Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, Vol. 43, No.

1, 163-175

Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-35I4/82/4301-0163J00.75

Self-Monitoring as a Determinant of Self-Disclosure Reciprocity During the Acquaintance Process

David R. Shaffer University of Georgia Michele Tomarelli University of Georgia
The present experiment tests the hypothesis that one's self-monitoring abilities affect one's willingness to reciprocate important parameters of a partner's selfdisclosures during the acquaintance process. Subjects who had previously completed Snyder's Self-Monitoring Scale alternated with a confederate in disclosing private information on four personal topics. The confederate spoke first on each topic, presenting either highly intimate or. nonintimate information in response to all four issues. Content analyses of subjects' disclosures provided strong support for the experimental hypotheses: High self-monitors were more likely than low self-monitors to reciprocate the intimacy, emotionality, and descriptive content of the confederate's presentations when self-disclosing to this person. Analyses of postexperimental data suggested that high and low self-monitors processed information about confederates' social behavior similarly but were differentially motivated to use this information when formulating their own self-presentational strategies.

Jonathan E. Smith Akron University

Developing relationships between new acquaintances are characterized by the exchange of information about the selves (i.e., self-disclosure). Perhaps the most consistent finding in laboratory studies of the acquaintance process is the so-called "dyadic" or "disclosure reciprocity" effect: The best predictor of the level of self-disclosure that Person X will use in revealing himself or herself to Person Y is the level of disclosure that Person Y exhibited when relating to X (for literature reviews, see Archer, 1979; Chaikin & Derlega, 1974; Cozby, 1973). Typically, reciprocity of disclosure among acquaintances evolves as one member of the dyad assumes the role of "pacesetter" in respect
The authors are indebted to Shelly Barnette, William Combs, Martha McFadden, and Arthur Miltadis, who assisted us in collecting the data, and to Sally Humpheries and Dennis Benson, who served as raters for the content analyses of subjects' self-disclosures. We also wish to thank Gordon J. Chelune and William G. Graziano for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be addressed to David R. Shaffer, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602.

to the intimacy of disclosures, while the other member assumes a "reciprocating" role (Davis, 1976, 1977). Altman and his associates (Altman, 1973; Altman & Taylor, 1973) have argued that reciprocity is particularly important during the early stages of a relationship when a matching of the breadth and depth of participants' self-disclosures promotes the sense of mutual trustworthiness that is necessary to allow the relationship to progress into more intimate stages. On the other hand, individuals who have previously established a close relationship need not follow a social "norm of reciprocity" when disclosing among themselves in any particular situation, for their relationship already rests on a foundation of trust and should not be seriously impaired by one member's occasional failure to reciprocate the level of disclosure exhibited by the other (Altman, 1973). Indeed, recent laboratory research indicates that strangers are more likely than intimate companions (i.e., friends or spouses) to reciprocate intimacy of self-disclosure in a given exchange or encounter (Derlega, Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976; Morton, 1978). We must

163

164

D. SHAFFER, J. SMITH, AND M. TOMARELLI

note, however, that there are occasions when strangers will not engage in reciprocal selfdisclosure during the early stages of their relationships. If, for example, one participant is overly intimate or intrusive, the disclosure may threaten the second party and/ or create a seemingly unwarranted obligation to reciprocate. Under these circumstances, recipients of intrusive disclosures may express a dislike for the first party and/ or fail to match his or her level of disclosure (Archer & Berg, 1978; Brewer & Mittelman, 1980; Cozby, 1972; Rubin, 1975). To date, research on the "disclosure reciprocity" effect has emphasized the situational determinants of reciprocal self-disclosure while paying little attention to individual differences in the willingness to reciprocate. Yet, it is clear that one's response to the selfdisclosures of an acquaintance is a form of .^//-presentation that is likely to be affected by both dispositional and situational factors. There is now a substantial literature addressing the issue of dispositional influence on self-disclosure (see Archer, 1979, for a recent review), but unfortunately, the majority of these projects have sought to identify broad summary relationships between various traits and the willingness to disclose while ignoring important situational parameters that affect self-disclosure. Consequently, this body of research paints a "hazy, confused (and often inconsistent) portrait" of who discloses because investigators have generally failed to recognize that the nature of "trait-disclosure" relationships obtained in any one study depends, in part, on the context or situation in which the disclosures occur (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Archer, 1979). In recent years, many social and personality psychologists have adopted an interactionist approach, noting that situations, like persons, vary along quantifiable dimensions and that most social behaviors are influenced by both situational and dispositional parameters (Bern & Allen, 1974; Bern & Funder, 1978; Snyder & Monson, 1975). From an interactionist perspective, the critical question for the student of self-disclosure is not "Who discloses?" but rather "Who is most likely to disclose (or reciprocate) in a particular setting or situation?"

Self-Monitoring as a Moderator of Situational and Dispositional Influences One construct that is thought to moderate the influence of dispositions and situations on social behavior is self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974; 1979). Self-monitoring individuals have a strong concern that their behavior be appropriate for the situation in which they find themselves. They are particularly sensitive to the expressions and self-presentations of others in social situations, and they use such cues as guidelines for managing their own behavior and/or for creating the appropriate or desirable impression (Snyder, 1979). In contrast, non-self-monitoring individuals have less concern for the situational appropriateness of their behavior and will attend less to situational cues as a means of guiding their responses. According to Snyder (1979), the actions of low self-monitors seem to be guided from within (by dispositions) rather than by situational specifications of appropriate behavior. Thus, the picture that emerges is straightforward: Since high self-monitors are motivated to appear appropriate in many different social settings, they must often alter their social responses to accomplish this end. Such cross-situational variability in behavior makes it seem as if the high self-monitor is a "different person in different situations" (Snyder, 1979). Conversely, the actions of low selfmonitors are primarily a product of internal dispositional variables (e.g., attitudes, personality) that are relatively stable over time (and across situations). Consequently, low self-monitors should exhibit much more cross-situational consistency of social behavior than would their high self-monitoring counterparts. Recent research on self-monitoring processes provides strong support for the conceptual validity of this construct (see Snyder, 1979, for a recent review). For example, high self-monitors generally provide situational explanations for their behavior while low self-monitors prefer to account for their actions in dispositional terms (Snyder, 1976). Moreover, high self-monitors are more responsive than low self-monitors to situational pressures for autonomy and conformity (Snyder & Monson, 1975); they are

SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY

165

more likely than low self-monitors to notice and recall information about a person with whom they expect to interact in the future (Berscheid, Graziano, Monson, & Dermer, 1976); and they show less cross-situational consistency between attitudes and behavior than do low self-monitors (Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke, 1976). Taken together, these outcomes would seem to indicate that one's standing on the self-monitoring dimension does indeed moderate relative impact of situational and dispositional influences on one's social behavior. Self-Monitoring as a Moderator of SelfDisclosure Reciprocity As noted earlier, research on the "disclosure reciprocity" effect indicates that situational parameters (i.e., the content of selfdisclosure received) exert a strong influence on one's own self-presentation during the acquaintance process. Specifically, there appears to be some obligation or pressure on the recipients of self-disclosures to approximate the amount and/or intimacy of the other's disclosure when revealing themselves to a new acquaintance. However, it should be noted that recipients vary considerably in the extent to which they will absolutely reciprocate (i.e., equal or match) an acquaintance's level of self-disclosure, particularly if the information they receive from this individual is very high or very low in intimacy (Cozby, 1972; Levin & Gergen, 1969). Stated another way, it appears that some people (in some situations) are more likely than others to engage in reciprocal self-disclosures with new acquaintances. There are reasons to suspect that the tendency of individuals to reciprocate when disclosing to a new acquaintance may depend upon their self-monitoring abilities. During the acquaintance process, situational specifications of appropriate behavior are normally inferred from the amount and/or depth of the disclosures one receives. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that high selfmonitors, who are particularly sensitive to the actions and expressions of others, should be more proficient than low self-monitors at assessing the level of intimacy and/or emotional investment inherent in an acquain-

tance's self-disclosures. Moreover, if high self-monitors rely to a greater extent than do low self-monitors on such situational cues to guide their behavior, they should be more likely than low self-monitors to disclose at a comparable level of intimacy when presenting themselves to a new acquaintance. In sum, we believe it is the high self-monitoring individual who will come closest to engaging in truly reciprocal self-disclosure with others during the acquaintance process. There is also reason to believe that the descriptive content of an individual's disclosures to new acquaintances depends, in part, on his or her self-monitoring abilities. Snyder (1979) discusses data (e.g., Lippa, 1976, 1978) suggesting that high self-monitors strive to appear friendly, outgoing, and extraverted in an attempt, perhaps, to win the trust and/or friendship of their associates. Such a self-presentational strategy may have important instrumental consequences for the high self-monitor: By appearing especially friendly and outgoing, the high self-monitor may successfully elicit a large amount of self-descriptive information from acquaintances which, in turn, allows him or her to construct stable representations of their personalities around which to plan subsequent strategies of self-presentation (Snyder, 1979). If this line of reasoning has any merit, we might anticipate that high self-monitors will be more likely than low self-monitors to appear friendly and to facilitate the acquaintance process by establishing lines of similarity between themselves and their new acquaintances. Ways in which this might be accomplished include responding contingently to the descriptive content of the acquaintance's self-disclosures and/or disclosing content similar to that provided by the other person. In other words, we believe that high self-monitors will be more likely than low self-monitors to reciprocate descriptive content, as well as intimacy and emotionality, when self-disclosing to a new acquaintance. In the present experiment, subjects high or low in self-monitoring abilities interacted with a confederate who self-disclosed at either high or low levels of intimacy on four topics. The procedure was structured so that, for each topic, the confederate disclosed first

166

D. SHAFFER, J. SMITH, AND M. TOMARELLI which was to investigate how people "become acquainted and get to know one another." At this point, the experimenter suggested that members of the dyad exchange information about their hometowns, year in school, and academic majors. The confederate and the subject subsequently did so. The experimenter then remarked that he wanted research participants to become better acquainted during the first phase of the project by taking turns at volunteering information about themselves on a number of personal topics. Care was taken to point out that these topics covered "very private aspects of a person's life and experiences," and that any research participant could decline to discuss one or more topics if he or she felt uncomfortable in doing so. The experimenter informed the participants that he wished to record these conversations, and he assured them that the tapes would be kept confidential and would not require speakers to state either their names or any other information by which they might be identified. All subjects consented to this arrangement. At this point, the experimenter questioned the participants to insure that they understood the procedure for the "first phase" of the study and held a rigged drawing, which established that the confederate would be first to volunteer information on each topic. The experimenter then placed a stack of four index cards on the table between the confederate and the subject and requested that the topics on these cards be discussed in the order in which they appeared in the stack. The sequencing of the four discussion topics was randomized individually for each subject. At this point, the experimenter remarked that he would leave the room during the first phase of the experiment and return shortly to begin the second phase. As he prepared to leave, the experimenter casually noted that the person who spoke last (i.e., the subject) should turn off the tape recorder after each member of the dyad had had an opportunity to respond to each topic, Discussion topics. The four topics selected for discussion were slightly reworded versions of items that have been rated as quite private and/or personal in previous research (Jourard & Jaffe, 1970). These topics were: "Things in my past or present of which I am ashamed," "Aspects of my personality that I dislike," "My disappointments with the opposite sex," and "Aspects of my body with which I am dissatisfied." Manipulation of confederate intimacy. As the experimenter departed, the confederate unobtrusively consulted a coded randomized sequencing chart to determine whether his or her disclosures were to be high or low in intimacy. In the high-intimacy condition, the confederate revealed, with a great deal of feeling, something of a highly private and personal nature on each of the four topics (e.g., disappointments with the opposite sex centered around instances in which the confederate had been "used" by his or her dates). In the low-intimacy condition, the confederate casually volunteered information on each topic that was shallow and nonspecific,
1 The psychometric construction of the 25-item SelfMonitoring Scale and evidence for its convergent and discriminant validity have been presented in detail elsewhere (cf. Snyder, 1974, 1979).

