FLEXIBILITY OF DISCLOSURE AND MEASURES OF COGNITIVE INTEGRATION AND DIFFERENTIATION

Abstract

Summary.-Flexibiliry in disclosure, variability in intimacy of one's self-revelations across disclosure targets and situations, has been related to social adjustment and perceptiveness. It was purpose of this study to determine relationship between flexibility of disclosure and cognitive variables utilized within framework of personal construct theory. Disclosure flexibility was positively related to cognitive integration and negatively related to cognitive differentiation. Cautions were noted regarding interpretation of this finding. In recognizing importance of situational context as a determinant of an individual's willingness to reveal himself, Chelune (1975) has introduced concept of flexibility of disclosure as an important parameter in study of self-disclosure. Flexibility of disclosure refers to variability in intimacy of one's self-revelations across targets and situations. Extending earlier formulations of self-disclosure (Jourard, 1964), Chelune ( 1975 ) proposed a positive relationship between social adjustment and flexibility of disclosure. Individuals exhibiting high flexibility of disclosure may be reflecting ability to perceive target and situational characteristics and to modulate level of disclosure appropriately. Conversely, those exhibiting low flexibility may be lacking in their perceptiveness of such social cues, and accordingly, evidence lack of modulation of disclosure. Instead, individual discloses at approx- - imately same level of intimacy across targets and situations. This lack of flexibility in disclosure may be viewed as indicative of maladjustment (Chelune, 1975). The purpose of current study is to extend and corroborate this conceptualization by relating flexibility of disclosure to certain measures of cognitive processes. Originally deriving from personal construct theory ( Kelly, 1955 ) , concept of cognitive complexity may be defined as the tendency to construe social behavior in a multidimensional way, such that a cognitive complex individual has available a more versatile system for perceiving behavior of others than does a less cognitively complex person (Bieri, 1966, p. 14). Recent formulations, however, have suggested that too great a complexity of one's constructs might be indicative of person's confusion and disorganization rather than his superior ability to cope with complexity.' Subsequent formula