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 Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns
(USC Thesis Other)
The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69- 13,095 YOUNG, Barbara Ann, 1930- THE EFFECTS OF SEX, ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLE, TOPIC INTIMACY, AND EXPECTATIONS OF PARTNER COMPATIBILITY ON DYADIC COMMUNICATION PATTERNS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1969 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © C opyright by BARBARA ANN YOUNG THE EFFECTS OF SEX, ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLE, TOPIC INTIMACY, AND EXPECTATIONS OF PARTNER COMPATIBILITY ON DYADIC COMMUNICATION PATTERNS by Barbara Ann Young 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) January 1969 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SC H O O L, UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, ‘ written by Barbara Ann Young under the direction of Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y Dean DaU_ Janua^y,l969 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman TO MY HUSBAND, EDWIN D. YOUNG, AND MY CHILDREN, RICHARD, PAUL, JANET, & CAROLYN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to the members of my committee for their guidance and their encouragement during the execution of this research. My husband and children contributed their time and their talents in many ways, and I want to thank each one for their assistance; most of all, I want to thank them for their support and for their under standing during this rather hectic period in our lives. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . „ „ . . . „ ............... vi LIST OF FIGURES....................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .......................... 1 Therapist-Patient Roles Topic of Communication Expectations of Partner Compatibility Restrictions on Communication in the Experimental Situation Discomfort and Responsibility as Variables in the Dyadic Interaction Statement of the Problem Hypotheses II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............. 22 Temporal Analysis of Inter personal Interaction Self-disclosure Research III. METHODS................................. 37 Apparatus and Materials Design and Procedure General Procedure IV. RESULTS................................. 50 Tests of the Experimental Hypotheses Empirical Findings Empirical Findings— Sex Differences Durations of Time Used by Male and Female Subjects Frequency of Comments Initiated by Male and Female Subjects Analysis of Post-Discussion Questionnaire iv Chapter Page V. DISCUSSION REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A- Appendix B- Appendix C- Appendix D- Appendix E- Appendix F- Appendix G- Appendix H- Appendix I- ■-Request for Subjects — Subject Information Sheet — Treatment Groups — Topics for Discussions — Criteria Used in Selecting High and Low Intimacy Items from the Taylor-Altman Item Pool -Post-Discussion Questionnaire — Assignment Sheet for Dyads — Instructions to Subjects — Raw Data: Frequency and Duration Measures 95 111 116 v LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles............................... 51 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Subjects Assigned Therapist Roles for High and Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation .... 53 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Durations of Time as Discussant by Subjects Assigned Therapist Roles Expecting Compatible or Incompatible Partners and Given High or Low Intimacy T o p i c s .................... 54 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Comments by Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles for High and Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation .... 57 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Comments by Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles and Expecting Compatible or Incompatible Partners.................... 58 5. Analysis of Variance: Duration of Time as Discussant by Subjects Controlling Communication Flow...................... 59 7. Analysis of Variance: Frequency of Comments by Subjects Controlling Communication Flow...................... 60 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Comments by Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles .... 62 vi Table Page 9. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Subjects Assigned Peer Roles for High and Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation...................... 63 10. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Male and Female Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer R o l e s ........................... 65 11. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Male and Female Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles Expecting Compatible or Incompatible Partners and Given High or Low Intimacy T o p i c s ........... 66 12. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Male and Female Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles and Given High or Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation .................. 69 13. Means and Standard Deviations of Duration of Time as Discussant by Male and Female Subjects Expecting Compatible or Incompatible Partners and Given High or Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation ........... 71 14. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Comments by Male and Female Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles Expecting Compatible or Incompatible Partners and Given High or Low Intimacy Topics ........................ 74 15. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Comments by Male and Female Subjects Assigned Therapist or Peer Roles and Given High or Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation .... 77 vii Table Page 16. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency of Comments by Male and Female Subjects Expecting Compatible or Incompatible Partners and Given High or Low Intimacy Topics— Two Orders of Topic Presentation 79 17. Analysis of Variance: Question 1. Ease of Discussion...................... 83 18. Analysis of Variance: Question 2. Intimacy of Topics...................... 86 19. Analysis of Variance: Question 3. Discomfort ....... 87 20. Analysis of Variance: Question 4. Anticipation of Partner Compatibility . 89 21. Analysis of Variance: Question 5. Time . 90 22. Analysis of Variance: Question 6. Friendliness of Partner ................ 92 23. Analysis of Variance: Question 8. Sense of Humor........... 94 viii Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Apparatus and Seating Arrangement . . ix Page 39 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study addresses itself to the patterning and flow of verbal communication in dyadic interaction, and specifically to the manner in which talking and listening time is distributed between the members of the dyad. Kanfer (1965) suggests that differing distributions of amounts of participation may differentially affect the nature of the information exchanged, the attitudes of the partners, the intensity of the relationship formed, and the degree of generalization to new situations of patterns of communication which develop. The study being reported investigated the effects upon intercommunication of the introduction of the following variables into the dyadic system: 1. the assignment of social roles of therapist- patient or co-patients, 2. the level of intimacy of the topic assigned as the subject of communication, 3. pre-interview instructions designed to produce 1 2 sets in subjects to expect socially compatible partners or socially incompatible partners. Therapist-Patient Roles Social role may be defined as the set of normative expectations which presumably governs the behavior of role encumbents. Jones & Thibaut (1958) point out, ’ ’For the most part, we interact with others within fairly well- defined situations and in terms of rather constraining roles (p. 152)." Conformance of individuals to mutually understood role expectations is generally believed to facilitate social interaction. Kanfer (1965) demonstrated that the assignment of therapist, patient, or getting-acquainted roles to sub jects markedly affected the manner in which they distrib uted talking time. Subjects allotted about half of the available time to themselves and half to their partners when instructed to discuss their ideas and feelings in order to get better acquainted as one would in psycho therapy. However, when the same subjects were subsequently instructed to assume the specific role of the therapist or of the patient, they allotted about two-thirds of the available time to the patient and one-third of the time to the therapist. Kanfer's subjects were seated in separate booths which eliminated visual contact. Conversation was conducted through a one-way intercom system which was completely controlled by one of the members of the dyad who switched from Talk to Listen. The time distribution was not affected by the fact that in some of the dyads the intercom was controlled by the subject playing the therapist role and in others by the subject playing the patient role. Kanfer concluded that the dyadic communica tion system which is formed by the assignment of psycho therapy roles differs from that of "ordinary" social intercourse, as represented by assignment of getting- acquainted roles. An extensive study by Lennard & Bernstein (1960) explored the expectations and behavior of four therapists and their patients (two each) over a period of approxi mately eight months. Lennard & Bernstein found that both patients and therapists expected patient talk to pre dominate, but that the patients expected the therapists to talk for a greater proportion of session time than the therapists themselves expected to talk. Moreover, patients expressed greater satisfaction and felt that sessions proceeded more easily when the therapist was more active. Lennard & Bernstein report that the average therapist contribution to the total verbal output of a session was 27 per cent, the most active therapist contributing about 33 per cent of the total verbal output, the least active therapist about 15 per cent. Thus, the distribution of amount of transmission and reception behavior by subjects assigned psychotherapist-patient roles by Kanfer approximates that of actual "in-therapy" behavior found in the Lennard & Bernstein study. Lennard & Bernstein also reported that ". . .at least in the early stages of therapy, verbal activeness of therapists is largely (though obviously not entirely) a function of their experience and role expectations rather than of the expectations or activities of particular patients (p. 175).” However, therapists adjusted their verbal activity to that of the patient so as to maintain a fairly steady ratio of talk time over sessions. Lennard & Bernstein (1967) comment on the psycho therapy situation as an example of role relations in which initial complementarity in role expectations between members is largely absent, so that it therefore becomes-an important task of the therapist to teach his partner in the relationship "... how to be a patient and what to expect from a therapist. . . (p. 2).” Additional evidence supporting the above conceptualization of the psychotherapy situation as one in which the roles of participants are learned may be derived from a study of the interviewing behavior of novice interviewers (Matarazzo, Phillips, Wiens, & Saslow, 1965) which reported that patients used from 80 per cent to 92 per cent of the talking time in a session. The patients, who were each interviewed by each student, were well-experienced participants in the therapy interview. Differences between students in response latency and in the frequency and duration of utterances had little effect on patient behavior, whereas differences between patients in response latency and in the frequency and duration of utterances significantly affected the behavior of the student interviewers. It is interesting to note that in the study reported above, as in the Lennard & Bernstein (1960) study, the behavior of the more experienced participant is less responsive to the behavior of the partner than is that of the less experienced participant. It is plausible to generalize that the less experience an individual has in a particular role, the more his behavior may be in fluenced by or be responsive to the behavior of his partner. The more experienced partner has presumably established more stable role behaviors and his actions tend to conform more to his own expectations. 6 Topic of Communication The second variable to be examined is the nature of the topic with which communication is concerned. The Kanfer (1965) study did not find that the topic signifi cantly affected the pattern of communication. Kanfer provided MMPI statements to initiate topics of discussion, and subjects were told that it was permissible to depart from the assigned topics. Content of the discussions was not checked to determine whether subjects actually dis cussed the suggested topics. Kanfer (1959) studied the effect of topic upon subjects' verbal rate, defined as words- spoken per unit time. The topics assigned consisted of the following: relationship with parents, self-confidence, past inabil ities to achieve, one's sexual attractiveness, and an estimation of one's own emotional maturity. Kanfer estab lished the base rate of continuous speech for each subject by means of a preliminary warm-up period. Subjects were asked to speak for three minutes on each of a number of school topics to an interviewer who did not ask or answer questions nor make any comment until the conclusion of the three minute interval. The five experimental topics were then presented in an invariant order to all subjects (the same order as in the above list) . Kanfer reported that no topic had a significant effect on rate of verbal production of all subjects. However, he observed a significant increase in verbal rate when the topics of relationships with parents and sexual attractiveness were discussed by those subjects who had been judged to be poorly adjusted in those two areas (on the basis of prior administration of a Rorschach and a prior interview with the experimenter). Kanfer also reported that the subjects adhered to the assigned topic in the discussion of parental relationships and sexual attractiveness, whereas other topics were rephrased or responded to with recitations of specific incidents. Kanfer (1960) reported that the rate of verbal response (defined as the number.of words emitted per 30 second duration) of hospitalized psychiatric patients differed to each of four questions asked in a structured psychiatric interview. The topics, listed in the order of decreasing verbal rate, consisted of: (1) why the patient was hospitalized, (2) relationships with family, (3) a description of home, (4) the patient's sexual attractiveness. Subjects redefined the last question and discussed their relationships with their spouses instead of their own sexual attractiveness. Kanfer reports that the patients discussed no sexual material. These last two studies suggested that the emotional significance of the topic of communication may influence temporal characteristics of the speech of subjects. Matarazzo, Weitman, & Saslow (1963) reported results inconsistent with the preceding generalization. They failed to find any relationship between interviewee speech durations (defined as the average duration of individual units of speech) and topics when they inter viewed civil service applicants on the topics of educa tion, occupation, and family history. The literature on the effects of topic of communi cation, so far referred to, concerns the effects of the topic variable upon speech characteristics in highly structured interviews in which the distribution of avail able talking time per participant has not been allowed to vary. The significance of the topic in dyadic inter action has been explored in a different context by Jourard and others who are studying self-disclosure as a variable in interpersonal relations. Jourard (1964) has investi gated self-disclosure (the revealing of items of personal information about oneself to another individual) primarily by means of self-report questionnaires. Subjects indicate willingness to disclose items of personal information to "target persons" such as parents, best friends, opposite- sex friends, et cetera. Willingness to disclose personal information varies with the personal relationship to the "target person," but Jourard reports that subjects are always more willing to reveal less intimate information than more intimate information. Individual differences, as well as demographic differences (e.g., sex, age, religion, nationality) also exist in the willingness to disclose personal information. Information about (1) one's sex life, (2) one's financial status, and (3) one's feelings and problems in relation to one's body and to one's own personality is less disclosable and, therefore, higher in intimacy value than information about one's work, tastes, hobbies, interests, and attitudes about religion, politics, et cetera. The items comprising the questionnaires define the areas of self-disclosure and the intimacy value of a topic. Recently, Taylor & Altman (1966) have developed a set of items scaled for intimacy by Thurstone methods using naval personnel and male college freshmen as judges. These authors offer 671 statements, classified into 13 categories and scaled for intimacy within each category, as a research tool in the study of interpersonal relation ships. Frankfurt (1965) described a "social penetration process" in interpersonal relationships in which indivi duals express a willingness to exchange greater amounts of personal information and to exchange more intimate infor mation as time progresses. Jourard (1959) found a pattern of mutuality in self-disclosure, which he called the "dyadic effect." He reported that individuals tend to reveal personal information and to be revealed to by a given other person to about the same degree. The mutuality effect is supported by Chittick & Himelstein's study (1967) . The extent of self-disclosure to a con federate of the experimenter which was displayed by subje.cts presumably waiting to begin an experiment was measured by the number of items of information disclosed (all of which were items low in intimacy value): name, age, year in school, major, minor, marital status, home town, and chosen profession. The finding that a subject responds to disclosure by another individual of an item of information by disclosing the same information about himself supports the premise that mutuality in self disclosure is one of the normative expectations concerning the acquaintance process between peers. The traditional expectations regarding self disclosure in psychotherapy are quite different from the expectations of disclosure in the peer relationship. In the psychotherapist-patient dyad the patient is tradition ally expected to reveal much personal information while the psychotherapist, as in classical psychoanalysis, for example, has traditionally been expected to reveal very little personal information, serving instead as a blank 11 mirror in which the patient can see a clear reflection of his own attitudes and projections. The peer role and the psychotherapy roles appear to involve quite different expectations, then, regarding the extent to which personal information is to he revealed by each member of the dyad and the relative amount of verbalization to be produced by each. Expectations of Partner Compatibility The third variable investigated was the effect of a pre-interview set given subjects to expect socially compatible or socially incompatible partners. Allen, Wiens, Weitman, & Saslow (1965) reported that a pre interview set given subjects to perceive an interviewer as a cold rather than as a warm person produced longer response latencies. The experimental situation was a clinical employment interview in which interviewer speech duration was standardized. Duration of individual units of subjects' speech was not affected. Although not concerned with temporal character istics of interview interaction, Heller, Myers, & Kline (1963) reported the finding that client friendliness was responded to by counselor friendliness and client hostility by subtle counselor counterhostility. Experi mental confederates played the client role and the two modes of client behavior were standardized. 