R DE C Tl PAN - sEN N} :AFF-Ecj-NE RTE-EBA , : MOTIVATION h. P .m e VG‘ROUMA-RTICI; D‘egré the: R1_‘ITY”_ u‘mvE _ , I. 7".y. :: EVEN {SI-TATE? n ..;.T_ .2: m. .u... . may}... ‘ _.¢~.’. (J. , .. «r... 4.5, 23 h wAleN F .7771. .. 4..ng 15.1w :. / . C A . . :r...N... . s: . . .. a .. mm .m._.._.,n.. m mm ,8... EM.“ . . .L .rNr. (NWEGFC . Bull. ..: 74 n»? . . , II. II. D N 0. In M .. . «mewnmim . .. . E. . R .M, H. . .. . Thesis L 1.3 R A R Y ~ Michigan Sta .0 ‘ University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE INFLUENCE OF LEADER EMPATHY (AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY) , PARTICIPANT‘ MOTIVATION TO CHANGE AND LEADER-PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP ON CHANGES IN AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY OF T-GROUP PARTICIPANTS presented by Steven J. Danish has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education / " ,. ., £4 15,, (ii/($1434.? VL; r M ’ Date 8‘///;- 9 / / 0-169 THE INFLUENCE OF LEADER EMPATHY (AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY), PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION TO CHANGE AND LEADER-PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP ON CHANGES IN AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY OF T-GROUP PARTICIPANTS By Steven J. Danish AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology College of Education 1969 ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF LEADER EMPATHY (AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY), PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION TO CHANGE AND LEADER-PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP ON CHANGES IN AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY OF T-GROUP PARTICIPANTS by Steven J. Danish Researchers in counseling have attempted to delineate counselor characteristics which contribute to successful counseling outcomes. Some research has also been conducted to discover either client char- acteristics or counselor-client relationship factors which contribute to successful counseling outcomes. However, research which takes into account the effect of all three variables in combination is sparce. These variables deemed essential for effective counseling would seem to be prerequisite for other kinds of interpersonal encounters such as T-groups. Considerable attention has been given to the value of T-groups as an aid in increasing interpersonal effectiveness. Little research, however, has been directed toward determining the influence of these variables in T-group outcomes either independently or in com- bination. The study was designed to determine: (1) the effects of the trainer's level of empathy (affective sensitivity) on the changes in empathy (affective sensitivity) of participants in a ten-day T-group; (2) the effects of the participant's perception of the qualit of his y 2 Steven J. Danish relationship with the trainer and the participant's motivation to change as factors which may also effect changes in empathy (affective sensitivity); and (3) the relationship between changes in participant's empathy and the combination of trainer empathy, participant's motivation to change and the quality of the trainer-participant relationship. In order to test these hypotheses the Affective Sensitivity Scale was administered to 50 participants and 10 trainers during the first and last days of a ten-day T-group. A non-equivalent control group of 20 who were motivated to attend but who were not participating in a T—group also took the Affective Sensitivity Scale twice during a ten— day period. The T-group participants were also administered the Rpkeach Dogmatism Scale, operationalized as a measure of participants' motivation to change, during the first day of the T-group and the Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale on the last day of the T-group. During the T—group lab the 50 participants were divided into 5 training groups with lO participants and 2 trainers per group. The data analyses included: 3 tests, a one—way analysis of vari- ance, Pearson r's and a multiple R. Since there were two trainers per group, four trainer combinations were considered in several of the analyses. They were: the trainer with the highest A. S. S. score of the two trainers, the mean of the two trainers, the individual designated as trainer as Opposed to co-trainer by the staff, and the most signif- icant of the two trainers as rated by the subject's WROS ratings. The findings of the study indicated that changes in the partici- pants' A. S. S. scores were not a function of the trainer's initial A. S. S. score. Nor were these changes effected by the participants' motivation 3 Steven J. Danish to change or the quality of the trainer-participant relationship. However, changes in the participants' A.S.S. scores were related to the combination of the most significant trainer's initial A.S.S., the participant's motivation to change and the quality of the trainer- participant relationship. Furthermore, deletion of the R.D.S. score did not greatly reduce the accuracy of prediction. Therefore, the combination of the most significant trainer's initial A.S.S. score and the WROS rating given him were the best predictors of changes in A.S.S. scores made by the participants. THE INFLUENCE OF LEADER EMPATHY (AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY), PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION TO CHANGE AND LEADER-PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP ON CHANGES IN AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY OF T-GROUP PARTICIPANTS By “E Steven J} Danish A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology College of Education 1969 _. ”:q ’x‘ /" 14a“ * ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer is grateful to the many people who had a part in making this dissertation possible. Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Bob Winborn for his help and direction in completing the dissertation. Dr. John Suehr, Dr. Terence Buck and Dr. Bertram Karon also deserve special thanks. For their friendship, support and sug- gestions the writer is indebted to Roger Bauer, Dave Erb, Paul Schauble, Art Resnikoff, Bob Graff, Vince Harren, Don Beggs, Clay Ladd, Don MacLean, Brian Austin and Annette Brodsky. Finally, the writer acknowledges the help, friendship and guidance of Dr. Norman Kagan during the past three years of doctoral study. This work is dedicated to my wife, Carole, and my sons, Kyle and Christopher, for the love, understanding and joy they have given me. S. J. D. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Significance of the Problem Definition of Terms Basic Assumptions and Limitations Overview CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The Rationale of the T-group Method Goals Conditions or Assumptions Research in T-groups The Rationale for Affective Sensitivity as a Criterion Measure Factors Which Affect Change in Helping Relationships Leader Empathy Leader-Participant Relationship Participant Dogmatism or Motivation to Change The Interaction of Leader Empathy, Participant Characteristics and Leader-Participant Relationship Summary CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES General Description Participants of the Study EXperimental and Control Groups Procedure for Gathering the Data Instrumentation Hypotheses Treatment of the Data Summary iii ii vi \Im-wav—I 00000000 22 23 24 24 24 25 26 27 31 34 36 CHAPTER IV CHAPTER V BIBLIOGRAPHY iv ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Null Hypothesis Null Hypothesis Null Hypothesis Null Hypothesis Null Hypothesis Null Hypothesis omwaI—I SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 38 38 39 42 42 44 44 51 61 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. LIST OF TABLES The 5 test of differences (pre—test minus post-test) of participant's A.S.S. changes by the four variations of trainer's initial A.S.S. scores. The £_tests between the experimental group subjects whose A.S.S. scores are above and below the mean of their respective, designated trainer and the control group subjects whose A.S.S. scores are above and below the mean of all trainers. Pearson r between the pre-post change scores of the subjects and the initial A.S.S. score for the four trainer variations. A‘E test of changes in A.S.S. score between subjects scoring in the upper and lower thirds on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS). A one-way analysis of variance between the WROS rating for the most significant trainer and the A.S.S. change scores for the subjects. Multiple linear regression for the initial A.S.S. for the four-trainer variation, the subject's RDS score, the WROS ratings given, the trainer variations with the A.S.S. change scores. Multiple regression analysis for the predictors of A.S.S. change scores. 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: LIST OF APPENDICES The Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form C) The Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Form B) vi 68 82 83 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the last few years counseling researchers have attempted to specify variables which are essential to effective counseling. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) have postulated that client improvement is deter- mined by the counselor's skill in providing certain conditions which facilitate or retard constructive personality changes during counsel- ing and psychotherapy. Truax and Carkhuff posit that the counselor's interpersonal skill in providing basic therapeutic conditions is the most important. Three such therapeutic conditions are defined: accurate and empathic understanding, non-possessive warmth, and genuineness. These conditions, according to Truax (1966), have wide acceptance as essential conditions across many theoretical positions. Despite Carkhuff's contention that reSponsibility for change in human interactions rests more with the counselor's ability to provide the essential conditions than with client variables or relationship variables (Carkhuff, 1968), prior research has emphasized the impor- tance of other variables. For example, changes in clients may be affected by the clients' perception of the quality of the relationship between counselor and client. The relationship is seen as an important variable in effective counseling regardless of orientation (Rogers, 1961; Patterson, 1968; Ullman and Krasner, 1964; Truax and Carkhuff, 1964, 1967). Blocker (1968) and Kiesler (1966) have suggested that the role of client variables in counseling has generally been overlooked. One such variable is the client's motivation to change. Research by Adorno 535.31. (1950) and Rokeach (1960) has delineated personality styles which react differently to new experiences. Two styles are differentiated by the person's ability to incorporate new information into his system (Rokeach, 1960). The flexible individual is accessible to new infor- mation, evaluating it from internal sources and resisting external pressures to conform. On the other hand, the rigid individual is more resistent to new information, evaluating it in terms of its sources rather than its values. Because of the preceived threat of the new information or experience, a rigid person will be extremely resistent to change. Three sets of variables, then, have been identified as important in the counseling relationship, both in one to one and group counsel- ing. These are: (1) the perceived relationship between client and counselors, (2) client variables, i.e. the client's motivation to change and (3) counselor variables, i.e. the counselor's skill in providing accurate empathic understanding, non-possessive warmth and genuineness. These variables deemed essential for effective counseling would seem to be prerequisite for other kinds of interpersonal encounters. Sensitivity training is such an encounter (Bradford g£,§l., 1964). Many of the activities of a sensitivity training laboratory, often called a T-group, are designed to help the individual become more interpersonally effective. Considerable attention has been given in recent years to the value of T-groups as a means of increasing interpersonal effectiveness. Little research, however, has been directed toward determing the influence of leader, participant and relationship variables. This study focuses on these three aspects. Statement of the Problem The major purpose of this investigation is to study the effects of the trainer's level of affective sensitivity on the changes in affective sensitivity of the participants of a ten-day T-group eXperi- ence. A secondary purpose is to study the effects of the participant's perceived relationship with the trainer and the participant's motiva- tion to change as factors which also may effect changes in affective sensitivity. Specifically, the major hypothesis is based upon the assumption that participant's affective sensitivity will vary as a direct function of the degree of affective sensitivity of their respective trainers. Two secondary hypotheses are: (1) Changes in affective sensi- tivity will be effected by the participant's motivation to change. (2) Changes in affective sensitivity will be effected by the participant's perceived quality of the relationship. Significance of the Problem The following section includes three primary reasons for con- ducting the investigation: 1. Truax (1966) has summarized a number of studies which support the thesis that when the Counselor's level of accurate empathy non-possessive warmth and genuineness are high the client improves. Carkhuff and Truax (1966) have extended their contentions that the conditions of accurate empathy, non- possessive warmth and genuineness are important not only in counseling but in other interpersonal learning situations such as teaching and parenthood. The present study provides an opportunity to investigate the effects of one of these conditions, empathy, as it relates to changes in a T-group. 