Effects of social modeling, cognitive structuring, and self-management strategies on affective self-disclosure.

Abstract

The purpose of these companion studies was to assess immediate and delayed effects of social modeling, cognitive structuring, and two self-management strategies for increasing affective self-disclosure in undergraduate males. Subjects were randomly assigned to (a) social modeling, (b) cognitive structuring, (c) attention placebo, or (d) no-training control groups. Following training, subjects took a performance test and two pencil-and-paper measures. With this treatment used as a blocking variable, subjects were then randomly assigned to (a) goal-directed behavior, (b) self-reinforcement, or (c) no-training control groups. A delayed posttest was administered 3 weeks later. Results indicated that social modeling and cognitive structuring had immediate effects on affective self-disclosure. Also, a combination of social learning and self-management strategies was more effective over time than any single treatment or no treatment at all. Explanations and implications of these results are discussed.Although research in the area of self-disclosure has been extensive, many inconsistencies in findings have been reported (cf. Cozby, 1973). One general conclusion that can be drawn from these conflicting results is that the self-disclosure construct is extremely complex and thus is difficult to explain empirically. Methodological problems across studies such as nonoperationalized definitions, nondifferentiation between affective and cognitive components, and failure to assess quality as well as quantity have contributed largely to these inconsistencies. Furthermore, the primary focus of self-disclosure research has been on identifying specific parameters of the construct. Of the few studies that have been directly concerned with interventions designed to increase self-disclosure, most have focused on This article is based on the doctoral dissertations of both authors at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.Appreciation is expressed to Norman R. Stewart who served as the chairperson for each author's doctoral committee.

Family communication patterns as mediators of communication competence in the parent—child relationship

“…Although social learning theory has been used to investigate a broad array of communicative behaviors, including language acquisition (Chernela, 2004), learning and developing communication skills (Whitehurst, 1976;Whitehurst & Merkur, 1977;Whitehurst, Sonnenschein, & Ianfolla, 1981), and self-disclosure (Highlen & Voight, 1978), researchers investigating social modeling processes in the family have focused primarily on the intergenerational transmission of family violence (e.g., Gelles, 1994;Stamp, 2004), the development of social skills in children (e.g., Burleson & Kunkel, 2002;Gardner & Cutrona, 2004), and the creation and perpetuation of age and gender stereotypes (Kunkel et al, 2006) . For example, Gelles (1994) found that abuse may be socially learned in the family through both being abused and observing the act or process of abuse.…”

Expressing Emotions in Words: Verbal Patterns of Interaction

“…References to emotive states have not been previously studied in naturally occurring English-language conversations, but they have been examined in role-playing studies. In three such studies designed to elicit emotional responses to an equal number of hypothetical positive (pleasant) and negative (unpleasant) situations, participants talked more about pleasant emotions than unpleasant ones (9,10,11). Respondents also reported experiencing more anxiety when talking about unpleasant emotions than pleasant ones.…”

Systemic Therapy: A New Brief Intervention Model

“…Recently, Dell (1982a) questioned the epistemological correctness of the resistance concept. Dell noted that resistance Although there is evidence that language and perception is used as an-explanatory device to account for a situation in can be changed through a focus on changing overt behavior (Highlen & Voight, 1978;Lefcourt, Hogg, Struthers, & Holmes, which the client does not respondto therapeutic interventions 1975), we have found that this is usually not the most proin the manner predicted by the therapist. Resistance is an attribution made by the therapist to account for "difficulties" ductive route for intervention efforts.…”