WWW/m L

9 731 3571

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE EFFECT OF EGO DEVELOPMENT ON LEARNING
EMPATHY THROUGH A MICROCOUNSELING COURSE
WITH FUNDANENTALIST COUNSELING STUDENTS

presented by

DAN BRUCE ALLENDER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

O O . E 1
Ph D degree,“ DUCATIOIN .

 

Date May 13, 1987

MS U is an WV! Action/Equal Opportunity limitation

042771

.————

 

 

~
.‘_—_~—-
”-

A_‘ _———.‘-
-’___~',———

A—‘nfl
._. ‘ I AM-

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
w

RETURNING MATERIALS:

 

 

 

 

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

1‘00 A 21 a

 

 

THE EFFECT OF EGO DEVELOPMENT ON LEARNING
EMPATHY THROUGH A MICROCOUNSELING COURSE
WITH FUNDAMENTALIST COUNSELING STUDENTS

BY

DAN BRUCE ALLENDER

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Counseling Psychology Division: School of Health
Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance

1987

" #pw—sfirvr
nut-won- .- — - .—

P. Lut~ re f L. a mum. Q.T« r

C I O . t S Q. 3 mi
1 a l C r 5. O 3

n1 F. 6 Ch“ .3 a. E a. C l .3 If.
C. S C r. T. .. a .._ C r a. V. s; C. r S C e .i e O a.
C R a. a C a 3. a r C k a. C .I. i. S a. ._ D... I a R. Cr an a. E a ‘C Q.
C . . CZL C a. O .J 5.. 3 F. a ci a. m e C 3.. 34 m.“ :1: C a. S
a... r C 1. .: I C r i; m .l D .1 CL D. r r Q.
Me.SC33.l :0 r

“V. ”1‘ c. D.
«C C~ ml“ 3.. 3. F.»
:4 av S. 0. Cu v. .fi..— Y;

a. 17.3 .
mt {l T.

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF EGO DEVELOPMENT ON LEARNING
EMPATHY THROUGH A MICROCOUNSELING COURSE
WITH FUNDAMENTALIST COUNSELING STUDENTS

BY

Dan Bruce Allender

The present study examined three interrelated topics in
a population of theologically conservative pastoral
counseling students. First, it concerned itself with the
effects of microcounseling on three dependent variables:
empathic communication, affective sensitivity and dogmatism.
Second, it sought to determine if ego development was
related to empathic communication, affective sensitivity and
dogmatism. Finally, it assessed whether ego development was
related to change in the three dependent variables after
microcounseling training. The research was based on the
theories of ego development (Loevinger, 1976), dogmatism
(Rokeach, 1960), empathy (Rogers, 1975), and microcounseling
(Ivey, 1978).

Fifty fundamentalist counseling students from Grace
Theological Seminary were randomly assigned to a treatment
group, which received a microcounseling course and the
control group, which was assigned to a Personality Theories
Class. Students were given the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale,
Affective Sensitivity Scale, Carkhuff Empathy Scale at
pretest and postest. The Washington University Sentence
Completion Test was used to measure Ego Development at
pretest only.

The findings of this study indicated that: (1)
Microcounseling significantly affected students ability to
empathically communicate, however it did not have a
significant effect on affective sensitivity or dogmatism
compared to the control group; (2) Ego Development was
significantly related to empathic communication and not to
affective sensitivity or dogmatism; (3) No significant
interactions were found between ego development and
treatment on empathic communication, affective sensitivity
or dogmatism.

Implications for counselor training and further
research were discussed.

To Becky, with my love

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One further warning, my son: the use of books is
endless, and much study is wearisome.
Ecclesiastes 11:12

The task is wearisome indeed, but less so if one shares
the task with like minded companions. Many thanks are due
to my chairperson, Dick Johnson. He rallied to help me sift
through the maze at times when the complexity was nearly
overwhelming. John Powell was a kind light, benevolent and
wise in shaping my entire education. Steve Raudenbush
deepened my appreciation for rigorous and humane statistical
analyses. Gary Stollack laughed and encouraged me to do the
same.

My companions at Grace were likewise of rich
encouragement. To Linda, Patty and Lori: How could I have
managed without your tolerance of my antics and the speed of
your secretarial skills. To Tom, Chris, Trip, and Terri:
Your willingness to learn assessment skills enabled me to
start this project. To my colleague, mentor and
best-friend: Your unselfish joy in my progress surpasses any
gift I could ever return to you.

Anyone who has completed a major project like this
knows the task took its greatest toll on those closest to
the author: the family. Anna and Amanda, you've never known
a father free from the weariness of the academic maze. Your
sweet existence slowed my work, but in turn brought balance
and good purpose to all my labors. Becky, gratitude to you
will never be adequately expressed even if I were to take a
lifetime to thank you for your love. The years in school
would never have been a possiblity without your gentle
support.

DCg

hapte
DH”:
u.-

T‘—

p
9

mo SdSfi rP P2901

I
D. r 9 at Q. VIC .749 mil

Q. a I

E Co P .i T mi QC at H. t B... t H M.
p p

a 3
hi. kw
Pt AL

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
Chapter 1: The Problem
Purpose
Theory
Hypotheses
Overview
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Empathy
Importance of Empathy
Definition of Empathy
Measurement of Empathy
Summary of Empathy
Microcounseling
Definition of Microcounseling
Methodology of Microcounseling
Effects of Microcounseling
Summary of Microcounseling
Dogmatism
Definition of Dogmatism
Effect on Counseling Outcome
and Empathic Communication
Effect on Counselor Training
Effect of Counselor Training
on Level of Dogmatism
Summary of Dogmatism
Ego Development
Definition of Ego Development
Measurment Concerns
Effect on Affective Sensitivity
and Empathic Communication
Influence on Counselor Training
Summary of Personality Factors
Chapter 3: Design of the Study
Sample
Procedures
Instruments
Training of Raters and Rating Procedures
Testable Hypotheses
Statistical Analyses
Chapter 4: Results
Hypotheses 1 through 3: Differences due
to Treatment
Hypotheses 4 through 6: Differences due
to Ego Development Group
Hypotheses 7 through 9: Interaction of
Microcounseling and Ego Development

1

iii

11
ll
l3
l4
l4
16
17
20
20
20
21
23
26
27
27

27
29

33
33
34
34
37

4O
42
43
45
46
46
47
53
54
54
56

56
6O

61

 

 

Rec
Appendi
Appendi
Append;
Append;

Append:
Append;

Appendi

Append;
‘0“

“.Pendi
LlSt C y?

Chapter 5: Discussion 63
Population: Fundamentalist Counseling
Students 63
Review of Results and Discussion 65
The Main Effect for Treatment Level 65
The Main Effect for Ego Development
Level 68
The Interaction Between Ego Development
Group and Treatment 70
Recommendations 72
Appendix A: Information about Research Project 75
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form 77
Appendix C: Rokeach Dogmatism Scale 78
Appendix D: Washington University Sentence Completion
Test 82
Appendix E: Description of Helper Stimulus Expressions 84
Appendix F: Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal
Process Scale 89
Appendix G: Comparison of Group Means and Standard
Deviations for the Dependent Variables:
Empathic Communication, Affective
Sensitivity, and Dogmatism 92
Appendix H: Scatterplot for Ego Level and Pre-
Dogmatism Scores for Control Subjects 94
Appendix I: Scatterplots for Pre- and Post-Test Scores
for Experimental Control and Combined
Groups for Empathic Communication,
Affective Sensitivity, and Dogmatism 100
List of References 109

ii

 

r—3 0-3
r—a p)
m

(1) n»
P..l ._J *4

U‘ U‘ U'
(D (I)

Table
Table

Table

Table

List of Tables

 

Milestones of Ego Development

ANCOVA Summary for Empathic Communication
Means, Standard Deviation for Pre- and
Post-test Scores for the Empathic
Understanding Interpersonal Process Scale
ANCOVA Summary for Affective Sensitivity
Means, Standard Deviation for Pre- and
Post-test Scores for the Affective
Sensitivity Scale

ANCOVA Summary for Dogmatism

Means, Standard Deviation for Pre- and
Post-test Scores for the Rokeach Dogmatism
Scale

Mean EUIP Post-test Scores for Different
Ego Development Groups

EUIP Post-test Scores by Ego Development
in the Experimental Group

iii

10
S6

57
58

58
59
59
60

71

 

q

vaiues

lig;

9.

ml

JV.

ii

A.»

Q.

1;
a.
.0

C.

ii
a».
r

\

as Cc~

C

S 1

PM \a\
3 . Q
C .1

Chapter 1: The Problem

There is a debate about both the place of religious
values in counseling and the appropriateness of pastors and
religious workers practicing counseling or psychotherapy.
The concern involves the possible conflict of interest
between the development of an accepting, non-judgmental
relationship, and the promulgation of a particular
philosophical and moral agenda of which the pastor is an
institutional representative (Arbuckle, 1970; Bergin, 1980).
There are also concerns about training conservative pastors
in helping skills. Should pastors be trained to counsel or
only refer? Will counselor training ameliorate religious
beliefs and consequently alienate pastors from the
constituency they serve? Questions regarding the place of
religious values in counseling and deleterious effects of
counselor training, important though they are, must yield to
the reality that pastors and religious workers are in demand
as counselors.

A nationwide survey of adults (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld,
1960) found that of those seeking help from professionals
for psychological problems, 42% went to clergy; 31% saw a
psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker; and 29%
consulted a nonpsychiatric physician. Other studies show

that the kinds of problems seen by pastoral counselors are

l

 

v i .r H P.
«G C bx.
a a. S r.
4; D; .d
m an.
,1 r a.
5 AU Y1.

.3

I

prema

sexual

It

«5

It

n

71

 

I:

5-.

«L.
8119

2

similar to those seen in clinical practice by psychologists
or pschyiatrists (Arnold & Schick, 1979). Oates (1959)
remarked: "The choice is not between counseling and not
counseling, but between counseling in a disciplined and
skilled way and counseling in an undisciplined and unskilled
way" p. vi. /

The disturbing finding is that most pastoral counselors
do not feel adequately trained to provide the services
requested by their clients. Virkler (1979) found that
pastors felt comfortable in counseling with marital and
premarital concerns, but felt inadequate in dealing with
sexual concerns, depression, feelings of inadequacy and
vocational decision-making. In his study, Virkler (1979)
reported that 62% of the pastors rated their seminary
counseling training as somewhat or significantly deficient;
only 38% saw their training as moderately to very adequate.

In another study, Virkler (1980) attempted to answer
these questions: (a) What is the level of facilitativeness
of the average pastor? (b) Is there a relationship between
level of facilitativeness and years of pastoral experience?
(c) Is there a relationship between level of
facilitativeness and theological orientation (conservatism
vs. liberalism)? He found that the average Facilitative
Index for pastors averaging their four scores on Carkhuff's
measures for empathy, respect, genuineness, and
concreteness, was 1.75 (3.0 is considered minimally
facilitative). The relationship between pastoral experience

and facilitativeness was not found to be significant, but

3

there was a significant negative correlation between
conservatism and facilitativeness [F (1,44) = 27.5, p< .01].
The results indicated that as theological conservatism
increased, facilitativeness decreased. The sample of
pastors in the study did not reach a minimal level of
facilitativeness judged neccesary to establish an effective
counseling relationship, and change in facilitativeness did
not occur simply by more experience. This study points out
that the pastoral apprehension about adequacy may be well
founded. Therefore, Virkler (1980) and others encourage
seminaries to invest time and effort into training pastoral
counselors to achieve the necessary skills to develop
facilitative relationships.

A number of studies have used a microcounseling
paradigm with theological students (Albert, 1981; Kriesel,
1975; Musser, 1982). In each case significant differences
between treatment and control groups have demonstrated the
capacity of seminary students to learn empathy. There has
not been, to date, an experimental evaluation of
microcounseling training in a conservative (fundamentalist)
population of pastoral counseling students. A
fundamentalist, in this study, is operationally defined by
two key issues: (a) Belief in the Bible as the inerrant
record of God's message to mankind; (b) Separation from
practices considered unbecoming of a Christian including,
"gambling, dancing, attendance at commercial movie theaters,

identification with secret societies, and the use of

4

alchoholic beverages, illegal drugs and tobacco" (Grace
Theological Seminary 1984-1986 Catalog, p.16).

A clear need exists to train conservative pastoral
counselors in facilitative skills. Two important questions
need to be raised about the process of training religiously
conservative or fundamentalist pastoral counselors: (a)

Are fundamentalists, who are predisposed to be less
facilitative, amenable to change toward a more accepting,
empathic, relational style? In other words, is there a
point to introducing microcounseling training in
conservative seminaries? (b) Do personality factors,
particularly those most characteristic of conservative
pastoral counseling students, inhibit or enhance the
capacity to be empathic and to learn empathy skills? It is
not clear at this point whether all trainees benefit equally
from such training. Perhaps some screening should be done
to determine which conservative students are most likely to
benefit from microcounseling training. North stated:

Research has continued to support the effectiveness

of systematic training in raising the overall level or

trainee-offered facilitative skills...Questions still

remain as to whether this type of training is equally
effective for all trainees, and little has been done to
investigate the potential relationship of trainee

personality to training outcome (North, 1977, p.2).
Ivey and Authier similarly acknowledged the need for further
investigation of personality variables in connection with
microcounseling.

The importance of personality characteristics of

trainees subjected to microtraining has been relatively

neglected to this point. Are different personality
types affected differently by microtraining? These are

largely unanswered questions that must be decided with
future research (Ivey & Authier, 1978, p. 366).

 

manner

the wor

with so

 

 

5

Two variables have been chosen for examination in this
present study: dogmatism and ego development. These two
variables were chosen because both variables address the
manner in which a person perceives, organizes and acts on
the world and both variables have been found to correlate
with counseling effectiveness. Dogmatism is considered to
be an aspect of religous conservatism. Dogmatism has also
been found to be sensitive to training effects, therefore,
it will be considered as a dependent variable in this study
(Kemp, 1962). Dogmatism, a dimensional variable has been
inversely related to counselor effectiveness (Kemp, 1962;
Milliken & Patterson, 1967; Mezzano, 1969; Tosi, 1970;
Foulds, 1971; Heikkinen & German, 1975).

Ego development, on the other hand, is viewed as a
relatively immutable aspect of personality, and therefoe
will be considered an independent or mediating variable
(Loevinger, 1976). Ego development, a developmental stage
or type variable, has been found to be directly related to
openness (McCrae & Costa, 1980); empathic communication
(Zielinski, 1973); affective sensitivity (Carlozzi, Gaa, &
Liberman, 1983); client preference and empathic
communication (McIntyre, 1985); and inversely related to
dogmatism (Browning, 1980; Roebuck, 1981).

Purpose

The present study examines three interrelated topics in
a population of theologically conservative pastoral
counseling students. First, it concerns itself with the

effects of microcounseling on three dependent variables:

6

empathic communication, affective sensitivity and dogmatism.
Second, it seeks to determine if ego development is related
to empathic communication, affective sensitivity and
dogmatism. Finally, it assesses whether the effect of
microcounseling depends on the ego development of the
student.
Theory

Research in the psychology of religion has found a
positive relationship between conservative religious belief,
or fundamentalism, and both prejudice (Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) and a
relatively defensive, constricted personality (Adorno et
al., 1950; Rokeach, 1960; Stanley, 1964; Weima, 1965). A
summary of one review stated: "The preponderance of data
suggests that it is persons least mature in personality and
social outlook who are more likely to participate in
religious activities of the [Authoritarian] kind measured in
these studies" (Dittes, 1971, p. 379). The concept of
maturity in authoritarian religion, which strongly
emphasizes obedience to and reverence of a powerful deity as
well as guilt for offending that deity, tends to devalue
both reasonable processes of judgment and independent
thought and action (Richer & Reid, 1971). It therefore
seems reasonable to suggest that theologically conservative
counseling students will evidence the effects of a
constricted personality in terms of both ego development and
dogmatism. A discussion of each of those elements seems in

order.

AL «.1 5. 1|. .a. v: {x . - .. . .
R a o C C C e e .1 i i C t .T .r I 3 6 .w. .l 3
vi r” «C «a 1-. A.“ in-” in.» s u. I r .l “.1. ‘G g C S d A.“ S .hw g _ f p xvi w.‘ 8 «H4
a” r m l e e. e t : i w e l .K m f e U
NW .mw Vi Na K V S “1 1|. n C k“ a C. C.« QC .5 0
. t C C e a . 1 O P. i . a. O O l h - 1..
nu; In CL S D: .1. (by s. a an. {X Al» v; f. .«u 4.x g; m t C

 

.7

Dogmatism and Ego Development

 

Rokeach (1960) developed a theory of dogmatism as a
general extension of the construct of authoritarianism.
Adorno et a1. (1950) viewed authoritarianism as a specific
form of ethnic intolerance, which was reflected in their F
scale ("F" for fascism) to measure authoritarianism.