12 Thibaut & Kelley (1959) reported a study by Thibaut & Coules, (1952) which demonstrated that "... the initially hostile subject is relatively less communicative to a standard stimulus person . . . than the initially friendly person (p. 72)." These authors also reported a study by Back, 1951, in which each of two subjects is informed by the experimenter that he will very probably like the other, and this preparation leads to a more active production of behavior. These studies suggest that both the amount and type of verbal activity and the amount and depth of self disclosure in the dyad would be affected by initially favorable or unfavorable expectations induced by experi mental instructions. If one participant in a self disclosure dyadic system were relatively uncommunicative, the other participant might become more verbally active to attempt to facilitate the flow of communication in order to achieve a balance of verbal activity which conforms to the role expectations of the particular type of social relationship in which they are participating. The speculation is supported by the Lennard & Bernstein (1960) finding that a diminution of patient activity in one session was likely to be followed by greater therapist activity in the next session. Further support may be derived from Heller, Davis, & Myers' (1966) report that 13 "active" interviewers, as defined in their study, were the most successful in sustaining the verbalization rates of their subjects. Studies reviewed above lead to the conclusion that one should expect that dyadic communication patterns formed in an experimental interview by subjects instructed to assume therapist-patient or peer roles will be affected both by the intimacy of the topic of communication and by subjects' initial expectations about their partners. There are several possible explanations for Kanfer1s (1965) conclusion that the topic variable did not significantly affect distribution of speaking time: first, subjects were free to depart from suggested topics; and secondly, the MMPI statements used may have been relatively similar in regard to the level of intimacy represented. Studies of the effect of topic on temporal characteristics of verbal behavior have not employed well-defined criteria to select topics. The dimension of topic intimacy, as developed in self-disclosure research, provides a well-studied, definable, and plausibly relevant variable for investigation of the effect of the nature of the topic with which communication is concerned upon the distribution of speaking time in a dyadic communication system. Moreover, it is timely to extend the scope of generalizations from self-disclosure research, which has relied primarily upon self-report measures, by investigating the self-disclosure behavior of subjects in an experimentally arranged situation. Restrictions on Communication in the Experimental Situation Communication in the experimental situation employed was restricted by the following conditions: 1. Visual contact was eliminated between subjects engaging in verbal interaction. Therefore, the opportunity for communication of non-verbal cues was minimal. In face- to-face interaction, non-verbal cues may be of great importance in helping to define and regulate interaction (Scheflen, 1963) . 2. One member of the dyad controlled a set of . . lights which indicated which of the pair could talk, and only one member could talk at a time. The subject who controlled the signal lights was thus able to regulate the distribution of available time at his own discretion. The subject assigned the therapist role was always assigned the task of controlling the signal lights in those dyads in which subjects were instructed to assume therapist- pat ient ro le s. 3. Instructions to all subjects emphasized the importance of discussing only the assigned topic until 15 signalled to stop. Discomfort and Responsibility as Variables in the Dyadic Interaction Jourard (1964) asserts that the self-disclosure process may be associated with large amounts of discomfort and anxiety, as in the situation where the patient feels expected to self-disclose to a therapist whose "probable reactions are assumed but not known (p. 24) The anxiety or risk or discomfort associated with self-disclosure patiently must be predicted to be associated directly with the degree of intimacy of the disclosure. It also follows plausibly from Jourard1s statement that anxiety and dis comfort must be predicted to be higher when a subject is instructed to make disclosures to an unfamiliar partner whose social attitudes have been described as uncongenial and incompatible. Intimate self-disclosure as well as the expecta tion of an incompatible partner should both, therefore, produce a state of discomfort; and the most typical response to interaction discomfort might be expected to be a decrease in verbal productiveness. However, given the experimental set to discuss a topic, subjects whose assigned experimental role includes responsibility (the therapist role) or the tacit assumption of responsibility (control of the signal lights regulating communication 16 flow) for maintenance of discussion might be expected to respond to a decreased verbal productiveness of the partner by an increase in their own verbal productiveness. Statement of the Problem If high intimacy topics and expectations of socially incompatible partners are assumed to be sources of discomfort to subjects, what are the effects of role assignment, topic intimacy and pre-interview expectations on the relative proportion of speech produced and on the rate at which comments are exchanged by subjects in an experimentally arranged dyad in which interaction is to be maintained, only the assigned topic is to be discussed, and non-verbal cues are unavailable? Self-disclosure research has previously established that approximately equal degrees and amounts of self- disclosure occurs between peers (mutuality of self disclosure) . Therefore, subjects who are assigned to play peer roles may be expected to divide speaking and listen ing time equally with their peer partners. Traditional therapist-patient roles include the expectations that the amount of self-disclosure by the. therapist will be minimal and that of the patient will be maximal. Therefore, subjects who are assigned to play the therapist role may be expected to speak a smaller pro portion of the total time available and subjects who are 17 assigned to play the patient role may be expected to speak a greater proportion of the time. 1. Distribution of talk by subjects assigned to both therapist-patient and peer dyads should approximate the results of Kanfer's (1965) study when subjects have been given expectations of compatible partners and a low intimacy topic to discuss. Subjects assigned therapist roles should speak less than subjects assigned peer roles, but the frequency with which comments are exchanged should be about the same in both relationships. This prediction assumes that under minimal interaction discomfort, subjects in therapist-patient dyads will adopt a pattern of communication which will make more time available to the subject assigned the patient role to speak without interruption. 2. High topic intimacy and expectations of incompatible partners should each increase the rate of exchange of comments in peer dyads, but should have little effect on the distribution of talking time. This pre diction assumes that subjects will be less willing to talk at length about high intimacy topics and will be less willing to talk at length with expected incompatible partners. The effect of expectations of incompatibility may be diminished as interaction continues, if the inter action which occurs is experienced as satisfactory. 18 Alternatively, Thibaut & Kelley (1959) suggest that initial "autistic hostility" will reduce the probability of favorable outcomes being produced, in accordance with Newcomb's hypothesis that ". . .an initial state of hostility protects itself from change by reducing the communication of information capable of changing it (p. 72)." A reduction in the overall amount of talking produced by members of a dyad may result in the production of briefer statements by both members, leading to an in crease in the frequency of exchanges initiated in the interaction without necessarily altering the relative amount of time used by each member. Phillips, Matarazzo, Matarazzo, Saslow, & Kanfer (1961) in their study of patients' verbal behavior in a standardized interview report that Patient Units (the number of times the patient acted) is highly correlated in a negative direction with measures of the duration of individual utterances because of the fixed length of the interview and of the inter viewer's utterances. The frequency measure was correlated -.84 with a measure of Tempo, defined as "the average duration of each action and its following in action (silence) as a single measure (p. 471)." Increased interaction discomfort should have little effect on the distribution of time in peer dyads 19 because the norm of mutuality in peer interaction suggests that responsibility for maintaining communication should be mutually assumed‘ by both members, each of whom is expected to participate equally in revealing information. However, one may expect some small increase in the rela tive amount of talking of the subject controlling the flow of communication because he has been implicitly assigned the major responsibility for maintaining interaction in a situation in which visually transmitted communications are unavailable to maintain contact during periods of silence. 3. High topic intimacy and expectations of in compatible partners should each increase both the frequency with which comments are exchanged and the relative amount of talking produced by subjects assigned the therapist role in the therapist-patient dyad. The assumptions underlying this prediction are similar to those underlying the previous prediction. However, subjects assigned the therapist role are less likely to reduce verbal product ivity as interaction discomfort increases because responsibility for the interaction is a function of the therapist role. If the subject assigned the patient role makes briefer comments, the increase in the rate of exchange of comments would necessarily increase the amount of time used by the subject assigned the therapist role even if he did not increase the length of his 20 comments. However, the subject assigned the therapist role may be expected to increase the length of his comments in response to a reduction in verbal productivity by his partner to try to help his partner talk about the assigned topic. Thus, it is suggested that high topic intimacy and expectations of partner incompatibility will have similar, and probably additive effects upon dyadic inter action. Subjects assigned the therapist role may be expected to depart more from original role expectations by increasing both the relative duration of their communi cations as well as the frequency with which they initiate comments as discomfort in the interaction increases. Hypotheses 1. Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak less than subjects assigned peer roles in an experimentally arranged dyad. 2. Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak more when assigned a high intimacy topic to discuss than when assigned a low intimacy topic to discuss in an ex perimentally arranged dyad. 3. Subjects assigned therapist roles in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect an incompatible partner will speak more than subjects assigned therapist roles in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect a compatible partner. 21 4. Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak most when discussing a high intimacy topic in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect an incompatible partner. Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak least when discussing a low intimacy topic in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect a compatible partner. 5. Subjects who control and regulate communication in an experimentally arranged dyad will initiate speeches more frequently when discussing a high intimacy topic than a low intimacy topic. 6. Pairs of subjects given pre-interview instruc tions to expect an incompatible partner will exchange speeches more frequently than pairs of subjects given pre-interview instructions to expect a compatible partner in an experimentally arranged dyad. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Temporal analysis of inter personal interaction Investigation of temporal factors in interpersonal interaction Has stemmed in great part from the pioneer work of E. D- Chappie, an anthropologist. The early research has been reviewed by Matarazzo in several publications (Matarazzo, 1962; Matarazzo, Saslow, & Matarazzo, 1956). Matarazzo (1962) states: "The core of Chappie's interaction theory is that the time dimension of one's interpersonal actions provides the major framework for understanding personality (p. 473)." Chappie was especially interested in the effects upon interaction of the behavior of individuals who characteristically display different rates of verbal behavior. He contributed two important research tools, the Interaction Chronograph, a device for recording observed verbal behaviors, and the standardized interview, which has been used extensively by Matarazzo and his associates in their research. The standardized interview was developed because it 22 23 became evident that interviewers displayed individual patterns of behavior and elicited different patterns of behavior from the same subjects, even when supposedly following a uniform style of interviewing and even though the content of their remarks did not differ to any great extent. Interviewer behavior was standardized in order to treat the interviewer as an independent variable in the study of the behavior of the person being interviewed. Briefly, in the standardization of interviewer behavior the following variables are controlled: (1) the durations of interviewer comments and silences, as for example, having the interviewer confine each of his comments to a uniform duration of about five seconds; and (2) standardized variations in interviewer behavior over five periods of the interview. Periods I, III, and V are essentially non-directive interviewing. Period II is a stress period consisting of interviewer silence, or failure to respond to interviewee utterances; period IV is a stress period consisting of interviewer interruption of interviewee utterances, both stresses being carried out according to specified rules. Research with the standardized interview, reported by Matarazzo, Saslow, Matarazzo, & Phillips (1958) has demonstrated that individuals display quite stable individual patterns of behavior to different interviewers 24 whose behavior follows the standard pattern, and also that planned changes in the interviewer's behavior lead to modifications in interviewee behavior. Earlier work by Goldman-Eisler, reported by Matarazzo (1962), had also demonstrated that individuals are characterized by stable patterns of action and silence in free conversation as well as when functioning as interviewers in non standardized psychiatric interviews. Mahl (1956), using a silence index derived from his analysis of verbal behavior, has also found consistency in individual patterns of silence and speech. Two major factors have been found through factor analysis of the variables measured by the Interaction Chronograph (Matarazzo, Saslow, & Hare, 1958): the silence behavior and the action behavior of the inter viewee. Silence is defined as the average duration of interviewee latencies in speaking, and action is defined as the average duration of interviewee utterances. Hare, Waxier, Saslow, & Matarazzo (1960) found very high correlations between measures of frequency and duration of patient actions obtained through simultaneous recording of Chappie Interaction and Bales Interaction measures during initial psychiatric interviews (frequency, r = .96? duration, r = .92). The Bales method for studying interaction in small groups yields information on three 25 principal dimensions related to individuals' behavior in the group (Brown, 1965): (1) activity, (2) task ability, (3) likeability. Group members' behavior is scored in terms of the purpose of an act, e.g., "shows tension release," or "asks for suggestion." With the exception of "activity" (how many acts were initiated), the Bales method does not measure the temporal characteristics of the behaviors observed. Interviewee speech was found by Kanfer, Phillips, Matarazzo, & Saslow (1960) to be affected by the inter viewer's making interpretive comments in regard to the subject's motives, feelings and personality (as con trasted to non-interpretive interviewer behavior) when studied in the standardized interview situation. Subjects' speech durations were curtailed in the interpretive condition, which these authors suggest represented a more stressful situation than the non-interpretive condition. The program of research being carried out by Matarazzo and his co-workers has studied the behavior of only one member of the interacting dyad, restricting the behavior of the other member (the interviewer) in order to do so. Planned changes in durations of interviewer silence were reported by Matarazzo (1962) to lead to similar changes in durations of interviewee silence. This effect was found in samples of normal subjects and in various 26 inpatient and outpatient samples. Similarly, planned changes in the duration of interviewer utterances were reported to be accompanied by corresponding changes in the durations of interviewee utterances. An exception to this correspondence in behavior was reported for a sample of chronic hospitalized