Eysenck Personality to Communicate

8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate

1/48

The Effects of Personality Traits on General Disclosiveness

Aaron D. Johnson

Thesis submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Arts

inCommunication Studies

James C. McCroskey, Ed.D., Chair

Matthew M. Martin, Ph.D.

Robert A. Barraclough, Ed.D.

Department of Communication Studies

Morgantown, West Virginia

2001

Keywords: Disclosiveness, Communibiology, and Temperament.


2/48

ABSTRACT

The Effects of Personality on General Disclosiveness

Aaron D. Johnson

The purpose of this study was to examine the potential relationship between anindividuals temperament and her/his general disclosiveness. This study utilized

Eysencks model of temperament and the Five Factor model of personality to predict an

individuals level of general disclosiveness and the sub-components of disclosiveness.The results indicated that both models were relatively equal predictors of general

disclosiveness. Both models were moderately strong predictors of the valence and

honesty dimensions of an individuals disclosiveness. A moderately strong negativecorrelation between neuroticism and the valence dimension of disclosiveness was

established. Finally, psychoticism and three factors (openness, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness) of the Five Factor model were not found to predict the exact same

levels of an individuals disclosiveness.


3/48

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following individuals. Dr. James C. McCroskey for

patiently working with me. Dr. Matthew M. Martin and Dr. Robert A. Barraclough for

keeping me on my toes and serving time on my committee. I appreciate the help that all

of you have given me.

I would also like to thank my parents, sister, and brother-in-law for continually

encouraging and supporting me.


4/48

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CHAPTER 1 1INTRODUCTION

General Disclosiveness

Eysencks Model of TemperamentFive Factor Model of Personality

Hypotheses and Research Questions

CHAPTER 2 14

METHODS

Participants

ProcedureInstruments

CHAPTER 3 17RESULTS

Hypotheses

Research Questions

CHAPTER 4 22

DISCUSSION

REFERENCES 28

TABLE 1 32

TABLE 2 33

TABLE 3 34

TABLE 4 35

TABLE 5 36

TABLE 6 37

TABLE 7 38

TABLE 8 39

APPENDIX 40

iii


5/48

1

Chapter 1

The Effects of Personality Traits on Self-Disclosiveness

According to Wigley (1995) the knowledge of traits might help one to

understand the behaviors of individuals interacting with the persons who own the traits

(p. 350). A more generalized knowledge of human communication may potentially be

revealed through the study of biological origins (Horvath, 1998). Phillips and Matheny

(1997) stated, individual differences in responding to specific situations, usually

assumed to be environmental effects, are influenced by genetic factors (p. 135).

According to Eysenck (1986) the evidence from many different investigators in the

genetics of personality is quite clear-cut; genetic factors are more important than

environmental factors (p. 16). Working from these ideas and more, Beatty and

McCroskey (1997) introduced the Communibiological Model. So far, most research

conducted under this model appears to have focused on examining the traits of

communication apprehension (Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998; Neuliep, Chadouir,

McCroskey, & Heisel, 2000) and verbal aggressiveness (Valencic, Beatty, Rudd, Dobos,

& Heisel, 1998). However, the construct of general disclosiveness appears to be

untouched by researchers using the Communibiological Model.

Evidence for a temperamental trait perspective of human communication can be

found in twin studies (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Horvath, 1998; Phillips & Matheny, 1997).

According to Buss and Plomin (1984) emotionality, activity level, and sociability are

stable enduring traits of an inherited genetic component. Buss and Plomin divided

emotionality into expressions, feelings, and arousal; but focused on how an individuals

state of emotional arousal differs from her/his baseline arousal. Emotionality appears to


6/48

2

be related to Eysencks concept of neuroticism (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Sociability is a

component of extroversion (Eysenck, 1986; Buss & Plomin, 1984; Weaver, 1998).

According to Buss and Plomin sociability is the tendency to prefer the presence of

others to being alone (p. 63). Intrinsic rewards of social interaction (sociability) include:

presence, attention, shared activities, responsivity, and stimulation.

