Revised Self-Disclosure Scale

Wheeless and Grotz (1976) developed a topic-free multidimensional mea-

sure of self-disclosure, the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS), to improve
on earlier measures of self-disclosure (e.g., Self-Disclosure Inventory IJourard
& Lasakow, 1958]). They conceptualized self-disclosure as "any message
about the self that a person communicates to another" (Wheeless & Grotz,
1976, p. 338), either self-disclosure to a particular individual (RSDS) (Wheeless
& Grotz, 1976) or a general predisposition to disclose to other people (Wheeless,
1976). The authors conceived of self-disclosure as comprising eight dimensions:
Frequency, Duration, Honesty, Accuracy, Intimacy, Disclosive Intent, Positive
or Negative Information, and Disclosure Relevance to Other Topics.
The RSDS was developed in a series of studies (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976,
1977; Wheeless, 1976, 1978). First, 32 items were written to reflect the
eight components of self-disclosure. Next, a diverse sample of subjects com-
pleted the RSDS about one of 20 disclosure targets (e.g., mother, spouse,
and doctor). The orthogonal rotation accounted for 60% of the variance and
revealed a 15-item, five-factor solution: Intent to Disclose, Amount of Dis-
closure, Positive-Negative Nature of Self-Disclosure, Honesty/Accuracy of
Disclosure, and Depth Control of Disclosure. Oblique rotation produced a
17-item, six-factor solution that also accounted for 60% of the variance. The
sixth factor was disregarded because of low reliability (.25). Wheeless and
Grotz (1976) concluded that because both rotations yielded similar factor
structures, the results could be interpreted as supporting the existence of at
least five independent dimensions of self-disclosure.
To improve the reliability of the subscales, Wheeless (1976) added
eight items to each of the five dimensions of self-disclosure. The results of
a principal-components factor analysis utilizing orthogonal rotation revealed
a 31-item, five-factor solution; the factors were identical to those derived
earlier. Respondents require about 5 minutes to self-report how they com-
municate with a specific target person by responding to 31 items using Likert
scales t h a t range f r o m 7 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). T h e same d i m e n -
sions and items may be used to measure general disclosiveness; here, respon-
dents are requested to complete the instrument to reflect how they com-
municate with other people in general (Wheeless, 1978).

Profile by Elizabeth E. Graham.

322
 Revised Self-Disclosure Scale 323

RELIABILITY

Wheeless (1978) reported the following reliabilities for the RSDS dimen-
sions: intent, .85; amount, .88; positiveness/negativeness, .91; depth, .84;
and honesty, .87. Various researchers have employed the RSDS and have
reported coefficient alphas ranging from .81 to .91 (Stacks & Stone, 1984;
Wheeless, Nesser, & McCroskey, 1986). The reliabilities for the General
Disclosiveness Scale (GSD) ranged from .65 to .90 (Wheeless, 1978).

VALIDITY

Many of the hypothesized dimensions of self-disclosure were also found

empirically, thus providing some evidence of content validity (Wheeless &
Grotz, 1976). Several studies assessed the construct validity of the RSDS.
For example, Wheeless (1976) reported that perceptions of solidarity were
accompanied by higher levels of self-disclosure. Furthermore, self-disclo-
sure and trustworthiness were related (Wheeless, 1978; Wheeless & Grotz,
1977) and served as predictors of interpersonal solidarity (Wheeless, 1978).
Several studies concluded that the more apprehensive students are, the
less likely they are to engage in self-disclosure (Stacks & Stone, 1984;
Wheeless et al., 1986). In addition, Hurt and Gonzalez (1988) reported that
hearing students were not likely to disclose to hearing-impaired students
and hearing-impaired students were not likely to disclose to hearing stu-
dents.
Gudykunst and associates (Gudykunst, Forgas, Franklyn-Stokes,
Schmidt, & Moylan, 1992; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988; Gudykunst,
Nishida, & Chua, 1986; Gudykunst, Nishida, & Schmidt, 1989) investi-
gated the role of uncertainty reduction in interethnic and intercultural rela-
tionships. Although they used only the depth dimension of the RSDS in
their analysis, their results indicated that there are differences in self-
disclosure for high- and low-intimacy dyads as well as for people of differ-
ent races and cultures. These results provide further evidence of the con-
struct validity of the self-disclosure measure. In addition to the numerous
studies that provided construct validity of the RSDS, two studies (Wheeless
et al., 1986; Wheeless, 1978) confirmed the factor structure of the RSDS,
providing further evidence of the construct validity of this measure.

COMMENTS

The RSDS appears to be both reliable and valid. The versatility of the RSDS
is probably its biggest strength. Wheeless (1978) created a measure of gen-
324 MEASURE PROFILES

eral disclosiveness (GSD) as well as self-disclosure with a specific person

(RSDS). Both measures were developed in a systematic fashion with careful
attention paid to the network of concepts that may be theoretically related
to self-disclosure. As Tardy (1988) suggested, future research should estab-
lish the convergent validity of the RSDS.

LOCATION

Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships a m o n g trust, disclo-

sure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 1 4 3 - 1 5 7 .

REFERENCES

G u d y k u n s t , W . B., Forgas, J . P., Franklyn-Stokes, A., S c h m i d t , K . L., & M o y l a n ,

S. (1992). T h e influence of social i d e n t i t y and i n t i m a c y of relationship on
i n t e r e t h n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n : A n extension of f i n d i n g s f r o m t h e U n i t e d States
to Australia and E n g l a n d . Communication Reports, 5 , 9 0 - 9 8 .
G u d y k u n s t , W . B., & H a m m e r , M . R . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e influence of social i d e n t i t y and
i n t i m a c y of i n t e r e t h n i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s on u n c e r t a i n t y r e d u c t i o n processes.
Human Communication Research, 14, 569—601.
G u d y k u n s t , W . B., N i s h i d a , T . , & C h u a , E. (1986). U n c e r t a i n t y reduction in J a p a -
n e s e - N o r t h A m e r i c a n dyads. Communication Research Reports, 3 , 39—46.
G u d y k u n s t , W . B., N i s h i d a , T . , & S c h m i d t , K . L. (1989). T h e influence of cul-
tural, relational, and personality factors on u n c e r t a i n t y reduction processes.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 5 3 , 13—29-
H u r t , H . T . , & Gonzalez, T . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n apprehension and distorted
self-disclosure: T h e h i d d e n disabilities of h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d students. Com-
munication Education , 3 7 , 106—117.
J o u r a r d , S. M . , & Lasakow, P. ( 1 9 5 8 ) . S o m e factors in self-disclosure. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 91—98.
Stacks, D . W . , & Stone, J . D . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A n e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e effect of basic speech
courses, self-concept, and self-disclosure on c o m m u n i c a t i o n a p p r e h e n s i o n .
Communication Education, 3 3 , 317—331 •
T a r d y , C. H . (1988). Self-disclosure: O b j e c t i v e s and m e t h o d s of m e a s u r e m e n t . In
C. H . T a r d y (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and
instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes {pp. 323—
346). N o r w o o d , N J : Ablex.
Wheeless, L. R . (1976). Self-disclosure a n d interpersonal solidarity: M e a s u r e m e n t ,
validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3 , 47—61.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J . (1976). Conceptualization and m e a s u r e m e n t of reported
self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2 , 338—346.
Wheeless, L. R., & G r o t z , J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T h e m e a s u r e m e n t of t r u s t and its relationship
to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3 , 250—257.
 Revised Self-Disclosure Scale 325

Wheeless, L. R., Nesser, K., & McCroskey, J. C. (1986). The relationships of self-
disclosure and disclosiveness to high and low communication apprehension.
Communication Research Reports, 3 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 4 .

Revised Self-Disclosure Scale*

Instructions: Please mark the following statements to reflect how you com-
m u n i c a t e with [specific target person}. I n d i c a t e t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e f o l -
lowing statements reflect how you communicate with this person by mark-
i n g w h e t h e r y o u (1)strongly agree, (6)agree; immoderately agree, ( 4 ) a r e undecided,
(3) moderately disagree, (2) disagree, o r ( 1 ) strongly disagree. Record the n u m -
ber of your response in the space provided. Work quickly and just record
your first impressions.

Intended Disclosure
1. W h e n I wish, my self-disclosures are always accurate reflections of who
I really am.
2. W h e n I express my personal feelings, I am always aware of what I am
doing and saying.
3. W h e n I reveal my feelings about myself, I consciously intend to do so.
4. W h e n I am self-disclosing, I am consciously aware of what I am re-
vealing.
Amount
5. I do not often talk about myself.
6. My statements of my feelings are usually brief.
7. I usually talk about myself for fairly long periods at a time.
8. My conversation lasts the least time when I am discussing myself.
9. I often talk about myself.
10. I often discuss my feelings about myself.
11. Only infrequently do I express my personal beliefs and opinions.
Positive-Negative
12. I usually disclose positive things about myself.
13 • On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more negative than posi-
tive.
14. I normally reveal "bad" feelings I have about myself.
13. I normally "express" my good feelings about myself.
16. I often reveal more undesirable things about myself than desirable
things.

^Copyright 1978 by Sage Publications Inc. Reprinted by permission.

326 MEASURE PROFILES

17. I usually disclose negative things about myself.

18. On the whole, my disclosures about myself are more positive than nega-
tive.
Control of Depth
19- I intimately disclose who I really am, openly and fully in my conversa-
tion.
20. Once I get started, my self-disclosures last a long time.
21. I often disclose intimate, personal things about myself without hesita-
tion.
22. I feel that I sometimes do not control my self-disclosure of personal or
intimate things I tell about myself.
23. Once I get started, I intimately and fully reveal myself in my self-dis-
closures.
Honesty—Accuracy
24. I cannot reveal myself when I want to because I do not know myself
thoroughly enough.
25. I am often not confident that my expressions of my own feelings, emo-
tions, and experiences are true reflections of myself.
26. I always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings and ex-
periences.
27. My self-disclosures are completely accurate reflections of who I really
am.
28. I am not always honest in my self-disclosures.
29. My statements about my feelings, emotions, and experiences are always
accurate self-perceptions.
30. I am always honest in my self-disclosures.
31. I do not always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings,
emotions, behaviors or experiences.

Note. I t e m s 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25, 28, and 31 m u s t be reverse-coded
before c o m p u t i n g m e a n scores. I t e m s should be r a n d o m l y arranged and subscale
labels r e m o v e d before a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
For t h e G e n e r a l Disclosiveness Scale, all c o n t e n t is t h e same, b u t t h e instruc-
tions read "Please m a r k t h e following s t a t e m e n t s to reflect h o w you c o m m u n i c a t e
with other people in general," rather t h a n "how you c o m m u n i c a t e with [specific target
person]."