{I in". Rag . .,- p‘kj '“2m25 5’; w 517“? W if” Jaw—J 2 +5 ‘ L WIS}? 2mm K 2370» 2;)? 23nd!) 293m x. ”ww“m]/ ABSTRACT UNDERGRADUATES AS PARAPROFESSIONAL LEADERS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS TRAINING GROUPS USING AN INTEGRATED IPR (INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL) VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK/AFFECT SIMULATION TRAINING MODEL BY James Archer, Jr. The purpose of this research was to develOp and evaluate an effective and efficient interpersonal communi— cation skills training model that can be used successfully by trained undergraduate paraprofessionals to train their peers. By developing a model that can be used in a "pyramid-like" structure, a few professionals can ulti- mately help a large number of undergraduates increase their interpersonal skills. The basic questions of the study were the follow- ing: (1) Could trained undergraduates (paraprofessionals) teach other students to have more effective interpersonal communication skills? (2) Could methods originally developed for use in a therapeutic setting be used by paraprofessionals in a growth-oriented setting? (3) How would a structured training model using videotape feedback, James Archer, Jr. affect simulation, and tape rating compare with an un- structured encounter-developmental group approach? The training model was derived largely from Kagan's (1967) IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall) and counselor development model, but also included some exer— cises from work by Carkhuff (1965). The sequential steps in the training model included the following: (1) Affect Simulation Films (focus on the actor's communication mes- sages)--group discussion of perceptions and interpre- tations of what the actor was communicating. (2) Owning of Feelings Audiotape Rating Exercise. (3) Affect Simu- lation Films (focus on trainee's personal feelings and reactions)-—group discussion of personal reactions to the actors. (4) Empathy Training--practice discriminating and making empathic responses. (5) IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall)--interaction practice with videotape feedback. Groups of student volunteers trained by para- professionals with an Integrated IPR training model (the model previously described) were compared with groups trained with a more traditional Encounter-DevelOpmental group approach, and with no treatment control groups. Measures of affective sensitivity (empathy), self- actualization (positive mental health), psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relationships were employed with hypotheses predicting that the IPR groups would be more effective than either the control or Encounter—Developmental groups. James Archer, Jr. Leaders for the project were recruited from a group of Resident Assistants (RA's) who had been trained previously with a similar IPR training model and who were supervised by members of the Counseling Center staff. Students in the residence hall were recruited by letter and were screened by counselors prior to their partici- pation. Results of a repeated measures two-way ANOVA with measures and treatments as factor levels indicated a sig- nificant treatment effect. Post hoc comparisons showed that the students trained in the Integrated IPR groups had significantly greater interpersonal skills than those in the no treatment and Encounter-Developmental groups. The absence of significant interaction between treatments and measures indicated that the treatments had the same rela- tive effect on all of the measures. Results of separate one-way ANOVA's on the four dependent variables (measures) indicated no significant treatment effect for the affective sensitivity (empathy), self-actualization (positive mental health), and psycho- logical insight in peer relationships measures taken separately. There was significant treatment effect for the depth of typical peer relationships (measured by the WROS) analyzed separately. Students in the IPR groups had significantly greater scores than those in the no treatment and Encounter—Developmental groups. James Archer, Jr. A subjective questionnaire given to students in both kinds of training groups indicated that 93% of the students felt that they had improved their interpersonal communications skills to some degree. Ninety-one percent of these students rated their student leaders as either good or excellent, and 100% felt that they understood them- selves better as a result of their participation. Conclusions from the results of the research were that undergraduate paraprofessionals using an integrated IPR training model could train other undergraduates to have more effective interpersonal skills. Also, that the counselor training methods incorporated in the model were adaptable to a growth-oriented setting, and that the IPR training model was more effective when used by parapro- fessionals than an Encounter-Developmental group approach. UNDERGRADUATES AS PARAPROFESSIONAL LEADERS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS TRAINING GROUPS USING AN INTEGRATED IPR (INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL) VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK/AFFECT SIMULATION TRAINING MODEL BY James Archer, Jr. 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 1971 “'7 ”7 ,. ' (11// /fl ‘3’, DEDICATION To Michael, my brother. ii AC KNOWLEDGMENT 8 As I think about trying to acknowledge the help that I have received I am dismayed--for there are just too many peOple to thank. I shall try, though, and to those I leave out, I'm sorry. For help with my dissertation, thanks: To Norm Kagan, my advisor and dissertation chairman, for his faith in me, and for his vision and his unceasing ability to stimulate and excite. To Cecil Williams, whom I have known from the be- ginning, for encouraging me when I wasn't sure, and for being Cecil. To Sue Jennings and Louis Stamatakos for serving on my committee and for listening to my often confused and disorganized dissertation thoughts. To Bob Dendy for joining me in what often seemed like a hopeless venture, and for understanding my fears and the irony of it all. To Karen Rowe for helping me with the training groups, but mostly for her willingness to give. To Ann Baucom for her unending faith in me, and for her tireless help in organizing and running the iii groups. And to her husband Bill for his friendship and advice. To the RA group leaders for their work and will- ingness to learn and teach. For help with my personal growth and development, thanks: To Bill and Denni Kell for showing me how really wonderful it is to be human. To the Interns for giving me the feeling that if I fell I would be caught, and to Tom Spierling for sharing so much. To Kathy Scharf for her warmth, understanding, and support. To Chuck Bassos and Karen Kamerschen for helping me learn to do therapy--a formidable task at times. To my clients for teaching me so much and for giv- ing me more than they'll ever realize. To Mom and Dad for an unselfishness and love that I am only beginning to comprehend. To my brother Mike for having a kind of courage that I can never really understand. And to Karen who has been there through it all, patient, understanding, and loving--my friend, my lover, and my partner for the future. iv Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O 0 Need . . . . . Purpose . . . . General Hypotheses Theory . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O Training Model . . . . . . Training Model Theory and Rationale Overview. . . . . . . . . RELATED RESEARCH. . . . . . . Use of Paraprofessionals . . . Carkhuff. . . . . . . . . Kagan. . . . . . . . . . Implications of Related Research. DESIGN 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Population . . . . Sample . . . . . Experimental Design . Hypotheses . . . . Data and Instrumentation ASS (Affective Sensitivity Scale). POI (Personal Orientation Inventory) Peer Relationship Inventories . Participant Questionnaire . . General Procedures . . . . . Leaders . . . . . . . Supervision . . . . . . Student Recruitment . . . Group Assignment and Testing Page Gib humid H 14 15 15 18 19 22 24 24 24 25 26 30 30 32 33 36 37 37 38 39 40 Chapter Page Peer Relationship Questionnaires . . . 41 Chronological Schedule . . . . . . 43 IPR Training Schedule. . . . . . . 44 Encounter-Developmental Group Training MOdel O O O O O O O O O O O 45 AnalYSis. O O O O O O O O O O O 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . . 50 Two-Way ANOVA Repeated Measures Analysis ReSUlts I O I O O O O O O O O 50 One-Way Separate ANOVA Results . . . . 53 Subjective Questionnaire Results. . . . 57 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 61 smary O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 61 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 67 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Implications and Observations . . . . 69 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . 70 Economy of the Model . . . . . . . 71 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 72 Implications for Further Research . . . 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7 APPENDICES Appendix A. Sample Questions for Use With Affect Simulation Films. . . . . . . . . . 82 B. Owning of Feelings in Interpersonal Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 C. Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 vi Appendix D. E. F. G. H. Role and Function of Recaller . . . Recaller Instructions to Speaker and/or Listener . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal Questionnaire. . . . Peer Relationship Letter. . . . . Subjective Questionnaire. . . . . Instructions to IPR Leaders for First Three Sessions . . . . . . . . Instructions to IPR Leaders for Weeks Instructions for Encounter-DevelOpmental Groups 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Volunteer Letter . . . . . . . Screening Instructions . . . . . Screening Interview Form. . . . . Sample Student Responses to the Comments Part of the Questionnaire . . . . vii Page 87 89 90 92 93 94 98 102 105 107 108 109 LIST OF TABLES Cell Mean Scores . . . . . ANOVA Table. . . . . . . ANOVA for ASS Scores (Affective Sensi- tivity) . . . . . . . ANOVA Table for POI Scores (Self- Actualization) . . . . . ANOVA Table for Psychological Insight Factor of the Barrett-Lennard ANOVA for the WROS (Measure of the Depth of Typical Peer Relationships). Summary of Training Procedures viii Page 51 52 54 54 55 56 65 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . 27 2. Treatments, Groups, and Measures. . . . . 27 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Need During the past decade a number of behavioral sci- ence researchers and theorists have advocated a personal- growth oriented approach to higher education (Sanford, 1962; Feldman, 1969; Yamamoto, 1968; Grant, 1969; Chickering, 1969). Spurred by widespread student alienation and dis- content, some faculty members and administrators have begun to respond to the work of these scientists and to accept the idea that personal-social learning experiences must be pro- vided and facilitated so that a student can integrate cog- nitive, academic learning with his developing self. The Hazen Foundation's report on The Student in Higher Education is a striking example of this growing awareness: . . . the young person becomes what he becomes not only because of what he hears in the classroom and not even mainl because of what he hears in the classroom. His interaction with teachers, his encounter with the social structure of the college administration, the friendship groups in which he becomes integrated, the values he acquires from student culture, the atmosphere of flexi- bility or rigidity which permeates the school environ- ment, the playfulness or seriousness, the practicality or the spontaneity of operative educational goals of his college--all of these have an immense, if not yet precisely measured, impact on the evaluation of the young person's self view and world View, on his confi- dence and altruism, on his mastering of needs for ident- ity and intimacy (The Student in Higher Education, 1968, pp. 5-6). Unfortunately most colleges and universities are not staffed or designed to influence personal-social learn- ing systematically. Counseling psychologists and student personnel workers charged with this reSponsibility can usu- ally have a direct impact on only a small fraction of the total student population. Also, their indirect influence is seldom felt because of existing power structures. Resi- dence halls, for example, are most often designed and con- structed with fiscal and managerial efficiency far overrid- ing the educational or psychological considerations cham- pioned by the dean of students. Since the higher education power and value structure is not likely to change quickly, a need exists for ways to provide personal-social learning eXperiences within the current structure. If one accepts Erickson's contention that the per- sonal-social growth of college students revolves around their attempts to master the needs for identity and inti- macy (Erickson, 1965), the importance of effective and satisfying interpersonal relationships is readily apparent. Teaching students more effective and satisfying methods of interpersonal communication will directly contribute to the mastery of intimacy needs, and indirectly assist in the de- velopment of identity through increasing the possibilities for self-exploration and self-testing. An obvious way of providing this interpersonal com- munication skill training would be to include courses teach- ing these skills in freshman and sophomore course curricula. Some interpersonal and personal adjustment courses have been attempted by a number of junior colleges and by a few four- year colleges, but these have generally not been able to teach interpersonal skills successfully. Also these at- tempts at formal courses have not been made at many of our larger colleges and universities. The reasons for this are complex. Usually the rigidity of traditional course struc- tures, lack of flexibility by faculty, and lack of qualified instructors are the primary obstacles. P11132058 The general purpose of this study is to find a way of teaching interpersonal communication skills within exist- ing resource limitations. Specifically this research is designed to develop and evaluate an interpersonal communi- cation skills training model that can be taught to under- graduates who in turn can train other undergraduates. By developing a model that can be used in a pyramid-like struc- ture, a few trained professionals can ultimately help a large number of undergraduates increase their interpersonal skills. One would expect also that a total social system would be affected as members who were not formally trained came into contact with those already trained. General Hypotheses l. Undergraduate students who receive interpersonal communication skills training from previously trained under- graduates using an integrated IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall), Affect Simulation, Tape Rating training model will increase their interpersonal skills. 2. Undergraduate students who receive interpersonal communications skills training from previously trained under- graduates using an integrated IPR, Affect Simulation, Tape Rating training model will increase their interpersonal skills to a greater extent than students trained under simi- lar circumstances with an Encounter—Developmental group training model. Theory In order to examine the theory and rationale for the training model being evaluated a brief examination of its component parts is necessary. After this presentation of the model itself, a discussion of its rationale and theoretical underpinnings will be possible. Training Model Learning tasks in this model were designed to pro- gress from most remote to most immediate and from least to most threatening. The following tasks were included in the following sequence: Affect Simulation Films (focus on actor). In this procedure filmed vignettes of actors portraying various de- grees of different emotions were shown to small groups of trainees. They were asked to imagine that the actor on the film was talking directly to them and to try to figure out what he was communicating to them. After the film was run the trainees participated in a small group discussion of each vignette sharing their perceptions of what was being communicated to them. At this stage they were not encour- aged by the group leaders to discuss their personal re- actions to the film (see Appendix A for sample questions used for the group discussion). Owning of Feelings. In this second training step group members listened to one or two sentence tape recorded statements of an actor expressing a typical student concern. For example, a statement might be, "All my friends are using marajuana and they want me to try it too, but I'm afraid that it might freak me out." The trainees, after listening to the taped segment, were asked to rate the statement as to the degree to which the person "owned" his feelings (see Appendix B for the scale) and to discuss their perceptions of what the person might be feeling. In the example cited, group discussion might center around the question of whether the person is afraid of marajuana, of loosing his friends, or of the choice that he thinks he must make. Affect Simulation Films (focus on personal re- actions). The procedures in this phase were the same as those in phase one except that the trainees were asked to focus on their own feelings and reactions to the actor rather than on what he was communicating. The leaders played an active part in this phase by encouraging the trainees to explore their feelings and to relate them to other situations and other people (see Appendix A for sample questions used in group discussion). It is im— portant to note that this is the first time that the train- ees were asked to look at their own feelings. Because of the rapport developed in the group during the previous exer- cises and because of the focus on the communication and feelings of the actors the threat of discussing personal feelings was minimal. Empathy Training. This phase had two parts. First the group members listened to an audio tape recorded state- ment and a reSponse by a second party. They were instructed to rate the response on a modified empathic understanding scale (see Appendix C). After hearing each statement and response they discussed their reactions and tried to arrive at a group consensus as to the rating on the scale. In the second part of this phase they listened to a problem state- ment, for example, "I don't know why nobody likes me, I dress right and do all the right things at parties." They were then asked to respond to the statement in an empathic way either verbally or in writing. The group members then discussed each other's responses and rated them on the scale. Again, it is important to note that the training was gradually getting more difficult and threatening. In this phase the trainees were asked to make a response and to have that response evaluated by their peers. This was excellent preparation for the next phase which required trainees to practice their interpersonal skills in front of a videotape camera. Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR). This technique involved videotaping an interview between two of the train- ees. One person was designated speaker and the other lis- tener. The listener was asked to be as helpful as possible to the other person (previous empathy training was useful here) and the speaker was asked to discuss a problem or con- cern that was personally meaningful to him. A third student designated inquirer (this role has been labeled recaller and interrogator in previous research) reviewed a replay of a 5- or lO-minute segment of the original interaction with the fistener. The inquirer was asked to help the listener recall his thoughts and feelings about the original interaction focusing on that relationship at that time (see Appendix D for a statement of the role and function of the inquirer/ recaller and Appendix E for the inquirer/recaller instruc- tions to the listener or speaker). During this first IPR phase called listener recall the students in the training groups rotated roles practicing as listener, speaker, and inquirer. They used this same rotation in subsequent phases consisting of speaker and mutual (speaker and listener to- gether) recall. Finally they practiced the listener and in— quirer roles with a speaker brought in from outside the group. During this IPR phase all of the group members watched other members when they were not participating. This allowed vicarious learning to take place and also kept them interested and involved in the group's activity. Group members watching were also encouraged to participate if they had a pressing inquirer type question to ask the person who ‘was doing recall. Often a kind of group recall develOped as members of the group became involved in the recall. This participation was encouraged by the leaders and the groups were allowed to move into a group discussion-encounter situ- ation when it seemed appropriate. Leaders were asked to exercise judgment in this respect and to insure that the basic training tasks were satisfactorily completed. Training Model Theory and Rationale The training model previously presented is based primarily on Kagan's (1967) work with IPR and Affect Simu- lation. Some of Carkhuff's (l967a,b) tape rating techniques have also been included. The research hypotheses are based upon the model itself and upon the idea that the kinds of interpersonal skills taught in the model are basically skills that are useful in general human interaction. This idea is an important one since most parts of the model were originally developed for use in therapy or in Counselor Training. The training model can be thought of as having been derived from more than one personality or learning theory; the most relevant to the first part of the model is Rogerian personality theory (Rogers, 1960). The idea that behavior and personality are most influenced by self-concept and the phenomenological field of the perceiver, a keystone of Rogerian theory, relates specifically to the affect simulation exercise. In this exercise the focus is on help- ing trainees recognize and accept their own interpersonal fears. By accepting these fears they are accepting a part of their self-concept that may have been previously denied. This increased congruence gives them greater self-confidence and allows them to take more interpersonal risks. This ability to take risks in turn enables them to more effec- tively try out and learn new interpersonal behaviors. The reduction of fear and greater risk taking ability resulting from self-acceptance and congruence is similar to Rogers‘ description of conditions for therapeutic growth (Rogers, 1960). Most relevant to the IPR part of the model are as- pects of several learning theories. Most important in this respect is the emphasis placed upon self-discovery (Bruner, 1966). The IPR process is, in fact, designed as an experi- ence to promote growth through self-discovery. By dis- covering new interpersonal behavior possibilities for them- selves trainees become more responsible for their own be- havior change and thus more able to integrate the changes into their overall behavior repertoire and self-concept. This learning emphasis is in marked contrast to an operant conditioning approach stressing external reinforcement. The modeling and vicarious learning which takes place as a result of the small group approach is best explained by social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1960). 10 In the model the first basic training method is the use of Affect Simulation Films. The first and third train- ing tasks described previously are based on this method and differ only in that the focus of the group discussions is different. According to Kagan (1969) these films were de- veloped to help trainees and clients take the first step toward effective interpersonal communication by overcoming their own fears of interpersonal involvement. These fears of involvement, which create and maintain psychological distance, are a result of a socialization process that fosters what Kagan (1970) calls dual level communication. Pe0ple often avoid any overt interaction on an affective, feeling level by operating only on a cognitive, "How are you? I am fine.‘ level. Kagan (1967) identified the individual fears of involvement during research on counselor-client interaction. The fears are that: (l) the counselor might hurt or reject the client, (2) the counselor might make an affectionate, intimate, or dependent demand on the client; (3) the client's own hostile impulses might be expressed toward the counselor; and (4) the client's own affectionate, inti— mate, or dependent needs might be acted out toward the counselor. The fears, then, are of giving and receiving affection and hostility. The films allow the trainees to experience and begin to accept these fears. This is, of course, a beginning step toward overcoming the fears and thereby becoming capable of closer, more intimate 11 relationships. The group discussions after the films are an important part of this process. They allow the trainees to share their fears and to learn that others have similar interpersonal nightmares. A secondary result of this affect simulation training phase is the sharpening of listening skills. Because of the range of expression on the films from very subtle to very obvious, trainees learn to look for and pick up verbal and nonverbal cues. They also learn new ways of perceiving and interpreting these cues during the group discussion. The Owning of Feelings tape rating exercise which comes sequentially between the two Affect Simulation Film exercises is very closely related to them. It is another way of teaching the trainees to accept and deal with their own feelings. Teaching them the basic concept at this point allows them to apply it to themselves so that they will own their own feelings. This, of course, is helpful during the second Affect Simulation Film exercise and during subsequent training exercises. The ability to be in touch with per- sonal feelings (to be congruent) during a relationship is also a training goal in itself. In the next phase of the training model, which con- sists of empathy training, the trainees are asked to focus on how well they understand other people's feelings and upon how well they can respond to these feelings. Since the trainees have begun to conquer their interpersonal fears and to accept their own personal feelings, the next logical step 12 is to teach them how to respond to others in new, more pro- ductive ways. In order to respond empathically the trainees must understand what the other person is feeling, thus they must also continually push themselves to be better listeners and to pay attention to previously ignored verbal and non- verbal cues.* This empathy training also provides a con- ceptual framework with which to approach the next step which involves asking the trainees to be helpful to each other and to take an intense look at their own interpersonal behavior via videotape feedback. There are two basic kinds of learning that take place with IPR. Primary learning comes from the videotape feedback itself and its effect on the trainee. The secondary learning, which is also significant, is a result of the trainee learning to perform the role of inquirer (recaller). Having conquered at least some of their basic inter- personal fears, having increased their listening skills so that they pick up previously ignored affective communication cues, and having learned how to respond in an understanding, empathic manner the next logical step for trainees is to practice these new kinds of responses. The IPR process pro- vides an excellent laboratory for this practice as well as immediate and direct reinforcement for effective responses. . *Because the focus of empathy training is on being helpful to someone else, care must be exercised in this phase so that the trainees also learn that empathic understanding responses are not always appropriate. The approach here is not to turn all of their interactions into counseling, helping sessions, but to incorporate the ability to listen and respond empathically into their total interpersonal behavior repertoire. 13 The IPR method is more than just direct feedback, however. It allows the person undergoing recall to "relive" the recalled interaction in a way that would not be possible otherwise. As a listener the trainee learns from speaker recall what his impact was on the speaker almost as if he were present and watching the actual interaction. As a listener participating in recall he is helped by the inquirer (recaller) to focus on feelings and thoughts that might have been lost if the replay and the questioning by the inquirer had not brought them clearly back into the conscious arena. In effect the trainee is given the opportunity to relive an interaction and to confront his thoughts and feelings in a way that provides a very productive learning experience. Also he learns about his own impact as he watches the person he was listening to describe his perception of their inter— action. In addition to this primary learning the trainee also sharpens his listening and observation skills by learning to be an inquirer. In order to help the people who are trying to recall their thoughts and feelings during their inter- action, he must pay very close attention to the videotaped interaction and to the verbal and nonverbal communication be- tween the speaker and listener. Since the inquirer is taught to allow others to gain insight through self-discovery, he learns the value of non-interpretive but assertive self- confrontation and he gains confidence in people's general ability to understand themselves--without having their be- havior interpreted by someone else. 14 In summary the trainee learns to recognize, accept, and begin to overcome his fears of interpersonal involvement; to become a better listener and interpreter of other people's communications; to own his own feelings; to discriminate levels of empathic understanding; and to respond, when ap- propriate, in an empathic, understanding manner. During the IPR laboratory phase he is reinforced for effective inter- action skills with immediate feedback and is also reinforced for identifying appropriate verbal and nonverbal cues. Finally, as an inquirer he learns the value of non-interpre- tive, but assertive interpersonal behavior. Overview In Chapter II a review of related research will be presented. Research on the training tasks taken from both the Kagan and Carkhuff training models will be included as well as research on the general area of use and training of paraprofessionals. The experimental design will be included in Chapter III with a description of the pOpu- lation and sample, a statement of the research hypotheses, and presentation of the experimental design and method of analysis. Also included in Chapter III will be a detailed explanation of the organizational and Operational aspects of the training project. In Chapter IV statistical analy- sis of data for each research hypothesis will be presented as well as results of subjective questionnaires given to participants. CHAPTER II RELATED RESEARCH Research related to the use of paraprofessionals in mental health and educational settings, as well as re- search related to Carkhuff's and Kagan's training tech- niques will be reviewed in this chapter. Particular attention will be given to research supporting the theo- retical assumptions presented in Chapter I, and to research evaluating the theory and effectiveness of the specific training techniques incorporated in the training model investigated. 'Use of Paraprofessionals During the last several years considerable atten- tion has been given to the use of paraprofessional mental health workers. Faced with a populace trying to deal with an increasingly difficult and complex society, many mental health professionals have begun to realize that there are far too few professionals to go around. Advocates of the use of paraprofessionals are divided between those who think that they should work only in a supporting role 15 16 thereby freeing the professional from administrative and non-professional activities (Beck, gt_§l., 1963; Odgers, 1964; Patterson, 1964; Rosenbaum, 1966; Levinson & Schiller, 1966; Schlossberg, 1967; Gust, 1968; Savino & Schlamp, 1968) and those who believe that the paraprofessional can actually function in a therapeutic capacity (Holzberg, g£_al., 1964; Carkhuff & Truax, 1965a; Reiff & Reisman, 1965; Magoon & Golan, 1966; Carkhuff, 1966; Sonnett, 1968). In a fascinating study comparing the counseling performance of MA level rehabilitation counselors with untrained, but closely supervised secretarial help, Truax and Lister (1970) present more research data related to this controversy. Using a 3-by-2 factorial design with high and low case loads as the two levels and counselors, counselors assisted by counselor aides, and counselor aides alone as the three levels, they found that the counselor aides were most effective, the professional counselors next most effective, and the counselors assisted by counselor aides least effective. For measurement of client rehabilitation progress they used an eight scale, five-point rating system in use by the Arkansas Rehabili- tation Service. They conclude, from their results and from other research, that paraprofessionals should be used to provide direct counseling services. In college and university settings research has been done evaluating the use of undergraduate 17 paraprofessionals in academic helping capacities and in personal-social helping capacities. Brown (1965) evaluated a student academic counseling program used for freshman orientation at Southwest Texas State College. Student counselors were carefully selected and received 40 hours of training prior to their work with freshmen. The fresh- men who were counseled by the trained students scored sig- nificantly higher on measures of study behavior than did a no counseling control group. They also averaged one-half letter grade higher during the first semester. In a follow-up study Zunker and Brown (1966) compared students given academic orientation counseling by student counselors with students given the same kind of counseling by pro- fessional counselors. They found that generally the stu- dent counselors were just as effective as the professional counselors and that in fact students counseled by other students had significantly higher grades during the first term. Wolfe (1969) used undergraduate residence hall assistants as group leaders with the goal of improving the interpersonal functioning of student participants. He compared the interpersonal functioning of students in groups led by clinical psychology graduate students, and groups led by undergraduate residence hall assistants, with each other, and with control group students. He found that the groups led by graduate students showed 18 slightly more gains than the groups led by undergraduates and that the students in the groups led by the resident assistants showed significant improvement on a variety of interpersonal measures. In this study the resident assistants were not trained, but were supervised by clinical psychology graduate students. Carkhuff Carkhuff and his associates have demonstrated the utility of their training method in a sizable number of research studies. Truax and Carkhuff (1965a,b) used a five-step training process: 1. Subjects were didactically taught therapeutic dimensions of helper empathic understanding (E), respect (R), genuineness (G), and helpee self- exploration (Ex). 2. Subjects learned to discriminate levels of each of these dimensions by practicing rating audio- taped responses. 3. Subjects received empathy training by writing responses to audiotaped segments. 4. Subjects role played and evaluated their own facilitativeness on the scales. 5. Subjects interviewed a helpee and received feed- back on their performance on the scales. 