INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES

Effects of Reciprocity and Self-Monitoring on Self-Disclosure With a New Acquaintance

Delores Ludwig and Juan N. Franco
Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, New Mexico State University

Thomas E. Malloy University of Connecticut

Subjects' verbal interactions with a high- or low-disclosing confederate were audio recorded in a setting lacking experimental demand to "get acquainted." The effects of reciprocity and self-monitoring on self-disclosure were measured by ratings of audiotapes. Overall, the reciprocity phenomenon was found to be operative, but in contrast to previous research, lower self-monitors reciprocated at the same level as their partner under conditions of both low and high disclosure, whereas high selfmonitors self-disclosed at a high level regardless of their partner's disclosing behavior. This is explained by the tendency of high self-monitors to exhibit their consistent background self-presentation behavior of appearing outgoing, friendly, and extraverted in a natural acquaintance process.

The matching of a subject's level of self-disclosure to a partner's level of self-disclosure has been repeatedly demonstrated in laboratory experiments (for literture reviews see Archer, 1979; Cozby, 1973). This phenomenon is commonly referred to as disclosure reciprocity. Experiments concerned with disclosure reciprocity typically involve laboratory situations that demand an interaction between two individuals. Subjects are typically told they are entering a "getting acquainted process" with another person. Usually, a confederate speaks first, and the subject is expected to respond. The ecological validity and generalizability of the disclosure reciprocity found in these experiments to more natural acquaintance settings has been questioned. Rubin (1975) points out that subjects in laboratory studies of self-disclosure are typically aware of the fact that their patterns of self-disclosure are being scrutinized, and thus they may be motivated to behave in ways that will be considered appropriate by the researcher. In a field experiment in a large airport departure lounge, Rubin found that subjects self-disclosed more intimately and were more likely to match their partner's level of intimacy when they were asked for a written self-description rather than a handwriting sample. Subjects, who were asked for a self-description, were alerted to the importance of the content of their statements and were presumably motivated to be good subjects and provide appropriate self-descriptions. When subjects were asked for a handwriting sample they were presumably less aifected
This article was based on Delores Ludwig's doctoral dissertation submitted to the Graduate College of New Mexico State University in partial fulfillment of requirements for the doctoral degree. We gratefully acknowledge G. Morris Southward for his assistance with the statistical design and the College of Education for financial assistance. We also wish to thank David Kenny, who provided us with comments on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Franco, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Box 3AC, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003.

by the demand characteristics as their statements were ostensibly unrelated to the handwritten statement. In light of Rubin's results, it appears that subjects are responsive to the demands introduced by the experimenter when making a decision regarding how to respond. Further evidence supporting the hypothesis that experimental demand influences reciprocity behavior was found by Lynn (1978). Subjects were told by the experimenter that on the basis of previous research, individuals either "do" or "do not" seem to be extremely hesitant to talk about intimate topics. Subjects given the normative information involving the lack of hesitancy did show greater willingness to disclose. Using a variation of the traditional laboratory methodology, Shaifer, Smith, and Tomarelli (1982) investigated the moderating effect of self-monitoring on disclosure reciprocity during the acquaintance process. On the basis of the premise that the behavior of high self-monitors is guided by cues from social situations, whereas low self-monitors are more internally guided (Snyder, 1979), Shaffer, Smith, and Tomarelli hypothesized that high selfmonitors should be more likely than low self-monitors to reciprocate disclosure. In their research the subjects were told that the purpose of the experiment was to investigate how people "become acquainted and get to know one another." The subjects then responded to a confederate's disclosure on four topics. Using this methodology, they found evidence consistent with their hypothesis and observed that high self-monitors were more likely to reciprocate the intimacy, emotionality, and descriptive content expressed by their partner than were low self-monitors. Research involving self-monitoring (SM) as a variable is possibly susceptable to differences in subjects' responses because of experimental demand. High-SM individuals by definition would be expected to respond to experimental demand to a greater extent than low-SM individuals. In the present experiment, subjects premeasured with Snyder's (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale, interacted with a confederate who self-disclosed at either a high or low level. Through the use of a

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, Vol. 50, No. 6, 1077-1082 Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/86/$00.75

