‘1. ...\. .Q“O‘O‘v . I. . .....0L¢..o’.caoco.£orfl . . ..... a _ ..... O¢.0.Cc-.. . _ ~.. . 4. o... .0. . 3.20.. o . 0.. s 1 _- n . .1.L.¢I . . .I - uflo . v Ion... ... ,.... . . ..;. .. . ...l.u.c.. . oat». . .0 . .5... .. .o...‘... ..o ..'|O...Qo_ . arc. . .v.. o. o . o . .. .... .. c .o. . .._..'.... . .. . .. , ....Jo.a.'.. v.0..v“.—Y.. onoo.-. 9.... s '0 - 'm..s.. .....w... ..o.......‘.l.. . .‘GJLA... .vvo .....o:o...o>v..o.v. .ov.....v.9‘nr. ... _ . A.. ...;o.... ... .......5. .0 ..........‘ . 0 <'... .~ ..o' ..... . . .. . o .5 .. ¢...A~ v0.0.4... .!.c...p... . .oIo.‘- 0.10.. _...... . .. .4..J..a. ...... .n. .O.—r.p.a4.o~ v'o .0; . .1..‘. o. .v ..o..’ .. .‘ . .. . o . .Jo.h... ..a..'.l...ov o... A. .. I'd-o 0. ..0V.. .. . . . . . . _o. - ....o..v .a O.covxq.4..4¢loo.o.ll ’o'a.' .5? I. . ... w u.. . . . . .. ..§..D..... ..o.ov’bcco.n.l ....l. cocaJIQVcl I l o‘. . . Q . v . \o. . . . .. . . .... r. .ac.a..1... . n . . otloac .0. 9&0. c ‘0... 9.." .: fltrflv. Altrlo. c.00'0 z '.o. . .1. . . - . c.. .a.¢1.. < .00. I .0 0.....v. 3.01.... . . , . .. ..... . ....a..o... ..c..:l 0 .ar“ . .5 oolq‘ (.4!- .e...‘ ..v..-. . . . ..a ..r-(~ 4. ...¢..J.o ..I;D.4c.d ’. . ..?..... .c.. .. . . .0...va. .o...o.....a¢¢a ..o».s..'.6.' .o.. ... v. . .. . .. _J‘.o.oo...o.o.ac..ax-a. ... Y..0oo_./cvv v. '0. l s o... .. . . . acute, . o. o. .. .p.vt. ..a.4.Jo . . ..o.. . . .o. . ............—o... .co.....lo.v o v'. 0 c.¢.. - b .. u... .‘ occu-o... in; .u. v.... ..: .... . . . . 1.. a .. ) a. .ooofa r. .. U, ../.. p . ... a . ...... . . . ... 11....-. .1 .1 4....oa;...J. 5.1-? J 1 .u. ....vv.. . ... ....Jo .... o. . or/oA/rtalo..9.pf ..¢.. ... . . . . . . ..o- _... 0.4... Jr 7.- , .. o c t... o... - o.l... 0...... lo ol". . ... o .0. 4 p.. o v. . ...u- I . .. . I . .-.v o c . C .0. f. .o 1.... o.....- ..n r1...1l ..- ... .0 . . . . 5.9... 1-. o... . . .. .. . o. Io. . . c . a.. .o...)!. go. o r . o .. ... . o I. .0 Q 1.. I C - .- ‘. . o . .. ..I o. . . .f . v. .tlo'...o . ... .1 . .. I . c . . . .c. .‘9. \ .o . . . . .. o o u D C.....CO..¢III Ooo|o.v - . .. . ’ VI ... .. . n...o .9. 1.. .. a... .7. . 542'. .'. . .v. c Q a. . 0.. ... ..... . .I' v‘ a V .. c n u v . 0.. u 3.. . .. o to .P‘ . .. .n. . no .I . v ... . ‘ . a . u. o . v. u ... .\v . . I.- v .. .o.. «0‘ p . .ov . I.. _ u o c.. . v. yr n... . o a. o ~ U‘ .s. . .v . r |.. 0 ~'QO . t . - up . l.- y o... .4: o... .0.. .,.. .Q. n ...v. .2. . . .. .4; o. _ .. .a. -1! u ... 0. 'u .. I . o o.. o. c .. ..o v. o. to ... . . ‘ . . .. - .u D. c . . at W’. o _ . v o O. v.a co... . . . I .. .l(l¢ a .0 . n. . . v . .I . ct. . f. .. . o . . o o . . ca. 5. u v . . - ~ 0 ~ . o . . ’ndt."tlt00..4f06..vl . .o . .‘ v . v s . .0 . . o . t-aao. r..-0.! .‘Iv..,u..ro-' ”o 5.. . u . I 0.. . .¢. . ... lr'. ool‘l|!:.r-'|?o_¥ . . . ... .u .u. . - . ; .o. 110... 1 1410.1...» .0 W n u . a. .._ .. .. . . . . .oo’..o.'lOIra.Olr.to . . 1 .. .0 . .. . .I.|l ..- .v. . 0 ....-Oill.) .OJI. ...3..l ”t o .0 .. \.. 0.. v Q o. . 0,- ... I. 00/ '1." ‘r..’. .. ...| . .Q. u c. p ., .- o...7,.—..:«. .1, - . .o o q . . I . u . no. . a.fr I O .0.‘ I..’u..ld.' . I. . . 1 c . . . u. I ... J1. Quilter..l.:aolrliv1 H . vt u o n a. . u. ....0 ....'..r¢u’c(;v u . . . . l . . 4 a. o .l .O 1" V('.QI IA'.’ . . a . . . ... ... : . . . . v a 1: .a.!o.¢otl..r . . .. . ..... u. . . r _.. . .. o.c... r .o1.3.11v. o . u a , a ... o) 0).. . . a O . . .1..> ....rY..4'lo}J- 5.! v . . O I . v ,1. I. _.101 Or . .. .. . . . . -_ __ . . : .I... 3...);132 O I. v. o 0 § .. _ l \nf ,..i’ . . . o. O u . n . I .n.oo.y .‘r'lh.t»a.o'..hufll . o . c . y n I? ’7. ..P! . u .. t c. .. A on I fl. _ . n . I t . o I . w I . . . . . . . . y o... ... _.... _ . ¢ t n . . . . u n o o u . . u.. . c. . . O. . ‘ c v Q - a. I O .n . , A I . . . y . c AT w gfee-o ARGIN j " I.oryO'J v.5)! 14.... 4" .-I. 4v4.lll‘ all. I”!‘O1" D o 250/ 9.: u . .. o . I I'll v00 . . . . . .u . 0.71.! \ A. . . o . . 011.: IrA.I-o.o lie! at -.- t n u . r .Jl”(tn' 0.0:)!0 A l . O n . O ... 1:. l. .’ .C’ . . . O . A X . J'Y‘bvr.“..roo.q c. .. . _ . Z. . . ‘o.". '6 to m. n 0 n . .\ N . O l . I . ‘u.‘.r .ai‘. d ... O. u . u . .. . . . a. . o. a 0'. .3 . . . ‘ . U c r . A A .I. ..:J. n . . I .l' V, ’5’ ’9 . . . . .. . v' .o .J I in! v. v . 0 v . . . o . c . ol....tl.'a- :O" u . . P . .l' 0-L T: . . .. .- .1lzo _(.o o. t.‘ . I v A. 4 I. '0 d! . .. \ . . dln' ." I'lp’llo I t - A . 0 yr 0 .".“.n V . o . . In . u A . . n .ol .0 ..o,’\‘up A. O . . .. . l n l .v 5" , .:.'! .I .. u. . . . _ .3. u . . I v 0 v . A.a... '.l. . A . . n-v . .rvl.. 1.... 0 . .0 Q“ - .. E _ .-.“.' . . .. . ... o I I O.. f I N" -_ T -.—* .: blll u . . n v I . I .. . p a a . . . x . . no . o . n 0 r.. I. .I , ' . . n . u I \o l.’ . l . I u n . . I . t o O . I . - - .l 01!. . no - o . ovi- r . A c o . rv.’ «Dr, :1 I'l ,7 A ‘ w r l o It '- . N. A I . .u'r . O.. .I‘a.” I u .— . ..~ ~ ‘ I 9.4 Q .0 ‘ '1 , . a o I v l 1 r .Olra'o. . . .r . .0 . .. o n. T I. . I . I . . I i THERAPEUTIC RELAT! . I o 0 «I. O . Lo LEVEL OF ELiCl'TED CLIENT .EM Thesis for the De . 4 I on. o .. A. V O . H .l r 4 '11.. .J .. a . . . o..,.......oo.a ... . It" 1 u o o n to I . . .‘o-adl-o: .gx‘l.. _ .4 0.9.2010... . 4-00.\0....\ u.. . 1...... . 0 . J ‘4. .n". .I'O ‘ . {0‘ .I. . r‘. ci 9 ......4..0.O. . I . .1. a. .04. ..40u.. o ..- . . . .v.~..6. . . ...13..ts. . . . .4o.1...3en... . .. 1:... . .. . . A. ._ . . . f3... .7. .3... it... ..v._...... . V .- 2' c . op... .. .. ~ .,o.. .-.-:.u.....l.om.$c ETIAV.D| b A ll .. . . o .1. 5...:s...-..v...‘o..oo’da.....1 . b C P D I U .v .. . . . . f).$.o..._vsb a; In"): A H I. . o I. a: .... .....o.=.'.l ... .. ... . £1.23 .... . I; . .. —‘ ‘-¢o:. o... v . ‘1. v‘00 1...... . . . .. 5. . . %'LIBRf};'yS Mgzdfigamfifie £1: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘ ’ 32 4524 ABSTRACT LEVEL OF ELICITED CLIENT EHPATHY IN THE THERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIP AND SELF-MOTHER IDENTIFICATION by Lesley Dargin The relationship between ratings of empathy and selected client self—report variables was investigated by studying segments from the third interviews of tape- reoorded therapy sessions. The clients were college students seeking psychotherapy. Based upon the literature on psychotherapeutic process, learning theory, and interpersonal theories of psychology which suggest that ”empathy" is a learned trait, the following hypotheses were presented: 1. Clients scoring low on the Truax Accurate hath? Scale, patient-therapist-patient (PTP) units, are likely to reveal a wide discrepancy on Self-Mother indices of similarity on the Leary Interpersonal Check-List (ICL). 2. Clients scoring high on the Truax Accurate Eupathy Scale will tend to perceive their mothers as being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving, as measured by the ICL, than will those scoring low on accurate empathy. .5 .4 £5: LJ I?F v 1'; 'I ‘J I} F? . 4'. £- j 3, .L a} 3 ‘3' L O . ‘ I . t .5... . ._ , . I... at 9) , . t are a. . .. A. . #31. H 4 z _ . . U. .4 u .\. w v. w . r13 .u‘ . I I _ .. . . , . I . A I . u . . I . . . I I . I t c .r i .. I .. I . . r . :4 A, I. a u v . u a e. n I n . . . . x . . . ‘1 I. t s . \.. I . u I -. L. . .., 4 . I i. . w . o. f, . . .1\ .rl . . u .. ..I . L A . . . I I I . I. I- .. . I. I q . .. I I .. . o i . a . 3.x. . J. o . . . . . .I 1 I «I . . u . I . . .L p . . I I ,..7 7 .. . n . U .u t. . .. IV \I. I 4 L I u L,‘ - I? N . ‘ v I} i . ts IYI- .. I . . . ~ 9.. fl 3. .I .I' A . . r I I 4 Is. .6 h? . ~ .IJ .It. ‘. I. . 1.. (I mi 43‘, s 4 v j a W ‘ s a... u. i» n \.I . . a v IJC . ‘a .‘u :1 r3. 5 u I. ‘1 Je d I . ...._ “AI . 1. . .I n I. o I I . . ¢.v . , . f. a. , s a . . I . r.. v . . . .7 .. v ’ . .. . . I q i Q. . a .. o I . .4 . or; . ~ . A . e \ lo .. a I: \ i a I I I .o . I I . I . . . n-y. . ’ I C!- .. u . n . t. w u . . I I I .w. . .l v I , I . I L v. n A p l . ~ 0 l G . . ‘11.. \ ,9 . Iv . . I v _ .l l‘ . 4 . . I s . I» .r . . a . n . I I I . Q .. a _ e... a _ . ‘. . 1 _ I... \ t . . II... 9 . r I I. . n a VI 1 I I e . I . .1 t . t . . I. as I . I I . n a ,_ I, LII I s o I I y . I.. . i. ‘ , . e . . . J _ 4p . .Ifl . .. I I .i Lesley Dargin 3. The relative validity of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Empathy Scale), a self-report measure of empathic communication will be checked against the True: Scale. Truax (1966) argued that a questionnaire approach to the study of process variables is highly econ- omical yet has questionable validity and is not likely to be reliable. It is proposed that Truax's assertions hold true. Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Hypothesis 2 was not borne out by the data gathered from the female sample. Yet, among male clients high empathizers tended, direction- ally though not significantly,—to view their mothers as being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving than did the low empathizers; This finding is consistent with Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 was significantly supported. Finally, an unexpected finding of this study is that there appears to exist a positive and significant relationship between the traits of empathic competency and distrust among female clients. A positive yet non-significant correlation between these variables was found among the males. Replications of this study are necessary in order that confirmations of these latter findings may be provided. It can be speculated that the lack of support for hypothesis 1 was, in part, a function of sampling errors. Limited variability in gross levels of identification.may Lesley Dargin have obfuscated any true relationships that may exist between degree of Self-Mother identification and empathy. Though directional support was provided for Hypothesis 2 by the pilot male clients, significant support may be realized through the study of a larger male sample. Given that the females tended not to identify with their ‘ mothers, it is possible that they had difficulty discerning their feelings toward the same. The lack of support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b among the female clients may be reflective of this speculation. Support for Hypothesis 3 confirms Truax's argument that self-report measures are not valid instruments in the study of process variables. To My Folks LEVEL OF ELICITED CLIENT EMPATHY IN THE THERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIP AND SELF- MOTHER IDENTIFICATION BY Lesley Dargin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Deparhment of Psychology 1973 L" ACIQIOWLEIXI‘IEMENTS Hy warmest appreciation is expressed toward my comnittee chairman, Dr. Norman Abeles, for his quiet support, patience, and ready availability. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Zucker for his helpful criticisms and willingness to ”lend an ear." Finally, I wish to extend my gratitude to Dr. Dozier Thornton for his participation on my committee. iv List of Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables vi I. Introduction................................l II. Experimental Hypotheses...................18 III. Method...................................21 IV. Results...................................26 V. Discussion.................................34 VI. smarYOOOOOOOO0.00.000.000.0000...00.0.0050 ReferenceSOCO0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.00....53 Appendix A. Truax Accurate Empathy Scale..............,91 B. Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory Emthy ScaleOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000Iiga C. Leary Interpersonal Checklist.............1oo LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Inter-Judge Interval Ratings of Client EmpathYOOOOOO0.000000000000000.0.00000000000027 2 Inter-Rater Reliabilities on Sample Female- Client Tape~RecordingS....o..................28 3 Relatinnships Between Truax Accurate Empathy (AE) Scores (Client) and Selected Other variabJ-GBOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.0.00000000000000031 4 Relationships Between Counselor-Client Discrepancies (C-C Dis.) on Perception of Therapist-Offered Empathy (Weighted + or -) and Selected Other Variables.................32 5 Relationships Between Self Lov and Selected Othcr “1.131319...oeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeecoo-00000035 6 Truax Accurate Empathy Ratings (Client)......58 7 Therapist Empathy: Barrett-Lennard Relab‘r tionahip'Inventory..o........................93 8 Raw Dom and Lov Scores (Conscious Self and Mother) Obtained on the Interpersonal Check- LIBt (ICL).....OOO..O.OCOO00.00.00.000000000098 9 Standardized Dom and Lov Scores (Conscious Self and Mother) on the ICL and measured Discrepancy (Sle‘MOthCI‘). 00 e ace 0 e e e co. 00.0 e .99 vi -9 r.,. “i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The importance of the interactional process in therapy, as contrasted to the didactic, has been stressed in the psychotherapy literature. An involved communicative relationship between therapist and client is frequently perferred in order to maximize therapeutic effectiveness (Kell and Mueller, 1966; FremnpReichlann, 1950; Rogers, 1967). In discussing the need for an intense relationship, Kell and.Hueller (1966) note that, "at these decisive times where the counseling relationship is intense and the client's confrontation reaches into the depths of his conflicts, we have noted not only that a client's conflicts are most active and clear, but that the conflicts are experienced and expressed in a compressed way." Further, working with schizophrenic clients, Rogers (1967) found that it is possible for the client to control, to an extent, the therapist expressions of warmth and concern. Sumnerily, many of the facilitating components of an involved and helpful thera- peutic relationship have been tentatively isolated and defined. Thus, the importance of "empathy"-the comprehen- sion of the breadth and intensity of another's feelings and 3...... I . : , Lax; . . . . . A . i . . Q card 0 a 1‘ o . . c as . r R . .. i w , I r . is .r :( ~ . , . 9. . a \ u x I . I. > . a I." r.. .e A : . '4! “a, the communication of that comprehension-0n the part of the therapist, has been emphasized (Katz, 1963; Helpern and Lesser, 1960; Rogers, 1951). Rogers (1967) describes therapist empathy as the sensing of the inner world and personal meanings of the client ”as if" they were the ther— apist's own. In underscoring the "as if" quality of therapist empathy, he cautions counselors against confusing the private meanings of the client with their own. A distinct and continuous differentiation should be made between the two phenomenological spheres. Yet, little is known about the psychogenesis of empathic abilities. Variously, though, the development of an accurate ability to empathize has been suggested as forming a foundamental prerequisite for normal psychological adjustment (Fromm-Reichmann, 1950; Goodman, 1952; Helpern, 1960; Norman and Ainsworth, 1954; Sullivan, 1953) and as an unreliable predictor of such adjustment (Rosenman and Brenner, 1967). ' Still, the quantity of research concentrating on the relative necessity of empathic competence on the part of the client, has been limited. Rogers (1967) alludes to this possible necessity quite indirectly and, perhaps, unintentionally. He argues that clients who erceive, early in the counseling relationship, the qualities of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathy, as expressed by the therapist, later show more change than those who do not. The present study focuses on the variable of client empathy and one of its possible antecedent or correlate factors, identification. More specifically, an examination of the unique quality of empathic communication between therapist and client is attempted. Further, the relative validity of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Empathy Scale), a self-report measure of empathic communication, is checked against the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale, a content analysis measure. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Defi th Barrett-Lennard (1962) defines the process of empathic understanding as the experiencing of the process and content of another's awareness in all its aspects. However, he does not implicate that sensory elements may be involved in this experiencing. Katz (1963) argues that empathy, though a difficult construct to define, is the reliving in oneself of the imitative responses of another person. He stresses the idea that the empathic ability is an imitative one which is a response to the stimulus of another's verbal and emotive output. Katz does not describe the qualitative nature of the transmitting or sensing process. Nor, does he propose that empathic understanding requires a matching of sensory experiences as does Barrett-Lennard. Rather, he argues that a sort of ‘cognitive-emotive process, only, is needed. Luszki (1951), also, discredits the notion that empathic communication stimulates neurological or physiological changes in the empathizer. Simultaneously, though, he attempts to delineate the interactional elements of the empathic communication. {Empathy, he posits, revolves around 1) one's ability to judge how another person feels about 4 himself and 2) an ability to assess one's feelings he, himself, has. Thus, according to Luszki (1951), insight, on the part of the empathizer, is a necessary prerequisite for maximal accuracy in the assessment of another's feelings. There has been some challenge to the construct validity of empathy. Kurtz and Grummon (1972) were unable to establish such validity but failed to determine whether this was due to empathy scale variables or, to the status of the rater (judge or client). Kerr and Speroff (1954) argue for the inclusion of "predictive empathy” in defining the variable of empathic competency. Still, Rogers (1967) ‘ found that the level of process that the client engaged in, in one study, was significantly related to the judges' Accurate Empathy ratings of the therapists. Finally, Truax (1972) notes that the AE does not merely measure some indefinable I’gilcbal good.” He quotes a study conducted by Shapire (1968) which helped confirm the notion of construct validity for empathy. Shapiro found, in studying the correlations between AE ratings made by trained counselors and people untrained in therapeutic systems, that the AE measures what people generally think of as ”understanding." In studying the actual or supposed sequence of empathic development, Sullivan (1953) noted that mothers appear to have an ability to transmit feelings of anxiety or anger to their infants. That is, the infant may be K . r l J, v . n w n . I . a ‘1 . ,. t i . ‘ '. a - ' x 7 u),- H . a. -. a,‘ J a r _, ' , ' l ‘ . - 3, ab- , . . . I 3 ,. 1.. r I? V“. L ‘ Q .L ‘, a; ‘ .’ _ ’ . V . . J r x attuned to emotional fluctuations in his mother. He predicted, however, that some researchers may be inclined to disregard, or dismiss entirely, the plausibility of the existence of an apparent nonpverbal communicative link (beyond tactile sensations) between the mother and her infant because of its "mystic“ connotations. Escalona (1945), in observing prison mothers did, nevertheless, .find support for Sullivan' a contention that there is an empathic link between the nurturing one and the infant. She noted in working with formerly imprisoned mothers that on the days they visited the parole officers, their children became upset. In the same vein, Howrer (1960), on the development of empathy, postulates that a modeling effect may be operative in the genesis and maturation of empathic competencies. According toflowrer's theory, subject A provides the model and experiences the reinforcements for his activities. Subject B, then, “both.experiences some of the same gensogz consequences of A's behavior as A experiences it"and also,"intuits" A's feelings of either pleasure or displeasure. Applying Howrer's learning theory approach to the motherbinfant relationship, the mother, as a nurturing model, can act, experience reinforcements for her actions and transmit her satisfaction or dissatisfaction to her young child. The child then can, because of his awareness of the fluctuations in the nurturing one, .. t. ,1! a...“ x J .. Tia . - . \w t . .r. r; t nf‘ ‘ a e ‘ . ..s n # . , u . a a. .. . ~ . . .1 . a w . t . . .f.5 . v .. . , i . 1 «a . . _. . . . I t w . . u ,(. _... . a .' s ' »v A I .. .u . 14“ .‘ 3‘5 w . u p ‘1 ‘y‘J . ..l .y a : .I .r l 2; a . N a. .. . 1.... :1. . x t a . L. . . a . m ‘ V . '- u o o l . | . 1 . n . . . . . . . u I . u ‘ a . . . . u U, I n U a U o u . . I I . O . . _ I). . . . a 1 o a. u \ . .r p. . ‘w' selectively choose to either immediately imitate or cognitively record her actions. Other learning theorists have stressed the importance of the perceived shmilarity between model and observer in increasing ”empathic responsiveness" (Bandura, 1969). Stotland, et. a1. (1966) argue that this empathic responsiveness is directly related to the degree of self- stimulation ”involving imaginal representation of aversive or pleasurable consequences." Further, Berger (1962), though.possib1y underestimating the value of facial cues in empathic responsiveness (Bandura, 1969), asserts that the observer, again, responds emotionally on the basis of his presumed knowledge of the model's affective experiences. Client Egpgthz In surveying the literature, the present author found that relatively little support was offered for the primacy of the notion of client empathy. 0n the issue of empathy, generally, the major import is on therapist variables. This deficiency is partly accounted for by the belief held by many researchers that, not withstanding the value of the interacticnal aspects of the relationship, it is the therapist who primarily and almost exclusively controls its facilitating or deteriotative conditions (Bergin and Garfield, 1971). As previously mentioned, Rogers (1971) Kai! . .‘ . . I . . , o. a ‘4 )..I. a: . w t. l v .. a . A‘ w .. 5...! v z. . u . o A. a . 1 . . O v a o . n 4 .‘ a , 1m 1 . f - v ~ observed that clients can effect the expression of therapist variables. The client variable is an important though ' neglected one., Luszki (1951), in recognizing that client empathy tends to correlate positively with self-insight, confirmed the importance of the client variable in general. Dymond (1948), in performing some of the pioneering clinical research on the concept of empathy, asserts that empathy may, as Luszki (1951) implied, be one of the underlying ‘mechanisms upon.which insight is based. She defined insight as, "the understanding of the self-other patterns of roles which the individual has incorporated and which form the basis of his expectations of others.” She made use of the TAT in.analyzing the correlation between insight and empathy. Earther, Goodman (1952), in additiontto noting the existence of a high positive correlation between insight and empathy, found that perceptual distortion (interpersonal) correlates negatively with both insight and empathy. Halpern (1960) states that empathy is a tool for the therapist but a 522; for the client; In one study of a student nurse population, Halpern (1955) noted that empathic competence ascends as the similarity between the empathizer and the other increases. Also, self-satisfaction on the part of the empathizer facilitates his empathic accuracy (Helpern, 1955). Finally, Katz (1963) contends that clients may be distinguished from "normals" by the farmer's deficiencies in empathic communication. (’1 ... A! .- v ~ . ; - 4 «yo . . . - - ~ . . l t J' _ _ P . ‘ . . « 1 ., y , z 4. "“x “ -‘({ ' ' ‘1 ‘ ' " '7 l ' ”- ' . ‘ u - ' .241 . ~ ‘ ‘ V . _ .)e _ '5: f 5 r.' , -.- 3 12-1.! — ‘ ‘ . L ‘1; "w n- - - ' . . ‘ .' I , J '-v i' ' .‘ l r ‘ v ‘ '- \ . i .V . - .. \ I .5 . I , ' \“ v r ‘ 'r’ " v -. _ :- ._ r"... , f . .g ' 5-: .' _‘ -' ‘V F - ' ‘ ' a ‘ . . ‘ 4 . . . , L2 “b . - .‘ ‘ - I. A" "z '15.» V . ~25", .-"..' “ ml a... a. --' . ‘, ._ m ~ ‘. Characteristically, he insists, clients tend to have extreme levels of empathy (either too high or too low) which inter- fere with their tnterpersonal relationships. The poor empathizer, he adds, probably has considerable difficulty in.grasping the meanings behind communicated expressions _of feeling or concern. Sex Variables Though Garfield (1971), in a review of several studies which can with the impact of the sex variable in the thera- peutic relationship, found the consensus on its import to be inconclusive,-Cartwright (1955) in a study of the clients seen at the university of Chicago Counseling Center, noted that males tend to require more counseling hours than do females. The differential times spent in therapy, according to the sex of the client, was significant but lost much.of its significance when contrasted to the importance of the other outcome variables. It appears, therefore, that males may express fewer feelings early in therapy, or, that they may perceive fewer therapist offered conditions of warmth, unconditional positive regard, and empathy. Still, Ruderman (1955) found that, in general, there appears to exist no sex differences in levels of empathic competence. Nevertheless, she observed 2b9 boys and girls in her research and did not study college or adult populations. Alexander and Abeles ‘ 9 . .1 ,nl. 'I ' v r ‘ ‘ . ‘ .‘ A ' . A , .a "I; ‘ , / - ! } . ‘ .. . ‘ A _ -. I. 1 ‘ v" ‘ . . A. . i. A ‘ u u . ‘. . ,_ ‘ 7‘ '1: t :v' ..' ‘.- L ,.l_ .‘ -/ .‘ Y ._' t” I _ . . ‘63 _ ‘ ' ‘ k 1‘. 1:. x . \ A 1‘ 3‘. 'I it 7 ’l' l ’ ‘V . , . ,. e: - - ' , I J i ,. ‘ . 1 ‘ ‘ ~ ' a '2 2t ., a ‘1 x ‘ ‘ 1 A...» i kt“ “ I e > . . O ‘1 -' ‘ l . ‘ h g. ‘ K K‘J . ' n s . h , . , . ‘ u . .‘ e ' ‘2) ‘ . ‘ ' ,I-m ' L ' 9» u'. .. ; ~ ’r- ' ‘8'“ . |,- ‘ ‘t 1' "a :6 ' . . v“ . . I - T A... l ' I a _ '1 3%, w A ’ _‘. .’ l: . I. I y - ‘m‘ A ‘1 1 a ‘ - . _ . O ‘ . ~. ., a , | A? I 1‘ _- ‘ '. . , ‘ O ' s . 10 (1969), in a study of sex differences and dependency among clients, found, at the'Michigan State university.Counseling Center, that males there did not differ significantly from females in the dependency variable. Fuller (1965) argues that counselor sex does not seem to have an important effect on outcome. Yet, in administering the Kelley and Fiske Relationship Index to college students, he discovered that females expressed more feelings than did male clients in both the intake and first therapy interviews. He held the therapist variables of sex and client variable of presenting problem constant. Relating the sexpdifferential findings to quality of empathic communication, Cartwright and Lerner (1963) ascertained that, in the initial therapeutic sessions, therapists tend to have higher empathy scores with opposite- sexed clients than with those of the same sex. Related to outcome, the researchers noted that those same-sexed clients who did improve were perceived by the experienced therapists, early in the counseling relationships, as being very much like themselves. Further, these opposite-sexed clients who improved.were judged, by the inexperienced therapists, early in the counseling sessions, to be very different from them- selves. Therefore, a client-sex by counselor-experience interaction, on the empathic variable, was noted. . n u n .. - It ,1 . on ,.. s .. I \. 4. .xxuv . 7 . 1' U '6) 79 s u g" M! Asia I.. . h . Is .. . "a u .- t I § i). . . .. c. , . . . J .. K .c -1. . a. 1 l . . . u . . .u v .. . r . in .' . . ~ . . .. . . t u... 1 V e is . a e... VI. . 3.... r..... 1‘ . 1 a l \ ‘tfi * J . P . . l « (an , i .l‘ t 4 u 4 n.‘ ~ ~ .\ r m . A. O \- . a. u e, . . s - P. u t s V v .1 n . v. . r . ‘t. a . : . . t v cs .I . s. .\ n . c ,- IV . .I. .5 w. ‘. D ... . . u c . .. n v 5 u . h a ,\ s. C . r r . 3. e Vr .1 fl . i .n . . . e t . I . c o 1., o . . e .( I. u v n a a . u .. I . fl 1 _ fly I o . n t v? I) 1‘. in! x “(J 11 Therapist Experience and Comtengy In regard to the element of therapist experience, Bergin and Garfield (1971), after an extensive review of the available literature on the subject, concluded that regardless of the therapist's training or theoretical orientation his ability to be genuine, warm, and empathic was most crucial in determining his potential effectiveness on the outcome measures. In view of the fact that so much of the available literature on therapist experience is - confounded by the tendency of workers to partial out several important interacticnal effects, in its study, Bergin and Garfield (1971) assert that the evidence on therapist experience is inconclusive. However, Mullen (1969) found support for the hypothesis that inexperienced therapists may reach low levels of empathy to which the experienced therapists never descend. Beery (1970), though finding that experienced therapists offer higher absolute levels of Roger's proposed "core" facilitative conditions (warmth, empathy, congruence, and positive regard), also discovered that experienced therapists and inexperienced therapists, alike, are not unconditional in.offering positive regard to friendly as opposed to hostile clients. In this instance, clients were found to effect the expression of therapist variables. There have been other situations reported in.which .u. c. M . I .e .7 . . a .L L) .r n .1 a... 1: 'C'v'e .t. IV ”C. \t. 0“- 9 Ilile .rY .5. ‘1 n s . 4 . .. . I! at q . I'm. «I a P a. I h. . K t . I O . . A- . OI .. 12 clients operated on certain process variables rather independently of the therapist ' s interventions . Holder, Carkhuff, and Berenson ( 1967) reported that, in one study on the experimental manipulation of process variables, high-functioning "clients" were found to perform at high levels of self-exploration regardless of the level of expression of the therapist variables of empathy, warmth, concreteness, or genuineness. Six naive college students, ‘ previously found to operate at either extremely high or extremely low- levels of the above mentioned variables in a helping situation, served as ”clients." Each client was seen by an experienced therapist who, in the space of the therapeutic hour, offered Hi-he-Hi responses, sequen- tially, in twenty minute segments each. The therapists effected. the ”Lo" periods by withholding their best responses, though not offering negative responses, either. The level of self-exploration of the low-functioning clients was determined by the level of therapist-offered conditions. Also, the high-functioning clients explored their personal- ities at a depth that was significantly greater than that of the low-functioning clients. Piaget, Carkhuff, and Berenson (1967 ) attempted to replicate and expand these findings. By exposing four high-functioning clients and four low-functioning clients to one high-functioning and one moderate-functioning therapist, they fmmd that, during | r O ‘ A . . s - o 1 :‘v : ‘ t .b ' 1 a r‘ ‘ . , ' ‘ .a .' ' . . a. ‘ ‘ " ' fl - A ‘-' < - . . s _ _ . ‘ ,V .- . ' ‘ ‘ _ : e, 'l , _ ' r . . L. . » a - ‘ I r .I’ v ,. I ‘\ . an; . v. . V" ' i; a V .s ‘1 - . _. I ,_._ 1 , . :f v . ' '< ’ .a '3 $ ) - . v ‘ 1 ~. .. . .r . J . ' ‘ . , . . - . ~ » a ., . . . . o .. gs" 3 A . . ‘ ‘ . . . . . '\ , _ .. pg, - -. - . ~--- «.- rv - ; . w- "s . ‘ I - a - -‘ l . 1.: . . n v ' J -' . c - fl . ' u“. _ ‘ . A ‘ .- . e, H ‘ ‘ Tr . ‘ . ‘ 4 e ‘. ' ‘ ' ° ‘ - 1 .' t t . 1 f! . ‘ -—_ 1 . i ‘ \. l I ‘ ' . , . . . _ 1- . .. 5, ~ ‘ ,‘u . J. . . . c c“ . ~ ' . . ° ‘ ,‘V' 1 ' ‘1 J ‘ .‘ 0 ‘ . ’ a ‘- ' ' . \ . . .- _ . ‘ ‘ . 7‘ » ear“ I ‘ . A , v . . ' N ‘ ' s \ ' ~ ‘ u I t -.‘ a ' , ‘ .. w ‘ ' V ‘. ‘ . , ': ' , . ._ ~ : . . . - « ‘_ 'Q ._ . .. , . . - . A ‘ ” ' . l‘ , . . - . b _ v .4 t;\ e e \ , . , . ‘ > .1 rA: (z n ‘ . K . '. p ' ' ‘ . n ' t4 ') ‘ ‘ ~ ) u §'. . . ‘1“ ¢" . -, u . 1 my I .‘ v. ' a . w 0 ' v ‘ 3‘ . . , _,' .. . . 4 s a I ' g - ' I ‘. ‘. ' ‘1. , ‘.~ . . . _ .' ‘ >'!. ".P . , \e o . . . J . - l v..‘ , u ‘ n ' ' . l «f ‘ ; v ‘ ‘ ‘ )7" . -'.- *‘ '. 1U A " e r .s rt 4).. . v I - w ‘ l 13 the initial interview, the therapist determines the level of therapist-offered conditions. In this study the counselors lowered their levels of positive regard, empathy, self-disclosure, and genuineness in the middle of the therapeutic hour. The findings by the researchers generally confirmed the results reported by Holder, Carkhuff, and Berenson (l967)*with the added findings that both lowb and highpfunctioning clients declined in level of self-exploration.when seen.by the moderate-functioning therapist. The authors mentioned, however, that the high- functioning clients operated at levels of self-exploration relatively independent of therapist-offered conditions. In reporting these findings, though, they caution that the client may, during periods of longer therapeutic interaction, effect the level of therapist-offered conditions. Cannon and Pierce (1968), studying six neuropsychiatric patients (schizophrenic reaction), found that low and moderate conditions of therapist-relationship variables actually caused a decline in the level of client self-exploration of these low-functioning patients. Finally, Rogers (1971) feels that it is the experienced therapist who can offer more facilitative core conditions. ‘A‘. "o 9'. - . I - e , . I \ ' r , _- . .é . f?‘ -’ .| .7. .~ I , ' 7 ‘ ' ' : . .r I”. -1n_ e .4 v ~' -.-. - .A-vi my 9 e . , ‘ ‘2- I ‘ gait .n ' 9' u ‘ . r e " ‘.' r: . .‘ n . '.‘ a a . ‘ . H" g y _ fig} ' . 4‘ . .' . ‘”~ _. ”a a ’ I - , - . ' . i a. -l .' _ . - L . - p v . a ' ‘ ' ‘s'.’ s 4 . 1 3 . . ' 9:} ‘ . ' - ' ‘ x 7 . .1 . '- h.’ ‘ ‘I‘ ' . . '.O ‘ l . _;. 7. , .. " . D , " *- . , w _ v , _ e w a, . . Lg‘ . p - . ‘ I a e; ‘ - v . “ _ 3"? .. ‘_ ' .r, \ L . I Iv Y I . L‘ ' .> \ "‘3 ' - f . - 2‘ .. v '. ,- ' t - . ‘ _ , , ‘ 1‘, .. ' ‘. ‘.‘o ‘ ‘ ~ . . ‘ ‘3: , ‘- 1‘ _._.g - ' . , ‘ 1 .- ? ~' I: ‘ ~ ‘ . r . 1; ‘V . - ' E I ~ a .' . a , ' . ' . '1 - . v v ' a ,' l ‘ ,- q 3 t . 4" d - .‘ i .J; g 1 f _ v ' . . ‘ . . , v .- .- ‘ o J? .‘ I . . . . . ‘ .~ s ‘ . "A. 'o ) .r‘ - ' . . ,a , , n." K. ‘ I ~ ~ .- (' ~ I- a “I ‘t. “ I g ‘ _ ‘ . . ' . - .' - I i 'K; .I - 'r e» 1.1 '. 1 . ~ . 