and the subject disclosed second. To review the predictions, we anticipated that high self-monitors would be more likely than low self-monitors to engage in reciprocal selfdisclosure with the confederate. For measures of descriptive content (i.e., what the subject discloses), the reciprocity hypothesis implies a main effect for self-monitoring: High self-monitors should more closely imitate or match the content of the confederate's self-disclosures than should low selfmonitors. But for measures of disclosure intimacy and emotional investment (i.e., how the subject discloses), the conceptual hypothesis implies an interaction between selfmonitoring and the intimacy of the confederate's disclosures: High self-monitors should disclose at higher levels of intimacy (or emotionality) than should low self-monitors when the confederate's disclosures are highly intimate, but high self-monitors should disclose at lower levels of intimacy (or emotionality) than low self-monitors when the confederate's disclosures are not very intimate. Method Subjects and Design Overview
Early in the academic term, a large number of introductory psychology students participated in a group testing session in which they completed (among other items) Snyder's (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale and were subsequently classified as high or low in self-monitoring on the basis of a median split of the resulting distribution of self-monitoring scores (Md = 12).' Three to 5 weeks later, 24 males and 24 females from the group-testing sample volunteered to participate for course credit in an experiment entitled "Making New Acquaintances." Half of the participants of each gender were high selfmonitors and half were low self-monitors. During the experimental session, high and low selfmonitors of each gender alternated with a same-sex confederate in volunteering information on four rather personal topics. The confederate spoke first on each topic, providing information that was either high or low in intimacy. Thus, the design was a 2 (Self-Monitoring) X 2 (Sex of Subject) X 2 (Confederate Intimacy) X 4 (Trials) factorial with repeated measures on the Trials factor.

Stimulus Materials and Procedure

When the subject arrived for the experiment, a male experimenter introduced him or her to a same-sex confederate who was posing as a second research participant. The experimenter told members of the dyad that this would be a two-part experiment, the purpose of

SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY lending little if any insight into his or her feelings or character (e.g., disappointments with the opposite sex stemming from the confederate's inability to meet dates who have similar interests). The highly intimate disclosures ranged between 79 and 114 words (M = 93.75) and took between 64 and 83 sec to deliver. The nonintimate disclosures ranged between 72 and 112 words (M = 93.50) and took between 62 and 81 sec to deliver.2 The two males and two females who served as confederates had received extensive training in this role and were sufficiently practiced to provide verbatim accounts of the four "high intimacy" and the four "low intimacy" disclosures.3 The confederates were also trained to listen politely and attentively while the subject disclosed on each topic. Although the confederate knew in which intimacy condition the subject belonged, he or she was unaware of the experimental hypotheses and did not even know that subjects had been recruited on the basis of their self-monitoring abilities. The experimenter, on the other hand, was aware of the subject's self-monitoring abilities but unaware of the intimacy condition to which the subject had been assigned. Thus, care was taken to insure that neither the experimenter nor the confederate had sufficient knowledge of a subject's experimental condition to impose a systematic bias on the data; Postdisclosure impressions. While members of the dyad were disclosing to one another, the experimenter walked down the hall and positioned himself at a point about 25 feet from the door of the experimental room. From this distance, the experimenter could not hear the conversations, although the rather loud .click made by the "off" switch of the tape recorder was clearly audible. Approximately 15 to 20 sec after the subject had turned off the recorder, the .experimenter entered the experimental room (after first knocking), asked members of the dyad how the "first phase" had gone, and noted that there were materials to be completed before proceeding to the second phase of the experiment. He then distributed a questionnaire entitled "Acquaintance ProcessesImpressions." Three items on the questionnaire served as checks on the manipulation of the intimacy of the confederate's disclosures (i.e., "How open did the other person-seem while talking about him/herself?," "How much did the other person share with you about him/herself?," "How intimate were the things discussed by the other person?"). Six additional items were included to tap the subject's impressions of the confederate's listening behavior (i.e., While you were speaking: "How friendly did the other person seem?" "How personable was the other person?" "How comfortable was the other person?" "How relaxed was the other person?") and the subject's own reactions while speaking (i.e., "How comfortable did you feel?" "How relaxed were you?"). Ratings for each of the above items were on 9-point scales with endpoints labeled as appropriate for the question. The second page of the questionnaire was designed to assess the subject's memory of the confederate's disclosures. Subjects were asked to write a paragraph indicating what the other person had said in response to each topic card (the contents of the topic cards were reprinted on the page). On the final page of the questionnaire, subjects gave an indication of their liking for the confederate by rating him or her on eleven 7-point

167

evaluative scales (i.e., simitar-dissimilar to self, moralimmoral, positive-negative, pleasant-unpleasant, goodbad, valuable-worthless, clean-dirty, tasteful-distasteful, fair-unfair, obstinate-accommodating, and likabledislikable). Debriefing, When the subject and the confederate completed the "Acquaintance Processes" questionnaire, the experimenter distributed experimental-participation credit slips and began a funnel-type debriefing (Page & Kahle, 1976) to probe for subject suspicion. At no point during the debriefing did any subject indicate any awareness of the experimental hypotheses or even that his or her partner was a confederate. Care was taken to fully explain the predictions and to indicate why we chose to deceive research participants in order to test our hypotheses. The experimenter reminded the subject that all material on the tapes would be confidential and then provided an opportunity for the subject to withdraw his or her data from further consideration. (No one elected to withdraw any data.) The subject was then thanked for participating, asked to maintain confidentiality, and dismissed.

Dependent Variables
The primary dependent measures were ratings of the intimacy and emotional investment of the subject's disclosures and a rating of the extent to which the subject imitated the content of each of the confederate's disclosures. Two independent raters, who were blind to the hypotheses and experimental design, first rated the intimacy and emotional investment of each of the subject's disclosures using the Self-Disclosure Rating Manual developed by Davis and Sloan (1974). These ratings were made on 5-point scales according to the following criteria: Intimacy of disclosure. This criterion represents the amount and/or depth of intimate information disclosed on a topic. (Rating is based solely on the information provided and not on the amount or degree of affect expressed.) Emotional investment. This criterion represents the intensity of affect communicated on a topic. (Rating is based on paralinguistic speech characteristics such as intonation, hesitations, cracking of voice, and other signs of affect or emotion.) After completing the intimacy and investment ratings, the two raters each received a transcript of the confederate's responses to each discussion topic. They were than asked to listen once again to the audiotapes and to judge the extent to which subjects had imitated
2 The descriptive content of the confederates' intimate and nonintimate disclosures on each discussion topic are available from the first author. 3 The roles played by each confederate were balanced across experimental conditions. That is, each of the four confederates interacted with an equal number of samesex high and low self-monitors when disclosing as an intimate or a nonintimate partner. A preliminary analysis of the dependent measures produced no significant main effects or interactions for the "confederates" factor, which, in turn, will not be mentioned further.

168

D. SHAFFER, J. SMITH, AND M. TOMARELLI

the descriptive content of their partner's disclosures when self-disclosing to that person. The criteria for making these 5-point imitation ratings were as follows: Imitation. This criterion represents the degree of similarity between the disclosures made by the confederate and the subject on each topic. (A high rating indicates that the subject limits himself or herself to the kind of material presented by the confederate; a low rating indicates that the subject does not pick up on the confederate's material, choosing instead to divulge original material of his or her own.)4 Finally, raters listened to the tapes a fourth time and were asked to count the number of pieces of information (i.e., facts) subjects disclosed in response to each discussion topic. This "number of facts" index was included to determine if high and low self-monitors would differ in the total amount of information they are willing to disclose to new acquaintances.

Interrater Reliabilities for the SelfDisclosure Indexes Interrater reliabilities computed over all ratings were .93, .78, .88, and .96, respectively, for judgments of disclosure intimacy, emotional investment, imitation of partner's disclosures, and numbers of facts disclosed. In view of the satisfactory levels of interrater reliability, scores on each self-disclosure index were averaged across raters prior to the data analyses. Self-Disclosure Dependent Measures Table 1 presents the judges' mean ratings for disclosure intimacy, emotional investment, imitation of partner, and number of facts disclosed for subjects in each experimental condition. Each of the four self-disclosure indexes was subjected to a 2 (confederate intimacy) X 2 (self-monitoring) X 2 (sex of subject) X 4 (trials) repeated-measures ANOVA, with measures repeated on the trials factor. Since we anticipated a varying pattern of results across the four disclosure indexes, the finding for each index are discussed separately. Disclosure intimacy. The ANOVA for judges' ratings of disclosure intimacy produced a main effect for confederate intimacy, F(l, 40) = 8.81, p < .005, indicating that subjects who interacted with a highly intimate partner were judged to be more intimate in their own self-disclosures (M = 3.05) than were subjects who interacted with a less intimate partner (M = 2.59). This is precisely the type of finding that investigators typically cite as evidence for a "disclosure reciprocity" effect. However, the main effect for confederate intimacy is qualified by a significant Confederate Intimacy X

Results Manipulation Checks

In order to provide a satisfactory test of our hypotheses, it was essential that subjects in the high- and the low-intimacy conditions differ in their assessments of the intimacy and/or openness of their partner's self-disclosures. The Acquaintance Processes Questionnaire included three items designed to check the manipulation of confederate intimacy: Subjects were asked to rate on 9-point scales (a) the amount of information their partner shared with them, (b) the partner's openness, and (c) the intimacy of the partner's disclosures. The 2 (confederate intimacy) X 2 (self-monitoring) X 2 (sex of subject) analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on each of these items produced a main effect for the intimacy manipulation, that is, for information shared, F(l, 40) = 7.04, p < .01; for partner openness, F(l, 40) = 11.80, p < .002; and for partner intimacy, F(l, 40) = 15.15, p < .001. Subjects assigned to the high-intimacy condition thought their partner shared more information (M - 7.41), 4 It should be noted that the Self-Disclosure Rating was more open (M = 8.08), and was more Manual provides not only the criteria for making judgintimate in self-disclosing (M = 7.04) than ments about disclosure intimacy, emotional investment, did subjects assigned to the low-intimacy and imitation but also examples of the type of material condition (Ms = 6.20, 6.67, and 4.83, re- that would qualify for each rating position along each spectively, for partner's Sharing of infor- of the 5-point continua. Both of the raters received exmation, openness, and intimacy). Thus, the tensive practice in the use of this rating manual prior evaluating the disclosures of subjects who particimanipulation of confederate intimacy was to pated in the present experiment. The authors are insuccessful. No other main effects or inter- debted to John D. Davis for making the Self-Disclosure actions were significant for these three items. Rating Manual available to us.

SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY

169

Self-Monitoring interaction, F(l, 40) - 7.83, p< .04, which is illustrated in Figure 1, Panel A. As we had anticipated, high selfmonitors disclosed at higher levels of intimacy than did low self-monitors when exposed to an intimate partner but were less intimate than low self-monitors when disclosing to the relatively nonintimate partner. Note that the data presented in Figure 1, Panel A might seem to suggest that it is only the high self-monitors who show a "disclosure reciprocity" effect. The analysis of the intimacy ratings produced three other significant outcomes: a main effect for trials, F(3, 120) = 11.17,/>< .001, a Confederate Intimacy X Trials interaction, F(3, 120) = 4.77, p < .005, and a main effect for sex of subjects, F(l, 40) = 5.24, p < .03. The main effect for trials is probably best described as a social-penetration effect; that is, subjects' disclosures became increasingly intimate over discussion topics (See the right-hand column of Table 1 labeled "Marginal.") However, the Confederate Intimacy X Trials interaction re-

flects the fact that the social-penetration effect is most apparent among those subjects who interacted with a highly intimate partner. Finally, the main effect for sex of subjects reflects the finding that male subjects disclosed at higher levels of intimacy (M = 2.98) than did female subjects (M = 2.55). Emotional investment. The ANOVA of the emotional-investment ratings produced main effects for confederation intimacy, F( 1, 40) = 14.87, p < .001, and for trials, F(3, 120) = 11.16, p < .001, and a Confederate Intimacy X Self-Monitoring interaction, F(l, 40) = 6.28, p < .02. The main effect for confederate intimacy reflects the finding that subjects who interacted with a highly intimate partner were judged to reflect more affect and emotion in their own self-disclosures (M ~ 2.96) than were subjects who interacted with a less intimate partner (M = 2.49). However, this main effect is qualified by the Confederate Intimacy X Self-Monitoring interaction that appears in Figure 1, Panel B. The form of this interaction is clearly consistent with our hypothesis: High

Table 1 Mean Ratings Across Experimental Conditions for Intimacy and Emotional Investment of SelfDisclosures, Imitation of Partner's Disclosures, and Number of Facts Disclosed
High partner intimacy Selfdisclosure index Intimacy of disclosure High selfmonitoring Trial Low selfmonitoring Low partner intimacy High selfmonitoring Low selfmonitoring

M
2.83 3.66 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.17 3.50 2.50 2.16 3.00 1.17 9.50 9.67 9.50 13.00

F
3.00 2.67 3.33 3.67 3.00 2.50 2.83 3.50 2.33 1.00 1.00 2.17 6.83 5.17 7.17 16.17

M
2.50 2.67 3.33 3.87 2.67 2.67 3.17 3.50 2.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 7.83

F
2.33 2.17 2.66 . 3.00 2.50 2.17 2.67 2.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.33 5.83 8.50 10.66

M
2.83 2.33 2.67 2.17 2.83 2.17 2.33 2.33 1.67 3.00 2.33 1.17
10.50 10.67 9.50 11.67

F
2.66 2.50 2.33 2.83 2.17 2.17 2.67 2.67 1.50 2.17 1.67 1.00 8.33 10.50 10.17 13.00

M
2.83 2.33 3.17 3.17 2.50 2.50 2.67 2.83 1.33 2.00 1.50 1.67 7.50 5.50 7.00 9.33

F
2.50 2.50 2.67 3.00 2.67 2.33 2.67 2.67
1.8,5 1.17 1.50 1.00

Marginal

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2.69 2.58 2.87 3.21 2.67 2.44 2.77 2.92 1.90 1.69 1.75 1.27 8.04 7.69 8.46 12.15

Emotional investment

Imitation

Number of facts

150
14.17

7.33 6.33 8.33 9.17

Note. Each mean is based on an n of 6. M = male; F = female.

170
i High Self-monitors

D. SHAFFER, J. SMITH, AND M. TOMARELLI

ALow Self-monitors

13

NonintiiMte

Intimate

Noninlimote

Intimate

CONFEDERATE

INTIMACY

Figure 1. Mean ratings across trials for the disclosure intimacy and emotional investment of high and low selfmonitors who self-disclosed to an intimate or a nonintimate confederate.

self-monitors were judged to display more emotional investment than low self-monitors when disclosing to an intimate partner but were judged less emotionally invested than were low self-monitors when disclosing to a nonintimate partner. Finally, the main effect for trials could be labeled a social-penetration effect: With the exception of a slight reversal between Disclosure Trials 1 and 2, subjects generally displayed increasing affect and emotion over the course of their disclosures. Supplementary analyses. The conceptual hypothesis that guided this research specifies that high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to engage in reciprocal self-disclosure with new acquaintances. Clearly, the Confederate Intimacy X Self-Monitoring interactions obtained in the analyses of the intimacy and emotional-investment ratings provide some support for this assertion. However, it is important to determine in some absolute sense whether high self-monitors are coming closer than low self-monitors to approximating the actual levels of intimacy and emotional investment displayed by the confederates. To address this issue, we first computed "across-topics" intimacy and emotional-investment scores for confederates in the highand the low-intimacy conditions. This was accomplished by having the two judges rate the intimacy and emotional investment displayed on tape by each confederate when he or she provided a high and a low intimate disclosure on each discussion topic. (Inter-

rater reliabilities were .91 for judgments of intimacy and .71 for ratings of emotional investment.) As there were no significant differences among confederates on either index, we collapsed across the confederates factor and summed ratings across the four topics to yield the following "across topics" values: For confederate intimacy, the highly intimate confederate = 13.13 and the less intimate confederate = 9.38; for confederate emotional investment, the highly intimate confederate = 12.25 and the less intimate confederate = 9.25. The intimacy and the emotional-investment ratings of each subject were then summed across the four disclosure trials and subtracted from the across-topics intimacy and emotional-investment score for confederates in the experimental condition to which the subject had been assigned. The absolute values of the resulting deviation scores were then subjected to a 2 (confederate intimacy) X 2 (self-monitoring) ANOVA to determine if high self-monitors more closely approximated the intimacy and emotional investment of their experimental partners than did low self-monitors.5 The mean "across-topics" deviations of high and low self-monitors from the levels of intimacy and emotional investment displayed by their confederates appear in Table 2. The ANOVA of the deviation scores for the intimacy index produced but one significant outcome, a main effect for self-monitoring, l, 44) = 6.78, p < .025. As anticipated,
5 Another method of estimating the reciprocity of disclosures between subjects and confederates is to have judges rate the intimacy and emotional investment of the disclosures that each subject received from his or her confederate and then correlate these scores with the intimacy/investment of the subject's own disclosures. While this procedure will indicate the degree of covariation between the disclosures of subjects and confederates, such covariation could be substantial even if the subject was failing to match, in an absolute sense, the intimacy/investment of the partner's self-descriptions. For example, if each of the subject's disclosures was judged exactly 2 scale points less intimate than that of the confederate, the covariation for intimacy between subject and confederate would be perfect, even though the subject was not truly reciprocating the intimacy of his or her partner. Thus, we felt that participants' absolute deviations from the intimacy and emotional investment displayed by confederates was the more sensitive index of the extent to which the participants were matching the disclosure of their partners.

SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-DISCLOSURE-RECIPROCITY Table 2 Mean Deviations of High and Low Self-Monitors From the Levels of Intimacy and Emotional Investment Displayed by Confederates in the High- and Low-Intimacy Conditions
High self-monitors Disclosure index Intimacy Emotional investment Intimate partner
.82 .92

171

Low self-monitors Intimate partner Nonintimate partner

Nonintimate partner

1.14 1.08

2.09 1.54

1.83 1.42

the mean (across-topics) deviation from the levels of intimacy displayed by confederates was significantly less for subjects high in self-monitoring (M = .98) than for subjects low in self-monitoring (M = 1.96). The corresponding ANOVA for the emotional-investment index produced a nearly significant main effect for self-monitoring, F(l, 44) = 3.29, p < .08. The mean (across-topics) deviation from the levels of emotional investment displayed by confederates was somewhat less for high self-monitors (M = 1.00) than for low self-monitors (M = U4B). Taken together, these findings suggest that high self-monitors are more likely than low selfmonitors to reciprocate absolute levels of intimacy and emotional investment when self-disclosing to a new acquaintance. Imitation of content. We had anticipated that high self-monitors would be more likely than low self-monitors to imitate the descriptive content of their partner's disclosures when presenting themselves to this person. The ANOVA of the imitation ratings did indeed produce a main effect for self-monitoring, F(l, 40) = 7.60, p<.01. As predicted, the disclosures of high self-monitors were judged to be more similar in content to those of the confederate (M = 1.87) than were the disclosures of low self-monitors (M = 1.44). Analysis of the limitation ratings produced three other statistically reliable outcomes: main effects for sex of subjects, F(l, 40) = 7.61, p < .01, and trials F(3, 120) = 4.20, p < .01, and a Confederate Intimacy X Trials interaction, F(3, 120) = 5.03, p < .005. The effect for sex of subjects reflects the finding that males were judged to imitate the disclosures of the confederate to a greater extent (M = 1.88) than were females (M =

1.43).6 The main effect for trials resulted because subjects showed less imitation of the confederate on Trial 4 than on the previous three trials. Finally, the Intimacy X Trials interaction resulted because subjects in the high-intimacy condition exhibited a decrease in imitation over the first two disclosure trials, while their counterparts in the lowintimacy condition generally showed an increase in imitation over these first two trials. Number of facts disclosed. The ANOVA for this quantitative index of self-disclosure produced main effects for self-monitoring, F(l, 40) = 4.29, p < .05, and for trials, F(3, 120) .= 10.30, p < .001. High self-monitors
Recall that males were also judged more intimate than females when disclosing to their partners. Clearly, such sex effects were not anticipated and are, in fact, inconsistent with the literature indicating that females are more intimate than males when disclosing to a samesex acquaintance (cf. Archer, 1979). Could these sex differences represent a judgmental bias on the part of our raters (i.e., a tendency to "over-estimate" the intimacy of disclosures provided by males because of raters' background expectations that males are generally less expressive than females)? We think not, for judges' intimacy ratings of identical disclosures provided by the male and the female confederates showed no evidence of such a rater bias. Our explanation for these sex differences is that in the course of daily events, males may be less practiced than females at discussing the kinds of topics they were asked to discuss in this project, particularly if the confederate was providing intimate disclosures. Indeed, analysis of the intimacy of subjects' disclosures produced a nearly significant Confederate Intimacy X Sex of Subject interaction, F(l, 40) = 3.74, p = .06, which indicated that the disclosures of males were more intimate than those of females only when subjects were disclosing to the highly intimate partner. If the topics of discussion were, in fact, relatively aschematic for males, the males may have felt a greater need than did females to use the content and (to a lesser extent) the intimacy of the partner's disclosures as a guide for their own task performance.
6

172

D. SHAFFER, J. SMITH, AND M. TOMARELLI

more positively across the 11 evaluative dimensions (M = 66.55) than did males (M 58.74). On the one direct measure of interpersonal attraction (i.e., ratings of partner likability), females indicated greater liking for the partner (M = 6.63) than did males (M = 5.71), F(l, 40) = 9.92,p < .005. None of the other main effects or interactions were significant for the analysis of the likability item.7 Memory probes. The Acquaintance Processes Questionnaire contained a page on Postdisclosure Impressions which subjects were reminded of the four Impressions while speaking. The Ac- discussion topics and asked to write as much quaintance Processes Questionnaire asked as they could remember about their partner's subjects to rate on four 9-point scales their comments on each topic. Unfortunately, reimpressions of the confederate's listening sponses to these probes were cryptic, conbehavior, that is, " While you were speaking, sisting mainly of one-sentence accounts of how friendly (personable, comfortable, re- the major theme of the partner's disclosure laxed) was the other person"? The 2 (con- to each topic card. We subsequently dummyfederate intimacy) X 2 (self-monitoring) X coded these responses (i.e., 1 = correct mem2 (sex of subjects) ANOVAS for these four ory of major theme of partner's disclosure; items produced only one significant outcome 0 = incorrect memory of major theme of for each item, a main effect for sex of sub- partner's disclosure) and subjected them to jects; that is, for "friendly," F(l, 40) = a 2 (confederate intimacy) X 2 (self-moni11.43,/>< .005; for "personable," F(l, 40) = toring) X 2 (sex of subject) X 4 (topics) AN9.28,p < .005; for "comfortable," F(l, 40) = OVA. Generally speaking, the vast majority 7.80, p< .01, and for "relaxed," F(l, 40) = of subjects were able to correctly recall the 8.40 p < .01. Female subjects rated their major theme of the partner's disclosures partner a more friendly (M = 8.08), person- (Grand mean = .96). However, the analysis able (M = 7.70), comfortable (M = 7.29), of this dummy-coded memory index indiand relaxed (M = 7.08) listener than did cated that low self-monitors correctly remales (Ms = 7.08, 6.38, 5.83, and 6.08, re- called more major themes across discussion spectively, for the items friendly, personable, trials (M = .99) than did high self-monitors comfortable, and relaxed). (M = .92), F(l, 40) = 4.62, p < .04. None Subjects were also asked to indicate on 9- of the other main effects or interactions for point scales how comfortable and how re- this measure were significant. laxed they had felt while taking their turns at presenting themselves to their partners. Discussion The 2 (confederate intimacy) X 2 (self-monitoring) X 2 (sex of subjects) ANOVA perThe results of this experiment strongly formed on each of these items produced no support the assertion that one's self-monisignificant main effects or interactions for toring abilities affect one's tendency to reciprocate the self-disclosures of a new aceither item. Attraction for the confederate. A 2 (con- quaintance. Specifically, the high selffederate intimacy) X 2 (self-monitoring) X monitors came closest on all measures to 2 (sex of subjects) multivariate analysis of disclosing in a reciprocal fashion with their variance of subject's ratings of the confed- partners, and they proved to be quite flexible erate on 11 evaluative dimensions produced at devising strategies of self-presentation to only one significant, outcome, a main effect achieve this end. Consider first that selffor sex of subjects, F(ll, 28) = 2.30, p < 7 .04. This outcome reflects the finding that A summary of the univariate analyses of the 11 females generally evaluated their partners evaluative items is available from the first author.

