Disclosiveness

Abstract

The Disclosiveness scale, formally recognized in psychometric and communication literature as the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS), is an established 30-item self-report measurement instrument designed to assess multidimensional facets of interpersonal self-disclosure. Developed by Lawrence R. Wheeless (1976, 1978), the scale reconceptualized self-disclosure from a simple unidimensional quantitative metric into a sophisticated, differentiated behavioral construct. The RSDS assesses five distinct dimensions of verbal disclosure: Intent (the deliberate, conscious awareness of revealing personal information; 3 items), Amount (the frequency and duration of self-revealing communication; 7 items), Positiveness/Valence (the affective tone and desirability of disclosed messages; 7 items), Depth (the intimacy, vulnerability, and private core of personal revelations; 5 items), and Honesty/Accuracy (the degree of truthfulness, sincerity, and authentic self-perception embedded within disclosures; 8 items). Administered via a 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”), the instrument provides researchers and clinical practitioners with nuanced diagnostic insight into communication competencies, relational development, organizational dynamics, and psychological intimacy. Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate sound construct validity, robust factorial stability across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and high internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .70 to .88. By separating qualitative depth and affective valence from sheer communicative volume and intentionality, the RSDS resolves longstanding ambiguities in interpersonal communication research and remains a foundational tool in social psychology, marital therapy, and organizational communication studies.

Keywords

Disclosiveness, Revised Self-Disclosure Scale, Lawrence R. Wheeless, interpersonal communication, self-disclosure dimensions, social penetration theory, communication privacy management, psychometrics, relational intimacy, factor analysis

Authors

The Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS) was developed and validated by Lawrence R. Wheeless, Ph.D., an influential scholar in the discipline of interpersonal and instructional communication. Wheeless completed his foundational psychometric work on the instrument during his tenure in the Department of Speech Communication at West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, and subsequently expanded his research program at Texas Tech University and Marshall University. Working collaboratively across several validation phases with communication scientists such as Janis F. Grotz and Virginia P. Richmond, Wheeless sought to address significant empirical and theoretical limitations inherent in earlier self-disclosure measurement tools, most notably the unidimensional paradigm popularized by Sidney Jourard. Throughout his prolific academic career, Dr. Wheeless published pioneering empirical investigations into interpersonal solidarity, communication apprehension, receiver apprehension, interpersonal trust, and relational communication satisfaction, establishing standardized measurement protocols that remain widely cited in contemporary behavioral science literature.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Disclosiveness scale (Revised Self-Disclosure Scale) is to provide an empirically rigorous, multidimensional assessment of an individual’s communicative disposition toward self-disclosure. Prior to the psychometric work of Wheeless and Grotz (1976) and Wheeless (1978), the empirical study of self-disclosure was dominated by the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (Jourard, 1971). Although groundbreaking, earlier instruments suffered from profound conceptual and methodological flaws: they primarily operationalized self-disclosure as a monolithic, unitary index based on the sheer quantity of topics discussed (e.g., finances, body image, personal beliefs), entirely conflating the volume of communication with its emotional depth, psychological truthfulness, intentional control, and affective valence.

Wheeless conceptualized self-disclosure not as an undifferentiated communicative output, but as a complex communicative process characterized by strategic, qualitative, and cognitive distinctions. The primary research application of the scale is to dissect how specific sub-facets of disclosiveness differentially predict relational and psychological phenomena. In interpersonal and marital research, investigators utilize the RSDS to understand how partners negotiate boundary regulation, vulnerability, and intimacy. Clinical psychologists and family therapists deploy the scale to evaluate intimacy dysfunctions, socio-emotional withdrawal, pathologically compulsive over-disclosure (e.g., boundary diffusion), or defensive under-disclosure associated with avoidant attachment, social anxiety, and trauma.

In organizational psychology and managerial communication, the RSDS is adapted to assess supervisor-subordinate communication transparency, psychological safety, and corporate climate. When employees feel secure within an organization, their disclosive behavior shifts qualitatively—not necessarily in terms of sheer volume, but along the axes of honesty and valence. Furthermore, in instructional contexts, the instrument illuminates how teacher self-disclosure impacts student engagement, perceived instructor credibility, and cognitive learning outcomes. By delineating five distinct, quantifiable dimensions, the scale allows researchers to test sophisticated interactional hypotheses that a unidimensional index cannot capture.