1077

1078

D. LUDWIG, J. FRANCO, AND T. MALLOY I read somewhere that colleges don't expect half or a third of the freshman class to make it to the next year. The advertising department I'm in isn't under the Business College. It's under Arts and Science because it's under journalism. Examples of confederates' statements in the high-disclosure condition are as follows: I probably should have stayed in business, but 1 went on a co-op to NASA as a business major, and I really wasn't happy with the kind of work I was doing. Last semester I took a bunch of tough courses, thinking I'd be able to breeze through them. I just about failed them. Each confederate played each role eight times, evenly across the two experimental conditions. The confederates were not informed of the experimental hypotheses. Postdisdosure impressions. At the end of the 10-min period allowed for interaction, the first author returned to the room and turned off the bogus physiological recording apparatus (actually the tape recorder). The subject and the confederate (still known as the fellow subject to the actual subject) were then asked to fill out an impression questionnaire. The subject was directed to a desk in the experimental room to fill out his or her questionnaire, while the confederate was asked to step into another room. The questionnaire used was similar to Shaffer et al.'s (1982) Acquaintance ProcessesImpressions, but the title was changed to Impressions Questionnaire. The first question served as a check on the manipulation of confederate disclosure level. The next four questions measured the subjects' impressions of their own and their partner's social behavior. On the second and third pages of the questionnaire the subjects were asked to recall and describe what their partner said and to describe the physical appearance, clothing, and mannerisms of their partner. On the last page of the questionnaire subjects were asked to rate their partner on 11 characteristics in order to get an indication of their liking for their partner. This Liking Scale was developed by Ickes and Barnes (1978). Debriefing. After the subject completed the questionnaire, he or she was told of the tape recording and the real purpose of the experiment. The subject was asked to sign a consent form stating that the tape could be used for research purposes. Care was taken to explain why we chose to deceive research participants. Subjects were urged to maintain confidentiality concerning the experiment, were thanked for their participation, and were offered $3.00 in pay.

physiological experimental pretense, the experimental demand to "get acquainted" was eliminated. Thus, this research was designed to address two questions: Does disclosure reciprocity remain operative in a situation lacking a demand for interaction? In such a setting, are high self-monitors more likely to reciprocate disclosure than low self-monitors?

Method Subjects
The research sample consisted of 48 male and 48 female undergraduate students at New Mexico State University. During the 1983 spring academic term, students in biology and experimental statistics laboratories were administered Snyder's (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale. These same students were requested by the first author, during their respective lecture periods, to participate in an experiment for $3.00 in pay. Care was taken to minimize a connection between the administration of the Self-Monitoring Scale and the experimental participation request. To eliminate extraneous variability international students and students over age 35 were eliminated from the subject pool. On the basis of a median split of the Self-Monitoring Scale scores (Mdn = 11.5) the subject pool was divided into the following groups: low-SM males, high-SM males, low-SM females, and high-SM females. Subjects from each of these groups were randomly assigned to the high- or the low-confederate disclosure experimental conditions. The first 24 subjects randomly assigned from each group to each condition (a total of 48 subjects per condition) were called to participate in the experiment.

Procedure
When each subject arrived for the experiment he or she was greeted by the first author who requested the subject to read and sign an experimental consent form. The first author then accompanied the subject to the experimental room explaining en route that the other subject (the confederate) had already arrived. The subject was seated opposite the confederate at a small table where they were both connected to bogus physiological recording equipment. The following instructions were read aloud to the dyad: We are interested in the effects of one person's physiology upon that of another person. \bu are connected to these skin response devices so that we can get a reading of your physiological effects upon each other. After I turn the devices on, I will leave the room for 10 minutes so that I do not interfere with the reading. While I am gone there is no need to remain silent, but please hold nothing in your lap nor in your hands. Before leaving the room, the first author flipped a switch, pretending to activate the physiological recording equipment. In actuality she activated a tape recorder that was placed on the table under a box with the cords from the apparatus extending from it. Manipulation of confederate disclosure level. The subject and the confederate were left alone in the room for 10 min with the tape recorder operating. The confederate disclosed to the subject at either a high or low level. The confederate was one of either three male or three female students who were recruited from an acting class. All six confederates were trained in two roles, a low-disclosure role and a high-disclosure role. For the lowdisclosure role the confederates were trained to minimize their use of self-referent statements, to limit revealing intimate information, and to speak with minimal intonation in their voice. For the high-disclosure role they were trained to maximize their use of self-referent statements, to reveal intimate aspects of themselves as appropriate to the situation, and to speak with enthusiasm. Examples of confederates' statements in the low- disclosure condition are as follows:

Dependent Measures
Two female judges, independently and without knowledge of the experimental hypotheses, rated the audiotape recording and a typed transcript of the recording for each subject for three measures according to strictly defined criteria. The measures used and the criteria for the judges ratings were adapted from Chelune's (1976) Self-Disclosure Coding System (SDSC) and from Davis and Sloan's (1974) Self-Disclosure Rating Manual. The final score on each measure is an average of the two judges scores. Number of self-referent thought units. This is the number of thought units expressed by the subject that describes him- or herself, tells something about him- or herself, or refers to some affect that he or she experiences. This was scored by counting from typed transcripts of the verbal interactions the number of self-referent thought units made by a subject for each 1 min of taping time and summing these for the 10 min. Due to the unequal amounts of time available for subjects to speak (dependent on the number of seconds the confederate spoke), a transformation was performed on the measure of self-referent thought units. This measure was multiplied by 600 s and divided by the number of seconds available

SELF-DISCLOSURE IN AN ACQUAINTANCE PROCESS for the subject to speak. The resulting score is a projection of each subjects behavior for the variable over a 10-min period. Depth of self-disclosure. This measure was derived from the judges' reading of the transcript of the verbal interaction and rating of the intimacy of the content revealed by the subject. For each 1 min interval of lapsed time the judges scored the depth or intimacy of the subjects verbage on a 5-point scale. The points for the 10 intervals were summed for a total intimacy score. Emotional investment. This measure represents the intensity of affect communicated by the voice. Its rating was based on paralinguistic speech characteristics such as intonation, hesitation, cracking of the voice, and rate of speech. It was measured by having the judges rate each 1 min interval from the tape recordings for emotional investment on a 5-point scale and then summing these for the 10 intervals.

1079

Results The results of the behavioral measures for this study were derived from ratings of three aspects of each subject's self-disclosure by two independent judges. Using the Pearson productmoment correlation procedure, interrater reliability coefficients computed over these ratings were .86, .86, and .89, respectively, for self-referent thought units, depth of disclosure, and emotional investment. In view of the satisfactory levels of interrater reliability the ratings of the two judges were averaged for each measure.

disclosing partner were judged to have spoken more self-referent thought units (M = 74.63) than were subjects who interacted with a low-disclosing partner (M - 44.27). The regression for the effects of self-monitoring resulted in a marginal increase in the number of self-references as subjects' SM scores increased, /!(1,92) = 3.92,/><.06. Differential confederate disclosure produced a reliable main effect on subject's depth of disclosure, F(l, 92) = 16.65, p < .001. Subjects paired with a high-disclosing partner were rated as interacting at a greater depth of intimacy (M = 35.91) than were subjects paired with a low-disclosing partner (M = 29.47). The analysis also revealed a significant difference in the effects of self-monitoring across the high- and low-disclosure confederate conditions, F(l, 92) = 8.01, p < .001. Subjects paired with a high-disclosing partner revealed intimately about themselves regardless of their SM scores. Subjects paired with a low-disclosing partner, however, showed an increase in depth of intimacy from a low to a high level as SM scores increased (see Figure 1). The variable depth, when tested for homogeneity of variance across the two experimental conditions, was shown to have significant heterogeneity, Fmm (2, 47) = 2.87, critical value at 1% level for F^ (2,30) = 2.63. Therefore, two other analyses, which correct for the lack of homogeneity, were conducted on this vari-

Manipulation Check
In order to check the effectiveness of the confederate disclosure manipulation, subjects were requested to rate (on a 9-point scale in the Impressions Questionnaire) how much the other person revealed to them about him- or herself. A t test comparing the mean rating on this question for the two levels of confederate disclosure showed a reliable effect, t(94) = 6.58,/> < .001. Subjects assigned to the high-disclosure confederate condition thought the other person revealed more about him- or herself (M = 6.02) than did the subjects assigned to the low-disclosure confederate condition (M = 4.03), indicating that the manipulation was effective.

