Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 197S, Vol. 43, No, 1, 13-19
Neuroticism and Disclosure Reciprocity Alan L. Chaikin, Valerian J. Derlega, Benjamin Bayma, and Jacqueline Shaw Old Dominion University College males identified as either "normal" or "neurotic" by their scores on the Maudsley Personality Inventory were exposed to a confederate who disclosed either intimate or superficial information about himself, as part of an "impression formation" study. Normal males reciprocated disclosure at a level of intimacy similar to the confederates, but neurotics disclosed at a moderate level regardless of whether the confederate's initial disclosure was intimate or superficial. These results suggest that neuroticism may be related to inappropriate or nonnormative disclosure, rather than characteristically high or low levels of disclosure.
The relationship between mental health and self-disclosure tendencies is still not clear. Jourard (1971) has stated the position of many humanistic psychologists that openness in one's dealings with others is necessary for growth and self-actualization: Self-disclosure is a symptom of personality health and a means of ultimately achieving healthy personality. . . . Every maladjusted person is a person who has not made himself known to another human being and in consequence does not know himself (p. 32).
However, not all social scientists agree with this. For example, Sigmund Koch (1972) has written that "Total transparency is constitutive only of nullity. . . . (transparent) human beings . . . are among the most boring phenomena in creation (p. 42)." German sociologist Georg Simmel (1950) also argued for the importance of discretion in relationships, and even popular singer and songwriter Carly Simon in her song "No Secrets" has pleaded that a woman does not always wish to know all of her lover's secrets. The research on this issue, like the theory, is contradictory. Some studies reported a positive relationship between mental health and self-disclosure tendencies (e.g., Halverson & This study was supported by grants to the first and second authors from the Old Dominion University Research Foundation. Requests for reprints should be sent to Alan L. Chaikin, Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23S08. The authors wish to thank Gail Furman and Wendy Cohen for scoring the taped disclosures for intimacy.
13
Shore, 1969; Taylor, Altman, & Frankfurt, Note 1; Truax & Carkhuff, 1965); others reported a negative relationship (e.g., Chaikin & Derlega, 1974c; Cozby, 1972; Persons & Marks, 1970; Truax, Wittmer, & Altmann, 1973). Still other studies found no relationship (e.g., Pederson & Breglio, 1968; Stanley & Bownes, 1966). Even those studies that reported significant relationships found a low correlation between mental health and self-disclosure. Cozby (1973) and Chaikin and Derlega (1974b) have discussed several reasons for these contradictory findings. First, "mental health" is measured in different ways in the various studies. For example, Halverson and Shore (1969) related high self-disclosure to cognitive complexity and low scores on authoritarianism, while Taylor et al. (Note 1) correlated a number of personality tests (including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey) with self-disclosure. Cozby (1972) and Chaikin and Derlega (1974c), in a different approach, investigated whether independent observers rated high disclosers as maladjusted. With so little consistency in the conceptual or operational definitions of mental health in these studies, it is not surprising that the results are also inconsistent. This study is concerned with the relationship between self-disclosure and "neuroticism" (rather than mental health per se), as measured by the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI; Eysenck, 1962). There were several
14
CHAIKIN, DERLEGA, BAYMA, AND SHAW
reasons for choosing this measure. First, norms for American college students were available. Second, a considerable literature establishing the scale's validity exists (cf. Eysenck, 1960). Third, the MPI is very easy to administer to large groups. Neurotics, as conceptualized by Eysenck (1962), are "emotionally overresponsive . . . more prone to ... breakdown under stress. Such individuals may frequently complain of vague somatic complaints, often repeating a great many worries" (p. 5). A second reason for the lack of consistent findings in this area is that the relationship between mental health and self-disclosure may be curvilinear (a possibility first suggested by Jourard, 1964), with both very high and very low disclosure related to emotional disorder and moderate disclosure related to positive mental health. If such a curvilinear relationship does exist, then, as Cozby (1973) pointed out, studies using correlation coefficients to measure linear relationships would be unable to detect the curvilinearity, and A positive relationship between disclosure and mental health would be found with samples that contained no high disclosers, while a negative relationship would be found in a sample that contained no low disclosers (p. 78).