14 Systems of Content Analysis and Self-Report Data The.system of content analysis has been described by larsden (1965) as being a "research technique for the .systematic ordering of the content of communication processes.“ Interactional processes are divided into units and coded. The value of this system of process analysis lies in the fact that the interactional processes of therapeutic sessions can be studied in an approximately quantifiable manner. What is more, Truax (1966) found that very reliable.content ratings are arrived at whether only the therapist's statements are analyzed or client-therapist units are studied as a whole. Truax used 50 samples (10 each for 5 different subjects) in arriving at his conclusion. 'The middle and later sessions were analyzed in order to ' + check the reliability of content analysis instruments. On the other hand, the validity of self-report data in.personality research typically has been held in question by several workers. Allport (1937) contends that subjects can easily falsify their answers on "paper and pencil" tests of personality. ‘Vith the popular interest in psychological phenomena and research rampant today, possibly resulting in more sophisticated testees, Allport's argument weighs heavily. ‘ nevertheless, many "paper and pencil" tests do have internal validity scales. The accuracy of the scales themselves, of course, varies with the specific nature and construction of ‘ a: d . f.“ i I: e r l n. \. K, I e I. .u e v . I .e a, .so ,. . n , A I m, f. v . a _ t ”PI .$ . n ~ . .. n . ‘.V r.. (I c | (u . V r 1 ., luv . . OI \\..I.J. . . , . I, . n . I I . v a e . . n . . ..n a . \- e l . A . ‘e A A‘ . e I I I .. n ‘ . ‘ p. s. d v r . ., I t .u e i l... s .3 - C I.- 47 9,, .4: , .v. E. 1‘ p. {1. i. . . . . . b c. . i y s n. . a s. . y: x . .r .4 . n N o . . ... . ~ . ,b . . . . u e; . , . c t ‘u- . . a. . m... . .e .. . a, at d .3 . u' . ... . .. r a. . .a a Q . 7.. . 4 ,. in y . v .v . . e I 4 t 4 . \ .v v t . n . 4 we .\ $7; I. n . . _.n... i s x a f 4 Z a . .r. 1’ v e 4:1. . a. 4 . a. \0. n 0‘ O .4» it. n h . P e. . x. . u, 1/ . . . - n w _ . , . . p n a . . \ a o if. n u .n .U .7 w v u . A .‘v I . .. s . . i a t . .x r y, . . . J. . l e . u , '1 s. ,l . v . . ., e . s . . . -. ‘ x i. o s 1 . n 1 s p . o . . . u u a I 1 I . .e . . .. a . . v o n .. "t u \ 15 the personality inventory underquestion. While agreeing with the preceeding notion, Bergin (1971) adds that adjective “checklists in particular tend to be valuable in the assess- ment of change, in addition to other variables, depending upon the inventory. Finally, Bernreuter (1935) states that statistically, "the traits posited.by questionnaires have a real existence and are not the result of chance factors.“ Hunt, et. al. (1944) conclude that credibility is lent to self-report instruments by the pre-standardization procedures undertaken before their general release. .Sasalias Kiesler, Mathieu, and Klien (1964) tape-recorded interviews with 7 neurotics, 7 hospitalised schizophrenics, and 7 normals in an effort to determdne the effects of segment length on the variance of interbrater reliabilities. in early interview (1 of the first 5) and a late interview (1 of the last 5) for each subject was selected for study. iwe-,_fi~, 8-, and 16-minute segments were Judged according to Gendlin's Experiencing Scale. The authors found that the length of the time segment recorded does not effect interbrater reliabilities. Further, the "Experiencing" ratings given to the recorded sessions did.not vary, significantly, as a function of the length of the time segment studied. ‘However, it was pointed out by the authors . I I? ..y up 1‘1- .. I ...¥el , .5 ,c, . e . _ . r . e i ‘ r e . v Wm . . . a; it .. ea . a n, i. . as o. , n e D x. e e I u _ . e 16 that the absolute level of Experiencing ratings correlated positively with the length of the time segment sampled. Thus, with the Experiencing Scale, they feel that cross- time segment comparisons tend not to be reliable in the study of process variables. Yet, equal—time segments of any length (2-, 4-, 8-, or l6-minutes) are comparable. Despite, the problem of time-segment location in studying process variables does exist. Conceivably, because of the factors of increased acquaintance and interacticnal ease, over the course of a single therapeutic hour or across the duration of the therapeutic encounter, a given variable may be more frequently expressed in one segment as opposed to another. Conversely, increased anxiety on the part of the client, as more defensive material is dealt with, may produce a variance in the expression of that same variable in either the same or opposite direction. Karl and.Abeles (1969) question the commonly held assumption that process variables are randomly distributed over the therapeutic hour. They found the expression of certain interactional variables, for example, hostility and avoidance, to be more frequent in certain 10-minute segments than in others. The authors conceded that random sampling techniques~may~appro- priately be used.when analyzing tapes for Rogerian factors. Nevertheless, they feel that an investigation of Freudian process variables can, perhaps, be better conducted par 17 specific segment location methods. In any case, they feel that a general formula for the representative location of process variables is not forthcoming. 1) .uur Q-fl aJ ( ‘V n i tub I . B .e V e . In . e CHAPTER II EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES The level of client empathic abilities is operation- ally defined in the present study by scores obtained on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale (1961), patient-therapist- patient units. Object and process of client identification (character trait) is herein defined and measured by self- other (Level ll-C) coordinates and discrepancies obtained by the client on the Leary Interpersonal Check-List (1957) quartiles. The hypotheses presented in this paper are based primarily upon Sullivan's (1953) initial interpersonal- developmental theory of infant-mother communicative patterns (empathy). Further elaboration upon Sullivan's theory is provided by Mowrer's (1960) learning theory approach concerning the genesis and maturation of empathic competencies. Ebeever, no attempt will be made to either substantiate, confirm, or disprove lowrer's hypothesis concerning the involvement of sensory processes in empathic communication. Finally, ideally, the non-directive therapeutic relationship is fundamentally enhanced by its nurturant qualities. Rogers (1967) argues that the therapist's feeling 18 . pi. e. 3.7} 0.0“. . . e \t.‘ ‘ \ r . . LI: .1 . I 1. , e ,. .. v (4.7 . Jlf v . e I . \ x . U n r I. .. e .1 k. .3 u ,s i. .e.\ . . 3.x: ,4 . . . . . 1. . . a e i _ e . . . e . i r e c w ‘ \ I I v! n u l a a e . . .. . s m . l . A .— . . ‘ I . w {I . . ‘ . .e e . 3 . . A .. e . in. . u e‘ . . O ‘ . v. . . . a. v, v ‘ .n ‘ V , e. . , m , .9 I ‘ ‘ , . e Auvd u. .,~ .b ,. ... ... .9! .p .i , .e. n , .H . .l . n A I c v _ e O . I \ . . ) . e ‘ . .. . ~‘ I ‘ e I ‘1‘ . x . . K ..i . - . I s ’ ‘ p e . e a . e t. e . - .- . i l i ‘ l ' , \ ‘al - _ ~~ O U I. i O a . 19 of positive regard for his client, ". . . means that he prizes. his client, as a person, with somewhat the same quality of feeling that a 13—83-39-3- feels for his 93312, prising him as a person regardless of his particular behavior at the moment." ‘ On the basis of the preceeding rationale, the following hypotheses are presented: m othesis ;: Clients scoring low on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale, patient-therapist—patient (PTP) units, are likely to reveal a wide discrepancy on self- mother indices of similarity on the Leary Interpersonal Check-List (ICL) . This expectation is primarily grounded on the basis of Sullivan's theory on infant-mother comicative patterns. A secondary source of theoretical Justification for this hypothesis is, again, to be found in lowrer's (1960) contention that a modeling effect is operative in the development and mastery of empathic abilities. gnomesis II: Clients scoring high on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale will tend to perceive their mothers as being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving, as measured by the ICL, than will these scoring low on the Truax scale. This hypothesis is based upon evidence gathered by Guerney, Stover, and DeMeritt (1968) which suggests that highly empathic mothers tend to be more accepting of their children's ° - ‘t e % . ‘ ’1‘.- O o . .‘ _ ' r: ~. .4. ..'.'| a- ' .‘ 12H; . a Z. A > ,‘ l l V- I t“ ' l 1 ‘ i I . - , _\ . » ' .t ‘. . . _ ’3’ . ‘ , 1 . , l ‘ C e a I - . , . . n #3 l w . N ‘N' . J. . ' e e i ~ . ‘ » ‘ 'fr ‘- .‘ $- 1 7, ,- i. , , 20 feelings than are mothers who are low in empathic abilities. They found low empathic mothers to be more critical and withdrawn in their communications with their children. The level of empathic communication between the mother and her child tended to correlate .73 with reflective verbal behavior toward the same, as well. gnomes“ II : The relative validity of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Empathy Scale), a self-report measure of empathic comication, will be checked against the Truax Scale. Truax (1966) argued that a questionnaire approach to the study of process variables in the therapeutic relationship is highly economical yet slightly valid and poorly reliable. Truax (1966) found ‘ the Barrett-Lennard Scale to correlate very poorly with his own on both PIP and TPT co-unicative units of empathy. It is predicted that Truax's assertions hold. O I I ' . I I l . ' g o - e . 4 ‘ ~ _ l . » - , . . m . , . . A 4 , e . . , I ' ' e , , - . ‘ . l . . . . ‘ . D . . - I I e , a . . s . . . e a ; I, _. . c ,‘ . - e u . U, r . a o ‘ . . . . n m . u‘ 1 ‘ V - ‘ ‘ e s r . , .- v ‘ ' ' ‘ I . W I)“ ; r 1 , n . A ‘ l e , ' f ’ . I ' . r F} x ‘ . ‘ ’ ~ ' 7‘" . w ' V T‘ wre- ' - J. g ‘.~' ’1 wt: - 5,. I. ,., h“, ‘ 7 ., 3, .. 'v‘ .-,-.. . '4 ‘II . ~ . u . ' ‘ m I- J"? v . ._ .«1 ‘ ‘ - -. . . .. F - .s {‘4’ e " "' I? -.. 4 l»; n . ; n . f ' .. * . ;. 't . _i A ‘. ,. n u or , a . ,a ' . ~ ‘,A .. . T . I. .1 " ' ' at ‘ -. e . q. . a' b - Y I" u I . i r ' 4 ‘P f. b ’ 7 '1" I 'W ‘ , . A“ . ‘ ‘ , , 1, . ‘ " i v ‘ ‘. , F ' '.‘> ~ r. L -I t 7 1 d" T .‘ J. H r ' . - CHAPTER III METHOD ‘ Sgigge of Data The cases used in the present study were selected from the research library of the Michigan State university Counseling Center. The clients seen at the Center are from the general student population.(though primarily underb graduates) of the university. The therapists at the Counsel- ing Center include practicum students, interns, social workers, counseling specialists, and Ph.D. psychologists, with varying degrees of experience. After an initial intake interview, clients are assigned to individual therapists on the basis of the therapist's desire to work'with the particular presenting problem under question. The clients asked to participate in the Center's research.activities were requested to complete a battery- of tests after the first interview and after selected future interviews. Tape-recordings of the interviews were also made. Selection of Cases Thirty-three individual cases are used in the present study. Thirty-three tape-recorded sessions representing 21 -r‘ :54 t «it n _ lit. . u . , v 2 .rr.. . t. e .f . I C) a 9‘. . .15. a3, . .. v 0 I e .| . . . i e a _ e v V a r x . I e . 21 n ‘V‘ .? I.s i U. e I e) '1 .D h 4 v .I. a: .. .1 1,. t . \ . 4 I i . — . . t 22 portions of the treatment duration of twenty-three female and ten.male clients are analyzed. Segments from the third interview of each case are studied for content level of empathic communication (PTP units). A completed form of the Barrett-Lennard.Relationship Inventory and the Leary Inter- personal Check-List (Self-Mother) is included with.each case.‘ Female clients were chosen as the primary subjects of the present study since it is hypothesized that client empathy correlates positively with self-mother identification. However, according to traditional developmental theories of identification, males are more likely to identify'with their fathers than are females. ngigg Progedgggg The taped segments were judged, as to level of empathic communication, by two trained judges. The FTP units were coded according to the content analysis procedure outlined by Truax (1961). There are nine possible stages or levels of empathic communication in a dyad (Truax, 1961). A rater's aid (Appendix A) was used in conjunction with the AE in order to adapt it to a gliggtLpopulation. Discrepancies or similarities in self-mother identification were ascertained by scores on the Leary Interpersonal Check-List (ICL). The ICL contains 128 items. There are eight global items which are descriptive of sixteen . ‘o I“; v .. he. . t a 1 .e. I. 0 rt. , J :1! ) cu . fl . .1 a L: .Q, . . s 23 interpersonal traits or variables. The ICL is constructed such that for any one of the personality variables there are four descriptive levels of intensity as to its applicability. One level is checked by the respondent on each Check-List, Self, as well as Mother, for each interpersonal variable. The items are presented in alphabetical order and the client is asked to check the intensity of the variable that best describes the interb personal behavioral trait for the subject under consideration. An ICL score is obtained by totalling the intensity scores for each of the eight personality types. Further, a Dominance (D0!) and a Loving (LG?) score were each.obtained by the formula found in Leary (1957). Both.DOH and LOV scores were converted to standard scores on the basis of normative data collected at the Counseling Center by Mueller (1967). (DOM, LOV) coordinates were plotted on the ICL grid for'both.Se1f and.Hother. The length of the line between the coordinates that describe Self, and.Nother, served as the measure of identification between the client and his mother. An index for converting the discrepancies between coordinates into numerical values is also found in Leary (1957). The Empathy Scale is derived from the Barrett- Lennard Relationship Inventory. The Inventory was developed in an effort to measure both the client's and the therapist's . . L 1 P . l A r ,. . .c , J .. a .; . - . , I If, A I ' A :11? ‘ ' . 1' 3“ " V V“ ‘ - ‘1 .. _ ._ ‘.._ ‘ a .w: . - w I (U m k -‘ , . L 1“, 4 m _ [K fie. ~ ' ' m, - 1< Q."'»' ‘ "f ; . . I V‘ ‘ ‘ ' ~ ' ‘ ’ " J" .- | . . e e . . . - e ' e I ‘ K t v 1.. ‘ ' ' . e ‘ "'7 5 x I ' v‘ A" — v “ "' "UV - : - . 4. iv ‘ , ' ‘-' .. in I *- > k e - r ' . l ' e . ‘ { ' I. . ‘8 r ‘ ‘ . ' - _ , I. f F . . mi}, _' .- , u .. . . . .r: v - '-2~"’..‘ . . x 'l ( e _w T l *2 I . ‘I V . . of .J ’ . ' “ I w I V -r ‘ h h . I f ' . h . E V‘ , ‘\ ' ‘e . .I‘ ’ ' I k“ ‘ a. . I i 7‘ m " ‘ ‘ . ‘. ~ c... L m ‘ A 3 d - ‘ k ' l ‘ \ ‘ > . g I ~ "9 r ' I .. .‘ ‘ . :v‘,- - . < .- :“ ~ . a -‘ ‘ A .‘ . h u I ‘R I. a . A ' . ~ . 3V . ‘ . . n 3 I . A w . . ~ ‘ ‘ I r i 7 ‘ - | .- I . It on ” " . a t . A f' '. — I J I. — ~ ‘ r ’ D' ‘ ~ , _ .. e ' l .- ' . I ‘ ’ 4 O 4 a ‘ 'i ' ' rut "d 1 I 2h perceptions of the presence of Roger's five interacticnal variables. Both client and therapist forms are available for the Inventory as a whole and.fcr the Empathy Scale. Descriptive therapeutic interaction items on the Empathy Scale are checked by the client on a -3 to +3 value continuum to indicate degree of applicability. Specifically, there are sixteen statements on the Empathy Scale. Eight of the sixteen statements are reflective of positive empathic understanding (+E) and eight are indicative of negative empathic understanding {-E). The respondent expresses his perceptions of the intensive presence offering (by the other) of the interacticnal variables by assigning a number (-3, -2, -l, or +1, +2, +3) to each statement. An Empathy score is found by summing the values assigned to each statement. High values on the +E statements and low values on the -E statements result in relatively high.Empathy scores. Scorigg Reliability The judges scoring the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale were first preétreined on selected recorded segments from tapes other than the sample tapes. A further measure of interjudge reliability was ontained by the application of Ebel's (1951) formula for the estimation of the reliability of.ratings. Ebel's formula ues applied to a selected number of the sample case recordings. .. u: ~l' . . w: . >\i1 . ‘e 7 r ... f “w . "_‘ .a. - '- I no .- ' e" . “J m J ,- » ’l . " \ .. i .1 . i c 25 Reliability and validity of Instruments In the develOpment of the Relationship Inventory (Barrett-Lennard, 1962), five judges agreed 100% on the classification of an item as either + or - except in four cases. Three of the four items upon.which perfect agreement was not obtained were discarded from the Inventory. The fourth iten was included because the dissenting judgment was actually a vote for the neutrality of the item. Yet, Barrett-Lennardesetes that, at the point of the initial validatien.procedures, the obtained validation was "indirect“ as the variables defined therein.were operationally defined for the first time. That is, further validation studies are needed. Truax (1966) found the Relationship Inventory (Empathy Scale) to correlate poorly with the Accurate Elpathy Scale. In contrast, the Leary Interpersonal Checklist (1957) tends to receive high reliability and validity ratings (Armstrong, 1958 and LaForge and Suczek, 1955). The Truax Scale, also, has been found to have a high degree of reliability (Harsden, 1965). Further, Truax (1966) discovered, in studying TPT units, that knowledge of the total TPT interaction does not significantly effect the therapist-only ratings made by the Judges. . . . ,vo: L e .9‘ "as . . - t ., e. . h e CHAPTER IV RESULTS Rater Reliability Prior to attempting to establish a reliability rating for the sample tapes, the two raters (one a med. candidate and the other a Ph.D. applicant) first pre- . trained on a number of non-sample therapy tape-recordings. *After an acceptable degree of interbrater proficiency and reliability was established, the sample tapes were rated. Eleven of the twenty-three female-client cases were rated. The reliabilities obtained on these ratings were high (Table 2). The author, one of the judges, then proceeded to rate the twelve remaining female-client cases and ten pilot male cases. A subsequent reliability checkuwith the first judge revealed, on inspection, a low inter-reliability to be existent on the ten pilot male cases. It is thought that since one of the judges actually began treating clients during this latter rating period (of male sample clients), she may have developed a differential sensitivity to the rating process. Calculations based upon Pearson product-moment 26 27 Table 1 InteréJudge Interval Ratings of Client Empathy* Tape Footage Variable 100 200 300 A00 Average Rater M. D M D M D Mi D M D Case Females 801 1 2 5 2 2 2 A A 2.50 2.50 805 A 5 A A A A 5 5 5.75 5.50 808 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 5 5.00 2.00 812 2 2 2 5 5 5 A A 5.75 5.00 817 2 A 2 5 A A A A 5.00 5.75 818 5 6 A 5 A 5 A 7 A.25 5.75 820 5 5 A 5 5 2 A A 5.50 5.00 82A 5 A 5 A A A 5 A A.75 A.00 825 6 6 5 A 6 6 6 7 5.75 5.75 828 A A A 5 5 5 5 5 5.50 5.50 829 4 A A A A 5 A 5 A A.50 A.00 " Males‘ 80A 5 A 6 5 6 1 5 1 5.50 2.25 815 5 5 5 A 5 5 5 5 5.00 5.25 851 5 1 5 2 A . 2' 5 2 A.75 1.75 852 5 5 5 5 A 5 5 5 A.25 5.50 854 6 A 6 5 A 3 A 6 5.00 A.5o 8A2 5 2 5 5 A 2 A 2 A.50 2.25 845 5 l 5 l A l A 2 A.5O 2.25 855 A 5 5 5 A 2 5 2 A.5O 2.50 861 6 2 5 2 - 2 - 2 (5.50) 2.00 5 2 5 2 6 l 5 5.00 2.00 875 *Truax Accurate Empathy Scale. . u .f . ~ 4 .1 . 1— : A 5' “"~' 1.1“:-: ‘ I. i) A . . fi » v. _. . * -...A..rl-. . V. . _ yet"; ,-'- -~ “ . A h . , ,.l f . a . ".7- I xi ." I“ n‘ -, ‘ ~ 4 v :- -.‘u. r ' ". 1 . .«e . . Lv' 28 Table 2 Inter-Rater Reliabilities on Sample Female-Client Tape- Recordings Sum of Squares For raters 0.10 For cases 19.86 For total 23.61 For error 5.66 mean Sguare For cases 1.99 For error 0.37 Reliability of ratitgs 0.69 Retiability of average ratitgs 0.82 LI. 29 correlations were used to test the hypotheses presented in this study. gytgthesis I Hypothesis I predicted that clients who score low on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale, patient-therapist- patient (PTP) units, are likely to reveal a wide discrepancy on Self-Mother indices of similarity on the Leary Inter~ personal Check-List (ICL). A correlational analysis was conducted in orderHto examine this hypothesis. The results are presented.in.Table 5 (Self-nether Discrepancy on.the ICL). The primary results for the female clients are inconclusive as the correlational coefficient approached 0 (p - .05; d.f. - 21; r - .05). The results obtained with the pilot male clients (Table 3) are also inconclusive as the coefficients, though directionally opposed to those of the females, approached 0 (p . .05; d.f. - 8; r . -.05). However, in an attempt to approach this hypothesis from a different perspective, wetgtted counselor-client discrepancies on the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (RI) were inspected. These discrepancies may provide possibly obtuse, though definitely variant, measures of client empathy. The greater discrepancies were regarded as being more representative of low empathic abilities (client). The preceeding measures were correlated with It I.» ll. ' .(e A 50 Self-Mother Discrepancy scores (ICL). Table A indicates that among the males sampled a trend in support of ‘Hypothesis I'(r - .50) was noted. In the same table, no such trend was observed among the female clients (r c .01). Again, a sex-by-sex (client) directional correlation difference was evidenced. othesis II Hypothesis II predicted that those clients who score high on the Truax.Accurate Empathy Scale will see (as measured by the ICL) their mothers as being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving than will those scoring low on the Truax scale. Table 5 indicates that support, in the form of a positive correlational trend (r u .52) between "other Lev and Truax Accurate Empathy may exist for Hypothesis I among males. Table 3 reflects no support for this notion from among the female subjects (r . .07). Considering the variable of Mother Dom, the male clients provided evidence for the support of Hypothesis 11a in Table 5 (r a .21). The female clients offered no support for this notion (Table 5, r . .06). gypothesis III Hypothesis III predicted that the Empathy Scale of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (RI) would #1! .. ls 51 Table 5 Relationships Between Truax Accurate Empathy (AB) Scores (Client) and Selected Other Variables AE Scores Variable Male Female N=10 N=25 Selfaflother Discrepancy on the Interpersonal Check-List -.OA .05 Client Perceptions of Therapist- 0ffered Empathy (Barrett—Lennard) -.18 .0A CounselorbC1ient Discrepancy on Perception of Level of Therapist- Offered Empathy (Barrett-Lennard) Counselor Perceptions of Therapist- Offered Empathy (Barrett-Lennard) -.0A -.09 Mother Lov .52 .07 ‘Mother Dom -.21 .06 Self Dom .12 -.0A *Significant at .05 level. :0 In“. a )V 7R v 'I I‘ c~ (.1 52 Table A Relationships Between Cojnselor~C11ent Discrepancies (C-C Dis.) on Perception of Therapist-Offered Empathy (Weighted + or -) and Selected Other'Variables C-C Dis.4(Weighted + or -) variable Hale Female N210 N-25 Self Lov .25 .A2* Mother Lov -.AA .26 Self-mother Discrepancy on the Interpersonal Check-List -.50 .01 *Significant at .05 level. \‘n {:1 .1 A . m1 55 correlate poorly with the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale (AE). ‘ Absolute counselor-client discrepancy scores on the RI, contrasted to AE scores, tend to strongly support this hypothesis. Table 5 reveals an almost 0 correlation to exist between the proceeding variables for both male (r = .03) and female (r - .08) subjects. ‘Weighted counselor~client discrepancy scores on the RI also approached a 0 correlation with the Truax AB, in support of this hypothesis, among female clients (Table 5, r - .02). The male subjects revealed a trend that is counter, though insignificantly so, to this hypothesis (Table 5, r - .26). In contrasting the results obtained on the Client form of the Barrett-Lennard to those of the Truax AE, further support for this hypothesis was provided.by both the female (Table 5, r - .OA) and male (Table 5, r . -.18) subjects. The absolute value of .18 obtained by the males is below the arbitrary absolute trend value of .20 and does not evidence a counter trend to the hypothesis. 2“ )3; CHAPTER V DISCUSSION gypothesis I The present study did not find a relationship between Truax determined ratings of client accurate empathy and the client's reported conscious level of identification with his mother. W . Female’Clients It can be speculated that the lack of support for this hypothesis was, in part, a function of sampling errors. More specifically,” the limited variability in gross levels of identification may have obfuscated any true relationships that may exist between degree of Self-Mother identification and empathy. For example, an examination of Table 5 (Self Lov: nether Lov) suggests that females did not perceive themselves to be similar to their mothers in interpersonal operations. Also, in only five cases of twenty-three did they place themselves into the same interpersonal quadrants (ICL) as they placed their mothers. In both of these cases Self and Mother were depicted as scoring low on the ICL 5A 4 . g 4 A .v .. ‘, { I‘u 3% y 1.1 s‘ ' D 'f i y 5‘ I '. ‘ ‘ . .t-‘C ~. ._ v - . ) r~ i 3 ' _ ~ ’4’. al.: . _~, - , x. t ,v: \ ' _. . . . .eu‘ hm, , - an. 55 Table 5 Relationships Between Self Lov and Selected Other Variables Self Lov variable Hale Female ”other LOV " e 37 e 0" Self-Mother Discrepancy on the Interpersonal Check-List -.00 -.08 a I 81: 5t] tht 56 variable of Lev and high on its corresponding interactive variable of Don. ' Since the base line of variability is so limited for the independent measure of Self-mother identification, the actual usefulness of linear sampling measures in examining this hypothesis may be questioned. It is possible that a true J or‘U shaped function exists between the variables of empathic ability and Selfbmother identification. It is probable that this sample correlation represents the base of a true U function. To the extent that this specula- tion is accurate, valid results may be obtained through the study of a larger sample. Statistically it is possible that the variance on.gross levels of Selfblbther identification in such a sample would increase to the point where gradua- tions approaching finite extremes (as limited by the ICL) in identification‘would occur. Such a sample would reflect a more realistic correlation between the variables hypothe- sized than does the present sample. Hale Clients This hypothesis was unconfirmed by a sample of the pilot study males. Table 5 (Self Lov: mother Lov) indicates that variances in level of Self-mother identifi— cation exists among the males. Still most of the pilot study males did not place themselves, descriptively, into the same ICL quadrants as they placed their mothers. e,- . ,i- > ‘. ‘a. . ¢ 9‘. - l . . 1 at. .' . -‘. A u‘ , . 1‘» , a . -' ' ‘ ,l ' u ‘74 . ’ , ~ - \ t . ._ e '. ,,'- '\ F u 1"" s, .7. .. .tz' u4‘ A. X. e ’ , t ‘ x .o I " , . an ' A a .,-. . . J~ m.’ . 1“ c v I 6 . . . . 57 A significant correlation between the variables hypothesized may be realized through the study of a larger sample partialed out in terms of identifiers and dis- identifiers. ‘ Sgt-Sex Parental Model; and Psychological Adjustment One may suppose that a proportionate number of Self-Bother identifications would be evidenced through the study of a larger female sample. Weiner (1970) infers that a lack of same-sex parental identification is often found among college-age clientele: Although an adolescent's strong identification with the parent of the same sex may not always ensure his good adjustment, particularly (if the parent identified with has adjustment problems of his own, the failure to establish and/or report parental identifications of some sort is likely to be associated'with psychological disturbance and not with normal adjustment. (p. 60 It is possible that the females sampled failed to identify with their mothers because either (1) their mothers incensistently rewarded any imitative or novel behavioral patterns and thus failed to establish themselves as reward dispensing models or (2) that the fathers of the females were more stable, across time, than the mothers and also were more rewarding models. It has been observed that children do tend to imitate the ”reward dispensing" or more powerful parent (Bandura and Walters, 196A). Further, girls so .1. n . e A... . _ , s .1 o. q . _ _ s . A $4 I." 58 are more» likely to establish cross-sex parental identifica- tiens because of the model's ability to reward positively and his strength than are males. with regard to the issue of consistency, Sullivan (1955), ”defining consistency as "the repetition of a particular pattern of events," avers that an accumulative pattern of parental inconsistencies may be partially responsible for childhood problems from infancy onward. Some of the father's rewarding qualities, nevertheless, may stem from his assumption of sex-role appropriate (masculine) behaviors. Similarly, the mother's relative strength may depend upon the degree to which she has integrated typically feminine behaviors. Interestingly, Rilbrun-(l96A) and Heilbrurr and McKinley (1962), in studying a sample of 108 college girls, found the relatively ‘ poorly adjusted girls to demonstrate more "masculine personality patterns” and to view their mothers as «being. . , ' more authoritarian than did the better adjusted girls. Also, they found instances of strong maternal identification to be coincidental with factors of psychological disturbance. Integrating the above findings, it is speculated that a tendency toward positive Self-Mother identification for the female child, when the model is "masculine," inconsistent, and maladjusted, may be commensurate with a tendency toward severe psychological disturbance. This conclusion is 59 speculative in nature as evidence for maternal inconsistency ' was neither sought nor verified in the present study. The fact that the female clients dis-identified with their mothers may be expressive of a basic orientation in the child to strive for security. It is commonly ottected that a female child will identify with a female model. Yet, when the female model is maladjusted a more healthy mode of adjustment may be achieved by identifying with a well adjusted masculine model. Rogers (1971) argues that until a child introjects the, values ofhis society he prefers experiences which, "maintain, enhance, or actualize his organism." It may be speculated that the females may have attempted to "maintain" their organisms by rejecting possibly maladjusted maternal medals. Returning to the basic question regarding "empathy, " these findings and speculations are not adverse to Howrer' s (1960) postulation that empathic abilities are developed and perfected by way of a modeling system. It is proposed that in the absence of a rewarding relationship. with the mother, elements of an interpersonal orientation of distrust may become prominent in the ohild!e personality. Erickson (1950) has expounded on the importance of trust in infant- mother relationships and its relationship to later psycho- logical adjustment. It is possible that an orientation of distrust in the child may later affect his ability to empathize. eh A0 This supposition leads directly into a consideration of Hypothesis II. gypgthesis II This hypothesis predicted that those clients who score high on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale (AE) would perceive their mothers as being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving than would those scoring low on the scale. Percgption of nether as Dominant and Client Egpgthy As the primary thrust of this hypothesis was supported in terms of a directional relationship among the males, it should'also be remembered that they were more able to identify ‘with their mothers either positively (Self Dom: mother Dom, r - .52) or oppositionally (Table 5, Self Lov:_ Mbther Lov, r a -.57) than‘were the females. Sensitivity"in male clients may, consequently, be related to feelings of identification ‘with their mothers on the dimension of strength in its lesser states. It is worthy of note, however, that the males seen at the HSU’Counseling Center are more pathological in terms of their adjustment modes (Alexander, 1967) than are the females. Thus, in combined reference to this fact and the conclusions drawn in the discussion of Hypothesis I, it is probable that they made less of a shift away from a possibly maladjusted maternal model than did the females. Al There was no statistically significant correlation (r a .06) for the female clients between Truax Accurate Empathy scores and Hbther Dom. This is in contradiction to Hypothesis IIa. Yet, a base level of variability in identification, on the variable of Dom across the female sample was not present. Any possible statistical relation- ship between AE scores and mother Dom.may have been precluded. Petteption of Mother as Lovtgg and.Client ggpathy Hypothesis IIb was in the direction of support (Table 5, Hbther Lov: Truax Accurate Empathy, r = .52) as provided by the male clients. The more empathic males, as hypothesized, tended to report their mothers to be more nurturant (high ICLrLov) than.did the males judged to be low in empathic abilities. Still, it is questionable as to whether or not these same high empathy males viewed themselves as being nurturant and trusting. Table 5 suggests that they did not. That is, distrustful males tend to be empathic. Hypothesis IIb predicted that clients scoring high on the Truax.Accurate Empathy Scale would perceive their mothers as being more loving than those who do not. This hypothesis was not supported by'a study of the female sample. The female client may have had a poor object relationship 1 ‘with her mother and, as a result of rejecting a conscious identification'with her may have difficulty in discerning ‘4 A} ‘- (le. a. ‘w. .. _VV., N . . A w . r V . . r .V . v V. . . V i .V V a A _ v v y . u. e . L . . .. . J. .I h . .. .l . . . u .. ,Vvi . .. v . . n . V y . I .i .. , s . .ls .. . . V . ., s. . V s c . .. . . _ I. . 1.. s .v 7 s . . .i -V s. it i . A . v . A . '1 ‘k . . J . . . . J l. a. ti A . . u _ t A _ .; V \ , v . a . e x n . e a v u v y . r w . e I V . m l . D r e e e e . s . . I . . f 1 a . e . . . . ~ . v v s u . . . e . e s V O I l . e . a . . e V O 4 d . l I. . O u a e \v , r . . A2 her feelings toward her as well.l This rationale may account for the almost zero correlation (r'e .07) thatexists between AE scores and.Mother Lov, as a reported.variable, for the females. Distrust and the Psychogenesis of Egpathic Cottetencies_ The above matimmale figures prominently, as well, in the observation that to a statistically significant degree, the distrusting females were judged to be more accurate empathizers (Truax AccurateEmpathnycale) than werethe more trusting females. In the absence of maternal identification, or, possibly, consistency, elements of distrust in one's character may predispose one toward attaining the higher levels of empathic compentenciesu This postulation supports Leary's (1957) assertion that distrustful people are "painfully sensitive" to feelings of hostility, rejection, and arrogance in others. He adds that they perceive others with hostile skepticism, . Thus, a modification of Howrer's (1960) learning theory regarding the genesis of empathic'abilities, as it applies to the distrustful personality may appropriately be that: Subject A provides the model and experiences the reinforcements for his activities. Subject B, then, "both experiences some of the same sensory consequences of A's behavior as A experiences it? (Mowrer, 1960), and also, q, ‘5 A5 ”intuits” A's feelings of either pleasure or displeasure. Alternately, A either rewards or punishes B for the expressions of A's behaviors and other novel responses. Subject B is confused because of A's inconsistent patterns, and.becomes anxious as he "intuits" that A may be ready to respond to his (B's) behaviors. In the mother-child relationship this model may be as follows: the mother, as an inconsistently punishingIgtg,nurturing one, transmits an awareness of her feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of her’actions to her young child. The child, because of his awareness of the inconsistent fluctuations in the mother, can selectively choose to either immediately imitate or cognitively record her actions. When the child does imitate the actions of the inconsistent mother he is unpredictably eitherwpunished or rewarded. He experiences anxiety and distrust as a result and, thereafter, in his attention to the alterations in mood of the mother, anticipates her actions with anxiety. This modification of Mowrer is accomplished by an incorporation of Leary's (1957) statement that distrustful clients expect that, "loving feelings in themselves or in others are the prelude to anxiety and rejection. The reflexes of bitter distrust resolve this dilemma very nicely.” Leary thus asserts that distrustful clients tend to feel that anxiety and rejection follow the expression of loving feelings. It is therefore possible .‘ 5." due ._e u n . y x. 250.. .u. VJ C a: .1 A t. . L .1 c Ah that distrustful people base this expectation upon previous experiences with their mothers. That is, their mothers may have combined nurturance with strong rejection and punishment. The expectation of inconsistency in terms of punish- ment and nurturance may lead the child to dichotomize many of his feelings. He may come to expect either complete acceptance or complete rejection; hateful anger or ingrati- ating kindness in his relations with others. To the extent that he rarely experiences either extreme he probably increases his attention to covert communications and, his lack of trust in these communications. Extreme examples of this covert awareness, with distortion, are evidenced in the interpersonal perceptual frameworks of many schizophrenics. Katz (1963) states that they have an ”uncanny ability" to empathize with others while at the same time distorting the meanings of the messages they receive. Thus, the more seriously disturbed distrustful people are not "accurate empathizers" as defined by Truax (1966). Client Empathy and Therapeutic Relationship Finally, theelements of client empathy'haveA ramifications in the therapeutic setting. A significant positive relationship (Table 5) was shown by the females in this study between perceptions of self as being distrustful and a tendency to agree with the predominantly male therapists .r.¢ 3.. .‘.I .‘1 7 in: u. ,4A. 1% Je ~t) . 45 on their level of offered empathy. In addition, among the females there was a positive, though slight‘and statistically insignificant, trend (Table 5) for "perception of mother as distrustful" to correlate with "agreement with predominantly male counselors on reported level of offered empathy." It appears that there may be some slight justification for the speculation that the same females who view their mothers as distrustful also perceive the therapist's empathy. Possibly, as suggested earlier in discussions of cross-sexual role identification patterns in females, these clients may have developed "masculine only" (male only) trusting sets related to their empathizing. Still, there is no evidence of a statistical nature that confirms that distrustful females are the game’females who tend to view their mothers as distrustful. The tendency for distrusting male clients to perceive (agree'with) the therapist's stated level of offered empathy, though also positive in direction, was not signifi- cant. However, a strong trend.was revealed (Table A, r s -.h4) for those males who reported their mothers to be high on Lov (ICL) to agree with the therapists on the variable under question. This finding that the females were signifi- cantly better able to agree with the male therapists confirms “the findings of Cartwright and Lerner (1963) which suggested ' that, during the initial therapeutic sessions, therapists tend to have higher empathy scores with opposite-sexed e1. as: 4 1 . ebe v . L J . ,‘r .. . a (r _ x \ e l 46 clients. This relationship may be a function of both counselor and client needs. Yet, it is possible, as Cartwright (1955) ascertained, that males require more counseling hours than do females: that males perceive less of the therapists empathy, regardless of counselor sex. However, as the correlation between mother Lov and perception of therapist-offered empathy was strongly ' positive, though not significant, among the males, there is reason to believe that the male clients are more attuned to emotional fluctuations in females than to males. This speculation and rationale is basically in accord with hypOthesis I of this study. ' Mothesis III This hypdthesis sought to examine the validity of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (RI) against the Truax Accurate Empathy Acale (AE). The variable of "client perceptions of therapist offered empathy" was taken to be an indirect measure of client empathy, as measured by the RI. Though it may be argued by some that the R1 was not designed to examine the empathic competencies of the client, it is felt that those same abilities would be called.upon by him in the reporting of ”the ether's" actions in an intense and involved helping relationship. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by Table 3, ’Q #7 the RI, on this measure of client empathy,"client percep- tions of therapist-offered empathy," correlated insignifi- cantly with the Truax AE Scale, for both male and female clients. The correlate value for the male clients was -.18, below the arbitrary level of even a slight trend relationship level of 1.20, for a N of 10. The corresponding value for the females was only .02, a near zero correlate. The females overrated the therapists (judged them to be higher in empathy than they themselves did) almost as frequently as they underrated them. Though extreme scores may have diminished any true relationships, statistically, it is also apparent that the adequacy of a self-report measure to describe the emotional intensity of an ongoing therapeutic relationship should be questioned. Client factors such as a disappointment at the ongoing rate of progress or, conversely, an exaggerated and unrealistic appreciation for that rate because "someone is finally listening“ may influence the client's report. Thus, the immediacy of the ongoing therapeutic situation coupled with the client's perspective on his long range therapeutic goals, could effect his reported perceptions of the counselor's empathic efficacy. Hewever, though the Truax AE Scale is not based upon self-reports, it too is somewhat limited in efficiency by the client's "defensiveness" (Truax, 1961). That is, 11X! 1.! m 48 Truax cites the problem of client defensiveness as being an obstacle in the effective analysis of PTP units. When under stress, the client may move to a discussion of tan- gential matters. Truax adds that the problem of defensiveness is minimized on the part of the therapist because of his training (Truax, 1961). In regard to the RI, it would be expected that though the counselor's own biases may interfere with.his self-reports of offered empathyywthe relative anonymity of the therapist's identity (for research purposes), combined with.his training in empathic communications, may somewhat offset the subjectivity of his report. The dis- crepant score that lies between the reports of the client and the therapist, on the RI, should reduce the magnitude of some of the problems that are, quite likely, inherent in the quality of self-report data concerning an immediate relationship. Still, a comparative analysis of counselor-client discrepancy scores (weighted) on the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Empathy Scale), in relation to the Truax scale, did not show a significant correlation to exist between the two for the female clients (Table 3, r = .02). A slight trend relationship (r s .26) was shown for the males. To a degree, therefore, those males who tended to disagree with their therapist on his level of offered empathy, also received higher Truax AE ratings. It is significant 4+” ii. .I.. 49 that these males underrated the therapist on the RI (70% of clients) more frequently than did the females. These findings may be reflective, once more, of the more pathological nature of the male clients seen at the MSU’Counseling Center, in.relation to the females seen there. Also, these findings focus on the need for further validations of the Empathy Scale of the RI. SUMMARY The relationship between ratings of empathy and selected client self-report variables was investigated by studying segments from the third interviews of tape- recorded therapy sessions. The clients were college students seeking psychotherapy. Based upon the literature on psycotherapeutic process, learning theory, and interpersonal theories of psychology which suggest that "empathy" is a learned trait, the following hypotheses were presented: 1. Clients scoring low on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale, patient-therapist-patient (PTP) units, are likely to reveal a wide discrepancy on Self-mother indices of similarity on the Leary Interpersonal Check-List (ICL). ' 2. Clients scoring high on the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale will tend to perceive their mothers as being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving, as measured by the ICL, than will those scoring low on accurate empathy. 3. The relative validity of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Empathy Scale), a self-report metsure of empathic communication will be checked against the Truax Scale. Truax (1966) argued that a questionnaire approach.to the study of process variables is highly economical 5O . .- i ' . ‘ I x .L .‘ ‘ -‘ .. ,. . u ‘1 . ,. . ‘ .‘ ‘- . I '— ' i . . _ l ‘K | v ' J v ' I ' e . - . ., I . 1 . . s . a r ‘ ~. . . 7 r v I 4 u .v ‘ y... _n e ‘+ r I' . ’ i A ,_ " v _ . v V I , V”... . . . .. .p r , ti u u 51 yet has questionable validity and is not likely to be reliable. It is proposed that Truax's assertions hold true. Hypothesis I was not supported. Hypothesis II was not borne out by the data gathered from the female sample. Yet, among male clients high empathizers tended, direction- ally though not significantly, to view their mothers as . being (a) less dominant and (b) more loving than did the low empathizers. This finding is consistent with Hypothesis II. Hypothesis III was significantly supported. Finally, an unexpected finding of this study is that there appears to exist a positive and significant relationship between the traits of empathic competency and distrust among female clients. A positive yet non-significant correlation between these variables was found among the males. Replications of this study are necessary in order that confirmations of these latter findings may be provided. It can be speculated that the lack of support for Hypothesis I was, in part, a function of sampling errors. Limited.variability in gross levels of identification may have obfuscated any true relationships that may exist between degree of Self-Mother identification and empathy. Though directional support was provided for Hypothesis II by the pilot male clients, significant support may be realized through the study of a larger male sample. Given that the females tended not to identify with their ‘1' l 52 mothers, it is possible that they had difficulty discerning their feelings toward the same. The lack of support for Hypotheses 11a and 11b among the female clients may be reflective of this speculation. Support for Hypothesis III confirms Truax's argument that self-report measures are not valid instruments in the study of process variables. REFERENCES REFERENCES Alexander, J. F. Perspectives of psychotherapy process: dependency, interpersonal relationships, and sex differences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. 1967. and Abeles, N. Psychotherapy process: sex differences and dependency. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 2.2, 191-196. lllport, G. W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937. . Armstrong, R. G. The Leary interpersonal check-list: a reliability study. Journal of Clinical Psycholog, 195b, lit 393-39 e Bandure, A. Prinoi les of Behavior Modifi ation. New York: Holtffilnefigfi and Wfisfia, 1969. ‘ Barrett-Lennard, R. T. Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Ps cholo ical Monographs, 1962, 16, 43, Whole Number 565. Beery, J. N. Therapist's responses as a function of therapist experience and attitude of patient. Journal of cynical and Consulting Psychology, 1975, El H, Berger, S. M. Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Ps cholo ical Review, 1962, _62, 459-466. Bergin, A. E. andGarfield, S. L. (Eds.) Handbook of Ps chothera and Behavior C e. New YorE: WIEey, I971. Bernreuter, R. G. Chance and personality. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1935, g_6_, 279-253. Cannon, J. R. and Pierce, P. H. Order effects in the experimental manipulation of therapeutic cgnditions. Journal of Clinical ngcholog. 1968, .24, 242-244. 53 i . . ‘ s -.v-:. _ z s- ‘ _, - ‘5‘? "3 .. U . , . .e ' ‘ -I ‘ 9 . o J P ...-;.. M. c. 27 I, x h ' r J .1 . ,v 0 ea 3. h” A.- . s ,n I - . ”I e ‘ s ‘ - e a " _-- L l, . . ~L-.: ‘ O ’ .‘ . a r e ‘ I 1 v .. . . > ' ' . V . - ’4' . .7, ", ' .- . " - 0‘ A f. ‘ . 1 e ‘H I . ‘ .. ‘ . :3- 7‘ 'n‘ '3 ‘7 e ’ I 1 'I . - u ‘ A '0 W , a ' ’ a ‘ I. ,. , . ‘e'l ~. . , .“o' ‘ u -’ . . . . n . . . ' V w" 'a . 1'" 54 Cartwright, R. and Lemar, B. Empathy, need to change, and improvement with psychothera . Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1963, _21, 138-1 . Dymend, R. F. A preliminary investigation of the relation of insight and empathy. Journal of Consultin chholog, 1948, _1_g_, 228-233. Ebel, R. C. Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Ps chometrica, 1951, 3._6_, No. 4. Escalona . K. Feeding disturbances in very young children. American Journal of Orth s chiat , 1945, 12, 76-80. From—Reichmenn, F. Princi les of Intensive P chothera . Chicago: Universit'fi ofiflEIcago mas, *955. Fuller, F. Influence of sex of counselor and of client on client expressions of feeling. Journal of Counseling P cholo , 1963, 1.9, 34-40. Goodman, H. Self-insight, empathy, and perceptual distortion. Dissertation Abstracts, 1953, 2.1, 120. Guerney, 3., Stover, L. and Defierritt, s. A. A measurement of empathy in parent-child interaction. Journal of General chholog, 1968, 113(1), 49-55. Haplern, H. M. Empathy, similarity, and self-satisfaction. Journal of Consultgg Psycholoa, 1955, 12, 449-452. and Lesser, L. N. Empathy in infants, adults, and psychotherapists. Ps cholo ical' Review, 1960, Al, 32"“20 Heilbrun, A. B. Perceived maternal attitudes, masculinity- femininity of the maternal model, and identification as related to incipient psychopathology in adolescent 83343. Journal of General Ps cholo , 1964, 19, 3 . and McKinley, R. A. Perception of maternal child-rearing patterns, personality of the perceiver, and incipient psychopathology. Child Development, 1962, 12, 73-83. 55 Holder, T., Carkhuff, R. R. and Berenson, B. B. The differential effects of the manipulation of therapeutic conditions on high and low functioning clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 13, 63-66. Hunt, W., Wattson, C. L. and Harris, H. I. The screen test in military selection. Psychological Review, 1944, 22:, 37-46 0 Karl, N. J. and Abeles, N. Psychotherapy process as a function of the time segment sampled. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 22, No. , O '212 e Katz, R. L. E th : Its Nature and Uses. London: Collier-MacMiITan, 1963. ' Kell, B. L. and Mueller, W. J. I act and Change: A Study of CounselingRelationshIps. New York: Meredith, Kerr, W. A. and Speroff, B. J. Validation and evaluation of the empathy test. Journal of General Psychology, 1959, 29, 269-276. Kiesler, D. J., Mathieu, P. L. and Klein, M. H. Sampling from the recorded therapy interview: a comparative study of different time lenghts. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, gg, 349-357. . Kurtz, R. R. and Grummon, D. L. Different approaches to the measurment of therapist empathy and their relationship to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consultigg and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 22, LaForge, R. and Suczek, R. The interpersonal dimension of personality: an inte ersonal check-list. Journal of Personality, 1955 §_, 94-112. - Leary, T. Inte ersonal Dia osis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press, §957. Luszki, M. E. Empathic ability and social perception. Micro. Abstract§;_l951, 1;, 744-745. 56 Harsden, G. Content analysis studies of therapeutic inter- views. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 62, No. 5, 298-321. Mewrer, 0. H. Learnin Theo and Symbolic Processes. New'YorE: WIIey, I969. Mueller, W. J. Personal Communication (1967). HMllen,, J. An investigation of the variable of liking in therapy: its relation to the variables of outcome, empathy, and therapist experience.‘ Unpublished dogtoral dissertation, Michigan State university, 19 9. Norman, R. D. and Ainsworth, P. The relationship among projection, empathy, reality, and adjustment, opera- tionally defined. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1954, ;§, No. 1. Piaget, G., Berenson, B. G. and Carkhuff, R. R. The differential effects of the manipulation of therapeutic conditions by high and low functioning counselors. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967 9 1 , NO e 9 81’ e Rogers, C. Person to Person. New'York: Simon and Schus er, . . Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton MifflIn, 1951 . . ‘(Ed.) The there eutic relationshi and its 1 ct: a stud of s chothera 'wIEE schizo- E renics. .HEHIson: UthersIty of Wisconsin Press, Ruderman, D. L. An exploration of empathic ability in children and its relationship to several variables. Dissertation Abstracts, 1961, 2314), 1414-1415. Shapiro, S. 6. Relationship between expert and neophyte ratings of therapeutic conditions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, :2, 87-88. 57 Stotland, E., Shaver, K. and Crawford, R. Empathizing with pain, and with pleasure, perceived similarity, and birth order. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, 1966. Sullivan, H. S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatgy. New York: Norton, 1953. Truax, C. B. A scale for the measurement of accurate empathy. Ps chiatric Institute Bulletin, Wisconsin Pshchiatric ifisiitute, University of Wisconsin, 1961, 1, No. 2. . Therapist empathy, warmth, and genuineness and patient personality change in group psychotherapy: a comparison between interaction unit measures, time sample measures, and patient perception measures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1966, 22, 225-229. . The meaning and reliability of accurate empathy ratings: a rejoiner. Psychological Mletin, 1972, n, NOe 6’ 397- e Weiner, I. B. Ps cholo ical Disturbance in Adolescence. New YonE: Wiiey, I979. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRUAX ACCURATE EMPATHY SCALE 58 Tab1e 6 Truax Accurate Empathy Ratings (Client) Tape Footagg Variable 100 200 300 400 Average Case Females 801 2 2 2 4 2.50 803 3 4 4 3 3.50 808 l l 3 3 2.00 812 2 3 3 4 3.00 817 4 3 4 4 3.75 818 6 5 5 7 5.75 820 3 3 2 4 3.00 823 2 3 4 3 3.00 824 4 4 4 4 4.00 825 6 4 6 7 5.75 827 l l l 2 1.25 828 4 3 3 3 3.25' 829 4 4 4 4 4.00 830 3 3 4 3 3.25 835 2 l 1 2 1.50 838 1 1 3 4 2.25 845 2 3 3 3 2.75 846 4 4 4 5 5.25 848 3 4 3 2 3.00 849 4 3 4 5 4.00 856 2 3 4 5 3.50 858 2 3 2 3 2,50 859 2 2 3 2 2.25 Males 804 4 3 1 1 2.25 815 3 4 3 3 3.25 831 1 2 2 2 1.75 832 5 3 3 3 3.50 834 4 5 3 6 4.50 842 2 3 2 2 2.25 843 1 1 1 2 1.25 855 3 3 2 2 2.50 861 2 2 2 2 2.00 875 2 2 1 3 2.00 59 *Informal Aid to AE-—Client Ratings Level Client Response 1 Client goes off on a tangent, ignoring the therapist's statement. 2 Client partially answers or addresses himself to the therapist's question or statement. 3 Client "fully" addresses himself to the therapist's statement. 4 Client fully addresses himself to the therapist's statement. Shows some feeling. 5 Client fully addresses himself to the therapist's statement with a more intense feeling than a 4 rating. 6 Client fully addresses himself to the therapist's statement with a more intense feeling than a 5 rating but shows no insight. 7 Client fully addresses himself to the therapist's . statement with a very intense feeling and some insight. 8 Client fully addresses himself to the therapist's statement with a more intense show of feeling than under rating 7. Shows more insight than under a 7 rating. 9 Client fully addresses himself to the therapist's statement. Shows more insight than under an 8 rating. Here feelings expressed by client than under an 8. *Used by raters in conjunction'with the Truax AB in order to adapt the sea e o a client population. Major reliance upon Truax's AE, however. A SCALE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF ACCURATE EMPATHY Charles B. Truax (Issued Sept. 28, 1961) 60 A SCALE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF ACCURATE EMPATHY1 Charles B. Truax Psychotherapy Research Group Psychiatric Institute University of Wisconsin The present scale is a refinement of a scale described elsewhere (The process of group psychotherapy: relationships between hypothesized therapeutic conditions and intrapersonal .exploration. Psychol. Honogy., 1961, 12, No. 7, Whole No. 511). 'It was designed to be used with tape recorded inter- views, but can also be used'with.motion.picture"recordings, video tape recordings, live observations, and, with only slight loss in reliability, to typescripts of psychotherapy' interactions. This scale and its immediate predecessors have been used on psychotherapy interaction units involving as little as two therapists and one client statements and as much as four minutes of continuous therapist-client interaction. The present scale was designed to be used with therapist responses occurring in both individual and group psychotherapy, and to be used by both professional and.1ay'persons. 1The author is indebted to Shirley Epstein and Edward Williams for suggestions and additions to the Revised Scale. 61 .s v .A‘ [H 62 The scale is an attempt to define nine degrees of accurate empathy, beginning with an almost complete lack of empathy and continuing to a level where the therapist unerringly responds to the client's full range of feeling and recognized each emotional nuance and deeply hidden feeling. General Definition Accurate empathy involves more than just the ability of the-therapist to sense the patient's "private world" as if it were his own. It also involves more than just the ability of the therapist to know what the patient means. Accurate Empathy involves both the sensitiviyy to current feeliggs and the verbal faciliyy to communicate this understanding in a language attuned to the client's current feelings. It is not necessary-indeed it would seem undesirable-— for the therapist to ghgyg the client's feelings in any sense that would require the therapist to feel the same emotions that the client feels. It is instead an apprecia- tion of those feelings and a sensitive awareness of those feelings. It also, at deeper levels ofempathy, involves an.understanding of patterns of human feelings and exper- iencing so as to sense feelings present in the client which are only partially revealed. From the therapist's.experience ‘.s v c I a . - - I . a 1 . _ . e‘ Ca 4 i e . . "r o t v» s' \ ~. _ sh. , . ,‘. .‘. - F ’ '. . . . . a .q A. . . L . .v i i . l . a . . , . , . ‘ . _ . u A , ‘ C ' . .‘ , . , L i 63 and knowledge of patterns of human feelings and experiencings he can communicate what is clearly known to the client and can also voice meanings in the client's experience of which the client is scarcely aware. At a'hégh level of accurate empathy the message "I am 1293. you" is unmistakenly clear—the therapist's remarks fit in just right with the client's mood and content. The therapist's responses not only indicate a sensitive under- standing of the obvious feelings, but serve to clarify and expand the client's awareness of his own feelings or experiences. This is communicated not alone by the language appropriate to the client, but also by the total voice qualities which unerringly reflect the seriousness and depth of feeling. The therapist's intent concentration upon the client is evident so that he is continuously aware of the client's shifting emotional content and can shift his own responses to correct for language or content errors in his own communications when he is not ”with” the client. At a lgy_level of accurate empathy the therapist may be off on a tangent of his own or may have ministerpreted what the patient is feeling, and, at a very low level may be so preoccupied and interested in his own intellectual interpretations that he is scarcely aware of the client's "being." The therapist at this low level of accurate empathy may be even disinterested in the client, or may e.- ta new 64 have his focus of attention on the intellectual content of what the client says rather than.what the client "is" during the moment and so ignores, misunderstands or does not attempt to sense the client's current feelings and experiences. At a low level of empathy the therapist is doing something other than "listening," "understanding," or "being sensitive;" he may be evaluating the client, giving advice, sermonizing, or simply reflecting upon his own feelings or experiences. Indeed, he may be accurately describing psychodynamics to the patient——but in a language not that of the client, or at a time when these dynamics are far removed from the current feelings of the client, so that it takes on the flavor of a teacher-pupil interaction. 65 9 - POINT SCALE Stage 1 Therapist seems completely unaware of even the most conspicuous of the client's feelings. His responses are not appropriate to the mood and content of the client's statements and there is no determinable quality of empathy, hence, no accuracy whatsoever. The therapist may be bored and disinterested or actively offering advice but he is not communicating an awareness of the client's current feelings. are-hiss: C: Sir, are you ready? (earnestly) What about? (mumbled)’ I want one thing to knows-us-—is it or is it not normal for.a woman to feel like that, like I felt-—degraded—- one thing right after the other from Sunday on—-or is it a lesson? (sadly; dramatically) Is it immature to feel like this-—is really maturity-what it says in the books, that one has to understand the other person-—is a woman supposed to give constantly and-be actually humiliated? (intensely, though softly) If she asks for it. (casually) If she asks for it. (registering surprise) Did I ask for it? (testily) Well, I don't know; I doubt-I don't think you did. (mechanically) 66 Egggple II: I wonder it it's my educational background or if it's me. Hhm. You know what I mean. Yeah. (Pause) I guess if I could just solve that I'd know just about where to hit, huh? Mhm, mhm. Now that you know, a way, if you knew for sure, that your, your lack, it that's what it is-—I can't be sure of that yet (C: No) is really so, that it, it might even feel as though it's something that you just couldn't receive, that it, if, that would be it? Well-—I-—I didn't, uh, I don't quite follow you-—clearly. ‘Well (pause), I guess, I was, I was thinking that-that you perhaps thought that, that if you could be sure that, the, uh, that there were tools that, that you didn't have, that, perhaps that could mean that these-—uh- tools that you had lacked-—way back there in, um, high school (C: Ian) and perhaps just couldn't perceive now and, fine e e e Eh, yes, or I might put it this way, um (pause). If I knew that it was, um, let's just take it this wayh-If I knew that it was my educational background, there would be a possibility of going back. Oh, so, I missed that now, I mean now, and uh. . . . and really getting myself equipped. I see, I was-uh-—I thought you were saying in some ways that um, um, you thought that, if, if that was so, you were just kind of doomed. No, I mean. . . . I see. a... .tl 67 Uh, not doomed. Well let's take it this way, um, as I said, ii, 55, it's my educational background; then I could go back and, catch myself up. I see. And come up. 68 Stage 2 Therapist shows a degree of accuracy which is almost negligible in his responses, and then only toward the client's most obvious feelings. Any emotions which are not so clearly defined, he tends to ignore altogether. He may be correctly sensitive to obvious feelings and yet misunderstand much of what the client is really trying to say. By his response he may block off or may misdirect-the patient.’ Stage 2 is distinguishable from State*3 in that the therapist ignores feelings rather than displaying an inability to understand feelings. W: C: You've got to explain so she can understand (T: Mhm, mhm, in bored tone) without-uh-—giving her the impression that she can get away with it, too. (excitedly) T: Well, you've got a job satisfying all the things that- seem important, for instance being consistent, and yet keeping her-—somewhat disciplined and telling her it's good for her. (conversationally) C: There's where the practical application of what we have just mentioned comes into being. (laughs) T: Hhm, mhm. (sounding bored) C: And.when it's a theoretical plan (T: Mhm) it's beautiful: (shrilly) (T: Mhm-mhm) but- T: (Interrupting) Something else about it that I feel really dubious about (banteringly) what you can really 0 on the practical level (inquiringly) I sometimes say that's what-awe're most encouraged about, too. (mumbling) 69 C: (Chiming in loudly) Yes-uh-—there are many-uh problems in our lives in the practical application of-—trying to be consistent. (informatively) Egagple II: C: It.seems that recently, uh, we, uh, set up our program for the next year, and, uh, outlined it, and concurred it by phone and all of this stuff, and I sent him a letter, a concurring letter, a letter to concur his phone call. I want him to send me a concurring letter to the letter that I concurred from to make more triply sure that I didn't-what's going on. So, I don't know what, uh, what's going on, what's going on in this guy's head. (T: Mhm) 'Cause, uh, I assume at the outset then that this is a (T: Mhm) guy that reacts normally to acts, normally. Then, when a person does have something that is supposed to, or that he was going to be especially secretive about, (T: Mhm) that does have a definite meaning. Not a type that just promotes himself to . . . out of proportion like . . . let's say, uh, say a certain general. Perhaps, uh, this fellow likes servants. T: Maybe you're saying that . . . I mean, what I see you doing is, uh, escaping, considering . . . letting a-—a justification . . . for . . . your feeling of anxiety in this situation. C: (Interrupting) Yeah, well, uh, I'm trying to figure out just how . . . well, just kind of what the outcome would be, what day do you think (Therapist attempts to interject some comment, but client does not yield) I could go 92' with the delusions of trying to be a fortune teller, which I can't . . . (T: Mhm) . . . I can‘t stand that. T: Then, I heard you say something else, uh, right at the beginning, I suppose this was, that, uh, there it was a hot day, and you didn't think there was, you know, there was any calls coming downstairs. C: Well, I . . . I would like to try to figure that out for myself, the feeling I . . . I sort of get the feeling, you know, of . . . of getting to be triply sure, you know. Perhaps this is what I meant to convey here. .4.