schizophrenic subjects who in creased the duration of their utterances rather than the duration of their silences when the interviewer introduced the "silence" stress period previously described. Matarazzo (1962) reports that observers who are not told of the standardized aspects of the interviewers' behavior are generally unaware of the planned changes in behavior and cannot differentiate these interviews from the typical initial psychiatric interview. Yet the behavior of the interviewee seems to be sensitively responsive to these same changes. One may speculate that individuals have learned to facilitate communication with an unfamiliar partner by adjusting their pace of inter action to his. Whatever the explanation of this "modeling" effect, it would appear that the relatively invariant verbal rate of interviewer speech (resulting from the standardization of (1) the duration of inter viewer utterances, (2) interviewer response latencies, and (3) durations of interviewer speech following patient interruptions) may tend to limit the range of speech and 27 silence durations in the verbal behavior which subjects display in the standardized interview situation. Because of the restrictions placed upon temporal characteristics of the interviewer's behavior, the standardized interview is not an appropriate setting for the investigation of factors affecting the voluntary distribution of speaking time in dyads. Kaplan (1967) studied interview interaction using naive college students as interviewers. He paired Re pressor, Sensitizer and Neptral interviewers (as determined by scores on the Byrne Scale of Repression-Sensitization) with Neutral interviewees in fifteen minute interviews. The interviewer's task was to ". . . find out as much as possible . . ." about his partner for the purpose of "... determining how well people can get to know a relative stranger in a short time . . . (p. 514)." Kaplan's interviewers were told that they could discuss any topic they wished with their partners, but they were not instructed further in how to conduct the interviews. Interviewees were asked to answer questions ". . .as honestly and completely as possible (p. 514)," but were permitted to decline to answer if questions were felt to be too personal. Kaplan found that interviewers classed as Sensitizers spent more time talking and they elicited 28 less verbal output from their partners than did the other two classes of interviewers. He noted a complementary effect such that the longer the mean interviewer utterance per group, the shorter the mean interviewee utterance. Kaplan's results are thus not consistent with the correspondence reported by Matarazzo (1962) between duration of interviewer and interviewee utterances in the standardized interview. Although Kaplan did not report on percentage of total talking time taken up by interviewers, computations by the author of this study, based on the reported results, reveal that Repressors used approximately 31 per cent, Neutrals about 34 per cent, and Sensitizers about 43 per cent of the total talking time in their interviews. The average of 36 per cent of total talking time for the three interviewer groups combined corresponds closely to the one-third time taken by subjects assigned therapist roles in the Kanfer (1965) study. Self-disclosure research "Self-disclosure refers to the process of making the self known to other persons (Jourard, 1964, p. 159)." Jourard suggests that this process is an essential in gredient in emotional and physical well-being. He makes a distinction between the "normal" personality, which 29 involves the appropriate playing of the various social roles which an individual is obliged to assume, and the "healthy" personality, of which one characteristic is "the ability to make himself fully known to at least one other significant human being (p. 25)." The pervasiveness of role performance in inter personal interaction has been pointed out and elaborated upon by the sociologist, E. Goffman, in such works as "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959)," and "Stigma (1963)." Ring, Braginsky, & Braginsky (1966) suggest that the individual who places great value on self-expression and candor and dislikes playing roles may be socially inept and lacking in interpersonal skills. This type of individual, in their view, is comfortable only in "I-Thou" relationships because of a need for clear self-referent feedback without which he withdraws from social inter action. Thus, the significance of self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships, as distinguished from role enactment, is viewed in quite divergent ways. However, it seems to be generally agreed that the kinds of informa tion one discloses and the manner in which these dis closure occur in a relationship are determined in part by the role relationship between the individuals involved. 30 Jones, Davis, & Gergen (1961) demonstrated that behavior which is out of character, so to speak, for a given role is perceived as more revealing of a person's "true" characteristics than is in-role behavior. Thus, behavior which departs from role expectations may serve as a form of self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships. Goffman (1959) describes the "process of gradual guarded disclosure" as one in which: . . . one individual admits his views or statuses to another a little at a time. After dropping his guard just a little he waits for the other to show reason why it is safe for him to do this, and after this reassurance he can safely drop his guard a little bit more. By phrasing each step in the admission in an ambiguous way, the individual is in a position to halt the procedure of dropping his front at the point where he gets no confirmation from the other, and at this point he can act as if his last disclosure were not an overture at all. (pp. 192-193) Rickers-Ovianska (1956) studied social accessi bility in three age groups of female college students, using a twenty-five item questionnaire and asking subjects to indicate which items they would answer if asked by various other persons. She found seniors and alumni to assert a willingness to respond to more items than did freshmen and that the extent to which subjects were willing to respond to items depended upon the relationship they had with the inquiring person. The most.extensive investigations of self disclosure behavior have been carried out by Jourard and 31 his co-workers; and much.of_the thinking behind their_____ work and the development of and early studies done with Jourard’s Self-Disclosure Questionnaire are reviewed in "The Transparent Self" (Jourard, 1964). The Self-Disclosure Questionnaire consists of ten statements in six areas: Attitudes and Opinions; Tastes and Interests; Work (or Studies); Money; Personality; and Body. As noted previously, the last three groups of items are generally found to be less readily disclosable (thus, more intimate) than the first three groups. Correlations have been reported between self-disclosure scores on the questionnaire and sex, age, race, marital status, and target (recipient) (Jourard and Lasakow, 1958); religious affiliation (Jourard, 1961a); nationality (Jourard, 1961b); and grade point average in nurses' training (Jourard, 1961c). Jourard (1959) tested the "dyadic effect" (mutuality in self-disclosure) by first questioning sub jects about information concerning their peers, and then comparing the information thus obtained with the informa tion the peer admitted disclosing to the subject on a fifteen item version of the self-disclosure questionnaire. Mutual degrees of intimacy between pairs was found. Two subjects, both of whom were rated as least liked by peers, represented the extremes in disclosure in that one 32 disclosed much information, with little regard for social context, and the other withheld information from everyone. The above finding suggests that it is mutuality in dis closure between individuals, rather than the extent to which an individual tends to engage in self-disclosure behavior generally, which is related to the development of positive feelings in a relationship. Jourard and Richman (1963) compared self-disclosure transmission and reception by presenting two versions of a self-disclosure questionnaire to subjects. The two versions were made up of the same items, worded in one version to inquire about disclosure of information to others, and worded in the other version, to inquire about disclosure of the information by others to the subject. Although the dyadic effect was again demonstrated, the authors recognized the possibility that the correlations obtained might reflect a response set on the part of subjects. Altman and Haythorn (1965) compared self disclosure scores obtained from sailors, isolated in pairs for ten days with no outside contact, to scores of control subjects who followed a similar schedule of activities, but did have access to other people and outside facilities. The same questionnaire was administered before and after the period of isolation. In the first administration the 33 "target persons" were "best friend" and "average man in one's company"; in the second administration the target person was one's partner. Self-disclosure was measured in terms of Breadth of disclosure, defined as the number of high and low intimacy items checked, and Depth of dis closure, defined as the mean value of the five most intimate items checked. Subjects were matched with controls as to age, education, religion, family size, birth order, and size of hometown. Pairs were also constituted so as to be either heterogeneous or homogeneous with respect to scores on nachi ndom» naffil» an<^ dogmatism. Isolate pairs reported having revealed more information on intimate topics to partners than controls, and about the same amount of information on nonintimate topics as controls. Evidence regarding personality factors was inconclusive. Brodsky (1964) compared a group of previously counseled college dormitory residents to control subjects on their responses to Jourard1s Self-Disclosure Question naire and found no significant differences in the total scores of the two groups, but he did find a pattern of lower disclosure to parents and higher disclosure to peers in the counseled group. Tuckman (1966) compared interpersonal probing for information and revealing of information for subjects who 34 differed on a measure of "the level of integrative complexity of the concepts used for mediating between environmental inputs and appropriate responses (p. 656) Subjects were divided into four groups: I. highly concrete, II. moderately concrete, III. moderately abstract, IV. maximally abstract. Tuckman used a twenty- five item version of the Jourard Self-Disclosure Question naire for both probing and revealing, changing the wording for probing so as to ask about the seeking out of information about another person. Significant differences were reported between the four groups in both probing and revealing, the order of activity from highest to lowest being III, I, II, IV. Tuckman found that for all groups combined probing and revealing to friends exceeded that to acquaintances, combined non-intimate probes and disclosures exceeded intimate ones, and probing exceeded revealing in intimate areas, while revealing exceeded probing in non-intimate areas. Robbins (1965) studied the effects of group cohesiveness and anxiety on self-disclosure under threatening conditions. He hypothesized that subjects would be willing to disclose more to a high-cohesive group than to a low-cohesive group, and that under threat the effect of cohesiveness would be less for high-anxious than for low-anxious subjects. Subjects were told that they 35 would be placed in a high or low-cohesive group to discuss personal topics and could indicate the depth with which they would talk about a topic. They were also told that they would be graded by observers as to the congruence between their performance and their prior statements. Subjects then filled out Self-Disclosure Questionnaires twice to indicate what they would be willing to reveal to each proposed group. Subjects indicated willingness to disclose more to the proposed high-cohesive group, but subjects' anxiety scores were not related to self disclosure scores. Unlike Robbins' study which investigated subjects' asserted willingness to discuss personal topics. Query (1964) studied the relationship between self-disclosure behavior, scores on a self-disclosure questionnaire, and ratings of liking between subjects. Subjects filled out a twenty-five item questionnaire on which they listed all the people they had talked to about each item in the past twelve weeks. Therapy groups were then formed composed of all high or all low scorers on the questionnaire. Groups met for twelve weeks at the end of which time they filled out the questionnaires again. Self-disclosure behavior which occurred in group meetings was rated by the therapist on the basis of items derived from a Group Psychotherapy Scale. 36 Query found that groups composed of high scorers on the questionnaire reported finding the group more attractive than did groups composed of low scorers. Group members' scores on self-disclosure behavior in the group, however, were not correlated with ratings of how well members were liked by other group members. Self disclosure behavior in the group was not correlated with out-of-group disclosure as measured by the post-group self-disclosure questionnaire. CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects Ninety-six volunteers from the introductory psychology classes at the University of Southern California were recruited as subjects by means of a standard verbal request for subjects delivered by the experimenter (Appendix A). Interested individuals were asked to complete a Subject Information Sheet (Appendix B) to determine suitability. Only single men or women who had no prior experience in psychotherapy or counseling were accepted as subjects. Volunteers who had speech impediments or who did not speak English fluently were screened out. Subjects participated in same-sex pairs: twenty-four male and twenty-four female pairs. Each of the members of a pair was selected at random from a pool of volunteers from different class sections of the introductory psychology course so as to lessen the possibility of prior acquaintanceship or friendship. Only two of the forty-eight pairs reported knowing each other prior to the experiment when they were questioned after their participation in the study. One 37 38 pair were friends and the other, casual acquaintances. Three pairs reported having seen each other before in classes, but were not at all acquainted with each other. The remaining forty^-five pairs reported never having seen their partners before participating in the experiment. Constituted pairs were assigned, in the order in which they participated in the experiment, to one of eight treatment combinations according to a pre-determined schedule (Appendix C). Within each pair, subjects were randomly assigned to either the position of subject A (operating the switch which controlled the signal lights) or the position of subject B (the partner). In the pairs assigned therapist-patient roles, the subjects assigned to position A were always assigned the therapist role. Apparatus and materials Subjects were seated facing each other at two desks placed against a wall (Figure 1). A masonite peg- board partition, 5' x 5 1/2' x 1/4", was secured between the desks. The partition extended approximately 3' above the surface of the desks and approximately 1' beyond the desks to the open side which was not against the wall. The pegboard was covered on both surfaces with unbleached muslin. When subjects were seated, they were able to hear each other, but were unable to see each other through the partition. FIGURE 1 APPARATUS AND SEATING ARRANGEMENT Recording equipment Wall —> Subject B □ b |. . □ Subject A -Microphone ^-Partition — -Lights .Control switch -Microphone INTERVIEW ROOM 40 In front of each side of the partition, one on each desk, were two small cigar boxes painted gray upon which were mounted two 10 watt light bulbs, one red, labelled Listen, and one yellow, labelled Talk. Yellow was chosen, rather than green, for Talk because the green bulb did not give off a bright enough light for use as a signal. The lights were wired to a three-way control switch mounted in another small cigar box, painted gray, which was placed in front of the subject in position A. When this subject moved the control switch to the position marked Talk, his yellow light and his partner's red light would go on simultaneously, and when he moved the control switch to the position marked Listen, his red light and his partner's yellow light would go on simultaneously. The control switch was of the "rocking" type rather than a toggle switch, and it was very easily moved from one "on" position to the other without having to make a definite pause at the central "off" position. The control switch was wired to an Engler electric stop clock, model #CS-60, which was activated whenever the switch was in subject A's Talk position, which permitted automatic recording of the accumulated time, to a tenth of a second, that subject A's Talk light was on during each ten minute discussion period. The clock was reset manually by the experimenter after recording the 41 accumulated time at the end of each discussion period. The clock and all of the recording equipment which the experimenter used during the sessions were located in a room adjacent to the room used by the subjects. The conversation between the subjects was recorded on a Sony TC-200 stereo tape recorder. The microphone for channel #1 was placed on the desk of subject A and the microphone for channel #2 was placed on the desk of subject B so that each subject's speech was recorded on a separate track. A separate half-hour tape was used for each dyad and was identified by a code number corresponding to a code number assigned each dyad. A buzzer activated by the experimenter's foot was used to signal the beginning and end of discussion periods, and a stop watch was used to measure these ten minute intervals. When signalling the end of a discussion period, the experimenter immediately disconnected the stop clock to prevent time being accumulated beyond the ten minute interval should the subjects fail to stop talking immediately. The signal lights were also inoperative when the clock was disconnected. Topics for discussion were selected from the item pool developed by Taylor and Altman (1966), using the mean scale values for intimacy assigned items by these authors' sample of male college students (Appendix D). The criteria used in selecting items are listed in Appendix E. There were approximately fifteen potential topics selected from the item pool at each level of intimacy. These items were presented to three seventeen-year-old male judges and three eighteen-year-old female judges. The judges were volunteers who did not come from the same population from which the experimental subjects were obtained. Items were judged on two dimensions: (1) how personal or intimate they were, (2) could the average person find something to say about the item if it were presented as a topic for discussion. Items were eliminated from consideration if the judges did not agree with the level of intimacy (high or low) based on the Taylor-Altman scale value or if the judges did not think they were suitable topics for discussion. Three items at each level of intimacy were eliminated, and a final group of eight high intimacy topics and eight low intimacy topics were selected at random from this pool. The final group of eight high intimacy items selected had a mean intimacy-scale value of 8.78, with a range of 8.14 to 10.25. The final group of eight low intimacy items selected had a mean intimacy-scale value of 4.02, with a range of 2.78 to 4.96 (Appendix D). Each subject was asked to complete the FIRO-B scales (Schutz, 1958) as soon as he arrived for the 43 experiment. These scales provide scores for expressed behavior of the self and behavior wanted from others in the three areas of inclusion# control, and affection. The scales have the advantage of being very quickly completed and of being very easy to score. The scales were administered by the experimenter to provide a plausible rationale to subjects that some basis existed for the statements about partner compatibility later provided in order to induce positive or negative pre interview expectations. At the conclusion of the experiment, all subjects completed a questionnaire designed to ascertain their opinions about the topics assigned and their reactions to the discussions and to their partners (Appendix F). Each question provided a choice of five answers along a continuum appropriate to the question. Design and procedure The independent variables were role assignment (peer or therapist-patient dyad), pre-interview expecta tions (compatibility or incompatibility of partner), topic intimacy (high or low), and sex of members (both male or both female). The design, as originally planned, did not include sex as a variable, but it was decided to replicate the study for both male and female subjects to,eliminate any problem in obtaining enough subjects of one sex. 44 No hypotheses regarding sex differences were formulated. Each dyad was assigned to one of the four combina tions of role assignment and pre-interview expectation; and each dyad discussed one high intimacy topic and one low intimacy topic with order of topic presentation counterbalanced over conditions. Each topic was assigned six times in the experiment, appearing once in each block of eight dyads. The topics were assigned in the following manner: 1. The group of eight low intimacy topics and the group of eight high intimacy topics were independently numbered from one to eight, using a table of random numbers, so that each number was assigned once to a low intimacy topic and once to a high intimacy topic. 