2. Some research has failed to support the finding of Truax and Carkhuff. Resnikoff (1968) and Tosi (1968) both found that client and relationship variables influenced changes clients made deSpite the high level of facilitating conditions pro- vided by the counselor. For example, regardless of the level of facilitating conditions some clients perceived these levels inaccurately and did not change. The; present investigation attempts to assess the importance of client and relationship variables as it relates to change in T-groups. 3. In a prior study (Danish g£n§1., 1969) a number of questions emerged about the process of change among group members. By examining the number of different variables, i.e. leader vari- ables, relationship variables, and participant variables some of these questions about the process of change may be answered and a better understanding of the T-group process will result. Definition of Terms Sensitivity Training--A process designed to increase one's under- standing of the emotions of others, one's own emotions and one's impact on others. The process tries to create a climate encouraging learning, understanding, insights and skills in the areas of self and group. T-GrouE--The method by which these goals are achieved. It is a group formed for individual learning purposes which creates through group interactions the data by which the individual group member learns and better understands the areas of self and group. Trainer--The leader of a T-group who helps facilitate learning, understanding, and self-eXploration of the individual group members. Participants--The individual group member who seek sensitivity training not for relief of debilitating problems but who want to in- crease his capacity to understand and deal effectively with the areas of self and group. Affective Sensitivity--That trait or characteristic which is measured by the Aiffisiixs.fifin§i£ixiixiSsals (Form C). It is defined as "the ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another, or in terms of communication theory, the ability to receive and decode affective communication” (Kagan g£.§l., 1967). Participant Motivation to Change--That trait or characteristic which is defined by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Leader-Participant Relationship--The extent to which the partici- pant is willing to be self-disclosing to the trainer. This construct is measured by the Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale. Basic Assumptions and Limitations It is assumed that the instruments used in this study are accurately measuring the constructs defined. For example, it is assumed that the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale provides a measure of client motivation, that the Affective Sensitivity Scale measures affective sensitivity and that the Wisconsin Rela- tionship Orientation Scale accurately assesses the relation- ship between leader and participant. The concept of accurate empathy has been used in the studies of Truax and Carkhuff as one of the necessary leader variables. Although the concept of affective sensitivity which is used in this study is a somewhat different concept than empathy, it is assumed that enough overlap exists between the two concepts and the two instruments measuring these concepts to make af- fective sensitivity a viable leadership variable. The study is limited in that it was conducted in the natural setting of a T-group rather than in a controlled environment. Since participants of the T-group chose to participate, they are in no way a random sample and the results of the study can be generalized only to this sample. The study is further limited to the variables which have been investigated. For example, leader variables besides affective sensitivity might have been investigated. Some of these are: non-possessive warmth, genuineness, flexibility, and intelli- gence. Also, participant variables such as participant's demographic data or pathology might have been examined instead of participant's motivation to change. Finally, other criteria besides changes in affective sensitivity might have been explored as criterion measures. 5. The T-group was limited to a ten-day experience. This short experience may be considered a limitation. It is suggested that further research using an ongoing T-group be conducted to test the effect of these independent variables upon changes in participants as a result of sensitivity training. Overview This chapter, has dealt with the need for, and the purpose of the study, and has provided a background of theory and a broad research hypothesis. Chapter II will contain previous research relevant to the problem under study in this research. Chapter III will contain a description of the sample of subjects, the research design, the meth- odology, and the instrumentation. In Chapter IV, results will be reported and interpreted. Chapter V will contain a discussion of the results, conclusions, and implications for the further use of the operational measures in counseling and sensitivity training. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The review of the literature has been divided into three primary parts. The first part consists of a description and rationale of the T-group method. The second part presents a rationale for the use of affective sensitivity as a criterion measure. The third part consists of a review of studies dealing with the relationship between leader empathy, leader-participant relationship, and participant's motivation to change and changes made by participants in different helping re- lationships. The Rationale of the T-group Mechod The section includes a discussion of the goals, assumptions, and research about T-group. ‘§2§l§--The T-group or laboratory method of learning was first established in 1947 in Bethel, Maine, and was designed to help each individual to realize more fully his own potential for growth and to increase his ability to work effectively with others in a variety of situations (National Training Lab, 1967). The training laboratory tries to create a climate that encourages the individual to develop a greater degree of self—understanding about his behavior as he interacts with others in a group. The data for the group is created within the group experience itself (National Training Lab, 1967). The distinction should be drawn between traditional group therapy and T-groups. The focus of traditional group therapy has been on in- dividuals who have debilitating problems. The leader in such a group has a therapeutic function. T-groups, on the other hand, are designed for individuals who are functioning normally but want to improve their capacity for living within their own sets of relationship. The leader of this type of group has a facilitative function (Spivack, 1968). Most T-group eXperiences focus on improving a person's sensitivity to social phenomena, increasing his perception of difficulties eXperienced in interpersonal and group situations and improving his ability to act effectively and satisfyingly in harmony with others (Miles, 1960). The goal of T-groups is exploration and the orientation is self- education, rather than amelioration of psychopathology (Stoller, 1967). Although there are numerous views on what constitutes sensitivity training, the following factors (Campbell and Dunnette, 1968; Spivack, 1968; Bradford g£,§l,, 1964) summarize the four basic broad objectives of the eXperience. 1. Increased self-insight or self-awareness concerning one's own behavior and its meaning in a social context. This refers to understanding one's impact on others and to gain insight into why one acts the way he does in certain situations. 2. Better understanding of group processes and increased skills in achieving group effectiveness. If the experience is to be really meaningful, a person should be able to implement some of these learnings in the larger social system. 3. Greater awareness of the dynamics of change. In essence, this 10 involves the process of learning how one learns. A person is encouraged to develop the ability to continually analyze his own personal behavior in order to achieve more satisfactory interpersonal behaviors. 4. Greater sensitivity to the behavior of others. An individual is taught to be more reSponsive to all emitted communicative stimuli, both verbal and non-verbal. Therefore, he should be better able to correctly infer what another is feeling--to be more empathic. Conditions or Assumptions-~The following requisite conditions are among those seen as necessary for assisting individuals to attain more effective interpersonal behaviors. 1. Self-Disclosure--the disclosure of self on which to base change. 2. Feedback--the reception of information regarding oneself from others' viewpoint. 3. Atmosphere--trust and non-defensiveness. 4. Experimentation-~an opportunity to try out new patterns of behavior. 5. Practice--practice of these new patterns to gain confidence and security. 6. Application--learning and change applied to outside situations (National Training Lab, 1967). Research in T-groups--Because of the difficulty in establishing a rigorous experimental design, research in T-groups has,until recently, been Sparse. The following will be a brief summary of some of the 11 relevant issues and findings concerning T-groups. One of the significant questions which critics of T-groups have raised is the effect of the experience on the participant behavior following the T-group. Campbell and Dunnette (1968) reviewed some 44 studies relevant to T-groups. They concluded that T-group training does induce changes among its participants following the laboratory as perceived by peers, subordinates and supervisors (Boyd and Elliss, 1962; Bunker, 1965; Miles, 1965). However, it has been difficult to Specify the nature of change and some researchers (Bunker, 1965) have suggested that the nature of change is unique to the individual. Con- sequently, it is impossible to construct a lab experience which induces specific behavior change since no external dependent variable can be determined. Other studies have focused on internal criteria of change. For example, studies have focused on changes in self-perception (Burke and Bennis, 1961; Gassner, g£,al., 1964), personality changes as measured by the E scale (Kernan, 1964) and attitude change (Baumgartel and Goldstein, 1967; Miner, 1965). Campbell and Dunnette question whether T-groups lead to any significant internal changes and if these internal changes are related to Specific goals of the T-group. One area of internal change that has been investigated which is particularly rel- evant to this study is the changes in sensitivity and accuracy of interpersonal perception associated with T-groups. Two studies directly relevant to the "interpersonal sensitivitY"‘I of T-group participants attempted to assess whether T-group members would be better able to predict the behavior of their fellow participants 12 following a T-group experience (Bennis, 33221., 1957) or their fellow participants responses to a questionnaire (Gage and Exline, 1953). Both Studies yielded negative results. Neither group demonstrated any significant increase in interpersonal sensitivity. Campbell and Dunnette (1968) also report that although T-group participants tend to describe other people and Situations in more interpersonal terms fol- lowing T-group experience, this may be a function of the acquisition of a new vocabulary rather than increased sensitization to interpersonal events. Contrary to the negative results discussed by Campbell and Dunnette, (1968) in investigations of changes in interpersonal sensitivity, a study by Danish gt.§l., (1969) concluded that changes in affective sensitivity did result following a T-group experience. The Affective Sensitivity Scale was administered to participants prior to and just following a ten-day T-group eXperience. Significant changes on the instrument were found for the group as a whole following the T-group experience. There are several possible explanations for these contradictory findings. One possibility is that the .quality of treatment (in this case, the T-group experience) differed in its impact among the subjects included in the different studies. Another alternative is the manner in which empathy has been operationalized. In a recent review of the literature on empathy Campbell (1967) noted that this construct has been defined in a number of ways and Operationalized as a measure in even more ways. If the evidence concerning changes in empathy fol- lowing a T-group were unequivocal because of the variety of definitions 13 of empathy, then a summary of the literature on empathy is in order. The Rationale for Affective Sensitivity as a Criterion Measure Affective sensitivity was chosen as a criterion measure for this investigation for two major reasons: (1) as a construct it is most congruent to the stated goals of T-groups; and (2) the instrument measuring the concept is most parsimonious and consistent with theo- retical concepts of empathy. Affective sensitivity has been defined as "the ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another...