Vol. 2 No.

4 Summer 1976

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT

OF REPORTED SELF-DISCLOSURE

LAWRENCE R . WHEELESS and JANIS GROTZ

West Virginia University

This study investigated the dimensionality and measurement of self-reported self-

disclosure. Self-perceptions of disclosure to 20 “target” persons were found to involve
at least five relatively uncorrelated dimensions. An initial instrument was developed for
measuring these dimensions. Further improvement in measurement was recommended.

Within the past two decades, an area which has
received considerable attention by psychologists
and communication scholars alike is self-
disclosure. This study extends this strand of re-
search by examining the conceptualization and
measurement of self-disclosure. The report that fol-
lows represents part of an earlier larger study
(Wheeless & Grotz, 1975).
Self-disclosure might be defined as “any infor-
mation about himself which Person A communi-
cates verbally to a Person B ” (Cozby, 1973, p. 73).
Others might insist that this information be of an
intimate or private nature which normally is not
readily available to others (Pearce & Sharp, 1973).
This phenomenon or highly similar ones have some-
times been referred to by such terms associal acces-
sibility (Rickers-Ovsiankina, 1956) and verbal ac-
cessibiliry (Polansky, 1965); but for the most part,
the literature dealing with this concept has labelled
it self-disclosure. In this context, Cozby’s defini-
tion provides a tenable working conceptualization
of self-disclosure. A modification of that concep-
tualization which allows for clearer focus on poten-
tial dimensionality can be stated as follows: a self-
disclosure is any message about the self that a per-
son communicates to another. Consequently, any
messages or message unit may potentially vary in
the degree of self-disclosure present depending
upon the perception of the message by those in-
volved. Theprocess of self-disclosure is the process
of communication through self-disclosive mes-
sages.
In regard to dimensions of such messages, self-
disclosure may potentially vary in frequency, dura-
tion, honesty, accuracy, intimacy, disclosive in-
tent, positive or negative information, and rele-
vance to other topics under discussion. Altman and
Taylor (1973), as well as Cozby (1973), have sug-
gested that there are three basic parameters or di-
mensions of self-disclosure: (1) breadth is the
amount of information disclosed, (2) depth is the
intimacy of information disclosed, and (3) duration
is the amount of time spent disclosing. Others such
as Jourard (197 1) have implied an additional dimen-
sion related to the honesty of the disclosure. Pearce
and Sharp (1973), for example, have implied that
conscious, deliberate intent to disclose or willing-
ness to disclose as well as honesty or authenticity
may be basic parameters or dimensions of disclo-
sure.
Based upon the assumed existence of these di-
mensions and upon related research, it is possible
logically to extend the number and types of possible
dimensions by considering a self-disclosure to be a
message or message characteristic (unit). The dis-
closiveness of messages may vary in degrees as do
other aspects of messages (e.g., language inten-
sity). In this context, the amount of disclosure
would be a function of both the frequency and the
duration of the disclosive messages or message
units. Further, the depth of the disclosure would be
a function of the self-perceived intimacy of the
information-topic revealed, the honesty of those
revelations, the accuracy with which the individual
 CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING SELF-DISCLOSURE
perceives himself and is subsequently capable of
verbalizing those perceptions, and the conscious
intent (willingness) of the individual to make self-
revealing disclosure. As may be reflected in any
message, these disclosures, in turn, may reveal var-
ying degrees ofpositive or negative information as
evaluatively perceived (Osgood, Suci & Tannen-
baum, 1957) by the discloser or disclosee. Also, the
disclosures may reflect relevance (or irrelevance) to
another communication topic under discussion and
thus function to affect the perceived credibility and
other perceptions about the disclosing individual
(Ostermeier, 1967; Wheeless 1973). How indepen-
dent or related these potential dimensions may be,
however, remains an important, unanswered ques-
tion.
The most widely used instrument to measure
self-disclosure has been Jourard’s Self-Disclosure
Inventory (Jourard & Lasakow , 1958). The instru-
ment reflects the potential dimensionality of self-
disclosure only in terms of the intimacy level of
types of information disclosed and the honesty with
which such disclosures are made. The SDI origi-
nally consisted of 6 0 items about six content areas
(attitudes and opinions, tastes and interests, work
and studies, money, personality, and body). Sub-
sequently, the instrument has been shortened to 25
items (SDI-25). However, studies using these in-
struments have varied the number of items and
disclosure target-persons. Although many resear-
chers continue to use them, there is little evidence of
their validity.
Lubin and Hamson (1964) found a .13 correla-
tion between subjects’ total scores on the SDI and
ratings of actual self-disclosing behavior. They
concluded that the SDI had no predictive value in
the small group setting. Pederson and Higbee
(1969) administered both the SDI-60 and the
SDI-25 and found little consistency in the pattern of
correlations between the two instruments, which
apparently indicates that these two measures of
self-disclosure are not measuring the same attribute.
Himelstein’s and Lubin’s (1965) research indicated
no significant relationship of the SDI to a peer
nomination technique of self-disclosing behavior.
Pederson and Breglio (1968), Himelstein and Kim-
339
brough (1963), and Burhenne and Mirels (1970)
also failed to confirm the validity of these instru-
ments. Apparently Cozby (1973, 80) was correct
when he asserted that “continued use of the JSDQ
will only perpetuate the confusion that already
exists in the literature.”
