Download summary - Shodhganga

SUMMARY
The term health can be defined in various ways. It can be defined negatively,
as the absence of illness; functionally, as the ability to cope with every day activities,
or positively, as fitness and well-being (Blaxter, 1990). In any organism, health
operates in the form of homeostasis or a state of balance, with inputs and outputs of
energy and matter in equilibrium (allowing for growth). In sentient creatures such as
humans, health is a broader concept invoking a dynamic state ranging from chronic
illness or disability to optimum levels of functioning across all domains of life. Health
has been defined as a human condition with physical, social and psychological
dimensions, each characterized along a continuum with positive and negative poles.
Negative health is associated with morbidity and at the extreme, premature death.
Changing Concepts
An understanding of health is the basis of all health care. Health is not perceived
the same way by all members of a community including various professional groups
(e.g. biomedical scientists, social science specialists, health administrators, ecologists,
etc.) giving rise to confusion about the concept of health. In a world of continuous
change, new concepts are bound to emerge based on new patterns of thought. Health
has evolved over the continuous as a concept from an individual concern to a
worldwide quality of life. Some concepts of health are:
1-
Biomedical Concepts: Conventionally, health has been viewed as an
“absence of disease” and if one is free from disease, and then we can say that the
person is healthy. This concept known as the “biomedical concepts”, has the
basis in the “germ theory of disease” which dominated medical thought at the
188
turn of the 20th century. The medical profession viewed the human body as a
machine and one of the doctor’s tasks is to repair the machine.
2-
Ecological Concepts: Deficiencies in the biomedical concept gave rise to
other concepts. The ecologist put forward an attractive hypothesis which viewed
health as a dynamic equilibrium between man and his environment, and disease
a maladjustment of the human organism to environment. Health was clearly
defined by Dubos (1965) as: “Health implies the relative absence of pain and
discomfort and a continuous adaptation and adjustment to the environment to
ensure optimal function”. The ecological concept raises two issues, viz.
imperfect men and imperfect environment. Histories argue strongly that
improvement in human adaptation to natural environment can lead to longer life
expectancies and a better quality of life even in the absence of modern health
delivery services.
3-
Psychological Concepts: Contemporary development in social sciences
discovered that health is not only biomedical phenomenon, but one which is
influenced by social, psychological, cultural and political factors of the people
concerned. Thus health is both a biological and social phenomenon.
4-
Holistic Concept: The holistic model is a combination of all the above
concepts. It recognizes the strength of social, economic, political and
environmental influences on health. It has been variously described as a unified
or multidimensional process involving the well-being of the whole person in the
context of his environment. This view corresponds to the view held by the
ancients that health implies a sound mind in a sound body, in a sound family and
in sound environment. The holistic approach implies that all sectors of society
have an effect on health in particular, agriculture, animal husbandry, food,
189
industry, education, housing, public works, communication and other sectors.
The emphasis is on the promotion and protection of health.
“Health” is one of those terms which most people find it difficult to define
although they are confident of its meaning. Therefore many definitions of health have
been offered from time to time(a)
Webster (1969) defined health as “The condition of being sound in body, mind
or spirit, especially freedom from physical disease or pain”.
(b)
In the same way according to Oxford English Dictionary health is “Soundness
of body or mind; that condition in which its functions are duly and efficiently
discharged”.
(c)
According to Perkins (1999) “A state of relative equilibrium of body forms and
function which results from its successful dynamic adjustment to forces tending
to disturb it. It is not passive interplay between body substance and forces
impinging upon it but an active response of body forces working toward
readjustment”
Health is not a one dimensional approach but it is multi-dimensional. The WHO
definition envisages three specific dimensions- the physical, the mental and the social.
Many more may be cited, viz. spiritual, emotional, vocational and political
dimensions. Although these dimensions function and interact with one another, each
has its own nature.
Mental health is far more than the absence of mental illness and has to do with
many aspects of our lives including:(a) How we feel about ourselves.
(b) How we feel about others.
190
(c) How we are able to meet the demands of life.
Hales and Hales (1995) defined mental health as: “the capacity to think
rationally and logically, to cope with the transitions, stresses, traumas, and losses that
occur in all lives, in ways that allow emotional stability and growth”. In general,
mentally healthy individuals value themselves, perceive reality as it is, accept its
limitations and possibilities, respond to its challenges, carry out their responsibilities,
establish and maintain close relationships, deal reasonably with others, pursue work
that suits their talent and training and feel a sense of fulfilment that makes the efforts
of daily living worthwhile.
Mental health is not mere absence of mental illness. Being mentally healthy
doesn’t just mean that we don’t have a mental health problem. We all have times
when we feel down or stressed or frightened. A mentally healthy person has three
main characteristics:
(1)
He feels comfortable about himself, that is, he feels reasonably safe and sound.
He neither underestimates nor overestimates his own ability. He accepts his
shortcomings. He has self respect.
(2)
The mentally healthy person feels right towards others. This means that he is
able to be concerned about others and to love them. He has friendship that is
gratifying and lasting. He is able to like and trust others. He takes responsibility
for his neighbor and his fellow-men.
(3)
The mentally healthy person is able to meet the demands of life. He does
something about the problems as they arise. He is able to think for himself and
to take his own decisions. He sets a reasonable goal for himself (LayCock &
Samual, 1962).
191
A variety of factors are attributed to the development of abnormal behavior. These
factors are:
a) Biological factors.
b) Psychological factors.
c) Sociocultural factors.
One of the considerations that motivated the researcher to undertake the
present study is the substantial body of evidence showing an impact of self-disclosure
on various aspects of behavior. Hence self-disclosure is also likely to have an impact
on mental health.
Disclosure as a phenomenon was first investigated by Jourard (1971). The
process was initially defined as telling others about the self. Self-disclosure is a
building block for intimacy; intimacy cannot be achieved without it. We anticipate
self-disclosure to be reciprocal and appropriate. It is not simply providing information
to another person. It is the sharing of information that someone would not normally
know or find out. Individuals are more expressive in their self-disclosure of positive
emotions than negative emotions because it is seemingly more appropriate to selfdisclose positive emotions (Howell & Conway, 1990). Jourard (1971) states that in
order to become a fully functioning person, individuals should both be willing and
able to disclose intimate, personal information to the significant people in their lives
(Burger, 2000). Culpert (1968) distinguishes between self-description and selfdisclosure. Self-description involves communication that levels “public layers”
whereas self-disclosure involves communication that reveals more private, sensitive,
and confidential information.
192
The key consequence of self-disclosure is an increase in the level of intimacy
in social interactions (Jourard, 1997; Derlega & Berg, 1987; Derlega, Metts, Petronio
& Margulis, 1993; Mansour, 1992; Warning, Schalfer & Fry, 1994; Rogers &
Holloway, 1993). This increased intimacy may in turn provide social support that can
help reduce stress (Emmons & Collory, 1995; Johnson, Hobfoll & Zaleberg-Linetzy,
1993; Cohen-Mansfield & Marx, 1992). Self-disclosure also may promote more
honest responses from others, who may then become more useful sounding boards. In
this situation, others ultimately may provide worthwhile feedback that can reduce
stress.
The health effects of emotional disclosure that have been examined consist of
mental health outcomes (e.g., mood, distress, anxiety, depression, perceived stress,
and intrusive thoughts), behaviour changes (e.g., GPA, absenteeism from work, reemployment efforts), physical health outcomes (e.g., long-term symptom reporting,
health visits, health behaviours, physical functioning of illness populations, and pain
related to illness), as well as immunological changes (e.g., immune and vaccination
responses in healthy individuals, immune changes in AIDS/HIV and prostate cancer
patients) (Lepore & Smyth, 2002). In spite of plentiful investigations delving into
mental health outcomes, there are findings representing that benefits of disclosure are
minimal as some studies have revealed immediate negative effects of emotional
disclosure such as increases in negative mood and distress, which eventually taper off
(Pennebaker et al., 1988). Meanwhile, long-term findings of mental health benefits
have been minimal and mixed, with some long-term outcome measures demonstrating
benefits of emotional disclosure (e.g., Kelley et al., 1997; Pennebaker et al., 1990;
Pennebaker et al., 1988), while others do not (e.g., Francis & Pennebaker, 1992;
Gidron et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., 1996). Specifically, emotional disclosure has
193
only been found to be effective for mental health in healthy populations, while
consistently demonstrating no benefits for ill populations as demonstrated by Frisina
and colleagues (2004) and Harris’ (2006) meta-analyses.
The foregoing discussion reveals that there is still controversy regarding the
impact of self-disclosure on mental health. The present study was undertaken to
resolve this controversy. In the light of the trend of previous studies, it appears quite
reasonable to assume that people who have high self disclosure in their personality
have much better adjustment and general mental health as compared to low self
disclosure people. The present study is undertaken to test this assumption. Another
consideration that motivated the researcher to carry out the present study is the
existing body of evidence showing an influence of extraversion-introversion on
different dimensions of behavior and hence is likely to affect mental health.
The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have
people to talk to and doesn’t like reading or studying by himself. He craves
excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment,
he is carefree, easy going optimistic, and likes to “laugh and be merry”. According to
Alarcon et al. (1998): “Extraversion is the act, state or habit of being predominantly
concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self”. Extraverts
tend to take pleasure in human interactions and to be enthusiastic, conversational,
assertive, and gregarious. They take satisfaction in activities that involve large social
gathering, such as parties, community activities, public demonstration and business or
political groups.
Extravert people have following characteristics:

They are social and need other people.
194

Exhibit high energy and noise.

Communicate with excitement and enthusiasm with almost anyone in the
vicinity.

Draw energy from people; love parties.

They are gorgeous and agitated when not with people.

Set up multiple fluid relationships.

Engage in lots of activities and have many interest areas.

Have many best friends and converse to them for long periods of time.

Extravert people are concerned in external events not internal ones.

Prefer face-to face verbal communication rather than written communication.

Share personal information easily.

Respond quickly.
Introverts people are different from extraverts. They are quiet, retiring sort of
persons, deep in thought, fond of books rather than people.
“Introversion” is “the state of or tendency toward being wholly or
predominantly concerned with and interested in one’s own mental life. (Alarcon, et
al., 1998). Introverts tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and comparatively nonengaged in social situations. They take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading,
writing, watching movies, inventing, and designing. An introverted person is likely to
enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people
(Although they may enjoy one-to-one or one-to-few interactions with close friends.)
Ambivalence is a state of having emotions of both positive and negative
valence or of having thoughts or actions in contradiction with each other, when they
are related to the same object, idea or person (for example, feeling both love and
195
hatred for someone or something). The term is also commonly used to refer to
situations where 'mixed feelings' of a more general sort are experienced or where a
person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness concerning something.
Ambivalence is the coexistence of two opposing drives, desires, feelings, or
emotions toward the same person, object, or goal. It may be produced by being
psychologically pulled in opposite directions by two significant others. For example, a
coach may encourage an athlete to win at all costs, while a parent encourages the
athlete to believe that taking part and developing good sporting behavior is the most
important consideration. The ambivalent person may be unaware of either of the
opposing wishes. The term was coined in 1911 by Eugen Bleuler, to designate one of
the major symptoms of schizophrenia, the simultaneous existence of contradictory
feelings toward an object or person and, with respect to actions, the insoluble
concurrence of two tendencies, such as eating and not eating. In "The Rat Man"
(1909d) Freud had already indicated that the opposition between love and hate for the
object could explain the particular features of obsessive thought (doubt, compulsion).
In the field of extraversion-introversion a number of theories came into the
existence. But the most extremely developed theory of extraversion is that of Eysenck
(1967). Briefly, he postulated that variations in introversion-extraversion reflect
individual differences in the functioning of reticular activation system. This structure
is thought by neurophysiologist to be responsible for producing nonspecific arousal in
the cerebral cortex in response to external stimulation, and Eysenck hypothesized that
introverts are more highly aroused than extraverts given standard conditions of
stimulation. Somewhat ironically, this results in the introvert showing more reserved
or “inhibit” behavior because the cortex is exercising control over the more primitive,
impulsive, lower brain centers. The arousal concept is used to explain most of the
196
differences between extraverts and introverts that have been observed in the
laboratory and in real life.
Another theory of extraversion-introversion is proposed by Claridge (1967)
that asserts that extraversion is seen as referring jointly to the impulsive, changeable
cyclothyme and to the carefree, sociable hysteroid. Similarly, introversion in
Claridge’s model is a general term applied to the obsessoid and schizoid types. In
relation to the causal process, extraversion is viewed as low arousal modulation
(regardless of the degree of tonic arousal) whereas introversion is thought to reflect
the strong inhibitory control and sensory filtering characteristics of high arousal
modulation.
The earlier discussion has revealed that extraverts are more intelligent,
suggestible, less stressed and are happier persons than introverts (Rust, 1974; Sinha &
Ojha, 1963; Mayer’s, 1992; Argyle, 1987; Diener, 1984; Argyle & Schwartz, 1991;
Veenhoven, 1984; Furnham & Brewin, 1990; Healey & Wearing, 1989; Lu & Argyle,
1991; Pavot, Diener & Fujita, 1990; Costa & McCrae, 1980; DeNeve & Cooper,
1998; Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999; Eid, Rieman, Angliether & Borkenau, 2003;
Watson & Clark, 1992; Morris & Reilly, 1987; Hemenover, 2003; Lucas & Diener,
2001). It is, therefore, highly logical to assume that extraverts should be healthier both
physically and mentally as compare to ambivalent and introverts. The present study
was undertaken to test this assumption.
Still another consideration that motivated the present researcher to undertake
this investigation is to explore how social support influence general mental health.
Any person with a life-threatening illness has a strong need for other people in
their lives. They need others to help them, deal with their illness and its emotional
197
effects. These people provide what is called "social support”. Social support has been
defined as information from others that one is loved and cared for, esteemed and
valued and part of a network of communication and mutual obligations from parents,
a spouse or lover, other relatives, friends, social and community contacts (such as
churches or clubs) (Riestschlin, 1998), or even a devoted pet (Allen, 2003a). In such
situation, it may be assumed that an individual who is married receives more social
support than the one who is not married.
The concept of social support has variously been used by the researchers as
social bonds (Henderson, 1977), social networks (Mueller, 1980), meaningful social
contact (Cassel, 1976), availability of social confidents (Brown et al., 1975), and
human companionship (Lynch, 1977). Social support is closely related to the concept
of a social network, or the ties to family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and others of
significance to the person. However, when the social network is described in
structural terms like size, range, density, proximity and homogeneity, social support
normally refers to the qualitative aspects of the social network, within this context,
social support is the potential of the network to provide help in situations when
needed.
The definition of social support varies widely among those who have studied
it. It has been referred to in a general manner as support which is "provided by other
people and arises within the context of interpersonal relationships" (Hirsh, 1981) and
as "support accessible to an individual through social ties to other individuals, groups,
and the larger community" (Lin, Simeone, Ensel and Kuo, 1979). According to
Shumaker and Brownell (1984) supportive behavior would be seen as “an exchange
of resources between two individuals perceived by the provider or the recipient to the
198
intended to enhance the well-being of recipient”. These interactions tend to be viewed
as supportive when they are intended to gratify people’s need (Thoits, 1983).
People with high levels of social support may experience less stress when they
confront a stressful experience, and they may cope with it more successfully. Studies
have shown that patients who have social support are better able to adjust to their
situation (Taylor, 2006). Support can come from family and friends, members of a
church, mental health professionals, support groups, or community members. If you
do not have support from friends and family, find it elsewhere. There are others in
your community who need your companionship as much as you need theirs.
Social support has become a leading area of research. Researchers and clinicians
alike have made many strides towards understanding the role it plays in individual
health and well-being (Acitteli and Antonucci,1994; Cutrona and Suhr, 1994; Joseph
Williams and Yale, 1992; Stack and Vaux, 1988; Vaux, 1988). Community, social,
clinical, health and developmental psychologists, as
well as
sociologist,
anthropologists, social workers and public health professionals have studied social
support intensively.
House (1981) described four main categories of social support: emotional,
appraisal, informational and instrumental.

Emotional support generally comes from family and close friends and is the
most commonly recognized form of social support. It includes empathy,
concern, caring, love, and trust.

Appraisal support involves transmission of information in the form of
affirmation, feedback and social comparison. This information is often
199
evaluative and can come from family, friends, co-workers, or community
sources.

Informational support includes advice, suggestions, or directives that assist the
person to respond to personal or situational demands. With information, the
individual facing a stressful event can determine how threatening the stressful
event is likely to be and can profit from suggestions about how to manage the
event.

Instrumental support is the most concrete direct form of social support,
encompassing help in the form of money, time, in-kind assistance, and other
explicit interventions on the person’s behalf.
Support from a partner, usually a spouse, is very protective of health,
especially for men (Kiecolt-Glaser and Newton, 2001). Exiting a marriage, being
unmarried, or being in an unsatisfying marriage all entail health risks (Kiecolt-Glaser
and Newton, 2001; Williams, 2003).
Support from family is important as well. Social support from one’s parents in
early life and/or living in a stable and supportive environment as a child has long term
effects on coping and on health (Repetti et al., 2002).
Researchers have proposed two theories: the “buffering” and the “direct
effects” hypotheses to explain the influence of social support on health and wellbeing. Studies have found evidence consistent with both theories (Cohen & Wills,
1985; Thoits, 1982; Wortman & Dunkel-Schetter, 1987).
The frontier of social support research is to identify the bio psychosocial
pathways by which social support exert beneficial or health-comprising effects.
Studies suggest that social support has beneficial effect on cardiovascular, endocrine
200
and immune systems (Seeman and McEwen, 1996; Uchino, Cacioppo and KiecoltGlaser, 1996).
Some other researches demonstrate that social support effectively reduces
psychological distress such as depression or anxiety, during times of stress. For
example, a study of residence near the sites of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident
in 1979 (Fleming, Baum, Gisriel and Gatchel, 1982) revealed that people with high
levels of social support felt less distressed than did people with low levels of social
support (Haines, Hurlbert and Begs, 1996; Lin, Ye and Ensel, 1999). Loneliness
clearly leads to health risks in large part because lonely people appear to have more
trouble during sleeping and show more cardiovascular activation (Hawkley, Burleson,
Bentson and Cacioppo, 2003; Cacioppo et al., 2002; Sorkin, Rook and Lu, 2002).
People who have difficulty with social relationships such as those who are chronically
shy (Naliboff et al., 2004) or who anticipate rejection by others (Cole, Kemeney,
Fahey, Zack and Naliboff, 2003) are at risk for isolating themselves socially, with the
result that they experience more psychological distress and are at greater risk for
health problems.
In the light of the studies reviewed, it is highly logical to assume that social
support may distract the person’s attentions from their problems which in turn is
likely to reduce anxiety and stress leading to sound general mental health. More
specifically it is assumed that persons having high social support should have better
general mental health than those who have low social support. The present study is
also designed to test this assumption.
A 3x3x3 factorial design in which two personality variable i.e. self-disclosure
and extraversion-introversion, and one social variable i.e. social support each varying
201
three ways, was used in the present study. The three values of the personality variable
i.e. self-disclosure were (a) high self-disclosure, (b) moderate self-disclosure and (c)
low self-disclosure, extraversion-introversion was also divided into three levels like
(a) extraverts, (b) ambivalent and (c) introverts. The three values of social support
were (a) high social support, (b) moderate social support and (b) low social support.
Thus, there were twenty seven groups of subjects, namely: high self-disclosee
extraverts high social support, high self-disclosee ambivalent high social support, high
self-disclosee introverts high social support, high self-disclosee extraverts moderate
social support , high self-disclosee ambivalent moderate social support, high selfdisclosee introvert moderate social support, high self-disclosee extraverts low social
support, high self-disclosee ambivalent low social support, high self-disclosee
introverts low social support, moderate self-disclosee extraverts high social support,
moderate self-disclosee ambivalent high social support,
moderate self-disclosee
introverts high social support, moderate self-disclosee extraverts moderate social
support, moderate self-disclosee ambivalent moderate social support, moderate selfdisclosee introverts moderate social support, moderate self-disclosee extraverts low
social support, moderate self-disclosee ambivalent low social support, moderate selfdisclosee introverts low social support, low self-disclosee extraverts high social
support, low self-disclosee ambivalent high social support, low self-disclosee
introverts high social support, low self-disclosee extraverts moderate social support,
low self-disclosee ambivalent moderate social support, low self-disclosee introverts
moderate social support, low self-disclosee extraverts low social support, low self
disclosee ambivalent low social support, low self-disclosee introverts low social
support.
202
Sample
In order to form above mentioned twenty seven groups of subjects SelfDisclosure Inventory developed by Sinha (1973) was administered on 600 subjects.
On the basis of their scores on Self-Disclosure Inventory, subjects were divided into
three groups namely high disclosee, moderate disclosee and low disclosee groups.
The subjects whose scores on Self-Disclosure Inventory fell on or bellow 1st quartile
(Q1) were considered as low self-disclosees while the subjects whose scores on SelfDisclosure Inventory fell on or above 3rd quartile (Q3) were considered as high selfdisclosees and subjects whose scores on Self-Disclosure Inventory fell on or below
2nd quartile (Q2) were considered as moderate self-disclosees . We got three groups
of subjects, i.e., high disclosee, moderate disclosee & low disclosee groups. On these
groups we administered Kundu Introversion-extraversion inventory by Ramanath
Kundu. On the basis of their scores on Kundu Introversion-extraversion scale each
group was then sub divided into three groups to form nine groups of subjects namely,
high disclosee introverts, high disclosee ambivalent, high disclosee extravert,
moderate disclose introvert, moderate disclose ambivalent, moderate disclosee
extraverts, low disclosee introverts, low disclosee ambivalent & low disclosee
extraverts. The subjects whose scores on Kundu Introversion-Extraversion inventory
fell on or bellow 1st quartile (Q1) were considered as extraverts, while the subjects
whose scores on Kundu Introversion-Extraversion fell on or above 3rd quartile (Q3)
were considered as introvert. Now we have 9 groups of subjects and on these groups
we administered the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support developed
by Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley (1988). On the basis of their scores on
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support each group was again subdivided to form the above mentioned twenty seven groups.
203
The Subjects whose scores on Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support fell on or below 1st quartile (Q1) were considered as low social support
groups, while the subjects whose scores on Multidimensional Scale of Perceived
Social Support fell on or above 3rd quartile (Q3) were considered as belonging to
high social support groups of subjects and subjects whose scores on Multidimensional
Scale of Perceived Social Support feel on or below 2ne quartile (Q2) were considered
as moderate social support groups of subjects . On these twenty seven groups we
administered General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ) developed by Goldberg &
Williams (1988).
Tools
In the present research the following tools were used for data collection.
1.
Self-disclosure Inventory.
2.
Kundu Introversion Extraversion Inventory.
3.
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.
4.
General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ).
Procedure:
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) as developed by Goldberg &
Williams (1998) was administered on all twenty seven (27) groups of subjects. As
soon as the subjects finished their task, the test was collected from them and scoring
was done. The data thus, obtained were tabulated group-wise and were statistically
analysed to draw necessary inferences.
The main findings of the present study are: (1) high self-disclosees, moderate
self-disclosees and low self-disclosees don’t differ with respect to general mental
health; (2) extraverts and introverts differ with respect to general mental health. More
204
specifically extraverts were found to have better mental health than introverts.
Moreover, ambivalent subjects were found to have better general mental health than
introverts; (3) social support was found to have beneficial effect on general mental
health. More specifically subjects having high social support were found much better
general mental health as compare to subjects having moderate or low social support.
Moreover, subjects having moderate social support were found to have better general
mental health than subjects having low social support; (4) there is no interactional
effect between self-disclosure and extraversion-introversion on general mental health;
(5) there is no interactional effect between extraversion-introversion and social
support on general mental health; (6) there is no interactional effect between selfdisclosure and social support on general mental health and (7) there is an interactional
effect among self-disclosure, extraversion-introversion and social support on general
mental health.
The first finding of our research i.e. high, moderate and low self-disclosees
don’t differ with respect to general mental health, appears to be in the unexpected
direction since F-value is slightly insignificant. However, a close look at the Table-1
reveals that though the differences among the mean of the means obtained by high,
moderate and low self-disclosees are not statistically significant, but there is marked
difference between the mean of the means obtained by high and low self-disclosees.
In view of this a separate ANOVA was applied to see whether or not these two mean
of the means differ significantly. A perusal of Table-5 (chapter four) reveals that high
and low self-disclosees significantly differ with respect to general mental health.
More specifically, it has been found that high self-disclosure subjects have better
general mental health than low disclosure subjects. In short the first finding reveals
that high and moderate self-disclosure subjects; moderate and low self-disclosure
205
subjects don’t differ significantly with respect to general mental health, though the
mean of the means obtained by high, moderate and low self-disclosure subjects show
a trend to the effect that low self-disclosure subjects have poorest mental health,
moderate self-disclosure subjects have intermediate and high self-disclosure subjects
have strongest general mental health.
The first finding of our research provides empirical evidence to the contention
made by Breuer and Freud (1893) who pointed out that when one discharges his/her
emotions before others, feels relieved of mental tension and anxiety and therefore
regains his/her normal mental health. Moreover, our finding is in consistent with the
findings obtained by numerous researchers who have demonstrated that a person who
remains isolated from others or who is deficient in the skill of communicating with
others i.e. in the ability to transmit their thoughts and feelings, is likely to develop
psychologically sick personality (Ruesch and Belson, 1951; Breaton, 1958; Jourard,
1963; Traux and Carkhuff, 1965; Altman and Frankfur, 1968; Halverson and Shore,
1969; and Sinha, 1973; Moriwaki, 1973). Moreover, this finding provides indirect
empirical support to the findings obtained by Barnes et al. (1984) and Handrick
(1981) who found that high self-disclosees have better marital satisfaction than low
self-disclosees. It is an open secret that if one has good general mental health, he/she
will derive more satisfaction in every aspect of life including marital life than one
who has poor general mental health.
A large number of researchers have shown that disclosing events, feelings,
emotions, ideas etc. is associated with lower levels of psychological distress and
better coping skills (Lepore, Silver, Wortman and Wayment, 1996; Pennebaker and
Harber, 1993). Furthermore it has been documented by numerous investigators that
individuals who do not disclose their traumatic experiences, have increased rates of
206
post traumatic stress disorder as compared to those who disclose their traumatic
experiences (Joseph, Andrews, Williams and Yule, 1992; Mc Farlane, 1988; Green et
al. 1990; Solkoff, Gray and Keil, 1986; Bolton, Green, Orsillo, Roemer and Litz,
2003). The first finding of our research is totally in agreement with these findings as
we have also found that high self-disclosure subjects have better general mental health
than moderate and low self-disclosure subjects.
It is an open secret that happiness has positive effect on general mental health.
One who remains or who tries to remain happy has better general mental health as
compared to one who doesn’t remain happy. It has been found by numerous
researchers that there is a positive relationship between happiness and extraversion
(Argyle and Lu, 1990; Diener, 1984; Diener et al. 1992; Emmons and Diener, 1986;
Myers and Diener, 1995; Doyle and Youn, 2000). Thus extraverts are happy persons
and therefore they have better general mental health as compared to introverts. The
second finding of our research is consistent with this contention. Moreover, Diener et
al. (1992) have obtained a positive correlation between happiness, optimism and
sociability which are the traits of extraverts. This finding further strengthens our
contention.
The second finding is in agreement with the findings obtained by numerous
investigators who have also demonstrated that extraverts have better general mental
health as compared to introverts (Schnutle and Ryff, 1997; Brook, 2006; Appott,
Croudace, Ploubidis, Kun, Richards and Huppert, 2008).
There is substantial body of evidence to the effect that introverts suffer from
depression, anxiety disorder and certain types of phobias like agora phobia, social
phobia (Bienvenu et al. 2001). More specifically, Hirschfield et al. (1989); Krueger,
207
Caspi, Maffitt, Silva and Mc Gee (1996) and Uliaszek, Zinbarg, Mineka, Craske,
Sutton, Giffith, Rose, Waters and Hammen (2010) have reported that introverts
develop depression whereas Trull and Sher (1994) and Bienvenu et al. (2001) have
reported that introverts develop anxiety disorder and phobias more frequently as
compare to extraverts. Second finding of our research is totally in agreement with
these findings.
The third finding of our research i.e. subjects who received maximum social
support have better general mental health than those who received moderated or low
social support, is not only consistent with the findings obtained by numerous
researchers but also highlights the mechanism by which social support induces sound
general mental health. The ways in which social support affects health and wellbeing
have been the subject of much research (Adler and Mathews, 1994; Thoits, 1995;
Uchini et al., 1996; Winemiller et al., 1993). These researchers have proposed two
mechanisms to account for the beneficial effect of social support on general mental
health. These mechanism are (1) social support provides a ‘buffer effect’, meaning
that social support moderates the emotional impact of stress, whose pathological
effects on the endocrine and/or immune systems are now well known, or (2) social
support has a ‘direct effect’, independent of the presence of stress and acting to
facilitate access to information or by favoring better-adapted behavior. In fact, it has
been found that both mechanisms can exist, their relative importance being dependent
on the circumstances (Badoux, 2000).
Bovier, Chamot and Perneger (2004),
however, have proposed three mechanisms to explain how social support may affect
general mental health. According to them these mechanisms are (a) a significant
beneficial effect of social support on mental health, after controlling for other
predictors of mental health (direct effect) (Turner, 1981; Williams, Ware and Donald,
208
1981); (b) an indirect effect on mental health, where the effects of social support are
mediated through the promotion of internal resources and coping abilities (Broadhead,
Kaplan and James, 1983; Ensel and Lin. 1991), and (c) a buffer or moderator effect,
variations in the magnitude of the effect of social support on mental health across
levels of stress, by reducing the negative impact of external stressors on mental health
(McKay, Blake and Colwill, 1985; Aneshensel and Stone, 1982; Dalgard, Bjork and
Tamps, 1995). By analogy, internal resources may also have a direct, indirect or
buffer effect on mental health (Hobfoll, Banerjee and Britton, 1994).
Third finding of our research also provides empirical evidence to structural
and functional model of social support which is based on different theoretical
perspectives (Berkman et al., 2000; Cohen, 1988; Gore, 1981; Lin, 1986; Thoits,
1995; Umberson, 1987).
Third finding of our research also provides empirical support to “stress
buffering hypothesis” proposed by Cohen and Wills (1985). This hypothesis states that
the relation of social support to quality of life depends upon an individual’s level of stress.
Moreover, our third finding lends strong support to Bowlby’s (1969; 1973;
1980) theory of attachment. According to this theory social support in the form of an
attachment figure early in life often promotes self-reliance, nurturing toward others,
the ability to cope with life stressors, and reduces the likelihood of associated
psychopathology in life.
Our third finding also provides indirect support to the findings obtained by
Roha, McGee and Stanton (1992) and Windle (1992) who found that emotional
support from parents was related to lower rates of depression and anxiety. Similar
results were obtained by Jung and Khalsa (1989), Schuster et al., (1990) and Franks et
209
al., (1992); Cukrowiez, Franzese, Thorp, Cheavens and Lynch (2008). In other words
social and emotional support reduces anxiety and depression which in turn leads to
sound general mental health.
A survey of literature has revealed that numerous studies have been
undertaken to explore the impact of social support on health. Almost all studies have
shown beneficial effect of social support on health. The third finding of our research
is also in the same direction. More specifically, our finding under discussion is
consistent with the findings obtained by large number of researchers who have
demonstrated that good social relationships have positive effect on health status and
that the healthy adults have good social support, whereas those feeling lonely and
isolated have poor social support (Bucher, 1994; Kaplan, 1988; Moser, 1994; Glass
and Maddox, 1992; Helgerson and Cohen, 1996; Vilhjalmsson, 1993; Badoux. 2000;
Helheson, 2003; Kalichman, DiMarco, Austin, Luke and DoFonzo, 2003; Bovier,
Chamot and Perneger, 2004; Torgrud, Walker, Murray, Cox, Chartier and kjernisted,
2004).
An interesting angle of social support was examined by Strien, Chapman,
Balluz and Mokdad (2008) who have found that a prevalence of smoking, obesity,
physical inactivity and heavy drinking increased with decreasing level of social
support and emotional support, these habits, no doubt, have adverse effect on physical
and mental health. In other words Strine et al., (2008) have advocated that social and
emotional support brings about a significant decline in smoking, obesity, physical
inactivity and alcohol consumption which in turn leads to sound physical and mental
health. This finding obtained by Strine et al., (2008) is also in consonance with our
third finding of the research.
210
Turning our attention to other findings of our present research, we find that
three interactional effects, i.e., interaction between self-disclosure and extraversionintroversion; extraversion-introversion and social support and interaction between
self-disclosure and social support are statistically insignificant.
The first insignificant interactional effect between self-disclosure and
extraversion-introversion suggests that the scores on general mental health of high,
moderate and low self-disclosees are independent of extraversion and introversion. In
the same manner other insignificant interactional effects may be explained. So far as
significant interactional effect among self-disclosure, extraversion-introversion and
social support is concerned, it suggests that the scores on general mental health of
high, moderate and low self-disclosure subjects are not independent of extraversionintroversion and social support.
The overall findings of the present research have demonstrated that all the
three independent variables i.e., self-disclosure, extraversion-introversion and social
support have an impact on general mental health. These findings are very important in
the area of health psychology as these findings recommend certain strategies by which
general mental health may be improved.
The findings of our research lead us to make following suggestions to
maintain good general mental health:
(a)
Catharsis is essential for the maintenance of good physical and mental health
i.e., one should express his/her emotions, feelings, needs to his/her confident. In
other words disclosure about one’s emotions, feelings, needs to a confident
discharges the tension, anxiety and traumatic experiences and consequently the
person is relieved of these negative affect which in turn help in maintaining
211
sound physical and mental health. It is, therefore, advised that one should not
conceal any negative affects. If we don’t disclose our negative affect to our
confidant, we are likely to develop severe stress which may cause a variety of
diseases ranging from common cold to fatal diseases like hypertension,
cardiovascular disease and even cancer (Kiecolt-Glaser and Glaser, 1986, 1992;
Bryla, 1996; Bleiker and Vander Ploeg 1999). Thus, one of the effective ways to
cope with stress is self-disclosure.
(b)
In order to keep sound physical and mental health, one should develop extravert
personality. As mentioned elsewhere, extraverts are sociable, like parties, have
many friends, have a tendency to talk to people, are carefree, optimistic and like
to laugh and be merry. These characteristics of extraverts help them to get rid of
stress, tension, anxiety and other negative emotions which in turn have
beneficial effect on general mental health. Introverts, on the other hand are
quite, retiring sort of person, deep in thought, shy and unsocial. These
characteristics make them highly vulnerable to develop stress, anxiety,
depression, depression and other negative emotions which may have adverse
effect on general mental health. It is, therefore, advised that no stone should be
left unturned to convert introverts into extraverts through education, training and
counselling.
(c)
As has been demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs social support is essential
for every aspect of human behavior including general mental health. As
discussed elsewhere social support reduces anxiety, stress ad many negative
emotions, thereby decreasing the risk of development of various diseases. It is,
therefore, strongly recommended that we should make every effort to widen our
social relationship, social affiliation and interpersonal relationship. It is an open
212
secret that the more we are socially affiliated and have greater interrelationship,
the more we will gain social support. The more we get social support, the less
we are vulnerable to develop different types of diseases and more we are likely
to develop sound physical and mental health. It is, therefore, recommended that
one should strive to develop friendship, social affiliation and to develop
interpersonal relationship. This strategy is likely to keep doctors away.
The findings of our research lead us to suggest that a comprehensive study
should be undertaken in future in which the impact of various areas of self-disclosure
such as money, personality, study, body, interest, feeling-ideas, vocation and sex and
different dimensions of social support such as family, friends and significant others
should be examined on each dimensions of general health such as anxiety and
insomnia, somatisation, social dysfunction and severe depression. The findings of
such a comprehensive study would present a clearer picture of how self-disclosure
and social support affect general mental health.
213