This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library] On: 05 November 2014, At: 09:42 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Perceived Intimacy of Expressed Emotion a
Andrew Howell & Michael Conway
a
a
Department of Psychology , Concordia University Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Andrew Howell & Michael Conway (1990) Perceived Intimacy of Expressed Emotion, The Journal of Social Psychology, 130:4, 467-476, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9924608 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924608
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4),461-416
Perceived Intimacy of Expressed Emotion ANDREW HOWELL MICHAEL CONWAY Department of Psychology Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Concordia University
ABSTRACT. Research on norms for emotional expression and self-disclosure provided the basis for two hypotheses concerning the perceived intimacy of emotional self-disclosure. The first hypothesis was that the perceived intimacy of negative emotional disclosure would be greater than that of positive emotional disclosure; the second was that disclosures of more intense emotional states would be perceived as more intimate than disclosures of less intense emotional states for both negative and positive disclosures. Both hypotheses received support when male students in Canada rated the perceived intimacy of self-disclosures that were equated for topic and that covered a comprehensive sample of emotions and a range of emotional intensities. The effects were observed across all the topics of disclosure examined.
WHEN PEOPLE INTERACT, they communicate their feelings about themselves, other people, or various objects in their environment in many ways. Both nonverbal and verbal behavior in a social interaction communicate emotion (e.g., Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1982; Zuckerman, Amidon, Bishop, & Pomerantz, 1982). The verbal expression of emotion is perhaps the more controllable form of such communication. For example, people can choose to say that they feel angry about an injustice or happy about an upcoming holiday. The controllable nature of verbal emotional expression makes it particularly subject to norms for emotional expression and to expectations regarding acceptable self-disclosure.
The research reported here was conducted while Andrew Howell had a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) and was supported by research grants to Michael Conway from SSHRCC and Le Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et 1’Aide d la Recherche du Qukbec. Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael Conway, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W ,Montreal, Quebec H3C 1M8, Canada. 467
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
468
The Journul of Social Psychology
Norms seem to dictate which emotional expressions are appropriate in particular circumstances, as well as those that will result in negative social sanctions (Hochschild, 1979). It has been demonstrated that subjects imagining themselves expressing an emotion appropriate to a particular situation expect fewer negative social sanctions than those imagining themselves expressing an inappropriate emotion (Graham, Gentry, & Green, 1981). Additional research on norms for emotional expression has emphasized that, in general, expression of positive emotions is considered appropriate. People perceive others to be more sociable and popular if positive emotion describes the others' typical emotional experience (Sommers, 1984). When asked to describe their own and others' emotional experiences, they describe positive emotions as typical, whereas negative emotions are characterized as atypical (Sommers, 1984). The experience and display of negative emotions are regarded as unconventional and undesirable in most situations and occupations (Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Thoits, 1987). Self-disclosure research suggests that positive emotional disclosures are more likely to be made, are considered more appropriate, and are reciprocated to a greater extent than negative emotional disclosures. When people are asked to express their feelings about numerous emotional situations, they are more expressive in situations eliciting positive emotions than in those eliciting negative emotions (Dosser, Balswick, & Halverson, 1983; Highlen & Gillis, 1978; Highlen & Johnston, 1979). Perceived appropriateness of positive and negative self-disclosures has been examined by obtaining appropriateness ratings of various self-disclosure topics (Caltabiano & Smithson, 1983). Results indicated that the positive topic was considered more appropriate. Finally, reciprocity to positive and negative self-disclosures has been examined by manipulating a confederate's ratings of emotion (positive vs. negative) that accompanied the confederate's ambiguous disclosure: Subjects reciprocated more to disclosures rated as positive than to those rated as negative (Taylor & Belgrave, 1986). In sum, the theory and research of Western psychologists concerning norms for emotional expression and self-disclosure suggest that verbal expressions of positive emotion are more conventional, desirable, and appropriate than expressions of negative emotion. Furthermore, positive emotional displays are more frequent and are more often reciprocated than negative emotional displays. Although the extent to which these findings generalize to non-Western cultures is unclear, it appears that the valence (i.e., positivity or negativity) of verbal emotional expressions exerts a significant impact on how they are perceived and responded to in social interaction. The first aim of the present study was to examine the perceived intimacy of self-disclosures varying only in valence. Perceived intimacy-the amount of personal information revealed-is a central aspect of self-disclosure perception, as reported in a recent multidimensional investigation of reactions to
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Howell & Conway
469
self-disclosure (Chelune, Skiffington, & Williams, 1981). The perceived intimacy of self-disclosures also reflects perceived appropriateness and, by implication, normative expectations. Highly intimate disclosures to casual acquaintances are considered less appropriate than disclosures of low intimacy and thus nonnormative (Chaikin & Derlega, 1974). The second aim was to examine the perceived intimacy of disclosures of differing emotional intensity. More intense disclosures may be considered more intimate, regardless of valence. Previous research suggests that intensity is an important discriminating feature of emotional experience, because intense emotions are not considered typical (Sommers, 1984). The study addressed two hypotheses. The first was that negative emotional disclosures would be perceived as more intimate than positive disclosures; the second was that more intense emotions of either valence would be perceived as more intimate than less intense ones. To examine perceived intimacy, the valence and intensity of self-disclosures were manipulated independently of each other, and each was manipulated independently of the topic of disclosure.
