You are on page 1of 2

Some factors in self disclosure Self disclosure has been studied and discussed hitherto in a tangential, not a direct,

way. Block (1952) and block and Bennett (1955) demon strated that what a erson told others about himself was a function of the role he held with regard to the others. !or e"am le, a secretary re#ealed different as ects of herself to her boss than she did to a fellow secretary. $ewin (195%) noted differences between ty ical &ermans and 'mericans regarding their readiness to confide ersonal information, the accurate ortrayal of the self to others was an identifying criterion of healthy ersonality, while neurosis is realated to inability to know one(s )real self* and to make it known to others (+ourard, 19,-). .haracterological studies of fromm (19/0), 1iesman (1952), and 3orney (1952) called attention to a tendency, common among ersons in our society, to misre resent the self to others. 4his tendency is central to the )marketing ersonality,* the )other5directed character,* and the )self5alienated* indi#idual, as these ha#e been described by their res ecti#e authors. 6t is a arent, too that much of social science is founded on a erson(s willingness to re#eal himself to researchers7 the conditions and dimensions of authentic self5disclosure therefore bear directly u on the #alidity of many )fact* in the social science (see art 66). !rom the foregoing, it may be concluded that more direct analysis of self disclosure romises to yield information that is rele#ant to di#erseareas of human e"istence. 4he following 8uestions werw ro osed for this first in#estigation9 1. :o sub;ects #ary in the e"tent to which they disclose themsel#es to different target ersons, for e"am le, mother, father, male friend, and female friend< =hat is the effect of the sub;ects( marital status on self5disclosure to arents and friends< =hat is th effect of the sub;ects( feelings and attitudes toward articular target5 ersons u on self5 disclosure to them< (this last 8uestion wasin#estigated only with res ect to the relationshi between sub;ects( disclosure of self to arents, and their feelings and attitudes towards their arents.) 2. 're some categories of ersonal information more readily disclosed than others< -. :o the se"es differ in self5disclosure< :o #arious racial and ethnic grou s in our society differ in this acti#ity<

>ethod 6nstruments 4he self disclosure 8uestionnaire.' ,2 item 8uestionnaire was de#ised. 's can be seen in a endi" 1, the items are classified in grou s of 12 within each of , more general categories of information about the self (as ect). Sub;ect were gi#en the following instructions forcom leting the 8uestionnaire9

4he answer sheet which you ha#e been gi#en has columns with the headings mother, father, male friends, female friends, and s ouse. ?ou are to read each item on the 8uestionnaire, and then indicate on the answer sheet th e"tent that you ha#e talked about that item to each erson7 that is, the e"tent to which you ha#e made yourself known to that erson. @se the rating scale that you see on the answer sheet to dscribe the e"tent that you ha#e talked about each item. 4h self disclosure rating scale was as follows9 2 9 ha#e told the other erson nothing about this as ect of me. 1 9 ha#e talked in general terms about this. 4he other ersons has only a general idea about this as ect of me. 2 9 ha#e talked in full and com lete detail about this item to the other erson. 3e knows me fully in this res ect and could describe me accurately. A9 ha#e lied or misre resented myself to the other erson so that he has a false icture of me.