lliiliiliillllIllllillllllllfli Will 'm1E519310668'4479 This is to certify that the thesis entitled FACETS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE AND SELECTED INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES RELATED TO DEFENSIVENESS presented by ARIHUR mom MYEIE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts dggreein Clinical Psychology oIé/M I Major professo Date z/ZZ/f; John H 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES n \— RETURNING MATERLQLS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. K303 i 93.33163 -t.-.——— - ...._. - .-.- - FACETS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE AND SELECTED INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES RELATED TO DEFENSIVENESS By Arthur W. Myers A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1985 ABSTRACT FACETS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE AND SELECTED INTERPERSONAL VARIABLES RELATED TO DEFENSIVENESS By Arthur w. Myers This study examined experiential group members' ability to discriminate hypothetically distinct facets of self-disclosure and the latter's correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS). Recent research evidence increasingly indicates that the MCS is a measure of defensiveness. After 45 hours of small group participation, 62 undergraduates (from l2 groups) rated 50 original items about self and peers within-group behavior. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded three behavior-specific self-disclosure miniscales: Intimacy, Insight, and Anger Acknowledgement. Eight additional miniscales assessed other interpersonal behaviors. Measured about two months earlier at pregroup, MCS-defensiveness correlated negatively and significantly with peer-rated Intimacy as predicted, also with Interest in Feedback. Surprisingly, higher MCS scorers tended to subsequently rate their own within-group behavior as less disclosing and as significantly more hostile toward peers than did lower MCS scorers. Conflicting with the initial "social desirability" interpretation of MCS scores, these findings were discussed in terms of the potential of small group experiences to modify self- perceptions. The findings generally supported self-disclosure's differentiation into more specific facets. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Over the course of this rather lengthy process there have been a number of people who have been of much help. First I want to thank my committee, Drs. John Hurley, Terry Allen, and Gary Stollak. Special thanks go to John Hurley who has consistently been patient and supportive while guiding me through this effort. He was particularly helpful in his careful critiquing and editing of successive drafts of both the GIRS and this manuscript. 3 I am grateful to my friends Abby Golomb, Fred Rogosch, and Bill Bathie for the support, understanding, commiseration, and good humor that helped sustain me. I would also like to thank the group members and facilitators who gave a considerable amount of their time providing the data on which this study was based. Suzy Pavick is appreciated for her efficiency and precision in the final preparation of this thesis. Above all, I am grateful to my wife Cindy for her patience, love and unremitting belief, in face of my doubts, that this project would find an end. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... INTRODUCTION ........................ METHOD ........................... Participants ..................... Groups ........................ Context of Self-Disclosure .............. Measures ....................... Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (GIRS) ..... Marlowe-Crowne Scale ............... Procedure ....................... Objectives ...................... RESULTS .......................... Final GIRS Scales ................... Description of Final GIRS Scales ........... Internal Consistency of Scales ............ Evaluation of Participation and the Three Self-Disclosure Scales ............... Participation ..................... Intimacy ....................... Insight ........................ Anger Acknowledgement ................. Relationship Between GIRS and the Marlowe- Crowne Scale (MCS) ................. DISCUSSION ......................... Final Self-Disclosure Scales ............. Interpersonal Attraction and Self Disclosure: Intimacy and Insight ................ GIRS and the Marlowe-Crowne .............. GIRS Self-Ratings and the MCS ............. CONCLUSION ......................... APPENDICES APPENDIX A ........................... APPENDIX B ........................... APPENDIX C ........................... APPENDIX D ........................... APPENDIX E .......................... APPENDIX F ........................... REFERENCES ........................... iv 53 55 57 59 6O 6l 67 LIST OF TABLES Table Page l Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (GIRS) Empirical Clustering of Items ............ l2 2 Final GIRS Scales .................. 2l 3 Coefficient Alphas of the GIRS ........... 25 4 Factor Loadings of Final GIRS Items on Each Scale. . 26 5 Correlations Between GIRS Scales Based on Composite Peer-Ratings (N_= 62) ........... 28 6 Correlations of GIRS Peers and Self-Ratings with the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) ........... 34 INTRODUCTION ”The art of making oneself known to others" has become one of the more intensively investigated psychological constructs since the l959 introduction of Sidney Jourard's Self—Disclosure Questionnaire. The reason for this great interest can be easily understood. Self-disclosure has been hypothesized to be: an antidote to the personal and social alienation engendered by modern society (Fromm, l955); a remedy for debilitating guilt over "contractual transgressions" in interpersonal relationships (Mowerer, l961); an essential ingredient of self-understanding and self-acceptance (Rogers, l96l); "one of the central happenings" in the psychotherapeutic process (Truax & Carkhuff, 1965); a vital link in the process by which relationships are both formed and maintained (Altman & Taylor, l973); and a sine qua non of mental health (Jourard, l97l). The intent of this study is to explore and clarify the nature of self-disclosure within experiential groups; groups designed to increase interpersonal skills and awareness through a "here-and-now" focus on the developing relationships among members. Numerous researchers have depicted self-disclosure as one of the more salient factors contributing to interpersonal learning and change in experiential groups (Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, l973; Bednar & Kaul, l978; Smith, l980). When the group member discloses--as for instance a self-perception--he is likely to receive information confirming, l 2 disconfirming and perhaps ultimately modifying his view of himself. In short, disclosure may permit fine tuning of social reality testing. Cohen and Smith (l978) assert that an "unwillingness to risk disclosure makes it impossible to receive useful feedback and thus impossible to change" (p. 6T). Persuing Rogers' lead, Yalom (l975) pointed to another outgrowth of disclosure in groups. Operating from the premise that acceptance by others is a significant precondition of self-acceptance and for a concomitant rise in self-esteem, he asserts that the individual group member can only make gains if he is willing to ”permit others to know him as he really is" (p. 360). Yalom further suggests that if a group member gains acceptance from others based on a defensively motivated false self-presentation, then no enduring increase in self-esteem can take place. In addition to these essentially intrapersonal effects, self-disclosure has also been shown to have important interpersonal ramifications in groups. Yalom stated, "as self-disclosure proceeds in the group, the entire membership gradually increases its level of involvement, responsibility and obligation to one another" (p. 360). In short, disclosure is viewed as promoting group cohesion. Empirical support for this clinically based observation has been provided by: Lundgren, l97l; Dies & Hess, l97l; Bednar & Battersby, l976; Crews & Melnick, l976; and Evenson & Bednar, l978. In the light of the importance attributed to self-disclosure and the quantity of research dealing with it, it is interesting to note that this construct has been subject to intensive criticism and 3 reevaluation in the past six years. Archer (l979), for example, stated that "the weakest point in the basic superstructure of disclosure research is with the construct of self-disclosure itself” and has called for investigators to return to answering the basic question, "what is self-disclosure?" (p. 57). The circumstances leading to this call for reevaluation may be capsulized as follows. The original conceptual definitions of Self-disclosure--reflecting its emergence from within humanistic psychology--tended toward the phenomenological. For example, Jourard (l97l) defined disclosure as "the act of making yourself manifest, showing yourself so others may see you" (p. 19). This kind of definition leaves much to the imagination, while empirical inquiry requires, of course, that its constructs be more tightly operationalized. In the past twenty years self-disclosure has accrued a great number and range of operational definitions. As indices of self-disclosure researchers have counted, among many others: (a) number of self-references per unit of time (Rogers, 1960); (b) percentage of self-references out of total time spent talking (Anchor et al., 1972); and most commonly, (c) total time spent talking (reported by Chelune, l979). These types of operationalization have been justly criticized for ignoring the fact that self-disclosure is a social behavior that takes its meaning from the context in which it occurs, from the perspective of both the self-disclosure and persons disclosed to (Goodstein, Goldstein, D'Orta, & Goodman, l976; Hurley, l976). In addition to the kind of "objective measures" noted above, researchers have also produced an array of self-report and observational 4 rating scales, each of which has operationalized the construct in a different--often radically different-~fashion. Doster and Nesbitt (l979, p. 222) characterized the resultant consequences as follows, "proliferation of diverse and poorly explicated definitions certainly accounts for many of the inconsistencies that appear in the literature about both the functions and correlates of self-disclosure." Progress in this area of study has thus been greatly hampered by the fact that cross-study comparisons of data yield conclusions of dubious validity. This problem will likely diminish as more researchers begin to accept the multidimensional nature of the self-disclosure construct; that no unidimensional definition is sufficient. In recent years, in fact, researchers have increasingly taken to specifying the particular "dimensions," "parameters," or "facets" of self-disclosure under investigation. One well known set of parameters includes, (a) amount or breadth of information disclosed, (b) intimacy of information disclosed, (c) rate or duration of disclousre, (d) affective manner of presentation and, (e) disclosure flexibility (i.e., the cross situational modulation of disclosure; Cozby, I973; Chelune, l975). Somewhat overlapping with the above, Bednar and Kaul (1980) proposed the following "dimensions": (a) positive or negative valence of content and affect expressed, (b) intensity, (c) sources and aims of the communication and, (d) the interaction among these variables. Elaborating on this, Stokes et al. (1983) asserted an important distinction between "intimate" and "immediate" types of disclosures. An intimate self-disclosure is "personal and private" and related to some aspect of the discloser's 5 past or present experience of self, or a life event that had some impact on self. An immediate disclosure, on the other hand, would involve an expression of feelings or Opinions about some other person‘s behavior, as, for instance, another group member. Although overlap is clearly possible, these two foci seem sufficiently distinct to warrant continued study. Chelune (1979, p. 283) noted that "too often different facets are used interchangeably within the research literature as though they were identical." He recommends that future researchers clearly identify the specific facets under investigation. Consistent with this trend toward greater specificity, the primary objective of this study was to uncover the degree to which self-disclosure can be broken down into relatively distinct categories of behavior from the experiential group members' perspective. To this end the Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (GIRS) was constructed to represent a set of hypothetically distinct experimental scales or facets of self-disclosure. The GIRS also included several other experimental scales believed to tap a range of interpersonal traits of potential mediating relevance to self-disclosure. The group members' perceptions, as opposed to those of neutral observers, were studied for the purpose of uncovering the prepotent types of conceptual distinctions regarding self-disclosure that can be discriminated by individuals who are personally involved in the phenomenal field of the group. Goodstein et a1. (1976) noted significant differences in the way members and observers rate self-disclosure. This highlights the point that an act of disclosure takes its meaning from within both the members' emergent relationships, 6 and perhaps also from the unique social context--roles, rules, and values-~evolved in each group. . In constructing the GIRS self-disclosure scales, efforts of other researchers were drawn upon when their dimensions or categories seemed suited to the perspective and necessary limitations of the study. Simultaneously assessing all_of the previously listed parameters of dimensions would be too great a task. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that participant/raters could reliably evaluate certain of the dimensions. For example, "rate” of disclosure, usually defined as the length of time verbalizing per episode of disclosure (Chelune, 1978), is probably not a distinction that group members consciously attend to. The facets of self-disclosure that GIRS items were intended to assess included: the "intimate" versus "immediate“ distinction of Stokes et al. (1983); "affective tone" from Cozby (1973); and expression of self-awareness or insight from Haymes (1969) and Jourard (1971). Additionally it is important to note that GIRS instructions and Likert-type scales orient the rater to evaluate the "degree" ("amount" in Cozby's terminology) to which a particular behavior has been "characteristic" of the person rated. Thus, this dimension is embedded in all GIRS items. Earlier noted aspects or dimensions not explicitly measured, and uncontrolled for, included: depth or intimacy, rate or duration, intensity, and flexibility. It is of likely that certain of these variables are inextricably linked with those assessed by GIRS items. For instance, it is probable that perceived depth of disclosure and amount of disclosure covary to a high degree from the participants' point of view. 7 Importantly, the focus here is not with what distinct categories of disclosure "could" be discriminated, as for instance by trained raters, but what categories were in fact consistently discriminated by relatively naive group members. In a sense then, one aim of this exploratory study was to contribute to an answering of Archer's question, "What is self-disclosure?”. While it seems certain that a complete explication of the construct would reach beyond the phenomenological--the shared personal constructs of individuals-~it is also certain that any humanly relevant understanding of self-disclosure would be incomplete with the omission of this perspective. METHOD Participants Participating in this study were 62 college undergraduates, primarily juniors and seniors, enrolled in an upper level psychology course entitled, "Small Experiential Groups for Interpersonal Learning." Data was collected from group members enrolled in either one of two consecutive terms. Fortuitously, there were nearly equal numbers of males and females, 32 males and 30 females. Subjects were informed that participation in the study was strictly voluntary, not a course requirement. Fifty-eight of the 62 subjects completed all measures; four completed the personality measure at the outset of the term but then chose not to complete the rating-scales. m In accordance with the usual course procedure, participants were divided into groups composed of from four to six members. Group assignments were made primarily on the basis of members scheduling constaints. Additionally, however, an attempt was made to achieve a balance between males and females in each group, and to insure that friends and acquaintances were placed in different groups. There were a total of 12 groups. Each group was led by one or two facilitators. The facilitators were either clinical psychology graduate students or, more typically, former group members who had received training in group leadership. Facilitators were not 9 counted among the 62 participants in the study, although their ratings of others were included. Over the course of the nine week term, each group met for a total of about fifty hours; two ninety-minute sessions per week and two twelve-hour "marathon" sessions usually conducted near the third and seventh weekends of the term. Context of Self-Disclosure The explicit norms surrounding self-disclosure in the Interpersonal Learning Groups provide quite specific limitations on the range of self-disclosure considered appropriate, and thus on the types of disclosure most likely to occur. Self-disclosure was presented as a means by which relationships are formed, maintained and deepened. In keeping with this notion, members were encouraged to consider how the content, depth of intimacy, and timing of their disclosure would contribute to the development of their relationships in the group. More specifically and importantly, in the course text (Egan, 1976), class lectures, and facilitators' interventions, emphasis was placed on the disclosure of here-and-now experience. That is, current thoughts and feelings relating to self or others in the group. Disclosure of past life experiences (or current outside experiences) was presented as appropriate only to the extent that such experiences might help to clarify the individual's feelings or behavior which- emerge in relation to the group. To illustrate, "I always felt like the odd man out in my family, and I'm beginning to feel that way in this group," is an allusion to the past that illuminates the present. The divulging of personal secrets was not encouraged, although it sometimes occurred. 10 Thus, in these groups and in this study, ”appropriate” self-disclosure was operationally defined in a different manner than in those studies in which subjects' disclosure of past experiences was measured. Measures Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (GIRS). The GIRS is a 50-item experimental measure with sets of items grouped to form 13 behaviorally specific miniscales. Five scales were designed to measure hypothetically distinct types of self-disclosure or, conversely, self-concealment. These five were: (a) Intimacy, (b) Insight, (c) Immediacy, (d) Anger Acknowledgement, and (e) Expression of Feelings (types of feelings not specified). A diversity of items were constructed and included with recognition that the less meaningful of them would be readily identified later in the correlation matrix and subsequently culled out. In addition to those related to self-disclosure, eight other experimental miniscales were constructed for the GIRS. These were: (a) Participation, (b) Feedback Interest, (c) Caring, (d) Hostility, (e) Group Investment, (f) Anxiety, (9) Self-Effacement, and (h) Ingenuineness. Forty-six of the 50 items were worded in such a way that self as well as others could be rated. For these items, the rater was instructed to select a number on a five-point Likert-type scale indicating the degree to which the statement "characterizes" the behavior of the member rated. The last four GIRS items were preceded by instructions that the person rate his/her personal reaction to or relationship with the group 11 member being rated. Appendix A shows the 50-item GIRS in the form in which it was administered to group members. Before use in this study, the GIRS underwent numerous revisions. The 50 items finally selected were taken from a pool of one hundred items. The larger pool of items were critiqued by two faculty, several graduate students, and five group facilitators. Table 1 shows the GIRS, items grouped into clusters or hypothetical miniscales and annotated with respect to pertinent prior works. Marlowe-Crowne Scale. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCS), (Marlowe & Crowne, 1960) is a 33 item, true-false, personality questionnaire which has been widely used to assess the extent to which individuals avoid self-criticism and depict themselves in an improbably favorable manner. A sample item is: "No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener." The MCS was originally designed to measure the socially desirable response style; the tendency to claim positive self-attributes on, for instance, personality inventories (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Although the MCS continues to be employed for this purpose, it has come to be used as a measure of other individual difference variables as well (Evans, 1982). A great number of studies have tested the hypothesis that subjects scoring higher on the MCS will be less inclined to self-disclose than low scorers (Evans, 1982, for review). The MCS has ngt_been found to correlate with retrospective self-reports of self-disclosure to significant others, as for instance measured by the Jourard Self- Disclosure Questionnaire (Burhenne & Mirels, 1970; Doster & Strickland, 1969). It has, however, consistently shown the expected negative correlation with actual self-disclosure in both experimentally 12 Table 1 Group Interpersonal Rating Scales (GIRS) Empirical Clustering of Items II. III. IV. INTIMACY (self-disclosure). Revelation of personal information which would be viewed as entailing psychological vulnerability as a possible consequence. "Aim" or focus (Cozby, 1973) of the disclosure is essentially about self as opposed to other (Yalom, 1975; Stokes, Fuehrer, & Childs, 1983). 8. Discloses intimate or personal thoughts, feelings or experiences. 23. Reveals personal feelings or thoughts that are uncomfortable or anxiety producing to talk about. 34. Brings up personal issues or feelings that would probably be difficult for most other members to bring up themselves. 35. If feeling hurt or vulnerable would soon let others know. INSIGHT (self-disclosure). Awareness or insight into own internal experience of self and other. (Jourard, 1971; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973; Yalom, T975). 3. Communicates a clear or insightful understanding of self-- knows self well. 24. Seems unable to get in touch with own inner feelings or experience. 30. Shows an insightful understanding or the reasons behind own feelings toward others. IMMEDIACY (self-disclosure). Disclosure of reactions to others' behavior. May entail a willingness to risk a hurt or angry response from target person (Hill, 1973; Bednar & Kaul, 1978; Stokes, Fuehrer, & Childs, 1983). 5. Communicates directly to others' feelings and perceptions about them. 11. Will take risk of bringing up issues or feeling that others might respond to with hurt, anger, or anxious silence. ANGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (self-disclosure). It was considered that items in this scale would correlate strongly with those in "immediacy," and that the two scales might not be discrete (Cozby, 1973; Chelune, 1978). 14. If angry, would not let others know about it until later-- if at all. 37. If feeling irritated with someone, would soon let that person know. . 44. Acts as though only positive feelings should be expressed in the group. VI. VII. VIII. IX. 13 EXPRESSION OF FEELING (self-disclosure). General expression vs. concealment of feelings. Types of feelings are not specified. This set of rather unhomogeneous items was included to provide points of comparison for the other scales above. 7. When participating, expresses Opinions and ideas instead of feelings. ’ 13. Keeps a tight lid on feelings--active1y holds them back. 40. Tries to hide or cover-up own feelings. 42. Shows ability to express a wide range of feelings. ADDITIONAL GIRS EXPERIMENTAL SCALES PARTICIPATION. Participation provides an important point of comparison for the self-disclosure scales. As noted previously, researchers have frequently used amount of participation as a measure of disclosure (Chelune, 1978, for review). 1. Participates actively in the group. 20. Sits quietly, participates little. 41. Takes initiative to start interactions. FEEDBACK INTEREST l7. Either argues about, ignores, or explains away feedback from others. 32. Makes an effort to understand how own behavior affects or is experienced by others. 39. Expresses an interest in hearing perceptions about, or reactions to, own ways of interacting in the group. CARING 15. Offers others emotional support and acceptance. 18. Is empathic--seems able to deeply understand others' feelings. 27. Tries to help others clarify their feelings and ideas. 46. Expresses caring and concern. HOSTILITY 10. Seems critical or disapproving of others, in either subtle or obvious ways. 16. Does not show sufficient concern for others' feelings when giving feedback or sharing perceptions. 