Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
(USC Thesis Other)
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL PROXIMITY AND BODY BOUNDARY SIZE ON THE SELF-DISCLOSURE INTERVIEW by Judy Walker Weber 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) September 1972 INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company 73-789 WEBER, Judy Walker, 1945- THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL PROXIMITY AND BODY BOUNDARY SIZE ON TOE SELF-DISCLOSURE INTERVIEW. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1972 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, A XE R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by Judy Walker Weber 1972 --------,n m vr,TTnu u a c nnPN mtranPTT .MFD EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. UNIVERSITY OF SO UTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIV E R S ITY PARK LOS ANGELES. C A L IF O R N IA 8 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by walker, weber...................... under the direction of A©?... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y \J Dian Date........ S&p.temh£.r.. .1 9 .7 . 2 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The task of completing this dissertation was made infinitely more bearable and satisfying by the contribu tions, support, understanding, and encouragement of those involved with me and with my task. First, I would like to thank my chairman, Doctor Frankel for introducing me to the concept of body bound aries, for his constant interest in this project, for his optimism, and especially for his unobtrusive yet substan tial guidance. Special thanks are also given to Doctor Conolley and Doctor Meyers who served on my committee. Their careful reading of my final draft and their genuine interest was greatly appreciated. I would like to express my gratitude to Sister Carol Marie and Sister Ursala of Alverno Heights Academy who made it possible for me to use their facilities, and to the many students who generously volunteered their time. For helping me summon the energy to finish and for enabling me to believe that there would be an end to ii my madness, I thank. Janette. Most of all, I want to thank my husband, Hank, for being there when I needed him. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Territoriality, Body Boundaries, and Physical Proximity Self-Disclosure and Emotional Distance Eye Contact and Emotional Distance Hypotheses Summary of Experimental Design Experimenter and Research Assistants Subjects Setting and Apparatus Procedures Pretreatment Equivalency of Groups Treatment of Interview Data Self-Disclosure Hypotheses Eye Contact Hypotheses Relationships Between Variables Questionnaire Responses Debriefing II. METHOD 33 III. RESULTS 42 iv Chapter Page IV. DISCUSSION.....................................70 Comments on Procedural Problems Intimacy of Self-Disclosure Number of Words Spoken Eye Contact Intercorrelations of the Dependent Variables Questionnaire Summary and Interpretations of Results with Implications for Future Research V. SUMMARY ................... APPENDICES ...................... A. Request for Volunteers B. Parental Permission Form Diagram of Body Boundary Measurement R o o m ............................ D. Interview Questions . . . . E. Diagram of Interview Room F. Initial Questionnaire . . . . G. Post-Interview Questionnaire H. Self-Disclosure Scale and Scoring Examples ...................... I. Subject Instructions for the Body Boundary Measurement Procedure . J. Sample Data Card for Research Assistant 111 116 117 118 120 121 122 123 126 130 133 134 K. Distribution of Body Boundary Sizes . . 135 L. Subject Instructions for the Self- Disclosure Interview . . . . . . M. Subject Debriefing Format . . . . REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Analysis of Variance of Initial Overall Response to the Research Assistant (Initial Questionnaire, Question 1) . . . . . 43 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Scorers' Independent Ratings of Amount of Self-Disclosure ......................... 45 3. Analysis of Variance of Self-Disclosure S c o r e s .................................. 46 4. Self-Disclosure Scores ................... 47 5. Analysis of Variance of Number of Words S p o k e n ............... 48 6. Number of Words Spoken................... 49 7. t Test of the Difference Between the Number of Words Spoken in the Close and Normal Interviews and the Number of Words Spoken in the Distant Interviews................ 51 8. Analysis of Variance of the Amount of Eye Contact Maintained During the Interview . 52 9. Amount of Eye C o n t a c t................... 53 10. Analysis of Variance of the Amount of Eye Contact Maintained During the Interview Using Transformed D a t a ................... 55 11. Transformed Data for Amount of Eye Contact 56 vii Table Page 12. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Variables.................................57 13. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Variables for Small Body Boundary Ss Only . 59 14. Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Variables for Large Body Boundary Ss Only . 60 15. Analyses of Variance for Post-Interview Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 ..................63 16. Analyses of Covariance for Questions 8 Through 18 of the Post-Interview Questionnaire .............................. 65 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There is evidence to suggest that most individuals seek to maintain a spatial "buffer zone” (also referred to as personal space, body boundaries, and body buffer zone) between themselves and others in their environment (e.g., Frankel & Barrett, 1971). This "personal space” has been shown to differ widely among individuals (e.g., Kinsel, 1969). The literature suggests that individuals whose body boundaries have been violated due to encroachment by another person experience anxiety (McBride, King, & James, 1965). When this anxiety is experienced, an individual attempts to re-establish his personal space by physically moving away or perhaps by increasing the emotional dis tance between himself and the encroacher. In this way an “intimacy equilibrium" (Argyle & Dean, 1965) is maintained even though the buffer zone as a geographic entity is lost. Similarly, in a dyadic interaction, the physical distance maintained by one participant may serve to con vey to the other participant the emotional distance or 1 degree of intimacy which he wishes to establish (Rosen- feld, 1965). The need to maintain an intimacy equilibrium has important implications for the clinical interview. One of the goals of the initial interview (Wolberg, 1965, 1967) is to establish the "proper emotional atmosphere" and to build rapport which will facilitate the client's disclosure of information about himself and the nature of his difficulties. Jourard's work (Jourard, 1959? Jourard & Laskow, 1958) suggests that the amount of per sonal information disclosed in such an interview is an indication of the emotional distance between the partici pants. If, as suggested above, the physical distance maintained by one person in a new situation serves as a cue to the other as to the degree of emotional closeness to be established, and if excessive physical closeness in some situations increases an individual's need for emo tional distance, then the seating arrangement during the initial clinical interview is of great importance. The relationship between physical proximity and emotional distance in the clinical interview serves as a basis for the present research. The physical distance between an interviewer and interviewees having body boundaries of various dimensions was manipulated. The effect of these manipulations upon emotional distance as measured by self-disclosure was examined. Since amount of eye contact has been found to contribute to the estab lishment and maintenance of the intimacy equilibrium, it was also examined. In the summary of the literature which follows, research relevant to the independent variables (body boundary size and physical proximity) and to the dependent measures (amount and intimacy of self-disclosure, and eye contact) is cited. Territoriality, Body Boundaries, and Physical Proximity Territoriality in animals and humans. The study of territoriality and the use of space began with observa tions of animal behavior. The territorial instinct in animals has become a well documented phenomenon. Lorenz (1966), Hediger (1965), Tinbergen (1951) and others have observed territorial behavior and have shown that it is an important factor in the survival of animal species. Calhoun (1962) demonstrated that overcrowding, or severe 4 violation of territorial needs in rats produces a wide variety of physical and behavioral disorders. The systematic study of territorial behavior in humans was inspired by the research in animal territorial ity. Felipe and Sommer (1966) and Esser (1964) have observed the importance of territory in psychiatric hospi tals. Additionally, Sommer and Becker (1969) have studied territoriality in various public places and have explored the use of various markers to delineate these territories. The measurement of human body boundaries. Per sonal space or individual body boundaries have been measured by having a person stand alone in the center of a room and report the distance at which a person approach ing from each of six or eight different directions causes him to feel anxious (Horowitz, Duff & Stratton, 1964; Kinsel, 1969; Frankel & Barrett, 1971). This method of measuring body boundaries was employed in the present research and will be discussed in greater detail in the section dealing with methods. Other researchers (Kuethe, 1962; Little, 1968; and Weinstein, 1965) have attempted to measure the use of personal space by having their subjects arrange felt or paper silhouettes on backgrounds which are either blank or simulations of everyday scenes. The silhouettes and backgrounds employed in these studies have differed in size, shape and material, raising some questions as to whether the results of studies using variations of the silhouette measurement procedure are comparable. A study by Levinger and Gunner (1967) compared the results ob tained from two types of silhouettes and found them to be significantly correlated. These findings suggest that the various silhouette methods used can be treated as a single body of research. The relationship between the personal space measure obtained by the silhouette method and those obtained by using live stimulus objects in realistic or natural settings is less clear. There is some evidence (Dosey & Meisels, 1969; Lewit & Joy, 1967) to suggest that different phenomena are being tapped by the two methods. Dosey and Meisels (1969) found only a slight positive correlation between the placement of silhouettes and a variation of the physical approach measurement. In the same study, a slight negative correlation was found between the silhouette task and a seating choice measure of personal space. Although the results of this study question the relationship between live and silhouette measures, there are several sources of confounding in the Dosey and Meisels experiment (i.e., modeling effects) which could account for the differences. A critical study by Lewit and Joy (1967) calls into serious question many of the results of the studies by Kuethe, Little and Weinstein. This study presents data to support the hypothesis that many of the results obtained in previous studies were due to the static, symbolic, stereotyped nature of the stimulus figures. Lewit and Joy suggest that the previous studies tapped ideal role concepts rather than actual modes of social interaction. On the other hand, the only studies which have directly com pared the results of the silhouette and live techniques have failed to find significant differences. Little (1965) had subjects (Ss) manipulate live “actors" as well as silhouettes, finding a highly significant correlation between the two measures. It may be assumed that the live models provided the kinetic cues which Lewit and Joy claim were lacking in the silhouette technique. Simi larly, Kleck et al. (1968) found that normal Ss put a greater distance between themselves and epileptics than between themselves and normals in both the silhouette task and in actual face-to-face interviews. Although there are some obvious differences between the silhouette and live measures of personal space, the strikingly similar findings indicate that the two techniques are measuring the same phenomenon. The live studies have greater face validity and it is likely that they provide more accurate and detailed data. Per sonal space research which is relevant to the present investigation will be reported regardless of the measure ment techniques involved. However, the measurement tech niques employed will be reported in each instance. Body boundary size and personal characteristics. Body boundaries measured by the live approach method have been shown to vary systematically with diagnostic cate gories, behavioral characteristics and personality traits. Horowitz, Duff and Stratton (1964) observed that the body boundaries of hospitalized schizophrenics were generally larger than those of nonpatients. Kinsel (1969) found that the body boundaries of violent prisoners were larger and differed in shape from those of nonviolent prisoners. Similarly, Levine (1970) found that psycho pathic prisoners (diagnosis based on MMPI profile) exhibited larger body boundaries them did nonpsychopathic prisoners. Williams (1963) demonstrated that introverts choose to keep persons at a greater distance than do extroverts. Similarly, Leipold (1963) measured the dis tance between the interviewer and the seat chosen by the interviewee, finding, among other things, that introverted persons sat at a greater distance than did extroverts. A study of the relationship between physical body bound aries, measured by a variety of silhouette and live techniques, and Rorschach personality barrier scores (Posey & Meisels, 1969), failed to reveal any significant relationships. However, there were many uncontrolled influences in this study (i.e., modeling effects) which may account for the results. A physiological response to the violation of a person's body boundaries was demon strated by McBride, King and James (1965) who found an increase in the GSR level, which they interpreted as an increase in anxiety. Hall (1959, 1966) observing people in natural settings and Little (1958) studying the place ment of silhouettes have found that cultural background and nationality are significantly related to the use of personal space. The relationship between self-esteem and body boundary size reported by Frankel and Barrett (1971) has extremely important implications for the present research. Frankel and Barrett found that persons with large body boundaries tend to have low self-esteem while persons with small body boundaries tend to have high self-esteem. (Self-esteem was measured by a modified version of the Janis and Field questionnaire [1950].) These findings are important since level of self-esteem appears to be related to self-disclosure, one of the dependent variables in this research. The relevant relationships are dis cussed below. High self-esteem persons have been described as being able to protect themselves from negative self- evaluation (Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen & Zander, 1957). They also tend to view themselves as equal to others and as having influence over them. In stressful situations, they tend to use such mechanisms as denial and repression (Cohen, 1959). Persons with low self-esteem tend to be unable to protect themselves from negative self-evaluation (Stotland et al., 1957). They tend to employ defenses such as projection and repression, and do not share the 10 high self-esteem individuals' feelings of equality and influence (Cohen, 1959; Frankel, 1969). The characteristics associated with self-esteer in the above research are substantiated by the findings of Coopersmith's (1969) extensive research in the area. Coopersmith*s study of pre-adolescent boys indicated that in groups, high self-esteem persons are more active and able to express their views than are low self-esteem boys. Similarly, he found low self-esteem boys to feel more self-conscious and exposed while talking about them selves, and to be more sensitive to criticism. Although Coopersmith dealt with persons who differed in age and sex from the present population, it is likely that the same trends exist. On the basis of the characteristics reported above, one might expect the small body boundary, high self-esteem persons to be quite willing to disclose information about themselves in an interview situation. Conversely, those persons with large body boundaries and generally lower self-esteem might be expected to reveal less information about themselves during an interview. Interpersonal factors and the use of personal space. It has been empirically demonstrated that body boundaries, measured during live interactions, are responsive to interpersonal relationships, characteristics and motivations. Frankel and Barrett (1971) demonstrated that low self-esteem white persons scoring high on the F scale have larger body boundaries when approached by blacks than when approached by whites. A relationship between the prior proportion of unfriendly acts to total acts has been shown to effect approach distances between preschool children (King, 1966). Initial speaking dis tance has been found to vary as a function of the rela tionship between individuals (Killis, 1966). Rosenfeld (.1965) reports that instructions to females to appear friendly toward unknown persons of the same sex resulted in significantly closer physical approach than did instructions not to appear friendly. Characteristics attributed to a person influence the distance which another person will maintain between himself and that person. This relationship was demonstrated by Kleck et al. (1968) who found that normal persons sit further from people who they believe have a stigmatizing condition (i.e., epilepsy) than from people who have been identified as normal. 