Repression-sensitization response mode and verbal avoidance.

Axtell, Bryan; Cole, Charles W.

doi:10.1037/h0030848

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from a variety of research approaches support this conclusion. High-NA subjects talk more about themselves (Axtell & Cole, 1971), are more self-disclosing in group discussions (Anchor, Vojtisek, & Patterson, 1973), write longer and more affectladen stories (Lefcourt, 1966), produce more free associations (Haney, 1971(Haney, , 1974a, report more frequent daydreaming (Singer & Rowe, 1962;Singer & Schonbar, 1961) and dreaming at night (Connor & Boblitt, 1970), and are less likely to terminate psychotherapy prematurely (Gallagher, 1954;McNair, Lorr, & Callahan, 1963;Thelen, 1969). White and Wilkins (1973) had their subjects identify, as quickly as possible, the mood expressed in each of several ambiguous slides while they were receiving false physiological feedback suggesting differing levels of arousal.…”

Section: Defensiveness/need For'social Approvalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Watson¹,

Clark²

1984

Psychological Bulletin

4,127

143

2,962

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Defensiveness/need For'social Approvalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Watson¹,

Clark²

1984

Psychological Bulletin

4,127

143

2,962

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Content analysis of word choice (MacDoniels, et al, 1971;Janofsky, 1971) or categories of content (Chittick and Himelstein, 1967;Himelstein and Kimbrough, 1963) have no way to distinguish between self-disclosure and revealingness. Direct observation of disclosure in laboratory contrived situations (Axtell and Cole, 1971;Drag, 1968;Jourard and Resnick, 1970) are perhaps best understood as the sums of confessions (to the extent that subjects acceded to the demand characteristics of the experiment), revealing behavior, history and-perhaps-honesty.…”

Section: A Conceptualization O F Self-disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Disclosing Communication

Pearce¹,

Sharp²

1973

Journal of Communication

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-disclosure is a relatifiely infrequent form of communicaticn but one which is claimed to be important in a variety of contexts. Various writers have identified individuals' ability and willingness to self-disclose as determinants of their personal health and satisfaction, success in being imderstood and working competently with others, and ability to provide communication experiences which others find satisfying and therapeutic. This paper summarizes the contributions of the self-disclosure literature for an understanding of self-disclosing communication. Although this literature i s extensive, a considerable portion of it is irrelevant from a communication perspective. Conceptualizations of self-disclosure differ in important ways, making it difficult to compare studies. Further, much of the research studied self-disclosure as a personality trait rather than a process of com mtrnication or analyzed exchanges of messages in terms of a linear model of communication. The present study explicates a conceptualization of self-disclosure as an invitation to share experience and communication as an interpersonal transaction. Five generalizations about self-disclosing communication consistent with these conceptualizations are drawn from the literoture. The utility of the review for analyses of particular communication problems is described.According to Jourard ( 1964: 3 ) , communicators continually confront the choice whether to "permit our fellow men to know us as we now are or . . . ( t o ) seek instead to remain an enigma, an uncertain quantity, wishing to be seen as something we are not." To some extent, Jourard has posed a false dilemma because speakers reveal something of themselves whenever they speak. Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson ( 1967) believe that all messages contain information about the speaker's perception of the relationship between himself and his auditors, and other analyses describe multiple message systems which, particularly in oral speech, function independently of the intended verbal content. For example, nuances of word choice (Wiener and Mehrabian, 1968) and nonverbal properties of the voice (Pearce and Conklin, 1971;Pearce and Brommel, 1972) enable listeners to draw systematic inferences about the speaker.Although speakers are frequently oblivious of and sometimes try to suppress these cues, under some conditions individuals

show abstract

“…For example, observers rated defensive subjects ineffective at making assertive self-disclosures (Kiecolt-Glaser & Murray, 1980) and very poor at judging their level of self-disclosure (Doster, 1975). Defensive individu-als have difficulty engaging in insight-oriented psychotherapy (Strickland & Crowne, 1963) and fail to respond to others' attempts to get them to increase their self-disclosure (Axtell & Cole, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Styles of Inhibiting Emotional Expression: Distinguishing Repressive Coping from Impression Management

Weinberger

Davidson

1994

Journal of Personality

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although repressors' avoidant coping style seems genuinely defensive, an alternative hypothesis is that repressors are actually distress-prone impression managers who provide "socially desirable" verbal reports. To establish discriminant validity, 30 repressors and 30 self-identified impression managers participated in a timed phrase-completion task. Half of the subjects were encouraged to be emotionally expressive and half to be restrained. Repressors were highly defensive regardless of the social demand, and impression managers only managed to match the repressors' level of distancing during the first segment of the inhibitive condition. Repressors were as physiologically reactive when they made defensive claims as they were when they made more negative disclosures to others. Moreover, when confronted, only the repressors denied that their heart rate elevations might be related to their emotional responses. These findings suggest that repressors' limited emotional expression is more determined by defenses against awareness of affect than by self-presentational concerns.

show abstract

Repression-sensitization response mode and verbal avoidance.

Cited by 14 publications

References 9 publications

Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Self-Disclosing Communication

Styles of Inhibiting Emotional Expression: Distinguishing Repressive Coping from Impression Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About