Another possible reason for the confusion in this area is that self-disclosure per se may not be related to mental health or neuroticism. Instead, self-disclosure may interact with other variables to determine its appropriateness. For instance, high self-disclosure to a close friend, a confessor, or a trusted acquaintance seems normal and healthy. However, self-disclosure to a group of strangers in a public elevator seems unconventional and possibly abnormal. Goffman (1967) has written perceptively that the appropriateness of behavior contributes to our definition of mental health. Violation of the rules governing social encounters (so-called "situational improprieties") is said to indicate psychological disorder. Pursuing this argument, it is possible that the complex relationship between self-disclosure and neuroticism may be mediated by the context in which disclosure occurs. Neurotic people may not have learned to discriminate cues (discriminative stimuli, in operant terms), signaling that self-
disclosure is either appropriate or inappropriate. According to social learning theory (Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972), the neurotic person places too high a need value on a given set of goals or reinforcements. In trying to obtain these goals, the neurotic's behavior may be highly inappropriate, disregarding norms and rules of social behavior. For example, a neurotic may be so intent on bolstering his self-esteem that he ignores cultural norms prohibiting excess boasting. Such behavior may result in rejection by others, further decreasing the neurotic's selfesteem. In addition, the neurotic's preoccupation with his own problems might lead to a diminished sensitivity to the external cues relating to appropriate behavior in a given situation. The causal direction of this relationship is difficult to determine. Although the condition of neuroticism may lead to a lack of sensitivity to social norms, it is also possible that failure to follow social norms, which may lead to consequences such as ridicule or rejection, could cause such neurotic symptoms as emotional overresponsiveness, high anxiety, and a tendency to break down under stress. To test the notion that neuroticism is related to inappropriate self-disclosure, it is first necessary to construct a situation in which self-disclosure is clearly appropriate. One such situation relates to the reciprocal nature of self -disclosure. Numerous studies (e.g., Derlega, Walmer, & Furman, 1973; Ehrlich & Graeven, 1971; Jourard & Friedman, 1970) have established that self-disclosure in the laboratory follows a "norm of reciprocity," whereby self-disclosure from Person A to Person B leads B to disclose in response to A at a similar level of intimacy. In support of the notion that self-disclosure reciprocity is a powerful behavioral norm, Chaikin and Derlega (1974a) found that observers liked a nonreciprocal discloser (who was either much more or much less intimate than an initial discloser) less than one who reciprocated the first discloser's level of intimacy. Additional evidence concerning the relationship between disclosure reciprocity and neuroticism comes from a study by Mayo (1968), who found that hospitalized neurotics
NEUSOTICISM AND DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY were more likely to report asymmetrical patterns of disclosure than were normals. To avoid the problems associated with self-disclosure questionnaires (cf. Chaikin & Derlega, 1974b), a behavioral measure of self-disclosure was the major dependent variable. Subjects' actual disclosures were taperecorded and later analyzed independently by two "blind" judges for level of intimacy. Previous research (e.g., Derlega, Chaikin, & Herndon, Note 2) had established that judges trained in using the same well-defined scoring manual produced generally high interjudge reliability coefficients. It was predicted that people scoring in the normal ranges on the MPI would follow the reciprocity norm more than subjects scoring high on neuroticism. Further, it was predicted that normals and neurotics would not differ in general level of self-disclosure. This prediction was based on the hypothesis that neurotics and normals may not differ in their general, overall levels of disclosure, just in their adjustment of these levels to situational cues. METHOD Subjects One hundred fifty-four male students were administered the MPI during their introductory psychology class. From this population, S3 students were contacted, and S2 agreed to serve as subjects. Twentysix had neuroticism scores ranging from 10 to 21 and were the "normal" subjects. Twenty-seven had scores of 30 or higher and constituted the "neurotic" sample. One student from this group refused to participate. Due to breakdowns in the recording equipment, data for three subjects was lost, resulting in an overall N of 49 subjects. Both "neurotics" and "normals" were randomly assigned to either the "low intimacy input" or the "high intimacy input" condition, resulting in four conditions with 12 or 13 subjects in each. The Maudsley Personality Inventory The MPI (cf. Eysenck, 1962) is designed to measure two dimensions of personality: extraversionintroversion and neuroticism. This study was concerned only with Neuroticism scale scores. Following are three items from the Neuroticism scale that theoretically tap neuroticism: (a) "Do you sometimes feel happy, sometimes depressed, without any apparent reason?" (b) "Do ideas run through your head so that you cannot sleep?" and (c) "Are you inclined to ponder over the past?" The scale contains 48 items that can be answered "yes," or "no," or "?." The latter category is used
15
when the respondent finds it "absolutely impossible" to decide. According to Eysenck (1962), 10 or more ? responses make interpretation of a respondent's score questionable; in this study, only respondents whose ? responses did not exceed 10 were used as subjects. Eysenck (1962) gives 20.19 as the mean on the Neuroticism scale for American male college students (total # = 714), while 32.98 was the mean of 83 neurotic males (the standard deviation for both groups was about 11). The overall mean of our population was somewhat higher (24,5), with a standard deviation of 8.7.
Procedure Students were contacted by telephone and asked to participate for credit in a study on "impression formation." Each subject reported individually to the laboratory where he was assigned to a cubicle. From this point on, all communication to and from the subject was by telephone. Subjects were told that a second subject was in another cubicle, and that the two of them would talk to each other over the telephone but would never actually meet. Each student was given a list of topics (drawn from a questionnaire prepared by Taylor & Altman, 1966), and asked to select as many as he wished to talk about. Ostensibly, the other person would listen to what the subject had to say about himself and then use this information to form an impression of him. The subject thought that the other person would also be asked to select topics and talk about them. The "other subject," who was actually a confederate of the experimenter, was always "randomly" selected to speak first. Half of the time, his disclosure over the telephone was superficial and nonintimate. His brief talk (approximately 2i minutes) consisted of such topics as whether he preferred a house or an apartment, how often his family got together, and so on. The other half of the time, the confederate's disclosure was highly intimate, including such topics as the birth control methods he would prefer to use in marriage, the number of times he had cried as an adult, the frequency of his sexual activity, and how he felt when he saw his father hit his mother. This disclosure also lasted about 2i minutes. A number of topics were chosen, rather than only one, to avoid confounding intimacy level with topic content. Following the confederate's disclosure, the subject was asked to speak about himself over the telephone. The subject's disclosure, unknown to him, was taperecorded. When the subject finished talking, he filled out an impression rating sheet, indicating his liking and trust for the confererate, his assessment of the confederate's psychological adjustment, the intimacy of the confederate's disclosure, and so forth, along 9-point scales. The subject was then debriefed. During this debriefing, the basis for selection of subjects for the study was not explained. It was felt that needless damage might be produced if subjects felt that they
CHAIKIN, DERLEGA, BAYMA, AND SHAW
16
Questionnaire Data
Only one significant effect was found on the impression ratings. Subjects trusted the confederate more in the high-intimacy (% = 6.6) condition than in the low-intimacy condition (X= 5.7; F (1,45) =4.2, p< .047).
GJ6 NORMAL NEUROTIC
LO
HI
INTIMACY of CONFEDERATE FIGURE 1. Intimacy of subject disclosure as a function of MPI score and confederate's level of intimacy. were labeled as normal or neurotic. On the other hand, the necessity for the surreptitious tape recording was explained, and subjects were told that their tape would be coded by raters who would not know their identity and that the tape would then be erased—which was true. During the debriefing, the degree of suspicion was assessed using Aronson and Carlsmith's (1968) interview technique. Although several subjects expressed some "free-floating" suspicion, no one was aware that the confederate was not another subject, and no subject was able to verbalize any of the deceptions used. To reduce experimenter bias, the experimenter was blind as to subject's condition in terms of both his MPI score and the confederate's level of intimacy. The confederate did not know the subject's MPI score. Two blind judges independently rated each subject's disclosure along a 9-point scale of intimacy (1 = little information given; 9 = extremely intimate information), The scoring system, including examples of the major scoring categories, is outlined in the Appendix to this article.
RESULTS Manipulation Check Subjects in the high-intimacy condition rated the confederate as significantly more intimate (X = 7.8) than did subjects in the low-intimacy condition (% = 4.Q; F (1,45) = 112, p < .001), using a 9-point scale.
Behavioral Measures The correlation between the two judge's ratings of intimacy was .65, and the average of the two were used as the unit of analysis. Figure 1 presents the results for the four conditions. An interaction between intimacy input (i.e., confederate intimacy) and neuroticism was found, F (1,45) = 4,7, p< .035. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the intimacy scores for neurotic subjects were not affected by the confederate's level of intimacy, while intimacy scores for normal subjects followed the reciprocity norm. Normals who were exposed to a superficial confederate disclosed superficially (% = 3.9), while normals exposed to an intimate confederate disclosed more intimate information (% = 5.65, p < .01). In contrast, the intimacy means for neurotics were quite similar in both the lowintimacy-input (Z = 4.415) and the highintimacy-input (X = 4.925) conditions. The difference in intimacy means between normals and neurotics did not reach significance under low intimacy input; the comparison between normals and neurotics was marginally significant under high intimacy input (p < .10). No main effect for neuroticism was found on the intimacy ratings. A main effect for intimacy input, from the low- to the high-intimacy-input condition, F ( 1 , 4 5 ) = 16.5, p < .001, was due primarily to the increase in the normal's intimacy scores. An analysis of length of time spent talking was made. Subjects in the high-intimacyinput condition talked longer (% = 253 sec) than subjects in the low-intimacy condition (£=178 sec; F (1,45) = 9.1, p < .004). No other effects were obtained on this measure. The correlation between subjects' time talking and intimacy of disclosure, across conditions, was .363. DISCUSSION In view of the many studies attempting to relate mental health and self-disclosure, it is
NEUROTICISM AND DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY worthwhile noting that there was no significant main effect for neuroticism on the behavioral measure of intimacy. That is, neurotics were neither more nor less intimate than normals. Instead, differences appeared only when context—the confederate's intimacy level—was considered. Neurotics appeared to maintain a characteristic middle level of intimacy, regardless of what had been disclosed to them first. In contrast, normal subjects used the confederate's intimacy level as a cue or signal regarding what was appropriate for their own disclosure, and closely matched this level with a similar level of intimacy. Neurotics tended to overdisclose to the lowintimacy confederate and underdisclose to the high-intimacy confederate. The results of this study strongly suggest that neuroticism is related to inappropriate disclosure, rather than to any characteristically high or low level of disclosure. Support for the notion that neuroticism is related to inappropriate self-disclosure comes from several studies. Taylor et al. (Note 1) found that scores indicating maladjustment on the MMPI were correlated with overdisclosure to acquaintances and underdisclosure to close friends. In a related study, Chaikin and Derlega (1974c) found that observers see intimate disclosure to acquaintances as more maladjusted than nondisclosure. In a correlational study concerned with the reciprocity norm, Mayo (1968) found that hospitalized neurotics reported nonreciprocal patterns of disclosure with others more than did normal subjects. Neurotics either may be unaware of norms prescribing when people should disclose and when they should not, or may be aware of them and still fail to observe them. They seem less likely than nonneurotics to take situational cues into account. Thus, in some situations calling for low disclosure, neurotics may overdisclose. In others, when high selfdisclosure is appropriate, they may underdisclose. In either case, their behavior may prevent them from forming meaningful relationships with others. If they overdisclose at the wrong time in the wrong place to the wrong person, they will elicit rejection and withdrawal from others. On the other hand, many
17
neurotics may be unable to form close attachments with other people because they fail to disclose themselves when it is appropriate to do so as part of a developing relationship. Why have neurotics developed such maladaptive patterns of self-disclosure? Perhaps the neurotic is so preoccupied with his own defenses, anxiety, and problems that he simply does not perceive situational cues that should influence his behavior. Or the neurotic individual may have a history of such unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships that he develops a pattern of moderate self-disclosure, regardless of the situation. With such a pattern, he may reason, he will not be labeled cold and superficial, as he might if he did not disclose at all; at the same time, he will not risk the ridicule and rejection that are possible consequences of overdisclosure, especially disclosure of deviant information. It is also possible that lack of adherence to social norms is a cause of neuroticism, rather than an effect. Certainly, the social consequences (ridicule, rejection, avoidance, etc.) resulting from failure to follow accepted patterns of behavior can be devastating. It may well be that many neurotic symptoms—social anxieties and worries, poor interpersonal relationships, unproductive behavior—are consequences, rather than causes, of failure to follow social norms. Finally, it is important to consider the possibility that low (normal) scores on the MPI may indicate a high need for approval. Although there are no published studies correlating social desirability and MPI scores, Walton and Mather (1962) found that low neuroticism scores indicated defensiveness in some subjects. If low scores do indicate need for approval, then such individuals may model the confederate's level of intimacy to gain his approval and that of the experimenter. To mitigate against this possibility, we did not select respondents with Neuroticism scores below 10 to serve as subjects since we felt that such people might be especially high in approval motivation. Nevertheless, further research on disclosure reciprocity using different measures of mental health seems worthwhile.