Other typical instruments used to measure self-
disclosure include a Self-Disclosure Inventory for
Adolescents (West & Zingle, 1969), a scoring sys-
tem for preadolescents (Vondracek & Vondracek,
197 l), the Social Accessibility Scale (Rickers-
Ovsiankina, 1956), Marshall’s (1970) Self-
Disclosure Questionnaire, and a similar 144-item
questionnaire used by Vondracek and Marshall
(1971). They appear to share some of the problems
of Jourard’s inventory or have limited applicability
(e.g., for adolescents). However, since they have
not been widely utilized, determination of their val-
idity has not been sufficiently established.
What is needed is a self-disclosurereport which is
both topic-free and capable of measuring a number
of potential dimensions of disclosure. The devel-
opment of a topic-free instrument would allow re-
searchers to assess perceptions of actual disclosing
communication behaviors rather than simply to
measure their frequency across a variety of content
areas. Although it is reasonable to assume that some
topics of self-disclosure are more intimate than
others, the perception of the intimacy of specific
topics may well vary from person to person. There-
fore, allowing the individual to infer how intimate
his disclosure is without specifying topics might be
a better approach to assessing depth on the intimacy
dimension without requiring intimate disclosure on
the questionnaire itself. This procedure would also
allow for additional topic-free items to assess other
potential dimensions of disclosure without consid-
eration of, and possible contamination from,
specified topics of disclosure in discussion.
As implied above, research in this area has relied
mainly upon paper and pencil self-reports or similar
techniques for measuring self-disclosure. Problems
in past research may be due to the fact that subjects’
responses regarding past disclosing behaviors to
specific targets do not necessarily predict how they
behave in an actual disclosure situation, where (in
340 Wheeless and Grotz
experiments, at least) typically the target is an ex-
perimenter or a previously unknown (or little
known) peer. Such experimental manipulations of
disclosure in experimenter-subject and
interviewer-subject and interviewer-interviewee
types of settings have emerged as additional ways of
studying the concept and process of self-disclosure.
However, since many researchers require some ar-
bitrarily established intimacy level as a necessary
requisite for self-disclosure, these contrived ex-
perimental environments probably preclude, or at
least reduce, the possibility of studying disclosive
communication in a “normal or natural” sense.
Therefore, a topic-free self-report appears to be a
viable and sometimes desirable means of assessing
self-disclosure despite some problems associated
with self-reports in general.
Therefore, this study focused upon these mea-
surement and conceptual issues. Specifically, the
study attempted development of a new measuring
instrument, exploration of the potential dimensions
of self-disclosure, and assessment of relationships
among discovered dimensions. Consequently, the
following research questions were investigated: (1)
what is the dimensional nature of reported self-
disclosure and (2) what are the nature and strength
of the relationships among dimensions of reported
self-disclosure?
METHOD
Sample and Procedures
A sample of 26 1 Ss was selected for this study. In
an attempt to increase sample diversity, 100 Ss
selected consisted of teachers in the state who were
enrolled in an introductory graduate extension
course on communication in the classroom, along
with their spouses or oldest child. The remainder of
the sample was selected from lower division courses
in human communication at an eastern university.
All Ss were randomly assigned to disclosure targets
and treatment conditions according to the procedure
outlined below. Sample diversity and randomiza-
tion were thought to increase generalizability of
results.
The larger study (Wheeless & Grotz, 1975), of
which this study was a part, was concerned with
generating instruments capable of assessing rela-
tionships and testing hypotheses related to the effect
of trust on reported self-disclosure. Ss were ad-
ministered a booklet containing a 15-item measure
of generalized trust, a 15-item measure of trust in a
specific target person, and the 32-item instrument
designed to measure dimensions of self-reported
self-disclosure to the previously specified target
person. Ss were randomly assigned to one of 20
disclosure targets. The 20 targets specified (an at-
tempt to maximize variability as those considered
“close” and “more distant”) were the following:
mother, father, brothedsister, spouse, girl/
boyfriend, best male friend, best female friend,
doctor, ministedpriest, psychologist/guidance
counselor, barber/hairdresser, neighbor,
instructor/professor, roommate, classmember,
co-worker, disliked male, disliked female,
subordinate/employee, bodsuperior. If an S did
not know a target such as the one he was assigned to,
then he exchanged booklets with another S or was
given the next booklet containing a different target.
The study was administered under the guise of an
attempt “to develop some resources (scales,
sources, etc.) for future research.” Although in-
formation was requested in terms of age, sex, and
marital status, Ss were not asked to identify them-
selves. Rather they were told that the researchers
wanted to know how “people in general re-
sponded” in order to assess the value of the mate-
rials. Consequently, only 12 Ss failed to respond
sufficiently to be included in the analysis (N=249).
Self-Disclosure Measurement
Thirty-two Likert-type statements consisting of
seven-interval responses were used as the initial
item pool in an attempt to measure self-reported
self-disclosure on the dimensions offrequency, du-
ration, intimacy, honesty, accuracy, conscious in-
tent to disclose (willingness), positive-negative
(evaluation), and relevance to topic of discussion
(see Table 3 for items included after statistical
 CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING SELF-DISCLOSURE 34 1