Method Subjects
Thirty male undergraduates recruited from introductory psychology classes at Concordia University completed the self-disclosure ratings; their ages ranged from 18 to 32 years ( M = 22.5). They were each paid $6 for their participation; 1 to 4 subjects participated at each session. Materials
Disclosures were constructed by an individual who was blind to the experimental hypotheses. Each disclosure was a one- or two-sentence statement that included one affect term and referred to one of six topics: work or school, entertainment, home, personal topic, spouse or companion, and interpersonal topic. Each affect term was positive or negative and was at one of five different levels of affective intensity. The affect terms represented a comprehensive sample of emotions and were drawn from earlier research (Kuiper, Derry, & MacDonald, 1982; Lorr, McNair, & Fisher, 1982; MacFarland & Ross, 1982; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). An example of a positive disclosure is, “Last night I spoke to my mother on the phone; when 1 hung up, I felt quite encouraged’ (lowest intensity level, home topic). An example of a negative disclosure is, “I think that I have changed a lot lately, and I feel heartsick about it” (highest intensity level, personal topic).
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
470
The Journal of Social Psychology
A questionnaire containing two sets of 30 disclosures each, Set A and Set B, was constructed. On this questionnaire, Set A disclosures were negative and Set B disclosures were positive. Valence (negativity vs. positivity), affective intensity (five levels), and topic (six topics) were fully counterbalanced across the 60 disclosures. This questionnaire is referred to as Form 1. A parallel questionnaire, referred to as Form 2, was constructed on which all the negative affect terms in the Set A disclosures on Form 1 were replaced by positive affect terms and all the positive affect terms in the Set B disclosures on Form 1 were replaced by negative affect terms (Figure 1). Thus, the negative Set A disclosures on Form 1 became positive on Form 2, and the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1 became negative on Form 2. The affect terms in a disclosure were of equal intensity across forms. For example, one Set A disclosure on Form 1 is, “Last night I spoke to my mother on the phone; when I hung up, I felt quite criticized.” This disclosure is the same on Form 2, except that “criticized” is replaced by “encouraged.” The two adjectives are of equal affective intensity. An example of a Set B disclosure on Form 1 is, “I think that I have changed a lot lately, and I feel temfic about it.” This discl’osure is the same on Form 2, except that “ter-
Disclosure Set A
B
(30 disclosures)
(30 disclosures)
Negative
Positive
adjectives
adjectives
inserted
inserted ~
Positive
Negative
adjectives
adjectives
inserted
inserted
FIGURE 1. Valence of affect adjectives in self-disclosuresas a function of disclosure set and questionnaire form.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Howell & Conway
47 1
rific” is replaced by “heartsick.” Again, the two adjectives are of equal affective intensity. The hypothesis that negative disclosures would be perceived as more intimate than positive disclosures translated into a predicted interaction of Set x Form, because each subject completed either Form 1 or Form 2. Each form included Set A and Set B (Figure 1). Set A disclosures were negative on Form 1 and positive on Form 2. Set B disclosures were positive on Form 1 and negative on Form 2. A comparison of the intimacy ratings made for Set A and Set B across Forms 1 and 2 identified the impact of affective valence on perceived intimacy, as the disclosures were identical across forms except for the affect terms. As Set A and Set B on Form 1 were each of opposite valence to the same sets on Form 2 and were of opposite valence to each other on Form 1, a Set x Form interaction would emerge if negative disclosures were generally perceived as more intimate than positive disclosures. Pretest. A separate group of 20 male Concordia University undergraduates rated the intensity of 200 affect adjectives in the pretest. They were instructed as follows: “When an emotion is intense, it will influence a person’s thoughts, how the person feels physically, and it may influence how much other people notice that person’s feelings.” For each adjective, they responded on a 9-point scale with endpoints labeled not at all intense (1) and extremely intense (9). On the basis of these ratings, the adjectives were assigned to five intensity categories of 40 adjectives each. To equate categories for frequency, cutoff points for categorization were 4.05, 4.65, 5.40, and 6.10. There were approximately equal numbers of positive and negative affect adjectives in each category. These adjectives were used to construct the self-disclosures. Procedure
Form 1 and Form 2 of the questionnaire were randomly distributed to subjects at each session. Subjects rated each of the 60 disclosures on a 9-point scale with endpoints labeled not intimate (1) and extremely intimate (9). For these ratings, they were asked to judge the statements as if they had been said to them by someone during a conversation. The hypothetical speaker was a male acquaintance they had met and spoken to a few times, such as someone in one of their school activities. Ratings of the valence of each disclosure were then obtained from each subject; these ratings served as a manipulation check for the affect terms. Subjects rated the same 60 disclosures, responding to each statement on a 9point scale with endpoints labeled very unpleasant ( - 4) and very pleasant
(+4h Following the intimacy and valence ratings, subjects were debriefed and remunerated. No subject indicated an awareness that the study concerned re-
412
The Journal of Social Psychology
lations among the valence, intensity, and perceived intimacy of emotional self-disclosures.