Horvath (1995) examined the biological origins of communicator style using a

twin design. She found that genetics accounts for about 74% of the variance in

sociability and 78% of the variance for the open subscale of communicator style. From

these results, one could speculate that an individuals level of general disclosiveness is

genetically derived. In order for an individual to communicate in a disclosive manner,

he/she must be somewhat open.

In order for an individual to be open and disclosive, the individual must first

initiate communication. According to McCroskey and Richmond (1998) the WTC

[willingness to communicate] trait is an individuals predisposition to initiate

communication with others (p. 120). Some individuals believe that human

communication centers on the willingness to communicate trait (McCroskey &

Richmond, 1998). Wigley (1995) examined the relationship between an individuals

willingness to communicate and her/his general disclosiveness and found a moderate

positive relationship. An established moderate relationship indicates that willingness to

communicate and general disclosiveness are two separate constructs. A measure of ones

general disclosiveness would very likely fail to account for the amount of phatic

communication occurring during an interaction. General disclosiveness appears as

though it may be more of a second order factor to the willingness to communicate


7/48

3

construct. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential relationship between

ones temperament and ones general disclosiveness.

General Disclosiveness

In order for dyadic parties to build on an initial interaction, they either must reveal

or expose components of each of their selves to one another through self-disclosure.

According to Wheeless and Grotz (1976) a self-disclosure is any message about the self

that a person communicates to another (p. 338). Wheeless and Grotz (1976) stated that

the perception of the self-disclosive messages by the individuals influence the degree of

self-disclosure taking place. The amount of self-disclosure in which any individual

engages may be dependent upon the individuals predisposition to disclose or the

environment in which the interaction takes place. According to Wheeless (1978) self-

disclosure can be conceptualized at two levels: as a general disclosiveness or openness to

other people (Wheeless, 1976) or as a communication phenomenon occurring between

specific individuals (Wheeless, 1978; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). The former refers to an

individuals trait whereas the latter refers to a culturally bound communication episode.

Situational self-disclosure has been previously researched with a variety of

variables such as interpersonal solidarity (Wheeless, 1976; 1978), interpersonal trust

(Wheeless & Grotz, 1977; Wheeless, 1978), perceived understanding (Martin, Anderson,

& Mottet, 1999), interpersonal motives (Martin & Anderson, 1995), and communication

apprehension (Wheeless, Nesser, & McCroskey, 1986). However, trait disclosiveness

has not been researched as frequently. Wheeless et al. (1986) examined the relationship

between general disclosiveness and communication apprehension and found a negative

relationship between these variables. Wigley (1995) explored the relationship between


8/48

4

an individuals general disclosiveness and her/his likelihood of being selected as a

member of a jury panel. Wigley (1995) found that individuals reporting high amounts of

disclosiveness are more likely to be selected as members of a jury. Also, empanelled

jurors seemed to be predisposed to report more positive disclosiveness than unselected

potential jurors (Wigley, 1995).

Research on both situation-based disclosures and trait disclosiveness, has used a

multi-dimensional scale to assess the construct. According to Wheeless and Grotz (1976)

the construct of self-disclosure is composed of five sub-dimensions: amount of

disclosure, intended disclosure, valence of disclosure, control of depth of disclosure, and

honesty-accuracy of disclosure. Some of these dimensions were derived from other

researchers (Altman & Taylor, 1983). For example, Altman and Taylor (1983) described

breadth in terms the number of categories revealed and also the time individuals spent

interacting. Wheeless and Grotz (1976) used this description of breadth to develop their

self-disclosive sub-dimension of amount of disclosure. According to Wheeless and Grotz

the amount of disclosure is concerned with both the frequency and the duration of the

disclosive messages or message units (p. 338). The sub-dimension of intent deals with

an individuals conscious decision and willingness to reveal information about her/him

self. The valence sub-dimension of self-disclosure is the level of positive or negative

information disclosed, as it is perceived by either participant involved in the interaction.

According to Wheeless and Grotz the control of depth sub-dimension of self-disclosure is

a function of the self-perceived intimacy of the information topic revealed (p. 338).

The fifth and final sub-dimension of self-disclosure, ones honesty-accuracy of


9/48

5

disclosure, is concerned with the individuals precision of her/his self-perceptions and

her/his subsequent ability to verbalize those perceptions in a sincere manner.