36. Reacts angrily. XI. XII. XIII. l4 ANXIETY 9. Seems tense or anxious in the group. 12. Becomes uncomfortable when the group focus is on self. 26. Seems relaxed in the group. 43. Acts nervous or edgy in the group. SELF-EFFACEMENT 4. Apologetic about own behavior. 22. Seems to be self-accepting--does not put self down. 29. Expresses dissatisfaction with quantity or quality of own participation. 38. Acts as though own contributions to the group are unimportant or irrelevant. 45. Is assertive or dominant in the group. GROUP INVESTMENT 6. Appears to take the group seriously. 21. Seems enthusiastic about the group. 25. Expresses dissatisfaction about how the group is going. 33. Seems uninvolved or uninterested in the group. INGENUINENESS 28. When expressing positive feelings toward others, does so in ways that seem less than fully genuine. 31. Seems eager to be agreeable, or say things that will please others. Four additional GIRS items related to the rater's perception or his/her personal relationship with or reaction to the target person. These items were: 47. I like this person. 48. This person seems to like me. 49. I have found this person difficult or annoying to be with. 50. I see myself as being similar to this person. 0f the three items above, the two relating to "liking" of the other (47 and 49) were included because this variables has been studies as both a possible consequence and antecedent of self-disclosure (Kleinke, 1979, review in Chelune). 15 controlled as well as in more naturalistic (clinical and analogue) situations (Burhenne & Mirels, 1970; Kopfstein & Kopfstein, 1973; Itatini, 1974; Cravens, 1975; Brundage et a1. 1977). The MCS was selected for this study to provide an initial validity check for the GIRS self-disclosure scales. I predicted that the MCS would show stronger negative links with the GIRS self-disclosure scales than with the remaining eight GIRS scales. Intermixed with the MSC were the twenty items comprising the Bendig Short-Form of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Bendig, 1956; Taylor, 1953). Procedure The MCS was administered at the initial weekly full class meeting. At this time, the general nature of the study was described as dealing with variables related to group members' perceptions of each other. It was explained in written instructions that participation in the study was voluntary and could be ceased at any time. Participants were advised that their scores on the MCS and other measures would remain fully confidential. In the seventh week of the nine week term all group members and facilitators were provided with an envelope containing one copy of the GIRS and computer scoring forms labeled with the name of each group member, including self (although facilitators rated others, they were not rated by group members). Instructions requested that the self-rating be completed first; this with the thought that heightened ego investment would promote a more careful initial reading and consideration of each GIRS item. Members were asked to return the completed forms in one week's time. About ten minutes were required to complete the GIRS for each target person. 16 Objectives 1. The central objective of this study was a preliminary assessment of the validity of the GIRS experimental scales, with particular focus on the five self-disclosure scales. The testing and subsequent modification of the experimental scales was carried out by means of a multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis (Nunnally, 1978; Hunter, 1979), which will be discussed more fully in a later section. As noted previously, it is expected that the existence of discrete "types" of self-disclosure will be supported. Interjudge reliability of the scales will not be examined in this study. 2. Correlations between GIRS (peer and self-ratings) and the MCS will be presented and discussed. It is anticipated that among GIRS scales, those measuring self-disclosure will correlate most strongly with the MCS. Significant negative correlations between the MCS and the self-disclosure scales would provide important evidence of these scales validity; that is, that these scales bear a relationship to self-disclosure as measured in other studies which have demonstrated a link between this construct and the MCS. In regard to the relationship between the MCS and the GIRS self-ratings, one would anticipate that members scoring higher on the MCS would also tend to give unrealistically positive self-ratings on the GIRS. 3. Relationships between GIRS self-disclosure, and selected other GIRS scales will be highlighted and discussed. A comprehensive overview of relationships between all scales as rated separately by peers and for self is presented in Appendix F. If? RESULTS The first major objective of this study entailed the testing and modification of the GIRS scales. As a preliminary step, all ratings given to each member were collapsed across each GIRS item. The resultant sums were divided by the number of ratings received, thus yielding an average score received by each subject on each item. Of the 62 subjects rated by fellow group members and facilitators, three received three ratings, eight received four, eighteen received five, fifteen received six, and eighteen received seven. The number of ratings received depended, of course, on the size of the group. Next, the average scores were intercorrelated yielding a 50 by 50 matrix. This matrix was the raw data on which the cluster analysis was performed. Hunter (1977) defines cluster analysis (also termed an oblique multiple group factor analysis) as "a mathematical model of the data which asserts (stipulates) that a given empirical clustering of the variables (items) is in fact a theoretically perfect clustering of the variables by criteria of classical reliability theory" (p. 6). The computational procedures performed by a cluster analysis may then be viewed as a means of estimating the parameters of the model. However, the parameter estimates are ultimately only meaningful to the extent that the mathematical model actually fits the data, i.e., that the empirical clusterings are valid. The computational procedure performed by the oblique multiple groups factor analysis with 17 18 communalities in the diagonal (computer program PACKAGE, Hunter & Cohen, 1969) calculates a sum of the items within a cluster and defines this sum (in fact an average) as an estimate of the factor true score. The "true score” being what would be obtained if it were possible to remove measurement error. In other words, this statistical procedure assumes that all items included within a given cluster are equivalent measures of the same underlying variable. Of course, the a priori empirically defined clusters, and parameter (true score) estimates generated from them, are only meaningful or valid to the extent that the component items are in fact measuring the same underlying variable. A cluster in which all items are measuring essentially the same underlying variable may be termed "unidimensional" (Hunter, 1977). Hunter lays out a set of criteria or by which the unidimensionality of clusters may be assessed and refinements carried out. The process involved in these assessments and refinements entail using the criteria in a tandem with successive computer generated parameter estimates of combinations of items. The three tests of unidimensionality are: (a) homogeneity of content, (b) internal consistency, and (c) parallelism. Homogeneity of content is evaluated, without reference to numbers, through consideration of the question “do the items in this cluster seem to share the same basic meaning?" Of course much of this work was carried out before the data was ever collected. It remains, however, an important conSideration within the final stages of scale construction as well. This, because of the inevitable variation in a correlation coefficient likely to result from sampling 19 error, which will inflate or deflate relationships between variables in ways that would come to light only upon replication. If semantic relationships are ignored in favor of the correlational, it is likely that the final clsuters, and more importantly the relationships between clusters, will be rendered difficult to interpret because of the equivocalness of the items composing the clusters. The second test for unidimensionality has to do with internal consistency. Although one may use statistical means to test for internal consistency, in practice it can be (Hunter, 1977; Nunnally, 1978), and in this study was, carried out through examination of the correlation matrix. The central question to the issue of internal consistency is, "do the items within a cluster intercorrelate with the same approximate magnitude?" The correlation matrix of a set of items showing high internal consistency will appear relatively "flat." A ”bad" item will be apparent by its low correlation with other variables in the set. The third means of assessing unidimensionality is through examination of parallelism. If a set of items are considered to be measuring the same underlying variable, then one would also expect each item to have very similar magnitudes of correlation, or factor loadings, with other factors. To illustrate, if items A, B, and C of factor X all correlate with each other approximately .75 (high internal consistency) and each also loads on factor Z at about .40, then items A, B, and C can be said to show a very high degree of parallelism. A poor item would be identified by the fact that, despite relatively high correlations with 20 other items within the same cluster, it shows too strong a linkage with another factor. In practice such an item would likely, on the basis of content, appear to straddle two distinct content areas. Final GIRS Scales The successive-modifications performed on the GIRS scales in which the above criteria were applied will not be presented here. Rather, the final set of scales will be presented together with reliabilities, correlations between scales, and factor loadings. The reasons for eliminating or altering certain of the scales will also be discussed. The Participation scale accounted for the largest portion of the variance across the three final GIRS self- disclosure scales. It thus;novidesa.useful point of comparison with these scales, and for this reason has been positioned first, followed by the S-D scales, in subsequent tables. Description of Final GIRS Scales The GIRS has been reduced from 13 to 11 scales and from 50 to 24 items. Of the supplemental scales only ingenuineness was eliminated. Added was a Liking scale which includes items 47 - "I like this person," and 49 - "I have found this person annoying or difficult to be with" (reversed scored). 0f the five experimental self-disclosure (S-D) scales, Intimacy, Insight, and Anger Acknowledgement were retained, while Immediacy and Expression of Feelings (EOF) were eliminated. The untenability of EOF was not particularly surprising given the generality of its items and its clear overlap in content with the other S-D scales. EOF had included: 21 Table 2 Final GIRS Scales II. III. IV. VI. VII. PARTICIPATION l. Participates actively in the group. 20. Sits quietly, participates little. (reversed scored) INTIMACY (self-disclosure) 8. Discloses intimate or personal thoughts, feelings, or experiences. 23. Reveals personal feelings or thoughts that would be uncomfortable or anxiety producing to talk about. 34. Brings up personal issues or feelings that would probably be difficult for most other members to bring up themselves. INSIGHT (self-disclosure) 3. Communicates a clear or insightful understanding of self--knows self well. 30. Shows an insightful understanding of the reasons behind own feelings toward others. ANGER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (self-disclosure) 14. If angry, would not let others know about it until later-- if at all. (reversed scored) 37. If feeling irritated with someone, would soon let that person know. FEEDBACK INTEREST 32. Makes an effort to understand how own behavior affects or is experienced by others. 39. Expresses an interest in hearing perceptions about, or reactions to, own ways of interacting in the group. CARING 15. Offers others emotional support and acceptance. 46. Expresses caring and concern. HOSTILITY 10. Seems critical or disapproving of others, in either subtle or obvious ways. 36. Reacts angrily. VIII. IX. XI. 22 GROUP INVESTMENT 6. Appears to take the group seriously. 33. Seems uninvolved or uninterested in the group. (reversed scored) SELF-EFFACEMENT 4. Apologetic about own behavior._ 22. Seems to be self-accepting--does not put self down. (reverse scored) ANXIETY 9. Seems tense or anxious in the group. 26. Seems relaxed in the group. (reversed scored) 43. Acts nervous or edgy in the group. LIKING 47. I like this person. 