Rokeach (1960) in his book The Open and Closed Mind,

 

developed a generalized theory of authoritarianism which was
based on the structure of the belief-disbelief system, not
in the content of the belief system. He hypothesized that
all belief-disbelief systems serve two powerful and
conflicting sets of motives. One motive is the need to
know, to understand, and to make sense of the world. The
other motive is the need to ward off threatening aspects of
reality. If the need to ward off is greater than the need
to know, then closed systems would eventuate leading to a
dogmatic belief system. According to Rokeach,
the more closed a person's belief system, the more he
should evaluate others according to their agreement or
disagreement with his own system; also, the more
difficult it should be to discriminate between and
separately evaluate a belief and the person holding the
belief. Conversely, the more open the belief system,
the less should beliefs held in common be a criterion
for evaluating others, and the more should others be
positively valued, regardless of their beliefs.
(1960, p. 63)
Rokeach (1960) found that the dogmatic person had more
difficulty discriminating between information received and
the source of the information. The closed individual is

more likely to reject situations requiring new modes of

thought (Ehrlich & Lee, 1969) and reacts in a more

Is .C Ya U. a I A. C NHL
1 :1 I 5 C .1 .C S l H a c. r l
1-. 1 i E l: a m a C 7 a n G. h“ E V x. 4 i I Q. e g _ I
c . .. _ «i R ,l .K 1 i «C C in E U. S a. U l S l E V t C 6
ii a .l l .I C so 7. E C. C. C. E :1 l. .C I m T. O S h... 7
e n “ 21... .n :L R Q. U e C X C v 1 CL Q. a n a. .l C .C a nu n3
m -. i . S . .. a i . .... .I d a a e D. a O a a w. ,1 D. S C a in c.-. .l

 

8
impulsive, immature, defensive, conventional and
stereotypical manner than non-dogmatic persons (Plant,
Telford, & Thomas, 1965). It would be expected, therefore
that dogmatic people would prove less effective in learning
skills requiring sensitivity, openness, and other-centered
thinking.

A positive correlation between dogmatism and religious
affiliation has been established by a number of researchers
(Rokeach, 1960; Feather, 1967, 1979; Joe, Jones, & Miller,
1981). Weima (1965) concluded that persons with orthodox or
fundamentalist religious beliefs, regardless of specific
denomination, are characterized by a tendency to high
dogmatism.

Ego development is a second variable that might be
expected to evidence certain patterns in a fundamentalist
population. Rokeach (1973) stated that a person's values
are "conceived to maintain and enhance the master sentiment
of self-regard--by helping a person adjust to reality,
defend his ego against threat, and test reality" (p. 15).
Values serve as a frame of reference based on the
individual's own internal cognitive capacities and
personality dynamics. Loevinger's conception of ego is
similar, in that the master task of the ego is to provide
coherence for a person's frame of reference. The "ego is
above all a process, not a thing. . . .The striving to
master, to integrate, to make sense of experience is not one
function among many but the essence of the ego" (Loevinger,

1976, p. 85).

«L

S

ding

4-
X—.

hierar

C.

C
r.

31

a.
.3

“D
1h.“

C

e
d

a

E

. 14
. C
«a

e
I

hut

9
Ego development then, is defined as the successive

changes in the organization of a person's frame of
reference. "What changes during the course of ego
development is a complexly interwoven fabric of impulse
control, character, interpersonal relations, conscious
preoccupations, and cognitive complexity, among other
things" (Loevinger, 1976, p. 26). Successive stages are
hierarchical and each stage involves qualitatively different
perceptions of reality and relationships. Loevinger (1976)
has defined ego development by presenting a table which
embodies a point definition (PP. 196-198). Table 1.1 gives
a description of each stage of ego development. The
hierarchical model embodied in this table suggests that
there are qualitatively different levels of relationship
and, by implication, different levels of empathy. Zielinski
(1973) remarked: "Impulse control and interpersonal
relations are notions that indicate to what extent a
counselor can suspend his own judgment in merging with a
client, and also give some idea of the nature of the
interpersonal relationship taking place in a given
interchange between counselor and counselee" (p. 9).

The concepts of dogmatism and ego development deal with
a person's construction of reality and manner of entering
interpersonal relationships. Theories which build on both
concepts hypothesize that there is a relationship between
personality style and openness to conflictual or anxiety
producing stimuli. The more open (non-dogmatic) and mature

(higher on the scale of ego development), the greater the

lO

ability to incorporate new, ego-dystonic data. It is
conceivable that both variables affect a person's ability to
understand the feelings of another person (affective
sensitivity) and to communicate an empathic response
(empathic communication). They similarly may affect the
capacity to learn empathy through training in a
microcounseling course.

Table 1.1
Some Milestones of Ego Development

Impulse Control

and Character Interpersonal Conscious
Stage Development Style Preoccupation
Presocial Autistic Self S.P. nonself
Symbiotic Symbiotic
Impulse ridden Impulse ridden Exploitive, Bodily feelings,
fear of dependent especially sexual
retaliation and aggressive

Opportunistic Expedient, fear Exploititive, Advantage,
of being caught manipulative, Control
zero—sum game

Conformist Conformity to Reciprocal, Things,
external rules, Superficial appearance,
shame reputation
Conscientious Internalized Intensive, Differentiated
rules, guilt responsible inner feelings,
achievements,
traits
Autonomous Coping with Intensive, Ditto, role con-
inner conflict concern for ceptualization,
toleration of Autonomy development,
differences self-fulfillment
Integrated Reconciling Ditto, Ditto, identity

inner conflicts cherishing of
renunciation of individuality
unattainable

(Loevinger, 1966, p. 198)
The questions to be studied then may be clearly
identified. In a fundamentalist population, will

microcounseling training increase empathic communication and

affective sensitivity? Will microcounseling have any

11
bearing on levels of dogmatism in a population which
typically evidences high levels of dogmatism? In this
fundamentalist population does ego development influence the
effects of microcounseling on empathic communication,
affective sensitivity, and dogmatism? These questions are
addressed in three hypotheses.

Hypotheses

 

1. Students participating in microcounseling skills
training will demonstrate higher empathic communication,
higher affective sensitivity, and lower dogmatism than those
in the control group.

2. Students, across treatment conditions, who are
higher in ego development, will demonstrate higher empathic
communication, higher affective sensitivity, and lower
dogmatism than those who are lower in ego development.

3. Level of ego development will be shown to interact
with microcounseling training to increase students' empathic
communication and affective sensitivity and decrease
dogmatism. Specifically, the effects of microcounseling on
the three outcome variables will be more pronounced for
subjects high on ego development than for subjects low on
ego development.

Overview

With the problem discussed and the hypotheses stated,
two important topics remain before the reader can evaluate
the results of this study: review of the literature and

methodology. In chapter 2 the literature which is relevant

12

to this study is examined. This includes a look at the
concept of empathy, the microcounseling model and
personality variables which affect empathy--in particular,
ego development and dogmatism.

In Chapter 3 the methodology used in this study is
described. This includes characteristics of the sample, the
instruments, methods of ratings and reliabilities obtained,
hypotheses, design and statistical analyses.

In Chapter 4 the results of the statistical tests of
this study's 3 hypotheses are presented. In Chapter 5 the
findings and their implications for training and future

research are discussed.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The key areas of theory and research relevant to this
investigation are empathy, microcounseling, ego development
and dogmatism. The review will first discuss the importance
of empathy, its definition and measurement, and then look at
microcounseling as a means of teaching empathy with special
attention given to the definition, methodology, and
effectiveness of this training approach. Finally, the
personality factors of ego development and dogmatism will be
discussed as they relate to empathy and microcounseling.

There are several important questions regarding the
training of fundamentalist pastoral counselors in
microcounseling skills. First, there are significant
concerns about the outcome measurement: empathy. Is empathy
a unitary or multidimensional variable? If
multidimensional, then what aspect of empathy is
microcounseling designed to change? Is there any data to
suggest that a relationally ineffective population can learn
empathy through microcounseling training? A second concern
involves the role of personality in mediating the effects of
microcounseling. The role of personality in counselor
training has been fraught with confusion and contradiction.
This may be due to the fact that the variables chosen, such

as dogmatism are sensitive to training effects. Does ego
13

14

development, a component of personality which is stable and
therefore less sensitive to training effects, offer more
hope in finding a relationship between counseling
effectiveness and personality? In order to adequately
approach the concerns of this study, these questions must be
explored. The research relevant to these matters is
addressed in this chapter.

Empathy
Importance of Empathy

 

Rogers (1957) described empathy as one of "the
necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic
personality change." Carkhuff (1969) stated: "Empathy is
the most critical of all helping process variables, the one
from which all others flow in the helping process" (p. 202).
Empathy is particularly important in the early phases of the
helping process when decreasing alienation and enhancing
self-exploration is the focus of concern. A number of
studies suggest that there is a positive relationship
between empathy and positive counseling outcome (Bergin &
Strupp, 1972; Halkides, 1958; Kurtz & Grummon, 1972; Mullen
& Abeles, 1971).

Truax and Carkhuff (1967) reported on Whitehorn and
Betz' study of the schizophrenic patients of seven
psychiatrists. The seven psychiatrists had, as a group, an
improvement rate of 75%. They were compared to another
seven psychiatrists who had an improvement rate of 27%. The
significant difference between the two groups was described

as "the extent to which they are able to approach their

15

patients' problems and participate in an active, personal
way" (p. 80-91).

Truax (1963) found a correlation of .77 between
accurate empathy and case outcome with 14 schizophrenic
patients. The outcome criterion included a measurement of
accurate empathy rated by an undergraduate student and
psychological test data change, diagnostic evaluations of
personality change, and a measure of time actually spent
since the beginning of therapy. A second outcome
criterion--change in psychological functioning-- was
assessed using early and late Rorshach and MMPI results.
The correlation between diagnostic evaluations of
constructive change in personality and level of accurate
empathy offered by the therapist was .48 (p.< .05).

Another assessment was made between patients who
improved and patients who deteriorated during therapy. The
results revealed a significant difference between the two
groups of patients (p.< .01). Therapists of improved
patients exhibited higher levels of accurate empathy,
whereas therapists of deteriorated patients exhibited lower
levels of accurate empathy throughout therapy. The results
indicate that accurate empathy played at least some role in
patient improvement.

A number of studies have sparked debate over the role
of empathy in the change process. Gladstein (1970) divided
studies of empathy between psychotherapy and counseling, and

found that the evidence was positive for psychotherapy but

16

was far from conclusive for counseling. Bergin and Suinn
(1975), after reviewing the literature stated: "facilitative
conditions may not be potent except in highly specific,
client-centered type conditions" (p. 515). They then
concluded: "It is clearer now that these variables are not
as prepotent as once believed; but their presence and
influence is ubiquitous, even showing up strongly in
behavior therapies" (p. 521). Gladstein (1977, 1983)
suggested that the confusion regarding the significance of
empathy in counseling/psychotherapy can be traced to
problems in definition and measurement of empathy. It is
appropriate, therefore to address that concern.

Definition of Empathy

 

Rogers (1959) defined empathy as "perceiving the
internal frame of reference of another with accuracy, and
with the emotional components and meanings which pertain
thereto, as if one were the other person, but without ever
losing the ‘as if' condition" (p. 210). Rogers encouraged
others to operationalize and test his hypothesis of the

importance of empathy. Truax (1961, 1965) and later Truax

and Carkhuff (1965) altered the definition in order to

measure empathy. Truax (1970) summarized his definition by
saying that empathy is

more than just the ability of the therapist or counselor
to sense the client's or patient's private world as if
it were his own. It also involves more than just his
ability to know what the patient means. Accurate
empathy involves both the therapist's or counselor's
sensitivity to current feelings and his verbal facility
to communicate this understanding in a language attuned
to the client's current feelings. (p. 210).

17

A number of authors have argued that empathy cannot be
limited to behavioral expression (Hackney, 1978; Gladstein,
1983). Empathy is considered to be a complex,
multi-dimensional, rather than unidimensional, concept. The
different components of empathy are related but not
necessarily correlated in operation. Barrett-Lennard (1981)
presented a model of empathy which takes into account the
multi-phase cycle of empathy. The model has three phases:
(a) empathic resonation (b) expressed empathy, and (c)
received empathy. This model presumes that an affective
response or raw identification precedes the ability to
express affective sensitivity. It also presumes that
communication of empathy may not be received by the client
for a variety of reasons. Each phase is related to, but
independent of the adjacent phase. This model requires a
more careful evaluation of the phase being measured and the
measures used to evaluate each phase.

Measurement of Empathy

 

Kurtz and Grummon (1972) found that six different
measures, all purporting to measure empathy were not
significantly correlated to one another. They concluded:
"The data thus revealed not a unitary construct but six
different variables which are thought to be similar but in
fact are not" (p. 112). Other researchers have found the
same phenomena (Zielinski, 1973; North, 1977). It is
therefore imperative to determine which measure is best

suited to assess the different components of empathy.

18

This study concentrates on Phase 1, empathic resonation
(or affective sensitivity), and Phase 2, empathic
communication. Empathic resonation can be evaluated from an
emotional or cognitive perspective. Emotional resonation is
the capacity to feel the raw emotion of another. Cognitive
resonation is the ability to label or discriminate the
affective experience of another. An example of a measure of
cognitive resonation is Kagan's Affective Sensitivity Scale
(AFSS). It purports to assess "ability to detect and
describe the immediate affective state of another" (Kagan,
Krathwohl, Goldberg, Campbell, Schaubele, Greenberg, Danish,
Resnikoff, Bowes, & Bondy, p. 67, 1967). The scale measures
a sensitivity to affective interactions but does not measure
the ability to communicate those perceptions. Kagan et a1.
(1967) hypothesized that counselors with low scores would
not be empathic, whereas counselors with high scores may or
may not be verbally empathic. In this case affective
sensitivity would be a necessary, but not sufficient,
condition for empathic communication.

Phase 2, empathic communication, can be evaluated by
trained raters' assessment of verbal or written statements
in response to live or simulated client interactions. The
most commonly used measure is the Carkhuff-Berenson Empathic
Understanding Interpersonal Processes (EUIP). This scale is
an adaptation of the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale. The EUIP
measures counselor responses on a 5-point rating scale of
which the following are illustrative: Level 1, the

counselor's responses significantly detract or inattend to

19

the client's message. Level 3, the counselor's responses
are interchangeable, essentially communicating the same
affect and meanings. Level 5, the counselor's responses add
significantly to the feelings and meanings in a way that the
client was unable to express.

The Carkhuff-Berenson Scale has been questioned as to
its construct validity. Chinsky & Rappaport (1970) pointed
out that the scale measures empathy solely from the
therapist's responses and therefore loses the contingent
interactions from which the counselor's empathy may be
assessed. Caracena and Vicory (1969) found that raters
achieve the same results when they hear the statements of
the counselor alone as when they hear both people involved.
This suggests that the scale depends heavily on the form or
style of the responding communication and favors a
reflective, verbally expressive response. Arguments on
both sides are marshalled that this is appropriate (Guerney,
Stover, Demeritt, 1968) or inappropriate (Rappaport &
Chinsky, 1972).

What the EUIP measures is open to question. Kurtz and
Grummon (1972) suggested that Truax's Accurate Empathy Scale
measures a global aspect--"the therapists communicated
commitment to the therapy interaction and involvement in the
problems of a specific patient in the interaction" (p. 114).
The authors of a German study took a more careful stance to
the question by using the terminology "verbalisation of
emotional experiencing of the client (empathy, according to

Truax scale)" in order to avoid the questions regarding

20

construct validity (Tausch, Sander, Bastine, & Friese, 1970,
p.37; investigators' translation). The wide use of the
Truax and Carkhuff-Berenson scale and the lack of other
validated measures argue for the cautious use of this scale
for this study.

Summary of Empathy

 

Empathy has been viewed as a significant mediatorial
component of successful therapeutic outcome. Empathy has
been found to be a far more complex construct than
originally defined by Rogers (1959) or Truax (1970).

Empathy involves various phases which though theoretically
related are not significantly correlated. There is a need
to measure each phase according to a method which takes into
account the different phenomena of each phase. The
Affective Sensitivity Scale measures cognitive resonation;
the Empathic Understanding Interaction Process Scale
measures one aspect of empathic communication. There are
significant questions as to what the EUIP measures, though
it is one of the most commonly used measures for this kind
of study. Empathy can be considered to be multidimensional.
Therefore, it must be determined which aspect(s) of empathy
microcounSeling training is intended to change.

Microcounseling

 

Defintion of Microcounseling

 

A number of methodologies have been constructed to
increase empathy (Carkhuff, 1969a, 1969b; Kagan, 1976; Ivey
& Authier, 1978). Of these programs Ivey's microcounseling

program has been found to increase empathic communication

21

more effectively than other methodologies (Toukmanian &
Rennie, 1973; Musser, 1982; Arbeitman, 1984).
Microcounseling is particularly effective in training
students who are initially low in empathy and overall
interpersonal effectiveness (Kreisel, 1977).

Microcounseling is a behavioral technology which uses a
"systematic video-based method of imparting behavioral
skills to counselors-in-training" (Ivey & Authier, 1978; p.
27). The training philosophy of microcounseling is
psychoeducational, which presumes that interpersonal
behavior is primarily learned; therefore deficits in empathy
are attributable to a learning deficit. Microcounseling has
been used successfully with populations who have large
learning deficits, such as psychiatric in-patients (Orlando,
1974), and "normal" learning deficits, such as families
(Malamud, 1971), paraprofessionals (Gluckstern, 1973),
counselors (Authier & Gustafson, 1976), and seminarians
(Kriesel, 1975; Albert, 1981; Musser, 1982).