Results
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Manipulation Check Form was a between-subjects factor, and Set, intensity (5 levels), and Topic (6 levels) were within-subject factors. As a check on the affect terms, subjects’ pleasantness ratings of the disclosures were examined in a 2 x 2 (Form x Set) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The expected lower pleasantness ratings of negative disclosures corresponded to a significant Form x Set interaction, F( 1,28) = 379.8, p < .OOO1 and to nonsignificant main effects. The interaction reflects the fact that the negative Set A disclosures on Form I (M = - 1.56) were rated as less pleasant than the positive Set A disclosures on Form 2 (M = 1.66) and that the negative Set B disclosures on Form 2 (M = - 1.59) were rated as less pleasant than the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1 (M = 1.52). Contrasts on both of these simple main effects were highly significant,ps < .001. Intimacy Ratings
Subjects’ intimacy ratings for the 60 disclosures were examined in a 2 x 2 x 5 (Form x Set x Intensity) mixed ANOVA. The first hypothesis was that negative disclosures would be rated as more intimate than positive disclosures. The negative Set A disclosures on Form 1 were expected to be rated as more intimate than the positive Set A disclosures on Form 2; similarly, the negative Set B disclosures on Form 2 were expected to be rated as more intimate than the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1. This hypothesis corresponded to an expected Form x Set interaction, which did emerge, F( 1,27) = 13.63, p < .001. Analyses on the simple main effects of the interaction supported the hypothesis. The negative Set A disclosures on Form 1 were perceived to be more intimate (M = 4.52) than the positive Set A disclosures on Form 2 (M = 4.07), t(27) = 1.40, p < .07. Similarly, the negative Set B disclosures on Form 2 (M = 4.20) were perceived to be more intimate than the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1 (M = 3.63), t(27) = 1.78, p < .05. The interaction qualified an unexpected main effect of Set, F( 1, 27) = 7.52, p < .02; Set A disclosures received higher intimacy ratings (M = 4.29) than Set B disclosures (M = 3.93). The second prediction was that more intense disclosures would be rated as more intimate. The expected main effect of intensity emerged, F(4, 108) = 12.52, p < .001. Examination of the means indicated that, with one ex-
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Howell & Conway
473
ception, intimacy was rated as greater as affective intensity increased. Mean intimacy ratings for the five intensity levels were, in order of increasing intensity, 3.95, 3.82,4.04,4.16,and 4.58. Contrasts among these means revealed only significant differences that supported the intensity hypothesis. Finally, the ANOVA yielded an unexpected Set x Intensity interaction, F(4, 108) = 4.94, p < .002. This interaction emerged as Set A disclosures from the second-lowest intensity level received the second-lowest intimacy rating, whereas Set B disclosures from the second-lowest intensity level unexpectedly received the lowest intimacy rating. A second analysis including the factor Topic was performed on subjects’ intimacy ratings to determine whether the above results held across topics. Topic was treated as a random factor as the six levels of this repeated measure were a sample of possible topics of discussion. When the 2 x 2 x 5 x 6 (Form x Set x Intensity x Topic) ANOVA was performed on subjects’ intimacy ratings, several effects emerged. The additional interaction effects that emerged from this analysis did not undermine either of the hypotheses of the present study: They did not reveal systematic exceptions to the valence and intensity hypotheses with respect to topic. The significant interactions were an Intensity x Topic effect, F(20, 540) = 6.11, p < .001, a Form x Set x Topic interaction, F(5, 135) = 3.43, p < -006,and a Form x Set x Intensity x Topic effect, F(20, 540) = 3.72, p < .001. Differences in the perceived intimacy of disclosures across topics were not of major concern in the present study. Nevertheless, to allow for comparisons with other research, it is noteworthy that in addition to the above interaction effects, a main effect of topic emerged, F(5, 135) = 32.56, p < .001. Mean comparisons on this main effect yielded three conceptually coherent pairs of topics, with each pair differing significantly from the others (ps < .05). The topic pairs were, in order of increasing intimacy, entertainment (M = 2.78) and work and school (M = 3.01), home (M = 3.99) and personal topic (M = 4.16), and interpersonal topic (M = 5.38) and spouse or companion (M = 5.52).
Discussion The present study supported two hypotheses concerning the perceived intimacy of emotional self-disclosure when North American male university students judged disclosures of a hypothetical same-sex acquaintance. In line with the first hypothesis, negative disclosures were judged to be more intimate than positive disclosures for a wide range of emotions, for emotions of differing intensities, and for various topics of self-disclosure. These findings have implications for research concerning norms for emotional expression (Dosser et al., 1983; Sommers, 1984). The expression of negative emotion
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
374
The Journal of Sociul Psychology
may be negatively sanctioned in everyday social interaction in part because negative emotional disclosure may be excessively intimate for interactions with casual acquaintances. The second hypothesis was also supported. For the most part, intimacy was rated higher as the intensity of emotions increased for both positive and negative disclosures and for various topics of self-disclosure. These results suggest that the expression of low-intensity emotion is likely to be appropriate during interactions with casual acquaintances and that intense positive or negative emotional expressions, because of their high level of perceived intimacy, may be considered inappropriate. Negative disclosures of the lowest intensity received higher intimacy ratings than all but the most intense positive disclosures. This finding indicates that valence exerts a stronger effect than intensity does on the perception of the intimacy of disclosure. Valence may generally be a more salient and influential dimension of emotional self-disclosure than is intensity. The relations observed ambng self-disclosurevalence, intensity, and perceived intimacy are likely to extend beyond the parameters of the present study. Although only men participated, research on norms for emotional expression has generally failed to reveal effects for gender, and self-disclosure research has suggested that men and women attend to the same properties of disclosure and judge other’s self-disclosing behavior in a similar manner (Chelune et al., 1981). The literature also suggests that the findings observed herein for disclosures of a hypothetical casual same-sex acquaintance may also emerge for disclosures of a close friend or a member of the opposite sex. Finally, although cross-cultural comparisons have revealed differences in the amount of information people freely disclose about themselves (Jourard, 1961;Jourard & Lasakow, 1958; Plog, 1965; Srivastava, Saksena, & Kapoor, 1979), there is no evidence that relations among the valence, intensity, and perceived intimacy of self-disclosures would differ across cultures. The study of the impact of valence and intensity on the perception of self-disclosures is relevant to the interactional model of depression (Coyne, 1976a,b), which is concerned with how a depressed individual’s negative verbalizations affect others in social interaction. Coyne’s hypothesis is that depressed individuals behave in ways that lead to their rejection by others. The present findings support the view that this rejection is caused by the high intimacy of their negative communications (Coyne, 1976a). We demonstrated that negative emotional disclosures were considered more intimate than positive emotional discIosures and that more intense disclosures were considered more intimate than less intense disclosures. This study extends self-disclosure research further into the domain of emotion, an important topic for investigation that we believe plays a pivotal role in social interaction and in the development of relationships.
Howell & Conway
475
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
REFERENCES Caltabiano, M. L., & Smithson, M. (1983). Variables affecting the perception of self-disclosure appropriateness. Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 1 19-1 28. Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Variables affecting the appropriateness of self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 588593. Chelune, G. J., Skiffington, S., & Williams, C. (1981). A multidimensional analysis of observers' perceptions of self-disclosing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 599-606. Coyne, J. C. (1976a). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 186-193. Coyne, J. C. (1976b). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 14-27. Dosser, D. A., Balswick, J. O., & Halverson, C. F. (1983). Situational context of emotional expressiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 375-387. Ekman, P.,Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1982). What are the similarities and differences in facial behavior across cultures? In P. Ekman (Ed.), Emotion in the human race (Vol. 2, pp. 56-97). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Graham, J. W., Gentry, K. W., & Green, J. (1981). The self-presentational nature of emotional expression: Some evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 467-474. Highlen, P. S . , & Gillis, S. F. (1978). Effects of situational factors, sex, and attitude on affective self-disclosure and anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 270-276. Highlen, P. S . , & Johnston, B. (1979). Effects of situational variables on affective self-disclosure with acquaintances. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 255258. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 55 1-575. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jourard, S. (1961). Self-disclosure patterns in British and American college females. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 305-320. Jourard, S. , & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 91-98. Kuiper, N. A., Derry, P. A., & MacDonald, M. R. (1982). Self-reference and person perception in depression: A social cognitive perspective. In G. Weary & H. L. Mirels (Eds.), Integrations of clinical and social psychology (pp. 79-103). New York: Oxford University Press. LOK, M., McNair, D. M., & Fisher, S . (1982). Evidence for bipolar mood states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 432-436. McFarland, C . , & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 937-946. Plog , S . C . ( 1965). The disclosure of self in the United States and Germany. Journal of Social Psychology, 65, 193-203. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
476
The Journal of Social Psychology
Sommers, S. (1984). Reported emotions and conventions of emotionality among college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 201-21 5. Srivastava, R. K., Saksena, N. K., & Kapoor, K . D. (1979). Differences in selfdisclosure among tribal and nontribal boys in India. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 139-140. Taylor, D. A., & Belgrave, F. Z. (1986). The effects of perceived intimacy and valence on self-disclosure reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 241-255. Thoits, P. A. (1987, March). Emotional deviance: Implications of deviations from emotion norms for stress and mental health. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin. 98, 219-235. Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M. D., Bishop, S . E., & Pomerantz, S. D. (1982). Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 341-357.
Received September 15, 1989
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Perceived Intimacy of Expressed Emotion a
Andrew Howell & Michael Conway
a
a
Department of Psychology , Concordia University Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Andrew Howell & Michael Conway (1990) Perceived Intimacy of Expressed Emotion, The Journal of Social Psychology, 130:4, 467-476, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9924608 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924608
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4),461-416
Perceived Intimacy of Expressed Emotion ANDREW HOWELL MICHAEL CONWAY Department of Psychology Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Concordia University
ABSTRACT. Research on norms for emotional expression and self-disclosure provided the basis for two hypotheses concerning the perceived intimacy of emotional self-disclosure. The first hypothesis was that the perceived intimacy of negative emotional disclosure would be greater than that of positive emotional disclosure; the second was that disclosures of more intense emotional states would be perceived as more intimate than disclosures of less intense emotional states for both negative and positive disclosures. Both hypotheses received support when male students in Canada rated the perceived intimacy of self-disclosures that were equated for topic and that covered a comprehensive sample of emotions and a range of emotional intensities. The effects were observed across all the topics of disclosure examined.
WHEN PEOPLE INTERACT, they communicate their feelings about themselves, other people, or various objects in their environment in many ways. Both nonverbal and verbal behavior in a social interaction communicate emotion (e.g., Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1982; Zuckerman, Amidon, Bishop, & Pomerantz, 1982). The verbal expression of emotion is perhaps the more controllable form of such communication. For example, people can choose to say that they feel angry about an injustice or happy about an upcoming holiday. The controllable nature of verbal emotional expression makes it particularly subject to norms for emotional expression and to expectations regarding acceptable self-disclosure.
The research reported here was conducted while Andrew Howell had a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC) and was supported by research grants to Michael Conway from SSHRCC and Le Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et 1’Aide d la Recherche du Qukbec. Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael Conway, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W ,Montreal, Quebec H3C 1M8, Canada. 467
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
468
The Journul of Social Psychology
Norms seem to dictate which emotional expressions are appropriate in particular circumstances, as well as those that will result in negative social sanctions (Hochschild, 1979). It has been demonstrated that subjects imagining themselves expressing an emotion appropriate to a particular situation expect fewer negative social sanctions than those imagining themselves expressing an inappropriate emotion (Graham, Gentry, & Green, 1981). Additional research on norms for emotional expression has emphasized that, in general, expression of positive emotions is considered appropriate. People perceive others to be more sociable and popular if positive emotion describes the others' typical emotional experience (Sommers, 1984). When asked to describe their own and others' emotional experiences, they describe positive emotions as typical, whereas negative emotions are characterized as atypical (Sommers, 1984). The experience and display of negative emotions are regarded as unconventional and undesirable in most situations and occupations (Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Thoits, 1987). Self-disclosure research suggests that positive emotional disclosures are more likely to be made, are considered more appropriate, and are reciprocated to a greater extent than negative emotional disclosures. When people are asked to express their feelings about numerous emotional situations, they are more expressive in situations eliciting positive emotions than in those eliciting negative emotions (Dosser, Balswick, & Halverson, 1983; Highlen & Gillis, 1978; Highlen & Johnston, 1979). Perceived appropriateness of positive and negative self-disclosures has been examined by obtaining appropriateness ratings of various self-disclosure topics (Caltabiano & Smithson, 1983). Results indicated that the positive topic was considered more appropriate. Finally, reciprocity to positive and negative self-disclosures has been examined by manipulating a confederate's ratings of emotion (positive vs. negative) that accompanied the confederate's ambiguous disclosure: Subjects reciprocated more to disclosures rated as positive than to those rated as negative (Taylor & Belgrave, 1986). In sum, the theory and research of Western psychologists concerning norms for emotional expression and self-disclosure suggest that verbal expressions of positive emotion are more conventional, desirable, and appropriate than expressions of negative emotion. Furthermore, positive emotional displays are more frequent and are more often reciprocated than negative emotional displays. Although the extent to which these findings generalize to non-Western cultures is unclear, it appears that the valence (i.e., positivity or negativity) of verbal emotional expressions exerts a significant impact on how they are perceived and responded to in social interaction. The first aim of the present study was to examine the perceived intimacy of self-disclosures varying only in valence. Perceived intimacy-the amount of personal information revealed-is a central aspect of self-disclosure perception, as reported in a recent multidimensional investigation of reactions to
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Howell & Conway
469
self-disclosure (Chelune, Skiffington, & Williams, 1981). The perceived intimacy of self-disclosures also reflects perceived appropriateness and, by implication, normative expectations. Highly intimate disclosures to casual acquaintances are considered less appropriate than disclosures of low intimacy and thus nonnormative (Chaikin & Derlega, 1974). The second aim was to examine the perceived intimacy of disclosures of differing emotional intensity. More intense disclosures may be considered more intimate, regardless of valence. Previous research suggests that intensity is an important discriminating feature of emotional experience, because intense emotions are not considered typical (Sommers, 1984). The study addressed two hypotheses. The first was that negative emotional disclosures would be perceived as more intimate than positive disclosures; the second was that more intense emotions of either valence would be perceived as more intimate than less intense ones. To examine perceived intimacy, the valence and intensity of self-disclosures were manipulated independently of each other, and each was manipulated independently of the topic of disclosure.
Method Subjects
Thirty male undergraduates recruited from introductory psychology classes at Concordia University completed the self-disclosure ratings; their ages ranged from 18 to 32 years ( M = 22.5). They were each paid $6 for their participation; 1 to 4 subjects participated at each session. Materials
Disclosures were constructed by an individual who was blind to the experimental hypotheses. Each disclosure was a one- or two-sentence statement that included one affect term and referred to one of six topics: work or school, entertainment, home, personal topic, spouse or companion, and interpersonal topic. Each affect term was positive or negative and was at one of five different levels of affective intensity. The affect terms represented a comprehensive sample of emotions and were drawn from earlier research (Kuiper, Derry, & MacDonald, 1982; Lorr, McNair, & Fisher, 1982; MacFarland & Ross, 1982; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). An example of a positive disclosure is, “Last night I spoke to my mother on the phone; when 1 hung up, I felt quite encouraged’ (lowest intensity level, home topic). An example of a negative disclosure is, “I think that I have changed a lot lately, and I feel heartsick about it” (highest intensity level, personal topic).
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
470
The Journal of Social Psychology
A questionnaire containing two sets of 30 disclosures each, Set A and Set B, was constructed. On this questionnaire, Set A disclosures were negative and Set B disclosures were positive. Valence (negativity vs. positivity), affective intensity (five levels), and topic (six topics) were fully counterbalanced across the 60 disclosures. This questionnaire is referred to as Form 1. A parallel questionnaire, referred to as Form 2, was constructed on which all the negative affect terms in the Set A disclosures on Form 1 were replaced by positive affect terms and all the positive affect terms in the Set B disclosures on Form 1 were replaced by negative affect terms (Figure 1). Thus, the negative Set A disclosures on Form 1 became positive on Form 2, and the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1 became negative on Form 2. The affect terms in a disclosure were of equal intensity across forms. For example, one Set A disclosure on Form 1 is, “Last night I spoke to my mother on the phone; when I hung up, I felt quite criticized.” This disclosure is the same on Form 2, except that “criticized” is replaced by “encouraged.” The two adjectives are of equal affective intensity. An example of a Set B disclosure on Form 1 is, “I think that I have changed a lot lately, and I feel temfic about it.” This discl’osure is the same on Form 2, except that “ter-
Disclosure Set A
B
(30 disclosures)
(30 disclosures)
Negative
Positive
adjectives
adjectives
inserted
inserted ~
Positive
Negative
adjectives
adjectives
inserted
inserted
FIGURE 1. Valence of affect adjectives in self-disclosuresas a function of disclosure set and questionnaire form.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Howell & Conway
47 1
rific” is replaced by “heartsick.” Again, the two adjectives are of equal affective intensity. The hypothesis that negative disclosures would be perceived as more intimate than positive disclosures translated into a predicted interaction of Set x Form, because each subject completed either Form 1 or Form 2. Each form included Set A and Set B (Figure 1). Set A disclosures were negative on Form 1 and positive on Form 2. Set B disclosures were positive on Form 1 and negative on Form 2. A comparison of the intimacy ratings made for Set A and Set B across Forms 1 and 2 identified the impact of affective valence on perceived intimacy, as the disclosures were identical across forms except for the affect terms. As Set A and Set B on Form 1 were each of opposite valence to the same sets on Form 2 and were of opposite valence to each other on Form 1, a Set x Form interaction would emerge if negative disclosures were generally perceived as more intimate than positive disclosures. Pretest. A separate group of 20 male Concordia University undergraduates rated the intensity of 200 affect adjectives in the pretest. They were instructed as follows: “When an emotion is intense, it will influence a person’s thoughts, how the person feels physically, and it may influence how much other people notice that person’s feelings.” For each adjective, they responded on a 9-point scale with endpoints labeled not at all intense (1) and extremely intense (9). On the basis of these ratings, the adjectives were assigned to five intensity categories of 40 adjectives each. To equate categories for frequency, cutoff points for categorization were 4.05, 4.65, 5.40, and 6.10. There were approximately equal numbers of positive and negative affect adjectives in each category. These adjectives were used to construct the self-disclosures. Procedure
Form 1 and Form 2 of the questionnaire were randomly distributed to subjects at each session. Subjects rated each of the 60 disclosures on a 9-point scale with endpoints labeled not intimate (1) and extremely intimate (9). For these ratings, they were asked to judge the statements as if they had been said to them by someone during a conversation. The hypothetical speaker was a male acquaintance they had met and spoken to a few times, such as someone in one of their school activities. Ratings of the valence of each disclosure were then obtained from each subject; these ratings served as a manipulation check for the affect terms. Subjects rated the same 60 disclosures, responding to each statement on a 9point scale with endpoints labeled very unpleasant ( - 4) and very pleasant
(+4h Following the intimacy and valence ratings, subjects were debriefed and remunerated. No subject indicated an awareness that the study concerned re-
412
The Journal of Social Psychology
lations among the valence, intensity, and perceived intimacy of emotional self-disclosures.
Results
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Manipulation Check Form was a between-subjects factor, and Set, intensity (5 levels), and Topic (6 levels) were within-subject factors. As a check on the affect terms, subjects’ pleasantness ratings of the disclosures were examined in a 2 x 2 (Form x Set) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA). The expected lower pleasantness ratings of negative disclosures corresponded to a significant Form x Set interaction, F( 1,28) = 379.8, p < .OOO1 and to nonsignificant main effects. The interaction reflects the fact that the negative Set A disclosures on Form I (M = - 1.56) were rated as less pleasant than the positive Set A disclosures on Form 2 (M = 1.66) and that the negative Set B disclosures on Form 2 (M = - 1.59) were rated as less pleasant than the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1 (M = 1.52). Contrasts on both of these simple main effects were highly significant,ps < .001. Intimacy Ratings
Subjects’ intimacy ratings for the 60 disclosures were examined in a 2 x 2 x 5 (Form x Set x Intensity) mixed ANOVA. The first hypothesis was that negative disclosures would be rated as more intimate than positive disclosures. The negative Set A disclosures on Form 1 were expected to be rated as more intimate than the positive Set A disclosures on Form 2; similarly, the negative Set B disclosures on Form 2 were expected to be rated as more intimate than the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1. This hypothesis corresponded to an expected Form x Set interaction, which did emerge, F( 1,27) = 13.63, p < .001. Analyses on the simple main effects of the interaction supported the hypothesis. The negative Set A disclosures on Form 1 were perceived to be more intimate (M = 4.52) than the positive Set A disclosures on Form 2 (M = 4.07), t(27) = 1.40, p < .07. Similarly, the negative Set B disclosures on Form 2 (M = 4.20) were perceived to be more intimate than the positive Set B disclosures on Form 1 (M = 3.63), t(27) = 1.78, p < .05. The interaction qualified an unexpected main effect of Set, F( 1, 27) = 7.52, p < .02; Set A disclosures received higher intimacy ratings (M = 4.29) than Set B disclosures (M = 3.93). The second prediction was that more intense disclosures would be rated as more intimate. The expected main effect of intensity emerged, F(4, 108) = 12.52, p < .001. Examination of the means indicated that, with one ex-
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
Howell & Conway
473
ception, intimacy was rated as greater as affective intensity increased. Mean intimacy ratings for the five intensity levels were, in order of increasing intensity, 3.95, 3.82,4.04,4.16,and 4.58. Contrasts among these means revealed only significant differences that supported the intensity hypothesis. Finally, the ANOVA yielded an unexpected Set x Intensity interaction, F(4, 108) = 4.94, p < .002. This interaction emerged as Set A disclosures from the second-lowest intensity level received the second-lowest intimacy rating, whereas Set B disclosures from the second-lowest intensity level unexpectedly received the lowest intimacy rating. A second analysis including the factor Topic was performed on subjects’ intimacy ratings to determine whether the above results held across topics. Topic was treated as a random factor as the six levels of this repeated measure were a sample of possible topics of discussion. When the 2 x 2 x 5 x 6 (Form x Set x Intensity x Topic) ANOVA was performed on subjects’ intimacy ratings, several effects emerged. The additional interaction effects that emerged from this analysis did not undermine either of the hypotheses of the present study: They did not reveal systematic exceptions to the valence and intensity hypotheses with respect to topic. The significant interactions were an Intensity x Topic effect, F(20, 540) = 6.11, p < .001, a Form x Set x Topic interaction, F(5, 135) = 3.43, p < -006,and a Form x Set x Intensity x Topic effect, F(20, 540) = 3.72, p < .001. Differences in the perceived intimacy of disclosures across topics were not of major concern in the present study. Nevertheless, to allow for comparisons with other research, it is noteworthy that in addition to the above interaction effects, a main effect of topic emerged, F(5, 135) = 32.56, p < .001. Mean comparisons on this main effect yielded three conceptually coherent pairs of topics, with each pair differing significantly from the others (ps < .05). The topic pairs were, in order of increasing intimacy, entertainment (M = 2.78) and work and school (M = 3.01), home (M = 3.99) and personal topic (M = 4.16), and interpersonal topic (M = 5.38) and spouse or companion (M = 5.52).
