The Effects of Personality Traits on General Disclosiveness

Aaron D. Johnson

Thesis submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Arts in Communication Studies

James C. McCroskey, Ed.D., Chair Matthew M. Martin, Ph.D. Robert A. Barraclough, Ed.D.

Department of Communication Studies

Morgantown, West Virginia 2001

Keywords: Disclosiveness, Communibiology, and Temperament.

ABSTRACT The Effects of Personality on General Disclosiveness Aaron D. Johnson The purpose of this study was to examine the potential relationship between an individuals temperament and her/his general disclosiveness. This study utilized Eysencks model of temperament and the Five Factor model of personality to predict an individuals level of general disclosiveness and the sub-components of disclosiveness. The results indicated that both models were relatively equal predictors of general disclosiveness. Both models were moderately strong predictors of the valence and honesty dimensions of an individuals disclosiveness. A moderately strong negative correlation between neuroticism and the valence dimension of disclosiveness was established. Finally, psychoticism and three factors (openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) of the Five Factor model were not found to predict the exact same levels of an individuals disclosiveness.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following individuals. Dr. James C. McCroskey for patiently working with me. Dr. Matthew M. Martin and Dr. Robert A. Barraclough for keeping me on my toes and serving time on my committee. I appreciate the help that all of you have given me. I would also like to thank my parents, sister, and brother-in-law for continually encouraging and supporting me.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General Disclosiveness Eysencks Model of Temperament Five Factor Model of Personality Hypotheses and Research Questions CHAPTER 2 METHODS Participants Procedure Instruments CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Hypotheses Research Questions CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION REFERENCES TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE 6 TABLE 7 TABLE 8 APPENDIX ii
iii

14

17

22

28 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

1 Chapter 1 The Effects of Personality Traits on Self-Disclosiveness According to Wigley (1995) the knowledge of traits might help one to understand the behaviors of individuals interacting with the persons who own the traits (p. 350). A more generalized knowledge of human communication may potentially be revealed through the study of biological origins (Horvath, 1998). Phillips and Matheny (1997) stated, individual differences in responding to specific situations, usually assumed to be environmental effects, are influenced by genetic factors (p. 135). According to Eysenck (1986) the evidence from many different investigators in the genetics of personality is quite clear-cut; genetic factors are more important than environmental factors (p. 16). Working from these ideas and more, Beatty and McCroskey (1997) introduced the Communibiological Model. So far, most research conducted under this model appears to have focused on examining the traits of communication apprehension (Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998; Neuliep, Chadouir, McCroskey, & Heisel, 2000) and verbal aggressiveness (Valencic, Beatty, Rudd, Dobos, & Heisel, 1998). However, the construct of general disclosiveness appears to be untouched by researchers using the Communibiological Model. Evidence for a temperamental trait perspective of human communication can be found in twin studies (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Horvath, 1998; Phillips & Matheny, 1997). According to Buss and Plomin (1984) emotionality, activity level, and sociability are stable enduring traits of an inherited genetic component. Buss and Plomin divided emotionality into expressions, feelings, and arousal; but focused on how an individuals state of emotional arousal differs from her/his baseline arousal. Emotionality appears to

2 be related to Eysencks concept of neuroticism (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Sociability is a component of extroversion (Eysenck, 1986; Buss & Plomin, 1984; Weaver, 1998). According to Buss and Plomin sociability is the tendency to prefer the presence of others to being alone (p. 63). Intrinsic rewards of social interaction (sociability) include: presence, attention, shared activities, responsivity, and stimulation. Horvath (1995) examined the biological origins of communicator style using a twin design. She found that genetics accounts for about 74% of the variance in sociability and 78% of the variance for the open subscale of communicator style. From these results, one could speculate that an individuals level of general disclosiveness is genetically derived. In order for an individual to communicate in a disclosive manner, he/she must be somewhat open. In order for an individual to be open and disclosive, the individual must first initiate communication. According to McCroskey and Richmond (1998) the WTC [willingness to communicate] trait is an individuals predisposition to initiate communication with others (p. 120). Some individuals believe that human communication centers on the willingness to communicate trait (McCroskey & Richmond, 1998). Wigley (1995) examined the relationship between an individuals willingness to communicate and her/his general disclosiveness and found a moderate positive relationship. An established moderate relationship indicates that willingness to communicate and general disclosiveness are two separate constructs. A measure of ones general disclosiveness would very likely fail to account for the amount of phatic communication occurring during an interaction. General disclosiveness appears as though it may be more of a second order factor to the willingness to communicate

3 construct. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential relationship between ones temperament and ones general disclosiveness. General Disclosiveness In order for dyadic parties to build on an initial interaction, they either must reveal or expose components of each of their selves to one another through self-disclosure. According to Wheeless and Grotz (1976) a self-disclosure is any message about the self that a person communicates to another (p. 338). Wheeless and Grotz (1976) stated that the perception of the self-disclosive messages by the individuals influence the degree of self-disclosure taking place. The amount of self-disclosure in which any individual engages may be dependent upon the individuals predisposition to disclose or the environment in which the interaction takes place. According to Wheeless (1978) selfdisclosure can be conceptualized at two levels: as a general disclosiveness or openness to other people (Wheeless, 1976) or as a communication phenomenon occurring between specific individuals (Wheeless, 1978; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). The former refers to an individuals trait whereas the latter refers to a culturally bound communication episode. Situational self-disclosure has been previously researched with a variety of variables such as interpersonal solidarity (Wheeless, 1976; 1978), interpersonal trust (Wheeless & Grotz, 1977; Wheeless, 1978), perceived understanding (Martin, Anderson, & Mottet, 1999), interpersonal motives (Martin & Anderson, 1995), and communication apprehension (Wheeless, Nesser, & McCroskey, 1986). However, trait disclosiveness has not been researched as frequently. Wheeless et al. (1986) examined the relationship between general disclosiveness and communication apprehension and found a negative relationship between these variables. Wigley (1995) explored the relationship between