Eysencks Model of Temperament

A large portion of the Communibiological Model is based on the work of Hans

Eysenck (Beatty et al., 1998). Eysenck devised a model of temperament that is primarily

based on individuals physiological differences. Although Eysenck (1967) considered

learned habits to be important, he believed personality differences to be primarily

governed by ones genetic heritage. Ones tools to interpret and react upon his/her

environment are genetically limited. The interpretation of any stimuli seems to involve

some type of physiological arousal. The level of physiological arousal that is stimulated

is limited to ones genetically based physiological thresholds. According to Eysenck

(1967) an individuals behaviors are limited to the interpretation of the stimuli by which

he/she is physiological aroused. Individuals that are easily aroused, have relatively weak

physiological thresholds, whereas those individuals who are not very easily aroused tend

to have strong physiological thresholds. Eysenck (1967) found three dimensions of an

individuals temperament based on the arousal level sensed through ones physiological

thresholds. These dimensions are neuroticism, extroversion-introversion, and

psychoticism. These dimensions have demonstrated consistency over time and

generalizability across cultures (Eysenck, 1986). According to Eysenck (1986) these

dimensions represent general ways in which people interact. These dimensions might be

seen as the primary influences on communication (Weaver, 1998) and thus are very

relevant to interpersonal communication theory (Beatty et al., 1998).


10/48

6

Neuroticism is ones level of emotional stability (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). An

individual who is highly neurotic tends to be more susceptible to emotional instabilities

and nervous behaviors. According to Eysenck (1967) some people have a nervous

system that is more responsive to stimuli. Lower physiological thresholds lead to an

increase in sensation to various stimuli. A highly responsive nervous system is more

sensitive to various stimuli due to these low physiological thresholds. An increased level

of physiological responsiveness will influence ones emotional and behavioral reaction to

a perceived stressor.

An individual high in neuroticism might attempt to avoid stimulating social

situations in order to maintain some level of comfort. According to Eysenck and

Eysenck (1985) there is a negative relationship between social intimacy and neuroticism.

One might suspect that an individual high in neuroticism would be socially apprehensive.

Neuliep et al. (2000) found a positive relationship between neuroticism and

communication apprehension (a fear or anxiety associated with a real or anticipated

communication episode with another). The primary physiological link to anxiety

(neuroticism) appears to be the behavioral inhibition system (Strelau, 1983). According

to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the behavioral inhibition system plays a role in

avoidance behavior. An overactive behavioral inhibition system tends to cause an

individual to be anxiety prone (Beatty et al., 1998; Valencic et al., 1998). According to

Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) since neurotic people possess a labile and overactive

autonomic nervous system, they are susceptible to fear and anxiety (p. 315).

The dimension of extroversion is concerned with ones drive to seek sensation

(Eysenck, 1986). An introverted person is one who is considered to be shy or quiet,


11/48

7

whereas an extroverted person is one who is considered to be very out-going. According

to Eysenck (1967) an individuals level of extroversion is based on that individuals brain

attempting to balance her/his inhibition and excitation. Excitation is the brain waking

itself up to its environment or becoming very sensitive and alert. Inhibition is the brain

calming itself down or relaxing its senses to the stimulation of its environment.

According to Eysenck (1967) a highly extroverted individual has a strong inhibition

towards sensing information from his/her environment, whereas a highly introverted

individual has a weak inhibition towards sensing information from his/her environment.

A highly extroverted persons inhibition is due to a low level of sensitivity to stimuli

stemming from his/her high physiological thresholds. Therefore, an extroverted person is

outgoing (seeks sensation) in order to maintain a balanced level of excitation in his/her

brain. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) extroverts may seek out personal

contacts in order to prevent the level of arousal from becoming too low (p. 313). A

highly introverted person is extremely sensitive to stimuli because of his/her low

physiological thresholds. Therefore, in order for an introvert to maintain a balanced level

of excitation in his/her brain, he/she will very likely shy away from stimuli.

According to Eysenck (1986) an extroverted individual is very likely to be

sociable, active, assertive, and lively. An introverted individual would display behaviors

that oppose these descriptions. According to Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) introverts

will show a greater tendency than extroverts to reduce interpersonal intimacy (p. 314).