Discussion The present study supported two hypotheses concerning the perceived intimacy of emotional self-disclosure when North American male university students judged disclosures of a hypothetical same-sex acquaintance. In line with the first hypothesis, negative disclosures were judged to be more intimate than positive disclosures for a wide range of emotions, for emotions of differing intensities, and for various topics of self-disclosure. These findings have implications for research concerning norms for emotional expression (Dosser et al., 1983; Sommers, 1984). The expression of negative emotion
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
374
The Journal of Sociul Psychology
may be negatively sanctioned in everyday social interaction in part because negative emotional disclosure may be excessively intimate for interactions with casual acquaintances. The second hypothesis was also supported. For the most part, intimacy was rated higher as the intensity of emotions increased for both positive and negative disclosures and for various topics of self-disclosure. These results suggest that the expression of low-intensity emotion is likely to be appropriate during interactions with casual acquaintances and that intense positive or negative emotional expressions, because of their high level of perceived intimacy, may be considered inappropriate. Negative disclosures of the lowest intensity received higher intimacy ratings than all but the most intense positive disclosures. This finding indicates that valence exerts a stronger effect than intensity does on the perception of the intimacy of disclosure. Valence may generally be a more salient and influential dimension of emotional self-disclosure than is intensity. The relations observed ambng self-disclosurevalence, intensity, and perceived intimacy are likely to extend beyond the parameters of the present study. Although only men participated, research on norms for emotional expression has generally failed to reveal effects for gender, and self-disclosure research has suggested that men and women attend to the same properties of disclosure and judge other’s self-disclosing behavior in a similar manner (Chelune et al., 1981). The literature also suggests that the findings observed herein for disclosures of a hypothetical casual same-sex acquaintance may also emerge for disclosures of a close friend or a member of the opposite sex. Finally, although cross-cultural comparisons have revealed differences in the amount of information people freely disclose about themselves (Jourard, 1961;Jourard & Lasakow, 1958; Plog, 1965; Srivastava, Saksena, & Kapoor, 1979), there is no evidence that relations among the valence, intensity, and perceived intimacy of self-disclosures would differ across cultures. The study of the impact of valence and intensity on the perception of self-disclosures is relevant to the interactional model of depression (Coyne, 1976a,b), which is concerned with how a depressed individual’s negative verbalizations affect others in social interaction. Coyne’s hypothesis is that depressed individuals behave in ways that lead to their rejection by others. The present findings support the view that this rejection is caused by the high intimacy of their negative communications (Coyne, 1976a). We demonstrated that negative emotional disclosures were considered more intimate than positive emotional discIosures and that more intense disclosures were considered more intimate than less intense disclosures. This study extends self-disclosure research further into the domain of emotion, an important topic for investigation that we believe plays a pivotal role in social interaction and in the development of relationships.
Howell & Conway
475
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
REFERENCES Caltabiano, M. L., & Smithson, M. (1983). Variables affecting the perception of self-disclosure appropriateness. Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 1 19-1 28. Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Variables affecting the appropriateness of self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 588593. Chelune, G. J., Skiffington, S., & Williams, C. (1981). A multidimensional analysis of observers' perceptions of self-disclosing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 599-606. Coyne, J. C. (1976a). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 186-193. Coyne, J. C. (1976b). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 14-27. Dosser, D. A., Balswick, J. O., & Halverson, C. F. (1983). Situational context of emotional expressiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 375-387. Ekman, P.,Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1982). What are the similarities and differences in facial behavior across cultures? In P. Ekman (Ed.), Emotion in the human race (Vol. 2, pp. 56-97). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Graham, J. W., Gentry, K. W., & Green, J. (1981). The self-presentational nature of emotional expression: Some evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 467-474. Highlen, P. S . , & Gillis, S. F. (1978). Effects of situational factors, sex, and attitude on affective self-disclosure and anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 270-276. Highlen, P. S . , & Johnston, B. (1979). Effects of situational variables on affective self-disclosure with acquaintances. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 255258. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 55 1-575. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jourard, S. (1961). Self-disclosure patterns in British and American college females. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 305-320. Jourard, S. , & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 91-98. Kuiper, N. A., Derry, P. A., & MacDonald, M. R. (1982). Self-reference and person perception in depression: A social cognitive perspective. In G. Weary & H. L. Mirels (Eds.), Integrations of clinical and social psychology (pp. 79-103). New York: Oxford University Press. LOK, M., McNair, D. M., & Fisher, S . (1982). Evidence for bipolar mood states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 432-436. McFarland, C . , & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 937-946. Plog , S . C . ( 1965). The disclosure of self in the United States and Germany. Journal of Social Psychology, 65, 193-203. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 09:42 05 November 2014
476
The Journal of Social Psychology
Sommers, S. (1984). Reported emotions and conventions of emotionality among college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 201-21 5. Srivastava, R. K., Saksena, N. K., & Kapoor, K . D. (1979). Differences in selfdisclosure among tribal and nontribal boys in India. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 139-140. Taylor, D. A., & Belgrave, F. Z. (1986). The effects of perceived intimacy and valence on self-disclosure reciprocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 241-255. Thoits, P. A. (1987, March). Emotional deviance: Implications of deviations from emotion norms for stress and mental health. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin. 98, 219-235. Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M. D., Bishop, S . E., & Pomerantz, S. D. (1982). Face and tone of voice in the communication of deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 341-357.
Received September 15, 1989