12 Using the silhouette method to determine inter action distances, Little (1965) showed that dyadic inter action distances are heavily influenced by degree of acquaintance and by the setting in which they take place. Further research by Little (1968) demonstrated that affective tone and sex, as well as degree of acquaint ance and nationality, are determinants of interaction distance. Value congruence has also been found to effect interaction distances (Little, Ulehla, & Henderson, 1968). Working with children, Guardo (1966) reported differences in interaction distance related to liking, acquaintance and sex. In studies of children involving both personal and interaction factors, Weinstein (1965, 1968) found that emotional disturbance and feelings of parental acceptance influenced the placement of pairs of silhou ettes . The most comprehensive exploration of the rela tionship between physical distance and interaction was carried out by Argyle and Dean (1965). They hypothesized an intimacy equilibrium established by the interaction of eye contact, physical proximity, sex, affiliation, nature of the interaction, tension level, and intimacy of the topic being discussed. They found that Ss would approach 13 a neutral object closer than a life-sized photograph of a familiar person, and would approach a familiar person with his eyes closed more closely than they would approach the same person with his eyes open. A second part of the study demonstrated that Ss placed too far (10 feet) from the confederate with whom they were to interact, attempted to decrease the distance by leaning forward; while those placed too close (2 feet) attempted to decrease the dis tance by leaning back, avoiding eye contact, etc. The findings regarding eye contact and the role of eye con tact in the present study will be considered in another section. Distance and dyadic interactions. Three studies of the actual effects of physical distance in a dyadic situation appear in the literature. Albert and Dabbs (1971) investigated the effectiveness of persuasion at various distances; Lassen (1970) explored the effects of physical proximity on the initial psychiatric interview; and Mehrabian and Diamond (1971) considered the relation ship between distance and affiliative behavior in social interactions. Albert and Dabbs (1971) hypothesized that persua- 14 sion would be most, effective when the speaker was 4 to 5 feet from the S, the distance described by Hall (1966) as appropriate for social-consultive interaction. Con trary to their expectations, they found that attitude change decreased linearly as distance decreased from 15 feet to 1 foot. In accordance with their expectations, attention to message content was greatest at the 4 to 5 foot distance while at the other distances attention was focused upon the physical appearance of the speaker. Lassen's (1970) study was exploratory and made no predictions. Relatively few of the many variables explored by Lassen proved to be sensitive to interviewing distance (3 feet, 6 feet, and 9 feet). The speech dis turbance ratio was found to increase linearly with dis tance. While this increase might be interpreted as increased anxiety, none of the other measures affected by anxiety showed a similar trend. Lassen speculated that this increase might be due to the effect of distance on the physical aspects of speech (e.g., to be heard at a distance one must speak louder and more distinctly which in itself may constitute a stress). Similarly, the patients who served as Lassen's Ss felt that they had been least clear and had made their points least well at the 15 9 foot distance as opposed to the two lesser distances. Referring to Hall's interaction distances, Lassen sug gested that this difference might be due to the fact that discussing personal problems at 9 feet violates cultural expectations. Curvilinear distance effects were found for three variables. Patients reported themselves to be most open and surer about the therapist's reaction to them in the 6 foot interview. Judged content anxiety was also highest at this distance. Lassen was careful to point out many possibly confounding factors such as the size and shape of the room and angle of interaction. However, the overall results did suggest that 9 feet may be an inappropriate distance for psychotherapy. The relative merits of the two lesser distances were less clear. In Mehrabian and Diamond's (1971) initial study of factors affecting the affiliative behavior of an unacquainted dyad no main effect for distance was found. A main effect was found for orientation with affiliative behavior being less at 180 degrees than at 90 degrees. Increase in distance (3 feet, 4-1/2 feet, 6 feet, and 9 feet) and decrease in directness of orientation were found to be linearly related to increased relaxation. 16 Negative verbal content was found to increase with dis tance, suggesting a relaxation of social constraints. A replication of this study in more natural surroundings also failed to establish a main effect for distance. Again, orientation was found to be a significant factor with affiliative behavior decreasing linearly with de creasing ly direct orientation. In both experiments indi viduals who were sensitive to rejection demonstrated greater postural relaxation when interaction was carried out at a greater distance. Apparently distance forms an effective buffer for these individuals. No trend was apparent for individuals who were not sensitive to rejec tion. While each of the above studies reports some dis tance effects, they were inconsistent and often contrary to theoretical expectations. Previous research suggests that three major factors which have been left uncontrolled in these studies may have produced the unexpected results. Two key factors in Argyle and Dean's (1965) hypothesized intimacy equilibrium were eye contact and the intimacy value of the topic being discussed at the time. Intimacy of topic and the experimenter's availability for eye con tact were controlled in the Albert and Dabbs (1971) study. 17 Amount of eye contact actually engaged in by the Ss was not explored in that study. Avoidance of eye contact was mentioned as a possible defense by Lassen (1970) but was uncontrolled and unrecorded. Similarly, intimacy of topic, as reflected by the patient*s openness, was dis cussed as a possible consequence of interaction distance but not as an intervening variable affecting other aspects of the patients* behavior. Neither factor was mentioned in the Mehrabian and Diamond (1971) study. Most impor tantly, all three studies failed to consider the individ ual S/s need for space which must surely have been a factor in his reaction to interaction distance. In contrast to the above studies, the present study has attempted to establish a consistent relation ship between interview distance and behavior by control ling and measuring these three variables. Related research in small group ecology. Explor ations of preferred seating arrangements in small groups, how they differ with the nature of the interaction, and how they affect the nature of the interaction have impli cations for the study of dyadic interactions. Sommer (1959, 1965) found a marked preference 18 for corner seating in persons cooperating on a task. If such seating was not available, same side of the table positions were preferred; in competing situations, across the table seating was preferred (Sommer, 1967). A survey of college students from five countries (Sommer, 1969) revealed total agreement in the ranking of seating arrangements as more or less intimate. Side-by-side was ranked most intimate, followed by comer and face-to-face, with distant and katty-comer arrangements ranked as least intimate. Sommer (1961) also observed that persons who knew each other fairly well chose to sit on couches across from each other until the distance between them (eye-to-eye) exceeded 5-1/2 feet. At that point side-by- side seating on the same sofa became the preferred arrangement. Russo (1967) asked Ss to rate diagrams of seating arrangements for degree of intimacy. She found that acquaintance, friendliness and talkativeness ratings decreased with distance although this effect was counter acted by increased eye contact in some arrangements. Steinzor (1950) and Ward (1968) found that in small cir cularly arranged groups, interaction is greatest between those at the greatest distance, who are also those with 19 the most eye contact. Hearn C1957) found the same pat tern in leaderless groups but noted the opposite effect in groups which were leader motivated. Summary. In summary, research has shown that space and territory are important factors in human inter action. It has been demonstrated that the physical placement of persons who are interacting provides observ ers with information about the intimacy of the relation ship, indicating a general understanding of the meaning of personal space. Definite relationships between body boundary size and personality traits have been found. The evidence shows that there are wide individual differ ences in the need for personal space, but that, in general, violation of this space produces anxiety. The concept of an intimacy equilibrium suggests that when a person's body boundaries are violated, or when an interaction takes place at an unusually great distance, he will seek to re-establish a comfortable equilibrium. When it is impossible to change the physical distance an individual may attempt to compensate by increasing or decreasing other aspects of the interaction distance. Self-disclosure and eye contact, two other 20 factors which affect the intimacy equilibrium will be discussed below. Self-Disclosure and Emotional Distance Jourard (1964) describes self-disclosure as making oneself known to another human being. According to Jourard (1968) such disclosure has the effect of decreas ing emotional distance. If this is true, then self disclosure could be expected to contribute to the estab lishment of the intimacy equilibrium. Unfortunately, the self-disclosure literature to date has not dealt directly with this relationship. Jourard*s studies have shown that individuals tend to have a liking for, or to feel close to the persons to whom they disclose personal information. For instance, the amount of self-disclosure by young women to their parents was found to be significantly correlated with extent of parent cathexis or liking (Jourard & Laskow, 1958; Jourard, 1959). While these studies do not show that self-disclosure decreases emotional distance, they do indicate that self-disclosure and emotional closeness are positively related. Some attempts have been made to elicit verbal self—disclosure and to discover the conditions which facilitate self-disclosure. Himelstein and Kimbrough (1963) studied the self-disclosure of graduate students who were asked to introduce themselves in alphabetical order to their new classmates on the first day of class. They found that the amount of self-disclosure made by an individual could be predicted more accurately from his order of speaking than from his self-report of previous self-disclosure patterns. In this study, those at the end of the alphabet witnessed more self-disclosure and engaged in more, than did those at the beginning of the alphabet. These results may be interpreted as support for Jourard1s (1968) hypothesis that self-disclosure from one person facilitates self-disclosure from another. Further support for this hypothesis was obtained by Chittick and Himelstein (1968) who found that an individ ual's self-disclosure in a group setting is highly influ enced by the disclosure of the other group members. Although Jourard (1968) emphasized the importance of self-disclosure by the patient to the process of growth in psychotherapy, only two studies which explore self-disclosure in a quasi-therapeutic interview have been located. These studies are discussed below. 22 Carson, Hardin and Shows (1964) used Jourard's self-disclosure interview (Jourard, 1961) as the basis for an interview in a study of A and B type therapists. In their study, 20-minute interviews were conducted in which the interviewers attempted to obtain the answers to 18 modified items from the Jourard questionnaire. These items could be presented in any order and, unfortunately, all items were not presented in each interview. Although the value of this study is seriously impaired by the lack of controls, it is of importance to the present research, since it demonstrated that brief self-disclosure inter views are responsive to personality and interaction factors. A more recent study (Fritchey, 1970) has elimi nated many of the sources of confounding which were so apparent in the study by Carson, Hardin and Shows (1964). In this experiment, high and low anxious persons were exposed to totally automated self-discx.'sure interviews. Subjects were seated alone in a booth with a recording and a questioning tape recorder. High and low stress conditions were employed. The interview consisted of eight questions with 2-1/2 minutes to answer each one. Some of the questions were based upon those used by Kanfer (1959) in an earlier study. It was hypothesized that low anxious Ss would exhibit more self-disclosure than high anxious Ss in the stress condition, while the reverse would be true in the no stress condition. Un fortunately, the results of this research were not avail able while the present study was being developed. How ever, both the theoretical basis of the Fritchie study and some of the procedures were utilized in the develop ment of the present study. The approach to the quantifi cation of the self-disclosure influenced the methods employed in this study. Fritchie assigned two self- disclosure scores to each S. One score was simply the sum of the total number of different ideas presented in response to each question. The second score was an intimacy rating based on the intimacy scaled stimuli developed by Taylor and Altman (1966). The use of two measures of self-disclosure seems to be very important. It is possible that the amount and intimacy of self disclosure are entirely separate phenomena which serve different functions and which are responsive to different stimuli. For instance, it is a common clinical observa tion that some patients talk rapidly and continually under stress while failing to disclose any significant 24 information about themselves. This tendency of some persons to speak rapidly under stress has been experi mentally observed (Benton, Hartman & Sarason, 1955). On the basis of the above theory and research, it appears that an individual's degree of self-disclosure may reflect both the nature of his relationship to the recipients of his disclosure and the nature of the inter action. If variation in the amount and intimacy of self disclosure actually reflects variation in emotional distance, then such variation may represent an individ ual's attempt to maintain his intimacy equilibrium. One might therefore expect to find differences between the amount and intimacy of self-disclosure observed in inter views conducted at normal distances, at small distances which violate body boundaries, and at unusually great distances. Eye Contact and Emotional Distance As noted previously, Argyle and Dean (1965) saw eye contact as one of the major factors in the intimacy equilibrium. They hypothesized that eye contact serves various functions including the provision of feedback and the signal that the channel of communication is open. 25 Their findings showed that eye contact decreased as physical distance decreased in a dyadic discussion. They also suggested, but did not test, the hypothesis that intimacy of topic is inversely related to amount of eye contact. In accord with this hypothesis, Exline, Gray and Schuette (1965) found that Ss engaged in personal interviews allowed less eye contact with the interviewer than did Ss engaged in an interview concerning their recreational interests. These researchers found, as did Strongman and Champness (1968) that differences noted in amount of eye contact were clearest during periods when the S was talking and during periods of mutual silence. On the basis of the research reported above, one would expect that, in an interview where physical closeness violates body boundaries and where intimate self disclosure is being elicited, eye contact maintained by the interviewee would be minimal. The findings of Ellsworth and Carlsmith (1968) that eye contact intensi fies affective reactions suggests that the avoidance of eye contact by an interviewee would serve to reduce the intensity of closeness of the interview. Other research indicates that amount of eye con tact is highly responsive to the interviewee's expectation 26 of approval from the interviewer (Efran and Groughton, 1966; Efran, 1968), to negative or positive affect in the interview and to attraction of the interviewee to the interviewer (Exline and Winter, 1965). In view of the above findings, it is clear that the maintenance and avoidance of eye contact in an interview situation is a complex interactional phenomenon. In the present research, where eye contact sought by the interviewee was measured as a dependent variable, the interviewer's behavior on this dimension was con trolled. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. From the above data it can be argued that large body boundary, low self-esteem persons tend to feel inferior and are therefore less able to overcome their fears than small body boundary, high self esteem persons (Stotland et al., 1957; Cohen, 1959; Coopersmith, 1967). They are also less likely to present their ideas (Coopersmith, 1967). It is therefore expected that large body boundary, low self-esteem persons are less disclosing in an interview situation than are small body boundary, high self-esteem persons, thereby main- 27 taining a greater emotional distance from the interviewer. Thus, it was hypothesized that: The self-disclosure of persons with small body boundaries will be significantly greater and more intimate than the self-disclosure of persons with large body boundaries. Hypothesis 2. There is evidence to show that individuals experience anxiety when their body boundaries are violated (Frankel & Barrett, 1971; Kinsel, 1969; McBride et al., 1965). Argyle and Dean (1965) have suggested that one way of decreasing the threat of physi cal closeness, when it cannot be voided, is for the indi vidual to increase other types of distance between himself and the encroacher. Self-disclosure, which appears to be related to emotional distance (Jourard & Laskow, 1958; Jourard, 1959), could be expected to decrease in an inter view where the distance between the interviewer and the interviewee is unusually small (2 feet). It has been noted (Rosenfeld, 1965) that physical distance serves as a cue to friendliness and to degree of intimacy (Russo, 1967) with judged intimacy or emotional closeness decreas ing as the physical distance increases. Excessive physi cal distance in an interview situation (10 feet) might decrease the level of self-disclosure by conveying a 28 nonverbal message to the interviewee to maintain a rela tively large emotional distance between himself and the interviewer. An increase in emotional distance, indi cated by a decrease in self-disclosure, could therefore be expected when the distance between the interviewer and the interviewee is either excessively large or unusually small. Conversely, one could expect the greatest amount of self-disclosure when the distances in the interview situation are within the normal limits (4 to 6 feet). Thus, it was hypothesized that: In general, the greatest amount of self-disclosure and the most intimate self-disclosure, regardless of body boundary size, would occur when the dis tance between the interviewer and the interviewee was normal (4-1/2 feet). Hypothesis 3. The personal space of individuals with large body boundaries is violated during an interview in which they are seated unusually close (2 feet) to the interviewer. The personal space of individuals with small body boundaries is approached but not violated during such an interview. Large body boundary persons