University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure

(USC Thesis Other)

The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY AND THREAT
ON SELF-DISCLOSURE
by
Kathleen Harris Fritchey
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
August 1970
71-2522
FRITCHEY, Kathleen Harris, 1941-
THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY AND THREAT ON SELF
DISCLOSURE.
University of Southern California, Ph.D.,
1970
Psychology, clinical
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Kathleen Harris Fritchey
under the direction of h.&JZ.. Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D ate August,1970
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
To Teo and Krista
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman of my dissertation committee, Dr. L. Douglas
DeNike, and to the other members. Dr. Henry Slucki and
Dr. Albert Marston, for their guidance and encouragement.
I am grateful to the Counseling Center staff at
San Fernando Valley State College for their indispen
sable cooperation throughout all phases of this research.
Special thanks are due to Dr. F. Harold Giedt, who served
as a member of my guidance committee, and to Eleanor
Rowland, whose typing considerably reduced the amount of
time spent in the preparation of this manuscript.
Finally, I would like to thank Janet Vaga and
R. Boris Greenberg for rating the experimental tapes
and Sharron Sue Haber and Dr. Richard Smith for their
;suggestions and aid in matters relating to the statistical
;analyses.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION........................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................. iii
LIST OF T A B L E S ................................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION............................. 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............... 7
I. Research in Self-Disclosure
Demographic variables
Personal factors in disclosure
Informational properties
Role of the receiver
Other factors which facilitate
disclosure
Goals furthered by self-disclosure
Summary
II. Research Regarding Anxiety and
Performance
III. METHOD 39
The Orientation of the Study to Self-
Disclosure
Subjects
Design
Experimenter
Experimental Task and Apparatus
Procedure
Threat Condition
Nonthreat Condition
iv
Chapter
Page
IV. RESULTS...................................... 50
Credibility of Experimental
Manipulations
Treatment of Data
Analysis of Self-Disclosure Scores
Disclosure Responses by Question
Analysis of Subjective Reactions
Extreme Disclosure Groups
Effect of the Covariate
V. DISCUSSION................................. 73
Effectiveness of the Threat
Manipulation
The Experiment as a Test of the Theory
Implications for Future Research
VI. SUMMARY............................ 83
APPENDICES.......................................... 86
Appendix A— Content of the Programmed
Interview Tape
Appendix B— Additional Tables
Appendix C— Raw Data
REFERENCES............................................ 110
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Analysis of Covariance of Disclosure
Amount Scores............. 54
2. Analysis of Covariance of Disclosure
Intimacy Scores............................. 56
3. Intercorrelation Between Intimacy Scores
for Each Question........................... 59
4. Mean Intimacy Scores for All Subjects on
Each Question............................... 60
5. Analysis of Variance of intimacy Scores
by Question................................. 61
6. Analysis of Variance of Amount Scores
by Question ............................... 62
7. Number of Positive, Negative, and Neutral
Evaluations of the Experimental Task
Made by High Anxious, Moderately Anxious,
and Low Anxious Subjects ............... 64
8. Number of Positive, Negative, and Neutral
Evaluations of the Experimental Task
Made by Threat and Nonthreat Subjects . . . 64
9. Number of Very High and Very Low Dis-
closers Among the 90 High Anxious,
Moderately Anxious, and Low Anxious
Subjects................................... 66
10. Number of Very High and Very Low Dis-
closers Among the 90 Threat and
Nonthreat Subjects ........................ 66
vi
Table Page
11. Analysis of Variance of Disclosure
intimacy Scores................. 68
12. Analysis of Variance of Disclosure
Amount Scores ............................... 70
13. Analysis of Variance of Mean Disclosure
Intimacy Scores (All Questions) ......... 92
14. Analysis of Variance of Mean Disclosure
Amount Scores (All Questions) ........... 92
15. Analysis of Covariance Using Combined
Amount Scores as the Covariate for
Combined intimacy Scores .................. 93
16. Raw Data: Subject Numbers, "Talk" Ratings,
Anxiety Scores, and Assignment to
Condition................................... 95
17. Raw Data: Mean Intimacy Scores for Each
Low Anxious Nonthreat Subject ............. 98
18. Raw Data: Mean Amount Scores for Each
Low Anxious Nonthreat Subject ............. 99
19. Raw Data: Mean Intimacy Scores for Each
Low Anxious Threat Subject ................ 100
20. Raw Data: Mean Amount Scores for Each
Low Anxious Threat Subject.............. 101
21. Raw Data: Mean Intimacy Scores for Each
Moderately Anxious Nonthreat Subject . . . 102
22. Raw Data: Mean Amount Scores for Each
Moderately Anxious Nonthreat Subject . . . 103
23. Raw Data: Mean Intimacy Scores for Each
Moderately Anxious Threat Subject ........ 104
vii
Table Page
24. Raw Data: Mean Amount Scores for Each
Moderately Anxious Threat Subject ......... 105
25. Raw Data: Mean Intimacy Scores for Each
High Anxious Nonthreat Subject........... 106
26. Raw Data: Mean Amount Scores for Each
High Anxious Nonthreat Subject ......... 107
27. Raw Data: Mean Intimacy Scores for Each
High Anxious Threat Subject ............... 108
28. Raw Data: Mean Amount Scores for Each
High Anxious Threat Subject............... 109
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Although self-disclosure is an important variable
in many theoretical and applied systems of psychology, it
has received relatively little attention. Experimental
investigations of self-disclosure are manifestly relevant
i to studies of the process of communication and to most of
i interpersonal psychology. The identification of person-
iality variables relevant to disclosure and situational
factors which facilitate or impede expressions of self
disclosure have direct implications for psychotherapists,
law-enforcement agencies, and personnel departments, yet
'experimental work in this area is still in the early
j stages.
I Investigations of self-disclosure thus far have
i
|tended to emphasize the development of reliable measuring
jtechniques. They have been largely concerned with the
|establishment of relationships between measures of self-
jdisclosure and demographic characteristics, group
i
! 1
characteristics, or personality traits. In such research,
self-disclosure is typically assessed through the use of
questionnaires in which individuals are requested merely
to rate the extent of their past disclosure to given
figures in their environment, e.g., "mother," "female
friend." While such studies are important, more work ap
pears needed in which actual verbal self-disclosure
I behavior is observed in relation to both personality and
;situational variables which may affect it.
Since many self-disclosure situations are inher-
iently stressful, an individual's basic anxiety level and
the degree of threat he perceives in the self-disclosure
situation probably represent important influences on the
level of openness he will exhibit. This study is concerned
with the effect of these variables on self-disclosure.
;Specifically, it attempts to investigate the effects of
'threat on elicited self-disclosure in subjects who differ
:in anxiety level as defined by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
!Scale (Taylor, 1953).
Within the framework of Hull-Spence drive theory
(Taylor, 1956) anxiety contributes to drive state, which
I in turn influences performance. Higher anxiety, and thus
higher drive, usually leads to superior performance, but
'under certain conditions (e.g., stress) low anxious sub
jects typically perform at a higher level than do high
;anxious subjects. The "performance" with which this study
is concerned is, of course, self-disclosure. The assump
tion is made that oral self-disclosure is comparable to
standard learning competence tasks (motor tasks, memory
'tasks, verbal conditioning, etc.) usually employed when the
I
j interaction between anxiety level and performance is under
I
s
|investigation. Although more difficult to measure, oral
!
I
j selft-disclosure as defined by this study is a learned,
j
iconscious response, affected by variables (e.g., reinforce-
Iment) similar to those which affect the emission of the
I
• complex learned responses which have been more typically
lstudied.
i
| Subject anxiety levels will be assessed through
j
i
!the use of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. Spielberger
j
(1966), citing as evidence the factor-analytic investiga
tions of Cattell and Scheier (1958; 1961) differentiates
between "state anxiety" and "trait anxiety." Anxiety-
!
|states tend to be transitory, are characterized by
J
|subjective, consciously perceived feelings of apprehension
and tension, and are usually accompanied by subject-
specific autonomic reactions. Anxiety-traits, on the other
hand, describe stable personality characteristics reflec
ting anxiety-proneness, or a disposition to perceive
certain types of situations as dangerous and to respond
to them with anxiety states.
Spielberger holds that scales such as the Taylor
;(1953) Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) can be used to assess
A-trait, so that performance differences between subjects
[differing in anxiety level can be compared. Findings
;suggest that subjects with high MAS scores are not chron
ically more anxious or emotionally responsive, but that
they react with higher anxiety levels in situations which
contain some degree of stress (e.g., Spence, 1964;
Spielberger and Smith, 1966).
Additional support for this notion is provided by
[recent verbal conditioning studies. Spielberger, DeNike,
iand Stein (1965) represented a verbal conditioning task to
hospitalized psychiatric patients as part of a routine
[testing program conducted within the hospital. Only sub
jects who became aware of the correct response-reinforce
ment contingency showed performance gains, within this
group of "aware" subjects, the performance of low anxious
patients exceeded that of patients with high MAS scores.
The authors suggest that high anxious subjects found the
"test" more threatening than did the low anxious group.
In a later study, Gorsuch and Spielberger (1966)
independently manipulated the threat variable. Again, only
subjects who reported a correct reinforcement contingency
were affected by the threat-nonthreat condition. Within
ithis group of aware subjects, high anxious subjects per
formed at a higher level than low anxious subjects under
nonthreat conditions, while the reverse was noted in the
threat condition.
The present study has been designed to test this
apparent anxiety-threat interaction effect upon the
dependent variable, self-disclosure, using as a threat the
"information" that a subject's test performance demon-
istrates the possible presence of some important emotional
I problems. On the basis of previously mentioned investiga-
i
tions involving verbal conditioning, it was expected that
isubjects who score highly on a measure of A-trait would
I respond to the threat manipulation with elevated A-states
which would inhibit their self-disclosure. Their counter
parts in the control group who are not threatened would be
expected to be more free in revealing self-information.
Conversely, research suggests that low anxiety subjects,
when threatened, would be expected to disclose more about
themselves than low anxiety subjects in the nonthreat
condition.
In line with this, the following predictions are
made:
1. Low anxious subjects in a threat condition will
exhibit more verbal self-disclosure than high anxious sub
jects in a threat condition.
2. High anxious subjects in a nonthreat condition
will exhibit more verbal self-disclosure than low anxious
subjects in a nonthreat condition.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
!I. RESEARCH IN SELF-DISCLOSURE
As is the case with any complex behavior, self
disclosure is apparently influenced by many interdependent
variables. For purposes of discussion, a tentative divi
sion may be made between the demographic variables which
ihave been found to relate to tendency to disclose and
ipersonal factors which affect disclosure. Most of the
:research on demographic variables has involved use of a
self-report questionnaire in which students checked off
items of personal information they had revealed with
reference to various "target" figures.
;Demographic Variables
Independent of the target figure, women consis-
|tently report that they disclose more about themselves than
;men (Jourard and Lasakow, 1958; Jourard and Landsman,
!
!1960). These researchers speculated that the greater self-
j disclosure on the part of females may be related to the
j
\less power-oriented, more "expressive" role which women
hold in the social system. Men are not expected to
acknowledge or express certain emotions. To do so might
be inconsistent with a "personal front" (Goffman, 1959)
which signals competence, strength and virility. Since
women are also the recipients of more self-disclosure than
men (Jourard and Richman, 1963) , they may have a greater
appreciation of the dimensions of self-awareness, and thus,
have more material available for potential disclosure than
do males.
Occupational and religious differences have also
been noted by this same methodology (Jourard, 1964; 1961).
Jewish male students appear more open than their peers in
Christian denominations. White students of both sexes
state that they generally disclose more than comparable
Negroes (Jourard and Lasakow, 1958). As for national dif
ferences, Germans and Britons are lower revealers than
Americans (Jourard, 1961; Plog, 1965). In all of these
cases, social and cultural customs would seem to exert a
strong general influence on the type and amount of personal
information deemed appropriate to discuss.
Age trends are also evident. There is a tendency
toward increased openness from late adolescence to
! 9
j
maturity. After the fifties, disclosure gradually
idiminishes. Jourard suggests that this may be an illus
tration of "disengagement" as treated by Henry and Cumming
(1959) .
These studies as presented in the literature have
few clear implications for the elicitation of self
disclosure. Some of the factors which may account for
;these demographic differences in self-disclosure will be
[treated in the following sections.
!
J
f
s
j Personal Factors in Disclosure
i
| All self-disclosure involves some risk. How will
; the receiver react? Will the information one reveals be
!understood? Will the communication make the receiver
uncomfortable? Will the confiding person be punished for
|admitting certain facts? All of these are important con-
i
!
’siderations for "sizing up" a situation, and deciding
iwhether a given disclosure would be prudent strategy. A
i
|communicator consciously or unconsciously reaches a sub-
I
Ijective estimation of the risk involved, and decides
|
[whether the ends he can attain by disclosing warrant the
i
jrisk involved. The properties of the information to be
|
[divulged and the role of the receiver are probably the
10
major factors which contribute to vulnerability.
'Information Properties
1. Subject Matter
Certain content categories of personal data are
consistently disclosed more fully than others. In general,
it is easier to discuss subject matter involving hobbies,
interests, food preferences, and politics, than it is to
:relate details of one's sexual practices, financial status
!or personal problems (Jourard and Lasakow, 1958).
; Hypothesizing that a specified set of content
categories could be hierarchically arranged,' Rickers-
Ovsiankina (1956) has had some success in scaling informa
tion "accessibility." According to their Lewinian frame
work there is a progressive stratification of personal
Idata. More "intimate" data is centrally located, and thus,
iless "accessible" for knowledge by outsiders. Along this
I
I line, Taylor and Altman (1966) have developed an intimacy
scale which includes 671 statements arranged by category
which refer to various aspects of the self. This scale has
been used as a basis for the measurement of disclosure in
this investigation.
Although there is some agreement as to categories
