  The shy subjects were just  PAGE 59 as accurate as the non-shy subjects in their perception of how  intimate and  revealing t h e i r partners were. A second, b a s i c a l l y s k i l l s d e f i c i t explanation would be that shy individuals accurately perceive the s i t u a t i o n a l cues, but lack the s k i l l s necessary to reciprocate the intimacy. somewhat short.  This explanation also seems to f a l l  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 r e c i p r o c i t y , but for some reason s t i l l  reciprocal patterns of d i s c l o s u r e .  f a i l to display  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 s o c i a l norms  prescribing when people should d i s c l o s e , and when they should not; or they  may  be aware of them, but due to excessive self-preoccupation, or perhaps motivation, may  still  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 s o c i a l norms prescribing appropriate disclosure. potential explanation w i l l have to be addressed in future studies. p o s s i b i l i t y is that shy individuals may  This A second  be so self-preoccupied with their  own  anxiety and problems that they do not r e a l i z e that they are exhibiting nonreciprocal d i s c l o s u r e .  There seems to be a f a i r 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 The shy individual may  affect.  have a history of such unsatisfactory interpersonal  relationships that she develops a pattern of moderate disclosure, regardless  PAGE 60 of the s i t u a t i o n .  She may  feel that by u t i l i z i n g such a pattern of  disclosure, she w i l l not be labelled cold and s u p e r f i c i a l as i f she did not disclose at a l l . overdisclosure.  At the same time, she w i l l not risk the r i d i c u l e of This defensive, conservative  strategy would appear to be very  consistent with the finding that the shy subjects maintained a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y moderate level of disclosure and  indicated that they  u t i l i z e d a l a r g e l y protective s t y l e of self-presentation. shy individuals may  Thus, i t seems that  enter s o c i a l situations with very d i f f e r e n t motives than  non-shy i n d i v i d u a l s .  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 d i r e c t i o n a l i t y cannot be assumed, i t may  also be possible that  reciprocal disclosure plays a causal role in shyness.  non-  Certainly, the s o c i a l  consequences (withdrawal, r e j e c t i o n , etc.) r e s u l t i n g from a f a i l u r e to follow reciprocal patterns of disclosure would be devastating.  It may  shyness and associated symptoms such as physiological arousal,  well be that negative  cognitions, and motivational differences, are consequences, rather than causes or co-effects, of the individual's f a i l u r e to follow reciprocal patterns of disclosure. Unfortunately  for the shy i n d i v i d u a l , this pattern of behavior may  her from forming meaningful relationships with others.  If she  prevent  overdiscloses  at the wrong time, she w i l l e l i c i t rejection and withdrawal from others. the other hand, she may  On  be unable to form close attachments with others as a  result of her f a i l u r e to disclose when i t i s appropriate  to do so as part of a  developing r e l a t i o n s h i p . The generalizations made by the author must be q u a l i f i e d due to certain limitations of the present study.  F i r s t , although the paradigm c l o s e l y  approximated a first-meeting s i t u a t i o n , 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 s i t u a t i o n s .  A more stringent l i m i t a t i o n on  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y is the fact that a l l the subjects and women.  both confederates were  While there is no a p r i o r i 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 i s not so much a l i m i t a t i o n of the present study as i t is a suggestion for future studies, relates to the fact that only personality d i s p o s i t i o n (shyness) was Due  one  u t i l i z e d as an independent variable.  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  consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, Buss, 1981)  are two  interpretation of the r e s u l t s . & Buss, 1975)  Self-  and s o c i a b i l i t y (Cheek &  which seem p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant, and which should be  considered in any future studies of this nature. Consistent  with the recommendations of Alden and Cappe (1986), and  results of t h i s study, future research  the  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  the interpersonal research the key  impact and 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 .  and treatment programs should also be cognizant that issue may  implications for Both future  behaviorally,  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 cognitive, motivational,  to examine possible behaviorial,  and physiological differences between shy and non-shy  PAGE 62 individuals involved in a s o c i a l 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, overdisclosed 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 f e l t would be perceived by their partner. did  Although both the confederates and  observers  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 a c t u a l l y conformed to the e f f e c t " and were more positive about the highly intimate confederate were about the non-intimate  one.  "liking  than they  The shy subjects also reported higher  levels  of physiological arousal in both intimacy conditions. Taken together, the results p a r t i a l l y support a position suggesting that the actual motivations, and purpose, of shy individuals in s o c i a l situations may d i f f e r from the motivations and purpose of non-shy individuals. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the shy subjects used a protective style of self-presentation in the r e l a t i v e absence of an acquisitive s t y l e , while the non-shy subjects mainly used an a c q u i s i t i v e style of self-presentation in the r e l a t i v e absence of a protective s t y l e .  PAGE 63  References  A l d e n , L . , & Cappe, R. (1986). I n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s t r a i n i n g f o r shy clients. In W. J o n e s , J . Cheek, & S. B r i g g s ( E d s . ) . Shyness: P e r s p e c t i v e s on Research and Treatment (pp 343-355). New York: Plenum Press A l d e n , L . , & Meleshko, K . G . (1988). Shyness: S e l f d i s c l o s u r e and s o c i a l perception. Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t . Anchor, K . N . , V o j t i s e k , J . E . , & B e r g e r , S . E . (1972). S o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y as a p r e d i c t o r of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n g r o u p s . 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 . , & P a t t e r s o n , R . L . (1973). Trait anxiety, 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 i n groups of s c h i z o p h r e n i c patients. P s y c h o t h e r a p y : T h e o r y , R e s e a r c h , and P r a c t i c e , 10, 155-158. A r c h e r , 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 . ) . Self-Disclosure. San F r a n c i s c o , CA: J o s s e y - B a s s I n c . A r k i n , R.M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J . T . T e d e s c h i ( E d . ) , Impression Management Theory and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h , (pp. 333). New York: Academic P r e s s .  311-  B e i d e l , D . , T u r n e r , S . , & Dancu, C . (1985). P h y s i o l o g i c a l , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l a s p e c t s of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 109-117.  23,  Borkovec, T . D . , S t o n e , N . M . , O ' B r i e n , G . T . , & Kaloupek, D.G. (1974). E v a l u a t i o n of a c l i n i c a l l y r e l e v a n t t a r g e t behavior f o r analog outcome research. Behavior Therapy, 5, 503-513. Brundage, L . E . , D e r l e g a , 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 f o r a p p r o v a l 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 P s y c h o l o g y 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. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 35, 409-413. C a c i o p p o , J . T . , G l a s s , C . R . , & M e r l u z z i , T . V . (1979). S e l f - s t a t e m e n t s are s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s : A c o g n i t i v e response a n a l y s i s of h e t e r o s e x u a l s o c i a l anxiety. C o g n i t i v e Therapy and R e s e a r c h , 3, 249-262. C a m p b e l l , H. 807.  (1896).  Morbid s h y n e s s .  C h a i k i n , A . L . , & D e r l e g a , V . J . (1974). General L e a r n i n g P r e s s .  The B r i t i s h M e d i c a l J o u r n a l , 2,  S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e . Morristown,  805-  NJ:  C h a i k i n , A . L . , D e r l e g a , V . J . , Bayma, B . , & Shaw, J . (1975). N e u r o t i c i s m and disclosure reciprocity. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 4_3, 13-19.  PAGE 64  Chambless, D.L., Caputo, G.C, B r i g h t , P., & G a l l a g h e r , R. (1984). Assessment of f e a r o f f e a r i n a g o r a p h o b i c s : The body s e n s a t i o n s q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e a g o r a p h o b i c 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 o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 52, 1090-1097. Cheek, J.M., & Busch, C M . (1981). The i n f l u e n c e o f 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 P s y c h o l o g y 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 . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 41, 330-339.  Journal of  Chelune, G.J. (1979).  Jossey-Bass I n c .  Self-Disclosure.  San F r a n c i s c o , Ca:  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 o f C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 27, 462-468. C l a r k , J.V., & A r k o w i t z , 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 o f 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 R e p o r t s . 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 r e v i e w . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 29, 73-91. C r a i g h e a d , 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 r e s p o n s e s , and s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g s o c i a l r e j e c t i o n imagery. Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . £7, 385-396. D a l e y , S. (1978). B e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s o f s o c i a l a n x i e t y . of S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 17, 117-120.  British  Journal  Duckro, R.,. Duckro, P., & B e a l , D. (1976). R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and mental h e a l t h i n b l a c k f e m a l e s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 44./ 940-944. G i r o d o , M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) .  Shy?  New York: Pocket Books.  G i r o d o , M., D o t z e n r o t h , S.E., & S t e i n , S . J . (1981). C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n b i a s i n s h y males: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s e l f - e s t e e m 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 R e s e a r c h . 5, 325-338. G l a s s , C.R., & Shea, C A . (1986). C o g n i t i v e t h e r a p y f o r shyness and s o c i a l anxiety. I n W. J o n e s , J . Cheek, & S. B r i g g s ( E d s . ) . Shyness: P e r s p e c t i v e s on Research and Treatment (315-327). New York: Plenum P r e s s . Hampton, F.A. (1927). 124-131.  Shyness.  J o u r n a l o f Neurology and P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y ,  Hogan, R., J o n e s , W., & Cheek, J.M. (1985). S o c i o a n a l y t i c t h e o r y : An a l t e r n a t i v e t o a r m a d i l l o psychology. I n B.R. S c h l e n k e r ( E d . ) , The S e l f and S o c i a l L i f e , (pp. 175-198). New York: N o r t o n . J o n e s , W.H. (1981). L o n e l i n e s s and s o c i a l c o n t a c t . P s y c h o l o g y . 113, 295-296.  J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  8,  PAGE 65  J o n e s , W.H., & B r i g g s , S.R. (1984). The s e l f - o t h e r d i s c r e p a n c y i n s o c i a l shyness. I n R. Schwarzer ( E d . ) . The S e l f i n A n x i e t y , S t r e s s , and D e p r e s s i o n (pp 93-107). Amsterdam: N o r t h H o l l a n d . J o n e s , W.H., C a v e r t , C , & I n d a r t , M. (1983, A u g u s t ) . I m p r e s s i o n s of shyness. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the a n n u a l 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. J o n e s , W.H., Cheek, J.M., & B r i g g s , S.R. (1986). Shyness: Research and Treatment. New York: Plenum P r e s s .  P e r s p e c t i v e s on  J o n e s , 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 o t h e r d e t e r m i n a n t s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 49, 48.  27-  J o n e s , 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 42, 682689. J o n e s , W.H., Sansone, C , & Helm, B. (1983). L o n e l i n e s s 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 P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 9, 437-441. J o u r a r d , S.M. (1958a). P e r s o n a l Adjustment: An Approach Through the Study of H e a l t h y P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: M a c M i l l a n . J o u r a r d , S.M. 77-82.  (1958b).  A s t u d y 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,  J o u r a r d , 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 P s y c h o l o g y . 59, 428-431. J o u r a r d , S.M. (1971). Transparent S e l f .  S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e : An E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s of the New York: W i l e y - I n t e r s c i e n c e .  K a n t e r , 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 . B e h a v i o r 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 b e h a v i o r , f e a r imagery, and the p s y c h o p h y s i o l o g y 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 92, 276306. L e a r y , M.R., Johnson, K.A., & K n i g h t , P.D; (1984, A u g u s t ) . S o c i a l A n x i e t y and Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the a n n u a l 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., & W o l f e , R.N. (1984). R e v i s i o n of t h e 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 P s y c h o l o g y . 46; 1349-1364. Lewin, K.  (1935).  A Dynamic Theory of P e r s o n a l i t y .  New  York: M c G r a w - H i l l .  PAGE 66 L e v i n , K. (1948). The s o c i a l d i s t a n c e between i n d i v i d u a l s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and Germany. I n K. Lewln ( E d . ) , R e s o l v i n g S o c i a l C o n f l i c t s . New York: Harper & Row. Lewinsky, H. (1941). 32, 105-113.  The n a t u r e of shyness.  B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y ,  M a l k i e w i c h , 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 v s . d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n w i t h c l i e n t s of d i v e r s e c o n c e p t u a l l e v e l : A t e s t of a c l i e n t t r e a t m e n t matching model. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 27. 453-461. Mandel, N.M., & Shrauger, J.S. (1980). s t a t e m e n t s on h e t e r o s o c i a l approach Therapy and Research, A, 369-381.  The e f f e c t s of s e l f - e v a l u a t i v e i n shy and non-shy males. C o g n i t i v e  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 R e p o r t s , 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 s y s t e m a t i c 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 o r 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 . B e h a v i o r Research and Therapy, 14, 225238. Mayo, P.R. (1968). S e i t - d i s c l o s u r e and n e u r o s i s . and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 7, 140-148.  B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  M u l l a n e y , 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 b e h a v i o r , 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 A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 24, 4290. O'Banion, K., & A r k o w i t z , 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 i n f o r m a t i o n about the s e l f . S o c i a l B e h a v i o r 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 . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 78, 81-89. P h i l l i p s , G. (1980).  Help f o r Shy P e o p l e .  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 t o other measures of s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l 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 b e h a v i o r a l consequences of shyness. P e r s o n a l i t y , 45, 596-611.  J o u r n a l of  P o s t , A.L., W i t t m a i e r , B.C., & R a d i n , M.E. (1978). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as a f u 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 . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 46_, 12-19. P o w e l l , B. (1979).  Overcoming Shyness.  New York: M c G r a w - H i l l .  R i c k e r s - O v s i a n k i n a , M.A. (1956). S o c i a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y i n t h r e e age groups. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 2, 283-294.  PAGE 67  Ryckman, R . M . , Sherman, M . F . , & B u r g e s s , G . D . (1973). s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n women. J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 84, 317-318. Solano, C . H . , Batten, self-disclosure. 531. Teear,  C H . (1977).  Locus of c o n t r o l and by c o l l e g e men and  P . G . , & P a r i s h , E . A . (1982). L o n e l i n e s s and p a t t e r n s of 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 43, 524-  Conquer Shyness.  Wellingborough,  E n g l a n d : Thomas & C o .  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 p r o c e s s e s 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 . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 48, 327-339. Twentyman, C . T . , & M c F a l l , R.M. (1975). B e h a v i o r a l t r a i n i n g of s o c i a l s k i l l s i n shy males. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 43, 384-395. Vondracek, F.W. (1969). B e h a v i o r a l measurement P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 25, 914.  of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .  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 J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 33, 448-457. Weber, E . , & M i l l e r , J . (1979). New York: Symphony P r e s s .  Shy P e r s o n ' s Guide to a Happier  anxiety.  Love  Life.  W o l f e , R . N . , Lennox, R . D . , & C u t l e r , B . L . (1986). G e t t i n g a l o n g and g e t t i n g ahead: E m p i r i c a l support f o r a t h e o r y of 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 presentation. 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 5 0 ( 2 ) , 356361. Zimbardo, P . G . (1977). Addison-Wesley.  Shyness: What i t  Zimbardo, P . G . , & R a d l , S . L . (1981).  i s . What t o do About i t .  The Shv C h i l d .  New York:  New York:  McGraw-Hill.  PAGE 68 L i s t of Appendixes 1.  Instructions  69  2.  Topic L i s t  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: F i r s t 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: F i r s t 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 b e g i n t o g e t t o know each o t h e r t h e y u s u a l l y do i t by t a l k i n g about themselves. T h i s i n v o l v e s both s p e a k i n g and l i s t e n i n g . In t h i s s t u d y , we a r e 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 t h e y f i r s t meet someone. We would l i k e you t o g e t t o know each o t h e r , t o t a l k about y o u r s e l f and l i s t e n as your p a r t n e r t a l k s about h e r s e l f so t h a t you become b e t t e r a c q u a i n t e d . We need t o s t r u c t u r e t h i s somewhat, so what we would l i k e you t o do i s t o t a k e t u r n s t a l k i n g and l i s t e n i n g . I w i l l g i v e you a l i s t of some t o p i c s f o r you t o t a l k about. The person w i t h t h e h i g h e r 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 t h e t o p i c s and t a l k b r i e f l y about i t . The o t h e r person's t a s k i s t o l i s t e n . Then t h e o t h e r person w i l l choose a t o p i c and t a l k about i t w h i l e t h e person who spoke f i r s t now becomes t h e 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 t h a t you do not speak or ask q u e s t i o n s when i t i s your t u r n t o 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 s a y on a t o p i c , maybe l e t your p a r t n e r know by s a y i n g something l i k e " f i n i s h e d " or "your t u r n " . You w i l l c o n t i n u e t o 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 , p l e a s e p l a c e a number b e s i d e i t i n d i c a t i n g whether i t was t h e f i r s t one you p i c k e d , t h e second, e t c . As I s a i d , we want you t o g e t t o know each o t h e r . P l e a s e be as honest and open as you c a n . T r y t o 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 w i t h t h e o t h e r person as you hope t h e y w i l l be w i t h you.  PAGE 70 Appendix 2.  1.  What a r e your v i e w s on t h e way a husband and w i f e s h o u l d l i v e marriage?  their  2.  What a r e your u s u a l ways o f d e a l i n g w i t h d e p r e s s i o n , a n x i e t y and anger?  3.  What a r e t h e a c t i o n s you have most r e g r e t t e d d o i n g i n your l i f e and why?  4.  What a r e t h e ways i n which you f e e l you a r e most m a l a d j u s t e d o r immature?  5.  What a r e your g u i l t i e s t  6.  What a r e t h e h a b i t s and r e a c t i o n s o f y o u r s which b o t h e r you a t p r e s e n t ?  7.  What a r e t h e s o u r c e s o f 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 w i t h t h e o p p o s i t e s e x ( o r your m a r r i a g e ) ?  8.  What a r e your f a v o r i t e forms o f e r o t i c p l a y and s e x u a l  9.  What a r e your h o b b i e s , how do you b e s t l i k e t o spend your s p a r e t i m e ?  secrets?  relationship  lovemaking?  10. What were t h e o c c a s i o n s i n your l i f e on which you were t h e h a p p i e s t ? 11. What a r e t h e a s p e c t s o f your d a i l y l i f e t h a t s a t i s f y and b o t h e r you? 12. What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f y o u r s e l f g i v e you cause f o r p r i d e and satisfaction? 13. Who a r e t h e persons i n your l i f e whom you most r e s e n t ; why? 14. Who a r e t h e people w i t h whom you have been s e x u a l l y i n t i m a t e . the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f your r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h each?  What were  15. What a r e t h e u n h a p p i e s t moments i n your l i f e ; why? 16. What a r e your p r e f e r e n c e s and d i s l i k e s i n music? 17. What a r e your p e r s o n a l g o a l s f o r t h e next 10 y e a r s o r s o ? 18. What a r e t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which you become d e p r e s s e d and when your feelings arehurt? 19. What a r e your most common s e x u a l f a n t a s i e s ?  PAGE 71 Appendix 3.  Self-Rating We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n how you would r a t e your b e h a v i o r d u r i n g P l e a s e r a t e y o u r s e l f on each o f t h e items below.  this  interaction.  For example, on i t e m 1, i f you saw y o u r s e l f as b e i n g a t t r a c t i v e d u r i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n , you would c i r c l e a 1 o r a 2. The more a t t r a c t i v e you p e r c e i v e d y o u r s e l f t o be d u r i n g the d i s c u s s i o n , t h e lower t h e 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 p e r c e i v e d 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 p e r c e i v e d y o u r s e l f t o be, t h e h i g h e r t h e number you would circle. Your r a t i n g s a r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and a r e coded o n l y by number, so t r y t o be as f r a n k and honest as you c a n . BE SURE THAT EVERY ITEM IS ANSWERED.  1.  attractive  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unattractive  2.  friendly  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unfriendly  3.  closed  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  open  4.  anxious  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  calm  5.  revealing  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unrevealing  6.  unlikeable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  likeable  7.  interesting  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  boring  8.  shy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  not s h y  P l e a s e answer t h e f o l l o w i n g 9.  question.  How i n t i m a t e were you d u r i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n ? That i s , how p e r s o n a l was the i n f o r m a t i o n about y o u r s e l f t h a t you gave t o your p a r t n e r . Was t h e i n f o r m a t i o n you d i s c l o s e d e x t r e m e l y p r i v a t e and p e r s o n a l or was i t f a i r l y superficial? not v e r y (average) intimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely  intimate  PAGE 72 Appendix 4. Partner Rating  We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n how you would r a t e your p a r t n e r ' s b e h a v i o r d u r i n g t h i s interaction. P l e a s e r a t e your p a r t n e r on each o f t h e items below. For example, on i t e m 1, i f your p a r t n e r 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 t o be, t h e lower t h e 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 r e g a r d 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, t h e h i g h e r t h e number you would c i r c l e . Your r a t i n g s a r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . The o t h e r p e r s o n w i l l n o t see these r a t i n g s , so t r y t o be as f r a n k and honest as you can. BE SURE THAT EVERY ITEM IS ANSWERED.  1.  attractive  1  2  3  '1  5  6  7  unattractive  2.  friendly  1  2  3  '1  5  6  7  unfriendly  3.  closed  1  2  3  *1  5  6  7  open  4.  anxious  1  2  3  i1  5  6  7  calm  5.  revealing  1  2  3  '1  5  6  7  unrevealing  6.  unlikeable  1  2  3  i1  5  6  7  likeable  7.  interesting  1  2  3  '1  5  6  7  boring  8.  shy  1  2  3  <1  5  6  7  not s h y  P l e a s e answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n . 9.  How i n t i m a t e was your p a r t n e r ? That i s , how p e r s o n a l was t h e i n f o r m a t i o n she gave y o u . Was t h e i n f o r m a t i o n your p a r t n e r d i s c l o s e d o f an e x t r e m e l y p r i v a t e and p e r s o n a l n a t u r e or was i t f a i r l y s u p e r f i c i a l ? not v e r y (average) intimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely  intimate  PAGE 73 Appendix 5.  P a r t n e r ' s P e r c e p t i o n of You P l e a s e r a t e how you b e l i e v e your p a r t n e r saw you d u r i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n . i s , how do you t h i n k your p a r t n e r would r a t e you on these i t e m s .  That  For example, on i t e m 1, i f you b e l i e v e your p a r t n e r saw you as b e i n g a t t r a c t i v e , you would c i r c l e a 1 o r a 2. The more a t t r a c t i v e you b e l i e v e your p a r t n e r saw you a s , t h e lower t h e number you would want t o 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 p a r t n e r saw you as u n a t t r a c t i v e , you would c i r c l e a h i g h 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 a s , t h e h i g h e r t h e number you would want t o choose. Your r a t i n g s a r e c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and a r e coded o n l y by number, so t r y t o be as f r a n k 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 , p l e a s e ask f o r f u r t h e r h e l p .  1.  attractive  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unattractive  2.  friendly  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unfriendly  3.  closed  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  open  4.  anxious  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  calm  5.  revealing  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unrevealing  6.  unlikeable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  likeable  7.  interesting  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  boring  8.  shy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  not s h y  P l e a s e answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s . 9.  Do you b e l i e v e your p a r t n e r saw you as b e i n g i n t i m a t e d u r i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n . That i s , d i d your p a r t n e r p e r c e i v e you t o be d i s c l o s i n g e x t r e m e l y p r i v a t e and p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n or f a i r l y s u p e r f i c i a l information? not v e r y (average) intimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely  intimate  PAGE 74 Appendix 6, INSTRUCTIONS These items d e a l w i t h c e r t a i n b o d i l y s e n s a t i o n s you may or may not have been e x p e r i e n c i n g d u r i n g the c o n v e r s a t i o n you j u s t had w i t h your p a r t n e r . Remember when c o m p l e t i n g these q u e s t i o n s t o answer a c c o r d i n g t o how you f e l t d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n / NOT a c c o r d i n g t o 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 e x t e n t you were e x p e r i e n c i n g each of the b o d i l y s e n s a t i o n s by c i r c l i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e number. For example>- on i t e m 1, i f you f e l t no p r e s s u r e i n your c h e s t d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n you would c i r c l e a 1. I f you f e l t a f a i r amount of p r e s s u r e , you might c i r c l e a 4 or 5. I f you f e l t an extreme amount of p r e s s u r e , 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  Heart beating  faster:  not a t a l l  1  extreme  2  2  extreme  F e e l i n g s h o r t of b r e a t h : not a t a l l  1  2  extreme  3  Dizziness: not a t a l l  1  2  3  4  extreme  4  extreme  B u t t e r f l i e s or knot i n stomach: not a t a l l  1  2  3  Lump i n t h r o a t : not a t a l l  1  extreme  1  extreme  Sweating: not a t a l l 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 e x t e n t does each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e f e e l i n g s and r e a c t i o n s d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n ? 1.  Once I knew what t h e 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 t o r e g u l a t e my b e h a v i o u r . 1  2  COMPLETELY FALSE 2.  your  3  4  SOMEWHAT FALSE  5  6  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I t r i e d t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e a c t i o n s o f my p a r t n e r inappropriate.  COMPLETELY FALSE  7  SOMEWHAT FALSE  t o avoid  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I was a b l e t o c o n t r o l t h e way I came a c r o s s t o my p a r t n e r the i m p r e s s i o n I wanted t o g i v e .  COMPLETELY FALSE  SOMEWHAT FALSE  being  SOMEWHAT TRUE  so t h a t I gave  COMPLETELY 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 s a y o r do something wrong.  COMPLETELY FALSE 5.  SOMEWHAT FALSE  I f I f e l t t h a t I wasn't g i v i n g t h e i m p r e s s i o n c o u l d have e a s i l y changed i t .  COMPLETELY FALSE 6.  SOMEWHAT TRUE  SOMEWHAT FALSE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I wanted t o g i v e , I f e e l I  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I t a l k e d about t h i n g s I thought my p a r t n e r wanted me t o t a l k about. 1  COMPLETELY FALSE  2  3  SOMEWHAT FALSE  4  5  SOMEWHAT TRUE  6  7  COMPLETELY TRUE  PAGE 76 I had no d i f f i c u l t y making a good I m p r e s s i o n d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n because I f e l t i t was t o my advantage t o do s o .  COMPLETELY FALSE 8.  SOMEWHAT FALSE  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I t a l k e d about the same t h i n g s my p a r t n e r d i d because I d i d n ' t want t o appear f o o l i s h .  COMPLETELY FALSE  SOMEWHAT FALSE  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I e n j o y e d t a l k i n g about m y s e l f i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n because I f e l t t h a t my p a r t n e r was i n t e r e s t e d i n what I was s a y i n g .  COMPLETELY FALSE 10.  SOMEWHAT FALSE  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  SOMEWHAT FALSE  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I watched my p a r t n e r ' 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 w i t h me.  COMPLETELY FALSE 13.  COMPLETELY TRUE  R e g a r d l e s s o f what my p a r t n e r d i d , I f e l t t h a t I c o u l d c o n t r o l t h e situation.  COMPLETELY FALSE 12.  SOMEWHAT TRUE  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 l o o k e d t o my partner f o r cues.  COMPLETELY FALSE 11.  SOMEWHAT FALSE  confident  SOMEWHAT FALSE  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  I t a l k e d about t h i n g s I wanted t o t a l k a b o u t , r e g a r d l e s s o f what my partner d i d .  COMPLETELY FALSE  SOMEWHAT FALSE  SOMEWHAT TRUE  COMPLETELY TRUE  fault  PAGE 77  14.  During the c o n v e r s a t i o n , I t r i e d to behave draw a t t e n t i o n to m y s e l f . 1  2  COMPLETELY FALSE 15.  3 SOMEWHAT FALSE  I d i d n ' t t a l k about the t o p i c s would d i s a p p r o v e of them. 1 COMPLETELY FALSE  4_  2  3 SOMEWHAT FALSE  i n such a way t h a t  5  6  SOMEWHAT TRUE I wanted to because  4  5 SOMEWHAT TRUE  I wouldn't  7 COMPLETELY TRUE  I was a f r a i d my p a r t n e r  6  7 COMPLETELY TRUE  PAGE 78 Appendix 8.  CONFEDERATE RATINGS OF SUBJECTS How i n t i m a t e were t h e s u b j e c t s ' d i s c l o s u r e s ? First very  Disclosure nonintimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely intimate  Second D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely intimate  Third very  Disclosure nonintimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely intimate  Fourth Disclosure very nonintimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely intimate  i terms o f the f o l l o w i n g b e h a v l o i  items,  1.  attractive  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unattractive  2.  friendly  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unfriendly  3.  closed  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  open  4.  anxious  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  calm  5.  revealing  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unrevealing  6.  unlikeable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  likeable  7.  interesting  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  boring  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  not s h y  8. 9.  shy  How i n t i m a t e was the s u b j e c t . That i s , how p e r s o n a l were the t o p i c s she discussed. Were t h e y h i g h l y p e r s o n a l and i n t i m a t e or were t h e y superficial.  very nonintimate  1^  extremely intimate  Rate how you f e l t d u r i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e s u b j e c t . 10. c o m f o r t a b l e  1  11. i n a p p r o p r i a t e  1  12. a n x i o u s  1  2 2 2  3  4  5  6  7  uncomfortable  3  4  5  6  7  appropriate  3  4  5  6  7  calm  PAGE 79 Appendix 9.  OBSERVER RATINGS OF SUBJECTS How i n t i m a t e 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 Disclosure very nonintimate  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  extremely intimate  Second D i s c l o s u r e very nonintimate  extremely intimate  Third Disclosure very nonintimate  extremely intimate  Fourth Disclosure very nonintimate  extremely  Rate t h e s u b j e c t s  i n terms o f t h e f o l l o w i n g b e h a v i o r a l  intimate  items.  1.  attractive  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unattractive  2.  friendly  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unfriendly  3.  closed  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  open  4.  anxious  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  calm  5.  revealing  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unrevealing  6.  unlikeable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  likeable  7.  interesting  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  boring  8.  shy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  not s h y  9.  How i n t i m a t e was t h e s u b j e c t . That i s , how p e r s o n a l were t h e t o p i c s she discussed. Were t h e y h i g h l y p e r s o n a l and i n t i m a t e or were t h e y superficial.  very  nonintimate  extremely intimate  PAGE 80 Appendix 10.  I n  1.  V e  r  y  t i m a  N o n  czzy  S c a l e  i n t i m a  t  A n . c z n o nz s  e  The p e r s o n t a l k e d about v e r y s u p e r f i c i a l i s s u e s . She s a i d n o t h i n g about h e r s e l f t h a t was o f a p e r s o n a l , e m o t i o n a l , s e c r e t , o r e m b a r r a s s i n g nature. F o r i n s t a n c e , she d i s c u s s e d movies, music, what she i s t a k i n g a t u n i v e r s i t y , what she does w i t h her spare t i m e , or s u p e r f i c i a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o f 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 p e r s o n a l i s s u e s , b u t not a t an i n t i m a t e l e v e l . G e n e r a l l y , she s a i d v e r y l i t t l e about h e r s e l f t h a t was of a p e r s o n a l , e m o t i o n a l , s e c r e t , or e m b a r r a s s i n g n a t u r e . For instance, she d i s c u s s e d c a r e e r and f a m i l i a l g o a l s , what her b o y f 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 p a r e n t s , or minor d i s a g r e e m e n t s w i t h her s i blings.  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 i n t i m a t e i s s u e s , but tended t o do so i n a d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r t h a n an e m o t i o n a l or p e r s o n a l manner. She s a i d t h i n g s about h e r s e l f t h a t were q u i t e p e r s o n a l , e m o t i o n a l , s e c r e t , or e m b a r r a s s i n g , b u t perhaps not c o n s i s t e n t l y s o , or perhaps i n a f a s h i o n t h a t made you f e e l she was h o l d i n g something back. F o r i n s t a n c e , she d e s c r i b e d her p a r e n t s d i v o r c e , f a m i l y problems, or f a i l i n g a t s c h o o l w i t h o u t a c t u a l l y r e v e a l i n g her p e r s o n a l 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 v e r y i n t i m a t e i s s u e s . She s a i d t h i n g s about h e r s e l f t h a t were o f an e x t r e m e l y p e r s o n a l , e m o t i o n a l , s e c r e t , or embarrassing nature. F o r i n s t a n c e , she d i s c u s s e d 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 w i t h her p a r e n t s , f e e l i n g s o f g u i l t o r inadequacy, d e a t h o f a f a m i l y member, o r a s p e c t s o f her p a r e n t s ' d i v o r c e t h a t bother her.  PAGE 81 Appendix 11. Non-Intimate: F i r s t  T o p i c #9:  Disclosure  What a r e your h o b b i e s ; how do you b e s t l i k e t o spend your time?  Read t o p i c .  W e l l , t h e r e a r e a l o t o f t h i n g s I l i k e t o do, b u t t o t e l l you t h e t r u t h , now t h a t 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 to. L e t ' 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 w o r k i n g out o r r u n n i n g , but I do l i k e s p o r t s . and p l a y i n a co-ed l e a g u e . competitive beach.  I n the w i n t e r  I like to s k i .  I like  baseball  I t ' s more o f a " f u n " league than a r e a l  one, which i s n i c e .  I l i k e t o swim and I l o v e t h e sun and t h e  Whenever i t ' s n i c e i n t h e summer, I t r y t o spend as much time as I can  outside. I l i k e s p e n d i n g time w i t h my f r i e n d s , maybe g o i n g t o a movie, o r a c l u b , o r a party.  The c l u b s a r e n i c e because you can dance, and I l o v e d a n c i n g .  But  p a r t i e s a r e n i c e t o o because i t ' s e a s i e r t o t a l k t o people and g e t t o know them. I e n j o y r e l a x i n g a t home sometimes as w e l l .  I l i k e t o 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 a u t h o r would be Stephen K i n g .  I'm not t h a t b i g on  w a t c h i n g T.V., b u t I u s u a l l y t r y t o watch t h e Cosby Show and L.A. Law.  PAGE 82 Appendix 12.  N o n - I n t i m a t e : Second T o p i c #16:  Disclosure  What a r e 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 t o l i s t e n t o r e a l l y depends on t h e mood I'm i n . 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 . l a s t y e a r was p r e t t y good.  And U-2 .... t h e i r  I really concert  George M i c h a e l and Bon Jove a r e n ' t bad e i t h e r .  Oh, I a l s o l i k e T r a c e y Chapman, she's r e a l l y g o t something t o s a y . I a l s o r e a l l y l i k e some o f t h e o l d e r music from t h e 60*s.  I guess some o f my  f a v o u r i t e s would be t h e R o l l i n g S t o n e s , t h e Doors, Led Z e p p e l i n , and Rod Stewart. I e n j o y c l a s s i c a l music i f I'm i n t h e r i g h t k i n d o f mood.  I don't l i s t e n t o  i t v e r y 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 w h i l e . L e t ' s see ... I don't r e a l l y hate a n y t h i n g , but t h e r e a r e d e f i n i t e l y some t y p e s o f music t h a t I ' d r a t h e r n o t l i s t e n t o .  I don't l i k e o p e r a , ... ( l o o k  down) ... I hate t o s a y I t ( s m i l e ) b u t I f i n d i t b o r i n g . because I don't r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d i t .  That might be  I l i s t e n t o heavy m e t a l once i n a  w h i l e , but I don't l i k e t h e r e a l l y hard c o r e s t u f f . What e l s e ... oh, e x c e p t f o r K.D. Lang I don't l i k e c o u n t r y m u s i c , and I absolutely despise Tiffany.  I a l s o c a n ' t s t a n d l i s t e n i n g t o t o p 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 l l , 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 a s p e c t s you?  of your d a i l y l i f e t h a t s a t i s f y and  bother  Read t o p i c . W e l l , one  of the b i g g e s t a s p e c t s  of my  more i n t e r e s t i n g than h i g h s c h o o l . you're l e a r n i n g something h e r e . r e s t of the c o u r s e s are okay. i s p r e t t y good t o o . bad.  One  I'm  l i f e r i g h t now  I t ' s more c h a l l e n g i n g and you  Mind you, Math 100 f r i e n d s here and  t h i n g I l i k e i s t h a t no one  feel  like  i s n ' t t h a t g r e a t , but  I e n j o y my L i t c o u r s e ,  making new  is university. It's the  ... and my Psych c o u r s e the p r o f s a r e n ' t  t e l l s you what t o do.  that  You can s t u d y  or  e a t when you want. I t would be n i c e t o have a c a r though; i t ' s such a p a i n h a v i n g t o take bus.  I t ' s always packed and you have t o s t a n d w h i l e i t c r a w l s  traffic. read.  And  I t wouldn't be as bad  through  i f you c o u l d get a s e a t , a t l e a s t you  the bus d r i v e r i s always s i t t i n g t h e r e  cranked up, w h i l e everyone e l s e j u s t about d i e s .  the could  i n h i s s h i r t , w i t h the heat I have t o get up e a r l i e r  t o o , which i s n ' t v e r y t h r i l l i n g e i t h e r . It'd  be g r e a t i f I c o u l d get a p l a c e of my own  wouldn't have t o get up so e a r l y or take the W e l l , ...  I guess t h a t ' s about i t .  near the u n i v e r s i t y . bus.  Then I  now  PAGE 84 Appendix 14.  Non-Intimate: Fourth D i s c l o s u r e T o p i c #17: Read  What a r e your p e r s o n a l g o a l s f o r t h e n e x t t e n y e a r s or so?  topic.  I guess everyone's g o a l i s t o g e t t h e i r degree. sure.  After that, well  ... I'm not  I'd s o r t o f l i k e t o s t a r t w o r k i n g , ... but I'd a l s o r e a l l y l i k e t o do  some t r a v e l l i n g .  I've always wanted t o go t o Europe and A u s t r a l i a .  After I  graduate i t would be g r e a t t o go t o Europe f o r 6 months and then t o A u s t r a l i a f o r a n o t h e r 6 months. Europe.  There a r e so many i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s t o see and do i n  I've always wanted t o see P a r i s , and i t ' d be g r e a t t o spend some time  i n Switzerland i n the Alps.  And A u s t r a l i a , what can I s a y . There a r e beaches  and s u n , and more beaches and more s u n . And I j u s t l o v e t h e i r a c c e n t s . ask me how I'm g o i n g t o a f f o r d i t , b u t i t would be n i c e .  I guess  Don't  I'll  p r o b a b l y w a i t and see what I f e e l l i k e i n my 4 t h year and t h e n d e c i d e what t o do. I l i k e Vancouver and would l i k e t o s t a y h e r e , b u t i f I was o f f e r e d a good j o b somewhere e l s e I'd d e f i n i t e l y go.  I c o u l d always move back l a t e r i f I missed  it. L e t ' s s e e , what e l s e ... I'd l i k e t o g e t m a r r i e d some day, but n o t f o r a l o n g time.  I t would be n i c e t o f i n i s h s c h o o l 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 c o u l d s a y my main p r i o r i t y i s t o do some t r a v e l l i n g i n t h e n e x t 10 years. W e l l , I guess t h a t ' s about  it.  PAGE 85 Appendix 15. High I n t i m a c y : F i r s t  Disclosure  T o p i c #7: What a r e t h e s o u r c e s o f 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 o p p o s i t e sex? Read t o p i c . I've been g o i n g out w i t h t h e same guy f o r t h e p a s t y e a r now.  We g e t a l o n g  p r e t t y w e l l i n a l o t o f ways; he's a u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t t o o and we l i k e a l o t of t h e same t h i n g s .  But l a t e l y , I've s t a r t e d t o wonder i f I c a r e about him as  much as I thought I d i d . He j u s t doesn't seem ... v e r y a f f e c t i o n a t e I guess.  I t r e a l l y b o t h e r s me t h a t  he never g i v e s me a k i s s , or a hug, j u s t on t h e spur o f the moment.  And i n  p u b l i c , he never touches me, o r l e t s me t o u c h him, when t h e r e a r e o t h e r people around. And even though we've been g o i n g out f o r a y e a r , he j u s t ... w e l l seem v e r y committed.  ... d o e s n ' t  I keep g e t t i n g t h e f e e l i n g he f i t s me i n t o h i s s c h e d u l e ,  r a t h e r t h a n f i t t i n g h i s s c h e d u l e t o u s . L i k e , ... h e ' l l c a n c e l our p l a n s i f something comes up w i t h the "guys".  But h e ' l l never c a n c e l something w i t h  them i f I r e a l l y want t o do something. t h i n k s i n terms o f " I " ,  I guess what i t r e a l l y i s , i s t h a t he  i n s t e a d o f "we".  A c t u a l l y , I don't f e e l a s c l o s e t o him any more ... I don't f e e l l i k e I need him t h e way I used t o . people.  He's always s a y i n g we s h o u l d maybe go out w i t h o t h e r  To t e l l you t h e t r u t h , I t h i n k t h a t might be a good i d e a .  C o n s i d e r i n g how many good l o o k i n g guys t h e r e a r e out t h e r e , I t h i n k I'm g o i n g t o have a l o t more f u n than he t h i n k s .  PAGE 86 Appendix 16.  High I n t i m a c y : Second D i s c l o s u r e T o p i c #5: What a r e your g u i l t i e s t Read  secrets?  topic.  L e t ' s s e e , 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 c h a i n s , [ s m i l e J .  Only k i d d i n g , j u s t c h e c k i n g t o see i f you're p a y i n g  attention. 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 t h a t I was  g o i n g camping t o t h e Okanogon w i t h my g i r l f r i e n d f o r a c o u p l e o f weeks, but I r e a l l y went t o P e n t i c t o n w i t h a bunch o f my f r i e n d s and our b o y f r i e n d s . was g r e a t !  It  We'd spend a l l day on the beach s u n t a n n i n g and s l e e p i n g and then  party a l l night.  God, i t was p r e t t y w i l d .  I t was t h e f i r s t h o l i d a y I've even  been on t h a t I needed t o r e s t up a f t e r . I guess t h e r e a s o n I f e e l so g u i l t y about i t i s because I l i e d t o my Mom. We've always been open w i t h each o t h e r and I've always been honest w i t h h e r . I t ' s a l m o s t l i k e she's an o l d e r s i s t e r sometimes, as w e l l as a mother. never l i e d t o her b e f o r e , a t l e a s t not about something major. t e l l her about i t some day.  I'll  I've probably  I'm n o t s u r e when, but some day.  I guess t h a t ' s not v e r y " g u i l t y " , huh? would have been a l o t more i n t e r e s t i n g  The whips and c h a i n s t h i n g p r o b a b l y [smile].  PAGE 87 Appendix 17.  High I n t i m a c y : T h i r d D i s c l o s u r e T o p i c #10:  What were the o c c a s i o n s 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 h a p p i e s t I've ever been has been t h e p a s t month [pause; down).  My mom  and dad got back t o g e t h e r a g a i n .  [Look up]  look  They've been  s e p a r a t e d f o r t h e p a s t c o u p l e of y e a r s . I t ' s so n i c e t o have a " f a m i l y " a g a i n .  Everybody's so happy; we're a l l  w a l k i n g around t h e house w i t h s m i l e s on our f a c e s . happy.  My mom  They're always t o g e t h e r ; I t h i n k t h e y r e a l l y missed  They're always s m i l i n g and l a u g h i n g , I haven't heard my mom ages.  and dad seem r e a l l y each o t h e r . laugh l i k e t h a t i n  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 t h e time b e f o r e .  They're l i k e a c o u p l e 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 t i m e , sometimes i n the strangest places.  I'd never r e a l i z e d b e f o r e the " r o m a n t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s " a  l a u n d r y room had. I t sounds s t u p i d , but even our dog seems h a p p i e r . j u s t n i c e t o be around the house spend more time a t home.  I t ' s hard t o d e s c r i b e ; i t ' s  ... t o have a f a m i l y a g a i n .  I've s t a r t e d t o  I had s t a r t e d g o i n g 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 a t home.  But now  i t ' s just great.  PAGE 88 Appendix 18.  High I n t i m a c y : F o u r t h D i s c l o s u r e  T o p i c #3:  What a r e t h e a c t i o n s you have most r e g r e t t e d d o i n g i n your and why?  life  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 r e f u s e d t o t a l k t o him or see him.  He used t o come over f o r supper once e v e r y c o u p l e o f weeks, but I would go o u t .  always  When he phoned I wouldn't t a l k t o him. My mom and s i s t e r s a i d I  s h o u l d t a l k t o him; t h e y kept t e l l i n g me t h a t he l o v e d me, but I j u s t couldn't.  I was so mad a t him, I f e l t t h a t e v e r y t h i n g was h i s f a u l t .  I  c o u l d n ' t understand why he wanted t o h u r t u s , ... I c o n v i n c e d m y s e l f t h a t he was h a v i n g a g r e a t time g o i n g out w i t h a l l s o r t s o f e x c i t i n g women.  I t got t o  the p o i n t where I f e l t t h a t 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  t h a t he was back, t h a t our f a m i l y was t o g e t h e r a g a i n ; but I s t i l l hated him. F i n a l l y , one n i g h t we had a r e a l l o n g t a l k .  I s t a r t e d t o r e a l i z e t h a t my mom  was j u s t as much t o blame f o r t h e s e p a r a t i o n as he was.  And I found out t h a t  he d i d n ' t have such a g r e a t t i m e ; 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 g o i n g o u t .  And when I r e a l i z e d how much he l o v e d me, and j u s t how  b a d l y I'd h u r t 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 l o v e him v e r y , v e r y much.  We understand  each  o t h e r 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. C o n f e d e r a t e ' s Name: Observer's Name: Subject #  NON-INTIMATE #1:  Hobbies, How You Spend Your Time started university not a s much s p a r e time don't e x e r c i s e r e g u l a r l y like sports ski play baseball fun league spend time o u t s i d e out w i t h f r i e n d s c l u b s ; l i k e dancing p a r t i e s ; g e t t o know people read; f i c t i o n Stephen K i n g 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, c o n c e r t was i n c r e d i b l e George M i c h a e l , Bon Jove o l d e r muxic from 60's S t o n e s , Doors, Z e p p e l i n , 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 t y p e s I don't l i k e opera: b o r i n g don't understand opera heavy m e t a l once i n a w h i l e don't l i k e c o u n t r y 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:  Daily Life 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 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 t o do s t u d y or e a t when you want n i c e t o have c a r bus i s a p a i n always packed n i c e t o get s e a t bus d r i v e r , s h i r t , heat c r a n k e d up have t o get up e a r l i e r g r e a t t o get p l a c e near u n i v e r s i t y  #4:  something  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 t h i n g s i n Europe Paris S w i t z e r l a n d and A l p s beaches and sun, more beaches and more sun love t h e i r accents how t o a f f o r d i t d e c i d e i n 4th year l i k e t o s t a y i n Vancouver, but would move c o u l d always move back get m a r r i e d 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 Observer's  Name:  Name: S u b j e c t #:  HIGH #1:  INTIMACY  Problems With B o y f r i e n d g o i n g out f o r p a s t year t h i n g s i n common wondering i f I c a r e as much doesn't seem a f f e c t i o n a t e . k i s s o r hug on spur o f moment no t o u c h i n g 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 , n o t we not a s c l o s e go out w i t h o t h e r people good l o o k i n g guys  #2:  Guiltiest  Secret  whips and c h a i n s happened l a s t summer t o l d mom about t r i p w i t h g i r l f r i e n d went w i t h b o y f r i e n d s s u n t a n n i n g and s l e e p i n g on beach partying 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 t o 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 & c h a i n s b e t t e r  PAGE 92  83:  Happiest  Occasion  p a s t month mom and dad back t o g e t h e r a f t e r 2 y e a r s n i c e t o have f a m i l y a g a i n everybody happy and s m i l i n g t h i n k t h e y missed each o t h e r always t o g e t h e r mom had been s o 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 l a u n d r y room ( r o m a n t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s ) even dog h a p p i e r spending more time a t home #4:  A c t i o n s You Have Most R e g r e t t e d r e f u s e d t o see dad go o u t when he came over r e f u s e d t o t a l k t o him on phone mom & s i s t e r s a i d "he l o v e s you" mad; f e l t e v e r y t h i n g was h i s f a u l t g r e a t t i m e ; g o i n g o u t w i t h e x c i t i n g women f e l t I hated him awkward when he moved back l o n g t a l k one n i g h t mom was as much t o blame he d i d n ' t have g r e a t t i m e ; c r y i n g how much I l o v e d him; how much I'd h u r t him both s t a r t e d c r y i n g ; r e a l l y l o v e 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