mm "5
‘nw. .

Hymn“ A39 an. a” J ...:
a ... o... .
... f a. . m -
.‘ av... . . . .I .-
5 w a ....ulu AC”. “. pv

" ..I “N.“ 9.1.. . '9 "tv
3.. a e m.” . G;
0:94 N L/ 2 b u

1.. n0

‘5"
’1

Jam u:
f?»
‘.
v
t-
‘
...
3
\
b

”Jun“. 6‘

A .,. p... .. . an" n. u ”...... w 3

”up. \. . ...fl .. i ad 2 fig.“ 3“
.. .. awn “ .8 «.1 L f u

3‘!" P
c o".
. f ‘
L . 3
8 {'(‘P.
9
l L
'
h
9
1-.
C“ "
\ ‘
..-
b

2
WV '
P“
U

.3

Q

U

h: . p
Q U .u . A0...“ D «1.. ”Quovml
. P. .9 a . c a.
fl d u“ {0'0 o a on . ch.
A: H I '11:...“ h ‘ ..{COv “It” r
. 3a“\ 0. —.=H N‘U ”1ft...” ‘hfi.
‘1! o ‘i ”0.03 0.4.... in ‘1‘- ”.o I.
C \ ‘ .’ ... .v‘..
we: 3, . .3. .4 my. ’ ..
.42...” N. .....w. Rm.” in... .
o . a ”P: K.- W U
Q. . .b I
Q... a a...
”w » ...... a
0 n . . I.
A w . - .
a. ..i
A ». -
5......
. «Iva

2:g:£31:E_:____:53_:_::_:_::___:_fi

 

'WWWMW

 

 

ABSTRACT

CHANGES IN ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF T-GROUPS

BY

Marta Teresa Suplicy

This study concerned how changes in Self-Acceptance
(SA) and in the Acceptance of Others (AO) outside of a T-
group laboratory related to changes inside the lab. From
data assembled by Force (1969) when studying an intensive
eight day sensitivity training lab, Hurley and Force (1973)
found substantial outside gains on measures of SA and A0.

Fifty participants were formed into five T-groups
each led by co-trainer teams. Five weeks before the lab and
again about six months afterwards data packets including ten
personality measures were posted to the participants. They
were requested to pass nearly identical data packets to a
personal "intimate" and to a job colleague of their choice
at the prelab time, while at six months postlab similar packets
were mailed to these parties. On the lab's second and seventh
days the participants made various ratings of all members of
their individual T-group, including themselves.

From Forcefs (1969) several measures, this study

utilized the Okay—-not Okay (Self and Others) rating scales,

‘A/6NQQQ) Marta Teresa Suplicy
Openness,{g:ta Seeking, and Data Giving scales, and form X
of the Person Description Instrument (Harrison and Oshry,
1965) which yielded semantic differential scales of Inter-
personal Warmth and Acceptance, Power and Effectiveness in
Work, and Activity and Expressiveness. The Interpersonal
Warmth and Acceptance and the Self Ok--not OK measures both
correlated significantly with a marker measure of the
Acceptance-Rejection of Others: the Love-Hate factor of
LaForge and Suczek's (1955) Interpersonal Check List.
Similarly, the ICLSorthogonal Dominance-Submission factor
was taken as a marker measure of Self-Acceptance, and found
to correlate significantly with Force‘s six other scales.
'_Both these SA and A0 measures showed clear evidence of
divergent and convergent validity. The sum of scores on the
SA and A0 component scales were used as the principal vari-
ables.

Product-moment correlations were determined between
the Internal (Day 2 and Day 7) versus External (prelab and
postlab) SA and A0 measures. These data confirmed the inde-
pendence of SA and A0 in that 13 of the 48 SA and A0 correla-
tions of External versus Internal scores were significant as
contrasted with only two of the 48 SA versus AO correlations.
Consistently lower agreement between observers at postlab
than at prelab was a puzzling feature of the External data.

Within the lab the pooled descriptions of partici-
pants by other T—group members were more stable than the

participant's self-reports. Correlations between the

Marta Teresa Suplicy

participant's self-reports of SA outside versus inside the
lab were small. The T-group reports showed more agreement
with the prelab and postlab SA data than did the self-reports,
although the inverse pattern obtained for the AO correlations.

The Internal versus External AO correlations for
participant's self-reports were notably higher than their SA
counterparts, suggesting that the lab was less disruptive to
A0. It seemed puzzling that Day 2 data for both T-group
reports and self-reports tended to correlate more highly with
the External reports than did Day 7 data.

The relationships among the External and Internal
measures of change (Table 4) were very limited. The External
change data showed little agreement among participants, their
intimates, and colleagues for SA or A0. There was fair agree-
ment that External SA and A0 gains were linked (£_= .51) when
data from the three classes of External observers was pooled.

The Internal data showed substantial agreement

(3 = .64) about SA changes between self-reports and the

reports of the T-group units but little AO agreement (E = .12).
SA and A0 changes were linked by both participants (r = .46)
and T-groups (£_= .66). The strongest relationship (E = .30)

between Internal and External changes was for SA as reported
by all external observers versus within-lab reports from the
participant's. Only three of sixteen correlations between

Internal and External SA or A0 gain scores surpassed the .10

level using the one-tailed test.

Marta Teresa Suplicy

The increased linkage between SA and A0 at postlab
over-prelab and the larger Day 7 than Day 2 correlations of
SA with A0, plus the larger intercorrelations among all
measures of SA and A0 at postlab than at prelab, deserve
further attention. Also, the greater increment observed in
SA than in A0 suggests that more attention be given to lab
programs which address these dimensions separately. The
prelab assessment of participants positions on these dimen-
sions could be used to assign the individual to a program
designed to provide enrichment in that area.

Limitations of the raw gain score approach to the
measurement of change became evident in this study. Sugges-
tions were offered for the use of more sophisticated change
measures as described by Cronbach and Furby (1970), and also,
toward the development of more behaviorally oriented and

nonstatistical approaches to the assessment of change.

  

Approved: .2/23/73

 

hairman

  

ohn R. Hurley,

 

Carl F. Frost

 

Bertran P.;iaron

CHANGES IN ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS

INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF T-GROUPS

BY

Marta Teresa Suplicy

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1973

To Eduardo

who made everything possible

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. John Hurley.
Without his trust in my capacity I would not have had the
opportunity of becoming a student here. I am thankful to
his non-threatening way, patience and encouragement in
dealing with my difficulties in the thesis and, more than
anything else, I am grateful to his contribution to my dis-
covery of self and growth as a person. I also wish to
thank Dr. Carl Frost for introducing me to the university
and serving on my committee.

Maria do Carmo Vale was of inestimable help. 'With
love and a constant good humor she took excellent care of
my children during my studying hours and relieved many of
my guilty feelings.

I wish to thank Eduardinho and Andre for sharing,
sometimes very gracefully, their mommy with so many books.

To Mom and Dad and Mena and Paulo for being such

wonderful parents.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . .
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . .
III. METHOD. . . . . . . . . .
Design. . . . . . . . .
Trainers . . . . . . . .

Measures . . . . . . . .
Validity of Measures . . . .

IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . .
An Overview of the External and

Changes. . . . . . . .
Relationships Among the External

Internal SA and A0 Measures .
Relationships Among External and

Internal Measures of Change .

V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . .
Measures of SA and A0. . . .

Changes in SA and A0 . . . .
The Problems of Measuring Change
Suggestions for Future Research

VI. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX. . . . . . Q . . . . .

iv

Internal

Page
ii

iii

vi

10
19
20
21
21
26

31

31
33
39
42
42
43
44
46
50
53

58

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Product-moment Correlations Between Components

of SA and A0 and the Two ICL Marker

Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Product-moment Correlations Within the

Components of SA and A0 at Prelab and

Postlab O I O O O I O O C O O O 28
3. Internal versus External Product-moment

Correlation of Self-Acceptance and

Acceptance of Others . . . . . . . . 34
4. Product-moment Correlations Among Change

Measures (External and Internal) . . . . 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Interpersonal Competence. . . . . . . . 4
2. Participants' Self-Reported Mean Scores on
PDIX Scales at Four Points in Time
0 O O O 32

(51:46). . . ..

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

"The major differences between mental illness and
mental health are to be found in the characteristic fre-
quency, intensity, and nature of interpersonal acts"
(Adams, 1964, pp. 191-197). The central goal of the group
movement seems to be the development of the capacity to
interact constructively with others, i.e., the develOpment

of Interpersonal Competence. Empirical data, rather than

 

theoretical speculations, suggest that the interaction
between persons can be conceptualized within the following
systematic frame of reference: the bipolar dimensions of
acceptance versus rejection of the self and others.

In a review of the empirical studies dealing with
the understanding of interpersonal conduct, Foa (1961) was
impressed by the "strong convergence" of thinking and
results toward a simple ordered structure for the organiza-
tion of interpersonal behavior. He states that the find-
ings "suggest a circumplex structure around the two
orthogonal axes of Dominance-Submission and Love-Hostility"
(p. 352). Foa wrote that an "interpersonal act is an
attempt to establish the emotional relationship of the
actor toward himself and toward the other person, as well

1

as to establish the social relationship of the self and
other with respect to a larger reference group." Also,
". . . an action is meaningful toward the other in terms
of dominance, submission, love, hostility, but it is like—
wise meaningful toward the self"(Foa, 1958; Foa and Zacks,
1959).

More recently Adams (1964) reviewed extensive
empirical evidence which also suggests that the acceptance
versus rejection of the self and acceptance versus
rejection of others constitute the two salient dimension.
of interpersonal relationships. "Each type of behavior is
meaningful toward the self and the other person (p. 195).
In discussing the major second-order factors which he
found to underlie intercorrelations among a wide variety
of personality measures, Peterson (1965) observed that
they ". . . appear to represent rather broad concepts of
the self and others . . ." and ". . . one should speak of
attitudes toward the self and other objects."

.As viewed by Adams one pole of the Dominance-
Submission axis is defined by acts of self-confident,
assertive leadership and achievement in the face of
obstacles and at the opposite pole are acts of passivity,
submissiveness, and acquiescence.s The Affection-Hostility
axis reflects the degree of positive (warm, friendly, kind

acts) or negative (critical, hostile, angry acts) affect

manifested toward others.