C o n f e d e r a t e Disclosure High Low

UJ 40 CC
= 30

O
20
LU</)
10

Inferential Statistics
Dependent measures of self-disclosure. The ratings of the number of self-referent thought units expressed, depth of intimacy, and emotional investment in the interaction were analyzed using a three-term general linear model. The three-term model tested for main effects because of confederate disclosure, regression effects for self-monitoring, and regression effects for selfmonitoring within the two levels of confederate disclosure. High correlations existed between the three measures of selfdisclosure. Pearson product-moment correlations were as follows: self-references and depth, r = .79; self-references and emotional investment, r = .67; and depth and emotional investment, r = .84. Each variable was analyzed independently in order to observe the similarities and differences in patterns of response among the variables. The analysis on the number of self-referent thought units expressed revealed a reliable main effect for confederate disclosure, F(l, 92) = 8.13, p < .01. Subjects who interacted with a high-

H- 40 r

I- (/>

20

2>
UJ Z 10

10

15

20

25

SELF-MONITORING
Figure 1. The effects of self-monitoring on depth of disclosure, and emotional investment under conditions of low- or high-confederate disclosure.

1080

D. LUDWIG, J. FRANCO, AND T. MALLOY

able. A rank transformation approach (Conover & Iman, 1981) and a weighted least squares approach (Draper & Smith, 1966) revealed results remarkably similar to the original analysis. Because of the lack of discrepancy between the results of these analyses and the original analysis, the results of the initial model were selected for presentation. An examination of the residuals plotted against the predicted values for depth of self-disclosure for the two experimental conditions revealed an interesting pattern (see Figure 2). When the experimental manipulation was strong (high-disclosure confederate), subjects showed less variability in depth of disclosure (MSrcsid,,,,! = 21.22) than when the experimental manipulation was weak (low-disclosure confederate, MSresiduai = 60.95). Like self-references and depth of disclosure, the analysis of emotional investment also resulted in a significant main effect for confederate disclosure, F(l, 92) = 13.77, p < .001. Subjects paired with high-disclosing partners were rated as interacting at a higher level of emotional investment (M = 36.52) than were subjects paired with low-disclosing partners (M = 3 1 .47). The analysis revealed a significant overall regression for selfmonitoring, F(l, 92) = 7.27, p < .01, indicating an increase in emotional investment as self-monitoring scores increased. This is moderated, however, by the differences in the effects of selfmonitoring on emotional investment dependent on whether the subject was paired with a high- versus low-disclosing partner, F(l, 92) = 7.84, p < .01. The increase in emotional investment as self-monitoring scores increased was existent only when the

subjects were interacting with a low-disclosing partner. When subjects interacted with a high-disclosing partner, they were highly emotionally invested regardless of whether they were low or high self-monitors (see Figure 1). In summary, individuals reciprocated self-disclosure (self-references, depth of intimacy, and emotional investment) at the level of disclosure presented by the confederate. The high-disclosure confederate condition induced both low and high selfmonitors into high disclosure across the measures of depth of intimacy and emotional investment. In the low-disclosure confederate condition, however, there was an increase in depth of intimacy and emotional investment as self-monitoring scores increased. Postdisdosure impressions. The responses on the Impressions Questionnaire, excluding the manipulation check, were analyzed using the same model used for the self-disclosure variables. There were no reliable effects of the subjects' ratings of how much they attempted to impress the other person, how friendly the other person seemed, how comfortable the other person was, nor for how comfortable they felt. Likewise, there were no reliable effects on their recollections of the appearance of their partner, for the amount they remembered about what the other person had said, nor for the liking measure. Discussion Disclosure Reciprocity

High Confederate Disclosure

W -16 < ~8

;.-v .Vv .

55 ~8 w-ie

Low C o n f e d e r a t e Disclosure

-16
-8

o 55
LU OC

0 -8

-16
20 24 28
A

32

36

40

Y
Figure 2. The regression residuals plotted against the predicted values for depth across the conditions of high- and low-confederate disclsoure.

The results of this research provide additional support for the existence of the reciprocity phenomenon, and extend this support to settings where individuals are not requested to get acquainted. Overall, the subjects tended to self-disclose at the same level projected by their partner in a setting where they were led to believe that they were being brought together for a physiological experiment. This provides support for the hypothesis that the reciprocity phenomenon is operative for new acquaintances in the absence of the demand to interact, and thus the reciprocity phenomenon is not simply an artifact of experimental demand. The interaction effects between the self-monitoring moderator variable and disclosure reciprocity shown by Shaffer et al. (1982) were not confirmed by this research. In fact, an opposite pattern of results were observed vis-a-vis the relation between self-monitoring and disclosure reciprocity. Their research, which used a demand to "get acquainted," showed high self-monitors as reciprocators of the content, level of intimacy, and emotional investment projected by the confederate, whereas low self-monitors were less likely to reciprocate. In the current study, when a high level of disclosure was projected by a confederate, both low- and high-SM individuals reciprocated at a high level of disclosure. When paired with a low-disclosing partner, only the lower SM individuals reciprocated by disclosing at a low level. As SM scores increased self-disclosure increased to the point where the higher self-monitors in the low-disclosure confederate condition were clearly not reciprocating at the low level of disclosure projected by the confederate. Instead, they may have been attempting to change the pace to one of higher disclosure. This could be explained by Snyder's (1979) depiction of high self-monitors as striving to appear to be friendly and outgoing in order to gain

SELF-DISCLOSURE IN AN ACQUAINTANCE PROCESS

1081

information from the other person that would allow them to construct a stable representation of the other person in order to plan subsequent strategies of self-presentation. In addition, this result is consistent with Snyder and Ickes' (1985) hypothesis that dispositions may lead individuals to impact social situations in order to make one's self-conception and the social environment congruent. Thus perhaps higher self-monitors paired with a lowdisclosing confederate were engaging the social situation in a fashion designed to make it more congruent with their self-conception. The differences in the results between the current research and that of Shaffer et al. (1982) can be accounted for in terms of the differences in the methodology of the two studies. In the Shaffer et al. study the subjects were told they were to be involved in an acquaintance process and the confederate spoke first on each of four topics. The subject responded only once on each topic and then only after the confederate had already set the pace. The current research allowed more flexibility in behavior for the subjects. The subjects did not know that the acquaintance process was being investigated. The freedom to speak or not speak whenever they wished allowed the subjects to attempt to change the pace, and apparently the high self-monitors did attempt to do so when paired with low-disclosing partners. The results of the current research contradict the particular tenet of self-monitoring theory, which states that low self-monitors are more likely to exhibit cross-situationally consistent behavior, whereas high self-monitors tend to exhibit behavior specific to the situation. However, Snyder (1979) points out that the situation-to-situation shifts of high self-monitors are acted out against a consistent background of expressive behaviors that are common to a variety of social situations. The consistent background of expressive behavior for high self-monitors to which Snyder is referring includes that of appearing to be friendly, outgoing, and extraverted in social situations. Apparently, the present study on self-disclosing behavior detected the high self-monitors consistent background of expressive behaviorsfriendly, outgoing, and extraverted. Even when their partner disclosed at a low level, the higher self-monitors self-disclosed at high levels of depth and emotional investment. The cross-situational specificity in foreground self-presentation, which characterizes the behavior of high self-monitors, was not detected by the present research paradigm. This was, however, detected in the research conducted by Shaffer et al. (1982). It is possible that the cross-situational specificity found for high selfmonitors in their study was because of the high self-monitors desire to appear appropriate in the experimental setting rather than due to a characteristic behavior of high self-monitors when interacting with a new acquaintance. In contrast to high self-monitors, Snyder (1979) points out that low-self-monitoring individuals typically demonstrate relatively greater cross-situational consistency in foreground selfpresentation, but greater cross-situational variability in background expressive behaviors. In other words, low self-monitors display consistency across situations in that their foreground selfpresentational behaviors are dependent on their inner attitudes and beliefs. However, low self-monitors do not display the common background expressive behaviors of high self-monitors. That is, they do not attempt to appear friendly, outgoing, and extraverted in social situations in general. Rather the background

expressive behaviors for low self-monitors may be more variable depending on their moods or other inner states. Thus the current study may also be detecting background expressive behavior for low-self-monitoring individuals, as they displayed variability across situations, disclosing at a high level when paired with a high-disclosing partner and disclosing at a low level when paired with a low-disclosing partner. Apparently, the inner mood to disclose or not to disclose for the low self-monitors was influenced by the behavior of their partner in that the low self-monitors followed the pace of disclosure set by their partner. Under Shaffer et al.'s (1982) research paradigm, foreground cross-situational consistency for low self-monitors was detected. That is, the low self-monitoring individuals were consistent in their level of disclosure regardless of whether their partner disclosed at a high or low level. Perhaps the low self-monitors were unwilling to be appropriate by conforming to the experimental demand to "get acquainted" and thus did not reciprocate at the same level as projected by their partner. The results of the present study align themselves with the results of self-monitoring research performed by Ickes and Barnes (1977), which used an unstructured setting. In the Ickes and Barnes research all combinations of same-sexed self-monitors (high, intermediate, and low) were paired in dyads and left alone for 5 min in a waiting room. Ickes and Barnes reported that high self-monitors typically assumed the role of pace-setter by speaking first and initiating a greater number of conversations. From the results of the present study it appears that given the opportunity, higher self-monitors will opt for disclosing at a high level with a new acquaintance, whereas lower self-monitors will follow the pace set by the new acquaintance. In an acquaintance setting, lacking a demand for interaction, the background expressive behaviors for self-presentation appear to be influencing disclosure reciprocity behavior to a greater degree than the foreground reading of situational and interpersonal cues to behavioral appropriateness. Effects of Powerful Treatments The results from the examination of the residuals for depth of disclosure revealed an interesting pattern with regard to the role of situations in social psychological research. Snyder and Ickes (1985) define psychologically strong situations as those that tend to provide salient cues to guide behavior and have a fairly high degree of structure and definition. They define psychologically "weak" situations as those that tend not to offer salient cues to guide behavior and are relatively unstructured and ambiguous. In the current study, when the experimental condition was psychologically stronger (i.e., the partner revealed at a high level of disclosure), there was less variability in depth of disclosure than when the experimental condition was psychologically weaker (i.e., the partner revealed at a low level of disclosure). These results conform to Mischel's (1977) proposal that when people are exposed to powerful treatments, the role of individual differences among them will be minimized, and, when treatments are weak, individual differences in person variables will be exposed. Only in the psychologically weak, low-disclosure confederate condition did the uniqueness of the higher versus lower self-monitors become apparent. The psychologically strong, highdisclosure confederate situation masked the self-monitoring per-

1082

D. LUDWIG, J. FRANCO, AND T. MALLOY Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-91. Davis, J. D., & Sloan, M. L. (1974). The basis of interviewee matching of interviewer self-disclosure. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 359-367. Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1966). Applied regression analysis. New York: Wiley. Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 315-330. Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D. (1978). Boys and girls togetherand alienated: On enacting sterotyped sex roles in mixed sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 36, 669-683. Lynn, S. J. (1978). Three theories of self-disclosure exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 466-479. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rubin, Z. (1975). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 233-260. Shaffer, D. R., Smith, J. E., & Tomarelli, M. (1982). Self-monitoring as a determinant of self-disclosure reciprocity during the acquaintance process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 163-175. Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85-128). New York: Academic Press. Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 883-948). New York: Random House. Received November 2, 1984 Revision received February 22, 1985

sonality differences by providing salient cues to all subjects to disclose at a high level.

Implications for Future Research

The results of the present study reveal the importance of investigating self-disclosing behavior in settings with minimal experimental demand to disclose. Absence of the demand to become acquainted, while simply observing the interactions under varied conditions, allows for greater generalizability of the results. The evidence from the current study leads to the conclusion that high self-monitors display, their common background expressive behaviors of being friendly, outgoing, and extraverted when placed in a situation where they are allowed to become acquainted with a stranger, and thus they disclose at a high level regardless of the disclosure level of their new acquaintance. It would be of interest to discern whether higher self-monitoring individuals are more likely than lower self-monitoring individuals to actually choose to be in an acquaintance setting that requires an individual to self-disclose.

References
Archer, R. L. (1979). Role of personality and the social situation. In G. L. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 28-58). San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Chelune, G. J. (1976). Studies in the behavior and self-report assessment of self-disclosure (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 743B. Conover, W. J., & Iman, R. L. (1981). Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician, 35, 124-132.