2. Six arrangements of the numbers one through eight were worked out, using a table of random numbers, so that each number appeared once in each arrangement. Three of the arrangements were assigned to the numbered high intimacy topics and three to the numbered low intimacy topics. 3. There were eight treatment combinations, considering order of topic presentation as well as role and expectation assignments. These treatment combinations were numbered one to eight (Appendix C) so that each treat ment combination appeared equally often throughout the 45 experiment. 4. Each block of treatment combinations was then assigned a different random arrangement of (1) high intimacy topics and (2) low intimacy topics. Three blocks of male dyads and three blocks of female dyads were assigned corresponding treatment combinations and topics, i.e., male dyad #1 and female dyad #1 were assigned to the same treatment combination and the same topics, and so on through male and female dyads #24 (Appendix G). 5. Subject pairs were assigned to the next pre determined treatment combination and set of topics accord ing to the order in which they participated in the experiment. The dependent variables were (1) the total duration of speaking time per discussion period used by the subject who operated the light switch, and (2) the total frequency of speech units per discussion period initiated by the subject who operated the light switch. A speech unit was defined as speech by the subject who operated the light switch which followed or was followed by speech by the partner. The speaking time of the subject who operated the light switch was defined as the intervals during which the light was in that subject’s Talk position. A tally was made by the experimenter on a mechanical counter each time the electric stop clock was 4 6 activated during a discussion period to provide a measure of the frequency of speech units. Differences in dyadic communication patterns were evaluated by means of (1) an analysis of variance for the durations of speaking time used by the subject who operated the light switch, and (2) an analysis of variance for frequencies of speech units initiated by the subject who operated the light switch, following a repeated treatments design for the fixed effects model (Edwards, 1960; Hays, 1963). The data obtained from the post-discussion questionnaires was also analyzed in order to determine the adequacy of the experimental manipulations in producing the desired conditions. The taped discussions were evaluated in order to determine the extent to which dyads discussed the assigned topics. The experimenter and one naive judge listened to the tapes and independently rated the conformance of the discussions to the assigned topics on a three point scale to indicate whether the topic was discussed (1) most of the time (two-thirds or more), (2) between one-third and two-thirds of the time, or (3) less than one-third of the time. Eighty-two of the ninety-six discussions (85 per cent ) were judged by both judges to have remained strictly on the assigned topics most of the time. Two discussions 47 were judged by the naive judge and one discussion by the experimenter to have deviated from the assigned topic most of the time. However, digressions from the assigned topics were onto tangential or related aspects of the topic. In no cases did subjects discuss something completely unrelated to the assigned topic. General procedure Subjects were contacted by phone to set up appoint ments after they had signed up to participate. Subjects who were assigned the task of operating the light switch were asked to go to a waiting room on the second floor of Kerckhoff Hall, and the subjects assigned the position of the partner were asked to wait in a first floor waiting room. This was done in order to minimize the opportunity for subjects to see each other or to engage in conversation prior to the experiment. The experimenter met subjects when they arrived at the appropriate waiting room and gave each one a clipboard and pencil and requested each subject to complete the FIRO-B scales. After subjects completed the FIRO-B, the experi menter collected the test booklets and asked the subjects to wait while the tests were scored. The test booklets were marked with numbers and symbols so that they appeared to have been scored. The subject on the second floor was then escorted to the experimenter's office for instructions 48 appropriate to his role assignment and pre-interview set (Appendix H). The subject was given a sheet of paper upon which was typed the instructions for his assigned role, and he was asked to follow along with the experimenter as she read the instructions aloud from her copy of them. Instruc tions regarding role assignments were given in this manner in order to contrast these instructions with the apparently unrehearsed delivery of the instructions concerning partner compatibility. The subject was then escorted to a third floor lounge, next door to the room used for the experiment proper and was asked to wait. The experimenter next instructed the second subject in the same manner as the first and escorted this subject directly to the experimental room where he was asked to be seated. The first subject was then brought in from next door and seated. Subjects were not given an opportunity to meet face-to-face until after the experimental session so that any effects of recognizing one's partner would be minimized. After both subjects had been seated, they were given instructions in the use of the lights and the light switch to regulate the conversation and in the general procedures to be followed (Appendix H). These instructions were delivered orally and the experimenter stood, while reading them, in line with the partition between the desks 49 so that she was visible to both subjects. Subjects were not introduced to each other. Envelopes containing the assigned topics were placed, numbered and sealed, on each subject's desk. At the first buzzer signal from the experimenter, subjects opened envelope #1 and read the topic. At a second signal, thirty seconds later, the subject operating the light switch initiated communication by switching on one of the sets of lights. Each discussion period lasted ten minutes and the experimenter signalled when the discussion was to end. There was approximately a thirty second interval between the end of discussion #1 and the signal to open the second envelope during which time the experimenter recorded data and reset the clock and counter. At the conclusion of the second discussion period, subjects were asked to complete the post-discussion questionnaire after which they were introduced to their partners and informed about the nature of the study. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Analysis of variance, using .a repeated treatments design for fixed effects {Edwards, 1960; Hays, 1963) was selected to test hypotheses. Separate analyses were per formed of the data representing; (1) total durations of speaking time per discussion period for subjects control ling communication flow through operation of the light switch; (2) total frequencies of speech units per discus sion period initiated by the same subjects. Durations of speaking time were measured to a tenth of a second, and all data pertaining to durations of speaking time are reported throughout in seconds. Relevant means and standard deviations for groups being compared are presented in Tables 1 through 5 in conjunction with the results pertaining to each hypothesis. Summary tables for the two complete analyses of variance are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Tests of the Experimental Hypotheses Hypothesis 1.— Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak less than subjects assigned peer roles in an experimentally arranged dyad. 50 51 MEANS AND TABLE 1 STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES Durations*3 Group3 Meansc S.D. Therap i sts 219*96 82.24 Peers 292.56 51*83 aN = 48 (repeated measures) k|n seconds CF (Role) = 17*12, p < .01 52 The hypothesis was supported. Subjects assigned therapist roles used less speaking time per discussion period than subjects assigned peer roles. Therapists used about 36 per cent of the available talking time, while peers controlling communication flow used approxi mately 48 per cent of the available time. Hypothesis 2.— Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak more when assigned a high intimacy topic to discuss than when assigned a low intimacy topic to discuss in an experimentally arranged dyad. Subjects assigned therapist roles used more of the available talking time in discussions of high intimacy topics than in discussions of low intimacy topics only when the high intimacy topic was presented first. Therapists who began with low intimacy topics maintained approximately the same level of activity in both discus sion periods as the therapists who began with high intimacy topics displayed in the initial discussion period. Hypothesis 3.— Subjects assigned therapist roles in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect an incompatible partner will speak more than subjects assigned therapist roles in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect a compatible partner. 53 TABLE 2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST ROLES FOR HIGH AND LOW INTIMACY TOPICS— TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Durat ionsa Group - Means S-D. Order H-Lb High topic 226.31 103-14 Low top i c !95-58d 87-64 Order L-Hb High topic 227-04 67-91 Low top i c 230.89 89.38 Both orders combined0- H i gh top i c 226.67 85.38 Low top i c 213-24 85-41 ain seconds bN = 24 CN = 48 difference from other means, p < .01 tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test TABLE 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATIONS OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST ROLES EXPECTING COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE PARTNERS AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS Group3 1 L Durat ions 0 a G roup Durat ions*3 Means S.D. Means S.D. Compatible partners0 Incompatible partners0 High topic 206.64 73.73 High topic 246.71 9^*51 Low top i c 191-37 71 -99 Low topic 235.10 100-56 Both topicsd Both topics^ comb i ned 199-01 68.27 comb i ned 240.90 91 -54 aN = 24 in seconds difference between compatible and incompatible partners (topics not combined), p ^ .01, tested by Duncan1s New Multiple Range Test repeated measures U 1 j i . 55 Subjects assigned therapist roles who were given instructions to expect an incompatible partner used more of the available talking time than subjects assigned therapist roles who expected compatible partners. The difference between the two groups of therapists was significant, however, only when the variance due to individual differences between subjects had been removed. Hypothesis 4 .— Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak most when discussing a high intimacy topic in dyads which have been given pre-interview instructions to expect an incompatible partner. Subjects assigned therapist roles will speak least when discussing a low intimacy topic in dyads which have been given pre interview instructions to expect a compatible partner. Subjects assigned therapist roles used more time in discussions of high intimacy topics with incompatible partners than in discussions of low intimacy topics with compatible partners (see Table 3). This difference, however, was attributable primarily to the inter-group difference between subjects expecting compatible or in compatible partners. Therapists in both groups tended to talk more in discussions of high intimacy topics than in discussions of low intimacy topics, but the intra-group differences in the amount of time used in discussions of high and low intimacy topics were not significant. 56 Hypothesis 5.--Subjects who control and regulate communication in an experimentally arranged dyad will initiate speeches more frequently when discussing a high intimacy topic than a low intimacy topic. Subjects assigned peer roles commented more frequently during first discussions, irrespective of topic intimacy* The highest rate of exchange of comments in peer dyads occurred when high intimacy topics were pre sented first; the lowest rate of exchange of comments in peer dyads occurred when high intimacy topics were pre sented second. Topic intimacy or order of topic presenta tion did not appear to affect the frequency of initiation of comments by subjects assigned therapist roles. Hypothesis 6.--Pairs of subjects given pre interview instructions to expect an incompatible partner will exchange speeches more frequently than pairs of sub jects given pre-interview instructions to expect a compat ible partner in an experimentally arranged dyad. The hypothesis was not supported. No significant differences between mean frequencies of comments initiated by subjects expecting compatible or incompatible partners were observed for either the therapist role or the peer role. TABLE 4 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES FOR HIGH AND LOW INTIMACY TOP ICS- TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Therap i sts Peers Group Frequencies Group Frequenci es Means S.D. Means S.D. Order H-La Order HrLa High topic 12.83 4.82 High topic 11 .16C 6.38 Low top i c 13-91 6.02 Low top i c 8.83 4.95 Order L-Ha Order L-Ha High topic 14.00 11.73 High topic 6-33c 2.01 Low top i c 14.25 8 .1 7 Low top i c 8.67 2.96 Both orders Both orders comb i nedb comb i ned* 3 H i gh top i c 13-42 8-79 High topic 8-75 5-24 Low topic 14.08 7.02 Low topic 8-75 3-99 aN = 24 bN = 48 difference from other peer group means p < .01, tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test TABLE 5 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES AND EXPECTING COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE PARTNERS Group Frequencies Means S.D. Therapi stsa Compatible partners 15-58 9.68 Incompatible partners 11 - 92 3-84 Peers3 Compatible partners 9-13 5-29 Incompatible partners 8.38 2.96 Both roles combined'3 Compatible partners 12.35 8.38 Incompatible partners 10.15 3-83 3 N = 24 (repeated measures) ^N = 48 (repeated measures) o o 5 9 TABLE 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY SUBJECTS CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION FLOW Source df M.S. F. Between S's Role (A) 1 126, 520.02 17.I2** Compatibility (B) 1 382.80 - Order (C) 1 11,715-21 1.58 A x B 1 34, ^77-63 4.66* A x C 1 398.13 - B x C 1 28, 652.31 3.87 A x B x C 1 79-39 - Sex (D) 1 37, 244,82 5-04* A x D 1 9,213.96 1.24 B x D 1 30, 477-19 4.12 C x D 1 5,635.01 - A x B x D 1 23,817-14 3.22 A x C x D 1 762.17 - B x C x D 1 18,390.03 2.48 A x B x C x D 1 6,525.75 - Total treatments 15 22, 286.10 Res i dual 32 7,387.92 Wi th i n S's Topic Intimacy (E) 1 10.33 - A x E 1 4,767-21 5-05* B x E 1 643.26 - C x E 1 0.02 - A x B x E 1 1, 178.09 1-77 A x C x E 1 7,153.57 7•59** B x C x E 1 2 8.48 - A x B x C x E 1 922.12 - D x E 1 1,388.52 1 .47 A x D x E 1 188.44 - B x D x E 1 3,918.08 4.15* C x D x E 1 3, 258.48 3-45 A x B x D x E 1 461.56 - A x C x D x E 1 6,181.23 6-55* B x C x D x E 1 7,195.09 7.63** AxBxCxDxE 1 1,086.70 1.15 Total treatments x Topic Intimacy 15 2,558.05 Res idual 32 942.33 *P < -05 **p < .01 60 TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY SUBJECTS CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION FLOW Source df M.S. F. Between S's Role (A) 1 600.00 8.87** Compatlbi 1 i ty (B) 1 117-04 1 -73 Order (C) 1 18.36 - A x B 1 51.04 - A x C 1 63-39 - B x C 1 80.68 1-19 A x B x C 1 73-48 1.08 Sex (D) 1 28.16 - A x D 1 1.50 - B x D 1 0.05 - C x D 1 459-40 6-79* A x B x D 1 117-06 1-73 A x C x D 1 35-02 - B x C x D 1 204.14 3-02 A x B x C x D 1 96.01 1 .42 Total treatments 15 129•69 Res idual 32 67-59 Wi th in S's Topic Intimacy (E) 1 2.66 - A x E 1 2.67 - B x E 26.05 3-45 C x E 1 22.06 2-92 A x B x E 1 22.03 2 .92 A x C x E 1 45-34 6.01* B x C x E 1 13-48 1.78 A x B x C x E 1 2.18 - D x E 1 1-51 - A x D x E 1 13-49 1 -78 B x D x E 1 0.04 - C x D x E 1 2.03 - A x B x D x E 1 0.00 - A x C x D x E 1 0*33 - B x C x D x E 1 10.62 1.40 AxBxCxDxE 1 2-17 - Total Treatments x Topic Intimacy 15 11.11 Res idual 32 7-54 *p < .05 * *p ^ .01 Empirical Findings Subjects assigned therapist roles spoke more frequently than subjects assigned peer