Neuliep et al. (2000) found a negative relationship between extroversion and

communication apprehension. Extroverts tend to demonstrate more immediacy

nonverbally than introverts (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). The primary physiological link


12/48

8

to the extroversion-introversion dimension appears to be the level of cortical arousal.

Eysenck and Eysenck stated that extroverts have chronically lower levels of cortical

arousal than introverts. Cortical arousal levels appear to be manipulated by the

behavioral approach system. According to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the behavioral

approach system serves to energize goal-directed behaviorto acquiring rewards orto

reduce or avert punishment (p. 98).

A concept previously mentioned is that of sensation seeking. The concept of

sensation seeking was designed to assess individual differences in response to sensory

deprivation (Zuckerman, 1985). According to Zuckerman (1985) sensation seeking has

something to do with the biological trait of arousability in response to stimuli of moderate

to high intensities (p. 103). An individuals level of sensation seeking may be related to

the individuals level of extroversion. Zuckerman reported a significant positive

correlation between extroversion and sensation seeking. Perhaps these two constructs

share similar biological bases. An individuals level of cortical arousal is related to

her/his level of sensation seeking.

The third dimension is psychoticism. Psychoticism is the ability for individuals to

think, feel, and reason in the realities of their everyday world. According to Eysenck

(1967) a person who is high in psychoticism is more likely to exhibit reckless behavior,

disregard common sense, and/or inappropriately express him/her self emotionally. A

person who is high in psychoticism is not necessarily a psychotic. Instead, this person is

just more susceptible to certain behaviors deemed to be psychotic given certain stimuli.

An individual who is high in psychoticism may lack empathy, be very egocentric, and


13/48

9

may act very impulsively, whereas an individual low in psychoticism is more likely to

behave in a very moral manner (Eysenck, 1986).

Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that those who engage in antisocial behavior,

especially criminals, tend to score high in psychoticism. According to Beatty and

McCroskey (2001) the antisocial orientation of psychoticism should spark interest in

many communication scholars. Valencic et al. (1998) found a positive relationship

between verbal aggressiveness and psychoticism. The primary physiological link to

psychoticism appears to be the fight or flight system (Valencic et al., 1998). According

to Beatty and McCroskey (2001) the fight or flight system is the neurobiological basis of

active avoidance and aggression.

Five Factor Model of Personality

Not all researchers feel as though Eysencks Model of Temperament is the best

model to utilize when exploring the interaction of personality traits and communication

traits. Some people feel the current knowledge of the biological mechanisms of the brain

is still quite primitive (McCrae & John, 1992). According to McCrae and John (1992)

the five-factor model is more appealing than other models because overall, it is more

comprehensive. A problem with Eysencks model is that it collapses agreeableness and

conscientiousness in its conceptualization of psychoticism. Without the examination of

all five factors the most relevant traits may be overlooked (McCrae & John, 1992).

McCrae and Costa (1989) believed that this model is useful for the exploration of

interpersonal behavior. A broad definition of interpersonal behavior might include social

interaction or communication. McCrae and John (1992) suggest the use of this model to

clarify or examine issues in fields related to psychology. According to McCrae and John


14/48

10

(1992) anywhere personality assessment has been employed may benefit from a

consideration of the five-factor model (p. 206). Some communication scholars have

examined the personalitys influence on communication.

The Five-Factor Model of Personality contains five traits: extroversion,

neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (McAdams,

1992; McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1989; McCrae & John, 1992; Miller, 1990). The

traits of extroversion and neuroticism were adapted from other personality scholars like

Eysenck (McCrae & John, 1992). Openness to experience, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness were added to fulfill the aim of a comprehensive measure of

personality (McCrae, 1996; McCrae & John, 1992). An individual high in agreeableness

can be characterized as altruistic, nurturing, caring, and supportive; whereas someone low

on this trait would be indifferent toward others, self-centered, and spiteful (McCrae &

John, 1992). Conscientiousness is a trait that organizes and directs behavior as well as

one that keeps impulsive behavior in check (McCrae & John, 1992). An individual high

in openness does not restrain her/him self from exploration of feelings, sensations, and

values; instead he/she tends to be curious, original, and generally holds a broad range of

interests (McCrae & John, 1992).