4 an individuals general disclosiveness and her/his likelihood of being selected as a member of a jury panel. Wigley (1995) found that individuals reporting high amounts of disclosiveness are more likely to be selected as members of a jury. Also, empanelled jurors seemed to be predisposed to report more positive disclosiveness than unselected potential jurors (Wigley, 1995). Research on both situation-based disclosures and trait disclosiveness, has used a multi-dimensional scale to assess the construct. According to Wheeless and Grotz (1976) the construct of self-disclosure is composed of five sub-dimensions: amount of disclosure, intended disclosure, valence of disclosure, control of depth of disclosure, and honesty-accuracy of disclosure. Some of these dimensions were derived from other researchers (Altman & Taylor, 1983). For example, Altman and Taylor (1983) described breadth in terms the number of categories revealed and also the time individuals spent interacting. Wheeless and Grotz (1976) used this description of breadth to develop their self-disclosive sub-dimension of amount of disclosure. According to Wheeless and Grotz the amount of disclosure is concerned with both the frequency and the duration of the disclosive messages or message units (p. 338). The sub-dimension of intent deals with an individuals conscious decision and willingness to reveal information about her/him self. The valence sub-dimension of self-disclosure is the level of positive or negative information disclosed, as it is perceived by either participant involved in the interaction. According to Wheeless and Grotz the control of depth sub-dimension of self-disclosure is a function of the self-perceived intimacy of the information topic revealed (p. 338). The fifth and final sub-dimension of self-disclosure, ones honesty-accuracy of

5 disclosure, is concerned with the individuals precision of her/his self-perceptions and her/his subsequent ability to verbalize those perceptions in a sincere manner. Eysencks Model of Temperament A large portion of the Communibiological Model is based on the work of Hans Eysenck (Beatty et al., 1998). Eysenck devised a model of temperament that is primarily based on individuals physiological differences. Although Eysenck (1967) considered learned habits to be important, he believed personality differences to be primarily governed by ones genetic heritage. Ones tools to interpret and react upon his/her environment are genetically limited. The interpretation of any stimuli seems to involve some type of physiological arousal. The level of physiological arousal that is stimulated is limited to ones genetically based physiological thresholds. According to Eysenck (1967) an individuals behaviors are limited to the interpretation of the stimuli by which he/she is physiological aroused. Individuals that are easily aroused, have relatively weak physiological thresholds, whereas those individuals who are not very easily aroused tend to have strong physiological thresholds. Eysenck (1967) found three dimensions of an individuals temperament based on the arousal level sensed through ones physiological thresholds. These dimensions are neuroticism, extroversion-introversion, and psychoticism. These dimensions have demonstrated consistency over time and generalizability across cultures (Eysenck, 1986). According to Eysenck (1986) these dimensions represent general ways in which people interact. These dimensions might be seen as the primary influences on communication (Weaver, 1998) and thus are very relevant to interpersonal communication theory (Beatty et al., 1998).

6 Neuroticism is ones level of emotional stability (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). An individual who is highly neurotic tends to be more susceptible to emotional instabilities and nervous behaviors. According to Eysenck (1967) some people have a nervous system that is more responsive to stimuli. Lower physiological thresholds lead to an increase in sensation to various stimuli. A highly responsive nervous system is more sensitive to various stimuli due to these low physiological thresholds. An increased level of physiological responsiveness will influence ones emotional and behavioral reaction to a perceived stressor. An individual high in neuroticism might attempt to avoid stimulating social situations in order to maintain some level of comfort. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) there is a negative relationship between social intimacy and neuroticism. One might suspect that an individual high in neuroticism would be socially apprehensive. Neuliep et al. (2000) found a positive relationship between neuroticism and communication apprehension (a fear or anxiety associated with a real or anticipated communication episode with another). The primary physiological link to anxiety (neuroticism) appears to be the behavioral inhibition system (Strelau, 1983). According to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the behavioral inhibition system plays a role in avoidance behavior. An overactive behavioral inhibition system tends to cause an individual to be anxiety prone (Beatty et al., 1998; Valencic et al., 1998). According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) since neurotic people possess a labile and overactive autonomic nervous system, they are susceptible to fear and anxiety (p. 315). The dimension of extroversion is concerned with ones drive to seek sensation (Eysenck, 1986). An introverted person is one who is considered to be shy or quiet,

7 whereas an extroverted person is one who is considered to be very out-going. According to Eysenck (1967) an individuals level of extroversion is based on that individuals brain attempting to balance her/his inhibition and excitation. Excitation is the brain waking itself up to its environment or becoming very sensitive and alert. Inhibition is the brain calming itself down or relaxing its senses to the stimulation of its environment. According to Eysenck (1967) a highly extroverted individual has a strong inhibition towards sensing information from his/her environment, whereas a highly introverted individual has a weak inhibition towards sensing information from his/her environment. A highly extroverted persons inhibition is due to a low level of sensitivity to stimuli stemming from his/her high physiological thresholds. Therefore, an extroverted person is outgoing (seeks sensation) in order to maintain a balanced level of excitation in his/her brain. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) extroverts may seek out personal contacts in order to prevent the level of arousal from becoming too low (p. 313). A highly introverted person is extremely sensitive to stimuli because of his/her low physiological thresholds. Therefore, in order for an introvert to maintain a balanced level of excitation in his/her brain, he/she will very likely shy away from stimuli. According to Eysenck (1986) an extroverted individual is very likely to be sociable, active, assertive, and lively. An introverted individual would display behaviors that oppose these descriptions. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) introverts will show a greater tendency than extroverts to reduce interpersonal intimacy (p. 314). Neuliep et al. (2000) found a negative relationship between extroversion and communication apprehension. Extroverts tend to demonstrate more immediacy nonverbally than introverts (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). The primary physiological link

8 to the extroversion-introversion dimension appears to be the level of cortical arousal. Eysenck and Eysenck stated that extroverts have chronically lower levels of cortical arousal than introverts. Cortical arousal levels appear to be manipulated by the behavioral approach system. According to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the behavioral approach system serves to energize goal-directed behaviorto acquiring rewards orto reduce or avert punishment (p. 98). A concept previously mentioned is that of sensation seeking. The concept of sensation seeking was designed to assess individual differences in response to sensory deprivation (Zuckerman, 1985). According to Zuckerman (1985) sensation seeking has something to do with the biological trait of arousability in response to stimuli of moderate to high intensities (p. 103). An individuals level of sensation seeking may be related to the individuals level of extroversion. Zuckerman reported a significant positive correlation between extroversion and sensation seeking. Perhaps these two constructs share similar biological bases. An individuals level of cortical arousal is related to her/his level of sensation seeking. The third dimension is psychoticism. Psychoticism is the ability for individuals to think, feel, and reason in the realities of their everyday world. According to Eysenck (1967) a person who is high in psychoticism is more likely to exhibit reckless behavior, disregard common sense, and/or inappropriately express him/her self emotionally. A person who is high in psychoticism is not necessarily a psychotic. Instead, this person is just more susceptible to certain behaviors deemed to be psychotic given certain stimuli. An individual who is high in psychoticism may lack empathy, be very egocentric, and

9 may act very impulsively, whereas an individual low in psychoticism is more likely to behave in a very moral manner (Eysenck, 1986). Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that those who engage in antisocial behavior, especially criminals, tend to score high in psychoticism. According to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the antisocial orientation of psychoticism should spark interest in many communication scholars. Valencic et al. (1998) found a positive relationship between verbal aggressiveness and psychoticism. The primary physiological link to psychoticism appears to be the fight or flight system (Valencic et al., 1998). According to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the fight or flight system is the neurobiological basis of active avoidance and aggression. Five Factor Model of Personality Not all researchers feel as though Eysencks Model of Temperament is the best model to utilize when exploring the interaction of personality traits and communication traits. Some people feel the current knowledge of the biological mechanisms of the brain is still quite primitive (McCrae & John, 1992). According to McCrae and John (1992) the five-factor model is more appealing than other models because overall, it is more comprehensive. A problem with Eysencks model is that it collapses agreeableness and conscientiousness in its conceptualization of psychoticism. Without the examination of all five factors the most relevant traits may be overlooked (McCrae & John, 1992). McCrae and Costa (1989) believed that this model is useful for the exploration of interpersonal behavior. A broad definition of interpersonal behavior might include social interaction or communication. McCrae and John (1992) suggest the use of this model to clarify or examine issues in fields related to psychology. According to McCrae and John

10 (1992) anywhere personality assessment has been employed may benefit from a consideration of the five-factor model (p. 206). Some communication scholars have examined the personalitys influence on communication. The Five-Factor Model of Personality contains five traits: extroversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (McAdams, 1992; McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1989; McCrae & John, 1992; Miller, 1990). The traits of extroversion and neuroticism were adapted from other personality scholars like Eysenck (McCrae & John, 1992). Openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were added to fulfill the aim of a comprehensive measure of personality (McCrae, 1996; McCrae & John, 1992). An individual high in agreeableness can be characterized as altruistic, nurturing, caring, and supportive; whereas someone low on this trait would be indifferent toward others, self-centered, and spiteful (McCrae & John, 1992). Conscientiousness is a trait that organizes and directs behavior as well as one that keeps impulsive behavior in check (McCrae & John, 1992). An individual high in openness does not restrain her/him self from exploration of feelings, sensations, and values; instead he/she tends to be curious, original, and generally holds a broad range of interests (McCrae & John, 1992). However comprehensive the five-factor model may be, it is not without its critics. Eysencks (1986) model of temperament is grounded in biological mechanisms. Biological mechanisms are the basic ingredients of all human existence. Certainly, they are the basis of all communication. Human communication begins and ends with basic biological mechanisms. These biological mechanisms allow humans to sense their environment in the form of sound, sight, touch, taste, and smell. The inability to sense

11 the environment in at least one of these five forms makes human communication impossible. According to McAdams (1992) The Big Five are in no way akin to the basic elements of personality[the] basic ingredientsof personality (p. 339). Instead, the Big Five make nice surface level characterizations of behaviors (McAdams, 1992). Eysencks (1986) explanations of behavior are deeper and provide some degree of causality. According to McAdams (1992) For Eysenckwhat provides ultimate legitimacy[is his] biological underpinning (p. 341). Development of Hypotheses and Research Questions Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that extroverts have chronically lower levels of cortical arousal. Extroverts can be described as individuals who are sociable (Weaver, 1998). An individual who is more sociable or extroverted is one who is more likely to initiate an interaction with another. According to McCroskey and Richmond (1998) an individual who displays a high willingness to communicate is more likely to initiate communication. Wigley (1995) found a positive relationship between an individuals willingness to communicate and her/his disclosiveness. Wheeless et al (1986) found a negative relationship between disclosiveness and communication apprehension. Hence, the following hypothesis was advanced: H1: Extroversion will be positively correlated with general disclosiveness. Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that individuals high in neuroticism tended to experience interpersonal intimacy negatively. Intimacy can be described as a close association between individuals. In order to become close or intimate, individuals often need to share or disclose information to one another. Hence, the following hypothesis was advanced:

12 H2: Neuroticism will be negatively correlated with general disclosiveness. According to Eysenck (1986) individuals high is psychoticism tend to be aggressive, cold, antisocial, impulsive, and unempathetic. Individuals who measure high in psychoticism are very likely to communicate in an uncontrolled manner. Valencic et al. (1998) found a positive relationship between verbal aggressiveness and psychoticism. While one could speculate that an individual who measures high on psychoticism is not going to disclose friendly warm fuzzies; it is unclear whether or not this individual would disclose some other type of message. Also, Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that adequate measures of psychoticism have become available only in recent years. Due to the uncertainty, the following nondirectional hypothesis was advanced: H3: Psychoticism will be correlated with general disclosiveness. According to Beatty and McCroskey (2000a) individual differences in the thresholds of the neurobiological systems responsible for the cluster of behaviors and feelings commonly referred to as introversion (I) or neuroticism (N) are inherited (p. 25). Each individual inherits her/his unique combination of personalized genetic components. Therefore, three possible combinations of Eysencks super traits may produce unique levels of general disclosiveness. Beatty et al. (1998) argued that an individual who is high in communication apprehension tends to engage in the avoidance tendencies that represent a neurotic introvert. According to Beatty and McCroskey (2000b) multiple neurobiological systems influence complex human behaviors. Based on this ideology, the following research question was advanced: RQ1: Will general disclosiveness be correlated with a combination of the components of Eysencks model and/or the Five Factor model?