roles. An overall difference resulting from role assignment in the frequency with which comments were initiated by subjects given the task of controlling communication flow had not been predicted. Subjects given the task of controlling communica tion flow in peer dyads used less than the expected 50 per cent of the available talking time in discussions of high intimacy topics when these topics were presented first, but increased their use of time to approximately the 50 per cent level during the second discussion. Peers who began with low intimacy topics maintained the expected level of activity in both discussion periods. Empirical Findings— Sex Differences It was decided shortly before collection of data was begun to collect data from both male and female dyads because it became apparent that the pool of potential subjects might not be large enough to permit the drawing of a sample of dyads all of the same sex. Therefore, no predictions relating the sex of participants and the experimental variables to the communication process had been generated. The analysis of the behavior of male and female subjects are presented in the following section and 62 TABLE 8 — - MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES Frequencies Group3 Meansb S.D. Therapi sts 13-75 7-52 Peers 8.75 k . l k aN = k8 (repeated measures) bF (Role) = 8.87, P < .01 63 TABLE 9 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY SUBJECTS ASSIGNED PEER ROLES FOR HIGH AND LOW INTIMACY TOPICS— TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Durations9 Group Means S.D. Order H-Lb ' i High topic 263-48 61.44 Low top i c 295-47 73-98 Order L-Hb High topic 306.89 41.01 Low top i c 304.40 50.99 Both orders combined0 High topic 285-19 55-69 Low topic 299-94 62.27 ain seconds bN = 24 CN = 48 ^difference from other means, p< .01 tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test ' 64 have been separated from the tests of the experimental hypotheses. Durations of Time Used by Male and Female Subjects 1. A greater amount of the available talking time was used by male subjects given the task of control ling communication flow in performance of both the therapist and the peer roles than was used by female subjects. (See Table 10) 2. Disregarding order of topic presentation: Male subjects assigned therapist roles and expecting incompatible partners used more talking time than any other subjects assigned therapist roles. In addition, they used significantly more time in discussions of high intimacy topics than in discussions of low intimacy topics. (See Table 11) Female subjects assigned therapist roles spoke more in discussions of high intimacy topics only when expecting compatible partners. (See Table 11) Male subjects assigned peer roles and given the task of controlling communication flow spoke more during discussions of low intimacy topics with compatible partners than any other group. (See Table 11) Female subjects given the task of controlling communication flow in peer dyads used less of the 65 MEANS AND STANDARD MALE AND FEMALE TABLE 10 DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR AS DISCUSSANT BY PEER ROLES Durat ions' a Group Means S.D. Therapi sts^ Male Ss ik s .k s 73-15 Female Ss 190.46d 81.57 Peers*3 Male Ss 302.46d 51-36 Female Ss 282.67d 51.^7 Both roles combined0 Male Ss 275-9&e 68.02 Female Ss 236.56e 81.99 ain seconds = 2k (repeated measures) N = *+8 (repeated measures) ^difference between male and female Ss, p K. .01, tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test eF (Sex) = 5 ‘ 0k, p ^ .05 TABLE I I MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES EXPECTING COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE PARTNERS AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS Du rat i on'sb Durations^ Group3 Means S.D. Group3 Means S.D. Male Therapists Female Therapists Compatible Compatible High topic 191.58 39-70 High topic 2 21.70e 99.20 Low topic 198.28 55.87 Low top i c 184.45 90.38 Incompatible 1ncompat ib1e High topic 315.95c 50.61 High topic 177.47 74.71 Low top i c 291-98° 71.27 Low top i c 178.22 96.46 Male Peers Female Peers CompatibIe Compatible High topic 294.48 6k. So High topic 297-62 33.87 Low topic 340.22d 76.61 Low top i c 305.75 36.34 Incompatible Incompatible High topic 285.28 45.64 High topic 263.37| 77.49 Low topic 289-87 51.46 Low top i c 263.92f 6 5. 8I NOTE: All mean differences tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, p K, *01 aN = 6 ^in seconds Means of both topics greater than means of all other therapist groups and different from each other. TABLE 11 — (Continued) low topic mean greater than all other means Shigh topic mean different from means bf all f means of both topics less than means of all in table. other therapist groups, other peer groups. ' - j 6 8 available talking time in discussions with incompatible partners than any other peer group. (See Table 11) 3. Disregarding partner compatibility: Both male and female subjects assigned therapist roles spoke more in discussions of high intimacy topics than in discussions of low intimacy topics when the high intimacy topics were presented first. (See Table 12) Male subjects controlling communication flow in peer dyads spoke less during initial discussions of high intimacy topics than other male subjects assigned peer roles. (See Table 12) Female subjects controlling communication flow in peer dyads spoke less in both first and second discussion periods when the high intimacy topics were presented first than female subjects who began with low intimacy topics. (See Table 12) 4. Disregarding role assignment: Male subjects given the task of controlling communication flow in dyads expecting compatible partners talked significantly more in discussions of high intimacy topics and significantly less in discussions of low intimacy topics when high intimacy topics were presented first than in either first or second discussions when low intimacy topics were presented first. (See Table 13) Female subjects given the task of controlling TABLE 12 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS— TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Group3 Durat ionsb Group3 Durat ionsD Means S.D. Means S.D. Male Therapists Female Therapists ■ Order H-L Order H-L High' topic 261.07c 102.24 High topic 191.55 100.17 Low top i c 229-50 86.54 Low top i c 161. 67e 81.37 Order L-H Order L-H High topic 246.47 53-26 High topic 207.62 80.03 Low topic 260.77 74.11 Low topic 201.02 99.71 Mai e Peers Femaile Peers Order H-L Order H-L High topic 264.I8d 46.70 High topic 262.78f 78.26 Low top i c 335.53 75-03 Low top i c 255-42f 50.53 Order L-H Order L-H H i gh top i c 315.58 50.42 High topic 298.20 31.21 Low top i c 294.55 58.31 Low top i c 314.25 45.51 NOTE: All mean differences tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test; p < .01 aN = 6 ^in seconds Chigh topic mean greater than low topic mean. ^low topic mean less than means of other male peer groups. TABLE 12— (C o n tin u e d ) 0 low topic mean less than high topic mean and less than means of topics in Order L-H (female therapists) f means of both topics (Order H-L) less than means of topics (Order L-H) for female peers. TABLE 13 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DURATION OF TIME AS DISCUSSANT BY MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS EXPECTING COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE PARTNERS AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS— TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Durations*3 Durat ions^ Group3 Means S.D. Group3 Means S.D. Male Subjects Female Subjects Compatible 256.14° 80.17 Compatible 252.38° 78.94 Order H-L Order H-L High topic 228.07d 70.21 High topic 286.02f 63-79 Low top i c 284.32^ 118.34 Low top i c 243-57 59-78 Order L-H Order L-H H i gh top i c 258.00 81.45 High topic 233-30 93-32 Low top i c 254.18 80.79 Low topic 246.65 121.39 1ncompatible 235-11° 46-99 1ncompatible 220.74° 83-58 Order H-L Order H-L High topic 297-18 69-59 High topic 168.329 82.61 Low topic 280.72 76.49 Low topic 173-529 89-08 Order L-H Order L-H High topic 304.05 18.53 H i gh top i c 272.52 51.72 Low top i c 301.13 41.58 Low top i c 268.62 68.41 NOTE: All mean differences tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, p < .01 N = 6, all groups except those marked ° ^in seconds I TABLE 13“ " (C o n tin u e d ) £ N = 2^ (repeated measures) high topic mean less than low topic mean and less than means of topics in Order L-H (male Ss-compatible). low topic mean greater than high topic mean and greater than means of topics in Order L-H (male Ss-compatible). ^high topic mean greater than low topic mean and greater than means of topics in Order L-H (female Ss-compatible). ^means of both topics less than all other means in table. ■o to 73 communication flow in dyads expecting compatible partners talked more in initial discussions of high intimacy topics than in the subsequent discussion. (See Table 13) Female subjects given the task of controlling communication flow in dyads expecting incompatible partners talked less in both discussion periods when the high intimacy topic was presented first than any other subject groups. (See Table 13) Frequency of Comments Initiated by Male and Female Subjects 1. Disregarding order of topic presentation: Male subjects assigned therapist roles and expecting incompatible partners initiated comments in discussions of high intimacy topics with approximately the same frequency as male subjects assigned peer roles who expected compatible partners and significantly less frequently than other male therapists. (See Table 14) Female subjects assigned therapist roles and expecting incompatible partners initiated comments in discussions of high intimacy topics at a significantly lower rate than any other therapist groups. (See Table 14) Female subjects assigned therapist roles and expecting compatible partners exchanged comments more frequently than other female therapists. This difference, TABLE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES EXPECTING COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE PARTNERS AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS Frequenci es Frequencies Group3 Means S.D. Group3 Means S.D. Male Therapists Female Therapists Compatible Compatible High topic 15-33 4.89 High topic 17-163 16.45 Low top i c 14.50 6.25 Low top i c 15.33d 10.09 Incompatible Incompatible High topic 11.83b 2.40 High topic 9-33e 3-39 Low topic 15-00 4.52 Low topic 11.50 5-86 Mai e Peers Female Peers Compatible Compatible High topic 11.15C 8.87 High topic 6.83 2.31 Low top i c 10.33 5.16 Low top i c 7-83 3-76 Incompatible Incompatible High topic 8.33 4.50 High topic 8-33 2.87 Low top i c 7-50 3-27 Low top i c 9-33 3-93 NOTE: All mean differences tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, p< .01. •v ] aN = 6 TABLE 14— (C o n tin u e d ) ^high topic mean less means of other male therapist groups,, but more than means of all peer groups except male peers-compatIb1e. chigh topic mean greater than means of male peers-incompatible. d means of both topics greater than means of other female therapist groups, but attributable to one highly deviant S. Q high topic mean less than means of all other therapist groups. ui 7 6 however, was attributable to the scores of one female dyad whose behavior deviated radically from that of all dyads of either sex. (See Table 14) The total frequency of comments exchanged over each discussion period ranged from three to twenty-eight for all dyads except one female pair who exchanged comments thirty-seven times in the first discussion and fifty times in the second dis cussion. 2. Disregarding partner compatibility: Male subjects assigned therapist roles initiated comments more frequently in both discussion periods when a high intimacy topic was presented first than when a low intimacy topic was presented first. (See Table 15) Male subjects assigned peer roles initiated comments more frequently than any other peer group in discussions of high intimacy topics which were presented first. (See Table 15) Female subjects assigned peer roles initiated comments more frequently during first discussions than second discussions when the first discussion concerned a low intimacy topic. (See Table 15) 3. Disregarding role assignment: Male subjects expecting incompatible partners initiated comments more frequently during initial TABLE 15 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS ASSIGNED THERAPIST OR PEER ROLES AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS— TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Frequencies Frequenci es Group9 Means S.D. Group3 Means S.D. Male Therapists Female Therapists Order H-L Order H-L High topic 16.00b 3-69 High topic 9-67 3-67 Low topic 17 • 17b if.40 Low top i c 10.67 5-92 Order L-H Order L-H High topic 11.17 3-06 High topic 16.83d 16.56 Low top i c 12.33 5-13 Low top i c 16.I7d 10.57 Male Peers Female Peers Order H-L Order H-L High topic ]4.00c 7-85 High topic 8-33 2.94 Low topic 10.50 5.54 Low topic 7-17 2.89 Order L-H Order L-H High topic 5-83 1.83 High topic 6.83 2.23 Low topic 7-33 2.34 Low top i c 10.00® 3.10 NOTE: All mean differences tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, p < .01 a N = 6 - j <i TABLE 15— (C o n tin u e d ) ^means of both topics for male therapists (Order H-L) greater than means of both topics for male therapists (Order L-H). chigh topic mean greater than means of all other peer groups. ^means of both topics greater than means of female therapists (Order H-L), but attributable to one highly deviant S. 0 low topic mean greater than high topic mean. 00 TABLE 16 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FREQUENCY OF COMMENTS BY MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS EXPECTING COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE PARTNERS AND GIVEN HIGH OR LOW INTIMACY TOPICS— TWO ORDERS OF TOPIC PRESENTATION Group3 Frequenci es Group3 Frequenci es Means S.D. Means S.D. Mai e Sub iects Female Sub]ects Compatible Compat ib1e Order H-L Order H-L High topic 17 -17b 7-83 High topic 7-50 2-95 Low topic 15-00b 6.72 Low topic 7-83 3.19 Order L-H Order L-H High topic 9-67 4.03 H i gh top i c 16.50d 16.80 Low topic 9-83 3-87 Low top i c 15.33d 11 .hi Incompatib le 1ncompatible Order H-L Order H-L High topic 12.83° 2.23 H i gh top i c 10.50 3-02 Low top i c 12.67 5.32 Low top i c 10.00 6.78 Order L-H Order L-H High topic 7-33 3-20 High topic 7.16e 2. ]h Low top i c 9.83 5.6A Low topic 10.83 2 . W -vj NOTE: All mean differences tested by Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, p < .01 ^ a N = 6 TABLE 16— (C o n tin u e d ) high topic mean greater than low topic mean; both means greater than means of all other groups except that of female Ss (Order L-H-Compatible). Chtgh topic mean greater than means of all groups with incompatible partners except low topic mean for same group of male Ss. ^means of both topics greater than means of all groups except male Ss (Order H-L, Compatible), but attributable to one highly deviant S. high topic mean less than means of other female Ss with incompatible partners. i 00 o 81 discussions of high intimacy topics than other subjects expecting incompatible partners. (See Table 16) Female subjects expecting incompatible partners initiated comments more frequently during first discussions than second discussions when the first dis cussion concerned a low intimacy topic. (See Table 16) Analysis of Post-Discussion Questionnaire Questions on the post-discussion questionnaire (Appendix F) were designed to provide information on the success of the experimental manipulations in creating the intended conditions. Responses to the questionnaire were also' analyzed to determine the effects, if any, of sex of the respondent and of the experimental conditions upon the choice of responses to questions. Analyses of variance were performed for each separate question with the exception of question 7. Questions 1, 2, 3, and 5 involved repeated measures since two responses to each of these questions were obtained from each subject, i.e., one response pertaining to each discussion period. Whereas the results presented of the analyses of the duration and frequency data were based on the measurement of the behavior of only one member of each dyad (the subject controlling communication flow), the question naire data included responses obtained from both members of each dyad. 82 The assumption of a normal distribution of the responses to the questionnaire may not be tenable. However, because data was obtained from a sufficiently large sample (96 subjects contributing either 96 or 192 responses in total), the results of the analyses of variance for the main effects are assumed to be highly similar to the results which might have been obtained through comparisons of the proportions of subjects in 1 different treatment groups who selected each response. Question 1.— In your opinion, how much could the average person find to say about #1? topic #2? A higher score indicates more to say. Subjects responded that the average person could find more to say about the group of low intimacy topics than about the group of high intimacy topics. Low intimacy topics Mean: 4.24 S.D.: .76 High intimacy topics Mean: 3.92 S.D.: .95 The difference, while numerically small due to the restricted range of possible answers, is significant (p < .01) . One may interpret the results as relating to the ease with which the subjects could talk about topics, •^N. Cliff, personal communication, August, 1968. TABLE 17 8 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: QUESTION 1. EASE OF DISCUSSION Source df M.S. ' F. Between S1s Role (A) I 0.42 - Compatibi1ity (B) 1 0.88 1.37 Position (C) 1 0.63 - Sex (D) 1 5-67 8.86** A x B 0.01 - A x C 1 1.17 1.83 A x D 1 11.50 17.97** B x C 1 1.17 1.83 B x D 1 0.63 - C x D 1 3-79 5.92* A x B x C 1 1.18 1.84 A x C x D 1 0.28 - B x C x D 1 0.45 - A x B x D 1 3-26 5-09* A x B x C x D 1 3.17 4 .9 5* Res i dual 80 0.64 Within S's Topic Intimacy (E) 1 5-01 9.63** A x E 1 0.25 - B x E 2.29 4.40* C x E 1 1.17 2.25 D x E 1 0.04 - A x B x E 1 0.42 - A x C x E 1 3-81 7-33** A x D x E 1 0.90 1.73 B x C x E 1 2.31 4.44** B x D x E 1 0.01 - C x D x E 1 0.15 - A x B x C x E 1 0.00 - A x B x D x E 1 0.59 1.13 A x C x D x E 1 0.00 - B x C x D x E 1 0.17 - AxBxCxDxE 1 1.41 2.71 Res i dual 80 0.52 *p < .05 ** p ^ »0l 84 i.e., the more there is to say about a topic, the easier it is to discuss it. Subjects, therefore, seemed to find it easier to talk about the low intimacy topics than about the high intimacy topics. Males reported that the average person could find less to say about both the high intimacy topics and the low intimacy topics than did female subjects (p < .01). Male respondents Mean: 3.91 S.D.: .86 Female respondents Mean: 4.25 S.D.: .86 The data suggest further that male subjects tended to report topics as less easy to discuss after per forming in therapist-patient dyads than in peer dyads, while female subjects tended to report topics as less easy to discuss after performing in peer dyads (p < .01). Male therapist- patient dyads Mean: 4.10 S.D.: .60 Male peer dyads Mean: 3.71 S.D.: .58 Female therapist- patient dyads Mean: 3.96 S.D.: .65 Female peer dyads Mean: 4.54 S.D.: .48 Question 2 .