CHANGES OVER TlME N THE FREE VERBALIZATIONS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM ADMITTERS Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PAMELA JACKSON 1968 V 1.5.5: n‘mhlflflfll' 3‘ ‘ s LIBRARY a 1 Michigan State T Universit w Y I ~ THE$\9 (r HMS & SBNS' 300K BINDEIY III}. ABSTRACT CHANGES OVER TIME IN THE FREE VERBALIZATIONS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM.ADMITTERS by Pamela Jackson The present study was designed to explore the free verbalizations of high and average problem admitters on dimensions derived from Carl Rogers' conception of therapeutic process changes. Problem admission was assessed from administra- tion of the Mooney Problem Check List to 198 male General Psychology students. From the distribution of the number of problems checked, high problem.admitters (HPA's) were chosen from the upper 15%.and average problem admitters (APA's) from the middle 15%» Eighteen gs, ten HPA's (mean number of problems checked = 86) and eight APA's (mean number of problems checked = 38) volunteered to complete eight individual free verbalization sessions lasting 20 minutes each. They were instructed to "talk about anything at all." It was expected that HPA's, as l Pamela Jackson the less well-adjusted and more anxious gs, would talk on a more neutral, non-personal level, and would have more defensive verbalization. APA's, on the other hand, as the more well-adjusted, less anxious §s, were expected to talk more about themselves, their feelings, and their life problems. The dependent variable consisted of operational definitions of responses similar to those indicative of process changes found in client-centered therapy, and was measured by the use of ten coding categories. The data for each category was analyzed on the basis of the proportion of the total number of responses on a given session coded in the category. Twenty hypotheses were made, ten of which dealt with differences between groups and ten that dealt with response changes within each group over time. Of the hypotheses concerning group differences, two were sta- tistically significant: APA's talked more about them- selves than HPA's; and HPA's talked more about others than APA's. None of the hypotheses dealing with response changes over time were significant. But unexpected sig- nificant results, some of which were contrary to 2 Pamela Jackson prediction, showed decreases over time for both groups on several measures of defensive verbalization. Combining the data for both groups, the descending order of frequency of usage of the content categories was as follows: discussion of self; discussion of others; un— certain and qualified speech; silence; expression of nega- tive feelings; discussion of problems; expression of posi— tive feelings; and direct references. In addition, the §§ talked three to four times as frequently in the present compared to the past tense. Thus, when given instructions to "talk about anything at all," although the gs talked more about themselves than others, and more in the present than past tense, they did not characteristically focus on more feeling and problem-oriented discussion. Possible reasons for the lack of significant changes over time on the more positive, self-exploratory dimensions, such as expression of feelings and discussion of problems, were discussed. Also, several important variations in the design of such research were suggested. (/// Approved by a/Commit/ée Chairman Date %///6? CHANGES OVER TIME IN THE FREE VERBALIZATIONS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM ADMITTERS BY Pmkflk’ Pamela Jackson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks to my committee chairman Gary Stollak for his inspiration and assistance, and to the other members of my committee, Drs. Terry Allen and Normal Abeles, for their helpful guidance. To Benny Beit-Hallahmi and Jim Love, my apprecia- tion for their enthusiastic support. And lastly, my special thanks to me for persist- ing, bit by bit, in the face of unnecessary, yet untoward contretemps in pursuit of scientific rigor. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O C O O . Chapter INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . . . The Importance of a Therapist . . . Studies on Free Verbalization . . . Free Verbalization and the Impor- tance of a Therapist . . . . . Autoanalytic Studies . . . . . . Free Verbalization and Defenses. The Mooney Problem Check List . . . Description. . . . . . . . . . . Studies on the Mooney Problem Check List . . . . . . . . . . Independent Variable . . . . . . iii Page ii vi vii 10 11 11 12 13 Table of Contents.--Cont. Chapter A Conceptualization of the Free Verbalization Task. . . . . . . . . Dependent variable . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background of Predictions Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mooney Problem Check List. . . . . Subjects and Subject Selection Procedure Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories and Reliability . . . . . . Consistency of Responses over Session BloCkS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C III. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for the Analysis of the Data General Overview of Results. . . . . . Analysis of Results by Category. . . . Overall Mean Response Proportions. . . IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 14 18 18 22 24 26 26 26 29 30 31 32 33 35 35 38 38 49 55 Table of Contents.--Cont. Chapter Group Differences in Free Verbalization and the Relative Use of Categories. . Changes in Free Verbalizations over Time Reactions of the Subjects to the Free Verbalization Task. . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Discussion of Results . . Critique of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research . . . V O REFERmCES O O O O O O C . O O O O O O O 0 VI. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 56 63 67 69 72 78 82 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Means, medians, standard deviations, and ranges of Mooney scores for the two groups. Mean age of subjects in each group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2. Percentage of agreement between two coders on each category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. Reliability coefficients for the 10 cate- gories over the four session blocks . . . 34 4. Mean proportions of the total coded re- sponses attributable to each category over all four blocks and for all sub— jects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Summary of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix 1. Summary of analyses of variance for repeated measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2. Summary of analyses of variance for simple effects of session blocks . . . . . . . . 96 3. Summary of analyses of trends. . . . . . . . 97 Vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I. THE MOONEY PROBLEM CHECK LIST . . . . . . II. MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION. AND RANGE OF THE MOONEY PROBLEM CHECK LIST SCORES . III. RECRUITING LETTER TO 60 SELECTED STUDENTS . O O C O O O O O O O O O O C IV. DEFINITIONS OF THE CODING CATEGORIES. . . V. TABLES OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF THE CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 83 85 86 88 92 CHANGES OVER TIME IN THE FREE VERBALIZATIONS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM.ADMITTERS I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The present study was designed to explore changes in the verbal behavior of high and average problem admit- ters in a minimally structured free verbalization situa- tion. The study is not of psychotherapy; rather, it is a study of the verbal behavior of "normal" subjects when alone, non-reinforced, and confronted with a therapy- related task. The findings obtained are relevant to psychotherapy research as can be understood from the fol- lowing questions toward which the research was directed: If given no reinforcement or feedback, will gs talk in a free verbalization situation? If they talk, will their talking concern personally meaningful discussion or imper- sonal issues? Moreover, what will be the nature of the changes in frequency of these verbalizations over time? And specifically, on all of the above questions, what will 1 be the differences noted between subjects distinguished on the basis of their readiness to admit problems? Review of the Literature The Importance of a Therapist With the possible exception of behavior therapy, most schools of psychotherapy are explicit in advocating a positive patient-therapist relationship as a major source of personality change. Rogers has stated that " . . . significant positive personality change does not occur except in a relationship" (Rogers, 1957, p. 96), although he adds that this is an hypothesis that might be disproved. Empathic understanding, congruence, or genuine- ness, and a high degree of respect, liking, and regard for the client are therapist characteristics which must be perceived by the client for constructive personality change to take place (Rogers, 1957; Rogers, 1966). In a study of the effect of therapist communication on verbal behavior, Martin, Lindy, & Lewin (1960) concluded that the responding therapist communicates positive rein- forcement for behavior in the client that shows approach to emotionally important areas, and aids in the extinction of negative affect associated with approach behavior through his non-critical, acceptant attitude. Hobbs (1957) emphasized the point that the first source of gain in psychotherapy is the psychotherapeutic relationship itself. The impact of this relationship stems from the fact that it affords the client a sustained exper— ience of intimacy during which he can risk being open, honest, and close, and can express his feelings freely. Intimacy, according to Hobbs, is a learned need to be close that mainly develOps during the sustained period of depen- dency as an infant. Similarly, Braaten (1961) noted that a significant factor for therapeutic growth involves the client's use of his relationship to his therapist as a source of new exper- ience rather than his talking about the therapist. Studies on Free Verbalization Free Verbalization and the Importance of the Therapist In the study mentioned above on the effects of therapist communication on verbal behavior, Martin, Lindy, and Lewin (1960) used three groups of gs selected from college students who volunteered for a brief psychotherapy experience and scored high on the Forced-Choice Manifest Anxiety Scale. One group received regular psychotherapy; another group experienced a therapist who gave only non- verbal responses; and the third group talked into a tape recorder. On the basis of intra-interview results, they found that §§ who received regular psychotherapy progres- sively increased in approaching emotionally important material. The "tape group," however, showed a slight non— statistically significant tendency to decrease in approach- ing emotionally important areas over time, although re- sponses from this group were quite erratic. The group that spoke to the non-verbal therapist achieved changes midway between the regular and tape groups. GSR data in the above study indicated the following intra-interview results: approach behavior in the regular therapy group was accompanied by less and less of an increase in anxiety; the "tape group" showed marked increase in intra-interview anxiety as sessions progressed; and the non-verbal group showed intermediate trends. It might be reasoned from this study that the greater the amount of reinforcement from the therapist, or the greater the number of aspects of the therapist that are present in the situation, the greater the reduction in the patient's anxiety over time. Dimascio and Brooks (1961) had a patient free associate to a fantasied therapist behind a one-way mirror twice a week in addition to regular therapy ses- sions. The patient found the sessions beneficial in helping her formulate her ideas before going to her reg- ular therapy. But she felt that the total lack of re- sponse on the therapist's part made such sessions an un- satisfactory substitute for psychotherapy. The authors reported that a definite positive transference relation— ship was readily evident from the patient's desire to have "him" as her therapist when her regular therapist had to terminate. Lowinger and Huston (1955) had a therapist commun— icate verbally with patients through microphones and ear— phones, but removed his non-verbal cues by having him physically absent. He could observe the patient gs through a one-way mirror. Ten patients were so treated during one of three therapy sessions a week for an average of 29 weeks. The following results were obtained: four patients were unchanged, four showed improvement, and two reportedly had a remission of their present problem. In this study, as in the above (Dimascio and Brooks, 1961), a transference developed, but it was thought to be much milder than what would have deve10ped had patient and therapist been in mutual physical presence. Autoanalytic Studies The term autoanalysis was coined by Guerney and Stollak (1966). It describes a situation in which the §_ is seated in a comfortable chair and is alone in a rela— tively bare room. The §_is instructed to "think aloud" into a microphone, and he is informed that the §_is going to listen to recordings of the free verbalizations of his thoughts. The autoanalytic situation differs from psycho— analytic free association in two ways: the therapist is absent at the time of the free verbalization; and the g; is generally given a frame of reference for discussion (e.g., to concentrate on feelings, interpersonal relation— ships, or suggested specific topics). The autoanalytic method was originally explored by Stollak & Guerney (1964) using institutionalized juvenile delinquents as subjects. Promising results, although not treated statistically, provided the impetus for further study of the method in order to answer such questions as when and why therapists are needed, and how they assist the breakdown in an individual's effort to solve his own problems. Steinberg (1966) using categories for coding auto- analytic sessions developed by Guerney and Stollak studied the effect of interpersonal suggestion and feedback on the verbal behavior of gs thought to be of therapeutic value to them. Interpersonal suggestion and feedback did not increase any of the following verbal responses: amount of "openness" statements; the discussion of self negatively; the discussion of positive and negative feelings; or the frequency of response. Steinberg suggested that his very complex independent variable seemed to have an inhibiting effect on the extent to which a subject was open and re- vealing about himself. Foley (1966) studied the relationship between verbal behavior during autoanalytic sessions and positive and negative attitudes of gs toward the sessions. He found that there were significantly more covert resistance responses during sessions that gs described as negative. Covert resistance responses included such responses as long pauses, topic changes, blocking, and intellectuali- zation.- Stollak et a1. (1967) did a study that provided impetus for the present one. The effects of self-ideal- self discrepancy on the content of free verbalizations during Qgg_15 minute session were examined in two groups of §s. One group of Se had high self-ideal—self dis- crepancy (S-ISD) and the other group had §s with low S-ISD as measured by the Leary Interpersonal Check List (Leary, 1957). The content of free verbalizations of the two groups was compared on the basis of ten coding categories, some of which are used in the present study. The results showed that low S-ISD Ss, as compared to high S-ISD gs, talked significantly more, used the present tense more often, and made more direct references to the experimental situation in their free verbalizations. Another phase of the Stollak et al. (1967) study compared the ten gs with highest S-ISD and the highest S-APD (self-average person discrepancy) with ten §s who had the lowest of the same discrepancy scores. It was found that those §§ who expressed satisfaction with them- selves and saw themselves as similar to the average person talked more, spoke more about themselves and their feel- ings, used the present tense more frequently, and made more direct references than gs who expressed dissatisfaction with themselves and saw themselves as dis- similar to their perception of the average person. The authors speculated that " . . . one of the characteristics of psychologically healthy individuals is their ability to keep feelings and problems at the awareness level, and work through them" (Stollak, et al., 1967, p. 7). Further, the authors suggested that there is possibly a "cognitive avoidance" style of life that is characteristic of many individuals who have enduring and excessive problems in living. The present study made use of an extended free verbalization task, as suggested by Stollak et al., in order to examine the above suggestions derived from one 15 minute free verbalization session. Beit-Hallahmi (1968), using the same §s and pro— cedures employed in the present study, analyzed the dif— ferences in verbal behavior of high and average problem admitters during the firstthree (of eight total) free verbalization sessions. Using the same ten categories for coding verbal responses that were employed in the present study, Beit—Hallahmi's only statistically signif- icant finding was that high problem admitters had more discussion of others than average problem admitters. Beit-Hallahmi felt that group differences were not 10 Obtained on the other categories because three sessions were not sufficiently anxiety-arousing to produce changes in the verbal behavior of the gs. The present study differs from Beit-Hallahmi's in that all eight sessions were analyzed for changes in verbal responses over time as well as for group differences. Free Verbalization and Defenses ‘Weintraub and Aronson (1962) had gs talk into a microphone for ten minutes on any subject they chose and found significant positive and negative correlations between different categories of defensive verbalization. Their study is important because they did not use "amount of defensiveness" for the dependent variable as some Rogerians have attempted. Rather, they explicitly studied types of defensive verbalizations assessed according to objective criteria. The procedures of Weintraub and Aronson are used in the present study in the formulation of operational criteria for the "uncertain and qualified speech" coding category. 11 The Mooney Problem Check List Description The Mooney Problem Check List (MPCL) was not de- signed as a measuring device (Mooney and Gordon, 1950; Burgess, 1965), but was designed to facilitate under- standing and communication between counselor and coun- selee. In an unpublished study, 92%.of the college sample used reported that the listed items gave a fiarly com- plete picture of their problems (Mooney and Gordon, 1950). In essence, the MPCL is a straightforward commun— ication instrument which, according to Burgess (1965, p. 318), ". . . leaves the counselee free to communicate to the extent of his readiness to do so." Thus, it is feasible to isolate high and average problem admitters based on their readiness to admit problems on paper. It must be kept in mind that the score "number of problems checked," the basis for defining the high and average problem admitter groups in the present study, includes problems of greater and lesser significance and inten— sity, such that it is only a measure of readiness to admit‘problems. 12 Studies on the Mooney Problem Check List Hammes (1959) administered a modified version of the Heineman Forced Choice Anxiety Scale to 256 college students, then chose high and low anxious gs who were given the MPCL. He found that high anxious gs had a greater number of personal problems and had personal problems in a greater number of behavioral areas covered in the Mooney than did low anxious gs. Barnett and Tarver (1959) compared the MPCL scores of 49 institutionalized delinquent and 49 non-delinquent females. The delinquent group checked over twice as many problems as the non-delinquents and checked a significantly greater number of items in every problem area covered on the Mooney except "Boy-Girl Relations." Singer and Stefflre (1957) correlated the number of problems checked on the MPCL with scores on the Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Using these correlations, they described high problem admitters as tending to be unsociable, subjective, withdrawn, emotionally unstable, less-cooperative and less-friendly. The authors conclude that a high score on the MPCL may indicate basic adjust- ment problems in the individual. 13 Independent Variable The above studies indicate that high problem ad- mission, based on the number of problems checked on the MPCL, can be used as one index of basic adjustment prob— lems and seems to be concomitant with high anxiety in the high problem admitter. In a discussion of the screening function of the MPCL, Mooney and Gordon (1950, p. 7) stated that "Students whose total number of problems is in the upper 25 per cent of the local distribution may be likely candidates for counseling." In a study of college students by Gordon (1950), it was found that a direct relationship exists between the desire for counseling and the number of prob- lems checked on the MPCL. In Gordon's sample, a large majority of those students in the upper 25 per cent de- sired counseling, and all of those students in the upper 10 per cent desired it. In the present study, the high problem admitter (HPA) §s were chosen from among those in the top 15 per cent of the local distribution. On the basis of Gordon's (1950) findings, these students were among the most likely candidates for therapy in the total sample. In addition 14 it was assumed, as stated above, that the HPA group in— cluded the most anxious students from the tested sample and those with general adjustment difficulties. For comparison with this "likely therapy candidate" group of HPA's, an average problem admitter (APA) group, chosen from the 45th through the 60th percentile of the local distribution, was decided upon. It was assumed that this group would be composed of the most well-adjusted, less-anxious gs in the sample. Very low problem admitters were ruled out as the Egg; well-adjusted.§s of the sample because their marking of very few problems could easily have been a reflection of deviant test-taking behavior and/or defensiveness. A Conceptualization of the Free Verbalization Task Bordin (1955) noted that the psychoanalytic rule for free association, "Tell me everything that comes into your mind," offers one of the least restrictive and most ambiguous settings for discussion. Likewise, the free verbalization instruction to talk about "anything at all" has ambiguity or lack of definitive structure as its main 15 quality. What are the concomitant effects of the ambiguity of this task that should be elicited in the 8? According to Bordin, the major positive function of ambiguity in a therapeutic relationship is that ". . . people invest ambiguous stimuli with their own motivational and emotional life" (Bordin, 1955, p. 13). However, Bordin's use of ambiguity refers to both the stimulus characteristics of the therapist and the therapeutic task. Thus the highly unstructured free verbalization task should lead to personal exploration--self—searching as takes place in more traditional psychotherapy settings. A major effect of an ambiguous situation is also an increase in anxiety however. This relationship is well- established in the literature and generally accepted by pr0ponents of the use of ambiguity in psychotherapy. The parallel of ambiguity and increased anxiety has been dem- onstrated by Dibner (1958) using variations in the struc— ture of a clinical interview, and by Smith (1957) using clear and unclear role expectations in a group setting. What will be the effect of this anxiety on the gs? It would seem, as Dollard & Miller (1950) indicate, that if our gs are made anxious in the situation, they will either keep silent or discuss issues that are not 16 anxiety provoking. In other words, either silence or dis- cussion of non-personal, neutral topics should be the major responses to the anxiety produced by the free verbaliza— tion task. The two expected reactions to ambiguity noted above--that of self-searching and that of anxiety and de- fensive responding--seem contradictory. It is obvious that §s could not be responding both ways at the same time. As to which mode of response will take precedence, the choice apparently depends on the tolerance of the §_for anxiety. That is, if a client in therapy or the §_in the free verbalization situation is made anxious beyond his optimal tolerance level for anxiety in that situation, his anxiety will conflict strongly with his freedom of response and personal involvement, such that he will Spend most of his time in defensive verbalization (Bordin, 1955). Bordin (1955) notes that experienced anxiety will be greater at any level of ambiguity the more intense the person's con- flict and the weaker his discriminative and defensive capacities. Assuming, as we are, that gs in the HPA group have more intense personal conflicts than APA gs means that we would expect more defensive verbalization frdm 17 them in responding to the ambiguity of free verbalization instructions. As part of the conceptualization of free verbal- ization, it is noteworthy that the present study will side-step the "placebo effect" of psychotherpay (Rosenthal & Frank, 1956). This effect, according to Rosenthal & Frank (1956) denotes therapeutic improvement attributable to the patient's faith in the efficacy of the therapist and his technique. The instructions for free verbaliza- tion, meant to insure as much freedom as possible in §s verbal behavior, do not channel an investment on his part in "getting better." It must be remembered, however, that the free ver- balization task does place the subject in a kind of inter- personal situation. He is probably not only talking to himself, the room, or the micrOphone, but to his perceived "generalized other" or the subsequent listener of his verbalized thoughts. The distinguishing_feature of this interpersonal situation is that immediate as well as de— layed reinforcement and feedback are absent. And it may be that this feature is as powerful in arousing the §fs anxiety as the general ambiguity of the task. 18 To summarize, the free verbalization task has am- biguity and the lack of reinforcement and feedback as its major characteristics. These characteristics are expected to arouse anxiety. Whether or not the §_handles the ambi- quity by being more Open and personal or by defensive ver- balization will depend on his typical response to anxiety evdked by similar situations. The present study assumes that EPA gs are generally less well-adjusted and generally more anxious than APA gs, and will thus consistently re- spond more neutrally or impersonally and also more defen- sively to the free verbalization task. It is also expected that such responses will increase over time: the room situation, task, and gfs behavior remain ambiguous and should thus become more threatening. Dependent variable Theoretical Background of Predictions The most recent direction of research in client- centered therapy has been the assessment of process changes by which personal growth takes place (Rogers, 19 1958; Rogers, 1966; walker, Rablen, and ROgers, 1959). Rogers has derived seven "strands" or salient features of the process continuum which illustrates therapeutic change. In general, as regards these continua, the client changes from a static, rigid, impersonal type of psychologic functioning to a level characterized by im- mediate experiencing, flexibility, and change (Roqers, 1958 & 1966). The seven "strands" or dimensions through which change can be seen are specifically labeled as follows by Rogers (1966): 1. one's relationship to his feelings 2. the manner of experiencing 3. the degree of incongruence between experience and awareness 4. changes in communication of the self 5. the manner in which experience is construed 6. one's relationship to problems 7. the manner of relating to others 20 For the present study, the §_fe1t that there is a good deal of overlap in the above dimensions which are still only loosely conceived of by Rogerians in the oper- ational realm. For example, moving toward immediate ex- periencing seems to be the same as coming to express owned, ever-changing feelings in the present. That is, "to be" in present experience is to be the feelings of that moment. The latter is essentially congruent with a change in the perception of the self as an object to ". . . a self which is synonomous with experience, being the subjective aware- ness of that experience" (Rogers, 1961, p. 38). Thus it was decided that categories coding the discussion of feelings, discussion of the self, discussion of others, and the extent to which one talks in the past or present tense were congruent with the three dimensions of process changes discussed above. A category for coding defensive verbalization called "uncertain and qualified speech" was used to assess changes related to the strand "degree of incongruencefl since as one becomes more congruent, contradictions in the personality become less threatening and defenses lessen. For the dimension "relationship to problems" a category dealing with Ss' discussion of problems was used. 21 Two of the dimensions associated with process changes in client-centered therapy were not assessed in the present study. ience is construed, others." They are "the manner in which exper— " and "the manner of relating to The following are the coding categories used for measuring verbal behavior changes in the free verbaliza- tion sessions derived from Rogers' seven strands of ther- apeutic growth in process: 1. Expression 2. Expression 3. Discussion 4. Discussion 5. Discussion 6. Discussion of positive feelings of negative feelings of others of self in past tense in present tense 7. Direct references to the experiment, the g, the immediate physical surroundings 8. Discussion of problems 22 9. Uncertain of qualified speech 10. Silence Predictions Rogers (1958) reported that unpublished findings indicated that we have little success in helping clients initially rated low on the process scales. A validation study of the process scale by Tomlinson and Hart (1962) supported Rogers' statement. Tomlinson and Hart, using a multicriteria success score distinguished five "more" and five "less" successful cases in order to code segments of an early and late interviews on the basis of expected process changes. Four of their findings are directly re- lated to predictions used in the present study: When com— pared to less successful cases, most successful cases (1) almost invariably started therapy at higher stages of pro- cess (2) ended up at significantly higher levels of pro— cess, and (3) showed greater movement in process changes during the period of therapy. Also, a generally increas- ing linear trend in process ratings as a function of time and success was found for both groups. 23 Relatedly, Barron (1953) studied test correlates of response to psychotherapy using the Wechsler—Bellevue, MMPI, Rorschach, and the Ethnocentrism Scale. He found that the tendency toward change was positively related to the initial level of integration on test measures. That is, those assessed as better off to begin with were those who improved the most. In making the findings of Tomlinson & Hart and Barron relevant to the present study, it was assumed that .Ss in the HPA group would be initially lower on the process "strands" of therapeutic growth than APA §§- It was also assumed that HPA gs were generally less well-adjusted. Thus the findings pertaining to "less successful" and "less well integrated" in the studies reviewed above were deemed applicable to HPA gs. From the above, and from our conceptualization of what the characteristics of the free verbalization process elicit in most gs, the following hypotheses are made. 24 Hypotheses Compared to HPA gs, APA gs will respond to the free verbalization task by using the following coding categories more frequently (Hypotheses 1a through la): a._ Expression b. Expression c. Discussion d. Discussion e. Discussion of positive feelings of negative feelings of self in present tense of problems APA gs will increase over time in the use of verbal responses coded in the above categories (Hypotheses 2a through 2e). Compared to APA gs, HPA gs will respond to the free verbalization task by using the following coding categories more frequently (Hypotheses 3a through Be): a. Discussion of others b. Discussion in past tense 25 c. Direct references to the experiment, E, or the immediate physical surroundings d. Uncertain and qualified speech e. Silence 4. HPA gs will increase over time in the use of verbal responses coded in the above categories (Hypotheses 4a through 4e). II . METHOD The Mooney Problem Check List The Mooney Problem Check List (College Form L. 1950) consists of 330 listed potential common problems (Appendix I). The gs were asked to select from the list those items which corresponded to problems troubling them at that time. Because no norms are available, the E followed the authors' suggestion to use local norms (Mooney & Gordon, 1950), and thus isolated high and aver- age problem admitters. Spbjects and Subject Selection Procedure One hundred ninety-eight male volunteer $3 from Introductory Psychology were administered the MPCL. For each S the total number of problems checked was computed and a distribution of scores was compiled. Group I (High Problem Admitters). The gs for this group (HPA) were selected from among those whose total 26 27 number of problems checked fell between the 85th and 99th percentiles of the distribution. Group II (Average Problem Admitters). The gs for this group (APA) were selected from among those whose total number of problems checked fell between the 45th and 60th percentiles of the distribution. Appendix II shows the mean, standard deviation, and range of the number of problems checked by the total sample of 198 males. On the basis of this distribution and the above criteria, two potential groups of 30 students each were contacted for participation in the free verbalization task. It was anticipated that the time consuming nature of the task would make it difficult to obtain, at least, 20 volunteer gs wanted for the second phase of the exper- iment. To avoid recognition of the §.by the §_as belonging to the HPA or APA group, the list of 60 student numbers (those who met the criteria) was given to a faculty member who returned the students' names. A letter (Appendix III) inviting these students to participate offered required research credit as the major incentive. A positive response to the recruiting letter was given by 11 gs meeting the HPA group criterion and nine 28 §s meeting the APA group criterion. However two gs, one from each group, failed to complete eight free verbaliza— tion sessions and had to be dropped. Thus the final number of Se who completed all eight sessions and with which this experiment is concerned is as follows: Group I (HPA) N = 10 Group II (APA) N = 8 The remarkably low return rate is perhaps explained by the fact that the incentive "research credit" was not sufficiently motivating. Some possible volunteers had already met the research credit requirement; many needed credit, but not as much as given by four hours of parti- cipation required by the present study. Also, when talk- ing to potential gs on the phone, the E found that many of them were lost because of the fact that it was too much bother and/or inconvenience for them to set apart half hour sessions twice a week: some students showed no in- terest in the experiment as described; others stated that they had too many previous committments during their "free time." Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and ranges of numbers of problems checked on the MPCL by the 29 two groups. The table also includes the mean ages for the gs in each group. TABLE l.--Means, medians, standard deviations, and ranges of Mooney scores for the two groups. Mean age of subjects in each group. n Group Mean Median Range S. Deviation Mean Age HPA 85.7 74 65-140 25.61 19 yr. 7 mo. APA 37.6 38 34-40 1.9 19 yr. 9 mo. 1 The E was concerned about the wide discrepancy in the standard deviation for the two groups. The number of problems checked by the APA group had a range of six points. For the HPA group, the range for six gs was 11 points (65-76): however, the scores of the other four gs were 86, 99, 113, and 140, making the total range 75 points. Thus, the standard deviation for the HPA group was quite large. 5212:2291 The free verbalization sessions took place in a small (10 X 10) soundproof, windowless room. The furni- ture in the room included a small table, an ash tray, and an aluminum and saran cord reclining lounge chair. A tape recorder for recording free verbalizations was placed out- side the room. The microphone was suSpended on a cord around the §fs neck and was comfortably placed on his chest. 30 Procedure Each §_had eight individual free verbalization sessions of 20 minutes duration. The sessions were gen- erally scheduled two or three times per week. After the §_had comfortably seated the §_and placed the microphone around his neck, the following in— structions were read aloud by the _E_ preceding the first session: We are interested in obtaining information about the free associations of college students. We would like you to sit here alone for the next 20 minutes and say aloud whatever comes into your mind. There are no restrictions as to language used, topics, problems, or issues dis- cussed. Some people have difficulty talking aloud alone, so if you do have difficulty, just sit back, try to relax, and something will come to you to talk about. Again, feel free to talk about anything at all. As you can see by this micr0phone, we are tape recording your talk and will analyze it later. To preserve confidentiality, when I leave and knock on the door, state your student number, session number, and today's date and then begin. I will knock again at the end of the 20 minutes. Are there any questions? On sessions subsequent to the first, only the es- sence of the instructions, to "say aloud whatever comes into your mind" or to "talk about anything at all" was stated by E, along with the date and session number. 31 The signal for gs to begin the session was two knocks on the door shortly after 3 had left the room and turned on the recorder. At the end of the 20 minutes, the §_knock on the door as a signal to end talking, and entered the room. Two Efs (Pamela Jackson and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi) alternately ran all of the gs and they had only formal and minimal contact with them. Most gs wanted to know what the experiment was "all about." To all such questions the answer given was a phrase or idea from the instruc- tions, such as, "We are interested in the free associa- tions of college students," or "to see what people talk about when alone." Coding The coding of free verbalizations was done as fol- lows: each twenty-minute sessions was divided into 80 intervals of 15 seconds duration. During a given lS-second interval, any and possibly all categories could be scored; but no one category could be scored more than once. The criterion of silence was 15 seconds of silence only, such 32 that no other category was coded if the silence criterion was met. Categories and Reliabilipy» The reliability criterion used for the categories was a percentage of agreement between the two coders above .80. The reliability figures reported in Table 2 were obtained after 24 hours of training, practice, and review of the meanings of categories using data obtained in a previous study. The category "Active coping with problems" had to be dropped because too few responses obviated meaningful reliability. Thus §_was unable to really assess relationship to problems as discussed by Rogers (1961). But we will obtain information on whether gs categorized as high and average problem ad— mitters on the basis of a paper and pencil measure behave accordingly during free verbalization sessions. The ten categories which met the reliability criterion and were used in coding the free verbalization tapes are as follows: 33 TABLE 2.--Percentage of agreement between two coders on each category. Percentage Category of Agreement Expression of positive feelings 92 Expression of negative feelings 90 Discussion of others 96 Discussion of self 91 Discussion in past tense 85 Discussion in present tense 94 Direct references to experiment, experimenter, or setting 100 Discussion of problems 98 Active coping with problems (drOPPed) Uncertain and qualified speech Silence no scores 84 100 Consistency of Responses over Session Blocks Mean correlation coefficients of the verbal re- sponses in each category over the four session blocks were 34 obtained for both groups separately. The correlation co- efficients were transformed into reliability coefficients, reported in Table 3, using the Spearman-Brown formula. Table 3 shows that within both groups the reliability co— efficients ranged from .61 to .98, with 17 of the 20 co- efficients above .80. Thus the §s in both groups were quite consistent in the verbal behavior measured. TABLE 3.--Reliability coefficients for the 10 categories over the four session blocks. Category HPA APA (N = 10) (N = 8) I. Positive feelings .74 .61 II. Negative feelings .82 .83 III. Others .82 .93 IV. Self .87 .80 V. Past tense .92 .81 VI. Present tense .93 .94 VII. Direct references .93 .77 VIII. Problems .89 .87 IX. Uncertain and qualified speech .95 .94 X. Silence .93 .98 III. RESULTS Procedure for the Analysis of the Data There were two gs in the APA group who hardly tnalked throughout the eight free verbalization sessions. leso, individual gs varied quite widely in the amount of Tralking done from session to session. It was reasoned tiherefore that the use of raw scores in the data analysis \Mould be highly contaminated by the amount of talking .10), and the performance of both groups was quite stable, showing only negligible changes over Blocks (F = .39, df = 3, 48, P > .10). Thus the hypotheses that APA gs would express more positive feelings than HPA Se and would increase over time in the expression of positive feelings were not supported. Category II. Expression of Negative Feelings.—— Figure 1 shows that APA gs consistently expressed more negative feelings as expected. However, the overall dif- ference between groups was not significant (F = 2.47, df = 1, 16, .10 < P < .25). Thus the hypothesis that APA gs would express more negative feelings than HPA gs was not supported. Both groups tended to increase over time in the expression of negative feelings, as can be seen from Fig— ure 1. The Blocks difference (F = 2.34, df = 3, 48) and Groups X Blocks interaction (F = 2.80, df = 3, 48) were both of borderline significance (.05 < P < .10). However, the hypothesis that APA gs would increase over time in 42 expression of negative feelings was not confirmed. The unexpected finding was a significant increase in expres— sion of negative feelings for the HPA group: the simple effects analysis showed a borderline significant Blocks effect for the HPA only (F = 2.46, df = 3, 48, .05 < P < .10); and the unhypothesized result was that the increase in expression of negative feelings for HPA gs had a sig— nificant linear trend (F = 6.84, df = l, 48, P < .025). Categopy III. Discussion of Others.--HPA gs con- sistently had more discussion of others than APA gs over time, as can be seen from Figure 1. The overall Group difference was significant (F = 5.86, df = l, 16, P < .05) such that the hypothesis that HPA gs would have more dis- cussion of others than APA §§ was supported. An unexpected finding was that both groups tended to decrease in their discussion of others over Session Blocks. The hypothesis that HPA gs would increase in dis— cussion of others over time was therefore not supported. The Blocks difference (F = 3.57, df = 3, 48, P < .025) and Groups X Blocks interaction (F = 7.83, df = 3, 48, P < .005) were significant. An analysis of simple effects showed a significant Blocks effect for both groups (HPA: F = 3.28, df = 3, 48, P < .05; APA: F = 4.55, df = 3, 48, P < .01); 43 although the Blocks effect was stronger for the APA group. For both groups the trend in performance was both linear (HPA: F = 4.21, df = l, 48, p < .05; APA: F = 6.55, df = l, 48, P < .025) and cubic (HPA: F = 5.06, df = l, 48, P < .05; APA: F = 7.11, df = l, 48, P < .025). CategorinV. Discussion of Self.-—As can be seen from Figure l, APA gs consistently had more discussion of self over Session Blocks than HPA gs. The overall dif- ference between groups was significant (F = 6.82, df = 1, 16, P < .025) such that the hypothesis that APA §s would have more discussion of self than HPA gs was supported. The Blocks difference (F = 1.51, df 3, 48, P > .10) and Groups X Blocks interaction (F = 1.49, df = 3, 48, P > .10) were not significant. Thus the hypothesis that APA gs would increase in the discussion of self over time was not supported. However, Figure 1 shows that in accordance with expectations, a greater increase over time in the amount of discussion of self is apparent (although not statistically significant) in the performance of APA .Ss as compared to HPA gs. Category V. Discussion in Past Tensean-Figure 1 shows that HPA gs consistently had more past tense discus- sion than APA §s as expected. However, the overall Group 44 difference was not significant (F = 1.20, df = l, 16, P > .10). Thus the hypothesis that HPA gs would have more past tense discussion than APA gs was not supported. A significant Groups X Blocks interaction was obtained (F = 3.73, df = 3, 48, P < .025). But the Blocks difference was not significant (F = 1.14, df = 3, 48, P > .10); and the hypothesis that HPA gs would in- crease in past tense discussion over time was therefore not supported. Inspection of Figure 1 shows that both groups tended to increase in past tense discussion, and as expected, the increase for HPA §s tended to be greater and more consistent (although not of statistical signif- icance). Category VI. Discussion in Present Tense.--APA gs consistently had more discussion in present tense than HPA §s over time as can be seen from Figure 1. However, the overall Group difference was not significant (F e .97, df = 1, 16, P > .10). The hypothesis that APA gs would have more present tense discussion than HPA gs was there- fore not supported. The hypothesis that APA gs would increase in present tense discussion over time was also not supported. Neither the Blocks difference (F = .76, df = 3, 48, 45 P > .10) nor the Groups X Blocks interaction (F = 1.49, df = 3, 48, P > .10) were significant. Figure 1 shows that over time there was only a very slight tendency for APA gs to increase in present tense discussion; and HPA gs tended to decrease slightly in present tense discus- sion over time. Category VII. Direct References to the Experiment, EL or the Immediate Physical Surrounding_.--Inspection of Figure 1 shows that HPA gs had no consistent tendency to use more direct references than APA.§s. The Group dif- ference in the number of direct references was negligible (F = .05, df = l, 16, P > .10). Thus the hypothesis that HPA §s would use more direct references than APA gs was not confirmed. An unexpected finding was a slight decrease over time in the number of direct reference responses for both groups. But inspection of Figure 1 shows that the decrease was somewhat greater for HPA gs who started at a higher frequency level. The Blocks difference (F = 3.05, df = 3, 48, P < .05) and Groups X Blocks interaction (F = 5.78, df = 3, 48, P < .005) were both significant. An analysis of simple effects showed a significant Blocks effect for the HPA Group (F = 3.16, df = 3, 48, P < .05) and a 46 borderline significant Blocks effect for the APA group (F = 2.62, df = 3, 48, .05 < P < .10). The trend in per- formance over sessions was quadratic (F = 4.17, df = l, 48, P < .05) and cubic (F = 5.31, df = 1, 48, P < .05) for the HPA group, and quadratic (F = 4.50, df = l, 48, P < .05) for the APA group. Because, contrary to expec— tation, HPA §s showed a significant decrease over time in the number of direct references made, the hypothesis that HPA gs would increase in the number of direct references responses was not supported. Category VIII. Discussion of Problems.--Figure 1 shows that APA gs had more discussion of problems during Block 1 than HPA gs aftermmich the performance of the groups showed much overlap and very small differences. The hypothesis that APA gs would have more discussion of problems than HPA gs was not supported since the overall difference (F = .12, df = 1, 16, P > .10) was negligible. The Blocks difference (F = 1.65, df = 3, 48, P > .10) was not significant; however, the Groups X Blocks interaction was significant (F = 3.28, df = 3, 48, P < .05). Figure 1 shows that there was a slight overall tendency for HPA gs to increase in discussion of problems; whereas APA gs, contrary to prediction, showed a slight decrease in the 47 same. Thus the hypothesis that APA gs would increase in discussion of problems over time was not confirmed. Category IX. Uncertain andpgualified Speech.--HPA §s consistently used more uncertain and qualified speech than APA gs as can be seen in Figure 1, and the Group dif- ference was of borderline significance (F = 3.60, df = l, 16, .05 < P < .10). Thus the hypothesis that HPA gs would use more uncertain and qualified speech than APA.§s was only weakly supported by the data. Contrary to eXpectation, both groups showed a def- inite decrease in uncertain and qualified speech over Ses— sion Blocks, as can be noted by insPection of Figure 1. Thus the hypothesis that HPA gs would increase in the use of uncertain and qualified speech over time was not sup- ported. The Blocks difference (F = 12.68, df = 3, 48, P < .005) and Groups X Blocks interaction (F = 14.97, df = 3, 48 P < .005) were both highly significant; and the simple effects analysis showed that the Blocks effect was significant for both groups (HPA: F = 6.32, df = 3, 48, P < .005; APA: F = 8.65, df = 3, 48, P < .005). The trend in performance was a strong linear decrease for the HPA group (F = 13.87, df = l, 48, P < .005) and the APA group (F = 20.65, df = l, 48, P < .005) with the addition 48 of a significant cubic component in the trend of the HPA group performance (F = 4.39, df = l, 48, P < .05). Categorpr. Silence.--The difference between groups in silence responses was so great that the data were separ— ately graphed in Figure l. APA gs consistently had much larger proportions of silence responses compared to HPA gs, contrary to expectation. However, the Group difference only approached borderline significance (F = 2.19, where 2.21 has P g .10) due to the very large within subject variance of the APA group. Thus the hypothesis that HPA ‘§s would have more silence responses than APA gs was not supported. When the means across Session Blocks were com- puted without using the data of the two nearly silent APA gs, the groups showed quite similar performance: HPA gs had a higher proportion of silence responses during Block 1 but practically the same proportion of silence responses during Block 4; and the overall mean prOportion of silence responses was .06 for both groups. The silence responses for the APA group, excluding the two nearly silent APA gs, were graphed on the same axis as the data for the HPA group. The Blocks difference was not significant (F = 1.05, df = 3, 48, P > .10) but the Groups X Blocks interaction 49 was of borderline significance (F = 2.64, df = 3, 48, .05 < P < .10). Thus the hypothesis that HPA gs would increase in their use of silence over time was not sup- ported. Using the data for all gs, the following (sta- tistically non-significant) trends were obtained: from Blocks 1 to 3, HPA gs decreased in the use of silence re- sponses and APA §s increased in the number of silence re- sponses; but after Block 3, the opposite of these results occurred. Overall Mean Response Proportions Table 4 shows the overall or grand mean prOpor— tions of the total response attributable to each category. In other words, the figures stated are the means of the four Block means for each category. The table offers a comparative picture of the general content and style of free verbalizations for the two groups. As to the style of the verbalizations, both groups talked in the present tense three to four times as much as in the past tense. 50 TABLE 4.--Mean proportions of the total coded responses attributable to each category over all four blocks and for all subjects. #— k7 Cate or HPA APA gy N=10 N=8 I. Expression of positive feelings .03 .03 II. Expression of negative feelings .05 .07 III. Discussion of others .16 .12 IV. Discussion of self .22 .25 V. Discussion in past tense .09 .07 VI. Discussion in present tense .26 .29 VII. Direct references .03 .02 VIII. Discussion of problems .05 .05 IX. Uncertain and qualified speech .13 .10 X. Silence .06 .80 (.06)* *For explanation see text. Before examining the relative frequency of usage of different categories, an explanation of the grand mean proportion of silence responses for the APA group is in order. The high ratio obtained (.80) is a reflection of 51 the behavior of the two relatively silent §s for whom the ratio of silence responses ranged from .79 to 7.34 for different Session Blocks. With the silence response data for these two gs excluded, the grand mean proportion of silence responses for the APA group is .06, the same as for the HPA group. This figure, .06, will be used in the following general picture of content category usage, since it is assumed to be much more representative of the ma— jority of gs in the APA group. Combining the data for both groups, the descending order of frequency of usage of the content categories was as follows: discussion of self; discussion of others; uncertain and qualified speech; silence; expression of negative feelings; discussion of problems; expression of positive feelings; and direct references. It is difficult to draw conclusions from the above since comparison of proportion frequencies cannot be sub- stantiated by general relative expected frequencies of response for each category. Certain broad patterns can be noted, however, and are stated with the above limita— tion in mind. Most of the gs' verbalizations involved themselves and others. There was much more discussion of self than 52 others, and the only content category proportion close to that for discussion of others was uncertain and qualified speech. Since uncertain and qualified phrases generally occurred over twice as frequently as expression of posi- tive or negative feelings, it is concluded that defensive responses much more frequently accompanied the discussion of self and others than the expression of feelings. In general, there were twice as many uncertain and qualified comments than silence responses, which sug- gests that gs more frequently used verbal means of defense rather than silence. Silence and the expression of nega- tive feelings occurred at nearly the same frequency: they occurred slightly more frequently than the discussion of problems and twice as frequently as the expression of posi— tive feelings. Apparently the free verbalization situation generally tended to evoke more negative as compared to positive affect. The two most infrequent types of re— sponses during the free verbalization sessions were expres- sions of positive feeling and direct references. 53 TABLE 5.—-Summary of results. Supported hypotheses: 1. 2. HPA §s will have more discussion of others than APA gs (P < .05). APA §s will have more discussion of self than HPA _Ss (P < .025). Weakly supported hypothesis: 1. HPA gs will use more uncertain and qualified speech than APA gs (.05 < P < .10). Significant results: unhypothesized 1. 3. HPA §S increased over time in the expression of negative feelings (linear trend, P < .025). APA gs decreased over time in the discussion of others (linear and cubic trend, P < .025). APA gs decreased over time in the use of uncertain and qualified speech (linear trend, P < .025). Significant results: direction opposite prediction 1. 2. HPA gs decreased over time in discussion of others (linear and cubic trend, P < .05). HPA §s decreased over time in the use of direct references (quadratic and cubic trend, P < .05). HPA gs decreased over time in the use of uncertain and qualified Speech (linear trend, P < .005; cubic trend, P < .05). 54 Table 5.—-Cont. Unsupported hypotheses: results in predicted direction 1. 4. APA §s expressed more negative feelings than HPA §s and increased slightly in the expression of negative feelings over time. (However, the in— crease was less than that for HPA gs.) APA gs increased over time in discussion of self. HPA gs had more past tense discussion than APA gs, and they increased in past tense discussion over time. APA §s had more present tense discussion than HPA Se, and they tended to increase slightly in pres— ent tense discussion over time. Unsupported hypothesis: results in direction opposite l. prediction HPA gs tended to decrease over time in the number of silence responses. Unsupported hypotheses: results show no consistent trends 1. 2. APA §s will express more positive feelings than HPA §s and will increase over time in the expres— sion of positive feelings. HPA gs will use more direct references than APA Ss. APA gs will have more discussion of problems than HPA gs and will increase over time in discussion of problems. IV . DISCUSS ION The purpose of the present experiment was to ex- plore the free verbalizations of college students on di— mensions indicative of process changes hypothesized by Rogers (1961) to occur in client-centered therapy. The specific interest was in whether or not average and high problem admission on a paper and pencil test was related to content differences between groups, and content changes over time during free verbalization sessions. High prob— lem admitters (HPA) gs were considered less well-adjusted and more anxious than average problem admitters (APA) Se; and it was hypothesized that the content of the verbali— zations of HPA's would be more impersonal and defensive than that of APA's, and become increasingly so with time. APA's, on the other hand, were assumed to be higher on the "strands" of therapeutic growth than HPA's (more well- adjusted and less anxious) such that their verbal behavior was expected to be less defensive, more self—involved and feeling oriented than that of HPA's, and to become increas— ingly so with time. 55 56 The results will be discussed first in terms of the group differences in verbalized content obtained, and then with respect to content changes over time for the two groups. Gropp Differences in Free Verbalization and the Relative Use of Categories Of the hypothesized differences between the groups on the ten categories, two were statistically significant and one was of borderline significance. It was found that APA's had more discussion of themselves than HPA's; and HPA's had more discussion of others than APA's. Thus the more well-adjusted.§s chose to discuss themselves more than the less well-adjusted §§7 whereas the converse was true for discussion of others. Several studies of client—centered therapy, such as that of Braaten (1961), that more well-adjusted gs ("successfu1" therapy cases) made significant changes from non-self and ambivalent self-references to self-references carrying varying degrees of personal involvement and con- frontation. However, the results of these studies are not directly comparable to the present study because of the 57 great differences in experimental designs and the task of the gs. It should be noted that discussion of self was the most frequently coded content category for both groups. The latter finding is congruent with discussion of self- results obtained in the autoanalytic studies by Foley (1966) and Steinberg (1966). Table 4 shows that for APA's, the number of self-references was over tWice the number of references to others; whereas for HPA's, the relative ratio of "self" to "others" references was not as large. The hypothesis that HPA's would have more uncertain and qualified speech than APA's was weakly supported. Un— expected changes over time, which will be discussed below, were obtained in this category for both groups. Uncertain and qualified speech was a measure of defensive verbaliza- tion as can be readily noted by examining the Operational definition of this category in Appendix IV. Examination of the definition of Category IX shows that HPA's tended to make more defensive statements of an "undoing" nature than APA's. It is interesting to note that for both groups, uncertain and qualified speech was used, on the average, at approximately the same frequency as discussion of others and over twice as frequently as discussion of feelings. 58 Thus both groups tended to make many more defensive state- ments ("undoing" with indefiniteness and vagueness) than feeling statements in discussing themselves and others. Of the seven other categories for which group dif- ferences were hypothesized, the results for four categories yielded non—significant, inconsistent group differences, and the results for the other three were non-significant group differences that were in the predicted direction. The four categories for which the group difference results were non—significant and inconsistent were as follows: expression of positive feelings, direct references, dis- cussion of problems, and silence. Expression of positive feelings and direct refer— ences were the two most infrequent types of responses made (see Table 4). The latter is interesting because the two categories can be viewed as the extremes of a "freedom of self-expression and self-involvement" continuum: expres- sion of positive feelings was indicative of a maximal amount of freedom in expression of and involvement in self; whereas direct references to the experiment, E, or the immediate physical surroundings were the most self—avoidant verbal responses measured during the sessions. Apparently the free verbalization task was neither an extremely anxiety 59 provdking experience nor a notably self-involving one for most gs. Rather it tended to evoke more moderate verbal behavior between the extremes of freedom and constriction of self-expression. And whether a §_was a high or an aver— age problem admitter had no relevance to his being more expressive of positive feelings, or more avoidant of mean- ingful discussion with defensive direct references. It is interesting that there was no significant group difference in discussion of problems. Only during Block 1 did APA's discuss more problems than HPA's as hy- pothesized (although the difference was not significant). The differences between the group mean proportions in the silence category after Block 1 were, in fact, smaller than the differences obtained on any of the other nine cate— gories, as can be seen in Figure l. Evidently, admitting to an "average" number of problems on paper was not related to more freedom to discuss problems during free verbaliza- tion. APA's were thought to be less anxious than HPA's because they had fewer problems; and the expectation was that APA's would therefore be more Open in discussing their problems. A possible fault with the latter reasoning is that the independent variable measured readiness to admit problems but did not measure intensity of the problems 60 admitted. It is quite probable that anxiety regarding one's problems is less related to the number of problems one has than to the intensity or threat evoked by a few specific and related problems or a general problem area. However, as regards HPA's, we note that a readi- ness to admit a lot of problems on paper also does not imply the freedom or willingness to discuss problems when alone and given the choice to "talk about anything at all." Lastly, as regards discussion of problems, we should note that the category was only an assessment of when problems were mentioned or discussed in any of a number of ways varying in degree of superficiality (see Appendix IV). It did not deal with whether or not gs coped with their problems for good or ill. We were unable to include a measure of active c0ping with problems (see Appendix IV) because too few responses were of this sort. Apparently the gs did not perceive the free verbalization sessions as conducive to their working on their problems. Or maybe the §s were unwilling to commit themselves to actively dealing with personal problems because of the vagueness of the instructions given. The group difference on the silence category was very surprising in that APA's, contrary to expectation, 61 had much higher mean prOportions over all session blocks than HPA's. The difference between groups in silence re- sponses was not significant, however, due to the large subject variation in the APA group. And when the data for two relatively silent APA's gs was excluded, the mean pr0portions across Session Blocks were quite similar for both groups. It was felt that the exclusion of the silence response data for these two gs made for more representative group comparisons. Thus the results show that admitting to a high rather than average number of problems did not ne- cessitate the more frequent and consistent use of silence; and silence was the most overtly defensive maneuver avail- able to the gs. The three categories for which non-significant but consistent group differences were obtained were as follows: expression of negative feelings, discussion in past tense, and discussion in present tense. For all three categories, the group differences were not significant, but were in the predicted direction; APA's consistently had more pres- ent tense discussion and discussion of negative feelings than APA's; and HPA's consistently had more past tense discussion than APA's. These results showed a direction congruent with hypothesized higher process stage 62 (discussion of negative feelings and discussion in present tense) and lower process stage (discussion in past tense) verbalizations predicted for the APA and HPA groups re— spectively. In summary, analyzed group differences show that APA's focused more on themselves than HPA's during free verbalization, while HPA's were more involved in discus- sion of others than APA's. Also, APA gs had a higher ratio of discussion of self to discussion of others than HPA gs. Other group differences, although not statistically sig- nificant, showed that the verbal behavior of APA's was somewhat more indicative of the higher stages of therapeu— tic process than that of HPA's: APA's, in addition to being more involved with themselves than others, tended to be more concerned with the present than the past; they tended to make fewer qualified and vague statements; and they tended to express more negative feelings than HPA's. An interesting finding in the area of expression of feelings was that, in general, twice as many negative feelings than positive feelings were expressed by both groups. The latter may have been a function of the free verbalization task. However, since the instructions were to "talk about anything at all," it is speculated that in 63 expressing twice as many negative as positive feelings, the gs were carrying over a general communicative pattern to the free verbalization sessions. That is, people in a real life situation who are free to talk about anything at all generally seem to be more in tune with and/br more communicative about their negative as compared to their positive feelings. Changes in Free Verbalizations over Time None of the hypotheses based on changes over time in the content of free verbalizations were supported. The results based on two hypotheses that were not supported yielded no consistent trend of response change: APA's did not increase in the expression of positive feelings, and they did not increase in discussion of problems. The number of responses of APA's in these two categories was quite stable and showed the least change as compared to the other eight categories. Thus APA's were not increas— ingly able to express positive feelings and discuss prob- lems. The latter expectations were based on Rogers' hypotheses of the changes that take place in "successful" 64 therapy cases. Three possible explanations for not obtain— ing the expected results are offered. Either average prob- lems admitters are not similar enough to "successful" client-centered therapy cases to expect the positive therapeutic outcomes of increased discussion of problems and expression of positive feelings. Or an increase in discussion of problems and expression of positive feelings over time was not forthcoming during free verbalization sessions for APA's because a positive therapist-patient relationship is particularly necessary for such change. It might also be that increases were not obtained in these responses because the instructions did not call for them. Probably all of the explanations have merit and neither is singly sufficient. For one unsupported hypothesis about response change over time, the results, although not statistically significant, were in the direction opposite that predicted. HPA gs tended to use less silence responses over time. APA gs on the other hand showed an overall tendency to increase in the number of silence responses over time. Thus, contrary to prediction, gs admitting to a large number of problems tended to decrease in the use of the silence defense. 65 Three significant results were found in response changes over time that were in a direction opposite the predicted direction: HPA gs decreased over time in the use of direct references, uncertain and qualified speech, and discussion of others. Further unhypothesized results were a significant decrease over time for APA gs in both discussion of others and the use of uncertain and quali- fied speech. The significant decrease in uncertain and qualified speech and discussion of others was somewhat larger for the APA group. However, two important findings in the HPA group results are especially noteworthy: HPA's, contrary to prediction, did not become increasingly defensive in their verbal behavior. Rather, they used increasingly fewer verbal defenses, as did APA's, on the categories mentioned. Moreover, HPA's showed a general decrease in verbal defenses over a wider area of response types than APA's, since they also decreased (significantly) in the use of direct references and tended to decrease in the use of silence responses. HPA's decreased their responses over time in every category measuring defensive means of verbalizing except discussion in past tense; although on all these categories, they had higher frequency levels 66 than APA's on Block 1. Apparently, even for less well- adjusted gs, the free verbalization sessions became in- creasingly less anxiety provoking with time. The latter inference is given additional support by another unexpected finding: HPA's had a significant increase in negative feeling responses over time. The results related to four unsupported hypotheses showed verbal response changes in the predicted direction: APA's increased over time in discussion of self, and they increased slightly in negative feeling and present tense responses; HPA's tended to increase in past tense discus- sion. Thus APA's were consistently more "self" and "pres— ent" oriented in their discussion, while HPA's were more "others" and "past" oriented, even though only the discus- sion of self and others dimensions showed significant group differences. Although APA's generally expressed more nega- tive feelings than HPA's, they did not show the significant increase in negative feeling responses found for HPA's. Since the increase in expression of negative feelings for HPA's was not accompanied by more self—references, however, the result of increased negative feeling responses does not appear to have been a positive therapeutic outcome of the free verbalization sessions. 67 Reactions of the Subjects to the Free Verbalization Task It is helpful, from a phenomenological standpoint, to note some of the verbatim comments 0f.§$ from both groups who had favorable and unfavorable reactions to the experiment. These comments were recorded during the cod- ing of the free verbalization tapes. Favorable reactions: "This experiment is like talking to somebody." "Free association may have helped me unknow- ingly . . . beats crackin' up and getting ulcers." (Session 8) "I'd like to summarize my feelings about my- self." (Beginning of Session 8) "It feels good to be able to talk about any- thing you want and not worry about what any- body's gonna think.(Session 1) "I'm really gonna miss this." (Session 8) "It's kinda wild to sit back and talk. If it wasn't so far out, I wouldn't mind comin' every day just to get a chance to talk." "It's kinda fun sittin' here—-thinking about what you're thinking about." Unfavorable reactions: "They might find I'm crazy." (Session 5) I bet they find I'm crazy. (Session 6). "I don't like this experiment. It would be better if I had someone to talk to. Ybu lied about this experiment." 68 "It's like being in jail . . . this bare room . . ." Most of the unfavorable subject reactions were not as direct as the above. A few of the more indirect, uncoded signs of displeasure were the following: deep sighs, yawning, singing, playing with the microphone, playing with and looking at watches, groaning, and unde- cipherable mumbling. It was observed by §_that those gs who really seemed to enjoy the experiment and were less concerned about why they were asked to volunteer for free association were also the gs who became much more person- ally involved during the sessions, using them more like therapy sessions. On the basis of recorded comments and reactions of the gs, §_suggests that of the 18 gs who participated in all eight sessions, eight gs (five HPA's and three APA's) seemed to consistently enjoy the sessions and talked about personally meaningful material to a greater extent than the other gs. Four gs, one HPA and three APA's, maintained unfavorable attitudes toward the experiment, said as little as possible, and apparently, continued to come to the sessions because they had said they would and needed the research credit. Thus the most favorable reactions to and enjoyment of free verbalization 69 seemed to come from HPA's. Perhaps HPA's were more re- sponsive because they were the most likely therapy candi- dates in the sample of tested students. However, it would have been helpful if the gs had been given questionnaires regarding their experience as a supplement to Efs assump- tions based on their spontaneous comments. Summary of the Discussion of Results In summary, the following comments can be made concerning the general pattern of results. HPA's made a greater number of defensive responses than APA's on all categories except silence. However, both groups made significant, unhypothesized decreases in defensive verbal- ization as measured by a number of categories. Although ambiguity is a primary characteristic of free verbalization sessions as structured in the present experiment, it apparently did not cause the expected in— crease in anxiety over time for HPA's since they did not generally increase their responses in most measures of defensive verbalization. Thus the admission of a large number of problems did not necessitate the increased use 70 of the most directly defensive responses. The ambiguity of the free verbalization task seemed to generally elicit more neutral or general and abstract discussion for both groups over time, rather than personal, feeling oriented discussion, or the increased use of defensive statements. It is suggested that the ambiguity involved in the free verbalization task could be more easily adapted to than that of therapy: the ambiguous elements of therapy are in constant flux because of direct interpersonal in- teraction. During free verbalization, the task structure is more constant, and whatever interpersonal implications the § imposes on the situation are also likely to be more constant than the flux of implications steming from re- lationship changes in therapy. Thus it is reasoned that any anxiety resulting from the free verbalization task was generally strongly diminished over time for most gs. The results also showed that the verbal behavior of APA's was more like that of "successful" therapy cases at higher stages of positive process change than that of HPA's. APA's discussed themselves more and others less than HPA's; and they tended to talk more in the present and less in the past tense than HPA's. An important find- ing is that on the more directly positive dimensions of 71 therapeutic change--discussion of feelings and problems-— APA's did not give significantly more responses than HPA's, nor did they increase substantially in such responses over time as expected. Three possible explanations, all of which are probably relevant, are offered for these find- ings. Firstly, APA's may not have been sufficiently sim- ilar to "successful" therapy cases to expect them to in— creasingly express their feelings and discuss more prdb— lems. Secondly, the free verbalization instructions were so non-specific that APA's may have felt it inappropriate to "personalize" the sessions with self-confrontation rather than general statements about themselves. Thirdly, it is quite possible that a positive therapist—client re- lationship is necessary for an increase in expression of feelings and discussion of problems. The latter possi- bility may in fact have resulted even if gs had been in- structed to use the free verbalization sessions as a means of becoming more aware of their feelings and coping with their problems. 72 Critique of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research It is quite probable that the small number of gs used in the present experiment contributed to the failure to obtain many of the hypothesized results. However, it also seems that the gs used and the task instructions were important variables contributing to the failure to obtain verbal behavior indicative of positive therapeutic changes. As mentioned above, a majority of §s continued to question, "Why me?" throughout the experiment and remained wary of the purpose of the task, since it was never clear to them why they were selected to volunteer. This initial and continued wariness, and the fact that the instructions mentioned that the tapes would be "analyzed later" prob- ably contributed heavily to the gs' concentration on non— personal and neutral t0pics in their discussion. Also, it is unlikely that gs with a mean age of approximately 20 years, many of whom were undergoing their initial exposure to psychology, would feel free enough to initiate introspection and verbalization about their per— sonal feelings and problems, especially without specific instructions to that end. Relatedly, even if such behavior occurred to them, they may have felt it inappropriate or 73 unnecessarily revealing, since the task instructions did not request it. The major goal of the present study was to assess whether or not changes in verbal behavior similar to those that take place during client-centered therapy would occur during free verbalization sessions. To that end, and in light of the difficulties encountered with gs discussed above, the following seems evident: rather than differ- entiating gs on the basis of problem admission, gs should have been chosen who differed in their motivation to under- stand their thoughts and feelings and change their behavior. Specifically, it would have been much more suitable to use prospective therapy clients, for example, and compare their verbal behavior with "normals" (not seeking therapy) after both groups had been matched on both major problem areas and problem intensity. Problem intensity might have been assessed by §s' rating of the degree of threat or anxiety they experienced from different problems. The point is that had the independent variable included more elements related to the dependent variable as assessed in the pres- ent experiment, the study would have been more meaningful. And such related elements would result, in a future study, if §s differed in their motivation to "get into" themselves 74 (as prospective therapy clients are hopefully motivated) rather than their readiness to admit problems on paper. Another point of revision of the present experi- ment would be the free verbalization instructions. Al- though the aim of the present study was to assess changes without a therapist, the task as presented to the gs need not have been so far removed from specifying therapy- related behavior. In other words, we used clinically de— rived dimensions similar to those used by Rogers for as- sessing verbal behavior in a task giving vague instruc- tions centered around "talk about anything at all." In light of the dependent variable, it would have been more reasonable to include a statement in the instructions requesting gs to focus on some or all of the following: feelings, thoughts, behavior, problems, and relationships with others. In addition, the instructions would have had to specify an interest of §.in therapy-related behavior in addition to free association. If the type of §s suggested above were used in conjunction with the latter sketch of free verbalization instructions, the exploration of process changes during free verbalization would be made more ob— viously relevant to psychotherapy research. 75 With such specifics in the instructions, §s would have much less doubt about what the experiment is "all about." Also, providing the gs a more specific set with the implicit goal of self-confrontation might compensate for the lack of feedback and reinforcement from.§, Rather than working toward some positive end, many gs in the pres- ent experiment seemed to have become bored because of the vagueness of instructions in which no specific aim was implied. It should also be noted that several of the cate- gories measuring process changes would have to be expanded in order to be more meaningfully related to the dimensions of therapeutic process hypothesized by Rogers. The dis- cussion of self category could be subdivided into "private self" references and "interpersonal self" references (the self in social relationships). Each of these self cate- gories could be split into four subcategories that relate the self references to neutral and/or abstract discussion, discussion of positive feelings, discussion of negative feelings, or discussion of problems. In the present study, a major weakness was that the coding categories did not really tap the changes in the manner of experiencing the self, with respect to feelings and problems, that are so 76 crucial to Rogers' process change continua. Other changes could be suggested, but the above are the most crucial for improving the coding system used, and would not involve as many subjective inferences to code accurately as would other meaningful categories, such as "openness." One final comment should be made regarding the results of the present experiment. We noted that with the instructions to "talk about anything at all," there was a decrease in many types of defensive responses for all gs and a tendency for some §s to talk more about them- selves and their feelings over time. Also, some gs made very positive comments on their experiences during free verbalization. With these findings in mind, it seems quite possible that free verbalization sessions could be used as a useful adjunct to more traditional means of psy- chotherapy.' In particular, the sessions might be espe- cially useful for clients who have difficulty articulating their feelings and personal experiences, and for clients who have evidenced difficulty in forming close interper- sonal relationships (such as extreme introverts and juvenile delinquents). Generalities on who would best benefit by the sessions are not especially useful, however, since 77 the therapist could assess such need after the first two or three therapy sessions. The free verbalization sessions could precede reg- ular therapy sessions and/br take place regularly at the client's convenience during the week. The client could make brief, cogent summaries as to what he had accom~ plished as his own "therapist" during the sessions. Such a measure would probably help in moving therapy toward avenues of change, and is directly in line with what most traditional therapists hope that their skills will even— tually accomplish, namely: self—help in the client. V . REFERENCES V . REFERENCES Barnett, C. D. and Tarver, W. N. Self-rated problems of institutionalized delinquent vs. non-delinquent girls, Psychol. Reports, 1959, 5, 333-336. Barron, F. Some test correlates of response to psycho- therapy, J. consult. Psyphol., 1953, 11, 235-241. Beit-Hallahmi, B. The effect of high and average problem admission on the content of free verbalization, unpublished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Bordin, E. S. Ambiguity as a therapeutic variable, g; consult. Psychol., 1955, 12, 9-15. Braaten, L. The movement from non-self to self in client- centered psychotherapy, J. counsel. Psychol., 1961, 8, 20-24. Burgess, T. C. A review of the Mooney Problem Check List, in 0. K. Buros (ed.), The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, N. J., Gryphon, 1965, #145, Pp. 318-319. Dibner, A. S. Ambiguity and anxiety, J. abn. soc. Psychol., 1958,.§§. 165-174. DiMascio, A. and Brooks, C. W. Free association to a fan- tasied psychotherapist: a case report, Arch. gen. Psychiat., 1961, 4, 513-516. Dollard J. and Miller, N. S. Personality and Psychotherapy, New YOrk, McGraw-Hill, 1950. Edwards, A. Experimental Design in Psychological Research (Rev. Ed.), New Ybrk, Holt, 1960. 79 80 Foley, L. Positive and negative attitudes related to verbal behavior, in a therapy-like task, Unpub- lished M.A. Thesis, Rutgers, the State University, 1966. Gordon, L. V. The problems of two university populations, Educ. Res. Bull., 1950, 22, 209-215. Guerney, B. and Stollak, G. Problems in living, psycho— therapy process research, and an autoanalytic f method, in Stollak, Guerney, and Rotherberg (eds.), Psychotherapy Research, Chicago, Rand, 1966. Hammes, J. A. Relation of manifest anxiety to Specific problem areas, J. clin. Psychol., 1959, 15, 298- 300. Hobbs, N. Sources of gain in psychotherapy, Amer. Psychol., 1962, 11, 741-747. Lowinger, P. and Huston, P. E. Transference and the phys- ical presence of the physician, J. Nerv. Ment. DiSop 1955, 121, 250-256. Martin, B., Lundy, R. M., and Lewin, M. H. Verbal and GSR responses in experimental interviews as a function of three degrees of "therapist" communication, J. Abn. Soc. Psychol., 1960, 69, 234-240. Mooney, R. L. and Gordon, L. V. The Mooney Problem Check List Manual, New York: The Psychological Corpora- tion, 1950. Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient condition of therapeutic personality change, J. Consult. Psye chol., 1957, 21, 95-103. . The process conception of psychotherapy, Amer. Psychol., 1958, 13, 142-149. . The process equation of psychotherapy, in Stollak, Guerney, and Rothberg (eds.), Psycho- therapy Research, Chicago, Rand, 1966, Pp. 408- 419. 81 Rosenthal, E. and Frank, J. Psychotherapy and the placebo effect, Psychol. Bull., 1956, 55, 294-302. Singer, S. L. and Stefflre, P. Concurrent validity of the Mooney Problem Check List, Personnel and Guidance, 1957. 15. 298—301. Smith, E. E. The effects of clear and unclear role expec- tations on group productivity and defensiveness, J. abn. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55, 213-217. Steinberg, J. A. A comparison of autoanalytic behavior with and without the influence of interpersonal suggestion and feedback, Unpublished Ph.D. dis— sertation, Rutgers, the State University, 1966. Stollak, G. and Guerney, B. Exploration of personal prob— lems by juvenile delinquents under conditions of minimal reinforcement, J. clin. Psyghol., 1964, 29, 279-283. Stollak, G., Denner, B., Jackson, P., and Packard, M. The effects of self ideal-self discrepancies on the content of free association, Paper presented at the 1967 MPA meeting in Chicago, Ill. Tomlinson, T. M. and Hart, J. T. A validation study of the process scale, J. consult. Psychg;,, 1962, 55, 74-78. Walker, A., Rablen, R., and Rogers, C. R. Development of a scale to measure process changes in psychotherapy, in A. P. Goldstein and A. J. Dean (eds.), The In- vestigation of ngchotherapy, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Weintraub,‘W. and Aronson, H. The application of verbal behavior analysis to the study of psychological defense mechanisms: methodology and preliminary report, J. abn. soc. Psychol., 1962, 555, 169-181. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental De— sign, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1962. ., ~n .Wmurum Na - . VI . APPENDICES APPENDIX I THE MOONEY PROBLEM CHECK LIST. 84 Cir. | Tot. HPD MOONEY PROBLEM CHECK LIST 1950 Ross L. MOONEY COLLEGE REVISION Assisted by LEONARD V. GORDON FORM FLE Bureau of Educational Research Ohio State University SRA Age ................ Date of birth ...................................................................................................... Sex ................ Class in college ............................................................ Marital status .............................................................. - (Freshman, Sophomore, etc.) (Single, married. etc.) SPR Curriculum in which you are enrolled ........................................................................................................... I (Electrical Engineering. Teacher Education, Liberal Arts. etc.) Name of the counselor, course or agency for whom you are markin this check list ................................................................................................... , g PPR Your name or other identification. if desired ......................................................................................................................................................... Date ...................................................... CSM DIRECTIONS This 15 not a test. It is a list of troublesome problems whlch often face students in college—problems 0f health, money, social life, relations with people, religion, studying, selecting courses, and the like. You are to go through the list, pick out the particular problems which are Of concern to you, indi- cate those which are of most concern, and make a summary interpretation in your own words. More specifically, you are to take these three steps. MR First Step: Read the list slowly, pause at each item, and if it suggests something which is trou- bling you, underline it, thus “34. Sickness in the family.” Go through the whole list, underlining the items which suggest troubles (difficulties, worries) of concern to you. Second Step: After completing the first step, look back over the items you have underlined and ACW circle the numbers in front of the items which are of most concern to you, thus, ‘6 o 34. Sickness in the famil .” V L “'de Step: After completing the first and second steps, answer the summarizing questions on pages 5 and 6 FVE __ ® CTP Copyright 1950 by The Psychological Corporation. A“ Tights r€88rved. No part of this check list may be reproduced in any form of printing or by any other means, elec- omc 0? mechanical, including, but not limited to, photocopying, audiovisual recording and transmission, and portrayal 0’ duplication in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 66'231T The Psychological Corporation, 304 East 45th Street, New York, N. Y. 10017 Printed in U.S. A. TOTAL. . . . First Step: Read the list slowly, and as you come to a problem which troubles you, underline it. 1. Feeling tired much of the time 2. Being underweight 3. Being overweight 4. Not getting enough exercise 5. Not getting enough sleep 6. Too little money for clothes 7. Receiving too little help from home 8. Having less money than my friends 9. Managing my finances poorly 10. Needing a part-time job now 11. Not enough time for recreation 12. Too little chance to get into sports 13. Too little chance to enjoy art or music 14. Too little chance to enjoy radio or television. 15. Too little time to myself 16. Being timid or shy 17. Being too easily embarrassed 18. Being ill at ease with other people 19. Having no close friends in college 20. Missing someone back home 21. Taking things too seriously 22. Worrying about unimportant things 23. Nervousness 24. Getting excited too easily 25. Finding it difficult to relax 26. Too few dates 27. Not meeting anyone I like to date 28. N0 suitable places to go on dates 29. Deciding whether to go steady 30. Going with someone my family won’t accept 31. Being criticized by my parents 32. Mother 33. Father 34. Sickness in the family 35. Parents sacrificing too much for me 36. Not going to church often enough 37. Dissatisfied with church services 38. Having beliefs that differ from my church 39. Losing my earlier religious faith 40. Doubting the value of worship and prayer 41. Not knowing how to study effectively 42. Easily distracted from my work 43. Not planning my work ahead 44. Having a poor background for some subjects 45. Inadequate high school training 46. Restless at delay in starting life work 47. Doubting wisdom of my vocational choice 48. Family opposing my choice of vocation 49. Purpose in going to college not clear 50. Doubting the value of a college degree 51. Hard to study in living quarters 52. No suitable place to study on campus 53. Teachers too hard to understand 54. Textbooks too hard to understand 55. Difficulty in getting required books 56. Not as strong and healthy as I should be 57. Allergies (hay fever, asthma, hives, etc.) 58. Occasional pressure and pain in my head 59. Gradually losing weight 60. Not getting enough outdoor air and sunshine 61. Going in debt for college expenses 62. Going through school on too little money 63. Graduation threatened by lack of funds 64. Needing money for graduate training 65. T 00 many financial problems 66. Not living a well-rounded life 67. Not using my leisure time well 68. Wanting to improve myself culturally 69. Wanting to improve my mind 70. Wanting more chance for self—expression 71. Wanting a more pleasing personality 72. Losing friends 73. Wanting to be more popular 74. Being left out of things 75. Having feelings of extreme loneliness 76. Moodiness, “having the blues” 77. Failing in so many things I try to do 78. Too easily discouraged 79. Having bad luck 80. Sometimes wishing I’d never been born 81. Afraid of losing the one I love 82. Loving someone who doesn’t love me 83. Too inhibited in sex matters 84. Afraid of close contact with the opposite sex 85. Wondering if I’ll ever find a suitable mate 86. Parents separated or divorced 87. Parents having a hard time of it 88. Worried about a member of my family 89. Father or mother not living 90. Feeling I don’t really have a home 91. Differing from my family in religious beliefs 92. Failing to see the relation of religion to life 93. Don’t know what to believe about God 94. Science conflicting with my religion 95. Needing a philosophy of life 96. Forgetting things I’ve learned in school 97. Getting low grades 98. Weak in writing 99. Weak in spelling or grammar 100. Slow in reading 101. Unable to enter desired vocation 102. Enrolled in the wrong curriculum 103. Wanting to change to another college 104. Wanting part-time experience in my fie ‘ 105. Doubting college prepares me for working 106. College too indifferent to student needs 107. Dull classes 108. Too many poor teachers 109. Teachers lacking grasp of subject matter 110. Teachers lacking personality — Page 2 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. I22. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 182. 183. 134. 135. 136. 137. 188. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. Poor posture Poor complexion or skin trouble Too short TOO tall Not very attractive physically Needing money for better health care Needing to watch every penny I spend Family worried about finances Disliking financial dependence on others Financially unable to get married Awkward in meeting people Awkward in making a date Slow in getting acquainted with people In too few student activities Boring weekends Feelings too easily hurt Being talked about Being watched by other people Worrying how I impress people Feeling inferior Unhappy too much of the time Having memories of an unhappy childhood Daydreaming Forgetting things Having a certain nervous habit Being in love Deciding whether I’m in love Deciding whether to become engaged Wondering if I really know my prospective mate Being in love with someone I can’t marry Friends not welcomed at home Home life unhappy Family quarrels Not getting along with a member of my family Irritated by habits of a member of my family Parents old-fashioned in their ideas Missing spiritual elements in college life Troubled by lack of religion in others Affected by racial or religious prejudice In love with someone of a different race or religion Not spending enough time in study Having too many outside interests Trouble organizing term papers Trouble in outlining or note-taking Trouble with oral reports Wondering if I’ll be successful in life Needing to plan ahead for the future Not knowing what I really want Trying to combine marriage and a career Concerned about military service Not having a good college adviser NOI getting individual help from teachers Not enough chances to talk to teachers Teachers lacking interest in students Teachers not considerate of students’ feelings 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. Page 3 Frequent sore throat Frequent colds Nose or sinus trouble Speech handicap (stuttering, etc.) Weak eyes Working late at night on a job Living in an inconvenient location Transportation or commuting difficulty Lacking privacy in living quarters Having no place to entertain friends Wanting to learn how to dance Wanting to learn how to entertain Wanting to improve my appearance Wanting to improve my manners or etiquette Trouble in keeping a conversation going Being too envious or jealous Being stubborn or obstinate Getting into arguments Speaking or acting without thinking Sometimes acting childish or immature Losing my temper Being careless Being lazy Tending to exaggerate too much Not taking things seriously enough Embarrassed by talk about sex Disturbed by ideas of sexual acts Needing information about sex matters Sexual needs unsatisfied Wondering how far to go with the opposite sex Unable to discuss certain problems at home Clash of opinion between me and parents Talking back to my parents Parents expecting too much of me Carrying heavy home responsibilities Wanting more chances for religious worship Wanting to understand more about the Bible Wanting to feel close to God Confused in some of my religious beliefs Confused on some moral questions Not getting studies done on time Unable to concentrate well Unable to express myself well in words Vocabulary too limited Afraid to speak up in class discussions Wondering whether further education is worthwhile Not knowing where I belong in the world Needing to decide on an occupation Needing information about occupations Needing to know my vocational abilities Classes too large Not enough class discussion Classes run too much like high school Too much work required in some courses Teachers too theoretical 221. Frequent headaches 222. Menstrual or female disorders 223. Sometimes feeling faint or dizzy 224. Trouble with digestion or elimination 225. Glandular disorders (thyroid, lymph, etc.) 226. Not getting satisfactory diet 227. Tiring of the same meals all the time 228. Too little money for recreation 229. No steady income 230. Unsure of my future financial support 231. Lacking skill in sports and games 232. Too little chance to enjoy nature 233. Too little chance to pursue a hobby 234. Too little chance to read what I like 235. Wanting more worthwhile discussions with people 236. Disliking someone 237. Being disliked by someone 238. Feeling that no one understands me 239. Having no one to tell my troubles to 240. Finding it hard to talk about my troubles 241. Afraid of making mistakes 242. Can’t make up my mind about things 243. Lacking self-confidence 244. Can’t forget an unpleasant experience 245. Feeling life has given me a “raw deal” 246. Disappointment in a love affair 247. Girl friend 248. Boy friend 249. Breaking up a love affair 250. Wonderng if I’ll ever get married 251. Not telling parents everything 252. Being treated like a child at home 253. Being an only child 254. Parents making too many decisions for me 255. Wanting more freedom at home 256. Sometimes lying without meaning to 257. Pretending to be something I’m not 258. Having a certain bad habit 259. Unable to break a bad habit 260. Getting into serious trouble 261. Worrying about examinations 262. Slow with theories and abstractions 263. Weak in logical reasoning 264. Not smart enough in scholastic ways 265. Fearing failure in college 266. Deciding whether to leave college for a job 267. Doubting I can get a job in my chosen vocation 268. Wanting advice on next steps after college 269. Choosing course to take next term 270. Choosing best courses to prepare for a job 271. Some courses poorly organized 272. Courses too unrelated to each other 273. Too many rules and regulations 274. Unable to take courses I want 275. Forced to take courses I don’t like 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. Page 4 Having considerable trouble with my teeth Trouble with my hearing Trouble with my feet Bothered by a physical handicap Needing medical advice Needing a job during vacations Working for all my expenses Doing more outside work than is good for me Getting low wages Dissatisfied with my present job Too little chance to do what I want to do Too little social life Too much social life Nothing interesting to. do in vacations Wanting very much to travel Too self-centered Hurting other people’s feelings Avoiding someone I don’t like Too easily led by other people Lacking leadership ability Too many personal problems Too easily moved to tears Bothered by bad dreams Sometimes bothered by thoughts of insanity Thoughts of suicide Thinking too much about sex matters Too easily aroused sexually Having to wait too long to get married Needing advice about marriage Wondering if my marriage will succeed Wanting love and affection Getting home too seldom Living at home, or too close to home Relatives interfering with family affairs Wishing I had a different family background Sometimes not being as honest as I should be Having a troubled or guilty conscience Can’t forget some mistakes I’ve made Giving in to temptations Lacking self-control Not having a well-planned college program Not really interested in books Poor memory Slow in mathematics Needing a vacation from school Afraid of unemployment after graduation Not knowing how to look for a job Lacking necessary eXperience for a job Not reaching the goal I’ve set for myself Wanting to quit college Grades unfair as measures of ability Unfair tests Campus activities poorly co-ordinated Campus lacking in school spirit Campus lacking in recreational facilities TOTAL. . . . FLE SRA SPR PPR CSM ACW Second Step: Look back over the items you have underlined and circle the numbers in front of the problems which are troubling you most. Third Step: Page: 5 and 6 Page 5 Page 6 Third Step: Answer the following four questions. 3. Whether you have or have not enjoyed filling out the list, do you think it has been worth doing? ............ Yes. .............No Could you explain your reaction? QUESTIONS 1. Do you feel that the items you have marked on the list give a well-rounded picture of your problems? ............ Yes. ............No. If any additional items or explanations are desired, please indicate them here. 2. How would you summarize your chief problems in your own words? Write a brief summary. 4. If the opportunity were offered, would you like to talk over any of these problems with someone on the college staff? ............ Yes. ............ No. If so, do you know the particular person(s) with whom you would like to have these talks? ............ Yes. ............ No. (Questions are continued on next page» ) APPENDIX II MEAN. STANDARD DEVIATION. AND RANGE OF THE MOONEY PROBLEM.CHECK LIST SCORES. N = 198 x 5 Range Mooney 40.0 23.7 2 - 142 85 APPENDIX III RECRUITING LETTER TO 60 SELECTED STUDENTS. The following concerns the second phase of the personality research study for which you have already taken three tests, and have received one (1) hour of re— search credit. You have been chosen to participate in the second phase of the experiment. This phase will require four hours of your time, for which you will receive four (4) hours of research credit. Perhaps this is more research credit than you need to fulfill your requirements for Psychology 151; so consider this carefully before you decide to volunteer for this part of the study. We are doing an experiment concerned with free association--an activity which many MSU students have found exciting, rewarding, and challenging. Our plan is to see you at least twice a week, for half-hour sessions, scheduled according to your conveni— ence. At this point, we are ready to start scheduling half—hour appointment times. 86 87 In the following blank schedule, please indicate only your free half-hour breaks. We will schedule you on the basis of your free time; therefore, INDICATE ONLY THOSE PERIODS DURING WHICH YOU ARE USUALLY FREE. After the schedule has been planned, we will notify you of your regular appointment times. If you do not care to participate, please sign your name on the schedule sheet, leave the schedule blank, and return it. APPENDIX IV DEFINITIONS OF THE CODING CATEGORIES Categories 1 and 2: Expression of positive (1) and nega- tive (2) feelings. Any reference to having a certain feeling in the present or in the past was scored as an expression of feeling. Feelings were scored in category 1 or category 2 according to their place on a good-bad dimension as per- ceived by the S; and elegance of language was not impor- tant for categorization purposes. If "feel" was used as a synonym for "think," the category was not scored. Examples of words and phrases included in state- ments of positive and negative feelings for categories 1 and 2, respectively, are as follows: Category 1: love, like, dig, cool, groovy Category 2: hate, can't stand, bugged, pissed, ugh Category 3: Discussion of others Any reference to a person other than the §,whether known or unknown by him, but excluding the E, were scored as non-personal references. 88 89 Examples of words or inferred subjects of state- ments scored under discussion of others are as follows: he, they, she, others, and general references such as "People , II II one ' II "you . II Category 4: Discussion of self Any reference that §_made to himself directly, or any statement in which §_referred to himself and others jointly was scored as discussion of self. Examples of words or inferred subjects of state- ments scored as discussion of self are as follows: I, me, we, ,US . Category 5: Discussion in past tense Any statement by §_about a past event, feeling, or situation was scored as discussion in past tense. Category 6: Discussion in present tense Any statement by §_about a present event, feeling, or situation was scored as discussion in present tense. Category 7: Direct references Any statement made by §_which included any of the following three references was scored as a direct refer— ence 3 90 a. the experimenter b. the experiment itself or experimental method c. the immediate physical surroundings Category 8: Descriptive discussion of problems Any reference to or description of an actual hy- pothetical problem was scored as descriptive discussion or problems. Words and phrases used in scoring descriptive discussion of problems included the following: "bothers me," "worry about," "trouble," "confused," "afraid," "prob- lem I have," "difficulty," "I don't like to . . . but I have to," "I don't know what to do about . . ." Category 9: Discussion of personal coping with problems (Dropped) Any reference made by §.to an apparently positive means of coping with an actual or hypothetical problem in his personal life was scored as discussion of personal coping with problems. An example follows: "I am going to talk to X about our relationship." Category 10: Uncertain and qualified speech Any use of qualifiers, retractions, and explana— tions regarding statements about feelings, situations, 91 and events were scored as evidence of guardedness. Examples are as follows: a. Phrases, words, or clauses indicating uncertainty (e.g., "I suppose," "I guess," "I wonder," "I don't know," "it seems," "maybe," "possibly"). b. The use of modifiers that partially or totally re— tracted from the immediately preceding statement (e.g., "more or less," "except," "although," "but," "however," "nevertheless,"). c. Words or phrases which introduced an element of vagueness (e.g., "what one might call," "whether or not"). d. Words or phrases indicating a causal relationship (e.g., "because," "due to," "on account of"). Category 11: Silence Any interval of 15 sec. during which no words or sounds were uttered by §_was scored as silence. 92 tho. 0H womb. Hospfimmm muwfluo mo ssom.m mosm. H mesm. masonc scammsomac .HHH an momo.a Hmuoa smoo. me pads. Hmseammm som.m same. m ammo. mxooam x mmsouc sem.m womo. m Hamo. mxuoam sumo. 3H mmmm. Hmscammm mmaaammm s¢.m owed. H Suva. mmsouc m>flummmz .HH an mm¢H.H Hence mmao. we meow. Hmscammm em. mHHo. m mmmo. mxooam x mmsouc mm. meoo. m cede. mxuoam mono. ea ohms. Hmseammm mmcaammm No. sooo. Ha sooo. masons m>auamom .H m m: mo mm cofiumfium> mo monoom hnomoumu monommofi ooumomon How moccanm> mo mmmhamcm mo mumEESmII.H mamma mmHmOUmE¢U Mme m0 mmmNH¢Z¢ AdUHEmHfiflfim m0 mmgmmB > XHOmem< 93 Hamo. 0H mnum. Hmopflmom hm. mmmo. H mmmo. mmsouo ucmmmnm .H> HS momm.H Hmuoe moao. mo mmom. Hoopwmom asamn.m mmmo. m mmHH. mxooam N mmoouw ¢H.H Hmao. m wmmo. mxooam homo. ma mmmm.a Hmoowmom om.H ammo. H ammo. mmsouc swamp ummm .> an mmom. Hmuoa mmoo. mo «moa. Hmopflmom m¢.H Nmoo. m mmao. mxooam N masonw Hm.H mmoo. m mmao. meOHm vmao. ma mmam. Hmspflmom maom mo sasmm.m «Hmo. H «Hmo. masons aonmsomHn .>H Hm omHv.H Hmuoa hooo. mo hmmm. Hoopflmom sesamm.h memo. m vOHH. mxooam x mmsouw seahm.m mode. m vomo. mxooam m ms nu mm coHumHHm> mo mouoom huomoumo .unooun.H mHHme .> chcmmmc 94 Accomm mmoo. mH omoo.H Hmschwm cmHmHHmso soo.m mmmm. H mmmm. mmsouc a :Hmuumocp .xH Hm mmbm.~ Hmuoa mHHo. we omqm. Hmschmm «sm~.m Humo. m NHHH. mHUOHm x monouo mm.H mmHo. m mmmo. mxoon vaH. eH smmm.H HmseHmmm msmHnoum mo NH. emHo. H mmHo. monouo :onmsomHo .HHH> Hm hmmm.m Hence ooHo. we mach. Hmsoflmom assemb.m vvmo. m Nmmm. mxooam x mmsouw samo.m @440. m mmmH. mxuon HOHH. 3H mHms.H Hmschmm mmocmummon mo. mwoo. H meoo. masouc uuman .HH> an omam.a Hence Hmoo. we smem. Hmschmm me.H @500. m mmmo. mxoon x museum ms. mmoo. m mHHo. mxoon m m: up mm coHumHHm> mo condom muomouco .ucoouu.H mHnms .> chcmmmc 95 moo. v mares mmo. V mesa mo. V mas OH. V ma Hm nmm.HOH Hmuoe Hum. we mmh.hH Hmoofimmm sew.m mum. m «mm.~ mxoon N mmoouw mo.H mmm. m mmH.H mHUOHm mnm.¢ 0H Hho.on Hmsonom mH.m mmm.m H mmm.m monouo mocmHHm .x Hm mamm.H kuoa Hmoo. we mmvH. Hmooflmom asashm.¢H coco. m mama. mHUOHm x mmooaw aaasmm.mH mmmo. m omHH. meOHm m m: up mm coHumHHm> mo oouoom whomoumo .ucoouu.H mHsma .> chcmmmm 96 Appendix V.--Cont. Table 2.--Summary of analyses of variance for simple effects of session blocks Category Source of Variation SS df MS E II. Simple effect of Blocks for Group HPA .0641 3 .0214 2.46# for Group APA .0090 3 .0030 .34 Residual .4197 48 .0087 III. Simple effect of Blocks for Group HPA .0461 3 .0154 3.28* for Group APA .0643 3 .0214 4.55** Residual .2237 48 .0047 VII. Simple effect of Blocks for Group HPA .1385 3 .0462 3.16* for Group APA .1147 3 .0382 2.62# Residual .7019 48 .0146 IX. Simple effect of Blocks for Group EPA .0588 3 .0196 6.32*** for Group APA .0804 3 .0268 8.65*** Residual .1486 48 .0031 #P .10 *P .05 **P .01 ***P .005 97 5400. smmm. me HmseHmmm *aHH.h vmmo. vmmo. H UHQSU o 0000. 0000. H UHumnomoo asmm.m momo. memo. H HmocHH memo. m mad Mom mxoon amo.m mmmo. mmmo. H UHQoU mm. mmoo. mmoo. H UHDMHomso aHm.v mmHo. meo. H HmmcHH Homo. m dmm How muonuo mo mxoon cOHmmDomHQ .HHH hmoo. hmHv. we Hmsonom mm. vNoo. omoo. H UHQDU mm. mmoo. Nmoo. H UHumnomoo aavm.m mmmo. mmmo. H HmocHH Homo. m «mm mom mmcHHoom mxoon m>Hummoz .HH m m2 mm MU ouuoom whomoumo meson» mo mothmcw mo mnmfifiomli.m mam¢9 .ucooll.> prcommm 98 vomo. m «m4 Mom mxoon emm.v omHo. oMHo. H UHQoo mo. mmoo. mmoo. H oHumaomso saahm MH omgo. omoo. H HmosHH Hooomw mmmo. m m m2 mm mo condom muomoumo .uoooii.m oHQme .> xHosomma 99 moo. mare mmo. mes mo. me Hmoo. omoH. mo Hmoonom mm.H mooo. mooo. H UHQSU hm.m omHo. omHo. H UHumuomoo eaamo.om oooo. oooo. H HmocHH m m: mm mo condom hnoooumo .unoonu.m mHsma .> xHecmmmm MICHIG AIM STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRAR‘IES III 6lele III 1293 030