49. I found this person annoying or difficult to be with. (reverse scored) 23 7. When participating, expresses opinions and ideas instead of feelings. 13. Seems to keep a tight lid on feelings-~actively holds them back. 40. Tries to hide or cover-up own feelings. 42. Shows ability to express a wide range of feelings. Items 13, 40, and 42 showed substantial internal consistency, intercorrelating with each other from i .71 to .79. However, they also correlated quite similarly with items in Participation, Intimacy, and Anger Acknowledgment. These three EOF items may be described as comparatively poor measures of three other content domains. Item 7 of EOF was readily discarded in light of its comparatively low correlations with other EOF items (average :_.51) and with all other GIRS items. Thus, the EOF scale was eliminated. The Immediacy (S-D) scale also turned out to be unviable. It had included only two items: 5. Communicates directly to others' feelings and perceptions about them. 11. Will take risk of bringing up issues or feelings that others might respond to with hurt, anger, or anxious silence. As with EOF the two Immediacy items correlated well with each other (.73), but they also linked very strongly to Participation, Intimacy, and Anger Acknowledgement. Item 11, particularly, had strong associations with Anger Acknowledgement and Intimacy, averaging correlations with their items of .78 and .70, respectively. This is an instance of an item straddling two content domains, its inclusion in either scale would have resulted in an increase in the correlation between the two and, even more importantly, would have blurred their distinctness in terms of content. 24 Internal Consistency of Scales Coefficient alpha is a measure of internal consistency (reliability) that in essence provides an index of the degree to which a content domain has been tapped. The coefficient alphas of eleven peer-rated GIRS scales (shown in Table 3, first column) are quite high: all were above the .85, and eight reached or exceeded .90. These reliabilities were calculated mean ratings received by each group member from all group peers on each item. The second column in Table 3 shows the coefficient alphas of the scales when figured over the 58 self-ratings completed by group members. Because they were based on substantially less data, (self versus all group peers), the "self-rating” coefficient alphas may well be more laden with "measurement error,” and are therefore less reliable. Evaluation of Participation and the Three Self-Disclosure Scales In this section the three final self-disclosure scales of the GIRS--Intimacy, Insight, and Anger Acknowledgement--will be evaluated individually. For theoretical reasons, to be discussed later, the Participation scale will also be considered. Attention will be focused on a number of separate but related empirical and statistical aspects of the scales including: (a) coefficient alpha (measure of internal consistency/reliability), (b) homogeneity of content, and (c) the relationship between the different scales on both quantitative and substantive levels. Pertinent tables include Table 2 (Final GIRS Scales), Table 3 (Coefficients Alphas of the GIRS), Table 4 (Factor Loadings of Final GIRS Items on Each Scale), and Table 5 (Correlations Between GIRS Scales Based on Composite Peer-Ratings). 25 Table 3 Coefficient Alphas of the GIRS Based on aggregated scores of 62 members Based on 58 self-ratings Participation .98 Intimacy (S-D)* .97 Insight (S-D)* .86 Anger Acknowledgement (S-D)* .92 Feedback Interest .89 Caring .94 Hostility .90 Group Investment .91 Anxiety .96 Liking .90 .89 .80 .71 .72 .68 .85 .68 .61 .88 ** *S-D: Self-disclosure scales. **Se1f-"Liking” was not measured. 26 Table 4 Factor Loadings of Final GIRS Items on Each Scale+* Par Int Ins AA FB Car Hos GI SE Anx L Participation Item 1 98 62 65 80 52 37 28 64 ~34 ~45 44 Item 20** 98 65 6O 80 54 37 33 60 ~30 ~36 41 Intimacy (S-D) Item 8 61 95 44 61 52 37 20 58 O4 01 40 Item 23 55 94 39 6O 5O 28 26 46 13 O9 31 Item 34 7O 96\\\45 73 54 28 33 52 ~09 ~03 33 Insight (S-D) Item 3 54 33 87 50 46 40 ~03 51 ~58 ~59 57 Item 30 57 46 87 46 75 62 ~15 59 ~30 ~43 62 Anger Acknowledgement (S-D) \\\ Item 14** 74 64 56 92 41 21 4O 48 ~44 ~27 41 Item 37 77 62 45 92 33 08 60 40 ~31 ~15 24 Feedback Interest \\\ Item 32 46 47 67 29 9O 62 ~29 70 01 ~24 55 Item 39 52 51 58 43 9O 54 ~13 71 ~02 ~29 51 Caring Item 15 37 27 56 15 62 94 ~53 64 ~04 ~40 67 Item 46 34 35 55 14 6O 94 ~56 63 ~02 ~42 74 Hostility \ Item 10 26 23 ~07 44 ~18 ~55 90 ~20 ~23 16 ~35 Item 36 3O 28 11 54 ~24 ~50 90 ~14 ~16 26 ~36 Group Investment Item 6 53 52 52 41 67 56 ~15 92 ~06 ~31 67 Item 33** 63 49 62 47 76 67 ~20 92\\\~33 ~31 71 Self-Effacement \ Item 4 ~30 ~01 37 ~38 05 02 ~25 ~07 86 44 ~14 Item 22** ~27 O6 50 ~33 ~06 ~07 ~12 ~07 86 57 ~22 Anxiety . \\\ Item 9 ~42 02 ~54 ~27 ~24 ~33 15 ~29 56 95 ~42 Item 26** ~47 ~07 ~62 ~27 ~38 ~50 25 ~45 56 94 ~57 Item 43 ~28 13 ~48 ~10 ~20 ~38 25 ~22 54 93 ~36 (table continues) 27 Par Int Ins AA FB Car Hos GI SE Anx L Liking Item 47 46 37 62 41 54 65 ~28 68 ~22 -50 91 Item 49** 33 29 62 24 53 71 -44 69 ~16 ~38 91 +A11 decimals omitted. *Based on peer ratings given to 62 members. Each item score is comprised of the mean of from three to seven ratings received by each member. **Ref1ected items (scored inversely). 28 .mw—mom mczmopomwure_mmr .umuuwso mpae_omc _P<+ ea- w_- me mm. mm mm mm so em .e me_x_s ea- em mm- _N Fe- AN- LN- mm- No as. spewxe< m_- am 40. m_- mo- .o- em- me. No on. Seeeeeeecm-e_em me mm- No- N_- me _a ea mm mm om Seagumesea aseew om- _N m_- e_- mm- _N- om ac- mm mm ASPFLSmez me _e- mo- mm mm- mm m_ mm _m em acceeu mm AN- _o- _a _N- am am _© .m .m emeeeaeH xeaeeeea Nm _N- om- ea om m_ am me me ma «SeeEemee_zeexe< Leme< ca mm- me- am so. mm _e me _e mm es;m_meH am No No mm mm _m _m me _e ea rseeewuec .3 04. em. om mm mm _m me am so eewuea_e_ueea S xe< mm Hg me: tag me << mac ueH Lee r+ANo ".mv mmcwummuemma muwmoasou co cmmmm mmgmom mme :mmZHmm mcowuapmccou m mpnmp 29 It was decided that the GIRS self-disclosure scales would be evaluated through examination of mean ratings of the individual by group peers because about six persons rated each participant versus merely one self-rating. These analyses would likely be more reliable than those based on self-ratings. Participation Generally encompassing nearly every type of overt verbal activity engaged by group members, Participation would appear to be the most straightforward GIRS scale, the one least open to differing interpretation. The phrasing of items no. 1. ”Participates actively...", and no. 20. ”...sits quietly" were included with the thought that this would prevent such silent behavior as ”intense interest” being counted as participation. This scale had near perfect (.98) internal consistency. The concreteness and generality of the behavior measured by the Participation scale was likely operating to hold error variance at a minimum. Because of the exceedingly strong correlation between the two items in this scale (.96), and the fact that participation likely involves the least amount of perceptiveness and discriminative ability to judge, the Participation scale seems a useful benchmark for evaluating the three self-disclosure scales. Intimacy Intimacy is comprised of three items which have a coefficient alpha of .97, and an average correlation between items of .90. The three Intimacy items have Intimacy factor loadings of (Table 4) .95, .94, and .96. Thus each item assessed the underlying variable with near perfect efficacy; it was by this standard that all three items 30 were retained in the scale. However, it should be noticed that these items do not have particularly balanced loadings on Participation, .60, .55, and .70, respectively. Content does not readily account for item 34's somewhat stronger link with Participation. The three items do not seem to differ in many significant ways except perhaps in the presence of the less intense or intimate “brings-up" as compared with ”discloses” and "reveals." Nevertheless, in retaining the slightly ”odd“ item 34, a decision was made to improve the reliability of the scale at the cost of a slightly clouded boundary, reflected in a higher correlation (.64, Table 5) between Intimacy and Participation. Insight Insight contained two items with a coefficient alpha of .86 and a correlation of .75. Lowest of the three self-disclosure scales, the overall correlation between the Insight and Participation was .59. Both Insight items differing trivially (.54 vs. .57) in their factor loadings on Participation. Insight had the lowest correlation with Participation among the three self-disclosure scales. Both items relate to ~~and in fact use the word~~ ”insight," but in one, the focus was on understanding or insight into self (item 3), and in the other the ". . . insightful understanding of the reasons behind own feelings toward others” (item 30), a seemingly slight distinction. This difference in emphasis resulted in comparatively large discrepancies between their factor loadings on Feedback Interest, Caring, and Self-Effacement (.29, .22,inni.28,respectively). The common thread in this differential appears to be the concern for others (or lack of preoccupation with self in the case of Self-Effacement) 31 shared by item 30 and these three other scales. Insight falters somewhat with regard to parallelism because of item 30's drift, relative to item 3, toward these other scales. Nevertheless, from a substantive point of view, it seems reasonable to speak of an "insightful person“ having understanding of their own feelings toward others, and of this characteristic being subsumable within the generic category of "Insight." The Insight and Feedback Interest scales are similar in that both generally have to do with ”self-reflection," but they differ conceptually. The Insight scale deals with the "demonstrated ability” to communicate insightfully, whereas Feedback Interest relates to the willingness or predisposition to ask for or be responsive to information that might result in insight. One can be highly invested in hearing about and reflecting on oneself without necessarily achieving any greater self-understanding or appearing any less befuddled to others. It is because the Insight items describe the activity of a certain type of self-revelation that this scale has been included as one of the three GIRS self-disclosure scales. The important conceptual boundaries between Insight and Feedback Interest might be fortified by some simple word changes. If the "Shows" in item 30 of Insight were changed to "communicates," there would be a greater likelihood of raters' comprehending that overt behavior, rather than a less visible "capacity" or internal process, was being referred to. Also, in item 32 of Feedback Interest, by replacing "Makes an effort to understand...," with "Makes an effort to try to understand...," a more apprOpriate emphasis would be placed on the process of reflection rather than the outcome of such reflection, outcome being the domain of the Insight scale. In addition to making both scales 32 easier to individually interpret and discriminate from each other, these changes would likely reduce the correlation between them as well. Anger Acknowledgement The AA scale has a coefficient alpha of .92, and is composed of two nearly identical although oppositely worded items that correlated .85. Among all GIRS scales, AA has linked most strongly (.78 Table 5) with Participation. The factor loadings of the two items on Participation were nearly identical (.74 and .77). The items are worded as "if" statements which required the rater to interpret whether the target member was inclined to address as opposed to suppress or withhold "anger“ or ”irritation” "if" these feelings arose. Instead of the somewhat awkward ”if” instruction, which requires speculation about an internal event, one might consider using more behaviorally concrete items such as ”expresses anger.” This item would likely give information about the perceived total output of anger but not about the perceived tendency to acknowledge or deny such feelings. By contrast, the wording of the two Anger Acknowledgement items captured the important volitional component central to most broad conceptual definitions of self—disclosure (Cozby, 1972). It is not clear why AA should have the strongest link with Participation amongst all GIRS scales. It does not logically or intuitively follow that willingness to express anger or irritation should depend so highly on level of participation. Because of these two scales' strong correlation, thought was given to eliminating AA. What useful information does it add? Perhaps this scale is simply, in effect, an inferior version of Participation. Does it lean toward 33 Participation because it is difficult to interpert? A future examination of interjudged reliability and construct validity will provide evidence relating to whether this scale should be retained or eliminated. It was retained because of the near identicalness (homogeneity) in content of the two items, coupled with their high intercorrelation and, importantly, the link between self-ratings of AA and scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Scale that will be discussed subsequently. Relationship Between GIRS and the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) The mean Marlowe-Crowne score for the 62 participants in this study was 13.35, with a standard deviation of 4.92. These results are consistent with normative data for college students (as reported by Evans, 1982). Only two of the eleven peer-rated scales (left column of Table 6) correlated significantly with the Marlowe-Crowne. These were, the Intimacy and Feedback Interest scales, (:fs = ~.26 and ~.29, p_< .05, respectively). Insight (~.l9) and Caring (~.18) had the next strongest links with the MCS. All peer-rated scales describing positive characteristics, except Group Investment, correlated negatively with the MCS. The significant negative correlation between Intimacy and the MCS had been predicted, but two other predicted significant linkages (Insight and Anger Acknowledgement) with the MCS did not materialize although their trends were negative as expected. No specific predictions had been made regarding linkages of the MCS and GIRS self-ratings. However, given that high MCS scores are considered to be predictive of the defensiveness and an exaggeratedly positive portrayal of self, it seems reasonable to expect to find Ta Correlations of GIRS Peer- and Self-Ratings with the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) 34 ble 6 Peer-Ratings Self-Ratings (g=6m (i=sm Participation ~.12 .05 Intimacy (S-D) ~.26** .23* Insight (S-D) ~.19 .08 Anger Acknowledgement (S-D) ~.O4 .34*** Feedback Interest ~.29** .13 Caring ~.18 .15 Hostility .06 .31** Group Investment .13 .18 Self-Effacement .03 .04 Anxiety .17 .10 Liking ~.02 N933, All tests were two-tailed. * p_< .10. ** p_< .05. *** p_< .Ol. 35 that the MCS linked positively to self-enhancing GIRS scales but negatively to non-self-enhancing GIRS scales. As shown in Table 6's right-hand column, the GIRS scales that linked most strongly with the MCS Intimacy (~.23 p < .10), Anger Acknowledgement (.34, p_< .01) and Hostility (.31, p < .05). Because high MCS scorers tend to claim positive and deny negative self-descriptions, these findings are unexpected and counterintuitive. In brief then, members with higher MCS scores seem to be perceiving themselves as more willing to express anger and irritation when they have these feelings (Anger Acknowledgement), more angry and critical toward others (Hostility), less accepting and supportive (Caring, r = ~.15 n.s.), and less willing to reveal personal information (Intimacy). By contrast, peer-ratings of Anger Acknowledgement and Hostility had little association with MCS scores, Anger Acknowledgement, ~.O4 and Hostility, .06, although peers showed a slight inclination to rate high MCS members lower on Caring (r = ~.18, n.s.). DISCUSSION The present study's main objective was to examine whether hypothetically discrete facets of self-disclosure would be discriminated by experiential group members. A contingent goal dealt with the relationship between the types of self-disclosure and a measure of defensiveness, the Marlowe—Crowne Scale. This chapter's first section discusses the results pertaining to types of self-disclosure. The next section attends to relationships between interpersonal attraction, represented by the Liking scale, and the self-disclosure scales, and also considers relevant findings from other studies. The final section will focus on GIRS self-disclosure and the Marlowe-Crowne Scale, and other investigator's findings. Final Self-Disclosure Scales Only Intimacy, Insight, and Anger Acknowledgement from the five original self-disclosure miniscales were retained, because of the homogeneity of item content, high internal consistency, and comparative distinctiveness~~in content as well as correlation~~in relation to other scales. The Immediacy and Expression of Feelings (EOF) scales were found unsatisfactory. Although their items generally correlated well with others from their group, they were not sufficiently distinct from either Participation, Intimacy, or Anger Acknowledgement (AA) scales. EOF and Immediacy tended to ”straddle” a point between the other self-disclosure scales and the Participation scale. 36 37 Because of the generality of its items, as noted earlier, it was not surprising that the EOF scale failed. The items of this scale retained to the ”expression” or ”withholding“ of unspecified "feelings,” and correlated to a fairly high, and nearly equal, degree with Participation, Intimacy, and Anger Acknowledgement. The EOF items may be described as comparatively less successful measures of these other three content domains. More surprising was the Immediacy scale's failure. Other researchers have found the Immediacy versus Intimacy distinction a useful one. Stokes, Fuehrer, and Childs (1983) defined an intimate self~disclosure as one in which the topic relates to something personal or private about self. An immediate self~disclosure was defined as one that expresses an opinion or feelings about another group member. Stokes and others found that Intimate, as compared to Immediate, disclosure bore a stronger relationship to subjects' perceptions of group cohesiveness. Their subjects viewed tapes of the two types of disclosure in different groups. The present findings, based on peers' ratings indicated that members had difficulty with the Intimacy/ Immediacy discrimination. The Immediacy scale, much like EOF, showed insufficient internal consistency as well as weak differentiation from other scales. This last point seems central. It could be argued that only two items did not adequately represent the Immediacy domain. The very high correlation between each of these items and the Participation scale, however, strongly suggests that the problem was not in item content, but in the difficulty members had in discriminating between these two types of behaviors. 38 It might have been expected that different types of self~disclosure would share significant amounts of common variance. Intimacy, Insight, and Anger Acknowledgement (AA), as rated by members, bonded moderately. Intimacy correlated .41 with Insight and .65 with AA, while Insight and AA correlated .49. When members rated themselves, the three scales were linked to a much smaller extent; Intimacy with Insight .22, Intimacy with AA ~.O4, and AA with Insight .24 (see Appendix C). Thus, when peer-ratings were considered, the three self~disclosure scales seemed held together by some common underlying variable, amount of participation. Participation connected appreciably with Intimacy (.64), Insight (.59), and Anger Acknowledgement .78 The relative prepotence of perceived amount of participation as a predictor of perceived self-disclosure was first noted by Goodstein and others (1976). Their subjects were 17 male and female undergraduates enrolled in one of two 10-hour weekend encounter groups. Members were asked to rank all group members, including self, on the amount of participation and self~disclosure shown over the course of the group. Similar to GIRS Intimacy, they defined self~disclosure as ”the revealing... of personal information...that might be regarded as private and intimate (p. 143). Goodstein found correlations of .71 and .88 between groups' ratings of participation and self~disclosure in separate groups. In the present study, the Participation/Intimacy link was .64, the two constructs here showed more independence, although this slightly lower correlation may also reflect the greater amount of time (30 vs. 10 hours) members spent together and a resultant increase in their ability to make finer behavioral discriminations. This speculation needs testing in future research. 39 Goodstein's results also supported the conclusion, initially put forward by Himelstein and Lubin (1965), that group members use a different standard of judgment when evaluating their own and others' levels of participation and self~disclosure. In the present study, the evidence for this is stronger, with self-rating correlations of .39 for Participation/Intimacy, .38 for Participation/Insight, and .62 Participation/Anger Acknowledgement (as noted above, in peer-ratings the relationships were .64, .59, and {N3,respectively). Thus, when considering others' behavior, members tended to view self~disclosure as highly contingent upon participation, whereas when rating themselves these phenomena were more differentiated. Goodstein and others also found stronger agreement between peer and self-perceptions on amount of participation (mean 3 = .955) and amount of self-disclosure (mean r_= .895), than did the present work, as the equivalent GIRS correlations were Participation = .76 and Intimacy = .69 (see Appendix D, p. 59 for self/peer intercorrelation on all GIRS scales). Members agreed with peers much less when rating Insight (.43) and Anger Acknowledgement (.46). Goodstein concluded that in future research, self-ratings of participation and self~disclosure may be used to identify those likely to be viewed by peers as high in these two behaviors. The present findings suggest a clear distinction between these phenomena. Which perspective on how much is disclosed is most "accurate,” that of group peers', the discloser's, or the "objective” observer's? Perhaps the group peers' because of their intimate involvement with each other; or the discloser, because only he or she can know what information is truly personal; or the observer because he/she is 4O purportedly less biased by the profusion of confounding factors that accompany personal involvement. Perplexingly, Goodstein and others (1976) found that both peer and self-ratings of disclosure had significant negative correlations with the ”objective” observers' rankings. Chelune (1980) suggests that ”who is ultimately right?,” is irrelevant; that self~disclosure researchers must simply recognize that the different points of view involve different-~as yet undetermined-~judgment criteria and that caution should be observed before generalizing across studies employing differing perspectives. Interpersonal Attraction and Self-Disclosure: Intimagy and Insight This section concerns relationships between GIRS self~disclosure and the ”Liking” scale. The link between self~disclosure and liking (interpersonal attraction) has been widely investigated and discussed in the literature (Cozby, 1973; Kleinke, 1979). Much of this research has centered around dyadic acquaintanceship formation; trying to determine the extent to which variables such as gender, social context, or intimacy level effect the subject's liking of the discloser and willingness to reciprocate in kind (Kleinke, 1979). Less attention has been given to the association between self~disclosure and liking in groups. Weigel and others (1972) studied the relationship between perceived self~disclosure, liking, and mental health in five sensitivity, two psychotherapy, and two 18-hour marathon groups. The self~disclosure/liking correlation coefficients in the sensitivity groups ranged from .24 to .76, averaging .52. Employing aggregated data from 12 groups, taken from Table 5, the present correlations with Liking were: Intimacy = .34; Insight = .60; and Anger Acknowledgement = .32. 41 The discrepancy of Liking's correlations with Intimacy and Insight is especially interesting when considered in combination with the latter two scales' links (Intimacy - .02; Insight = ~.53) to GIRS Anxiety. This suggests that the sharing of personal information (Intimacy) is more likely to lead to liking by the group if the member has the capacity to convey his disclosure with self-understanding (Insight) accompanied by, or more logically facilitated by, minimal Anxiety or internal turmoil. This finding adds information relevant to prior studies that have shown a curvilinear relationship between interpersonal attraction and amount or intimacy of self~disclosure (Giannandrea & Murphy, 1973; Mann and Murphy, 1975). Some “over-disclosers” may not be well liked, partly because they divulge without knowing why or for what socially productive end; perhaps illustrating a person out of touch with both himself and others. Further study clearly seems indicated. GIRS and the Marlowe-Crowne The present study used the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS) as a measure of defensiveness, or the tendency to not self-disclose. Originally, the MCS was constructed to assess the tendency to respond to self-report inventories in a socially desirable manner, i.e., presenting self in an unrealistically positive light (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Thus, the MCS has typically been employed as a check on the validity of other measures when there was some thought that ”social desirability” might act as a confounding response tendency. Evans' (1982)literature review more recently stated, ”...the MCS is itself an individual difference variable which can successfully predict numerous extra-test behaviors related to constructs such as 42 defensiveness, vulnerable self-esteem, and approval dependence” (p. 415). One might expect, of course, that defensive, approval dependent and easily threatened individuals would have little inclination to self-disclose. Indeed, researchers have consistently found high MCS scorers to be less inclined to self-disclose in self-descriptive essays, dyadic interactions in laboratory settings, and in analogue counseling sessions (Brundage, Delega, & Cash, 1977; .Burhenne & Mirels, 1970; Cravens, 1975; Itatini, 1974; Kopfstein & Kopfstein, 1973). Thus, it was predicted that GIRS self~disclosure scales would show this expected inverse relationship with the MCS. Results show that among the three self~disclosure scales, for peer-ratings, only the Intimacy scale linked negatively and significantly (~.26) to MCS; more defensive members were viewed as less disclosing. Comparing the behavior described by the Intimacy scale with that assessed by Insight and Anger Acknowledgement, it is apparent that Intimacy most nearly matches the working conceptual definitions of self-disclosure typically employed by prior researchers. These definitions emphasized the ”intimate" and ''personal" quality of the information shared and the concomitant "psychological vulnerability” engendered thereby (Jourard, 1972; Cozby, 1973; Chelune, 1979; Resnick & Amerikaner, 1978). Importantly, this Intimacy-MCS linkage provides some degree of validation that self~disclosure as presently measured by the Intimacy scale, relates to self~disclosure as measured in earlier studies. Insight's ~.19 correlation with MCS also suggests a weak secondary link to MCS measured defensiveness. Finally, among the three self~disclosure scales, the Anger Acknowledgement (AA) and MCS correlation (~ 04) was curiously small. 43 Among other possibilities, this trivial MCS/Anger Acknowledgement link may imply that; (a) the AA scale is a poor measure-~members unable to reliably judge the behavior described by the items, or (b) the interaction of situational and personality variables resulted in persons high on MCS behaving contrary to their general defensive tendency; that they were not, in fact, seen as any more inclined to withhold anger and irritation than other group members. The validity of either possibility would need to be explored in a subsequent study, although support for the second will be discussed in the "self-ratings” section of this chapter. Given the substantial (.64) correlation between the GIRS Participation and Intimacy, it was interesting that the ~.12 MCS/ Participation correlation was weaker than its ~.26 Intimacy counterpart. This adds to the earlier argument against utilizing participation as a substitute measure of self~disclosure. When members rated GIRS self-disclosure, they clearly attended to something beyond sheer amount of time spent verbalizing. Across all 11 GIRS peer-rated miniscales, Table 6 showed a general trend for descriptively ”positive" scales to be negatively correlated with the MCS and for descriptively ”negative" scales to correlate positively with the MCS. Among the scales with negative MCS correlations were: Feedback Interest (~.29), Intimacy'(~.26), Insight (~.l9), Caring (~.18), Participation (~.12),Anger Acknowledgement (~.O4), and Liking (~.02). Among the scales with positive correlations with the MCS were: Anxiety (.17), Group Attraction (.13), Hostility (.06), and Self-Effacement (.03). Thus, it appears that higher MCS scores 44 indicate not only defensiveness or an unwillingness to disclose, but also a weak general tendency toward less effective interpersonal behavior. While higher MCS scorers may be more likely to be seen by their peers as exhibiting a variety of unsavory characteristics, it is puzzling that MCS's linkage (~.02) to Liking was trivial. One possible, though here untestable, explanation for this is suggested by the paradoxical positive correlation between MCS and Group Investment. Group Investment was tied with Caring in having the highest (.69) positive correlation with Liking. This may indicate that high MCS members were not particularly disliked more because whatever irritation they caused their peers was partially mitigated by their perceived positive group attachment. While self-ratings will be more fully discussed below, it should be mentioned that these formulations are mildly supported by the finding that high MCS members also tend to rate themselves relatively high on Group Investment (r_= .18); notably, while rating themselves lower on other "socially desirable” scales. These speculations are put forward cautiously, of course, because they are based on very weak and statistcally nonsignificant correlational trends. Of the 11 peer-rated GIRS scales, Feedback Interest correlated most strongly with the MCS (~.29). This was expected, given that a desire and ability to receive and openly listen to feedback would certainly be considered, ipso facto, a nondefensive characteristic. While it seems intuitively obvious that high MCS individuals would be more rejecting of negative personality feedback, I know of only one study directly supporting this hypothesis. Thus, Mosher's (1965) subjects were given "false" negative feedback based on human figure 45 drawings. High MCS subjects, in contrast to low MCS subjects, were more accepting of positive feedback and less accepting of negative feedback. Given this work's design, which involved the subject in a relatively brief encounter with the experimenter, it remains in doubt whether the feedback rejection by high MCS subjects represented a transitory, situationally narrow reSponse, a more pervasive personality trait, or a stable interpersonal stance. The present study clarifies Mosher's findings. Whatever the complex set of psychological processes measured by the MCS that ultimately result irifeedback rejection, they were resilient enough to hold over a seven week period and to be noticeable by untrained peers. The persistence of this defensive behavior is stressed because the MCS is often explicated in terms "need for approval" or ”social desirability." From that perspective one would predict that high MCS persons would attempt to conform to perceived external expectations, or to at least act, in the present case, interested in receiving feedback. Significantly, it may be recalled that openness to feedback and willingness to self~disclosure were highly supported and encouraged among the present groups. Yet the high MCS members were rated as doing less of both. If these persons were initially intent on approval from their peers, then their more deeply entrenched conflicts and defenses and/or poor interpersonal skills appear to have undermined such efforts. Given the task to self-disclose, Cravens (1974) postulates that the high MCS person is placed in the conflict posed by this adaptive tendency to conform to external expectations, in this case to integrate feedback and to self-disclose, versus the need to defend. These results support Evans' (1982) conclusion that the MCS should be 46 viewed as measuring something far broader than a ”testing response set” and more psychologically complex than "approval motivation.” GIRS Self-Ratings and the MCS If one were to predict the relationship between GIRS self—ratings and the MCS, keeping in mind that MCS high scorers endorsed unrealistically positive self-descriptions and deny common foibles, one would expect to see positive correlations between scales with “socially desirable" content and negative correlations with those scales that are less personally enhancing. If only the significant and near significant correlations were considered, the pattern was 59;. consistently found. Significantly, high MCS members rated themselves lower on self~disclosure as measured by the Intimacy scale (5 < ~.23), p = .10), but higher on Hostility (r_= .30, p_< .01); those high in MCS were more apt to claim that they would not withhold anger or irritation. This last finding could be seen as consistent with a ”defense" or “social desirability” view of the MCS, e.g., "I would never withhold anger..” Or might it be reflective of their perception of themselves as expressing (or internally experiencing) more anger? The latter possibility seems more likely considering their high self-ratings on Hostility but low self-ratings on Caring (~.18). Interestingly, it may be recalled that peers did not tend to rate high MCS members higher on either Hostility or Anger Acknowledgement (rfs = .06 and ~.O4, respectively). A curious discrepancy in perceptions by self versus peers! Combining the above findings into a self-descriptive behavior profile, the high MCS member viewed the self as: less willing to 47 share personal information, more willing to acknowledge anger or irritation when such feelings occur, more angry or hostile in general, and showing less care for others. Despite this anger and hostility, however, the high MCS persons also reported feeling invested in the group. Comparing the above with the profile drawn by the peer-ratings, there was agreement that the high MCS member tends to reveal less personal information (Intimacy), but was seen as differing little from others in either willingness to admit anger or in expression of hostility. While the high MCS member claimed to be more willing to ask for and listen to feedback, peers strongly disagreed. Peer and self-ratings slightly concurred (r's = ~.18 and ~.15, respectively) in picturing high MCS member as exhibiting less caring despite being invested in the group slightly more than others (peer r = .13, self .r = .18). Amidst the welter of interactions and inevitable conflict within these experiential groups, one wonders how it happened that the high MCS members would come to view themselves as disinclined to reveal personal information and tending to react hostilely. As noted previously, neither outcome would have been predicted from the prior MCS literature. Perhaps these individuals were effected by the feedback they received from their peers and became able to perceive or admit to their lower level of self~disclosure. Or perhaps from the outset of the group they viewed self~disclosure as undesirable and thus engaged in less of it and so naturally rated themselves lower. It could also have occurred that friction caused by discrepant perceptions due to the high MCS member's tendency to over-rate self 48 resulted in the high MCS members feeling threatened and angry and thus rating themselves higher on Hostility. These speculations about the experience and behavior of the high MCS member could only be confirmed through replication employing a different methodology. CONCLUSION The central purpose of this exploratory study has been to determine the extent to which hypothetically distinct types of self~disclosure could be discriminated by members of interpersonal learning groups. Three (Intimacy, Insight, and Anger Acknowledgement) experimental self~disclosure scales were found to be viable. The items composing each scale showed high levels of intercorrelation as well as homogeneity, and thus interpretability, in terms of content. Intimacy appeared to best coincide with most researchers' general conceptual definitions of self~disclosure. Its items dealt with revealing of intimate or personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences. The Anger Acknowledgement scale related to the showing versus concealing negative reactions-~anger or irritation-~toward others. Insight focused on the verbal expression of self-understanding. Researchers in this field commonly write of self~disclosure as leading to greater self-understanding, and, thereby, mental health (Jourard, 1971, p. 32). While this position seems plausible and has received some empirical support, it also seems clear that a good deal of self~disclosure (in the Intimacy sense), occurring in any setting, neither expresses self—understanding nor leads to self-understanding in any immediate way. It seems useful then to differentiate between self-revelation that conveys insight, or self-understanding, from that which does not. Thus, the Insight scale might be described as relating to a subset of behavior contained within the generic category of Intimacy. 49 50 The potential fruitfulness of distinguishing between Intimacy and Insight is suggested by one finding of the present study relating to interpersonal attraction. Interpersonal attraction, here represented by the Liking scale, linked to peer-ratings of Insight more strongly than to Intimacy (rfs = .60 vs. .32). Although this makes intuitive sense, i.e., we are more drawn to people who reveal themselves in a coherent or thoughtful way than to others, researchers studying the disclosure/liking link have not examined this empirically. Additionally, one may speculate that individuals able to disclose in a manner that conveys insight, or that seems directed toward the goal of cognitive/ emotional integration of experience, would likely be perceived by peers, as well as by clinically trained raters, as exhibiting greater mental health. Thus, it might also prove fruitful for those studying the disclosure/mental health link to differentiate insight-directed disclosure from the broader domain of disclosive behavior. All three self-disclosure scales correlated substantially with GIRS Participation. Although, as pointed out by Block and others (1971, p. 596), amount of participation "would seem to bear no necessary theoretical or empirical relationship to quantity or quality of self~disclosure,” when members rate their peers this is clearly the case. This finding supported the results of Goodstein and others (1976), as did the finding that, for self-ratings, group members' participation and self~disclosure (all three types) show far greater independence. This difference clearly deserves further study. It was predicted that scores received on the self~disclosure scales would show a higher degree of association, in comparison to other nine GIRS scales, with the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (MCS), here 51 employed as a measure Of defensiveness. Of the three self~disclosure scales only Intimacy correlated significantly (~.26) with the MCS. The MCS's strongest link was with Feedback Interest (~.29). Persons scoring higher on the MCS revealed less Of themselves and were less welcoming Of feedback from their peers. Both results are consistent with Evans'(1982) recent ”defensiveness” interpretation Of the MCS. A curious and paradoxical finding was that high MCS group members later tended to rate themselves lower on Intimacy and higher on Hostility than did low MCS members. As earlier discussed more fully, the Opposite result had been predicted. One possible interpretation Of this finding is that the high MCS members' distortedly positive view Of themselves was shaken and perhaps changed by receiving feedback from the group. This would account for the lower Intimacy self-ratings. The higher Hostility self-ratings are more difficult to explain given the low MCS and peer-rated Hostility correlation (.06). One could speculate that the group's challenge to their more distorted self-perceptions resulted in these members internally experiencing greater hostility and perceiving (and rating) their own behavior as more hostile. Hypotheses about the possible reasons for the behavior and self-perceptions Of the high MCS members could only be tested through replication employing a different experimental design. For instance, if the GIRS were administered after the first and seventh week Of the term, then one would be better able to factor out the effects attributable to group membership. Also Of interest would be information about the degree to which the MCS relates to discrepancies between self and peer-ratings. One would, Of course, predict a positive 52 correlation between the magnitude Of discrepancy and higher MCS scores. But in relation to which interpersonal behaviors would they show the most distortion in self-perception? How might these discrepancies change from the first to seventh week Of the group? These are questions which will need to be addressed in future research. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Group Interpersonal Rating Scales 53 For each statement below choose the number which indicates how well the statement characterizes the behavior of the person being rated as you have perceived their behavior in your group thus far. Your choices are 1) Almost Never Characteristic. 2) Ogly Occasionally Characteristic, 3) Sometimes Characteristic, 4T4Often Characteristic. and 5) Almost Always Characteristic. Please do not skip any statementET’ Almost Never Only Occasionally Sometimes Often Almost Always Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 4 5 l. Participates actively in the group. 2. Expresses feelings Of liking for, or attraction to, others. 3. Counmnicates a clear or insightful understanding of self--knows self well. 4. Apologetic about own behavior. 5. Communicates directly to others'feelings and perceptions about them. 6. Appears to take the group seriously. 7. When participating, expresses Opinions and ideas instead of feelings. 8. Discloses intimate or personal thoughts, feelings, or experiences. 9. Seems tense or anxious in the group. 10. Seems critical or disapproving of others, in either subtle or obvious ways. 11. Will take risk of bringing up issues or feelings that others might respond to with either hurt, anger, or anxious silence. 12. Becomes uncomfortable when the group focus is on self. 13. Seems to keep a tight lid on feelings~~actively holds them back. 14. If angry, would Egg let others know about it until later~~if at all. 15. Offers others emotional support and acceptance. 16. Does not show sufficient concern for others' feelings when giving feedback or sharing perceptions. 1?. Either argues about, ignores, or explains away feedback from others. 18. Is empathic~~seems able to deeply understand others' feelings and ideas. 19. Is self-disclosing in the group. 20. Sits quietly, participates little. 21. Seems enthusiastic about the group. 22. Seems to be self~accepting~~does not put self down. 23. Reveals personal feelings or thoughts that are uncomfortable or anxiety producing to talk about. 24. Seems unable to get in touch with own inner feelings or experience. 54 Almost Never Only Occasionally Sometimes Often Almost Always Characteristic Characteristic Characgeristic Characzeristic Characgeristic 25. Expresses dissatisfaction about how the group is going. 26. Seems relaxed in the group. 27. Tries to help others clarify their feelings and ideas. 28. When expressing positive feelings toward others. does so in ways that seem legs than fully genuine. 29. Expresses dissatisfaction with quantity or quality of own participation. 30. Shows an insightful understanding of the reasons behind own feelings toward others. 31. Seems eager to be agreeable. or say things that will please others. 32. Makes an effort tO understand how own behavior affects or is experienced by others. 33. Seems uninvolved or uninterested in the group. 34. Brings up personal issues or feelings that would probably be difficult for most other members to bring up themselves. 35. I: feeling hurt or vulnerable, would soon let Others know. 36. Reacts angrily. 37. ‘I: feeling irritated with someone, would 5992 let that person know. 38. Acts as though own contributions to the group are unimportant or irrelevant. 39. Expresses an interest in hearing perceptions about, or reactions to, own ways of interacting in the group. 40. Tries to hide or cover-up own feelings. 41. Takes initiative to start interactions. 42. Shows ability to express a wide range Of feelings. 43. Acts nervous or edgy in the group. 44. Acts as though only positive feelings should be expressed in the group. 45. Is assertive or dominant in the group. 46. Expresses caring and concern. Your personal reaction toward, and relationship with, this person. (Statements (You may skjpgthis section when you are rating yourself.)i 47-50) 47. I like this person. 48. This person seems to like me. 49. I have found this person difficult or annoying to be with. 50. I see myself as being similar to this person. APPENDIX B Marlowe-Crowne Scale (Intermixed with a short form of Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale) MCS items have been circled -1-1-l —1-1-t-1 «@««-@~ «wmwoeemeemwm —J .—J —J u 55 Name Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. Encircle T or F in left margin. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. I never hesitate to go out Of my way to help someone in trouble. I work under a great deal of tension. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. I have never intensely disliked anyone. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. I am happy most Of the time. I am always careful about my manner of dress. 2. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. PPQNGWOWNd 3. I certainly feel useless at times. <:) 14. If I could get into a movie without paying for it and be sure that I was not seen, I probably would do it. 5. I frequently find myself worrying about something. 6. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair. (:) 17. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought tOO little of my ability. <:) 18. I like to gossip at times. 9. I believe I am no more nervous than most others. F 20. Life is a strain for me much of the time. (:> 21. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority NNNNNN even though I know they were right. 2. I am usually calm and not easily upset. 3. NO matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. 4. I can remember “playing sick“ to get out of something. 5. I am more sensitive than most other people. 6. There have been occasions when I took advantage Of someone. 7. I cannot keep my mind on one thing. 8. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. 9. I feel anxiety about something or somebody almost all the time. .m...® ..@..6 «o o~o~+e «MC-39M @~@ - owe” or M.-. Q 56 I always try to practice what I preach. I am inclined to take things hard. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. I am not unusually self-conscious. When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it. I am always courteous, even to peOple who are disagreeable. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. At times I think I am no good at all. I never resent being asked to return a favor. I am a high-strung person. I have never been irked when peOple expressed ideas very different from my own. I never take a long trip without checking the safety Of my car. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of Others. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone Off. I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. I never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. APPENDIX C Correlation Matrix Of Self-Ratings Based on the Total of 58 Completed Forms and Correlation Matrix Of Peer-Ratings Based on the 58 Members Who Completed the Self-Ratings 57 .mm:_umcucmma :0 women m_ mpmom mcwxwg «k .mpmom mcamopumwuuc_mm r .UQHHwEO mpwEwumU _.—< + mm- mm. we mm- mm om mm N_ mo Pm emetxts mm- _m m_- we em- m_- mm. mm- e_ mm- seetxe< mm- Pm .N- e. mm- 00. mm- _N- 0. ON. beeeeeeeew-e_am we m_- _N- N_- am am _N ac- _o mm Seagume>ee aeeto mm- m_ e_ N_- Na. __- mm N_- No e_ sbw_wpme= mm em- mm- am me. o_ Ne. w_ _o m_ esteem ON a.. me. am __- o_ mm am A. mm “meteue_ xeeeeeea mm mm. mm- _N am No- mm em ea. 04 .beeEemeepzeexea teae< A_ mm- .m. so- N_- a, AN em NN 4N eeem_mec mo e_ o_ _o No Lo 4_ 40. mm _m rseeewSeH .N mm- om- mm e_ we mm 04 em _m eetuee_e_eeea .44 xe< mm Hg me: Leo ma << meH pee tea Amm ".mv mm:_umm-$_mm co ummmm mm_mom mmHo :mmZHmm meowum_mccou Flu mpnmp 58 .mmcwpmcicmma ecu -CFOm :gon mew: mews“ segz toe mcmnams mm «r .OPmom mczmopomwcrw_mm r 0e- w_- me oe- we om mm mm AN mm octets 04. am mm. mm mm- mm- AP- _m- mo em- seetxea m_- am NO. ON. we. go mm- ee- mo mm- Seeeeeeecm-epem me am. No- NN- mm Ac om mm me am beespme>eH agate oe- mm om- mm- am. am. me __- mm mm sp___bmez am am. me. mm am. am mo _m mm mm meteeo om mm- co Ne em- mm _m an we as ameeeoec xeeeeeea mm e_- mm- mm me mo _m we we we rueeeemee_zeexe< eeaea mm _m- ea- mm .F- Pm am me am am rbemtmec AN mo mo ea mm mm we me mm mm ezeee_pee mm mm. mm- am am mm 44 me am mm eetueewewotea S xe< mm Hg me: tag me << wee bee tea rrmmcwummicmma muwmoasou mm :o commm mmpaom mmHo commem meowumchcou N10 anMH APPENDIX D Matrix Of Correlations Between Self-Ratings and Peer-Ratings (Redundant entries have been eliminated) .cmoacwaw_m coma m>mg chums cw mm_o:me::cmm rt .mm—mom mesmOFOmwnrmpmm r 59 we /// ea mm- eo mm- .m. _N- me- we mm- suetxe< em /ee,////e_- FF m_- op- o_- mm- 40 _N- Heeeeeeccm-t_em m _N- m_ N©.////e_- mm mm m. AN _N am pe¢Eemt>eH anate m AN __ e_- mm,////_e- .m- m_ mm- N_ as se___pme: w em- __- mm mm- me,////Nm _o- am we A_ mettau m m_- me. am No- N_ mm,////em mm o_ m_ emeeeuee xeeeeeea a om- om- om mm o_- mo ee/////mm mo mm roeeEeaeePzee¥e< eeme< H mm ON- No we mo o, mm me ////wm em eeem_meH m m_ e_ em __ e_ we mm __ o©,////wm exeeewpeH mm. mm- _m m_ ON 04 mm mm mm 84 cowbeeeewueee xe< mm Hg mo: Leo ma << meH pee tee mezHe_uomm= ouocov mononucm+oo + .o—aum «came—umou1epmm e No.N om.o oN. oN. No.o .o. o.. oN. oo.. oo. mo. oo. oo. o.. o.. . yum .. No. NoN .oo .No.o .No.. .oooo .oo.o .ooo. .ooo. .Nmo. .oooo oeoEeoo.co-c.om o oN.. NoN ooo .oNoo .om.. moo .ooN. .moo. .NNo. .oo.o .Nn.. .oo.xe< No.o mo.o oN. ... No.N oN. oo. no. oo.N on. oo. oo. oo. oN. o.. » ouo o oo.. .oo ooo oom oom moo om. N.N N.N NNo moo sooe.oe.. N oo.. .No.. .oNov oom oNo ooN N.N ooo om. moo moo goo Leooo. m oN.N .No.. .om.. ooo o.o ooo o.o oo. NoN oo. ooo eo.ooe.o.otoe oo... .o.. .N. o.. No.N oN. o.. oo.. o..o oo. MN.. no.. no.. oo.. oo.. . NHN o. N... .ooov moo moo ooN ooo .N.ov .ooov .ooo. .oo.o..oomv owe: . om.N .oo.v .ooN. om. N.N o.o .N.oo ooo oNN oom ooN ooo.oo.. o oo.. .ooo. .moo. N.N ooo oo. .oooo omm ooo ooN on oe. .ooooooa N oN.N .ooov .mNov N.N om. NoN .ooo. oNN ooo NNo omm so. aoeto o mooN .Noov .oo.v o.o moo oo. .oo.. oom ooN oNo o.o oe.x.. o No.. .ooov .Nm.v moo moo ooo +.ooov ooN on oom o.o oe.too MN mm xc< au:_ e<< Lea mo: amc_ mm .o 4 Lou xcom .woo» u couood m Louuom < Logos; F1m m—nmh .oo u my .Nu. eo.ooe.eteoeo to oooo.o.ccooo oo.z woo.ooo-tooa mo.o ooo co otooooa auto. 6Z3 .mco—uo_oommo m>vuomoc muocou mummzucocoa + .opoum atone—umvuru—mm « oo.o o.. o.. o..o .o. .o. oo. oo. .o.o No. oo. oo. o.. . Nto o oo. .oN.o ooo .o.o. ooo oNo .N.ov .o.o. oNo Noo ooo: o oo. .o..v ooo oNo ooo Nmo o.o Nmo ooo .om.v oe.too .o.. oN.o oo. ... oo.o o.. N.. .N. oo. oo.o .N. N.. NN. oN. a mm. o. .N. moo ooo ooo ooo .Noo. ooo oNo ooo o.o oNo .ooe.oo.. N om. o.o o.o ooo ooo MN. ooo .Noov .ooov .N.oo so. eooto o oo. ooo ooo .Noo. ooo oo. moo ooo .NN.. .oo.. ooo Looeo. N o.. oNo Nmo ooo NN. oo. moo ooo .ooo. .oo.o eo.ooo.o.oeoa NN.N .m.o oo. NN. oo.o ... N.. on. .N. oo.. N.. NN. .o. oo. « Nuo o mm. .N.ov o.o oNo ooo moo moo oNo .oooo .omov oo. oooooeoa o mo. .o.o. Nmo ooo .Nooo ooo ooo o.o .ooo.+.No.. ooo.oe.. ..o .o. oNo moo o.o .ooo. .NN.V .ooo. .ooo. .ooo. ooN oooEooocoo-c.om .. oo. Nmo .oo.o oNo .N.o. .om.v .oo.v .omov..No.. ooN Noe.xo< MN mo: Lou «ac. .0 a<< com me ems. um xc< xcom .mHo» .u Louooo Fm couuoo P< Louoau Amm u mum ..o .Nuv co.uoc.=:ouoo Lo «acupu_eeo0u no.2 monouo¢-»_mm on“ we mcouuom omczh Nun mPOoP 64 loaded most strongly on factor A. This seems reasonable given that Insight contains an item relating to the "insightful understanding Of the reasons behind own feelings toward Others.” Affiliativeness or caring (versus hostility) toward others appears to undergird factor A. Factor B's three scales include Participation, Anger Acknowledgement, and Intimacy; two Of the three self~disclosure scales. Anger Acknowledgement may be termed the reference scale given that it accounted for about 37% of 8's total variance (.962), albeit, only slightly more than Participation (.926). Factor 8 appears to tap a unipolar dimension related tO self-assertion and risk-taking. Unipolar factor C contains two scales, Anxiety and Self-Effacement, that consistently link negatively with all other measures except Hostility. The underlying dimension seems aptly summed-up by the phrase ”projection Of negative self-concept." Elementary Factor Analysis Performed on Self-Ratings Using the same method with the self-ratings, except for exclusion Of the Liking measure, three factors were again identified. These self-based correlations were generally markedly lower than those derived from peer-ratings, however, and clustered quite differently. Thus, the average correlation among Table F~1's peer-ratings, excluding the Liking scale, was :,45 versus :,25 for the comparable correlation among Table E-2's self-ratings. Factor A' contained four scales in a bipolar arrangement, Anxiety and Self-Effacement versus Insight and Feedback Interest. Anxiety accounted for the largest portion (.40) Of A"s variance. 65 Unipolar and weakly interlinked, factor B' was comprised of four scales including Participation, Anger Acknowledgement, Group Investment, and Intimacy. Thus, in the self-ratings, Group Investment is linked with those scales tapping the dimension of risk-taking and self-assertion. Participation accounted for the largest portion (.38) of B"s variance. Bipolar factor c' contained only Caring versus Hostility. Thus when rating themselves, group members did not link Group Investment, Intimacy, and Insight so closely with Caring versus Hostility as they did for peer-ratings. In contrasting self-ratings with peer-ratings, one striking difference was the generally weaker associational links between nearly all self-ratings scales. When evaluating their own behavior, members viewed these behaviors as much more independent Of each other, than when evaluating others. Another interesting difference appears in the relative strength Of various scales in the degree to which they account for the variance across the entire GIRS. The far right column of Tables F~l and F~2 show the rankings for sums Of variance for each scale. When peer rankings are considered the five highest sums were: Insight (2.34), Group Investment (2.24), Participation (2.24), Liking (2.03), and Feedback Interest (1.98). For the self-ratings, by comparison, the highest five were: Anxiety (.84), Participation (.70), Anger Acknow- ledgement (.64), Self-Effacement (.61), and Insight (.43). Perhaps the most notable shift is that Anxiety and Self-Effacement moved from ranks 9 and 11 for peer-rankings to ranks Of 1 and 4 for self-rankings. Apparently from a phenomenological, internal experience perspective, 66 the relative sense of personal confidence, Competence, and self-esteem plays an important role in how one behaves, or at least in the behavior one attributes to oneself. The greater independence Of Anxiety and Self-Effacement from the other scales in the peer-ratings may be attributable to difficulties in accurately assessing another persons' self-esteem. REFERENCES REFERENCES Altman, I., & Taylor, D.A. (1973). Social penetration: The development Of interpersonal relationshipg, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Anchor, K.N., Vojtisek, J.E., & Berger, S.E. (1972). Social desirability as a predictor Of self~disclosure in groups. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 262-264. Bednar, R.L., & Kaul, T.J. (1978). Experiental group research: Current perspectives. In S.L. Garfield 8 A.E. Bugen (Eds.), Handbook Of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bendig, A.W. (1956). The development Ofiashort form Of the manifest anxiety scale. Journal Of Consulting Psychology, 29, 384. Block, E.L., & Goodstein, L.D. (1971). Comment on influence Of an interviewer's disclosure on self-disclosing behavior Of interviewees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18(6), 595-597. Brundage, L.E., Derlega, V.J., & Cash, T.F. (1977). The effects Of physical attractiveness and need for approval on self~disclosure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 63-66. Burhenne, 0., & Mirels, M. (1970). Self-disclosure in self-descriptive essays. Journal of Consulting_and Clinical Psychology, 3g, 409-413. Chelune, G.J. (1975). Self-disclosure: An elaboration Of its basic dimensions. Psycholpgjcal Reports, 36, 79-85. Chelune, G.J. (1978). Nature and assessment Of self-disclosing behavior. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychology assessment (Vol. 4). San Francisco: Jossey~Bass. Chelune, G.J. (Ed.). (1979). Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications Of Openness in interpersonal relationship§, San Francisco: Jossey~Bass. Chelune, G.J. (1981). Multidimensional analysis Of observers' perceptions Of self-disclosing behavior. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 599-606. 67 68 Cozby, P.C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 33, 73-91. Cravens, R.W. (1975). The need for approval and the private versus public disclosure Of self. Journal Of Personality, 33(3), 503-514. Crowne, D.P. (1979). The experimental study_pf personality. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D.A. (1960). A new scale Of social desirability independent Of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 33, 340-354. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley. Derlega, V.J., & Chaikin, A.L. (1975). Sharing intimacy, NJ: Prentice Hall. Doster, J.A. (1975). Individual differences affecting interviewee expectancies and perception Of disclosure. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 33, 192-198. Doster, J.A., & Strickland, B.R. (1971). Disclosing Of verbal material as a function Of information requested, information about the interviewer, and interviewed differences. Journal Of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(2), 187-194. Egan, G. (1970). Encounter: Group processes for interpersonal growth. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Egan, G. (1976). Interpersonal living; A skills/construct gpproach to human relations training in groups. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Fromm, E. (1955). The sane societ . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Evans, R.G., (1982). Clinical relevance Of the Marlowe-Crowne Scales: A review and recommendations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 33(4), 415-425. Gerbing, D.W., & Hunter, J.E. (1980). The return to multiple grpups: Analysis and critique of confirmatory factor analysis with LISREL. Paper submitted for publication. Goodstein, L.D., Goldstein, J.J., D'Orta, & Goodman, M.A. (1976). Measurement Of self-disclosure in encounter groups: A methodological study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 142-146. 69 Goodstein, L.D., & Russell, S.W. (1977). Self-disclosure: A comparative study of reports by self and others. Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, 33, 365-369. Hunter, J.E. (1977). Cluster analysis: Reliability, construct validity, and the multiple indicators approach to measurement. Paper presented at a workshop titled ”Advanced Statistics“ given at the U.S. Civil Commission on March 21. Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., Cohen, S.H., & Nicol, T. (1980). PACKAGE 1980: A system Of fortran routines for the analysis Of correlational data. User's manual prepared by Academic Computing Services, Baylor University, Waco, Texas. (Manual and program available from the second author.) Hurley, J.R. (1976). Two prepotent interpersonal dimensions and the effects Of trainers on T groups. Small Group Behavior, 3, 77-98. Itatani, R.M. (1974). A critical test Of the dominant motive of high need approval persons. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 2433B. Jourard, S.M. (1959). Self-disclosure and other cathexis. Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33, 428-431. Jourard, S.M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Jourard, S.M. (1971). The transparent self (rev. ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jourard, S.M., & Resnick, J.L. (1970). The effects Of high revealing subjects on the self-disclosure Of low-revealing subjects. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 19, 84-93. Kopfstein, J.H., & Kopfstein, D. (1973). Correlates Of self-disclosure in college students. Journal Of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 163. ljeberman, M.A.,Yalom, I.D., & Miles. M.B. (1973). Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books. Mosher, D.L. (1975). Approval motive and acceptance Of "fake” personality interpretations which differ in favorability. Psychological Reports, 33, 395-402. Mowerer, O.H. (1961). The crisis in psychiatry and religion. New York: Van Nostrand. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming gyperson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 7O Rogers, J.M. (1960). Operant conditioning in a quasi-therapy setting. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39, 247-252. Smith, P.B. (1980). Group processes and personal change. London: Harper & Row. Strickland, B.R. (1977). Approval motivation. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variable in social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. . Strickland, B.R., & Crowne, D.P. (1963). Need for approval and the premature termination Of psychotherapy. Journal Of Consulting Psychology, 33, 95-101. Stokes, J., Fuehrer, A., & Childs, L. (1980). The relation Of group members' self-disclosure togperceived cohesion. Paper presented at the meeting Of the American Psychological Association. Stokes, J., Fuehrer, A., & Childs, L. (1983). Group members' self-disclosure: Relation to perceived cohesion. Small Group Behavior, 13(1), 63-76. Truax, C.B., & Carkhuff, R.R. (1965). Client and therapist transparency in the psychotherapeutic encounter. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13, 3-9. Weigel, R.G., Dinges, N., Dyer, R., & Straumfjord, A.A. (1972). Perceived self-disclosure, mental health, and who is liked in group treatment. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 13(1), 42-51. Yalom, 1.0. (1975). The theory and practice Of group psychotherapy, New York: Basic Books. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES IllW111111111IIINIWIHIII111111111"Willi“il 31293106684479