13 Wheeless (1978) validated a measure of general disclosiveness that measures five subcomponents of disclosiveness. The five subcomponents are: intent to disclose, amount of disclosure, valence of disclosure, honesty-accuracy of disclosure, and control of depth of the disclosure. Eysenck (1986) described an individual low in psychoticism to be unimpulsive and in control. Perhaps, there is a relationship between psychoticism and the general disclosiveness component of control. Based on this reasoning, the following research question was advanced: RQ2: To what extent can Eysencks model and/or the Five Factor model predict the subcomponents of disclosiveness (intent, amount, valence, control of depth, and honesty-accuracy)? Previously, it had been mentioned that adequate measures of psychoticism have become available only in recent years (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). The Five Factor Model of temperament (McCrae & Costa, 1985) includes three dimensions (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) believed to be secondary factors of psychoticism (Eysenck, 1986). In order to better identify the elements of psychoticism potentially related to general disclosiveness, the following research questions were advanced: RQ3: To what extent are correlations of psychoticism with disclosiveness similar to correlations of openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with disclosiveness? RQ4: To what extent do openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness predict psychoticism?

14 Chapter 2 Method Participants The participants for this study were 399 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory communication courses at a Middle Atlantic University. The average age of this sample was 19.9 with a range of 18-41. There were 202 males and 188 females with 9 non-reports. Additionally, there were 195 freshman, 78 sophomores, 69 juniors, and 48 seniors with 9 non-reports in this sample. Procedure During a normal class period, students were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of Eysenck and Eysencks (1985) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism questionnaires, Wheelesss (1978) General Disclosiveness Scale, a measure based on the Five Factor Model of Temperament (McCrae & Costa, 1985), and some demographic questions (sex, age, year in school). The students were asked to fill out the questionnaires as they pertained to themselves. The students were requested to omit their names or any other identity revealing information from the questionnaire in order to guarantee anonymity. Participation was voluntary and could be one way in which the students could receive extra credit. Instruments The main concern of this study was bridging a connection of ones general disclosiveness to ones temperament. General disclosiveness was measured by using Wheeless (1978) General Disclosiveness Scale (see appendix). The General Disclosiveness Scale is a 5-dimension, 31-item Likert-type scale. Wheeless previously

15 reported the following reliabilities on each dimension as follows: intent = .85, amount = .88, valence = .91, depth = .84, and honesty = .87. The current investigation yielded the following reliabilities for the dimensions of disclosiveness: intent = .70, amount = .77, valence = .83, depth = .80, and honesty = .80. Reliabilities for the General Disclosiveness Scale have ranged from .65 to .90 (Wheeless, 1978). The current investigation revealed a reliability of .82 for the general disclosiveness scale. In order to measure temperament, participants were asked to complete Eysenck and Eysencks (1985) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism questionnaires (see appendix). Eysenck and Eysencks (1985) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism questionnaires include a total of 32 Likert-type items. In a series of studies, Neuliep et al. (2000) reported the following reliabilities: extroversion ranged from .73 to .80, neuroticism ranged from .75 to .86, and psychoticism ranged from .61 to .68. The current investigation produced the following reliabilities for the Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) questionnaires: extroversion = .77, neuroticism = .81, and psychoticism = .67. In order to explore research questions three and four, participants were asked to complete a measure based on McCrae and Costas (1985) Five Factor Model of temperament (see appendix). The Five Factor Model based measure is a series of bipolar scales. Neuliep et al. (2000) reported the following reliabilities: extroversion = .80, neuroticism = .87, openness = .71, agreeableness = .80, and conscientiousness = .80. In the current investigation, the measure based on the five factor model yielded the following reliabilities: extroversion = .83, neuroticism, = .85, openness = .72, agreeableness = .82, and conscientiousness = .79.

16 Simple and multiple correlation procedures were used to explore the hypotheses and research questions of the current study. A p-value of .05 was set as a criterion to determine significance.

17 Chapter 3 Results Hypotheses The first hypothesis argued that there would be a significant positive correlation between extroversion and general disclosiveness. Correlations between general disclosiveness scores and scores on Eysencks Model of Temperament obtained from this study are reported in Table 1. Correlations between general disclosiveness scores and scores on the measurement based on the Five Factor Model obtained from this study are reported in Table 2. Results of the simple correlation analyses supported this hypothesis. Significant positive correlations between general disclosiveness and extroversion were obtained from both Eysencks Model of Temperament (r = .29, p < .001) and the Five Factor Model (r = .37, p < .001). The second hypothesis argued that there would be a significant negative correlation between neuroticism and general disclosiveness. Results of the simple correlation analysis supported this hypothesis. Significant negative correlations between general disclosiveness and neuroticism were obtained from both Eysencks Model of Temperament (r = -.29, p < .001) and neuroticism from the Five Factor Model (r = -.26, p < .001). The third hypothesis argued that there would be a significant correlation between psychoticism and general disclosiveness, but did not predict the direction of this correlation. Results of the simple correlation analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between psychoticism and general disclosiveness (r = -.23, p < .001).