were judged to provide more self-descriptive information (i.e., facts) across the four disclosure trials (M = 40.33) than were low self-monitors (M = 32.33). The significant outcome for the trials factor could be interpreted as a social-penetration effect; that is, subjects tended to disclose an increasing number of facts over trials, with the greatest increase in the amount disclosed occurring across the final two trials.

SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY

173

monitoring individuals were more likely than non-self-monitoring individuals to reciprocate the descriptive content of the confederate's disclosures by revealing similar information about themselves (i.e., imitating). It appears, then, that the underlying strategy of high self-monitors is more cross-situationally consistent than that of low self-monitors when deciding what (in the way of content) to disclose. However, if disclosure reciprocity is best served by making certain aspects of one's self-presentation specific to the situation (i.e., cross-situationally inconsistent), high self monitors are again more proficient than low self-monitors at achieving a sense of reciprocity. That is, high selfmonitors were judged more intimate and emotionally invested than low self-monitors when disclosing to an intimate partner but less intimate and emotionally invested than low self-monitors when disclosing to a nonintimate partner. In sum, it appears as if the same moderating variableself-monitoringmay produce either cross-situational consistency or inconsistency of behavior when situational cues for appropriate (or desirable) conduct dictate that one be crosssituationally consistent or inconsistent (See also Lippa, 1978). And although one must always be cautious in generalizing from the results of any single experiment, the moderating influence of the self-monitoring construct was so powerful in the present study as to suggest that the tendency to reciprocate when self-disclosing to a new acquaintance may characterize only those individuals who are relatively high in self-monitoring abilities. Our confidence in the above findings and conclusions is strengthened somewhat by the results of a recent experiment of Ickes and Barnes (1977). Ickes and Barnes had pairs of same-sex strangers meet and converse in a very unstructured setting (i.e., subjects were simply left alone for 5 minutes in an experimental room). The resulting conversational dyads represented all possible pairings of people high, intermediate, and low in self-monitoring abilities. Several of the outcomes would interest students of self-disclosure. For example, Ickes and Barnes found that the dyad member who was higher in self-monitoring abilities generally spoke

first, initiated a greater number of conversations, and was perceived by himself or herself and the partner as having the greater need to talk. Moreover, by far the greatest number of conversational difficulties (i.e., breaks, silences) occurred in those particular dyads containing a high and a low self-monitor. Finally, the high self-monitoring members of these "high-low" dyads felt especially self-conscious during the conversation period, and these feelings of discomfort were positively (and significantly) correlated with the number of breaks and silences that occurred during the 5 minutes allowed for conversation. Unfortunately, the verbal discourse within dyads was not rated for descriptive content, intimacy, or emotionality, and it is difficult to specify why the high self-monitors in the "high-low" pairings were so discomforted. But given the above pattern of results, it is certainly conceivable that the discomfort experienced by these self-monitoring individuals may stem from the failure of the non-self-monitoring partner to respond contingently to and/or to reciprocate important aspects of the high self-monitor's attempts to initiate conversations (e.g., amount and type of information presented). Yet another point of comparison between the Ickes and Barnes (1977) experiment and our own provides further evidence of the ability of high self-monitors to modify their behavior in order to facilitate the acquaintance process. In the unstructured conversational format of the Ickes and Barnes study, it was the high self^-monitors who typically assumed the role of "pacesetter" (Davis, 1976, 1977), thereby initiating, regulating, and attempting to maintain the flow of conversation while leaving the "reciprocating" role to the other member of the dyad. In contrast, high self-monitors were relieved of this pacesetting responsibility in the structured conversational format of our experiment, for it was the confederate who spoke first on each topic and "set the pace" for that particular trial. This procedural difference across the two studies is important, for our findings indicate that high self-monitors are quite capable of relinquishing the "pacesetting" role that they typically played in the Ickes and Barnes experiment and success-