Methodology of Microcounseling

 

Microcounseling focuses upon single interviewing skills
by breaking down each skill to its smallest element and then
teaching the skill through video—tape and in vivo modeling.
The method is comprised of four essential elements:

1. Focus on single skills
2. Observation of models
3. Practice

4. Feedback

22

Focus on Single Skills. The rationale for a single

 

skill focus is to lessen the complexity of the counseling
process and provide positive reinforcement for immediate
improvement in skill acquisition. There are four clusters
of skills: (a) Attending behavior which includes eye
contact, physical posture, verbal following, invitation to
talk and minimal encouragers; (b) Selective listening which
primarily involves reflection of feeling, paraphrasing, and
summarization; (c) Skills of self-expression between
counselor and client which involve a personal sharing of
information and feeling; (d) Interpretation or providing
alternate meanings and different views of reality for a
client.

Observation of models. Video and live demonstration of

 

desirable and undesirable skill performances is a central
element of microcounseling. Students first are given the
opportunity to read about the skill in a manual and then are
able to watch video-tape models enact effective and
ineffective examples of the behavior. The instructor models
examples of the specific skill in a context applicable to
the population being trained.

Practice. Arbeitman (1984) argued that learning
specific microcounseling skills takes place in stages. In
the first phase skills are assimilated mechanically through
cognitive acquistion. In the intermediate phase the
habitual patterns begin to fade and new skills gradually
become less mechanical. In the final phase skills are more

natural and automatic, freeing the student to attend to

23

available verbal and non-verbal cues. The student practices
every skill in a dyad and then in a small group context in
order to test progress and provide feedback for other
students.

Feedback. Feedback provides the student with the
needed information and reinforcement to alter skill
production. It is built into the method through small group
interaction and audio or video-tape recordings. Following
the observation of a video model, students have the
opportunity to practice in triads and then audio or
video-tape their interaction for more detailed analysis.
Supervisors are able to watch and help students correct
ineffective responses.

The Effects of Microcounseling Training

 

The effects of microcounseling will be evaluated in the
areas of empathic communication, affective sensitivity and
personality change. A summary of microcounseling will then
put into perspective the issues regarding microskill
training.

Empathic communication. Microcounseling has been found

 

to be an effective means of increasing empathic
communication (Ivey & Authier, 1978). Hearn (1976) compared
the effects of microcounseling with the effects of
sensitivity training, programmed learning and a control
group. Interviews with pseudo-clients were evaluated on the
Ivey Taxonomy. The results indicated that subjects in the
microcounseling section used significantly more feeling

reflections, less advice, more client-focused responses, and

24

fewer other-focused responses. Arbeitman (1984) found that
microcounseling produced significant increases on three of
the five global measures of interview behavior:

facilitative skills, reflective skills, and facilitative
focus. Microcounseling did not produce a significant
increase in present tense responses or a decrease in
percentage of counselor verbal production. Arbeitman (1984)
demonstrated that global measures can be used to assess the
effects of microcounseling.

Affective Sensitivity. Ivey and Gluckstern (1974) made

 

an informal claim that microcounseling may, as a by-product,
increase affective sensitivity. Two studies have been done
to evaluate the effect of microcounseling on affective
sensitivity. Pereira (1978) evaluated Ivey's
microcounseling and several other skills training approaches
on measures of empathy, including Carkhuff's Empathic
Understanding Scales and Kagan's Affective Sensitivity
Scale. Microcounseling produced a significant increase in
reflections, but there were no changes in affective
sensitivity. The contention that microcounseling increases
affective sensitivity was not supported. It should be
noted, however, that Pereira's study (1978) is questionable
due to several methodological problems, including lack of
random assignment, small sample size (31 subjects), and
short training period (15 hours).

Arbeitman (1984) compared microcounseling and
Interpersonal Process Recall to a control group on Ivey's

Taxonomy and the Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form D-80).

25

Several important findings emerged from this study. First,
Arbeitman found no significant correlations between
affective sensitivity and any measure of empathic
communication, indicating that affective sensitivity is
distinct from empathic communication. Second, the
microcounseling group increased in affective sensitivity
relative to the control group (a t-test on the adjusted
means resulted in a statistically significant difference,
t (27) = 2.24, p< .05 (one-tailed), between the
microcounseling and a control group). Some evidence
therefore does suggest that microcounseling may increase
affective sensitivity.

Personality Change. Few studies have specifically

 

evaluated the effect of empathic skills training on
personality change. Genthner & Falkenberg (1977) used
Carkhuff's interpersonal training to evaluate the effects of
training on personal responsibility. They found a
significant positive relationship between personal
responsibility and empathic communication. They further
reported that interpersonal skills training increased
subjects' post personal responsibility scores in comparison
to the scores of a control group (t= 2.41, p < .05). Albert
(1981) used a microcounseling model with 32 pastoral
counseling students. He divided the subjects into high and
low dogmatism groups and then equally distributed the
subjects between experimental and control groups. He used
the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) and the California

Personality Inventory (CPI) to assess personality change.

26

He reported no change in dogmatism or on any of the scales,
except Sociability, on the CPI. The evidence of personality
change through microcounseling is neither conclusive nor
well investigated.

Summary of Microcounseling

 

Microcounseling has been found to be an effective means
of increasing both empathic communication and, according to
one study (Arbeitman, 1984), affective sensitivity. The
intent of microcounseling is to change stage 2: empathic
communication. There is not much evidence to validate the
effectiveness of microcounseling in changing affective
sensitivity.

The microcounseling methodology is broken down into
manageable units which are taught through didactic, written,
role-play, and practice steps. The methodology is
particularly effective in working with initially ineffective
helpers (Kreisel, 1975) and has been used effectively in
pastoral training settings (Kreisel, 1977; Albert, 1981;
Musser, 1982). Therefore, it may likely be effective in a
fundamentalist population which is typically ineffective in
interpersonal skills (Virkler, 1980). Research exploring
the effect of microcounseling on personality change is
inconclusive. Only a few studies point to any significant
results. The meditorial role of personality on the
acqusition of empathy in the microcounseling process is also
unclear. There is a definite need to ascertain the effect

of personality in learning empathy through microcounseling.

27

Dogmatism

 

This section of the review will look at dogmatism: its
definition, its effect on counseling outcome and empathy,
its influence on counselor training and the effect of
counselor training on the level of dogmatism.

Definition

 

Dogmatism is defined by Rokeach (1960) as the degree to
which a person is "open" to new stimuli. Openness is a term
which refers to the extensiveness of communication between
various elements of an individual's belief system. The open
person is aware of his own feelings, impulses, and
imaginings, whereas the closed person selectively inattends
to inconsistent or anxiety producing cues. Dogmatism may
therefore be regarded as the extent to which a person is
able to receive, evaluate, and act on relevant and available
information. In a new situation, a closed (highly dogmatic)
person is defensive and insecure and is inclined to ignore,
rationalize, project or distort new experiences in order to
alleviate anxiety. An open (or less dogmatic) person
analyzes and evaluates, then discards or integrates
different aspects in a new situation.

Effect on Counseling Outcome and Empathic Communication

 

Rokeach's theory of dogmatism has stimulated an
enormous amount of research in the area of counselor
effectiveness. Allen (1967) found a relationship between
counselor effectiveness and openness--the degree to which a
person has access to his own thoughts and feelings. Truax

and Carkhuff (1967) stated:

28

It has long been recognized that the beneficial effects
of any human interchange are enhanced by such qualities
as accurate and sensitive awareness of the other
person's feelings, deep concern for his welfare without
attempts to dominate him, and openness about one's own
reaction to him. (p. 134)
Foulds (1967) computed the product-moment correlations
between self-actualization, empathic communication,
respect, and facilitative genuineness within a counseling
relationship. He used 30 graduate counseling students who
were beginning their practicum experience. He reported that
ability to communicate empathic understanding was correlated
with awareness of and sensitivity to the counseling
students' needs and feelings. The ability to communicate
facilitative genuineness tended to relate to the counseling
students' ability to be open and to express feelings in a
spontaneous fashion. It seems likely that openness and
awareness of feelings are related to counseling outcome.
There have been a number of studies exploring the
relationship between dogmatism and empathic communication,
one aspect clearly related to positive counseling outcome.
The results are mixed. Several studies show a significant
inverse relationship between dogmatism and empathic
communication (Kemp, 1962; Montgomery & Jordan, 1977). For
example, Carlozzi, Campbell, and Ward (1982) evaluated
dogmatism and facilitative responding with 215 master's
level counselor students using the Opinion Scale and EUIP.
Dogmatism scores ranged from 65 to 217, with a mean of

136.46 and a standard deviation of 28.87. EUIP scores

ranged from 1.31 to 3.38, with a mean of 2.49 and a standard

29

deviation of .44. The Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient between dogmatism and EUIP scores was -.55.
Dogmatism accounted for approximately 16% of the variance in
EUIP scores.

Others have found statistically insignificant results,
but in the expected direction (Foulds, 1971; Jordan, 1978).
Jordan (1978) found a significant positive relationship
between high dogmatism and ineffective empathic
communication, but found no differences in empathic ability
between high and low dogmatic trainees at the end of one
year of training. Several studies suggest that there is no
relationship at all between dogmatism and empathic
communication (Cheung, 1973; North, 1977). The mixed
results may reflect both a diversity in instruments used to
measure effective versus ineffective empathic communication,
and an experimental population of unseasoned rather than
experienced counselors. Other sources of variability which
may account for the inconsistent results include different
types of raters, clients, and supervisors. The variance in
methodology makes it difficult to compare results. The
remainder of this section will evaluate several studies
which are similar to this study in both intent and design.

Effect on Counselor Training

 

One of the earliest investigators of the effect of
dogmatism on counseling, C. Gratton Kemp (1962), found that
students high in dogmatism gave fewer understanding
(empathic) and supportive responses than students lower in

this trait. After training, individuals both high and low

30

in dogmatism became more empathic and supportive in response
to hypothetical situations. However, during actual
counseling sessions, the individuals high in dogmatism
reverted to less understanding and more evaluative, probing,
and diagnostic responses. The individuals low in dogmatism
did not change significantly in their responses from
hypothetical to real counseling situations. Kemp (1962)
suggested that highly dogmatic trainees may be simulating
the response desired by those in authority without
integrating the concepts into their belief system. Less
dogmatic trainees, on the other hand, may be integrating the
new skills into their belief system, with the result that
the skill is evidenced in both a safe and a threatening
environment. Both high and low dogmatics improved in
facilitative responding, but perhaps for different reasons.
This study calls into question the idea of a linear
relationship between dogmatism and the learning of human
relation skills.

Several studies have been done to assess the effect of
dogmatism on the training of empathic communication and
affective sensitivity. Two studies in particular employed
classical experimental designs and a microcounseling
methodology. North (1977) randomly assigned 63
undergraduate and graduate students to two models of
systematic counselor training: Ivey's microcounseling and
Egan's Textworkbook method. The training involved weekly 3
hour sessions over a period of 6 weeks. The subjects were

given the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and Affective Sensitivity

31

Scale (AFSS). Video-tape role plays were evaluated using
the Carkhuff-Berenson scales, including the EUIP, as pre and
post-test measures. Using a two-way repeated measure
analysis of variance, significant increases were reported
for subjects' means on all outcome measures, but there were
no differences in the amount of change between subjects in
the two experimental conditions.

North (1977) evaluated the effect of dogmatism on
empathic communication and affective sensitivity by using
gain scores as the criteria measure, rather than using post
measures alone.~ He found no significant correlation between
dogmatism and any of the outcome measures. He concluded:
"Dogmatism . . . does not relate in any meaningful way to
change in trainee skill levels as a result of structured
facilitative skills training" (p. 106). Several problems in
his study need to be noted. First, the dogmatism level in
his population was "low normal". The range was between 207
and 72, with a mean of 142.9 and a standard deviation of
24.38. The relatively low mean makes the comparison between
high and low dogmatism somewhat less meaningful, i.e. high
dogmatism in his study may not be very high when measured
against a more typical population. Second, the amount of
training time (18 hours) is less than the 30 hour training
process recommended by Ivey and Authier (1978). Third, the
statistical method of using gain scores as a criterion
measure loses power which could be gained through multiple
regression techniques. Some of these problems are dealt

with in a second study.

32

Albert (1981), using a Pastoral Care and Counseling
class, divided 32 students into a didactic and discussion
section and a didactic and discussion plus microcounseling
section. Students were given the RDS and were evaluated
both on pre- and post- training role-play vignettes by the
EUIP. The subjects were divided between the two groups on
the basis of their pre-test dogmatism scores, with half of
the highs and half of the lows being randomly assigned to
each group. Using a two-way Anova design, Albert found a
significant main effect for Microtraining. He did not,
however find a significant effect on gains in empathy
between subjects who scored high and those who scored low on
the dogmatic scale. The interaction between level of
dogmatism and type of counselor training did show that low
dogmatics achieved greater gains in empathy than high
dogmatics, but the results were not significant at the .05
level. Again, the evidence seems to indicate that dogmatism
is not a predictor of success in the microcounseling model.
These results, however, must be evaluated in light of
certain problems in this study. The mean of the RDS was
171; no figures were given for the range or standard
deviation. The mean of the RDS was in the high normal range
and was therefore useful for evaluating high versus low
dogmatism. However, the sample size in each group was quite
small. There were seven high dogmatics and nine low
dogmatics in the microcounseling section. The small sample
size significantly limited power. Another limitation on

power was the use of a two-way Anova versus multiple

33

regression. In spite of the problems, it is fair to observe
that no evidence to date suggests that dogmatism affects a
person's ability to learn empathy.

Effect of Counselor Training on Level of Dogmatism

 

Patterson (1967) demonstrated that first year graduate
counseling students became significantly less dogmatic and
more "client-centered". Similarly, Walker (1967) found that
subjects participating in a group therapy experience became
less dogmatic. Level of dogmatism, then, can be changed
through training experiences. Cheung (1973) found that
subjects in an experimental group trained in Carkhuff's
model showed significant decreases in dogmatism as compared
to a control group. Albert (1981), on the other hand, did
not find any significant differences between a control group
and an experimental group using the microcounseling method.
It seems that change in level of dogmatism is possible but
not assured through a training program.

Summary of Dogmatism

 

The study of the relationship between dogmatism and
empathic communication has yielded mixed results. Part of
the problem may involve variance in measurement approaches.
Some studies use objective measures and others use peer or
supervisor reports. Kemp(1962) suggested the problem may be
due to the nature of the dogmatic individual. The dogmatic
person may give a response based on his perception of what
is expected rather than his true belief, resulting in high
variability in pre- and post-test scores. There is no

available instrument capable of determining whether a highly

34

dogmatic person scores low in dogmatism as part of his
response to an expectational set.

A number of studies indicated that dogmatism was not
related to ability to learn empathy, nor was dogmatism
altered by microcounseling training in every case. The
results of this review indicate that dogmatism may have
little use in evaluating counselor effectiveness or
training. However, in all the studies reviewed, the mean of
the sample was significantly lower than what might be
expected in a fundamentalist population. The effects of
high levels of dogmatism such as those found in a
fundamentalist population have not yet been explored.
Therefore, it can be argued that a fundamentalist
population, presumably higher in dogmatism than a secular
counseling population, may respond differently to
microcounseling training than another audience. For that
reason, dogmatism is included in this study as a dependent
variable.

Ego Development

 

This section of the review will address the matter of
ego development. Several concerns need to be explored for
purpose of this study: definition, issues of measurement,
the effect of ego development on affective sensitivity and
empathic communication, and its influence on counselor
training.

Definition

 

Loevinger (1976) defines the ego as "above all a

process, not a thing . . . . The striving to master, to

35

integrate, to make sense of experience is not one function
among many but the essence of the ego" (p. 85). The concept.
of ego is similar to Sullivan's self system (Sullivan,
1953), a term he used to describe the process of selectively
inattending to discordant observations which have the
capacity to generate anxiety. The ego is viewed as the
integrator of experience, a force which gives meaning to
experience. Issues involved in development include impulse
control, character development, interpersonal relations,
self-conception, and moral reasoning. The structural model
that is used is hierarchical--that is, individuals progress
through a sequence determined by an inner logic. No stage
can be by-passed because each builds upon and is more
complex than the preceding one and, in turn, prepares for
the next.

Loevinger describes ten stages and transitional levels
of ego development. The stages and associated symbols are:
Presocial, I-l; Impulsive, I-2; Self-protective, Delta;
Ritual-Traditional, Delta/3; Conformist, I-3; Self-aware,
I-3/4; Conscientious, I-4; Individualistic, I-4/5;
Autonomous, I-5; and Integrated, I-6. Holt (1980) found
that for young adults the modal level of development was the
Self-aware level, 1-3/4. His study showed that 83% of
college men and 89% of college women were assessed at stage
I-3, I-3/4, I-4, and I-4/5. A closer look at these four
stages of development is appropriate because the interaction

of these stages with empathy is central to this study.

36

Conformist, (I-3) At the conformist stage a person

 

obeys rules because they are identified with authority.
There is a clear internalization of both rules and good and
bad roles, but these are stereotyped conceptions which put a
high priority on niceness, helpfulness, and cooperation.
Behavior is seen in terms of externals rather than in terms
of feelings or inner motivation. Inner life is impoverished
and life has no more vitality than cliches can describe.
Persons at this stage are capable of genuine reciprocity in
interpersonal relationships, but with neither depth nor
sensitivity to individual differences.

Self-Aware (I-3/4) The Self-aware level is marked by

 

the beginning self-consciousness that one is not like
others, an awareness which results in greater expression of
embarrassment and loneliness. As inner feelings begin to
acquire more shading, absolutist thinking is diminished to
the point of allowing for alternatives, contingencies, and
exceptions. The Self-aware person's inner life is still
characterized by shallow and vague descriptions of feelings.
There is an awareness of traits, but at this level traits
are viewed as "those mentioned in the Boy Scout oath"
(Loevinger, 1976, p. 20).

Conscientious (I-4) The Conscientious stage represents

 

progression beyond the simple stereotyped thinking of
earlier stages. Differentiated inner feelings and
perceptions of others are now seen in terms of traits and
motives. The person is likely to have self-generated goals

and ideals, and is capable of self-criticism and analysis.

37

Interpersonal relationships are more intensive and involve a
clear idea of mutuality and companionship, as well as a
greater appreciation of trust, respect, needs, and
communication. The I-4 person has a clear understanding of
intentions and psychological causality. He can therefore
distinguish appearances from underlying feelings and
contrast physical reality from mental and spiritual. The
Conscientious person feels responsible--often
excessively--for the consequences of his actions.

Individualistic (I-4/5) This transitional stage

 

involves a heightened awareness of one's unique
individuality and a richer awareness of the tensions between
dependence and independence. Emotionally, he is more
tolerant and accepting of himself and others. Moralism is
replaced by awareness of inner conflict, though inner
conflict is often associatied with societal demands and
expectations. There is greater complexity and richness of
expression in conceptualizing interpersonal interactions.

At this level, relationships are valued more than the ideals
and achievements which are valued at the I-4 level.

Measurement Concerns

 

Measurement of variables, assumptions regarding
linearity in ego development, and selection of an
appropriate scale for statistically analysizing the
Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT) are
all concerns which must be addressed in any research using

Loevinger's concepts.

38

Loevinger's theory of ego development is based on an
invariant, hierarchical ordering of stages and levels. Each
stage and level possess its own inner logic and integration
of reality. Behavior, in other words, may not necessarily
follow a linear pattern of development from one stage to the
other. Variables whose development is linear are described
as monotonic or polar. Those whose progress follows a
curvilinear pattern she refers to as nonmonotonic or
milestone variables (Loevinger, 1976). A polar variable is
a continuous variable that differs in quantity or amount. A
milestone variable is quite different; it is "characterized
by a succession of qualitatively different turning points"
(Loevinger, 1976, p. 55). If dogmatism is a nonmonotonic
trait, then it may be particularly salient at a specific
stage or milestone, but comparatively unnoticed at other
stages. Any evaluation of traits such as dogmatism or
empathy must take into account this potential measurement
complexity. Loevinger (1966) stated: "There is no Supreme
Court to decide for us what variables are properly treated
as polar ones and what are simply milestones along the way
of some more comprehensive trait" (p. 203).

The second issue concerns the appropriateness of
looking for behavioral components associated with a specific
ego development stage. Loevinger and Wessler (1970)
strongly inveighed against looking for specific behavioral
signs of a given stage. In spite of their caution, several
studies have shown that there is a linear correlation

between stage and behavior. Browning (1980) found a

39
non-monotonic relationship between measures of
authoritarianism and ego development, with authoritarian
aggression and submission being most prominent at the
Conformist stage. Roebuck (1981) discovered a significant
inverse relationship between dogmatism and ego deveIOpment.
The relationship did not remain significant once it was
controlled for education, age, and birth order of the
subject. Roebuck did note that subjects scoring at Delta or
I-3 were almost entirely high dogmatics while most subjects
scoring at post-conformist levels (especially I-4 and above)
tended to be low dogmatics. Zielinski (1973) noted a
significant correlation between ego development and a
pre-test measure of empathic communication. Carlozzi et al.
(1983) discovered a significant correlation between ego
development and affective sensitivity as measured by the
AFSS.

Hauser (1976) suggested that a specific behavior may
not be unique to a particular stage. He stated however that
"the personality styles unique to each stage imply that one
should be able to find behavioral correlates to these
patterns . . . which are congruent and predictable from the
individual's ego level" (p. 938). To guard against presumed
behavior and stage linearity, Hauser (1976) argued that
studies of ego development and specific behavioral patterns
ought to be done in an experimental context where the
interplay of situational cues and certain ego developmental
levels can be more fruitfully evaluated. He stated that

"links between ego development level and action can be

4O

effectively studied only by experimental conditions and
dependent variables, which are based on specific predictions
derived from theoretically described characteristics of each
stage" (p. 940). When dealing with ego levels beyond the
Conformist stage in areas regarding complexity of thought or
feeling, evidence exists that assuming linear development is
justified (Candee, 1974; Holt, 1974).

A third issue relates to the question of which
measurement scale is most appropriate for statistically
evaluating the WUSCT. Loevinger and Wessler (1970) argued
that ego development levels could be considered ordinal
values. Ordinal values normally require the use of
non-parabolic statistical measures. Holt (1980), however,
pointed out that the sequential and invariant quality of ego
development makes it amenable to measurement with statistics
which are used for interval scales. He said, "I consider
that it is defensible and appropriate to treat these ordinal
data by means of statistics that, strictly speaking, assume
interval scales of measurement; hence, for many purposes, I
use numerical equivalents of stages as scores and include
correlational reliabilities also" (p. 912). This would
suggest that it is possibile to use multiple regression
techniques in analyzing the results of this study.

Effect on Affective Sensitivity and Empathic Communication

 

One study has been done to evaluate the effects of ego
development on affective sensitivity. Carlozzi et al.
(1983) divided their population of 51 undergraduate dorm

advisers into two groups: those who scored I-3 or below,

41

and those who scored I-3/4 or above. Ten students had ego
levels I-3 or below (1 at I-2; 3 at Delta; 6 at I-3) and 41
had I-3/4 or above (12 at I-3/4; 19 at I-4; 10 at I-4/5).
Mean scores on the AFSS, Form E-A-2, were 26.7 for the
former group and 29.5 for the latter. A Mann-Whitney U test
was employed to test the differences between the two
ego-level groups. Results demonstrated that empathy scores
of the high ego-level group were significantly higher than
those of the lower ego-level group (01:272, R1=193, p<.05).
This seems to indicate that individuals at the I-3/4 stage
or above are better able to recognize the complexity of
inner states and feelings than those who score at the
Conformist stage or below.

Two studies have been done to evaluate the effects of
ego development on empathic communication. Zielinski (1973)
tested to see if there was a linear relationship between ego
development and empathic discrimination and communication.
Forty graduate students who were enrolled in a beginning
course in counselor education were assessed by the WUSCT and
the Carkhuff-Berenson scales, including the EUIP. The
distribution of ego levels was: 14 at I-3/4; 21 at I-4; 4 at
I-4/5 and 1 at I-S. The training consisted of ten hours of
lab training in the Carkhuff model and ten hours of
take-home work over a period of one semester. A Kendall Egg
coefficient of correlation indicated that a moderate
relationship of .46 existed between stage of ego development

and ability to communicate empathic understanding (p<.003).

42
A significant relationship was not found between ego
development and ability to discriminate empathy.

Using an analogue study, McIntyre (1985) investigated
the relationship between counselors' and clients' ego
development levels and counselors' expressed empathy and
client preference. There were 14 graduate counseling
students at I-3/4; 14 at I-4; and 14 at I-4/5. He did not
find a significant relationship between ego level and
expressed empathy. The means on the Response Empathy Rating
Scale, however, were in the expected direction. The RES
score means across analogues for each group assumed a
curvilinear pattern. When analyzed together, the main
effect was eliminated. In cases where client ego level is
varied, one might expect the main effect to be eliminated.
Because Zielinski (1973) and Carlozzi et al. (1983) held the
stimulus materials constant, a positive main effect was
predictably found.

McIntyre (1985) also evaluated the relationship between
counselors' expressed empathy and client ego level. He
found a significant main effect for analogue level which
indicated that counselors were more empathic with clients
who were higher in ego level. This might suggest that
clients in an initial counseling contact may be afforded
different amounts of expressed empathy by counselors
depending on their level of ego development.

Influence on Counselor Training
Loevinger (1980) suggested that the most important

factor in the counseling process may be the ego development

43
level of the therapist. She stated: "The mode of teaching
counseling students should take their current level into
account" (p. 389). The effect of ego development level on
the training process has been evaluated in only one study.
Zielinski (1973) indicated that the ability to empathize
increases as one grows in ego development. He used gain
scores from pre- to post-measures on the Carkhuff-Berenson
Scales to see if there was a correlation between ego
development level and gains in empathic communication and
discrimination. He found that high ego subjects made
greater gain scores in ability to discriminate empathy but
not in ability to communicate empathy. This finding is
consistent with two other findings. First, in the Carkhuff
model empathic discrimination is a more easily acquired
ability, since it does not require skill production
(Carkhuff, 1969). Second, empathic discrimination and
affective sensitivity are not significantly correlated with
other measures of empathy, including empathic communication.
Zielinski's (1973) results indicate an effect of ego
development on training in empathy in spite of his use of
gain scores and a relatively brief training experience (10

hours).

Summary of The Effect of Personality Factors on Counselor
Training
The effect of personality on counselor training is a
highly complex and confusing area of research. Dogmatism is
related to counselor effectiveness when assessed by

supervisors and clients, but objective measures yield mixed

44
results. Kemp (1962) argued that high dogmatics are able to
learn new skills as effectively as low dogmatics, but
translation into real-life situations is another question.
Ego development-~a more promising area of research--is
clearly related to affective sensitivity (Carlozzi et al.,
1983) and empathic communication (Zielinski, 1973).
Further, it has been found that a counselor's ego level
interacts significantly with a client's ego level to
determine the amount of expressed empathy (McIntyre, 1985).
Zielinski (1973) also found that gains in empathic
discrimination as a result of training are related to the
trainee's ego level. Further analysis of the relationship
between ego level and changes in affective sensitivity and
empathic communication is needed. This study is designed to
address the issue of (1) whether fundamentalists can be
trained to be more empathic and less dogmatic through
microcounseling; (2) whether ego development is related to
empathy and the ability to learn empathy through

microcounseling training.

Chapter 3: Design of the Study

This study investigated the effects of microcounseling
training on empathic communication, affective sensitivity
and dogmatism, with special attention to the influence of

ego development on the acquisition of affective sensitivity

 

and empathic communication. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
(RDS) was used to assess dogmatism; ego development was
measured by the Washington University Sentence Completion
Test (WUSCT). Instruments to measure empathy included the
Affective Sensitivity Scale (AFSS) to assess affective
sensitivity and the Carkhuff Empathic Understanding
Interpersonal Process (EUIP) to assess empathic
communication. The subjects were fundamentalist counseling
students. Those randomly assigned to an experimental
condition received training in Ivey's microcounseling
Skills. Subjects randomly assigned to a control condition,
received a course in Personality Theories. An experimental
between-groups design was constructed to determine the
effect of the training. A two-by-two ANCOVA analysis was

employed to evaluate the data. This chapter presents the

research methodology under the following headings: (a)
sample, (b) procedures, (c) instruments, (d) training of
raters and rating procedures, (e) testable hypothesis, (f)

statistical analysis.
45

46
Sample
The subjects were 52 masters level pastoral counseling

students enrolled in a counseling skills course at Grace
Theological Seminary. All of the students in the pastoral
counseling program were invited to be part of this project
and all but two voluntarily participated. Two students did
not complete the test battery and were dropped from the
analysis. The 16 remaining women and 34 men ranged in age
from 22 to 58 years. Median age was 27 and mean age was
30.10 years. The representation of males and females in the
experimental and control groups was approximately equal
(experimental group = 18 men and 7 women; control group = 16
men and 9 women). The effect of gender on the dependent
variables in this study was found to be nonsignificant.

Procedures

 

The subjects completed the instruments at two
pre-training sessions, each lasting approximately 1 1/2
hours. At the first session, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
(RDS) and the Affective Sensitivity Scale (AFSS) were
administered, and at the second session, the Washington
University Sentence Completion Scale (WUSCT) and the
Empathic Understanding Interaction Process Scale (EUIP) were
given. The training consisted of 10 training sessions
spread over one semester, each session lasting 3 hours.
Post-tests were completed at one session of approximately 2
hours.

The 52 students were randomly assigned either to the

microcounseling group or to the control group which received

47

a 30-hour course in Personality Theories. The training
routine for the microcounseling group followed the course
structure outlined by Ivey and Authier (1978). Ivey's book

Intentional Interviewing and Counseling (1983), was used as

 

a class text and homework assignments were made from
practice exercises at the end of each chapter. The
video-tape series "Basic Attending Skills" (Microtraining
Association, Inc., Box 641, No. Amherst, Ma. 01059) was used
each session as an example of effective and ineffective
skill modeling. Groups were broken into triads to practice
the skill, to video or audio-tape their performance, and
then to discuss the results. Three post-master's level
counselors were trained to assist as group role models and
to provide immediate feedback on skill production.
Experimental and Control groups differed in course
materials, homework assignments and use of small groups.

The control group used Raymond Corsini's Current

 

Psychotherapies as a class text. Homework assignments, in

 

the control group, were given each week to write a 3-5 page
paper evaluating the specific theorist according to the
students' model of counseling. The Control group did meet
in class groups to present class discussions on different
theoretical models, however, group work was an ancillary
part of the control course in comparison to the
microcounseling treatment group.

Instruments

 

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale

 

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale--Form E (RDS) is composed

48

of 40 six-point Likert-type items which are scored from +3
(strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree). One hundred
sixty points are added to the raw score to make all of the
scores positive, ranging form 40 to 280. A high score
indicates a person is closed-minded or dogmatic.

Reliability In ten test-retest studies conducted by

 

Rokeach (1960) at two universities and a VA hospital at
intervals of one to six months, reliability measures ranged
from .68 to .93, with a median value of .78 reported.
Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman (1969) found no substantial
disparity in reliability for those scoring high or low on
dogmatism. The present study found a Pearson E of .737 for
test-retest among the control group.

Validity With regard to construct validity, several
factor analytic studies have shown the RDS to be a better
measure of authoritarianism than the California F Scale
(Vacchiano et al., 1969). Rokeach (1960) found 10 students
who were considered by their peers to be low in dogmatism
differed on the average by 56.1 points from 10 students
rated by peers to be high in dogmatsim.

Carkhuff-Berenson Scales

 

Truax (1961) was the first to develop a scale to
measure the "therapeutic core conditions" of empathic
understanding, respect, and genuineness. Carkhuff (1969)
developed four scales to measure these attributes as well as
a fifth scale called the Gross Rating of Facilitative
Interpersonal Functioning. For this study, the only scale

used was the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal

 

49
Processes (EUIP). The EUIP is used to measure an aspect of
phase II: empathic communication.

The EUIP consists of 16 audio-taped or written
expressions by a client. The counselor responds to each
client interaction in a manner judged to be helpful.
Responses to the written version of the test have been found
to correlate highly with the responses to the audio-taped
presentation of the 16 vignettes with both high and low
functioning subgroups (Therrien & Fischer, 1978) and with
trained and untrained subgroups (Stokes & Tait, 1978).
Therefore, for ease of administration, written responses to
printed vignettes were chosen.

Reliability Reliability is usually determined by

 

correlating the ratings of different judges on the same
protocol. For the 28 studies reported, reliability
estimates of this scale (EUIP) range from .42 to .95, thus
indicating a moderate to high degree of reliability (Truax &
Carkhuff, 1967b). The present study found a test-retest
reliability of 5 = .734 for the control group

Validity Construct validity has been determined by

 

comparing helpers' scores on these scales to a wide variety
of measures of positive client outcome. A broad range of
helpers and clients has been used in these studies including
experienced therapists, paraprofessionals and counseling
students (Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967). The results showed
higher level scores on the EUIP were associated with

positive counseling outcomes (Carkhuff, 1969a). It was also

50

found that beginning counselors who scored higher on the
EUIP were more likely to benefit from a training process
(Carkhuff, 1969a). Factor analyses of the communication
responses found that for high-, moderate-, and
low-functioning groups, group means on the measures were
able to significantly discriminate between the groups
(Carkhuff, 1969a).
Affective Sensitivity Scale

The Affective Sensitivity Scale was used to measure
phase I empathy: affective resonance. The test is designed
to assess the "ability to detect and describe the immediate
affective state of another" (Kagan et al., 1967).

The scale consists of thirty-nine color film vignettes
taken from actual counseling sessions. Subjects are
required to select from three alternatives the most accurate
affect experienced by the client or counselor during each
vignette for a total of 66 items. The test is scored by
giving one point for each correct response, with a possible
range of 0 to 66 points.

Reliability Kagan (1967) reported on seven studies of

 

reliability for this scale, which were done with master's
degree counseling students. He found Kuder-Richardson-ZO
coefficients, ranging from .53 to .77, with a median value
of .70. Schneider (1983) reported a Chronbach's r = .64.
The present study found a suprising test-retest reliability
for the control group to be .004. It should be noticed that

reliability in this study is nonexistent.

51

Validity Kagan (1967) reported a number of studies

 

which support the concurrent, predictive, and construct
validities of this scale. Predictive validity was measured
by giving the AFSS to students at the beginning of a summer
training program. At the end of the summer students were to
rank their peers on counselor effectiveness. The scores on
the scale correlated significantly with the peer ratings. A
second study to test the construct validity used members of
two groups in a one-year N.D.E.A. counseling and guidance
institute. The test was given at the beginning of the
program and again after 6 months. It was hypothesized that
students would significantly increase their scores on the
scale as a result of their training. A E-test for
correlated means was computed between pre- and posttest
sample means. There were significant increases in the
sample means for both groups, one significant at .025 and
the other at .005.

Washington University Sentence Completion Test

 

The Washington University Sentence Completion Test Form
11-68 Men and Woman (WUSCT; Loevinger & Wessler, 1970) was
used to assess ego development level. The test consists of
thirty-six brief sentence stems which are spaced over two
pages.

Loevinger & Wessler (1970) suggested that two raters be
used to evaluate the stem responses. In this study two
doctoral students in counseling psychology were trained
using the self-training manual (Loevinger & Wessler, 1970).

All of the items were prepared for scoring following the

52
manual's instructions. Following the evaluation of each
individual stem, a total protocol rating (TPR) was given
according to the automatic ogive rules. Agreement on dis-
crepant item scores was reached before a final TPR was
determined.

Reliability Loevinger & Wessler (1970) found that five

 

self-trained raters compared with two expert raters had a
median interrater correlation ranging from .89 to .92. This
indicates that training with the self-training manual can
produce scorers who have a high degree of agreement between
themselves when the only common training is the manual.
Self-trained evaluaters also closely approximate ratings
produced by raters personally trained by Loevinger. In the
present study the interrater correlation was found to be
.763.

Validity Loevinger (1970) discouraged simple attempts

 

to find predictive validity based on linear relationships
between stages and behavior. A number of studies, however,
have found a significant relationship between behavior and
stage conceptualizations (Zielinski, 1973; Candee, 1976).
Construct validity is suggested by the structural unity
or fidelity of the test. The statistical homogeneity of the
WUSCT has been tested and has shown that it cannot be broken
into subscales. Lambert (1972) was unsuccessful in finding
a "moral factor" in his analysis of the WUSCT. A number of
studies have indicated that intelligence and verbosity

cannot be considered overlapping measures of ego development

53
(Loevinger & Wessler, 1970; Hoppe, 1972). There is clear
evidence that the WUSCT measures a single construct.
Training of Raters and Rating
Procedures for the EUIP

The two raters used in this study were post-master's
level psychological interns in a college counseling center.
Both had extensive counseling and counselor training
experience and were familiar with the Carkhuff and Ivey
models of skills training.

The raters were trained in the EUIP scale according to
the steps suggested by Carkhuff (1969a). The raters then
scored role-play vignettes which were representative of
each level on the five-point scale. Discussions were held
between the two raters and the trainer on the issues of
discrepant ratings. Training was conducted over a period of
6 weeks taking approximately 30 hours.

The inter-judge reliability for the ratings of the
written responses to the EUIP were tested through the use of
Cronbach's Alpha procedure (Anastasi, 1976, p. 118) and
found to be between .70 and .94 (Zielinski, 1974). An
inter-judge reliability coefficient was calculated for the
ratings of judges in this study on both pre- and post-EUIP
protocols. In the present investigation the reliability
coefficent was .84.

Ratings for the written responses to the 16 vignettes

were coded for confidentiality and then grouped according to

response. All responses to each vignette were scored before

54

scoring the next. The final score was an average of both
ratings for each of the 16 vignettes.
Testable Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. Students participating in

 

microcounseling skills training will demonstrate higher
empathic communication, higher affective sensitivity, and
lower dogmatism than those in the control group as measured
respectively by the EUIP, AFSS, and

RDS.

 

Hypothesis 2. Students, across treatment conditions,

 

who are higher in ego development (1-4 and I-4/5) will
demonstrate higher empathic communication, higher affective
sensitivity and lower dogmatism than those who are lower in
ego development (I-3 and I-3/4) as measured respectively by
the EUIP, AFSS and RDS.

Hypothesis 3. Level of ego development will be shown

 

to interact with microcounseling training to increase
student's empathic communication, affective sensitivity and
decrease dogmatism as measured respectively by the EUIP,
AFSS, and RDS. Specifically, the effects of microcounseling
on the three outcome variables will be more pronounced for
subjects high on ego development (I-4 and I-4/5) than for
subjects low on ego development (I-3 and I-3/4).
Statistical Analyses

All hypotheses were tested using a series of three
independent Analyses of Covariance (Fisher, 1958). Use of
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) allowed for statistical

control of potential differences between experimental and

55

control groups on the various dependent variables prior to
treatment. The covariate was the respective pre-test score
for each of the three dependent variables. In each ANCOVA
the independent variables studied were ego development group
and treatment condition. The analyses investigated the main
effects and interaction of these variables on empathic
communication, affective sensitivity, and dogmatism,
respectively.

In all three ANCOVA's, the sums of squares associated
with each effect investigated were calculated using the
classic experimental approach. Under this procedure, each
main effect was assessed with the other main effect held
constant, and the two-way interaction was tested with both
main effects controlled. This approach is widely accepted
for analyses in which no a priori ordering of variables are

theoretically meaningful (Pedhazur, 1982).

 

Chapter 4: Results

The results of the tests of this study's hypotheses are
presented in this chapter. The values obtained from the
three 2 x 2 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) provide a basis
for evaluating the research hypotheses.

Hypotheses 1 through 3: Differences Due to Treatment.

These hypotheses dealt with the differences between
experimental and control groups due to the effect of
microtraining.

Hypothesis 1. Students participating in

 

microcounseling skills training will demonstrate higher
empathic communication than those in the control group.
Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1

 

ANCOVA Summary for Empathic Communication

 

 

 

SS DF MS F Prob.
Source
Covariate 8.48 1 8.48 66.92 .000*
Treatment 5.46 1 5.46 43.09 .000*
Ego group 0.59 1 0.59 4.68 .036*
Interaction 0.04 l 0.04 0.28 .600
Error 5.71 45 0.13

 

* significant at the .05 level
The ANCOVA employed to investigate the effect of

microcounseling on ability to communicate empathy showed a

56

 

57
significant effect of treatment [F (1,45) = 43.09, p< .05].
The adjusted mean of the experimental group (i adj. = 2.66)
is higher than the adjusted mean of the controls (i adj. =
1.92). Investigation of the magnitude of the treatment
effect showed that just under 28% of the variability found
in empathic communication could be explained through
knowledge of treatment condition (eta = .276) with the
pre-test controlled. Observed and adjusted means and
standard deviations are given in table 4.2.

Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the
alternate hypothesis was accepted. Microcounseling training
did significantly increase the ability to communicate
empathy as measured by the EUIP in the experimental group.

Table 4.2

 

Means, Standard Deviations for Pre- and Post-test

Scores for Empathic Communication

 

 

 

Training Pre Post Post-test Mean
Section N Score S.D. Score S.D. adj. for cov.
1. Experimental 25 2.06 0.392 2.74 0.465 2.66
2. Control 25 1.75 0.359 1.84 0.431 1.92

 

Hypothesis 2. Students participating in

 

microcounseling skills training will demonstrate higher
affective sensitivity than those in the control group.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.3.
The F test for treatment [F (1,45) = 4.14, p< .05] was

significant at the p < .05 level. The adjusted mean of the

58

control group (2 adj. = 36,87) is higher than the adjusted
mean of the experimentals (E'adj. = 34.13).

Investigation of the magnitude of the effect showed that
just over 7% of the variability found in affective
sensitivity could be explained through knowledge of the
control condition (eta = 0.071) with the pre-test
controlled. Observed and adjusted means and standard
deviations are given in table 4.4

Table 4.3

 

ANCOVA Summary for Affective Sensitivity

 

 

 

85 DF MS F Prob.
Source
Covariate 137.53 1 137.53 6.41 .015
Treatment 88.66 1 88.66 4.14 .048*
Ego group 63.66 1 63.66 2.97 .092
Interaction 6.10 1 6.10 0.29 .596
Error 964.94 45 21.44

 

* significant at the .05 level

Table 4.4

 

Means, Standard Deviations for Pre- and Post-test

 

Scores for Affective Sensitivity

 

 

 

Training Pre Post Post-test Mean

Section N Score S.D. Score S.D. adj. for cov.
Experimental 25 30.24 5.58 33.92 5.45 34.13
Control 25 32.52 4.92 37.08 4.15 36.87

 

Although there were significant results, the difference is

not in the expected direction. Therefore, the research

59

hypothesis was not supported. The training program was not
found to improve affective sensitivity.

Table 4.5

 

ANCOVA Summary for Dggmatism

 

 

SS DF MS F Prob.
Source
Covariate 6889.14 1 6889.14 15.82 .000r
Treatment 488.77 1 488.77 1.12 .295
Ego group 0.25 1 0.25 0.001 .981
Interaction 364.09 1 364.09 0.84 .365
Error 19599.80 46 435.55

 

* significant at the .05 level

Hypothesis 3. Students participating in microcounseling

 

skills training will demonstrate less dogmatism than those in
the control group.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.5.
The 5 test for treatment [F (1,45) = 1.12, p) .05] showed no
significant difference to exist between groups. Therefore, the
research hypothesis was not accepted. Microcounseling training
was not shown to be related to the level of dogmatism as
measured by the RDS in the experimental group. Means and
standard deviations for both groups on RDS pre- and post-test
scores are given in table 4.6.

Table 4.6

 

Means, Standard Deviations for Pre- and Post-test

 

Scores for the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale

 

 

 

Training Pre Post
Section N Score S.D. Score S.D.
1. Experimental 25 171.88 18.81 172.48 25.88

2. Control 25 169.44 22.56 177.32 20.54

 

6O

Hypotheses 4 through 6: Differences due to Ego Development
Level.

These hypotheses dealt with the differences between

 

low and high ego development groups on the dependent
variables of empathic communication, affective sensitivity
and dogmatism.

Hypothesis 4. Students, across treatment conditions,

 

who are higher in ego development, will demonstrate higher
empathic communication than those who are lower in ego
development.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.1.
The N test for ego development level [F (1,45) = 4.68, p<
.05] was significant at the .05 level. Ego development
level did effect the ability to communicate empathy, in that
the higher ego development group scored significantly higher
on the EUIP, than the lower ego development group. Means
and standard deviations for high and low ego groups are
given in table 4.7.

Table 4.7

 

Mean EUIP Pre and Post-test Scores for

 

Different Ego Development Groups

 

 

 

 

Pre Post Post-test Mean
Ego Group N Score S.D. Score S.D. adj. for cov.
Low (I-3 and 27 1.71 0.38 2.06 0.57 2.17
I-3/4)
High (I-4 and 23 2.14 0.31 2.56 0.61 2.43

I-4/5)

 

who an
affect

develo

FL.

. a
..c
—4

.1

l "I
ILC)

(L

61

Hypothesis 5. Students, across treatment conditions,

 

who are higher in ego development, will demonstrate higher
affective sensitivity than those who are lower in ego
development.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.3.
The 5 test for ego development group [F (1,45) = 2.97, p)
.05] was not significant at the .05 level. Ego development
level was not shown to effect the ability to be affectively
sensitive among subjects in this study.

Hypothesis 6. Students, across treatment conditions,

 

who are higher in ego development, will demonstrate lower
dogmatism than those who are lower in ego development.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.5.
The 3 test for ego development group [F (1,45) = .001, p)
.05] did not support the notion of ego group differences on
this variable. Ego development level did not effect the
level of dogmatism.

Hypothesis 7 through 9: Interaction of Microcounseling and

 

Ego Development.

 

These hypotheses deal with the interaction of
microcounseling and ego development and test the
differential effect of treatment on empathic communication,
affective sensitivity, and dogmatism dependent on ego
development.

Hypothesis 7. Level of ego development will be shown

 

to interact with the effect of microcounseling training to

increase subjects' ability to communicate empathy.

62

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.1.
The 5 test for the interaction of treatment and ego
development group [F (1,45) = 0.28, p) .05] did not support
the notion of differential treatment effects dependent upon
ego development group. Level of ego development did not
interact with training to alter empathic communication.

Hypothesis 8. Level of ego development will be shown

 

to interact with the effect of microcounseling training to
increase subjects' affective sensitivity.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.3.
The 5 test for the interaction of treatment and ego
development group [F (1,45) = 0.29, p) .05) did not support
the notion of differential treatment effects dependent upon
ego development group. Level of ego development did not
interact with training to alter affective sensitivity.

Hypothesis 9. Level of ego development will be shown

 

to interact with the effect of microcounseling training to
decrease subjects' level of dogmatism.

Results. The ANCOVA summary can be seen in Table 4.5.
The E test for the interaction of treatment and ego
development group [F (1,45) = 0.84, p) .05] did not support
the notion of differential treatment effects dependent upon
ego group. Level of ego development did not interact with

training to alter dogmatism.

Chapter 5: Discussion

This chapter is concerned with interpreting the results
of this study. The unique population of fundamentalist
counseling students are first discussed. Then the findings
of the study are evaluated, including the main effect for
treatment and ego development group and the interaction
between the two. Reasons for these findings and
implications specific to individual findings are evaluated.
Finally, recommendations for research and training are
discussed.

Population: Fundamentalist Counseling Students

 

Few studies have been done with Seminary Students in
the area of counselor skill training; no study has been done
with a fundamentalist population. A fundamentalist, in this
study, has been operationally defined by two key issues:

(a) Belief in the Bible as an inerrant record of God's
message to mankind (b) Separation from practices considered
unbecoming of a Christian including, "gambling, dancing,
attendance at commercial movie theaters, identification with
secret societies, and the use of alchoholic beverages,
illegal drugs and tobacco" (Grace Theological Seminary
1984-1986 Catalog, p.16). The difficulty in definition is

that many students may sign a covenant agreeing to live

63

64

according to these principles, but may not in fact concur
with their validity or importance. Students who attend
Grace Theological Seminary would in most cases, however, be
considered more conservative than the broader evangelical
population. The generalizability of the effects of
microcounseling training can now include a new population:
fundamentalist counseling students.

This study presents data which is contrary to
expectations about conservative, fundamenatalist students.
It was presumed that the students would be highly dogmatic
and consequently low in empathic communication and affective
sensitivity. The students were higher in dogmatism compared
to studies done with secular master's level counseling
students; however in terms of empathic communication the
students were not significantly lower than the averages for
counseling students at secular universities (Appendix G).
The mean score for affective sensitivity of the
fundamentalist students was significantly higher than the
mean of secular counseling students (Appendix G). However,
the lack of reliability of the Affective Sensitivity Scale
makes this result difficult, if not impossible to interpret.
The data argues minimally for the need to investigate the
complexity of this population before making theoreticaly
reasonable but not empirically verifiable assumptions. It
also indicates a need for more careful evaluation of how
beliefs affect behavior and, more specifically, how
religious conservativism affects empathic communication and

affective sensitivity.

65
Review of Results and Discussion

 

The Main Effect for Treatment Level.

 

The Findings. Microcounseling training was shown to

 

significantly increase the ability to express empathic
communication, but no significant effect on affective
sensitivity or dogmatism was found. The effect of treatment
on affective sensitivity produced confusing results. The
control group showed higher levels of affective sensitivity
in comparison to the experimental group. This effect was,
however, determined to be at least partially due to initial
differences between groups and must be discounted. In terms
of dogmatism, there were no significant differences between
the experimental and the control groups.

Discussion and Implications. The relationship between

 

empathic communication and treatment is not suprising. A
number of studies have found microcounseling training an
effective means of increasing empathic communication in
different popluations: paraprofessional, (Carkhuff, 1969)
and pastoral trainees, (Kriesel, 1975; Albert, 1981). This
study adds fundamentalist counseling students to the list of
trainees who have demonstrated a similar relationship to
exist. The treatment effect is this study is statisitically
significant and practically meaningful. The effect size,
however, may have been even larger if this study had
included a more diverse fundamentalist population. A
homogeneous sample tends to underestimate the extent of the

correlation found in a more diverse population.

66

The effect of microcounseling upon affective
sensitivity shown in this study could be seen as confusing
since theory and empirical data support the possibility of
microcounseling influencing levels of affective sensitivity
(Arbeitman, 1984). However, two points must be considered:
first, the Affective Sensitivity Scale used in this study to
measure affective sensitivity, was highly unreliable. The
test-retest reliability of E = .004 for the control group
makes the test useless. The more significant question is
why did the test not have greater, or in fact any,
reliability in this study? The test was conducted precisely
according to instructions and the post-test was given 14
weeks after the pre-test. Given the unusual results it was
considered prudent to reevaluate the scoring and statistical
results, therefore, each test protocol was rescored and
compared to the original outcomes. No differences were
found between the two scoring results. The statistical test
was also rerun to assure against possible computer error.
Again, no error was found.

Results of the scatterplots comparing pre- and
post-test scores on the Affective Sensitivity Scale for
control, experimental and combined groups are reported in
Appendix I. The lack of reliability may be due to the
presence of three subjects in the control group whose scores
were far removed from the rest of the sample. It is
difficult to determine why the subjects scored extremely
high on the pretest and then reversed their postion to the

lowest scores on the posttest.

67
It could also be argued that fundamentalists respond

differently to the test than other populations. The mean
score for the AFSS was higher than other test populations
and the reliability was lower than any other reported study
using this test. I know of no theory, however, which would
explain both the higher mean score and the total lack of
reliability.

Second, it is possible that microcounseling training
has an effect of focusing the student's attention on skill
production, rather than affective recognition. Affective
sensitivity and empathic communication are not significantly
correlated (Mullen and Abeles, 1971; Arbeitman, 1984); nor
necessarilly part of the same empathy learning cycle
(Gladstein, 1983). Students in the control group
participated in a Personality Theories class which may have
enhanced their recognition of the importance of affective
states without focusing on direct skill production. It
seems reasonable to conclude that microcounseling may
increase affective sensitivity, though it is not supported
by this study.

The lack of demonstrated effect of microcounseling upon
level of dogmatism in this study is also difficult to
explain in terms of current theory. There may be two
possible explanations of the data. First, contradictory
evidence exists as to the stability of the trait of
dogmatism. Dogmatism has been changed through counselor

training, (Mezzano, 1969); other studies have seen no change

in level of dogmatism after counselor training (Cheung,

 

68

1975; Albert, 1981). Dogmatism changes in this study were
not uniform and there is no hard data which accounts
simultaneously for the decrease in some scores and the
increase in others. The level of ego development level did
not help disciminate which subjects increased or decreased
in dogmatism.

A second possible explanation concerns the nature of
the dogmatic person. Changes in scores may be due to the
effect of following the party-line described by Kemp (1962).
Students with lower dogmatism scores may in fact be low or
they may be duplicating what may be expected of a counselor;
once the student feels comfortable he may then either
respond higher according to his genotypic pattern or in fact
decrease in dogmatism on the basis of the treatment. In
either case it makes changes in dogmatism difficult to
interpret.

Dogmatism was not significantly effected by
microcounseling nor was it found to correlate with the
dependent variables which measured empathy in this study. A
Pearson 5 was run for the relationship of dogmatism and
empathic communication; the results were not significant.
This indicates that dogmatism was not a variable related to
empathic communication.

The Main Effect for Ego Development Group

The Findings. There was a main effect for ego

 

development group on empathic communication and
nonsignificant results on affective sensitivity and

dogmatism.

69
Discussion and Implications. The main effect for ego

 

development on empathic communication was found to be both
statistically significant and practically meaningful (eta =
.143). The results indicate that the higher the level of
ego development the more a person will be able to
empathically communicate. These results are in accord with
the findings of Zielinski (1973) who found a moderate
correlation between ego level and empathic communication
using the EUIP. McIntyre (1985) did not find a significant
relationship between ego level and empathic communication.
In that study, stimulus materials varied on client ego
level, whereas both in the Zielinski (1973) study and this
study client stimulus materials were not systematically
varied according to ego level. This finding provides
support for the hypothesis that phase 2: empathic
communication is related to the ego development level of the
counselor. This replication of Zielinski's finding (1973)
should encourage research in this area, particularly in
actual counseling sessions rather than with written or oral
responses to client vignettes.

The effect of ego development group on affective
sensitivity was not conclusive. The E test was found to be
nonsignificant at the .05 level of probability, however, the
results again approached significance at the .092 level of
probability. The lack of reliability, previously discussed,
increased error variance, thus causing a sizeable loss of
power. In fact, the results are quite striking given the

large error variance. One might expect with a more reliable

70
measure or in another population using the Affective
Sensitivity Scale a sizeable effect due to ego development
level.

Investigation of ego development group on dogmatism as
measured by subjects' post-RDS scores was nonsignificant.
Level of dogmatism was clearly not related to the level of
ego development of subjects in this study. It is
interesting to note, however, that a significant correlation
was shown between ego development level and subjects'
pre-RDS scores (r = -.294 (1,48) p< .05). This would
indicate that pre-test scores on the RDS were inversely
related to ego development. However, changes in dogmatism
post-test scores used in ANCOVA results are not associated
with ego development. No study, including this one, has
been able to explain the random variability in dogmatism
posttest scores. It is quite possible that several factors
are operating simultaneously causing some subjects' scores
to vary up or down for different reasons.

The Interaction of Ego Development Group and Treatment

 

The Findings. A significant interaction for ego

 

development and treatment was not found for any of the
dependent variables: empathic communication, affective
sensitivity or dogmatism.

Discussion and Implications. The interaction

 

hypotheses of this study were not supported. There does not
seem to be a relationship between ego development and the
ability to learn empathy or between ego development and

personality change as measured by the construct of

71

dogmatism. Increases in empathic communication were in the
expected direction when divided by ego group: high and low
(see table 4.7); and by ego development stages: 1-4/5, I-4,
I-3/4 and I-3 (see table 5.1). The lack of equal number in
each stage and the small sample size makes the results
impossible to analyze, however had there been greater
numbers (increase of degrees of freedom) and equal cell
size, there may have been a reduction of error variance
resulting in greater power. The effect may exist but this
study lacked the statistical power to find it. This
possibility is worthy of further exploration.

The lack of significant interaction with affective
sensitivity may again be a by-product of the test's lack of
reliability. Further exploration of the use of the
Affective Sensitivity Scale with this population is
warranted. There does not seem to be any clear way of
further testing the effect of ego development on dogmatism

until the variance in dogmatism scores is more clearly

understood.

Table 5.1
EUIP Posttest Scores by Ego Development Stage
in the Experimental Group

 

 

 

 

Ego Develop- Number of Mean of Standard
ment Stage Subjects Subjects Deviation
I-3 2 2.73 .021
I-3/4 12 2.54 .404
I-4 9 2.87 .462
I-4/5 2 3.19 .792

 

72

Recommendations

 

Recommendations for Research.

 

There are a number of questions which warrant further
exploration. The concerns are in the areas of the
measurement of affective sensitivity, the stability of
dogmatism, and the role of ego development on empathy in
different settings.

(A) Research is needed to explain the Affective
Sensitivity Scale's lack of reliability for a fundamentalist
population. (B) Research is needed to explain the shifts in
dogmatism scores after counselor training. (C) Research is
needed to examine the effects of ego development on learning
facilitative skills using subjects from different ego
development stages. Such a research design would increase
the likelihood of seeing an interaction effect between
microcounseling and ego development. (D) Research is needed
to evaluate the effect of ego development on empathic
communication in analogue, role play and/or actual
counseling situations. In a fundamentalist population it
would be interesting to evaluate the student's empathic
response to a client who viewed life according to the same
moral values compared to a client who differed from the
student's moral code.

Recommendations for Training.

 

There are three central issues related to training
pastors to counsel: (a) effect of personality on empathic
communication and affective sensitivity, (b) ability to

learn facilitative skills through microcounseling training,

73
(c) effect of personality on the ability to learn empathy

through microcounseling training. It was found that
fundamentalist counseling students do express empathic
communication differentially due to different levels of ego
development. Therefore, it can be argued that when possible
it is advisable to select students for training who show
higher levels of ego development. Dogmatism was not found
to be related to empathy; therefore at this point selection
based on high or low levels of dogmatism is not advised.
Courses which encourage students to grow in ego maturity
through evaluation of their interpersonal relationships,
impulse control, and capacity for self-criticism is highly
encouraged in order to increase their capacity for empathic
interaction.

This study shows that fundamentalists are capable of
being trained through a microcounseling course. Seminaries
need to be aware of the effectiveness and viability of using
this methodology for improving the relational capacities of
their students irrespective of level of dogmatism or ego
development.

This study did not show a significant interaction of
ego development and treatment; however, methodological
problems may have decreased statistical power and minimized
the likelihood of significant results. The results indicate
that students who are either high or low in ego development
profit from microtraining. Therefore, at this point it is

advisable to encourage all students, irrespective of ego

74

development level, to pursue training in facilitative

skills.

Appendix A

Information about the Research Project

 

Hello,

My name is Dan Allender. I'm a doctoral student in the
Department of Counseling Psychology at Michigan State
University. I am conducting a research study into the
effectiveness of various methods of training religious
counselors. I would like to request your participation in
this study.

Your part will include taking a counseling course listed
as BC 410 and participating in either a 30 hour
Microcounseling course or a 30 hour Personality Theories
course. Class choice will be by random assignment. All
participants will take four tests measuring social attitude
and empathy. All four tests will take two hours of your
time.

Benefits which will be derived from participation in the
study include increasing your knowledge of your style of
relating to other people and your potential for change in
empathy skills and attitudes during the term you take the
class. You will receive a written interpretation of the
scores from pre- and post-tests, with an opportunity for

further elaboration.

75

76

Individual scores will be coded and kept strictly
confidential by the experimenter and will not be released to
anyone“ All scores and demographic data will be kept in
hmiked storage under the strict control of the Secretary of
tine Grace Counseling Center. For the purpose of the
expmariment, only group data will be reported.

Only students who agree to participate and sign informed
cxnasent forms will be assessed or placed in one of these
classes. Your participation or nonparticipation at any
(maint in this research will in no way affect your standing

in this class or in the counseling program.

Appendix B

Informed Consent Form

 

I have understood the proposal to conduct research on
counselor training methods. I have been given the
opportunity to ask further questions about the details and
procedures of the study and have had my questions answered
to my satisfaction. I also understand that, within
restrictions of confidentiality, the general results of the
study will be made available to me. In order to insure
confidentiality student numbers and not names will be used
to randomly assign students to different treatment groups.
Student addresses will be used only for follow-up.

With the understanding and assurance that my name and/or my
responses on instruments will not be used in any reports
based on this research, and that my responses will be kept
confidential, I agree to participate in the study outlined
in the proposal.

Specifically, I hereby agree to provide information
requested in this study. I also understand that I am free
to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty (ie.
without effect on my status in the counseling program.)

Signature:

 

Name:

 

Address:

 

Student Number:

 

Date:

 

Project Director: Dan Allender
Department of Counseling and Educational
Psychology
Michigan State University

77

APPENDIX C

 

Personal Opinion Scale

 

The following is a study of what the general public
thinks and feels about a number of important social and
personal questions. The best answer to each statement below

is your personal opinion. We have tried to cover many

 

different and opposing points of View; you may find yourself
agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing
just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about
others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement,
you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do.
Mark each statement in the left margin according to how
much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one.
Write +1,+2,+3, or -1,-2,-3, depending on how you feel in

each case.

+1: I AGREE A LITTLE -l: I DISAGREE A LITTLE

+2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE
WHOLE

+3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH

 

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in
common.

2. The highest form of government is a democracy and the
highest form of democracy is a government run by those
who are most intelligent.

3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a
worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to
restrict the freedom of certain political groups.

78

10.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

79

It is only natural that a person would have much better
acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas
he opposes.

Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome
place.

Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me
how to solve my personal problems.

It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of
the future.

There is so much to be done and so little time to do it
in.

Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't
stop.

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat
myself several times to make sure I am being
understood.

In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in
what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what
others are saying.

It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.
While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my
secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein,

or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do
something important.

If given the chance I would do something of great
benefit to the world.

In the history of mankind there have probably been just
a handful of really great thinkers.

There are a number of people I have come to hate because
of the things they stand for.

A man who does not believe in some great cause has not
really lived.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or
cause that life becomes meaningful.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

80

Of all the different philosophies which exist in this
world there is probably only one which is correct.

A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is
likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous
because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own
side.

When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we
must be careful not to compromise with those who believe
differently from the way we do.

In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if
he considers primarily his own happiness.

The worst crime a person could commit is to attack
publicly the peOple who believe in the same thing he
does.

In times like these it is often necessary to be more on
guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's
own camp than by those in the opposing camp.

A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion
among its own members cannot exist for long.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who
are for truth and those who are against the truth.

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to
admit he's wrong.

A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is
beneath contempt.

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't
worth the paper they are printed on.

In this complicated world of ours, the only way we can
know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts
who can be trusted.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's
going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions
of those one respects.

In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends
and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as
one's own.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is
only the future that counts.

81

38. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is
sometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all".

39. Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have
discussed important social and moral problems don't
really understand what's going on.

40. Most people just don't know what's good for them.

APPENDIX D

 

SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MEN

Name Age

 

Marital Status Education

 

 

Instructions: Complete the following sentences.

1. Raising a family 20. He felt proud that he

2. Most women think that men 21. Men are lucky because

3. When they avoided me 22. When they talked
about sex, I

4. If my mother 23. At times he worried
about

5. Being with other people 24. I am

6. The thing I like about 25. A man feels good when

myself is

7. A man's job 26. My main problem is

8. If I can't get what I want 27. When his wife asked
him to help with the
housework

9. I am embarrassed when 28. When I am criticized

10. Education 29. Sometimes he wished
that

11. When people are helpless 30. When I am with a
woman

12. Women are lucky because 31. When he thought of
his mother, he

13. What gets me into trouble 32. The worst thing about

is being a man

14. A good father 33. Usually he felt that
sex

15. If I were king 34. I just can't stand
people who

16. A wife should 35. My conscience bothers
me if

17. I feel sorry 36. Crime and delinquency

could be halted if
18. When a child won't join in
group activities
19. When I am nervous, I

82

Name

83

SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR WOMEN

Age

 

Marital Status

Instructions:

1.
2.

3.

4.
5.

9.
10.

11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.
19.

 

Raising a family
Most men think that women

When they avoided me

If my mother
Being with other people

The thing I like about
myself is

My mother and I

What gets me into trouble is
Education

When people are helpless

Women are lucky because
My father

A pregnant woman

When my mother spanked me,I
A wife should

I feel sorry

When I am nervous, I

A woman's body

When a child won't join in
group activities

20.
21.

22.

23.
24.

25.
26.
27.

28.
29.

30.
31.

32.
33.
34.
35.

36.

Education

 

Complete the following sentences.

Men are lucky because
When they talked
about sex, I

At times she worried
about

I am

A women feels good
when

My main problem is

Whenever she was with
her mother, she

The worst thing about
being a woman

A good mother
Sometimes she wished
that

When I am with a man
When she thought of
her mother, she

If I can't get what I
want

Usually she felt that
sex

For a woman a career
is

My conscience bothers
me if

A woman should always

APPENDIX E

 

A DESCRIPTION OF HELPER STIMULUS EXPRESSIONS:
AN INDEX OF COMMUNICATION

Introduction and Instructions

The following excerpts represent 16 stimulus
expressions; that is, expressions by a helpee of feeling and
content in different problem areas. In this case the same
helpee is involved in all instances.

You may conceive of this helpee not necessarily as
formal client but simply as a person who has come to you in
a time of need. The helpee, for example, may be a member
from your congregation. We would like you to respond as you
would if someone came to you seeking assistance in a time of
distress.

In formulating your responses keep in mind those that
the helpee can use effectively in his own life.

In summary, formulate responses to the person who has
come for help. The following range of helpee expressions
can easily come in the first contact or first few contacts;
however, do not attempt to relate any one expression to a
previous expression. Simply try to formulate a meaningful
response to the helpee's immediate expression.

Excerpt 1

 

Helpee: I don't know if I am right or wrong feeling the way
I do. But I find myself withdrawing from people.
I don't seem to socialize and play their stupid
games any more. I get upset and come home
depressed and have headaches. It seems all so
superficial. There was a time when I used to get
along with everybody. Everybody said, "Isn't she
wonderful. She gets along with everybody.
Everybody likes her." I used to think that was
something to be really proud of, but that was who I
was at that time. I had no depth. I was what the
crowd wanted me to be--the particular group I was
with.

Excerpt 2

 

Helpee: I love my children and my husband and I like doing
most household things. They get boring at times
but on the whole I think it can be a very rewarding

84

Helpee:

Helpee:

Helpee:

85

thing at times. I don't miss working, going to the
office every day. Most women complain of being
just a housewife and just a mother. But then,
again, I wonder if there is more for me. Others
say there has to be. I really don't know.

Excerpt 3

 

Sometimes I question my adequacy of raising three
boys, especially the baby. I call him the
baby--well, he is that last. I can't have any
more. So I know I kept him a baby longer than the
others. He won't let anyone else do things for
him. If someone else opens the door he says he
wants Mommy to do it. If he closes the door, I
have to open it. I encourage this. I do it. I
don't know if this is right or wrong. He insists
on sleeping with me every night and I allow it.
And he says when he grows up he won't do it any
more. Right now he is my baby and I don't
discourage this much. I don't know if this comes
out of my needs or if I'm making too much out of
the situation or if this will handicap him when he
goes to school--breaking away from Mamma. Is it
going to be a traumatic experience for him? Is it
something I'm creating for him? I do worry more
about my children than I think most mothers do.

Excerpt 4

 

It's not an easy thing to talk about. I guess the
heart of the problem is sort of a sexual problem.

I never thought I would have this sort of problem.
But I find myself not getting the fulfillment I
used to. It's not as enjoyable—-for my husband
either, although we don't discuss it. I used to
enjoy and look forward to making love. I used to
have an orgasm but I don't any more. I can't
remember the last time I was satisfied. I find
myself being attracted to other men and wondering
what it would be like to go to bed with them. I
don't know what this means. Is this symptomatic of
our whole relationship as a marriage? Is something
wrong with me or us?

Excerpt 5

 

Well, those people! Who do they think they are? I
just can't stand interacting with them any more.
Just a bunch of phonies. They leave me so
frustrated. They make me so anxious, I get angry
at myself. I don't even want to be bothered with
them any more. I just wish I could be honest with

Helpee:

Helpee:

Helpee:

86

them and tell them all to go to hell! But I guess
I just can't do it.

Excerpt 6

 

They wave that degree up like it's a pot of gold at
the end of the rainbow. I used to think that, too,
until I tried it. I'm happy being a housewife; I
don't care to get a degree. But the people I
associate with, the first thing they ask is where
did you get your degree. I answer, "I don't have a
degree." They look at you like you are some sort
of a freak, some backwoodsman your husband picked
up along the way. They actually believe that
people with degrees are better. In fact, I think
they are worse. I've found a lot of people without
degrees that are a hell of a lot smarter than these
people. They think that just because they have
degrees they are something special. These poor
kids that think they have to go to college or they
are ruined. It seems that we are trying to
perpetuate a fraud on these kids. If no degree,
they think they will end up digging ditches the
rest of their lives. They are looked down upon.
That makes me sick.

Excerpt 7

 

I get so frustrated and furious with my daughter.

I just don't know what to do with her. She is
bright and sensitive, but she has some
characteristics that make me so on edge. I can't
handle it sometimes. She just -- I feel myself
getting more and more angry! She won't do what you
tell her to. She tests limits like mad. I scream
and yell and lose control and think there is
something wrong with me -- I'm not an understanding
mother or something. What potential! What she
could do with what she has. There are times she
doesn't need what she's got. She gets by too
cheaply. I just don't know what to do with her.
Then she can be so nice and then, boy, she can be
as ornery as she can be. And then I scream and
yell and I'm about ready to slam her across the
room. I don't like to feel this way. I don't know
what to do with it.

Excerpt 8

 

He is ridiculous! Everything has to be done the
way he wants to do it. The way he wants it done.
It's as if nobody else exists. It's everything he
wants to do. There is a range of things I have to

Helpee:

Helpee:

Helpee:

Helpee:

87

do. Not just be a housewife and take care of the
kids. Oh no, I have to do his typing for him,
errands for him. If I don't do it right away, I'm
stupid -- I'm not a good wife or something stupid
like that. I have it wrapped up in him. It makes
me -- it infuriates me! I want to punch him right
in the mouth. What am I going to do? Who does he
think he is, anyway?

Excerpt 9

 

I finally found somebody I can really get along
with. There is no pretentiousness about them at
all. They are real and they understand me. I can
be myself with them. I don't have to worry about
what I say and that they might take me wrong,
because I do sometimes say things that don't come
out the way that I want them to. I don't have to
worry that they are going to criticize me. They
are just marvelous people! I just can't wait to be
with them. For once I actually enjoy going out and
interacting. I didn't think I could ever find
people like this again. I can really be myself.
It's such a wonderful feeling not to have people
criticizing you for everything you say that doesn't
agree with them. They are warm and understanding
and I just love them! It's marvelous.

Excerpt 10

 

I'm really excited! We are going to California.
I'm going to have a second lease on life. I found
a marvelous job. It's great! It's so great, I
can't believe it's true -- it's so great! I have a
secretarial job. I can be a mother and can have a
part time job which I think I will enjoy very much.
I can be home when the kids get home from school.
It's too good to be true. It's so exciting. New
horizons are unfolding. I just can't wait to get
started. It's great! -
Excerpt 11

 

I'm so pleased with the kids. They are doing just
marvelously. They have done so well at school and
at home; they get along together. It's amazing. I
never thought they would. They seem a little
older. They play together better and they enjoy
each other and I enjoy them.

Excerpt 12

 

I'm really excited the way things are going at home
with my husband. It's just amazing. We get along
great together now. Sexually, I didn't know we

could be that happy. I didn't know anyone could be

Helpee:

Helpee:

Helpee:

Helpee:

88

that happy. It's just marvelous! I'm just so
pleased, I don't know what else to say.

Excerpt 13

 

I'm so thrilled to have found a counselor like you.
I didn't know any existed. You seem to understand
me so well. It's just great! I feel like I'm
coming alive. I have not felt like this in so
long.

Excerpt 14

 

Silence. (Moving about in chair)

Excerpt 15

 

I'm so disappointed. I thought we could get along
together and you could help me. We don't seem to
be getting anywhere. You don't understand me. You
don't know I'm here. I don't even think you care
for me. You don't hear me when I talk. You seem
to be somewhere else. Your responses are
independent of anything I have to say. I don't
know where to turn. I'm just so -- I don't know
what I'm going to do, but you can't help me. There
is just no help.

Excerpt 16

 

Who do you think you are? You call yourself a
minister! Here I am spilling my guts out and all
you do is look at the clock. You don't hear what I
say. Your responses are not attuned to what I'm
saying. You are supposed to be helping me. You
are so wrapped up in your world you don't hear a
thing I'm saying. You don't give me the time. The
minute the hour is up you push me out the door
whether I have something important to say or not.

I -- ah -- it makes me so damn mad!

Taken from: Carkhuff, Robert R. Helping and Human

Relations: A Primer for Lay and Professional
Helpers, Vol. 1. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1969, pp. 94-99.

 

APPENDIX F

 

Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Process
A Scale for Measurement

 

 

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first
person either do not attend to or detract significantly from
the verbal and behavioral expressions of the second
person(s) in that they communicate significantly less of the
second person's feelings than the second person has
communicated himself.

 

 

Examples: The first person communicates no awareness of
even the most obvious, expressed surface
feelings of the second person. The first person
may be bored or disinterested or simply
operating from a pre-conceived frame of
reference which totally excludes that of the
other person(s).

 

In summary, the first person does everything but express
that he is listening, understanding or being sensitive to
even the feelings of the other person in such a way as to
detract significantly from the communications of the second
person.

Level 2

While the first person responds to the expressed
feelings of the second person(s), he does so in such a way
that he subtracts noticeable affect from the communications
of the second person.

Examples: The first person may communicate some awareness
of obvious surface feeliongs of the second
person but his communications drain off a level
of the affect and distort the level of meaning.
The first person may communicate his own ideas
of what may be going on but these are not
congruent with the expressions of the second
person.

 

In summary, the first person tends to respond to other
than what the second person is expressing or indicating.

Level 3

The expressions of the first person in response to the
expressed feelings of the second person(s) are essentially

89

9O

interchangeable with those of the second person in that they
express essentially the same affect and meaning.

 

Examples: The first person responds with accurate
understanding of the surface feelings of the
second person but may not respond to or may
misinterpret the deeper feelings.

 

In summary, the first person is responding so as to
neither subtract from nor add to the expressions of the
second person; but he does not respond accurately to how
that person really feels beneath the surface feelings.
Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of facilitative
interpersonal functioning.

Level 4

The responses of the first person add noticeably to the
expressions of the second person(s) in such a way as to
express feelings a level deeper than the second person was
able to express himself.

Examples: The facilitator communicates his understanding
of the expressions of the second person at a
level deeper than they were expressed, and thus
enables the second person to experience and/or
express feelings which he was unable to express
previously.

 

In summary, the facilitator's responses add deeper
feeling and meaning to the expressions of the second person.

Level 5

The first person's responses add significantly to the
feeling and meaning of the expressions of the second
person(s) in such a way as to (1) accurately express
feelings levels below what the person himself was able to
express or (2) in the event of on-going deep
self-exploration on the second person's part to be fully
with him in his deepest moments.

Examples: The facilitator responds with accuracy to all of
the person's deeper as well as surface feelings.
He is "together" with the second person or
"tuned in" on his wavelength. The facilitator
and the other person might proceed together to
explore previously unexplored areas of human
resistance.

 

In summary, the facilitator is responding with a full.
awareness of who the other person is and a comprehensive and
accurate empathic understanding of his most deep feelings.

91

The present scale "Empathic understanding in
interpersonal processes" has been derived in part from "A
scale for the measurement of accurate empathy" by C.B. Truax
which has been validated in extensive process and outcome'
research on counseling and psychotherapy (summarized in
Truax and Carkhuff, 1967) and in part from an earlier
version which had been validated in extensive process and
outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy (summarized
in Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967). In addition, similar
measures of similar constructs have received extensive
support in the literature of counseling and therapy and
education. The present scale was written to apply to all
interpersonal processes and represent a systematic attempt
to reduce the ambiguity and increase the reliability of the
scale. In the process many important delineations and
additions have been made, including in particular the change
to a systematic focus upon the additive, subtractive or
interchangeable aspects of the levels of communication of
understanding. For comparative purposes, level 1 of the
present scale is approximately equal to state 1 of the Truax
scale. The remaining levels are approximately
correspondent: Level 2 and Stages 2 and 3 of the earlier
version; Level 3 and States 4 and 5; LeVel 4 and Stages 6
and 7; Level 5 and Stages 8 and 9. The levels of the
present scale are approximately equal to the levels of the
earlier version of this scale.

Appendix G

 

Comparison of Group Means and Standard Deviations for the
Dependent Variables: Empathic Communication, Affective
Sensitivity, and Dogmatism

 

 

 

Comparison of Group Means and Standard Deviations for the

 

Empathic Understanding Interaction Process Scale

 

 

Population N Mean S.D. Authors
Lay Counselors 50 1.6 .40 Carkhuff, 1969
Beginning Grad. 10 1.9 .50 Carkhuff, 1969
Students in
Psychology
Fundamentalist 50 1.90 .40 Present Study
Counseling
Students
Master's level 17 1.99 .41 North, 1977
Counseling
Students
Seminary Students 30 2.1 .13 Musser, 1982
Experienced 20 2.2 .50 Carkhuff, 1969

Counselors (not

systematically

trained)

Experienced 30 3.0 .4 Carkhuff, 1969
Counselors

(systematically

trained)

 

92

93

Comparison of Group Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

for the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale

Population N Mean S.D. Authors
Master's level 55 131.04 26.89 Coopersmith, 1984
Counseling
Students
Master's level 63 142.90 24.38 North, 1977
Counseling
Students
Fundamentalist 50 170.66 20.59 Present Study
Counseling
Students
Pastoral 32 171.00 not Albert, 1981
Counseling reported
Students

 

Comparison of Group Means and Standard Deviations

 

for the Affective Sensitivity Scale E-80

 

 

 

Population N Mean S.D. Authors
Undergraduate 2461 27.5 5.6 Kagan and
Students Schneider, 1980
Undergraduate
Students (High 41 29.5 not Carlozzi, et al.
Ego Development reported 1983
Level I-3/4 or
above)

Undergraduate 10 27.70 not Carlozzi, et al.
Students (Low reported 1983

Ego Development

Level I-3 or

below)

Fundamentalist 50 31.38 5.33

Counseling

Students

 

OOUNW'U

Appendix H
Scatterplot for qu Levelyand
Pre-Dogmatism Scoresyfor Control Subjects

 

210 + l

i+i|
H

 

200
l
190 + l
- ' l
- l
- l
- l
180 +
- l
- l
170 +
- 2
160 + l l
- l
- l
150 + l
- l
140 1 l
- l
- l
130 +
I-3 1-3/4 {-4 1-4/5
EGO LEVEL
N = 25
R = -.450
P a .023
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 3.800 0.500
Y: 246.58 - 20.30 X 423.72 Y 169.44 22.563

94

OOUI‘U’D'U

95

Scatterplot for Ego Level and
Pre-Dogmatism Scores for Experimental Subjects

 

 

210 + l
200 +
- l
l 1
190 + 1
- 1
180 + 1 2
- 2
- 1
- 2
- 1
170 + 2
- 1
- 1
- 2
160 +
150 + 1
- 1
140 +
- 1 1
130
1-3 I-3/4 1—4 1-4/5
EGO LEVEL
N = 25
R = -.450
P = .023
Mean S.D.
RegreSSIon Line RMS X 3.740 0.385

Y: 254.12 - 21.989 X 294.41 Y 171.88 18.811

96

Scatterplot for quyLeve; and
Pre-Affectgye Sensitivity Scale Scores for Control Supjects

 

 

39 +
-1 1
- 1
36 + 1 1
- 2
-1 1
p -
R 33 + 2
E _
A Y 3
[F -
F - 1
30 + 1 1
- 1 1
27 + 1 1
24 + 1
21 +
- 1
1-3 1-3/4 1-4 1-4/5
EGO LEVEL
N = 25
R = .044
P = .836
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 3.8000 0.50000

Y: 30.873 + .43333‘X 25.179 Y 32.520 4.9170

97

Scattggplot for Ego Level and
Pre-Affective Sensitivity Scale Scores for Experimental Subjects

 

 

40 +
- 1
- 1 1
36 + 1
- 3
- 1
P 32 + 2
R _
E: -
A ..
F Y
F - 1
28 + 1 3
- 2
- 1 2
- 1
24 + 1
- 1
20 +
- 1
{-3 1-3/4 1-4 1-4/5
N = 25 EGO LEVEL
R = .059
P = .780 Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 3.7400 .38514

Y= 27.025 + .85955'X 32.345 Y 30.240 5.5773

98

Scatterplot for Ego Level and
Pre-Empathic Communication Scale Scores for Control

 

 

 

Subjects
2.6 +
- 1
2.4 +
2.2 + 1 l
P - 1
R - 1 1
E - l
E ..
M 2.0 +
p ..
- 2 2
1.8 +
- l 1 1
- 1 1
- l
1.6 + l
- l
- l
- l
1.4 + 1
- 1
- 1 l
- 1
Y 1
1.2 +
I-3 I-3/4 1—4 I-4/5
EGO LEVEL
N = 25
R = .790
P < .001
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 3.8000 .50000

Y=-.40537 + .56783‘X .05064 Y 1.7524 .35935

99

Scatterplot for Ego Level and
Pre-Empathic Communication Scale Scores for Experimental

 

 

 

Sub'ects
- 1
2.7
- 1
- 1. 1
2.4 + 2
— 1
_ 1
- 1
- 1
- 1
P ..
R 2.1 +
E -
E - 1
M - 1 1
P - 1 l
- 1
- 1
1.8 +
1 1
- 1 1
_ 1
1.5
- 1
- 1
+
1-3 1-3/4 1-4 1-4/5
EGO LEVEL
N = 25
R = .332
P = .106
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS x 3.7400 .38514

Y: .79935 + .33803*X .14292 Y 2.0636 .39232

OOOHWO'U

Appendix I

Scatterplot for Pre—Dogmatism/Post-ngmatism Scores

200

180

160

140

120

All Subjects

------- +------—+---—--—o—----—-+-———-——+—-—----.—---—--.—----——+---—--+-
O
- 1 1 ..
- l _
- l .—
+ 1 1 .
- 1 Y
- l 1 -
+ 1
- 1 1 1 1 11 -
.. 1 1 .-
_ l -
- 1 1 l -
- 1 _
- l ..
+
- 1 l _
- 1 1 _
Y _
4r
- 1 -

1 1 -
------- +------—+-—---—-+-----—-+-—---——+-------.---———-¢---—---o---—--+-

130 150 170 190 210
140 160 180 200
N = 50
R = .502 PREDOG
P < .001
Mean S.D.

Regression Line RMS X 170.66 20.596
Y a 76.649 +.S7571'X 426.11 Y 174.90 21.622
Predog Versus Postdog ( 6 vs. 7 )

100

OCDOvaU)O'o

101

 

Scatterplot for Pre-DogmatismiPost—Dogmatism Scores

220

200

180

160

120

Experimental Subjects

—¢ ------ o ------ e ------ o ------ o —————— o ------ o ------ + ------ o ------ ¢-——
Q

- l

- l

t 1 l

- 1

- l 1
- l

' 1 1 l 1

-1 1 1
r l

- l

i
p...

Y
t 1
-1
1
- l
-+ ------ e ------ o ------ o ------ + ------ + ------ e ------ + ------ 4 ------ #---
136 152 168 184 200
128 144 160 176 192
N = 25
R = .326 PREDOG
P < .113
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 171.88 18.811
Y = 93.601 0.45892'X 656.07 Y 172.48 26.519

Predog Versus Postdog ( 6 vs. 7 )

 

OCDO'4010'O

102

Scatterplot for Pre-DogmatismAPost-Dogmatism Scores

220

200

180

160

140

120

Control Subjects

- 1 _
. 1
- l 1 l -
- l -
_ l ..
.. 1 -
- l ..
_ 1 l -
- 1 -
.. 1 -
Y ..
-1 -
------- +—------o-—-—---o—------+—------+----—--+---—---+--———--+--—--—-.-

130 150 170 190 210

I40 160 180 200
N = 25
R = .737 PREDOG
P < .001
Mean S.D.

RegreSSIOn Line RMS X 169.44 22.563
Y = 63.375 *.67248'X 202.00 Y 177.32 20.587

Predog Versus Postdog ( 6 vs. 7 )

m’nzaatnCDp

103

Scatterplot for Pre-Affective/Post-Affective Scores

40

36

32

28

24

20

 

All Subjects

----+ ----- o ----- o ----- + ----- + ----- o ----- + ----- e ————— c ----- o ----- o ————— .—
- l 2 1
- 1 l 1
- 1 l
l l
- l 1 I
- 1 l 1 1 1
- l l
. l 1 l 1
- 1 1 l 1 1 1
- 1 1 1
-1 1 1
o 2 1
Y
- l
- 2 1
- 1 1
- 1
l
1

----+ ----- + ----- + ----- o ----- + ----- + ----- o ----- + ----- + ----- o- ----- 9 ----- o--

22 26 30 34 38 12

20 24 28 32 36 40
N = 50
R = .332 PREAFF
P = .018
Mean S.D.

Regression Line RMS X 31.380 5.3295
Y = 25.636 +.31435*X 23.137 Y 35.500 5.0318

Preaff Versus Postaff ( 8 vs. 9 1

 

W'nx-achDp

104
Scatterplot for Pre-AffectiveZPost-Affective Scores

Experimental'Subjects

40 +
- 1 Y
- 1 .-
36
_ 1 -
.. l _
-1 ..
32 2 1
- 1 -
- 2 l -
_ 1 _
Y -
28 .
24 1 .
20 1 -
----+ ----- + ————— + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + —————————— + ----- +—-
22 26 38 42
20 24 28 32 36 40
N = 25
R = .474 PREAFF
P = .016
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 30.240 5.5773
Y = 19.926 +.46276*X 23.998 Y 35.500 5.4461

Preaff Versus Postaff ( 8 vs. 9 )

 

mvi>~im<3p

104

Scatterplot for Pre-AffectiveZPost-Affective Scores
EXperimental_Subjects

40
- l
- 1
- 1 1
36 o 1 1
- 1
- 1
-1 l 1
32 + 2 a 1
- 1
- 2 l
- 1
Y
28 .
24 + 1
20 r 1
----+ ----- + ----- + ----- o ————— o ----- + ----- + ---------- o ---------- o ----- oo-
22 26 30 34 38
20 24 28 32 36 40
N = 25
R = .474 PREAFF
P = .016
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 30.240 5.5773
Y = 19.926 9.46276'X 23.998 Y 35.500 5.4461

Preaff Versus Postaff ( 8 vs. 9 )

 

w'nz-achDt

105

Scatterplot for Pre-AffectiveZPost—Affective Scores
Control Subjects

42 o 1 1

39 + 1
- l l 1 1
Y
36 + 1 1
- 1 1 1 1 l
- I 1 l
33
30
- l
27
- l
---—+ ————— c ————— + ----- + ----- o ----------- + ----- + ----- o ----- o ----- + ————— 6--
22 26 10 34 38
20 24 28 32 36
N = 25
R = .004 l’Rl-IAFF
P = .985
Mean S.D.
Regression Line RMS X 32.520 4.9170
Y = 36.970 9.00338‘X 17.993 Y 17.080 4.1525

Preaff Versus Postaff ( 8 vs. 9 )

"OZWHMO'C

106

Scatterplot for Pre-EmpathiC(Post-Empathic Scores
All Subjects

 

- 1 1 1
- 1 1
2.8 .
- 1 1 11 1
- l
r 1
- 1 l
- 1
2.4 l 1
- 1
- 1 1
2.0
- 1 l
- 1
- 1 l
- 1 l
- 1 1 l
- l 1 1 1
.6 .
- 1 1
Y 1
- 2 1
- 1
---o ------- o ------- o ------- o ------- o ------- o ------- o ------- 4» ------- o -----
1.4 1.8 2.2 2 6
1.2 1.6 2.0 2 4
N = 50
R = .655 PREEMP
P < .001
Mean S.D.
Reqressxon Line RMS X 1.9080 .40416
Y = .3245! +1.0298'X .23520 Y 2.2894 .63532
Preemp Versus Postemp ( 10 vs. 11 l

VZIFJHCDCDV

107
Scatterplot_fpr Pre-EmpathiC(Post-Empathic Scores

 

 

Control Subjects
---9 ------- o ------- e ------- o ------- + ------- + ------- o ------- o ------- + -----
- l
.6 o
- l
.2 o
- 1
- 1 1
- l l l
- 1 1
.8 .
- 1 1 11 1
- 1
- l
- 1 l
- l
- l
.4 ' 1
Y
- 1
.0 .
— l
.6
- 1
—--o ------- o ------- + ------- ¢ ——————— + ------- + ------- + ------- o ------- o -----
1 4 1.8 2.2 2 6
1 2 1 6 2.0 2.4
N = 25
R = .459 PREEMP
P < .020
Mean S.D.
an1e5510n Line RMS X 2.0636 .39232
Y : 1.6176 9.54371*X .17767 Y 2.7396 .46450

quemp Versus Postemp ( 10 vs. 11 )

'ozmr-imo'o

Scatterplot for Pre-EmpathicZPost-Empathic Scores

108

 

Experimental Subjects

.‘Q---§----§----fi----§----+----‘——--§----§----+—-—— §—-_- §——-—§----§----§-

O

l

- Y
+
- l -
+ 1
- 1 ..
_ 1 1 -
1 1 l

_ 1 l ..
_ 1 -
- 1 1 1 1 l -
- 1 1 -

1 1 1 -
Y 1 -
-¢----+----+----+----+----+-—--o----+----+---—+-—--.----¢----+-—--+----+-

1 35 1 53 1 71 1 89 2.07 25 43
1.26 1 44 1.62 l 80 1.98 16 .34 .52
N = 25
R = .734 PREEMP
P < .001

Mean S.D.

RegreSSIOn Line RMS X 1.7524 .35935
Y = .29477 +.88132*X .08949 Y 1.8392 .43135

Preemp - Versus Postemp ( 10 vs.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J.,
Sanford,R.N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New
York: Harper. 2 vols. New York: Wiley, Science Editions,
1964.

 

Albert, D.J. (1981). The effects of high and low dogmatism
on counselor training. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Eugene: University of Oregon.

Arbuckle, D.S. (1970). Counseling: Philosophy, Theory, and
Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

 

 

Arnold, J.D., & Schick, C. (1979). Counseling by Clergy: A
review of empirical research. Journal of Pastoral
Counseling. 14,(2), Fall-Winter, 76-100.

 

 

Authier, J., & Gustafson, K. (1970). The application of
supervised and nonsupervised microcounseling paradigms in
the training of registered and licensed practical nurses.
Journal of Consulting and Clincial Psychology, 44,
704-709.

 

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement
of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
28, 91-100.

 

Bergin, A.E. (1980). Psychotherapy and religious values.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, no.1,
95-105.

 

Bergin, A.E. & Strupp, H.H. (1972). Changing Frontiers in
the Science of Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

 

 

Bergin, A.E. & Suinn, R.M. (1975). Individual psychotherapy
and behavior therapy. In M.R. Rosenzweig & L.R. Porter
(Eds.) Annual review of Psychology. Palo Alto: Annual
Reviews.

Browning, D.L. (1980). Jane Loevinger's conception of ego
development and authoritarian attitudes, opinions, and
values: A construct validity study. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York: New York University.

109

 

110

Candee, D. (1974). Ego developmental aspects of new left
ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
30, 620-630.

 

Caracena, P.F. & Vicory, J.F. (1969). Correlates of
phenomenological and judged empathy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 16, 510-515.

 

 

Carkhuff, R.R. (1969a). Helping and human relations: A
primer for lay and professional helpers: selection and
training, Vol. 1, New YorK: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.

 

 

Carkhuff, R.R. (1969b). Helping and human relations: A
primer for layyand professional helpers: practice and
research. Vol. 2, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc.

 

 

Carkhuff, R.R. & Berenson, B. (1967). Beyond Counseling and
Therapy. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

 

Carlozzi, A.F., Campbell, N.J., & Ward, G.R. (1982).
Dogmatism and externality in locus of control as related
to counselor trainee skill in facilitative responding.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 21(3), 227-236.

 

Carlozzi, A.F., Gaa, J. P., & Liberman, D.B. ( 1983).
Empathy and ego development. Journal of Counseling
Psychology. 30,(1), 113—116.

 

 

Cavanaugh, J.R. (1962). The chaplain as a counselor;
Directive or nondirective. Bulletin of Guidance for
Catholic Psychiatrists, 9, 234-244.

 

 

Cheung, F.K. (1973). An investigation of the relation of
counselor trainees' counseling effectiveness with scores
on the rokeach dogmatism scale. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Saint Lewis: Saint Lewis University.

Chinsky, J.M. & Rappaport, J. (1970). Brief critique of the
meaning and reliability of "accurate empathy" ratings.
Psychological Bulletin, 73, 379-382.

 

Dittes, J.E. (1971). Religion, prejudice and personlity.
(Ed.) Strommen, M.P. Research on Religious Development.
New York: Hawthorn Books.

 

Ehrlich, H.J. & Lee, D. L. (1969). Dogmatism, learning and
resistance to change: A review and a new paradigm.
Psyghological Bulletin, 7(4), 249-260.

 

Feather, N.T. (1967). Evaluation of religious and neutral
arguments in religious and atheist student groups.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 45-56.

 

 

 

111

Feather, N.T. (1979). Value correlates of conservatism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9),
1617-1630.

 

Foulds, M.L. (1967). An investigation of the relationship
between therapeutic conditions and a measure of
self-actualization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Gainesville: University of Florida.

Foulds, M.L. (1971). Dogmatism and ability to communicate
facilitative conditions during counseling. Counselor
Education and Supervision. 12,(3), 110-114.

Genthner, R.W. & Falkenberg, V. (1977). Changes in personal
responsibility as a function of interpersonal skills
training. Small Group Behavior, 8, 533-539.

 

 

 

Gladstein, G.A. (1970). Is empathy important in counseling?
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 48, 823-827,

 

Gladstein, G.A. (1977). Empathy and counseling outcome: An
empirical and conceptual review. Counseling
Psychologist, 6, 70-79.

 

 

Gladstein, G.A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating
counseling, developmental, and social psychology

perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30,(4),
467-482.

 

Guerney, B., Stover, L., & Demeritt, S. (1968). A
measurement of empathy in parent-child interaction.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 112, 49-55.

 

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Americans View
their health. New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Hackney, H. (1978). The evolution of empathy. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 57, 14-18.

 

 

Hearn, M. (1976). Three modes of training counsellors: A
comparative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
London Ontario, University of Western Ontario.

Heikkinen, C. & German, S. (1975). Change of counselor
attitudes: Complications due to closed-mindedness.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 22,(2), 170-172.

 

Holt, R.R. (1974). Review of "measuring ego development,
Volumes I and II." Journal of Nervous and Mental

Disease, 158, 310-316.

Holt, R.R. (1980). Loevinger's measure of ego development:
Reliability and national norms for male and female short
forms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(5), 909-920.

112

Hoppe, C. (1972). Ego development and conformity behavior.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Saint Lewis:
Washington University.

Ivey, A.E. & Authier, J. (1978). Microcounseling:
Innovations in counseling, psychotherapy, and
psychoeducation, 2nd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles
C. Thomas.

 

 

 

Ivey, A., & Gluchkstern, N. (1974). Basic attending skills:

 

Leader and participant manuals. North Amherst:
Microtraining Press.

 

Joe, V.C., Jones, R.N. & Miller, P. M. (1981). Value
pattern of a conservative. Personality and Individual
Differences, 2, 25-29.

 

 

Jordan, K.S. (1978). Relationships between counselor
dogmatism and counseling effectiveness during early and
later stages of counseling training. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

Kagan, N. et al. (1967). Studies in human interaction:
Inter- personal process recall stimulated by video-tape.
East Lansing Mich.: Education Publication Services.

 

 

Kagan, N. (1975). Interpersonal process recall: A method of
influencing human interaction (rev ed. East Lansing, Mi:
Mason Media.

 

Kemp, C.G. (1962). Influence of dogmatism on the training of
counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 9,(2),
155-157.

 

Kriesel, H. T. (1975). The teaching of basic counseling
skills to the theology students: A comparison, within a
values context of the microcounseling paradigm with the
skills practice approach. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, School of Theology at Claremont.

Kriesel, H.T. (1977). Training in basic pastoral counseling
skills: A comparison of a microtraining approach with a
skills practice approach. Journal of Pastoral Care, 31,
125-133.

 

Kurtz, R.R. & Grummon, D.C. (1972). Different approaches to
the measurement of therapist empathy and their
relationship to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 39, 106-115.

 

Lambert, H. (1972). Comparison of cognitive developmental
theories of ego and moral development. Proceeding of
the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, 7, 115.

 

 

 

113

Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement of ego
development. American Psychologist, 21, 195-206.

Loevinger, J. (1980). Some thoughts on ego development and
counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 58(5),
389-390.

Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970) Measuring ego
development (Vol 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970)” Measuring ego
development (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

 

Malamud, D. (1971). The second chance family: A medium for
self directed growth. In L. Blank, G. Gottsegen, & M.
Gottsegen (eds.), Encounter: Confrontations in self and
interpersonal awareness. New York: Macmillan.

 

McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1980). Openness to experience
and ego level in Loevinger's sentence completion test:
Dispositional contributions to developmental models of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 39,(6), 1179-1190.

Mcintyre, T.J. (1985). Ego development and counseling: The
effects of counselors' and clients' ego development
levels upon the expressed empathy and preferences of
counselors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

Messano, J. (1969). A note on dogmatism and counselor
effectiveness. Counselor Education and Supervision. 9,
155-157.

 

Millikin, R.L. & Patterson, J.J. (1967). Relationship of
dogmatism and prejudice to counseling effectiveness.
Counselor Education and Supervision. 6,(1), 125-129.

Montgomery, A.G., & Jordan, K. (1977). Non-intellective
factors and counselor trainee skill attainment.
Unpublished manuscript. (Available from 332 Juniper
Street, Carlisle, Penn. 17013.

 

Mullen, J. & Abeles, N. (1972). Relationship of liking,
empathy and therapist's experience to outcome of therapy.
In Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 256-260.

Musser, B.L. (1982. Empathy training of seminarians: A
comparison of three variations of microtraining.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, La Mirada: Rosemead
School of Psychology.

114

North, T.J. (1977). The relationship of selected personality
variables to outcome of structured facilitative skills
training, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bloomington:
Indiana State University.

Oates, W.E. (1959). An introduction to pastoral counseling.
Nashville: Broadman Press.

 

Orlando, N. (1974). The mental patient as therapeutic
agent: Self-change, power, and caring. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 58-62.

 

 

Patterson, C.H. (1967). Effects of counselor on
personality. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14,
444-458.

 

Pereira, G. (1978). Teaching empathy through skill-building
versus anxiety reduction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Ann Arbor, Catholic University.

Plant, W.T., Telford, C.W., & Thomas, J.A. (1965). Some
personality differences between dogmatic and nondogmatic
groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 67, 67-75.

 

Rappaport, J. & Chinsky, J.M. (1972). Accurate empathy:
Confusion of a construct. Psychological Bulletin, 77,
500-504.

 

Redmore, C.D., & Waldman, K. (1975). Reliability of a
sentence completion measure of ego development. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 39, 236-243.

 

 

Richer, H. & Reid, B. (1971). Religious authoritarianism
and psychopathology in college students. Psychiatric
Quarterly. 45,(3), 363-371.

 

 

Roebuck, R.E. (1981). The relationship between level of ego
development and dogmatism in women. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Boston: Boston College.

Rogers, C.R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions
of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting
Psychology. 21, 95-103.

 

 

Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and
interpersonal relationships as developed in the
client-centered framework. in S. Koch (ed.) Psychology: A
study of a science. Study I Conceptual and systematic.
Vol. 3 Formualtions of the person and the social context.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 184-256.

 

 

Rogers, C.R. (1975). Empathic: an unappreciated way of
being. Counseling Psychologist, 5,(2), 2-9.

 

 

115

Roebuck, R.E. (1981). The relationship between level of ego
development and dogmatism in women. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Boston: Boston College.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York:
Basic.

 

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York:
Free Press.

 

Schneider, J. (1983). The measurement of affective
sensitivity: The development of an instrument.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.,

Stanley, G. (1964). Personality and attitude correlates of
religious conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion. 4, 60-63.

 

 

Stokes, J.P., & Tait, R.C. (1978). Comparability of written
and oral measures in evaluation counselor training.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 17(3), 222-229.

 

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

 

Tausch, R., Sander, K., Bastine, R., & Friese, H. (1970).
Variablen und Ergebnisse bei client-centered
Psychotherapie mit alternierenden Psychotherapeuten.
Psychologische Rundschau, 21, 29-38.

 

Therrien, M., & Fischer, J. (1978). Written indicators of
empathy in human-relations training: A validational
study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 17(4),
272-277.

 

Tosi, D.J. (1970). Dogmatism within the counselor-client
dyad. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 17(3), 345-352.

 

Toukmanian, S.G. & Rennie, D.L. (1975). Microcounseling
versus human relations training: Relative effectiveness
with undergraduate trainees. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 22, 345-352.

 

Truax, C.B. (1961). A scale for the measurement of accurate
empathy. Psychiatric Institute Bulletin, Wisconsin
Psychiatric Institute, University of Wisconsin, 1, issue
no. 12.

 

Truax, C.B. (1963). Effective ingredients in psychotherapy:
an approach to unraveling the patient-therapist
interaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10,
256-263.

 

 

116

Truax, C.B. (1970). A tentative scale for measurement of
accurate empathy (rev) Unpublished paper, University of
Calgary.

Truax, C.B. & Carkhuff, R.R. (1967). Toward effective
counseling and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Co.

 

 

Vacchiano, R.B., Strauss, P.S., & Hochman, L. (1969).
The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism.
Psychological Bulletin, 71(4), 261-273.

 

Virkler, H.A. (1979). Counseling demands, procedures, and
preparation of parish ministers: A descriptive study.
Journal of Psychology and Theology. 7, (4), 271-280.

 

Virkler, H.A. (1980). The facilitativeness of parish
ministers: A descriptive study. Journal of Psychology
and Theology. 2, (2), 140-146.

 

Walker, B. (1971). Effects of short-term group counseling
on changes in attitudes of flexibility, tolerance, and
nonauthoritarianism. Unpublished doctoral disertation,
Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Weima, J. (1965). Authoritarianism, religious conservatism,
and sociocentric attitudes in Roman Catholic groups.
Human Relations, 18, 231-239.

 

Zielinski, L.E. (1973). Stage of ego development as a
correlate of ability in discrimination and communication
of empathic understanding. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Houston: University of Houston.

 

"I111111111111111111[S