19 Considerable evidence exists to support the con- tention that a variety of subject groups can be trained to function at minimally facilitative levels on the Cark- huff dimensions. After about 100 hours of training, gradu- ate students and lay helpers were trained to function at levels comparable to professionals (Carkhuff & Truax, 1965b). In another study with only 16 hours of training on the facilitative dimensions college students improved to a significantly greater degree than did their controls. Measurements for this study included self-reports, signifi- cant other reports, interview reports, and rated audio- taped interviews (Berenson, gE_§l., 1966). In more recent research Carkhuff (1969a) has added an additional helper dimension called concreteness. Using this dimension and the three previously develOped ones, he cites research showing significant gains after training for college students, housewives, nurses, teachers, and parents. Kagan During the development of the IPR method Kagan EE_El- (1967) found significant differences between counselor trainees involved in supervision using IPR methods and those following traditional training and supervision methods. Differences, with the IPR group showing greater effectiveness, were reported significant 20 at the .005 level for observed counseling behaviors and at the .025 level for client perceptions of the counselor- client relationship. Kagan and Schauble (1969) and Kagan and Danish (1969) reported positive initial findings concerning the use of Affect Simulation Films (actors portraying differ- ent emotions). In a study investigating the use of IPR and Affect Simulation combined, with the goal of acceler- ating therapy, Kagan, Pierce, and Schauble (1969) found that the IPR/Affect Simulation treatment had a signifi- cant effect on accelerating client movement in therapy as compared to traditional counseling. Measures of differ- ences were independent judge ratings, and client feelings about coming to treatment sessions. Goldberg (1967) in a study comparing traditional audiotape counseling supervision with supervision using IPR found that trainees using IPR showed significantly greater gains on the CVRS variables than those using tra- ditional methods. In the study all trainees interviewed their clients for 30 minutes for six sessions held weekly. The traditionally supervised group spent 60 minutes after each session going over the audiotape of the session with their supervisor. For the IPR supervised group a 15- minute client recall was conducted for the first two sessions with the counselor watching through a one-way mirror. A 45—minute counselor recall was also included 21 in these first two sessions. During the next two sessions the trainees conducted client recalls for each other, and during the last two sessions mutual recall was conducted for 60 minutes by the supervisor. The Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS) (Kagan, et al., 1967) scales were used to analyze pre- and post-audio tapes. Spivak (1970) compared a traditional counselor training model using lectures, discussions, and demon- strations with a developmental task model based on IPR and Affect Simulation. He defined the learning tasks as follows: (a) to become aware of and sensitive to one's own feelings during the counseling process; (b) to be- come sensitive to, aware of, and understanding of client communication; (c) to become aware of the elements of effective communication behaviors in counseling; and (d) to become sensitive to, aware of, and understanding of the bilateral nature of the counseling relationship and the mutual impact between counselor and client. He used a pre-mid-post-test design with reversal of the treatment at the midpoint. He found significant differ— ences (p < .05) between the IPR and traditional groups with the IPR group scoring higher on the understanding, specific, and exploratory subscales of the CVRS under the coached client condition and on the affective, understand— ing, specific, and exploratory subscales under a role play situation. He found no significant differences for Cark- huff's accurate empathy scale or for the A88 (Affective Sensitivity Scale). 22 Grzegorek (1971) explored the effects of two types of training emphasis using an IPR/Simulation Film tape rating training model. By using these two emphases called experiential-accepting and cognitive-intellectual, Grzegorek attempted to find out if the learning which took place with the training model was related more to cognitive or affec- tive involvement. Using prison counselors as trainees he found that there were no significant differences for the trainees in groups using the two different emphases on affective sensitivity as measured by the ASS (Affective Sensitivity Scale). The trainees using the experiential- accepting emphasis did make significantly greater gains in empathic understanding and on the understanding, speci- fic, and exploratory CVRS (Counselor Verbal Response Scale) dimensions. Implications of Related Research The literature thus suggests that paraprofessionals can effectively teach interpersonal communication skills and that Kagan's counselor training techniques and Cark— huff's facilitative training methods can be used as teach- ing methods. The use of paraprofessionals is supported by a number of studies evaluating their use as mental health workers. Brown's (1965, 1966) and Wolff's (1969) work provide evidence that students can be used to work in a 23 paraprofessional capacity with other students in a college environment. Considerable research on Carkhuff's methods indi- cates that they can be used to teach facilitative skills to a variety of trainees. This work also suggests that interpersonal skill variables can be identified and oper- ationalized. In particular Carkhuff's research supports inclusion of his tape rating training technique to teach empathy and owning of feelings. The efficacy of Kagan's IPR and Affect Simulation training methods is supported by a number of studies. Their use in a developmental training program in combi- nation with tape rating is also supported. Although there is no direct research using Kagan's methods in a growth oriented (not connected with counseling or therapy) setting, there is reason to believe that training counselors to have effective interpersonal skills is not very different from teaching students the same skills for use in their normal interactions. CHAPTER III DESIGN Population The pOpulation for this study consists of all student volunteers for student led interpersonal communi— cation skills training programs residing in co-educational living-learning residence halls similar in design and pOpulation to Hubbard Hall at Michigan State University. This residence hall, generally regarded as an "upperclass" hall consists of two wings housing approximately 600 men and 600 women. These wings are connected by common dining, classroom, and recreation facilities. From 25 to 30% of the residents are typically freshmen with the remainder mostly sophomores and juniors with a few seniors and graduate students. Residents appear to belong to no dominant curricular or sub-culture groups. Sample The sample consisted of screened volunteers for a student led interpersonal communication skills (ICS) group training program for residents of Hubbard Hall. Four of the original volunteers were screened out because 24 25 their participation was judged inappropriate by screening counselors. (Details of this screening procedure are listed in the procedures section of this chapter.) There were about twice as many male as female volunteers and the volunteers represented all class levels. Forty-seven percent were sophomores, 28% were freshmen, 18% were juniors, and 7% were seniors. McCary (1969), in a study offering self-understand— ing groups to Hubbard residents, found that volunteers tended to have either Intuition or Feeling as their domi- nant type on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The author's experience with another self-understanding group project in Hubbard using MBTI confirms this finding. Also, observations of residence hall student personnel staff indicate that volunteers for self-understanding groups and ICS groups tend to be more active students, many of whom are involved in student government or who become Resident Assistant (RA) applicants. Experimental Design A posttest only control group design with experi- mental units (groups) randomly assigned to treatments was employed. According to Campbell and Stanley (1969) this design minimizes the possibility of confounding variables by controlling for threats to internal validity (history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection, mortality, and interaction). The posttest 26 only design also avoids possible reactive effects of testing. See Figures 1 and 2 for graphic representation of the design. Hypotheses 1. Undergraduates who are trained by other undergraduates using an Integrated IPR training model will have more effective interpersonal skills, as deter- mined by measures of affective sensitivity (empathy), self-actualization (positive mental health), psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relationships, than undergraduates who receive no train- ing. Ml Integrated IPR groups M2 = No treatment control groups H : MI > M2 2. Undergraduates who are trained by other under- graduates using an Integrated IPR training model will have more effective interpersonal skills, as determined by measures of affective sensitivity (empathy), self- actualization (positive mental health), psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relationships, than undergraduates who receive similar training with an Encounter-Developmental Group training model. R 01 X1,2,3,4 02 X1,2,3,4 X1,2,3,4 01: Integrated IPR, affect simulation, tape rating training model 02: Encounter-Developmental group training model Dependent variables (measurements) Figure l.--Experimental Design T: Treatments G: Groups X: Measures (dependent variables) Figure 2.--Treatments, Groups, and Measures 28 M1 = Integrated IPR groups M2 = Encounter-Developmental groups H2: M1 > M2 3. The mean scores on a measure of empathy (affective sensitivity) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the no treatment control groups. M1 = Integrated IPR Groups 3 ll 2 No treatment control groups H : M1 > M2 4. The mean scores on a measure of empathy (affective sensivitity) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the Encounter-DevelOpmental groups. Ml Integrated IPR groups M2 Encounter-Developmental groups H : M > M 4 1 2 5. The mean scores on a measure of self- actualization (positive mental health) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the no treatment control groups. Ml Integrated IPR groups M 2 No treatment control groups H5: MI > M2 6. 29 The mean scores on a measure of self- actualization (positive mental health) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the Encounter- Developmental groups. insight in Integrated groups. :3 Z :L‘ 8. insight in Integrated groups. = Integrated IPR groups Encounter-Developmental groups M > M 1 2 The mean scores on a measure of psychological peer relationships will be greater for the IPR groups than for the no treatment control Integrated IPR groups = No treatment control groups Ml > M2 The mean scores on a measure of psychological peer relationships will be greater for the IPR groups than for the Encounter-DevelOpmental Integrated IPR groups Encounter-Developmental groups MI > M2 30 9. The mean scores on a measure of the depth of typical peer relationships will be greater for the Inte- grated IPR groups than for the no treatment control groups. M1 = Integrated IPR groups M2 = No treatment control groups H9: M1 M2 10. The mean scores on a measure of the depth of typical peer relationships will be greater for the Inte- grated IPR groups than for the Encounter-Developmental groups. M1 = Integrated IPR groups M2 = Encounter-DevelOpmental Groups H10. M1 > M2 An additional question, which is not stated as a formal hypothesis, concerns the subjective evaluation of the project by participants. Results of a questionnaire employed to solicit trainees' personal reactions will be presented in the analysis chapter. Data and Instrumentation ASS (Affective Sensitivity Scale) This scale is designed to measure affective sensitivity as a standardized test of empathy (Kagan, gt_gl,, 1967). Basically the instrument is a multiple choice test which requires the testes to judge what the 31 client in a videotaped counseling session is feeling about himself and about the counselor. The correct answers to individual items were taken from three sources: (1) clinical judges, (2) clinical judges with a case history of the client, and (3) protocols of recall sessions (where the client tells how he was feeling as he watches a video-tape replay of the session) (Kagan, §E_§l,, 1967). Concurrent validity figures given for the ASS in- clude an average .53 correlation between therapist's ratings of affective sensitivity in MA counselor training groups and the ASS (Kagan, 2E_31., 1967). Additionally, with eight small groups of NDEA students, Kagan cites correlation coefficients for the relationship between subjective supervisor ratings and ASS scores as from .42 to .16 and with ASS and peer rating of affective sensi- tivity from .64 to -.10. Altekkruse and McNeill (1968) found a .42 correlation between the ASS and Truax's Accurate Empathy Scale. In a predictive validity study, Kagan (1967) reports an r of .49 between initial ASS scores of students in a year-long NDEA institute and later peer ratings of counseling effectiveness. In discussing construct validity he cites pre- and post-ASS increases significant at the .025 and .005 levels (Kagan, g£_gl., 1967) for groups undergoing counselor training (part of which was training in affective sensitivity). Reliability figures for the eight NDEA groups varied from .53 to .77 with most scores falling above .70. 32 Kagan (1967) predicts a reliability above .70 with reason- ably heterogeneous groups. Uses of the ASS in this study will be with a more heterogeneous group (undergraduate volunteers) than the groups cited in these validity and reliability studies. The use of the ASS in this study is justified by the fact that at least part of what it measures is similar to accepted clinical definitions of empathy. And empathy, defined in this way, is theoretically an extremely im- portant interpersonal communication dimension. Also, the ASS has been used in similar studies to measure personal growth in affective sensitivity after group experiences (Danish, 1969). POI (Personal Orientation Inventory) The main purpose of the POI, according to Shostrom (1968), is to provide a measure of positive mental health (or self-actualization--he uses the terms interchangeably). He suggests its use in college, business, and industrial settings (Shostrom, 1968, p. 5). The test consists of 150 two choice items drawn from (1) observed value judg- ments, and (2) theoretical constructs of Angel, Ellen- berger, Ellis, Fromm, Horney, Maslow, May, Perls, Riesman, Rogers, and Watts. Shostrom (1968, p. 7) suggests use of the two major scales (TC) Time Competent and (I) Inner Directed for correlation or statistical analysis of scores. 33 In this study the two scores are combined in order to give a global measure of self-actualization. Validity figures given by Shostrom indicate that the POI " . . . discriminates between clinically judged self-actualized and non-self-actualized groups on eleven of the twelve scales" (Shostrom, 1968, p. 25). The corre- lation of this cross-validation is reported significant at the .01 level for the two major scales and eight sub- scales, and at .05 for one subscale with the remaining subscale not significant. Reliability figures are given as .71 for (TC) Time Competent Scale and .84 for (I) Inner Directed Scale with the remaining scales going from .55 to .85. Combining the two major scales for research pur- poses, Sands (1970) reports a .84 reliability with teachers. Foulds (1968), in a study comparing the POI dimensions to Carkhuff's (1967) facilitative rating scales, found significant correlations between Empathic Understand- ing, Facilitative Genuineness, and several of the POI scales. This finding suggests the possibility of a relationship between interpersonal communications skills and self-actualization. Culbert (1968) used the POI to measure growth in a sensitivity group. Peer Relationship Inventories Two different relationship inventories were used. Both of these inventories, the Wisconsin Relationship 34 Orientation Survey (WROS) and the Barrett-Lennard Relation- ship Inventory were originally designed to measure client- counselor interaction and have been expanded to measure other kinds of human interaction. WROS (Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Survey). This inventory has been modified for this study and is simply a list of five possible descriptions of a relation- ship, on a continuum from avoidance to intimacy (Steff, 1963). Goldberg (1967) found differences between IPR and traditionally supervised counselor trainees as rated on the WROS by clients, and Resnikoff (1968) indicated that counselors who scored high and low on a counselor behavior scale were rated differently by clients on the WROS. This inventory has been included in this study for two reasons. First, as a subjective measure of the depth of typical peer relationships, and secondly, as a way of screening out peers who do not have enough of a relation- ship with trainees to complete the Barrett-Lennard (see Part I, Appendix F). Barrett-Lennard. The original inventory was devised to explore and measure Rogers' "necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change" (Rogers, 1957), within the context of a client-counselor relationship. The scales on the inventory include level of regard, empathic understanding, congruence, uncondition- ality, and willingness to be known. The items measuring 35 each dimension were logically derived from Rogers' theory and then rated by five judges as to the positive or nega- tive degree that they measured the dimensions under con- sideration. The judges were client-centered counselors with varying degrees of experience. An item analysis was then conducted with from 16 to 18 items remaining for each dimension. Test-retest reliability was reported from an independent sample with r = .84 for level of regard, r = .84 for empathic understanding, r = .89 for con- gruence, r = .86 for unconditionality, and r = .90 for willingness to be known. In addition to assessing the effects of psycho- therapy, use of the Barrett-Lennard has been expanded to the measurement of other types of human interaction. It has been used, for example, to measure parent-child, mother-daughter, and teacher-pupil relationships (Mills, 1961). In this study a part of the instrument is used to measure a relationship dimension between college students. The dimension used, called psychological insight, is a result of a factor analysis of the original instrument (Walker, 1969). It includes most of the items from the original empathic understanding and congruence dimensions. In defining this dimension Walker (1969) argues that: It is reasoned that to say a person is congruent in the context of a relationship, that is, "his actual experience is accurately represented by his aware- ness of himself (Rogers, 1957)," is to say that he 36 has insight into his experiencing in the relationship. This same quality of insight is required for the empathic understanding of another person's awareness of his own experience. Empathic understanding and congruence are different sides of the same coin. This psychological insight dimension is assumed to be a particularly appropriate measure for this study because it contains two of the basic training goals, empathy and congruence (see Part II, Appendix F). Participant Questionnaire This questionnaire is not a formal instrument but has face validity. It was included as an attempt to assess the participants' subjective evaluations of the training experience and to gather any specific suggestions that they might have for improving the training methods or model. Since the goal of the training was to increase interpersonal communication skills, the questionnaire naturally has an item asking the students if they feel that this goal has been accomplished. Since a basic research question deals with the use of paraprofessionals, a question asking the students to evaluate their student leaders was included. A self-understanding item was in- cluded to explore the relationship between effective com- munication and self-understanding, and the final item asking the participants if they would volunteer again is simply a way of asking them if they thought the eXperi- ence was worthwhile (see Appendix H). 