(Kagan, Krathwohl, and Farquhar, 1965). The construct is more restricted than the larger concept of empathy Since its focus is on the immediate affective state of another. Empathy has primarily been conceptualized in broader terms as "putting yourself in the other person's position... anticipating his feelings, reactions and behavior" (Speroff, 1953). This broader concept of empathy involves taking the role of another and predicting his behavior. Buchheimer (1965) has questioned whether this is a diagnostic ability rather than empathy. Because one of the goals of sensitivity training is developing interpersonal sensitivity among its members, the more restricted trait of affective sensitivity which focuses on the immediate affective state of another seems a more apprOpriate criterion than the construct of empathy which is larger in scepe. Previous research has pursued the measurement of empathy in two basic ways: predictive tests and situational tests. Predictive meas- ures have generally followed the form of Dymond's (1949) test. A 14 person, for example, attempts to empathize with another and to rate the other person's reSponse to the Allport-Lindsey Study 2: Values. Empathy then is measured by assessing the degree of Similarity be- tween an individual's rating of others known to him and the other's actual rating. It is this approach that Bennis 23.31., (1957) and Cage and Exline (1953) investigated in their T-group studies which were reported earlier and in which no significant changes in empathy were found. Campbell (1967) has been critical of the instruments measuring empathy by means of the predictive approach and contends that such procedures have failed to produce a reliable or valid instrument. A second approach to measuring empathy has been defined as situational. This approach provides some type of real-life or sim- ulated real-life situations involving combinations of stimuli to which the subject can attempt to respond empathically (Campbell, 1967). Situational tests employing typescripts and audiotapes (Stefflre, 1962; O'Hern and Arbuckle, 1964) and audio visual stimuli (Buchheimer, g£2§1., 1965; Rand, 1966) have been developed. Campbell (1967) supports this approach of measuring empathy as possessing more promise of isolating relevant components of the empathic process and producing instruments more consistent with the theoretical concepts of empathy. The.Affective Sensitivity Scale (A.S.S.) is a videotape situa- tional test operationalizing the construct of affective sensitivity. 1A c0py of the instrument appears in Appendix A and reliability and validity data appear in Chapter III. 15 Danish e£.gl., (1969) found that participants involved in a ten-day T-group had increased A.S.S. scores following the T-group. These data provide some indication that the A.S.S. does respond to changes in affective sensitivity when associated with experiences designed to increase an individual's sensitivity to others. As a part of the same study it was concluded that changes in affective sensitivity would not take place as a result of mere passage of time or a placebo treatment. A control group was administered the A.S.S. twice in a ten-day spam with an intervening placebo treatment. No significant changes in A.S.S. occured during the ten days for the control group. Thus, the rationale for using the Affective Sepsitivity Sgalg as a criterion measure for the present investigation is two fold: the A.S.S. is consistent with the theoretical and instrumentation consid- erations of empathy, and the scale has been shown to be sensitive to changes made by T-group participants. Factors Which Affect Change in Helping Relationships The section includes a review of research relating to the rela- tionship between leader empathy, leader—participant relationship and participants‘ motivation to change and changes made by participants in different helping relationships. Leader Empathy--The section includes a review of studies relating the effect of the empathy of the professional (counselor, therapist, T-group leader, teacher) on changes in the non-professional (client, patient, T-group participant, student). Truax (1961) has compared the level of accurate empathy provided 16 four hosPitalized patients who Showed clear improvement on a variety of personality tests and four who showed clear deterioration on these tests after six months of intensive psychotherapy. The findings in- dicated that the therapists of test-improved patients were rated consistently higher on accurate empathy as measured by the IIEEE Accurate Empathy Scale (AE) than were the therapists with test- deteriorated cases (p. (.01). The initial finding relating empathy to therapy outcome was validated in a later study (Truax, 1963) involving 14 schiZOphrenia patients seen in intensive psychotherapy for periods ranging from Six months to four and one-half years. Therapists of improved patients were rated significantly higher on AE (p. (.01) than therapists of deteriorated patients. A number of studies presented by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) have reported Significant differences in various outcome criteria in favor of counselors with high levels of accurate empathy, non-possessive warmth and genuineness in both individual and group counseling. How- ever, when these three conditions were analyzed separately the data suggests that accurate empathy is the least important of the variables and sometimes did not show significant differences by itself. One research investigation (Underhill, 1968) used the Affective Sensitivity Scale (A.S.S.) to measure the relationship between super- vising teacher affective sensitivity and changes in student teacher affective sensitivity. The A.S.S. was administered to 44 student teachers and their supervisors prior to the student teaching experience. At the end of a ten-week student teaching experience the A.S.S. was readministered to the student teachers. The pretest A.S.S. mean score 17 for the student teachers was Significantly higher than the pretest A.S.S. mean score for the supervising teacher (p. 1967) an NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute took the A.S.S. 30 during both the first and last week of a year-long institute. Following the institute peer group and staff ratings were obtained. The A.S.S. had a correlation of .43 with peer ratings and .52 with staff ratings. Danish gtrél. (1969) assessed the construct validity of the Scale. Participants in a ten-day sensitivity training laboratory were administered the A.S.S. on the first and last days of the lab. Sensitivity training is a process designed to increase one's sensitivity to others. The mean score of the participants significantly increased from pre-test to post—test which gives some indication that the A.S.S. did re- spond to changes in affective sensitivity associated with eXperienceS designed to increase the sensitivity of an indi- vidual to others. The Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale is a five point rating scale that purports to measure the degree of willing- ness of the rater to be self-disclosing in a relationship with the person being rated (Steph, 1963). Three independent judges were able to arrive at consistent ratings of subject's tape-recorded responses to eight hypothetical counseling situations. Steph was able to demonstrate both the reliability (inter rater reliability coefficients were between .86 and .97) and validity of the instrument. As criteria, Steph used three variables: ratings of counseling segments conducted by these subjects and peer and supervisors' ratings of the subjects (Steph, 1963). Validity coefficients ranged from .50 to .82. 31 Research has indicated that one's ability to establish a relationship with another is independent of paper and pencil measures of interest, achievement, personality and intelli- gence (Wasson, 1965). Therefore, the W.R.O.S. is measuring an ability which seems to be dissimilar to the other factors Wasson studied. Kagan._tral. (1967) also discovered that the W.R.O.S. was positively associated with effective counseling behavior as measured by a counselor verbal rating scale. 3. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Form E) is an instrument "to measure individual differences in Openness of closedness of belief systems" (Rokeach, 1960). The reliability of this scale has been assessed in two ways. Internal consistency reliability coefficients range between .68 and .94. A test- retest reliability coefficient of correlation was .71 with five to six months between administrations (Rokeach, 1960). Rokeach's (1960) validation procedure involved having college professors select high and low dogmatic graduate students. Significant differences on the RDS was found between these two groups in one study but not in another. Validity data, therefore, is limited to two studies. The promise of the instrument, however, seems to warrant its inclusion in the study. In Chapter 11 several studies were presented in which the RDS was used effectively (Tose, 1968; Kemp, 1961). Hypotheses The major hypothesis of this study is based upon the assumption 32 that participant's affective sensitivity varies as a direct function of the degree of affective sensitivity of his reSpective trainer. That is, those individuals whose initial A.S.S. scores are above their respective trainer's decrease in A.S.S. scores on the post-test while those individuals who initial A.S.S. scores are below the trainer's increase on the post-test. Regardless of the training group all subjects were regrouped ac- cording to their standing relative to their reSpective trainer's pre- A.S.S. score. Those subjects who scored higher than their respective trainer's A.S.S. score formed Group I; those who scored lower than their respective trainer's A.S.S. score formed Group II. The following are the operational hypotheses and sub-hypotheses: l. (a) Ho: For Group I subjects there is no significant dif- ferencssbetween the mean post-test A.S.S. scores and the mean pre-test A.S.S. scores. H1: For Group I subjects the mean post-test A.S.S. scores are significantly lower than the mean pre-test A.S.S. scores. (b) Ho: For Group II Subjects there is no Significant dif- ferences between the mean post-test A.S.S. scores and the pre-test A.S.S. scores. H1: For Group II subjects the mean post—test A.S.S. scores are significantly greater than the mean pre- test A.S.S. scores. Since the first hypothesis actually could occur due to regression, a non-equivalent control group was included to diminish this possibility 2. (a) Ho: There is no significant difference in A.S.S. change scores between subjects above their reSpective trainer's initial A.S.S. scores and the control group. H1: Subjects above their reSpective trainer's initial A.S.S. scores have a greater mean change score than 33 the control group in the direction of the trainer's score. (b) Ho: There is no significant difference in A.S.S. change scores between subjects below their reSpective trainer's initial A.S.S. scores and the control group. H1: Subjects below their reSpective trainer's initial A.S.S. scores have a greater mean change score than the control group in the direction of the trainer's score. It is eXpected that those trainers with high levels of sensitivity have a greater impact upon their respective training group. Therefore, it is expected that: 3. Ho: There is no significant relationship between pre- post gains made by the participant and the trainer's initial A.S.S. scores. H1: A significant positive relationship exists between pre-post gains made by the participant and the trainer's initial A.S.S. scores. The next stage of the research involves the analysis of the inter- relationship between dogmatism and affective sensitivity. It is ex- pected that participants who are high in dogmatism are rigid and likely to be responsive to experiences designed to increase affective sensitivity. 4. Ho: There is no Significant difference in mean A.S.S. change scores between subjects who score in the lower third on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (R.D.S.) and subjects who score in the upper third on the R.D.S. H1: The mean A.S.S. change scores for subjects who score in the lower third on the R.D.S. are significantly greater than the mean A.S.S. gain scores of those subjects scoring in the upper third of the R.D.S. It is expected that the first hypothesis which hypothesizes changes in A.S.S. for subjects in the direction of their respective 34 trainers is influenced by the quality of the relationship as perceived by the participants. Therefore, 5. Ho: There is no difference in mean change scores on the A.S.S. among subjects with different relationship scores on the WROS. H1: Subjects with lower relationship scores on the WROS have Significantly lower mean change scores on the A.S.S. Finally, it is eXpected that changes in A.S.S. scores for subjects are related to initial trainer A.S.S. score, mean A.S.S. change score for the trainer, subject's dogmatism and the perceived relationship between participant and trainer. Therefore, 6. Ho: There is no significant relationship between the participant's A.S.S. change scores and initial A.S.S. scores for the reSpective trainer, participant's level of dogmatism and the relationship score on the WROS as related by the participant. H1: A significant relationship exists between the par- ticipant's A.S.S. change scores and initial A.S.S. scores for the reSpective trainer, the A.S.S. change score for the reSpective trainer, participant's level of dogmatism and the relationship score on the WROS as rated by the participant. Treatment of the Data The data analysis has been designed to deal with the six hypoth- eses in the following manner: Hypothesis 1--A t test was computed to determine whether there were significant changes in A.S.S. scores for the participants in Groupsl and II in the direction of their trainer's initial A.S.S. score. Hypothesis 2--A t test was computed to determine whether the changes in A.S.S. scores made by Groups I and II were significantly . I‘ 43'. 