11
of information which are difficult to disclose, the like
lihood of revealing a specific bit of self-data is not
independent of the context in which it is to be revealed.
Marital status, for example, is generally routinely stated,
iyet there are times when its acknowledgement seems incom
patible with the achievement of certain goals. Thus it
is not possible to assess the degree of emotional charging
;or the "personal intimacy level" of each bit of self-
jinformation disclosed in an experimental context.
J2. Informational Type
!
! independent of content, some types of information
:may be less readily exposed than others. Factual informa-
ition probably can be shared more easily than feelings or
^sentiments. The latter may seem more likely to evoke dis
agreement or punishment, and thus seem more difficult to
(reveal. No doubt, an awareness dimension is also important
jhere. The communicator may be unaware of his feelings or
lin doubt about a particular part of his own experience;
jtherefore, he would have less data of this type available
jfor sharing.
! 3. Modality
It is likely that individuals develop
characteristic disclosure patterns. Regularities with
regard to amount revealed, content categories, and informa-;
tional type used would be expected. Probably intra
individual modality preferences would also be apparent.
'All of us at times convey information through gestures
rather than words. Verbal messages can be expressed in
ways which modify or eliminate immediate receiver feedback
(written, recorded, or telephone messages). If an
;individual feels comfortable using only certain modes,
jphysical or temporal conditions which restrict these modes
;of expression would exert a strong inhibition on his
disclosing behavior.
'4. Tense
Self-disclosure can be viewed along a time con
tinuum of past, present, and future tenses. Although it is
jnot necessarily the case, "past tense" disclosures may be
imore under the communicator's control, and perhaps more
easily related, than "present" or "future" disclosures.
Krauss (1967) has suggested that highly anxious individ
uals may attempt to lower their anxiety level by perceiving;
;time relatively less in terms of present and future and
; more in terms of past. In support, Krauss and Ruiz (1967)
13
found an inverse relation between anxiety and the use of
present and future tenses in responding in writing to the
Incomplete Thoughts Test (ITT). In modern group therapies
and sensitivity training, present tense disclosures are
generally encouraged as they seem to possess highest
interpersonal relevance.
Role of Receiver
1. Relationship to Communicator
Relevant to the receiver's effect in a self-
idisclosure episode is his perceived status in the eyes of
the communicator. If he is a personnel director soliciting
information from a job applicant communicator, the disclo
sures which occur will be of a different nature than those
which take place between close friends. The extent to
< which communicator and receiver are acquainted has impor
tant implications for disclosure.
Tuckman (1966) found that in general there is both
imore probing for information and more personal disclosure
between friends than between acquaintances. Content
differences were noted? "non-intimate" data tended to be
the object of more probing and revelation than more
"intimate" information.
Degree of involvement is important as it relates to
the response obligations engendered by a particular dis
closure. The disclosure will have a differential impact
on the receiver depending on the nature of his involvement
with the communicator. For example, in response to a dis
closure regarding personal difficulties on the part of the
communicator, a friend might feel obligated to offer aid.
iA bartender who serves as recipient of the same tale is
i unlikely to feel as much pressure to demonstrate concern.
As mentioned before, every disclosure involves some
.degree of risk. In attempting to assess whether a given
:admission is prudent, the communicator uses every discern
ible cue he can to gauge the probability of a specific set
of responses by the receiver. If the receiver's potential
response is perceived to be inconsistent with the attain
ment of the goal in connection with which disclosure was
:considered, the communicator would stand to lose rather
Ithan profit from the revelation. Disclosure seems
i warranted only if the communicator concludes that he will
in some way benefit from the admission.
Degree of acquaintance and nature of the involve
ment between the parties in the disclosure have been
15
mentioned previously. An increase in intensity or direct
ness can both reduce and increase the risk associated with
a given disclosure. The more acquainted the communicator
is with the receiver, the better he should be at predicting
the latter's responses. Since he is more familiar with the
receiver's expectations and values, he is in a better
position to present the disclosure in a favorable manner.
;0n the other hand, the risk is heightened because the
receiver's response is apt to be more important. A mis-
:calculation might abort the realization of the project to
be serviced by the disclosure and jeopardize the continu
ance of a relationship in which there has already been an
investment.
Frankfurt (1965), in a study of the acquaintance
process, noted that orderly and gradual changes take place
in the type of information shared as a function of increas
ing length of acquaintance. The communicator starts with
ilow risk disclosures in "non-intimate" areas and gradually
works up to a more open relationship. The more willing the
members are to let themselves be known, and the more they
perceive themselves to be compatible, the faster the inter
personal relationships progress. Unless the communicator
shows interest, concern, or other responses which are com
patible with the communicator's predisclosure expectations
in early stages of the relationship, he will not allow
himself to become more vulnerable, and the interchanges
Iwill remain at a relatively superficial level.
2. The Effect of Feedback
Receiver responses may be viewed on a continuum as
!regards their effect on the discloser. At one end the
jreceiver intends them to convey acceptance and encourage
jadditional disclosures, in the middle they are neutral, and
!
|intend to have no specific effect, and at the other end
:they are punishing and may serve to inhibit additional dis
closures. If the receiver does not see the disclosure as
'important or relevant his reaction would probably be of a
;midrange type. The communicator does not always correctly
|interpret the feedback as intended by the receiver.
j
> Additional disclosure is usually promoted if the
i
j
ifeedback which the original communicator receives includes
i ;
|return disclosures. Jourard and Landsman (1960) have
!found, at least with males, that amount of disclosure is
i
|slightly correlated with degree of liking, but highly
|correlated with the amount others have disclosed in return.
This dyadic effect probably serves to increase trust and
cushion vulnerability. if the partners in the dyad are
intimately related, though, and the receiver "steals the
show" by monopolizing the discussion, the original com
municator may take this as a lack of interest or consid
eration and, at least temporarily, withdraw from this
exchange. This example again serves to point out the
icomplex interactions between the variables which relate to
I disclosing behavior.
I Other Factors Which Facilitate Disclosure
Various factors may tend to speed up the natural
disclosure process so that intimate data are revealed after
5 a relatively short period. This effect can result from
either situational factors or from the role of the receiver
•By virtue of their professional role clergymen, doctors,
•lawyers, and psychotherapists are very quickly entrusted
;with very intimate disclosures. Implicit is the communi-
jcator's assumption that these professionals are concerned
iabout his well-being, and would use the information he
I divulges only in his best interest.
!
Situational factors may have a similar effect.
:Altman and Haythorn (1965) studied interpersonal exchange
18
in socially isolated two-party groups. Isolates confided
about an average amount to their partners, but the informa
tion they revealed tended to be of an intimate nature.
Matched controls who worked together the same number of
hours as the experimental group but who had access to other
people and outside facilities revealed less total informa
tion and less intimate information than was disclosed by
;the isolates. This finding suggests that working together
I a large number of hours may be stressful. Under non-
iisolated conditions, there is less disclosure than in
I average co-worker relationships. If, however, one's
partner serves as his sole social outlet, continuing and
maintaining the relationship is more important. Perhaps
self-disclosure serves this end.
At this point, it might be relevant to discuss some
i of the motives which, despite the risks entailed, prompt
I disclosure.
i
j ;
[Goals Furthered by Self-Disclosure
There are many reasons why individuals share per
sonal information with another. Motivation may be
'■conscious or unconscious; the advantages sought may range
i from a shift in conversational topic to the procurement of
19
material rewards. A single presentation of a given dis
closure may be offered in the service of several purposes.
For instance, one may explain to a friend that he is unable
to keep an appointment because his car is not functioning.
At one level he is merely conveying information. At
another, he may be cueing him that he needs help with the
repairs. The same disclosure may be presented to various
xeceivers in the service of opposed goals. The admission,
"I'm a dope addict, too," may be offered to gain status in
the eyes of a fellow addict, rejection by an unwanted girl
ifriend, or help from a doctor.
The subjective or objective advantages of disclos
ing are not always discernible. Occasionally disclosures
are knowingly self-damaging. At times, disclosing behav
iors which may result in objective punishment serve the
igoal of guilt assuagement. Mowrer (1964) suggests that
self-disclosure may be essential in the resolution of
•neurotic conflicts. According to his theory, guilt eman-
;ates not from the commission of shameful acts, but from
i"the fear of being found out and punished„" Only by
"confession" (self-disclosure) can neurotic conflicts of
this type be dissolved. Recent studies by Koenig (1966,
20
1969) which suggest that the disclosure of negative self
information is followed by a greater decrease in self-
reported anxiety than is the disclosure of positive self
statements support Mowrer's position.
Other theorists have been indirectly concerned with
disclosure. Fromm (1955) sees man's inability to disclose
himself as related to alienation. Rogers (1959) stresses
Ithe critical role acceptance-by-others has in self-
jacceptance. Unless the real self is disclosed, acceptance-
i
Iby-others is restricted. An individual can receive no
Ipositive feedback for behaviors he has not exhibited.
Mullaney (1964) found that low disclosers are character
ized by a large discrepancy between self-appraisal and
social ideal. If someone perceives his qualities to be
unlike those society judges to be desirable, he will
iconceal information about himself. If he is misperceiving,
ithis action will greatly reduce his chances for contrary
ifeedback and self-acceptance.
Jourard (1964) has been perhaps the foremost
jadvocate of disclosure as desirable for mental health. He
states, "No man can come to know himself except as an out-
>come of disclosing himself to another person" (1964, p.5).
Self-disclosure must be preceded by an attitude of love and
;trust. The better you know someone you love, the more
effectively you can strive for his well-being. Ideally, by:
opening yourself to another you are both displaying your
1 love and permitting him to love you. Jourard's approach
accentuates the role of disclosure in the promotion and
maintenance of mature, close relationships. This function
sis probably one of the major motives serviced by openness.
Even Jourard admits that disclosure is not uniform-
|ly advisable. Although, in general, self-disclosure "is
jthe obverse of repression and self-alienation," unre-
istricted disclosure may be inconsistent with mental health,
iIt may indicate that the communicator is disregarding
receiver cues or that he is not properly weighing the
consequences of indiscriminate openness. Jourard suggests
ithat "real" self-disclosure is not the only prerequisite
:for personal adjustment; but adjustment is unattainable in
jits absence. He speculates that the relationship between
I
|disclosure and mental health is curvilinear. Ring,
|Braginsky, and Braginsky (1966) concur, suggesting that
|individuals who overemphasize self-expression and dis
closure may lack facility with social roles requiring
22
politeness and tact and thus appear inept, with consequent
!difficulties in social interaction.
i
The foregoing suggests that in the long run, there ;
is an optimum level or degree of disclosure. Eventual
'"profit" may result from behaviors which are punished in
the short run. Since many of the "gains" furthered by
disclosure are of a molar nature, it is not surprising that
\the communicator would find it hard to describe just "why"
■he has disclosed a given bit of information to a certain
|receiver. Even with no tangible immediate reward, the
i communicator often feels subjectively that disclosing was
,a good experience.
Query (1964) in a group therapy study found that
members who exhibited the highest degree of openness found ;
the group most attractive. Catharsis (tension reduction
j :
j incurred through verbal expression) and cognitive disso-
I nance (Pestinger, 1957), as well as subjectively perceived ;
|rewards might be involved in an explanation of positive
|
|assessments of disclosure experiences. In line with
j Festinger1s dissonance theory, communicators who have
|revealed intense information may be predisposed to view the:
j ;
|outcome of their disclosure as favorable. In this way they
23
justify their investment. Communicators who expect punish
ment but do not receive it are pleasantly surprised, i.e.,
rewarded, even by a neutral response.
In addition, it is possible that receiver feedback
:is actually skewed towards the positive end of the con
tinuum, especially as regards low and middle range
intensity disclosures. In these situations, strong social
inorms prevail, and interactions are governed by the implic-
jit agreement that each party will help the other to
imaintain face (Goffman, 1955). Such disclosures are,
j
;therefore, less threatening, but are probably associated
iwith "less meaningful" gains.
If a friend attends to one's disclosure only be
cause it would be rude to look bored, the only objective
communicator gains may be catharsis. In addition, possible
j"loss" is involved in that the communicator has been
:reinforced inappropriately and may less readily perceive
ia future receiver's lack of interest.
| Groups provide a good situation in which to study
Ithe effect of norms and social pressure on disclosing
ibehavior. Himelstein and Kimbrough (1963) noted that the
order in which a communicator appears with relation to
24
other speakers was significantly related to the amount of
material disclosed. Chitick and Himelstein (1967) found
that amount of disclosure could be increased through the
employment of high disclosing confederates. Both of these
investigations involved the disclosure of very low inten
sity material. It would not be advisable to generalize
from these to situations where very personally private
information is at stake.
Before this section terminates at least a mention
!should be made of consciously "strategic" disclosures. In
ithese, the communicator communicates with the response
obligations of the receiver in mind. In making a given
disclosure, he attempts to directly manipulate the outcome.
In these cases he will often try to time the disclosure so
ithat the benefit he desires is not a salient issue. Jones
(1964) and Berne (1964) offer interesting discussions of
ithe variables which affect strategies and "games." In the
’latter, a series of complementary ulterior transactions
! tends to progress to a well-defined, predictable outcome.
Many social transactions can be conceptualized as games in
which individuals may be unconsciously engaged.
25
Summary
If an individual is aware of self-information, he
might disclose it to another for diverse reasons. Com
pliance with social norms, or the attainment of tangible