37 General Procedures Leaders The 16 undergraduate leaders for both types of training groups were selected from a group of 22 under— graduate Resident Assistants (RA's), 11 men and 11 women. These RA's had been through an extensive interpersonal communication skills training program using an Integrated IPR training model. The training began during the Spring term after the new RA's were selected and was continued during the fall term prior to this study (see studies by Dendy and Scharf to be published as doctoral disser- tations at Michigan State University). Sixteen of the 22 originally trained leaders volunteered to be training group leaders. These 16 were paired according to their own preferences and by their potential to work together in a complementary way. When- ever possible each pair consisted of a male and female, and the more extroverted, assertive students were paired with less assertive, more introverted ones. These leader- ship teams were then randomly assigned to the two kinds of training groups. Both groups of leaders received eight hours of training dealing specifically with the leadership techniques involved in each type of training. The philos0phy behind each approach, information on stages of group development, problems of leadership, and what to do in an emergency were some of the items covered in this 38 training. Whenever possible, the leader-pairs practiced specific training techniques with their own leaders' group and were later critiqued by other members of the group (see Appendices I and J for written instructions given to leaders of the Integrated IPR groups and Appendix K for instructions given to the Encounter— DevelOpmental group leaders). Supervision The eight pairs of leaders were assigned to four supervisors--one senior staff member, two interns, and one advanced practicum student from the Michigan State University Counseling Center. Each supervisor supervised one pair of leaders using each training method and all of the supervisors had personal experience with both types of group training techniques. The supervisors met with each leadership pair for one to one and a half hours per week during the entire course of the project. The group training sessions were audio taped so that the supervisor could listen to them during the weekly supervision if he thought it appropriate. Since the leaders were under- graduates and not professional trainees, supervisors paid particular attention to individual members of the groups who seemed to be having difficulty with the training. Supervisors were available to the group leaders by tele— phone if an emergency arose during their group meeting. In general, considerable time in supervision was spent 39 in working through competitive feelings between leaders and in helping them to learn more effective ways of work- ing with each other. Since the IPR groups were consider- ably more structured, supervisors spent more time going over particular training tasks than they did with the Encounter-Developmental group leaders. A number of the leaders received independent study credit in Education, Psychology, and Communications for their work on the project. Student Recruitment Students were recruited for this project by a letter offering group training in interpersonal communi- cation skills (see Appendix L). RA's and other advisory staff members were familiar with the project and were available to answer questions about the project. Many students in the hall had some idea about student-led groups from a project completed the previous year using under— graduate students as leaders of self-understanding groups for freshmen. Students were asked to put off a final decision about participation, if they were unsure, until after they had talked with a member of the Counseling Center staff during the screening interview. These inter- views were 20 to 30 minutes long and were designed to screen people out who were in need of individual or group therapy or who would be too difficult for paraprofessional group leaders to handle (see Appendices M and N for the 40 instruction letter to screeners and for the screening inter- view form). Four students out of the original 87 volunteers were not permitted to participate. They were offered indi- vidual or group therapy through the Counseling Center. Group Assignment and Testing After the screening was completed, the students were randomly assigned within sex to eight treatment groups and to four control groups. The treatment groups each had 8 students with the remaining 19 assigned to four control groups. It is interesting to note that there were about twice as many male as female volunteers. Members of the control groups were sent a letter informing them that they could not be accommodated in the training project during the first phase (winter term), but that they would be able to participate during Spring term. These subjects had no other contact with the project until they were contacted for testing at the end of winter term. The eight treatment groups were randomly designated for either IPR or Encounter-Developmental training methods. Most of the posttesting and all of the peer relationship questionnaires were collected during the final two weeks of the term after the training was completed. Because of difficulties caused by final examination week, several of the control group people were not tested until the be- ginning of the next term (spring vacation week intervened). 41 The original N of 83 was reduced to 74 by attrition. Attendance was generally high with each group averaging only one absence every other week. One subject dropped out of the Encounter—Developmental groups, five subjects left the IPR groups, and six of the control group subjects were not available for posttesting. Of these six, four dropped out of school. Final group means for the control groups were completed from three groups with three subjects and one group of four subjects. Since the group is the experimental unit in this design the loss of subjects does not violate any assumptions necessary for analysis by ANOVA. Peer Relationship Questionnaires These questionnaires were sent to three peers for each participant in one of the two kinds of groups and for each control group member. In most cases one was sent to the roommate, one to a wallmate (the next room on one side), and one to a suitemate (the next room on the other side). When this was not possible the three peOple in closest geographic proximity were used. Since part of the purpose of this instrument was to assess the quality of relationships, students who knew the subject only super- ficially and who responded on level 1 or 2 on Part I were asked not to fill out Part II. When about 80% of the forms were in, it became obvious that a sizable number of 42 respondents did not know the subjects well enough to rate them on Part II (even though they were roommates or lived next door). In order to increase the number of ratings on Part II an additional form was sent out to another peer for any subject who had not been rated by at least two of his peers on Part II. The objective was to obtain a mean score on Part II for each subject computed from at least two ratings. These additional questionnaires were not computed in the scoring for Part I. Of the original 219 peer relationship surveys sent out, 185 or 84% were returned. Of the additional 28 inventories, 18 or 65% were returned. Of the total group of subjects, 27% had three ratings, 41% had two ratings, 17% had one rating, and 12% had no ratings on Part II. Subjects had no ratings either because no one knew them well enough to rate Part II or because no one returned surveys on them. One of the Encounter-DevelOp- mental groups had three subjects with no ratings on Part II and another had two subjects with no ratings. None of the other treatment or control groups had more than one subject with no ratings. Since the experimental unit in this study was the group mean, the 12% of individual subjects without ratings on Part II were not considered large enough to invalidate the measurement and these subjects were assumed to be at the group mean. This group mean was calculated by averaging the mean ratings for each group member. 43 Because use of this instrument involves asking students for certain kinds of personal information about their peers, it is apprOpriate at this point to briefly review the reasons why little problem was anticipated with negative social-psychological implications: (1) all participants were aware of the peer ratings before they volunteered; (2) the ratings were coded so that the name did not appear on the returned sheet; and (3) the reasons for the rating sheet were contained in a letter to the raters (see request letter, Appendix G). Chronological Schedule April, May, June 1970: Phase I training for RA's. September, October 1970: Phase II training for RA's. November 1970: Selection of leaders from trained RA's. November, December 1970: Recruitment and screen- ing of volunteers. November, December, January 1970-71: Specific leadership training for RA leaders. January 1971: Selection and indoctrination of supervisors. January 1971: Random assignment to groups, leaders, and treatments. January, February, March 1971: Treatment period. Concurrent supervision. 44 March 1971: Testing and collection of peer relationship inventories. April, May, June 1971: Training groups provided for students in the control groups. IPR Training Schedule The IPR training model (see Appendices I and J) consists of training tasks previously described. Follow- ing is the training schedule with the specific tasks listed for each session: Session 1: A. Introductions B. Affect Simulation Films Session 2: A. Owning of Feelings Scale B. Affect Simulation Films Session 3: A. Affect Simulation Films B. Group Interaction--members encouraged by leaders to Spend time interacting and react- ing to each other. Session 4: A. Empathy Tape Rating B. Practice Making Empathic Responses Session 5: A. IPR--Listener Recall B. Recall Training Session 6: A. IPR--Speaker Recall B. Recall Training 45 Session 7: A. IPR--Mutual Recall B. Recall Training Session 8: A. IPR--Mutual Recall with "Speakers" from outside the training group. Encounter-Developmental Group Training Model The Encounter-Developmental groups (see Appendix K) were basically unstructured and were designed as an alter- native approach to the structured IPR model. They were similar to many of the currently popular sensitivity and encounter groups. This similarity was, of course, purpose- ful in that it allowed a comparison of another method that is widely used. The basic goals of the Encounter-Develop- mental groups were essentially the same as for the IPR groups--to develop better interpersonal communication Skills. Some structure was provided these groups during the first three sessions by exercises suggested to the leaders. After this, the leaders were instructed to let the group develop on its own, and to provide additional structure whenever they and their supervisor felt it appropriate. The following exercises were suggested for the first three sessions: Session 1: Introductions. Pair off and ask people to get to know each other as well as possible in 46 15 to 20 minutes, then have them come back to the group and introduce their partners to the group telling what they learned about their partner. Go around the circle and encourage group interaction. Session 2: Experience sharing. Each member shares with the group two or three experiences that have made a difference in his life. At least one from child- hood and one fairly current. Group members react and ask questions. Session 3: Strength and weakness sharing. Each person Shares his strengths and weaknesses while group members react and Share perceptions of each other. Trust circle. Members form a closed circle with one person in the middle. He closes his eyes and falls in any direction allowing himself to be caught by members of the group. Discuss feelings about this exercise. Many of the groups used these exercises and a few of them used similar encounter group methods usually at the suggestion of their supervisor. Generally these groups remained unstructured, and their course was largely deter- mined by the leaders and the groups. They met for eight sessions of three hours per session just as the IPR groups did. This three hours was not inflexible for either type of group, but leaders were asked to stick to the time schedule as closely as possible. With a few exceptions most of the groups kept to this three-hour schedule. 47 Analysis The data were analyzed by two different sta- tistical procedures. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the dependent variables as repeated measures was employed to assess the general effect of the treat- ments across all dependent variables, and a separate one- way ANOVA was used with each separate dependent variable to assess the treatment effect with reSpect to that specific variable. Tukey post hoc comparison tests were used to test the differences between Specific treatments. In the repeated measures two-way ANOVA the de- pendent variables were treated as levels of a more com- prehensive factor which in this case might be called interpersonal skill. Scores on each of these variables were converted to a standard metric by dividing each by the square root of its variance. The ANOVA assumption of independence was met because the group was used as the experimental unit and each experimental unit was inde- pendent of every other one. Population normality was assumed with the realization that the F test is reasonably unaffected by all but the most extreme violations of this assumption. The assumption of equal variances was not met because of the correlation between the dependent variables which were considered to be repeated measures. Use of the Geisser-Greenhouse Conservative F test, how- ever, permitted analysis of the data (Kirk, 1969). 48 Individual univariate analyses with one-way ANOVA 'were completed on each dependent variable separately. This allowed an analysis of treatment effects with respect to each individual dependent variable. The assumptions for Independence and Normality were met as they were for the repeated measures design, and in this case, the F test was relatively insensitive to violations of the equal variance assumption (Kirk, 1969). Tukey post hoc compari— sons were appropriate in both the one- and two-way ANOVA'S because only pairwise differences between treatments were tested and because there were equal observations in all cells. Summary The sample for this study consisted of volunteers for a student led interpersonal communication skills train- ing program in a 1,200-student co-educational Michigan State University residence hall. The population was defined as student volunteers in residence halls of similar design and population at Michigan State University. A posttest only control group design with units (groups) assigned randomly to treatments was used. Groups trained with an Integrated IPR training model were compared with groups trained with a more traditional Encounter- Developmental group approach, and also with no treatment control groups. Measures of affective sensitivity (empathy), self-actualization (positive mental health), 49 psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relationships were employed with hypotheses predicting higher scores for the Integrated IPR trained groups. Leaders for the project were recruited from a group of RA's who had previously been trained with an IPR training model Similar to the one used in this study and were supervised by members of the Counseling Center staff. Students in the residence hall were recruited by letter and were screened by counselors prior to their partici- pation. Peer relationship ratings and other testing was largely completed the last week of the term after the groups had terminated. Both groups met for eight sessions of approximately three hours duration during winter term, 1971. The Integrated IPR groups followed a relatively structured approach completing specific training tasks during each session. The Encounter-Developmental groups were relatively unstructured except for a few sensitivity exercises suggested for the first three meetings. Results were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA repeated measures procedure combining all of the dependent variables and a one-way ANOVA for each separate dependent variable. Tukey post hoc comparisons were used to compare the treatments with each other. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In this chapter each separate hypothesis will be evaluated by a statistical analysis of the experimental data. The results of the subjective questionnaire to participants will also be presented. Two-Way ANOVA Repeated Measures Analysis Results Following are tables of the Cell Means and ANOVA Results for the two-way repeated measures ANOVA. This information will be used in the evaluation of hypotheses one and two. From the ANOVA table (4.2) it is clear that there were significant treatment (T) effects. The fact that there was no significant interaction indicates that all of the dependent variables (R) were affected in essenti— ally the same way by the treatment. A Tukey post hoc analysis of the treatment effects indicated the following: 1. Row mean for T2 (IPR) was greater than the row mean for T3 (Control) with p < .05. 50 51 .mocm«um> mud mo uoou mumswm on» an comm mo mnoom sou mcu mcH©H>flc an owuuwe wEMm on» on pwuum>coo coon m>mc moanmwum> ucmccmmmp mnu co mmuoom "muoz www.5H omn.m mo¢.vH Hmm.va Amcmmzv SESHOO mam.HH mom.oH mmm.m Nam.wa hhh.ma AmQDOHG HOHuGOUv m ucofiumoue vmm.ma bam.ma hmo.v mHo.mH Noo.mH Ammflouo mmHv m ucmsummua www.ma . mmo.ba oma.v oom.MH mam.va mmsouw HmucmE Imoao>molumucsoocm H usmfiumoua mammz 30m moms: Exams 30.: $9: vm mm mm H AmmHSmmmz pmummmmmv moHQMHHm> usmccmamo mmmOUm dez AAmU H.¢ mflmda 52 TABLE 4.2 ANOVA TABLE Source df SS MS F T 2 18.038 9.018 10.14* G:T 9 8.005 00889 -- R 3 1329.297 443.099 392.46** TR 6 14.140 2.356 2.08*** RG:T 27 30.510 1.129 -- *p < .05. **Not relevant to the study. ***p > F t With .05 on both the Conservative and Liberal est. Row mean for T2 (IPR) was greater than the row mean for T2 (Encounter-DevelOpmental) with p < .05. T1 (Encounter-Developmental) row mean was ESE greater than the row mean for T3 (Control) with p < .05. the information presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 and the results of the post hoc analysis it is possible to evaluate hypotheses number one and two. H1: Undergraduates who are trained by other undergraduates using an Integrated IPR training model will have more effective interpersonal skills, as deter- mined by measures of affective sensitivity (empathy), 53 self-actualization (positive mental health), psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relationships, than undergraduates who receive no train- ing. Results: Significant treatment effect and post hoc difference between T2 and T3 with T2 higher. Therefore the null hypothe- sis is rejected and H1 accepted. H Undergraduates who are trained by other under- 2. graduates using an Integrated IPR training model will have more effective interpersonal skills, as determined by mea- sures of affective sensitivity (empathy), self-actuali- zation (positive mental health), psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relation- ships, than undergraduates who receive similar training with an Encounter—Developmental group training model. Results: Significant treatment effect and post hoc difference between T2 and T with T2 higher. Therefore the null Hypothesis is rejected and H2 accepted. One-Way Separate ANOVA Results Since hypotheses three through ten deal with the treatment effects of each dependent variable taken separately, a one-way ANOVA for each separate variable was used. In this presentation of results an abbreviated ANOVA table (information printed out by computer analysis) for each one-way analysis will be presented followed by an evaluation of the applicable hypotheses. 54 TABLE 4.3 ANOVA FOR ASS SCORES (AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY) Source df MS F p Less Than Between 2 8.6508 1.5495 0.2641* Within 9 5.5830 *Not Significant. H The mean scores on a measure of empathy 3: (affective sensitivity) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the no treatment control group. Results: No significant treatment effects for the one-way ANOVA; therefore the null hypothesis is not rejected. H4: The mean scores on a measure of empathy (affective sensitivity) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the Encounter-Developmental groups. Results: No Significant treatment effects for the one-way ANOVA; therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. TABLE 4.4 ANOVA TABLE FOR POI SCORES (SELF-ACTUALIZATION) Source df MS F p less than Between 2 125.1925 2.5697 0.1310* Within 9 48.7183 *Not significant. 55 H5: The mean scores on a measure of self- actualization (positive mental health) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the no treatment control groups. Results: No Significant treatment effects for the one-way ANOVA; therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. H6: The mean scores on a measure of self- actualization (positive mental health) will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the Encounter- Developmental groups. Results: No significant treatment effects for the one-way ANOVA; therefore the null hypothesis is not rejected. TABLE 4.5 ANOVA TABLE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHT FACTOR OF THE BARRETT-LENNARD Source df MS F p less than Between 2 43.1258 1.2923 0.3211* Within 9 33.3705 *Not significant. H7: The mean scores on a measure of psychologi- cal insight in peer relationships will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the no treatment control groups. 56 Results: No significant treatment effects for one-way ANOVA; therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. H The mean scores on a measure of psychological 8: insight in peer relationships will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the Encounter—Developmental groups. Results: No significant treatment effects for one-way ANOVA; therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. TABLE 4.6 ANOVA FOR THE WROS (MEASURE OF THE DEPTH OF TYPICAL PEER RELATIONSHIPS) Source df MS F p less than Between 2 0.3775 10.3740 .0047* Within 9 0.0363 *Since four separate ANOVA'S were computed, p would have to be significant at the .0125 level on an indi— vidual test to be significant at the .05 level. In this test, therefore, there is a significant treatment effect. Tukey post hoc comparisons of the means on the WROS indicate the following: 1. The mean for T2 (IPR) was greater than the mean for the T3 (Control) groups at the p < .05 level. 2. The mean for T2 (IPR) was greater than the mean for T1 (Encounter-Dave10pmental) at the p < .05 level. 57 H9: The mean scores on a measure of the depth of typical peer relationships will be greater for the Inte- grated IPR groups than for the no treatment control groups. Results: Significant treatment effect and post hoc difference between T2 and T3 with T2 higher. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and H9 accepted. H The mean scores on a measure of the depth 10‘ of typical peer relationships will be greater for the Integrated IPR groups than for the Encounter-Developmental groups. Results: Significant treatment effect and post hoc difference between T2 and T with T2 higher. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and H10 is accepted. Subjective Questionnaire Results The results of the subjective questionnaire given only to subjects in the two treatment groups are as follows: Question 1: As a result of your participation in the group how much did you improve your inter- personal communication skills? A great deal Some Not at all IPR 54% 42% 4% Encounter- DevelOpmental 42% 48% 10% Total 42% 51% 7% 58 Question 2: How would you rate the competency of your leaders? Excellent Good Fair Lacking IPR 42% 50% 4% 4% Encounter- DevelOpmental 42% 48% 7% 3% Total 42% 49% 5% 4% Question 3: AS a result of your participation do you understand yourself any better? A great deal Some Not at all 'IPR 46% 54% 0% Encounter- Developmental 45% 55% 0% Total 45% 55% 0% Question 4: If you had it to do over again would you participate? Yes No Don't know IPR 88% 12% 0% Encounter- Developmental 83% 7% 10% Total 86% 9% 5% See Appendix 0 for selected comments from students in the two types of groups. Summary Hypotheses one through ten were analyzed and appropriate statistical evidence was presented. When all of the dependent variables (affective sensitivity, 59 self-actualization, psychological insight in peer relation- ships, and depth of typical peer relationships) were com- bined and considered as repeated measures in a two-way ANOVA model a significant treatment effect was indicated. The IPR treatment had a significantly greater overall effect than either the control or Encounter—Developmental treatment conditions. The lack of significant interaction suggests that the treatments had the same relative effect on all four dependent variables. Hypotheses one and two were supported. In hypotheses three through eight the null hypotheses were not rejected because one-way ANOVA'S failed to indicate Significance for the first three de- pendent variables taken separately. Hypotheses nine and ten were supported by significant one-way ANOVA tests and by Tukey post hoc tests indicating that the IPR groups were higher on the WROS (depth of typical peer relation- ships) than either the No Treatment or Encounter-Develop- mental groups. The subjective questionnaires indicated that 93% of the total students involved in both kinds of training groups felt that they had improved their interpersonal communication skills to some degree. Ninety-one percent of these students rated their student leaders as either excellent or good, and 100% of the participants felt that they understood themselves better as a result of their participation. Ninety-five percent said that they would 60 volunteer to participate again if they had it to do over again. There was no noticeable difference between the responses of students in the IPR groups and students in the Encounter-Developmental groups. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This research was an attempt to evaluate a method to help satisfy the need in higher education for better ways to help students grow personally and socially. Since, according to Erickson (1965), a college student's personal- social growth revolves around his attempts to master needs for intimacy and identity, teaching more effective inter- personal communication skills was assumed to be important and appropriate. The Specific purpose of the study was to develop an effective and efficient interpersonal communication skills training model that can be used successfully by trained undergraduate paraprofessionals to train their peers. By developing a model that can be used in a "pyramid-like" structure, a few trained professionals can ultimately help a large number of undergraduates increase their interpersonal skills. The basic questions were the following: (1) Could trained undergraduates (paraprofessionals) teach other students to have more effective interpersonal communication 61 62 skills? (2) Could methods originally developed for use in a therapeutic setting be used by paraprofessionals in a growth-oriented setting? (3) How would a structured train- ing model using videotape feedback, and affect Simulation, and tape rating compare with an unstructured encounter- developmental group approach? The training model was derived largely from Kagan's (1967) IPR methods and counselor development model, but also included some exercises from work by Carkhuff (1965). Research supporting Kagan's and Carkhuff's training pro- cedures was examined. Studies Showing applications of these methods in a variety of settings provided some evi- dence that the methods could be adapted to a growth- oriented interpersonal communication skills training model. The training program began with the use of Affect Simulation Films. They were shown to small groups of trainees with a group discussion afterwards focusing on recoqnition and labeling of communication messages. The next step involved use of the Owning of Feelings Scale with practice rating audiotaped segments in small groups. The training emphasis here was on teaching the trainees to recognize the importance of acceptance of feeling and of congruence. Following this the trainees again viewed the Affect Simulation Films; however, this time they were asked to react personally to what the actor was communi- cating to them. They were asked by their leaders to 63 "own" their own feelings and to look at how these feelings affected their perceptions of and communications with other people. Theoretically the use of Affect Simulation was originally conceived to help trainees overcome basic fears of interpersonal involvement. Once these fears are accepted and recognized by the trainees, and discussed and shared with other group members, the trainees could begin to interact in new ways usually on a more affective level. After this initial focus on themselves and their feelings and interpersonal fears, the trainees were asked to think through new ways of responding to others. They were taught to discriminate levels of empathic understand- ing and were given practice in making empathic responses. Lastly they practiced their newly acquired listening and responding skills using Interpersonal Process Recall. In this videotape feedback method they were able to "re-live" interactions and to learn more about their own feelings and reactions during interpersonal interaction. They were also reinforced for effective listening and responding skills by watching the student with whom they were inter- acting participate in recall and "re-live" his thoughts and feelings about the original interaction. They also learned to develOp more confrontive assertive non- interpretive interpersonal behavior by practicing the role of inquirer (a third person who helps the trainee recall and explore his original thoughts and feelings 64 during the videotape replay of the interactions). Table 5.1 summarizes the training procedures for the IPR groups and for the Encounter-Developmental comparison groups. The sample for this study consisted of volunteers for a student led interpersonal communication skills train- ing program in a 1,200-student co-educational Michigan State University residence hall. The population was thus defined as student volunteers in residence halls of similar design and population as those at Michigan State University. A posttest only control group design with units (groups) assigned randomly to treatments was used. Groups trained with an Integrated IPR training model (the model described above) were compared with groups trained with a more tra- ditional Encounter—DevelOpmental group approach, and with no treatment control groups. Measures of affective sensi- tivity (empathy), self-actualization (positive mental health), psychological insight in peer relationships, and depth of typical peer relationships were employed with hypotheses predicting that the IPR groups would be more effective than either the Control or Encounter-DevelOp- mental groups. Leaders for the project were recruited from a group of Resident Assistants (RA's) who had been trained previously with a Similar IPR training model and who were supervised by members of the Counseling Center staff. Students in the residence hall were recruited by letter 65 mnmxmmmm wowmuso nuw3 Hamomm cousuosuumsa Hamomm Hmsusz|mmH mason m m Amcficflmnu Hmuwsvcflv Hamomm pwusuosnumss Hamomm HmsuszImmH muson m n Amcficwmuu umuflsvcwv Hamomm Umusuosuumco Hamomm umxmwmmummH muso: m m Amcwcflmuu Hmnfisvcfiv Hamomm Umusuosuumcs Hamomm HmcmumflqnmmH mason m m mmmcommmu AnomH>HmQSm cam .muopmmH .msoum oabummEm mcflxme mofluomum man an pmcflomov oousuosuumcs mcflumn was» hzummem mason m v mmwoumxm cofiuomumucfl msouw mcflumnm mmmcxmms cam numcmuum mEme coHumHsEAm pommmm muson m m . wwwoumxm mEme coaumaseflm pommm< >ua>fluwmcmm mcflumsm mocmwummxm mamom mmcfiamwm mo OSASBO muson m m mmwoumxm >ua>fluflmcmm pmucfimsvom pow madam coaumaseflm wommm< mcofluospouucH mcoauospouucH mnson m H Hmucwemon>oonuoucsoocm mmH . A xoummmv coammmm mafia . conumz mcflcflmua mmMDQmoomm UZHZHfimB ho Nmézzbm H.m mqmda 66 and were screened by counselors prior to their partici- pation. Peer relationship ratings and other testing was largely completed the last week of the term after the groups had terminated. Both types of groups met for eight sessions of approximately 3 hours duration during winter term, 1971. The Integrated IPR groups followed a rela- tively structured approach completing specific training tasks during each session. The Encounter-Developmental groups were relatively unstructured except for a few sensitivity exercises suggested for the first three meet- ings. Results were analyzed by a repeated measures two- way ANOVA analysis which allowed an evaluation of the overall treatment effects and a one-way ANOVA on each measure which allowed an evaluation of treatment effects with respect to each specific dependent variable. Results of the repeated measures two-way ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect. Post hoc com- parisons Showed that the students trained in the inte- grated IPR groups had significantly greater interpersonal skills than those in the no treatment and Encounter- DevelOpmental groups. The absence of significant inter- action between treatments and measures indicated that the treatments had the same relative effect on all of the dependent variables. Results of the separate one-way ANOVA'S on the four dependent variables (measures) indicated no 67 Significant treatment effect for the affective sensitivity (empathy), self-actualization (positive mental health), and psychological insight in peer relationships measures taken separately. There was significant treatment effect for the depth of typical peer relationships (measured by the WROS) analyzed separately. Students in the IPR groups had significantly greater scores than those in the no treatment and Encounter-DevelOpmental groups. 1. 2. Conclusions A structured IPR integrated videotape feedback/ simulation film training model can be used success- fully by undergraduates to teach interpersonal skills to other undergraduates using affective sensitivity (ability to discriminate empathic responses measured by a videotaped multiple choice test); self-actualization (measured by a paper and pencil test of self-actualization); psycho- logical insight in peer relationships (measured by a relationship inventory completed by residence hall peers); and depth of typical peer relation- ships (measured by a relationship inventory com- pleted by peers) as criterion variables. An integrated IPR model is more effective than a less structured Encounter-Developmental group training model when used by undergraduates to 68 teach other undergraduates interpersonal communi- cation skills. 3. With appropriate training and weekly supervision undergraduates can function as paraprofessional group leader/trainers for interpersonal communi- cation Skills groups. 4. Undergraduate participants in interpersonal com— munication skills groups led by other undergradu- ates (who are apprOpriately trained and supervised) will value their experience and generally per- ceived their leaders as competent. 