Psychological Construct

Self-disclosure refers to any message through which an individual communicates personal, private, or hidden thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences to another person (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). In the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale, Wheeless conceptualized disclosiveness across five distinct theoretical parameters:

1. Intentionality (Conscious Intent)

The Intent dimension measures the degree to which an individual self-discloses with deliberate, conscious awareness and purposeful agency, as opposed to accidental slips, spontaneous verbal leakage, or impulsive boundary breakdowns. Theoretical communication models emphasize that disclosure can vary from strategic, highly regulated communication to involuntary catharsis. Individuals scoring high in intentionality possess meta-communicative awareness, actively choosing what, when, and to whom they reveal their inner states. Items assessing this construct gauge whether the speaker is fully aware of their communicative choices when expressing personal feelings.

2. Amount (Quantity and Duration)

The Amount dimension reflects the purely quantitative frequency, volume, and conversational duration of self-referential discourse. It assesses how often an individual talks about themselves, how long their disclosures persist, and how brief or extensive their self-statements tend to be. An individual may possess high disclosive volume simply by being talkative about superficial topics, without necessarily exhibiting high depth or authenticity. Isolating amount as a standalone subscale prevents researchers from erroneously equating verbosity with psychological intimacy.

3. Positiveness / Negativeness (Valence)

The Positiveness (or valence) dimension assesses the evaluative and affective quality of the disclosed material, differentiating between favorable, socially desirable attributes versus unfavorable, vulnerable, or self-critical admissions. Relational theory indicates that early stages of acquaintance are dominated by positive valence disclosures designed to project an appealing public persona, whereas deeper relational bonding necessitates the disclosure of negative valence information (e.g., failures, fears, shameful experiences, and relational doubts). Measuring valence independently allows researchers to assess whether communicative exchanges are characterized by self-enhancing projection or emotionally vulnerable honesty.

4. Depth (Intimacy of Content)

The Depth subscale captures the intimacy, private core, and vulnerability of the revealed material. Derived directly from the spatial metaphors of developmental communication theories, depth reflects how deeply into the “core self” an individual allows another person to see. High-depth disclosure involves revealing profound existential truths, core psychological values, secret passions, and intimate vulnerabilities that are inaccessible to casual acquaintances. Low-depth disclosures, even if voluminous, remain confined to the communicative periphery (e.g., preferences, superficial biographical details, surface opinions).

5. Honesty / Accuracy

The Honesty dimension measures the correspondence between what an individual internally experiences and what they verbally communicate to others, capturing sincerity, authenticity, and perceptual accuracy. Individuals can speak at length (high amount) about personal matters (high depth) with positive affect (high positiveness), yet fabricate or distort the narrative (low honesty). High scores on this subscale reflect genuine transparency and confidence that one’s self-disclosures faithfully mirror their true psychological identity, whereas low scores reflect communicative dissimulation, calculated impression management, or severe self-doubt regarding one’s true internal state.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale is fundamentally rooted in several landmark interpersonal communication paradigms, most notably Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), Sidney Jourard’s humanistic theory of transparency, and later extensions in Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory (Petronio, 2002).

Social Penetration and the Onion Metaphor

Altman and Taylor (1973) posited that interpersonal relationships develop systematically from non-intimate to deeply intimate through reciprocal, gradual, and orderly self-disclosure. They conceptualized personality using the topological metaphor of an onion consisting of concentric layers: biographical data on the peripheral outer ring, intermediate personal attitudes and preferences in the middle layers, and deeply guarded values, fears, and self-concepts at the central core. Crucially, Altman and Taylor proposed two fundamental dimensions of social penetration: breadth (the range of topics discussed, corresponding to Wheeless’s Amount) and depth (the degree of intimacy, corresponding to Wheeless’s Depth).

Wheeless expanded this structural model by demonstrating that penetration does not simply involve pushing deeper into the onion; it is mediated by conscious control (Intent), the affective valence of the layers peeled back (Positiveness vs. Negativeness), and the fidelity with which the external expression reflects the internal core (Honesty/Accuracy). Without measuring these additional vectors, social penetration dynamics could be severely misinterpreted.

Jourard’s Transparent Self and Relational Solidarity

Sidney Jourard (1971) framed self-disclosure as the hallmark of a healthy, fully functioning personality. Jourard argued that concealing one’s authentic self behind a protective mask induces neurosis, psychological alienation, and physiological stress. In developing the RSDS, Wheeless (1976, 1978) integrated Jourard’s emphasis on authenticity into the “Honesty/Accuracy” subscale, but tempered Jourard’s romanticized assumption that “more disclosure is always better.” Wheeless demonstrated that disclosure is curvilinearly linked to psychological wellbeing and relational solidarity: unmitigated, highly negative, or involuntary disclosure often disrupts interpersonal bonds and indicates poor emotional regulation. The RSDS was specifically designed to capture the structural equilibrium required for healthy communication.

Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Interface

Although Sandra Petronio formulated Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory after Wheeless’s initial scale publication, the RSDS provides an empirical operationalization of the boundary mechanisms Petronio described. CPM conceptualizes disclosure as the management of private boundaries governed by rule-based decisions regarding permeability, ownership, and coordination. The RSDS dimensions—especially Intent, Depth, and Honesty—measure the individual differences in how people regulate boundary permeability and negotiate conversational vulnerability.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale have been thoroughly evaluated across multiple empirical investigations in interpersonal, instructional, organizational, and cross-cultural contexts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Wheeless and Grotz (1976) and Wheeless (1978) established construct validity through extensive factor analytic procedures. Factor loadings routinely demonstrated that items selectively loaded onto their target dimensions with minimal cross-loadings, affirming that Intent, Amount, Positiveness, Depth, and Honesty represent distinct psychological constructs rather than a singular disclosive tendency. Subsequent psychometric reappraisals (e.g., Rubin & Martin, 1994; Leung, 2002) confirmed that the five-factor model consistently outperforms unifactorial and trifactorial alternative models across varied demographic cohorts.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is supported by robust patterns of association between RSDS dimensions and theoretically linked interpersonal constructs:

• Interpersonal Solidarity and Trust: In his seminal follow-up study, Wheeless (1978) demonstrated that Depth, Honesty, and Positiveness correlated significantly and positively with interpersonal solidarity (Wheeless, 1978). Crucially, Honesty and Depth were strong positive predictors of interpersonal trust, whereas sheer Amount exhibited negligible or weak associations with trust, highlighting the scale’s ability to discriminate between superficial chattiness and substantive relationship-building.
• Communication Apprehension: Studies exploring communication anxiety utilizing McCroskey’s Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) show strong inverse correlations with RSDS Amount, Depth, and Intent. Highly apprehensive individuals exhibit severely attenuated disclosive intent and depth.
• Self-Monitoring and Machiavellianism: High self-monitors display distinct patterns on the RSDS, exhibiting elevated Positiveness and Intent but variable or attenuated Honesty, reflecting strategic social adaptation. Machiavellianism correlates negatively with RSDS Honesty and positively with strategic Intent, providing compelling evidence of discriminant validity.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive validity of the RSDS has been demonstrated in marital satisfaction research, where reciprocal depth and positive valence predict dyadic longevity and marital adjustment. In organizational studies, supervisor scores on RSDS Honesty and Positiveness predict subordinate job satisfaction, affective commitment, and perceived leader authenticity, whereas supervisor over-disclosure in Amount unrelated to work tasks predicts diminished perceived credibility.

Reliability

The Revised Self-Disclosure Scale consistently demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across varied empirical samples and contextual adaptations. Across the published literature, internal consistency has been evaluated primarily using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and split-half reliability estimates.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In Wheeless’s (1978) benchmark validation study involving 382 participants, the five subscales yielded the following internal consistency values:

• Intent: α = .72 to .78
• Amount: α = .79 to .85
• Positiveness / Valence: α = .75 to .83
• Depth: α = .78 to .86
• Honesty / Accuracy: α = .82 to .88

Subsequent investigations across different communicative domains have affirmed these figures. In organizational samples, Richmond et al. reported subscale alphas ranging from .73 to .86. Cross-cultural adaptations (e.g., assessing disclosiveness in East Asian and Mediterranean populations) report comparable internal consistency figures, typically maintaining subscale alphas above the conventional psychometric threshold of .70, with the composite scale routinely demonstrating overall reliability exceeding .85.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments over two- to four-week test-retest intervals have yielded stability coefficients between .76 and .84 across the subscales, indicating that the RSDS measures stable, trait-like communicative dispositions while remaining sufficiently sensitive to systemic contextual shifts (e.g., interventions targeting interpersonal communication skill training or prolonged marital counseling).

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale was originally delineated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) utilizing Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976; Wheeless, 1978).

Original Factor Extraction

Wheeless began with an extensive pool of potential disclosive statements derived from existing scales and clinical literature. Initial exploratory extractions demonstrated a clear five-factor solution based on Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion and Cattell’s scree test inspection. The five extracted components collectively accounted for over 52% to 58% of the total variance across validation cohorts:

• Factor 1: Honesty / Accuracy – Characterized by items tapping sincere self-reflection, accuracy of feelings, and truthfulness (eigenvalue accounting for the largest share of unique variance, ~18–22%).
• Factor 2: Amount – Items capturing duration, conversational length, and frequency of talking about oneself (~11–14% of variance).
• Factor 3: Positiveness / Negativeness – Items distinguishing between good/desirable self-disclosures versus bad/undesirable admissions (~9–11% of variance).
• Factor 4: Depth – Highly discriminating items indexing intimate, core revelations and vulnerability (~7–9% of variance).
• Factor 5: Conscious Intent – Items measuring awareness and deliberate control over the act of revealing (~5–7% of variance).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Invariance

Modern psychometric studies utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have substantiated the five-dimensional oblique model. When tested against competing unifactorial (global disclosiveness) and hierarchical models, the correlated five-factor structure demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values typically exceed .91 to .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values exceed .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) estimates fall between .045 and .062, and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) remains below .060. Although moderate latent correlations exist between Depth and Amount (typically r = .35 to .50) and between Depth and Honesty (r = .30 to .45), these correlations are sufficiently far from unity to confirm clear multidimensionality.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below are the structural, administrative, and technical specifications of the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS):

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale / questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adults, working professionals, college students, relational dyads, and clinical outpatients. Suitable for general interpersonal, organizational, or romantic communication settings.
• Item Count: 30 items.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type scale with response categories:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Moderately Disagree
  • 4 = Undecided
  • 5 = Moderately Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Intent (3 items): Items 1, 2, 3.
  • Amount (7 items): Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
  • Positiveness (7 items): Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
  • Depth (5 items): Items 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
  • Honesty (8 items): Items 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
• Reverse-Scored Items: To counteract acquiescence response bias, multiple items are negatively phrased and must be reversed prior to computing subscale sums or means (where 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, and 7 becomes 1):
  • Amount: Items 4, 5, 7, 10
  • Positiveness: Items 12, 13, 15, 16 (reversing these yields a higher score for positive valence; unreversed scoring can be used if calculating a distinct “negativeness” index)
  • Depth: Item 21
  • Honesty: Items 23, 24, 27, 30
  • Intent: Contains no reverse-scored items.
• Scoring Interpretation: Scores are calculated separately for each subscale by summing or averaging the items (after reversing negative items). Higher subscale scores denote greater deliberate intentionality, greater conversational amount, more positively valenced disclosures, greater psychological depth/intimacy, and higher perceived honesty/accuracy. While a global composite score is mathematically possible, researchers strongly recommend analyzing the five subscales as separate dimensional indices.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS) was formally published by Lawrence R. Wheeless in 1976 and further refined in his 1978 landmark study published in Human Communication Research. The instrument is considered an open-access, public-domain scholarly assessment tool for academic, non-commercial research, educational, and clinical evaluation purposes. No licensing fees or commercial purchase orders are required to administer the scale in empirical investigations. Researchers and clinicians utilizing the RSDS are required by standard scientific protocol to cite the original validation publications (Wheeless, 1976, 1978; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976) in all associated academic presentations, theses, and published literature. Commercial developers seeking to embed the scale within proprietary, revenue-generating assessment software or commercial diagnostic platforms should seek appropriate intellectual property guidance and clearance from the copyright holder (the International Communication Association / Oxford University Press).

References

• Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Jourard, S. M. (1971). The transparent self (Rev. ed.). D. Van Nostrand Co.
• Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ use among Hong Kong Chinese. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102760147240
• Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.
• Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359938
• Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00503.x
• Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x
• Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2(4), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00494.x
• Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00523.x

Items of the Scale