35 different from the changes made by the control subjects who scored above and below the mean of all the trainers. Hypothesis 3--A Pearson product moment r was computed to determine whether a significant relationship exists between each subject's changes in A.S.S. scores for the entire sample across all groups and the trainer's initial A.S.S. score. This yielded an r. The t- statistic (Blommers and Lindquist, 1960) was determined to test the hypothesis. Hypothesis 4--A t test was computed to determine whether the changes in A.S.S. scores for high dogmatic subjects were significantly different from changes in A.S.S. scores for low dogmatic subject.' Only subjects scoring in the top and bottom thirds in the RDS were con- sidered to maximize the probability that a relationship exists between dogmatism and changes in A.S.S. scores. Hypothesis 5--A one way analysis of variance was computed with the treatments being defined as the ratings on the WROS the subjects gave the trainer to determine whether changes in A.S.S. differ signi- ficantly with different ratings on the WROS. Hypothesis 6--A multiple r was computed which included trainer's initial A.S.S. scores, the participant's dogmatism and the WROS scores. The criterion was the participant's changes in A.S.S. scores. Additional Analyses for the Hypotheses 1, 3 and 6--Because there are two trainers per group, a problem existed in determining what would be considered the level of trainer affective sensitivity. Some of the possible alternatives were: (1) if the trainers were equally influ- ential in the group, the scores of the trainers could be averaged and 36 that mean could serve as the level of affective sensitivity; (2) either the score of the high trainer or the low trainer of the pair could be used; (3) among the trainer pairs one is considered the trainer, the other the co-trainer, if the trainer theoretically exercises more con- trol over the group than does the co-trainer, the trainer's score could be considered as the level of affective sensitivity; (4) finally, if it could be assessed by questionnaire which of the two trainers were more influential to the group, this trainer's score could be used as the level of affective sensitivity. It was decided to analyze the results using all of these combinations so that the results might lead to some interesting considerations of the theory of leadership in sensitivity groups. Summary It was hypothesized that T—group participant's changes in affective sensitivity are influenced by the trainer's degree of affective sensi- tivity, the participant's motivation to change and the participant's perception of the relationship between the trainer and himself. In order to test these hypotheses the Affective Sensitivity Scale was administered to 50 participants and 10 trainers during the first and last days of a ten—day T—groups. A non-equivalent control group of 20 who were motivated to attend but who were not participating in a T-group also took the Affective Sensitivity Scale twice during a ten—day period. The T—group participants were also administered the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale during the first day of the T—group and the Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale on the last day of the T-group 37 During the T-group lab the 50 participants were divided into 5 training groups with 10 participants and 2 trainers per group. The data analysis included: (1) a t test to determine whether there were significant changes in A.S.S. scores for the participants in the direction of their respective trainer's initial A.S.S. score; (2) a t test to determine whether pre-post changes in A.S.S. scores made by the participants in the T-group were significantly different from pre-post changes made by the control group; (3) a Pearson r to determine whether a significant relationship exists between each Sub- ject's changes in A.S.S. and the trainer's initial A.S.S. score; (4) a t test to determine whether pre-post changes in A.S.S. scores differ significantly for participants high in dogmatism as opposed to partici- pants low in dogmatism; (5) a one-way analysis of variance to determine whether changes in A.S.S. score differ significantly with different ratings on the_WROS; and (6) a multiple r including trainer's initial A.S.S. scores, participant's level of dogmatism and the participant's WROS rating in an attempt to account for changes in participant's A.S.S. scores. A detailed analysis of the data is presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the analysis of the data obtained from the statistical treatment. To analyze the data, t tests, Pearson r's, a one way analysis of variance and multiple r's were conducted. These techniques were discussed in detail in Chapter III. Differences were considered to be Significant when they reached values at the five per cent level of confidence. No attempt is made here to draw conclusions or make substantive influences about these data, since Chapter V treats the topic in some detail. The results of the study are presented below. Null Hypothesis 1 (a) There is no Significant difference between the mean post- test A.S.S. scores and the mean pre-test A.S.S. scores for Group I subjects, those subjects above their respective trainer's A.S.S. scores. (b) There is no significant difference between the mean post- test A.S.S. scores and the mean pre-test A.S.S. scores for Group II subjects, those subjects below their respective trainer's A.S.S. scores. It was hypothesized that changes in A.S.S. scores would be in the direction of the trainer's initial A.S.S. score. Since there were two trainers in each group, separate analyses were done for four different trainer variations: (1) the trainer of the two who scored higher on the A.S.S., (2) the mean of the two trainers, (3) the individual des- ignated by the T-group staff as the trainer rather than the co-trainer, (4) the trainer rated as most significant by the participants on the WROS. A total of eight t tests were conducted for the first hypothesis. 38 39 The t tests comparing pre-post differences for Groups I and II are presented in Table I. There were no significant differences between the mean post-test A.S.S. scores and the mean pre-test A.S.S. scores for either Group I or Group II under any of the four trainer variations. Therefore, it was not possible to reject the null hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 2 (a) There is no significant difference in A.S.S. change scores between subjects scoring higher than their respective trains er's initial A.S.S. scores and those subjects in the control group whose A.S.S. scores were higher than the mean of all the trainers. (b) There is no significant difference in A.S.S. change scores between subjects below their reSpective trainer's initial A.S.S. scores and those subjects in the control group whose A.S.S. were below the mean of all the trainers. If the changes in A.S.S. scores for Groups I and II in Hypothesis 1 were in the hypothesized direction, a number of eXplanations are pos- sible. Besides the possibility of the changes occuring by chance, the changes could be a result of the treatment or could be due to regression toward the mean. In order to diminish the possibility of the regression hypothesis, alt test was computed between Group 1, those subjects who scored higher than their respective trainer in A.S.S. scores, and the control group subjects who scored higher than the mean of all the train- ers in A.S.S. scores. A't test was also computed between Group II, those subjects whose A.S.S. scores were below the scores of their re- Spective trainer and the control group subjects scoring below the mean of all the trainers in A.S.S. scores. These t tests are presented in Table II. Table I. 40 The t test of differences (pre-test minus post-test) of participant's A.S.S. changes by the four variations *3 of the 50 failed complete WROS. to complete the post-test. **2 of the 47 who completed both pre and post A.S.S., failed to of trainer's initial A.S.S. scores Participants Participants - Mean A.S.S. Variance Trainer Variation Pre Post Pre Post t_ df 1. Highest Trainer a. Group One (Initial score higher than trainer) (N : 5) 43.800 41.800 20.160 70.160 .565 4 b. Group Two (Initial score lower than trainer) (N :,52)* 5.976 36.095 42.261 70.068 .128 42 2. Mean of Trainers a. Group One (N u 13) 43.923 41.769 11.147 38.485 1.325 12 b. Group Two (N = 34)‘: 4.088 34.764 32.198 72.885 .639 33 3. Designated Trainer a. Group One (N - 12) 41.833 42.250 14.805 26.187 .303 11 b. Group Two (N = 35%’ 5.085 34.800 44.706 75.131 .255 34 4. Most Significant Trainer a. Group One (N = 12) 41.444 41.000 16.469 20.444 .287 13 .__b’ Group Two (N = 3D** 5.464 35.285 51.320 76.846 .152 _32 41 Table II. The t tests;between the experimental group subjects whose A.S.S. scores are above and below the mean of their respective, designated trainer and the control group subjects whose A.S.S. scores are above and below the mean of all trainers ILPm.A.S.s. Post A.S.S. Group Mean Mean Change t. df Experimental a. Scoring Above Trainer (N : 11) 41.833 42.250 .416 Control a. Scoring Above Trainer (N = 4) 41.631 40.965 -.666 .337 13 Experimental a. Scoring Below Trainer (N = 34) 35.085 34.800 -.285 Control a. Scoring Below Trainer (N = 16) 33.827 33.710 -.117l5121 50 ___._-_ - 42 There were no significant differences between the change scores between either of the experimental groups orzfln'the control groups. Therefore, it was impossible to reject the null hypothesis. It seems evident, then, that the changes taking place in both experimental and control groups were random. Null Hypothesis 3 There is no significant relationship between pre-post gains made by the participant and the trainer's initial A.S.S. scores. To test whether the trainers having high levels of sensitivity had a greater impact upon the participants in their group, a Pearson r was computed between each subject's change score and the trainer's initial A.S.S. score. The resulting correlations for the four trainer variations are presented in Table III. The correlations between the A.S.S. pre-test score for both the trainer having the higher A.S.S. score and the most significant trainer and the A.S.S. change scores for the subjects was Significant (p<(.05). The correlations for the pre-test..A. S. 8.. scores for both the des- ignated trainer and the mean of the trainers and the A.S.S. change scores for the subjects were ndzsignificant. Therefore, the null hy- pothesis was rejected for two trainer variations and not rejected for the other two trainer variations. Null Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference in mean A.S.S. change scores between subjects whO'sCore in the lower third on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (R.D.S.) and subjects who score in the upper third on the R.D.S. In the first three hypotheses the leader variable of sensitivity 43 Table III. Pearson r between the pre-post change scores of the subjects and the initial A.S.S. score for the four trainer variations Trainer Variation r df High Trainer .309* 45 Mean Trainer .180 45 Designated Trainer .231 45 Most Significant Trainer .357* 431 m 1Two subjects who completed the pre-post A.S.S. did not complete the WROS. *P ( .05 df = 40 To be Significant at .05 level requires r = .257. df = 45 To be significant at .05 level requires r = .243. 44 was examined. This hypothesis eXploreS the effect the subject's dogmatism has on changes in A.S.S. scores. The t test comparing changes in the high dogmatic group and the low dogmatic group is pre- sented in Table IV. There were no significant differences in A.S.S. change scores between subjects scoring in the t0p and bottom thirds on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Therefore, it was not possible to reject the null hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 5 There is no difference in mean change scores on the A.S.S. a- mong Subjects with different relationships scoring on the WROS. The hypothesis examines the third variable being studied, the participant's perception of the quality of the leader-participant re- lationship. To test whether changes in A.S.S. scores were influenced by the participant's perception of the relationship between the leader and himself, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted using the WROS ratings for the most significant trainer as the treatment and A.S.S. change scores as the criterion. The results of this analysis are presented in Table V. There were no significant differences found between the ratings given the most significant trainer by the subjects and the A.S.S. change score for the subject. Therefore, it was not possible to reject the null hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 6 There is no Significant relationship between the subjects' A.S.S. change scores and the initial A.S.S. scores for the 45 Table IV. A.£ test of changes in A.S.S. score between subjects scoring in the upper and lower thirds on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) Mean A.S.S. Group Pre Post Change t, df High RDS N - 16 36.000 35.313 -.687 .445 30 Low RDS N - 16 41.500 41.812 .312 46 Table V. A one—way analysis of variance between the WROS rating for the most significant trainer and the A.S.S. change scores for the subjects Source Mean Square df F-ratio P Total .7404 44 Group .3798 4 .489 .746 Error (G) .7765 4 47 four trainer variations, the subject's level of dogmatism and the relationship score on the WROS as perceived by the subject. This hypothesis includes all of the variables studied in an at- tempt to account for changes in A.S.S. scores, the criterion measure. A multiple linear regression model was used (Kelly'gtngl., 1969). In the correlation computed for the third hypothesis (See Table III), it was found that a significant relationship existed between the initial A.S.S. scores for two of the trainer variations and the subjects' A.S.S change scores. The correlation for the high trainer was .309 (p (.05) which accounts for 9.5 per cent of the variance. The correlation for the most significant trainer as rated by the WROS was .357 (p<(.05) whidh accounted for 12.7 per cent of the variance. In the analysis presented in Table VI, subjects' level of dogmatism and WROS ratings, were in- cluded with the trainer initial A.S.S. score in an attempt to account for changes in subjects' A.S.S. scores. The multiple linear regression analysis for the most significant trainer was significant (p‘(.05). The three variables included in this analysis accounted for 24.3 per cent of the variance. The analyses for the three other trainer variations were not Significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis for the most Significant trainer was rejected. The null hypothesis for the other three trainer variations was not rejected. The variables in the analysis for the most significant trainer were then considered separately and in all possible combinations to determine whether any of the variables could be deleted without any significant loss of knowledge. The results of this analysis are presented in Table VII. 48 Table VI. Multiple linear regression for the initial A.S.S. for the four-trainer variation, the subject's RDS score, the WROS ratings given, the trainer variations with the A.S.S. change scores Criterion Predictors** R2 F-ratio df I 1,2,3,4 ' .2083 2.21 4,41 A.S.S. 1,3,5,6 .1274 1.43 4,41 Change 1,3,7,8 .1056 1.21 4,41 Scores 1,3,9,10 .2435 3.30* 4,41 9:14. 05 df - 4,40 to be significant at the .05 level requires an F = 2.84 **Predictor Key: 1 - A.S.S. pre-test for subjects--this is the constant. 2 - High trainers initial A.S.S. score. -. Subjects RDS score. - WROS rating for high trainer. The mean trainers initial A.S.S. score. WROS rating for the mean of the trainers. Designated trainer's initial A.S.S. score. WROS rating for the designated trainer. Most significant trainer's initial A.S.S. score. WROS rating for the most significant trainer. Oxomxlombw I II II n u I H 49 Table VII. Multiple regression analysis for the predictors of A.S.S. change scores Criterion Predictors* R A.S.S. Change Scores *Predictor Key: 1 : A.S.S. pre-test for subjects--this is the constant. 2 = Most significant trainer's initial A.S.S.score. 3 = Subjects' RDS Score. 4 = WROS ratings for most significant trainer. **The best two variable predictor. 50 It is evident from Table VII that the most Significant trainer's initial A.S.S. score and the WROS ratings given him account for 22.8 per cent of the variance. The deletion of the subject's R.D.S. score and the constant reduce the predictive accuracy negligibly. In summary, the only analyses in which significance was found were those which measured the relationship between the independent variables and the criterion measure. An examination of the changes in A.S.S. scores made by the subjects indicated that the initial A.S.S. score of the most significant trainer, the subjects' score on the R.D.S. and the WROS rating for the most significant trainer accounted for 24.3 per cent of these changes. The correlation between the subjects A.S.S. change scores and these three predictor variables was .494 (p (.05). Furthermore, the deletion of the R.D.S. score for the subjects did not greatly reduce the accuracy of predicting change scores. The most significant trainer's initial A.S.S. score and his WROS rating accounted for 22.8 per cent of the variance. CHAPTER v SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATION The study was designed to determine: (1) the effects of the trainer's level of empathy (affective sensitivity) on the changes in empathy (affective sensitivity) of participants in a ten-day T-group and (2) the effects of the participants' perception of the quality of relationship with the trainer and the participant's motivation to change as factors which may also effect changes in empathy (affective sensitivity). The following general research hypotheses were tested: 1. Participant's affective sensitivity varies as a direct func- tion of the degree of affective sensitivity of their respectiwa trainer. The Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form C) (Kagan gt.§Ln 1968) was used to measure affective sensitivity. 2. Changes in the participant's affective sensitivity are ef- fected by the participant's motivation to change. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was used to measure motivation to change. 3. Changes in affective sensitivity are effected by the partici- pant's perceptions of the quality of the relationship between himself and the trainer. The Wisconsin Relationship Orienta- tion Scale was used to measure the quality of the relationship. 4. Changes in affective sensitivity are effected by the interaction of the trainer's degree of affective sensitivity, the 51 52 participant's motivation to change and the quality of the relationship. In order to test these hypotheses the Affective Sensitivity Scale was administered to 50 participants and 10 trainers during the first and last days of a ten-day T-group. A non-equivalent control group of 20 who were motivated to attend but who were not participating in a T-group also took the Affective Sensitivity Scale twice during a ten- day period. The T-group participants were also administered the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale during the first day of the T-group and the Wisconsin Relationship Qtientation Scale on the last day of the T-group. During the T-group lab the 50 participants were divided into 5 training groups with 10 participants and 2 trainers per group. The data analysis included: (1) aIE test to determine whether there were significant changes in A.S.S. scores for the participants in the direction of their respective trainer's initial A.S.S. score; (2) a‘t test to determine whether pre-post changes in A.S.S. scores made by the participants in the T-group were significantly different than pre- post changes made by the control group; (3) a Pearson r to determine whether a Significant relationship existed between each subject's changes in A.S.S. and the trainer's initial A.S.S. score; (4) a't test to determine whether pre-post changes in A.S.S. scores differed signif- icantly for participants high in dogmatism as opposed to participants low in dogmatism; (5) a one-way analysis of variance to determine wheth- er changes in A.S.S. score differed significantly with different ratings on the WROS; and (6) a multiple R including trainer's initial A.S.S. scores, participant's level of dogmatism and the participant's WROS 53 rating in an attempt to account for changes in participant's A.S.S. scores. Since there were two trainers per group, four trainer combinations were considered in several of the analyses. They were: the trainer with the highest A.S.S. score of the two trainers, the mean of the two trainers, the individual designated as trainer as opposed to co-trainer by the staff, and the most significant of the two trainers as rated by the subject's WROS ratings. The Effect of Trainer Affective Sensitivity Truax and Carkhuff (1967) have stressed the importance of three basic conditions which are necessary for effective interpersonal en- counters. They are high levels of empathy, non-possessive warmth and genuineness offered by the counselor and/or leader of these encounters. Furthermore, Carkhuff (1967) has hypothesized that persons with high levels of these conditions can help persons at lower levels to achieve higher levels but that persons with lower levels of these conditions can not help persons with high levels. It is this hypothesis which formed the basis of the major hypothesis in this study. It was hypothesized that changes in participants' affective sensi- tivity following a ten-day T-group would be in the direction of the trainer's level of affective sensitivity. AS indicated in Table I the hypothesis was not confirmed. There were no significant differences between pre-test and post-test A.S.S. scores for subjects either above or below their reSpective trainer. It is evident, then, that in the present investigation changes in participants' affective sensitivity 54 levels did not vary as a function of the degree of trainers affective sensitivity. However, a significant relationship was found between the changes made by participants in A.S.S. scores and the trainer's initial A.S.S. score.* The r between the high trainer's initial A.S.S. score and the participant's change score accounted for 9.5 per cent of the variance of the criterion. The r between the most Significant trainer's initial A.S.S. score and the participant's change score accounted for 12.7 per cent of the variance of the criterion. Therefore, while participant's A.S.S. change scores are not a function of the trainer's initial A.S.S. score, changes in the partici- pant's scores are related to the trainer's initial score. Several explanations for the disparity in the results are pos- sible. One possibility is the instrument used. Carkhuff gt,§l. (1968) have attempted to distinguish between communicative and discriminative skills. The Affective Sensitivity Scale is a test which requires the subject to discriminate the immediate affective state of another. No attempt is made for the subject to communicate his perceptions to the other individual. Perhaps a test which focused on both aspects of em- pathy, i.e. Truax's Accurate Empathy Test (1961), would distinguish trainers who would have a more direct impact on their groups. ' However, no research using the Accurate Empathy Test has focused on the influence of an individual therapist's empathy on changes in his A significant relationship was found for two of the four trainer's variations. The relationship for the high trainer and the most Signif- icant trainer was significant; the relationship for the mean of the trainer and the designated trainer was not. 55 group. The procedure usually followed by Truax and Carkhuff has been to assign randomly a number of therapists, some with high facilitative conditions and others with low or moderate facilitative conditions to a large number of groups. The results of most of these studies have been that clients seen by therapists offering high facilitative conditions changed more on the psychological instruments thancfid clients seen by therapists offering lower facilitative conditions (Truax, 1966). How- ever, these conclusions are based on a compilation of all clients seen by the two different kinds of therapists. No attempt has been made to relate the changes made by the individual group members to their group therapist. The approach used by Truax and Carkhuff provides consider- ably more variability and less control. No research, then, has supported Carkhuff's theoretical formulation that changes made by clients or T-group participants in their level of empathy are a direct function of the level of empathy of their leader. Perhaps, this lack of support is due to factors other than leader em- pathy. The participant's motivation to change may be one such factor. The Effect of the Participant's Dogmatism The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) was used as a measure of the participant's motivation to change. Prior research has found that low dogmatic clients respond better to counseling than do high dogmatic clients (Kemp, 1961). Low dogmatic clients also have been found to establish more positive relationships with their counselors than have high dogmatic clients (Tosi, 1968). Consequently, it was hypothesized that changes in A.S.S. scores would be influenced by the participant's 56 level of dogmatism. However, there was no significant differences in A.S.S. scores between subjects in the upper and lower thirds on the RDS as indicated in Table IV. Consequently, the hypothesis was rejected. Furthermore, as indicated in Table VII, the RDS score for the subjects accounted for less than one per cent of the variance. The results indicate that either motivation to change is not an important factor in participant change or that the RDS in this study is not accurately measuring the concept of motivation to change. A number of researchers have focused on the need for clients readi- ness as a factor in counseling success (Heilbrun, 1962; Grant and Grant, 1950). This readiness or motivation is more than just the process of volunteering for counseling. It is a willingness to communicate pro- blems and feelings to others; to be self revealing and self exploring (Truax, 1966). Although the importance of client motivation to change as a variable in successful outcomes in counseling has been documented, motivation,as measured by the RDS in the present study has not contri- buted significantly to participant changes. One possible explanation is that the T-group participants are not as dogmatic as the average individual. In other words, the volunteer participant is more motivated to change than the typical client. No data is available on the client's RDS scores in either Study reported above. However, RDS normative data on seven sample groups is presented by Rokeach (1960). It was noted that the mean RDS score for all seven groups was higher than the mean score for the T-group participants. Another possible explanation exists for the inability of the RDS to account for change in participant scores or to be related to changes 57 made by the participants. One of the basic assumptions of the study is that the RDS is a measure of motivation to change. It seems likely that this is an untenable assumption. Consequently, it seems reasonable that although participant motivation to change seems to be a relevant variable in T-group studies, the RDS might not accurately measure this construct. The Effect of the Leader-Participant Relationship Goldstein (1962) after reviewing the literature on client-therapist expectancies in psychotherapy concluded that the relationship has pri- mary status in the overall therapeutic transaction. The role of the relationship as an important variable in successful therapeutic out- come haS been studied considerably (Goldstein, gt,al., 1966). Conse- quently, it was hypothesized that the leader-participant relationship would effect changes in the participants A.S.S. scores. AS indicated in Table V, the hypothesis was not confirmed. Perhaps the major reason for the non-significant results rests with the design of the study. There was very little variability in ratings on the WROS among the subjects. Most subjects rated the re- lationship as either 4 or 5 on the five-point scale. This restricted range compounded with the small N in each group (10) limits the power of the statistical test. Another possible eXplanation for the non-significant results is the fact that the relationship by itself does not effect change. It may be that its importance is increased in combination with other variables. For this reason the final analysis included all the vari- ables. 58 The Interaction of Leader Empathy, Participant Dogmatism and Leader- Participant Relationship Three distinct variables have been studied as factors which could influence changes in participant's A.S.S. scores. Prior research re- ported in earlier sections of this chapter has focused the importance of each of these variables in influencing outcomes in counseling. It seems reasonable to question whether these variables if con- sidered in combination might account for more change in A.S.S. scores for participants than when considered independently. Consequently, it was hypothesized that changes in participant's A.S.S. scores would be related to the interaction of these three variables. As indicated in Table VI, a significant relationship was found and the hypothesis was confirmed.* In addition the variables were considered individually and combination to determine whether any of the variables could be deleted without any significant loss of knowledge. As indicated in Table VII the most significant trainer's initial A.S.S. and the WROS ratings given him accounted for 22.7 per cent of the variance of the criterion. The addition of the RDS scores for the participants failed to yield any appreciable change in the accuracy of prediction of participant's A.S.S. changes. It is concluded that for the present study more than one variable is useful in accounting for change. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) have delineated three conditions offered by the therapists which are neces- sary for client growth. Empathy is one of these. Further, Carkhuff %. 'This was found with only one of the four trainer combinations; the most significant trainer. 59 (1966) has hypothesized that counselors having a high degree of one of these conditions can help individuals with lower levels to achieve high levels. This hypothesis has not been substantiated. Factors other than this condition seem important. In fact, it was the most signifi- cant trainer and not the trainer with the highest A.S.S. score who contributed most to the analyses. Unfortunately, nothing is known about what factors are rated in the WROS. Therefore, at this point nothing can be said about factors other than trainer affective sensitivity which relate to changes in affective sensitivity among participants in T-groups. Implications 1. It seems evident from this study that factors other than trainer affective sensitivity contribute to changes in af- fective sensitivity made by T-group participants. The factors are perceived by the participants in the rating of their will- ingness to be self disclosing to the trainer. These factors which contribute to the relationship should be explored and defined. 2. Although a significant relationship exists between the three variables studied and the criterion measured, only about 25 per cent of the variance is accounted for. Research Should be conducted to identify other variables which might contribute to changes in affective sensitivity. Research is especially necessary on client variables, i.e. motivation to change, socio-economic class. There is increasing recognition of the 60 influence of client variables on change (Blocher, 1967), yet research has not made significant headway at identifying them. Research on T-groups has not been extensive. It seems reason- able to conclude that certain conditions exist which are more favorable than others for successful T-group experiences. Re- search needs to be done to identify these variables. The present study was preliminary attempt. Finally, the study prevides additional support for the use of the Affective Sensitivity §£fll§ as a measure of empathy. Further, the A.S.S. seems to be a relevant variable in relating to changagin T-group participants. More research is necessary to assess the difference of communicative and discriminative empathy (Carkhuff t.al., 1968) and its effects on influencing change. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T. W} gt,§1, Thethuthoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1950. Allen, T. W. Effectiveness of counselor trainees as a function of psychological openness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 35-41. Altekruse, M. and McNeil K. A look at restrictive and non-restrictive counselor trainees. Unpublished paper presented at the Southwest Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1968. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of therapist reSponse as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 19, No. 7 (Whole No. 562). E Baumgartel, H. and Goldstein, J. W. Need and value Shifts in college training groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 87-101. . Bentley, J. C. (ed.). The Counselor's Role: Commentary and Readingp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Blocher D. What counseling can offer client: Implications for research on selection. In the proceedings of the Invitational Conference on Research Problems in Counseling Sponsored by the Central Midwestern Regtonal Educational Laboratory, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri, 1967. I Bown,,0. H. An investigation of therapeutic relationships in client— centered psychotherapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1954. Boyd, J. B. and Elliss, J. D. Findings of research into senior management seminars. Toronto: Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, 1962. Bradford, L. P. gt,§1., (ed.). T-Group Theory and Laboratopy Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. Buchheimer, A. The development of ideas about empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 19, 61-70. 61 62 Buchheimer, A., Goodman, J. and Sircus, G. Videotapes and kinesc0pe recordings as situational tests and laboratory exercises in empathy for the training of counselors. Hunter College of the City University of New York, 1965. A technical report submitted to the U. S. Office of Education, NDEA Grant No. 7-42-0550-1670. Bunker, D. R. Individual applications of laboratory training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1965, 3» 131-148. Burke, H. L. and Dennis, W. G. Changes in perception of self and others during human relations training. Human Relations, 1961, 14, 165-182. Cahoon, R. A. Some counselor attitudes and characteristics related to the counseling relationship. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962, (Dissertation Abstract, 23 (1963) 3473. Campbell, J. R. and Dunnette, M. D. Effectiveness of t-group experi- ences in mangerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 19, 73-104. Campbell, R. C. Development and validation of a multiple-choice scale to measure affective sensitivity (empathy). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Carkhuff, R. R. Toward a comprehensive model of facilitative inter- personal processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 67-73. Carkhuff, R. R. A non-traditional assessment of graduate education in the helping professions. Counselor Education and Supprvision, 1968, 1, 252-261. Carkhuff, R. R-.2£2§l- Effects of graduate training: Communication and discrimination of facilitative conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 68-74. Carkhuff, R. R. and Truax, C. B. Toward explaining success and failure in interpersonal learning eXperienceS. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 723-729. Cartwright, R. and Lerner, B. Empathy, need to change and improvement with psychotherapy. Journal of Consultipg Psychology, 1963, 21, 138-144. Danish, S. J. gt,§1. The measurement of affective sensitivity: Toward a valid measure of interpersonal perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, in press. Dilley, J. S. and Tierney, D. E. Counselor candidate verbal behavior and relationship orientation. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1969, 8, 93-98. 63 Dymond, Rosalind F. A preliminary investigation of the relation of insight and empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1948, 11, 228-233. ' Edwards, A. L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1950. Eysenck, H. J. The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psyphology, 1952, 14, 319-324. Fiedler, F. E. The concept of the ideal therapeutic relationship, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1950, 14, 39-45. Gage, N. L. and Exline, R. V. Social perception and effectiveness in discussion groups. Human Relations, 1953, 4, 381-396. Gassner, S, Gold, J. and Snadowsky, A. M. Changes in the phenomenal field as a result of human relations training. Journal of Psychology, 1964, pg, 33-41. Gendlin, E. T. gt,§1. Counselor ratings of process and outcomes in client-centered therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 14, 210-213. Goldstein, A. P. Therapist-Patient EXpectancieS in Psychotherapy. New York: Macmillan, 1962. Goldstein, A. P. _t,§1. Psychotherapy and the Psycholggy of Behavior Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Grant, J. D. and Grant, M. Q. Therapy readiness as a research variable. Journal of ConsultingtPsychology, 1950, 14, 156-157. Harrison, R. Problems in the design and interpretation of research on human relations training in Explorations: Human Relations Train- ing and Research Washington D. C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1967. Heilbrun, A. B.. Psychological factors related to counseling readiness and implications for counseling behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 2, 353-358. Hunt, J. McV. gt241. An integrated approach to research on therapeutic counseling with samples of results. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1959,.4, 46-54. Kagan, N; £522l- Studies in Human Interaction: Interpersonal Process Recall Stimulated by Videotppe - Final Report, 1967. East Lansing, Michigan State University (Office of Education, Grant No. 7-32- 0410-270). 64 Kagan, N. gttg1. The Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form C) Unpublished, Michigan State University, 1968. Kelly, F. J. gtig1. Research Design in the Behavioral Sciences: Multiple Regression Approach. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1969. Kemp, C. Gratton. Influence of dogmatism on counseling, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1961, 662-665. Kemp, C. Gratton. Influence of dogmatism on the training of counselors. Journal of CounselingAPsychology, 1962, 2, 155-157. Kemp, C. Gratton. Counseling reSponses and need structures of high school principals and counselors, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 2, 326-382. Kernan, J. P. Laboratory human relations training: Its effect on the ”personality' of supervisory engineers. Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 25(1), 665-666. Kerr, W. A. and Speroff, B. J. Validation and evaluation of the empathy test. Journal of General Psychology, 1954, 29, 269-276. Kiesler, D. J. Some myths of psychotherapy research and the search for a paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 42, 110-136. Mehrens, W. A. and Ebel, R. L. (ed.). Principals of Educational and Psychological Measurement: A Book of Selected Readings. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967. Miles, M. B. Human relations training: Processes and outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1960, 1, 301-306. Milliken, R. L. and Paterson, J. J. "Relationship of dogmatism and prejudice to counseling effectiveness," Counselor Education and Sppervision, 1967, 4, 125-129. Minelr, J. B. Studies in management education. New York: Springer, 1965. NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (ed.). ReadingyBook: Twenty-First Annual Summer Laboratories in Human Relations Training. Washington D. C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1967. Nylen, D., Mitchell, J. R. and Stout, A. (eds.). Handbook of Staff Development and Human Relations Training: Material Developed for Use in Africa (Rev. ed.). Washington, D. C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1967. - 65 O'Hern, J. S. and Arbuckle, D. S. Sensitivity: A measurable concept? The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 572-576. Parloff, M. B. Therapist-patient relationship and outcome of psycho- therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 29-38. Patterson, C. H. Relationship therapy and/or behavior therapy. Ppychotherapy: Theoryy Research and Practice, 1968, 2, 226-233. Rank, R. C. Counseling competence and perceptions. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 49, 359-365. Resnikoff, A. The relationship of counseling behavior to client re- sponse and the analysis of medical interviewer training procedures involving simulated patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as deve10ped in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. III: Formulations of the Person in the Social ConteXt. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959, 184-258. Rogers, C. R. The process of the basic encounter group. Unpublished manuscript, La Jolla, California, 1967. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960. Russo, J. R., Kelz, J. W. and Hudson, G. R., "Are good counselors Open- minded?" Counselor Education and Supervision, 1964, 3, 74-77. Sapolsky, A. Relationship between patient-doctor compatibility, mutual perception and outcome of treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 19, 70-76. Speroff, B. J. Empathy and role reversal as factors in industrial har- mony. Journal of Social Psychology, 1953, 31, 117-120. Spivack, J. Sensitivity training unpublished paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. Stefflre, Buford. Client Understanding Test (first version). Unpub- lished, Michigan State University, 1962. Stefflre, 3., King, P. and Leafgren, R. "Characteristics of counselors judged effective by their peers,” Journals of Counseling Psychology 1962, 2, 335-340. 66 Steph, J. A. Responses to hypothetical counseling situations as a predictor of relationship orientation in school counselors. Un- published doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1963. Stoller, F. The long weekend, Psychology Today, 1967, 1, 28-33. Strupp, H. H. The outcome problem in psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy, 1964, 1, 1-13. Truax, C. B. Therapeutic conditions. Psychiatric Institute Bulletin, Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute, 1961, 1, 10, (a). Truax, C. B. A scale for the measurement of accurate empathy. Psychiatric Institute Bulletin, Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute, 1961, 1;, 1, (b). ' Truax, C. B. Effective ingredients in psychotherapy: An approach to unravel-patient-therapist interaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 19, 3-10. Truax, C. B. Counseling and Psychotherapy: Process and Outcome. VRA Research and Demonstration Grant No. 906-P: University of Arkansas, 1966. Truax, C. B. and Carkhuff, R. R. The old and the new: Theory and research in counseling and psychotherapy. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 860-866, (a). Truax, C. B. and Carkhuff, R. R. Toward Effective Counseling and Psychotherapy. A. Morin, (ed.). Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, 1967. Underhill, R. G. The relationship of elementary student teacher empathy (affective sensitivity) change to supervising teacher empathy and student teaching success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Ullman, L. P. and Krasner, L. Case Studies in Behavior Modification, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1964. Van der Veen, F. Effects of the therapist and the patient on each other's therapeutic behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 12, 19-26. Wasson, R. M. The Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale as a unique variable in the assessment of applicants for counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervisiohy 1965, 4, 89-92. Wicas, E. A. and Mahon, T. W» Jr. "Characteristics of counselors rated effective by supervisors and peer," Counselor Education and Supervision, 1966, 4, 50-56. .s. a... APPEND ICES Appendix A AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE Instructions You will be viewing short scenes Of actual counseling sessions. You are to identify what feelings the clients have toward themselves and toward the counselors they are working with. Although in any one scene a client may exhibit a variety of feelings, for the purpose Of this instrument you are to concentrate on identify- ing his last feelings in the scene. On the following pages are multiple choice items consisting of three reSponses each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have one or three items. After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask yourself the following question: If the client were to view this same scene, and if he were completely Open and honest with him- self, (i.e., if he could identify his real feelings) which of these three reSponses would he use to describe his feelings? After you decide which response accurately describes what the client is actually feeling either about himself or the counselor he is with, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. Here is a sample item: CLIENT I Scene 1 Easel 1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes me feel good. 2. I feel very sad and unhappy. 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. After you had viewed Scene 1 for CLIENT I, you would read these three statements (Item 1) and would then decide which one best states what the client would say about his own feelings after viewing the same scene. For example, if you decide number two best states what the 68 69 client is feeling, you would then find the number 1 on your answer sheet and darken in the space for number two. 1. :22: 2 — 3 :22: 22:: 5 :32: We will only make use Of the first three answer Spaces following each item on your answer Sheet. Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in determining the most accurate description of the client's feelings. After you View the apprOpriate scenes, you will have thirty seconds to answer each of the first twelve items. For each of the remaining items, you will be allowed twenty seconds. CAUTION: The item numbers on your answer Sheet go across the page, not down the page as you would usually expect! AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM B CLIENT I Scene 1 ' Item 1 l. I feel sorry for my husband and the relationship we have. 2. I don't really understand what I feel. Yet, I do feel guilty about creating pain in others which returns to me. 3. I feel pleased at seeing a possible relationship between my feelings of anger and pain. Item 2 1. He (counselor) doesn't have to like me. I just want him to agree with me and tell me I'm right. 2. I'm trying to please you. Do you like me? 3. He's really understanding me now. CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 l. I feel calm and collected. I just want to think for a while. 2. Yes, that is when I get angry. I see it all clearly now. 3. I feel anxious and stimulated. Item 4 1. I'll pretend I'm agreeing with him (counselor), but I don't see the connection at all. 2. I like what he's doing. I don't feel as uncomfortable now. 3. I wish he would stOp pushing me in this direction. 70 CLIENT II Scene 1 Item 5 1. I'm pleased, happy; I feel good all over! 2. It was brought right back, that amazes me, but it hits quite bad too. It hurts! 3. I'm not bothered by this. I can handle it. I'm confident. Item 6 1. He's (counselor) caught me; careful, I'm not sure I want that. 2. I like him. He's trying to make the situation a little lighter and made me feel better about it. 3. I don't feel he understands. He's sarcastic. I don't like that. CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 7 1. I feel a little uneasy and self-conscious, but not much. 2. This scares me. I feel frightened! 3. I feel flirtatious. I like this! Item 8 l. I feel a little bit embarrassed, but that's all right as long as I can keep my composure. 2. I have a feeling Of sadness. 3. I feel flustered and embarrassed. Item 9 1. He's asking for some touchy material, but that's all right. It's about time he knew. 2. He's being very frank and open! I'm not sure I want that. 3. I want him to leave me alone--I want out of here. I don't like this. CLIENT II Scene 3 Item 10 1. I'm getting so much attention. I really enjoy this. It makes me feel good. 2. I'm scared by what I'm feeling. I feel embarrassed and threatened. 3. I have the feeling that what I wanted was wrong, and I'm a little ashamed of myself. 71 Item 11 1. This is good. We're really moving into my feelings. 2. He's too perceptive; he's looking right through me. 3. He's getting a little sticky; I'm not sure I like that. CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 12 l. I feel protective and defensive of what peOple may think about my family. 2. All this seems so pointless! I'm puZZIed and bored. 3. We're having a nice conversation. Some of these things really make me think. Item 13 1. This guy (counselor) embarrasses me with the questions he asks. 2. The questions he asks really make me think. I'm not sure I like that. 3. I can't follow this guy's line of thought. What's he trying to do? CLIENT IV Scene 1 Item 14 1. I'm concerned about my physical condition. I'm worried about it. 2. I want pity. I want her to think "oh, you poor boy'. 3. I feel gear-nothing's bothering me, but I enjoy talking. Item 15 1. She's too young to be counseling, and she's a girl. I'm not sure I like this. 2. She likes me; I know She does. 3. I'd like her to think I'm great. CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 16 1. I'm a little annoyed with my family's ambitions for me. 2. That's a hell of a lot to ask! It makes me mad! 72 3. I feel sorry for myself, and I want others to feel the same. Item 17 1. She (counselor) really understands me! She's with me now. 2. I don't feel much either way towards the counselor; she's not important to me. 3. I wonder if she appreciates the pressure that's put on me? CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 18 1. This whole thing just makes me feel sad and unhappy. 2. It kind of angers me that they don't appreciate me when I feel I did my best. I wish I could tell them off. 3. No matter how well I do, I'm always criticized. It doesn't bother me too much though because I know that I did my best. Item 19 l. I can tell she understands what I'm saying. She's really with me. 2. I wish I could get out of here; I don't like her. 3. Understand what I'm saying; I want her to know how I feel. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 20 l. I really want to be successful, and somehow I know that I can be. 2. That makes me feel kind of sad, unhappy. I don't want to believe that it's true-~I want to be good. 3. I don't know what I feel here. It's all very confusing. Item 21 l. I feel neutral towards her here. I'm not paying any attention to her. 2. Please feel sorry for me and try to help me. I wish she would praise me. 3. I like talking to her. She can be trusted even to the point of telling her how I really feel about myself. 73 CLIENT V Scene 1 £12.32. l.' I feel rejected and empty inside. Am I unloveable? 2. I feel a little lonely. I want my boy friend to pay a little more attention to me. 3. I really don't feel much here; I'm just kind of talking to fill up Space. Item 23 1. Please say it isn't fair, Mr. Counselor. 2. He really understands me. I can tell him anything. 3. I'm not sure I care what he says. It's kind of unimportant to me what he feels about me at this time. CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 24 1. I'm afraid of marriage--insecure; it might not work out, and I'd be lost. 2. I really can give him all the affection he needs, I feel I'm a worthwhile person to be desired. He wouldn't dare step out on me. 3. I'm really not too worried; it'd all work out in the end even if we have to go to a marriage counselor. Item 25 l. I don't care if he (counselor) can help me or not. I'm not sure I want his help. 2. He's so sympathetic. That makes me feel good. 3. Can you help me? CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 26 l. I feel I have some need to be liked, but it's not real strong. 2. I'm not loveable; I don't really like myself. 3. I'm a good person; I'm loveable. Down deep I know I am. Item 27 l. I feel dejected, kind of insecure. I want to be likeable! 2. My main concern is that it's hard for me to take criticism. I usually think of myself as perfect. 3. I feel a little sad about all this; I do kind of want peOple to like me. 74 Item 28 1. He thinks well of me; I knew he does, I can tell. 2. I want the counselor to really like me, but I'm not sure he does. 3. I like it when he asks questions like that. They make me really think about deeper things. CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 29 l. I wouldn‘t want to be treated like he treats Mother, but I don't mind him (stepfather) too much. 2. I feel very little emotion about anything at this point. 3. I hate him (stepfather)! Item 30 1. Boy, I'm happy that he (counselor) agrees with me. He sympathizes with me. I feel completely accepted. 2. I'm embarrassed to tell the counselor how strong my feelings really are. 3. I'm not sure he'll be able to help me much after all. I'll just have to work this out by myself. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 31 1. I'm kind of feeling sorry for myself, but I'm not really too worried. 2. I want to move out of the house as soon as pos- sible. I feel I would be better off on my own. 3. My own parents don't want me; I feel cut off and hurt. Item 32 l. I don't feel he's (counselor) helpful at all, and if he can't help me and see my side, I'm not going to like him either. 2. He's got me in a spot, but I feel I can still get him to see me as a good girl who is per- secuted. 3. I wish the counselor were my father. He's listen- ing; he understands how I feel. 75 CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 33 l. Disapprove! She'd kill me! 2. I feel jovial; this is real interesting. 3. I'm not sure how she would feel but the whole idea of her finding out excites me. Item 34 1. He (counselor) understands me completely. He certainly is relaxed and comfortable. 2. I really don't care what he feels about me. I just want someone to talk to--anyone will do. 3. I was wondering how he would feel about me and what I'm saying. CLIENT VI Scene 2 Item 35 l. I think my brother is O.K. We have fun together. 2. I don't know what I'm saying here. I'm little mixed up and confused. 3. I'm saying something that's important to me. I like Doug. CLIENT VI Scene 3 Item 36 1. This is very confusing for me. I'm not sure I understand what is going on. 2. This is how I really feel, I'm kind of starting to be myself. 3. I'm just talking to be talking here; this really doesn't mean much to me. Item 37 l. I guess he's (counselor) all right, but I'm still not sure he understands me. 2. Let's get going. I'm impatient! I want to move to more important matters. 3. I feel comfortable with him. He understands me. CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 38 l. I love my brother, but not romantically. We just have a good brother-sister relationship. ‘V 76 2. I don't know about feeling this way about Doug; it feels so good, but it concerns me too. 3. I feel better about my relationship with Doug now. It helps to get it out in the Open. Now I feel it's all right. CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 39 1. I'm not feeling much of anything here. I'm just kind of talking to be talking. 2. I'm mad at everyone at this point and don't know which way to turn; I guess I'm mad at myself too. 3. Now I'm talking about things that are real. I'm not on stage anymore. She is a louse! Item 40 1. He (counselor) feels she's a bad person too. I can tell; he agrees with me. 2. Don't you agree with me? I want to know what you think. 3. He thinks this all sounds petty. He doesn't understand. CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 41 l. I felt angry with my mother, but this made me feel guilty. I needed to make an excuse for her. 2. I'm really not angry with mother. It's not her fault. 3. I'm in a very passive mood. I'm just relaxing and talking about things that interest me. Item 42 1. This counselor is all right. I feel I can confide in him. 2. I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure what this counselor wants me to do. 3. I feel he wants me to talk about myself, but I don't care. I'm going to talk about what I want to talk about. CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 43 1. I'm very sensitive; I'm very easily hurt. 77 2. I'm somewhat sensitive and easily hurt, but not deeply so. 3. I'm not sensitive or easily hurt at all. I just like to make pe0ple think I am. Item 44 1. That makes me mad, I can do it--I know I can, but things just keep getting in my way. 2. It's really all his fault, if he just wouldn't have been such a joker. 3. This makes me feel guilty; I need to blame someone else instead of blaming myself. V Item 45 1. I'm neutral towards the counselor. I don't care what he feels about me. 2. I'm afraid he doesn't like me and what I'm saying about myself. I don't want him to be harsh with me. 3. He's easy to talk to. He understands what I'm like, and he still likes me. I can confide in him. CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Item 46 1. Say, this is all right. I like this. 2. I'm not feeling anything deeply. I know what I need! 3. It's embarrassing and difficult. I feel a little annoyed. Item 47 l. I feel I can rely on this guy, so I'll let him talk and I'll just answer his questions. 2. I wonder what you think about this--please respond. Give me some help! 3. The counselor is a good guy. I like his questions; they make it easier for me. CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 48 l. I feel very unhappy about what I may eventually have to do. 2. I don't know what I feel; I'm confused about what I feel. 3. I'm damned uncomfortable; it's so confusing. I feel kind of 'blah' about it all. 78 Item 49 1. He's (counselor) missing the point. He bugs me. 2. I can't really tell about this guy. I don't know how I feel about him. 3. He seems like a good guy. He asks nice questions. I like him. CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 50 1. I'm not sure how I feel about this counselor. I don't feel one way or the other about him. 2. I like the counselor very much--he makes me feel good. 3. He understands me pretty well and is trying to help. I guess I kind of like him. CLIENT IX Scene 2 _I_te_m_§_l_ l. Goody, goody pe0p1e don't really know any better, so I can't be too disgusted with them but it does make me angry. 2. I don't really mind pe0ple feeling superior to me. It just makes me a little angry. 3. It tears me up inside when people think they're better than I am. I want people to be the same as me. Item 52 1. I'm every bit as good as they are. I really feel I am. I know I am. 2. I kind of wished they liked me, but I can live without being a member of their group. 3. Those smart kids make me feel stupid. Item 53 l. I feel sorry for them; they just don't realize what they're doing to people like me. 2. I feel I'm not as good as they are, and it really hurts when people act that way. 3. It makes me a little angry. I'm every bit as good as they are. CLIENT IX Scene 3 CLIENT X Scene 1 CLIENT X Scene 2 79 Item 54 l. I feel a little insignificant, and this makes me a little unhappy. 2. I'm a nobody. I'm always left out. 3. I'm unhappy with school. That's what is really bothering me. Item 55 ' 1. He (counselor) doesn't quite understand, but I don't care. It doesn't matter. 2. I don't feel one way or the other towards this counselor, we're just having a nice talk. 3. He (counselor) is really listening to me, and I feel he understands what I'm feeling. Item 56 1. I'm feeling scared, concerned. Is this for me? 2. I just feel uncertain about what to talk about. If I once get started, I'll be all right. 3. I feel very deeply depressed. Item 57 1. He (counselor) seems to be listening--can he understand how I feel? 2. He's really with me. I can tell he understands me. 3. He doesn't keep things moving enough. I don't like that. Item 58 1. I'd like to think I could make it, but I'm not sure. I feel inadequate. 2. I just have an I-don't-care feeling; that's my real attitude towards all of this. 3. I'm confused here. I really don't have any definite feelings. Item 59 l. I want to impress the counselor. I want him to believe I can do it. 2. He believes me; he thinks I can do it; I can tell. 3. I really don't care what the counselor thinks. It's not important to me. 80 CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 60 1. What's the use of looking ahead? I'm scared to think about it. 2. I can accept my situation. Really, things aren't so bad. Things may bother me a little, but really not much. 3. I enjoy just living for today. file—Ail 1. He's (counselor) all right. He really understands me. 2. Nobody can really understand this. I don't think he will be any different. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; he's not important to me anyway. CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 62 l. I feel somewhat unhappy. I don't like to feel this way. 2. There's something about me; I just don't fit in, and that makes me feel real inadequate. 3. In some instances, I'm unSure of myself. I'm afraid I'll do the wrong think, but I can handle this just by avoiding these situations. CLIENT XI Scene 1 Item 63 1. I'm unhappy about all this, but I'm afraid to make a change. 2. It's not that I don't like school, it's just that I want to do the things I like most. 3. I'm not the student type. School bores me, but it embarrasses me when I say it. Item 64 1. The counselor is a nice guy. I like him, and I think he likes me. 2. I wonder what the counselor thinks of me. He'll probably think less of me for saying this. 3. I don't care what he thinks of me. It doesn't really matter to me. 81 CLIENT XI Scene 2 Item 65 1. I've found some new dimensions. I like to feel that I can have some excitement, but this kind of scares me too. 2. This doesn't really mean much. I'm not feeling much of anything. 3. This makes me feel very guilty; I'm very ashamed. Item 66 1. I suppose he'll (counselor) tell me that's wrong, too. I'm not sure he understands me very well. 2. He's O.K.; he's listening to what I have to say. He really understands me and my feelings. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; it's not important. I don't have any feelings towards the counselor. .——--.--_—---____—————-___--—~_————- CLIENT XI Scene 3 Item 67 1. He's really with me; he understands just how I'm feeling. 2. I'm not concerned about what he feels or thinks about me. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. 3. I'm afraid of what he'll think or feel about what I'm saying. Appendix B Name Trainer's Name WISCONSIN RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION SCALE DIRECTIONS: Check the item which best describes your feelings toward the trainer. 1. I would attempt to avoid any kind of interaction or relationship with this person. 2. If no one else were available, I might consult this person for Specific information of a factual (e.g., educational or vocational) nature, but I would avoid any personal exposure. 3. I would be willing to talk with this person about factual (e.g., educational or vocational) concerns and some of the personal meanings connected with these. 4. I would be willing to talk with this person about many of my personal concerns. 5. I have the feeling that I could probably talk with this person about almost anything. 6. Which trainer in your group do you believe to be most influential in effecting change within you? 82 Appendix C ROKEACH DOGMATISM 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 your- self 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 l. 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. 4. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes. 5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. 6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome p ace. 83 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 84 Most people just don't give a "damd‘ 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 the 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 some- thing 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. 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 be- cause it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 85 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 differences of Opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. There are two kinds of pe0ple in this world: those who are for the 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. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is some- times necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all.” Unfortunately, a good many peOple with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what's going on. Most peOple just don't know what's good for them. V MICFITAIN 3!! 3 12 E Mm 93 llullwlfiilllll'lllllmflmllIE5 0 3 0 7 0 8 6 1 8