TABLE 1
Factor Loadings for Self-Disclosure Items
from Orthogonal Rotation*

Item number keyed

t o Table 3 Intent Amount Pos-Neg Honesty-Acc Gen Depth

Item 1 .77 - .06 - . 13 - . 18 - .07

Item 2 .79 - .15 -.01 - .21 - .07

-.
Item 3 .73 .11 -.03 -.01 .16

Item 4 .02 .71 -.1 2 - .06 -. 16

Item 5 .02 .65 .14 - .04 -.16

Item 6 -.11 .80 - .04 -04 . 00

Item 8 .06 -. 14 - .84 .04 -.08

Item 9 .09 .18 -. 79 - .20 .15

Item 10 .04 - .00 -.18 - .68 .04

Item 11 .19 .
- 00 - .24 - .69 .15

Item 1 2 -17 .12 .12 -.61 -.07

Item 1 3 .04 - .04 .07 -.73 - . 04
Item 1 4 .21 .I5 -.25 - .08 - .65
Item 1 5 .01 .24 .07 .I2 - .so
Item 16 - .26 . 00 .21 -.Ol -.72

% of t o t a l variance 13% 12% 11% 13% 11%

(60%)

" N e g a t i v e l y worded items r e f l e c t e d b e f o r e r o t a t i o n

342 Wheeless and Grotz
analysis). Four items for each dimension were writ-
ten to reflect face validity for measuring the appro-
priate dimensions. The items were then randomly
ordered before duplication and dissemination. All
of the items were subjected to analysis for dimen-
sionality and subsequent reliability.
Statistical Analysis
Principal components factor analyses with both
orthogonal and oblique rotations were used to inves-
tigate the dimensionality of the measuring instru-
ments. The scree procedure recommended by Cattel
and the establishment of an eigenvalue of 1.O as an
initial cut-off criterion were used to determine the
number of factors present. If the items in a test
analyzed were multidimensional (not unidimen-
sional instruments according to the scree procedure
and eigenvalue of 1.O criterion) then an additional
criterion was established for the acceptance of an
additional extracted factor. Each factor was re-
quired to have at least two items loaded at .60 or
above with no secondary loadings at .40 or above.
Items were accepted as loaded on an additional
extracted factor if they met the .60/.40 criterion.
Pearson product-moment correlations were used to
assess the magnitude of relationships among extrac-
ted dimensions as well as to facilitate estimates of
reliability (Nunnally, 1967, 193). The .05 level was
required for tests of statistical significance.
RESULTS
The 32-item self-disclosure instrument used in
the study was factor analyzed using orthogonal and
oblique rotational solutions. The orthogonal rota-
tion, which results in uncorrelated factors, pro-
duced a five-factor solution accounting for 60% of
the total variance with 15 items meeting the criteria
for loading on a factor (see Table 1). The five
independent dimensions of self-disclosure extracted
were related to the following: (1) intent to disclose,
(2) amount of disclosure, including both frequency
and duration time, (3) the positive-negative nature
of disclosure, (4) the honesty-accuracy of disclo-
sure, and ( 5 ) general depth-control of disclosure.
Variance on each factor accounted for by items
loaded on each factor ranged from 83% to 91%.
Factor reliabilities were .72, .61, .64, .74, and .62
respectively.
The oblique rotation, allowing for extraction of
correlated factors, produced a very similar six-
factor solution accounting for 60% of the total var-
iance (see Table 2). Seventeen items met the criteria
for loading on a factor. Subjects perceived the fol-
lowing six dimensions of self-disclosure: (1)
honesty-accuracy of disclosure, (2) amount, includ-
ing frequency and duration, (3) general depth-
control of disclosure, (4) positive-negative nature of
disclosure, (5) intent to disclose, and (6) a dimen-
sion consisting of two items concerned with the
relevance of the disclosure to the topic of discussion
and with the positive nature of the message itself
(see Table 3). Variance on each factor accounted for
by items loaded on each factor ranged from 80% to
91%. Factor reliabilities were .64, .74, .62, .64,
.72, and .25, respectively. Correlations between
Factors 1 and 5 (r = .18, df = 247), 2 and 3 (r =
.14, df = 247), and Factors 4 and 5 (r = .17, df =
247) were statistically significant but did not ac-
count for a meaningful amount of shared variance (a
maximum of 3%).
INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
In the above analysis, self-reported self-
disclosure was found to be multidimensional. The
orthogonal factor solution and the lack of meaning-
ful correlations among factors in the oblique solu-
tions indicated that these dimensions of self-
disclosure are virtually independent perceptions.
Based upon these self-perceptions, at least five di-
mensions of self-disclosure were discovered: (1)
consciously intended disclosure, (2) amount of dis-
closure, (3) positive-negative nature of the disclo-
sure, (4) honesty-accuracy of the disclosure, and (5)
control of general depth or intimacy of disclosure.
In terms of expected dimensions, intent or willing-
ness to disclose appeared in the modified form (1
above) due to specific items loading on that factor.
Items concerned with frequency and duration col-
lapsed into a single factor concerned with general
 CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING SELF-DISCLOSURE 343

TABLE 2
Factor Loadings for Self-Disclosure Items
from Oblique Rotation*

Item number keyed Rele-

t o Table 3 Honesty Amount Gen Depth Pos-Neg Intent vence

Item 1 - . 10 .09 .I1 - .05 .75 - .05

Item 2 -. 1 2 .15 -10 .04 .79 -.01

Item 3 .06 -. 15 -.1 7 .06 .74 - .06

Item 4 .03 .72 -. 1 2 .05 -.01 .07

Item 5 - ,02 .61 - . 13 -.21 -.08 - .04

Item 6 - .1 0 .75 -03 - .05 .07 -.02

Item 7 .16 .61 .06 .27 .08 - .02

Item 8 .10 .15 .11 -.go -.03 -.04

Item 9 .19 .20 .13 .71 -.Ol .06

Item 10 .74 .02 .05 .02 .00 .22

Item 11 .70 .02 .12 .12 -. 1 7 - -07

Item 13 .67 -.01 -.07 - .06 - .04 - .09

Item 14 - .03 - .08 .70 - .31 .18 .17

Item 15 .ll - . 15 .79 .07 -02 - .02

Item 1 6 -.05 .02 .66 .20 -.26 - .28

Item 1 7 .31 - .02 - .05 -.1 7 .17 - .65

Item 1 8 -. 25 .03 .07 .04 -.01 - .76
~~~~ ~~~~ ~

% of Total Variance 10% 12% 10% 10% 11% 7%

(60%)

* N e g a t i v e l y worded items n o t r e f l e c t e d b e f o r e r o t a t i o n .
344 Wheeless and Grotz

TABLE 3
Self-Disclosure Scales

Loaded on
S c a l e Item' Orthogonal O b l i q u e

I n t en d ed D i s c l o s u r e F a c t o r
1. When I w i s h , my s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s a r e always a c c u r a t e
r e f l e c t i o n s o f who I r e a l l y am. X X
2 . When I e x p r e s s my p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s , I am always aware
o f what I am doing and s a y i n g . X X
3 . When I r e v e a l my f e e l i n g s a b o u t m y s e l f , I c o n s c i o u s l y
i n t e n d t o do s o . X X
Amount F a c t o r
~~

4 . I do n o t o f t e n t a l k a b o u t m y s e l f . * * X X
5 . My s t a t e m e n t s o f my f e e l i n g s a r e u s u a l l y b r i e f . X X
6 . My c o n v e r s a t i o n l a s t s t h e l e a s t time when I am d i s -
cussing myself. X X
7 . Only i n f r e q u e n t l y do I e x p r e s s my p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s
and o p i n i o n s . X
Positive-Negative Factor
8 . I u s u a l l y d i s c l o s e u o s i t i v e t h i n g- s ab o u t myself X X
9 . On t h e whole, my d i s c l o s u r e s a b o u t myself a r e more
negative than p o s i t i v e . X X
Honesty-Accuracy F a c t o r
1 0 . I can n o t r e v e a l myself when I want t o b ecau se I do
n o t know myself t h o r o u g h l y enough. X X
1 1 . I am o f t e n n o t c o n f i d e n t t h a t my e x p r e s s i o n o f my own
f e e l i n g s , e m o t io n s , and e x p e r i e n c e s a r e t r u e r e f l e c t i o n s
o f myself. X X
1 2 . I m i n o t always h o n e s t i n my s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s . X
13. I do n o t always f e e l c o m p le te ly s i n c e r e when I r e v e a l
my own f e e l i n g s , e m o ti o n s , h e h a v i o r s , o r e x p e r i e n c e s . X X
C o_
_ n t_r o-l _o_
f General
__ Depth F a c t o r
1 4 . I i n t i m a t e l y d i s c l o s e who I r e a l l y am, o - p en l y. and
f u l l y i n my c o n v e r s a t i o n . X x
15. Once I g e t s t a r t e d , my s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s l a s t a l o n g
time. X X
1 6 . I t y p i c a l l y r e v e a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t myself w i t h o u t
intending t o . X X
Relevance-Message N a t u r e F a c t o r
1 7 . My messages r e v e a l m o s tl y what I l i k e . X
18. My d i s c l o s u r e s o f p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s and o p i n i o n s a r e
always d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . X

*Persons f i l l i n g - o u t t h e s e s c a l e s must be i n s t r u c t e d t o "mark t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e -

ments t o r e f l e c t how you communicate w i t h ( t a r g e t person) 9,

**Note t h a t n e g a t i v e l y worded items must be r e f l e c t e d b e f o r e s c o r i n g o f each f a c t o r

 CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING SELF-DISCLOSURE
amount of disclosure. Likewise, self-perceived
honesty and accuracy items loaded as a single di-
mension. Half of the items designed to measure
perceived positive or negativeness loaded as a
single dimension. Items concerned with intimacy or
depth did not, interestingly, load as a separate fac-
tor. Rather, topic free self-perceptions of depth ap-
peared to be concerned with control of the intimacy
or depth of disclosure. Relevance of self-disclosure
items failed to be perceived as a unique dimension.
Moreover, three of the factors extracted by both
analyses (intent, positiveness, control of depth)
contained identical items, and only small variations
in items loaded occurred in the other common fac-
tors (see Table 3). The sixth factor extracted in the
oblique analysis was impossible to interpret in a
meaningful way and also possessed extremely low
reliability. While some perception was possibly
being measured, the nature of that perception was
unclear, both on the face and in light of the predicted
potential factors. Therefore, the results of the study
were interpreted as supporting the existence of at
least five perceived dimensions of reported self-
disclosure.
The resulting self-disclosure scales relating to the
extracted dimensions were regarded only as initial
instruments in need of further item development and
validation before general use. The relatively few
items loaded on some factors explained the lower
reliabilities on those factors. Apparently, five or six
items loaded on each factor would be necessary to
produce high reliability. Also, the stability of load-
ings might well vary somewhat because the 16 items
were extracted from a longer 32-item pool.
In regard to validation, some content validity
could be argued on the basis of disclosure factors
discovered in the analyses in relation to the potential
dimensions predicted. Initial indications of predic-
tive validity were found in the larger study (Whee-
less & Grotz, 1975) from which this report was
drawn. Results from that study indicated that more
consciously intended disclosure and greater
amounts of disclosure were related to higher trust in
disclosure targets (as opposed to lesser trust). In
addition, more honest disclosure, less positive dis-
closure, and less control over depth of disclosure
345
was reported by females than by males. Nonethe-
less, further validation is needed.
Clearly, future research should consider mul-
tidimensional aspects of self-disclosure. Prerequis-
ite to this more complete research approach is
further development and validation of sufficient
measurement. Such research is currently underway.
Our understanding of the communication process
itself, especially in the interpersonal environment,
may well rest upon systematic inquiry into the
nature and measurement of the self-disclosure pro-
cess.
REFERENCES
ALTMAN, I., & TAYLOR, D.A. Social penetration:
The development of interpersonal relationships. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
BURHENNE, D., & MIRELS, H.L. Self-disclosure in
self-descriptive essays. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35, 409-413.
COZBY, P. Self-disclosure:A literature review. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1973, 79, 73-91.
HIMELSTEIN, P., & KIMBROUGH, W., JR. A study
of self-disclosure in the classroom. Journal of
Psychology, 1963, 55, 437-440.
HIMELSTEIN, P., & LUBIN, B. Attempted validation
of the Self-disclosure Inventory by the peer nomina-
tion technique. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 6 1 ,
13-16.
JOURARD, S.M. The transparent self. New York: D.
Van Nostrand, 1971.
JOURARD, S.M., & LASAKOW, P. Some factors in
self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1958, 56, 91-98.
LUBIN, B., & HARRISON, R.L. Predicting small group
behavior with the Self-DisclosureInventory. Psycho-
logical Reports, 1964, 15, 77-78.
MARSHALL, M. The effects of two interviewer vari-
ables on self-disclosure in an experimental interview
situation. Unpublished masters thesis, Pennsylvania
State University, 1970.
NUNNALY, J.C. Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.
OSGOOD, C., SUCI, G., & TANNENBAUM, P. The
measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of 11-
linois Press, 1957.
OSTERMEIER, T. Effects of type and frequency of re-
ference upon perceived source credibility and attitude
346 Wheeless and Grotz

change. Speech Monographs, 1967, 34, 137-144.
PEARCE, W.B., & SHARP, S.M. Self-disclosing com-
munication. Journal of Cornrnunicution, 1973, 23,
409-425.
PEDERSON, D.M., & BREGLIO, V. The correlation of
two self-disclosure inventories with actual self-
disclosure: A validity study. Journal of Psychology,
1968, 68, 291-298.
PEDERSON, D.M., & HIGBEE, K.L. Self-disclosure
and relationship to the target person. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 1969, 15, 213-220.
POLANSKY, N.A. The concept of verbal accessibility.
Smith CollegeStudiesinSocial Work, 1965,36, 1-46.
RICKERS-OVSIANKINA, M. A. Social accessibility in
three age groups. P.rychologica1 Reports, 1956, 2,
283-294.
VONDRACEK, F.W., & MARSHALL, M. Self-
disclosure and interpersonal trust: An exploratory
study. Psychological Reports, 1971. 28, 235-240.
VONDRACEK, S.I., & VONDRACEK, F.W. Theman-
ipulation and measurement of self-disclosure in
preadolescents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 197 I , 17,
51-58.
WEST, L., & ZINGLE, H.W. A self-disclosure inven-
tory for adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1969,
24, 439-445.
WHEELESS, L.R. Effects of explicit credibility state-
ments by more credible and less credible sources.
Southern Speech Cornrnunicution Journal, 1913, 39,
33-39.
WHEELESS, L.R., & GROTZ, J . Self-disclosure and
trust: Conceptualization, measurement, and inter-
relationships. Paper presented at the Convention of the
International Communication Association, Chicago,
April, 1975.

KEEP P A C E wirk T k E [ATEST A d V A N C E S

Human communication &search

Transaction, I n c D e p t C
Rutgers-The State University
N e w B r u n s w i c k . N e w Jersey 08903

Check Appropriate Box(es) (For debvery outside USA and

0 One Year $15 Canada add $2 per year)
0 Two Years $25
0 Three Years $35
o N E W SUBSCRIBER
0 Send-back issues ( $ 5 each) of Vol -No -
0 My remittance of LIS
enclosed

Name

Address Apt #

city State Zip C o d e