18 Research Questions The first research question addressed the possibility of general disclosiveness being correlated to a combination of extroversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. A significant multiple correlation coefficient of R = .42 was obtained [F(3, 399) = 28.42, p < .001]. The results of the multiple correlation between general disclosiveness and the combination of extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism are presented in Table 5. The results of the multiple correlation between general disclosiveness and the combination of extroversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (from the Five Factor model) are presented in Table 6. A significant multiple correlation coefficient of R = .45 was obtained [F(5, 399) = 19.84, p < .001]. The second research question explored what subcomponents of disclosiveness would be correlated with the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model. Correlations between the five dimensions of disclosiveness scores and scores on Eysencks Model of Temperament obtained from this study are reported in Table 3. Correlations between the five dimensions of disclosiveness scores and scores on the measurement based on the Five Factor Model obtained from this study are reported in Table 4. The correlations found to be .30 or better are listed below. Simple correlation analyses indicated that the disclosive dimension of valence was significantly negatively correlated to neuroticism (r = -.41, p < .001) of Eysencks model and significantly negatively correlated to neuroticism (r = -.41, p < .001) of the Five Factor model. The disclosive dimension of honesty was significantly negatively correlated to neuroticism (r = -.33, p < .001) of Eysencks model, significantly negatively

19 correlated to neuroticism (r = -.30, p < .001) and significantly positively correlated to conscientiousness (r = .37, p < .001) of the Five Factor model. In order to explore what of the five dimensions of disclosiveness would be correlated to a combination of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model, a multiple correlation analysis was utilized. Multiple correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and combinations of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament are reported in Table 5. Multiple correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and combinations of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model are reported in Table 6. The two strongest predictors are listed below. A significant multiple correlation of R = .46 was obtained [F(3, 399) = 35.08, p < .001] between valence and a combination of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament. A significant multiple correlation of R = .42 was obtained [F(3, 399) = 27.78, p < .001] between honesty and a combination of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament. A significant multiple correlation of R = .48 was obtained [F(5, 399) = 23.28, p < .001] between valence and a combination of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model. A significant multiple correlation of R = .47 was obtained [F(5, 399) = 22.14, p < .001] between honesty and a combination of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model. The extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism measures have been linked to the behavioral activation system, the behavioral inhibition system, and the fight or flight system respectively (Beatty & McCroskey, 2001). However, each of these measures are not perfect estimates of these supertraits. The magnitude of the correlation coefficient between disclosiveness and a combination of the dimensions of Eysencks model (r =

20 .42) is modest and underscores the potential predictive power of the communibiological model until it is corrected for attenuation ((R) = .53). The same observation occurs with the correlation coefficient between disclosiveness and a combination of the dimensions of the Five Factor model that is (R = .45) before correction for attenuation and ((R) = .55) after. Tables 5 and 6 also report all of the attenuated and disattenuated correlation coefficients for the moderated (e.g. extroversion in conjunction with neuroticism) and unmoderated variables. The third research question inquired as to whether the correlation of psychoticism with disclosiveness was similar to the multiple correlation of openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with disclosiveness. The results previously listed indicate that psychoticism is significantly negatively correlated to general disclosiveness (r = -.23, p < .001), intent of disclosiveness (r = -.20, p < .001), valence of disclosiveness (r = -.22, p < .001), and honesty of disclosiveness (r = -.29, p < .001), and significantly positively correlated to depth of disclosiveness (r = .12, p < .05). Table 4 reports the dimensions of the Five Factor Model that are correlated to the dimensions of general disclosiveness. Results of a simple correlation indicated a significant positive correlation between conscientiousness and the honesty dimension of disclosiveness (r = .37, p < .001), the valence dimension of disclosiveness (r = .29, p < .001), and general disclosiveness (r = .26, p < .001). Results of a simple correlation indicated a significant positive correlation between agreeableness and the honesty dimension of disclosiveness (r = .30, p < .001). The multiple correlations of openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with general disclosiveness and the sub-components of disclosiveness are reported in Table 8. The correlations found to be .30 or better are listed below. A significant multiple correlation

21 coefficient of R = .33 [F(3, 394) = 15.50, p < .001] was obtained with these three factors and general disclosiveness. A significant multiple correlation coefficient of R = .32 [F(3, 394) = 14.76, p < .001] was obtained with these three factors and the valence dimension of disclosiveness. A significant multiple correlation coefficient of R = .43 [F(3, 394) = 30.07, p < .001] was obtained with these three factors and the honesty dimension of disclosiveness. The fourth research question asked to what extent do openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness predict psychoticism? The utilization of a multiple correlation analysis revealed openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness to be significant moderate predictors of psychoticism R = .44 [F(3, 394) = 31.74, p < .001]. Results of simple correlation analyses indicated significant negative correlations of psychoticism with conscientiousness (r = -.36, p < .001) and agreeableness (r = -.24, p < .001). The correlation between psychoticism and openness (r = .07) was not significant. Correlations between scores on Eysencks Model of Temperament and scores on the measurement based on the Five Factor Model obtained from this study are reported in Table 7.

22 Chapter 4 Discussion The purpose of this research was to examine the potential relationship between ones temperament and ones general disclosiveness. Scholars working under the rubric of the Communibiological Model had not previously explored the construct of general disclosiveness. A large portion of the communibiological model is based on the work of Hans Eysenck (Beatty et al., 1998). Eysenck (1986) proposed a model of Temperament that included three supertraits or super factors, extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism that are physiologically linked. According to Eysenck (1986) these supertraits are very generalizable and have a long-term consistency in ones personality throughout her/his life. However, not all researchers feel as though Eysencks model is the best to utilize while conducting research (McCrae, 1996; McCrae & John, 1992). Instead, some scholars propose the utilization of the Five Factor Model of personality (McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1989; McCrae & John, 1992). Both models were utilized in the current study. As the results indicate, both models predicted an equal amount of variance in general disclosiveness. The hypotheses and research questions of this study explore where an individuals trait level of disclosiveness may fit in relation to the three supertraits and also in relation to the dimensions of the Five Factor model. The first hypothesis predicted a significant positive correlation between extroversion and general disclosiveness. The results of this study supported this hypothesis by yielding positive correlations between general disclosiveness and the extroversion constructs of both models. These results are consistent with an intuitive logic. In order for one to reveal aspects about ones self to others, one would need to be

23 at least somewhat sociable and outgoing. These results are also consistent with Eysencks (1967) definition of an extrovert as an individual who has a strong inhibition towards sensing information from her/his environment. Extroverts may seek out others to disclose information to or to receive disclosures from, in order for them to maintain an internal balance of excitation in their brain. The second hypothesis predicted a significant negative correlation between neuroticism and general disclosiveness. The results of this study supported this hypothesis by yielding significant negative correlations between general disclosiveness and the neuroticism constructs of both models. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) individuals high in neuroticism tend to experience intimacy negatively. Intimacy with another usually involves a closeness or familiarity with another. In order for one to reach an intimate level of understanding with another, one needs to be willing to selfdisclose information. If the type of disclosiveness needed to reach and maintain a level of intimacy with another provokes high levels of anxiety for an individual, then he/she would most likely attempt to avoid any type of situation that would require such a level of disclosure. The results of this study are consistent with this rationale. The third hypothesis predicted that psychoticism would be significantly correlated to general disclosiveness, however the direction of this correlation was unspecified. The results of this study supported this hypothesis and yielded a significant negative correlation between general disclosiveness and psychoticism. Eysenck (1967) described individuals low in psychoticism to have the ability to think, feel, and reason in accordance with the morals of the current society. According to the results of this study, in order for an individual to be somewhat generally disclosive, he/she must share some of

24 the same characteristics as an individual low in psychoticism. Based on the results on the three hypotheses, a generally disclosive individual can be described as someone who is sociable, outgoing, emotionally comfortable with intimacy, and conducive with the morals of society. The first research question addressed the possibility of general disclosiveness being correlated to a combination of extroversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. The results of this study yielded a significant multiple correlation between the supertraits of Eysencks Model of Temperament and general disclosiveness. Beatty and McCroskey (2001) stated that the multiple neurobiological systems associated with Eysencks supertraits influence complex behaviors. The results of this study indicate that disclosure is a complex behavior. To further verify the complexity of ones disclosiveness, a combination of the five dimensions of the Five Factor model was also found to be significantly correlated to disclosiveness. The second research question explored what subcomponents of disclosiveness would be correlated with the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model. The strongest correlation revealed from the results of this study was between neuroticism and the valence dimension of disclosiveness. This result was duplicated with the neuroticism dimension of the Five Factor model. The higher an individual tends to be in neuroticism, the less this individual discloses positive information about her/him self. This seems to make sense because Eysenck (1986) listed depression, low levels of self-esteem, and feelings of guilt as some of the second order factors of neuroticism. Depressed individuals tend not to express positive aspects about themselves. Neuroticism was also moderately negatively correlated with the honesty

25 dimension of disclosiveness. This result was also duplicated with the neuroticism dimension of the Five Factor model. Although individuals high in neuroticism tend to be emotionally anxious, they probably dont want to accurately share their anxiety with others the way the experience it. Individuals high in neuroticism probably dont want to accurately portray themselves in any manner; that would require a level of intimacy that would make these individuals extremely uncomfortable. Neuroticism was significantly negatively correlated with the intent dimension of disclosiveness. Finally, extroversion was significantly positively correlated with the amount dimension of disclosiveness. This result was duplicated with the extroversion dimension of the Five Factor model. Not surprising is the notion that an individual who is out-going or sociable is more likely to disclose a greater amount of information than someone who is introverted. The results of this study revealed significant multiple correlations between a combination of the supertraits and all five dimensions of disclosiveness. Extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism were all significant predictors for the disclosive dimensions of valence, depth, and honesty. Extroversion was the only significant predictor of the amount dimension of disclosiveness and neuroticism and psychoticism were the only significant predictors of the intent dimension of disclosiveness. The situation of these two cases required the further analyses of the multiple correlation in the results section. This same standard was applied to the analyses of the multiple correlations between the dimensions of disclosiveness and the dimensions of the Five Factor model. The third research question inquired as to whether the correlation of psychoticism with disclosiveness was similar to the multiple correlation of openness, agreeableness,

26 and conscientiousness with disclosiveness. A simple correlation analysis revealed psychoticism to be significantly correlated with disclosiveness. A multiple correlation analysis revealed openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness to be significantly correlated with disclosiveness. However, the magnitude of the correlation between psychoticism and disclosiveness was smaller. These results indicate that the openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness combination are not measuring disclosiveness in the exact same manner in which psychoticism measures disclosiveness. Therefore, it appears that these three measures are not measuring the same thing psychoticism is measuring. Although, some simple correlation analyses did indicate that psychoticism was correlated to some of the same dimensions of disclosiveness as conscientiousness and agreeableness. Psychoticism was significantly negatively correlated to the disclosiveness dimensions of honesty, valence, and depth. The strongest of these correlations was with the honesty dimension of disclosiveness. Intuitively, this result makes sense. If honesty is high on the list of societys morals, then individuals low in psychoticism would be more likely to be honest. Conscientiousness was significantly positively correlated with the honesty dimension of disclosiveness. McCrae and John (1992) describe conscientiousness as a trait that organizes and directs behavior as well as one that keeps impulsive behavior in check. Eysenck (1986) describes impulsiveness as a second order factor of psychoticism. The results of this study did yield a significant negative correlation between psychoticism and conscientiousness. Agreeableness was also significantly correlated with the honesty dimension of disclosiveness. McCrae and John (1992) describe an individual high in agreeableness to be altruistic, nurturing, caring, and

27 supportive. Eysenck (1986) describes cold and impersonal as second order factors of psychoticism. The results of this study yielded a significant negative correlation between psychoticism and agreeableness. The fourth research question addressed the possibility of openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness predicting psychoticism. The results of this study indicated that these factors are moderate predictors of psychoticism. Eysenck (1986) describes these factors to be second order factors of psychoticism. However, they are not the only second order factors Eysenck listed. Therefore, it logically makes sense that these three factors are moderate predictors of psychoticism. Also, the moderate size of the multiple correlation provides more evidence indicating that these three factors are not the same thing psychoticism is. This study was the first under the rubric of the Communibiological Model to examine trait disclosiveness, which is a limitation in itself. If these results fail to be replicated, then they may have been a fluke. Effort should be put forth in future research to replicate these results. A second limitation is using the measures of the supertraits of extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism to link the behavioral activation system, the behavioral inhibition system, and the fight or flight system with general disclosiveness. These measures are far from being perfect indices of the activity level of these physiological structures. Future research could further this study by actually observing these structures during disclosive communication episodes. Finally, future research could explore the trait disclosiveness among monozygotic twins.

28 References Altman, I. & Taylor, D. A. (1983). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Its in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446-460. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty, (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 41-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000a). A few comments about communibiology and the nature/nurture question. Communication Education, 49, 25-28. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000b). Theory, scientific evidence, and the communibiological paradigm: Reflections on misguided criticism. Communication Education, 49, 36-44. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The biology of communication: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197-219. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

29 Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality ever be scientific? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 3-20. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum. Horvath, C. W. (1995). Biological origins of communicator style. Communication Quarterly, 43, 394-407. Horvath, C. W. (1998). Biological origins of communicator style. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 69-94). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). The father-young adult relationship: Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 43, 119-130. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Perceived understanding and self-disclosure in the stepparent-stepchild relationship. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, 133, 281-291. McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329-361. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323-337. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587-597.

30 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wigginss circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1998). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 119-131). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Miller, M. J. (1990). The power of the ocean: Another way to diagnose clients. Counselor Education & Supervision, 29, 283-291. Neuliep, J. W., Chadouir, M., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (2000, November). Testing the communibiological model of communication apprehension as temperamental expression: Intra-cultural republicans and a cross-cultural comparison. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA. Phillips, K., & Matheny, A. P. (1997). Evidence for genetic influence on both cross-situation and situation-specific components of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 129-138. Stelau, J. (1983). Temperament, personality, activity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Valencic, K. M., Beatty, M. J., Rudd, J. E., Dobos, J. A., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). An empirical test of a communibiological model of trait verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 46, 327-341.

31 Weaver, J. B. (1998). Personality and self-perceptions about communication. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.). Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 95-117). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3, 47-61. Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships of trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143-157. Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346. Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 250-257. Wheeless, L. R., Nesser, K., & McCroskey, J. C. (1986). The relationships of self-disclosure and disclosiveness to high and low communication apprehension. Communication Research Reports, 3, 129-134. Wigley, C. J. III (1995). Disclosiveness, willingness to communicate, and communication apprehension as predictors of jury selection in felony trials. Communication Quarterly, 43, 342-352. Zuckerman, M. (1985). Biological foundations of the sensation-seeking temperament. In J. Strelau, F. H. Farley, & A. Gale (Eds.). The biological bases of personality and behavior (pp. 97-113). New York: Hemisphere.

32 Table 1. Correlations between General Disclosiveness scores and scores on Eysencks Model. Extroversion General Disclosiveness r = .29 p = .0001 Neuroticism r = -.29 p = .0001 Psychoticism r = -.23 p = .0001

33 Table 2. Correlations between General Disclosiveness scores and scores on the Five Factor Model. Extroversion NeuroticismAgreeableness Openness Conscientiousness General r = .37 Disclosiveness p = .0001 r = -.26 p = .0001 r = .21 p = .0001 r = .20 p = .0001 r = .26 p = .0001

34 Table 3. Correlations between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and Eysencks Model. Extroversion Intent r = .09 p = .06 r = .25 p = .0001 r = .21 p = .0001 r = .17 p = .0005 r = .11 p = .03 Neuroticism r = -.25 p = .0001 r = .04 p = .42 r = -.41 p = .0001 r = .11 p = .02 r = -.33 p = .0001 Psychoticism r = -.20 p = .0001 r = -.05 p = .36 r = -.22 p = .0001 r = .12 p = .02 r = -.29 p = .0001

Amount

Valence

Depth

HonestyAccuracy

35 Table 4. Correlations between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and the Five Factor Model. Extroversion Intent r = .13 p = .0070 r = .26 p = .0001 r = .27 p = .0001 r = .15 p = .0035 r = .23 p = .0001 Neuroticism r = -.28 p = .0001 r = .09 p = .0746 r = -.41 p = .0001 r = .12 P = .0129 r = -.30 p = .0001 Agreeableness r = .18 p = .0003 r = -.03 p = .5820 r = .17 p = .0006 r = .00 p = .9726 r = .30 p = .0001 Openness Conscientiousness r = .16 p = .0018 r = .07 p = .1582 r = .17 p = .0009 r = -.02 p = .5588 r = .22 p = .0003 r = .23 p = .0001 r = -.00 p = .9214 r = .29 p = .0001 r = -.19 p = .0002 r = .37 p = .0001

Amount

Valence

Depth

Honesty

36 Table 5. Multiple correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and Eysencks Model of Temperament.
All Three Predictors Only Significant Predictors *

(R) (R) R F P R F Intent 0.30 0.41 13.34 0.0001 0.30 0.42 19.79 Amount 0.28 0.37 11.17 0.0001 0.25 0.32 26.44 Valence 0.46 0.58 35.08 0.0001 NA NA NA Depth 0.26 0.33 9.49 0.0001 NA NA NA Honesty 0.42 0.54 27.78 0.0001 NA NA NA 0.53 28.42 0.0001 Disclosiveness 0.42 NA NA NA * Only the dimensions with significant simple correlations were used as predictors.

P 0.0001 0.0001 NA NA NA NA

37 Table 6. Multiple correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and dimensions of the Five Factor Model.
All Five Predictors Only Significant Predictors *

(R) (R) R F P R F P Intent 0.34 0.45 10.43 0.0001 NA NA NA NA Amount 0.31 0.39 8.29 0.0001 0.26 0.33 28.52 0.0001 Valence 0.48 0.59 23.28 0.0001 NA NA NA NA Depth 0.31 0.39 8.09 0.0001 0.30 0.37 13.18 0.0001 Honest 0.47 0.59 22.14 0.0001 NA NA NA NA Disclosiveness 0.45 0.55 19.84 0.0001 NA NA NA NA * Only the dimensions with significant simple correlations were used as predictors.

38 Table 7. Correlations between Eysencks Model and the Five Factor Model. Eysencks Extroversion Five Factor Extroversion r = .59 p = .0001 Five Factor Neuroticism r = -.29 p = .0001 Five Factor Agreeableness r = .09 p = .0773 Five Factor Openness Five Factor Conscientiousness r = .39 p = .0001 r = .03 p = .5198 Eysencks Neuroticism r = -.23 P = .0001 r = .65 P = .0001 r = -.22 P = .0001 r = -.14 P = .0046 r = -.21 P = .0001 Eysencks Psychoticism r = -.14 p = .0057 r = -.02 p = .6260 r = -.24 p = .0001 r = .07 p = .1663 r = -.36 p = .0001

39 Table 8. Multiple correlations of openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with general disclosiveness and the sub-components of disclosiveness. R 0.33 0.28 0.12 0.32 0.19 0.43 F 15.50 11.16 1.80 14.76 5.02 30.07 P 0.0001 0.0001 0.1458 0.0001 0.0020 0.0001

Disclosiveness Intent Amount Valence Depth Honesty

40 Appendix Please indicate whether you 3 agree, 2 are undecided, 1 disagree with the following items. Extroversion Measure ____1. Are you rather lively? ____2. Do you enjoy meeting new people? ____3. Do you like going out a lot? ____4. Would you call yourself happy-go-lucky? ____5. Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people? ____6. Do you like mixing with people? ____7. Do you often make decisions on the spur of the moment? ____8. Do you like plenty of bustle and excitement around you? ____9. Do you nearly always have a ready answer when people talk to you? ____10. Can you easily adapt to new and unusual situations? Reverse code item 5. Neuroticism Measure ____1. Does your mood often go up and down? ____2. Do you ever feel just miserable for no reason? ____3. Are you an irritable person? ____4. Do you often feel fed up? ____5. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? ____6. Would you call yourself a nervous person? ____7. Would you call yourself tense or high strung? ____8. Do you often feel that life is very dull? ____9. Do you often feel lonely? ____10. Are you easily hurt when people find fault with you or your work? Psychoticism Measure ____1. Is it better to follow societys rules than to go your own way? ____2. Would you take drugs that may have strange and dangerous effects? ____3. Do you try not to be rude to people? ____4. Do you prefer to go your own way rather than act by the rules? ____5. Does it worry you if you know there are mistakes in your work? ____6. Do you think marriage is old-fashioned and should be done away with? ____7. Do you enjoy cooperating with others? ____8. Do good manners and cleanliness matter much to you? ____9. Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future with savings and insurances? ____10. Would being in debt worry you? ____11. Would you like other people to be afraid of you? ____12. Do you take much notice of what other people think? Reverse code items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12.

41 General Disclosiveness Scale Please mark the following statements to reflect how you communicate with other people in general. Indicate the degree to which the following statements reflect how you communicate with other people by marking whether you (7) strongly agree, (6) agree, (5) moderately agree, (4) are undecided, (3) moderately disagree, (2) disagree, (1) strongly disagree. Record the number of your response in the space provided. Work quickly and just record your first impression. Intended Disclosure 1. When I wish, my self-disclosures are always accurate reflections of who I really am. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. When I express y personal feelings, I am always aware of what I am doing and saying. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. When I reveal my feelings about myself, I consciously intend to do so. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. When I am self-disclosing, I am consciously aware of what I am revealing. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Amount 5. I do not often talk about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. My statements of my feelings are usually brief. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7. I usually talk about myself for fairly long periods at a time. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8. My conversation lasts the least time when I am discussing myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. I often talk about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10. I often discuss my feelings about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11. Only infrequently do I express my personal beliefs and opinions. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Positive-Negative 12. I usually disclose positive things about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13. On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more negative than positive. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 14. I normally reveal bad feelings I have about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 15. I normally express my good feelings about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16. I often reveal more undesirable things about myself than desirable things. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 17. I usually disclose negative things about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

42 18. On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more positive than negative. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Control of Depth 19. I intimately disclose who I really am, openly and fully in my conversation. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20. Once I get started, my self-disclosures last a long time. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 21. I often disclose intimate, personal things about myself without hesitation. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 22. I feel that I sometimes do not control my self-disclosure of personal or intimate things I tell about myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 23. Once I get started, I intimately and fully reveal myself in my self-disclosures. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Honesty-Accuracy 24. I cannot reveal myself when I want to because I do not know myself thoroughly enough. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 25. I am often not confident that my expressions of my own feelings, emotions, and experiences are true reflections of myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 26. I always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings and experiences. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 27. My self-disclosures are completely accurate reflections of who I really am. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 28. I am not always honest I my self-disclosures. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 29. My statements about my feelings, emotions, and experiences are always accurate self-perceptions. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 30. I am always honest in my self-disclosures. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 31. I do not always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings, emotions, behaviors or experiences. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Note. Items 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25, 28, and 31 must be reverse-coded before computing mean scores.

43

Five Factor Model Based Measure In the following section, a series of opposite adjectives (hot-cold, wet-dry) are presented. On a scale of 1-7, with 4 being neutral, please indicate how you would describe yourself in terms of these adjectives. Please circle only one response per item. CALM AT EASE NEUROTIC RELAXED SECURE SELF-SATISFIED NOT ENVIOUS COMFORTABLE HARDY INTROVERTED RETIRING SOBER RESERVED OUTGOING LONER OPEN TO NEW IDEAS CONVENTIONAL DOWN TO EARTH UNCREATIVE NARROW INTERESTS SIMPLE UNADVENTUROUS CONFORMING ANTAGONISTIC AGREEABLE RUTHLESS SELFISH CALLOUS SUSPICIOUS CRITICAL VENGEFUL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 WORRYING NERVOUS NORMAL HIGH-STRUNG INSECURE SELF-PITYING ENVIOUS/JEALOUS SELF-CONSCIOUS VULNERABLE EXTROVERTED SOCIABLE FUN-LOVING AFFECTIONATE WITHDRAWN JOINER CLOSED TO NEW IDEAS ORIGINAL IMAGINATIVE CREATIVE BROAD INTEREST COMPLEX DARING INDEPENDENT NOT ANTAGONISTIC DISAGREEABLE SOFT-HEARTED SELFLESS SYMPATHETIC TRUSTING LENIENT FORGIVING

44 STUBBORN 1 CONSCIENTIOUS 1 CARELESS UNDEPENDABLE RELIABLE LAZY DISORGANIZED WEAK-WILLED LATE QUITTING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 FLEXIBLE 7 NOT CONSCIENTIOUS 7 CAREFUL 7 DEPENDABLE 7 UNRELIABLE 7 HARDWORKING 7 WELL-ORGANIZED 7 SELF-DISCIPLINED 7 ON TIME 7 PERSEVERING