— Imagine that the average person is talking to someone he or she has just met. How personal would you say these topics are to talk about in such a situation? 8 5 A higher score indicates a more personal topic. Subjects responded that the high intimacy topics were much more personal than the low intimacy topics (p < .01). High intimacy topics Mean: 3.39 S.D.: .96 Low intimacy topics Mean: 2.41 S.D.: 1.01 Question 3.— How uncomfortable did you feel during the discussions? A higher score indicates less discomfort. Subjects responded that they felt more uncomfortable discussing the high intimacy topics than the low intimacy topics (p < .01) . High intimacy topics Mean: 3.77 S.D.: 1.10 Low intimacy topics Mean: 4.13 S.D.: 1.08 Question 4.— Before beginning the discussions, what did you anticipate your partner might be like to work with? A higher score indicates anticipation of a more unpleasant partner. Subjects who received pre-interview instructions to expect an incompatible partner reported anticipating a more unpleasant partner than did subjects who received pre-interview instructions to expect a compatible partner (p < C , .01) . 8 6 TABLE 18 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: QUESTION 2 . INTIMACY OF TOPICS Source df M.S. F. Between S's Role (A) 1 1.50 1.41 Compat ib i1i ty (B) 1 1.17 1.11 Position (C) 1 0.13 Sex (D) 1 0.25 - A x B 1 0.13 - A x C 1 0.05 - A x D 1 0.41 - B x C 1 0.88 - B x D 1 0.43 - C x D 1 1.17 1.11 A x B x C 1 1.89 1.78 A x B x D 1 0.13 - A x C x D 1 0.87 - B x C x D 1 4.37 4.12* A x B x C x E 1 1.46 1.38 Res i dual 80 1.06 Within S's Topic Intimacy (E) I 47-00 51.09** A x E 1 0.02 - B x E 1 2.75 2.99 C x E 1 0.89 - D x E 1 0.26 - A x B x E 1 0.25 - A x C x E 1 0.23 - A x D x E 1 0.03 - B x C x E 1 0.26 - B x D x E 1 0.65 - C x D x E 1 0.88 - A x B x C x E 1 O.87 - A x B x D x E 1 1.47 1.49 A x C x D x E 1 1.62 1.76 B x C x D x E 1 0.60 - AxBxCxDxE 1 0.06 - Res idual 80 0.92 *p < .05 VoVp < ,oi 8 7 TABLE 19 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: QUESTION 3- DISCOMFORT Source df M.S. F. Between S's Ro 1 e (A) 1 2.08 1.39 Compatibi1i ty (B) 1 0.08 - Position (C) 1 1.69 1.13 Sex (D) 1 3-00 2.00 A x B 1 6.03 4.02* A x C 1 8-33 5.55* A x D 1 9-19 6.13* B x C 1 3-00 2.00 B x D 1 0-52 - C x D 1 0.33 - A x B x C 1 11.03 7•35** A x B x D 1 0.07 - A x C x D 1 0.19 - B x C x D 1 1.02 1.27 A x B x C x D 1 4.05 5.06** Res i dual 80 1.50 Within S's Topic Intimacy (E) 1 6.02 10.03** A x E 1 0.08 - B x E 1 0.00 - C x E 1 0.01 - D x E 1 0.01 - A x B x E 1 0.19 - A x C x E 1 1.46 2.43 A x D x E 1 0.00 - B x C x E 1 0.10 - B x D x E 1 0.03 - C x D x E I 3.02 5.03* A x B x C x E 1 3-34 5.56* A x B x D x E 1 0.32 - A x C x D x E 1 0.03 - B x C x D x E 1 0.00 AxBxCxDxE 1 0.69 1 .00 Res idual 80 .60 *p .05 *"*p ^ . 0 ! 8 8 Incompatible partner Mean: 2.35 S.D.: .57 Compatible partner Mean: 1.69 S.D.: .39 Question 5.— Estimate the amount of time you spent talking compared to your partner during topic #1? topic #22 A lower score indicates more time spent talking. Subjects controlling communication flow reported that they spent less time talking than did subjects who did not con trol the communication apparatus (p K .01). Subjects controlling communication Mean: 3.26 S.D.: .95 Subjects not control ling apparatus Mean: 2.78 S.D.: .87 The effect was due to the difference in use of time reported by therapists and patients in the therapist- patient dyads, rather than to the difference in use of time reported by subjects in peer dyads (p ^ .01). Therapist-patient dyads Therapists Mean: 3.58 S.D.: .81 Patients Mean: 2.44 S.D.: .69 Peer dyads Ss controlling communication Mean: 2.94 S.D.: .39 Ss not control ling apparatus Mean: 3.13 S.D.: .40 8 9 TABLE 20 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: QUESTION 4. ANTICIPATION OF PARTNER COMPATIBILITY Source df M.S. F. Ro 1 e (A) 1 0.04 AM Compatibi1ity (B) 1 10.67 24.25** Position (C) 1 0.00 - Sex (D) 1 1 .50 3.40 A x B 1 0.00 - A x C 1 0.00 - A x D 1 1 .50 3-40 B x C 1 2.04 4.64* B x D 1 0.04 - C x D 1 0.04 - A x B x C 1 1 .02 2.32 A x C x D 3 3-36 7.63** B x C x D 1 0.00 - A x B x C x D 1 0.77 1-75 Within 80 .44 *P < .05 * * P < .01 9 0 TABLE 21 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: QUESTION 5- TIN E Source df M.S. F. between S1s Role (A) 1 0.02 - Compatibi1i ty (B) 1 0 .5 2 Position (C) 1 11.02 9.18** Sex (D) 1 0.02 - A x B 1 0-33 - A x C 1 21 .bz 17. 85** A x D 1 0.08 - B x C 1 2.99 l.bs B x D 1 0.33 - C x D 1 0.0 9 - A x B x C 1 9 .1 2 7. 60** A x B x D 1 0.04 - A x C x D 1 0.02 - B x C x D 1 1 .69 1 .^1 A x B x C x D 1 2.02 1.68 Res idual 80 1 .20 Within S's Topic Intimacy (E) 1 0.09 - A x E 1 0.51 l.Qb B x E 1 0.18 - C x E 1 0.18 - D x E 1 0.01 - A x B x E 1 0.10 - A x C x E 1 0.10 A x D x E 1 0.35 1 .bo B x C x E I 0.36 \.bb B x D x E 1 0 .3 b 1.36 C x D x E 1 0-33 1.32 A x B x C x E 1 0.00 - A x B x D x E 1 0 .7^ 2.96 A x C x D x E I 0 .9 7 3.88 8 x C x D x E 1 0.00 - AxBxCxDxE 1 0 .3 6 ].bb Res i dual 80 0 .25 *p < .05 **p ^ .01 91 Question 6.— How would you describe your partner's behavior during the discussions? A higher score indicates that the partner is described as more warm and friendly. Female respondents described partners as more warm and friendly than did male respondents (p K .05). There was no significant difference in the description of partners attributable to expectations of compatibility or incompatibility. Question 7.— How difficult was it to talk and listen according to the signal lights? A higher score indicates less difficulty. An analysis of variance was not performed upon the responses to this question since forty-five of the forty-eight respondents who controlled communication flow and forty of the forty-eight respondents who did not control communication flow reported talking at the wrong time only once or not at all. Fifty-nine subjects reported that they never talked at the wrong time; twenty-six subjects reported that they talked at the wrong time only once. Subjects who controlled communication flow reported a mean of 2.8 mistakes (between one and three times). Subjects who did not control communication reported a mean of 3.3 mistakes (slightly over two to three times). Subjects, therefore, did not report, on the whole, experiencing much difficulty 92 TABLE 22 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; QUESTION 6. FRIENDLINESS OF PARTNER Sou rce df M.S. F. Role (A) 0.04 Compatibi1ity (B) 2.04 3-40 Position (C) 1.04 1*73 Sex (D) 4.17 6.95* A x B 0.05 - A x C 0.05 - A x D 0.00 - B x C 2.05 3-41 B x D 0.16 - C x D 0.67 - A x B x C 1.00 1.66 A x B x D 2.65 4.41* A x C x D 0.14 - B x C x D 0.00 - A x B x C x D 0.23 - Within 80 0.60 *p < .05 93 in talking and listening on signal. The impression obtained from listening to the tapes was that such instances of talking during the wrong signal were of very brief duration and quickly rectified. It was not possible to tell from the tape which light was on, although the click of the switch was audible. It was con cluded, therefore, that durations of light time provided a satisfactory measure of the distribution of speaking time. Question 8.— How true is the following statement in describing your reaction to the discussions: "My partner displayed a good sense of humor during the discussions." A lower score indicates greater agreement with the statement. Subjects assigned peer roles agreed with the statement to a greater degree than subjects assigned therapist or patient roles (p < .05) . Members of peer dyads Mean: 1.96 S.D.: 1.05 Ss controlling apparatus Mean: 1.87 S.D.: 1.05 Ss not control ling apparatus Mean: 2.04 S.D.: .98 Members of therapist- patient dyads Mean: 2.47 S .D.: 1.25 Therapists Mean: 2.71 S .D.: 1.18 Patients Mean: 2.29 S.D.: 1.21 94 TABLE 23 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: QUESTION 8 . SENSE OF HUMOR Source df M.S. F. Ro 1 e (A) 1 6.51 5-61* Compatibi1i ty (B) 1 3.76 3.24 Position (C) 1 0.51 - Sex (D) 1 1.76 1.51 A x B 1 3.00 2.58 A x C 1 2-34 2.01 A x D 1 0.08 - B x C 1 1.75 1 .50 B x D 1 0.84 - C x D 1 3-75 3.23 A x B x C 1 3-77 3.25 A x B x D 1 6.53 5-62* A x C x D 1 2.36 2.03 B x C x D 1 0.27 - A x B x C x D 1 2.35 2.02 Wi th i n 80 1.16 *P < -05 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Two distinctive patterns of communication were observed as a product of the assignment of therapist- patient and peer roles, as had been anticipated on the basis of previous research (Kanfer, 1965). Subjects assigned peer roles who were given the task of controlling communication flow shared the available time about equally with their partners; subjects assigned therapist roles spoke more frequently and talked for a smaller amount of the available time per discussion period than their partners. The percentage of time (36 per cent) used by the subjects assigned therapist roles was slightly more than the 33 per cent use of time reported by Kanfer (1965) for his sample of female nursing students. Female subjects assigned therapist roles in the present study used 32 per cent of the available talking time; male subjects assigned therapist roles used 42 per cent of the available time. Predictions of increased verbal productivity by subjects assigned therapist roles under conditions which 95 it had been anticipated would augment interaction dis comfort assumed that: 1. subjects accepted the experimental task of jointly producing verbal communication on an assigned topic; 2. subjects would be less willing to disclose personal information as the conditions departed more from the optimal situation of: a. mutual disclosure of; b. low intimacy information with; c. a compatible partner; 3. the task of controlling the flow of communica tion implied greater responsibility for maintaining inter action; 4. responsibility for maintaining interaction would be considered a function of the therapist role. The task of enacting the unfamiliar role of a psychotherapist in the present study appeared to be a more difficult task than that of enacting the peer role of group memner, even though both roles were placed in the unfamiliar context of a pseudo-psychotherapy setting. It is plausible to assume that the initial discussion in the therapist-patient dyads would tend to be somewhat un comfortable no matter which level of topic intimacy was involved. 97 The decreased use of time by therapists discussing low intimacy topics was attributable to those subjects who were given a high intimacy topic to discuss first. Those therapists who discussed a low intimacy topic first used approximately the same amount of the available time in each discussion period as was used by therapists who discussed a high intimacy topic first during their initial discussion only. Such findings suggest that the stressfulness of enacting the unfamiliar role of a psychotherapist was relieved when the second topic presented was easier to talk about than the first topic had been. However, the second topic was even more difficult to talk about than the first topic had been in the conditions in which low intimacy topics were presented first, and the difficulty encountered in enacting the therapist role, therefore, continued without relief. ■Responses to Questions 1 and 3 on the post discussion questionnaire are consistent with the above interpretation. Subjects reported having less to say about high intimacy topics and feeling greater discomfort during discussions of high intimacy topics. It is plausible to assume further that the verbal productivity of subjects in the dyads assigned peer roles was affected by the same factors assumed to be influencing verbal productivity in dyads assigned therapist-patient roles. However, one might anticipate that responsibility for maintaining interaction in a peer relationship would be mutually assumed by both members in accordance with the normative expectations of mutuality in peer inter action. Thus, either member of a peer dyad could be expected to increase verbal activity in response to the partner's decreased verbal activity. However, the greater the discomfort felt in the interaction, the more likely it would be that the subject controlling the flow of communication would assume greater responsibility for the interaction, as implied in his task. In peer dyads the subjects controlling communica tion flow displayed an unexpected decrease in verbal productivity in discussions of high intimacy topics when these topics were presented first. One may speculate that the decrease in activity by the subject controlling communication flow in peer dyads may have been compensated for by an increase in activity by the partner. The generally greater level of activity displayed by male subjects may be interpreted as an indication of greater discomfort experienced by the male subjects than by female subjects. The responses to Questions 1 and 2 on the post-discussion questionnaire are consistent with the interpretation of greater interaction discomfort in 99 male dyads. Analysis of the responses revealed that the topics were perceived as more personal at both levels of intimacy by male subjects than by female subjects. Male subjects also reported that there was less to say about topics at both intimacy levels than female subjects. Female subjects, in addition, reported that partners were warmer and more friendly than did male subjects in response to Question 6. Variations in the activity displayed by subjects assigned the task of controlling communication flow was composed of variations in comment frequency as well as in the amounts of time used. Subjects assigned therapist roles initiated comments significantly more frequently than subjects assigned peer roles. One may speculate that the different rates of exchange of comments used by subjects in enactment of the therapist and peer roles were more strongly associated with basic attributes of the therapist and peer roles than with indications of interaction discomfort. For example, if subjects enacting the therapist role tended to participate in the inter action by asking questions rather than by relating personal information, they would tend to display a pattern of relatively brief individual comments which would be offered more frequently than longer statements if the partner enacting the patient role did not respond with 1 0 0 longer statements than those offered by subjects enacting peer roles. If the partner enacting the patient role reacted to increased discomfort by decreasing the length of his responses, the rate at which comments were exchanged in therapist-patient dyads would tend to become even greater. Kanfer (1965) had not found a significant differ ence in the frequency with which comments were exchanged by subjects enacting therapist-patient and peer roles. His subjects, however, had had the opportunity to get acquainted with their partners in two previous interviews prior to their assignment to therapist-patient roles. One may speculate that the subjects assigned therapist- patient roles in the present study experienced greater discomfort in discussing personal topics with completely unknown partners than was experienced by subjects in the Kanfer study, and therefore exchanged comments with greater frequency. The higher rate of exchange of comments displayed by subjects assigned therapist roles in the present study is consistent with the suggested relationship between activity and responsibility on the part of the therapists. The high rate of exchange of comments observed in therapist-patient dyads consisted of briefer units of speech and appeared to be associated with greater direction 1 0 1 of the discussion by therapists in the form of questions, interjections, et cetera. Thus, the greater the amount of responsibility assumed by subjects assigned therapist roles, the more frequently such subjects would be likely to make comments or ask questions. Such observations of the characteristics of the verbal productions of subjects under the different experimental conditions led the investigator to hypothesize that the following four different general patterns of communication, interrelating comment frequency and the distribution of amounts of talking time, existed: I. a large amount of time used by subjects con trolling communication flow, accompanied by high comment frequency; II. a small amount of time used by subjects con trolling communication flow, accompanied by high comment frequency; III. a large amount of time used by subjects con trolling communication flow, accompanied by low comment frequency; IV. a small amount of time used by subjects con trolling communication flow, accompanied by low comment frequency. Analysis of the data revealed that the activity of most subjects assigned therapist roles conformed to 1 0 2 pattern II (a small amount of time used* accompanied by- high comment frequency). Two exceptions in the conformance of therapists' behavior to the above pattern of activity were observed: 1. Male subjects assigned therapist roles who expected incompatible partners spoke at greater length than any other therapists. The activity of this group of subjects conformed to pattern I (a large amount of time used, accompanied by high comment frequency). 2. Female subjects assigned therapist roles who discussed initial high intimacy topics with incompatible partners spoke less frequently than any other therapists. The activity of this group of subjects conformed to pattern IV (a small amount of time used, accompanied by low comment frequency). The activity of most subjects given the task of controlling communication flow in peer dyads conformed to pattern III (a large amount of time used, accompanied by low comment frequency). Two exceptions in the con formance of peers’ behavior to the above pattern of activity were observed: lo Male subjects controlling communication flow in peer dyads initiated comments more frequently than other peers when they discussed initial high intimacy topics with compatible partners. The activity of this 103 group of subjects conformed to pattern I (a large amount of time used, accompanied by high comment frequency). 2. Female subjects controlling communication flow in peer dyads spoke less than any other peer group. The activity of this group of subjects conformed to pattern IV (a small amount of time used, accompanied by low comment frequency). The increased activity of male therapists inter acting with incompatible partners, compared to the activity of all other subjects assigned therapist roles, is con sistent with the hypothesis that assumption of responsi bility for maintaining communication results in increased activity as interaction discomfort increases. The conformance of the activity of male subjects assigned peer roles to pattern I (a large amount of time used, accompanied by high comment frequency), suggests a reduced production of verbal activity compared to the activity found for other peer groups because the increased frequency of comments without a significant increase in the amount of time used would necessitate the use of briefer comments0 One may speculate that male subjects in peer dyads interacting with compatible partners were able to effect a mutual reduction in their verbal productivity in response to interaction discomfort when discussing initial high intimacy topics by a mutual 104 reduction in the length of individual utterances. Both members of the dyad could speak more briefly while sharing the available time more or less equally. Data reported in Tables 11 and 12 suggest that once the above mode of interaction was established it was continued into the second discussion. Continuation of this pattern of communication necessitated a sharp increase in use of time by the subject controlling communication flow in order for him to produce more information regarding the less distressing low intimacy topic within the frame work of communicating in brief, frequent statements. The conformance of the activity of female subjects assigned both therapist and peer roles to pattern XV (a small amount of time used, accompanied by low comment frequency) when discussing initial high intimacy topics with incompatible partners suggests a mode of communication in which the subject given the task of controlling communi cation flow reduced verbal productivity by making briefer comments and by giving much more time without interruption to her partner than she herself used. It seems unlikely, however, that partners would have assumed greater respon sibility for talking under these unfavorable conditions. One may speculate, therefore, that female subjects given the task of controlling communication flow in both role assignments responded to the expectation of discussing a 105 highly personal topic with an incompatible partner by withdrawal from active participation in the interaction despite the other pressures in the situation to assume responsibility for maintaining communication. Female subjects controlling communication flow in both roles l i . (combined) used only 28 per cent of the available talking time when discussing initial high intimacy topics with incompatible partners, while male subjects in the same set of circumstances used 48 per cent of the available time. The data thus suggest a sex-related difference in approach or avoidance behavior when the expectation of gaining approval from one's partner was diminished through instructions to expect a socially incompatible partner. One may conclude from the above interpretations that participation in discussions of high intimacy topics by male subjects controlling communication flow was affected by role assignment as well as expectations concerning partner compatibility, while participation in discussions of high intimacy topics by female subjects controlling communication flow was affected primarily by expectations of partner compatibility alone. The above generalization is supported by self disclosure research reported by Jourard (1964) who comment s; The degree of liking for a target-person was 106 found to correlate substantially with the amount disclosed to him— but, interestingly enough, more strikingly among women than among men. . . . This finding strongly suggests that women are more responsive to their own feelings— that is, they vary their interpersonal behavior in accord with their feelings more so than men do. Both sexes show a correlation between the degree to which they know a given target person and their disclosure to him. Men, evidently, trust their brains, their cognition of the other person more than their feelings, as a condition of self-disclosure0 (p. 178) Subjective impressions of the taped interactions between subjects are offered at this point in the dis cussion in order to make the suggested communication patterns more meaningful. Pattern II (a small amount of time used, accompanied by high comment frequency) was the most common mode of communication found in therapist- patient dyads. The subject assigned the therapist role tended to talk as soon as the patient paused, with minimal silences occurring between speeches. Patient responses were to the point, but tended not to be elaborat ed upon spontaneously. The pace was quite rapid and discussion tended to cover many points without pursuing any ideas brought up. In the schema used by Altman and Taylor (1968) there tended to be great breadth, within the limits of the topic assignment, but little depth of topic exploration. There was a quality of playing "detective" in the behavior of the subjects assigned therapist roles as they undertook to find out what they wanted to know about their partners whose primary task 107 seemed to be that of providing answers when asked. Male subjects assigned therapist roles whose communication followed pattern I (a large amount of time used, accompanied by high comment frequency) did much more verbal work than any other subjects. These therapists tended to ask very long, involved questions and to pose complicated hypothetical problem situations with alternative behaviors offered to patients as solutions from which to choose. This often seemed to require very little more than a simple affirmation or denial on the part of the patient. One had the feeling, when listening to the tapes, that patients hardly had the chance to say anything before being inundated in a torrent of verbiage emanating from the therapist. Once this pattern of communication was established it tended to become stronger over the course of the discussion so that by the end of the discussion period, the therapist seemed to be taking complete responsibility for thinking of anything to say. The patient volunteered nothing and seemed to assume a very passive role in the relationship. Both of these patterns of communication tended to discourage exploration of the attitudes of the subjects assigned patient roles. Female subjects controlling communication flow who adopted the pattern IV mode of communication with incompatible partners (a small amount of time used, accompanied by low comment frequency) permitted much more silence to occur in the interaction than did other subjects These subjects took much longer to initiate comments after the partner stopped talking and seemed to permit the partner to think, to talk slowly and hesitantly, et cetera# without taking over the responsibility for initiating and stimulating conversation. There seemed to be less pressure on either participant to "do something. Pattern III communication (a large amount of time used, accompanied by low comment frequency) seemed similar to ordinary social conversation. One difference which was observed between this pattern and pattern I (a large amount of time used, accompanied by high comment frequency), used by male subjects discussing initial high intimacy topics with compatible peer partners, was that the greater frequency of exchange of comments observed in pattern II resulted in part from exchanges such as, "Can you think of anything to say?" "No, can you?" "No." This study was not concerned with the actual contents of self-disclosure communication, that is, with questions of how much and how deeply subjects actually revealed themselves, or disclosed personal information regarding the assigned topics to their partners. The overall impression of the taped discussions was that self disclosure was generally at a rather superficial level. 109 The styles or patterns of interaction which were used by subjects, however, seemed to reflect differences in the ease with which dyads were able or willing to carry out the instructions to engage in self-disclosure behavior. These differences are highly consistent with the findings of self-disclosure research through questionnaires in regard to sex differences, the importance of the intimacy of the topic discussed, and the nature and affective quality of the relationship between the individuals engaged in self-disclosure communication. Further explorations are needed of the conditions under which the suggested patterns of communication in response to interaction discomfort arising from various sources are utilized by male and female subjects. ' The present study used only same-sex pairs, and it would be of interest, also, to investigate the occur rence of these and/or other modes or patterns of communication in mixed-sex dyads in which both equal and unequal status relationships are involved. In the present study sex-related differences in patterns of communication seemed to emerge more clearly in the peer relationship than in the therapist-patient relationship, suggesting that subjects' behavior may have been more restricted by the requirements of the psycho therapist role than by the role of group member. The bulk of the studies reported on temporal aspects of communicative behavior have dealt with individual differences in the standardized interview situation and have not been concerned with the effects of social role requirements on communicative behavior patterns. This, then, is another, largely unexplored area in which future research is indicated. Finally, future investigations are needed to relate the research being done in self-disclosure communication with the varied body of research concerning linguistic and non-verbal aspects of interpersonal communication. REFERENCES REFERENCES Allen, B. V., Wiens, A.N., Weitman, M., & Saslow, G. Effects of warm-cold set on interviewee speech. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 480-482. Altman, I., & Haythorn, W. W. Interpersonal exchange in isolation. Sociometry, 1965, _28, 411-426. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. Disclosure as a measure of social penetration. Paper presented at the meet ing of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August, 1968. Brodsky, S. L. Self-disclosure in dormitory residents who seek counseling. Psychology, 1964, 1_, 12-14. Brown, R. Social psychology. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Chittick, E. V., & Hiraelstein, P. The manipulation of self-disclosure. Journal of Psychology, 1967, 65, 117-121. Frankfurt, L. P. The role of some individual and inter personal factors on the acquaintance process. Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, _26, 1809. Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959. _________. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Hare, A. P., Waxier, N., Saslow, G., & Matarazzo, J. D. Simultaneous recording of Bales and Chappie Interaction measures during initial psychiatric interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 193. 1 1 2 113 Hays, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Heller, K., Davis, J. D., & Myers, R. A. The effects of interviewer style in a standardized interview. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, 501-508. Jones, E. E., Davis, K. E., & Gergen, K. G. Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, _63, 302-310. Jones, E. E., & Thibaut, J. W. Interaction goals as bases of inference in interpersonal perception. In R. Taguiri, & L. Petrullo (Edo), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. pp. 151-178. Jourard, S. M. Self-disclosure and other cathexis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 428-431. _________. Religious denomination and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 1961, _8, 446. _________. Self-disclosure patterns in British and American college females. Journal of Social Psychology, 1961, _54, 315-320. _________. Self-disclosure scores and grades in nursing college. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 244-247. _________. The transparent self. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964. _________., & Richman, P. Factors in the self-disclosure inputs of college students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1963, 9, 141-148. Kanfer, F. H. Verbal rate, content, and adjustment ratings in experimentally structured interviews. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 305-311. _________. Verbal rate, eyeblink and content in structured psychiatric interviews. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, _61, 341-347. 114 Kanfer, F. H. Structure of psychotherapy: role playing as a variable in dyadic communication. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, _29, 325-332. _________. Interview interaction of repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 513-516. Kanfer, F. H., Phillips, J. S., Matarazzo, J. D., & Saslow, G. Experimental modification of inter viewer content in standardized interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 528-536. Lennard, H. L., & Bernstein, A. The anatomy of psycho therapy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. _________. Role learning in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1967, _4, 1-6. Mahl, G. F. A simple device for obtaining certain verbal activity measures during interviews. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, J53, 388-390. Matarazzo, J. D. Prescribed behavior therapy: suggestions from interview research. In A. J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1962. pp. 471-509. Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G., & Hare, A. P. Factor analysis of interview interaction behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 419-429. Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G., & Matarazzo, R. G. The Interaction Chronograph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during interviews,, Journal of Psychology, 1956, 41„ 347-367 0 Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G., Matarazzo, R. G., & Phillips, J. S. Stability and modifiability of personality patterns during a standardized interview. In P.A. Hoch, & J. Zubin (ed.). Psychopathology of com munication. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1958. pp. 98-128. 115 Matarazzo, J. D., Weitman, M., & Saslow, G. Interview content and interviewee speech durations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1963, 19, 463-472. Matarazzo, R. G., Phillips, J. S., Wiens, A. N., & Saslow, G. Learning the art of interviewing: a study of what beginning students do and their pattern of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1965, 2> 49-60. Phillips, J. S., Matarazzo, R. G., Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G., & Kanfer, F. H. Relationships between descriptive content and interaction be havior in interviews. In G. E. Stollak, B. G. Guerney, Jr., & M. Rothberg (ed.). Psychotherapy research. Chicago: Rand-McNalley, 1966. pp. 470- 478. Query, W. T. Self-disclosure as a variable in group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1964, _14, 107-115. Rickers-Ovsiankina, M. A. Social accessibility in three age groups. Psychological Reports, 1956, J2, 283-294. Ring, K., Braginsky, D., & Braginsky, B. Performance styles in interpersonal relations: a typology. Psychological Reports, 1966, 1J3, 203-220. Robbins, B. Effects of cohesiveness and anxiety on self disclosure under threatening conditions. Dis sertation Abstracts, 1966, 27_, 2145. Scheflen, A. E. Communication and regulation in psycho therapy. Psychiatry, 1963, _26, 126-136. Schutz, W. C. FIRO: a three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Rinehart, 1958. Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of interpersonal relationships. Research Report MF 022,01,03-1002. Bethseda, Maryland: Naval Medical Research Institute, 1966. Tuckman, B. W. Interpersonal probing and revealing and systems of integrative complexity. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 1966, J3, 655-664. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1959. a p p e n d i c e s ' 116 APPENDIX A REQUEST FOR SUBJECTS 117 118 REQUEST FOR SUBJECTS I'd like to tell you very briefly about the re search I'm doing for my dissertation and ask for people to serve as subjects. The study has to do with interpersonal behavior in the kind of social situation that you have in psycho therapy or counseling. Psychotherapy is in some ways similar and in some ways quite different from other social settings; and we want to know more about what these similarities and differences consist of, and how they affect people's behavior. In this study, we are looking at the ways people begin to get to know one another in a simulated therapy situation. You will be asked to come to one session which will take about an hour and a quarter to maybe an hour and a half (so you would get two hours credit). I think you'll find it a very interesting experience. There are some special requirements to be able to participate in the study: you must be single and you must not have had any personal experience in therapy. APPENDIX B SUBJECT INFORMATION SHEET 119 1 2 0 SUBJECT INFORMATION SHEET Name _________________________________________________________ (Please Print) Can you be reached at this number Phone No. ______________ during the day?______ Evenings?___ Male Female Age Marital Status ______________________________________________ What experience, if any, have you had in psychotherapy or counseling? __________________________________________________ Appointment will be arranged by phone. You will be asked to come for one session which will last about 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours. To assist in scheduling, please check the times you would be available Week of _____________________________ ____ 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. APPENDIX C TREATMENT GROUPS 1 2 1 1 2 2 TREATMENT GROUPS Role 1. Peer 4. Peer 5. Peer Set Positive 2. Therapist-Pt. Negative 3. Therapist-Pt. Positive Negative Negative 6„ Therapist-Pt. Positive 7. Therapist-Pt. Negative 8. Peer Positive Order of topics High-Low Low-High Low-High High-Low Low-High High-Low High-Low Low-High APPENDIX D TOPICS FOR DISCUSSIONS 1 2 3 TOPICS FOR DISCUSSIONS* 1 2 4 No. assigned for study T.-A. Item No. Mean Scale Value assigned by Taylor and Altman's sample High Intimacy of male college Topics S's 1 225 Things I worry about when I'm with a girl (man) . 8.71 2 1037 Weaknesses that I feel I have in my personality. 8.42 3 729 What it takes to hurt my feelings deeply. 9.37 4 734 The aspects of my person ality that I dislike, worry about, or regard as a handicap to me. 8.27 5 722 Things in the past or present that I feel ashamed or guilty about. 10.25 6 224 What I do to attract a member of the opposite sex whom I like. 8.54 7 247 The kinds of compliments that I like to receive from girls (men). 8.71 8 756 What it takes to make me worried, anxious or afraid. Mean scale value for the group of high intimacy items 8.14 8.78 *1 terns are from Taylor, D. A. and Altman, I., Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of inter personal relationships. Research Report MF 022,01,03-1002, #9., Bethseda: Naval Medical Research Institute, 1966. 1 2 5 TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION— (Cont.) No. assigned for study T.-A. Item No, Low Intimacy Items Mean Scale Value assigned by Taylor and Altman's sample of male college S' s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1153 My general attitude about school. 858 How I would like to spend my summers. 204 My feelings* about blind dates. 243 What annoys me most about girls (men). 1156 What I think would be an ideal job. 1109 The kind of work I would like to do in the future. 712 Times when I have been dissatisfied. 