would therefore be expected to experience greater anxiety in an unusually close interview than would small body boundary persons. Their greater anxiety due to the violation of their 29 boundaries and the severe imbalance of their intimacy equilibria would result in a great increase in emotional distance. One would predict a lesser increase in emo tional distance in persons with small body boundaries since their actual body boundaries are not violated and their intimacy equilibria are not as seriously disturbed. Since emotional distance appears to be related to self disclosure, the large body boundary group would be expected to exhibit a greater decrease in amount and intimacy of self-disclosure than the small body boundary group when unusually close and normal distance interviews are compared. It was therefore hypothesized that: The amount and intimacy of self-disclosure by persons with large body boundaries would decrease significantly more when the distance between the interviewer and interviewee was decreased to 2 feet than would the self-disclosure of persons with small body boundaries. Hypothesis 4. Even in the normal interview situation where the interviewer and the interviewee are seated 4-1/2 feet apart, the interviewee may experience some anxiety due to the physical proximity of the inter viewer. This anxiety would be greater for persons with large body boundaries since their actual body boundaries would be more closely approached. When the interview 30 distance is increased to 9 feet both high and low body boundary persons might experience a reduction of anxiety due to physical proximity. This reduction should be very small for persons with small body boundaries and somewhat greater for those persons with large body boundaries. At the same time, the unusually large physical distance between the interview participants serves as a cue to the interviewee to show less self disclosure (greater emotional distance) than in a stand ard interview situation. In persons with large body boundaries, the effect of decreased anxiety would tend to counteract the cues for decreased emotional closeness. However, low body boundary persons, who would not experi ence such a large decrease in anxiety, would exhibit greater responsiveness to the nonverbal cues calling for a relatively low level of emotional closeness. Conse quently, in the distant interview situation a greater reduction in self-disclosure was expected in persons with small body boundaries than in persons with large body boundaries. Thus, it was hypothesized that: The amount and intimacy of self-disclosure by persons with small body boundaries would decrease significantly more when the distance between the interviewer and the interviewee was increased to 31 9 feet than would the self-disclosure of persons with large body boundaries. Hypothesis 5. Eye contact has been shown to decrease in response to excessive physical proximity and to be a contributer to the maintenance of an intimacy equilibrium (Argyle & Dean, 1965). Similarly, eye con tact is responsive to intimacy of interview topic (Exline, Gray, & Schuette, 1965) and this responsiveness is most apparent when the interviewee is speaking or when there is mutual silence. Also, Argyle and Dean (1965) found that eye con tact increased when verbal interaction took place under unusually distant conditions. This increase was sup posedly due to an increased need to signal that the channel of communication was open and to the greater dif ficulty in obtaining visual feedback at that distance. On the basis of the above findings, different amounts of eye contact during the answer periods of the interviews are expected for each of the three distances. The least eye contact is expected to occur in the close interview and the most in the distant interview, with the eye contact in the normal interview falling between the two. It was therefore hypothesized that: 32 In general, the least interviewee eye contact would occur when the distance between the inter viewer and the interviewee was very small (2 feet) and the most interviewee eye contact would occur when the distance between the interviewer and the interviewee was very large (9feet), regardless of body boundary size. Hypothesis 6. As noted previously, persons with large body boundaries are those persons whose body bound aries are actually violated in the close interview. In \ this interview situation, they would therefore be expected to experience greater anxiety due to equilibrium im balance than would persons with small body boundaries whose personal space is not actually violated. Eye con tact has been shown to be a factor in the maintenance of the intimacy equilibrium (Argyle & Dean, 1965) with decreased eye contact serving to reduce emotional close ness or intimacy. Persons with large body boundaries were therefore expected to show a greater reduction in eye contact during the close interview than were persons with small body boundaries. Again, eye contact was measured only during the answer periods. Thus, it was hypothe sized that: The eye contact of large body boundary persons in the close interview would be less than the eye con tact of small body boundary persons during the close (2 feet) interview. CHAPTER II METHOD Summary of Experimental Design The basic experiment was conceptualized as a two by three factorial design. There were two groups of Ss, those with large body boundaries and those with small body boundaries. The variable which was manipulated was the distance between the S and the E during a standard ized, taped, self-disclosure interview. Three levels of distance were examined: close, normal, and distant. The three dependent measures were amount of self-disclosure (number of words spoken), intimacy of self-disclosure, and amount of eye contact. Experimenter and Research Assistants The present author, a Caucasian, female, 25-year old graduate student in clinical psychology served as the experimenter (E). A paid research assistant (RA) conducted the measurement of body boundaries and the interviews. The 33 34 RA was a 25-year old, Caucasian, male undergraduate. He was chosen on the basis of his average appearance (5 foot 5 inches tall, medium build, blond hair, no unusual features) and ability to maintain a neutral facial expression during experimental procedures. One male and one female undergraduate psychology major were paid to rate the self-disclosure interviews on the intimacy scale. Subjects The E spoke to all the members of the junior and senior classes at a Catholic girls' high school regarding her experiment and asked for volunteers to participate (.Appendix A). The 96 girls who volunteered, who had no classes which conflicted with the experiment, and whose parents signed permission slips (Appendix B) were included in the preliminary phase of the experiment. Following the measurement of body boundaries, 48 girls were chosen for the actual experiment. The selection procedures will be described below. Setting and Apparatus A 16 foot by 25 foot carpeted room was used for 35 the measurement of body boundaries. The floor in one end of this room was marked with four intersecting strips of masking tape marked off in one foot sections. Each strip of tape was 14 feet in length. Two strips were placed at right angles to the walls of the room and two strips were placed diagonally (Appendix C) . A tape recording consisting of a 10-question modification of the self-disclosure interview employed by Fritchey (1970) (Appendix D) was used in the interview. The recording was made by the PA. Two minutes of silence followed each question on the interview tape. During the experimental sessions the interview question tape was played on a portable tape recorder (Craig, Model 212). Another portable tape recorder (Wollensak) was used to record the experimental sessions. A 6 foot by 10 foot office containing one desk, two chairs, a bookcase, and an endtable served as the interview room. The RA sat in one corner of the room. The desk with the tape recorder playing the taped inter view was placed to his right. The S's chair was placed along the diagonal running from the RA's corner to the opposite corner at the assigned distance (2 feet, 4-1/2 feet or 9 feet). The endtable with the recording tape recorder was placed to the S's right. Large, rubber, no-skid rug protectors were placed under each leg of the chairs to prevent them from being moved. Distances between the S's and the RA's chairs were 2 feet in the close condition, 4 feet in the normal condition, and 8 feet in the distant condition. For all distances the chairs were placed facing each other. In the 2-foot interview the chairs were placed at a slight angle to pro vide needed leg space (Appendix E). A standard stop watch was used by the RA to record the amount of eye contact. A brief written questionnaire designed by the E was administered following the body boundary measurement (Appendix F). A more extensive version of this question naire was used following the interview (Appendix G). Originally, Fritchie's (1970) method of employing the Taylor Altman list of intimacy scaled items (1966) as a guideline for rating the intimacy value of inter views was to be utilized. When the analysis of pilot interviews demonstrated this method to be unreliable, the E used the pilot tapes to develop her own intimacy rating scale. The 5-point rating scale developed by the E (Appendix H) was used to determine the intimacy of self- 37 disclosure in the interviews. Procedures Measurement of body boundaries. The E met each S at the door of the experimental room and accompanied her into the room. When they entered the experimental room the RA was standing in the righthand corner of the room and holding a clipboard. The RA looked at the E during the entire instruction period and did not make eye con tact with the S during this period. The E took each £[ to the point where the four strips of tape intersected and asked her to face forward toward point A (see Appendix C}. The E then moved to point A and read the experimental instructions (Appendix I) to the S. The E then asked if the S understood the instructions. Questions were answered by repeating a portion of the instructions. The E then handed a data card (Appendix J) to the RA and left the room. The RA then stepped to the end of the strip designated as the starting point on the data card.^ He ^-Starting direction for Ss was determined by clockwise rotation beginning with, tape end A for S#l. 38 then attempted to make brief eye contact with the S; stated, "I'm starting"; looked at his feet; stepped to the 6 foot line; attempted to make brief eye contact with the S; looked at his feet; stepped to the 5 foot mark; and continued in this fashion until the S indicated that she wanted him to stop; or until he came to the 1 foot mark. He then recorded the distance, moved to the end of the next strip of tape and continued in this manner until he had approached the S from each of the eight directions. He then thanked the S and accompanied her to the door. Outside of the room, each £ was met by the E who seated her on a bench and asked her to fill out a ques tionnaire about her impressions of the RA. Each S was assured that the RA would not see her responses. After the S completed the questionnaire, the E thanked her and told her that she would be notified if she was chosen to participate in the second part of the experiment. Each S was cautioned not to discuss the experiments with other students. Selection and assignment of subjects for the experiment. All Ss whose body boundaries were zero were eliminated from the study. This was done because 39 it is impossible to differentiate between those who do not ask the RA to stop because they actually feel no dis comfort and those who are so anxious that they find speaking difficult. Twelve Ss were eliminated because they fell into this category. Eight additional Ss were eliminated from the study because they either dropped out of school or because a change in their academic schedule made them unavailable during those hours when the interview room was available. The mean body boundaries of the remaining 76 Ss were examined. Three categories of mean body boundary size were established according to the observed distribu tion (Appendix K). The large body boundary group included the 30 Ss with mean body boundaries of 2.25 feet or more. The small body boundary group consisted of the 26 Ss with mean body boundaries of 1.50 feet or less. The 20 Ss with mean body boundaries greater than 1.50 feet and less than 2.25 feet formed the medium body boundary group and were eliminated from the study. Since equal cell size was desired, the largest possible number of Ss for each cell, following the above eliminations, was 8. Therefore, 24 Ss with large body boundaries and 24 Ss with small body boundaries were 40 required. Excess Ss in each category were randomly eliminated. Eight large body boundary Ss and eight small body boundary £s were assigned to each interview dis tance. This assignment was made on a random basis. The Ss were scheduled for the interview in the same order in which their body boundaries were measured. Minor adjustments were made in the order due to schedul ing difficulties. Self-disclosure interview. Each S was met in the outer office by the E and taken into the interview room. When the S entered the interview room the RA was seated in one comer of the room as described above. The E asked the S to sit in the vacant chair and read her the instructions pertaining to the self-disclosure interview (Appendix L). If any questions were asked by the S, the E answered them by repeating part of the instructions. During the entire instruction period the RA focused on the E and avoided eye contact with the S. After com pleting the instructions, the E stated, "I will see you after the interview," turned on the recording tape recorder and left the room. The RA then stated, "We will begin the interview 41 now," and switched on the tape recorder with the pre recorded interview questions. The RA made no further statements during the interview. If questioned by an S, he had been instructed to state, "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to respond to your questions." If questioned again by the same £ he had been instructed to remain silent. The RA maintained a neutral facial expression during the interview. In order to obtain an accurate measure of eye contact the RA sought eye contact with S only during the 2-minute response period following each question. He attempted to maintain eye contact while avoiding an unbroken stare. He focused upon the S_'s forehead in order to avoid eye contact while each of the 10 questions was being asked. The stopwatch was held in his left hand where it could not be seen by the S^. All eye contact excepting extremely rapid glances was cumu latively recorded on the stop watch. When the interview was over the RA switched off the tape recorder, thanked the £ for participating and opened the door for her. The E met each £ as she left the interview room and asked her to fill out the post-questionnaire. Following completion of the questionnaire each S was de briefed by the E (Appendix M). CHAPTER III RESULTS Pre-treatment Equivalency of Groups Prior to the interview in the second part of the experiment, responses to Question 1 (How did you feel about the research assistant?) from the first questionnaire {Appendix F) were examined to verify that the Ss* feelings about the RA were equivalent across all groups. A two-way analysis of variance (Table 1) revealed no significant differences between the six experimental groups. Initial feelings toward the RA were therefore ruled out as a major confounding factor. Treatment of Interview Data The taped interviews were transcribed and typed. The responses of the Ss were grouped by question number rather than remaining together as a complete interview. After receiving training on the pilot tapes, two scorers independently rated all responses for all Ss. In order to determine inter-rater reliability a product moment 42 43 TABLE 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INITIAL OVERALL RESPONSE TO THE RESEARCH ASSISTANT (INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTION 1} Source df MS F Body boundary size (A) 1 1.33 3.58 Interview distance (B) 2 .44 1.02 A x B 2 .65 1.55 Within (error) 42 .42 F .05 (df 1, 42) = 4.08; F .05 (df 2, 42) = 3.23. 44 correlation was computed across all questions for all Ss (Table 2). The correlation obtained was .88 indicating a high level of inter-rater reliability. Where RA^ and RA^ did not agree their scores were averaged for the purpose of further statistical evaluation of the data. The typed transcripts were also used to determine the number of words spoken by each S in response to each question. A simple word count was made by the E. Self-Disclosure Hypotheses A two-way analysis of variance (Table 3) of inti macy of self-disclosure scores (Table 4J was performed to test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Chapter I). No sig nificant effects were found. Hypothesized effects due to body boundary size, interview distance and the inter action of these two variables were not found. Similarly, no significant results were obtained when a two-way analysis of variance on the number of words spoken (Table 5) was computed to further test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, visual inspection of the data (Table 6) did reveal that the number of words spoken by both large and small body boundary persons was much smaller in the distant interview condition them in 45 TABLE 2 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION OF SCORERS' INDEPENDENT RATINGS OF AMOUNT OF SELF-DISCLOSURE N r df 48 .88 478 1752.66* * p . o o l . 46 TABLE 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SELF--DISCLOSURE SCORES Source df MS F Body boundary size (A) 1 13.55 .94 Interview distance (B) 2 16.35 1.14 A x B 2 6.20 .43 Within (error) 42 14.41 F .05 (df 1, 42) = 4.08; F .05 (df 2, 42 = 3.23). TABLE 4 SELF DISCLOSURE SCORES Interview Distance Close Normal Distant Total M SD M SD M SD M SD Large body boundary subjects 23.93 2.78 24.81 1.89 21.75 3.01 23.73 3.68 Small body boundary subjects 24.62 4.77 24.06 4.67 24.94 2.76 24.54 4.19 Total 24.28 3.89 24.44 3.55 23.34 3.33 24.13 3.99 48 TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NUMBER OF WORDS SPOKEN Source df MS F Body boundary size (A) 1 21,888.00 0.23 Interview distance (B) 2 167,900.00 1.73 A x B 2 64,482.00 0.66 Within (error) 42 92,816.12 F .05 (df lf 42) = 4.08; F .05 (df 2, 42 = 3.23. TABLE 6 NUMBER OF WORDS SPOKEN Interview Distance Close Normal Distant Total M SD M SD M SD M SD Large body boundary 571.88 308.93 609.00 310.14 306.12 141.80 495.67 295.38 subjects Small body boundary 551.63 383.85 572.00 343.75 495.25 176.23 539.58 316.16 subjects Total 561.75 348.56 590.51 327.12 400.69 185.78 517.64 307.57 either the close or the normal condition. A t test was then performed to find out if this observed difference was significant (Table 7). The test was significant at the .05 level. Fewer words were spoken in the distant interview than in the normal or close interviews. Eye Contact Hypotheses Hypothesis 5 (Chapter I) was tested by means of a one-way analysis of variance of the amount of eye con tact recorded during the interview response periods (Table 8}. Results of this analysis were nonsignificant indicating that interview distance did not affect the amount of eye contact engaged in by Ss. Inspection of the data (Table 9) showed.that while the means fell in the predicted direction, there was also extreme heterogeneity of variance. An appro priate data transformation was therefore sought to stabi lize within-group variance. Since no recognizable rela tionship between the mean and variance was found, various transformations were applied as suggested by Myers (1966, p. 64). The transformation which proved most effective in reducing the within group variance was the square root transformation. 