I

,,7 I
l I _
f
: 7 7' ._‘ i
;
é
' -

_ , 7 - i.
f: ’7-i
_ ’3 777-.
. ——I :

II II
II I

II

' I 1.
II I

 

THE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL DIMENSION
OF EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO THE
PROCESS AND OUTCOME OF
PSYCHOTHERAPY

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ANDREA FARKAS
1969

mm {1 T

AJISJ.
9mg uefirqxw 3

    
 

AHVHEII'I e:

  

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF EXPERIENCE
IN RELATION TO THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME
OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

by Andrea Farkas

This study examined the effects that a client's
initial internal or external orientation has on the process
and outcome of his psychotherapy. Ratings of each client's
internal or external orientation were made on two measures:
(1) the Rotter Internal-External Scale and (2) the Kirtner
and Cartwright Typology of Internal vs. External Presenta-
tion of Problem.

The main experimental sample consisted of 21 under-
graduate students receiving personal counseling at the
Michigan State University Counseling Center. Thirteen had
external scores on the Rotter I-E Scale and eight had in-
ternal scores.

The study examined the relation between clients'
scores on the two measures of the internal-external dimen-
sion and (l) the outcome of their therapy, and (2) thera-
pist warmth offered to the client. In addition, scores on
the two measures of internality and externality were com-

pared to determine whether initial in-therapy behavior

Andrea Farkas

could be predicted from scores on the Rotter I-E Scale.
Using an additional 33 Counseling Center clients who also
took the Rotter I-E Scale, a comparison was made between
the mean I-E scores of 54 clients and of 230 students in

an undergraduate psychology class to test the hypothesis
that students seeking counseling are more external than the
average student population.

Clients took the Rotter I-E Scale prior to their
first therapy interview. Judges rated a tape recording of
each client's initial therapy interview to determine his
Kirtner and Cartwright Typology rating. Therapeutic out~
come was assessed by (l) therapist ratings of client gain
on a 5-point scale, and (2) by changes in the number of
deviant signs score of the Tennessee Self—Concept Scale
before and after therapy. Therapist warmth offered to the
client was rated from the recorded initial interview using
Carkhuff‘s Scale for the Measurement of Respect or Positive
Regard in Interpersonal Processes. Ample reliabilities
were established for all ratings.

The results show that clients who behave internally
in their early therapy interviews (1) are more successful,
as measured by both outcome measures, than clients who
behave externally in early interviews, and (2) tend to be
received more warmly by their therapists than external
clients. The data showed no relation between a client's

initial in-therapy behavior as rated on the Kirtner and

Andrea Farkas

Cartwright Typology and his score on the Rotter I-E Scale;
nor did the Rotter I-E scores show any predictable relation
to therapeutic outcome or therapist warmth. Finally, stu-
dents seeking therapy at the Counseling Center did not
differ significantly on the Rotter score of the internal-
external orientation from other Michigan State University
students not seeking therapy.

The final section discusses the implications of
the relation between internality and both successful and
unsuccessful outcome of insight-type therapy. Alternative
hypotheses were presented for the trend relating internality
and therapist warmth. Possible explanations were offered
for the random relationship found between clients' scores
on the Rotter I-E Scale and the Kirtner and Cartwright
ratings of early in-therapy behavior. Suggestions were
made for future research on the internal-external dimension

in relation to both behavior and insight therapies.

Thesis Committee

7
Dr. Donald Grummon, Chairman ,flgggggiéefi€6é37?é%§%<:t-tye¢,«~

Dr. Charles Hanley Date: 07 "/9’ 49

Dr. Gary Stollak

THE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF EXPERIENCE
IN RELATION TO THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME

OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

BY

Andrea Farkas

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the many people who helped me
with this research.

First, I want to especially thank Dr. Donald L.
Grummon whose empathic guidance has helped me to begin to
understand the processes of psychotherapy and of research.

Next, I wish to thank the clients and counselors
of the Michigan State University Counseling Center for
spending hours taking the requisite tests, filling out the
requisite forms, and taking the risk of recording their
private conversations for an invisible and unknown researcher.
I am grateful to Marilyn Hinderer and the staff of the
Counseling Center's Testing Office who saw to it that the
data was neither lost nor misplaced and was in the right
place at the right time.

Peter Hampton's "patience in adversity" was a major
source of encouragement to me throughout the research.

Dr. Charles Hanley, Dr. Donald Grummon, Peter Hamp-
ton, and Gerrit De Young were all helpful in directing me
to the statistical tools which could most usefully be applied
to the data.

A note of appreciation also to Dr. Gary Stollak for
making his criticisms of the research in a manner that im-
plied his continuing unconditional positive regard.

ii

Finally, I want to thank those of my friends not
mentioned above who supported me during the difficult days
of the research and offered me alternative ways of achieving

satisfaction.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 1
METHOD . . . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . 20
SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

APPENDICES O O O O O O C O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O 32

iv

Appendix

LIST OF APPENDICES

The Rotter Internal-External Scale. . . . .

The Kirtner and Cartwright Typology . . .

The Communication of Respect in Interper-
sonal Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Counselor's Post-Therapy Rating Scale . . .
Raw Data for Counseling Center Subjects . .
Means and Standard Deviations of I-E Scores
for Elementary Psychology Students at Ohio
State University and at Michigan State

University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
scale 0 O O O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O 0

vi

Page

32

35

37
39

4O

42

43

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Mean Therapists' Ratings of
Client Gain from Therapy for Clients High

and Low on the Kirtner and Cartwright Typol-

ogy of Internal vs. External Presentation
Of PrOblem. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Comparison of Mean Difference in Pre Minus

Post NDS Scores on the TSCS for Clients

High and Low on the Kirtner and Cartwright

Typology of Internal vs. External Presen-
tation of the Problem . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Mean Kirtner and Cartwright
Typology Ratings of Internal vs. External
Presentation of Problem for Clients High
and Low on the Rotter I-E Scale . . . . .

Analysis of Covariance for High and Low
Rotter I-E Clients"Post-Therapy Mean
Number of Deviant Signs Scores . . . . . .

Comparison of Counselors' Mean Ratings of
Client Gain from Therapy for Clients High
and Low on the Rotter I-E Scale . . . . .

Comparison of the Mean Rating of Therapist
Warmth Extended to Clients High and Low on
the Kirtner and Cartwright Typology of In-
ternal vs. External Presentation of Problem

Comparison of the Mean Rating of Therapist
Warmth Extended to Clients High and Low on

the ROtter I-E scale. 0 o o o o o o o I 0

Comparison of Mean Rotter I-E Scores for

Students Coming to the Counseling Center and
Students in an Elementary Psychology Class.

Comparison of Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-
ability Scores for Clients High and Low on

the ROtter I-E Scale. 0 o o o o o o o o o

Page

14

15

l6

l6

l7

18

18

19

25

INTRODUCTION

The internal-external dimension of experience refers
to the feelings of responsibility and control a person has
in relation to the things that happen to him. Internal
control implies that the person sees himself as the locus
of control over his own actions and is aware of his own
contribution to the situations and relationships he finds
himself in. External control implies the opposite; that
the person allocates the responsibility for his behavior
to external forces, like luck or fate, and is basically
unaware of the interactional effects he has on others.

The experimental work relating this dimension to
psychotherapy grows out of the work of Rogers and his col-
leagues at the University of Chicago who have studied the
characteristics of clients seen in client-centered psycho-
therapy (Cartwright, Kirtner, and Fiske, 1963). Kirtner
and Cartwright (1958) have shown that the internality as
opposed to externality of a client's presentation of his
problem in an initial therapy interview is predictive of
the success of the therapy which follows. In their study,
conducted at the University of Chicago Counseling Center
using primarily client-centered therapists, Kirtner and

Cartwright found that ratings of tape recordings of the

client's initial interview made on a five-point internal-
external scale led to accurate prediction of the success
of the therapy, as judged by the counselor's post-therapy
evaluation.

Another study done at the Chicago Counseling Center
(Fiske, Cartwright, and Kirtner, 1964) replicated the orig-
inal finding, adding as an additional success measure,
ratings of client change between first and last interviews
made by Interviewer-Diagnosticians.

Rotter (1966) has investigated the internal-external
dimension as a variable in social learning theory. He views
the dimension as a generalized expectancy about the contin-
gency or lack of contingency between a person's actions
and the reinforcement he received. Using a 29-item forced-
choice scale, he found significant correlations between
externality and race, social class, activism, schizophrenia,
achievement, conformity, and anxiety (Lefcourt, 1966).

The present research investigates the internal—
external dimension as a variable in the psychotherapeutic
process. The study utilizes both conceptions of the dimen-
sion, one with roots in social learning theory and the
other, an outgrowth of client-centered theory and research.
The research points towards further defining the meaning
of "internality" and "externality" and of broadening the
possible applications of the concept to therapy research.

More specifically, there are three major goals.

The first is to replicate1 the original Kirtner and
Cartwright (1958) study using a different group of clients
and a different group of therapists, who have a similar,
though far from identical, orientation.2 Does the same
relationship between internality and success hold in a dif-
ferent clinical setting; and does it hold when success is
measured by an objective personality test, as contrasted
to the subjective reports of change made by counselors and/
or diagnosticians in the Chicago work?

Second, does an individual's generalized internal
or external expectancy as defined by Rotter predict the
way he presents his problem initially in psychotherapy?

Do clients whose scores on the Rotter I-E Scale indicated
an external orientation present their problem to their
therapist as largely due to external circumstances beyond
their control and vice versa? If so, does a client with

a generalized internal expectancy, as indicated by a low

 

lAs Goldstein, Heller, and Sechrest (1966) point out,
there is a great need in psychotherapy for replication of
the results of research studies. Psychotherapy is not a
unified process with universally accepted aims or method.
Both therapist styles and clients' problems are highly in-
dividualized and diverse. In order to be able to generalize
our results beyond the particular sample used in a study,
we must show that the same results seem to hold with dif-
ferent populations of therapists and clients.

2While the therapists used in this research have
been greatly influenced by Rogers, their approach to doing
therapy is more active and confronting and makes more ex-
tensive use of the therapist-client interpersonal inter-
action than was true of the Chicago research therapists.

score on the Rotter I-E Scale, have higher chances for
success in therapy than a client with a high one?

There is an underlying methodological issue here.
Does the client's internal-external orientation influence
therapeutic outcome sufficiently that researchers comparing
different therapeutic procedures should control for this
variable? Though we are aware of the fact that client
p0pulations are not homogeneous, we do not yet have enough
knowledge about which personality characteristics effect
therapeutic success enough to merit being controlled for
in studies which strive to assess the differential success
rates of several therapeutic procedures. If the internal-
external dimension proves to have a predictable relation
to success, then it will become important that we have a
quick and efficient way of differentiating between inter-
nalizers and externalizers before the beginning of psycho-
therapy so that we can set up research control groups which
are matched on this particular variable. It is here that
the practicality of the Rotter Scale, usually administered
in 10-12 minutes, becomes significant. If the Rotter Scale
is significantly correlated with the KCT and shows the same
relation to therapeutic success, then we can assume that
the expectancy for internality or externality which Rotter
postulates is generalized to the therapeutic situation.
And, if this is so, then we could use the Rotter Scale as
an efficient, pre-therapy indicator of internal and exter-

nal in—therapy behavior.

A related goal wasto assess the validity of the
internal-external construct. Since we gave two scales which
both supposedly measured internality and externality to the
same clients, it was expected that clients with an internal
rating on one scale would generally have internal ratings
on the other and vice versa. If not, the results would
call into serious question the assumption that both tests
were valid and legitimate measures of the same internal-
external factor.

A third goal was to explore how the internal-
external dimension contributes to therapeutic outcome. One
possible explanation is that psychotherapy, as traditionally
defined, cannot change the client's external situation.
Therefore, clients seeing their problems as externally caused
cannot make effective use of therapy which attempts primarily
to help clients make more effective use of their own internal
resources. Or conversely, clients seeing the source of their
difficulties as an internal matter can make more effective
use of a psychotherapy aimed at dealing with internal mat-
ters. But it is also possible that the therapist reacts
differently to the internally as opposed to the externally
oriented client. That is, he sets up a different kind of
therapeutic situation which in turn mediates therapeutic
outcome. To test this hypothesis, this study compared the
warmth that therapists extended to internal as opposed to

external clients. Warmth was measured by the Carkhuff

(1967) Scale for the Measurement of Respect or Positive
Regard in Interpersonal Processes. The assumption was that
therapists would be more accepting of clients who approached
therapy with an awareness of their own involvement in the
problem and thus, with an appropriate, pre-established goal
for the therapy. Therefore, it was postulated that ther-
apists would be warmer to internal clients.

A final, though subsidiary, goal of this research
was to further explore the positive relation found by Hersh
and Schiebe (1967) between externality, as measured by the
Rotter Scale, and maladjustment. We compared mean scores
on the Rotter I-E Scale for 54 Counseling Center clients
with scores for 230 undergraduate psychology students not
seeking counseling.

To try to answer these questions, the following
hypotheses were formulated:

1. People with internal scores on the Rotter I—E Scale
are more frequently successful in psychotherapy than peOple
with high I-E scores, as determined by two independent mea-
sures of outcome.

2. People with internal scores on the Kirtner and
Cartwright Typology are more frequently successful in psy-
chotherapy than people with high KCT scores, as determined

by two independent measures of outcome.

7

3. A person's score on the Rotter I-E Scale predicts
the way he initially presents his problem in therapy, as
rated by the Kirtner and Cartwright Typology.

4. Externalizing clients are less warmly received by
their therapists than internal clients.

5. Clients who seek counseling for personal problems
are more externally oriented than a representative normal
sample of college students not seeking counseling at the

same university.

METHOD

Subjects

Three groups of subjects were used in this research.
All were undergraduates at Michigan State University.

The first was a group of 16 students seeking help
for personal problems at the Counseling Center prior to
March, 1968. These students had agreed to participate in
a larger research project which included an administration
of the Rotter I-E Scale prior to the first therapy inter-
view. The second was a group of 54 clients who sought help
for the same kind of problems after March, 1968. They took
the I-E Scale in the Counseling Center waiting room prior
to their screening interview. From these two groups, 21
clients, 17 females and 4 males, were selected who met the
following additional criteria:

1. That they have either high or low scores on their
pre-therapy Rotter I-E Scale. High scores were defined as
13 or higher; low scores as 7 or less. These cutoff points
were selected as the top and bottom 25% of an initial sam-
ple of 19 clients coming to the Center for help with a

personal problem.l

 

lSomewhat different cut-off scores would have been
selected if these were based upon the Rotter data or the
DASU data on elementary psychology students (See Table 10

2. That the client express willingness to work with
a counselor for a series of interviews.

3. That the client and his counselor be willing to
participate in this research. The third group was composed
of 230 introductory psychology students who were used as a
normal population of students not seeking counseling. Stu-
dents in this class are enrolled in almost all the divisions
of the University and thus the sample can be considered
fairly representative of the undergraduate student body.
They were given the Rotter I-E Scale in group administra-

tions.

Instruments

 

l. Rotter Internal-External Scale

The Rotter Internal-External Scale (1966) is a 29-
item, forced-choice test designed to assess the degree to
which the subject expects that the world is subject to in-
ternal control, i.e., the degree to which he believes that
there exists a causal relationship between his own behavior

and the way things are. Because six of the items are fillers,

 

in Appendix 1). The scores used in this research, however,
are clearly on one or the other side of the mean, using
either Rotter's means or the MSU class means. While it is
true then that the scores may not represent real extremes,
it is also true that they are differentiated into "above
mean“ and "below mean" or "high" and "low" groups no matter
what comparison data we want to use.

10

scores on this scale range from 0 (all questions answered
to indicate belief in full internal control) to 23 (all
questions answered to indicate full belief in luck or fate).
The test-retest reliability of the I-E ranges from r=.49
over periods of two months between administrations to r=.83
for one month intervals. Correlations with the Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desireability Scale range from -.12 to -.41.
See Appendix A.
2. The Kirtner and Cartwright Typology

The Kirtner and Cartwright Typology (1958) is a
five-point scale used to rate recorded therapy interviews.
It consists of five paragraph descriptions of in-therapy
behavior ranging along a continuum from 1: "Immediately
deals with a feeling-in-relationship problem. . . . Deals
very much with what he says and does, how he acts and feels
in situations, and discusses the interpersonal effects of
these . . . is quite internally focused," to 5: "Deals
with problems as though they were almost entirely external
to him. . . . His approach is almost that of listing attri-
butes of people and situations with very little self-
responsibility understood." Scores below 3 were considered
to be "low" (internal), while scores above 3 were "high"
(external). The tapes of each client's initial therapy
interview was rated according to the Kirtner and Cartwright
' Typology (KCT) by one of two judges. The two judges had

previously established an inter-rater reliability of

ll

r=.98 on the KCT. Seventeen of the tapes were rated by
the researcher herself. Four of the tapes, on which there
was some question of contamination because of the researcher's
knowledge of test results, were rated by the second judge.
In two cases the second or third interview was used because
of the absence of inaudibility of the tape of the initial
interview. See Appendix B.
3. Warmth

Warmth offered to the client by the therapist was
rated from recorded therapy interviews using Carkhuff's
(1967) Scale for the Measurement of Respect or Positive
Regard in Interpersonal Processes. Ratings on this scale
range from a low of l where the counselor communicates clear
negative regard and disrespect to a high of 5 where be com-
municates a deep caring for the client. The tapes of the
initial, or, as in the two cases above, the second and
third interview, were rated by two judges, not including
the researcher, who had previously established an inter-
rater reliability of .98. See Appendix C.
4. Therapist Rating of Client Gain

The therapist's rating of client gain from therapy
was obtained as part of a post-therapy questionnaire given
to each counselor. The scale ranges from a low of 1, "Lit-
tle or no gain," to a high of 5, "Markedly above average

gain." See Appendix D.

12
5. Tennessee Self Concept Scale--
Number of Deviant Signs Subtest

The pre-to-post therapy change in the Number of
Deviant Signs (NDS) Scale on the Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale (Fitts, 1965) (TSCS) was used as an indication of
client improvement. The Tennessee consists of 100 self— \‘
descriptive statements. The subject uses these to portray
his own picture of himself by rating the item's degree of
applicability to him on a five-point scale which ranges from
"completely false" to "completely true." The items of the
TSCS are organized into a number of subscales such as the
neurosis scale, the general maladjustment scale, the per-
sonality disorder scale and others. The NDS score is a
count of the number of deviant features on all subscale
scores. It is the Scale's best index of psychological
disturbance-—identifying deviant individuals with about
80% accuracy (Fitts, 1965). The difference between the
pre-and-post therapy NDS score has been successfully used

in previous research as a measure of client improvement

through psychotherapy (Ashcraft and Fitts, 1964).

Procedure

 

l. The research clients took the Rotter I-E Scale and
the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale prior to their first therapy
interview.

2. Tape recordings were made of the initial therapy

interview. In two cases a recording of the second interview

13

was used because of the absence or inaudibility of the tape
of the first interview.

3. The therapy interview was rated for client inter-
nality and for warmth offered by the therapist to the client.
The mean rating of eight two-minute segments spread through-
out the interview was used as the rating for that interview.

4. At the termination of therapy the client again took
the TSCS. In a few cases the second TSCS was administered
at the end of the 1968 academic year, although the clients
were still in therapy or planned further counseling at a
later time.

5. The Rotter I-E Scale was administered to students

in the elementary psychology course.

RESULTS

This research successfully replicated the Kirtner
and Cartwright (1958) study. Eight clients who presented
their problems in an internal manner in an early interview
were significantly more successful in therapy than ten ex-
ternal clients, success here defined by therapists' ratings
of client gain. (See Table 1). On the average, internal
clients were rated by their therapists as experiencing an
"above average gain" from their counseling, while external
clients had a somewhat below average gain. Moreover, the
same relation between internality and success held when
success was measured by an objective personality test.

As Table 2 illustrates, internal clients had significantly

greater positive change from pre-to-post therapy adminis-

trations of the TSCS than external clients.

Table l.--Comparison of Mean Therapists' Ratings of Client
Gain from Therapy for Clients High and Low On

the Cartwright Typology of Internal Vs. External
Presentation of Problem

 

 

 

 

KCT Rating N Therapist Rating of Outcome
MEAN SD

External 10 2.8 1.0

Internal 8 4.0 1.0

t 2.38*

 

*p<.025, l-tailed
l4

15

Table 2.--Comparison of Mean Difference in Pre Minus Post
NDS Scores on the TSCS for Clients High and Low
On the Kirtner and Cartwright Typology of Inter-
nal Vs. External Presentation of the Problem

 

 

 

KCT Rating N NDS Score on the TSCS
MEAN SD

External 9 8.22 8.02

Internal 8 19.25 12.67

t -2.04*

 

*p<.05, l-tailed

The data failed to confirm that a client's gener-
alized internal or external expectancy, as measured by the
Rotter I-E Scale, accurately predicts the way the client
presents his problem in his first psychotherapy interview.
That is, the data show a random relation between client
scores on the Rotter Scale and on the KCT ratings of the
initial interview. (See Table 3.) Furthermore, the client's
generalized internal or external expectancy was not related
to the success or failure of psychotherapy, as measured by
either the TSCS or by therapist ratings. (See Tables 4
and 5.) The original hypothesis of this study was that
internal (vs. external) clients, as determined by the Rotter
Scale, would present their problems in an internal (vs.
external) way and that the internal clients would be more
successful in therapy. Neither expectation was confirmed;

but it should be noted that according to our theory we

16

Table 3.--Comparison of Mean Kirtner and Cartwright Typol-
ogy Ratings of Internal Vs. External Presentation
of Problem for Clients High and Low on the Rotter

 

 

 

I-E Scale
Rotter I-E Scores N KCT Ratings
MEAN SD
External 13 2.91 .84
Internal 8 2.90 .57
t .028*

 

*p>.40, l-tail

Table 4.--Ana1ysis of Covariance for High and Low Rotter
I-E Clients' Post-Therapy Mean Number-of-Deviant-
Signs Scores

 

 

Source of Variation df MS F

Unadjusted

Internal-External Score 1 206.0 2.11*

Error 15 97.8

Total 16
Adjusted

Internal-External Score 1 83.0 .892*

Error 14 93.0

Total 15

 

*p>.10, l-tail

17

Table 5.--Comparison of Counselors' Mean Ratings of Client
Gain From Therapy for Clients High and Low on
the Rotter I-E Scale

 

 

 

Rotter I-E Scores N Therapist Ratings of Outcome
Mean SD

External 11 3.36 1.23

Internal 8 3.25 .30

t .233*

 

*p>o40' l-tail

would not expect the second hypothesis to be confirmed if
the first hypothesis was disconfirmed. In short, the more
significant finding is that the Rotter measurement of in-
ternality vs. externality bears no relationship to how the
client approaches working on his problems in psychotherapy.
This raises a question about the construct validity of the
two different methods of measuring internality.

Therapist warmth tended to vary with the way the
clients first presented their problem in therapy. Thera-
pists offered more warmth to clients who presented their
problems in an internal fashion, but this difference was
significant only at the .10 level on a two-tailed test.

(See Table 6).1 The client's generalized internal or

 

1One could argue that a one-tailed test (and thus
an .05 confidence level) is justified since clinical ob-
servation suggests that therapists much prefer to work with
internally oriented clients. However, it also might be
that many therapists would try especially hard to be "warm"
to external clients to overcome the defensiveness they

18

Table 6.--Comparison of the Mean Rating of Therapist Warmth
Extended to Clients High and Low on the Kirtner
and Cartwright Typology of Internal Vs. External
Presentation of Problem

‘
L

 

 

KCT Rating N Ratings of Therapist Warmth
MEAN SD

External 12 3.27 .35

Internal 9 3.60 .35

t -2.l4*

 

*p<.lO, 2-tai1ed

external expectancy, as measured by the Rotter Scale, showed
no relationship to therapist warmth; nor would we expect
this on theoretical grounds in the absence of a relation-
ship between the Rotter measure and the manner in which the
client actually presents his problems. (See Table 7.)

Table 7.-—Comparison of the Mean Rating of Therapist Warmth
Extended to Clients High and Low on the Rotter

 

 

 

I-E Scale
Rotter I-E Scores N Ratings of Therapist Warmth
MEAN SD
External 13 3.40 .40
Internal 8 3.43 .35
t .1664*

 

*p>.80, 2-tai1ed

 

believe is associated with externality. In any event, we
selected the more conservative test of significance.

19

Rotter I-E scores were not significantly different
for the students seeking help for personal problems at the
Counseling Center when compared with the representative
sample of students not seeking counseling. (See Table 8.)
Thus, the data did not confirm the hypothesis which postu-
lated that Counseling Center clients would be more external
than students not seeking counseling.

Table 8.--Comparison of Mean Rotter I-E Scores for Students

Coming to the Counseling Center and Students in
an Elementary Psychology Class

 

 

 

 

Students N Rotter I-E Scores
MEAN SD
Counseling Center 54 9.85 5.13
Elem. Psych. Class 230 10.83 4.38
t -1.43*

 

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the previous finding of Kirtner
and Cartwright that psychotherapy is more likely to result
in a successful outcome when the client begins his therapy
by seeing himself as the source of the problem, i.e., has
an internal orientation. The client comes to counseling
because he is dissatisfied with some aspect of his life.
His therapy is more apt to be successful if he begins it
by seeing his own attitudes, feelings, perceptions and the
like as the important material to deal with in his treat-
ment. On the other hand, a successful outcome is less
likely if he is externally oriented, i.e., if he sees other
peOple's attitudes and external situations as the important
material to deal with in the therapy.

Our study strengthens the original Kirtner and
Cartwright finding through replication in a different set-
ting with different therapists and clients and by the addi-
tion of a second outcome measure, the NDS scale of the TSCS.
The same relation held consistently between internality and
successful therapeutic outcome.

However, the relationship between internality and
successful therapeutic outcome can be said to have been

demonstrated for insight-type therapies only. All studies

20

21

done so far with the KCT were done with insight therapies.
These therapies have as their primary purpose helping a
client make better use of his own resources.. Counseling
that is so oriented might hardly be expected to assist the
external client who comes seeking help for a problem whose
origins and manifestations are viewed as external to him-
self. On the other hand, such a client might benefit more
from treatment in which external cues are central to the
structure of the therapy and in which the therapist takes
a more active part in re-arranging the client's life sit-
uation. Systematic desensitization (and perhaps other
forms of behavior therapy) is one form of therapy which
might not discriminate against the external client, and
might, in fact, produce more consistently favorable out-
comes. Useful research might be done on the success rates
of external clients in systematic desensitization or other
behavior therapies.

The relationship between internality and success
in insight therapy now seems a respectable finding, but we
can still only speculate as to how the causal relationship
Operates. Our finding that the therapists tended to re-
spond more warmly to internal clients throws at least some
initial light on how internality may influence outcomes in
therapy. Since the presence of warmth has been one of the
factors shown to be associated with therapeutic success

(Truax and Carkhuff, 1967), we would expect that if

22

therapists are warmer to internal clients, that these clients
would be more likely to experience more significant improve-
ment than external clients.

It seems reasonable to speculate that therapists
would be more favorably disposed (and thus warmer) to in-
ternal clients since there is a better initial match between
warmth, genuineness, and empathic understanding to the in-
ternal client, all therapy condition variables associated
with successful outcome in previous research. (Barrett-
Lennard, 1962; Bergin, 1966; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967; and
Rogers £3 31., 1967). Our warmth data (which this study
used as an index of the therapist's favorable or unfavorable
reactions to his client) support such an interpretation,
but the hypothesis needs further investigation. First,
the difference in warmth only approached significance.
Secondly, we have not explored competing explanations of
how internality and externality may influence the outcome
of psychotherapy. It could be that external clients just
do not profit from insight-type therapies, with their em-
phasis upon mobilizing the client's inner resources, no
matter how much warmth and empathic understanding is offered
to the client. Further research is needed to resolve the
question of why external clients are less successful.

The failure of the data to show any relationship
between the Rotter I-E Scale and the KCT was disappointing

from both practical and theoretical standpoints.

23

Practically, the Rotter is a much easier test to administer
than the KCT. It can be given to individuals or to large
groups in 10-12 minutes and takes about 2 minutes per pro-
tocol to score. Had the Rotter shown a high correlation
with the KCT and/or with therapeutic success, it could
easily have been given to prospective therapy clients in
the waiting room prior to the beginning of their therapy.
Clients could have been divided into internals and exter-
nals on the basis of their Rotter I-E scores and could then
have been assigned to the sort of therapy and therapists
most likely to be helpful to them. To use the KCT for the
same purpose the client must have at least one interview

in which he presents his problem. The recording of the
interview must then be scored for internality or exter-
nality, a process which takes about 30 minutes. Clearly
the KCT is a clumsier instrument. It is unfortunate then
that the Rotter I-E Scale, though speedier, seems at pres-
ent to have no useful applications to psychotherapy.

The data also leaves us with the question of why
these two scales, both supposedly measuring the internal-
external dimension, showed no positive relationship to each
other. One possibility is that the internal or external
trait is one which manifests itself differently in partic-
ular situations. Someone who is external in a group or
social situation, which seems to be what the Rotter test

is geared to, may not express his problems in an internal

24

manner during an initial therapy interview or a similar
private, interpersonal situation. Or, it is possible that
the KCT and the Rotter I-E may be measures of two different
personality factors called by the same name. More research
is, of course, necessary to test this hypothesis and to
look at correlates of the two tests. A third alternative
is that the lack of a positive relationship is due to an
artifact in measurement in this study. One possible source
of interference is the influence of need for approval on
client's responses to the I-E Scale. Rotter has noted such
distortion in previous research using a prison population
(Rotter, 1966). In our study external students with a high
need for approval may have anticipated the internal orien-
tation of their counselors and/or researchers and disguised
their own responses to the Rotter I-E Scale to make them
appear to be internals. For 16 or the 21 students in this
study, pre—therapy scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1964) (MC SDS) were
available. Internal clients had significantly higher need
for approval scores than external clients. (See Table 9.)
Replication of this research with controls for need for
approval would help clarify the construct validity of the
KCT and Rotter I-E Scale.

Whatever the explanation of the lack of positive
relationship with the KCT, the results of this research

indicate that the Rotter I-E Scale is not a useful measure

25

Table 9.--Comparison of Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scores for Clients High and Low on the Rotter

 

 

 

I-E Scale
Rotter I-E Scores N MC SDS Scores
MEAN SD
External 9 8.77 4.25
Internal 7 15.28 7.32
t 2.085*

 

*p<.05, 1-tailed

for differentiating successful from unsuccessful therapy
clients. Nor does there seem to be any relationship between
scores on the Rotter Scale and therapist warmth. It should
be noted, however, that these associations with outcome and
therapist warmth were based on the assumption of high pos-
itive correlation with the KCT. Once that relation did

not hold, we would not expect to find a relation between

the Rotter I-E and either therapist warmth or therapeutic
success.

Another hypothesis which was not confirmed was the
one which postulated a higher I-E score for clients coming
to the Counseling Center than for a sample of normal college
students not seeking counseling. Both internals and ex-
ternals seem to seek psychotherapy and in approximately the
same proportions as those found in the general student pop-

ulation. As already suggested, the low Counseling Center

26

mean may reflect a testing situation which encouraged stu—
dents to answer in a socially desirable or internal way.

A further explanation might be that, as Hersh and Schiebe
(1967) suggest, externals tend to be more maladjusted than
internals, but that the decision to ask for psychotherapy
requires at least a minimal belief in one's ability to
affect his own life situation and may be a depressive factor
influencing the mean score for students coming to the

Counseling Center.

SUMMARY

This study examined the effects that a client's
initial internal or external orientation has on the process
and outcome of his psychotherapy. Ratings of each clients'
internal or external orientation were made on two measures:
(1) the Rotter Internal-External Scale and (2) the Kirtner
and Cartwright Typology of Internal vs. External Presenta-
tion of Problem.

The main experimental sample consisted of 21 under-
graduate students receiving personal counseling at the
Michigan State University Counseling Center. Thirteen had
external scores on the Rotter I-E Scale and eight had in-
ternal scores.

The study examined the relation between clients'
scores on the two measures of the internal-external dimen-
sion and (l) the outcome of their therapy, and (2) thera-
pist warmth offered to the client. In addition, scores on
the two measures of internality and externality were com-
pared to determine whether initial in-therapy behavior
could be predicted from scores on the Rotter I-E Scale.
Using an additional 33 Counseling Center clients who also
took the Rotter I-E Scale, a comparison was made between

the mean I-E scores of 54 clients and of 230 students in

27

28

an undergraduate psychology class to test the hypothesis
that students seeking counseling are more external than
the average student population.

Clients took the Rotter I-E Scale prior to their
first therapy interview. Judges rated a tape recording of
each client's initial therapy interview to determine his
Kirtner and Cartwright Typology rating. Therapeutic out-
come was assessed by (l) therapist ratings of client gain
on a 5-point scale, and (2) by changes in the number of
deviant signs score of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
before and after therapy. Therapist warmth offered to the
client was rated from the recorded initial interview using
Carkhuff's Scale for the Measurement of Respect or Positive
Regard in Interpersonal Processes. Ample reliabilities
were established for all ratings.

The results show that clients who behave internally
in their early therapy interviews (1) are more successful,
as measured by both outcome measures, than clients who
behave externally in early interviews, and (2) tend to be
received more warmly by their therapists than external
clients. The data showed no relation between a client's
initial in-therapy behavior as rated on the Kirtner and
Cartwright Typology and his score on the Rotter I-E Scale;
nor did the Rotter I-E scores show any predictable relation
to therapeutic outcome or therapist warmth. Finally, stu-

dents seeking therapy at the Counseling Center did not

29

differ significantly on the Rotter score of the internal-
external orientation from other Michigan State University
students not seeking therapy.

The final section discusses the implications of
the relation between internality and both successful and
unsuccessful outcome of insight-type therapy. Alternative
hypotheses were presented for the trend relating internality
and therapist warmth. Possible explanations were offered
for the random relationship found between clients' scores
on the Rotter I-E Scale and the Kirtner and Cartwright
ratings of early in-therapy behavior. Suggestions were made
for future research on the internal-external dimension in

relation to both behavior and insight therapies.

 

 

 

II.“ I, I
I. I, . v A‘ . J NJI .‘J: I
. . . ‘42,,g‘.
‘4‘... I .3
all": I'll... .1u .. u
I IE1] Elli, .l\. 1 ...
1" III Elsi 1.2. J.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashcraft, C. and Fitts, W. H. Self-concept change in
psychotherapy. 'Psychotherapy, 1964. 1, 115-118.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of therapist response
as causal factors in therapeutic change. Ps -
chological Monographs, 76, No. 43 (whole No. 562),
1962.

Bergin, A. Some implications of psychotherapy research
for therapeutic practice. In G. E. Stollak, B. G.
Guerney, Jr., and M. Rothenberg (eds.), Psycho-
therapy research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 966.

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Scale for measurement of respect or pos-
itive regard in interpersonal processes. 1967.

Cartwright, D. S., Kirtner, W. L., and Fiske, D. W. Method
factors in changes associated with psychotherapy.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963,
66, 164-175.

Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. The approval motive. New
York: John Wiley, 1964.

Fiske, D. W., Cartwright, D. S., and Kirtner, W. L. Are
psychotherapeutic changes predictable? Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, fig, ZIB-
426.

Hersh, P. D. and Schiebe, K. E. Reliability and validity
of internal-external control as a personality
dimension. J. Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31,
6, 609-613.

Lefcourt, H. M. Internal versus external control of rein-
forcement: a review. Psychological Bulletin,
1966,65, 4, 206-220.

Rogers, C. R., Gendlin, E. T. Kiesler, D. J. and Truax,

C. B. The therapeutic relationship and its impact.
Madison, Wisconsin: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, I967.

30

31

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs, 1966, 80, 1-28.

Traux, C. B. and Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective counseling
and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, 1967.

APPENDICES

b.
2. a.
b.
3. a.
b.
4. a.
b.
5. a.
b.
6. a.
b.
7. a.
b.
8. a.
b.

APPENDIX A

Rotter Internal-External Scale*

Children get into trouble because their parents pun-
ish them too much.

The trouble with most children nowadays is that their
parents are too easy with them. (Filler)

Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are
partly due to bad luck.

People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they
make.

One of the major reasons why we have wars is because
people don't take enough interest in politics.

There will always be wars, no matter how hard people
try to prevent them.

In the long run peOple get the respect they deserve
in this world.

Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes
unrecognized no matter how hard he tries.

The idea that teachers are unfair to students is
nonsense.

Most students don't realize the extent to which their
grades are influenced by accidental happenings.

Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective
leader.

Capable peOple who fail to become leaders have not
taken advantage of their opportunities.

No matter how hard you try some peOple just don't
like you.

People who can't get others to like them don't under*
stand how to get along with others.

Heredity plays the major role in determining one's
personality.

It is one's experiences in life which determine what
they're like. (Filler)

 

*External responses are underlined. The score is the total
number of external choices.

32

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

33

I have often found that what is going to happen will
happen.

Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me
as making a decision to take a definite course of
action.

In the case of the well prepared student there is
rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test.
Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated
to course work that studying is really useless.

Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck
has little or nothing to do with it.

Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the
right place at the right time.

The average citizen can have an influence in govern-
ment decisions.

This world is run by the few pe0p1e in power, and
there is not much the little guy can do about it.

When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can
make them work.

It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because
many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad
fortune anyhow.

There are certain people who are just no good.
There is some good in everybody (Filler)

In my case getting what I want has little or nothing
to do with luck.

Many times we might just as well decide what to do
by flipping a coin.

Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was
lucky enough to be in the right place first.
Getting people to do the right thing depends upon
ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us
are the victims of forces we can neither understand,
nor control.

By taking an active part in political and social
affairs the people can control world events.

Most people don't realize the extent to which their
lives are controlled by accidental happenings.
There really is no such thing as "luck."

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

34

One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.
(Filler)

It is hard to know whether or not a person really
likes you.

How many friends you have depends upon how nice a
person you are.

In the long run the bad things that happen to us
are balanced by the good ones.

Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability,
ignorance, laziness, or all three.

With enough effort we can wipe out political cor-
ruption.

It is difficult for people to have much control
over things politicians do in office.

Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive
at the grades they give.

There is a direct connection between how hard I
study and the grades I get.

A good leader expects people to decide for them-
selves what they should do.

A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their
jobs are. (Filler)

Many times I feel that I have little influence over
the things that happen to me.

It is impossible for me to believe that change or
luck plays an important role in my life.

People are lonely because they don't try to be
friendly.

There's not much use in trying too hard to please
people, if they like you, they like you.

There is too much emphasis on athletics in high
school.

Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
(Filler)

What happens to me is my own doing.
Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control
over the direction my life is taking.

Most of the time I can't understand why politicians
behave the way they do.

In the long run the peOple are responsible for bad
government on a national as well as on a local level.

APPEND IX B

Kirtner and Cartwright Typology

 

1. Immediately deals with a feeling-in-relationship
problem and has already somewhat localized a rather specific
source or area of difficulty. Deals very much with what he
says and does, how he acts and feels in situations, and
discusses the interpersonal effects of these. He is quite
internally focused and has a very strong and very apparent
drive to generate and examine impulses, thoughts, ideas,
despite resultant fear, guilt, sadness, etc. The person
orients himself in the therapy situation as if saying:
"This is my response to such-and-such and this is the kind
of situation in which I find myself; now assuming that I
somehow contribute to this situation, I want to alter my
responses and behaviors and resolve or diminish the distur-
bances I feel."

2. Immediately deals with feeling-in-relationship prob-
lems but has not clearly differentiated a specific source
of difficulty. That is, relational difficulties are per-
ceived, but the feelings involved are not understood; no
clear connection with the situation is apparent. There is
strong drive toward clearer differentiation and understanding
of where the source of interpersonal or self-disturbance lies
and how it occurs. There is as well a general concern to
discover just how and where in his disorders he himself is
contributing, and effort is spent in driving himself to look
at generated impulses for his contributions to his undesirable
life situations so that he might change and resolve his dis-
turbances.

3. Vacillates between dealing with relationship prob-
lems and discussing externals and listing attributes of
situations and of others. He may openly exhibit emotional
behavior: e.g. depression, crying, fear, anger, etc. He
may give way to a mood or feeling experience of the moment
but usually expresses or discusses these feelings in terms
of external use rather than in terms of "This is my response
to such and such" (external); though, to repeat, there is
usually a vacillation between expression of mood or emotion
and discussion of it in terms of internal and external
causes. In a word, he vacillates between expressing him-
self about basic feeling and interaction problems and the

35

36

manifestations of those problems in very general terms with-
out definite pointing to his own contributions to situations
and his responsibility in them; and yet shows definite indi-
cations now and then of feeling that he is in some way a
contributor and has some responsibility for the situations.

4. Does not deal with feeling-in-relationship problems
but discusses external manifestations of internal difficul-
ties; or discusses feelings as if they are external objec-
tive things to be intellectually named, labeled, or cate-
gorized (e.g. "I use a lot of attention-getting mechanisms
in social situations"). There is a rigorous intellectual
control of impulses so that they are shunted into structural
categories and explanatory generalities which seem to give
a measure of momentary satisfaction and comfort. Such
dealing, shunting, and applying of generalities appear to
represent problem-resolving activity and are usually fol-
lowed by a similar procedure about another behavioral area.
There is strong avoidance of discussion on the feeling level
of relationships, but listing of attributes of feeling life
may be done intellectually and analytically.

5. Deals with problems as though they are almost en-
tirely external to him. The localization of source of dif-
ficulties is seen to be vaguely "beyond" the person, the
focus being quite external. His approach is almost that
of listing attributes of people and situations, with very
little self-responsibility understood. It is as if at times
the person is attempting to resolve his difficulties by
explaining1flu3people with whom he is involved, disturbed
about, guilty toward, etc. It is sometimes as if he is
saying: "Things should be different, and if they were, I'd
be all right." He often appears to be describing the various
facets of disturbing situations and relationships as if they
are entirely outside him, and as if then waiting for some-
thing to be done about them. Since he focuses the problems
outward, he seems to be asking: "What can be done to change
this so I won't feel disturbed?" The therapy situation thus
seems to be tripolar: the client, the problems, the coun-
selor. There is avoidance of discussion of internal feelings
in relationships, even though feeling may be apparent in
voice tone, gesture, words used, etc.

APPENDIX C

The Communication of Respect in
Interpersonal Processes

 

 

A Scale for Measurement1
Robert R. Carkhuff

State University of New York at Buffalo

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person

communicate a clear lack of respect (or negative regard)

for the second person(s).

Example: The first person communicates to the second person
that the second person's feelings and experiences
are not worthy of consideration or that the second
person is not capable of acting constructively.
The first person may become the sole focus of
evaluation.

In summary, in many ways the first person communicates a

total lack of respect for the feelings, experiences and

potentials of the second person.

Level 2

The first person responds to the second person in such a

way as to communicate little respect for the feelings and

experiences and potentials of the second person.

Example: The first person may respond mechanically or
passively or ignore many of the feelings of the
second person.

In summary, in many ways the first person displays a lack

of respect or concern for the second person's feelings,

experiences and potentials.

Level 3
The first person communicates a positive respect and concern
for the second person's feelings, experiences and potentials.
Example: The first person communicates respect and concern
for the second person's ability to express himself
and to deal constructively with his life situation.
In summary, in many ways the first person communicates that who
the second person is and what he does matters to the first
person. Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of facili-
tative interpersonal functioning.

37

38

Level 4

The facilitator clearly communicates a very deep respect

and concern for the second person.

Example: The facilitator's responses enables the second
person to feel free to be himself and to experience
being valued as an individual.

In summary, the facilitator communicates a very deep caring

for the feelings, experiences and potentials of the second

person.

Level 5

The facilitator communicates the very deepest respect for

the second person's worth as a person and his potentials as

a free individual.

Example: The facilitator cares very deeply for the human
potentials of the second person.

In summary, the facilitator is committed to the value of

the person as a human being.

APPENDIX D

Counselor's Post-Therapy Rating Scale1

Directions: Circle the number (no "in between" ratings
please) which best describes the client.
Please try to rate every item even though your
judgment may be quite tentative. However, if
you feel you have no basis at all for making
a rating, you may circle the "x" at the right
of each item.

1. Your estimate of how much this client did gain from

 

counseling.
1 2 3 4 5 X
Little or Below Average Above Markedly
No Gain Average Gain Average Above
Gain Gain Average

Gain

 

1Only the scale which was used in this research is reproduced

here.

39

APPENDIX E

Raw Data for the Counseling Center Subjects

 

TSCS NDS

S SexCl I-E KCT I W SexCo MC SDS Pre Post D

 

 

 

 

 

1 M 16 3.6 5 3.31 F 16 33 27

2 F 16 4.0 4 3.00 M - 4 4

3 F 14 3.5 13 3.10 M 9 14 17 -3

4 F 13 1.4 7 3.81 F 8 9 10 -1

5 F 14 4.0 4 3.00 M - 4 - -

6 F 14 1.9 9 3.60 M 42 29 13

7 F 13 2.1 9 3.63 F 6 46 6 40

8 F 15 3.5 15 3.18 F 16 28 13 15

9 F 16 2.3 6 4.20 M 3 40 3 37
10 F 15 1.8 15 3.50 M - 28 9 19
11 F 13 3.3 17 3.71 F 8 - - —
12 M 21 3.3 23 2.80 M 5 40 38 2
13 F 14 3.1 4 3.40 F - 29 5 24
Mean 14.92 2.91 10.1 3.40 8.77 13.82
SD .84 .40 4.25 14.30
14 M 5 2.7 8 3.60 F 29 10 19
15 F 5 3.6 6 3.70 M 27 14 13
16 F 7 3.5 5 3.75 F 23 10 - —
17 F 7 2.6 7 3.70 F 6 12 - -
18 F 6 3.4 12 3.50 M 23 5 3 2
19 F 7 2.1 16 3.56 M - 21 4 17
20 M 6 3.2 4 2.80 M 23 11 6 5
21 F 0 2.1 2 2.80 F 16 17 7 10
Mean 5.38 2.90 7.5 3.43 15.28 11.0
SD .57 .35 7.32 6.1

 

4O

SexCo
MC SDS
TSCS NDS

Pre
Post
D

SD

41
Abbreviations for Appendix E

subject

sex of client

male

female

Rotter Internal-External Scale

Kirtner and Cartwright Typology

number of interviews

mean rating of therapist warmth

sex of counselor

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Number of Deviant
Signs Score

pre-therapy TSCS NDS
post-therapy TSCS NDS

difference between pre and post-therapy NDS
scores

standard deviation

data not available

 

noummmmm MHQB mm.v mm.oa .QEou omm HMDGOSHHmmxm msouw mumum cmmflnoflz

 

oo.¢ Nv.m m moo
mm.m ma.m 2 mum
moma .Hmuuom hm.m mN.m .QEOU omHH Hmucmfiflummxm QDOHU OUMDm OH£O
monsom mm cme xmm z mGOHuflosou mcwpmme mamamm

 

 

.huwmum>flso
mumum smmHSOHz um paw huflmno>flsa mumum owno pm musmpopm mmoaonowmm muwpsmEmHm
mom monoom mamom assumpxmuamsmmucH Hmuuom mo.ms0Hu6H>mo pumpcmum 6cm mommz

m XHszmmd

42

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

APPENDIX G

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifica-
tions of all candidates.

I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone
in trouble.

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if
I am not encouraged.

I have never intensely disliked anyone.

On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to
succeed in life.

I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way.
I am always careful about my manner of dress.

My table manners at home are as good as when I eat
out in a restaurant.

If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure
I was not seen I would probably do it.

On a few occasions, I have given up doing something
because I thought too little of my ability.

I like to gossip at times.
There have been times when I felt like rebelling
against people in authority even though I knew they

were right.

No matter whom I'm talking to, I'm always a good
listener.

I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something.

There have been occasions when I took advantage of
someone.

43

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

44

I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
I always try to practice what I preach.

I don't find it particularly difficult to get along
with loud mouthed, obnoxious people.

I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and
forget.

When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting
it.

I am always courteous, even to people who are disagree-
able.

At times I have really insisted on having things my
own way.

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing
things.

I would never think of letting someone else be punished
for my wrongdoing.

I never resent being asked to return a favor.

I have never been irked when people expressed ideas
very different from my own.

I never make a long trip without checking the safety
of my car.

There have been times when I was quite jealous of the
good fortune of others.

I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.

I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of
me.

I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they
only got what they deserved.

I have never deliberately said something that hurt
someone's feelings.

"IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIII“