Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Intimacy of self-disclosure, availability of reaction to disclosure, and formation of interpersonal relationships Brasfield, Charles Randolph 1971

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A1 B74.pdf [ 3.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101440.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101440-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101440-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101440-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101440-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101440-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101440-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101440-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101440.ris

Full Text

INTIMACY OF SELF-DISCLOSURE, AVAILABILITY OF REACTION TO DISCLOSURE, AND FORMATION OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS by CHARLES R. BRASFIELD, M.A. 1965 A thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy i n The Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standards U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia September, 1971 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a llowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Psychology The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8 , Canada Date October. 21, 1971 ( i ) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would l i k e to express h i s appreciation for t h e i r assistance to Dr. D. Papageorgis, Dr. G. J . Johnson, Dr. C. DeMartino, Dr. D. Sampson, and Dr. R. Robson. In p a r t i c u l a r , the author wishes to thank Dr. Demetrios Papageorgis for h i s continued support and encouragement over a period of years, without which the present work would hot have been accomplished. Appreciation i s also extended to Mrs. Sharon Gibson f o r her cheerfu l and e f f i c i e n t typing of several versions of the manuscript. Intimacy of S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e , A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction to Disclosure, and Formation of Interpersonal Relationships Charles R. B r a s f i e l d U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia ABSTRACT One hundred twenty female subjects between the ages of 17 and 24 were asked to d i s c l o s e information to a stranger peer of the same sex. The information they disclosed was either non-personal, personal non-intimate, or personal intimate. A d d i t i o n a l l y , each pair of subjects was assigned to one of two a v a i l a b i l i t y of re a c t i o n groups; i n one group, the subjects were instructed to provide a s p e c i f i c verbal r e -act i o n to each of t h e i r partner's d i s c l o s u r e s ; i n the other a v a i l -a b i l i t y of re a c t i o n group, the subjects were instructed to provide no re a c t i o n at a l l . Measures of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n were taken a f t e r each pair of subjects had interacted. Analysis of variance revealed s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n between the subjects instructed to provide s p e c i f i c reactions than between those subjects instructed not to react. S i g n i f i c a n t l y greater interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n was also found between subjects d i s c l o s i n g personal intimate information than between subjects d i s c l o s i n g non-personal information, and the scores of the subjects d i s c l o s i n g personal non-intimate information f e l l between those of the other two intimacy of information groups. Research Supervisor ( i i i ) Intimacy of S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e , A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction to D i s c l o s u r e , and Formation of In t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Tables i v Table of Appendices v Chapter I: I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Chapter I I : Review of the L i t e r a t u r e p.............., 11 Chapter I I I : Hypotheses 18 Chapter IV: Method 21 Subjects 22 M a t e r i a l s 23 Procedure 26 Measures 30 Apparatus 32 Chapter V: Re s u l t s 34 Chapter VI: D i s c u s s i o n of Results 41 Chapter V I I : D i s c u s s i o n and Conclusions 48 Chapter V I I I : References 53 Chapter IX: Appendices 55 (iv) TABLE OF TABLES Table Page 1 General Design of the Study 22 2 Hypothetical Questions: Means and Standard Deviations , 35 3 Relationship Inventory Measure: Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges . 36 4 Source Table for Analysis of Variance for Relationship Inventory Measure 37 5 Orthogonal Comparisons of Relationship Inventory Data.. 38 6 Quality of Disclosure Questionnaire: Means and Standard .Deviations . . . 39 7 Intimacy Ratings of Disclosure Items 40 8 S p l i t - H a l f R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s for Relationship Inventory Measure 43 (v) TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1 Personal Information Inventory ..' 55 2 Intimacy Rating Scale Instructions ,...„ 58 3 Non-Personal Disclosure Items . .... 59 4 Dependent Measures 61 5 Source Table of Analysis of Variance for the Ten Hypothetical Questions . . . i . . . . . . . . 67 Intimacy of Se l f - D i s c l o s u r e , A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction to Disclosure, and Formation of Interpersonal Relationships Chapter I. Introduction Most of us, i n our day-to-day routine> are i n occasional, frequent, or continual contact with other people. These contacts with other people are, for the most part, interchangeable; that i s , we play s p e c i f i c interpersonal r o l e s i n the contacts and expect the others with whom we are i n contact to play equally s p e c i f i c r o l e s , While each of us may s h i f t r o l e s from time to time or from one contact to the next, our s o c i a l competence and a c c e p t a b i l i t y i s dependent upon our s k i l l i n i d e n t i f y i n g the required r o l e and executing i t adequately (Goffman, 1959, p. 55). The people with whom we are i n routine contact are, of course, also executing s p e c i f i c r o l e s . While some people may be more s k i l l e d than others i n executing the required r o l e s , most of us manage not to make too many faux pas' or to execute the wrong ro l e at the wrong time. Thus, most of our routine contacts with others could take place equally well i f the in d i v i d u a l s with whom we are i n interpersonal contact were replaced by other, d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s playing the same r o l e s . Equally, each of us could be replaced by someone else playing our usual r o l e s i n contact with our routine interpersonal audience. In reaction to such stereotypy of i n t e r a c t i o n , many of us come to develop personal i d e n t i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -- idiosyncracies or e c c e n t r i c i t i e s -- that do not quite f i t the usual roles we are s o c i a l l y required to play, i . e . , we change the roles s l i g h t l y i n order that we -- and our audiences -- can i d e n t i f y the roles as being s p e c i f i c to ourselves. Many educators, businessmen, administrators, etc. consider i t good interpersonal practice to develop a set of more-or-less unique " i d e n t i f i e r s , " such as speech mannerisms, s t y l e of dress, or even a p a r t i c u l a r way of signing one's name. B a s i c a l l y , however, we a l l play f a i r l y standardized roles to f a i r l y standardized audiences. Most of the time we may f e e l that our roles are well worth playing and that our audiences are well worth playing to.. But seldom do any of us think to ourselves, "I am a teacher," or, "businessman," or, "father", or however else we tend to i d e n t i f y ourselves, "and nothing more!" We a l l seem to think that our roles are not r e a l l y ourselves -- that we are somehow d i f f e r e n t from the roles we play and can assume the roles or discard them at w i l l . Even considering the whole repertoire of roles that each of us plays, we each f e e l that there i s something else l e f t over a f t e r the roles are subtracted -- something "personal" or " i n d i v i d u a l " . It i s t h i s "personalness" which we may attempt to di s p l a y with our i n d i v i d u a l " i d e n t i f i e r s " which are used to make our roles unique to ourselves even though the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r o l e s are exactly the same as those of a great many other people. We each very much l i k e , a lso, our personal i d e n t i f i e r s to be recognized and responded to by others. We may say that people who ro u t i n e l y recognize and react to our idiosyncracies are "personal" or "warm" or "human". We l i k e the f e e l i n g we get from such people and may even t r y to emulate them i n t h e i r manner of i n t e r a c t i o n . And we often reward them for t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with us; i f they are salesmen, we give them orders; i f they are subordinates, we promote them; assuming,of course, that they also execute the basic r o l e requirements competently. Despite the number of personal i d e n t i f i e r s we develop to modify our r o l e s , even i f most of our routine audience recognize and react to them, we may eventually come to f e e l that our in t e r a c t i o n s with others are somehow not "personal" enough, or that our r e l a t i o n s h i p s with other people are not "meaningful." We begin to think that our i n t e r a c t i o n s , e f f e c t i v e and competent though they may be, don't " s i g n i f y " anything beyond the completion of the task for which we played the r o l e i n the f i r s t place. We begin to f e e l more and more separate from our r o l e performances, and we begin to f e e l that we are, indeed, "performing." We may describe ourselves as "lone l y " or, more popularly, "alienated." We may even begin to f e e l trapped by the roles we ourselves have developed and s t a r t seeking escape routes out of the trap. Frequently, the f i r s t escape route we t r y i s to perform our r o l e s to a d i f f e r e n t and, we hope, more appreciative audience. That i s , we look for an audience with their own personal i d e n t i f i e r s d i f f e r e n t from those of our t y p i c a l audience. We may resign from one job and take another, or maybe even change professions. We may change sweethearts (or spouses) or quit bowling with one group of friends and. st a r t playing tennis with another group. Often, however, we eventually decide that the d i f f i c u l t y l i e s not with our audience (or audiences) or t h e i r response to us, but within ourselves. We come to f e e l that we must somehow change ourselves to become more expressive of our ''personal i d e n t i t y . " Usually, what we mean by that i s that we w i l l change our personal i d e n t i f i e r s with which we enliven our t y p i c a l interpersonal r o l e s . I t i s at t h i s point that we might l e t our hai r grow long, or cut i t short. We may change our sty l e of dress, or_ d e l i b e r a t e l y interact with other people somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y than had previously been our custom. I f , i n our t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r changes i n in t e r a c t i n g with others, we are s u f f i c i e n t l y broad i n our experimentation, we may come to i d e n t i f y two supposed classes of other people; those whom one can be "with", and those with whom one inte r a c t s i n a f a i r l y stereotyped fashion. Often, we fi n d ourselves seeking out members of the f i r s t c lass of other people mentioned and engaging i n long, serious, and often intimate, conversations. We come to f e e l that we " r e a l l y know" the other person and that we have somehow developed a t r u l y "meaningful" r e l a t i o n s h i p . Through the course of developing such a r e l a t i o n s h i p (or r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) , we may well come to f e e l that we have f i n a l l y found a way out of the trap of our s o c i a l r o l e s , that we have somehow become expressive of our personal i d e n t i t y . We may even find that we are quite comfortable with rol e s very s i m i l a r to those we 5. previously thought s t u l t i f y i n g and deadening. It i s to one aspect of t h i s process of developing ''meaningful" interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s that the present d i s s e r t a t i o n i s addressed. It seems quite l i k e l y that the word "meaningful", i n the context of the discu s s i o n above, has a number of s p e c i f i c connotations. It connotes, for instance, "non-typical," i n the sense that a meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p i s one which i s somehow d i f f e r e n t and apart from one which conforms to our usual r o l e stereotypes. In that sense, a non-meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p i s one which i s quite predictable from a knowledge of ordinary role requirements and a meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p i s one which i s not so predictable -- at least s u b j e c t i v e l y . To be involved i n a su b j e c t i v e l y unpredictable r e l a t i o n s h i p implies some degree of r i s k , but the question.is, "Risk of what?" Physical injury seems an u n l i k e l y r i s k here, so i t probably would be best to suggest that a meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p involves some degree of r i s k of s o c i a l i njury. The most obvious s o c i a l i njury i s disapproval, or suspension of previous approval, and th i s i s probably the r i s k involved i n meaning-f u l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . There would, of course, need to be some "thing" of which to disapprove -- some act or thought on the part of one in d i v i d u a l ("A") i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of which the second i n d i v i d u a l ("B") could disapprove. It would be a further requirement of such a r e l a t i o n s h i p that "B" be aware of the act or thought on the part of in d i v i d u a l "A". Since the meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p between "A" and "B" i s , by previous d e f i n i t i o n , one which i s not t y p i c a l , i t follows that the p o t e n t i a l l y disapproved act or thought of "A" would not be something c o n s t i t u t i n g a part of the public knowledge about "A" or a v a i l a b l e by simple inspection. Thus, an i n t e g r a l part of the role requirements of "A" i n this meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p must be to d i s c l o s e to "B" information about "A" which i s not public knowledge and which i s not a v a i l a b l e by simple inspection. It has been previously suggested (Homans, 1950, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) that s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n developing from an acquaintance-ship can be characterized i n terms of payoffs or outcomes; i t seems appropriate to suggest that the hypothetical r e l a t i o n s h i p between "A" and "B" has outcomes which can be quantified i n terms of ''self-d i s c l o s u r e " , i . e . , the communication process previously described between "A" and "B". Newcomb (1962) has suggested that most continuing interpersonal interactions are rewarding, and i t would seem necessary that both "A" and "B" find the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e rewarding i n some way i n order that they continue the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The question would be just how s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s rewarding to the d i s c l o s e r and to the target of his d i s c l o s u r e s . "B", on r e c e i v i n g non-public information from "A", gains some power of disapproval over "A", and power to influence another might well be considered to be rewarding. "A", on the other hand, surrenders the power of disapproval to "B" and h i s reward i s somewhat less obvious than i s that of "B". The rewards of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e to the d i s c l o s e r can be hypothesized, at a minimum, to be s o c i a l rewards of the sort involved i n i n t e r -personal a t t r a c t i o n . Byrne and h i s co-workers have suggested that interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n i s based upon s i m i l a r i t y of s i g n i f i c a n t a ttitudes (Byrne, 1961) and upon the amount of discrepancy of attitud e within that s i m i l a r i t y (Byrne, Clore, & G r i f f i t t , 1967). There are two things of note here: f i r s t , i n the meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p of "A" and "B", both may be rewarded, through s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , by discovering that they are attracted and a t t r a c t i v e to each other by reason of attitude s i m i l a r i t y ; second, for "A" to be rewarded for h i s disclosure of s i g n i f i c a n t , non-public a t t i t u d e s , there must be some confirming reaction to "A'"s disclosure such that "A" can reasonably i n f e r that "B" holds the same or a si m i l a r a t t i t u d e . Quite apart from the s t r i c t l y i n t e r a c t i o n a l rewards, Jourard (1964, p. 27) has suggested that we only come to know ourselves f u l l y (which would presumably include our s i g n i f i c a n t a t t i t u d e s ) through the process of d i s c l o s i n g ourselves to another person. In North American culture, i t would seem to be reasonable to suggest that s e l f -knowledge has some reward value. In f a c t , such self-knowledge could well be the "meaningful" part of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "A" and "B". In a "meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p " between "A" and "B", then, s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e i s an i n t e g r a l and necessary act or set of actions. "A", the d i s c l o s e r , runs the r i s k of disapproval from "B" but gains some increase i n self-knowledge and, with some confirming r e a c t i o n on the part of "B", the s o c i a l reward of being a t t r a c t i v e and attracted to "B", though he would presumably not d i s c l o s e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t i t u d e s , 8. or any other personal information, to someone whom he i n i t i a l l y d i s -l i k e d . "B" i s rewarded for l i s t e n i n g to "A's" disclosures by gaining some power to influence "A" through possible disapproval. In addition, "B" may gain the rewards of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n for himself by reacting to "A's" disclosures i n such a way that "A" can reasonably i n f e r a t t i t u d e s i m i l a r i t y . Following the disclosures of "A", of course, "B" i s already aware of the degree of s i m i l a r i t y of a t t i t u d e s and may well reap some of the benefits of a t t r a c t i o n to_ "A" without giving any r e a c t i o n whatsoever. It seems l i k e l y , however, that "B" would react to "A's" disclosures i n that such reaction would, i f i t implies a t t i t u d e s i m i l a r i t y , enhance. "A's" a t t r a c t i o n to "B". It i s apparent that reaction to disclosure i s , i n i t s e l f , a kind of disclosure and should also be s i m i l a r l y related to i n t e r -personal a t t r a c t i o n as has been suggested for s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . The r e a c t i o n of the target person could w e l l , however, be much less e x p l i c i t , i n terms of d i s c l o s u r e , than the o r i g i n a l d i s c l o s u r e . Given the natural s i t u a t i o n , i t would probably obtain, however, that both "A" and "B" would both react and d i s c l o s e in a l t e r n a t i n g sequence. With s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of non-public information, i t seems l i k e l y that the q u a l i t y of the information disclosed would be of some importance to the q u a l i t y of any interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p r e s u l t i n g therefrom. The studies by Byrne and h i s co-workers referred to previously (p. 7), seem to indicate t h a t . s i g n i f i c a n t attitudes are more i n f l u e n t i a l than are t r i v i a l a t t i t u d e s . It seems only reasonable indeed, that we would react more favorably, given no other information to someone who agreed with our r a c i a l a ttitudes than to someone who, for instance, preferred the same brand of c i g a r e t t e s . The one implies a r e l a t i v e l y lengthy set of possible actions or reactions, while the other i s quite l i m i t e d . In t h i s regard, the assumption i s here made that disclosure of acts or thoughts may have the same weight i n influencing interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n as d i r e c t d i s c l o s u r e of a t t i t u d e s , inasmuch as many of us r o u t i n e l y i n f e r a t t i t u d e s from expressed actions or thoughts of others, and actions are often used as the test of s i n c e r i t y of expressed a t t i t u d e s . The " s i g n i f i c a n c e " of expressed or implied attitudes could be approached i n a v a r i e t y of ways, from popular " s o c i a l " s i g n i f i c a n c e to some sort of ultimate e x i s t e n t i a l importance. Since we are dealing here with interpersonal matters, however, i t seems appropriate to approach the question as an interpersonal one. We would a l l very l i k e l y d i s c l o s e a great deal of information about ourselves to almost anyone, such as preferences for s l i p - o n versus t i e d shoes, or whether we prefer to write with a pen or a p e n c i l . However, we would probably r e s t r i c t to only our clo s e s t friends information regarding our sexual experiences or our personal evaluation of ourselves. If we regard as a scale of s i g n i f i c a n c e the readiness with which we would d i s c l o s e personal information to strangers, acquaintances, and f r i e n d s , we can r e f e r to "significance" as a measure of ease of d i s c l o s u r e . For the purposes of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , the r e l a t i v e ease of disclosure 10. of s p e c i f i c m a t e r i a l to strangers versus very c l o s e f r i e n d s w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as a s c a l e of intimacy, on which the m a t e r i a l d i s c l o s e d may be r a t e d . C e r t a i n l y , d i s c l o s u r e of intimate personal i n f o r m a t i o n seems s u b j e c t i v e l y to in v o l v e more r i s k of d i s a p p r o v a l ; approval o f , or agreement w i t h , h i g h l y i n t i m a t e a t t i t u d e s and actions; a l s o would seem to in v o l v e greater rewards. 11. Chapter II Review of the Li t e r a t u r e Previous studies of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ( c f J o u r a r d , 1971,for a review of h i s own and h i s colleagues work) have generally treated the var i a b l e a f t e r - t h e - f a c t as an already accomplished process. Such studies have, however, provided some evidence that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s greater i f the d i s c l o s e r holds p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward the person to whom he i s d i s c l o s i n g (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958). As was suggested i n Chapter I, i t would seem necessary that the d i s c l o s e r hold some po s i t i v e feelings toward the target person before any discl o s u r e would take place; the Jourard and Lasakow study suggests that this i s not only a necessary condition, but also that a t t r a c t i o n may be relat e d to di s c l o s u r e on a quantitative basis. If l i k i n g for the target person i s related to quantity of personal information d i s c l o s e d to that person, i t may also hold that d i s c l o s u r e of personal information to another person influences the l i k i n g for that person. A study by Worthy, Gary, and Kahn (1969) suggests exactly that r e l a t i o n s h i p ; s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was found to have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on the rated l i k i n g of the disc loser for the target person of h i s di s c l o s u r e s , even a f t e r i n i t i a l ratings of l i k i n g were p a r t i a l e d out. S i m i l a r l y , a study by one of Jourard's students (Drag, 1968) found that p o s i t i v e a f f e c t toward the target of disclosure increased from beginning to end of a period of mutual s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . 12. In the study by Drag, i t was also found that the intimacy of the information disclosed increased from the beginning to the end of the dis c l o s u r e process, which suggests that intimacy of information dis c l o s e d may also be related to the resultant interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . A somewhat more recent study (Lefkowitz, 1970) found that i n d i v i d u a l s may be predisposed to f e e l greater interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n toward a stranger i f they believe that the stranger, upon their meeting, w i l l be w i l l i n g to make "meaningful" s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e statements. In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study, "meaningful" statements included such categories as attitudes toward sex, r e l i g i o n , and drugs, while " t r i v i a l " statements included such information as food preferences and f a v o r i t e athletes. The "meaningful -- t r i v i a l " dimension used by Lefkowitz appears to correspond quite c l o s e l y to the "intimacy" dimension employed i n the present study. An e a r l i e r study (Taylor, 19.65) investigated the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of college roommates who were i n i t i a l l y strangers to each other. It was found that amount of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e increased over time up to an asymptote at approximately nine weeks. It was also noted, however, that d i f f e r e n t pairs of roommates reached asymptote at quite d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of intimacy of information d i s c l o s e d . This f i n d i n g was noted, but no explanatory hypotheses were proposed to account for i t . S i m i l a r l y , the Worthy, Gary and Kahn (1969) study, mentioned above, found large differences i n the average intimacy l e v e l of di s c l o s u r e s . The differences were not re l a t e d to other measures used i n the study, 13. and no explanatory hypotheses were offered. Tuckman (1966) investigated the r o l e of personality variables i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and found that reported s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among peers was p o s i t i v e l y related to measures of cognitive complexity. He did not, however, f i n d that the intimacy of information disclosed was related to the same or other personality measures. Halverson and Shore (1969) also investigated the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between personali measures and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ; they found that quantity of s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e was negatively r e l a t e d to authortarianism as measured by the C a l i f o r n i a F-scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). Since, however, these investigators did not e s t a b l i s h or use a quantitative measure of the intimacy of disclosed information t h e i r study can offer no information about the possible r e l a t i o n s h i p between intimacy of information disclosed and personality character-i s t i c s . The experimental work c i t e d thus far would generally seem to indicate that dyadic (two-person, mutual) s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e tends to f a c i l i t a t e or increase interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n , and that s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e increases according to the chronological length of the i n t e r a c t i o n up to an asymptotic value. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the l e v e l of intimacy of the information disclosed seems to increase c o n j o i n t l y with the increase i n interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n and the time spent i n the interchange. On the basis of these fi n d i n g s , i t seems l i k e l y that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can be considered as an interpersonal outcome which has some reward value and tends to enhance or extend the 14. r e l a t i o n s h i p . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the intimacy of the information d i s c l o s e d to the reward value of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i s , however, not c l e a r . The asymptotic intimacy l e v e l of disclosure may be related to personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but t h i s notion i s not supported by the research of Tuckman (1966). The studies of Drag (1968) and Lefkowitz (1970) suggest, r e s p e c t i v e l y , that an increase i n the intimacy l e v e l of the information disclosed i s r e l a t e d to an increase i n interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n and to a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n for greater a t t r a c t i o n . It i s here suggested that the intimacy of the information disclosed i s , as i s s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , a quantifiable outcome of interpersonal i n t e r a c t i o n and that, generally, the more intimate i s the information that i s disclosed the greater is the reward value of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r interpersonal outcome. While several studies (e.g. Taylor, 1965; Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969) have noted s t r i k i n g d ifferences i n the intimacy of information d i s c l o s e d between one dyad and another, the source of the differences i n the intimacy l e v e l s has yet to be c l a r i f i e d . In this regard, i t may be noted that two of Byrne's colleagues have conducted a study (Aronson & Worchel, 1966) i n which i t was found that a t t i t u d e s i m i l a r -i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y was not as important i n determining interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n as was a v a i l a b i l i t y to the subjects of the reactions of t h e i r partner subjects when they had participated i n an i n t e r a c t i o n  process with th e i r partners during the experimental procedure. The findings of t h i s study suggest a p o s s i b i l i t y that a v a i l a b i l i t y of 15. r e a c t i o n to disc l o s u r e may be related to intimacy of information d i s c l o s e d , inasmuch as other studies (e.g. Lefkowitz, 1970) seem to indicate that intimacy of disclosed information covaries with interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n -- which the Aronson and Worchel (1966) study r e l a t e s to a v a i l a b i l i t y of reaction, to disclosure of a t t i t u d i n a l information. Some a d d i t i o n a l support for the notion that one of the key factors i n the varying intimacy l e v e l s developed i n the dyadic s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e process may be the return disclosure of reaction to previous disclosures of personal information can be found i n the subjective descriptions of what may be termed "intensive group experiences." The term "feedback" i s often very important i n descriptions of such groups; t h i s term i s used to describe an i n t e r a c t i o n process i n which one pa r t i c i p a n t openly reveals h i s immediate and continuing reactions to another p a r t i c i p a n t . Rogers (1967) describes the process and r e s u l t as follows: It i s the public s e l f which members tend to reveal to one another, and only gradually, f e a r f u l l y , and ambivalently do they take steps to reveal some-thing of t h e i r inner world (p. 264). ...Gently at times, almost savagely at others, the group demands that the i n d i v i d u a l be himself, that h i s current feelings not be hidden, that he remove the mask of ordinary s o c i a l intercourse (p. 268). ...One member, tr y i n g to sort out h i s experiences immediately after a workshop, speaks of the 'commitment to r e l a t i o n s h i p ' which often developed on the part of two in d i v i d u a l s ... (p. 271) ... very p o s i t i v e , warm, and loving feelings can develop between members of the encounter group . (P- 273). Rogers' remarks seem to suggest that not only i s s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e involved i n such groups, and po s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s developed, but also that one of the major variables invplved i s the a v a i l a b i l i t y of rea c t i o n of one member of the group to another member of the group. S i m i l a r l y , Bradford, Gibb, and Benne (1964) suggest that one of the major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of group members, i s to give e x p l i c i t reactions to other members of the group i n order that each p a r t i c i p a n t "learns ... of the reactions he produces i n others as he interacts with them" (p. 2). As i t has been previously proposed that greater intimacy of discl o s u r e s has greater reward value i n a developing interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t i s here also proposed that the a v a i l a b i l i t y to in d i v i d u a l s of reactions to t h e i r disclosures also has reward value as payoffs as described by Hpmans (1950, 1961) and Thibaut and Kelley (1959). * The idea of a v a i l a b i l i t y of rea c t i o n of target persons to disclosures as an important variable influencing the development of r e l a t i o n s h i p seems to have occurred to Worthy, et. a l . (1969) i n that they allowed eye contact for h a l f of t h e i r subject groups and prevented i t for the other h a l f i n "the,belief that f a c i a l cues offe r a d i s c l o s e r information about the other person's reaction to hi s disclosure (p. 60)." However, no s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s were given with regard to providing r e a c t i o n to disclosure and no e f f e c t s were found for the experimental manipulation used. Considering, however, that the subjects i n the Worthy, et. a l . study were i n i t i a l l y strangers, i t may well be that many of them d e l i b e r a t e l y concealed t h e i r reactions to other's disclosures ( i n -sofar as p o s s i b l e ) . Goffman (1959) hqs noted t h i s t y p i c a l concealment of r e a c t i o n i n normal s o c i a l contacts (p. 9): ...each participant i s expected to supress h i s immediate h e a r t f e l t f e e l i n g s , conveying a view of the s i t u a t i o n which he f e e l s the others w i l l be able to find at least temporarily acceptable. The maintenance of this surface of agreement, this veneer of consensus, i s f a c i l i t a t e d by each pa r t i c i p a n t concealing h i s own wants behind state-ments which assert values to which everyone present f e e l s obliged to give l i p service. In order to avoid the s u b j e c t i v e l y f e l t necessity of " t h i s veneer of consensus" for the present study, e x p l i c i t verbal reactions either were required for each disclosure or the subjects were s p e c i f i c a l l y instructed not to react at a l l . Eye contact was prohibited for a l l subjects i n order to provide the maximal differ e n c e between the two r e a c t i o n conditions, i . e . , i t was assumed that there would be a greater difference between verbal r e a c t i o n versus no verbal r e a c t i o n than between eye contact plus verbal reaction versus eye contact a 1one. 18. Chapter III HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1_: General Statement: Quantity of information exchanged being held constant, the more intimate the personal information disclosed in a dyadic situation, the stronger will be the feelings of positive regard developed by the participants in the disclosure situation, given that the participants are initially strangers. Rationale: It has been suggested (e.g., Homans, 1961) that the social interaction between strangers meeting for the first time can be characterized in terms of "payoffs" and that self-disclosure can be quantified as such a payoff (Worthy, Gary & Kahn, 1969, p. 59). Jourard and Lasakow (1958) found that more self-disclosure was directed toward persons toward whom the discloser felt greater positive regard; additionally Drag (1968) and Worthy, et. al. (1969) found increased feelings of positive regard after a period of dyadic self-disclosure between strangers. Further, Drag found greater intimacy from beginning to end of the disclosure.process and Worthy, et. al., found that average intimacy of disclosure was highly correlated with average intimacy of a l l disclosures received. 19. It i s here suggested that intimacy of information disclosed between strangers i s another quan t i f i a b l e outcome of the i n t e r a c t i o n process, and that i t i s correlated with reward value i n the i n t e r a c t i o n . S p e c i f i c Statement: For the present study, i t was expected that subjects d i s c l o s i n g intimate personal information would y i e l d scores on the dependent measures measuring interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n i n d i c a t i n g the strongest fee l i n g s of p o s i t i v e regard for each other, while subjects d i s c l o s i n g non-personal inform-a t i o n would y i e l d scores i n d i c a t i n g the least f e e l i n g s of p o s i t i v e regard. The scores of subjects d i s c l o s i n g personal non-intimate information were expected to f a l l between those of the other two groups. Hypothesis 2_: General Statement: Given s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e between strangers at any l e v e l of intimacy, the more ava i l a b l e to the d i s c l o s e r i s the reaction of the target person to h i s d i s c l o s u r e , the greater w i l l be the fee l i n g s of p o s i t i v e regard developed by the d i s c l o s e r toward the target person. Rationale: It i s suggested here that r e a c t i o n to s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e , as well as s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i t s e l f , functions as an outcome with reward value i n an i n t e r a c t i o n process between strangers. This idea i s based on the findings of Aronson and Worchel (1966) that 20. a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e a c t i o n when subjects have p a r t i c i p -ated i n an i n t e r a c t i o n process i s more important i n determining interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n than i s a t t i t u d e s i m i l a r i t y . Further, the statements by Rogers (1967) and by Bradford, Gibb, and Benne (1964), discussed e a r l i e r (p. 16), suggest that a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e a c t i o n to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i s an important v a r i a b l e i n determining interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . By the norm of r e c i p r o c i t y (Gouldner, I960), the person who i s a target for a d i s c l o s u r e would be expected to provide an interpersonal payoff with s i m i l a r reward value; such a payoff could well be the target person's rea c t i o n to the d i s c l o s u r e . It i s , therefore, ex-pected that greater interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n w i l l be associated with greater a v a i l a b i l i t y to the d i s c l o s e r of the target person's re a c t i o n to the d i s c l o s u r e s , as greater interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n i s associated with greater rewards (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, pp. 33-37). S p e c i f i c Statement: In the present study, i t was ex-pected that subject dyads providing r e a c t i o n to each other's disclosures would y i e l d scores on the dependent measures measuring.interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n i n d i c a t i n g greater f e e l i n g s of p o s i t i v e regard toward each other than would subject dyads i n which re a c t i o n to d i s c l o s u r e s was not a v a i l a b l e . 21. Chapter IV METHOD Design: The general design of the study was a two-by-three f a c t o r i a l design, with two d i f f e r e n t conditions for each of three levels of intimacy of information d i s c l o s e d . The two treatments were designated "information only" (10) and "information plus r e a c t i o n " (IR); i n the 10 condition, subjects were instructed simply to d i s c l o s e to each other the designated information; i n the IR condition, subjects were a d d i t i o n a l l y instructed to give an e x p l i c i t verbal r e a c t i o n to each item of information disclosed by the i r dyad partner. The three d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of intimacy of information disclosed were designated "personal intimate" (PI), "personal non-intimate" (PN) and "non-personal" (NP). Information disclosed i n the NP category was a l i s t of general informational items supplied to the subjects by the experimenter. Information disclosed i n the PN category dealt with personal information rated as r e l a t i v e l y non-intimate by peers of the subjects; information i n the PI category consisted of areas of personal information rated as r e l a t i v e l y intim-ate by the same group of peers. The general plan of the study can be seen i n the following table (Table 1). 22, Table 1 Design of the Study A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction Information Only Information + Reaction Intimacy of Personal Intimate Information Personal • Non-Intimate Disclosed Non-Persona 1 Subjects: Subjects for the study were female undergraduate students enrolled i n introductory psychology courses at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Females only were used as subjects due to indications i n previous studies (e.g., Jourard & Lasakow, 1958) that females d i s c l o s e more material more r e a d i l y than do comparable males''". Dyad partners were assigned without any matching c r i t e r i a except for the following: (1) Dyad partners must have been av a i l a b l e f or the study at the same hour of the day. (2) Dyad partners could not have been previously acquainted. 1. Due to the unmonitored dyadic s i t u a t i o n , the varying intimacy le v e l s of information to be d i s c l o s e d , and the complications of sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n our c u l t u r e , i n t e r a c t i o n of the experimental conditions with sex of the subjects could reasonably have been expected. An i d e a l design would have included male-male, female-female, and male-female dyads, but such an extensive design would have been beyond the feas-i b i l i t y l i m i t s of the present study. Hence, the female-female p a i r i n g was selected for the present study, on the basis of such studies as that of Jourard and Lasakow. Limited g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y was accepted as a reasonable consequence and the interactions with the sex pairing of the subjects was l e f t for future studies. 23. (3) No more than three (3) years difference i n the ages of the dyad partners was allowed. A l l subjects were contacted by telephone and assigned a p a r t i c i p a t i o n time s u i t i n g t h e i r class schedule; the f i r s t contacted stranger subject -ava i l a b l e at the same time was assigned as a dyad partner. Subject dyads were assigned i n non-selected sequence to the PI-IO, PI-IR, PN-IO, and PN-IR c e l l s u n t i l a l l four c e l l s were f i l l e d . Due to the p o s s i b i l i t y of limited numbers of subjects, the NP-IO and NP-IR c e l l s were f i l l e d , i n that a l t e r n a t i n g sequence, a f t e r the PI-IO, PI-IR, PN-IO and PN-ir c e l l s were f i l l e d , since these four c e l l s were most c r u c i a l to the design. However, the whole design was completed wit h i n one month's time, suggesting reasonable comparability on that basis. Ten dyads were assigned to each c e l l , a t o t a l of 120 subjects for the whole design. For a l l subjects, the age range was from 17 to 24 years with a mean age of 18.7. Materials: The items of personal information disclosed by the dyad partners (categories PN and PI) were drawn from the Personal Inform-a t i o n Inventory (PII), an instrument adapted by the present author from the Self-Disclosure Questionnaire of Jourard and Lasakow (1958). The PII consists of s i x items i n each of seven areas of personal information and i s designed p r i m a r i l y for use with college student populations (see Appendix 1). The items were rated for degree of intimacy by peers of the subjects, i . e . , 65 female undergraduate stud-ents at Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y enrolled i n introductory psychology and 24. English courses. The items were arranged randomly and presented to the peer group for r a t i n g on a fi v e - p o i n t scale from 1 (non-intimate) to 5 (very intimate). "Intimacy" was operationally defined for the rater s by l i n k i n g each r a t i n g point (1-5) i n the ins t r u c t i o n s with a stated friendship l e v e l . (See Appendix 2, p. 58). Items with a mean r a t i n g of 2.5 or less were designated as non-intimate items, while items with a mean r a t i n g of 3.5 or more were designated as .intimate items. Four items from each so designated group of items were selected by the present author for disclosure by the subjects i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n . An a d d i t i o n a l two items were selected from the non-intimate group of items and were used as introductory items, i . e . , disc l o s u r e of these items preceded both the non-intimate and intimate set of items i n the experimental procedure. The introductory items were those with the lowest mean intimacy ratings. The two introductory items were: (1.) My l i k e s and d i s l i k e s i n music; my fa v o r i t e songs and musical performers. (mean r a t i n g : 1.29) (2.) My f a v o r i t e TV shows, and those I don't l i k e , (mean r a t i n g : 1.31) The range of item mean ratings f o r intimacy was from a low of 1.29 to a high of 4.53. The items used as non-intimate experimental items and th e i r ratings were: (1.) My f a v o r i t e foods, the way I l i k e food prepared, and my food d i s l i k e s . (mean r a t i n g : 1.42) (2.) The kind of movie I l i k e to see, and the sort of movie I avoid seeing. (mean r a t i n g : 1.45) 25. (3.) My personal views on human nature; whether I generally l i k e or d i s l i k e people, whether I think people are essent-i a l l y good or bad, or neither. (mean r a t i n g : 1.90) (4;) My f e e l i n g s about i l l e g a l drug use (other than alcohol); whether or not I have ever used or ever would use drugs i l l e g a l l y (marijuana, methedrine, etc.) (mean r a t i n g : 1.94) The items used as intimate items i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n , and t h e i r intimacy ratings were: (1.) What i t takes to hurt my feeli n g s deeply, or what i t takes to make me r e a l l y depressed or blue, (mean r a t i n g : 3.74) (2.) Whether I do now engage, ever have or ever would consider engaging i n premarital or extramarital sexual intercourse; i f so, with whom and my present fee l i n g s about the person or persons., (mean r a t i n g : 4.20) (3.) My fe e l i n g s about my adequacy i n sexual behavior - whether or not I f e e l able to perform adequately i n sexual r e l a t i o n -ships, (mean r a t i n g : 4.53) (4.) That which I would least l i k e my parents to know about me. (mean r a t i n g : 4.22) It should be noted that the order of intimacy of the items, both for the personal intimate and personal non-intimate sets of items, was arranged i n ascending steps. This procedure was altered for the la s t two of the items i n the personal intimate set i n order that the two sexual-content items, which are obviously related to each other, might be contiguous. This arrangement was a l s o suggested by the subjective impress ions of p i l o t study subjects. A small number of p i l o t study subjects (six) a l l disclosed t h e i r previous sexual behavior when discussing t h e i r f e e l i n g s i n regard to t h e i r own sexual adequacy. Each of them f e l t that the sexual behavior item was superfluous once they had discussed the sexual adequacy item. 26. Material f o r the NP category consisted of two p a r a l l e l series of s i x statements each. The statements were selected by the present author as su b j e c t i v e l y i n t e r e s t i n g and informative, but impersonal, statements about a v a r i e t y of topics. As i t was expected that actual di s c l o s u r e s of personal information i n the other two categories would d i f f e r somewhat for each of the two dyad partners, even when responding the same item, the two p a r a l l e l s e r i e s of statements were devised, each statement i n one series being matched for content with a state-ment i n the second s e r i e s . Each of the dyad partners was. given one of the series to read to her partner. (See Appendix 3). Procedure: Instructions to the subjects were i n three phases; an i n i t i a l introduction to the study and request f o r c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s according to the p a r t i c u l a r condition and category of information to be discussed, and ins t r u c t i o n s regarding the dependent measures. A l l subjects were paid $2.00 for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and i t was determined immediately upon t h e i r a r r i v a l whether or not they had been previously acquainted (only one dyad had, and they were re-scheduled with d i f f e r e n t partners). Following the ascertaining of no previous acquaintance, the following i n s t r u c t -ions were read to the PN and PI subjects. Please s i t down, one of you on each side of the table, and I ' l l read the ins t r u c t i o n s to you. This i s a study about how people come to know about each other. I ' l l ask each of you to tal k about yourself to some extent and also to l i s t e n to your partner talk. A f t e r you have talked to each other, I ' l l ask for some information about your reactions to each other. Since you w i l l be exchanging information about yourselves, I ' l l a l so ask that you agree that any personal information exchanged, and the d e t a i l s of the study, be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . I ' l l be tape recording what you say, but the recording w i l l be kept both c o n f i d e n t i a l and anonymous. Your partner and the tape recorder, by the way, w i l l be your only audience; once you begin, I ' l l leave the room and I won't be able to hear what you're saying. These sheets (handing them out) have on them a l i s t of items of personal information; this i s the material you w i l l be working with. I want each of you to t e l l the other the information about yourself l i s t e d on that sheet. Now, you are not required to p a r t i c i p a t e i n th i s study, and you may refuse to do so i f you wish; y o u ' l l be paid the $2.00 i n either case. If you are w i l l i n g to continue, and to maintain confident-i a l i t y , please say so now. (Pause for agreement) A l l r i g h t , y o u ' l l have a t o t a l of 30 minutes for both of you to go through a l l s i x items, so, i d e a l l y , each of you would spend 2% minutes on each item. Please t r y to spend about that amount on each item, though some w i l l take less and others s l i g h t l y more time. I ' l l knock on the door once every f i v e minutes to l e t you know about the time remaining. So that the recording can be anonymous, please c a l l each other "A" and "B" -- and would you (pointing to one subject) be "A" please, and you "B" (pointing to the other subject). "A" you w i l l s t a r t . I suggest you go through the l i s t item-by-item, each of you t a l k i n g about the same numbered item i n turn. Say your l e t t e r and the number of the item you are t a l k i n g about when you begin each item. Two things are quite important for you to remember; f i r s t , i t i s very important that you both t a l k about a l l s i x items, and, second, please j u s t l i s t e n while your partner is t a l k i n g without giving any re a c t i o n that she can hear or see.-' I ' l l ask you la t e r about your t o t a l reactions to each other. Do you have any questions? (Pause—with questions answered ad_ l i b . ) A l l r i g h t , I ' l l turn on the tape recorder now and leave. At the point of the a s t e r i s k i n the above i n s t r u c t i o n s , the following i n s t r u c t i o n s were added for the PN and PI subjects under the IR condition only: When your partner f i n i s h e s t a l k i n g about each item, I want you to t e l l her your reaction to what she has ju s t s a i d , but very b r i e f l y . Your reaction can be p o s i t i v e , something l i k e , "I l i k e what you sa i d , " or "I approve." Or your re a c t i o n can be neutral, something l i k e , "I have no p a r t i c u l a r r e a c t i o n to what you s a i d , " or, "I can't decide what my rea c t i o n i s . " Or your re a c t i o n can be negative, which would be something l i k e , "I disapprove," or, "I don't l i k e what you s a i d . " Please don't be any more de t a i l e d or lengthy than that i n giving your reactions. If you want, you might use the words, "My reaction i s ..." and then whatever i t i s , p o s i t i v e , negative, or neutral. The subjects i n the NP category received s i m i l a r , but s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n s , as follows: Please s i t down, one of you on each side of the table, and I ' l l read the in s t r u c t i o n s to you. This i s a study i n how people come to know about each other. I ' l l ask each of you to ta l k about some things and also l i s t e n to your partner t a l k . A f t e r you have talked to each other, I ' l l ask you for some information about your reactions to each other. I ' l l a l s o ask that you agree to keep the d e t a i l s of the study c o n f i d e n t i a l . I ' l l be tape recording what you say, but the recording w i l l be kept both c o n f i d e n t i a l and anonymous. Your partner and the tape recorder, by the way, w i l l be your only audience; once you begin, I ' l l leave the room and I won't be able to hear what you're saying. 2 9 . Now, you are not required to p a r t i c i p a t e i n thi s study, and you may refuse to do so i f you wish; y o u ' l l be paid the $2.00 i n ei t h e r case. If you are w i l l i n g to continue, and to maintain c o n f i d e n t i a l -i t y , please say so now. (Pause for agreement).2 A l l r i g h t . The purpose of this part of the study i s to fi n d out what impressions people gain of each other during a neutral i n t e r a c t i o n . I want each of you to read to the other the items l i s t e d on these sheets (handing out the sheets). I suggest you go through the l i s t one at a time, each of you reading the same-numbered item i n turn. One of you has items with the l e t t e r "a" a f t e r each number, and you w i l l begin. The other of you has "b" statements. Say the number, and l e t t e r of each statement before you read i t . Now,it i s quite important that you do.not react e i t h e r to what you are reading or what your partner i s reading i n any way that your partner can see or hear. Please just read the statements on your l i s t or just l i s t e n to what your partner i s reading.* When you f i n i s h , I ' l l ask you about your reactions to each other. Do you have any questions? .(Pause--with any questions answered ad l i b ) . A l l r i g h t ; I ' l l turn on the tape recorder and leave. Knock on the door when you are f i n i s h e d . At the a s t e r i s k i n the above i n s t r u c t i o n s , the following a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were added for the NP category subjects under the IR condition: 2. No subjects refused to p a r t i c i p a t e , and only one of the 120 subjects stated on the dependent measures that her experience was "unenjoyable, harmful, or f r i g h t e n i n g " to her. Several subjects wished to refuse the $2.00 paid for th e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , but were convinced that th e i r accepting payment was a necessary part of the experimental design. 30. When your partner f i n i s h e s reading each statement, I want you to t e l l her your re a c t i o n to what she has just read, but very b r i e f l y . Your r e a c t i o n can be p o s i t i v e , something l i k e , "I l i k e what you read", or, "I approve." Or your re a c t i o n can be neutral, l i k e , "I have no pa r t i p u l a r r e a c t i o n to what you read", or, "I can't decide what my reac t i o n i s . " Or your r e a c t i o n can be negative, something l i k e , "I disapprove," or, "I don't l i k e what you read". Please don't be any more de t a i l e d or lengthy than that i n giving your reactions. If you want, you might use the words, "My reaction i s ..." and then whatever i t i s , p o s i t i v e , negative, or neutral. Following the experimental i n t e r a c t i o n , a l l subjects were asked to complete the dependent measures, with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s printed on each of the measures. A d d i t i o n a l l y , each subject i n the PN and PI categories was asked to give her own personal r a t i n g of the intimacy l e v e l of each of the items d i s c l o s e d , using the same r a t i n g scale as that used by the peer group i n the i n i t i a l s e l e c t i o n of items to be dis c l o s e d . Measures: The primary measure of r e l a t i o n s h i p for the study was a se r i e s of 28 statements concerning the dyad partner to which each subject was instructed to indicate degrees of agreement or d i s -agreement. This instrument was adapted by the present author from the "Level of Regard", "Unconditionality of Regard" and "Congruence" scales of the Relationship Inventory developed by Barrett-Lennard (1962) (See Appendix 3). 31. "Level of Regard" i s explained by Barrett-Lennard as follows ( p . 4 ) : Regard refe r s here to the a f f e c t i v e aspect of one person's response to another. This may include various q u a l i t i e s and strengths of 'p o s i t i v e ' and 'negative' f e e l i n g . Positive f e e l i n g s include respect, l i k i n g , appreciation, a f f e c t i o n , and any other a f f e c t i v e l y adient response. ... Level of regard i s the general tendency (at a given time) of the various a f f e c t i v e reactions i n r e l a t i o n to another. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t may be considered the composite 'loading' of a l l the d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f e e l i n g reactions of one person toward another, p o s i t i v e and negative, on a single abstract dimension. "Unconditionality of Regard" i s explained as "the degree of constancy of regard f e l t by one person for another who communicates self-experience to the f i r s t " (p. 5 ) . "Congruence" i s explained as: The degree to which one person i s f u n c t i o n a l l y integrated i n the context of h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with another, such that there i s absence of c o n f l i c t or inconsistency between h i s t o t a l experience, h i s awareness, and h i s overt communication, i s h i s congruence i n this r e l a t i o n s h i p . ... In other words, the highly congruent i n d i v i d u a l i s completely honest, d i r e c t , and sincere i n what he conveys, but he does not f e e l any compulsion to communicate his perceptions, or any need to withhold them for emotionally s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e reasons. (pp. 5, 6) Since the instrument used i n the present study made use of some, but not a l l , items from each of the above scales, i t i s probable that the s p e c i f i c i t y described by Barrett-Lennard i s simply not obtainable i n t h i s case. However, i t seems highly l i k e l y that some of the construct content i s retained, at least enough to warrant describing the instrument as a measure of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p - probably measuring interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . 3 2 . A second measure of r e l a t i o n s h i p was a series of ten questions devised by the present author offe r i n g a number of hypothetical behavior and rea c t i o n choices to the subjects. Generally, the choices deal with the p o s s i b i l i t y of further i n t e r a c t i o n with the dyad partner; choices indic a t i n g a desire for further i n t e r a c t i o n are scored numerically higher than those i n d i c a t i n g l i t t l e desire for further i n t e r a c t i o n (see Appendix 4). Further, a l l subjects i n the PN and PI dyads were asked to indicate the qu a l i t y of the i r disclosures on yet another instrument developed by the present author from the Self-Disclosure Questionnaire of Jourard and Lasakow ( 1 9 5 8 ) (See Appendix 4 ) . Apparatus: The study was conducted i n a mobile research t r a i l e r , which appeared e s s e n t i a l l y the same as a house t r a i l e r of si m i l a r s i z e , but without windows. The inside dimensions of the experimental room' were eight feet by twelve fe e t . At the entrance to t h i s room and the room into which the subjects i n i t i a l l y entered, was a small ante-room with dimensions eight feet, by four feet. Connecting the two rooms was a door upon which the experimenter knocked as indicated i n the ins t r u c t i o n s to the subjects. Also connecting the two rooms was a large window which was covered with completely opaque material throughout the study. Within the experimental room, the subjects were seated on either side of a table measuring three feet by f i v e feet. Down the center of the table was placed a 24 inch high plywood b a r r i e r , barring the subjects' sight of each other. This sight b a r r i e r was placed to 33. i n s u r e t h a t n o n - v e r b a l cues c o u l d not be used under the 10 c o n d i t i o n . Behind the t a b l e a t w h i c h the s u b j e c t s were s e a t e d , and b a r r e d from t h e i r s i g h t by plywood b a r r i e r s , was an i d e n t i c a l t a b l e upon w h i c h the tape r e c o r d e r was p l a c e d (Ampex, Model 1100). Each s u b j e c t was p r o v i d e d w i t h an a s h t r a y and, of c o u r s e , a microphone l e a d i n g t o one t r a c k of the s t e r e o p h o n i c tape r e c o r d e r . The o v e r a l l placement of the appai'atus was a p p r o x i m a t e l y i n the c e n t e r of the e x p e r i m e n t a l room, w h i c h p l a c e d the s u b j e c t s somewhat toward the anteroom. In the anteroom, w i t h the c o n n e c t i n g door c l o s e d , i t was p o s s i b l e t o hear the v o i c e s of most s u b j e c t s , but the words c o u l d not be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . 34. Chapter V RESULTS Two separate measures of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n toward the dyad partner were obtained; one of the measures, devised by the present author, was a serie s ot ten hypothetical questions concerning possible future contact with the dyad partner. The other measure of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n was derived from the Relationship Inventory of Barrett-Lennard (1962). The ten hypothetical questions were scored on a three point scale i n d i c a t i n g no desire for any future contact (scored 0), undecided (scored 1), or some desire f o r future contact with the dyad partner (scored 2). The measure of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n derived from the Relationship Inventory was a series of twenty-eight statements i n d i c a t i n g a f f e c t i v e and i n t e r a c t i o n a l re-actions to the dyad partner. The subjects indicated degrees of agreement (scored +1 to +3) and disagreement (scored -1 to -3) with each statement. Scoring and Treatment of the Da ta: The ten hypothetical questions were scored as indicated above and i n Appendix 4, with a single score for each subject derived by summation over a l l ten questions. The means and standard deviations for each l e v e l of intimacy of information disclosed and a v a i l a b i l i t y of rea c t i o n are presented i n Table 2. 35. Table 2 Hypothetical Questions *Means and Standard Deviations A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction Information Only Information + Reaction Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Intimacy of Personal Intimate 15.35 2.04 16.00 2.73 Information Personal Non- 15.15 2.46 15.15 2.43 Intimate Disclosed Non-Intimate 15.60 2.04 16.00 1.75 * The possible range of scores was from 0 to 19, with higher scores i n d i c a t i n g greater desire for future contact with the dyad partner. Analysis of variance (Edwards, 1968) did not reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the various experimental groups for the scores on the hypothetical questions (see Appendix 5). The series of twenty-eight statements concerning a f f e c t i v e and i n t e r a c t i o n a l reactions toward the dyad partner was treated as a single score for each subject, derived by summation of the ratings of a l l twenty-eight statements with appropriate reversals of algebraic values depending on the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the p a r t i c u l a r item (items phrased p o s i t i v e l y were alternated with items phrased negatively i n an AB pattern). The means, standard deviations, and ranges for each l e v e l of intimacy of dis c l o s u r e and a v a i l a b i l i t y are presented i n Table 3. 36. Table 3 Relationship Inventory Measure Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction Information Only Information + Reaction *Mean S.D. Range Mean S.D. Range Intimacy of Personal Intimate 37.80 23.60 84.0 46.25 16.30 57.0 Information Personal Non- 29. 95 24.28 92. 0 41.00 18.58 67.0 Intimate Disclosed Non-Personal 17.10 20.87 75.0 36.50 14.60 61.0 * The possible range of scores was from -84 to +84, with higher po s i t i v e scores i n d i c a t i n g greater interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n toward the dyad partner; higher negative scores would indicate greater d i s l i k e for the dyad partner. Analysis of variance on these data revealed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s .for both the l e v e l of intimacy of the information disclosed and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of rea c t i o n to the disclosures. There was no e f f e c t for order of disclosure ( i . e . , which of the two dyad partners began d i s c l o s i n g f i r s t ) , and no s i g n i f i c a n t interactions were revealed by the a n a l y s i s . The source table for th i s analysis i s presented i n Table 4. 3 7 . Table 4 Source Table for Analysis of Variance for Relationship Inventory Measure Source SS df MS | F Total 56083. 467 119 i ! Intimacy Level (L) 4666. 117 2 ( 2333.058 J j * 5.675 Reaction A v a i l a b i l i t y (R) 5044. 033 1 5044.033 j *12.269 Order of Disclosure (0) 30. 000 1 i 30.000 j 0.073 L x R 654. 617 2 | 327.308 i i 0.796 L x 0 420. 350 2 1 210.175 | j 0.511 R x 0 9. 634 1 9.634 | 0.023 L x R x 0 858. 316 2 1 429.158 1 i 1.644 Error ; 44400. 516 108 411.116 | * P Coi As a means of determining s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s of the l e v e l of intimacy of information d i s c l o s e d , orthogonal comparisons (Edwards, 1968) of the data r e s u l t i n g from the varying levels of intimacy of information disclosed were computed. These r e s u l t s are present i n Table 5. The orthogonal comparisons reveal differences at the,.01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e between the personal intimate disclosures versus the combined scores for personal non-intimate and non-personal disclosures. 38. Differences between the personal non-intimate disclosures and non-personal d i s c l o s u r e s , however, resulted i n a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of only .10. Table 5 Orthogonal Comparisons of Relationship Inventory Data 3 Intimacy of Information Disclosed Mean Squares F PI PN NP Comparison +2 -1 -1 3161.004 *7.689 C o e f f i c i e n t s 0 +1 -1 .1505.113 , 3.661 p^.01 a: Error term of 411.116 (from table 4) used to calculate F values; df = 1 and 108. As there were only two a v a i l a b i l i t y of reaction groups, no ad d i t i o n a l s t a t i s t i c a l manipulations were performed to compare these means for s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s . Simple inspection reveals that the higher mean scores were obtained from the subjects for whom reactions of the dyad partner were most a v a i l a b l e . A questionnaire on which the subjects were asked to indicate the completeness, or lack thereof, of each of t h e i r disclosures was administered a f t e r the subjects had completed the two measures already discussed. The q u a l i t y of disc l o s u r e questionnaire was scored as a f i v e point r a t i n g s cale, with the highest score (4) representing the most complete dis c l o s u r e the subjects could manage i n the time allowed. The means and standard deviations f o r this measure are 39. presented i n Table 6 for the personal intimate and personal non-intimate groups under both conditions of a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e a c t i o n from the dyad partner. The questionnaire was not, of course, administ-ered to the subjects i n the dyads revealing standarized non-personal information since the experimental conditions allowed no v a r i a t i o n i n the q u a l i t y of d i s c l o s u r e . Table 6 Quality of Disclosure Questionnaire *Means and Standard Deviations A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction Information Only Information + Reaction Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Intimacy of Information Disclosed Personal Intimate Persona 1 Non-Intimate 17.20 3. 93 17. 95 2.98 16.06 3.55 17.25 3.04 * The possible range of scores was from 0 to 24, with higher scores representing more complete disclosure of information. Analysis of variance of these data revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences or inte r a c t i o n s between or among the various experimental groups. A f t e r completing the other measures, a l l subjects except those d i s c l o s i n g standardized non-personal information were asked to rate 40. the intimacy of the items of information they had disclosed. The averaged ratings of intimacy of disclosure items are presented in Table 7, along with the previous peer ratings of the same items. Mean ratings are presented for the personal intimate and personal non-intimate groups as a whole, as well as the mean ratings for each of the availability of reaction groups in each category. Table 7 Intimacy Ratings of Disclosure Items Disclosure Groups Disclosure Groups PI, IO PI ,IR : PI ' Peers PN PN ,10 i P N ,IR 1. 30 1 .45 1 .35 *1 29 1.50 1 .70 1 1 .30 1. 15 1 .20 1 . 18! i *1 31 1.25 1 .30 i l i .20 Intimate Non-Intimate 3. 05 3 .00 3 .02 3.74 1.42 1.30 1 .40 .20 3. 25 3 .85 3 .55 4.20 1.45 1. 72 1 .80 l .65 4. 00 4 . 10 4 .05 4.53 1.90 2.32 2 .20 2 .45 2. 90 3 .60 3 .23 4.22 1.94 2.60 i 2 . 95 2 .25 * Introductory Items, common to a l l disclosures groups. The possible range of ratings was from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater intimacy. PI = "personal intimate"; PN = "personal non-intimate"; 10 = "information only"; IR = "information + reaction". 41. Chapter VI Discussion of Results As was stated i n Chapter V (p. 34), the ten hypothetical questions concerning future contact with the dyad partner did not show any s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups either for intimacy of information disclosed or for a v a i l a b i l i t y of the reactions of the dyad partner to information d i s c l o s u r e s . This i s a somewhat puzzling finding inasmuch as the measure derived from the Relationship Inventory did reveal such differences (see below). Perhaps one explanation that might be considered i s that the content of the hypothetical questions was d i f f e r e n t from the content of the Relationship Inventory measure. The hypothetical questions were pr i m a r i l y concerned with a d d i t i o n a l or continuing i n t e r a c t i o n with the dyad partner, while the other measure asked primarily for the q u a l i t y of a f f e c t i v e reactions to the dyad,partner. It may also be possible that, while s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and reaction to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e may a f f e c t i n t e r -personal a t t r a c t i o n , there i s no concomitant e f f e c t on statements of behavioral intentions regarding future interactions with the person one has effected disclosure with and heard dis c l o s u r e from. While such an explanation may be p l a u s i b l e , i t seems somewhat un-l i k e l y ; interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n , for reward value alone, probably does influence interpersonal i n t e r a c t i o n s , though possibly not statements of plans for i n t e r a c t i o n . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the ten hypothetical questions, 4 2 . devised by the author and used for the f i r s t time i n the present study, were not a good measure of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . A l l scores, for a l l subjects, were p o s i t i v e . The maximum score was 19, of which several were obtained, and the minimum obtained score was 9, of which only one occurred. The means, as shown i n Table 2 ( p. 35), are a l l rather high and the standard deviations are r e l a t i v e l y small. It may w e l l be that this measure simply did not discriminate very well between highly interpersonally attracted dyads and those less a t t racted. The twenty-eight statement measure adapted from Barrett-Lennard 1s Relationship Inventory was probably a better measure of the i n t e r -personal a t t r a c t i o n within the dyads. The items for t h i s measure were well researched by Barrett-Lennard and were selected for discriminatory power. Also, there was allowed greater range i n the strength of rated agreement or disagreement. The obtained range of scores on this measure was quite wide, including some negative scores (-33 to +74 from a possible -84 to +84). At a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l , subjective comments of some of the subjects, occasionally written i n margins or verbalized to the author, were generally i n accord with the obtained scores for those subjects. S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y co-e f f i c i e n t s (Bruning & Kintz, 1968) were obtained for t h i s measure for each experimental group and are presented i n Table 8. As can be seen, the. c o e f f i c i e n t s are generally f a i r l y high, around .70, with the lowest being .41. This low c o r r e l a t i o n , a d d i t i o n a l l y , was for the group i n which the subjects read standardized statements to each other and were instructed not to react to the statements either they 43. or t h e i r partners read; i t seems l i k e l y that what was measured for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group was a somewhat d i f f u s e stereotype rather than reactions toward a s p e c i f i c other person. Table 8 S p l i t - H a l f R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s for Relationship Inventory Measure Intimacy of Information Disclosed A v a i l a b i l i t y of Reaction Information Only Information + Reaction Personal Intimate Persona 1 Non-Intimate N o n -Personal .6929 7592 .4113 7231 .6791 ,6853 On this measure, analysis of variance revealed differences between groups on both hypothesized factors.. The e f f e c t of experimental Instructions allowing reactions to di s c l o s u r e s i s apparent from the analysis of variance -- there i s greater interpersonal p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i f reactions are allowed. However, the e f f e c t of varying the intimacy l e v e l of the information d i s c l o s e d i s not quite so c l e a r . The orthogonal comparisons do reveal s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the e f f e c t s of d i s c l o s u r e of personal intimate information versus disclosure of personal non-intimate information and the reading of non-personal 44. standarized information, but the differences between the e f f e c t s of disc l o s u r e of personal non-intimate information and the reading of non-personal standarized information may have been obtained by chance. (The p r o b a b i l i t y that the obtained differences were not due to chance is only .90 rather the usually accepted .95). Given, however, the limited number of subjects (20) i n each c e l l of the design and the reaching of the .10 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e for the difference between the personal non-intimate and non-personal subject groups, i t seems quite possible that r e p l i c a t i o n of the task with larger groups of subjects might well reveal differences between the groups at the more conventionally accepted .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . It should also be noted that the magnitude of the mean scores on the Relationship Inventory measure for each group i s i n the hypothesized order (see Table 3, p. 36). A l l experimental subjects were asked to rate the intimacy of the items of information they disclosed a f t e r they had completed th e i r d i s c l o s u r e s , and the mean ratings are shown i n Table 7 (p.40). While the ratings of the experimental subjects are, thus, not comparab to the ratings of t h e i r peers, on the basis of which the items were selected for d i s c l o s u r e , inspection of Table 7 c l e a r l y indicates that the experimental subjects did perceive a difference between those disclosure items selected as being intimate versus those selected as being non-intimate„ While Table 7 also indicates that the experimental subjects rated the intimate items of disclosure as 45. less intimate than did t h e i r peers, and also rated the non-intimate items as more intimate than did their peers, i t could well be that t h e i r ratings of intimacy were heavily influenced by t h e i r already having disclosed the information c a l l e d for by the items. Perhaps, however, t h e i r ratings of intimacy r e f l e c t e d the subjective q u a l i t y of their d isclosures i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n more than the previously rated intimacy value of the disclosure items i n a non-experimental s i t u a t i o n . If that e f f e c t did obtain, i t could be considered that the intimate/non-intimate difference was not as great as had been planned. The notion i s , however, not supported by the scores on the q u a l i t y of disclosure questionnaire administered immediately af t e r the Relationship Inventory measure. The q u a l i t y of disclosure questionnaire, analysed for a l l s i x items disclosed and for the four experimental items only ( i . e . , excluding the two introductory items common to a l l personal disclosure groups), showed no differences between either the personal intimate versus personal non-intimate disclosure subjects or between the subjects i n the two a v a i l a b i l i t y of re a c t i o n groups. The highest possible score on the q u a l i t y of disc l o s u r e questionnaire, considering a l l s i x items, was 24 and the mean scores for a l l personal disclosure groups were near or above 17. This would seem to suggest that a l l personal disclosure subjects revealed i n a r e l a t i v e l y complete fashion the information c a l l e d for by the disclosure items. The use of the tape recorder during the experimental sessions was intended p r i m a r i l y as a strategy for coercing the subjects i n t o 46. following the experimental i n s t r u c t i o n s as given rather than having a g i r l - t o - g i r l chat with the di s c l o s u r e material serving as a convenient s t a r t i n g point. In f a c t , the tape recorder was defective and operated (or did not operate) rather e r r a t i c a l l y ; this was not, however, known to the subjects (or, i n i t i a l l y , to the experimenter!). Due to the unpredictable performance of the tape recorder, complete tapes of allexperimenta1 sessions were not av a i l a b l e . However, at least four complete tapes were av a i l a b l e for each experimental group, and the f i r s t four complete tapes for each group were systematically monitored by the author. Each monitored tape was scored for whether or not the c a l l e d for information was a c t u a l l y disclosed and whether or not any a d d i t i o n a l information was disclosed as w e l l . If ad d i t i o n a l information was di s c l o s e d , i t was rated as to whether or not i t was of greater intimacy value than that of the information c a l l e d for. Further, each monitored tape was scored for reactions given and the q u a l i t y of any reactions ( p o s i t i v e , n e u t r a l , or negative). Of the four tapes monitored from each group, only the dyads g i v i n g non-personal information and the dyads d i s l o s i n g personal intimate information without reaction followed the disc l o s u r e i n s t r u c t i o n s exactly. One subject i n the personal intimate/information plus r e a c t i o n group disclosed personal b i r t h control information, which was scored as less intimate than the information c a l l e d for i n any case. In the personal non-intimate dyads, two subjects i n the information only category and three subjects i n the information plus r e a c t i o n category introduced a d d i t i o n a l information; i n four cases the addi t i o n a l information was 4 7 . r e l a t e d to drug use and the other subject related a h i s t o r y of obesity. A l l of t h i s a d d i t i o n a l information was scored as more intimate than the information c a l l e d f o r . A l l subjects monitored followed the reaction i n s t r u c t i o n s , though a l l but one used such terms as "I agree,"or "I l i k e that too," rather than the v e r b a l i z a t i o n s suggested. One subject, i n the personal non-intimate/information plus reaction group gave f i v e s p e c i f i c a l l y negative reactions and one neutral reaction; her partner gave only two negative reactions and one neutral reaction. Other than the exceptions mentioned, a l l reactions given were scored as p o s i t i v e . No dyads instructed to not react gaye s p e c i f i c reactions. In addition to the s p e c i f i c reactions given, a l l personal disclosure dyads i n both a v a i l a b i l i t y of reaction categories gave occasional verbal encouragement sounds such as "Hmm", "uh-huh," and "yeah"; these were not scored as reactions but were noticeably not present in the dyads giving non-personal information. Due to an experimental design oversight on the part of the author, the experimental tapes were t r u l y anonymous and i t was not possible to connect a s p e c i f i c tape to a s p e c i f i c dyad's scores. However, the tapes available do provide some s l i g h t , and quite equivocal, evidence that the personal non-intimate dyads may have gone somewhat beyond the experimental in s t r u c t i o n s and introduced inform-a t i o n closer to that c a l l e d for i n the personal intimate dyads. 48. Chapter VII Discussion and Conclusions Of the two measures of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n used, the data from one of them indicates no e f f e c t s from the experimental manipulations of the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n s . The other measure yielded data which were predicted quite well by the two experimental hypotheses (pp. 18-20). The content of the measure showing no e f f e c t s was p r i m a r i l y hypothetical future or continuing interactions with the dyad partner, while the Relationship Inventory measure was aimed pri m a r i l y at current a f f e c t i v e reactions to and evaluations of the dyad partner. Of the two measures, the content of the Relationship Inventory measure would seem to be more appropriate to the content of the experimental hypotheses. Other possible reasons for preferring the Relationship Inventory measure have already been discussed in Chapter VI (p. 41). In any case, i t seems reasonable to confine the present d i s c u s s i o n to the content of the Relationship Inventory measure and to suggest that behavioral interactions of the sort with which the ten hypothetical questions were concerned may have been quite unaffected by the various experimental manipulations. One of the more obvious l i m i t a t i o n s of the present study i s i t s severely limited g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y ; a l l subjects were young female undergraduate students enrolled i n a single Canadian University. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the subjects interacted only with females. While Uni v e r s i t y students are very probably not representative of the 49. general population, the present study i s even further limited i n the firm conclusions that can be drawn from i t i n that only one sex of u n i v e r s i t y students were used as subjects and they interacted with only one sex. An i d e a l design would have included both sexes i n t e r -acting with both sexes. However, due to the varying intimacy levels of the information disclosed and the complicated patterns of sexual i n t e r a c t i o n i n our culture, such an i d e a l design would have been beyond the f e a s i b i l i t y l i m i t s of the present study. It i s hoped that future studies can include more of the requirements for g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to larger populations. Another l i m i t a t i o n of the present study i s the s p e c i f i c s e l f -d isclosure i n t e r a c t i o n . A l l interactions were mutual, with both partners d i s c l o s i n g the same or s i m i l a r information and either both partners reacting to each disc l o s u r e of t h e i r partner or neither of them reacting at a l l . It i s possible that quite d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s may have been obtained i f only one dyad partner had been d i s c l o s i n g , or only one partner reacting to d i s c l o s u r e s . The i n t e r a c t i o n used does, however, seem to be the sort of i n t e r a c t i o n that probably most often occurs i n natural interactions between young females. Perhaps, the most s t r i k i n g f i n d i n g of this study i s the strong differences i n the a f f e c t i v e reactions established between young female strangers when they are or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , are not instructed to provide s p e c i f i c verbal reactions to each other's s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i n a dyadic s i t u a t i o n . The giving of personal reactions, even to the 50. reading of completely impersonal quotations, apparently resulted i n markedly more p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s towards each other on the part of the dyad partners than the f e e l i n g s generated i n the dyads for which no such reactions were a v a i l a b l e . This f i n d i n g seems to lend strong support to the idea that the target person's reactions to s e l f -d isclosures enhances the development of f e e l i n g s of p o s i t i v e regard for the target person. It should, however, be noted that the reactions a c t u a l l y given were generally p o s i t i v e or favorable (see P. 47 ) • It may well be, and should probably be investigated i n future studies, that p o s i t i v e reactions lead to positive f e e l i n g s and negative fee l i n g s r e s u l t from negative reactions to disclosures. In t h i s respect, there was considerable v a r i a t i o n i n the scores of the Relationship Inventory measure, with some subjects i n d i c a t i n g negative f e e l i n g s toward the dyad partner. A l l of the negative scores, however, occurred i n the dyads for which reactions were not a v a i l a b l e . Such data suggest that the q u a l i t y of reactions to disclosures may not be as important to the q u a l i t y of the a f f e c t i v e reactions developed as i s the simple a v a i l a b i l i t y of reactions to s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e whatever the q u a l i t y of such reactions may be. Since, however, most of the reactions a c t u a l l y given were apparently p o s i t i v e or favorable, the data a v a i l a b l e from the present study are not d e f i n i t i v e . While the importance of the target person's reactions to s e l f -d i sclosures i n a dyadic s i t u a t i o n is f a i r l y clear from the data obtained, the importance of the r e l a t i v e intimacy of the information 51. d i s c l o s e d to the development of p o s i t i v e interpersonal a f f e c t i s not quite so c l e a r . Though the data are as predicted by the f i r s t experi-mental hypothesis (p. 19), the s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s analyses of the data seem to indicate that the major differences i n the interpersonal a f f e c t developed may l i e in the differences between d e l i v e r i n g standarized and impersonal information versus d i s c l o s i n g personal information of any q u a l i t y . However, "intimacy" was defined i n the present study as the r e l a t i v e ease or d i f f i c u l t y of disclosure to strangers versus frien d s . Surely, i t i s easier to d e l i v e r impersonal information to strangers than to d i s c l o s e any sort of personal information. Thus, i t may be reasonably argued that intimacy, as defined here, has an important influence on interpersonal a f f e c t i v e reactions developed i n a dyadic s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i t u a t i o n . Given the r e s u l t s of the present study, i t would seem to be of some importance to f i n d out whether or not the a f f e c t i v e reactions developed have behavioral concommitants. This i s not indicated by the subjects' reactions to the ten hypothetical questions concerning future i n t e r a c t i o n s with the dyad partner, but i t should be remembered that the scores on the hypothetical questions generally indicated a willingness or desire for further i n t e r a c t i o n no matter what the scores on the Relationship Inventory measure. It seems l i k e l y that the subjects would be more prone to engage i n or avoid some forms of interactions according to the q u a l i t y of a f f e c t i v e reactions to each other, but the nature of such di s c r i m i n a t i n g interactions i s presently unknown. In any case, the nature of such interactions may well vary 5 2 . according to age, sex, or other variables which were not investigated i n the present study. Even though the present study i s of limited g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y , i t would appear to suggest that, within the population of which the subjects were representative, people tend generally to l i k e each other better the more they know about each other. Just possibly, the same e f f e c t would hold for other populations. Such an i n t r i g u i n g p o s s i b i l i t y seems well worth further research. 53. Chapter VIII REFERENCES Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. , & Sanford, R. N. The a u t h o r i t a r i a n personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Aronson, E., &Worchel, P. S i m i l a r i t y versus l i k i n g as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5_, 157-158. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of .therapist response as causal factors i n therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76 (Whole No. 562). Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K.D. (Eds.) T-group theory  and laboratory method: Innovation in re-education. New York, Wiley, 1964. Bruning, J. L., & Kinte, B. L. Computational handbook of s t a t i s t i c s . Glenview, I l l i n o i s , Scott, Foresman, 1968. Byrne, D. Interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n and attitu d e s i m i l a r i t y . Journal  of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 62_, 713-715. Byrne, D., Clore, G. L. J r . , & G r i f f i t t , W. Response discrepancy versus a t t i t u d e s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y as determinants of a t t r a c t i o n . Psychonomic Science, 1967, ]_, 397-398. Drag, Lee R. Experimenter-subject i n t e r a c t i o n : a s i t u a t i o n a l determinant of d i f f e r e n t i a l levels of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Unpublished M.A. thes i s , University of F l o r i d a , 1968. Cited i n S. M. Jourard "Project r e p l i c a t i o n ; experimenter-subject acquaintance and outcome i n psychological research." Mineograph, 1968, p r i v a t e l y d i s t r i b u t e d by author. Edwards, A. L. Experimental design i n psychological research. New York, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968. Goffman, E. The presentation of s e l f i n everyday l i f e . Garden C i t y , New York: Doubleday, 1959. Gouldner, A. W. The norm of r e c i p r o c i t y : a preliminary statement. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1960, 25_, 161-178. Halverson, C. F., J r . , & Shore, R. E. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and interpersonal functioning. Journal of C l i n i c a l and Consulting Psychology, 1969, 33, 213-217. 5 4 . Homans, G. C. The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950. Homans, G. C. So c i a l behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1961. Jourard, S. M. Se l f - D i s c l o s u r e : An experimental analysis of. the  transparent s e l f . New York: Wiley, 1971. Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. Some factors i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of Abnormal and So c i a l Psychology, 1958, 5_6, 91-98. Jourard, S. M. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and other-cathexis. Journal of  Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1959, 59, 428-431. Lefkowitz, M. B. The role of seIf-disclosure and physical a t t r a c t i v e -ness i n person-perception: A hypothetical f i r s t date s i t u a t i o n . Paper presented at Southeastern Psychological Association, 1970. Newcomb, T. M. The pr e d i c t i o n of interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n . The  American Psychologist, 1956, 11_, 575-587. Rogers, C. R. The process of the basic encounter group. In J. F. T. Bugental (Ed.) Challenges of humanistic psychology, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967. Taylor, D. A. Some aspects of the development of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s : S o c i a l penetration processes. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Delaware, 1965. Thibaut, J. W. , 6c Kelley, H. H. The s o c i a l psychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. Tuckman, B. W. Interpersonal probing and revealing and systems of integrative complexity. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1966, 6, 655-664. Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology, 1969, 13, 59-63. 5 5 . Chapter IX Appendices Appendix 1 PERSONAL INFORMATION INVENTORY Tastes and Interests My f a v o r i t e foods, the way I like' food prepared, and my food d i s l i k e s . My l i k e s and d i s l i k e s i n music; my f a v o r i t e songs and musical performers. The kinds of movies I l i k e to see, and the sort of movie I avoid seeing. My f a v o r i t e TV shows, and those I don't l i k e . The kinds of clothes I f e e l most comfortable wearing. The kind of party or s o c i a l gathering that I l i k e best, and the sort that would bore me, or that I wouldn't enjoy. Morals and Values What I think and f e e l about r e l i g i o n ; my personal r e l i g i o u s views, and my attitudes toward r e l i g i o u s groups other than my own, e.g., Catholics, Jews, Protestants, a t h e i s t s , etc. My feeli n g s about i l l e g a r drug use (other than alcohol); whether or not I have ever used or ever would use drugs i l l e g a l l y (marijuana, methedrine, etc.) The things I regard as desirable for a man to be, and that which I regard as desirable for a woman to be -- what I look for i n a man, and i n a woman. My personal views on sexual morality -- how I f e e l that I and others ought to act i n sexual matters. My personal views on human nature; whether I generally l i k e or d i s l i k e people, whether I think people are e s s e n t i a l l y good or bad, or neither. 56. 6. My views on the present government--the Prime Minister (or Premier), government p o l i c i e s , etc., and the p o l i t i c a l party I am most i n sympathy with. III . Body and Physical Appearance 1. My present physical measurements; height, weight, waist, etc. 2. Problems and/or worries I have had with my physical appearance i n the past. 3. Whether or not I now have a n y h e a l t h problems, e.g., trouble with sleep or dig e s t i o n , female complaints, a l l e r g i e s , head-aches, p i l e s , etc. 4. Those things about my physical appearance that I l i k e and think others l i k e . 5. Those things about my physical appearance that I d i s l i k e and think others d i s l i k e 6. How I wish I looked and my feeli n g s about how I do look; my ideals for o v e r a l l appearance and how c l o s e l y I think I match them. IV. G u i l t 1. That which I f e e l most ashamed of i n my past. 2. The most embarassing s i t u a t i o n I have ever been i n . 3. My worst f a i l u r e or unkept commitment. 4. That which I would least l i k e my friends to know about me. 5. The most serious l i e I have ever t o l d . 6. That which I would least l i k e my parents to know about me. V. Academic L i f e and Career 1. How I r e a l l y f e e l about other people i n my classes. 2. How I f e e l about the choice ot classes or major I have made -- how s a t i s f i e d I am, other choices I seriously considered. 3. My ambitions and goals for my education. 57. What I f e e l are my sp e c i a l strong points and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for my p a r t i c u l a r classes or major. What I f e e l are my shortcomings and handicaps that prevent me from working as I'd l i k e to, or that prevent me from getting ahead as I'd l i k e to. What I fi n d to be the worst pressures and st r a i n s of academic l i f e . Sex Whether I do now or have ever practiced masturbation; i f so, how often and how I f e e l about doing so. Those of my features or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which I f e e l are most a t t r a c t i v e to the opposite sex. Those of my features or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which I f e e l are least a t t r a c t i v e to the opposite sex. Whether I do now engage, ever have or ever would consider engaging i n premarital or extramarital sexual intercourse; i f so, with whom and my present feelings about the person or persons. My feeli n g s about my adequacy i n sexual behavior - whether or not I f e e l able to perform adequately i n sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Whether I do now engage, ever have or ever would consider engaging i n homosexual a c t i v i t i e s ; i f so, with whom and my present fee l i n g s about the person or persons. Personality and Feelings The kinds of things that make me r e a l l y angry. The subject of my most frequent daydreams and the kind of day-dreams I have about that subject. Those aspects of my personality that I am pleased with -- that I am glad to have as part of my personality. What i t takes to hurt my feeli n g s deeply, or what i t takes to make me r e a l l y depressed or.blue. Those aspects of my personality that I d i s l i k e or worry about --that I regard as a handicap to me. The sort of things that make me r e a l l y worried, anxious and a f r a i d . 58. Appendix 2 Intimacy Rating Scale Instructions For experimental purposes, please rate each of the items below according to the degree to which you, personally, f e e l the item i s or is not intimate. Using the scale below, choose one of the f i v e s tate-ments and write the number of the statement, i n the space provided, by the item you are r a t i n g . Also please indicate your sex and age. Your co-operation i s appreciated. Age: Sex: •  5.: Very intimate - I would give t h i s information to very few people. 4.: Intimate - I would give this information only to my close frie n d s . 3 . : Personal - I wouldn't give t h i s information to just anybody, but I wouldn't mind t e l l i n g any of my friends. 2 . : Not intimate - I would give t h i s information to most people i f they were interested. 1.: Not at a l l intimate - I wouldn't mind t e l l i n g t h i s information to anybody. Appendix 3 Non-Personal Disclosure Items We are said to be a society dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of truth. Yet, disclosure of the truth, the truth of one's being, is often penalized. Impossible concepts of how man ought to be ... make man so ashamed of his true being that he feels obliged to seem different, i f for no other reason than to protect his job. S. Jourard Probably the "tyranny of the should" is a factor which keeps man from making himself known as he is. Yet, when a man does not acknowledge to himself, who, what and how he is, he is out of touch with reality and he will sicken and die; and no one can help him without access to the facts. S. Jourard The widely held fears that pot and LSD would create a mass-withdrawal from society and reality have proven groundless. The vast majority of psychedelic users haven't dropped out and gone to live among the trees and most of those who actually did have come back. Those who fear change would better spend their time trying to stamp out television and education and travel ... J. L. Simmons Marijuana isn't a poison and it isn't a magic elixir. It's an intoxicant. As an intoxicant, pot seems preferable from a medical and social standpoint; no hangovers, li t t l e or no physical damage even with excessive use, far less befuddling of perceptions and actions. But it is an intoxicant. J. L. Simmons We have an excellent vocabulary for technical subjects ...; almost every man can name the parts of an automobile engine clearly and definitely. But when i t comes to meaningful interpersonal relations, our language is lost; we stumble, and are practically as isolated as deaf and dumb people who can only communicate in sign language. R. May I believe it could be shown in researches ... that when a cultur is in its historical phase of growing toward unity, its language reflects the unity and power whereas when a culture is in the process of change, dispersal and disintegration, the language likewise loses its power. R. May 60. Man's being can be seen from d i f f e r e n t points of view and one or other aspect can be made the focus of study. In p a r t i c u l a r , man can be seen as person or thing. Now, even the same thing, seen from d i f f e r e n t points of view, gives r i s e to two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t d e s c r i p t i o n s , and the descriptions give r i s e to two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t theories, and the theories r e s u l t i n two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t sets of action. R. D. Laing Now, i f you are s i t t i n g opposite me, I can see you as another person l i k e myself; without you changing or doing anything d i f f e r e n t l y , I can see you now as a complex physical-chemical system, perhaps with i t s own idiosyncrasies., but chemical none the less for that; seen i n th i s way, you are no longer a person but an organism. R. D. Laing Every society i s conservative. Change i n the s o c i a l order i s r e s i s t e d , often with brute force by those with the most p r i v i l e g e and freedom. ... The en t i r e i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure of society i s devoted to t r a i n i n g people to conform to those ways that w i l l keep the economic and p o l i t i c a l system i n i t s present form. S. Jourard The family begins a s o c i a l i z a t i o n process, shaping c h i l d r e n to the h a b i t s , values, and b e l i e f s that w i l l make the c h i l d " f i t " . The school system, far from educating, i s a c t u a l l y an a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n , d i r e c t i n g people i n the ways i n which they must go, else they w i l l not reach minimally p r i v i l e g e d status. S. Jourard A curious thing has happened. Unlike the majority of the i r predecessors for the century and a h a l f , most of our contemporary s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s are not interested i n fundamental s o c i a l . change. To them, we have apparently reached the summit of i n s t i t u t i o n a l progress,and i t only remains for the s o c i o l o g i s t s and applied-anthropologists to mop up the corners and iron out the kinks. P. Goodman Our s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have become so accustomed to the highly organized and by-and-large smoothly running society that they think that " s o c i a l animal" means "harmoniously belonging." They do not l i k e to think that f i g h t i n g and dissenting are proper s o c i a l functions, nor that r e b e l l i n g or i n i t i a t i n g fundamental change i s a s o c i a l function. Rather, i f something does not run smoothly, they say i t has been improperly s o c i a l i z e d ; there has been a f a i l u r e i n communication. P. Goodman 61. Appendix 4 Dependent Measures In answering the following questions, please be sure to check only one answer to each question and to answer every question. Your answers w i l l be considered c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l not be shown to your partner. 1. In sorting out your own reactions to t h i s experiment, would you prefer to think about i t by yourself? talk i t over with your partner? ta l k i t over with the experimenter? 2. If you both had the time and your partner was interested i n doing so, would you l i k e to continue the experimental dialogue further? _____ yes undecided no In thinking of things about yourself you would not want to t e l l your partner, do you find there are very few? some, but not too many? quite a few? Do you f e e l that your experience i n this experiment was boring or worthless to you? i n t e r e s t i n g , worthwhile or enjoyable? unenjoyable, frightening or harmful to you? 62. Would i t be a disagreeable surprise to meet your partner at a party some time a f t e r this experiment? yes . no don't know If you were to meet your partner on campus some time a f t e r this experiment, would you f e e l embarassed i f she began discussing with you the things you have said during t h i s experiment? yes . maybe no If you both had the,time, would you l i k e to discuss t h i s experiment with your partner r i g h t now? yes no don't care either way D o you think you would enjoy t a l k i n g to your partner over a cup of coffee from time to time? yes perhaps no Another experiment s i m i l a r to this one i s planned for la t e r t h i s year; would you be w i l l i n g to pa r t i c i p a t e i n i t ? yes undecided no 63. If your answer i s "yes," please indicate below the times you would be able to p a r t i c i p a t e . (1 hour of time required). S t a r t i n g Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 • " 3:30 •' 4:30 Please a l s o indicate whether you would prefer to be paired with the same or d i f f e r e n t partner. . same partner d i f f e r e n t partner 64. Below are l i s t e d a v a r i e t y of ways that one person may f e e l or react i n r e l a t i o n to another person. Please consider each statement with reference to your present r e l a t i o n -ship with your partner i n this experiment. Mark each statement i n the l e f t margin, according to how strongly you f e e l that i t i s true or not true i n this r e l a t i o n s h i p . Please mark  every one. Write in +3, +2, +1, or -1, -2, -3 to stand for the following answers: +3: Yes, I strongly f e e l that -1: No, I f e e l that i t i s i t i s true. probably untrue, or more untrue than true. +2: Yes, I f e e l that i t is true -2: No, I f e e l i t i s not true. +1: Yes, I f e e l that i t i s -3: No, I strongly f e e l that probably true, or more i t i s not true. true than untrue. 1. I respect her as a person. 2. I am i n c l i n e d to put on a ro l e or front with her. 3. I r e a l l y l i k e her. 4. It bothers me when she t r i e s to talk about c e r t a i n things. 5. I appreciate her as a person. 6. I would r e a l l y prefer her to think I l i k e her even though I don't. 7. I f e e l f r i e n d l y and warm toward her. 8. There are times when what I a c t u a l l y say to her i s quite d i f f e r e n t from what I am thinking underneath. 9. I am t r u l y interested i n her. 10. What I say to her often would give a wrong impression of my f u l l thought at the time. 11. I f e e l at ease with her. 65. 12. I f i n d her rather d u l l and uninteresting. 13. I f e e l that I am a r e a l and genuine person with her. 14. I do f e e l disapproval of her. 15. I am able to be sincere and straightforward with her i n whatever I express. 16. I don't l i k e her as a person. 17. I f e e l comfortable to express whatever i s i n my mind with her. 18. Somehow, she i r r i t a t e s me. 19. I can be quite openly myself in our r e l a t i o n s h i p . 20. At times I f e e l contempt for her. 21. My f e e l i n g toward her stays about the same; I am not i n sympathy with her at one time and then displeased with her at another time. 22. The i n t e r e s t I f e e l i n her depends on the things she says. 23. My l i k i n g or d i s l i k i n g of her i s not al t e r e d by.anything she says about h e r s e l f . 24. ' I l i k e her i n some ways, while there are other things about her I do not l i k e . 25. Whether she i s expressing "good" thoughts and fee l i n g s or "bad" ones does not a f f e c t my r e a c t i o n to her. 26. Sometimes she seems to me a more worthwhile person than she does at other times. 27. I don't think anything she says r e a l l y a l t e r s the way I f e e l towards her. 28. I f e e l quite pleased with some things she says, and then she disappoints me at other times. 6 6 . The purpose of this part of the experiment i s to ask you about the kind of information you revealed to your partner i n t h i s experiment. Below these i n s t r u c t i o n s you w i l l f i n d numbers for each item of information you revealed and several columns of blank spaces. For each item of personal information you revealed, please indicate the kind of information you gave your partner by checking the appropriate column, according to the explanation below bf the column headings. Please make only one check mark for each item and be sure to check every item. This information w i l l not be given to your partner, and you w i l l not be asked to explain any further I+D: A l l the important things plus most of the d e t a i l s . I-T: Most of the important things minus some of the more t r i v i a l d e t a i l s . I-I: Some of the important things, but not a l l of them. T-I: Mostly t r i v i a l d e t a i l s without any r e a l l y important information. M: Mainly a misrepresentation. Item No.: I+D I-T I-I T-I M 1. 2. 3. 4. Appendix 5 Source Table for Analysis of Variance for the Ten Hypothetical Questions Source ss df MS , *F Total 669.7917 119 Intimacy Level (L) 9.5167 2 4 7584 1.4806 Reaction A v a i l a b i l i t y (R) 3.6750 1 3 6750 0.5717 Order of Disclosure (6) 0.0084 1 0 0084 0.0013 L x R 2.1500 2 1. 0750 0.1672 L x 0 12.7166 2 6. 3583 0.9892 R x 0 1.8750 1 1. 8750 0.2917 L x R x 0 16.3500 2 8. 1750 1.2718 Error 623.5000 108 6. 42/8 * A l l F values non-significant 

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.831.1-0101440/manifest

Comment

Related Items