5. Kagan's and Carkhuff's therapy and counselor training methods can be adapted for use in non- therapy, growth—oriented settings. 6. Providing interpersonal communication skills training for a sizable number of students in a residence hall community can have a noticeable effect (based upon non-systematic observations) on the operation of the total social system. Conclusions one through five are supported by statistical anslysis of the data. The last conclusion is based upon observations by the experimenter, the super- visors, the leaders, and residence hall staff members. These observations were subjective judgments and un- solicited "testamonials" about improved relationship 69 patterns. The general perception by students in the resi- dence hall of the training groups and of the entire project was decidedly positive. One concrete indication of this came when the residence hall student government allocated $100 in student funds to finance travel for two of the undergraduate leaders to go to the APGA (American Personnel and Guidance Association) convention in Atlantic City to participate in a panel discussing the project. The stu- dent government felt that the project had been a positive influence in the hall and that it deserved to be communi- cated to a national audience. Discussion Implications and Observations One important implication comes from the results of the comparison of the structured IPR model with the less structured Encounter-DevelOpmental group model. The relative success of the IPR groups may mean that para- professionals Operate more effectively when considerable structure is provided. This has the effect of giving them a number of specific teaching goals and methods. Although some of the Encounter—DevelOpmental groups were judged by their leaders and participants as successful, there seemed to be more frustration and energy required to make these groups work, and it was difficult to get some of the leaders to let the groups develop at their own rate. 70 It is also possible that the theoretic base of the inte- grated model is more appropriate for teaching interper- sonal behaviors. The difference in interpersonal competency among the leaders was great; however, it is important to note that all of them came from a very select group. In order to become RA's (all the leaders were RA's) the students went through a rigorous selection process which included judg- ments about interpersonal Skill as one of its basic cri- terion. The competition was great and in one case, over 100 students competed for six positions. The implication here is that considerable selectivity may have to be in- cluded in projects using undergraduates as paraprofession- als. The "natural" potential of the leaders for learning interpersonal skills is probably a crucial factor. Statistical Analysis The basic hypotheses concerning overall treatment effects were supported. Why, then, were six out of the eight hypotheses dealing with the treatment effect on indi- vidual dependent variables rejected? This seeming incon- sistency is a result of analyzing the results in two different ways. In the first analysis, using the repeated measures two-way ANOVA, all four of the dependent vari- ables were combined by assuming that they were all levels of a larger factor. The basic question tested by this analysis concerned the overall treatment effect on the 71 dependent variables taken together (were interpersonal skills improved? Yes!). This procedure would not be apprOpriate if the different variables were affected by the treatment in different ways, but Since there was no significant interaction between treatments and the de- pendent variables, it is clear that they were probably affected in the same way. The inconsistency comes with the results of the separate one-way ANOVA'S which indicated significant difference in treatments on only one of the four dependent variables. If the results of the two-way ANOVA were not known, a conclusion that the treatments were different on only one of four measures would be in order. An exami- nation of the interaction and the treatment row mean scores, however, indicates that the repeated measures design was sensitive to differences in the same (hypothe- sized) direction on each measure. Since the one-way ANOVA'S dealt with each measure separately they were not sensitive to these sometimes small, but consistent differences. Also the small size of the N required sizable differences for statistical significance. Economy of the Model Although the IPR treatment was clearly more effec- tive than the Encounter-Developmental training model, the question of economy must be considered. That is--is the increased training efficiency worth the added expense of 72 videotape and film equipment? One answer to this question is that the equipment is already available on many campuses and is not outrageously expensive (complete units are currently available at less than $2,000 and even less expensive equipment is soon to be introduced). A more direct anSwer to this dilemma comparing expense with efficiency is not possible until further research providing more specific analysis of the training model is conducted. The only conclusion possible at this point is the assertion that some additional expense and inconvenience for necessary equipment is probably worth- while. Limitations Two basic methodological limitations exist in this study. The most obvious weakness is the imprecision of measurement. Certainly behavioral science is in its in- fancy as far as the measurement of something as complex as interpersonal behavior. The fact that two of the four measures dealt with interpersonal behavior in a real social situation (the residence hall house) suggests relevance; however, the reliability and validity of both these relationship inventories, particularly the WROS, are certainly not conclusive. The failure to achieve a near 100% return rate on the peer observations could also reduce validity and reliability; however, the possibility of 73 confounding variables is largely controlled by the random assignment of experimental units to treatments. The measure of affective sensitivity can be criticized because of its failure to measure sensitivity in real interpersonal behavior. Validation of the instru- ment does, however, indicate a relationship between per- formance on the test and interpersonal behavior. The measure of self-actualization, although supported by a number of validity and reliability studies, can be criti— cized as an inappropriate measure of interpersonal be- havior. This criticism is somewhat blunted by an exami- nation of the subscales and theoretical underpinnings of the test. The theory upon which the instrument is based posits a strong connection between effective interpersonal behavior and self-actualization (positive mental health). The most basic methodological limitation is the size of the N. Although 83 students originally volun- teered to participate only 12 groups were formed and be- cause of the possible confounding effects of group inter- action, groups had to be used as the experimental unit. This cut the number of observations down to 12. This limited N must be taken into account when generalizations are made from the results. Another limitation of the study concerns the com- plexity of the training model. Because it contains several interrelated parts it is not possible to specifi- cally identify the parts of the model that are actually 74 responsible for the treatment group differences. From personal reactions of the participants it would appear that the IPR phase of the model is most potent. Further research will be necessary to delimit the relative potency of each of the various training phases. Implications for Further Research Because the Integrated IPR training model has proved to be a viable way of teaching interpersonal skills a further investigative step would be to evaluate specific phases of the model in an attempt to more narrowly define the most potent parts. Studies comparing group training using different phases of the model in different combinations might be used. The positive results of this research support further use of undergraduates as paraprofessional mental health workers. Training models for a variety of different kinds of training groups should be explored for possible use by para- professionals. Also the use of paraprofessionals in individual one-to-one mental health service needs exploration. One possible study would be to compare the success of undergraduate para- professionals with that of professional counselors 75 in dealing with certain kinds of personal/develop- mental problems presented by students seeking counseling. An understanding of the effect of large scale interpersonal communication Skill training on college social systems is needed. Some evidence in this research supported the idea that an entire social system can be positively effected by in- volving Significant numbers of students in growth- oriented mental health programs. Ways of assessing positive mental health influences on the environ- ment are needed in order to conduct this kind of research. One possible approach would be to com- pare two Similar residence halls. In one hall, extensive interpersonal communication skills training could be provided, while the other hall would serve as a no treatment control. The necessity of videotape equipment in the train- ing model should be specifically evaluated. Alternate methods should be explored. Audiotape and other kinds of training programs Should be compared with the IPR model to ascertain the necessity of videotape equipment. Because one advantage of the IPR model for para- professionals may have been its structure, a more 76 structured Encounter-Developmental group model should be developed and compared with the IPR model. Perhaps with more structure, Encounter- Developmental groups would be more potent when used with paraprofessional leaders. An additional step in the pyramid model should be explored. That is, groups with second generation leaders supervised by first generation leaders should be evaluated. To reach large numbers of students this extension of the pyramid idea is required. The possibility of having more of the IPR process "canned"--that is having more of the leader's work done by videotapes with instructions for trainees on tape Should be explored. Because of the preference by some of the leaders and participants for more personal encounter, a revised IPR model should be developed allowing for more unstructured encounter. One possibility would be to allow an encounter group to develop after IPR training was completed. This post training group might serve as a laboratory for intensive practice with new behavior. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. Social learning and per- sonalitypdevelopment. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of therapist response as casual factors in therapeutic change. Psycho- logical Monograph, 1962, 16(43). Beck, J. C., Kantor, D., & Gelineau, V. Follow-up study of chronic psychotic patients "treated" by college case-aid volunteers. American Journal of Psychi- atry, 1963, 120, 269-271. Berenson, B. G., Carkhuff, R. R., & Myrus, P. The inter- personal functioning and training of college stu- dents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 441-446. Brown, W. Student-to-student counseling for academic adjustment. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, ‘43, 811-817. Bruner, Jerome Seymour. Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni- versity, 1966. Campbell, Donald T., & Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and quasi-experimental desi ns for research. Chicago: Rand McNally,l96g. Carkhuff, Robert R. Differential functioning of lay and professional helpers. Journal of Counseling ngchology, 1968, 15, 117-126. Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations. Vol. I. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969a. Carkhuff, R. R. Training in the counseling and thera- peutic processes: Requiem or reveille? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 360-367. 77 78 Carkhuff, R. R., & Berenson, B. G. Be ond counseling and s chothera . New York: Ho t, Rifiehart, and Winston, 1969. Carkhuff, R. R., & Truax, C. B. Lay mental health counsel- ing: The effects of lay group counseling. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965a, 22, 426-431. Carkhuff, R. R., & Truax, C. B. Training in counseling and psychotherapy: An evaluation of an integrated didactic and experiential approach. Journal of Consulting Psychology: 1965, 22, 333-336. Chickering, Arthur. Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Culbert, S. A., Clark, J. V., & Bobele, H. K. Measures of change toward self-actualization in two sensitivity training groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15, 53-57. Danish, Steven J. The influence of leader empathy (affec- tive sensitivity), participant motivation to change and leader-participant relationship on changes in affect sensitivity in T-groups, 1969. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Erickson, E. H. The challengeiof youth. New York: Anchor, Doubleday, 1965. ‘F Feldman, Kenneth A., & Newcomb, Theodore M. The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Foulds, Melvin L. Self-actualization and the communication of facilitative conditions during counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, lg, 132- 136. Goldberg, Alan David. A sequential program for supervision of counselors using the interpersonal process recall technique. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1967. Grant, Harold. Unpublished speech on college student development, Michigan State University, 1969. Grzgorek, A1. A study of the effects of two types of counselor used in conjunction with Simulation and video taping. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. 79 Gust, Jim. Support personnel vs. the counselor. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1968, 1, 153-154. Hapgood, R., & Bennett, A. Agents of change: A close look at the Peace Corps. New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1969. Harvey, L. V. The use of non-professional auxiliary counselors in staffing a counseling service. Journal of Counseling Psyphology, 1964, 11, 348-351. Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Holzberg, S. D. The companion program: Implementing the manpower recommendations of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. American Psycho- logist, 1963, 18, 224-226. —F Kagan, Norman, & Danish, Steven J. Emotional simulation in counseling and psychotherapy. PS chothera : Theory, Research and Practice, 1969, 6(4), 261- 263. Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R. Studies in human inter- action. Final report, Grant No. OE 7-32-0410-270. Educational Publication Services, 1967. Kagan, N., & Schauble, P. G. Affect simulation in inter- personal process reall. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, £9. 309-313. Kagan, N., Schauble, P. G., Resnikoff, A., Danish, S. J., & Krathwohl, D. R. Interpersonal process recall. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 148”, 365-374. Kantor, D., & Greenblatt, M. (Ed.) College students in a mental hospital. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1962. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/ Cole PubliShing Company, 1969. Levinson, P., & Schiller, J. Role analysis of the indigenous non-professional. Social Work, 1966, 11(3), 95-101. 80 Magoon, T., & Golann, S. E. Non-traditionally trained women as mental health counselors/psychothera- pists. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 1‘1: 788-7—93. Martin, J. C., Carkhuff, R. R., & Berenson, B. G. Process variables in counseling and psychotherapy: A study of counseling and friendship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 356-359. McCary, Patrick. The effects of small self-understanding groups on the self-concept and anxiety level when group composition has been varied. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Mills, David H., & Zytowski, Donald G. Helping relation- ships: A structural analysis. Journal of Counsel- ing Psychology, 1961, 8, 193-197. Odgers, J. C. Cause for concern. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1965, 4, 144-146. Patterson, C. H. Subprofessional functions and short term training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1964’ 2' 17-26. Pierce, R. M., & Schauble, P. G. Graduate training facilitative counselors: The effects of indi- vidual supervision. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1970. Pierce, R. M., & Schauble, P. G. Responsibility for therapy: Counselor client, or who? The Counsel- ing Psychologist, 1969, 1(2), 71-77. Reiff, R., & Reissman, F. The indigenous non-professional. Community Mental Health Journal, 1965, l. Reissman, F. The "hyper" therapy principle. Social Work, 1965' $2, 27-320 Resnikoff, Arthur. The relationship of counselor behavior to client response and an analysis of medical interview training procedure involving simulated patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Rioch, M. J., et al. National Institute of Mental Health pilot stuay in training mental health counselor. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1963, 32, 678-689. 81 Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Con- sulting Psychology: 1957, 21, 95-103. Rogers, C. R. On becoming a person. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. I- Rosenbaum, M. Some comments on the use of untrained therapists. Journal of Consulting Psychology, Sands, Billie Louise. An exploratory study of self- actualization and self-perception of competency among Michigan family life teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Sanford, Nevitt. Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, I967. Savino, M. T., & Schlamp, F. T. Non-professional rehabili- tation aides. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1968, 34(3), 28-31. Schauble, P. G. Emotional Simulation in personal counsel- ing: An application of research innovations in counseling to accelerate client movement. Paper read at American Personnel and Guidance Associ- ation meeting, Detroit, April, 1968. Schlossberg, N. K. Sub-professionals: To be or not to be. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1967, g, 188-113. Schmidt, Lyle D. Comment on differential functioning of lay and professional helpers. Journal of Counsel- ing Psychology, 1968, 15, 127-129. Shostrom, E. The personal orientation inventory. San Diego: EducationaI and Industrial Testing Service, 1968. Truax, Charles B., & Lister, James L. Effectiveness of counselors and counselor aides. Journal of CounselingpPsychology, 1970, 11, 331-334. Walker, B. S., & Little, D. F. Factor analysis of the Barrett-Lennard relationship inventory. Journal‘ of CounselingPsychology, 1969, lg, 516-5 . Yamamoto, Kaoru. The college student and his culture; An analysis. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1968. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR USE WITH AFFECT SIMULATION FILMS APPENDIX A SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR USE WITH AFFECT SIMULATION FILMS Focus on what the actor is communicating. A. B. C. D. What was he (the actor) saying? What was he thinking? What was he feeling? Can you separate the content of what he was saying (the actual words) from the meaning (intent or feeling) behind what he was saying? Focus on how the trainee reacted. A. B. C. D. E. F. What kind of reaction did you have? What were you thinking? If there was more than one feeling or emotion aroused in you can you sort them out, i.e., recognize, identify, and label the feelings? Can you tell where the feeling was coming from, i.e., identify the source? How would you respond to that person? Can you respond with understanding so that your own feelins facilitate rather than interfere with the communication? 82 I]- w- -- _. .' . I. 2 i‘ . A .. APPENDIX B OWNING OF FEELINGS IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES APPENDIX B OWNING OF FEELINGS IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES (Revised) Paul G. Schauble and Richard M. Pierce Level 1 The speaker avoids accepting any of his feelings or he expresses feelings vaguely. When feelings are expressed, they are always seen as belonging to others, situational, or outside of himself. He avoids identifying or admitting to any feelings. He discusses or intellectualizes about feelings in a detached, abstract manner. Example: The speaker with flushed face, hotly declares, "Angry? Not me! You're the one who's getting angry. I'm just arguing my point of view." In summary, any expression of feeling appears intellectual- ized, distant and vague. Level 2 The speaker can usually identify his feelings and their source, but tends to express them in an intellectualized manner. He seems to have an intellectual grasp of his feelings and their origin, but he has little emotional proximity to them. Example: The speaker blandly admits, "Yeah! I think I get a little annoyed when girls don't want to go out with me, but I usually get over it." In summary, the speaker usually ties down his feelings, but in an intellectual manner. 83 84 Level 3 The speaker almost always acknowledges his Specific feel- ings and can express them with emotional proximity. At the same time he shows awareness that his feelings are tied to specific behavior of his own and of others. He shows immediate and free access to his feelings, expresses them in a genuine way, and is able to identify their origin or source. Example: The speaker says, "It really hurts me when you don't listen to me and you continually ask me to do things you know I don't want to do. You make me feel so insignificant and small when you do that.” In summary, the speaker clearly owns his feelings and accurately specifies their source. APPENDIX C EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES APPENDIX C EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES (Revised) Robert R. Carkhuff Level 1 (Detracting Level) The verbal and behavioral expressions of the listener either do not attend to or communicate less of the speaker's feelings than the speaker has communicated himself. The listener tends to subtract from or respond to other than what the speaker is expressing or indicating. Level 2 (Eqpal Level) The expressions of the listener in response to the ex- pressed feelings of the speaker are essentially inter- changeable with those of the speaker in that they express essentially the same affect and meaning. This listener is responding so as to neither subtract from nor add to the expressions of the speaker; but he does not respond accurately to how the speaker really feels beneath the surface feelings. The equal level constitutes the minimal level of facilitative interpersonal functioning. Level 3 (Adding Level) The responses of the listener add to the expressions of the speaker in such a way as to express feelings deeper than the speaker was able to express himself. In the event of ongoing deep exploration of feelings on the speaker's part, the listener communicates a full awareness of what the speaker is experiencing. 85 86 Examples Speaker Statement I don't know--I guess I've had it--I'm through. It seems like every time I try to get close to someone I get burned and I'm tired of the whole damned thing. Listener Response Level 1 (detracting) I guess we all tend to feel like that some times, but we recover. You just have to learn to expect that there are times when you'll get hurt. Level 2 (equal) There just doesn't seem to be any way for you to find a deep relationship with anyone and you've run out of gas. You just can't face that hurt again. Level 3 (adding) You're hurt and you're angry to think that the only thing that ever happens with your love is that it gets thrown back in your face. You can't bear that again but the only thing left for you is loneliness --there's no way out of the pain. “ “‘4 h—fiéw D i _ APPENDIX D ROLE AND FUNCTION OF RECALLER APPENDIX D ROLE AND FUNCTION OF RECALLER Ideally, the recaller Should remain as neutral as possible, and avoid forming a new relationship with the person being interrogated. His function is to help the person discover for himself some of his feelings and thoughts which interfered with effective communication. Often the recaller will gain insight before the person being interrogated, but the recaller should lead the per- son to discover for himself what was happening. In effect, the recaller should avoid telling the person what was happening. He should avoid making judgments and inter- preting for the other person. He should gently probe and push for more material with a direct line of questioning with only occasional use of reflective statements. It takes time for the person to gain insight so the recaller should be wary of a need to get the job done quickly. The recaller should focus on the feelin s of the person being interrogated--i.e., the feelings the person was having about himself and the other person during the video-taped interaction. A suggested line of questioning might be the following: 1. What do you think he was trying to say? 2. What do you think he was feeling at this point? 3. What was running through your mind when he said that? 4. Can you recall some of the feelings you were having then? 5. was there anything that prevented you from sharing some of your feelings and concerns about the person? 6. If you had another chance would you like to have said something different? 7. What kind of risk would there have been if you said what you really wanted to say? 87 88 8. What kind of a person do you want him to see you as? 9. What do you think his perceptions are of you? The recaller should encourage the person being interrogated to stop the machine as often as he wants. He should also reinforce the person as much as possible-- i.e., just before starting the machine again, say "you're doing good--stop the machine whenever you recall some of the feelings you were having" (Kagan, et al., 1967). APPENDIX E RECALLER INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKER AND/OR LISTENER APPENDIX E RECALLER INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKER AND/OR LISTENER We know that the mind works faster than the voice. As we talk with people, we think of things which are quite different from the things we are talking about. Everyone does this and there is no reason to feel embar- rassed or to hesitate to "own up to it" when it does occur. We know that as we talk to peOple, there are times when we like what they say and there are times when we are annoyed with what they say. There are times when we think they really understand us and there are times when we feel they have missed the point of what we are saying or really don't understand what we were feeling or how strongly we were feeling something. There are also times when we are concerned about what the other person is thinking about us. Sometimes we want the other person to think about us in ways which they may not be. If we ask you at this moment just when you felt the other person understood or didn't understand your feelings, or when you felt you were making a certain kind of impression on him, or when you were trying to say something and it came out quite differently from the way you wanted it to, it would probably be very difficult for you to remember. With this T.V. playback immediately after you interview, you will find it possible to recall these thoughts and feelings in detail. Stop and start the playback as often as you remember your thoughts and feelings. You are not troubling anyone no matter how often you stop and start the playback. As you remember your thoughts and feelings, stop the tape and tell me what they were (Kagan, et al., 1967). 89 APPENDIX F INTERPERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX F INTERPERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE I. Please indicate the item which best describes your feelings and behaviors toward the person we are asking about. 1. 5. I usually try to avoid any kind of interaction with him. Occasionally I talk with him but on a very superficial level. I interact with him often but we usually discuss things that aren't very personal. I often discuss problems and personal concerns with him. I can talk with him about almost anything no matter how personal. IF YOU CHECKED ITEM (1) OR (2) DO NOT FILL OUT PART II OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. II. Below are listed a variety of ways that one person can feel or behave in relation to another person. Please consider each statement with respect to whether you think it is true or not true in your present relation- ship with the person we are asking you about. Mark each statement in the left margin with a +3, +2, +1, -1, -2, or -3 according to the following scale: +3 +2 +1 = I strongly feel that it is true. = I feel that it is true. I feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. I strongly feel that it is not true. I feel that it is not true. I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. 90 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 91 He nearly always knows exactly what I mean. He usually senses or realizes what I am feeling. He realizes what I mean even when I have diffi- culty in saying it. He usually understands the whole of what I mean. He appreciates exactly how the things I experi- ence feel to me. He understands me. He does not realize how sensitive I am about some of the things we discuss. His own attitudes toward some of the things I do or say prevent him from understanding me. His response to me is usually so fixed and auto- matic that I don't really get through to him. Sometimes he is not at all comfortable, but we go on, outwardly ignoring it. I believe that he has feelings he does not tell me about, that are causing difficulty in our relationship. He does not avoid anything that is important to our relationship. He wants me to think that he likes me or under- stands me more than he really does. He is openly himself in our relationship. He is willing to express whatever is actually in his mind with me, including any feelings about himself or about me. He expresses his true impressions and feelings with me. There are times when I feel that his outward response to me is quite different from the way he feels underneath. What he says to me often gives a wrong impression of his whole thought or feeling at the time. "T APPENDIX G PEER RELATIONSHIP LETTER . 1!!! il 1|,.|.ll:|i | II. 1“. II I Fee Counseling Center 229 W. Fee Hall March 5, 1971 Dear At the beginning of winter term was a volunteer for the Hubbard Interpersonal 56mmuni- cation Skills Training Project. As part of the program he/she agreed to let us send a brief questionnaire to several people on the floor. Please fill out this questionnaire and return it in the envelope to either of the reception desks. (Please don't put them in the 0.8. Mail slot.) The results will be kept confidential, will not be reported to the student involved, and will be used only to assess the effectiveness of the project. Note that there are no names, only code numbers, on that sheet that you return. Please do not discuss your responses with anyone. Thank you for your COOperation. Sincerely, James Archer, Jr. JA:js 92 APPENDIX H SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX H SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE N ame Please fill out this form if you participated in a training group winter term. This information will be kept confidential and will not be available to your group leaders or to other members of your group--except in sum- marized form as overall results for the total project. Your honest comments will assist us a great deal in im- proving the program in the future. 1. As a result of your participation in the group how much did you improve your interpersonal communication skills? A great deal Some Not at all Comments: How would you rate the competency of your leaders? Excellent Good Fair Lacking Comments: (What do you think of the idea of using student leaders?) As a result of your participation do you understand yourself any better? A great deal Some Not at all Comments: If you had it to do over again would you participate in this project? Yes No Don't know Any other comments, suggestions for improvements? 93 APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS TO IPR LEADERS FOR FIRST THREE SESSIONS APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS TO IPR LEADERS FOR FIRST THREE SESSIONS Subject: Instructions--lst three sessions To: IPR Leaders From: James Archer, Jr. This is a summary of what we have discussed previously in our training session and also a listing of training tasks for the first three group sessions. Summary: 1. The IPR training method we are using is very similar to the one that you have experienced. It involves the following steps: a. Stimulus films (focus on what the actor is communi- cating) b. Owning of feelings scale (rating audio-tape seg- ments as to the degree that the Speaker accepts and owns his own feelings) c. Stimulus films (focus on personal reactions to the actor) d. Empathy scale rating (rating audio-tape responses as to how empathic they are) e. Empathy response practice (practice making empathic replies to audio-tape segments) f. IPR (Interrogater training and listener recall) 9. IPR (Interrogater training and speaker recall) h. IPR (Interrogator training and mutual recall) Note: Group interaction and sharing of feelings encouraged at all levels. 2. It is important for you to understand the entire training program and the rationale behind it so that you know why each step is included and so that you 94 95 can make appropriate explanations to students in your group. The tasks are graded going from the fairly easy and non—threatening discussion of what the actor is trying to say; up to IPR, the more threatening situ- ation where the student gets direct feedback on his own interaction behavior. We will go over each indi- vidual step again in the final training program--please ask questions if you are not clear about this rationale. In dealing with any strong emotions that may generate during training like crying, try to stay with the per- son until he is less emotional. Don't ignore the emotion, let him talk about it if he wants to. En- courage the group to stay together and to try to be helpful to the individual concerned. If the group should break up too soon, go up to the student your- self and ask him to stay awhile and talk, until he is settled down. If someone leaves the group abruptly you or a group member should follow him to find out what is wrong. Ask your group members to follow the rule of telling the entire group why they are leaving --if they decide to go. If anything comes up that you are uneasy about, call your supervisor or one of the other three of us--Bob, Cecil, Karen, or me. Try to remember that you are a member/leader of the group. Responsibility for what happens rests on everyone's shoulders. Let the group have this responsibility--it will make their experience much better and also your own. Remember, however, that I would like you to follow the outline of training exer- cises, don't allow the group to go off on a completely irrelevant tangent. Specific instructions for the first three sessions: Session 1 (Week of Jan. 11-15) A. Ground rules (things you should cover) 1. Confidentiality 2. Importance of attendance 3. Tape recorder--explain why it is sued 4. Group responsibility--the group working depends on them 5. Leaving group--ask them to discuss leaving if they feel like it 6. Training method--tell about IPR and give some personal experience (positive, I hope!) 96 Introductions Find a way of introducing everyone. Suggestions: Pair off and ask peoPle to get to know each other as well as possible in 15-20 minutes, then have them come back to the group and introduce their partner to the group--tell what they learned about him. Go around the circle and encourage group interaction. Introduction to stimulus films Explain what they are to do--i.e., "Imagine that the person on the film is talking directly to you. Try to figure out what he is trying to communicate to you" (Remember that in this introductory session we are focusing only on what the actor is communicating, not on personal reactions. However, if the group immedi- ately goes into them, it is okay.) Following are sample questions you might want to ask the group about the films. 1. What was he saying? 2. What was he feeling? 3. What was he thinking? 4. Can you separate the content of what he was saying (the actual words) from the meaning (intent or feeling) behind what he was saying? Session 2 (Week of Jan. 18-22) A. Owning of Feelings Scale Explain the scale and go through the practice audio- tape statements with the group members practicing the tape rating. Encourage discussion, but don't take too much time--should take about an hour. Object of this is to teach them that there are different levels at which peOple accept, recognize, and own their own feelings and to have them begin looking at themselves and how much they own their feelings. This should lead into looking at how much they own their feel- ings about the stimulus films. Stimulus Films (focus on personal reactions) Sample questions: 1. What kind of reaction did you have? 2. What were you thinking? 3. What were you feeling? 4. Did you have more than one feeling or emotion? Can you identify or label them? 97 5. Can you identify the source of the feeling? . How would you respond to that person? What would you like to say? What would you say? 7. Did the actor remind you of any real life situ- ations that you have been in? Session 3 (Week of Jan. 25-30) A. Stimulus Films (continuation of focus on personal reactions) I Encourage group interaction and group members' personal reactions to each other if it seems appropriate. F B. Personal Interaction ‘ Take time to focus on how the group members are per- ceiving and reacting to each other. How do they per- ceive each other? Have their perceptions changed since the beginning of the group? Technical/Administrative details: 1. Tape recorders: will be available in women's advisory office. Record as much of your sessions as possible. Switch sides of the tape when you break in the middle of your session. You don't have to record when you are using the recorder for rating scales. Take the tape to supervision with you. Return the tape recorder to the office when you are done or the next group won't have one. Also return the tape with the Owning of Feelings and Empathic Understanding segments on it-- we have only one. 2. Movie projecter and Stimulus Film: return to the office after your group meeting--we have only one set-up. Note: Meeting at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 5 in G-35 APPENDIX J INSTRUCTIONS TO IPR LEADERS FOR WEEKS 4-9 APPENDIX J INSTRUCTIONS TO IPR LEADERS FOR WEEKS 4-9 To: Group leaders and supervisors From: James Archer, Jr. Subject: Instructions for IPR group leaders--Weeks 4-9 1. We will meet from 5:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. on Monday, February 8, 1971, in the Fee Counseling Center to go over the equipment and operating instructions. 2. Following are goals and procedures to be followed for sessions 4 thru 9. Session 4, Week of Feb. 1-5 Goals: 1. Learn to rate responses on the Empathic Understanding (EU scale). 2. Practice making empathic (three level) responses. 3. Discuss appropriateness and the fact that a three level empathic response is not always appropriate. 4. Discuss the rationale behind learning empathic responses, i.e., it is helpful for the speaker to know that the listener is with him (understands how he feels). This understanding will allow the speaker to feel more at ease and freer to explore and discuss his own feelings. 98 99 Training Tasks: 1. Rate and discuss the various responses on the EU audio-tape. You will receive printed copies of the EU scale. Practice making empathic responses to the three situations with no responses--on the end of the tape. You might have everyone write out a response and then pass it to you and then you can go over each response with the group--thiS‘allows you to talk about each response without identifying who made it. Or you can ask people to respond verbally. Session 5, Week of Feb. 8-12 Goals: (general) 1. Learn to listen. 2. Learn to express empathic understanding. 3. Learn how your own verbal and nonverbal behavior affects others. 4. Learn how your own feelings affect your interactions with others. (specific) 1. Learn what the IPR process involves. 2. Learn the function of the recaller. Training Tasks: 1. Discuss the process, i.e., one person (Speaker) tells another person (listener) about something important to him (problem, a worry, an important experience, etc.). The listener tries to listen, to understand, and to help the other person explore whatever he is talking about. About 5-10 minutes of this is video- taped and then it is played back with a third person (recaller) coming in to help the speaker and/or the listener to recall his thoughts and feelings and explore the interaction. (You will have cepies of: (l) Recaller Instructions to the§peaker and/or Listener, (2) Description oflthe Role and Function of tEe Recaller.) Each person in the group Will get 100 to practice each role during the ensuing weeks (speaker, listener, recaller). Group members should leave the room during the original 5-10 minutes of videotaping-- this makes it a lot easier on the people being taped. 2. Each leader do one recall with a listener. This is to help them get the idea of the process. We start with listener recall because it is the least threatening. 3. Let other group members practice listener recall. You can coach them and give them pointers about the recaller's role as you go along. Also other group members may want to help out, ask questions, etc. Session 6, Week of Feb. 15-19 Goals: Continuation of those for session 5. Training Tasks: Speaker Recall. Try not to get into mutual recall yet--that's next week. Continue rotating and giving everyone practice as a listener, speaker, and recaller. Encourage the group to get involved and to help with the recall. Session 7, Week of Feb. 22-26 Goals: Continuation of those for session 5. Training Tasks: Mutual Recall. Recaller should sit be- tween speaker and listener during recall--they should begin to react to each other and to ask each other recall type questions. Continue to rotate roles of listener, speaker, and recaller. Session 8, Week of Mar. 1-5 Goals: Practice listening abilities with speakers from outside the group--in order to produce a carryover of interpersonal behaviors learned to "out of the group" situations. Training Tasks: Mutual recall with students from outside the group. Ask a couple of the group members to bring a friend who does not live in Hubbard who is willing to be the speaker and who is willing to discuss a personal problem or concern with some of the students in the group. Note that it is very important that the students who come in to be speaker must be from outside Hubbard--otherwise the research design and evaluation will be screwed up. 101 Session 9, Week of Mar. 8-12 I need about two hours to administer tests and to get the group members' evaluations of the project. You can have the rest of the time to say good-by, have a party, or whatever. Please do not share your negative feelings about the videotape sensitivity test (Affective Sensitivity Scale) that you took four times with your group--I am merciful to them and will give it only once. APPENDIX K INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENCOUNTER- DEVELOPMENTAL GROUPS APPENDIX K INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENCOUNTER- DEVELOPMENTAL GROUPS Subject: Instructions for Encounter-Developmental Groups To: Encounter-Developmental Group Leaders From: James Archer, Jr. This is a summary of what we have discussed previously in our training session and also a listing of training tasks for the first three group sessions. Summary 2 1. The rationale behind the less structured Encounter- Developmental Groups is that peOple learn most about interpersonal communication by experiencing it at various levels. Your role is as a facilitator. You are to facilitate communication between group members. I have included several exercises for the first few sessions to help you get started, but generally the direction of your group will be up to you and the group. Your supervisor should be very helpful to you --you will have a chance to discuss the group's pro- gress every week. 2. Responsibility--try to remember that you are a member/ leader of the group (facilitator). Responsibility for what happens rests on everyone's Shoulders. Let the group have this responsibility--it will make their experience better and also your own. However, please make certain that you are comfortable with what the group decides to do--if you are not or are uncertain, talk to your supervisor about it. 102 103 Remember that most groups go through different stages --understanding these will help you deal with what is going on. Roughly the stages are: (l) identification of purpose--the group deciding what they want and accepting responsibility for it--there may be a great press on you to provide structure and specific pur- poses--it's better for the group's development if they hassle with this; (2) conflict--with each other over ways and means; (3) honeymoon--emotional high--every- one feels good and close; (4) leader inclusion--if the leader has not been a group member the attention will focus on him for a while; (5) work--the group is ready to proceed with any tasks it has set for itself. All groups don't necessarily go through these stages and they may overlap. In dealing with any strong emotions that may generate during training like crying, try to stay with the per- son until he is less emotional. Don't ignore the emotions, let him talk about it if he wants to. En- courage the group to stay together and to try to be helpful to the individual concerned. If the group Should break up too soon, go up to the student your- self and ask him to stay awhile and talk, until he is settled down. If someone leaves the group abruptly you or a group member should follow him to find out what is wrong. Ask your group members to follow a rule of telling the entire group why they are leaving --if they decide to go. If anything comes up that you are uneasy about, call your supervisor or one of the other three of us--Bob, Cecil, Karen, or me. Specific instructions for the first three sessions: Session 1 (Week of Jan. 11-15) A. Ground rules (things you should cover) 1. Confidentiality 2. Importance of attendance 3. Tape recorder--explain why it is used 4. Group responsibility--the group working depends on them 5. Leaving group--ask them to discuss leaving if they feel like it Introductions Find a way of introducing everyone. Suggestions: Pair off and ask people to get to know each other as well 104 as possible in 15-20 minutes, then have them come back to the group and introduce their partners to the group --tell what they learned about him. Go around the circle and encourage group interaction. Session 2 (Week of Jan. 18-22) A. Session 3 (Week of Jan. 25-30) Suggested exercise: Experience sharing. Each member shares with the group two or three experiences that have made a difference in his life. At least one from childhood and one fairly current. Group members react and ask questions. ‘1 In“ k g .4. Strength and weakness sharing. Each person shares his strengths and weaknesses while group members react and share perceptions of each person. Trust circle. Sessions 4-8 Determined by the group, you and your supervisor. Technical/Administrative Details: 1. Tape recorders: will be available in women's advisory office. Record as much of your sessions as possible. Switch sides of the tape sometime in about the middle of the group session. Take your tape with you to supervision. Return the tape recorder to the office immediately after your meeting or the other groups won't have one. NOTE: Meeting Wednesday, January 6th, 10:00 p.m., G-35 APPENDIX L VOLUNTEER LETTER Counseling Center Fee Hall Office, MSU November 5, 1970 Dear Hubbard Resident: The Hubbard Advisory Staff and the Fee Branch of the MSU Counseling Center will be offering an interpersonal communication skills group experience to all Hubbard resi- dents during winter term. The groups will focus on the development of communication Skills and abilities and will give participants an opportunity to learn about themselves and about how other people see them. The groups are 223 designed to be in-depth, therapy groups, but are for stu- dents who are interested in increasing their interpersonal abilities and their self-awareness. The groups will be coed, will have from 6-8 members, and will be led by Resi- dent Assistants. These RA's have had interpersonal com- munication training and will be supervised by Counseling Center staff members. If you decide to participate in these groups we will ask you to make the following commitments: 1. Three hours per week for all of winter term for the group meeting. 2. Two hours of testing in late November, and again during your last group meeting. 3. Permission to send a one-page questionnaire to several peOple on your floor asking them about their perceptions of your interpersonal behavior. This information will be used only for research purposes and will be kept confidential. (In November and again in early spring term.) 4. A 20-minute interview during a weekday evening sometime this month to discuss your participation in the project with a Counseling Center staff member. The testing and questionnaires are designed to help us evaluate the success of these groups so that we can make apprOpriate improvements. Information that we received from participants last year has been very helpful. If you are interested in participating please fill out the attached form and return it to your RA, to an 105 Puma-7mg 106 November 5, 1970 Hubbard Hall Resident Letter Page 2 Advisor or to the Fee Hall Branch of the Counseling Center. If you have questions or need additional information you can put off making a final decision until after you talk about the groups with the Counseling Center representative. You will, however, need to fill out the form so that we can schedule you for an interview time. Sincerely, Ann Baucom, Head Advisor Dean McLeod, Head Advisor Cecil Williams, Co-Director, Fee Counseling Center James Archer, Jr., Fee Hall Counseling Center ; LEE-1‘ iii-um .04 4.4.1.1“ I. . . 5. . APPENDIX M SCREENING INSTRUCTIONS APPENDIX M SCREENING INSTRUCTIONS From: Jim Archer Subject: Screening for Hubbard Groups To: Screening Counselors The purpose of the screening is twofold. One purpose is to give students an opportunity to ask questions about the groups and to get help in deciding whether or not to participate. I have included a copy of the letter that they received about the groups--it is pretty straightfor- ward and you may just need to go over the information con- tained in the letter. Try to briefly get at their con- cerns and help them decide. The other purpose of the screening is to decide whether the student should be allowed to participate. Since the groups are led by students we are trying to screen out people who might be very difficult to handle and who probably need something more than interpersonal communi- cation training. These people might better be candidates for individual or group therapy. I'm giving you a form that might help you decide about the appropriateness of his/her participation. There is a place for your final recommendation at the bottom of the form. Don't tell the student about this recommendation--we will contact him later to suggest appropriate alternatives. You have a student scheduled every half hour during your screening times--see them for about twenty minutes and spend the other ten completing the form. Don't worry about the form--if you don't like it just make a final recommendation and tell why. Thanks. 107 APPENDIX N SCREENING INTERVIEW FORM APPENDIX N SCREENING INTERVIEW FORM Name 1. Motivation: Why is he/She participating? What is expected? Any hesitations, fears? Specific growth areas? Group experience and behavior: Anything about pre- vious experiences? How does he/she behave in a group? Any negative or destructive behavior? Overall impression: General observations. Recommendation for participation: Yes No ? ____ _____ Comments: 108 APPENDIX 0 SAMPLE STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX'O SAMPLE STUDENT RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS Qpestion 1: IPR Groups: Encounter- DevelOp- mental Groups: Qgestion 2: PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE As a result of your participation in the group how much did you improve your inter- personal communication skills? It's much easier for me to talk with people (family, friends, girls on the floor, etc.). I can more easily understand feelings. I've had favorable comments from some friends. It's helped me come out of my shell and trust peOple. I learned more about how I might improve than actual improvement. The big thing for me was improvement as a listener. I am more honest with peOple. As far as I can tell it has had no effect. I learned that a number of the group's members had some of the same feelings toward certain areas as I did, which greatly sur- prised me. It has helped me gain a lot of self- confidence when communicating with other people. How would you rate the competence of your leaders? (What do you think of the idea of using student leaders?) 109 IPR Groups: Encounter- DevelOp- mental Groups: Question 3: IPR Groups: Encounter- DevelOp- mental Groups: 110 Good! It is easier to relate to student leaders. Student leaders make the group looser and more at ease, and, I believe, lend a great deal to the success of the learning of interpersonal skills. Idea good in general—-they seem to be less leaders and more guiding participants. A little more training would be good (in the sense of keeping conversation going). Great. You can relate to and identify with them much better. The student leaders made me feel more at ease than if an older person was there. I think student leaders are definitely the best they all are people on a par, whereas with an older leader it would surely inhibit communication. As a result of your participation do you understand yourself any better? I realize I'm not quite the good listener I thought I was. Biggest thing was the recognition of emotions in myself and other peOple which I never took seriously before. I learned more about myself through being in this group than I have at any other time of my life, or under any other conditions. It was painful but worth the effort. I have the same problems essentially but can now identify them. Taking a lesson from the beginning of the project I am now owning up to my real feelings and am not hiding them as much. I'm learning more and more how others per- ceive me. I realized that my "shit ain't so hot." I saw that my problems weren't much different from others. 111 My group set me into a situation of personal review. I have thought over almost every aspect of my life, the outcome seems to be a good one. I did a little, but not that much. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LILLILLLLILLLLILLLLJ LLLLLL ILL LLLILLLLLLIILLLLILLILLLILLLILL 30 433