Upload
yenni-roeshinta
View
243
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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.
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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.
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality 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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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).
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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,
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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:
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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?
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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?
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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.
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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.
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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).
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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 =
8/2/2019 Eysenck Personality to Communicate
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