51 TABLE 7 t TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF WORDS SPOKEN IN THE CLOSE AND NORMAL INTERVIEWS AND THE NUMBER OF WORDS SPOKEN IN THE DISTANT INTERVIEWS Mean SE Normal and Close Distant 576.12 400.69 92.69 1.89* *p < .05. 52 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF EYE CONTACT MAINTAINED DURING THE INTERVIEW Source df MS F Interview distance (A) 2 18.32 2.18 Within (error) 45 8.40 F .05 (df 2, 45 ) = 3.23. 53 TABLE 9 AMOUNT OF EYE CONTACT Group M SD Close interview 2.37 2.43 Normal interview 3.97 3.90 Distant interview 1.94 2.32 Total 2.76 2.79 54 A one-way analysis of variance (Table 10) was then performed on the transformed data (Table 11). All F values failed to reach the .05 level of significance. Relationships Between Variables In order to further investigate the relationship among the variables contributing to the hypothesized intimacy equilibrium, a series of Pearson correlation coefficients were carried out between the three dependent variables (eye contact, intimacy of self-disclosure, and number of words spoken). A correlation of .45 was found between the number of words spoken and intimacy of self disclosure. This correlation was significant at the .001 level. Both of the other correlations reached a .01 level of significance. These were the correlations be tween the intimacy of self-disclosure and the amount of eye contact (r = .42), and between the number of words spoken and the amount of eye contact (r = .36) (Table 12). Given a certain amount of validity to the body boundary construct (see Chapter I) and given that all Ss with medium body boundaries had been eliminated from the study, the remaining Ss could be viewed as representa tives of two distinct populations. If the Ss did 55 TABLE 10 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF EYE CONTACT MAINTAINED DURING THE INTERVIEW USING TRANSFORMED DATA Source df MS F Interview distance (A) Within (error) 2 45 3.64 2.82 1.29 F .05 (df 2, 45) = 3.23. 56 TABLE 11 TRANSFORMED DATA FOR AMOUNT OF EYE CONTACT Group M SD Close interview 2.86 2.27 Normal interview 3.61 1.98 Distant interview 2.73 1.30 Total 3.07 1.67 57 TABLE 12 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN VARIABLES Variables 1 2 3 1. Self-disclosure .45** .42* 2. Number of words .36* 3. Eye contact *p c -01 **p < .001 58 represent two distinct populations then the intercorrela tions obtained for the total sample might be misleading. In order to explore this possibility, Pearson correlation coefficients for the three dependent variables were com puted separately for the 24 small body boundary Ss (Table 13) and for the 24 large body boundary Ss (Table 14). The resulting intercorrelations for the two samples were strikingly different. A very large signifi cant correlation of .71 was found between intimacy of self-disclosure and number of words spoken for the large body boundary Ss. In contrast, for small body boundary Ss a much smaller, nonsignificant correlation of .29 was found between the same two variables, self-disclosure and number of words. A nonsignificant correlation of .27 was found between intimacy of self-disclosure and eye contact for large body boundary Ss. The correlation between these variables for small body boundary Ss was a significant .52. The relationship between number of words spoken and amount of eye contact showed just the opposite pat tern. A significant correlation of .51 was found for large body boundary Ss and a nonsignificant correlation 59 TABLE 13 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN VARIABLES FOR SMALL BODY BOUNDARY Ss ONLY Variables 1 2 3 1. Self-disclosure .29 .52* 2. Number of words .15 3. Eye contact *p < .01 60 TABLE 14 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN VARIABLES FOR LARGE BODY BOUNDARY Ss ONLY Variables 1 2 3 1. Self-disclosure .71** .27 2. Number of words .51* 3. Eye contact *P < .05 **p < .001 of .15 for those with small body boundaries. The pattern of intercorrelations presented above suggested that the relationship between each of two sets of dependent variables, amount of self-disclosure and amount of eye contact, and number of words spoken and amount of eye contact, was partially a function of body boundary size. Questionnaire Responses The first and second questions on the post interview questionnaire (Appendix G) asked the to explain the purpose of the experiment and the relation ship between the two parts of the experiment. All Ss either explained the experiment in terms of the rationale given by the E (Appendices A, J, and L) or failed to answer at all. There was no indication that any S guessed that personal space was actually the subject of the experiment. In order to discover whether post-interview questions 3 through 6 (Appendix G) were answered inde pendently of body boundary size, interview distance, and the interaction of these two variables, four two-way analyses of variance were performed on these data (Table 62 15). The results of these analyses indicated that ques tions 4, 5, and 6 were, in fact, answered independently of the above mentioned variables. There was, however, a significant interaction between body boundary size and interview distance on question 3 which dealt with the Ss' reported overall reactions to the interview. Large body boundary Ss reacted most favorably to the close interview and least favorable to the distant interview. The oppo site was true of small body boundary Ss who reacted less favorably to the close interview than to either the normal or distant interviews. A trend toward significance was also found for the effect of interview distance. The Js in the distant interview tended to have a less positive reaction to the experimental interview than did Ss in the close and normal interviews. Question 7 from the post-interview questionnaire (Appendix G) asked Ss who had found the seating arrange ment uncomfortable to suggest how it could have been made more comfortable. The responses to this question are presented in Table 15. Only 25 of the 48 Ss responded to Question 7. Eleven of the responses were either inappro priate (gave positive or neutral reactions to the seating) or irrelevant (talked about other aspects of the inter- 63 TABLE 15 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR POST-INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 3, 4, 5, AND 6 Source df MS F Question 3 Body boundary size (A) 1 1.69 3.01 Interview distance (B) 2 2.31 2.75* A x B 2 9.56 11.38** Within (error) 42 .84 Question 4 Body boundary size (A) 1 1.02 1.26 Interview distance (B) 2 .72 .89 A x B 2 .49 .60 Within (error) 42 .81 Question 5 Body boundary size (A) 1 .75 .82 Interview distance (B) 2 .15 .16 A x B 2 .18 .20 Within (error) 42 .92 Question 6 Body boundary size (A) 1 1.02 1.31 Interview distance (B) 2 2.02 2.59* A x B 2 .66 .85 Within (error) 42 .78 *P < .10. **p < .001. F .05 (df 1, 42) = 4.08; F .05 (df 2, 42 ) = 3.23. 64 view) to the actual question asked. Only 14 Ss actually made suggestions about improving the seating arrangement. This number included only nine of the 12 Ss who had rated the seating as extremely or somewhat negative on Question 6. It also included two Ss who had described the seating as neutral and three who had rated it as extremely or somewhat positive. The results of Question 7 were not statistically analyzed since the responses did not appear to be con sistent with responses to Question 6 and since many Ss apparently did not understand the question. Questions 8 through 18 of the post-interview questionnaire (Appendix G) also appeared on the initial questionnaire (Appendix F). The responses to the post interview questionnaire were analyzed using a two-way analysis of covariance (Table 16). The responses to the initial questionnaire served as the covariates. Two questions, Question 12 concerning the Ss' rating of the RA's competence and Question 14 concerning the Ss* rating of the RA*s importance, were eliminated since comments of several Ss during the debriefing indicated that they did not understand these questions. 65 TABLE 16 ANALYSES OF COVARIANCE FOR QUESTIONS 8 THROUGH 18 OF THE POST-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE Source df MS F Question 8 Body boundary size (A) 1 2.02 4.04* Interview distance (B) 2 .23 .46 A x B 2 .42 .84 Within (error) 41 .50 Question 9 Body boundary size (A) 1 .75 .96 Interview distance (B) 2 .06 .08 A x B 2 1.24 1.59 Within (error) 41 .78 Question 10 Body boundary size (A) 1 .19 .50 Interview distance (B) 2 .06 .10 A x B 2 .02 .05 Within (error) 41 .38 Question 11 Body boundary size (A) 1 .15 .24 Interview distance (B) 2 .26 .42 A x B 2 .79 1.27 Within (error) 41 .62 TABLE 16 (Continued) 66 Source df MS F Question 13 Body boundary size (A) 1 2.09 2.86* Interview distance (B) 2 2.52 3.45** A X B 2 2.82 3.73** Within (error) 41 .73 Question 15 Body boundary size (A) 1 .33 .97 Interview distance CB) 2 .16 .47 A x B 2 .04 .12 Within (error) 41 .34 Question 16 Body boundary size (A) 1 .21 .24 Interview distance CB) 2 .46 .52 A x B 2 2.62 2.98* Within (error) 41 .88 Question 17 Body boundary size (A) 1 .02 .15 Interview distance (B) 2 .07 .54 A x B 2 .20 1.54 Within (error) 41 .13 Question 18 Body boundary size (A) 1 .12 .16 Interview distance (B) 2 .06 .08 A x B 2 .65 .86 Within (error) 41 .76 *P .10. **p .05. F .05 (df 1, 42) = 4.08; F .05 (df 2, 42) = 3.23. 67 No significant differences or trends due to body boundary size, interview distance, or the interaction of these two variables, were noted for the Ss' rating of the RA on the dimensions of friendliness (Question 9), attractiveness (Question 10) , or his interest in them (Question 11). Similarly, no differences were found for the Ss* rating of the RA's overall reaction to them (Question 15), his rating of their attractiveness (Ques tion 17), or his rating of their level of tension (Ques tion 18) . The effect of the interview distance and the effect of the interaction of interview distance and body boundary size were significant at the .05 level for Question 13 which asked the S to rate the RA as relaxed or tense on a five-point scale. The Ss who participated in the distant interview rated the RA as most tense on the post-interview questionnaire. This effect was accen tuated by the fact that these same Ss had rated him as most relaxed on the questionnaire. The close interview Ss rated him as more relaxed than did either of the other two interview groups following the interview. They had rated him as more tense than had either of the other groups following the body boundary measurement (initial 68 questionnaire). This reversal also accentuated the sig nificance of the analysis of covariance. The interaction effect can be seen in the fact that while large body boundary Ss in the close and normal interviews rated the RA as more tense following the interview than they had earlier, and those in the distant interview rated him as more relaxed following the interview, the opposite rela tionship was seen for Ss with small body boundaries. For the small body boundary group the ratings of the Ss in the normal interview remained virtually the same, those in the close interview rated him as more relaxed following the interview than following the measurement procedure, and those in the distant interview rated him as more tense following the interview. A very strong trend toward significance was also noted for the effect of body bound ary size. Although the post-experiment rating of the RA's level of tension was the same for both large and small body boundary Ss, the large body boundary Ss' change from an initially lower tension rating (more relaxed) resulted in near significance. The analysis of covariance for Question 8 which asks how the Ss felt about the RA (negative/positive) shows a trend toward a main effect for body boundary size. 69 Large body boundary Ss tended to feel more positive about the RA than did those Ss with small body boundaries. A trend toward an interaction effect emerged in Question 16 where the Ss were asked to rate how friendly they thought they appeared to the RA. Subjects with large body boundaries tended to think they were seen as most friendly in the close interview. The opposite was true for small body boundary Ss who thought the RA saw them as most friendly in the distant interview condition. Debriefing Responses of the Ss during the individual debrief ings gave no evidence that any of them had guessed the true purpose of the experiment. None of the Ss indicated that they had been given details of the interview or information about the purpose of the experiment by other Ss prior to participating themselves. Many of the Ss expressed mild anger that none of their friends had "warned" them about the interview. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION This study was designed to investigate the effects of body boundary size and interview distance, and the interaction of these variables on intimacy related behav ior during a self-disclosure interview. The behaviors being studied were intimacy of self-disclosure, number of words spoken, and eye contact. It was hypothesized that significant differences in these three variables would develop as a result of Ss* attempts to re-establish experimentally disrupted intimacy equilibria. None of the hypotheses were supported to a statistically signifi cant degree. However, data from the Post-Interview Ques tionnaire indicated that body boundary size, interview distance, and their interaction did have some effect on the Ss. Intercorrelations between the dependent variables for the large and the small body boundary groups suggested that Ss differ in their equilibrium adjustment patterns which may have obscured some of the expected effects. 70 71 The overall failure to obtain results of the mag nitude predicted will be discussed with attention to procedural problems, theoretical explanations, and impli cations for future research. Comments on Procedural Problems Relevance of body boundary measurements to the experimental interview. A review of the procedures for measurement of body boundary size may prove useful in explaining the failure of the results to confirm several of the hypotheses. The instructions given to the Ss in the approach room and the nature of the measurement procedure itself appear to contain demand characteristics which may have influenced both the measurements and indirectly the later performance of the Ss. Also, it is clear that there are major differences between the stimulus situation during the measurement of body boundaries and the one which faces Ss in the experimental interview. These situations may, in fact, be so different from the Ss' standpoint that the need for personal space in the measurement phase is only partially related, or unrelated, to the need for personal space in the interview. 72 The problem of demand characteristics will be discussed first. A review of the instructions given to the Ss (see Appendix H) suggests that strong demand characteristics were present. After hearing the instruc tions Ss may have expected to experience anxiety or dis comfort due to the RA's approach. Also, each time the RA stepped forward during the measurement procedure he was instructed to attempt to make eye contact with the S. This may have been interpreted by the Ss as a sign that the RA expected a response from them. They had been instructed by the E to give only one response: the signal that they were uncomfortable and wanted the RA to stop approaching them. Therefore, the RA's attempts to make eye contact may have constituted a demand characteristic. Those Ss who were most susceptible to demand characteristics may have been influenced by both the instructions and the approach procedure to exhibit large body boundaries. It is therefore possible that the large body boundary Ss as a group are more responsive to demand characteristics than are small body boundary Ss. The implications of this possibility will be presented in the discussion of the specific hypotheses. 73 The second procedural problem stems from the many differences between the body boundary measurement pro cedure and the interview procedure. In the measurement procedure the RA and the S are standing; they are seated in the interview. The RA is approaching the £ > during the measurement of body boundaries; both the RA and the are seated during the interview. Side and rear body bound aries are taken into consideration in the derivation of mean body boundaries; only the face to face orientation is used in the interview. The measurement procedure is basically nonverbal; the interview is verbal. It seems likely that an individuals need for personal space in these two situations would be somewhat different. For instance, the standing approach measure ment procedure has an aggressive quality which is totally absent in the interview. It seems possible that an indi vidual's need for personal space would be greater in a situation where he is the possible target of aggression. In light of the above discussion of differences between the two procedures, it appears unlikely that body boundary size remains precisely the same in the two situations. A review of the literature shows that the standing-approach procedure has become a more or less 74 standard measuring device (e.g., Kinsel, 1969; Frankel & Barrett, 1971). However, only one study has measured body boundary size in both approach and seated situa tions (Dosey & Meisels, 1969). Only a slight correlation was found between the two measures. Unfortunately, the results of the Dosey and Meisels* study must be viewed cautiously since many sources of confounding were present (see Chapter I). The nonequivalency of body boundary size in the two situations could be expected to eliminate, or greatly reduce (if a slight positive correlation does exist as suggested by Dosey and Meisels), the hypothesized inter action effects (Chapter I, Hypotheses 3, 4, and 6). How ever, the nonequivalence of body boundary size should not alter Hypothesis 1 which is based on stable personality characteristics associated with body boundary size as measured by the approach procedure. The probable effects of the nonequivalency of body boundary size will be discussed below in relationship to the specific hypotheses. Diminished intimacy values due to experimental controls. It is possible that the procedures for main 75 taining experimental controls actually had the effect of reducing the overall intimacy value of the interview. The interview questions were presented to the Ss by a tape recording of the RA's voice. The _RA was chosen for his ability to remain expressionless and was instruc ted not to respond to the Ss with words or facial expres sions. Both the use of the tape recorder and the RA's unresponsiveness were designed to reduce variance due to fluctuations in the RA's voice and other interview behav ior. It is possible that they also depersonalized the interview. If this effect was sufficiently strong, it could have reduced the level of intimacy across all experimental groups. Such a reduction of intimacy would modify the effect of the three interview distances on the intimacy equilibria of the Ss. The lessened intimacy value of the interview would tend to reduce the expected discomfort of large body boundary Ss in the close inter view. This reduction of discomfort would in turn lessen the reduction of eye contact, intimacy of self-disclosure, and number of words spoken expected to occur in response to the disruption of the intimacy equilibrium. On the other hand, since the distant interviews would be even less intimate, small body boundary Ss in the distant 76 interview would be expected to demonstrate the hypothe sized effects to an even greater degree than originally predicted. The actual effects of the reduced level of inti macy will be deferred to the discussion of the specific hypotheses. Intimacy of Self-Disclosure Body boundary size. The hypothesis (Chapter I, Hypothesis 1) that small body boundary Ss would exhibit greater intimacy of self-disclosure than would large body boundary Ss was not supported by the data. This hypothe sis was based primarily on the previously established relationship between self-esteem and body boundary size (Frankel & Barrett, 1971). Small body boundary Ss had been shown to have higher self-esteem than large body boundary Ss. Research in the area of self-esteem (Stot- land et al., 1957; Cohen, 1959; Coopersmith, 1967; Frankel, 1969) has shown that high self-esteem individuals are more active, more sel5-disclosing, and less sensitive to criticism. On the basis of this information it was hypothesized that Ss with small body boundaries would 77 demonstrate greater intimacy of self-disclosure than would Ss with large body boundaries. Differences in responsiveness to the demand characteristics of the experiment may account for the unexpected results. There are two sources of support for this explanation. First, as discussed in the section dealing with procedural problems, there is a strong pos sibility that Ss who displayed large body boundaries in the measurement procedure did so partially because they were the most responsive to the demand characteristics in that situation. Secondly, research in the area of self-esteem (Stotland et al., 1957; Cohen, 1959; Frankel, 1969} has demonstrated that high self-esteem individuals are more resistant to various types of influence. Since a correlation has been reported between body boundary size and self-esteem (Frankel & Barrett, 1971) it can be assumed that small body boundary (high self-esteem) Ss tend to be more resistant to the influence of the demand characteristics of the experiment than are large body boundary Ss. A review of the experimental interview reveals that strong demand characteristics were present. The interview was designed to elicit the type of information 78 which might be obtained in an initial psychological inter view. Each of the interview questions asked the Ss to share personal information, feelings, and experiences with the RA. Thus, the demand characteristics of the interview encourage intimacy of self-disclosure. Large body boundary Ss who appear to be more easily influenced may have responded to the demand charac teristics and consequently disclosed more than was actually comfortable. Small body boundary Ss who tend to be less responsive to external influences may have acted more independently of the demand characteristics, dis closing only as much as they actually felt comfortable sharing with the RA. Interview distance. The data failed to support the hypothesis that greater intimacy of self-disclosure would occur in the interview conducted at a normal dis tance than in either the close or distant interviews (Chapter I, Hypothesis 2). Since the predictions regard ing the close and distant interviews had different theo retical bases they will be considered separately. The close interviews were expected to produce less intimacy of self-disclosure in accordance with the 79 intimacy equilibrium theory developed by Argyle and Dean (1965). The results of their research produced the hypothesis that if interview participants were to sit too close together then the intimacy equilibrium would be upset. In order to compensate for this imbalance, other factors in the intimacy equilibrium (such as intimacy of self-disclosure) would be adjusted in the direction of less intimacy to re-establish the equilibrium. This hypothesis was not supported. The failure of the expected interview effects may be due to the reduced level of interview intimacy resulting from experimental controls (see the section on procedural problems). If the intimacy created by the physical closeness was cancelled out by the depersonaliza tion of the interview then the Ss' intimacy equilibrium would not be upset. Consequently, they would not be expected to reduce the intimacy of self-disclosure. Another possible explanation of the close inter view results rests in Little's (1965) data which indicates that preferred interaction distance decreases as degree of acquaintance increases. The Ss* degree of acquaintance with the RA at the time of the experimental interview may have been high enough for them to tolerate the 80 unusually close interview distance. Direct interaction of Ss with the RA prior to the interview was limited to the brief (less than 5 minutes), nonverbal measurement of body boundaries for all Ss. While this interaction may have produced an unexpectedly high degree of acquaint ance, the unusual and stressful nature of the measurement interaction makes this unlikely. However, all Ss did have numerous interactions with the E prior to the inter view. ^ Since the interview with the RA was at the request of the E and since she was present at the beginning of all interactions between the Ss and the RA, the Ss * acquaintance with the E may have generalized to the RA. In other words, they may have responded to him as if he were an acquaintance. The expectancy of less intimacy of self-disclosure in the distant interview than in the normal distance The E spoke with all Ss asking them to volunteer for the study, she spent time in the principal's office scheduling Ss, she gave instructions to the Ss prior to both parts of the experiment and she was visible as she sat outside of the experiment room while the experiment was being conducted. 81 interview was based on the findings that distance serves as a generally understood indication of the degree of friendliness and intimacy present in social situations (Rosenfeld, 1965; Russo, 1967) . Large distances indicate less friendliness and intimacy than do small distances. Subjects participating in the distant interview were therefore expected to disclose less intimate information in accordance with the cues provided by the seating arrangement. The assumption was that the perceived intimacy cues (seating distance) would influence Ss* behavior (intimacy of self-disclosure) in the predicted direction. The existence of such a relationship was not supported by the data. Unfortunately, information was not gathered regarding Ss* interpretation of the meaning of seating distance in this experiment. It may be that Ss do not, in fact, interpret seating distance as an intimacy cue. The answer to this question is beyond the scope of the present design. Interaction hypothesis. Both large and small body boundary Ss were expected to produce their greatest intimacy of self-disclosure in the normal distance inter view. As discussed in the section on hypothesized body 82 boundary size effects, small body boundary Ss were expected to disclose less in the close interview than in the normal interview. A more pronounced drop was expected for large body boundary Ss. This expectation was based on the fact that the close interview actually violates the body boundaries of large body boundary Ss but not those of small body boundary Ss. Similarly, both body boundary groups were expected to be less disclosing in the distant interview them in the normal distance inter view. In this case, the small body boundary Ss were expected to exhibit a more pronounced drop in disclosure. This expected difference was based on the fact that the distance between the Ss and the RA was much further out side the body boundaries of the small body boundary Ss. Therefore, the distance cue indicating low intimacy and the Ss' responses to this cue were expected to be much stronger for the small body boundary group. The hypoth esized interaction effects were not confirmed by the data. The failure of the hypothesized main effects for body boundary size and interview distance to occur cer tainly provides a partial explanation for the interaction 83 results. If, as suggested in the discussion of procedural problems, body boundaries in the measurement and interview situations are not the same, then the absence of predicted results can be readily explained. All of the hypothesized interaction effects are based on the relationship of the interview distances to the Ss' body boundaries. If the measured body boundaries do not apply in the interview situation then the interaction hypothesis is meaningless. An alternative explanation is possible in terms of cognitive dissonance theory (.Festinger, 1957). Cogni tive dissonance is the state which occurs when incon sistencies exist among an individual's attitudes and actions. It is a tension state which motivates the indi vidual to change in order to re-establish a state of consonance. Festinger and Carlsmith's (1959) research in the area of cognitive dissonance suggests that persons who are given very little reward for a distasteful or meaningless experience tend to report that the experience was interesting and worthwhile, while those who are suffi ciently rewarded for the same experience tend to report that it was meaningless and distasteful. Since all of the Ss in this experiment were un paid volunteers, presumably the only reward for their 84 involvement was from the experience of participating in the interview. If the Ss who contributed an hour of their time found the experience unrewarding and/or dis tasteful it is likely that they would have experienced a substantial degree of cognitive dissonance. The hypoth esized interaction effect predicted that two groups of Ss would be stressed by the interview procedure. These groups were the large body boundary Ss in the close inter view and the small body boundary Ss in the distant inter view. The results of the analysis of the Ss' responses to Question 3 of the Post-Interview Questionnaire provide support for the presence of a cognitive dissonance effect. The analysis showed a significant interaction effect based on the fact that Ss in the two high stress groups rated the interview most positively. Those Ss subjected to the most stressful interview rated it higher than did Ss who were not as stressed. These findings are clearly consistent with the cognitive dissonance model. If the stressed Ss did resolve their dissonance by convincing themselves that the interview was a worth while experience, then their interview behavior (as reflected in the intimacy of self—disclosure) may have 85 been in response to the dissonance effect rather than to the stressfulness of the situation. Number of Words Spoken The planned analysis of the number of words spoken by Ss during the experimental interview showed that there were no significant effects due to body bound ary size, interview distance, or the interaction of these two variables. Body boundary size. The effect of body boundary size on intimacy of self-disclosure and the number of words spoken was essentially the same. As discussed in the section dealing with intimacy of self-disclosure, large body boundary Ss tend to be lower in self-esteem than are small body boundary Ss (Frankel & Barrett, 1971). Since high self-esteem (small body boundary) Ss are more active, more self-disclosing, and less sensitive to criticism, they were expected to talk more than were low self-esteem (large body boundary) Ss. It was suggested that since high self-esteem (small body boundary) Ss are less sensitive to criticism they may have been more resistant to the demand characteristic of the interview while low self-esteem (large body boundary) Ss may have 86 been more resistant to the demand characteristics of the interview while low self-esteem (large body boundary) j5s may have compiled with them to avoid criticism. The interview contained strong demand characteristics (the tape recorder and the long silences between the questions) which could have elicited a high level of verbal output from the more compliant large body boundary Ss. The small body boundary Ss, being less sensitive to criticism, may have acted in accordance with their own needs and feelings rather them with the demand characteristics of the situa tion. Interview distance. It was predicted that Ss would use fewer words in the close and distant interview than in the normal interview. The results of the analysis of variance were not significant. Subjects in the close interview were expected to use fewer words as a means of restoring the intimacy equilibrium which had been disrupted by the RA's viola tion of their personal space (Argyle & Dean, 1965). This prediction was not supported by the data. As in the case of interview distance effects for intimacy of self-disclosure predicted results may be 87 attributable to the reduction of interview intimacy resulting from experimental controls. It was also hypothesized that all £!s would talk less in the distant interview than in the normal distance interview. This part of the interview distance hypothesis was based on observations by Rosenfeld (1965) and Russo (1967) that distance is a generally understood symbol of the intimacy of an interaction. Although the analysis of variance failed to disclose a significant effect, visual inspection of the data showed that both large and small body boundary Ss had spoken fewer words in the distant interview. A t test of this difference showed it to be significant. As noted in the discussion of the distant interview in the section on intimacy of self-disclosure, no information regarding the Ss' interpretation of the seating distance was collected. Therefore, although the predicted behavior materialized this cannot be inter preted as a verification of Rosenfeld's (1965) and Russo's (1967) findings. One of the implications of this significant result is that the two self-disclosure variables (intimacy of self-disclosure and number of words spoken) respond differently when the intimacy equilibrium is disrupted. 88 The discussion of this and other differences among the three dependent variables will be presented after each of the three variables has been considered separately. Interaction hypothesis. The rationale behind the interaction hypothesis has been discussed in both the first chapter (Hypotheses 3 and 4) and in the section of this chapter dealing with the intimacy of self-disclosure. Therefore, only the hypotheses themselves will be pre sented here. It was predicted that both large and small body boundary Ss would use a larger number of words in the normal distance interview than they would use in the close and distant interviews. In order to restore their intimacy equilibrium, large body boundary Ss were expected to use fewer words in the close interview than were small body boundary Ss. Small body boundary Ss were expected to use fewer words in the distant interview than were large body boundary Ss. This aspect of the interaction effect was also based on the re-establishment of the intimacy equilibrium. None of the hypothesized inter action effects were substantiated. The nonsignificant interaction results can be partially attributed to the failure of the main effects for body boundary size and interview distance. As dis cussed in relation to the interaction effects for intimacy of self-disclosure, the possible nonequivalency of body boundaries in the measurement and interview situations offers a simple explanation for the absence of expected effects. If the body boundaries are not the same in the two situations, then hypotheses based on body boundary size in the measurement procedure are irrelevant to the experimental interview. Also, as with the other self-disclosure measure (intimacy of self-disclosure) a cognitive dissonance effect is suggested by the responses to the third ques tion (What was your reaction to the interview?) of the Post-Interview Questionnaire. In general, the response to Question 3 shows that Ss assigned the highest (most positive) ratings to those interviews which should have been most aversive. Similarly, this attitude change may have caused the Ss in the stressful interview situations (large body boundary Ss in the close interview and small body boundary Ss in the distant interview) to respond as if the interview was a valuable experience. Such a reversal could mask hypothesized interaction effects. Eye Contact Hypotheses concerning the role of eye contact in the intimacy equilibrium. (Chapter I, Hypotheses 5 and 6) were based primarily on Argyle and Deanls (1965) extensive study of the intimacy equilibrium. Their study firmly established eye contact as a factor in the intimacy equilibrium. Their study showed that eye contact decreases with excessive physical proximity and increases when physical distance is unusually large. The predic tion was therefore made that the most eye contact would occur in the distant interview and the least in the close interview. Analysis of both the raw and the transformed data failed to support this hypothesis. The failure of the expected results to occur in the close interview situation can again be explained in terms of the dilution of interview intimacy by experi mental controls (see section on procedural problems). If these controls did lessen the intimacy value of the interview then it would not be necessary for the Ss to reduce their eye contact since their intimacy equilibrium would not have been disrupted. Additional explanations are also possible. The increase in eye contact which Argyle and Dean observed in 91 response to increased physical distance occurred during a cooperative, relatively impersonal interaction. The present study utilizes a structured interview which allows little cooperation between the RA and the S and which focuses upon the type of personal information which would be gathered during an initial psychological interview. It is likely these differences constitute a serious source of confounding in the present experiment. The final hypothesis (Chapter I, Hypothesis 6) predicted that since the personal space of the large body boundary Ss was actually being violated in the close inter view, they would exhibit less eye contact them would the small body boundary Ss assigned to the close interview. Analysis of both the raw and transformed data failed to yield significant results. This is consistent with the results of the data analyses discussed above (intimacy of self-disclosure, number of words spoken and Question 3 of the Post-Interview Questionnaire). The failure of the close interview to have the expected impact on the large body boundary Ss was explained in terms of both the resolution of cognitive dissonance and the existence of an unexpectedly high level 92 O of affiliation. Either or both of these factors may have influenced the level of eye contact. Intercorrelations of the Dependent Variables Initially intercorrelations were computed for the three dependent variables (eye contact, number of words, and intimacy of self-disclosure) on the data for all Ss. However, these intercorrelations were discarded since pre vious body boundary research (i.e., Frankel & Barrett, 1970; Kinsel, 1969; Williams, 1963) had shown that large and small body boundary Ss differ in many significant ways. The large and small body boundary Ss in this experi ment can therefore be seen as representatives of two dif ferent populations. Therefore, the same intercorrelations were computed separately for the Ss in the two groups. In keeping with the idea that large and small body boundary Ss have different characteristics, different patterns of correlation within the two groups emerged. Only one significant correlation was found between the dependent variables for the small body boundary Ss. 2 Exline and Winters (1964) have shown that eye contact tends to increase when positive affect and degree of attraction increase. Both positive and attraction are associated with degree of affiliation. 93 This correlation was between eye contact and intimacy of self-disclosure. The number of words spoken was not sys tematically related to either amount of eye contact or intimacy of self-disclosure. The opposite relationship was found for large body boundary Ss. While the number of words was significantly correlated with both intimacy of self-disclosure and eye contact, eye contact and inti macy of self-disclosure were statistically unrelated. The importance of these results is that they tend to substan tiate previous findings of differences between large and small body boundary individuals. It also suggests that these two body boundary types have different ways of ad justing disrupted intimacy equilibria. Such differences may have obscured the effects of the experimental disrup tion of the intimacy equilibrium (i.e., exposing large body boundary Ss to close interviews and small body bound ary Ss to distant interview). For example, on the basis of the correlation findings, small body boundary Ss could be expected to respond to the disruption of the intimacy equilibrium by simultaneously adjusting both eye contact and intimacy of disclosure. Large body boundary Ss on the other hand, would tend to adjust either intimacy of self disclosure or the amount of eye contact along with the 94 number of words spoken. Questionnaire Responses The Ss* responses to many items of the Post- Interview Questionnaire have important implications for the interpretation of the experimental results. Each question will be discussed and then the overall responses will be summarized. Reaction to the interview. Since the implications of the Ss* responses to Question 3 have been thoroughly discussed above, a detailed account will not be included in this section. The statistically significant interaction (body boundary size-interview distance) was in direct contrast to the expectation that large body boundary Ss would be most uncomfortable in the close interview and small body boundary Ss would be most uncomfortable in the distant interview. Those Ss who should have been most uncomfortable gave higher ratings to the interview, than did Ss who were expected to be comfortable in the inter view. This was interpreted in terms of a cognitive disso nance effect. A trend toward significance was also found for the effects of interview distance. In general, the Ss who participated in the close and normal interviews 95 reacted to the interview more positively than did the Ss in the distant interview. Lassen (1970) reports a similar tendency for Ss to react differently in the distant inter view than they do in the close and normal distance ones. The Ss' answers to the questions concerning reac tion to being interviewed by a tape recorder (Question 4) seem to be independent of body boundary size, interview distance, and the interaction of these two variables. The responses to this question do not appear to have any special relevance to the experimental hypotheses. Similarly, Ss' reactions to Question 5 (which asked for their reaction to the type of questions asked) appeared to be independent of the effects of body boundary size, interview distance, and their interaction. On the basis of intimacy equilibrium theory, it might have been expected that Ss who were placed in excessively intimate situations would dislike the questions due to their inti mate nature. Question 6 asked for the Ss* reactions to the seating arrangement. A strong trend toward significance was found for the effect of interview distance. The Ss in the normal distance interview liked the seating arrange ment more than did Ss in the close and distant interviews. 96 This finding is consistent with the basic hypotheses of this experiment which are based on Argyle and Dean1s (1965) intimacy equilibrium theory. If the responses of the Ss to the four questions concerning their reactions to the interview (Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6) are considered together, some inconsist encies emerge. Two of the questions (Question 4 concern ing the use of the tape recorder and Question 5 concerning the type of questions asked) reveals no systematic differ ences among the six experimental groups suggesting an absence of experimental effects. Question 6 (seating arrangement) and Question 3 (overall reaction) show a trend to prefer the close and normal distance interviews over the distant interview. This trend is consistent with Lassen's (1970) results which show that close (3 feet) and normal (6 feet) interviews were more effective and acceptable to patient them were distnat (9 feet) inter views. In contrast to the results reported above, Ss reported overall reactions to the interview (Question 3) showed a highly significemt interaction effect which was directly opposite to the predictions made in Chapter I (Hypotheses 3 and 4). Although Ss tended to report the expected reactions to the interview distances, their 97 overall rating of the interview was in contrast to their reported negative reactions to inappropriate distances. (For a more complete discussion of the cognitive disso nance effect, please refer to the section dealing with the interaction effects for the intimacy of self-dis closure data.) Again, cognitive dissonance appears to be the best explanation of the seemingly inconsistent results. Reaction to the RA. Large body boundary Ss showed a tendency to feel more positive about the RA than did small body boundary Ss (Question 8). Most of the differ ences between the two groups appear to be due to the especially negative ratings assigned by the small body boundary Ss in the close and normal distance interviews. It is possible that the small body boundary Ss were reacting to the RA*s unresponsiveness which was incon sistent with the otherwise highly intimate interview. Large body boundary Ss who presumably have less tolerance for the intimacy created by physical closeness may have found the RA's unresponsiveness to be a relief from inti macy rather than an inappropriate reduction of intimacy. These responses may reflect an extension of the 98 large body boundary Ss' vulnerability to outside influences which was discussed earlier (see sections on procedural problems and intimacy of self-disclosure). Cohen (1959) has also suggested that large body boundary £>s are more vulnerable to criticism than are small body boundary Ss. Large body boundary £!s may have simply refrained from giving the RA a negative rating because such a rating would have been socially unacceptable and subject to criticism. Question 9 asks the Ss to rate the RA on friendli ness. The data analysis shows that the ratings of friend liness are independent of body boundary size, interview distance, and their interaction. These findings appear to conflict with works by Rosenfeld (1965) which suggest that distance is used to communicate degree of friendli ness. Other elements of the interview may have diminished the influence of distance. The fact that the tape recorder rather than the RA was asking the questions and the RA*s unresponsiveness may have cancelled out the friendliness communicated by the close seating arrangement. Similarly, J3s' ratings of the RA*s attractiveness (Ques tion 10) were the same across all groups. The Ss also rated the RA (Question 11) as being equally interested in 99 them regardless of their body boundary size or their assignment to interview conditions. The Ss* perception of the RA's level of tension was the subject of Question 13. In general, Ss saw the RA as significantly more tense in the distant interview than in either of the other interview conditions. This finding can be explained in several ways. First, the Ss may have correctly evaluated the RA's reaction. He may have actually been most tense in the distant interview. Secondly, as suggested by Lassen (1970) Ss in the distant interview have a very different view of the RA than do Ss in the other interview conditions. Different ratings of the RA may be related to differences in what the Ss actually see. For example, if the RA had been nervously shaking his foot through all of the interviews, it is likely that this would have made the biggest impact on the Ss in the distant interview. This would be due to the fact that only those Ss in the distant interview could easily see the entire RA throughout the interview. Thirdly, this response may reflect the S's own heightened tension level in the distant interview. This possibility is suggested by the fact that the responses to Questions 3 and 6, and the analysis of the number of words spoken 100 by the Ss indicate that the Ss themselves were least comfortable in the distant interview. A significant effect was also found for the inter action of body boundary size and interview distance. Basically, those Ss who were expected to be most anxious (large body boundary Ss in the close interview and small body boundary £3s in the distant interview) rated the RA as significantly more tense than did the other Ss. This effect cannot be explained by the first two explanations which were offered for the interview distance effect dis cussed above. The first explanation does not fit since it is highly unlikely that the RA actually was tense in precisely the same interviews which should have been uncomfortable to the Ss. For instance, in order to do this the JtA would have had to be tense in only those close interviews when he was with large body boundary Ss while remaining calm in close interviews with small body boundary Ss. The second explanation is unsatisfactory since high tension ratings occurred in both close and distant inter views. It is therefore unlikely that the high tension • ratings were due to the Ss' view of the RA. The third explanation suggested above can be applied here. Since 101 the Ss rated the RA as significantly more tense when the interview was expected to upset their intimacy equilib riums, then their ratings of the RA's level of tension may reflect their own discomfort. The responses to Question 13 can therefore be interpreted as consistent with the basic experimental hypotheses regarding the inti macy equilibrium. Responses to three of the questions tapping Ss' reactions to the RA (Questions 9, 10, and 11) appear to be independent of Ss' body boundary size, assignment to interview condition, or their interaction. These results suggest that the RA was relatively consistent in degree of friendliness and interest displayed toward the Ss across groups. The Ss* responses to Question 8 (liking for RA) and Question 15 (rating of RA's tension level) both were interpreted as supporting the intimacy equilibrium theory. Perception of the RA's response. The Ss were asked to rate the RA's feelings toward them (Question 15). The results of this rating were analyzed and found to be independent of the Ss' body boundary size, interview dis tance, and the interaction of these two variables. How 102 ever, when Ss were asked to rate how friendly they appeared to the RA (Question 16) a trend toward signifi cance did emerge for the interaction of body boundary size and interview distance. Large body boundary Ss in the close interview and small body boundary Ss in the distant interview thought that the RA saw them as friendlier than did Ss in the other groups. While no explanation of this effect is readily available, it is important to note that Ss in the two stress conditions again responded similarly. No differences were found when the Ss* ratings of how attractive they appeared to the RA (Question 17) were examined for the effects of body boundary size, interview distance, and the interaction of these variables. The findings were similar in connection with the £s' ratings of how tense they appeared to the RA (Question 18). The Ss' ratings suggest that in spite of differences in their reactions to the interviews (as shown by responses to Questions 3, 6, and 7, above), there was no difference in the level of tension which they displayed to the RA during the interview. This suggests that the discomfort created by the interview distances (Questions 3, 6, and 7) was handled in ways which they felt were not visible to the RA. 103 Summary of questionnaire results. Overall, it is interesting to note that three of the questions (Questions 3, 13, and 16) showed that the Ss in the most stressful conditions (large body boundary Ss in the close interview and small body boundary Ss in the distant interview) tended to respond in a similar manner. This finding suggests that the expected effects due to the interaction of body bound ary size and interview distance took place to some degree. Data from four of the questions (Questions 3, 6, 7, and 13) indicate that interview distance did affect the Ss' per ception of the interview, the RA, and their views about how the RA saw them. These results seem to indicate that the distant interview was much less acceptable than was either the close or the normal distance interview. Some evidence also suggested that the close interview was less acceptable than the normal distance interview although this difference was much less pronounced. Summary and Interpretation of Results with Implications for Future Research Body boundary size. The expected effects of body boundary size were not reflected in the verbal interview behavior (intimacy of self-disclosure and number of words 104 spoken). The Post-Interview Questionnaire provided little evidence of the effect of body boundary size. Two ques tionnaire items showed trends which might be interpreted as consistent with the expected body boundary size effect. The hypothesis (Chapter I, Hypothesis 1), which predicted that small body boundary Ss would produce a greater and more intimate amount of self-disclosure than would large body boundary Ss, was based on personality traits which have been shown to be associated with body boundary size as measured by the approach method employed in this study. The explanation offered for the absence of expected effects was based upon the idea that large body boundary (low self-esteem) Ss may have lower resistance to demand characteristics. If such a relationship does exist between body boundary size and response to demand characteristics, then many of the findings of previous body boundary studies are called into question. Behav ioral differences which have been reported to be associated with body boundary size have not taken into account dif ferences in response to demand characteristics. It would therefore appear to be necessary for researchers in the 105 area of body boundaries to investigate the relationship between body boundary size and responsiveness to demand characteristics before proceeding in other areas. Interview distance. Significant interview dis tance effects were found only for the number of words spoken. The Ss in the distant interview condition spoke less than Ss in the other interview conditions. Although several explanations of the absence of interview effects were offered in the text only the best supported ones will be presented here. A review of the interview procedures suggested that the overall intimacy level of the interview had been seriously diminished by efforts to control variance due to fluctuations in the RA's voice and facial expressions. This intimacy reduction was seen as most disruptive to hypotheses regarding the close interview since they were based on the assumption that the interview would be excessively intimate. On the other hand, it was suggested that the lowered level of intimacy might exaggerate the predicted responses to the distant interview since they were predicted on the basis of insufficient intimacy. In support of this idea are the responses to the Post- 106 Interview Questionnaire items 3, 6, and 13, which suggest that Ss were comfortable in the close and normal inter views but not in the distant interview. The analysis of the data for eye contact and intimacy of self-disclosure failed to reveal the hypothesized relationships or the shifts in results suggested above. Although there was some difficulty interpreting the data, the analysis of the number of words spoken was basically consistent with the original hypothesis (Chapter I, Hypothesis 2) and with the predicted effects of the reduced interview inti macy discussed above. The problem of reduced intimacy levels in the interviews due to efforts to control variance, suggests that more natural controls should be utilized in future research. Perhaps extensive practice by the RA stating the interview questions precisely could result in suffi cient voice control to eliminate the tape recorder. Similarly, the RA might be trained to change his expres sion at precise times during the interview and to use neutral phrases to respond to the S. Interaction of body boundary size and interview distance. The predicted interaction effects were based 107 on the relationship between interview distance and body boundary size as measured by the approach procedure. The interaction of these two variables was expected to dis rupt the intimacy equilibrium by placing some of the Ss in interviews which either physically violated their body boundaries, or took place so far beyond their body bound aries that intimate behavior (as expressed by degree of eye contact, number of words spoken and intimacy of self disclosure) would be reduced. The interview behavior (eye contact, intimacy of self-disclosure, and number of words spoken) failed to show the expected effects of disruption of the intimacy equilibrium due to the body boundary size-interview dis tance interaction. The Ss' responses to three of the Post-Interview Questionnaire items did show that Ss in the two conditions (large body boundary Ss in the close interview and small body boundary Ss in the distant inter view) where intimacy disequilibrium was predicted due to the body boundary size-interview distance interaction responded similarly. This suggests that the expected disequilibrium may have occurred to a degree sufficient to influence self-report but not over behavior. A cogni tive dissonance effect may have occurred which could 108 account for both the absence of interview behavior effects and the paradoxical responses to Question 13 of the ques tionnaire. The weakness of the evidence obtained in support of the interaction effect may have been partially due to the overall reduction of interview intimacy due to the use of the taped interview and the RA's unresponsiveness. According to intimacy equilibrium theory, the lowered level of interview intimacy would have modified the degree of intimacy equilibrium disruption which Ss would experience for interviews at each of the distances. Further explana tion for the failure of the interaction effect to emerge seems to lie in the possible nonequivalence of body boundary size in the measurement and interview situations. A comparison of the body boundary measurement and inter view procedures revealed several important operational differences (standing versus sitting; approaching versus stationary; verbal versus nonverbal; face-to-face versus all directions). These differences seem sufficient to cast doubt upon the equivalence of body boundary size in the two situations. The only direct comparison of these measures (Dosey & Meisels, 1969) suggests that only a 109 slight positive correlation exists between them. It may be, then, that the body boundary size measurement used here was inappropriate for predicting interview behavior. It is suggested that further comparisons of seated and approach body boundaries be conducted. The exact nature of their relationship and their applicability to other interpersonal situations should also be estab lished. If, however, body boundary size is to be used as an independent variable prior to the establishment of such relationships, it would be prudent to conduct the body boundary measurements in a manner which closely parallels the actual experimental procedure. Intercorrelations of dependent variables. Dif ferent patterns of intercorrelation were found among the large and the small body boundary Ss. The difference in these patterns is evidence that large and small body boundary Ss may have different ways of adjusting disrupted intimacy equilibriums. For clarity, it is therefore suggested that future research be designed with only one equilibrium adjustment factor available to the £ at any one time. For instance, the current study could be con ducted in three phases with each of the three dependent variables being studied independently. After each variable's responsiveness to disruption of the intimacy equilibrium is established, their interdependency could be studied more effectively. CHAPTER V SUMMARY Intimacy equilibrium theory states that eye contact, physical proximity, topic intimacy, and other factors which contribute to the overall intimacy of an interview are adjusted by individuals being interviewed so that a comfortable level of intimacy is maintained. This suggests that physical distance in an interview can influence the intimacy of the self-disclosure which occurs. Research in the area of body buffer zones sug gests that an individual's response to a given physical distance is related to the size of his body boundaries. The purpose of the present study was to determine how the intimacy of self-disclosure is affected by an individual's body boundary size, physical proximity during an interview, and the interaction of these two variables. The effect of these variables on two other intimacy equilibrium factors (eye contact and number of words spoken) was also investigated. Ill 112 Forty-eight female high school students served as subjects. They were selected from 96 volunteers on the basis of body boundary size. The body boundary meas urement procedure consisted of having the research assist ant approach the subject from eight directions as she stood in the center of the room. The subjects were instructed to signal for the research assistant to stop when his approach began to make them uncomfortable. Body boundary size was determined by the mean distance at which the subject signaled. The subjects were then asked to respond to a brief questionnaire concerning their responses to the research assistant. Only large and small body boundary subjects were included in the study. One third of the subjects in the large and the small body boundary groups were randomly assigned to each of the three interview distance conditions: close (2 feet), normal (4-1/2 feet), and distant (9 feet). The second phase of the experiment consisted of an individual self disclosure interview for each subject conducted at the assigned distance from the research assistant. Interview questions were presented via a tape recording of the research assistant's voice. The research assistant did 113 not respond to the subject during the interview. The research assistant attempted to maintain eye contact dur ing the question response periods and recorded the amount of eye contact which occurred. A second tape recorder was used to record the subjects' responses. After the interview, subjects completed a questionnaire concerning their reactions to the interview and the research assist ant. The interview tapes were transcribed and then scored by the two independent raters on the intimacy of self-disclosure scale developed by the author. The num ber of words spoken and the amount of eye contact were also tabulated. The planned analyses of the data revealed no significant effects due to body boundary size, interview distance, or the body boundary size-interview distance interaction. A post hoc analysis indicated that signifi cantly fewer words were spoken by subjects in the distant interview. Questionnaire responses suggested that sub jects were less comfortable in the distant than in the close and normal distance interviews. Analysis of the questionnaire data also revealed evidence of the predicted 114 interaction effect. The intercorrelations of the three dependent variables were found to be different for the large and the small body boundary groups. A review of the personality correlates of body boundary size and the body boundary measurement procedure suggested that body boundary size effects may have been obscured by the effects of demand characteristics. The weak interview distance effects were seen as attributable to the overall reduction of interview intimacy by experi mental controls. An explanation was offered for the absence of the interaction effect in terms of the prob able nonequivalence of the need for personal space in the body boundary measurement and interview situations. The intercorrelational patterns revealed that large and small body boundary subjects adjust their intimacy equilibriums in different ways suggesting that body boundary size is a determinant of interview behavior. The need for further research to establish the relationship between personal space needs in various situations was discussed. It was also suggested that future research be designed to examine the ways in which the intimacy equilibrium adjustment phenomenon operates for subjects with differing body boundary sizes. APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A REQUEST FOR VOLUNTEERS The E was introduced to the students as a graduate student from USC who was looking for volunteers to help her complete her doctoral dissertation in clinical psy chology. The E then explained that her research was de signed to investigate the differences between verbal and nonverbal interactions with a stranger. She told them that the experiment consisted of two phases and would require less than an hour of their time. The first phase of the experiment was described as a nonverbal interaction with a stranger and the second as a verbal interaction with a stranger. The students' questions about the research were answered without revealing the true purpose of the investigation or further information about the experimental procedures. Letters explaining the experiment to the parents and permission forms for the parents to sign were dis tributed to interested students. They were instructed to return the signed permission forms to their homeroom teachers. 117 APPENDIX B PARENTAL PERMISSION FORM November 1970 Dear Parents: I am a PH.D. candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Southern California, and a staff psy chologist at Rancho Los Amigos Hospital. Sister Carol Marie has graciously granted permission for me to conduct my doctoral research at Alvemo Heights Academy. During the next few months I will be coming to the academy one day each week for this purpose. I have asked members of the junior and senior classes to volunteer to participate in my research. Each girl who volunteers and whose parents give their permis sion will devote a total of one hour (during unscheduled time) to this study of verbal and nonverbal reactions to a stranger. After the research is completed, the results and implications will be shared with all participants. Undergraduate women at the University of Southern Cali fornia and at Immaculate Heart College, who have been involved in similar research, have found it to be an interesting and educational experience. Your daughter has expressed an interest in par ticipating. If you have any further questions before giving your permission, please do not hesitate to tele phone me at home (663-9095) or at work (773-4331, ext. 2971) . Sincerely, Judy W. Walker, M.A. 118 APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A REQUEST FOR VOLUNTEERS The E was introduced to the students as a graduate student from USC who was looking for volunteers to help her complete her doctoral dissertation in clinical psy chology. The E then explained that her research was de signed to investigate the differences between verbal and nonverbal interactions with a stranger. She told them that the experiment consisted of two phases and would require less than an hour of their time. The first phase of the experiment was described as a nonverbal interaction with a stranger and the second as a verbal interaction with a stranger. The students' questions about the research were answered without revealing the true purpose of the investigation or further information about the experimental procedures. Letters explaining the experiment to the parents and permission forms for the parents to sign were dis tributed to interested students. They were instructed to return the signed permission forms to their homeroom teachers. 117 APPENDIX B PARENTAL PERMISSION FORM November 1970 Dear Parents: I am a PH.D. candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Southern California, and a staff psy chologist at Rancho Los Amigos Hospital. Sister Carol Marie has graciously granted permission for me to conduct my doctoral research at Alvemo Heights Academy. During the next few months I will be coming to the academy one day each week for this purpose. I have asked members of the junior and senior classes to volunteer to participate in my research. Each girl who volunteers and whose parents give their permis sion will devote a total of one hour (during unscheduled time) to this study of verbal and nonverbal reactions to a stranger. After the research is completed, the results and implications will be shared with all participants. Undergraduate women at the University of Southern Cali fornia and at Immaculate Heart College, who have been involved in similar research, have found it to be an interesting and educational experience. Your daughter has expressed an interest in par ticipating. If you have any further questions before giving your permission, please do not hesitate to tele phone me at home (663-9095) or at work (773-4331, ext. 2971). Sincerely, Judy W. Walker, M.A. 118 119 I give my permission for______________ to par ticipate in the research being conducted by Judy Walker at Alvemo Heights Academy. Parent or guardian Date APPENDIX C DIAGRAM OF BODY BOUNDARY MEASUREMENT ROOM G Door « . f i S facing toward point A Door 2 5 feet Scale 3 /1 6 " = I* 0 " 120 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Discuss what you expect to gain from high school. 2. Discuss the kind of things that make you anxious or fearful and to what extent this anxiety has affected your everyday life. 3. Discuss whether you feel self-confident in most situations. 4. Discuss how you generally get along with other members of your family. 5. Discuss those times when you wished you were able to do something which you couldn't do or weren't competent to do. 6. Discuss whether you frequently become so unhappy that you actually feel sick or find it difficult to carry on everyday activities. 7. Discuss whether you feel that you are popular with and get along with others your age. 8. Discuss whether you feel that you are emotionally mature and able to accept things. 9. Discuss the sort of things you look forward to in life. 10. Discuss what your reactions are to participating in this research. 121 APPENDIX E DIAGRAM OF INTERVIEW ROOM Tape Recorder Desk o Bookcase 10 feet Scale 1 /2 " = I' 0 " <D o 1 - Position of RA 2 - Position of S in 2 foot condition (end table and tape recorder placed to the immediate right of the S) 3 - Position of_S in 4 1/2 foot conditioiT?end table and tape recorder placed to the immediate right of the S) 4 - Position of S_in 9 foot condition (end table and tape recorder placed to the immediate right of the S) 122 APPENDIX F INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE The following questions are multiple choice. Please circle the set of words in each row which best represent your impressions. 1. How did you feel about the research assistant? extremely negative somewhat negative neutral somewhat positive extremely positive Please circle the set of words in each row which best represent your impressions of the research assistant. 2. extremely unfriendly somewhat unfriendly neutral somewhat friendly extremely friendly 3. extremely unattractive somewhat unattractive neutral somewhat attractive extremely attractive extremely uninterested in you somewhat uninterested in you neutral somewhat interested in you extremely interested in you 123 124 5. extremely incompetent somewhat competent 6. extremely tense somewhat incompetent extremely competent somewhat tense neutral neutral 8. somewhat relaxed extremely unimportant somewhat important extremely relaxed somewhat unimportant extremely important neutral How do you think the research assistant felt about you? extremely negative somewhat positive somewhat negative extremely positive neutral Please circle the set of words in each row which best represent how you think the research assistant saw you. 9. extremely unfriendly somewhat friendly 10. extremely unattractive somewhat unfriendly extremely friendly somewhat unattractive neutral neutral somewhat attractive extremely attractive 125 11. extremely tense somewhat relaxed somewhat tense extremely relaxed neutral APPENDIX G POST-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Please explain what you think was the purpose of this experiment. 2. Please explain what you think the relationship was between the two parts of the experiment The following questions are multiple choice; how ever, any additional comments would be greatly appre ciated. You may use the back of the paper for additional comments. 3. What was your overall reaction to the interview? extremely somewhat neutral negative negative somewhat extremely positive positive 4. What was your reaction to being questioned by a tape recorder? extremely somewhat neutral negative negative somewhat extremely positive positive 5. What was your reaction to the type of question asked? 126 127 extremely somewhat neutral negative negative somewhat extremely positive positive 6. What was your reaction to the seating arrangement? extremely somewhat neutral negative negative somewhat extremely positive positive 7. If the seating arrangement made you uncomfortable, how could it have been changed to make you more comfortable? 8. How did you feel about the research assistant? extremely negative somewhat positive somewhat negative extremely positive neutral Please circle the set of words in each row which best represent your impressions of the research assistant. 9. extremely unfriendly somewhat friendly 10. extremely unattractive somewhat unfriendly extremely friendly somewhat unattractive neutral neutral somewhat attractive extremely attractive 128 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. best you. 16. extremely uninterested in you somewhat interested in you extremely incompetent somewhat competent extremely tense somewhat neutral uninterested in you extremely interested in you somewhat incompetent extremely competent somewhat tense neutral neutral somewhat relaxed extremely relaxed extremely ion import ant somewhat important somewhat unimportant extremely important neutral How do you think the research assistant felt about you? extremely negative somewhat positive somewhat negative extremely positive neutral Please circle the set of words in each row which represent how you think the research assistant saw extremely unfriendly somewhat unfriendly neutral somewhat friendly extremely friendly 129 17. extremely unattractive somewhat attractive 18. extremely tense somewhat relaxed somewhat unattractive extremely attractive somewhat tense extremely relaxed neutral neutral APPENDIX H SELF-DISCLOSURE SCALE AND SCORING EXAMPLES 0 = No response given (silence, uh....). 1 = Statement that the subject has no answer or does not wish to answer. 2 = This is a direct answer. It may be a simple yes or no, or it may include vivid descriptions and detailed information. However, it does not contain any overt statements of feeling, nor evidence of self-evalua tion or self-awareness. 3 c This answer includes low intensity self-evaluative remarks or low intensity statement of feelings. If the question contains feeling words, their direct repetition does not constitute a feeling response. 4 * This statement includes an intense statement of feeling or intense self-searching. Intensity is a function of both the direct impact of the words used and the intimacy value of what is being said. Examples of 1 point scores: Question 5: I really can't think of anything I know at this minute. Nothing comes to mind. Question 2: I'd rather not answer that. Examples of 2 point scores: Question 7: I guess I'm not popular, but I do get along with kids my own age. Question 9: I look forward to going to college, to do different sorts of things, having to go to a different school at a different location, having to live there all 130 131 the time and . . . afterward, Carthurs Academy, I'm just really looking forward to it. You know, it's just . . . Nothing much I can think of besides that. Examples of 3 point scores: Question 4: I get along well with my family. I love my family. We understand each other. Sometimes there are disagreements, but we get along. Question 10: I don't like this part because it's so stupid . . . just sitting here and waiting for some thing to happen, not able to talk freely. Examples of 4 point scores: Question 6: I guess, oh, dear, not carrying on everyday activities is when something very emotional happens, some big decision, some really big decision, like a happening or something that my whole future would depend on . . . and I spend so much time worrying about it that I just worry myself into a tizzy, and I can't just carry on regularly. Like last semester I had trouble doing regular activities. Usually I'm good in my school work until this year when my grades seemed to drop. All of a sudden I realized I had to grow up and it- just kind of hit me that . . . I gotta start acting like an adult, not like a child anymore. It just kind of hit me and I got scared. I sat around and didn't do anything and I tried to keep acting like a baby. But I can't. It's just not possible to' keep going like that. You have to realize . . . that's what I'm doing, I guess, realizing at last I was growing up and becoming an adult, I guess. And it scared me, and I wasn't able to carry on activities. My grades were going right into the ground, really was bad. Hopefully now since I realize what's happening. I'll be able to go through, I guess. Question 7: I feel that I get along with people usually. .It's a gift probably I've been given to be able to talk to people and maybe understand them. They may not like me. I will face this in life and I'm not really scared of this. Whereas, I probably do not like a lot of people either. I get along with those I feel do not like me. I try to, not forceably, to try not to hold a grudge against people that do dislike me. I try to accept it. Those I do get along with I hope to hold their friendship very dear to me. It's not exterior 132 friendship. It's more of a deep friendship that I want to hold onto and to hold close to me for the rest of my life. Friendship is a very beautiful thing and I con sider that not just to have someone share materialistic things with you. I would say that I have no problems dealing with friends, just with people that I try to get along with and be happy with. APPENDIX I SUBJECT INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BODY BOUNDARY MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE As was explained before, this study is interested in finding out how people react to strangers and how com fortable they are with them in both verbal and nonverbal situations. As you might expect some people are more comfortable in verbal situations while others feel more at ease in nonverbal interactions. This part of the experiment will focus upon non verbal interaction with a stranger. You and my research assistant will participate in a nonverbal interaction. He will silently walk toward you along each one of these strips of tape. Your part in the interaction will be to signal him if and when you feel he is coming too close for you. In other words, as he approaches along each strip of tape you are to signal to him when his approach begins to make you feel at all anxious or uncomfortable. When you signal to him he will stop walking toward you and begin at the far end of the next strip of tape. You may signal him by raising your hand like this. When he approaches you from behind you may turn your head to see where he is, but it is important that your body remain in the same position. Now remember, we are interested in your reactions to the research assistant in a nonverbal situation. It is very important that you do not talk to him and that you signal with your hand as soon as you feel the least bit anxious or uncomfortable. 133 APPENDIX J SAMPLE DATA CARD FOR RESEARCH ASSISTANT Name: S#: Date: Start 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A B C D E F G H 134 APPENDIX K DISTRIBUTION OF BODY BOUNDARY SIZES1 Body Boundary Size No. of Ss Screened in No. of Ss Screened Out Basis for Elimination of Ss 0.00 0 12 0 0.12 1 0 — 0.25 2 0 — 0.38 1 0 — 0.50 1 0 — 0.62 0 0 __ 0.75 1 Q — 0.88 1 0 1.00 4 0 _ _ 1.12 3 0 — 1.25 4 1 R 1.38 1 1 R 1.50 5 0 — 1.62 0 1 M 1.75 0 3 M 1.88 0 5 M 2.00 0 5 M 2.12 0 6 M 2.25 5 1 R 2.38 2 1 R 2.50 3 1 R 2.62 5 0 — 2.75 1 0 _ _ 2.88 1 0 — 3.00 0 0 — 135 136 Body Boundary Size No. of Ss .Screened in No. of Ss Screened Out Basis for Elimination of Ss 3.12 1 0 3.25 0 1 R 3.38 1 1 R 3.50 1 0 — 3.62 0 0 — 3.75 0 0 — 3.88 1 0 — 4.00 2 1 R 4.12 0 0 — 4.25 1 0 Subjects were eliminated from the study due to scheduling difficulties. These Ss are not included in this frequency distribution. Symbols indicating basis for elimination of Ss: R = random eliminations for purpose of establishing equal cell size; M = medium body boundary size; 0 = zero body boundary measurement. APPENDIX L SUBJECT INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SELF-DISCLOSURE INTERVIEW This part of the experiment will focus upon verbal interaction with a stranger. You and my research assist ant will participate in a verbal interaction. The inter action will take the form of a brief interview. You will be asked to discuss 10 different topics. Two and one-half minutes will be allowed for your response to each topic. We would like you to give as much information as you feel comfortable sharing with the research assistant. The information which you disclose will remain confidential. If you do not wish to respond to a topic you may remain silent until the next one is introduced. Although my research assistant will remain in the room with you his part in the interview has been prerecorded. 137 APPENDIX M SUBJECT DEBRIEFING FORMAT This experiment was actually concerned with the need for personal space. The first part of the experiment which was presented as a nonverbal interaction was actu ally designed to measure your need for personal space. Very little is known about personal space except that it can be measured and that people have a wide range of body boundary sizes. The second part of the experiment was designed to learn more about the meaning of personal space. Specifically, it was designed to find out if people with large and small body boundaries react differ ently to interviews conducted at varying distances. Only the girls with the largest and smallest body boundaries were asked to participate in the interview. One third of the large body boundary girls were inter viewed at an extremely close distance, one third at a normal distance, and one third at an unusually close dis tance. The girls with the small body boundaries were divided in a similar fashion. When all of the data have been collected the responses of the girls in the different groups will be compared. You may have noticed that the research assistant was using a stop watch during the interview. He used it to measure the amount of eye contact you made during the interview. Eye contact was measured because it is another indication of how comfortable you were during the inter view. You were given false information about the purpose of the experiment because psychologists have found that when a person knows what is being studied he sometimes changes his behavior to fit his own ideas of what the 138 139 outcome should be. How do you feel about having been misled in this way? Do you have any questions? It is very important that you do not talk about the experiment with any of your classmates until the end of the school year. Thank you again for participating. REFERENCES 140 REFERENCES Albert, S., and Dabbs, J. M., Jr. Physical distance and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 265-270. Argyle, M., and Dean, J. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304. Benton, A. L.; Hartman, C. H.? and Sarason, I. G. Some relations between speech behavior and anxiety level. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 295-297. Calhoun, J. B. Population density and social pathology. Scientific American, 1962, 206, 139-148. Chittick, E. V., and Himelstein, P. The manipulation of self-disclosure. Journal of Psychology, 1967, 65, 117-121. Cohen, A. R. Some implications of self-esteem for social influence. In Hoveland, C. I., and Janis, L. I. (Eds.). Personality and Persuasibility. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1967. Dosey, M. A., and Meisels, M. Personal space and self protection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 93-97. Efran, J. S. Looking for approval: Effects of visual behavior of approbation from persons differing in importance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 21-25. 141 142 Efran, J. S., and Broughton, A. Effect of expectancies for social approval on visual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 103-107. Ellsworth, P. C., and Carlsmith, J. M. Effects of eye contact and verbal content on affective response to a dyadic interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 15-20. Esser, A. H., et al. Territoriality of patients on a research ward. In Wortis, J. (Ed.). Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry, 1964, 7. Exline, R.; Gray, D.; and Schuette, D. Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 201-209. Exline, R. V., and Winters, L. C. Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In Tomkins, S. S., and Izard, C. E. (Eds.). Affect, Cognition and Personality. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc., 1965. Felipe, N. J., and Sommer, R. Invasions of personal space. Social Problems, 1966, 14, 206-214. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Row, Peterson, 1957. Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive conse quences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnor mal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 203-210. Frankel, A. S. Attitudes toward a group as a function of self-esteem, group achievement level, and success or failure on a group-relevant task. Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, Washington, D.C., 351-352. 143 Frankel, A. S., and Barrett, J. Variations in personal space as a function of authoritarianism, self esteem and racial characteristics of a stimulus situation. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 37, 95-100. Fritchey, Kathleen. The effects of anxiety and threat on self-disclosure. Unpublished doctoral disser tation. University of Southern California, 1970. Guardo, C. J. Self-concept and personal space in chil dren. Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966, No. 66-11, 774. Hall, E. T. The Silent Language. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1959. Hall, E. T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1966. Hearn, G. Leadership and the spatial factor in small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 269-272. Hediger, H. Wild Animals in Captivity. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications, 1950. Himelstein, P., and Kimbrough, W. W. A study of self disclosure in the classroom. Journal of Psychol ogy, 1963, 55, 437-440. Horowitz, M. H.; Duff, D. F.; and Stratton, L. D. Body- buff er zone. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 651-656. Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure and other cathexis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 428-431. Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure patterns in British and American college females. Journal of Social Psychology, 1961, 54, 315-320. 144 Jourard Jourard Jourard Kanfer, King, M Kleck, ] Kinsel, Kuethe, Lassen, Leipold, , S. M. The Transparent Self. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1964. , S. M. Disclosing Man to Himself. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1968. - S. M., and Laskow, P. Some factors in self disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychiatry, 1958, 56, 91-98. F. H. Verbal rate, content and adjustment ratings in experimentally structured interviews. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 305-311. G. Interpersonal relations in preschool chil dren and average approach distance. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 109, 109-116. I.; Buck, P. L.; Goller, W. L.; London, R. S.; Pfeifer, J. R.; and Vukcevic, D. P. Effect of stigmatizing conditions on the use of personal space. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 111-118. A. Body buffer zone in violent prisoners. Presented to the Annual Convention of the American Psychiatric Association, Miami, Florida, 1969. J. L. Social schemas. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 31-38. C. Interaction distance and the initial psychi atric interview: A study in proximics. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation. Yale University, 1970. W. E. Psychological distance in a dyadic inter view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Dakota, 1963. Cited by Sommer, R. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. 145 Levinger, G., and Gunner, J. The interpersonal grid: I Felt and tape techniques for the measurement of social relationships. Psychometric Science, 1967, 8, 173-174. Lewit, D. W., and Joy, V. D. Kinetic versus social schemas in figure grouping. Journal of Personal ity and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 63-72. Little, K. B. Personal space. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 237-247. Little, K. B. Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 1-7. Little, K. B.; Ulehla, Z. J.; and Henderson, C. L. Value congruence and interaction distances. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 75, 245-253. Lorenz, K. On Aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966. McBride, G.; King, M. G.; James, J. W. Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 61, 153- 157. Mehrabian, A., and Diamond, S. Effects of furniture arrangement, props, and personality on social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 20, 18-30. Myers, J. L. Fundamentals of Experimental Design. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966. Rosenfeld, H. M. Effect of approval-seeking induction on interpersonal proximity. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17,120-122. Russo, N. Connotation of seating arrangements. Cornell Journal of Social Relations. Cited by Sommer, R. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. 146 Sommer, R. Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 1959, 22, 247-260. Sommer, R. Leadership and group geography. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 99-110. Sommer, R. Further studies in small group ecology. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 337-348. Sommer, R. Small group ecology. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 67, 145-152. Sommer, R. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Sommer, R., and Becker, F. D. Territorial defense and the good neighbor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 85-92. Steinzor, B. The spatial factor in face to face discus sion groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 45, 552-555. Stotland, E.; Thorley, S.; Thomas, C.; Cohen, A. R.; and Zander, A. The effects of group expectations and self-esteem upon self-evaluation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 55-63. Strongman, K. T., and Champness, B. G. Dominance hier archies and conflict in eye contact. Acta Psychologica, 1968, 28, 376-386. Taylor, D. A., and Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 729-730. Research Report, No. 9, Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., April, 1966. Tinbergen, N. Social Behavior in Animals. New York: John Wiley, 1953. 147 Ward, C. D. Seating arrangement and leadership emergence in small discussion groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 83-90. Weinstein, L. Social schemata of emotionally disturbed boys. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1965, 70, 457-461. Weinstein, L. Social experience and social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 429-434. Williams, J. L. Personal space and its relation to extro ver sion-introversion. Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Alberta, 1963. Cited by Sommer, R. Personal Space; The Behavioral Basis for Design. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Willis, F. N. Initial speaking distance as a function of the speakers relationship. Psychometric Science, 1966, 5, 221—222. Wolberg, L. R. Short-term Psychotherapy. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1965. Wolberg, L. R. The Technique of Psychotherapy (Part I). New York: Grune and Stratton, 1967.
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
Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions
PDF
Effects Of Associative And Category Cuing On Recall Of Items From Exhaustive And Nonexhaustive Lists
PDF
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
PDF
Self-Sacrifice, Cooperation, And Aggression In Women Of Varying Sex-Role Orientations
PDF
The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows
PDF
Weight Reduction As A Function Of The Timing Of Reinforcement In A Covertaversive Conditioning Paradigm
PDF
Strategies Of Marital Communication
PDF
The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure
PDF
Reading Rates And Comprehension As Affected By Single And Multiple-Ratio Schedules Of Reinforcement Within A Token Economy As Measured By Precision Teaching Techniques
PDF
Effects Of Labeling As Emr On Teachers' Expectancies For Change In A Student'S Performance
PDF
The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space
PDF
Modification Of Low Self-Confidence In Elementary-School Children By Reinforcement And Modeling
PDF
The Relationship Of Multidimensional Scaling Spaces Of Trait Adjectives For Different Reference Persons
PDF
Sex-Role Identity, Self-Concept, And Vocational Interests Of Adolescent Hemophiliacs
PDF
Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children
PDF
An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath
PDF
The Effects Of Pretraining In Auditory And Visual Discrimination On Texting In First Grade Boys
PDF
Attention, retention, and incentive processes in observational learning
PDF
Some Effects Of Preschool Experience On The General Intelligence And Creativity Of Culturally Disadvantaged Children
Asset Metadata
Creator
Weber, Judy Walker
(author)
Core Title
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
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
Frankel, Andrew Steven (
committee chair
), Conolley, Edward S. (
committee member
), Meyers, Charles Edward (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-774170
Unique identifier
UC11364506
Identifier
7300789.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-774170 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7300789
Dmrecord
774170
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Weber, Judy Walker
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