or intangible rewards seems to represent part of the
motivation. There is always a risk that the disclosure
will not have the effect desired by the communicator.
| Thus, he must use cues to formulate a subjective proba-
| bility of alternative outcomes, and decide whether the
; "gains" involved warrant the risk. if he neglects cues,
j
i
!
i he may disclose too much or too little with possible
I adverse effects.
To be considered in this subjective estimation of
risk are the "informational" properties of the disclosure
I and the role of the receiver.
1
t ;
i
1 |
I II. RESEARCH REGARDING ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE
)
I ■
The present section is concerned with the arousal
or drive properties of anxiety and its effects on behavior.
Predictions have been influenced by a theory of emotion
ally based drive (Spence, 1956, 1958; Taylor, 1956) in
which it is assumed that individual differences in
j emotional responsiveness contribute to drive level.
According to Hull (1943), habit strength (H) com
bines multiplicatively with total effective drive state (D)
to determine response strength or excitatory potential (E).
All habit tendencies evoked in an individual are multiplied
Sby the total effective drive state then existent. if a
single habit is evoked, increases in drive level should
clearly result in greater response strength. In such
jsituations the performance level of high drive subjects
Ishould be greater than the performance of low drive groups.
iHowever, in situations in which a number of competing
j
|
jresponse tendencies are evoked, the effect of variations
iin drive level depends upon the number and comparative
[strengths of various response tendencies. When the correct
response is weaker than one or more of the competing
response tendencies, high drive groups should be inferior
jin performance to low drive subjects. As the strength of
;the correct habit tendency increases relative to the
jincorrect, high drive groups would become less inferior
jand eventually superior in performance.
! Based on the experimental evidence concerning ac-
j
jquired fear (Miller, 1951), drive theory postulates that
noxious or aversive stimuli arouse a hypothetical emotional
response (re), which contributes to drive level. The
Taylor (1953) Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS) was designed to
measure individual differences in emotional responsiveness
on the assumption that the scores would reflect D. Two
i alternative hypotheses have been proposed concerning the
relationship between D and MAS scores (Spence, 1955). In
the first, HA subjects are assumed to manifest chronically
(higher D than LA subjects in all situations, stressful or
;not. The alternative conception posits that HA subjects
\
;react with higher D than LA subjects only in situations
I
!containing some degree of stress. Recent evidence favors
ithe latter proposal (Spence, 1964? Spielberger and Smith,
;1966).
The predictions derived from drive theory have been
;generally confirmed. In a recent survey of eyelid con-
jditioning literature, Spence (1964) found that HA groups
iwere superior in performance to LA groups in 21 out of 25
(independent comparisons. In more complex tasks such as
j
paired-associate learning in which a number of relatively
strong competing response tendencies were elicited, the
jperformance of HA subjects was observed to be inferior to
!
that of LA subjects (Spence, 1953). Parber and Spence
28
!
i (1953) compared the same subjects in both simple and com-
'plex learning tasks. They found the performance of HA
subjects was superior to that of LA subjects in eyelid
I conditioning and inferior to the performance of the LA
group in stylus maze learning even for the easiest choice
^points on which there seemed to be few competing response
tendencies.
| To explain the inferior performance of HA subjects
i
in situations which provide little evidence of competing
erroneous response tendencies, Child (1954) and Mandler and
jSarason (1952) contend that the anxiety state itself is
jconsistently associated with disruptive interfering re-
■sponses. If this is so, HA subjects are characterized by
j
competing response tendencies associated with heightened
anxiety as well as by competing tendencies elicited by
the experimental task.
Spielberger (1965) presents evidence which is
relevant to this point. In a nonstressful task situation
which involved the reproduction of geometric designs, HA
subjects surpassed the performance of LA subjects for less
difficult tasks, but were surpassed by LA subjects on
the more difficult tasks. The Child-Mandler-Sarason
29
interpretation which predicts performance decrements in
complex situations as a result of "irrelevant responses
made to anxiety" fails to account for both the observed
increments and decrements in performance in the same situa
tion for different items in a complex task. Spielberger
suggests that anxiety-produced irrevelant response ten
dencies could have been evoked and could possibly have
I interfered with performance if the situation had been more
istressful. There may be a threshold level of anxiety at
Iwhich anxiety-produced responses begin to interfere with
performance. If the anxiety level of HA subjects exceeds
this threshold, HA subjects might be expected to exhibit
performance inferior to LA groups even for the least dif
ficult elements of an experimental task.
Recently Spence and Spence (1966) extended their
theory to include a "response interference hypothesis"
which resembles Child's (1954) interference hypothesis
jwith qualifications. The Spences suggested that task-
;irrelevant responses may be more easily elicited in HA
|than in LA groups, but these irrelevant responses will
interfere with efficient performance only if they are
I incompatible with the response being performed. This
hypothesis appeals not to general drive, but to another
;aspect of the Hullian motivational complex, i.e., drive
stimulus, or SD, with its capacity to evoke both covert
and overt, learned and unlearned responses (Hull, 1943).
!The intensity of SD, and therefore the number and strength
of the response tendencies it evokes is, like drive, a
function of the hypothetical response re.
Examples of possible task-irrelevent responses
|aroused by the SD associated with re in humans include
j
;heightened autonomic reactions or covert verbalizations
i
}
'reflecting self-deprecation, anger, desire to escape, etc.
I To the extent that the situation elicits such irrelevant
.responses and to the extent that the task is susceptible
to disruption by these tendencies, a hypothesis which
:states that such tendencies are more easily aroused in HA
f
jsubjects leads to the prediction that the performance of
jhigh anxiety subjects will be inferior to the performance
]of low anxiety groups. There is some evidence that the
|predicted differences in performance between anxiety groups
are most likely to be observed in stressful situations
I(Mandler and Sarason, 1952).
Studies investigating the interaction between MAS
31
scores and stress have employed three major types of stress
'manipulations: ego-involving instructions,, induced failure
experience on a previous task, and application of noxious
>stimulation such as electric shock. It is assumed that the
major effect of each of these manipulations is to increase
D and SD with the latter in turn eliciting task-irrelevant
responses. The tasks used in these investigations were
!supposedly sensitive to the disruptive effects of the
I aroused task-irrelevant tendencies.
| The investigations involving psychological stress
I ;
j are most relevant to the present research. Most studies of
;the first type have manipulated ego-involvement by describ-
|ing the task to subjects as being related to their intel
ligence or future academic success. Three studies
i (Nicholson, 1958; I. G. Sarason, 1956, 1957) which involved
i ;
I serial or paired-associate learning report that the intro-
; duction of ego-involving instructions impaired performance
i
j in a HA group as compared to task-oriented controls. In
| contrast, low anxiety groups improved in performance
i
i
! following ego-involvement.
In the study by Nicholson (1958) degree of intra-
f i
j task competition was also manipulated. The interaction
32
predicted by drive theory between list characteristics and ;
!
MAS scores was found for task-oriented subjects. Under the
« I
ego-involved condition, however, HA groups were inferior in
performance to the LA subjects even on the easier, low
I
'competition list. The observed decrease in performance of
high anxiety groups subjected to ego-involvement instruc
tions supports the hypothesis concerning SD and the
• competing irrelevant responses it may elicit.
j Experimental results relating to the effect of
j :
I reported failure on performance also confirm the predic-
j
j •
i tions. In a review of such studies Spence and Spence
| (1966) report almost uniform support for the predicted
i interaction between anxiety level and performance. The
1 performance of HA subjects was almost uniformly inferior
|under failure instructions as compared to the nonfailure
I
i
I condition while the performance of LA failure subjects
i
j :
i
I varied from being inferior to slightly superior to parallel
j nonfailure groups.
I
i
j
| The effect on performance of somehwat more subtle
I
stress has also been investigated. Cox (1966) noted the
f :
effect of an observer on children's performances of a
!simple motor task. In the presence of an attractive,
! 33 :
' noninterfering adult, the response rate of LA children
1 decreased and the rate of the HA children showed an in
crease. When the observer was the child's mother, teacher,
;peer, or a strange adult, the opposite effect was noted?
; the performance of the HA children decreased in rate and
that of the LA showed an increase. Cox interpreted the
presence of the latter observer as transforming the situa-
I tion into an evaluative session for the HA group, evoking
j responses which interfered with performance, while the
iobserver provided an incentive for the LA children.
i :
McCoy (1965) reported an interesting investigation
ito evaluate whether HA children interpret any situation
I involving an observing adult as a potentially evaluative
one, regardless of whether the situation is structured as
; a test or a game. He found that a HA group, categorized
; on the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC),
! performed similarly in a tracing task under "game" or
i •
|"test" instructions, while "test" instructions led to
i
i '
|fewer errors with LA children.
j :
j Stevenson and Odom (1965) investigated the relation
j . ;
|of children's test anxiety to their performance on dif-
i ;
!
|ferent types of tasks. He found no relation between level
34
of anxiety and rate of discrimination learning, but per
formance on paired associates and anagrams tasks was i
disrupted by high levels of anxiety. These results, in
addition to the negative correlation found between level of
i
1 anxiety and verbal, but not performance I.Q., led him to
conclude that anxiety had its most disruptive effects in
tasks involving verbal processes.
A few studies have investigated the relationship
j
; between speech behavior and anxiety level. In an analysis
j '
|of verbatim responses to a series of TAT cards, Benton,
I
jHartman, and Sarason (1955) observed that the productions
I
iof HA subjects were characterized by a shorter latent time
jbetween card presentation and response onset than were
j
those of low anxious groups. HA productions also showed a
;higher word count, although the differences between anxiety1
s
i
igroups on this dimension reached only a near-significant
|
probability level. These investigators had also predicted !
that HA subjects would be characterized by a faster rate
of verbal utterance, but this hypothesis was not confirmed,
j In another study involving an analysis of speech
i :
|behavior, Kanfer (1959) employed a content-inferred measure
|
!of anxiety. His findings suggest that subjects talk faster
35
j
- when responding to questions in areas for which their j
!answers suggest poor adjustment. The questions posed
varied in the emotional impact which they apparently
elicited from different subjects. There was no evidence
■ for a uniform type of reaction to any particular question.
Recent work on verbal conditioning also sheds some
light on the effect of anxiety on oral behavior. As pre-
|viously mentioned, Spielberger, DeNike and Stein (1965)
j reinforced hospitalized male psychiatric patients with
i :
I
"Good" when they replied in a sentence construction task
! with sentences beginning with "I" or "We.1 1 The task was
i introduced as "part of a routine testing program." As
|expected, performance gains on the conditioning task were
1 associated with awareness of correct and correlated
;response-reinforcement contingencies. Although no rela
tionship was found between anxiety and awareness, aware HA
patients gave significantly fewer I-We sentences than aware
LA patients. The investigators suggest that HA subjects
may have been less willing to talk about themselves in the
relatively threatening context of the study than LA sub- 1
jects due to past failure experiences. Supporting evidence
!is offered by Rogers' (1960) findings that anxious college
36
students talked less in the operant period of a "quasi-
‘therapy interview" than LA students, and tended to refer
to themselves more unfavorably.
Findings by Ogawa and Oakes (1965) also support the
hypothesis that differences in performance of HA and LA
subjects on verbal conditioning tasks are determined by
the degree of stress or perceived threat in the experi-
; mental situation. HA male college students showed less
jconditioning than LA subjects when reinforced by female
;experimenters, but their performance level surpassed that
;of the LA subjects when reinforcement was provided by a
imale experimenter. No relationship between conditioning
and MAS scores was found for females. The investigators
hypothesized that male and female experimenters are
associated with differential amounts of stress, and that
I HA subjects were apparently more threatened by the female
;experimenters than were LA subjects. Unfortunately, these
■results cannot be fully accepted because awareness was an
I uncontrolled variable in the study.
In another verbal conditioning study involving
college students, Gorsuch and Spielberger (1966) manipu-
ilated threat while controlling for the effects of
! 37
t
awareness. In the threat condition, fingerprint measures
1 of palmar sweating were taken between verbal conditioning
I
trials. HA subjects showed significantly more palmar
f
; sweating than LA subjects (Haywood and Spielberger, 1966),
I
! suggesting that the experimental context was perceived as
more threatening by the HA groups than by the LA subjects.
This procedure was omitted in the nonthreat condition. As
| predicted, the threat-nonthreat conditions influenced
only those subjects who reported a correct response-
reinforcement contingency. Of the aware subjects, HA
groups performed better than LA subjects under nonthreat
i conditions and at a lower level than the LA group under
| threat conditions. Thus, it is fairly well substantiated
1 that the amount of subjective stress associated with the
; experimental task is a crucial variable in accounting for
noted performance differences between subjects differing
in anxiety level.
j
j While oral self-disclosure has not as yet been
employed as a dependent variable in this context, in many
respects, it resembles verbal conditioning and the other
j
• speech behaviors which have been employed in experimental
i
| research. It should be clear that for purposes of this
l
)
i
! 38
study, self-disclosure is considered to be, like these
!other behaviors, a "rational" rather than an "emotional"
task and that heightened arousal should usually result in
ibetter performance of this task. The approach is taken
i
1 that a subject generally discloses on a rational contin
gency basis, and that the amount of personal information
disclosed and the intimacy level of what is revealed
i constitute two measurable aspects of this behavior.
I
j
j
i
j
j
!
i
CHAPTER III
.METHOD
! The Orientation of the Study to Self-Disclosure
Essential to any self-disclosure study is a clear
definition of the type of behavior which is subsumed by
the concept of disclosure. All disclosure involves the
revelation of personal information, or "making the self
jknown to other persons (Jourard, 1964, p. 159)." This
implies the presence of a communicator and at least one
^ receiver. A receiver need not be present at the time of
the disclosure, but the communicator must present certain