18
CHAIKIN, DERLEGA, BAYMA, AND SHAW
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Taylor, D., Altaian, I., & Frankfurt, L. Personality correlates of self-disclosure. Unpublished manuscript, Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 1968. 2. Derlega, V. J., Chaikin, A. L., & Herndon, J. Are demand characteristics responsible for disclosure reciprocity? Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, April 1974. REFERENCES Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Liking for the norm-breaker in self-disclosure. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 117-129, (a) Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Self-disclosure. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1974. (b) Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Variables affecting the appropriateness of self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 588593. (c) Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure, reciprocity and liking. Sociometry, 1972, 35, 151-160. Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 73-91. Derlega, V, J., Walmer, J., & Furman, G. Mutual disclosure in social interactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 159-160. Ehrlich, H. J., & Graeven, D. B. Reciprocal selfdisclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 389-400. Eysenck, H. J. The structure of human personality. London: Methuen, 1960. Eysenck, H. J. The Maudsley Personality Inventory. San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1962. Goffman, E. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Halverson, C. F., & Shore, R. E. Self-disclosure and interpersonal functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 213-217.
Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. (1st ed.) Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. (2nd ed.) Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand Reinhdld, 1971. Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 25, 278282. Koch, S. An implicit image of man. In L. Solomon & B. Berzon (Eds.), New perspectives on encounter groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Mayo, P. R. Self-disclosure and neurosis. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 7, 140-148. Pederson, D. M., & Breglio, V. J. Personality correlates of actual self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 49S-S01. Persons, R. W., & Marks, P. A. Self-disclosure with recidivists: Optimum interviewer-interviewee matching. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 387-391. Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., &-Phares, E. J. Application of a social learning theory to personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. Simmel, G. The sociology of Georg Simmel. (Ed. by Wolff). New York: The Free Press, 1950. Stanley, G., & Bownes, A. F. Self-disclosure and neuroticism. Psychological Reports, 1968, 8, 289293. Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 729-730. Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Client and therapist transparency in the psychotherapeutic encounter. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 3-9. Truax, C. B., Wittmer, J., & Altmann, H. Selfdisclosure as a function of personal adjustment and the facilitative conditions offered by the target person. Journal of Community Psychology, 1973, 1, 319-322. Walton, D., & Mather, M. Differential response to questionnaire items of neuroticism by "defensive" and "non-defensive" subjects. Journal of Mental Science, 1962, 108, 501-504.
APPENDIX Scoring System for Rating Disclosure Intimacy Instructions. Use the scale below to rate the most intimate material which the subject talked about. In other words, how personal was the 1 little information given
information which the individual revealed. In explaining the scoring system to the judges, the experimenter emphasized that "intimacy" reflects two major criteria. First, emphasis should be placed on the uniqueness of the ma7
superficial information
midpoint
moderately intimate information
extremely intimate information
NEUEOTICISM AND DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY terial disclosed. Demographic information, for example, where one is born, major subject in school, numbers of brothers and sisters, was to be considered as being less intimate than a description of personal feelings, for example, anxieties, difficulties with parents, views on issues. Second, emphasis should be placed on how guarded one might be in divulging material to various people. Would the subject want most people to know about the information; or would he be embarrassed to divulge this material to anyone but a trusted associate? Examples of the major scoring categories: 1. The person refuses to talk about himself; continually asks the other person to talk about himself; sits quietly, rarely says anything. 3. The person talks the entire length of time about superficial content. For instance, he mentions what movies he has seen, what
19
classes he is taking, where he works parttime, superficial description of siblings. 5. The individual talks about personal feelings but not at an intimate level. For instance, he talks about career goals, what his girlfriend is like, views on dating, and the value of an education. This category is appropriate when it is difficult to decide if the person talks intimately or not. 7. The person talks at a moderately intimate level. For instance, the person might go into details about problems in getting dates, nervousness when speaking in class, problems about being too fat, feelings of guilt. 9. The person talks about material which is very personal, embarrassing, or emotional. For instance, the person mentions specific details about sexual experiences, wanting to commit suicide, details of family disruption because of an alcoholic parent, or descriptions of homosexual feelings. (Received May 7, 1974)
Neuroticism and Disclosure Reciprocity Alan L. Chaikin, Valerian J. Derlega, Benjamin Bayma, and Jacqueline Shaw Old Dominion University College males identified as either "normal" or "neurotic" by their scores on the Maudsley Personality Inventory were exposed to a confederate who disclosed either intimate or superficial information about himself, as part of an "impression formation" study. Normal males reciprocated disclosure at a level of intimacy similar to the confederates, but neurotics disclosed at a moderate level regardless of whether the confederate's initial disclosure was intimate or superficial. These results suggest that neuroticism may be related to inappropriate or nonnormative disclosure, rather than characteristically high or low levels of disclosure.