However comprehensive the five-factor model may be, it is not without its critics.

Eysencks (1986) model of temperament is grounded in biological mechanisms.

Biological mechanisms are the basic ingredients of all human existence. Certainly, they

are the basis of all communication. Human communication begins and ends with basic

biological mechanisms. These biological mechanisms allow humans to sense their

environment in the form of sound, sight, touch, taste, and smell. The inability to sense


15/48

11

the environment in at least one of these five forms makes human communication

impossible. According to McAdams (1992) The Big Five are in no way akin to the

basic elements of personality[the] basic ingredientsof personality (p. 339).

Instead, the Big Five make nice surface level characterizations of behaviors (McAdams,

1992). Eysencks (1986) explanations of behavior are deeper and provide some degree of

causality. According to McAdams (1992) For Eysenckwhat provides ultimate

legitimacy[is his] biological underpinning (p. 341).

Development of Hypotheses and Research Questions

Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that extroverts have chronically lower levels

of cortical arousal. Extroverts can be described as individuals who are sociable (Weaver,

1998). An individual who is more sociable or extroverted is one who is more likely to

initiate an interaction with another. According to McCroskey and Richmond (1998) an

individual who displays a high willingness to communicate is more likely to initiate

communication. Wigley (1995) found a positive relationship between an individuals

willingness to communicate and her/his disclosiveness. Wheeless et al (1986) found a

negative relationship between disclosiveness and communication apprehension. Hence,

the following hypothesis was advanced:

H1: Extroversion will be positively correlated with general disclosiveness.

Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated that individuals high in neuroticism tended to

experience interpersonal intimacy negatively. Intimacy can be described as a close

association between individuals. In order to become close or intimate, individuals often

need to share or disclose information to one another. Hence, the following hypothesis

was advanced:


16/48

12

H2: Neuroticism will be negatively correlated with general disclosiveness.

According to Eysenck (1986) individuals high is psychoticism tend to be

aggressive, cold, antisocial, impulsive, and unempathetic. Individuals who measure high

in psychoticism are very likely to communicate in an uncontrolled manner. Valencic et

al. (1998) found a positive relationship between verbal aggressiveness and psychoticism.

While one could speculate that an individual who measures high on psychoticism is not

going to disclose friendly warm fuzzies; it is unclear whether or not this individual

would disclose some other type of message. Also, Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated

that adequate measures of psychoticism have become available only in recent years. Due

to the uncertainty, the following nondirectional hypothesis was advanced:

H3: Psychoticism will be correlated with general disclosiveness.

According to Beatty and McCroskey (2000a) individual differences in the

thresholds of the neurobiological systems responsible for the cluster of behaviors and

feelings commonly referred to as introversion (I) or neuroticism (N) are inherited (p.

25). Each individual inherits her/his unique combination of personalized genetic

components. Therefore, three possible combinations of Eysencks super traits may

produce unique levels of general disclosiveness. Beatty et al. (1998) argued that an

individual who is high in communication apprehension tends to engage in the avoidance

tendencies that represent a neurotic introvert. According to Beatty and McCroskey

(2000b) multiple neurobiological systems influence complex human behaviors. Based on

this ideology, the following research question was advanced:

RQ1: Will general disclosiveness be correlated with a combination of the

components of Eysencks model and/or the Five Factor model?


17/48

13

Wheeless (1978) validated a measure of general disclosiveness that measures five

subcomponents of disclosiveness. The five subcomponents are: intent to disclose,

amount of disclosure, valence of disclosure, honesty-accuracy of disclosure, and control

of depth of the disclosure. Eysenck (1986) described an individual low in psychoticism

to be unimpulsive and in control. Perhaps, there is a relationship between psychoticism

and the general disclosiveness component of control. Based on this reasoning, the

following research question was advanced:

RQ2: To what extent can Eysencks model and/or the Five Factor model predict

the subcomponents of disclosiveness (intent, amount, valence, control of depth, and

honesty-accuracy)?

Previously, it had been mentioned that adequate measures of psychoticism have

become available only in recent years (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). The Five Factor

Model of temperament (McCrae & Costa, 1985) includes three dimensions (openness,

agreeableness, conscientiousness) believed to be secondary factors of psychoticism

(Eysenck, 1986). In order to better identify the elements of psychoticism potentially

related to general disclosiveness, the following research questions were advanced:

RQ3: To what extent are correlations of psychoticism with disclosiveness similar

to correlations of openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with disclosiveness?

RQ4: To what extent do openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness predict

psychoticism?


18/48

14

Chapter 2

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were 399 undergraduate students enrolled in

introductory communication courses at a Middle Atlantic University. The average age of

this sample was 19.9 with a range of 18-41. There were 202 males and 188 females with

9 non-reports. Additionally, there were 195 freshman, 78 sophomores, 69 juniors, and 48

seniors with 9 non-reports in this sample.

Procedure

During a normal class period, students were asked to complete a questionnaire

consisting of Eysenck and Eysencks (1985) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism

questionnaires, Wheelesss (1978) General Disclosiveness Scale, a measure based on the

Five Factor Model of Temperament (McCrae & Costa, 1985), and some demographic

questions (sex, age, year in school). The students were asked to fill out the

questionnaires as they pertained to themselves. The students were requested to omit their

names or any other identity revealing information from the questionnaire in order to

guarantee anonymity. Participation was voluntary and could be one way in which the

students could receive extra credit.

Instruments

The main concern of this study was bridging a connection of ones general

disclosiveness to ones temperament. General disclosiveness was measured by using

Wheeless (1978) General Disclosiveness Scale (see appendix). The General

Disclosiveness Scale is a 5-dimension, 31-item Likert-type scale. Wheeless previously


19/48

15

reported the following reliabilities on each dimension as follows: intent = .85, amount =

.88, valence = .91, depth = .84, and honesty = .87. The current investigation yielded the

following reliabilities for the dimensions of disclosiveness: intent = .70, amount = .77,

valence = .83, depth = .80, and honesty = .80. Reliabilities for the General

Disclosiveness Scale have ranged from .65 to .90 (Wheeless, 1978). The current

investigation revealed a reliability of .82 for the general disclosiveness scale.

In order to measure temperament, participants were asked to complete Eysenck

and Eysencks (1985) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism questionnaires (see

appendix). Eysenck and Eysencks (1985) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism

questionnaires include a total of 32 Likert-type items. In a series of studies, Neuliep et al.

(2000) reported the following reliabilities: extroversion ranged from .73 to .80,

neuroticism ranged from .75 to .86, and psychoticism ranged from .61 to .68. The current

investigation produced the following reliabilities for the Eysenck and Eysenck (1985)

questionnaires: extroversion = .77, neuroticism = .81, and psychoticism = .67.

In order to explore research questions three and four, participants were asked to

complete a measure based on McCrae and Costas (1985) Five Factor Model of

temperament (see appendix). The Five Factor Model based measure is a series of bi-

polar scales. Neuliep et al. (2000) reported the following reliabilities: extroversion = .80,

neuroticism = .87, openness = .71, agreeableness = .80, and conscientiousness = .80. In

the current investigation, the measure based on the five factor model yielded the

following reliabilities: extroversion = .83, neuroticism, = .85, openness = .72,

agreeableness = .82, and conscientiousness = .79.


20/48

16

Simple and multiple correlation procedures were used to explore the hypotheses

and research questions of the current study. A p-value of .05 was set as a criterion to

determine significance.


21/48

17

Chapter 3

Results

Hypotheses

The first hypothesis argued that there would be a significant positive correlation

between extroversion and general disclosiveness. Correlations between general

disclosiveness scores and scores on Eysencks Model of Temperament obtained from this

study are reported in Table 1. Correlations between general disclosiveness scores and

scores on the measurement based on the Five Factor Model obtained from this study are

reported in Table 2. Results of the simple correlation analyses supported this hypothesis.

Significant positive correlations between general disclosiveness and extroversion were

obtained from both Eysencks Model of Temperament (r = .29, p < .001) and the Five

Factor Model (r = .37, p < .001).

The second hypothesis argued that there would be a significant negative

correlation between neuroticism and general disclosiveness. Results of the simple

correlation analysis supported this hypothesis. Significant negative correlations between

general disclosiveness and neuroticism were obtained from both Eysencks Model of

Temperament (r = -.29, p < .001) and neuroticism from the Five Factor Model (r = -.26, p

< .001).

The third hypothesis argued that there would be a significant correlation between

psychoticism and general disclosiveness, but did not predict the direction of this

correlation. Results of the simple correlation analysis revealed a significant negative

correlation between psychoticism and general disclosiveness (r = -.23, p < .001).


22/48

18

Research Questions

The first research question addressed the possibility of general disclosiveness

being correlated to a combination of extroversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. A

significant multiple correlation coefficient of R = .42 was obtained [F(3, 399) = 28.42, p

< .001]. The results of the multiple correlation between general disclosiveness and the

combination of extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism are presented in Table 5.

The results of the multiple correlation between general disclosiveness and the

combination of extroversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and

conscientiousness (from the Five Factor model) are presented in Table 6. A significant

multiple correlation coefficient of R = .45 was obtained [F(5, 399) = 19.84, p < .001].

The second research question explored what subcomponents of disclosiveness

would be correlated with the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament and the

dimensions of the Five Factor Model. Correlations between the five dimensions of

disclosiveness scores and scores on Eysencks Model of Temperament obtained from this

study are reported in Table 3. Correlations between the five dimensions of disclosiveness

scores and scores on the measurement based on the Five Factor Model obtained from this

study are reported in Table 4. The correlations found to be .30 or better are listed below.

Simple correlation analyses indicated that the disclosive dimension of valence was

significantly negatively correlated to neuroticism (r = -.41, p < .001) of Eysencks model

and significantly negatively correlated to neuroticism (r = -.41, p < .001) of the Five

Factor model. The disclosive dimension of honesty was significantly negatively

correlated to neuroticism (r = -.33, p < .001) of Eysencks model, significantly negatively


23/48

19

correlated to neuroticism (r = -.30, p < .001) and significantly positively correlated to

conscientiousness (r = .37, p < .001) of the Five Factor model.

In order to explore what of the five dimensions of disclosiveness would be

correlated to a combination of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament and

the dimensions of the Five Factor Model, a multiple correlation analysis was utilized.

Multiple correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of disclosiveness and

combinations of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament are reported in

Table 5. Multiple correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of disclosiveness

and combinations of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model are reported in Table 6.

The two strongest predictors are listed below. A significant multiple correlation

of R = .46 was obtained [F(3, 399) = 35.08, p < .001] between valence and a combination

of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament. A significant multiple

correlation of R = .42 was obtained [F(3, 399) = 27.78, p < .001] between honesty and a

combination of the dimensions of Eysencks Model of Temperament. A significant

multiple correlation of R = .48 was obtained [F(5, 399) = 23.28, p < .001] between

valence and a combination of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model. A significant

multiple correlation of R = .47 was obtained [F(5, 399) = 22.14, p < .001] between

honesty and a combination of the dimensions of the Five Factor Model.

The extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism measures have been linked to the

behavioral activation system, the behavioral inhibition system, and the fight or flight

system respectively (Beatty & McCroskey, 2001). However, each of these measures are

not perfect estimates of these supertraits. The magnitude of the correlation coefficient

between disclosiveness and a combination of the dimensions of Eysencks model (r =


24/48

20

.42) is modest and underscores the potential predictive power of the communibiological

model until it is corrected for attenuation ((R) = .53). The same observation occurs with

the correlation coefficient between disclosiveness and a combination of the dimensions of

the Five Factor model that is (R = .45) before correction for attenuation and ((R) = .55)

after. Tables 5 and 6 also report all of the attenuated and disattenuated correlation

coefficients for the moderated (e.g. extroversion in conjunction with neuroticism) and

unmoderated variables.

The third research question inquired as to whether the correlation of psychoticism

with disclosiveness was similar to the multiple correlation of openness, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness with disclosiveness. The results previously listed indicate that

psychoticism is significantly negatively correlated to general disclosiveness (r = -.23, p

Eysenck Personality to Communicate

Documents

Transcript of Eysenck Personality to Communicate