732 Situations which make me impatient. Mean scale value for the group of low intimacy items 4.42 2.78 3.46 4.96 3.94 3.22 4.94 4.42 4.02 APPENDIX E CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING HIGH AND LOW INTIMACY ITEMS FROM THE TAYLOR-ALTMAN ITEM POOL 1 2 6 CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING HIGH AND LOW INTIMACY ITEMS FROM THE TAYLOR-ALTMAN ITEM POOL Items at each intimacy level had to be as similar as possible in intimacy value and had to be clearly distinguishable in intimacy value from items at the other intimacy level. Items had to be open-ended questions rather than requests for specific pieces of information. Items which might not have relevance for all subjects were eliminated from consideration# e.g., items dealing with specific relationships such as with a father. Items from as many different general categories as possible were selected for each intimacy level to represent a sampling of topics over many areas of personal information. APPENDIX F POST-DISCUSSION QUESTIONNAIRE 128 129 POST-DISCUSSION QUESTIONNAIRE We would like your help in evaluating the topics used for discussions. 1. In your opinion, how much could the average person find to say about Topic #1? Topic #2? Almost nothing to say_______ Almost nothing to say_______ Little to say_______________ Something to say, but not a lot________________________ A moderate amount to say___ A great deal to say________ 2. Imagine that the average he or she has just met. these topics are to talk Topic #1? Not at all personal______ Slightly personal_________ Moderately personal______ Quite personal____________ Extremely personal_______ 3. How uncomfortable did Topic #1? Very uncomfortable_______ Moderately uncomfortable_ Somewhat uncomfortable___ Just a little un comfortable_______________ Not at all uncomfortable Little to say Something to say, but not a lot__________________________ A moderate amount to say_____ A great deal to say___________ person is talking to someone How personal would you say about in such a situation? Topic #2? Not at all personal___________ Slightly personal_____________ Moderately personal___________ Quite personal________________ Extremely personal____________ you feel during the discussions? Topic #2? _ Very uncomfortable____________ __ Moderately uncomfortable_____ _ Somewhat uncomfortable_______ Just a little un- _ comfortable____________________ Not at all uncomfortable 1 3 0 4„ Before beginning the discussions, what did you antici pate your partner might be like to work with? Very pleasant_______________ Moderately pleasant________ A little more pleasant than unpleasant_____________ Somewhat unpleasant________ Rather unpleasant___________ 5. Estimate the amount of time you spent talking compared to your partner during Topic #1? Topic #2? Much more___________________ Much more______________________ More _________________ More___________________________ About the same______________ About the same________________ Less_________________________ Less___________________________ Much less___________________ Much less______________________ 6. How would you describe your partner's behavior during the discussions? Very cold and unfriendly __________________________________ Somewhat cold and unfriendly_________________________________ Not particularly friendly nor unfriendly____________________ Moderately warm and friendly_________________________________ Very warm and friendly_______ 131 7. How difficult was it to talk and listen according to the signal lights? Very difficult: I talked at the wrong time frequently_________________ Moderately difficult: I talked at the wrong time occasionally_______________ Somewhat difficult: I talked at the wrong time two or three times_________ A little difficult: I talked at the wrong time once________________________ Not at all difficult: I never talked at the wrong time____________ 80 How true is the following statement in describing your reaction to the discussions: "My partner displayed a good sense of humor during the discussions." Very true_ Moderately true_____________ About equally true as false_ Moderately false____________ Very false___________________ APPENDIX G ASSIGNMENT SHEET FOR DYADS 1 3 2 1 3 3 ASSIGNMENT SHEET FOR DYADS High Low Treatment Dyad # topic topic qroup 1 M & F 8 4 1 2 M & F 4 8 2 3 M & F 2 1 3 4 M & F 6 5 4 5 M & F 3 7 5 6 M & F 1 6 6 7 M & F 7 3 7 8 M & F 5 2 8 9 M & F 2 2 1 10 M & F 5 4 2 11 M & F 7 1 3 12 M & F 6 3 4 13 M & F 3 5 5 14 M Sc F 4 6 6 15 M Sc F 1 7 7 16 M Sc F 8 8 8 17 M Sc F 1 3 1 18 M Sc F 5 8 2 19 M Sc F 6 7 3 20 M & F 3 1 4 21 M Sc F 8 6 5 22 M Sc F 2 4 6 23 M Sc F 4 2 7 24 M Sc F 7 5 8 APPENDIX H INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS 1 3 4 1 3 5 INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS I. Instructions for role assignments Psychotherapist role This is a study of the ways in which people get to know one another in interview situations such as counseling or psychotherapy. We would like you to play the part of a psychotherapist and your partner to play the part of a patient. You and your partner will be given special topics to discuss and we would like you to talk over ideas and feelings about these topics as frankly and openly as a psychotherapist might with a patient. Just as in psychotherapy, everything that happens here must be considered strictly confidential. We are asking your partner not to talk to anyone about what you will say to him (her), and we are asking you not to talk to anyone about what he (she) will say to you. We will be recording the discussions, but the records will be coded and you will not be identified in any way. No one will have access to the records except for the purposes of this study. You and your partner will be working in separate compartments so that you will not see each other. This is because it has been found that people are able to be more frank and open when they don't have to look directly at each other. You will be using signal lights to show you when to talk and when to listen, so that only one of you will be talking at a time. Your job will be to imagine you are a psycho therapist, trying to help a patient to get the most out of psychotherapy. You can go about this in whatever way you wish, but try to be as natural as you can and to act as you imagine a psychotherapist would act with a patient. Patient role This is a study of the ways in which people get to know one another in interview situations such as counseling or psychotherapy. We would like you to play the part of a patient and your partner to play the part of a psycho therapist. You and your partner will be given special topics to discuss and we would like you to talk about your 1 3 6 ideas and feelings about these topics as frankly and openly as you might with a psychotherapist. Just as in psychotherapy, everything that happens here must be considered strictly confidential. We are asking your partner not to talk to anyone about what you will say to him (her), and we are asking you not to talk to anyone about what he (she) will say to you. We will be recording the discussions, but the records will be coded and you will not be identified in any way. No one will have access to the records except for the purposes of this study. You and your partner will be working in separate compartments so that you will not see each other. This is because it has been found that people are able to be more frank and open when they don't have to look directly at each other. You will be using signal lights to show you when to talk and when to listen, so that only one of you will be talking at a time. Your job will be to imagine you are a patient trying to get the most out of psychotherapy. You can go about this in whatever way you wish, but try to be as natural as you can, and to act as you imagine a patient would act with a psychotherapist. Peer role This is a study of the ways in which people get to know one another in interview situations such as counseling or psychotherapy. We would like you and your partner both to play the parts of two co-members of a psychotherapy group. You and your partner will be given special topics to discuss, and we would like you to talk about your ideas and feelings about these topics with your partner as frankly and openly as you might with another member of a psychotherapy group to which you belonged. Just as in psychotherapy, everything that happens here must be considered strictly confidential. We are asking your partner not to talk to anyone about what you will say to him (her), and we are asking you not to talk to anyone about what he (she) will say to you. We will be recording the discussions, but the records will be coded and you will not be identified in any way. No one will have access to the records except for the purposes of this study. 1 3 7 You and your partner will be working in separate compartments so that you will not see each other. This is because it has been found that people are able to be more frank and open when they don't have to look directly at each other. You will be using signal lights to show you when to talk and when to listen, so that only one of you will be talking at a time. Your job will be to imagine you are a member of a psychotherapy group, trying to get the most out of psychotherapy. You can go about this in whatever way you wish, but try to be as natural as you can, and to act as you imagine a member of a psychotherapy group would act with another group member. II. Instructions for pre-interview set Positive set (E. looks over test booklets for a moment, after completing role instructions. E. then holds the booklets on her lap so that the "scoring" is plainly visible. Set instructions are given from memory.) I think maybe I ought to tell you something about the results of the test you just took. Your partner took the test too, and we can get a pretty good idea from comparing the scores about how compatible two people would probably be in a work situation or a social situation; that is, how well they would probably get along together. This is a test of social attitudes and it measures your approach to interpersonal relations in three very important areas; how much you like to be around people and do things with people; how much you like to be a leader or the one who decides things; and how close and personal you like your social relationships to be. Well, if two people have attitudes about these things that mesh together nicely, the chances are good that they will find each other very compatible and should get along very well together. I haven't had time to figure out the exact com patibility score for you and your partner, but I have done a preliminary scoring which gives the general idea. It looks as though you and your partner have very congenial 1 3 8 attitudes in all three areas, so your compatibility score will be quite high. Well, we're lucky this time. Most of the com patibility scores we've been getting run quite a bit lower than this, so you should find your partner a very easy person to get along with. Negative set (E. looks over test booklets for a moment, after completing role instructions. E. then holds the booklets on her lap so that the "scoring" is plainly visible. Set instructions are given from memory.) I think maybe I ought to tell you something about the results of the test you just took. Your partner took the test too, and we can get a pretty good idea from comparing the scores about how compatible two people would probably be in a work situation or a social situation; that is, how well they would probably get along together. This is a test of social attitudes_and it measures your approach to interpersonal relations in three very important areas: how much you like to be around people and do things with people; how much you like to be a leader or the one who decides things; and how close and personal you like your social relationships to be. Well, if two people have attitudes about these things that mesh together nicely, the chances are good that they will find each other very compatible and should get along very well together. I haven’t had time to figure out the exact com patibility score for you and your partner, but I have done a preliminary scoring which gives the general idea. It looks as though you and your partner do not have very congenial attitudes in any of the three areas, so your compatibility score will be quite low. Well, we're just not very lucky this time. Most of the compatibility scores we've been getting run quite a bit higher than this, so I'm afraid you may find your partner is not the easiest person to get along with. 1 3 9 III. Instructions regarding apparatus and procedures. Each of you has a set of lights on your desk: a red one and a yellow one. You will notice that the red light is labelled "Listen" and the yellow light is labelled "Talk." Now, you (indicating subject in position A) also have a switch on your desk marked "Listen" and "Talk." When you press the switch to "Talk," your yellow light will go on and at the same time your partner's red light will go on. When you press the switch to "Listen," your red light will go on and at the same time your partner's yellow light will go on. Go ahead and try it o.K. Now since you (indicating subject in position A) have the switch, you're going to have the special responsibility to regulate the conversation so you both won't be talking at the same time. When you want to say something, you'll press the switch to "Talk"; and when you want to give your partner a chance to talk, you'll press the switch to "Listen." It's very important that each of you talks only when your yellow light is on. Please do not talk when your red light is on. Please be sure to keep the switch pressed to one of the "ON" positions or the other and do not use the "OFF" position during a discussion. In other words, somebody's "Talk" light should be on at all times. Any questions so far? O.K. You are going to have two discussions about two different topics. The topics which have been assigned to you are on your desks in the sealed envelopes marked #1 and #2. When we are ready to start, you will hear a buzzer and that will be the signal to open envelope #1 and read the topic. Then, in about thirty seconds, you will hear a second buzzer. When you hear the second buzzer, you (indicating subject in position A) will start the discussion by pressing the light switch either to "Talk" or to "Listen," as you wish. It will be entirely up to you to decide which "Talk" light should be on at any time during the discussion and you can change signals as you see fit. The discussion period will be approximately ten minutes long and it is important that you keep the discussion going for the whole time. When the time for the first discussion is over, you will hear a third 1 4 0 buzzer and you will stop the conversation at once. Please be sure to put the switch in the "OFF" position at the end of the discussion period. O.K., then we are going to do the whole thing all over again, only this time you will use the topic in envelope #2. There will be a short wait between the time you finish the first discussion and the time you hear the buzzer to open envelope #2. Are there any questions about the procedure? I will not be in the room while you are having your discussions; I'll be next door taking care of the recording equipment and so forth. Please remember the parts you are to play: you are (members of a psychotherapy group) (a psychotherapist and a patient.) APPENDIX I RAW DATA: FREQUENCY AND DURATION MEASURES 1 4 1 142 RAW DATA: FREQUENCY AND DURATION MEASURES Dyad Topic 1 Topic 2 Order Dura tion Fre quency Dura tion Fre quency IF 271.6 8 304.4 6 H-L 1M 218 . 6 28 317.3 20 H-L 2F 272.3 8 224.0 9 L-H 2M 257.2 14 269.8 9 H-L 3F 316.6 37 322.9 50 L-H 3M 215.0 7 197.3 10 L-H 4F 227.3 8 266 . 9 5 H-L 4M 198.0 12 207.4 8 H-L 5F 262.7 13 296.2 10 L-H 5M 320.7 4 305.2 4 L-H 6F 188.0 5 146.7 7 H-L 6M 200 „ 7 19 240.4 25 H-L 7F 209.4 16 232.2 22 H-L 7M 404.5 13 366.1 19 H-L 8F 358.4 10 259.5 8 L-H 8M 307.8 10 350.9 6 L-H 9F 323.4 9 297.0 10 H-L 9M 276.3 5 425.9 6 H-L 10F 154.0 14 246.4 7 L-H 10M 352.0 19 307.2 12 L-H 11F 80.3 11 104.8 14 L-H 11M 249.7 10 208.3 10 L-H 12F 230 0 6 11 243.2 14 H-L 12M 280.6 15 335.2 13 H-L 13F 277.7 8 297.5 6 L-H 13M 252.5 6 315.5 4 L-H 14F 344.5 11 202.9 12 H-L 14M 116.2 14 106.7 13 H-L 15F 69.4 9 72.2 8 H-L 15M 271.0 15 179.2 14 H-L 16F 334.9 13 306.7 8 L-H 16M 214.4 9 225.9 9 L-H 17F 347.1 3 257.0 3 H-L 17M 322.6 15 392.4 11 H-L 18F 276.0 11 219.1 7 L-H 18M 336.0 7 303.2 9 L-H 19F 106.9 16 128.5 14 L-H 19M 154.7 17 193.0 17 L-H 1 4 3 RAW DATA: . . .— (Continued) Dyad Topic 1 Topic 2 Order Dura tion Fre quency Dura tion Fre quency 20F 126.7 11 164.0 5 H-L 20M 289.0 9 335.0 5 H-L 21F 369.0 11 351.9 4 L-H 21M 288.4 9 323.4 6 L-H 22F 241.5 9 253.4 9 H-L 22M 234o0 22 223.2 15 H-L 23F 96.5 8 62.6 6 H-L 23M 340.0 13 261.4 17 H-L 24F 282.8 5 277.4 5 L-H 24M 383.5 6 372.6 6 L-H
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Effects Of Justice, Balance, And Hostility On Mirth
PDF
Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys
PDF
Effects Of Video Tape Feedback Versus Discussion Session Feedback On Group Interaction, Self Awareness And Behavioral Change Among Group Psychotherapy Participants
PDF
An Application Of A Two-Stage 'Attention' Model To Concept Formation In The Mentally Retarded
PDF
The Effects Of Feedback On The Communication Of Medical Prescription To Diabetic Patients
PDF
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
PDF
The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics
PDF
The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility
PDF
Verbal Reports Of Emotional States And Onsets And Offsets Of Conditioned Stimuli
PDF
The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure
PDF
A Study Of The Effects Of Generalized Expectancies Upon Accuracy Of Interpersonal Perception
PDF
Use Of College Students In A Social Therapy Program With Chronic Schizophrenics To Produce Changes In Mood And Social Responsiveness
PDF
Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance
PDF
The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence
PDF
The Effects Of Nonreward Dissonance And Secondary Reward On Extinction And Attractiveness
PDF
The Effects Of Group Experiences On The Aged
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Aggression Habit Patterns And Sex Role
PDF
Prediction Of Therapeutic And Intellectual Potential In Mentally Retardedchildren
PDF
Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization
PDF
The Influence Of Communality And N On The Sampling Distributions Of Factor Loadings
Asset Metadata
Creator
Young, Barbara Ann
(author)
Core Title
The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns
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
Jacobs, Alfred (
committee chair
), De Nike, L. Douglas (
committee member
), Priest, Robert F. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-698469
Unique identifier
UC11360999
Identifier
6913095.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-698469 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6913095.pdf
Dmrecord
698469
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Young, Barbara Ann
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