"The Dominance-Submission axis defines the degree
of acceptance or rejection of self while the Affection-
Hostility axis defines the degree of acceptance or
rejection of the other" (p. 195, italics added). Adams
noted that these two dimensions have repeatedly been used
in comprehensive schemas for caLegorizing all personality
types since the time of Hyppocrates. It has been present
in the formulations of Galen, Kant, Wundt, Herbart, and
Pavlov among others. The polarities of love-hate, sex-
aggression, and Eros-Thanatos, identified by Freud (Lear;,
1957, pp. 71-72), are comparable to Foa's Affection-
Hostility dimension. Schaefer (1959) found that these two
dimensions account for many of the relationships among many
narrower measures of maternal-child interaction.

In a similar vein, Berne (1966), sees four basic
"life positions" for the individual. Each position has
certain connotations of action and can be used to predict
the behavior of the individual in an interpersonal
situation.

1. I am OK you are OK--this position is
intrinsically constructive.

2. I am OK you are not OK--this individual
will be essentially paranoid and suspicious.

3. I am not OK you are OK--depressive, self-
punitive behavior.

4. I am not OK you are not OK--schizoid.

.H musmflm

 

moz<hamood mam—LPG 20:05me
W . 304 20:0mfiwm
"To 3: 96 so» \\
n /V/
. ,v.
To 96 so» n .99
1x0 6: Eom " :mvv
.b/V ..xo .9. Eu.
............ > 33-53:..- .—
o . u
.3 .
To So :39“ "To 6: So so»
\WJ¢ “v.0 So am ..xo Eo .m—
\ u
10.: n L. 323.1304

 

These dimensions served as the foundation of
Harris' (1967) popular do-it-yourself psychiatric text,

I'm OK You're OK. Also, Berne's "positions" seem con-

 

gruent with the four classic temperaments of Sanguine,
Choleric, Melancholic and Phlegmatic. Lorr, Bishop and
McNair (1965) confirmed the identity of four similar
personality types in three samples of nonpsychotic patients
in psychotherapy.

The works of Foa (1961), Schaefer (1961), Adams
(1964), Peterson (1965), and Bierman (1969) show that one
dimension plainly concerns responses to other persons.

Since Symonds (1939) named it rejection a diversity
of similar labels have been created: affiliation-hostility
(Freedman, Ossorio, Leary and Coffey, 1951); positive-
negative (Chance, 1954); loving-rejection (Roe, 1957) and
acceptance-rejection (Bierman, 1969).

Less agreement is found in the labeling of the
second dimension. Symonds (1939) labeled it dominance-
submission, as did Freedman 23.3i' (1951). Chance and
Bierman called it activity—passivity. Schaefer (1961)
tagged this dimension as autonomy-control within the
realm of maternal behavior but as extraversion-intraversion
for social and emotional behaviors of children.

The precedents considerations led Hurley (1972) to
suggest that Other-Acceptance/Rejection is a noncontro-
versial label for the first prepotent dimension. For the

second dimension he notes that the behaviors represented by

the different labels appear to reflect a broad social and
emotional acceptance of the self which facilitates outward
expression (active, autonomous, dominant, extraverted,

I am OK, etc.) as contrasted with the self-rejecting denial
of such expressions (passive, controlled, submissive,
.introverted, I am not OK, etc.) associated with the
opposite pole.

Hurley also observes that although LaForge and
Suczek (1955) express no awareness of the Self-Acceptance/
Rejection implications in their Interpersonal Check List,
the positive self-references align exclusively with the
Dominance ("self—reSpecting," "self-confident," and "self-
reliant and assertive) pole but negative self-referent
terms ("always ashamed of self," "self-punishing" and
"lacks self-confidence") with the Submissive pole.

From these several bases, Hurley and Force (1971a)
created a figure in which interpersonal competence and
mental health are assumed to be directly reflected by
the vector which bisects the quadrants of acceptance of
self and others and rejection of the self and others, as
reproduced in Figure 1. "This, the product of self
acceptance rejection (Self-Acceptance) times other
acceptance-rejection (Other-Acceptance) appear an
appropriate and promising indicator of interpersonal

competence" (p. 2).

As proposed by Adams, Foa and the above authors,
interpersonal competence is encompassed by two orthogonal
axis: Dominance-Submissiveness (Self-Acceptance), Love-
Hostility (Other-Acceptance). An increase in self
acceptance does not necessarily produce an increase in
acceptance of others. This point is strongly supported
by the data obtained by Hurley and Force (1971a) in an
eight-days "human relations" laboratory. The fifty partici-
pants were described by self-report and by one intimate
and one colleague on ten personality variables at five
weeks prelab and six months postlab.

Through the analysis of the product-moment correla-
tions among the ten measures for the participants, the
intimates, and the colleagues, both prelab and postlab,
Hurley and Force (1971b) found that the differences among
thethree sets of intercorrelations (participants versus
intimates, participants versus colleagues, and colleagues
versus intimates) did not permit rejection of the null
hypothesis of no overall difference among these sets of
correlations. Consequently, these prelab and postlab
data were separately pooled. "Each pool yielded two
identical clusters, Self-Acceptance and Other-Acceptance"
(p. 5).

In the self-acceptance cluster each of the seven
variables (Openness, Data Seeking, Data Giving, How Ok I

Am, Power and Effectiveness in Work, Activity and

Expressiveness, and Dominance-Submissiveness) were
positively intercorrelated at beyond the .05 level with
all others except for prelab Power and Effectiveness. In
the other-acceptance cluster the three variables (How OK
I Think Others Are, Interpersonal Warmth, and Love-Hate)
intercorrelated positively and significantly at both pre—
lab and postlab. "Total scores on each cluster inter-
correlated -.06 at prelab and -.05 at postlab. Over the
seven months interval from prelab to postlab, the Self-
Acceptance total scores correlated .76 (p < .001) and
total Other-Acceptance scores correlated .82 (p < .001)"
(pp- 5-6).

These findings further support the independence
of the dimensions of acceptance-rejection of the self
(Self-Acceptance) and of others (Other-Acceptance).

However, authors such as Horney, Maslow, Jourard,
Yalom, Fromm, Gibb, Roqers, consider these two variables
(Self-Acceptance and Other-Acceptance) as dependent upon
each other.' This dependency implies that other-acceptance
emerges from self-acceptance and that there is a positive
relation between the acceptance of self and the acceptance
of others. This implication appears incongruent with the
Hurley and Force (1971a, b) data. Hurley and Force found
significant gains on both dimensions (Self-Acceptance and
Other-Acceptance) but the overall gain in Other-Acceptance

was much smaller (only 1/11) than that in Self-Acceptance.

Working with data from the same lab, this study is con-
cerned with the changes in self-acceptance and acceptance
of others within the lab experience.

The purpose of this study is to ascertain how
changes observed inside (Internal) of the lab on these two
dimensions are related to the External (postlab minus
prelab scores) changes previously described by Hurley and

Force.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The relationship between the individual's concept
of self and his concept of others has been of concern to
many authors, including Fromm, Horney, Jourard, Maslow,
Gibb, Argyris, Yalom, Rogers and Sullivan. Additional
writers and researchers have explored this topic in more
specific ways by focusing on the relationship between
self-acceptance and acceptance of others.

From the work of the above authors a dependency
between acceptance of self and acceptance of others can
be inferred. The works of Rubin, Omwake, StoCk, and
Sheerer empirically describe their understanding of a
relationship between these two variables. Stock and
Sheerer (1949) demonstrated that the way a person feels
about himself relates positively to the way he feels
about others. The studies conducted by Omwake (1954)
and Rubin (1967) also support the idea that those who
accept themselves tend to be acceptant of others and to
perceive others as accepting themselves; those who reject
themselves hold a correspondingly low opinion of others,

and perceive others as being self-rejectant.

10

11

These authors, although homogeneously understand-
ing self-acceptance and acceptance of others as dependent
variables, hold divergent viewpoints as to which of these
two variables precedes the other. Sullivan, Yalom, Rogers,
Miller, Argyris,and Maslow seem to consider the acceptance
by others as an essential requisite for the development
of self-regard. They emphasize that self-concept develops
as the result of direct experience with the environment
and may also incorporate the perceptions of others. Writ-
ing about Rogers, Mischel (1971) points out that "the
interpretation of the self--as strong or weak, for
example--affects how one perceives the rest of one's
world" (p. 94). Maslow postulates that a child must feel
accepted so that he can be spontaneous, curious, explora-
tory,and move toward growth. Parents must maintain such
an atmosphere of love and safety so that the child is not
forced to choose between the needs of others and his own
self. By being able to move towards self-actualization
the child will be more acceptant of others which should
also facilitate movement toward further growth by these
others.

Gibb, Fromm, Omwake, Horney,and Jourard seem to
describe self-acceptance as preceding acceptance of
others. They all assert that the person who does not love

himself is incapable of loving others.

12

A refinement on Miller's self-identity theory is
presented by Sherwood (1965). He understands that self-
identity (self-evaluation) is made up of cognitions based
upon the individual's perceptions of how others perceive
him. Sherwood's major proposition is that the individual's
self-identity is a function of subjective public identity
which is, in turn, a function of objective public identity.
He calls subjective public identity the perceptions by El
of his objective public identity; he calls objective public
identity the perceptions by referent Os of PS. Sherwood's

results showed self-identity to be dependent upon the indi—

vidual's subjectively held version of the peer group's

 

actual ratings of him. As subjective public identity and
subjective public evaluation change, there is a tendency
for self-identity and self-evaluation to change in the
same direction. Sherwood states that these patterns of
change in self-identity are dependent upon: (a) the dif—
ferential importance of various peers for the individual;
(b) the extent to which peer perceptions were communicated
to him; and (c) the individual's degree of involvement in
the group.

Jourard seems preeminent among those who have

focused their attention on the relationship between the

 

1O is used to designate a person other than the
person under discussion, who is designated P.

13

self and others. Jourard (1963) states that ". . . alien—
ation from one's real self not only arrests one's growth

as a person; it also tends to make a farce out of one's
relationship with people" (p. 26). He points out that "The
greater the discrepancy between my unexpurgated real self
and the version of myself that I present to others, then
the more dangerous will other people be for me" (p. 26).

Jourard (1964) identifies self-disclosure as
symptom of personality health. By stating that "when a
person has been able to disclose himself utterly to anotrer
person, he learns how to increase his contact with his
real self" (p. 5), Jourard is assuming that this close—
ness to the self leads to an increase in self-acceptance.
By stating that "no man can come to know himself except
as an outcome of disclosing himself to another person"

(p. 5). Jourard suggests a dependency between self-
acceptance ("know himself") and acceptance of others
("disclosing himself").

Maslow (1968) distinguished between deficiency
motivation and growth motivation. He posits that every-
one has basic needs for safety and security, belonging-
ness and affection, respect and self-respect, and self-
actualization. Deficiency motivation serves to satisfy
these needs; it avoids illness but does not create posi-

tive mental health. Growth is the process which brings

14

a person toward ultimate self-actualization. It is
tension-seeking in character.

Maslow believes that self—actualizing people have
the following characteristics: 1

1. Superior perception of reality.

2. Increased acceptance of self, of others and
of nature.

3. Increased spontaneity, expressiveness; alive-
ness.

4. Increased problem-centering (i.e., on a task).
5. Increased detachment and desire for privacy.

6. Increased autonomy and resistance to encul-
turation.

7. Greater freshness of appreciation, and
richness of emotional reaction.

8. Higher frequency of peak experiences.

9. Increased identification with the human species.
10. Changed or improved interpersonal relations.
11. More democratic character structure.
12. Greatly increased creativity.

13. Increased honesty, awareness, freedom, and
trust.

Maslow states that "what healthy people choose is
on the whole what is 'good for them' in biological terms
certainly, but perhaps also in other senses" ["good for
them" here means "conducing to their and others' self
actualization"] (p. 169). Since self-actualizing people

live towards self-actualization, we can assume that a

15

step toward self—actualization implies an increase in all
13 characteristics, among them acceptance of self and
others (#2).

Horney (1939) and Fromm (1963) make a distinction
between narcissistic and more mature self—love. They
assert that rather than being identical, the two dimensions
are opposites. "According to my view, a person with narCIsw
sistic trends is alienated from self as well as from others;
and hence, to the extent that he is narcissistic he is
incapable of loving either himself or anyone else" (Horney,
1939, p. 100).

Horney and Fromm suggest that an individual who
is narcissistic loves neither himself nor the others.

They also contend that an individual must love himself

in order to be able to love others, "The love for my own
self is inseparably connected with the love for any other
being" (Fromm, 1956, p. 49). "Granted that love for one—
self and for others in principle is conjunctive. . . ."
(Fromm, 1956, p. 50).

Fromm states that his ideas on self—love "cannot
be summarized better than by quoting Meister Eckhart on
this topic: 'If you love yourself, you love everybody
else as you do yourself. . . .'" (Fromm, 1956, p. 53).
This view implies that love of others is dependent upon

the love of the self.

16'

Yalom (1971) seems to agree with Fromm's statement
that "only after one is able to love himself is he able to
love others," but importantly adds "that only after he has
once been loved and accepted will he be able to love him-
self" (Yalom, 1971, p. 46).

By asserting that an individual who does not love
himself is incapable of loving others, Horney, Fromm, and
Yalom describe a strong bond between self—acceptance and
the acceptance of others.

Interpersonalist authors such as Sullivan (1953)
and Rogers (1951) agree with the above point by stating
that self—acceptance must be preceded by acceptance of
others. Sullivan considers the self as a build up of
the "reflected appraisals of others" (p. 117). He sees
the process of self-evaluation as beginning in early
childhood as verbal labels are acquired. Rogers (1951)
believes that "as a result of interaction with the
environment and particularly as a result of evaluational
interaction with others, the structure of self is formed"
(p. 498).

Close to this view is Miller's analysis of identity
and self-esteem. He emphasizes the interdependence between
self-esteem (the individual's evaluation of his identity)
and public esteem (the group's evaluation of the worth of
that aspect of his identity germane to that particular

group). Self-esteem refers to the individual's conception

17

of what he is really like, what he is really worth, and
is indissolubly linked to his experience in social rela-
tionships (Yalom, p. 46).

Argyris (1962) also seems to view acceptance of
self as dependent upon the acceptance of others. He
suggests that in order to receive nonevaluative feedback
the individual must be accepting of his self and others.
"As his acceptance of self and others increases, his need
to make evaluative feedback tends to decrease" (p. 190).

Writing about unresolved feelings of fear and
distrust Gibb (1964) states, "They are apparently rooted
in lack of acceptance of the self and consequent lack of
acceptance of others" (p. 284). This statement clearly
proposes a dependency between the two variables.

Rubin (1967) demonstrated the importance of self-
acceptance for the acceptance of others in the abstract
sense in a research which studied fifty individuals before
and after an intensive two-week T—group laboratory. He
found out that increased self-acceptance, measured by a
sentence completion test, was significantly correlated
with increased acceptance of others, measured by a question-
naire focusing on changes in racial prejudice.

Sheerer (1949) demonstrated changes in acceptance
of the self and correlated changes in the acceptance of
others occurring in ten counseling cases during client

centered therapy. Similar results were obtained by

18

Stock (1949) in the analyses of ten cases conducted accord~
ing to the principles of nondirective therapy. Her results
also indicate that a definite relationship exists between
the way an individual feels about himSelf and the way he
feels about other persons.

Katharine Omwake (1954) attempted to test the
assumption that there is a positive relation between the
acceptance of self and acceptance of others in a normal
population. She used three unpublished tests which
agreed closely for attitudes toward self-acceptance; those
for attitudes toward others agreed less well.1 The
results supported her hypothesis that there is a marked

relation between the way an individual sees himself and

the way he sees others.

 

1The tests are: Berger's (1952) scale for Self—
acceptance and Acceptance of others, Phillips (1951)
questionnaire on Attitudes Toward the Self and Others and
the Index of Adjustment and Values by Bills, Vans and
McLean (1951).

CHAPTER III

METHOD

This study used the data collected by Elizabeth

Force for her Ph.D. dissertation at Michigan State Universixy.

The data came from an intensive eight day sensitivity train—
ing lab whose goal was the enhancement of the participants'
interpersonal competence. This end was pursued through
pointing up one's strengths and limitations in interpersonal
communicative skills and emphasizing feedback.

All subjects were recruited through the State of
Michigan Training Laboratories, Inc. There were fifty
participants, 33 males and 17 females. Their occupational
breakdown was: five pastors or priests, one curriculum
consultant, two professors, four school counselors, five
school principles, one art coordinator, one psychiatrist,
two caseworkers, eleven students in psychology or social
work, two housewives, one director of marketing, fourteen
junior or senior high school teachers and two school super—
intendents. The fee for participants was $200 tuition plus
$65 for room and board. Partial scholarships were granted
to five graduate students and faculty members. Sponsoring

organizations payed more than half of the participants fee.

19

20

Also included in the study.was a potential group of
100 observers. This group was picked by the participants

to include one intimate and one colleague for each particigart.

Design

Data packets containing ten personality measures
were distributed by mail to all lab participants, both
about five weeks before the lab and again about six months
afterwards. At these times, the participants were requested
to pass nearly identical data packets to a personal "inti—
mate" and to a job colleague of their choice. All data
packets were posted directly to the researchers rather than
being returned to the participants. Prelab packets were
received from 48 Participants, 48 Intimates and 46 Colleagues.
Postlab packets were returned by 48 Participants, 41 Inti—
mates and 38 Colleagues. The content of these data packets
was not made available to T—group trainers.

Within the lab, the fifty Participants were assigned
to ten member T—groups in a manner which minimized the degree
of prior acquaintance and tended to balance the male-female
ratio within each T-group.

On the second and seventh days during the lab-period
the Participants were requested to make various ratings of
all members of their individual T-groups including themselves.
The rating scales included Openness (0), Data Seeking (DS),

Data Giving (DG), Okay-not Okay (Self and Others),

21

Self—Disclosure (SD), Feedback—Seeking (FS), Liking (L),
Time (T) spent with g and the Person Description Instru—
ment X (PDIX). For the PDIX each member rated himself and
only four members of his T-group--the two he liked best an“
the two he liked the least.

The Interpersonal Check List (ICL), the written
description of change item, and the Instrument Change
Scales, which were used as either prelab, postlab or both
prelab and postlab were excluded from these within lab
ratings due to time limitations. Also, the measures of ?,
SD, and FS were used only within the lab. Within the lab,
a nine point rating scale was used for the OK scales
instead of the seven point scale used before and after the

lab.

Trainers
Throughout all these T-group sessions the trainers
worked in pairs. The pairings were generally made to link
individuals with different backgrounds and across sexes.
Each pair consisted of a senior partner and, generally, a
less experienced cotrainer. All senior trainers were Ph.D.
and the cotrainers included two Ph.D's and three persons

with education at least equivalent to the M.A. degree level.

Measures
Force's criteria for selecting instruments was
based on their predicted ability to reflect communicative

and interpersonal changes as the lab progressed, and to

22

reflect changes which transferred to the back home situa—

tion.

OK and OK Scales
s o

 

These two scales were derived from Eric Berne's
(1966) theory of four positions in reference to self and
others. They measure one's general‘positive or negative

perception of oneself and others. Each consists of a bi-

J

polar scale anchored by "okay" versus "not okay" separatec

M

by nine point scale (within the lab) or a seven point scale
(prelab and postlab) (see Appendix A, p. ). Scores at
the low end of the scale reflect "not okay" perceptions,
while high scores reflect "okay" perceptions.

In order to score the test Force translated the
checked responses into their numerical equivalents and
recorded on a summary sheet. Decimals were used to more
accurately identify responses when appropriate.

This instrument was used to detect the changes in
one's perception of oneself and others. Force's (1969)
findings contain the only information about the validity
and reliability of these two measures. She found rather
limited prelab to postlab (about seven months) stability
in these measures across the three classes of observers
as indicated by the following product-moment correlations:
For OKS r = .29, £1 = .57, and r = .53; for OKO

“p C

'Ep = .11, £1 = .38, and EC = .33. Plainly these measures

did not show nearly the stability over this interval as

23

the more complex and established ICL measures (.83) and
(.79). Force (1969) concludes that "less consistancy can
be expected from the simple rating scales" (p. 63). With—
in the lab the Day 2 Versus Day 7 stability coefficient

of these measures, based upon the Participant's self—

reports were: OKs = .24 and OKO = .13. The corresponding
correlations for T-group reports were: OKS = .62 and
OK = .32.

0

General Behavior Rating Scales (0, DS, and DC)

This instrument consists of three scales: openness,
data seeking and data giving. The openness and data seeking
scales were developed by Hurley (personal communication,
1968) and revised by Force (1969) in order to include a
measure of data giving.

This instrument measures how open the individual
is in terms of here and now experiences in the group, how
much data he seeks and how much data he gives to other
members of the group. It consists of separate nine point
scales for openness, data seeking, and data giving, with low
scores indicating low degrees of each variable, the high
scores indicating high degrees of each variable (see Appen-
dix A, p. ).

At prelab and postlab Participants were asked to
rate themselves considering a broader environment (groups,
people at work, intimate relations, etc.) than at within-lab,

where they were asked to rate themselves focusing exclusively

24

upon more delineated behaviors of only other members of
their own T—group. These instructional differences between
the External (prelab and postlab) and Internal (Day 2 and
7) administrations were explicitly given for the 0, DS, a:«
DG rating scales. While this instructional difference was
not used for the next test instrument (the PDIX), scores

on the latter instrument may also have been indirectly
influenced by the general response set involved by these

other instructions.

The Person Description Instrument Form X (PDIX)

 

The PDIX was developed by Harrison (1962, 1965,
1966) to study interpersonal perception in small groups or
organizations. It consists of three scales: Interpersonal
Warmth and Acceptance (IWA), Power and Effectiveness in
Work (PEW), and Activity and Expressiveness (A&E), each
based on nine bipolar items. The poles were separated hy
numbers 1-6 with nine dots between each number to permit
decimal scoring (see Appendix A, p. ).

Although Harrison and Oshry's (1965) prior work
suggested that these scales were factorially independent, in
Force's study the latter two scales (PEW and A&E) correlated
significantly with each other and also with ICL Dom, a
marker for SA. Consequently, both were identified with
the SA dimension.

This measure was expected to detect changes as tte

lab progresses, and also to check on whether these were

25

maintained after the lab. In order to score the PDIX the
nine items for each scale were separately summed.

Within the lab the Participants received the same
instructions as outside the lab (prelab and postlab) for
describing themselves on the PDIX. However, the T-group
reports were derived from a special instruction requesting
each member to use the PDIX to describe "the two persons
in your T-group whom you like most and also the two whom
you like least." Unless at least two other T—group members
described the individual on Day 2 or Day 7, this measure
was considered incomplete for that person. Clearly there
was a considerable likelihood that either positive or nega—

tive bias would influence these T-group reported PDIX scores.

The Interpersonal Check List (ICL)

 

This test was used as a source of marker measures
for SA and A0. It consisted of an 132 item inventory—-
based on Leary's theory (LaForge and Suczek, 1955; LaForge,
l963)--of sixteen basic variables with eight items for each
variable. The items are marked "true" or "false" with respect
to the person being rated although only the "true" items
contribute directly to the scoring. The sixteen variables
are subsumed under two main axes and/or diagonal factors,
of dominance—submission (Dom) and love—hate (Lov). It seems
very well validated (Lange, 1970).

This instrument was employed as a means of studying

how people's general relation styles changed over the course

26

of the lab and was administered only at prelab and postlab.
It was scored conventionally (LaForge and Suczek, 1955).
Due to the time required by the ICL, it was not administered

within the lab.

Validityyof Measures

 

The Hurley and Force (1971) study presented the
prelab and postlab intercorrelations among all personalitv
variables used in this study. Because these data are
highly relevant to the present work, they are reviewed here
in some detail.

The product-moment correlations between components
of SA and A0 and the two ICL marker variables, abstractej
from Table 4 of Hurley and Force (1971) are shown in Table 1.

All the correlations between the marker variable Ifi
Dom and components of SA (OKs, 0, DS, DG, PEW, and A&E) were
significant, both at prelab and postlab, as were the four
correlations between the marker variable ICL Lov and the
two components of AO (OKO and IWA).

These correlations between the SA and A0 measures
and the marker variables strongly support the convergent
validity of the SA and A0 measures. Divergent evidence of
validity is also clear in the much lower incidence (3 of 12)
of significant correlations of the six SA components with
ICL Lov and of the OKO and IWA measures with ICL Dom.

The product-moment correlations among the components
of SA and A0 at prelab and postlab are shown in Table 2

which was also abstracted from Hurley and Force (1971).

27

mouom was mmausm Scum cmuocwpmnm mumB cusp mmwne
may .muchHOfluHmm om mcw Eonw mcwsumn mHQmHHm>m Ham cocDHOCH mmHmEmm mmmze
um ema can nmamwm Dc mva mHDB m.z ope

.empnaso menses awesome Ham

.Umaflcwlozu mo. v as

.ms .a .s msnms
.mmsmmwaaoo om Dam

.Aammav
.momeHucfl om
.Qmaumom
"muozm

 

 

 

 

.Ha .mm as mo lasHv woumpamooa mam spasms HacOmumanmncH
«mm 4mm Ha Ho. Aomov mum mnwnuo mo 30m
04 mo mpcmcomfiou
ma mo: «mm amv Amway mmmcm>flmmmumxm cam wufl>fluo¢
no can woe «mm figmmv xuoz ca mmwcm>fluommmm can HDBOm
man No: «mm «mm Away mcfl>flu sumo
we saw 4mm ema Away ocexmwm mumo
so .ma .mm .mm loo mmmccmao
.AH mo .sm .mm Immov Em H so 30m
mm mo mucmcomeou
Dwaumom nmflmnm bmfipmom Dmamum
>OA AUH EOQ AUH

 

moanmflum> mewmz

 

m.moanmflum> umxumz AUH

03L... GS“ UQM Oxw USN». Gm NO manmCOQEOU C0®3nw®m mCOHUMHwHHOU #COEOEIHUDUOHQII.H mqmdrfi

.emaflmnuozp .mo. v m.

. .Boamn
mam lamauzv muse amanmoa Ham .Hmcommae was m>onm mum Amssnzv mums anmua Haa .ms .m
.v Dance .Aanmav mouom can moausm Eonm copomuuxm Oman mHmB mcoflpmamwuoo mmmcem

 

28

*Nm «mm *mm NOI sum smH wmv ¢3H

.Hs ca .NN mo as ma .mm oso
_ Cd wo mpcmcomEou

mo ool «Hm «mm amm tam «mm Mam

smm kma sea ENN *wm «ha shm 3mm

NH mol *Nm «mm «5v «mm *mN GO

.aa mo .AN N0 .N4 .om .mm mm

as as .Ns mo .am .44 .mm o

smN xmw xmm «om «em *hH amm mMO

4m mo mucmcomeoo

 

43H MO Mad 3mm 0D mm 0 MO

 

 

Ofl 4m

 

m.QMH#m0m Ucm
QmHmum um Cd can «m mo mucmcomeou map cflcuflz mcoaumamuuou ucmEOEIDODUOHmII.m mqmfie

29

Above the diagonal in Table 2, the prelab data shov
13 significant correlations, out of the 15 possible, amen
the SA measures. The two non-significant correlations were
between PEW versus 0 (.05) and PEW versus DG (.02). The
only correlation between A0 measures (OKO versus IWA) was
significant both at prelab (.41) and postlab (.32). All of
the 15 postlab SA correlations were significant and genP‘~
higher (only 1 of 15 was lower) than their prelab counts ~
parts.

The correlations among the SA and A0 component
measures were higher than the correlations between SA and
A0 measures. Thus, only four of the latter 12 correlations
were significant at prelab. However, three of these four
correlations (OKS XE; OKo’ IWA XE; PEW, IWA XE; A&E) were
derived from the same type of instrument and shared an
indeterminant amount of covariance attributable to this
methodological artifact. At postlab 7 of the 12 SA ver;;s
AO correlations were significant. The two largest of f1
latter correlations (.58 and .53) were derived from the
same instrument and were spuriously inflated. These fin?-
ings clearly support both the convergent and discriminant
validity (Campbell and Fiske, 1959) of both the SA and A0
components.

Although these data bear directly only upon the
validity of the External measures, they seem so clearly
positive that similar evidence for the validity of the

Internal (within-lab) measures seems unnecessary. Aside

30

from the ICL marker measures, all within-lab variables were

taken from these external measures.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

An Overview of the External
and Internal Changes

 

 

Because of variations in the personality measures
(like the seven point within-lab OKS and OKO scales versus
the nine point scales used at prelab and postlab) and dif—
ferences in some of the instructions used externally and
internally, only the participants self-reported scores on
the three PDIX scales--Interpersona1 Warmth and Acceptance
(IWA), Power and Effectiveness in Work (PEW), and Activity
and Expressiveness (A&T)--yielded closely comparable inf=r~
mation at all four time periods (prelab, Day 2, Day 7, ari
postlab). Thus, a graph of the scores of these scales at

the four times provides a perspective on the relative size
of changes as assessed Externally (postlab minus prelab
scores) and Internally (Day 7 minus Day 2 scores) in an
appropriate time frame. Based upon the 46 participants

who furnished these data at each of these occasions, Figure
1 shows the pattern and magnitude of the differences. The
mean External change on these three measures was 5.54 as
compared with the smaller mean Internal change of 2.61.

Plainly the External changes, assessed over an interval of

32 weeks tended to exceed the Internal changes assessed

31

32

.Gv u my 9.1:. 5.” mucflom uzom um mmamum anE so meuoom new: cmuuomwmlmamm .mucmmwowunmmll.m wusmwm

mxmmz
mm on , mm on 3 S m 0 552a:

T
VX—w

wmmso>flmmmumxm can mufl>wuodhu -\\\ mm
mocmumwood cam Spawn: HMQOmHmmuwucH Q -\...

xnog cw wwecw>euomwmm can nesomnu -\:\ ,8
-\.\.\ \ .I hm
\\
\
lmm
.. \/ -mm
a

Iov

lav

INv

 

V

s a A 3...

amaumom n N awamum

33

a five day interval. The sharp drop in scores associated
with the early phase of the lab suggests that these early
lab experiences considerably shook the participants self—
descriptions.

There are also other important differences among
the measures of External and Internal change. The six com-
ponent SA measure generally yielded larger change scores
than did the two component AO measure. Additionally,
Participants reported greater External changes on both SA

(X = 7.17) and A0 (X = 1.49) than did either their Intimate”

(XSA = 2.71; XAO = -0.49) or Colleagues (X

0.78). Contrarily, the Internal changes reported by Parti—

= 0.93; X =

SA AO

cipants (ESA = 0.20; EAO = 1.67) were substantially less than

those reported by T-groups (YSA = 5.42; 2A0 = 3.36). Given
these appreciable variations in the reports of different
observers, in the External versus Internal instructions,
and some shifts in the measures of change, it appears that
only quite modest relationships can be anticipated between
the External and Internal SA and A0 variables.

Relationships Among the External and
Internal SA and A0 Measures

 

 

All product-moment intercorrelations among the SA
and A0 measures are given in Table 3.
Relationships Within the External
Measures (left margins of Table 3)

The agreement among observers (P versus I, P versus

C, I versus C) was considerably higher at prelab for both

I3I4

.kuuwla muceom Huaauov HH¢+
.umeu voawuunosu and means mo. “.mc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.vn. maI voI so- ma- on moI so as Ion. _ III. Haoonnvwll/
_ m
I I I I I II. on a
1mm. Ho ma - mw 5H mo ma .mm em lav. _ a I aqua» HMMMDIIwo
.mv. so ad ma a” ma .on no- mo lave _ .aumsoauuamII
mo “nuances
as
an III II
have as .vm so No Ha mo- mo- «a Ame. _ II:oaoaHoprhv
.mv. ma .pc mo- co .mm mo ma- hm Ame. uuuaaaucunn
. a
.mvv o~ «ya do- no .mm .mm as- ma “we. m ImucomaoauuamII
F mv _
_.. _ .......
ow mummso mo muzsammoua mu
mm
Ion. mm- mo- vo mo 00 mo .nm em. Rom. ..-aosmaoaaobmwua -
1on1 ca- soI mo ma NH- om- mo- mm- .ch nuunaaucn ///I
11w «a
lmvc as No mm .Hn ma hm om oH- lave , mucomaueuuuauuvhrII
mm “naauwom
me
A am
lave mo- co- NH ms mo 03 NH mo- Amos monommaaoolamm
/
Ame. mo as ea .mn No- ms- No- No lave mouuaaucHnnm Ian
.mvc .mm no .no .0n h mm oH .Hv oo lave Imucameo“unamhnwmnHwIIIIIIII
_
"assess
moz<smuouaumamm
CU 0N ha.
(H ”O J
. _ _ I». H IL
OH q A an _ I _
n scoI.HoII.~ sun hHIIIn suoIInmIIN no a san_II~vII~ sun moI.IIIs suoImoIIm sun
P On * IF Fr — vOI “ _ sumo Hocuwuxm
um . ImmI
sz nuosuo no vacuumooo< consummootlwaem muocuo mo oocsumeuod mocmumwoo<umamm sz
machete uo uuonom coo: muuomwm unoQMUAuHum

 

mama Inna casuasc amcumucH

 

+.muo:uo uo mucoummuom use oocauaoou<Imaom uo noduaaouuou acufioquusvoum Hacuouxm nanuo> accumucaIl.n manta

35

SA and A0 (.39, .38, and .47 versus .06, .05, and .28; .23,
.31, and .38 versus .24, .24, and .19). The most stable
External linkages between prelab and postlab were those of
Colleagues (.58) followed by Participants (.56) and Intima?
(.45) . Differences between prelab and postlab correlations
were more notable for A0 than for SA measures. AO correla-
tions among observers were higher than those of SA at pref .
but lower than SA at postlab.

Between SA and A0 all prelab correlations (P = .22,
I = .35, and C = .18) are lower than their statistically
significant postlab counterparts (P = .40, I = .45, and
C = .48). Clearly SA and A0 were more closely intertwined
at postlab than they were at prelab. These increased post-
lab agreements between SA and A0 may be attributable to
enhanced self-awareness generated by feedback experiences
within the lab. This topic will be pursued at the discussirf
section.

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of these External
data is why the postlab agreement among observers is so con~
sistently lower than these observers agreement at prelab.
Another important question is why were the postlab SA versn;
AO correlations for each observer group are higher than their
prelab counterparts? Within each time period (prelab and
postlab) however, the correlations within the SA and A0

measures were quite similar.

36

Relationships Within the Internal
Measures (Table 3 tOp margin)

 

The T—group reports show a greater agreement between
Day 2 and 7 than the Participant reports for the same says
for both SA (.57 y§;_-.05) and A0 (.61 ye; .42). Also Day
7 linkages between Participant reports and T—group reports
was much higher than for Day 2 for both SA (.59 3s; .—02}
and A0 (.59 XE; .26).

Between SA and A0, the correlations for Participant
reports on Day 2 (-.04) and Day 7 (.05) were considerably
lower than their T-group's counterparts (Day 2, r = .30;

Day 7, r = .56). The only departure from the pattern of
greater stability among the T-group reports than for Partlw
cipant reports was the slightly higher (not significant
statistically) Day 2 SA versus Day 7 A0 for Participants
(.38) than for T-groups (.19). The six other correlations
among T-group reports all exceed the corresponding linkages
among Participant Reports. These higher T-group correlation:
are not surprising since all were based on the answers of
nine persons versus the solo Participant reports.

External versus Internal Linkages
(Note Boxestin Table 3)

3

 

The product-moment correlation between the Partici—
pants' prelab versus within-lab SA was minimal (.06) on
Day 2 but significant (.41) on Day 7. Because the Partici—
pant's SA was more stable (.56) over the six months prelab

to postlab interval, this low prelab versus Day 2

37

correlation reinforces the earlier impression that self—
descriptions were considerably shaken by experiences early
in the lab. Generally the data from Intimates and Collea—
gues support this impression for the only significant SA
linkage between the internal scores of Participants and
the external scores of others was on Day 7 for Colleagues
(.37). This was below the prelab versus postlab SA linkages
for both Intimates (.45) and Colleagues (.57). Generally,
however, the correlations between the Participants' prelab
and postlab SA scores and Participants' within-lab SA
scores were small.

The T-group reports show somewhat more agreement
between the External and Internal data for SA than did the
Participant's reports (4 significant correlations versus 2),
although the inverse pattern obtains for the seven statis—
tically significant AO correlations between External and
Internal measures. There are three significant SA correla~
tions between prelab and the T-group report (Participants
Day 2 = .30 and Day 7 = .43; Intimates Day 2 = .38). Only
for Colleagues did the prelab SA reports fail to agree
significantly with the T-groups' perceptions.

The Internal versus External AO correlations for
Participants' self-reports were notably higher than their
SA counterparts, especially for prelab versus within—lab
on Day 2 (.32 XE; .06) and for post lab versus Day 2 (.36
gs; -.10). The exception was for Day 7 (.38 y§;_.41) when

the SA correlation was higher than AO.

38

Since the Participants' AO reports correlated sig-
nificantly on three of four occasions during the prelab to
within-lab to postlab interval, as constrasted with only
one significant SA correlation, it seems that the lab was
less disruptive to A0. Except for Intimates on Day 7 when
(E = .29), the Colleagues and Intimates scores show no
agreement with the Participants within-lab scores on A0.

For both the T—group reports and the Participant
reports, the Day 2 data tended to correlate significantly
with the External reports more often (10 versus 3) than
did the Day 7 reports. This pattern was somewhat stronger
within the T-group (6 to 1) than within the Participant
reports (4 to 2). However, the postlab data correlated

significantly with the T-group reports only on Day 2

(8A,; = .31).

For SA versus AO

 

The Participants, who showed somewhat higher
External correlations for SA (5 = .56) than AO (E = .39),
had four significant correlations out of eight for A0 and
one out of eight for SA for the External versus Internal
data. So, while SA was more externally stable for Partici-
pants, the correlations between the External versus Internal
data were more stable for A0. Of the 96 correlations
between External and Internal measures in Table 3, statis-
tical significance was attained by nine of the 32 which
related to Participants external reports,versus four of 32

for Intimates, and only two of 32 for Colleagues.

39

The 13 statistically significant Internal versus
External correlations out of 48 within the SA and A0 meas-
ures clearly exceeded the two significant correlations of
the 48 possible SA versus AO linkages. Chance seems a
reasonable explanation for the two of 48 SA versus AO
correlations which reached statistical significance.

These findings plainly offer additional support fer
the view that SA and A0 are generally independent of each
other. They also show meaningful if limited associations
between the External and Internal measures.

Relationship Among External and
Internal Measures of Change

 

 

All product-moment correlations within and between
the change scores are presented in Table 4.

A one-tailed test of significancenwusused with all
change data since it was anticipated that all External and
Internal measures of the same type of change (SA and A0)
would be positively correlated. Partly because of the well"
known unreliability of change measures (Harris, 1963) and
also due to the variety of observers and assortment of
measures the .10 significance level was adopted.

The External change data (left hand margin of Table
4) show little agreement (.09, .25, .15) across observers
(P, I, and C) on SA. The A0 findings are similar and the
only statistically significant linkage was between Collea-
gues and Intimates (.37). The three observer classes showed

somewhat greater agreement about the linkage of SA gains to

.ummu voawmquco ecu wean: 0H. v 9+

.ummu cwaaau-oco or» Scam: mo. v a.

 

4(3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aamv mo. mo.l ma. . HA. Ammv AU+H+QV 4(809
.
Acme «H. va.- oo. 1 as. loss IIIIIIIloc o:uua-oo.1
_ \:
Ammo mo.- mo.- mo.- _ so.- lave IIIIIIIHG ouasaucHll as
n
onv No. Ha. +NN. * om. Amvv Hm IAmv ucmmwofiuumm““\w\\\
hm
hm mmmmeo m0 muzdufimwougu
em
“any NH. oa. HA. acm. Ammv . AU+H+mv Adeoe
lens so. +NN. NH.- «0. Ion. luv msummaaoouu/////
ma
Ammv No.I oo. _ mo.I ma. Aavv AHL oumeucHnfl. mo
\V\
Rove mN.I mH.I F oo.I Ho.I Ame. Whey ucmmaofluumm
muzdemmouxmlmqmm
NH 4
_ a we. II-+Ii till-L
sz muonuo mo mocmumwou<IIIQoIl-wocmummou<Iwawm muocuo mo mocmumooodll-ov-I-mocmumeoodImawm sz
_ F H? L II—
vM AaneuQIanumomv mmmcmno Hmcueuxm
msouole mo uuoaem cmez muuoemm ucmaeoauumm

 

mmocmnu AHMCHmucHV nag-assuaz

 

+.A~mcuwucH 6cm Hmcumuxmv mousmmwz wmcmnu oc054 mc0aumHouuou uceEoquoscoumlI.v mqm<e

41

AO gains Externally, since two of these three correlations
(Participants' r = .31, p < .05, and Intimates £_= .37,

p < .05) were significant. This linkage of SA with A0 gains
was clearly heightened when the data from the three observer
classes was pooled (£_= .51, p_< .01).

The Internal data (top margin of Table 4) show a
substantial correlation (.64) between Participants and T—
group reports of SA changes, but very little agremeent
(E = .12) for A0 shifts. Both Participants and T-groups
agreed, however, that changes on SA and A0 were linked:
Participants' r = .46; T-group's E = .66.

The strongest relationship between Internal and
External changes was for SA as reported by all external
observers (P + I + C) versus the Participant's within-lab
report (5 = .30, p_< .05). This was supported by the SA
linkage of T-group within-lab reports and Colleague's
external report (E = .22, p < .10). Only one significant
correlation (E = .22, p < .10), based on Participant
reports, was found between external and internal gains on

AO.

CHAPTER V

DICUSSION

Measures of SA and A0

 

The validity of the SA and A0 measures which seemed
reasonably well established by their Tables 1 and 2 correla~
tions with the ICL marker measures (Dom and Lov) was
generally confirmed by the six external versus internal SA
and seven similar AO correlations in the boxes of Table 3
as compared with only two significant correlations of SA with
A0. Even the murky Table 4 change data support this picture,
since 75% (12 of 16) of the possible correlations of External
versus Internal changes or SA or A0 were positive as compared
with only 50% (8 of 16) of the possible SA versus AO correlaw
tions.

At prelab the three observer classes (P, I, and C)
showed greater agreement with each other on SA (mean E = .31)
and A0 (mean E = .41) than their SA and A0 scores correlated
(mean 5 = .25). These relationships were surprisingly

different at postlab (mean £_ .19, mean E .13, and

SA= A0=
mean ESA 2&3 A0 = .44). Thus, the observers of External
change showed decreasing agreement about SA and AD but
increasing agreement that SA and A0 correlated. A somewhat

similar pattern occurred among the Internal reports. Thus,

42

43

the correlations between SA and A0 for Participants' reports
were -.04 on Day 2 and .05 on Day 7 while for T-group report;
this correlation was .30 on Day 2 but .56 on Day 7.

It appears that increasing contact with these per-
sonality instruments and increasing familiarity with the
persons being rated on them resulted in decreased independence
of the SA and A0 scores, both for the External observers
and for the T-groups. The reason for this shift is obscure.

An increasing amount of agreement between the parti~
cipant's self—descriptions and the T-groups' view of them
from Day 2 (r -.02 and r

—SA = A0 =

.59) is also evident. This on-going experience

.26) to Day 7 (ESA = .59
and EAO =
tended to produce increasing congruence between how the
person was described by the self and by others. Since the
prelab and postlab descriptions of the participants did not
generally correlate more highly with their Day 7 than Day 2
reports, the consequences of this increasing within—lab con~
gruence also remain unclear. Of 24 postlab versus within-1a“

correlations of SA and A0 measures, merely three were sig-

nificant and only one of these was on Day 7.

Changes in SA and A0

 

There was very little External agreement about
changes in SA or A0 among the three classes of observers.
Internally, however, there was substantial agreement (E = .64)
on SA changes between the reports of Participant's and

T-groups but little (E = .12) for A0 changes. In this

44

perspective it is not surprising that only three of the 16
correlations across the External and Internal measures of
SA and A0 gains reached the .10 level and that only one of
these (SA : pooled observers versus Participants' report)
surpassed the .05 level. Thus, only very limited support
was found for the hypothesized linkage between the Internal
and External changes.

The most striking aspect of these change data (see
Table 4) was the substantial linkages of SA with A0 changes.
Thus, for pooled observers this 3.: .51 while it was .46 for
Participant's within lab reports and .66 for the correspond-
ing T-group reports. Both internally and externally there
was a clear tendency to ascribe SA and A0 shifts of similar
magnitude to the same individual despite the low prelab
correlation (mean observer group E = .25) between SA and A0

scores .

The Problems of Measuripg Change

 

This study used a "raw gain" approach to assess change.

However, this approach--based upon subtracting pretest scores
from posttest scores--has been widely criticized (Cronbach
and Furby, 1970). Because "raw gain" scores are systematic—
ally related to pretest and posttest scores as well as to any
random error of measurement, they often lead to fallacious
conclusions.

The "measurement of change" has long been a puzzle

to psychometrists although it seems to be receiving increased

45

attention in recent years. Harris (1962) has edited a
volume of conference papers that adds to the subject. DuBois
(1957) recommended a "residual gain" score as a substitute
for the "raw gain" score. She suggeSts that the gain be
residualized by expressing the posttest score as a deviati04
from the posttest-on-pretest regression line, and then by
"partialling-out" the portion of the posttest information
that is linearly predictable from the pretest. Tucker,
Damarin and Messick.DNM4](1966)called attention to the "true
residual gain" which they refer to as a "basefree measure
of change."

Cronbach and Furby expressed restrictions about
TDM's "basefree measure of change." First, they criticize
TDM as being unclear, that their measures are "primarily
intended for correlational work." That is, TDM have no
intention of interpreting "basefree" scores for individuals.
Such scores are intended only as an intermediate step towarfi
correlations. Second, they believe that TDM's equations
offer an estimator that does not give the best least-squares
estimate of individual "basefree" scores because they seek
instead estimates that correlate zero with the person's "trre
status" at that time. Cronbach and Furby advance that, in
general, one "who wants to interpret correlations, covar—
iances, or regression slopes ought not to work from estima*:&
scores." They conclude that the TDM's formulas generate
fallible values on the equations and errors. They suggest
a straight-forward manipulation of the matrix of observei

covariances for X, Y, and Q (Cronbach and Furby, p. 76).

46

It is Cronbach and Furby believe that where true
scores for individuals are desired, the multiple regression
procedures outlined on their paper make use of more infor-
mation than do procedures hitherto advanced. Also, they
claim that "there seems to be no occasion to estimate true
gain scores. . . ." "Where correlations and regression
functions relating true gains or true residual gains to
other variables are desired, a calculating routine is avail—
able that makes it unnecessary to estimate gain scores for
individuals." Summarizing, Cronbach and Furby, strongly

advise against the use of gain scores, their usefulness and

reliability, no matter how they may be adjusted or refined.

Suggestions for Future Research

 

Future research could avoid some of the present
study's limitations by using the same instructions at the
different times the tests are taken. The change measures
used in this study did not provide a clear picture, partly
because different instruments and instructions were used in
the lab's External and Internal period (e.g., within the
lab, a nine point rating scale was used for the OK scales
instead of the seven point scale used before and after the
lab). Also, the General Behavior Ratings given at prelab
and postlab instructed the observers to rate participants
considering their behavior in a broad world (intimate
relationships, work relationships, etc.) while within-the-
lab they were asked to focus exclusively upon the behavior

of fellow group members. It is difficult to evaluate how

47

much of the outside instruction influenced the ratings
inside the lab.

Further research might focus on obtaining change
data with more reliable statistical procedures than raw
scores, such as the suggestions of Cronbach and Furby (1970)!
it should.alsoconsider the initial level of Participants'

SA and A0. It is speculative how their initial level of “A
and A0 might have affected changes (Fleishman, 1966)..

There is a strong evidence (Hurley and Force, 1971b)
that differences between T-groups and trainers powerfully
influenced the subsequent gains or losses of the members when
considered by T-group units. Hurley and Force study (which
used the same data used in this study) had the most sur-
prising finding of a .94 product—moment correlation between
the participants' ratings of the effectiveness of their
T—group trainers, as a unit, and the six month later multi—
observer—multimethod change scores. Thus, it is impressive
how change in interpersonal competence was associated with
how effective the T-group members had rated their trainers.
Subsequent research could consider Hurley and Force findings
of significant correlations of changes with T—groups member-
ships.

The knowledge (Mischel, 1969, 1971) that people tend
to generalize fragmentary impressions about themselves and
others, underlines the limitations of studies which rely
only upon general questionnaires. It also indicates the

desirability of focusing on specific behaviors in order to

48

get more reliable data. Tests which ask if the individual
is responsible or irresponsible (in a scale from 1 to 6) or
enthusiastic or unenthusiastic and so on, get a "general

perception,‘ which, considering the bulk of research regard-
ing behavior specificity (Mischel, 1968; Peterson, 1968)
tends to reflect the individual's stereotype of himself or
others with little correspondence to specific different
situations. Wherever possible, questionnaires would obtain
more reliable information if structured with specific ques—
tions.

Nonstatistical approaches to the measurement of
change should also be considered. An objective approach
would be to ask individuals to develop five or more change
items representing such areas as relationship with wife or
intimate, own children, co-workers, sex, people one has
superficial but routinely contact with (mailman, cashiers,
neighbors, children's neighbors, own fantasies, etc.).

Items should be very situation specific; e.g., increase on
SA for John could be somewhat like this: "John (name of
individual making up the list) will answer back when his
wife says he will be late for work." Each individual would
be asked to develop a very idiosyncratic set of items,
meaningful only towards his person and his specific problems.
Individuals will probably include items on their lists of
SA and A0 that might not appear very relevant to

these dimensions. These could be discussed by the patient

and the therapist until a satisfactory agreement is obtained.

49

The important occurrence, however, is for each individual
to think about what SA and A0 means for him in specific
behavioral terms, and make plausible goals to work on
instead of beautiful but less meaningful and hard to assess
abstractions such as "be happier with self," "not be aggres~

sive,‘ etc. Change would be obtained by assessing at
postlab, how many goals had been reached (concretely).
This way of measuring change would also be part or

the treatment of "producing change, since the instrument
used (making up the list himself, thinking and discussing

it, establishing goals, assessing change) to assess the change
enhances the perception of the problem by both patient and
therapist permitting it to be investigated, delimited, and
dealt with (Bandura, 1969).

An inferential approach to measuring change would be
coding descriptions accounts at prelab and postlab. Each
individual and observers would write down how they perceive
themselves in several areas and different judges would code
their descriptions. Prelab and postlab description could
also be compared and changes identified. A problem with this
approach would be that the lab experience might shift the
baseline perceptions of the individuals. E.g., individuals
who thought of themselves as very open at prelab could re—
evaluate their perception due to lab processes and perceive

themselves at postlab as not such a self-disclosing person as

at prelab (Walker, Shack, Egan, et al., 1972).

 

 

 

 

.1 '1' .il' lil‘

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

Of the 16 Table 4 correlations between changes on

'1 if": kl

(U

SelfeAcceptance or the Acceptance of Others as asse
inside and outside of the lab, only three achieved the ten
level of statistical significance. Thus, the principal
hypothesis of positive linkage between changes in SA and A3
inside and outside of the lab received only modest support.
The strongest of these linkages was an r = .30 (p<:.05, one—
tailed) between SA gain scores as assessed outside the lab
by pooled data from 32 participants, 32 of their intimates,
and 32 of their job colleagues, versus within-lab shifts as
reported by only the participants. Only nine percent of
these raw gain score shifts inside and outside of the lab
were predictable from each other.

These findings and the pertinent literature make it
clear that change measures more sophisticated than the
present raw gain scores deserve exploration. While "base free
measures of change" have been proposed (Tucker, Damarin, and
Messick, 1966), Cronbach and Furby (1970) have often severely
criticized such approaches. Suggestions were offered for the
development of less statistically-oriented measures of change,

including the clearer specification of the behavior at issue dml

50

51

more direct measures of the amount of change. Because Hurle/
and Force (1973) found SA and A0 changes to be highly relatei
to T-group units, it may also be important to provide for
such units when analyzing change data.

Additional evidence of the independence of Self-
Acceptance and Acceptance of Others is especially clear in
Table 3 where 13 of the 48 correlations between External
versus Internal measures of SA and A0 are statistically sig-
nificant as contrasted with only two of 48 SA versus A0
correlations. This independence was less clear in the com-
parisons of External with Internal gain scores on SA and A0
in Table 4, although 75 per cent (12 of 16) of the correla—
tions between changes in SA or A0 were positive as compared
with only 50 per cent (8 of 16) of the correlations between

shifts in SA versus A0.

Some puzzeling evidence of an increasing bond between
the SA and A0 measures at postlab versus prelab and also at
Day 7 versus Day 2 was noted. The measures for these shifts
was unclear and further investigation of this phenomenon seems
indicated.

Generally, greater increases were noted in SA than
in A0. While this might be partially attributed to variations
in the instruments and to assess such changes, it may also
be useful to devise lab programs which separately address
themselves toward growth along each of these dimensions.
Prelab assessment of each participant would facilitate their
placement in a program oriented toward the enhancement of

their area of greatest need.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

52

 

BI BLIOGRAPHY

Adams, B. "Mental illness" or interpersonal behavior?
American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 191-197.

 

Argyris, C. Interpersonal competence and organizational

effectiveness. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin~Dorsey, iv:

 

Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New l;_n
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.

 

Berger, E. M. The relation between expressed acceptance
of self and expressed acceptance of others. figurnal
of Abnormal Social Psychology: 1952, 47, 778—782.

Berne, E. Principles of group treatment. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1966.

 

Bierman, R. Dimensions of interpersonal facilitation in
psychotherapy and child development. Psychological
Bulletin, 1969, 72, 338-352.

 

Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminift
validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56 no. 2, 81—105.

 

Chance, E. Father's perception of self and first—born child.
In Stolz, L. M. (ed.), Father relations of war-born
children. Stanford, CaIIf.: Stanford UnIversity
Press, 1954.

 

Cronbach, L. J., and Furby, Lita. How we should measure
"change" or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 1970,
74, no. 1, 68-80.

 

DuBois, P. H. Multivariate correlational analysis. New Yolk;
Harper, 1957.

 

Fleishman, E. A. Human abilities and acquisition of skill.
In Bilodeau, E. A. (ed.), Acquisition of skill.
New York: Academic Press, 1966.

 

Foa, U. G. The contiguity principle in the structure of
interpersonal relations. Human Relat., 1958, 11,
229-238.

 

. Convergences in the analysis of the structure of
interpersonal behavior. Psychological Review, 68,
341-353.

 

53

54

Foa, U. G. and Zacks, S. A. A stochastic facet theory of
social interaction in the dyad. Tecliiral Nb“
April 1959, Israel Institute of _pplied Social
Research, Contract no. AF 61 (052)-121.

 

Force, E. Personal changes attributed to human relatifss
training by participants, intimates and job colle aq
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1969, 188 pp.

Freedman, M. B.; Ossorio, A. G.; Leary, T. F.; and Coffrey,
H. S. The interpersonal dimension of personalpty.
Journal of Personality, 1951, 20, 143—161.

 

Fromm, E. The sane society. New York: Holt, Rinehart ana
Winston, 1955.

 

. The art of loving. New York, Harper and Row,
1956ITpublished by Bantam Books, 1963, New York).

 

Gibb, J. R. Climate for trust formation. In Bradford, L. P.:
Gibb, J. R.; and Berne, K. D. (eds.TT'T T—g_guo tne<
and laboratory method: Innovation in re- education
New York: Wiley, 1964, 279-309.

 

 

Harris, C. W. Problems in measuring change. The University
of Wisconsin Press, Madison; Milwaukee; and London,
1963.

 

Harris, T. A. I'm 0K- You're 0K. New York: Harper and Row,
1969.

 

Harrison, R. The impact of the laboratory on perceptions 0:
others by the experimental group. Chapter II in
Agyris, C., Interpersonal competence and orga ani..a_—
tional effectiveness. Homewood, Ill. Irwin— Do1seg,
1962.

 

. Personal style, group composition, and learning.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1965, 1, 2bfvi‘7

 

. Cognitive change and participation in a sensitivity-
training laboratory. Journal of Consulting Psycholgyy;
1966, 30, n0. 6' 517-520.

 

Harrison, R. and Oshry, B. Report to SAED of GESAED—BUHRC
training study. Unpublished manuscript prepared to;
the Small Aircraft Engine Department of General
Electric by the Boston University Human Relations
Center, 1965.

Horney, K. New ways in psychoanalysis. New York: W. W.
Norton, 1939.

 

55

Hurley, J. R. and Force, E. J. A multiobserver-multimethod
study of interpersonal competence and T—grcups.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University,
1971a, 61p.

_. T-group gains in acceptance of self and others.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1973,
23, in press.

 

Jourard, S. M. Personal adjustment. 2d ed; New York:
' Macmillan, 1963.

 

__. The transparent self. New York: VanNostrand,
1964.

LaForge, R. Research use of the ICL. Oregon Reseaicn
Institute Technical Report, vol. 3, 4, Oct. 1963.

 

 

LaForge, R. and Suczeck, R. F. The interpersonal dimension
of personality: III. An interpersonal check list.
Journal of Personality, 1955, 24, 94-112.

 

Lange, D. E. A validation of the orthogonal dimensions
underlying the ICL and the octant constellations
assumed to be their measure. Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1970, 34, 519-
523.

 

 

Leary, R. Interpersonal diagnosis of personalipy. New Yora
Ronald Press, 1957.

Lorr, M.; Bishop, P. F.; and McNair, D. M. Interpersonal
types among psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnor1"
Psycholggy, 1965, 70, 468-472.

 

Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. 2d ed; New
York: VanNostrand, 1968.

 

McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: John Wilzx
and Sons, 1972.

 

Miller, D. R. The study of social relationships: situation,
identity, and social interaction. £2 Sigmund Koch,
Psychology: a study of a science, vol. 5. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1963, 639-737.

 

Mischel, W. Continuity and change in personality. Americas
Psychologist, 1969, 24 1012-1018.

 

. Introduction to personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, Winston, 1971.

 

56

Omwake, K. T. The relation between acceptance of self and
acceptance of others by three personality inVSn“nv} ;,
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 443—446.

Peterson, D. R. Scope and generality of verbally defined
personality factors. Psyphological Review, 1965,
72, 43-59.

 

Phillips, E. L. Attitudes toward self and others: a brief
questionnaire report. Journal of Consulting_Psycholsg;,
1951, 15, 79-81.

 

Roe, A. Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1957, 4, 212-21/.

Rogers, C. R. Client centered therapy, Boston: Hougntonu
Mifflin, 1951.

 

Rubin, I. The reduction of prejudice through laboratory
training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
1967, 3, 29-50.

Schaefer, E. S. A circumplex model for maternal behavior.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1959, 226-235.

. Conveying conceptual models for maternal behavior
and child behavior. Ip_Glidewe11, J. C. (ed.)
Parental attitudes and child behavior. New York:

C. Thomas, 1961.

 

Sheerer, E. T. An analysis of the relationship between
acceptance of and respect for self and acceptance
of and respect for others in ten counseling cases.
Journal of Consulting Psychology: 1949, 13, 169—175.

 

Sherwood, J. J. Self identity and referent others.
Sociometry, vol. 28, 1, March 1965.

 

Stock, D. An investigation into the interrelations between
the self-concept and feelings directed toward other
persons and groups. Journal of Consulting Psychology.
1949, 13, 176-180.

 

Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1953.

 

Symonds, P. M. The psychology of parent-child relationshipi.
New York: Appleton—Century, 1939.

 

Tucker, L. R.; Damarin, F.; and Messick, S. A base—free
measure of change. Psychometrika, 1966, vol. 31, 4,
457-473.

 

57

Walker, R.; Shack, J.; Egan, G.; Sheridan, K.; and Sheridan,
E. Changes in self-judgments of self-disclosure
after group experience. Journal of Applied Behavigrafi
Science, 1972, 8 (2), 248-251.

Yalom, I. D. The theory_and practice of group psychot:
New York: Basic Books, 1970.

'(D

f": ‘

APPENDIX

58

GENERAL BLHAVIOR RATINGS
(Pre and Post Lab)

Please read the following instructions carefully and rate yourself on the
three variables. When making these ratings, try to not confine yourself to th1n¥.:w
only of close or intimate relationships, but also consider how you are in groups,
with people at work, etc.

OPENNESS: Focus on how much you share your reactions, thoughts, and fee‘1n
with other people. If you typically offer a very limited or ClngISh: p}t, L;d‘;‘
of yourself to others, rate yourself low on Openness. If you typically “taut ,4.
self Fully and authentically with others, rate yourself higher on Openness. P?:c
an x on the scale below at the point which best illustrates your Openness.

‘

OPENNLSS:
MINIMALLY AVLRAGE MAKIMALLY

1......0002......00.390.009.004IOOOIC0.05..0.0.00.00000000OO7I’UOCOOOOBIIOOCOI|

DATA SEEKING: Focus on how uftvn you seek to obtain authentic fractions and
information about how other people experience you. Consider whether you elici* anv
encourage the reactions of others to you. Often people block others from proviuiw
such feedback by being threatening, being too timid, keeping in the havkgroqhe,
or disguising interpersonal difficulties. Place an X on the scale below at the
point at which best illustrates your Data Seeking.

DATA SEEKING:
MINIMALLY AVERAGE MAXIHPLH‘

1.........2.........3.........4.....C...E’........06......CIO7OOOI.I'OC}‘DUI ...... "

DATA GIVING: Focus on how often you give authentic reations and infolmatinh
to others about how you experience them. Consider how often you give feedback tn
others about how you experience their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. r1a~1 a;
X on the scale below at the point which best illustrates your Data Giving.

DATA GIVING:
MINIMALLY AVERAGE MAXIMRLLY

1.0.00.0002030.000003.0000-0004-0000.0.050.000.00060000000907.00.000008...a....09

59

60

RATINGS OF BEHAVIORS
(Within Lab)

You are asked to rate all the members of your group, including yourself, on
several different dimensions of behavior using the definitions given below. For
some of these ratings, you will be asked to focus exclusively upon the specified
behaviors of these persons within this group. In these instances, exclude your
impressions of how these people act elsewhere, including all outside the gravy con~
tacts, whether casual or intimate; also exclude your impressions of how they ace
“back home." It is essential that you use the full range of ranks permitted (1
through 9) in making each rating. First, think of the individuals who represent
the most and least of the described behavior in your group, and assign the extreme
numbers (9 and l) to them. Then work from each extreme towards the middle making
sure that you assign each number to at least one person in your group, altho.gn
the same rank may be assigned to more than one person.

 

First of all, rank the members of your group from 1 through 9 according to
h9w_mu§h_you like them. Above the lines given below, write the initials or firat
names a? all persons in your group, and below this line enter a number from i imitate
9, with 1 indicating the person you like most, and so on up to 9--which indicate;
the person you like least.

 

 

 

 

Next, rank the members of your group from 1 through 9 according to how much
time you have spent with them outside this rou . Again, list the initials of all
group members in the spaces prOVided Below; also do the same for the three subsequent
ratings. Then aSSign a number from 1 to 9 as you did before with 1 indicating the
person you have spent the most time with outside the group, and so on up to 9»—
which indicates the member you spent the least time with.

 

 

 

 

 

OPENNESS: Focus on how fully each person has shared, withinflthjs group,
personal reactions, thoughts, and feelings with the other group memfiers. _Wne
emphasis is on "here and now” interaction, such as how one felt when confronted,
challenged, or ignored by others in this group; ”back home" experiences, or "child-
hood traumas" are largely irrelevant except when directly related to "here and now"
interactions. Persons who have offered very limited or disguised presentations of
themselves should be rated low. Those who have fully and authentically shared
themselves, should be rated higher. Remember to use the full scale of l (minimally
open) to 9 (maximally open). Proceed as before in listing names and ranks, but
uSing the scale illustrated below:

 

OPENNESS
MINIMAL . AVERAGE MAXIMAL

10....IOCOZOOOOOOOO.30....OOOI4000OOOOIOSO00.000.060.00000007000......80000000009

 

 

 

 

61

DATA SEEKING: Consider how fully each person in your group has sought to
obtain authentic reactions and information atout how_the other group mentors have
experienced them within this group. One of our goals has been to supply and process
fresh information concerning how each individual relates to others. now fully has
each person sought to elicit and encourage others to share their reactiOns and views
of him? Persons may block others from pIOVldinq data in many ways. including a
threatening manner, being too timid, by keeping in the background, or even by dis‘
guising their interpersonal difficulties. Again, the feels is on the "here and
now,” so consider only how fully each person has sought to obtain a better grasp of
how he or she relates to others within this group. Please utilize the tuli scale a.
1 (minimal data seeking) to 9 (sought maximal data) as illustrated below:

 

DRTA SEEKING:
MINIMAL AVERAGE MAX HZAI.

1....IOIOIZIOOIOOOCO3CCOIOOOOO4OOOOOOOOISOIOOOIIIleOOI.onIc‘ uuuuuuuu atIa-r ~~~~~~ k)

 

DATA GIVING: Reflect on how fully each person has attempted to leO authonlau
reactions and information to others about how he experiences them within this 9 ”Pl'

 

How fully has each person sought to give feedback to others about how they expexivnee
their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors? Again, the focus is on "here and new,” so
consider only how fully each person has attempted to give others a better urasp v!
how they experience them in this group. Also remember that sometimes a let or hJ?\
tend to be confusing, so persons who are especially clear in their communication

may give more data in a few words than others give in many words. Persons who tend
to hold back such data should be rated below average. Please apply this measure as

illustrated below:

1

DATA GIVING:
MINIMAL AVERAGE MAXIHAL

.........2.........3........O4...I..I..5...'.....6...CCOOI070.00.000.80...IOOIC‘!

 

THE PERSON DESCRIPTION

62

Coded to Identify Variables

INSTRUMENT--INTERNAL

The bipolar scales given below are to elicit your impressions of how

 

(write in name)

point on each scale

behavior.

NONDEFENSIVE
LOW ABILITY

6 snows FEELINGS
TACTLESS
INFORMED

0 RESERVED

0 SYMPATHETIC
INCOMPETENT

o ENTHUSIASTIC

0 THREATENING

A LOW STATUS

. EMOTIONALLY
EXPRESSIVE

o CONSIDERATE

A UNINFLUENTIAL

0 QUIET

o ACCEPTS OTHERS
LOW PRESTIGE

DEMONSTRATIVE
FLEXIBLE

D- O

IRRESPONSIBLE

ACTIVE

0 REJECTS
SUGGESTIONS

A THOROUGH

NONCOMMITTAL
ACCOMMODATING

D> O

LAZY

PARTICIPATES
MUCH

which best

has

behaved in

represents

o=Internal Warmth and Acceptance; A=Power
o=Activity and Expressiveness.

recent weeks.

your impression of

and Effectivness

Encircle the

DEFENSIVE
PII’?II E I“
EIILJFHS P E:u'
TACTEUL
UNIFORMS;
OUTSPOKEW
UNSYL‘l‘._[-‘~.'I‘EZ* " “
COMPETENT
UNENTHUST?.
NONTHREATbhluw
HIGH STATUS

UNEMOTIOVFE

INCONSILEfs
INFLUFNTTML
LOUD
REJECTS 0””
HIGH FELL": .- -.
UNDEMONSTRATIVI
INFLEXIELC
RESPONRTP"P
PASSIVE
ACCEPTS

CARELESS
COMMITS SL3}
STUBBORN
HARDWORKTNA

PARTICIPAECS
LITTLE

in Work

63

EXTERNAL, WEDNESDAY PRELAB AND POSTLAB

SELF and OTHERS: OKAY and NOT OKAY

These ratings are to register your views of how "Okay"
or "not okay" you View yourself and others. First, rate
yourself in terms of whether you usually experience yourself
as being an "okay" or "not okay" person. Because :0033C
rarely consider themselves to be totally "okay" or "not okay.
a scale is provided for this rating which permits you to
encircle a point which best approximates your View of your—
self. For self—ratings, "okay" is commonly associated with
such attributes as: valuable, energetic, bright, warm,
secure, vivacious, confident, trustworthy, effective, com—
petent, genuine, etc. Similarly, "not okay" tends to be
linked with such qualities as: dull, distant, insecure,
cold, rigid, unfeeling, confused, ineffective, unreliable,
etc.

 

NOT OK NEUTRAL OK
I

SELF: 'OOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOO ..IOO'OOOOO'OOOOO'

Next, rate other people in general (not just your close
friends) as to how "okay" or "not okay" you tend to regard
them. For this rating, "okay" tends to be associated with
such qualities as: accepting, friendly, giving, approving,
supportive, sincere, reasonable, understanding, considerate,
trustworthy, etc. "Not okay" is often linked to such
qualities as: critical, exploitive, cold, hostile, incon-
siderate, irresponsible, threatening, rejecting, untrust-
wrothy, etc. Again, encircle the point which best approxi-
mates your general view of others.

NOT OK NEUTRAL OK

SELF: 'OOOOO'OOOOO'OOOOO'OOOOO'OOCOO‘OOOOO'

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

Ill“ ill “III II llllfllsllllll Hgllill