personal information with the impression that someone
apprised of his identity will eventually hear what he has
disclosed.
There exist indirect channels whereby the receiver
can glean information about a specific communicator. He
; can correctly assume or infer facts which the communicator
i has not explicitly disclosed or he may learn such informa- :
tion from mutual acquaintances. In this study, information
i thus transmitted was not considered self-disclosure. For
39
40
I
purposes of this investigation, self-disclosure was viewed j
i
!
as the conscious, "intentional" revelation of personal
information to a present or potential audience or individ
ual who, as assumed by the communicator, did not already
possess this information. While the importance of nonoral
disclosure was recognized, this study was limited to oral
disclosure because such disclosures are more amenable to
: observation and measurement, and are more consistent with
i the foregoing definition.
Specifically, the experimental disclosure situation
; took the form of an interview in which pre-recorded ques
tions were presented, each followed by a two and one-half
minute silence in which the subject was expected to
respond, knowing that his reply was being recorded. The
questions which comprised the interview were designed to j
■elicit personal disclosure, but they were general enough so
I that no specific range of intimacy was demanded in re-
isponse.
In one respect, these disclosures resembled written:
;rather than oral disclosures because immediate communicatee:
! feedback was eliminated. On the other hand, the communi
cator was reminded of the presence of a potential receiver
41
with each aurally presented stimulus question. Thus, he
was intermittently made aware of his obligation to tell
about himself. Moreover, he had less opportunity to "edit"
what he communicated, unlike written communication.
In the Threat condition, vocational guidance
counselees who had completed a battery of vocational tests
were told by their counselor that the test results sug
gested the presence of an emotional problem. At this point
.they were referred to an interview-type situation, in which
they were alone in a room with two tape recorders. A taped
imale voice instructed them to listen to a series of eight
questions and to respond, in the period of silence fol
lowing each question, by talking into the other recorder.
The questions attempted to elicit personal information, and;
the subjects were requested to answer as accurately as
;possible, using themselves as referents.
! In the Nonthreat condition, other counselees parti^
;cipated in an identical taped situation, having been asked
to take part in a routine counseling center study. There
jwas no suggestion that they had problems.
i Subjects
The subjects were 90 male undergraduate students
42
(
- * *
who voluntarily applied for vocational counseling at the
San Fernando Valley State College counseling Center. In
an effort to equate prior experience with self-disclosure,
:only students between the ages of 17 and 22 who stated that
;they had not formerly participated in psychotherapy or
counseling were selected for participation in the experi
ment. In view of possible racial, socioeconomic, and
religious trends in self-disclosure, subjects were further
Slimited to white, non-Catholic males of middle-class
j socioeconomic status who scored below eight on the MMPI
!lie (L) scale.
The MMPI was administered as part of an individual
ized vocational test battery which might typically be
assigned to students requesting vocational counseling at
!the Center. MAS scores were extracted from overall MMPI
; scores. Subjects with scores of ten or lower were
; designated as in the Low Anxious (LA) group, subjects with
iscores between 11 and 20 were designated as Moderately
jAnxious (MA), and subjects with scores of 21 or higher
;were designated as High Anxious (HA) subjects.
Subjects from each anxiety group were randomly
assigned to the Threat or Nonthreat condition in order of
43
i
appearance over the two semesters that the study was in
progress. During the early part of the fall semester, more
students meeting requirements for the HA and MA designa-
.tions seemed to apply for counseling, while the last few
months seemed to show more LA-type counselees. Although
this variation in rate of appearance was noticed, approxi
mately equal numbers of students in each of the three
anxiety groups were seen over the entire two semesters so
that it was not necessary to exclude subjects to equate
:group number. Thirty subjects of each type were employed
|in the study, 15 in each of the Threat and Nonthreat sub
groups .
Design
The experiment was a 3x2 factorial design in which
■three levels of subject anxiety and two levels of threat
iwere employed.
j Experimenter
The author, a female, Caucasian, 27 year old
!clinical psychologist employed at the above mentioned
counseling center, served as the only experimenter.
■\
Experimental Task and Apparatus
The experimental task consisted of participation in
a standard half-hour interview presented by one programmed
tape recorder and monitored by another. The use of
recorders is consistent with recent investigations by
Schwitzgebel and Schwitzgebel (1961) in which tape record
ers served in effect as therapists for hired delinquent
youths. Work by Guerney and Stollak (1966) also demon
strates the feasibility of having subjects talk about
! personal matters in an unsupervised tape recorded situa-
i
ition. In the present research, two tape recorders ran
iconcurrently; one recorder contained the experimental tape
:which presented the counselee with questions, and the other
recorded the entire proceedings. The recorders were set up
in a cubicle identical to those in which the subject had
’ previously taken his vocational tests. After brief in-
Istructions concerning the operation of the recording
(equipment, the experimenter left, allowing the subject to
i
jcomplete the experimental task unobserved.
| The experimental tape consisted of brief instruc
tions and eight questions (Appendix A) presented to the
45
subjects by a male voice.'*' Following the presentation of
!each question, a two and one-half minute silence ensued ;
in which the subject, following instructions to respond,
; answered the question.
Tape-recorder controlled interviews were used
because pilot work showed that feedback from a live inter
viewer very obviously affected the extent of subjects'
:self-disclosure. While this method has some drawbacks, it
i is easier to employ than the "standardized interview"
I format used by Matarazzo, Saslow, Matarazzo, and Phillips
i (1958) in their investigation of speech characteristics
in interview situations.
There was initially some fear that the tape setting
described above would be impractical because subjects would
be unwilling to cooperate or because their disclosure would;
I :
be seriously restricted in this "unnatural" setting. These
i
I fears were not borne out. In fact, without the application
| ^Some of the questions have been previously
jemployed by Kanfer (1959). He noted that these questions
jcovered topics which differ in the emotional impact which
Ithey were likely to elicit from any particular subject,
jSome questions are much more "intimate" than others, and
jas such, subjects may have varied in their willingness to
jdiscuss particular questions.
46
of formal scoring methods, a comparison with pilot subjects;
‘seemed to show that the tape situation may elicit more
intimate disclosure than a live situation. Eliminating
the possibility of negative observer feedback may consider-
\
ably diminish the subjective risk associated with intimate
disclosures.
, Procedure
For the most part, the subjects followed the same
iroutine as other students who had been accepted for voca
tional counseling. At no time throughout the experiment
iwas the nature of their involvement in the study made
explicit to them. During the initial interview with the
I subject, the psychologist (experimenter) evaluated each
subject's counseling needs and referred him to the testing i
loffice for an individualized battery of vocational tests.
iFor purposes of the experiment, the MMPI was invariably
included in the test battery for potential subjects. Dur-
I
jing this first session the experimenter also rated the
jsubjects' propensity to talk on a five point "talkative-
jness" scale. This rating was made because individual ;
idifferences in verbal fluency intuitively appear directly
related to a person's general disclosure patterns. To
47
control for individual differences in talkativeness, this
rating was used as a covariate in the experimental design.
The reliability of the five point scaling system
was established by tape recording and rescoring at a month
interval the initial interviews of 20 nonsubjects who had
made similar requests for counseling. If a subject was
very quiet and participated minimally in the interview, he
;was rated near the low end (scale value one) of the talk-
■ ; ativeness scale. If he initiated conversation to a
-moderate degree, and if the information he revealed tended
'to relate directly to relevant material, he received a
moderate rating. Subjects who tended to be exceptionally
talkative, who prolonged the interview by discussing both
relevant and irrelevant matters were classed as highly
:talkative (scale value five).
After a subject had completed his assigned tests,
I he followed the general clinic procedure in making another
t
I appointment with his original counselor, in this case the
i
(
experimenter. At this time, the test interpretation was
begun, following which the experimenter referred each
;subject to the experimental task, introducing it in either
j
! a threatening or nonthreatening manner.
Threat Condition
In the threat condition, the subject was informed
that only his interest and aptitude tests would be re
viewed in the current counseling session because his
personality test results suggested the presence of some
relatively important emotional problems.^ The counselor
then indicated that it would have been helpful to refer
him to another member of the staff who had not seen his
test results, so that the problem could be more objective-
:ly evaluated. The counselor then went on to say that due
to scheduling problems and the demand for service at the
center, counselors are not immediately available for inter
views, and that the counseling staff had found it efficient
to collect tape recorded interviews which could be subse
quently evaluated during periods when counselors had
^Pilot work provided evidence that the threat
manipulation worked. In live interviews with a male
counselor to whom they had been referred, Threat subjects
constantly solicited information about the interviewer's
reaction to them, asking whether he thought they had
serious problems. Some subjects expressed hostility when
he did not react with reassurance. After the interview,
several Threat subjects thanked the original counselor
for referring them, commenting that the interview had been
a satisfying experience. This observation is consistent
with the view (see Chapter II) that individuals who do
disclose are likely to perceive the outcome of their
disclosure as positive.
49
unexpected cancellations, etc. The confidentiality of
these interviews was stressed. The subject was then
directed to the cubicle with the tape recorders and advised
that another counselor would listen to his tape and discuss
his impressions with the original counselor before the
student returned for his next counseling session.
In the next counseling session, any remaining test
results (including the MMPI results) were presented and
integrated, and the subject was reassured that his total
,results, including the taped interview showed no evidence
of serious problems. In cases where there was fairly
strong evidence of actual poor adjustment, the subject was
referred for individual counseling.
Nonthreat Condition
In the Nonthreat condition, the experimental task
was described as part of a routine survey currently being
conducted at the counseling center for the purpose of
learning more about the personal characteristics of stu-
idents who apply for vocational guidance. The experimental
i
task then proceeded in exactly the same manner as in the
:Threat condition.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
: Credibility of Experimental Manipulations
Prior to the analysis of the effects of the
anxiety-threat interaction on self-disclosure, the data
-were analyzed to establish the credibility of the threat
manipulation. Examination of the verbal statements made
ito the experimenter both prior to and after the disclosure
!session revealed that all subjects believed the statements
made to them regarding the reasons for their referral to
the experimental task. A further check on the credibility
:of the manipulation was provided by a content analysis of
Question Eight (Task Reactions). Although only 14 of the
I Threat subjects mentioned feeling anxiety or nervousness,
!there was no indication that any of the 90 subjects be-
jlieved that they had been misled by the experimenter's
jcomments about his test performance. One subject doubted
| the accuracy of the psychometric findings which formed the
|basis of the experimenter's judgment. Further analyses
!of subject task reactions are treated in the section on
, 50
51
i
subjective reactions.
j Treatment of Data
Subjects' verbalization on each of the eight
!experimental questions were rated separately, sentence-
;by-sentence. Judges, two senior students at the college,
independently listened to the tapes, and made notes as to
;the content.^ Ratings were made following the audition of
leach question. All topics for each subject were rated in
i
sone session in order to best reflect the subject's in-
i
|tention in responding. Two measures were obtained for
l
ieach question, an intimacy measure and a measure of the
"amount" of disclosure.
The intimacy-scaled self-descriptive stimuli pre
sented by Taylor and Altman (1966) served as a guide for
!the independent judges in rating the intimacy of the self-
i
information revealed by each subject in response to the
-1-Janis Vaga, a history major, who was employed as
a research assistant and R. Boris Greenberg, a philosophy
major, who was a friend of the experimenter, rated the
tapes. Raters had no information regarding subject char
acteristics other than that revealed in course of listening
|to the subjects' responses. Neither was acquainted with
I any of the subjects.
I
2
experimental questions. These materials include 671
statements ahout various aspects of the self which have
been scaled for intimacy by both a naval and a college
population on an 11 point scale. Raters in this study
compared subjects' statements to the most similar items
listed in the Taylor-Altman scale and assigned each state
ment the cldsest whole value listed for comparable items.
The college scale was used in preference to that which was
jdeveloped using naval personnel. "Amount" of disclosure
was simply a count of the number of different ideas which
Iwere included in response to a particular question. Judges
were trained in scoring procedure prior to rating the
experimental tapes. They jointly scored approximately six
pilot tapes to gain facility with the scoring methods.
The two raters' scorings were used to obtain a
Imeasure of rater reliability. Scores ranged along the
sentire 11 point scale. Product moment correlations for
2Although no validity data have yet been collected,
iTaylor and Altman report that agreement in scale value
jplacement between a population of college students and a
inaval population was quite good, as reflected in a pooled
;Pearson product moment correlation (r. = .90). Correla
tions ranged from .76 to .94 for the 13 content categories
considered individually.
53
individual questions ranged from .83 to . 96 for intimacy
scores and from .87 to .96 for amount scones. These co
efficients indicate that the judges' agreement did not vary
greatly from topic to topic. For subsequent statistical
treatment, the ratings of the two judges were averaged.
Analysis of Self-Disclosure Scores
Analysis of covariance for factorial design
(Scheff^, 1959) was selected to test the hypothesis,
i Separate analyses were performed for the amount and in-
itimacy responses on each of the eight questions. F-ratios
were computed for the main effects, anxiety and threat,
and for interaction effects between the two variables.
These values are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The hypo
thesis which predicts interaction effects (that Low Anxious
Threat subjects would exhibit greater self-disclosure than
do High Anxious Threat subjects, and that the disclosure
level of High Anxious Nonthreat subjects would exceed that
iof the Low Anxious Nonthreat subjects) was not supported.
I Only one of the 48 F-ratios is significant, showing a
idifference in the average disclosed intimacy level of the
Threat and Nonthreat groups in their responses to Question
Five. This effect should probably be viewed as spurious,
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF DISCLOSURE AMOUNT SCORES
Source df MS F
N
Question 1 Anxiety 2 .73
-
(Vocational Guidance) Threat 1 .28 1.04
Interaction 2 .72 1.41
Within Groups 83 . 2 2
Question 2 Anxiety 2 9.16 2.48
(Anxiety Elicitors) Threat 1 .84 -
Interaction 2 .98 -
;
Within Groups 83 .69
Question 3 Anxiety 2 .78
—
(Family Relations) Threat 1 2.24 -
Interaction 2 2.03
-
Within Groups 83 2.87
Question 4 Anxiety 2 2.03
—
(Criminal Behavior) Threat 1 2.52 1.07
Interaction 2 2.38 1 . 0 1
Within Groups 83 2.35
TABLE 1— (Continued)
Source df MS F
Question 5 Anxiety 2 43.22 1.04
(Psychosomatic Reactions) Threat 1 59.00 1.42
Interaction 2 40.52
-
Within Groups 83 41.53
Question 6 Anxiety 2 .56
—
(Opposite Sex) Threat 1 . 8 6 2.03
Interaction 2 .29 -
Within Groups 83 .39
Question 7 Anxiety 2 .09
—
(Life Goals) Threat 1 2.92
-
Interaction 2 .87
-
1
I
Within Groups 83 3.21
Question 8 Anxiety 2 1 . 1 0
—
(Task Reactions) Threat 1 .92 -
interaction 2 3.62 2.03
Within Groups 83 1.78
i n
i n
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF DISCLOSURE INTIMACY SCORES
Source df MS F
Question 1 Anxiety 2 .04
-
(Vocational Guidance) Threat 1 .19
-
Interaction 2 .72 1 . 0 2
Within Groups 83 .70
Question 2 Anxiety 2 2.70 1.30
(Anxiety Elicitors) Threat 1 2.82 1.36
Interaction 2 .05
-
Within Groups 83 2.07
Question 3 Anxiety 2 3.87 2.03
(Family Relations) Threat 1 .63
-
Interaction 2 .70
-
Within Groups 83 1.91
Question 4 Anxiety 2 7.93 2.31
(Criminal Behavior) Threat 1 .26
-
Interaction 2 3.19
-
Within Groups 83 3.43
TABLE 2— (Continued)
Source df • MS F
Question 5 Anxiety 2 4.13 1.65
(Psychosomatic Reactions) Threat 1 9.90 3.94*
Interaction 2 .09
-
Within Groups 83 2.51
Question 6 Anxiety 2 .90
—
(Opposite Sex) Threat 1 10.43
-
Interaction 2 7.18
-
Within Groups 83 16.99
Question 7 Anxiety 2 .92 1 . 2 0
(Life Goals) Threat 1 1.15 1.51
Interaction 2 .36
-
Within Groups 83 .76
Question 8 Anxiety 2 2 . 6 8 1.35
(Task Reactions) Threat 1 1.40 -
Interaction 2 1 . 0 1 -
Within Groups 83 1.98
*& < -05
58
given that five out of 100 F-ratios would probably be
significant by chance.
An effort to further test the hypothesis by pooling
the responses to two or more of the questions was made
(Tables 13 & 14, Appendix B). However, the small magni
tudes of the intercorrelations (Table 3) between the
intimacy measures for each of the eight questions suggested
ithat composites of the data were not warranted. No two
questions appeared to be measuring the same dimension of
Iself-disclosure. Each of the questions seemed to elicit
ia different pattern of disclosed intimacy responses.
;Disclosure Responses by Question
Judges based intimacy scores on an 11 point scale.
The highest mean intimacy score on any question received
Iby a subject was 8.7. The lowest was 0.0. Individual
iamount scores for a single question ranged from 0-16. Mean
iresponse intimacy and amount values for each of the ques
tions are presented in Table 4. Disclosure to Questions
IThree (family relations) and Six (relations with the
'Opposite Sex) was generally of a more "private" nature than
I the disclosure evoked by the remaining questions in the
(series, while responses to Question One (reasons for
TABLE 3
INTERCORRELATION BETWEEN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH QUESTION
Question 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 .36*** .15 .15
.38***
.04 .09 .29**
2
#4 4 ***
. 30**
.5 1 *** -
-.03 .36*** .28**
3 .36*** .31** .15 . 31** .23*
4 .16 .06 . 1 0 .17
5 .04 .33*
.3 4 ***
6 .19 .06
7
.37***
*£ < .05 j
( _ n i
**R < .01 vo |
***£<.001
60
TABLE 4
MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS ON EACH QUESTION
Intimacy Amount
Question M M
1 . Vocational Guidance 2.61 1.89
2 . Anxiety Elicitors 4.00 2.74
3. Family Relations 5.98 3.81
4. Criminal Behavior 3.40 2.37
5. Psychosomatic Reactions 4.35 2.48
6 . Opposite Sex 5.66 3.11
7. Life Goals 3.93 3.91
8 . Task Reactions 3.86 1.79
requesting vocational counseling) tended to be the least
;intimate. Questions Three and Six, along with Question 7,
i also tended to evoke the greatest amounts of disclosure.
;Analysis of variance for repeated measures (Winer, 1962)
i
j was used to assess the significance of the differences in
j mean intimacy and amount values among the eight questions
(see Tables 5 and 6 ). The resulting F values were signif
icant beyond the . 0 0 1 level of confidence, indicating that
:the questions reliably differed in the amount of disclosure
i which each elicited.
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INTIMACY SCORES BY QUESTION1
Source df MS F
Between Subjects 89
Within Subjects 630
Questions 7 112.18 81.21***
Residual 623 1.38
Total 719
***R < *001
^Table format for analysis of variance, repeated
measures.
iAnalysis of Subjective Reactions
The content of the responses to Question Eight provided
jfeedback to the experimenter as to the reaction of such
I subject to the experimental task and manipulation. Judges'
;notes provided information as to each subject's response
|to this question ("What were your reactions when your
:counselor asked you to come to this interview?"). The
ANALYSIS OF
TABLE 6
VARIANCE OF AMOUNT SCORES
62
BY QUESTION1
Source df MS F
Between Subjects
Within Subjects
Questions
89
630
7 57.72 33.70***
Residual 623 1.72
Total 719
***£<.001
■^Table format for analysis of variance, repeated
measures.
experimenter rated each unidentified answer on a three
point scale indicating whether the subject had evaluated
his experience as primarily positive, neutral, or negative.
If the subject was noncommittal about his reaction to the
I task or stated that he had "no reaction," his response was
irated neutral.- If he made comments such as, "Fine, I was
iglad to do it," or "I was nervous at first, but I've really
.enjoyed doing it, " his response received a positive rating.
Comments such as, "I didn't want to do it — it's too
/ i
I
('■
63
impersonal talking to a machine," were scored as a negative
reaction. As a test for reliability, the experimenter
rated each subject's answer twice, with a three week
interval separating the first and second judgments. All
but two of the ratings on the second occasion were iden
tical with the initial judgment.
The number of each type of positive, neutral, and
■ negative evaluations made by subjects classed according to
anxiety level are presented in Table 7. The number of such
evaluations made by subjects in the Threat and Nonthreat
groups, independent of anxiety level, is presented in
Table 8 . Thirty-eight of the 90 subjects evaluated the
experience as positive, 28 as negative, and 24 as neutral.
Although more of the Threat subjects described their re
action as negative than did their unthreatened counter
parts, chi-square analyses on both sets of data produced
resultant X.2 values of 4.32 and 5.44, neither of which
; reached statistical significance.
; Extreme Disclosure Groups
An effort was made to delineate individuals who
; characteristically responded throughout the series of
questions with either very intimate information, or
64
TABLE 7
NUMBER OF POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NEUTRAL EVALUATIONS
OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TASK MADE BY HIGH ANXIOUS,
MODERATELY ANXIOUS, AND LOW ANXIOUS SUBJECTS
___________Subjects___________
H A ___________MA____________LA
Positive 14 10 14
Neutral 10 9 4
Negative 6 1 1 1 1
x2 = 4.32, df =4, n.s.
TABLE 8
NUMBER OF POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NEUTRAL EVALUATIONS
OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TASK MADE BY THREAT AND
NONTHREAT SUBJECTS
Threat Nonthreat
Positive 13 15
Neutral 8 16
Negative 24 14
x 2 — 5•44, df — 2 , n.s.
Note: When neutrals were eliminated, (N = 6 6 ),
x2 = 1.83, df = 1, n.s.
65
disclosures of a nonintimate type. Subjects who gave
responses which received a mean intimacy rating per ques
tion which was higher than the corresponding group mean
intimacy for at least seven of the eight questions were
arbitrarily designated as "very high disclosers." Subjects
whose mean intimacy per question fell below the correspond
ing group mean intimacy level for at least seven of the
questions were classed as "very low disclosers." Eight
subjects fell into the former category and 1 1 met the
criterion for the latter classification.
The number of very high and very low disclosers in
the three anxiety groups is presented in Table 9. For the
most part, High Anxious subjects are responsible for the
most consistent intimate disclosure while Moderate and Low
Anxious subjects make up the "very low discloser" group.
:A chi-square analysis (X2 = 14.87, df = 2) shows this
finding to be statistically significant (jd< .01). A
comparison of the average "talkativeness" ratings for the
ivery high and very low discloser groups (see Table 9)
^suggests the differences in intimacy level between the
groups is not the .result of differences in general
verbosity level. Table 10 summarizes the number of very
I
TABLE 9
66
NUMBER OF VERY HIGH AND VERY LOW DISCLOSERS AMONG
THE 90 HIGH ANXIOUS, MODERATELY ANXIOUS
AND LOW ANXIOUS SUBJECTS
Subiects Aver acre Talk
HA MA LA Ratincr
Very High Disclosure 7 1 0 4.5
Very Los Disclosure 0 5 6 4.0
x2 = 14.87, df = 2, £ < .01
TABLE 10
NUMBER OF VERY HIGH
THE 90 THREAT
AND VERY LOW DISCLOSERS AMONG
AND NONTHREAT SUBJECTS
Subiects
T NT
Very High Disclosure 6 2
Very Low Disclosure 6 5
x2 = .19, df = 1, n. s.
Note: x2 is corrected for continuity using Yates's
correction.
67
high and very low disclosers classified according to
experimental condition. A chi-square analysis of these
data yielded a value of .83, which indicates that there
are no significant differences in the number of very high
disclosers and very low disclosers in the Threat and Non
threat groups.
3
Effect of the Covariate
The finding that a few High Anxious subjects are
accountable for tbe most consistent high disclosure re
sponses leads to speculation that disclosure differences
;due to anxiety level and/or threat manipulations might have
occurred and gone unnoticed due to the control provided by
use of the covariate, talkativeness. In order to test for
this possibility, analyses of variance were performed for
the mean amount and intimacy scores for each of the eight
^questions (corresponding analyses of covariance are
presented in Tables 1 and 2). Tables 11 and 12 summarize
these findings. Here again, only one F-ratio is
^A post hoc analysis using combined amount of dis
closure as a covariate for combined disclosure intimacy is
summarized in Table 15, Appendix B. The product moment
correlation between total intimacy and total amount of
disclosure was .48.
TABLE 11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DISCLOSURE INTIMACY SCORES
Source df MS
£
Question 1 Anxiety 2 .25
-
(Vocational Guidance) Threat 1 .15
-
Interaction 2 .15
-
Within Groups 83 .70
Question 2 Anxiety 2 1.51
—
(Anxiety Elicitors) Threat 1 6.51 3.10
Interaction 2 1.10 -
Within Groups 83 2.10
Question 3 Anxiety 2 1.93
—
(Family Relations) Threat 1 3.36 1.73
interation 2 1.57
-
Within Groups 83 1.94
Question 4 Anxiety 2 3.69 1.06
(Criminal Behavior) Threat 1 .00
-
Interation 2 6.76 1.94
Within Groups 83 3.49
TABLE 11— (Continued)
Source df MS F
Question 5 Anxiety 2 .09 -
(Psychosomatic Reactions) Threat 1 6.45 2.57
Interaction 2 4.59 1.82
Within Groups 83 2.51
Question 6 Anxiety 2 .13
—
(Opposite Sex) Threat 1 1.20 -
Interaction 2 .84
-
Within Groups 83 1.68
Question 7 Anxiety 2 1.02 1.40
(Life Goals) Threat 1 1.57 2.15
interaction 2 1.08 1.47
Within Groups 83 .73
Question 8 Anxiety 2 2.80 1.47
(Task Reactions) Threat 1 4.58 2.40
Interaction 2 3.31 1.73
Within Groups 83 1.91
kO
TABLE 12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DISCLOSURE AMOUNT SCORES
Source df MS F
Question 1 Anxiety 2 .84
-
(Vocational Guidance) Threat 1 2.18 1.79
Interaction 2 1.38 1.13
Within Groups 83 1.22
Question 2 Anxiety 2 7.08 2.08
(Anxiety Elicitors) Threat 1 4.01 1.18
Interaction 2 13.68 4.02*
Within Groups 83 3.40
Question 3 Anxiety 2 .08
—
(Family Relations) Threat 1 .90 -
Interaction 2 1.03
-
Within Groups 83 3.03
Question 4 Anxiety 2 2.13
—
(Criminal Behavior) Threat 1 .01
-
Interaction 2 .84
-
Within Groups 83 2.39
TABLE 12— (Continued)
Source df MS F
Question 5 Anxiety 2 1.38
-
(Psychosomatic Reactions) Threat 1 .54 -
Interaction 2 5.64 2.70
Within Groups 83 2.09
Question 6 Anxiety 2 1.54
—
(Opposite Sex) Threat 1 6.40 2.68
Interaction 2 3.43 1.44
Within Groups 83 2.89
Question 7 Anxiety 2 4.58 1.50
(Life Goals) Threat 1 .04 -
Interaction 2 4.04 1.33
Within Groups 83 3.05
Question 8 Anxiety 2 1.21
—
(Task Reactions) Threat 1 .54 . -
Interation 2 1.08 -
Within Groups 83 1.86
*2. < .05
M
significant, demonstrating that neither anxiety level nor
threat as described in this experiment have any consistent
effect on subjects' self-disclosure even if verbosity is
not controlled.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study predicted that an interaction would take
place between anxiety and threat which would affect levels
of performance on a self-disclosure task. This hypothesis
was not confirmed. High Anxious Threat subjects did not
;exhibit less disclosure or less intimate disclosure than
;did High Anxious subjects who were not subjected to the
1 threat manipulation. Nor did Low Anxious Threat subjects
perform at higher disclosure levels than Low Anxious Non
threat subjects. The eight questions comprising the task
elicited differing amounts and degrees of disclosure. The
topic concerning life goals tended to evoke the greatest
amount of disclosure responses, while topics related to
I family relations and relationships with the opposite sex
iwere associated with high levels of both intimacy and
;amount. Among subjects in extreme disclosure groups, High
;Anxious subjects were reponsible for the most consistently
high intimacy disclosure levels while Moderate and Low
iAnxious subjects were responsible for the most consistently
73
/
low intimacy disclosure levels. There was no correspond
ence between a subject's experimental status and his
reaction to the task.
With regard to the failure of the experiment to
confirm the hypothesis, the following will be considered:
(1) the effectiveness of the threat manipulation; (2) the
possibility that the theory is wrong.
Effectiveness of the Threat Manipulation
In this experiment, an attempt was made to induce
an Anxiety-state in selected subjects differing in Anxiety-
trait. The assumption was made that subjects would be
"threatened" by a suggestion that a battery of tests
described them as maladjusted, or "unthreatened" by the
experimenter's request that they participate in a routine
experiment. While there is evidence to suggest that the
threat manipulation was credible, an analysis of subjec
tive task reactions does not support the view that the
subjects in any particular experimental group reacted
uniformly to the experimental manipulation.
The responses of individual subjects were highly
idiosyncratic. Both Threat and Nonthreat subjects some
times reported feelings of nervousness and anxiety, while
other Threat and Nonthreat subjects reacted with enthu
siasm. Hostility could be inferred on the part of at
least one Nonthreat subject who stated that he had agreed
to participate "to benefit the system," adding that the
system was "badly in need of benefit." It is apparent
that some Threat subjects appraised the task as nonthreat
ening, while some Nonthreat subjects found it to be
anxiety-producing.
A "threat" situation could be said to exist when
an individual interprets present cues as anticipatory of
harm, Lazarus (1966) presents strong evidence for the
general effectiveness of psychological stressors, but
factors in this experimental design may have mitigated the
effect of a seemingly powerful "threat." Conversely, there
is evidence that the Nonthreat condition was not as
innocuous as it might appear.
At the beginning of the experimental tape, all
subjects were exposed to identical, brief instructions
regarding the nature and demands of the taped task. The
following are excerpts from the programmed interview
instructions: " ... It will probably be a new experience
for you to talk into a tape recorder and although it will
be hard at first, you will probably become more relaxed
:after the first few questions .... The interview will be
