Self-Concealment and Self-Disclosure in Two Group Contexts

Fromm Erich , Man for Himself (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1947).

Horney Karen , Neurosis and Human Growth (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1950).

Riesman David , The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950).

Jourard Sidney M. Lasakow Paul , “Some Factors in Self-Disclosure,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVI (Jan. 1958), 91–98.

Jourard , “Self-Disclosure and Other-Cathexis,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX (Nov. 1959), 430.

It is important that the reader be clear on this matter. Throughout this study, we have used self-ratings by our subjects as our measures of their willingness to be self-disclosing. We have not used their actual self-disclosing behavior—although it would have been more meaningful to do so—because of the impossibility in this case of obtaining such behavioral data from each of the fifty subjects.

Fruchter Benjamin , Introduction to Factor Analysis (New York: Van Nostrand Co., 1954), pp. 12–17.

The value structure was significantly conflicted on Cluster E for the two contexts. Although the conflict on Cluster B was not as great, it was believed to be more reasonable to interpret the difference between the two groups as suggesting conflicting expectations rather than as indicating that this variable was important only for the social context.

Wispé Lauren G. Thayer Paul W. , “Role Ambiguity and Anxiety in an Occupational Group,” Journal of Social Psychology, XXXVI (August 1957), 14–48.

Huttner L. Levy S. Rosen E. Stopol M. , “Further Light on the Executive Personality,” Personnel, XXXVI:2 (March-April 1959), 42–50.