174

D. SHAFFER, J. SMITH, AND M. TOMARELLI

fully assuming the role of "reciprocator" when the circumstances call for them to do so. Stated another way, the results of these two studies suggest that high self-monitors are more proficient than low self-monitors at playing either of the roles that typically emerge from dyadic interactions between new acquaintances, even though low selfmonitors in the "unstructured" formats of the natural ecology may have had more experience than high self-monitors at being cast into reciprocating roles. Why is it that high self-monitors tend to reciprocate the important parameters of an acquaintance's self-disclosures while low selfmonitors do not? Certainly not because high self-monitors were any more attracted to their acquaintances, for analysis of the evaluative ratings of the confederates (and the likability item in particular) revealed that the subjects' self-monitoring abilities were not systematically related to their levels of attraction for experimental partners. We must also question the notion that high selfmonitors were any more attentive to social cues emitted by their partners and/or were more proficient than low self-monitors at accurately assessing the important parameters of their partners' behavior. Our reasons for taking issue with these explanations are straightforward: There were no differences between high and low self-monitors with respect to the perceived intimacy or openness of the partner's self-disclosures, nor did high and low self-monitors differ in their perceptions of the partner's behavior as a listener. Moreover, low self-monitors (who did not reciprocate the partner's disclosures) gave some indication of having a better recall of the descriptive content of the partner's information than did high self-monitors. Although it is possible that the Acquaintance Processes Questionnaire was not sufficiently sensitive to detect differences between high and low self-monitors in attention to and/or perception of the confederate's social responses, the measures that were taken clearly demonstrate the ability of both high and low self-monitors to accurately assess the relative intimacy and openness of their partners' behavior. Thus, we suspect that high and low selfmonitors processed the available social cues in a similar fashion but were differentially

motivated to use this information when formulating their own self-presentational strategies. It is interesting to note that relatively little research has been devoted to the motivational bases for self-monitoring (cf. Snyder, 1979), although the results of at least one recent investigation (Danheiser & Graziano, 1982) suggest that high self-monitors utilize situational cues in order to design the best possible self-presentational strategies for maximizing personal outcomes. Note that this is not simply another way of saying that high self-monitors strive to make their behavior "desirable" or "socially appropriate" for the settings in which they find themselves. Clearly, the implication of the Danheiser and Graziano (1982) study is that high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to consider the future hedonic consequences of their actions when deciding how to portray themselves to others. The above line of reasoning suggests an explanation for the results of the present experiment. Recall that all subjects were led to believe that they would soon undertake a second (unspecified) task with their partners. Thus, they may well have anticipated that their outcomes on the second task would depend upon the quality or character of their interactions with these individuals. This is precisely the circumstance under which a hedonistically-inclined high self-monitor should be highly motivated to present a positive image and to facilitate the acquaintance process by appearing friendly, cooperative, and/or responding contingently to (i.e., reciprocating) the partner's overtures (cf. Danheiser & Graziano, 1982). Indeed, their desire to appear friendly and outgoing to a partner who may control future outcomes can perhaps explain why high self-monitors disclosed a greater number of facts about themselves than did low self-monitors. On the other hand, low self-monitors are thought to be less concerned about the future hedonic consequences of their behavior. Consequently, these dispositionally-guided individuals should feel less constrained to reciprocate the important parameters (e.g., intimacy, descriptive content) of the partner's disclosures and should feel freer to present their true feelings on each discussion topic. Admittedly, this explanation is highly

SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY

175

speculative, and there is a definite need for future research to specify more precisely (or convincingly) the motivational underpinnings of self-monitoring activities. In this regard, we believe that the conception of "self-monitoring-as-instrumental hedonism" is an interesting notion that is certainly worthy of further empirical scrutiny. (See Danheiser & Graziano, 1982, for an application of this line of reasoning to prior self-monitoring research.) And if this conceptual scheme has any merit, we suspect that the tendency of high self-monitors to reciprocate the self-disclosures of a new acquaintance will be attenuated (or perhaps even eliminated) if these self-monitoring individuals anticipate no further interaction with their acquaintance and thus, have little if any reason to be concerned about the future hedonic consequences of their behavior. References
Altman, I. Reciprocity of interpersonal exchange. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 1973, 3, 249261. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Archer, R. L. Role of personality and the social situation. In G. J. Chelune et al., Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979. Archer, R. L., & Berg, J. H. Disclosure reciprocity and its limits: A reactance analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978, 14, 527-540. Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506-520. Bern, D. J., & Funder, D. C. Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 485-501. Berscheid, E., Graziano, W. G., Monson, T., & Dernier, M. Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 978-989. Brewer, M. B., & Mittelman, J. Effects of normative control of self-disclosure on reciprocity. Journal of Personality, 1980, 48, 89-102. Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. Self-disclosure. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1974. Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure, reciprocity, and liking. Sociometry, 1972, 35, 151-161. Cozby, P. C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 73-91. Danheiser, P., & Graziano, W. G. Self-monitoring and cooperation as a self-presentational strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982,42,497505.

Davis, J. D. Self-disclosure in an acquaintance exercise: Responsibility for level of intimacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1976, 33, 787-792. Davis, J. D. Effects of communication about interpersonal processes on the evolution of self-disclosure in dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 55, 31-37. Davis, J. D., & Sloan, M. L. The basis of interviewee matching of interviewer self-disclosure. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1974,13, 359367. Derlega, V. J., Wilson, M., & Chaikin, A. L. Friendship and disclosure reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 578-582. Ickes, W. J., & Barnes, R. D. The role of sex and selfmonitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 315-330. Jourard, S. M., & Jaffe, P. E. Influence of an interviewer's disclosure on the self-disclosing behavior of interviewees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 252-257. Levin, F. M., & Gergen, K. J. Revealingness, ingratiation, and the disclosure of self. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, 4, 447-448. (Abstract) Lippa, R. Expressive control and the leakage of dispositional introversion-extraversion during role-played teaching. Journal of Personality, 1976, 44, 541-559. Lippa, R. The effect of expressive control on expressive consistency and on the relation between expressive behavior and personality. Journal of Personality, 1978, 46, 438-461. Morton, T. L. intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A comparison of spouses and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 72-81. Page, M. M., & Kahle, L. R. Demand characteristics in the satiation-deprivation effect on attitude conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 553-562. Rubin, Z. Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, I I , 233-260. Snyder, M. The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. Attribution and behavior: Social perception and social causation. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976. Snyder, M. Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12). New York: Academic Press, 1979. Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. Persons, situations and the control of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 637-644. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1034-1042. Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others. Journal of Personality, 1976, 44, 510-517. Received April 6, 1981