confidential, so don't be afraid to say anything at all
.... Before I begin the questions, please mention your
name, class year, and the name of the counselor who asked
you to come." These instructions can be perceived in a
variety of ways. The first two statements objectively re
assure the subjects that the experimental situation should
not be feared. if subjects exposed to the Threat manip
ulation followed the suggestions to relax, the intensity
of their A-state should diminish. On the other hand, the
same instructions might indirectly imply to Nonthreat
subjects that there was, in fact, something "threatening"
about the task. References are made regarding the dif
ficulty of the task and possible fears (" ... It will be
ihard __ don't be afraid ... "). Since the subjects in the
!Nonthreat group should have no preconceptions about the
task as either difficult or fearful, these suggestions may
ihave intensified rather than attenuated their anxiety re
garding the disclosure interview. Thus, instructions may
have interacted „with the incoming state of the subjects,
with the result that all subjects were equally fearful.
77
The instruction which requested the subjects to
;identify themselves may also have been perceived differ
ently by Threat and Nonthreat subjects. In view of their
:counseling orientation to the task, Threat subjects should
have expected to identify themselves on the tape. Exam
ination of subjective task reactions shows that several
Nonthreat subjects questioned the identification require
ment. Since many routine surveys either do not require
!identification, or employ coded task materials so that
subjects can be identified without the awareness that this
;has been done, it is understandable that some Nonthreat
subjects may have been surprised by this request. In light
!of the normal suspiciousness of subjects who participate
in psychological experiments (only Nonthreat subjects had
this orientation), the identification requirement may have
|increased the skepticism of the Nonthreat subjects as to
the true purpose of the experiment, and thus, increased
the threat they felt in participating in the task.
In addition to the instructions, other factors in
I
j the experiment may have enhanced the threat potential for
I Nonthreat subjects, while decreasing it for Threat sub-
|jects. The earlier presented theory regarding
78
self-disclosure suggests that every disclosure involves
some risk, and that individuals use situational cues to
formulate the advisability of revealing self-information.
For Threat subjects, the task is structured as part of a
counseling situation.1 In other words, the subject is
participating in the disclosure task ultimately to help
himself. The potential "receivers" of his disclosure are
ispecified as "counselors," so he has strong reasons for
jbelieving the instructions regarding confidentiality. The
i
I Nonthreat subject, on the other hand, views his participa-
i tion as part of a larger experimental design, the purpose
>of which is unclear. The potential "receivers" of his
^disclosure are the same group which has been specified to
Threat subjects, but the motivation of this group of coun
selors in analyzing his comments is obscure. Since
| experimenters frequently disguise the purpose of their
; experiments, it would not be unreasonable for Nonthreat
i
j subjects to doubt the accuracy of the instructions regard-
i
|
I ing confidentiality or the specification of the potential
1No attempt was made to assess the female experi
menter's value as a threatening or nonthreatening stimulus,
j Students and staff at the „coliege where the experiment was
: conducted have suggested that she generally appears as
; nonthreatening.
79
audience for their taped comments. Thus, in some ways,
the Threat position is more "secure" than the Nonthreat
position. Depending on the prior conditioning of each
subject, use of tape recorders may provide additional
threatening stimuli to the situation. While there is no
reason to assume that Threat and Nonthreat subjects should
be differentially reactive to tape machines per se, the
: anxiety associated with the use of recorders may add but a
I small increment to the anxiety level of subjects who are
iworried about the status of their personal adjustment, but
may contribute more significantly to producing an Anxiety-
state in individuals whose anxiety is not so focused.
The Experiment as a Test of the Theory
It is clear that the theory upon which this study
was based does not explain the experimental findings.
While it is possible that the theory is, in fact, incor
rect, this research neither supports nor discredits this
;view. Because the manipulation of the subjects' state-
anxiety was unsuccessful, the theory has not really been
‘ tested.
The results appear to reflect idiosyncratic subject
differences. Some subjects were simply not threatened by
80
i
the ego-involving instructions. In fact, a few Threat
subjects viewed the experimenter's "discovery" of their
problems with relief. Some subjects mentioned, in response
to the question on subjective reactions, that they hoped
!the counseling process would help them overcome their
problems. Ten subjects actually requested and received
personal counseling from the experimenter following the
2
experiment. There is some support for the view that these
subjects disclosed at a higher than average intimacy
3
level. Since no post-experimental questionnaire was
employed in this study, it is impossible to ascertain the
relationship between self-disclosure performance and
requests for therapy. It cannot be determined whether
high levels of performance prompted subjects to seek
psychotherapy, or whether self-perceptions concerning a
need for professional help motivated them to disclose at
imore intimate levels.
2seven High Anxiety subjects (four Threat condi
tion, three Nonthreat condition) and three Medium Anxiety
(two Threat, two Nonthreat) subjects comprised one group
who subsequently received counseling from the experimenter.
3The average number of questions upon which the
responses of these subjects exceeded the mean disclosure
intimacy levels was 6.4. Five of these subjects fell into
the very high disclosure group.
81
Implications for Future Research
While the present experiment did not actually test
the theory regarding the effect of threat on self
disclosure in subjects who differ in anxiety level, obser-
1vations based upon it have implications for future
research.
First, it is obvious that the threat condition
;should be structured so that idiosyncratic interpretations
i are minimized. The nonthreat condition should be relative
ly free from anxiety producing stimuli (e.g., tape record-
:ers). Assessment of anxiety state should be made
;immediately prior to or during the self-disclosure task.
Secondly, in future studies, the interaction
between the subject and the experimenter should be care
fully controlled. Preferably, the research should not be
Idone in a psychotherapeutic situation. Rivenbark (1963)
tapped subjects' attitudes about confiding. Subjects
I reported that they are more willing to confide to thera-
jpists than to researchers. When the experimenter can be
i alternately perceived as both therapist and experimenter,
this variable is confounded.
Third, if possible, a pretest measure of
self-disclosure should be obtained so that intra-subject |
rather than inter-subject analyses can be performed. j
Finally, experiments should be structured so as to
evoke intimate levels of disclosure. Such designs might
involve the use of reinforcement, the dyadic effect
(Jourard, 1968), or the manipulation of other variables
which have been discussed in the context of their effect
on disclosure (Chapter II). Experimental conditions should
be arranged to maximally motivate subjects to disclose
subjectively true information. There is no way of accu
rately assessing a subject's perceptions regarding the
truth of his self-statements. However, pretest observa
tions of a subject's behavior can provide a partial check
on the validity of his disclosure. Experiments should be
conducted in both laboratory and real-life situations.
Unless there is a large reward for disclosing, meaningful
disclosure is more likely to occur in the latter context.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY
Research concerning the identification of person
ality and situational variables relating to high levels of
self-disclosure is still in the early stages. Since many
self-disclosure situations are inherently stressful,
i anxiety and threat appear as logical variables for investi
gation in this context. The purpose of the present study
: was to investigate the effects of threat on oral self
disclosure in subjects who differed in trait anxiety.
Ninety male students who applied for vocational
guidance at the San Fernando Valley State Counseling Center
served as subjects in the experiment. All subjects were
given individual test batteries which included the MMPI.
On the basis of Manifest Anxiety Scores, which were
I extracted from MMPI results, subjects were classed as Low
•Anxious, Moderately Anxious, or High Anxious. During
:initial individual interviews with the counselor (experi
menter), the general talkativeness level of each subject
was rated.
83
\
84
During second individual counseling sessions,
individuals from each anxiety group were randomly assigned
to one of two experimental conditions. One group was
introduced to the eight-question tape-monitored self
disclosure task in a threatening manner. The other group
received non-threatening instructions. The experimenter
informed each subject participating in the Threat con
dition that the battery of tests which he had taken was
suggestive of emotional difficulties. The experimental
task was described as an additional interview which would
help the experimenter to evaluate him. In the Nonthreat
condition, the experimental task was described as part of
a routine survey designed to study the personal charac
teristics of students who receive vocational counseling.
The eight questions in the experimental task
covered different topics; subjects' responses on each
question were analyzed for "intimacy level" and "amount"
of disclosure. No differences were shown on either of
these measures for any of the experimental groups. There
was no correspondence between a subject's experimental
status and his reaction to the task.
There were significant differences between
85
questions in the amount and intimacy level of disclosure
elicited. Among subjects in extreme disclosure groups.
High Anxious subjects were responsible for the most con
sistently high intimacy disclosure levels while Moderate
and Low Anxious subjects were responsible for the most
consistently low intimacy disclosure levels.
The experiment did not confirm the hypothesis that
an interaction between anxiety and threat would occur
which would affect levels of self-disclosure performance.
However, analysis of subjective responses indicated that
the threat manipulation in this experiment was not suc
cessful. Thus, further research is needed to adequately
evaluate the theory. Suggestions were given as guidelines
for further investigations.
APPENDICES
86
APPENDIX A
CONTENT OF THE PROGRAMMED INTERVIEW TAPE
/'
87
88
CONTENT OF THE PROGRAMMED INTERVIEW TAPE
During this interview you are going to be asked to
describe yourself. We need as much information and as
accurate an account as you can give in the allotted time.
It will probably be a new experience for you to talk into
a tape recorder and although it may be hard at first, you
will probably become more relaxed after the first few
;questions.
There will be eight questions altogether, covering
:a number of different topics. Please respond using your
self as the referent. In the two and a half minutes
;silence allowed for your answer, feel free to talk about
everything that comes to mind, your attitudes, feelings,
or any examples which occur to you. The interview will be
confidential, so don't be afraid to say anything at all.
;You will hear a signal fifteen seconds before I go on to
I another question. This will allow you to bring what you
are saying to a close so that you can listen to the next
question. Before I begin the questions, please mention
your name, class year, and the name of the counselor who
: asked you to come. (20 second pause)
Remember you are to answer in the two and a half
minutes uninterrupted silence which follows on the tape
after each question is asked. Okay, here goes.
Question Number One
Try to discuss why you felt you needed vocational
guidance, and mention what you hoped to get from it.
Question Number Two
What kinds of things make you anxious or fearful,
and to what degree, if any, has this anxiety affected your
everyday behavior?
Question Number Three
Tell a little about how you generally get along
with the other members of your family.
Question Number Four
Discuss any criminal or delinquent behavior in
which you may have participated.
Question Number Five
Discuss whether you become frequently depressed,
or ever become physically sick due to nervousness;
Question Number Six
Do you generally feel that you are attractive to,
and get along well with, members of the opposite sex?
Question Number Seven
Discuss the sort of things you look forward to
in life.
Question Number Eight
What were your reactions when your counselor asked
you to come to this interview?
Do you feel what you have said here is a fairly
i
accurate representation of yourself or do you feel that it
was too difficult to talk about yourself with no one else
present?
APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL TABLES
91
' V , .
92
TABLE 13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN DISCLOSURE INTIMACY SCORES
(ALL QUESTIONS)
Source df MS F
Anxiety 2 45.79 1.08
Threat 1 122.97 2.90
Interaction 2 153.29 1.81
Within Groups 84 3561.40
TABLE 14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN DISCLOSURE AMOUNT
(ALL QUESTIONS)
SCORES
Source df MS F
Anxiety 2 50.03
-
Threat 1 28.90
Interaction 2 230.87 1.91
Within Groups 84 5074.27
93
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE USING COMBINED AMOUNT SCORES
AS THE COVARIATE FOR COMBINED INTIMACY SCORES
Source df MS F
Anxiety 2 52.84 1.58
Threat 1 80.05 2.39
Interaction 2 31.25
-
Within Groups 83 33.43
S.S
.APPENDIX C
RAW DATA
94
95
TABLE 16
RAW DATA: SUBJECT NUMBERS, "TALK" RATINGS, ANXIETY
SCORES, AND ASSIGNMENT TO CONDITION
Subject Experimental
Number Talk Rating MAS Score Condition
1 3 5 N-T
2 5 19 T
3 5 41 N-T
4 3 5 T
5 3 35 T
6 3 15 N-T
7 5 2 T
8 5 14 N-T
9 5 13 T
1 0 2 8 T
1 1 6 33 T
1 2 5 4 N-T
13 3 31 T
14 2 33 N-T
15 5 33 N-T
16 1 8 T
17 5 5 N-T
18 3 23 T
19 5 18 N-T
2 0 6 2 0 N-T
2 1 2 4 N-T
2 2 3 16 T
23 2 23 N-T
24 3 2 0 T
25 3 1 2 N-T
26 5 17 T
27 6 27 N-T
28 2 17 N-T
29 2 31 N-T
30 3 8 N-T
31 5 9 N-T
32 3 15 N-T
33 5 29 T
34 2 25 , : N-T
TABLE 16— (Continued)
96
Subject
Number Talk Rating MAS Score
Experimental
Condition
35 5 4 N-T
36 5 37 -T
37 3 1 2 T
38 5 1 1 N-T
39 2 4 T
40 2 16 T
41 3 19 T
42 5 1 2 N-T
43 2 27 T
44 6 31 T
45 5 13 N-T
46 2 19 T
47 3 1 0 N-T
48 4 14 T
49 3 26 N-T
50 2 2 1 N-T
. 51 5 4 T
52 5 16 T
53 3 2 2 N-T
54 1 15 N-T
55 3 4 N-T
56 2 7 T
57 5 25 N-T
58 5 1 1 T
59 4 15 T
60 4 1 0 N-T
61 5 34 T
62 5 2 0 T
63 4 1 N-T
64 3 2 2 N-T
65 3 24 T
6 6 3 1 0 T
67 6 5 N-T
6 8 5 1 2 N-T
69 4
r 16
N-T
70 3 14 I N-T
TABLE 16— (Continued)
97
Subject
Number Talk Rating MAS Score
Experimental
Condition
71 5 24 T
72 4 23 T
73 3 28 T
74 2 23 T
75 4 3 T
76 5 15 N-T
77 3 2 0 T
78 5 2 2 T
79 5 7 N-T
80 5 26 N-T
81 5 8 T
82 3 5 T
83 5 8 T
84 3 6 T
85 5 26 N-T
8 6 5 8 N-T
87 6 5 T
8 8 4 9 T
89 5 2 1 N-T
90 6 7 N-T
h
TABLE 17
RAW DATA: MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH LOW ANXIOUS NONTHREAT SUBJECT
1 12 17 21 30
<
31
Subiect Number
35 47 55 60 63 67 79 86 90
Question
1 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.8 2.0 to
•
o
2.5 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.0 2.9
2 3.8 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.5 6.8 5.8 4.7 2.0 5.0 4.3 5.0 4.7 3.0 4.3
3 4.0 4.3 4.7 6.0 5.3 7.0 4.2 6.9 3.5 8.0 5.0 6.0 5.8 2.8 7.3
4 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 5.6 1.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 6.4 5.0 2.8 2.0 1.0
5 3.6 3.0 3.5 2.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.8 4.1 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.8
6 5.2 6.2 5.3 5.0 4.9 7.3 5.4 5.3 5.0 5.6 6.0 5.0 3.7 2.8 4.8
7 4.4 3.5 4.6 4.2 4.5 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.0 5.6 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.5 4.4
T
8 2.0 2.5 4.5 2.0 5.0 3.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 3.0