The relationship between mental health and self-disclosure tendencies is still not clear. Jourard (1971) has stated the position of many humanistic psychologists that openness in one's dealings with others is necessary for growth and self-actualization: Self-disclosure is a symptom of personality health and a means of ultimately achieving healthy personality. . . . Every maladjusted person is a person who has not made himself known to another human being and in consequence does not know himself (p. 32).
However, not all social scientists agree with this. For example, Sigmund Koch (1972) has written that "Total transparency is constitutive only of nullity. . . . (transparent) human beings . . . are among the most boring phenomena in creation (p. 42)." German sociologist Georg Simmel (1950) also argued for the importance of discretion in relationships, and even popular singer and songwriter Carly Simon in her song "No Secrets" has pleaded that a woman does not always wish to know all of her lover's secrets. The research on this issue, like the theory, is contradictory. Some studies reported a positive relationship between mental health and self-disclosure tendencies (e.g., Halverson & This study was supported by grants to the first and second authors from the Old Dominion University Research Foundation. Requests for reprints should be sent to Alan L. Chaikin, Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23S08. The authors wish to thank Gail Furman and Wendy Cohen for scoring the taped disclosures for intimacy.
13
Shore, 1969; Taylor, Altman, & Frankfurt, Note 1; Truax & Carkhuff, 1965); others reported a negative relationship (e.g., Chaikin & Derlega, 1974c; Cozby, 1972; Persons & Marks, 1970; Truax, Wittmer, & Altmann, 1973). Still other studies found no relationship (e.g., Pederson & Breglio, 1968; Stanley & Bownes, 1966). Even those studies that reported significant relationships found a low correlation between mental health and self-disclosure. Cozby (1973) and Chaikin and Derlega (1974b) have discussed several reasons for these contradictory findings. First, "mental health" is measured in different ways in the various studies. For example, Halverson and Shore (1969) related high self-disclosure to cognitive complexity and low scores on authoritarianism, while Taylor et al. (Note 1) correlated a number of personality tests (including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey) with self-disclosure. Cozby (1972) and Chaikin and Derlega (1974c), in a different approach, investigated whether independent observers rated high disclosers as maladjusted. With so little consistency in the conceptual or operational definitions of mental health in these studies, it is not surprising that the results are also inconsistent. This study is concerned with the relationship between self-disclosure and "neuroticism" (rather than mental health per se), as measured by the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI; Eysenck, 1962). There were several
14
CHAIKIN, DERLEGA, BAYMA, AND SHAW
reasons for choosing this measure. First, norms for American college students were available. Second, a considerable literature establishing the scale's validity exists (cf. Eysenck, 1960). Third, the MPI is very easy to administer to large groups. Neurotics, as conceptualized by Eysenck (1962), are "emotionally overresponsive . . . more prone to ... breakdown under stress. Such individuals may frequently complain of vague somatic complaints, often repeating a great many worries" (p. 5). A second reason for the lack of consistent findings in this area is that the relationship between mental health and self-disclosure may be curvilinear (a possibility first suggested by Jourard, 1964), with both very high and very low disclosure related to emotional disorder and moderate disclosure related to positive mental health. If such a curvilinear relationship does exist, then, as Cozby (1973) pointed out, studies using correlation coefficients to measure linear relationships would be unable to detect the curvilinearity, and A positive relationship between disclosure and mental health would be found with samples that contained no high disclosers, while a negative relationship would be found in a sample that contained no low disclosers (p. 78).
Another possible reason for the confusion in this area is that self-disclosure per se may not be related to mental health or neuroticism. Instead, self-disclosure may interact with other variables to determine its appropriateness. For instance, high self-disclosure to a close friend, a confessor, or a trusted acquaintance seems normal and healthy. However, self-disclosure to a group of strangers in a public elevator seems unconventional and possibly abnormal. Goffman (1967) has written perceptively that the appropriateness of behavior contributes to our definition of mental health. Violation of the rules governing social encounters (so-called "situational improprieties") is said to indicate psychological disorder. Pursuing this argument, it is possible that the complex relationship between self-disclosure and neuroticism may be mediated by the context in which disclosure occurs. Neurotic people may not have learned to discriminate cues (discriminative stimuli, in operant terms), signaling that self-
disclosure is either appropriate or inappropriate. According to social learning theory (Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972), the neurotic person places too high a need value on a given set of goals or reinforcements. In trying to obtain these goals, the neurotic's behavior may be highly inappropriate, disregarding norms and rules of social behavior. For example, a neurotic may be so intent on bolstering his self-esteem that he ignores cultural norms prohibiting excess boasting. Such behavior may result in rejection by others, further decreasing the neurotic's selfesteem. In addition, the neurotic's preoccupation with his own problems might lead to a diminished sensitivity to the external cues relating to appropriate behavior in a given situation. The causal direction of this relationship is difficult to determine. Although the condition of neuroticism may lead to a lack of sensitivity to social norms, it is also possible that failure to follow social norms, which may lead to consequences such as ridicule or rejection, could cause such neurotic symptoms as emotional overresponsiveness, high anxiety, and a tendency to break down under stress. To test the notion that neuroticism is related to inappropriate self-disclosure, it is first necessary to construct a situation in which self-disclosure is clearly appropriate. One such situation relates to the reciprocal nature of self -disclosure. Numerous studies (e.g., Derlega, Walmer, & Furman, 1973; Ehrlich & Graeven, 1971; Jourard & Friedman, 1970) have established that self-disclosure in the laboratory follows a "norm of reciprocity," whereby self-disclosure from Person A to Person B leads B to disclose in response to A at a similar level of intimacy. In support of the notion that self-disclosure reciprocity is a powerful behavioral norm, Chaikin and Derlega (1974a) found that observers liked a nonreciprocal discloser (who was either much more or much less intimate than an initial discloser) less than one who reciprocated the first discloser's level of intimacy. Additional evidence concerning the relationship between disclosure reciprocity and neuroticism comes from a study by Mayo (1968), who found that hospitalized neurotics
NEUSOTICISM AND DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY were more likely to report asymmetrical patterns of disclosure than were normals. To avoid the problems associated with self-disclosure questionnaires (cf. Chaikin & Derlega, 1974b), a behavioral measure of self-disclosure was the major dependent variable. Subjects' actual disclosures were taperecorded and later analyzed independently by two "blind" judges for level of intimacy. Previous research (e.g., Derlega, Chaikin, & Herndon, Note 2) had established that judges trained in using the same well-defined scoring manual produced generally high interjudge reliability coefficients. It was predicted that people scoring in the normal ranges on the MPI would follow the reciprocity norm more than subjects scoring high on neuroticism. Further, it was predicted that normals and neurotics would not differ in general level of self-disclosure. This prediction was based on the hypothesis that neurotics and normals may not differ in their general, overall levels of disclosure, just in their adjustment of these levels to situational cues. METHOD Subjects One hundred fifty-four male students were administered the MPI during their introductory psychology class. From this population, S3 students were contacted, and S2 agreed to serve as subjects. Twentysix had neuroticism scores ranging from 10 to 21 and were the "normal" subjects. Twenty-seven had scores of 30 or higher and constituted the "neurotic" sample. One student from this group refused to participate. Due to breakdowns in the recording equipment, data for three subjects was lost, resulting in an overall N of 49 subjects. Both "neurotics" and "normals" were randomly assigned to either the "low intimacy input" or the "high intimacy input" condition, resulting in four conditions with 12 or 13 subjects in each. The Maudsley Personality Inventory The MPI (cf. Eysenck, 1962) is designed to measure two dimensions of personality: extraversionintroversion and neuroticism. This study was concerned only with Neuroticism scale scores. Following are three items from the Neuroticism scale that theoretically tap neuroticism: (a) "Do you sometimes feel happy, sometimes depressed, without any apparent reason?" (b) "Do ideas run through your head so that you cannot sleep?" and (c) "Are you inclined to ponder over the past?" The scale contains 48 items that can be answered "yes," or "no," or "?." The latter category is used
15
when the respondent finds it "absolutely impossible" to decide. According to Eysenck (1962), 10 or more ? responses make interpretation of a respondent's score questionable; in this study, only respondents whose ? responses did not exceed 10 were used as subjects. Eysenck (1962) gives 20.19 as the mean on the Neuroticism scale for American male college students (total # = 714), while 32.98 was the mean of 83 neurotic males (the standard deviation for both groups was about 11). The overall mean of our population was somewhat higher (24,5), with a standard deviation of 8.7.
Procedure Students were contacted by telephone and asked to participate for credit in a study on "impression formation." Each subject reported individually to the laboratory where he was assigned to a cubicle. From this point on, all communication to and from the subject was by telephone. Subjects were told that a second subject was in another cubicle, and that the two of them would talk to each other over the telephone but would never actually meet. Each student was given a list of topics (drawn from a questionnaire prepared by Taylor & Altman, 1966), and asked to select as many as he wished to talk about. Ostensibly, the other person would listen to what the subject had to say about himself and then use this information to form an impression of him. The subject thought that the other person would also be asked to select topics and talk about them. The "other subject," who was actually a confederate of the experimenter, was always "randomly" selected to speak first. Half of the time, his disclosure over the telephone was superficial and nonintimate. His brief talk (approximately 2i minutes) consisted of such topics as whether he preferred a house or an apartment, how often his family got together, and so on. The other half of the time, the confederate's disclosure was highly intimate, including such topics as the birth control methods he would prefer to use in marriage, the number of times he had cried as an adult, the frequency of his sexual activity, and how he felt when he saw his father hit his mother. This disclosure also lasted about 2i minutes. A number of topics were chosen, rather than only one, to avoid confounding intimacy level with topic content. Following the confederate's disclosure, the subject was asked to speak about himself over the telephone. The subject's disclosure, unknown to him, was taperecorded. When the subject finished talking, he filled out an impression rating sheet, indicating his liking and trust for the confererate, his assessment of the confederate's psychological adjustment, the intimacy of the confederate's disclosure, and so forth, along 9-point scales. The subject was then debriefed. During this debriefing, the basis for selection of subjects for the study was not explained. It was felt that needless damage might be produced if subjects felt that they
CHAIKIN, DERLEGA, BAYMA, AND SHAW
16
Questionnaire Data
Only one significant effect was found on the impression ratings. Subjects trusted the confederate more in the high-intimacy (% = 6.6) condition than in the low-intimacy condition (X= 5.7; F (1,45) =4.2, p< .047).
GJ6 NORMAL NEUROTIC
LO
HI
INTIMACY of CONFEDERATE FIGURE 1. Intimacy of subject disclosure as a function of MPI score and confederate's level of intimacy. were labeled as normal or neurotic. On the other hand, the necessity for the surreptitious tape recording was explained, and subjects were told that their tape would be coded by raters who would not know their identity and that the tape would then be erased—which was true. During the debriefing, the degree of suspicion was assessed using Aronson and Carlsmith's (1968) interview technique. Although several subjects expressed some "free-floating" suspicion, no one was aware that the confederate was not another subject, and no subject was able to verbalize any of the deceptions used. To reduce experimenter bias, the experimenter was blind as to subject's condition in terms of both his MPI score and the confederate's level of intimacy. The confederate did not know the subject's MPI score. Two blind judges independently rated each subject's disclosure along a 9-point scale of intimacy (1 = little information given; 9 = extremely intimate information), The scoring system, including examples of the major scoring categories, is outlined in the Appendix to this article.
RESULTS Manipulation Check Subjects in the high-intimacy condition rated the confederate as significantly more intimate (X = 7.8) than did subjects in the low-intimacy condition (% = 4.Q; F (1,45) = 112, p < .001), using a 9-point scale.
Behavioral Measures The correlation between the two judge's ratings of intimacy was .65, and the average of the two were used as the unit of analysis. Figure 1 presents the results for the four conditions. An interaction between intimacy input (i.e., confederate intimacy) and neuroticism was found, F (1,45) = 4,7, p< .035. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the intimacy scores for neurotic subjects were not affected by the confederate's level of intimacy, while intimacy scores for normal subjects followed the reciprocity norm. Normals who were exposed to a superficial confederate disclosed superficially (% = 3.9), while normals exposed to an intimate confederate disclosed more intimate information (% = 5.65, p < .01). In contrast, the intimacy means for neurotics were quite similar in both the lowintimacy-input (Z = 4.415) and the highintimacy-input (X = 4.925) conditions. The difference in intimacy means between normals and neurotics did not reach significance under low intimacy input; the comparison between normals and neurotics was marginally significant under high intimacy input (p < .10). No main effect for neuroticism was found on the intimacy ratings. A main effect for intimacy input, from the low- to the high-intimacy-input condition, F ( 1 , 4 5 ) = 16.5, p < .001, was due primarily to the increase in the normal's intimacy scores. An analysis of length of time spent talking was made. Subjects in the high-intimacyinput condition talked longer (% = 253 sec) than subjects in the low-intimacy condition (£=178 sec; F (1,45) = 9.1, p < .004). No other effects were obtained on this measure. The correlation between subjects' time talking and intimacy of disclosure, across conditions, was .363. DISCUSSION In view of the many studies attempting to relate mental health and self-disclosure, it is
NEUROTICISM AND DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY worthwhile noting that there was no significant main effect for neuroticism on the behavioral measure of intimacy. That is, neurotics were neither more nor less intimate than normals. Instead, differences appeared only when context—the confederate's intimacy level—was considered. Neurotics appeared to maintain a characteristic middle level of intimacy, regardless of what had been disclosed to them first. In contrast, normal subjects used the confederate's intimacy level as a cue or signal regarding what was appropriate for their own disclosure, and closely matched this level with a similar level of intimacy. Neurotics tended to overdisclose to the lowintimacy confederate and underdisclose to the high-intimacy confederate. The results of this study strongly suggest that neuroticism is related to inappropriate disclosure, rather than to any characteristically high or low level of disclosure. Support for the notion that neuroticism is related to inappropriate self-disclosure comes from several studies. Taylor et al. (Note 1) found that scores indicating maladjustment on the MMPI were correlated with overdisclosure to acquaintances and underdisclosure to close friends. In a related study, Chaikin and Derlega (1974c) found that observers see intimate disclosure to acquaintances as more maladjusted than nondisclosure. In a correlational study concerned with the reciprocity norm, Mayo (1968) found that hospitalized neurotics reported nonreciprocal patterns of disclosure with others more than did normal subjects. Neurotics either may be unaware of norms prescribing when people should disclose and when they should not, or may be aware of them and still fail to observe them. They seem less likely than nonneurotics to take situational cues into account. Thus, in some situations calling for low disclosure, neurotics may overdisclose. In others, when high selfdisclosure is appropriate, they may underdisclose. In either case, their behavior may prevent them from forming meaningful relationships with others. If they overdisclose at the wrong time in the wrong place to the wrong person, they will elicit rejection and withdrawal from others. On the other hand, many
17
neurotics may be unable to form close attachments with other people because they fail to disclose themselves when it is appropriate to do so as part of a developing relationship. Why have neurotics developed such maladaptive patterns of self-disclosure? Perhaps the neurotic is so preoccupied with his own defenses, anxiety, and problems that he simply does not perceive situational cues that should influence his behavior. Or the neurotic individual may have a history of such unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships that he develops a pattern of moderate self-disclosure, regardless of the situation. With such a pattern, he may reason, he will not be labeled cold and superficial, as he might if he did not disclose at all; at the same time, he will not risk the ridicule and rejection that are possible consequences of overdisclosure, especially disclosure of deviant information. It is also possible that lack of adherence to social norms is a cause of neuroticism, rather than an effect. Certainly, the social consequences (ridicule, rejection, avoidance, etc.) resulting from failure to follow accepted patterns of behavior can be devastating. It may well be that many neurotic symptoms—social anxieties and worries, poor interpersonal relationships, unproductive behavior—are consequences, rather than causes, of failure to follow social norms. Finally, it is important to consider the possibility that low (normal) scores on the MPI may indicate a high need for approval. Although there are no published studies correlating social desirability and MPI scores, Walton and Mather (1962) found that low neuroticism scores indicated defensiveness in some subjects. If low scores do indicate need for approval, then such individuals may model the confederate's level of intimacy to gain his approval and that of the experimenter. To mitigate against this possibility, we did not select respondents with Neuroticism scores below 10 to serve as subjects since we felt that such people might be especially high in approval motivation. Nevertheless, further research on disclosure reciprocity using different measures of mental health seems worthwhile.
18
CHAIKIN, DERLEGA, BAYMA, AND SHAW
REFERENCE NOTES 1. Taylor, D., Altaian, I., & Frankfurt, L. Personality correlates of self-disclosure. Unpublished manuscript, Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 1968. 2. Derlega, V. J., Chaikin, A. L., & Herndon, J. Are demand characteristics responsible for disclosure reciprocity? Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, April 1974. REFERENCES Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Liking for the norm-breaker in self-disclosure. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 117-129, (a) Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Self-disclosure. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1974. (b) Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Variables affecting the appropriateness of self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 588593. (c) Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure, reciprocity and liking. Sociometry, 1972, 35, 151-160. Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 73-91. Derlega, V, J., Walmer, J., & Furman, G. Mutual disclosure in social interactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 159-160. Ehrlich, H. J., & Graeven, D. B. Reciprocal selfdisclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 389-400. Eysenck, H. J. The structure of human personality. London: Methuen, 1960. Eysenck, H. J. The Maudsley Personality Inventory. San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1962. Goffman, E. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Halverson, C. F., & Shore, R. E. Self-disclosure and interpersonal functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 213-217.
Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. (1st ed.) Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. (2nd ed.) Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand Reinhdld, 1971. Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 25, 278282. Koch, S. An implicit image of man. In L. Solomon & B. Berzon (Eds.), New perspectives on encounter groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Mayo, P. R. Self-disclosure and neurosis. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 7, 140-148. Pederson, D. M., & Breglio, V. J. Personality correlates of actual self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 49S-S01. Persons, R. W., & Marks, P. A. Self-disclosure with recidivists: Optimum interviewer-interviewee matching. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 387-391. Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., &-Phares, E. J. Application of a social learning theory to personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. Simmel, G. The sociology of Georg Simmel. (Ed. by Wolff). New York: The Free Press, 1950. Stanley, G., & Bownes, A. F. Self-disclosure and neuroticism. Psychological Reports, 1968, 8, 289293. Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 729-730. Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Client and therapist transparency in the psychotherapeutic encounter. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 3-9. Truax, C. B., Wittmer, J., & Altmann, H. Selfdisclosure as a function of personal adjustment and the facilitative conditions offered by the target person. Journal of Community Psychology, 1973, 1, 319-322. Walton, D., & Mather, M. Differential response to questionnaire items of neuroticism by "defensive" and "non-defensive" subjects. Journal of Mental Science, 1962, 108, 501-504.
APPENDIX Scoring System for Rating Disclosure Intimacy Instructions. Use the scale below to rate the most intimate material which the subject talked about. In other words, how personal was the 1 little information given
information which the individual revealed. In explaining the scoring system to the judges, the experimenter emphasized that "intimacy" reflects two major criteria. First, emphasis should be placed on the uniqueness of the ma7
superficial information
midpoint
moderately intimate information
extremely intimate information
NEUEOTICISM AND DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY terial disclosed. Demographic information, for example, where one is born, major subject in school, numbers of brothers and sisters, was to be considered as being less intimate than a description of personal feelings, for example, anxieties, difficulties with parents, views on issues. Second, emphasis should be placed on how guarded one might be in divulging material to various people. Would the subject want most people to know about the information; or would he be embarrassed to divulge this material to anyone but a trusted associate? Examples of the major scoring categories: 1. The person refuses to talk about himself; continually asks the other person to talk about himself; sits quietly, rarely says anything. 3. The person talks the entire length of time about superficial content. For instance, he mentions what movies he has seen, what
19
classes he is taking, where he works parttime, superficial description of siblings. 5. The individual talks about personal feelings but not at an intimate level. For instance, he talks about career goals, what his girlfriend is like, views on dating, and the value of an education. This category is appropriate when it is difficult to decide if the person talks intimately or not. 7. The person talks at a moderately intimate level. For instance, the person might go into details about problems in getting dates, nervousness when speaking in class, problems about being too fat, feelings of guilt. 9. The person talks about material which is very personal, embarrassing, or emotional. For instance, the person mentions specific details about sexual experiences, wanting to commit suicide, details of family disruption because of an alcoholic parent, or descriptions of homosexual feelings. (Received May 7, 1974)