-.j 70 Well, uh . . . I don't know whether you really said this, but it's . . . you conveyed it to me, anyhow; And, I perceived the notion that, uh . . . you were feeling this way and, uh, sore and so on, and along comes this phone call and this situation. . . . Mhm. . . . to which, immediately, you respond with anxiety- Yah. . . . which, umh, you then felt was, uh, an indication of the insecurity of your level of confidence. . . . Yah. . . . in yourself . . . . . . . I'm very frank: 71 Stage 3 Therapist often responds accurately to client's more exposed feelings. He also displays concern for the deeper, more hidden feelings, which he seems to sense must be present, though he does not understand their nature. The ‘therapist seems to assume the presence of deep feelings, although he does not sense their meaning to this particular patient. arsenal: C: I'm here, an' uh—I guess that maybe I'll go through with it, and (nervous laugh) I'll have to——there's no use- , ‘ T: (Interrupting) Ybu mean you're here-you mean you're right here-—I wasn't sure when you said that (C: ‘well. . .) whether you meant you were-I guess you mean you war in—- this is your situation. (stumbling) C: (Interjecting) I'm in-—I'm ine-I'm in the stage of suffering—swell, yes, I'm here too because of that. (T: murmurs Mhm after every other word or so) An'- uh (sighs audibly) but, I can see where-—uh-— T: (Filling in) You feel it's-you feel it's a pretty tough situation to be in? (inquiringly) C: Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. (casually) Egggple II: C: Now that you're . . . know the difference between girls; I think they were about 9 to 8 years old and, uh, they ‘were just like dolls, you know, and (laughs) uh, I used to spend a lot of time with 'em. I used to go over there and would spend more time with these kids than what I would with . . . . 72 n... hm. But nobody ever told me why I was dragged in here. And I own my own place, I have my, my . . . and.my farm, I think I still own them. Because that, there was a little mortgage on it. And, uh (pause), my ex-wife but I don't see how'in the world they could change that. th, hm. But they sold my livestock and, uh, I, I worked with horses, and they sold them all, and ah . . . . I think prObably, should I cross this microphone? (noises) And then I had a bunch of sheep. Mb“) hm. And they sold that stuff off, and the social worker, Mrs. L. says to me, she says that uh, she says I was 111 when I was brought in here. th, hm. And that, which I know that I was not 111. Now, I'll tell you what she might've meant in what way I was ill. Now I'll tell 'ya, I 'batched it out there on the farm and I maybe just didn't get such too good food at the time. Now, whether she wanted to call that ill, or whether she wanted to call it mentally ill, that she didn't say. Hhm, hm. But she says I was ill, well, they could put that I was sick that I didn't have the right kind of food because I gained quite a bit of weight after I was brought in here. Hhm, hm. And she wouldn't give me any explanation and then I got mad at her . . . . Hhm, hm. 73 C: . . . and of course I told her off. Then I asked her if she, they kept from me for a long time that my stock was sold and I thought quietly, anyhow, I says, I won't give mywork . . . . i.v. 74 Stage 4 Therapist usually responds accurately to the client's more obvious feelings and occasionally recognizes some that are less apparent. In the process of this tentative probing, however, he may anticipate feelings which are not current to the client, as well as misinterpreting some present feelings. Sensitivity and awareness of the therapist are present but he is not entirely "with" the patient in the current situation or experience. The desire and effort to understand are both present but accuracy is low. It is distinguishable from Stage 2 in that the therapist does occasionally recognize feelings that are less apparent. Also the therapist may seem to have a theory about the patient and may even know how or why the patient feels a particular way, but the therapist is definitely not "with" the patient—-they are not together. In short, the therapist may be diagnostically accurate, but not empathically accurate in his sensitivity to the current feeling state of the patient. Mel: C: If—-if-—they kicked me out, I-—I don't know what I'd do-—because~(T: Mhm) I-—I-—I gg really dependent on it. (stammering) T: Even though you hate this part-—you-—say, "MY GOD, I-—I don't think I could-—possib1y exist without it either." (C: Hhm) And that's even the-—that's the worst part of it. (gently) WV- 75 (Following lengthy pause) Seems that (catches breath) sometimes I-uh-the only thing I want out of the hospital-'s tuh have everyone agree with me (T: Mhm, hm) that's-I-I-I guess that if (catches breath) everybody agreed with me-that everybody'd be in the same sha e I was. (seriously, but ending with nervous laughter Hhm, well, this is sort of like-uh-feeling about the friend who-—didn't want to do what I wanted to do; that- even here-—if you agreed with me——this is what I want because if you don't agree with.me, it means you don't like me or something. (reflectively) Hmmmm (thoughtfully) it means that I'm wrong: (empathically, quick breathless laugh) Egggple II: C: -—You know, I'll bet you tell that to all the girls. And when we would have oh, go out for department, frequently had parties and picnics and that sort of thing, and I knew his wife and, and, children and, uh there, there was no affair. It was, and, as a matter of fact, I, that was at the time that I had an affair‘with A. (T: Hhmg I didn't need a man because I had one. T: Mhm Now I, I don't think.when I was living in that city and working for the welfare department that even though I hadn't been having an affair with A, I don't think th'é‘E'Imould at that time had had an affair with B. (T: Mhm) I really don't. One of the impressions I have (name) is that you, ah, your guilt feelings are gay out of proportion-to what uh, they should be. In some ways you've got some really, ah, ah, Victorian attitudes that you apply to yourself. . . (Interrupting therapist) Well, I had an affair with a man and had an illegitimate baby and then go right ahead and have an affair with another married—— (Interrupting client) I'm not talking about that here. That's, that's serious. I mean, maybe you were indiscrete. Haybe uh, you were uh, you took chances that you shouldn't have taken, uh, what I'm saying is, uh, you have sexual feelings, you're going to have sexual feelings. It's a part of you because you're a person and, an . . . . 76 (Interrupting) But I didn't used to have them doctor! (Therapist going right on) You want to, and you're going to want to find expression for them. And ah, and most people in your circumstance would find expression for them. And.wouldn't have to feel so terribly guilty about it, as you do-they‘wouldn't have to go around hating themselves afterwards like you do. You've got built into yourself a good whip somewhere, (name), you whip yourself (pause) I'm saying that compared to what most people in your circumstance, uh, what their feelings are like- 77 Stage 5 Therapist accurately responds to all of the client's more readily discernable feelings. He shows awareness of many feelings and experiences which are not so evident, too, but in these he tends to be somewhat inaccurate in his understanding. The therapist may recognize more feelings that are not so evident. When he does not understand completely this lack of complete understanding is communi- cated without an anticipatory or jarring note. His misunder- standings are not disruptive by their tentative nature. Sometimes in Stage 5 the therapist simply communicates his awareness of the problem of understanding another person's inner world. Stage 5 is the mid-point of the continuum of accurate empathy. semis: C: I gave her her 0 portunity (T: Mhm) and she kicked it over. (heatedly) T: Mhm-—first time you ever gave her that chance, and-she didn't take it?- (inquiring gently) C: No: She came back and stayed less than two weeks. (T: Mhm) A little more than a week-an 'went right straight back to.it. (shrilly) (T: Mhm) So that within itself is indicative that she didn't want it. (excitedly) T: Hhm, mhm-—it feels like it's sort of thrown-—right up in your face. (gently) C: Yah-and now I would really be-—crawling (T: Mhm) if I didn't demand some kind of assurances-that, that things was over with. (firmly) 78 Mhm, mhm, it would be-—pretty stupid to-—put yourself in that—-same position where it could be sort of-done to you all over again. (warily) Well, it could be-— es! I would be veyy stupid: (shrilly) (T: Mhm Because if it's not him-—it might be someone else. (emphatically) Eggggle II: Uh, it's really a store window there, ,uh, in'Hilwaukee. Uh, huh. But this had been your idea, and you'd suggested it and them, lo and behold it comes out as-— Well, uh, you see, I have to investigate the contract I signed with the company, you know, these companies have to have a contract whereby they have rights to all patents and, and, copyrights uh, for uh, for so-—so long . a time after you leave the company, you know (T: Yeah) and uh, in other words, uh (talk together here). So you might have been all right in doing this but you're not really sure about that. YOu'd have to investigate that. I'd have to investigate that and some other ideas I'd given them.. Uh, huh. And I know too, that, that this is another sign of how, another indication of how many things there were- that you need to track down. The drug was just one, this is just another, the movie camera, and (C: Mhm) and there are probably a number of others too. Well, all those other ideas (T: talks simultaneously 'with client here) even before they . . . when the, when the rocket uh, was fired by a balloon the first time; I remember, uh, that, right after, uh, this time, that I had gotten into that trouble, I started a little office over in Peckatonica and, and, uh, I submitted to the department of uh, well, the National Inventors Council, that one particular idea. ‘Well then, I just wrote'in an, asking'uh, for a little recognition on it. (T: Mhm) .And of course, it was one of those ideas, like most of'mine that any,*anybody will think of and not magy people will do anything about, you know (T: Mhm) an uh. . . . 79 Stage 6 Therapist recognizes most of the client's present feelings, including those which are not readily apparent. Sometimes, however, he tends to misjudge the intensity of these veiled feelings, with the result that his responses are not always accurately suited to the exact mood of the client. In content, however, his understanding or recognition includes those not readily apparent. The therapist deals with feelings that are current with the patient. He deals directly with.what the patient is currently experiencing although he may misjudge the intensity of less apparent feelings. Often the therapist, while sensing the feelings, is unable to communicate meaning to these feelings. The therapist statements contain an almost static quality in contrast to Stage 7 in the sense that the therapist handles those feelings that the patient offers but does not bring new elements to life. :He is with the client but does not encourage exploration. His manner of communicating his understanding is such that he makes of it a finished thing. my T: You're sort of-—comparing-things you do, things you have done-with what it would take to be a priest-—is that sort of-the feeling? (very gently) C: (Following 10 pause) I don't know, (meekly)_. lengthy paus2§ Suppose we mean right now feeling real guilty? (softly) (Sighs audibly) Real small. (verysoftlyh—protracted silence) I can't see how I could feel an different- other than-—feeling small or bad (T: Mhm guilty. (softly) Things you've done just-—so totally wrong to you—- totally bad-—you can't help sort of-hating yourself for it? (assuming client's tone) Is that the sort of quality? (very gently; almost inaudibly) (Following pause) And yet right now I feel as though I want to 1augh—-be ay (T: Mhm) I don't feel anything else. (monotonously (Speaki ‘with client)- Right at this-—at this moment? C: Mhm So-—it's too much to really-feel-very miserable and show it? (inquiringly) Yeah, yeah (urgentl ) I--I--don't want to show it anyway. (haltingly) ' Example II: C: -—gained a lot of weight, I'm way overweight, just the last couple of years, the more I, put on a lot of weight- I, well I did weigh around 160-165, now I weigh a little over 200; about 208 pounds or so. I really am overweight. Mhm. You feel like (C: Yeah) you've got 40 pounds too much and you don't feel too good. That's right. I washed medicine glasses for a little over three months this last summer so I, I feel like it right now, but some job, like that, that was-wasn't too hard, I could do it. (T: Mhm) I done that four times a day and it'd take me about-—oh half an hour, three- quarters of an hour each time I done it, to wash, see to wash the medicine glasses first. All the different ones that that. medicine. They give out medicine four times a day. ‘I done that from, oh, the middle of May until the last part ofAugust. - So you're saying, well you're well enough to, to do some‘work. 4! 81 Yeah, I went off—they wanted me to go on lawn detail last year but I didn't, I hardly feel that—I went out and shovelled snow last winter, just a day or two. If the work isn't too hard, I think I could do it all right. Now that really, that was really a nice good job for me, that washing glasses—I should've kept with that but uh, but, oh I made the beds sometimes, about twelve, or, something like that . . . sometimes I mop the floor. Hhm. Then you do feel well enough to, to do that sort of work (C: Yeah) around here in your saying . . . . You don't feel well enough or you don't really want to— Well I don't really know, I wouldn't really be well enough to; I have to take medicine all the time and everything, to keep my nerves calmed, and uh. . . . 82 Stage 7 Therapist responds accurately to most of the client's . present feelings. He shows awareness of the precise intensity of most underlying emotions. However, his responses move only slightly beyond the area of the client's own awareness, so that feelings may be present which are not recognized by the client or therapist. The therapist moves on his own to more emotionally laden material. The therapist may communicate simply that the patient and he are moving towards more emotionally significant material. Stage 7 is distin- guishable from Stage 6 in that often the therapist response is a kind of pointing of the finger toward emotionally significant material with great precision in the direction of pointing. my C: Thy-the last-—severa1 years-—it's been the other way around-I mean he'll say, 'Well let's-go do this or that,‘ and-—and I-sometimes I actually wanted to, but I'd never go because-—I feel like I'm getting my little bit of revenge or something. (voice fades at the end) T: By God, he owed it to you, and-if he didn't come through, you'll Just punish him now (C: Yah) now it's too late or-—something. (very softly) C: (Laughingly) Yah-—that's——uh-that's just the way I- uhs-now it's too late-—It's your turn to take your medicine now. (assuming therapist's tone) T: Mhm-—I'm gonna treat you like-you've treated me. (pause) Uh- N 83 Mhm . . . it's pretty-that's a-—pretty childish way to think, but-—I know uh-—if I‘went home tomorrow, I'd do it tomorrow-if I had the chance. (defiantly) If- (Interrupting and overtalking client) One part of you could say, 'Well, this is stupid and childish 'cause I-—I want to be with him,’ -—and yet-another part says, 'No, you “gotta make him pay for it-yo .want him dangling there now.’ (gently) Example II: (Long silence) Are you interested in knowing any more about that or any more about your dreams or about anything else that has seemed important to you here in the hospital? Oh no, the last few months I haven't felt like having any recreation at all, I don't know why, it just doesn't appeal to me. And last night I almost had to force myself to go on a talent show. 'Hm, Mhm. Just feel as though something like this, you just feel, oh, gosh, I'm.not interested. (C: Mhm) I used to go to all the dances when I first came here, but now I don't care to now. ‘You sort of feel that even with things that at first you were quite interested in, now they seem less and less interesting. Mhm. I guess you're saying you don't quite know why that is but, uh, it seems that way. umm. ms‘ "F 84 Stage 8 Therapist accurately interprets all the client's present, acknowledged feelings. Eb also uncovers the most deeply-shrouded of the client's feeling areas, voicing meanings in the client's experience of which the client is scarcely aware. Since he must necessarily utilize a method of trial and error in the new uncharted areas, there are resulting minor flaws in the accuracy of his understanding, but inaccuracies are held tentatively. He moves into feelings and experiences that are only hinted at by the client and does so with sensitivity and accuracy. The therapist offers specific explanations or additions to the patient's under- standing so that not only are underlying emotions pointed to, but they are specifically talked about. The content that comes to life may be new but it is not alien. While the therapist in Stage 8 makes mistakes, mistakes do not have a jarring note, but are covered by the tentative character of the response. Also the therapist is sensitive to his mistakes and quickly alters or changes his response in mid-stream, indicating that he more clearly knows what is being talked about and what is being sought after in the patient's own explorations. The therapist reflects a togetherness with the patient in tentative trial and error exploration. His voice tone reflects the seriousness and depth of his empathic grasp. .- 85 Exmmple I: C: I'm getting real worried-—be-because-—I don't know just what I'm gonna have to face. (Insistently; raising voice to overtalk therapist who attempts to interject comment) I mean I can't even find-—find what I'm gonna have to-uh——fight. (last word barely audible) It must be something-—pretty—~God-awful terrible-and yet you don't even know what it is. (gently) No-—uh——I mean-—someone could tell me that-—I don't have enough confidence-—uh—-mmm-—and I know I've-uh-— I've always been afraid of——uh-physical violence-—and- .Uh. O O 0 (Interjects) That you've always been afraid of——beimg hurt-—and I sort of sense, too, it's-—being hurt y people-uh-—that-—physical violence like a-—uh-train crashing in isn't frightening with you. (gently No-uh (reflectively) That a fight with people is upsetting: (softly) Yah: (forcefully and registering surprise) I—-I think ITiL—uh-afraid-—uh, uh-—I'm afraid of ever losing-—uh I think-—not so much because of-—uh the physical pain-— but-the idea that-—I lost and uh, everybody knows it. (haltingly) The idea that someone beat you (C: Mhm) that you.were 'weak or something. (very gently) gmmmple II: The way she wanted me and I was always terribly afraid that she wouldn't put up with.me, or would put me out, out (C: Yeah) I guess I can get something else there, too, new I was always afraid that she didn't really care. I still think that though. (T: Mhm) 'Cause I don't know for sure. Mhm. And don't really know for sure whether she cares or not. 86 (Pause) She's got so many other, uh, littler kids to think about. (T: Mhm) That's why-— , Maybe she likes them better or-— No, it's not that, I think she likes us all. (T: Mhm) (pause) I think seein' that I'm the, I'm the black sheep but, uh, the only one that served time (T: Mhmm) and, that-'n got in the most trouble. (T: Mhm) Seein' that I hurt her so much, that's why I think she's starting ta-—she just don't care for me anymore. You believe, maybe because I have hurt her so much, maybe she's fed up with me, maybe she's gotten to the point where she just doesn't care. (Long pause) LM' \ 1... « 1 p . . I (I A v 4 u: I . z .. 4 .. . ~ I \ a \ ‘- . {no i i. . v . . . . Mhm—-this would be-—just—-terrible-—uh-—a man wouldn't ry, a grown-up wouldn't cry. (almost tearfully) c (C: Yeah) . . . or at least-— (leaves thought suspended) (Filling in for T) At least without an apparent reason T: Mhm) (long pause) an'-—uh-an'-—I—-I don't have- an apparent reason (emphatically) -—it wouldn't only be weak, but——be crazy or something. (very gently) ‘ C: (Chiming in) Yeah: (very positively) Emmmple II: T: -I s'pose, one of the things he was saying there was, I may seem pretty hard on the outside to other people but I do have feelings. C: Yeah, I've got feelings. But most of 'em I don't let 'em off. T: Mhm. Kinda hide them. (C: faintly - Yeah) (Long pause) C: I guess the only reason that I try to hide 'em, is, seein' that I'm small, I guess I got to be a tough guy or somethin'. T: Mhm. C: That's the way I, think I people might think about me. T: Hm. Little afraid to show my feelings. They might think I was weak, 'n take advantage of me or something. They might hurt me if they-eknew’l could be hurt. C: I think they'd try, anyway. T: If they really knew I had feelings, they, they really might try and hurt me. (Long pause) C: I guess I don't want 'em to know that I got 'em. 89 Mhm. 'Cause then they couldn't if they wanted to. So I'd be safe if I, if I seem like a, as though I was real hard on the outside. If they thought I was real hard, I'd be safe. .APPENDIX A Revised version used in a study of "Personality and Performance Correlates of Empathic Understanding in Psychotherapy" by Allen E. Bergin and Sandra Solomon The material reproduced below are merely guidelines derived from the original scale which were used by the raters in evaluating recorded therapist responses. Truax Bergin- Scale Solomon Points Points 1 l Inaccurate responses to obvious feelings. 2 2 Slight accuracy toward obvious feelings. Ignores the deeper feelings. - 3 Slight accuracy toward obvious feelings. Concern with deeper feelings but inaccurate with regard to them. 3 h Often accurate toward obvious feelings. Concern with deeper feelings and occasionally accurate with regard to them. A 5 Often accurate toward obvious feelings. Concern with deeper feelings and fairly often accurate with regard to them although spotted by inaccurate probing. 5 6 Always accurate toward obvious feelings. Frequently accurate toward deeper feelings although occasionally misinterpreting them. 6 7 Always accurate toward obvious feelings. Frequently accurate toward the content but not the intensity of deeper feelings. 9O Truax Scale Bergin- Solomon Points Points 7 8 10 91 Always accurate toward obvious feelings. Frequently accurate toward deeper feelings with regard to both content and intensity of feeling but occasionally misses the mark of depth of intensity. May go too far in direction of depth. Always accurate toward obvious feelings.‘ Almost always accurate toward deeper feelings ‘with respect to both content and intensity but may occasionally hesitate or err though correct well. Always accurate toward obvious feelings and unerringly accurate and hesitant toward deep feelings with regard to both content and intensity. 92 .oaeou ecu mo on: ecu ca muoumu mo uswswmuu can oumuaawomm ou peszusw ma oaogom mama scammuoflm vam3ou uxm wcwucwoa uwcasmw house new owaooum monocww maoflowsouou“ Aswan m . o>wuflwcou sowueu nouaumunw mammuu mauooa mufimcouca nos use o>wumusou use mtcmum mamasoom mumusoom ucmucoo mums—scum 33 . Lops: monocww unmade? L venison L: ”3:3 .39, pan .vaaum: ueEom usn.moeasoom momsmm eumusoom m>Huhmsmm 533.com . . hauooa mwcwaomi mmofizmflw sensuous oumnsoom mumpsoum mumusuom enmasoom muonsoom mesmum monocww «sowszfl mewumuawwss: 3.125: soumo names: assess. a w h o n c m N . H ommum ammum ammum ammum owmum mueum ammum ammum ewmum unwamuena on» an emuuoamos macaw mm ecu mo mommum emu um mmsafieom ucowHo mo couuaoouom ecu a“ humusou< unwaeueny mo mmouwoa evapoam mo muqeuo>qsb noHHez .< unenoam Hhsumasm eumusoo< mo uceaeuswmoz on» now macaw < «o sowumusououm uaumfiesum < m XHGZMmm< was po>wounem mwswfimum useaao mo ~o>eg (if)! lH. APPENDIX B BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY (EMPATHY SCALE) a 93 Table 7 Therapist Empathy: Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory Client Form Counselor Form Counselor-Client Empathy Empathy Weighted + ~ Total + ~ Total Discrepancy Case 801 9 ~14 23 14 ~12 26 -3 803 9 ~7 16 10 ~10 20 ~4 808 13 ~9 22 13 2 11 .11 812 17 ~17 34 l O - 1 33 817 ~2 ~5 3 7 ~6 13 ~10 818 13 ~12 25 7 -3 10 15 820 10 ~16 26 9 ~9 18 8 7823 9 5 14 0 ~16 l6 ~2 824 O 6 ~6 l4 ~9 23 ~29 825 15 ~10 25 18 ~15 33 ~8 827 ~1O 5 ~15 ll ~7 18 ~33 828 7 ~3 lO 6 ~2 8 2 829 3 -1 4 lO ~8 18 ~14 830 10 ~14 24 23 ~24 47 ~23 835 16 O 16 12 O 12 4 838 12 ~9 21 18 ~16 34 ~13 845 13 ~9 22 11 -9 20 2 846 ~6 ~4 ~2 ~6 ~9 3 -5 848 18 ~16 34 6 4 2 32 849 14 ~11 25 8 ~11 l9 6 856 12 ~13 25 5 ~4 9 16 859 5 ~3 8 ~l 2 -3 11 804 ~7 ~13 6 5 -3 8 ~2 815 ll ~5 16 12 ~16 28 ~12 831 9 6 3 8 ~5 13 ~10 832 ~9 O ~9 16 ~13 29 ~38 834 16 ~19 35 5 ~2 7 28 842 15 -7 22 4 ~2 6 16 843 -2 7 9 17 ~19 36 ~25 855 12 ~6 18 13 ~6 19 -l 861 6 ~7 l3 ~3 ~4 l 12 875 -1 ~l O 6 ~4 10 ~10 ‘4 94 RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY-—CLIENT FORM (Please do not write your name on this form. It will be coded anonymously and your answers used for research purposes only.) Below are listed a variety of ways that one person could feel or behave in relation to another person. Please consider each statement with respect to whether you think it is true or not in your present relationship with your therapist. Mark each statement in the left margin according to how strongly you feel it is true or not true. Please mmrk evemz one. Write in +1, +2, +3; or ~l, ~2, ~3:—{3'stand or e o owing answers: +1: I feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. +2: I feel it is true. +3: I strongly feel that it is true. ~1: I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. ~2: I feel it is not true. ~3: I shrongly feel that it is not true. 1. He tries to see things through my eyes. 2. He understands my words but not the way I feel. 3. He is interested in knowing what my experiences mean to me. 4. He nearly always knows exactly what I mean. 5. At times he jumps to the conclustion that I feel more strongly or more concerned about something than I actually do. 6. Sometimes he thinks that I feel a certain way, cause he feels that way. 7. He understands me. V. ‘I‘. 95 8. His own attitudes toward some of the things I say, or do, stop him from really understanding me. 9. He understands what I say, from a detached, objective point of view. 10. He appreciates what my experiences feel like to mg. 11. He does not realize how strongly I feel about some of the things we discuss. 12. He responds to me mechanically. 13. He usually understands ml; of what I say to him. 14. When I do not say what I mean at all clearly he still understands me. 15. He tries to understand me from his own point of view. 16. He can be deeply and fully aware of my most painful feelings without being distressed or burdened by them himself. ‘- 96 RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY—~COUNSELOR FORM (Please do not write your name on this form. It will be coded anonymously and your answers used fro research purposes only.) Below are listed a variety of ways that one person * . could feel or behave in relation to another person. Please consider each statement with respect to whether you think it is true or not in your present relationship with your client. Mark each statement in the left margin according to how strongly you feel it is true or not true. Please mark exemm one. write in +1, +2, +3; or ~1, ~2, ~3, o s r e ollowing answers. +1: I feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. +2: I feel it is true. +3: I strongly feel that it is true. ~1: I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. ~2: I feel it is not true. ~3: I strongly feel that it is not true. 1. I try to see things through his eyes. 2. I understand his words but not the way he feels. 3. I am interested in knowing what his experiences mean to him. 4. I nearly always know exactly what he means. 5. At times I jump to the conclusion that he feels more strongly or more concerned about something than he actually does. 6. Sometimes I think he feels a certain way, because I feel that way. 7. I understand him. . >I . a" .I'I . v» \- ,. _. \ . I -u" r..-g “DI" 'e-M‘ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 97 My own attitudes toward some of the things he says, or does, stop me from really understanding him. I understand what he says from a detached, objective point of view. I appreciate what his experiences feel like to him. I do not realize how strongly he feels about some of the things we discuss. I respond to him mechanically. I usually understand all of what he says to me. ____When he does not say what he means at all clearly _I still understand him. I try to understand him from my own point of view. ____I can be deeply and fully aware of his most painful *feelings without being distressed or burdened by them myself. APPENDIX C LEARY INTERFERSONAL CHECK LIST “5+ WMur UN Rm 98 MW Table 8 Self ICL Scores-Females Raw Dom and Lov Scores (Conscious Self and nether) Obtained mm on the Interpersonal Check-List (ICL) variable 4J79J344452862000960528 3475JJJ565 O 00 O O 93100984273969621861332 3172636860 +44Q+ 1 .11.1 1 d. .. 89739706758684862166502 JAJJJJJJZS .00 0 280053035 4871891427527 9550586502 ++d.fl 4 ..1 1 d .1 S e m 5011673517651131176836799676038833 + .2 .1 1.. .1 1. . _.l. M. . . . .l. 1 O S L 9641772742201825340 nwrnwhhhomgofizJBOoO—Droz O C O O O O O 597109047405h088n121590 20168I47957 +.....I.1.. . ...9.... .J. 1.1 Standardized Dom and Lov Scores (Conscious Self and Mother) on the ICL and.Measured Discrepancy (Self-Mother) 99 Table 9 Females Variable Mother Discrepancy Dom Lov Dom Lov Case 801 1.09 0.34 -0.29 0.75 4.50 803 -1016 0053 0007 -3007 13000 808 ~0.84 ~O.70 1.00 ~1.71 6.70 817 o.13 ~1.42 1. 85 -o.33 6.50 818 -2002 -2004 -0015 007A 100 60 823 “Oehs 0025 -O:16 -0086 30 70 82A 1030 -0030 0.18 ”0063 30 70 825 2.29 ~3.11 1.30 ~1.22 6. 80 827 1.71 ~1.44 0.03 0.03 5. 40 829 0.82 ~0.25 0.52 0.42 2. 40 830 0035 1014 _‘0098 "10h2 9020 835 1042 0003 “2019 1052 12020 838 -2 0 50 "O 0 72 0 0 82 "’0 e 46 10 0 60 845 ”1040 -0025 “0095 0075 3050 846 ~0.03 ~1.61 -1.42 1.86 12.00 848 ~0.06 0.44 ~O.33 0.42 1.50 849 0.08 0.74 ~1.99 0.94 6. 50 856 -3049 -0097 “1065 0.06 60 70 858 ~1.13 1.91 1.21 ~1.89 14. 20 859 0.17 0.62 0.43 ~0.67 4.20 Males 804 -0032 -0042 2092 ”0080 10050 815 0011 -0096 0026 -0019 2050 831 -1059 -0011 -2023 0060 . 3010 832 0.16 ~0.96 ~0.63 3.30 13. 80 834, 1.41 ~0. 10 0.21 0.43 4. 20 843 1.14 1.12 0.40 ~1.2l 7. 70 855 “10261009 '1074 00 71 2000 861 2.42 0.38 1.18 ~1. 12 4.80 875 1.17 1.77 ~0.21 ~0. 43 8.20 1. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 100 APPENDIX C THE INTERFERSONAL CHECK.LIST——FORM IV Able to give orders Appreciative Apologetic Able to take care of self Accepts advice readily Able to doubt others Affectionate and understanding Acts important Able to criticize self Admires and imitates others Agrees with everyone Always ashamed of self Very anxious to be approved of Always giving advice Bitter Bighearted and unselfish Boastful Businesslike Bossy Can be frank and honest Clinging vine Can'be strict if necessary Considerate Cold and unfelling Can complain if necessary Cooperative Complaining Can be indifferent to others Critical of others Can be obedient Cruel and unkind Dependent 33- 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. O 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 72. 101 Dictatorial Distrusts everyone Dominating Easily embarrassed Eager to get along with others Easily fooled Egotistical and conceited Easily led Encouraging to others Enjoys taking care of others Expects everyone to admire him Faithful follower FrequentlyjdisappOinted Firm but just Fond of everyone Forceful Friendly Forgives anything Frequently angry Friendly all the time Generous to a fault Gives freely of self Good leader Grateful Hard-boiled when necessary Helpful Hard-hearted Hard to convince Hot-tempered Hard to impress Impatient with others mistakes Independent Irritable Jealous Kind and reassuring Likes responsibility Lacks self-confidence Likes to compete with others Lets others make decisions Likes everybody 73- 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86 87: as. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 102 Likes to be taken care of Loves everyone Makes a good impression Manages others Meek Modest Hardly ever talks back Often admired Obeys too willingly Often gloomy .Outspoken Overprotective of others Often unfriendly Oversympathetic Often helped by others Passive and unaggressive Proud and self-satisfied Always pleasant and agreeable Resentful Respected by others Rebels against everything Resents being bossed. Self-reliant and assertive Sarcastic Self~punishing Self-confident Self-seeking Shrewd and calculating Self-respecting Shy Sincere and devoted to friends Selfish Skeptical Sociable and neighborly Slow to forgive a wrong Somewhat snobbish Spineless Stern but fair Spoils people with kindness Straightforward and direct 0!? ,:... NJ» : so. u I . a .L... . I .h, . .. at. I I a‘ r... . .x .’.. e4 4. . i.) 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 103 Stubborn Suspicious Too easily influenced by friends Thinks only of self Tender and soft-hearted Timid Too lenient with others Touchy and easily hurt Too willing to give to others Tries to be too successful Trusting and eager to please Tries to comfort everyone Usually gives in Very respectful to authority wants everyone's love Well thought of wants to be led 'Will confide in anyone warm Wants everyone to like him Will believe anyone well-behaved "I7'1WM'L'7A7’LJ'LWAIATI T