CD
TABLE 18
RAW DATA: MEAN AMOUNT SCORES FOR EACH LOW ANXIOUS NONTHREAT SUBJECT
1 1 2 17 2 1 30 31
Subiect Number
35 47 55 60 63 67 79 8 6 90
Question
1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
2 4 4 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 5 3 2 2
3 3 2 4 2 6 3 4 4 1 4 5 4 6 5 5
4 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 1
5_ 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 1 2
6 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 6 2 3 2 2
7 3 5 3 2 5 7 3 5 4 3 3 4 6 1 2
8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
vD
vo
TABLE 19
RAW DATA: MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH LOW ANXIOUS THREAT SUBJECT
-
4
7 1 0 16 39 51
Subiect Number
56 6 6 75 81 82 83 84 87 8 8
Question
1 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 0 2 . 0 1.3 2 . 6 2.5 2 . 8 2 . 1 3.0 2 . 0
■ ' 2 2 . 6 2 . 0 3.6 4.2 2.4 4.0 2 . 0 2 . 8 2.3 5.8 2 . 2 3.7 3.0 4.6 2.5
3 5.0 6 . 2 5.4 4.5 4.0 7.5 3.5 5.0 4.7 8 . 6 7.9 6 . 2 6.5 6 . 1 5.6
4 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 . 0 2 . 6 3.0 0 . 0 1 . 0 1.5 3.0 2 . 0 3.0 2.3 2 . 2 2.7
5 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 . 0 3.0 0 . 0 5.3 1 . 8 2.5 1.5 4.3 3.6 3.5 5.5: ,
6 " 5.4 5.4 6 . 0 4.8 7.0 7.0 1.5 6 . 0 4.6 9.0 6.3 6 . 0 5.0 5.4 6.0y
7 3.0 3.0
' v l 4
•
in
2.9 2 . 6 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.3 4.1 2.4 3.0 3.1
8 6 . 0 3.0 5.0 3.0 2 . 0 3.0 3.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 2.5
100
TABLE 20
RAW DATA: MEAN AMOUNT SCORES FOR EACH LOW ANXIOUS THREAT SUBJECT
4 __7 1 0 16 39
Subiect
51 56
Number
6 6 75 81 82 83 84 87 8 8
Question
1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2
2 7 2 3 2 4 3 1 2 1 4 2 4 5 2 1
' 3 5 3 7 1 6 1 1 2 3 6 3 6 4 2 3
i
~4 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 2
l
5
i
2 2 1 2 1 2 1 . 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 3
, 6
2 4 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 5 5 3 2 4
7 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 7 2 4
8 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
H
O
TABLE 21
' RAW DATA: MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH MODERATELY ANXIOUS NONTHREAT SUBJECT
‘ 6 8 19 2 0 25
Subiect Number
28 32 38 42 45 54 6 8 69
)
y
70
v - \
76
Question
1 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2.5 2 . 0 2 . 0 4.4 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 4.0
-.'V
2 . 0 2 . 0
2 3.5 5.5 5.0 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.2 2 . 2 6 . 0 3.8 4.5 3.8 3.0 4.4 5.4
3 6 . 0 8 . 2 6 . 2 3.5 6 . 6 7.1 4.2 3.5 7.1 6 . 0 5.0 4.5 4:5 5.5 5.8
'■£ ,
3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.8 4.7 6 . 8 2.5 5.6 3.0 6.5 1 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 2 3.8
5 3.0 2.5 3.8 3.0 5.4 3.8 3.2 2.7 4.2 5.0 4.4 3.0 5.0 4.5 6.7
6 7.0 5.2 5.2 4.8 6 . 6 6 . 8 6 . 8 5.1 3.5 6 . 2 4.2 3.2 5.5 5.2 7.0
7 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.0 5.2 4.6 3.0 3.0 4.7 4.8 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.0 4.8
8 6 . 0 1 . 0 4.0 6 . 0 3.0 5.0 3.5 3.0 4.6 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 4.5
i —1
o
M
TABLE 22
V
RAW DATA: MEAN AMOUNT SCORES FOR EACH MODERATELY ANXIOUS NONTHREAT SUBJECT
6 8 19 2 0 25
Subiect Number
28 32 38 42 45 54 6 8 69 70 76
Question
, 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3
2 3 1 2 2 1 5 2 5 6 3 2 4 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 1 5 4 6 4 6 3 4 3 2 5 6
4 3 1 5 1 3 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 1 4 5
5 3 1 2 1 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 6 4 7 3 2 2 3 5 5
7 3 5 5 6 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 4 6 5
8 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2
O
00
TABLE 23
RAW DATA: MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH MODERATELY ANXIOUS THREAT SUBJECT
2 9 2 2 24 26
Subiect Number
27 40 45 46 48 52 58 59 62 77
Question
1 5.0 2 . 0 3.3 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 3.2 2 . 0 2.5 2 . 0 3.6 2 . 8 3.0 3.8 2 . 0
2 5.6 7.0 4.0 3.6 2.7 7.0 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.2 6 . 8 3.3 5.2 5.3 4.8
3 7.3 8 . 2 6 . 1 4.5 4.6 7.4 6 . 6 6 . 0 7.0 5.3 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.0 6.9
4 7.5 6.5 2 . 0 3.5 3.0 4.8 3.8 3.0 2.3 2.5 7.0 3.0 3.5 6.5 3.0
5 4.0 5.6 4.9 6 . 2 3.7 4.6 6 . 6 5.0 3.3 4.8 2.9 4.2 7.0 7.3 3.6
6 4.5 8 . 2 5.0 5.8 4.1 7.0 6.7 6 . 2 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.6 5.8 5.2 3.0
7 3.5 4.3 5.5 4.2 3.0 4.2 3.8 4.8 5.5 3.6 4.4 5.0 4.8 3.2 3.3
8 6 . 0 5.0 4.5 2 . 0 2 . 0 3.0 4.1 4.0 5.0 4.0 6 . 0 4.2 3.0 4.5 3.5
O
TABLE 24
RAW DATA: MEAN AMOUNT SCORES FOR EACH MODERATELY ANXIOUS THREAT SUBJECT
2 9 2 2 24 26 27
Subiect Number
40 45 46 48 52 58 59 62 77
Question
1 [, 2 2 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 2
3 5 5 5 2 4 7 5 3 1 2 4 4 4 4 4
4 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 4 4
5 3 4 3 1 3 2 5 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 2
6 5 3 1 2 1 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 4 3
• ' “N ^ y
2
7 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 5 2 2 7
8 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 "" 2 1
i —1
o
U1
TABLE 25
RAW DATA: MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH HIGH ANXIOUS NONTHREAT SUBJECT
3 14 15 23 27 29
Subiect Number
34 49 50 53 57 64 80 85 89
Question
1 2.3 3.5 2 . 2 4.5 2 . 0 4.0 2 . 0 3.2 3.0 2 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 0 5.0 2.7 2.4
2 4.1 4.8 4.6 4.5 7.0 7.8 7.2 4.5 5.0 3.8 6.5 7.0 7.7 5.5 6.5
3 7.3 5.7 3.4 4.2 7.4 7.6 5.9 6 . 0 7.3 5.2 6.3 6.3 7.7 6.7 5.8
4 6 . 0 4.8 3.0 2 . 0 4.8 5.7 3.2 0 . 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.3 3.2 3.1 1 . 0
5 5.2 6.9 3.3 6 . 0 4.6 6.5 7.2 5.0 6.9 2.9 5.3 5.8 8 . 0 5.0 3.8
6 7.2 6 . 6 6.5 4.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 6 . 0 6 . 6 6 . 0 7.2 6.5 7.0 5.9 5.6
7 5.7 3.9 5.0 3.0 4.2 3.6 4.0 5.0 3.6 4.0 5.0 4.6 5.5 3.5 5.0
8 6 . 0 2 . 0 6 . 0 3.0 3.0 4.8 4.0 2 . 0 5.0 2.5 5.5 2 . 8 8 . 0 4.5 6 . 0
O
cn
TABLE 26
RAW DATA: MEAN AMOUNT SCORES FOR EACH HIGH ANXIOUS NONTHREAT SUBJECT
3 14 15 23 27
Subiect Number
29 34 49 50 53 57 64 80 85 89
Question
1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2
2 6 3 4 2 2 1 4 1 1 4 2 2 5 4 2
3 7 5 6 2 7 5 2 2 5 4 4 5 6 6 6
4 U . /
1 0 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1
5 fe'
10 4 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 5 2 3 5 1 2
6 7 3 5 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 5 3 2
7 1 1 4 4 2 4 5 6 1 4 5 2 5 4 4 1
8 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
l —1
o
< 1
TABLE 27
RAW DATA: MEAN INTIMACY SCORES FOR EACH HIGH ANXIOUS THREAT SUBJECT
•
5 1 1 13 18 33
(
36
Subiect
43
; Number
44 61 65 71 72 73 74 78
Question-
1 2 . 0 2 . 0 3.0 2 . 0 3.0 4.6 2.5 4.0 2.4 2 . 0 2 . 8 2 . 2 2.4 2.7 2 . 8
2 4.5 5.5 4.4 2.5 6 . 6 6 . 0 3.0 5.2 3.0 5.2 4.9 5.6 5.2 5.9 7.4
3 6 . 0 6.7 6.7 6.5 6 . 6 8.3 8 . 2 6 . 1 8.7 3.2 5.6 6.4 4.8 6 . 6
o
•
CO
4 4.5 5.0 3.2 0 . 0 6.4 3.2 6 . 8 6 . 2 7.2 3.3 3.0 1.7 3.0 6 . 2 6 . 2
5 2 . 8 5.0 6.9 3.5 5.2 7.0 4.3 3.5 4.5 3.4 4.4 5.7 6 . 0 5.4 7.2
6 6.5 4.4 5.9 4.6 8 . 0 6 . 2 7.2 6 . 2 8 . 0 5.7 4.5 5.6 6.5 7.1 7.1
7 3.0 4.7 3.8 3.3 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 5.3 3.2 3.2 5.4 5.2 4.7
8 1 . 0 3.0 6 . 0 4.0 5.2 6 . 0 3.0 5.5 6 . 0 5.0 4.8 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.9
H
o
00
TABLE 28
.RAW DATA: MEAN AMOUNT SCORES FOR EACH HIGH ANXIOUS THREAT'SUBJECT
5 1 1 13 18 33
Subiect Number
36 43 44 61 65 71 72 73 74 78
Question
1 1 1 1 2 4 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
2 2 4 3 1 2 6 3 2 1 4 2 4 5 4 3
3 5 4 4 1 3 9 3 5 6 4 8 6 3 3 4
4 1 1 2 1 4 4 2 3 2 2 1 2 4 5 3
5 3 2 5 1 4 6 2 1 2 4 5 3 1 5 4
6 2 2 3 2 6 9 3 3 1 4 3 4 5 4 4
7 3 7 4 3 5 1 0 2 2 3 2 5 7 3 6 6
8 1 1 2 1 2 9 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2
l -1
o
I
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Altman, I., and Haythorne, w. Interpersonal exchange in
isolation. Sociometry. 1965, 28, 411-426.
Benten, A. L., Hartman, C. H., and Sarason, I. W. Some
relations between speech behavior and anxiety level.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psvcholocrv. 1955, 51,
295-297.
Berne, E. Games people play; the psvcholocrv of human
relationships. New York: Grove Press, 1964.
Cattell, R. B., and Scheirer, I. H. The nature of anxiety
a review of thirteen multivariate analyses comprising
814 variables. Psychological Reports, 1958, 4, 351-
388.
Cattell, R. B., and Scheirer, I. H. The meaning and
measurement of neuroticism and anxiety. New York:
Ronald, 1961.
Child, I. L. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology,
1954, 5, 149-170.
Chitick, E. V., and Himelstein, P. The manipulation of
self-disclosure. Journal of Psychology. 1967, 65,
117-121.
Cox, F. N. Some effects of test anxiety and presence or
absence of other persons on boy's performance of a
repetitive motor task. Journal of Exceptional Child
Psychology, 1966, 3., 100-112.
Farber, I. E., and Spence, K. W. Complex learning and
conditioning as a function of anxiety. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 1953, 45, 120-125.
Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957.
Ill
112
Frankfurt, L. P. The role of some individual and
interpersonal factors on the acquisition process.
Dissertation Abstracts, 1955, 26, 1809.
Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959.
Gorsuch, R. L., and Spielberger, D. C. Anxiety, threat,
and awareness in verbal conditioning. Journal of
Personality, 1966, 34, 336-347.
Guerney, B. G., Jr. and Stollak, G. E. Problems in living,
psychotherapy, process research, and an autoanalytic
method. In G. E. Stollak, B. G. Guerney, Jr.,
M. Rothberg (Eds.), Psychotherapy research; selected
readings. Chicago: Rand, 1966, 660-666.
Haywood, H. C., and Spielberger, D. C. Palmar sweating as
a function of individual differences in manifest
anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1966, 4, 103-105.
Henry, W. E., and Cumming, E. Personality development
in adulthood and old age. Journal of Projective
Techniques. 1959, 23. 383-390.
Himelstein, P., and Kimbrough, W. W., Jr. A study of self
disclosure in the classroom. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1963, 55, 437-440.
Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton,
1943.
Jourard, S. M. Age and self-disclosure. Merri11-Palmer
Quarterly of Behavior Development, 1961, 1 _ , 191-197.
I Jourard, S. M. Disclosing man to himself. Princeton:
Van Nostrand, 1968.
Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. Princeton:
Van Nostrand, 1964.
113
Jourard, S. M., and Landsman, M. J. Cognition, cathexis,
and the "dyadic effect" in men's self-disclosing
behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior
Development, 1960, _ 6 , 178-186.
Jourard, S. M., and Lasakow, P. Some factors in self
disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1958, 56, 91-98.
Jourard, S. M., and Richman, P. Disclosure output and
input in college students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
of Behavior Development, 1963, _9, 141-148.
Kanfer, F. H. Verbal rate, content, and adjustment ratings
in experimentally structured interviews. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 305-311.
Koenig, K. P. Verbal behavior and personality change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3^,
223-227.
Koenig, K. P. Self-disclosure and anxiety change.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 1969, ! _ . • 185-189.
Krauss, H. H. Anxiety: the dread of a future event.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 1967, 23, 88-93.
Krauss, H. H., and Ruiz, R. A. Anxiety and temporal
perspective. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967,
23. 340-342.
Mandler, G., and Sarason, S. B. A study of anxiety and
learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1952, 47, 166-173.
jMatarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G., Matarazzo, R. G., and
Phillips, J. S. Stability and modifiability of person
ality patterns during a standardized interview. in
P. A. Hoch and J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of
Communication, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1958,
98-128.
114
McCoy, N. Effects of test anxiety on children's perform
ance as a function of type of instructions and type of
task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1965, 2, 634-641.
Miller, N. E. Learnable drives and rewards. In S. S.
Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology.
New York: Wiley, 1951, 435-472.
Mowrer, 0. H. The new group therapy. Princeton:
Van Nostrand, 1964.
Mullaney, A. 0. Relationships among self-disclosive
behavior, personality, and family interaction.
Dissertation Abstracts. 1964, 24, 4290.
Nicholson, W. M. The influence of anxiety upon learning:
interference or drive increment? Journal of Person
ality. 1958, 26, 303-319.
Plog, S. C. The disclosure of self in the United States
and Germany. Journal of Social Psychology. 1965, 65.
193-203.
Query, W. T. Self-disclosure as a variable in group
psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psycho
therapy, 1964, XIV, 107-115.
Rickers-Ovsiankina, M. Social accessibility in three age
groups. Psychological Reports, 1956, 2_, 283-294.
Ring, K., Braginsky, D., and Braginsky, B. Performance
styles in interpersonal relations: a typology.
Psychological Reports. 1966, 18, 203-220.
Rivenbark, W. R., III. Unpublished research, University
of Florida, 1963, 1964. In S. M. Jourard, Disclosing
man to himself. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1968, p. 27.
Rogers, J. M. Operant conditioning in a quasi-therapy
setting. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
1960, 60, 247-252.
115
Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality, and inter
personal relationships, as developed in the client-
centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psvcholocrv; a
study of a science. Vol. Ill, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1959, 184-256.
Sarason, I. G. Effect of anxiety, motivational instruc
tions, and failure on serial learning. Journal of
Experimental Psvcholocrv. 1956, 51. 253-260.
Sarason, I. G. Effect of anxiety and two kinds of moti
vating instructions on verbal learning. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psvcholocrv. 1957, 54. 166-171.
^Scheffe, H. The analysis of variance. New York; Wiley,
1959.
iSchwitzgebel, R., and Schwitzgebel, R. Reduction of
adolescent crime by a research method. Corrective
Psychiatric Journal of Social Theory, 1961, 1 _ , 212-
215.
Spence, J. T., and Spence, K. W. The motivational com
ponents of manifest anxiety: drive and drive stimuli.
In c. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New
York: Academic Press, 1966, 291-326.
Spence, K. W. Current interpretations of learning data
and some recent developments in stimulus-response
theory. In Learning theory, personality theory, and
clinical research. The Kentucky symposium. New York:
Wiley, 1953, 1-21.
;Spence, K. W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New
Haven: Yale, 1956.
Spence, K. W. A theory of emotionally based drive (D)
and its relation to performance in simple learning
situations. American Psychologist. 1958, 13, 131-141.
•Spence, K. W. Anxiety (drive) level and performance in
eyelid conditioning. Psychological Bulletin. 1964,
61, 129-139.
116
Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety and behavior. New York:
Academic Press, 1966.
Spielberger, C. D., DeNike, L. D., and Stein, L. S.
Anxiety and verbal conditioning. Journal of Person
ality and Social Psychology. 1965, JL, 229-239.
Spielberger, C. D., and Smith, L. H. Anxiety (drive),
stress, and serial position effects in serial-verbal
learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1966,
72. 589-595.
Stevenson, H. W., and Odom, R. D. The relation of anxiety
to children's performance on learning and problem
solving tasks. Child Development. 1965, 36, 1003-
1012.
Taylor, D. A., and Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli
for use in studies of interpersonal relationships.
Report No. 9, Research Project MF 022.01.03-1002,
Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland,
1966.
Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1953, 48.
285-290.
Taylor, J. A. Drive theory and manifest anxiety.
Psycholocrical Bulletin, 1956, 53. 303-320.
' Tuckman, B. W. Interpersonal probing and revealing and
systems of integrative complexity. Journal of
Personality. 1966, 3_, 655-664.
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental
design. New York: McGraw, 1962.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones

PDF

Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance

PDF

The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics

PDF

The Effects Of Self Vs. Ideological Advocacy On The Self-Esteem And Endorsement Of Black Power Ideology Of Black College Students

PDF

The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility

PDF

The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns

PDF

Human Operant Eye Blink Conditioning, Awareness, And The Extraversion-Introversion Dimension Of Personality

PDF

Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys

PDF

The Differential Effectiveness Of External Versus Self-Reinforcement On The Acquisition And Performance Of Assertive Responses

PDF

Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children

PDF

The Effects Of Nonreward Dissonance And Secondary Reward On Extinction And Attractiveness

PDF

Effects Of Video Tape Feedback Versus Discussion Session Feedback On Group Interaction, Self Awareness And Behavioral Change Among Group Psychotherapy Participants

PDF

The Effects Of Two Types Of Experimenter Intervention And Schedules Of Reinforcement On Verbal Operant Conditioning Of Affective Self-References

PDF

Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction

PDF

Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties

PDF

The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning

PDF

The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher Empathy And Student Personality To Academic Achievement And Course Evaluation

PDF

The Effects Of Justice, Balance, And Hostility On Mirth

PDF

The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows

Asset Metadata

Creator Fritchey, Kathleen Harris (author)

Core Title The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor De Nike, L. Douglas (committee chair), Marston, Albert R. (committee member), Slucki, Henry (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-440156

Unique identifier UC11362351

Identifier 7102522.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-440156 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7102522

Dmrecord 440156

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fritchey, Kathleen Harris

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA