AN INSTRUMENTEO SELE AWARENESS PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS ’ " THE EVALUATION AND DESORIPTION : OE THE EFFECTS OF GROUP COMPOSITION ------ AND LEARNING CLIMATE ON SELECTED SELE CONCERT AND GROUP .1111? EXPERIENCEVARIABLES _ Thesis for the Degree ofrPh.1D..‘ I MICHIGAN STATE-UNIVERSITY " MARK WILLIAM HARDWICK l 970 L I B R A R 1’ Michigan Sta :6 University I’HESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Instrumented Self-Awareness Program For College Students: The Evaluation and Description of the Effects of Group Composition and Learning Climate on Selected Self-Concept and Group Experience Variables presented by Mark William Hardwick has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. de ee in Educational Administration Major professor Date May 4, 1.970 0-169 IEISQ ABSTRACT AN INSTRUMENTED SELF-AWARENESS PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: THE EVALUATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFECTS OF GROUP COMPOSITION AND LEARNING CLIMATE ON SELECTED SELF-CONCEPT AND GROUP EXPERIENCE VARIABLES BY Mark William Hardwick Statement of the Problem The major purpose of this research was to assess the effects of a structured self-awareness program on selected self-concept and group experience variables. Stu- dents interacted within small groups and different "styles of learning“ and "group composition" were identified as important independent variables needing examination. Although it has been generally assumed in higher education that the Student Personnel Division was developed for the purpose of enriching student development in the area of interpersonal relations and self-awareness, research evidence to support the value of student personnel services is negligible. The underlying rationale for this research was the value judgment that there is a need to help stu— dent personnel programs become more aware of the potential importanCe of sensitivity activities in facilitating the personal growth of students. six st the su three self-d three hours. Self ( helati instrI persor group the iI §~tes1 COHCe] treat; hirecI heau IIOUP: IISCr; varieIl Ireah Mark William Hardwick Design anvarocedures The population for the study consisted of ninety- six student volunteers at Michigan State University, during the summer of 1969. The students were randomly assigned to three treatments of leader-led (LL), instrumented (IS), and self-directed (SD) climates for learning. All groups had three four—hour sessions which amounted to twelve contact hours. Measurement instruments used were the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS), the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior questionnaire (FIRO-B) an instrument designed to measure group compatibility on inter- personal needs, and group questionnaires designed to assess group cohesiveness, group productivity, and reactions to the individual sessions and total self-awareness program. Findings The data analysis included: analysis of variance, tftests, correlation coefficients and frequency tables. The findings of the study indicated that self- concept variables were not effected by the different group treatments of leader-led (LL), instrumented (IS), and self- directed (SD) learning styles. The similarity of group treatments due to the use of structured activities for all groups, the failure of the TSCS measurement device to discriminate effectively between groups on self—concept variables, made it necessary to conclude that the group treatment hypotheses were not adequately tested in this resear esteeI data I incoIIII suppOI patih: compa' effec suppo group in st self- Iant Mark William Hardwick research. However, self-concept differences on self- esteem, self-criticism, and conflict were found when the datatwas analyzed according to groups' compatibility and incompatibility on need interchanges. Strong statistical support was found for the relationship between group com- patibility rankings and group cohesiveness scores. Group cmmpatibility scores correlated positively with group effectiveness or productivity scores. The findings, offer support for Schutz's theoretical formulations regarding group composition or compatibility as a powerful variable in.small group interaction. From the subjective data the self-awareness experience was rated as a worthwhile, rele- vant and successful endeavor. Conclusions l. A strong positive relationship does exist be- tween group compatibility on need interchange and group cohesiveness. 2. The more compatible a group is on interpersonal need interchange the_more likely the group is to be productive on a task related activity. 3. An instrumented learning style for sensitivity training can be as effective as leader-led or self-directed styles using this self-awareness program. 4. Compatibility on need interchange has pre— dictable impact on self-concept variables of self-esteem, self-criticism, and conflict. W recommend 1 Mark William Hardwick Recommendations Within the limitations of this study the following recommendations seem warranted: 1. Studies should be conducted to determine the effects of different sensitivity approaches on participant's growth over a long period of time. Studies designed to replicate or refute the Irelationship between group compatibility and group cohesiveness and group productivity as found in this study should be conducted. Student personnel programs should investigate the potentially significant value of sensi- tivity activities and small group encounters for helping to revitalize the traditional stu- dent activities offered to and imposed upon students. The value and relevancy of small group encounters for students was suggested by this study. Self-awareness groups could be used for in— service training of faculty advisors and adminis- tratorsy in helping students on academic pro- bation, in facilitating communication between students, faculty, and staff and in promoting a better balance between students' cognitive and affective development. Research support for the use of this self-awareness program in the above areas is needed. AN INSTRUMENTED SELF-AWARENESS PROGRAM FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS: THE EVALUATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFECTS OF GROUP COMPOSITION AND LEARNING CLIMATE ON SELECTED SELF-CONCEPT AND GROUP EXPERIENCE VARIABLES BY Mark William Hardwick A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 helm and 1 thus; We —-as/.2/3 /0-9—7o DED I CAT ION This work is dedicated to my wife and son, Helen and Jeffrey, who have given me the warmth, support, and trust needed in the triumphs and tribulations of my educational career. ii advis cati< Also mitt< for A; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank a number of people for their sup— port and guidance in the writing of this dissertation, from the students who cooperated with the study, to my fellow students who encouraged and challenged my ideas for the study. I owe special thanks to Dr. John Suehr, my advisor, for his time, empathy, understanding, and dedi— cation to developing a more humanized approach to education. Also, I would like to thank the other members of my com- mittee, Drs. Vandel Johnson, Dale Alam, and James McKee for their assistance. Chapter I. THE PI Int] Stai Sig} Hyp( R! A531 Sec] Def, Ove: 11- RBVIE’ Int Lit Rel Hmm'Ub—l Lit rns—arrlr') Re] C0] Lit Sun TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter ‘ Page I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 3 Significance of the Study. . . . . . 5 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . 10 Related Questions. . . . . . . . ll Assumptions of the Study . . . . l3 Scope and Limitations of the Study. . . 14 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . 16 Overview of the Thesis. . . . . . . 18 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . 20 Introduction . . . . . 20 Literature on Student Development and Related Areas. . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Development . . .‘ . . 22 Personality Development. . . . . . 23 Student Goals and Expectations . . . 25 Student Needs: The Search for Identity. . . . . . . . . . . 26 Literature on Sensitivity Training. . . 3O Objectives of Sensitivity Training . . 3l Effectiveness of Sensitivity Training . 33 Internal Criteria for Change in Sensitivity Training. . . . . . . 38 Literature on Sensitivity Training and Related Small Group Activ1t1es for 45 College Students. . . - - ~ 52 Literature on Small Group Dynamics. . . 56 Summary. . . . . . - - - - - - iv Chapter 111. RESEARCH DE: Introduct Research Subjects Descripti Instrum Leader- Self-Di Instrumen Fundame Orienta Tenness Additic N. ANALYSIS OE Introduct Findings Tests ( Tests < Biogra} Persona Descript; Related t Studen Outcom Studen Evalua \ III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . . 58 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 58 Research Design . . . . . . . . 58 Subjects for the Study . . 64 Description of Experimental Treatments. . 65 Instrumented Group Treatment (IS). . . 68 Leader-Led Group Treatment (LL) . . . 70 Self-Directed Group Treatment (SD) . . 71 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . 74 Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation— Behavior (FIRO- B) . . . 74 Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS) . . 76 Additional Instruments . . . 78 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . 82 Introduction . . . . . . . . 82 Findings of the Study . . . . . . . 82 Tests of Group Treatment Hypotheses . . 82 Tests of Compatibility Hypotheses. . . 89 Biographical Data: Analysis of Personal Information Form . . . . . 96 Descriptive Data: Results Pertaining to Related Questions. . . . . . . . . 98 Student Expectations and Learning Outcomes . . . . . 98 Student Interpersonal Values . . . . 100 Evaluation of Training Sessions . . . 100 Post Training Evaluations . . . . 102 General Comments About Experience. . . 105 Comments About Shortcomings of the Program . . . . 106 Comments About Strengths of. the Program . . . . . . . . . . 108 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 109 chapter v. sunrARY, F15 RECOMMENDAT] Introducti Summary‘. Discu551or Group T1 Discuss: Hypothe Discuss. Discuss. Subject Conclusio The Hyp Persona Implicati For Col For Aca For Stu For In- For Fac For Res For Stu For Ins For the Recommend The Se] Change Product Relatic Affect; Climate Trainir More T] REFERENCES _ Chapter page V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 111 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 111 Summary . . .\ . . . . 111 Di3cussion of Findings . . . . . 114 Group Treatment Hypotheses 1-5. . . . 114 Discussion of Group Compatibility Hypotheses 6- 9 . . . . 116 Discussion of Hypotheses 10 and 11 . . 118 Discussion of Explorative Questions and Subjective Data. . . . . . . 120 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . 124 The Hypotheses . . . . . . . 125 Personal Conclusions . . . . . . 125 Implications . . . . . . . . 127 For College Orientation . . . . . 127 For Academic Departments. . . . . 127 For Student Governments . . . . . . 128 For In-service Training . . . . . . 128 For Faculty-Student Interaction . . . 129 For Residential Living . . . . . . 129 For Students. . . . . . . . . 130 For Instruction. . . . . . . . 131 For the Administrator. . . . . . 131 Recommendations for Further Research 132 The Self- -Awareness Training Program 132 Change in Self- Concept . - 133 Productivity and Group Compatibility. . 133 Relationship Between Cognitive and Affective Learning. . . . . . . . 134 Climate and Personality . . 134 Training Outcomes and Training Climates. 134 More Thorough Investigation. . . . . 135 138 REFERENCES vi Chapter APPENDICES Appendi A. u: n C tn: ~74 m :2: n—o C4 X Self-Awaren Structure . FIRO-B Ques . Tennessee S . Personal Da . Session Ree Group Membe . Expectatior - Learnings 1 - Group Effe< - Value Dime] Chapter APPENDICES Appendix A. Self-Awareness Training Program: Structured Exercises . . . . . FIRO-B Questionnaire. . . . . . Tennessee Self Concept Items . . . Personal Data Sheet . . . . . . Session Reaction Form . . . . . Group Member Perception Instrument . Expectations for Sensitivity Program Learnings from the Sensitivity Program. Group Effectiveness Instrument . . Value Dimensions of Interpersonal Relations Page 150 186 190 195 196 197 198 199 202 206 Table ._. l\_) w U1 an L4 m up ,_. o ,_. Research Pro Sex, Age, an) Group for . Educational Groups . . Analysis of Between IS Analysis of Between IS Analysis of Scores Bet Groups . - Analysis of Scores Be1 Groups . Group Effeca EXercise ] Group Effec. Exercise ‘ Kruskal-w‘ Sums of R cOmpatibi Scores on The T‘Tests and Incom SCores on 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Research Procedures and Schedule . . . Sex, Age, and Marital Status by Treatment Group for Participants. . . . . Educational Level of Subjects by Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Self—Esteem Scores Between IS, LL, and SD Treatment Groups Analysis of Variance of Identity Scores Between IS, LL, and SD Treatment Groups Analysis of Variance for Self-Criticism Scores Between IS, LL, and SD Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Total Conflict Scores Between IS, LL, and SD Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Group Effectiveness Scores on the NASA Exercise by Treatment Groupings. . . Group Effectiveness Scores on the NASA Exercise for All Groups Showing the Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance by Sums of Ranks by Treatment Groupings . T-Test Analysis of Differences Between Compatible and Incompatible Group Mean Scores on Self-Esteem Scale of TSCS . The T-Tests Between the Compatible Groups and Incompatible Groups Mean Identity Scores on the TSCS . . . . . . . viii Page 63 66 67 84 84 85 86 88 88 9O 91 Table 12. The T-Test A1 and Incomp; Self-Criti« . The T-Test A and Incomp Scores on ._4 m .— ..=_ Comparison 0 and Sociom ._. u—u . Comparison 0 FIRO-B Com .__. an Summary of B Participan ,_. N Learning Exp Outcomes a Training l" ,_. as Ratings of I Dimensions ,1.. \0 Mean Rating: Whileness Level of 1 EXpressim Worthwhili N o Frequency D: tation of Table 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page The T-Test Analysis Between the Compatible and Incompatible Group Mean Scores on the Self-Criticism Scale of the TSCS . . . . 92 The T-Test Analysis Between the Compatible and Incompatible Groups Mean Conflict Scores on the TSCS. . . . . . . . . 93 Comparison of FIRO-B Compatibility Scores and Sociometric Cohesiveness Scores . . . 94 Comparison of NASA Productivity Scores and FIRO-B Compatibility Group Scores. . . . 96 Summary of Biographical Responses for Participants from Personal Data Form. . . 97 Learning Expectations and Perceived Learning Outcomes as Reported by Self-Awareness Training Participants. . . . . . . . 100 Ratings of Participants‘ Responses to Value Dimensions Questionnaire. . . . . . . 101 Mean Ratings of Individual Sessions Worth- whileness, Acceptance of Group Climate, Level of Participation; Openness in Expressing Feelings, Level of Conflict, Worthwhileness of Structured Activities. . 103 Frequency Distribution and Percentage Compu- tation of Learning Outcome Items . . . . 104 ix As most 601199 aperson t0 90 education with sense of SE and Hopkins: 1 The above versities are not ences. Most educa accusation. Stud: Foundation (1968) sities have been 1 affective and int learning. Studen questioning the n ihg. Presently rational, factual Tent. Some highe learning objectiv do . “t S self-aware hve a fuller, he A CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction As most college graduates know, it is possible for a person to go through four or more years of higher education without having his values, emotions or sense of self deeply touched once . . . (Harrison and Hopkins, 1966, p. 9). The above statement is a serious indictment. Uni- versities are not preparing students for total life experi— ences. Most educators agree with the soundness of this accusation. Studies by Harrison and Hopkins (1966), Hazen Foundation (1968), and Katz (1968) indicate that univer- sities have been neglecting the crucial influence of affective and interpersonal dimensions in the process of learning. Students, faculty, and administrators are questioning the neglect of the affective aspects of learn— ing. Presently, the universities are focusing on the rational, factual, and cognitive aspects of student develop- ment. Some higher education institutions are re-evaluating learning objectives to include the development of a stu- dent‘s self-awareness and interpersonal skills needed to live a fuller, healthier and happier life. The centrai is on the quality ' (Bettelheim, 1969; faculty members ar self-awareness and upon the amount of 1969; Fan, 1949; F the resources of s crease their self- ratories, 1967). Student Personnel with students in 6 opportunities for self-awareness cor ditional cognitive students. Student PT in determining thy inveStigation is 1 and evaluation of while students. “9°“ of differ instrumented, and mi” on Selecte viriaAles that in self‘al’i‘reness Dr W) up WhesivEnes __1......‘ The central concern of students in higher education is on the quality of personal relations and self—development (Bettelheim, 1969; Hazen Foundation, 1968). Moreover, faculty members are becoming aware of the influence that self-awareness and interpersonal relationships can have upon the amount of cognitive learning acquired (Morris, 1969; Faw, 1949; Rogers, 1962). Universities might try the resources of sensitivity training to help students in- crease their self—understanding (National Training Labo- ratories, 1967). Within higher educational institutions, T Student Personnel Services have the responsibility to work with students in developing programs that will provide opportunities for self-understanding. Increasing students' self-awareness could revitalize the relevancy of tra- ditional cognitive experiences offered to and imposed upon students. Student Personnel Programs can play a major role in determining the affective development of students. This investigation is concerned with the development, testing, and evaluation of a self-awareness training program for college students. The study focuses primarily on the effects of different climates for learning (leader-led, instrumented, and self-directed groups) and group compo— Sition on selected self-concept criteria. Several related variables that influence the development of a meaningful self-awareness program are studied. These variables are: group cohesiveness, group effectiveness, subjective evaluations of the This self-awarenes goal of creating l tate the developme The major effective and wor‘ The study focuses interpersonal nee different learnin group experience Generally education that th for the purpose 0 cent in the area “35' Yet the li STecific evidence Student Personnel Studentsl Persona Personnel PrOgran incstuaents' afg organized aCtiv11 dents, ThESe pm higher EdUCation development of t] SOQ‘ 1al. moral, a] evaluations of the training program, and biographical data. This self-awareness program contributes to the educational goal of creating learning experiences which would facili- tate the development of students' affective potentials. Statement of the Problem The major purpose of this study is to develop an effective and worthwhile self—awareness training program. The study focuses primarily on evaluating the effect of interpersonal need variables of group composition and different learning climates on selected self—concept and group experience criteria. Generally, it is assumed in contemporary higher education that the student personnel division was developed for the purpose of educationally enriching student develop- ment in the area of interpersonal relations and self-aware— ness. Yet the literature of higher education reports no specific evidence that the amorphous and omnibus label of student persOnnel programs has any significant impact on students' personal growth and self-understanding. Student personnel programs try to fulfill the objective of increas- ing students' affective development through the creation of organized activities in the extra-curricular life of stu- dents. These programs are consistent with the belief that higher education should provide opportunities for the development of the "total" student: intellectual, physical, social, moral, and emotional. The present student personnel programs have had affective developm limited success of have been directed versity rather tha (Tarrison and Hopk linited impact in student personnel vith atypical stud collegiate environ The proble in program is cor of getting along v more effective hun this goal of humar . Education llTportantly 11 something thaa eTeryone an i] he considerec education (p, The press] designed as a Strv learning activitiv gr011T interactioh structured group 1 students a WOrthwj hurt for the emph l) Toulds and Gui programs have had limited success in trying to fulfill the affective development of students. One reason for the limited success of these programs is that the programs have been directed at the intellectual goals of the uni— versity rather than at the personal goals of the students (Harrison and Hopkins, 1966). Another reason for the limited impact in the area of student development is that student personnel workers have been typically involved with atypical students and only a few aspects of the total collegiate environment (Ivey, 1967). The problem of developing a self-awareness train— ing program is conceived as facilitating in the process of getting along with the educational work of developing more effective human beings. Redfield (1955) supports this goal of humanistic education when he says: Education is of course learning something. More importantly it is becoming something. A person is something that it takes time to make; there is on everyone an invisible sign, "Work in progress"; and the considered effort to get along with the work is education (p. 64). The present self-awareness training program was designed as a structured learning situation. Structured learning activities were used to stimulate and facilitate group interaction and personal encounters. Such a structured group activity might offer the majority of students a worthwhile program for self—exploration. Sup- Port for the emphasis on small group activities is noted by Foulds and Guinan (1969) when they said: We are bed of intensive g of learning 51‘ cities which 1 and even entir The progr a three days. The 5 and women students suner term of 196 time periods of 1' During the group i fronted others thr activities present direction. All g1 tivity booklets cc Appendix A for a ( T1865). This sell vant educational : love in the direc for self-understa: versitl's goal of live leaders for Today in about the lack of sensitivity for t not noticed the i a rd Protests Comp We are becoming increasing aware of the potential of intensive group experiences for creating new kinds of learning situations designed to release the capa— cities which lie dormant within individuals, groups and even entire communities (p. 115). The program was conducted for four hours a day for three days. The study sample consisted of ninety-six men and women students at Michigan State University during the summer term of 1969. The groups were conducted during two time periods of 1-5 and 7-11 over a period of fifteen days. During the group interaction students encountered and con- fronted others through the use of structured self-awareness activities presented via audio tapes, leaders, and self- direction. All groups were provided with programmed sensi- tivity booklets containing self-awareness exercises (see Appendix A for a detailed presentation of structured exer— cises). This self-awareness program might uncover a rele- vant educational strategy to help student personnel services move in the direction of providing meaningful opportunities for self-understanding while still fulfilling the uni- versity's goal of developing more responsible and sensi- tive leaders for society. Significance of the Study Today in academia, many educators are concerned about the lack of communication, misunderstanding and in— sensitivity for the rights of others. Few educators have not noticed the increase in the amount of student unrest and protests compared to ten years ago. Therefore, the / breakdown in the h educational system ration, alienation vith creative and higher education 1' Rogers, 1968; Gooc This diler tance of interper: bl Rogers (1968) . It is p05 as it is--con rational conc the teacher, ComputeriZed examinations. Showing great tilltiorral grou 1mi>0rtant lea Personal, Ea 0f Worth! bec Cities; . ' . WhOle human k iiiilsl the deVelo; Promotes and facj help maintain the the goal of e due,- Evidentls eiTer‘ renced by s in eleant to th‘ teas on for this the . primary 90a1 t‘ Tiled tOWard aCa breakdown in the humanized and personalized aspects of the educational system is becoming a public fact. Depersonali- zation, alienation and dehumanization must be confronted with creative and relevant educational experiences if higher education is to survive (Sanford, 1967; Katz, 1968; Rogers, 1968; Goodman, 1962). This dilemma of depersonalization and the impor- tance of interpersonal relationships for learning is noted by Rogers (1968) when he states: It is possible that education will continue much as it is--concerned only with words, symbols and rational concepts based on the authorative role of the teacher, further dehumanized by teaching machines, computerized knowledge, and increased use of tests and examinations. This is possible because educators are showing greater resistance to change than other insti— tutional groups. . . . In the future, among the most important learnings will be the personal and the inter— personal. Each child will learn that he is a person of worth, because he has unique and worthwhile capa- cities; . . . His will be an education in becoming a whole human being (pp. 273—74). Thus, the development of a student personnel program that promotes and facilitates meaningful self—learning might help maintain the development of the "total" student as the goal of education.l Evidently, our educational institutions are being experienced by students as dehumanizing, devaluating, and irrelevant to their development as human beings. The reason for this feeling by students might be the fact that the primary goal of education is an intellectual process aimed toward academic and vocational development of students. Some a humanized educati logical failure, the educational llazen Report, 19 this situation ar activism), develo versities or revo system (apathy or activities), or b There is of students, abou student protests Nevertheless, the express the view more than just ir human relationshi and meaning they their educationai creative, secure lugs (Hazen Repo: the potential si< night have in in Personal develop The goal lend support to students. Some apparent results of the breakdown in the humanized educational system is a high degree of psycho- logical failure, loss of identity, and dissatisfaction with the educational experiences being offered to students (Hazen Report, 1968). Some of the student responses to this situation are either fighting the system (student activism), developing competiting systems (free uni— versities or revolutionary groups), or by one-upping the system (apathy or indifference to university services and activities), or by giving up to the system (alienation). There is strong evidence that only a small minority of students, about 10 per cent, are actively involved in student protests and demonstrations against the university. Nevertheless, there are many students who are beginning to express the View that educational experiences should be more than just intellectual learning. "Students turn to human relationships as the source of most of the purpose and meaning they seek in their lives" because they want their educational experiences to help them become mature, creative, secure, adjusted, and self-directed human be— ings (Hazen Report, 1968). Factors such as these indicate the potential significance that small group activities might have in influencing the educational objective of personal development. The goals of education in the past and the present lend support to the emphasis of preparing the "total" student through 3 experiences. Man entire life of th goal. Gray (1932 that happened to time as what happ . . . that th the complete and that time concerned wit of individual in consequenc college stud Whitehea the "whole perso Students are to stimulate self-understa llso, Montagu (lE tutions should fr fuller life throu teaching only thl used the term "ht concern should b and interpersona sueport to this We must deal of individua of their own is the area (p. 46). student through self—awareness training or human relations experiences. Many educators have been concerned with the entire life of the student as an important educational goal. Gray (1932) reported that it was just as important what happened to the student during his "out of class" time as what happened in class. Gray (1932) states: . . . that the very concept of the individual implies the complete individual, not merely the brain-section and that time—section of the individual which are conderned with formal learning; and that the concept of individualization in college education involves, in consequence, concern for the whole life of the college student (p. 57). Whitehead (1939) supported the aim of developing the "whole person" when he observes: Students are alive, and the purpose of education is to stimulate and guide their self—development and self-understanding (p. v). Also, Montagu (1968) reflected that our educational insti- tutions should foster in students the ability to live a fuller life through love rather than concentrating on teaching only the "three R's." Similarly, Cowley (1946) used the term "holism“ to denote that education's central concern should be the development of human individuality and interpersonal relationships.” Williamson (1961) adds support to this point of View when he says: We must deal with students as individuals and groups of individuals who are connected with many aspects of their own development. The affective curriculum is the area for the students' own full development (p. 46). Related t is the significan can bring to the affective develop heprojected into goals of higher e activities and re as: methods of t activities, and r Therefore personal understa to be identified higher education. immediately and c when he says: The depe: to go unchecl threat to the must not only make a human vigorously a: in 5)- Of coursu goal of educatio: relevance to the in a complex and vant their educa their lives thro of human relatic environment (Bet Related to this broadened aim of higher education is the significance that application of behavioral sciences can bring to the research and study of the college students' affective development. Behavioral science knowledge should be projected into the development of affective curriculum goals of higher education. For example, small group activities and research can be expanded into such areas as: methods of teaching, curriculum design, student activities, and residential living. Therefore, the areas of self-awareness, inter— personal understanding, and dehumanization are beginning to be identified as serious concerns to the continuance of higher education. These problems must be dealt with immediately and creatively according to Logan Wilson (1968) when he says: The depersonalization of the student, if allowed to go unchecked or unchallenged, represents a grave threat to the very purpose of higher education. We must not only sympathize with the students' desire to make a human connection with his college, we must also vigorously assist him in making such a connection (p. 5). Of course students support this human relations goal of education by demanding that their courses have more relevance to their needs, concerns, and daily interactions in a complex and rapidily changing environment. Students want their education to help them cope with and change their lives through self-understanding and the development of human relationship skills within a small therapeutic environment (Bettelheim, 1969). However, development deman than is true for of this study foc personal growth 0 tivity training a normal individual environment. Eleven hy gation. They are follows: H1 Ther 2 10 However, the assumption is that students' affective development demand more immediate and creative activities than is true for their cognitive needs. The significance of this study focuses upon this assumption, namely, that personal growth of students can be fostered through sensi— tivity training activities which are designed to help normal individuals increase their awareness of self and environment. Hypotheses Eleven hypotheses were formulated for this investi- gation. They are stated in the customary null form as follows: Hl There is no significant difference in mean scores on the Self-Esteem score of Tennessee Self Concept Scale among groups with different self-awareness training programs of Leader—Led (LL), Instrumented (IS), and Self-Directed (SD) treatments. H2 There is no significant difference in mean scores on the Identity scale of the TSCS among groups with different self-awareness training programs of LL, Is, and SD treatments. H3 There is no significant difference in mean scores on the Self-Criticism scale of the TSCS among groups with different self-awareness training of LL, IS, and SD treatments. 4 There is no significant differences in mean scores on the Total Conflict scale of the TSCS among groups with different self—awareness training of LL, IS, and SD treatments. There is no significant difference between self-directed, leader-led, and instrumented groups on the NASA group effectiveness measure. compa Related Question: This sec which are examin Stated in\hypoth for developing a The questions tr mess of the prog of subjective ex sessions and the rare examined. 11 There is no significant differences between the mean scores on the Self—Esteem scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to incompatible groups as identified by the FIRO—B instrument. H7 There is no significant differences between the mean scores on the Identity scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to incompatible groups as identified by the FIRO-B instrument. H8 There is no significant differences between the mean scores on the Self-Criticism scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to incompatible groups. H9 There is no significant differences between the mean scores on the Conflict scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to -incompatib1e groups. Hlo There is no significant relationship between compatible group scores, as measured by the FIRO-B test, and the cohesiveness group scores, as measured by the Group Member Perception Form. Hll There is no significant relationship between group achievement or effectiveness, as measured by the NASA decision making exercise, and the compatibility scores of groups. Related Questions This section contains some explorative questions which are examined by the data collected. Although not Stated in hypothesis form these questions are important for developing a more effective self-awareness program. The questions tried to obtain feedback on the worthwhile— ness of the program and examine participants' descriptions Of subjective experiences and reactions to individual Sessions and the total program. A total of five questions were examined. They were: 1. What; expec learn aware dynam 2. What be im 3. What orier feeli exper sione From the muted: 4- What to u term: ingr pati conf acti From the thestiohs are ex 5' (a) 12 1. What are the reported changes between initial expectations for learning and the reported learning outcomes in the areas of self— awareness, interpersonal skills, and group dynamics? 2. What biographical data on the subjects could be important for effecting learning outcomes? 3. What are the participants' interpersonal value orientations in the areas of control, trust, feelings, openness, and self-disclosure of experiences, as measured by the Value Dimen- sions Interpersonal Relations Form? From the Session Reaction Form this question is examined: 4. What are the reported reactions of participants to the three different training sessions in terms of worthwhileness, group climate (accept— ing or rejecting), level of subjects’ partici- pation, sharing of feelings, level of group conflict, and worthwhileness of structured activities? From the Learning Outcome Form the following questions are examined: 5. (a) What are the reported reactions of partici- pants to the programs transferability, worthwhileness, relevancy to their lives, The follc gmmm l. Part5 and : tram 2- Inst lean ing : dete acti 4- Sens faci self Grou tati and The gation: l3 satisfaction, and helping to increase their self-understanding? How many participants (would or would not) (b) have participated in this sensitivity pro- gram if they had the opportunity to do it over again? (c) How many participants intend to participate in more sensitivity training programs? Assumptions of the Study following assumptions underly this investi- Participants are able to identify the personal and interpersonal effects of sensitivity training. Instrumented, self-directed, and leader—led learning styles are proven methods for enhanc- ing personal growth and self-understanding. The leader does not play the crucial role in determining the effectiveness of small group activities. Sensitivity training is‘a proven method for facilitating group interaction and increasing self-understanding. Groups have stable interpersonal need orien- tations in the areas of affection, control, and inclusion. 6. The C< patib; 7, Group are p paper & The i i crite patih 522E Certain J hwea direct bee i generalizations t ‘ l. The s f trail resul prog: deve leng reas i to t 2~ The have able trai L crit Char 6. 14 The concepts of self-concept and group com- patibility do exist and are measurable. Group experiences and self—concept indices are possible to assess using standardized paper and pencil instruments The instruments are measuring the internal criteria of treatment effects and group com— patibility on self-concept outcome variables. Scope and Limitations of the Study Certain limitations should be identified which may have a direct bearing upon the kinds of implications and generalizations that can be drawn from the study. 1. The short time span of the self-awareness training program could effect and limit the results that could be obtained from a longer program. Money, time, and the desire to develop a training program approximating the length of a college orientation program were reasons for limiting the length of the program to three days. The study is limited to the variables which have been examined and to the dependent vari— ables used as internal criteria measures of training on self—concept variables. External criteria measures such as backhome behavior changes or peer relationships were not measured. 3. The U: to In volun findi tivit felt avoid 4. Altho to be varia the w ments subje foot them: inst] expm the give part SPOn. the stud Peri of t effe 3. 15 The use of volunteers in this study will tend to limit the findings and conclusions only to volunteers for sensitivity training. The findings may not be generalized to other sensi- tivity programs. The use of volunteers was felt to be necessary to insure motivation and avoid high attrition rate among participants. Although the instruments used are considered to be among the best to measure the dependent variables of self-concept they are limited to the weaknesses inherent to self-report instru— ments. For example, on personality tests subjects will frequently try to put their best foot forward and paint the best picture of themselves. Also, frequently on self-report instruments subjects may try to please the experimenter by giving the answer he thinks the experimenter wants, and subjects tend to give the socially desirable answer. Therefore, participants' actual behavior may not corre— spond to self—reports. The short time period for evaluation may blur the true impact of the training program on a student's self—awareness. The short time period for evaluation may limit the accuracy of the reported learnings because of halo effects of such a unique experience. Sensitivi ing program desig self and others 1 irontation withi1 period of time. of group experie: ceptions, and be fined group clim m: and exercises us training is deve are designed to now“ feelings an m iacilitate and c exploration witi iroups, Ins & leadership me thc % group leadershi] for their own d action Style 16 Definition of Terms Sensitivity Training.--An experienced based learn— ing program designed to increase one's understanding of self and others through the use of interaction and con— frontation within a small group setting over an extended period of time. Learning takes place through an analysis of group experiences including feelings, reactions, per- ceptions, and behavior within an unstructured and unde— fined group climate. Structured Self-Awareness Training.-—The activities and exercises used as stimulus for group interaction. The training is developed through programmed exercises which are designed to focus group interaction on the "here and now" feelings and experiences. Trainer or Leader.-—The person designated to facilitate and guide learning, understanding, and self— eXPloration within the leader—led self-awareness training groups. Instrumented Groups.--Refers to the specific leadership method of having groups directed by audio tapes. Self-Directed Group .--Refers to the specific group leadership method of having all members responsible for their own direction and decisions concerning inter— action style. Leader-Le __,,_..— traditional leads guiding the grou] new or characteristir leads to mutual harmonious group property of comp Interpersonal Re (FiRO-B) (Schutz M partiCiPdnt's re measures the gen we and his Pla struct is measul (Form c, Append]- M i .sneasured by i heaSure reflects worthwhileness < a a that they ar e p( n themselveS’ . ( are doubtfu1 an undesirable; of . l7 Leader—Led Groups.-—Refers to the groups led by traditional leaders who function as group facilitators by guiding the groups in the use of programmed activities. Group Interchange Compatibility.--That property or characteristic pattern between two or more persons that leads to mutual satisfaction of interpersonal needs and harmonious group experiences and productivity. This property of compatibility is measured by the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation—Behavior questionnaire (FIRO—B) (Schutz, 1958). Group Cohesiveness.——The extent to which the participant's reactions to sociometric questionnaire measures the general satisfaction with the group experi— ence and his place in these group activities. This con- struct is measured by the Group Perception Sociometric (Form C, Appendix F). Self Esteem.—-That trait or characteristic which is measured by the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. This measure reflects the overall level of self—esteem or worthwhileness of a person. It is defined operationally as: persons with high scores tend to like themselves, feel that they are persons of value and worth, have confidence in themSelves, and act accordingly. People with low scores are doubtful about their own worth; see themselves as undesirable; often are anxious, depressed and unhappy; I 'l h i and have little f 1965. p- 2). Total Cor measures conflict items within the indicate confusia self-perception Group Ef productivity as exercise (Append Identit Tennessee Self c the "What I Am" defined as that "the individual elS as he see: The baci he investigated Hprese“ts a r on sensitivity Ill Presents a design, methodo treatments and 18 and have little faith or confidence in themselves (Fitts, 1965, p. 2). Total Conflict Scores.—-This scale on the TSCS measures conflicting responses to positive and negative items within the same area of self—perception. High scores indicate confusion, contradiction, and general conflict in self-perception (Fitts, 1965, p. 4). Group Effectiveness.--Refers to the group's productivity as measured by the NASA group decision making exercise (Appendix I). Identity.—-That trait which is measured by the a Tennessee Self Concept Scale. This score is derived from the "What I Am" items on the self-concept scale. It is defined as that portion of the self-concept scale in which "the individual is describing his basic identity or what he is as he sees himself" (Fitts, 1965, p. 2). Overview of the Thesis The background and significance of the problem to be investigated has been identified in Chapter I. Chapter II presents a review of relevant research and literature on sensitivity training and small group dynamics. Chapter III presents a description of the samples, the research design, methodology, instrumentation, and experimental treatments and techniques used in the study. A presentation of the findings C Chapter IV. Fine findings with cm and recommendatic 19 of the findings of the investigation is included in Chapter IV. Finally, Chapter V presents a summary of the findings with conclusions, implications for future research, and recommendations of the study. J i a I l The seco literature and t areas of this st sents a review c needs and goals development. Tl ing and its Sig] material which ; literature in t2 and of the revi research for 11: leCtives of thi m Recentl Presents an ove CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The second chapter is focused on a review of the literature and the research that relates to the three basic areas of this study. The first part of this chapter pre- sents a review of the literature dealing with students' needs and goals in higher education and students' affective development. The second part deals with sensitivity train- ing and its significance. The last section presents material which is representative of the research and literature in the area of "Small Group Dynamics." At the end of the review is a summary of the implications of prior research for limiting the scope of the problem and ob— jectives of this study. Literature on Student Development and Related Areas Recently, there has been a steady increase in the amount of literature pertaining to the important determi— nants and dimensions of student development. This section presents an overview of studies relating to personality and 20 intellectual neea their developmen One subj institutions res Studies of plann longer assume th to a rapidly Cha fl. (1962), i logical growth c - - - histoI confidence j adequate of re'eQuilibrg Upset by ter Paradox: developing prog] students' human their environme: of the training fer effecting 3 recent and HGgl and Mouton, 196 while i: comprehensiVe c help students as not a new Conce l IOUPS rathEr t effeCtive human 21 intellectual needs of college students, and the process of their development. One subject of attention has been educational institutions responses to student needs and concerns. Studies of planned change have indicated that we can no longer assume that students will make automatic adjustment to a rapidly changing and stress-filled society. Bennis §E_al. (1962), in commenting on the effects of techno- logical growth observed the following: . . . historic events has tended to undermine rationale confidence in the principle of automatic adjustment as adequate of accomplish just, equitable and desirable re-equilibrations in persons, groups, and societies upset by technological changes (p. 12). Paradoxically, universities have been remiss in developing programs which focus on the improvement of students' human relation skills to adjust and cope with their environment and technological changes. The resource of the training group as a potentially important strategy for effecting students' adjustment to changes has been a recent and neglected phenomena in higher education (Blake and Mouton, 1961). While the feasibility of designing preventive and comprehensive college community mental health programs to help students understand self, others, and environment is not a new concept. The strategy of using small encounter groups rather than individual counseling to foster more effective human relations, self—understanding, and E interpersonal sea tapped possibili' . . . more 5 characterist as organized group struct If unive development of 5 knowledge on C01 of college on st growth may help) research has con not being eXperj needs and exper; Sindies on the < reported that t] mlatively low emotional deVeL studentsI acade; the university. seen as a PGrip In W There h impact of highe develOpmen t ‘ Change in inte] h an to Senior 3 22 interpersonal sensitivity appears to be a relatively un- ‘ tapped possibility. Kimball (1963) reports that: . . . more studies are needed which would explore the characteristics and values of formalized student life as organized in extra—curricular activities, informal group structure (p. 271). If universities have neglected the affective development of students, recent literature, reserach, and knowledge on college students' development and the impact of college on students' personal, social, and academic growth may help reverse this neglected area. Out of the research has come the awareness that higher education is not being experienced by students as "relevant" to their needs and experiences. One of the most comprehensive studies on the college student's development (Katz, 1968) reported that the university as an institution showed relatively low interest in promoting students' social and emotional development. The challenge of facilitating students' academic and vocational skills was reported as the university's primary function, and the problem of pro— moting opportunities for personal and social growth was seen as a peripheral task. Intellectual Development There has been considerable research exploring the impact of higher education on students' intellectual development. Several investigations have focused on the change in intellectual behaviors and attitudes from fresh— man to senior years. Studies by Elton and Rose (1968), Lehmann and Dress comb et__a_l_. (196' development. Thv non-significant haviors from att intellectual beh versity‘s area 0 dents' intellect (1968) reported change during cc rather than in t differences in s intellectual goe Studies different Empha: ality character these studies. character ist i Cs Beach (1967), H Katz (1963), Mc Plant (1958), S hedsker (1968) I vant to the are of these Stu die 23 Lehmann and Dressel (1962), McConnell et_al. (1968), New- comb gE_al. (1967) are relevant to students' intellectual development. The results suggest a slight but statistically non-significant increase in academic and intellectual be— haviors from attending college. This tendency to develop intellectual behaviors is not surprising because the uni— versity's area of competence was the development of stu— dents' intellectual potentialities. Furthermore, Katz (1968) reported that students described their greatest change during college in the areas of personal and social rather than in the intellectual. This literature indicates differences in students' reported learning and institutions‘ intellectual goals for education. Personality Development L Studies in this area of student development have different emphasis, either in type and breadth of person— ality characteristics studied and conclusions drawn from these studies. Areas of focus have been personality characteristics, attitude, and value changes. Studies by Beach (1967), Heath (1968), Izard (1962), Jacob (1958), Katz (1968), McConnell gt_al. (1968), Nichols (1965), Plant (1958), Stern (1966), Steward (1964), Trent and Medsker (1968), Wallace (1966), Webster (1962) are rele— vant to the area of personality development. The findings of these studies support the following generalizations: Stu col rel on and In usi Val st: 24 Seniors demonstrate greater self—confidence, independence, and autonomy than freshmen. In addition, upper—classmen report greater domi- nance, less dependency, and submissive_needs than freshmen (Izard, 1962; Nichols, 1965; Stern, 1966; Trent and Medsker, 1968). Seniors were identified as being more open and tolerant of new experiences and situations, less self-controlled, and showed greater flexi— bility and less need for structure and rules (Izard, 1962; Stern, 1966; Webster, 1962). The teaching function in higher education has a minimal effect on student values and the changes that do occur are due to student peer group (Newcomb, 1966). Value changes do not occur during college years because values brought to college are only reinforced by the academic climate (Jacobs, 1958). Students' attitudes and values, whether or not colleges have impacts upon them, tend to remain relatively stable and persistent as they were on leaving college into adult years (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969). In the area of student value changes studies using the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values instrument have reported that the strongest and most consistent finding is that student Goals a: -—-———-——F-———- Expectations Studies (1963), and Fel change their go aresult of the that the degree students depend of colleges in students enter Vocational goal Years of colleg the purposes 0: 25 aesthetic values are of more importance to seniors than to freshmen, and religious values are of lower importance to seniors than fresh- men (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969; Heath, 1968; Steward, 1964). Generally, students tend to adopt the dominate value system present at their institutions (Stern, 1966). 6. Nearly without exception, the investigations show seniors to be less authoritarian, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, and less pre— judiced than freshmen. These differences are evident in many diverse settings and across geographical lines and over time (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969). Student Goals and Expectations Studies by Adams (1965), Baur (1965), Pemberton (1953). and Feldman (1969) have reported that students change their goals in consistent and predictable ways as a result of the college experience. Research demonstrates that the degree and kind of effect that colleges have on students depends on student inputs which vary among types 0f colleges in patterned ways. Findings indicate that Students enter college with a pragmatic and essentially vocational goal for educatiOn. Predictably, after four Years of college students were more likely to identify the Purposes of college as a way of broadening one's view of life, gains i The most importa was not the inte culture of the 1969). Student Needs: for Identity Self-kn growth process goals of higher that universiti attention can to students. Stud of the search f society. The 1( student; Ericksv task of adolesc One ide 'educational es dents' confusio headed in life. not effectively herenda (1961) cation on a stu aid of four yea acquire a start student's sterc 26 of life, gains in liberal education and personal maturity. The most important factor for bringing about this change was not the interaction with faculty members, but the sub— culture of the student's peer group (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969). Student Needs: The Search for Identity Self—knowledge is considered essential to the growth process of students and is one of the most important goals of higher education. The assumption cannot be made that universities have passed beyond the point where attention can be given to the self—actualization needs of students. Student personnel services must become aware of the search for identity taking place at all levels of society. The identity crisis is not unique to the college student; Erickson (1959) views it as a primary developmental task of adolescence. One identifiable reason for the revolt against the "educational establishment" might be the result of stu- dents' confusion about "Who they are" and "Where they are headed in life." Institutions of higher education have not effectively dealt with this struggle for self-awareness. Merenda (1961) supported this lack of impact by higher edu- cation on a student's identity when he found that at the end of four years of higher education, students tend to acquire a stereotyped set of self-concepts. The college student's stereotype self-concepts are characterized as a fl relatively passi son. The failur impact on a stud (1966) when he c dents the "colle negative attribu adult roles, imn sexual conflicts esteem, lack of guilt. This ide aspect of self-z for what they an their interactii significance of mented by Sherwi small groups su onaperson's s attracted to th ohm. Rokeach ( living in an is and rejecting 6 Their lone} boundaries only be ac: society . Univer. neut' 5 effect statistics rev 27 relatively passive, nonaggressive, socially confident per- son. The failure of higher education to have a positive impact on a students' self-concept was reflected by Form (1966) when he called the identity crisis of college stu- dents the "college syndrome." The syndrome is made up of negative attributes such as: depression, confusion about adult roles, immaturity, ambivalent vocational aspirations, sexual conflicts, interpersonal problems, lack of self— esteem, lack of initiative or motivation, and sense of guilt. This identity problem seems to be an important aspect of self-awareness because people seek to be liked for what they are and they find this out only through rtheir interactions with others (Sullivan, 1949). The significance of others on one's self—concept was well docu— mented by Sherwood (1965) and much of the literature on small groups supports the influence of significant others on a person's self-concept. People seek out and are attracted to those who possess attributes similar to their own. Rokeach (1964) reported the effects on identity while living in an isolated, impersonal, mechanized, devaluating, and rejecting environment in Three Christs of Ypsilanti: Their loneliness and isolation, the loss of their ego boundaries and its resultant depersonalization, could only be accentuated through years of neglect by a society . . . (p. ii). Universities must revamp the collegiate environ— ment's effect on students or deny some rather disconcerting statistics revealing that the university environment is fl becoming as reje enced by the T__hl statistics of d1 of students ref; be more of an it inflexibilities the college env: (1966), Summersl vant to this art tide rate on co that for the ge similar evidenc the result of s nuuber of stude as four out of on the average. of their incomi time and 20 per above interpers college milieu l. Edi in st wh 2. Th 0D 28 becoming as rejecting and devaluating as the one experi- enced by the Three Christs of Xpsilanti. Significant statistics of drop-out rates and psychological problems of students reflect that failure in higher education might be more of an indictment of the institutional programs and inflexibilities than of the students' ability to adapt to the college environment. Studies by Bratten (1965), Harvey (1966), Summerskill (1962) and Werdell (1966) were rele- vant to this area. Bratten (1965) reported that the sui— cide rate on college campuses is 40 per cent higher than that for the general population. Werdell (1966) cites similar evidence; 34 per cent of all college deaths are the result of suicide. These same studies report that the number of students who need psychological help is as high as four out of every ten. Summerskill (1962) reported that on the average, colleges and universities lose about half of their incoming students with 40 per cent graduating on time and 20 per cent graduating after some delay. The above interpersonal and personal problems generated by the college milieu uncover five generalizations.- 1. Educational institutions must assist students in developing their self-awareness by giving students greater opportunities for exploring who they are and where they are going in life. 2. The educational environment is an unhealthy one. Many studies provide distressing fl evi per 3. The wil env per ing awa Leo he Where t the lives 0 important t what others new politic of the race 4. Bit cha goa Thi fuI 29 evidence concerning the low level of students' personal and interpersonal functioning. 3. The need exists to invent opportunities which will facilitate students' use of their personal environment to meet their emotional and inter— personal needs. An important aspect of creat— ing self-actualization experiences is to be aware of the interdependence of mankind. Leonard (1968) summarizes this position when he said: Where the actions of one can drastically affect the lives of others far distant, it will be crucially important that each person master the skill of feeling what others feel. This skill, more than new laws or new politics, will soon become crucial to the survival of the race (p. 16). 4. Difficulties might arise in trying to institute change in student personnel programs toward the goal of increasing student self-awareness. This state of affairs may exist because the functions of student personnel services are seen as peripheral tasks in comparison to the academic goals of rationality and factual learning. 5. Literature by student development experts, Sanford (1962), Katz (1968), and Newcomb (1967) indicated that students in college were in need of peer relationships and small group activi— ties. All the above authors support the theory The te people to be m personal relat: ment since the 1940's (Nation; the fields of have a strong ‘ culties in ide diverse traini can be placed all the way\ to addition to. th grams. there ha the many cont: Smith (1966) I 30 that once a student gains self-understanding and develops effective interpersonal skills, he will perform at a higher academic level while in college. For example, Newcomb (1966) has reported that the student's interpersonal environment has a great deal to do with what he learns and how well he learns. Newcomb (1966) supports the view that the guts of edu— cation is the effect of interpersonal environ— ments on a person's identity. Literature on Sensitivity Training The techniques and methodology of how to train people to be more capable of sensitive and meaningful inter- personal relationships have been in the process of refine— ment since the beginnings of Laboratory Education in the 1940's (National Training Laboratories, 1967). Although the fields of laboratory education and small group dynamics have a strong history of research, there have been diffi— culties in identifying the crucial impact variables of diverse training programs. Sensitivity training programs can be placed on a continuum from personal growth groups all the way\to problem solving and organization labs. In ( addition to the many different designs for training pro- grams there has been a lack of unified theory to explain the many contradictory outcomes of these different programs. Smith (1966) noted that the multiplicity of affective learning method ation of outco clear means-en related resear criticism that of activity. styles for lea ties effect pa tivity trainin the cognitivel 0b'ectives of The ob personal goals and increase ii though there an tivity trainint the learning 0: to help each pd growth and to others more ef Training Labor narize the fiv 3l learning methods and goals for training have made evalu- ation of outcomes very difficult to assess. This lack of clear means—ends relationships and the lack of theory related research has exposed sensitivity training to the criticism that it is atheoretical and an experiential type of activity. Knowing how different training programs, styles for learning, group composition, and group activi- ties effect participant's learning would facilitate sensi— tivity training and small group activities acceptance by the cognitively and theoretically based academic community. Objectives of Sensitivity Training The objectives of sensitivity training focus on personal goals of self-understanding, sensitivity to others and increase in interpersonal relationship skills. Al- though there are many diverse views on the goals of sensi— tivity training most programs have the goal of improving the learning of each individual. The training is designed to help each person realize his own potential for personal growth and to increase ability to work and understand! others more effectively in a variety of situations (National Training Laboratories, 1967). The following factors sum- marize the five broad and important objectives of training: 1. Self-insight or self-awareness concerning feelings and behaviors in different social situations. These ment of an ac: can be themsei The focus of ' action where group experie The goal of s orientation i of psychopath and Spivack , 32 2. Increase understanding of group processes and increased skill in developing effective group behaviors. 3. More awareness of other people's feelings and behavior and increased understanding of one's impact on other people. 4. Greater awareness of the dynamics involved in the change process within groups and other social systems. 5. Increased recognition of human relation and diagnostic skills to understand group and community problems. This refers to learning how to work as a member of a team, learning how to solve decision making problems and examining complexities and alternatives in solving problems of interaction. These objectives are obtained through the develop- ment of an accepting and trusting climate in which people can be themselves without playing roles or wearing masks. The focus of the group is on the "here and now" inter- action where the data for the group is created within the group experience itself (National Training Lab, 1967). The goal of sensitivity training is exploration and the orientation is self-education, rather than the elimination of psychopathology as in group therapy (Stoller, 1967 and Spivack, 1968). In summary, most sensitivity programs are designed to personal sensit perceptions of and group situ act effectivel encounters wit Effectiveness Broad tivity trainin Dunnette (1968 arrive at the research is ne terion problem training as a areas of self- increased ski] Scheir evaluation of studies to dad to the positir to foster sel: Althor the effects 0 (Bunker and K Durham and Gi 33 are designed to help an individual improve his inter- personal sensitivity, increase self—understanding, increase perceptions of difficulties experienced in interpersonal and group situations so as to improve people's ability to act effectively and gain satisfaction in interactions and encounters with others (Miles, 1960). Effectiveness of Sensitivity Training Broad and detailed reviews in the area of sensi— tivity training by Bunker and Knowles (1967), Campbell and Dunnette (1968), Durham and Gibb (1967), and Stock (1968) arrive at the same conclusion as Miles (1965) that more research is needed in order to solve the difficult cri- terion problem of assessing the effects of sensitivity training as a method for enhancing self—development in the areas of self—awareness, interpersonal sensitivity, and increased skill in dealing with people. Schein and Bennis (1965) report a more positive evaluation of sensitivity training by emphasizing that studies to date have been extremely encouraging in regard to the positive effects of sensitivity training in helping to foster self and organizational understanding. Although there are numerous problems in assessing the effects of sensitivity training, the following factors (Bunker and Knowles, 1967; Campbell and Dunnette, 1968; Durham and Gibb, 1967; and Stock, 1968) summarize five basic and cruc' of sensitivity 1. Id as The learni relations he is abl portant l 2. 3. T1 1: d( t: s s r s t m 34 basic and crucial problems in the evaluation of the effects of sensitivity training. 1. Identification of significant criteria to assess the effects of specific training program designs is lacking. This refers to the complex problem of evaluating the long—term effects of training on back home behavior. As Stock (1964) emphasizes: The learnings which an individual gains at a human relations laboratory are valuable to the extent that he is able to utilize them in groups which are im— portant in his backhome setting (p. 420). 2. The goals and objectives of sensitivity train— ing are vaguely stated and seldom related to expected training outcomes. 3. The treatment procedures, within the omnibus label of sensitivity training, are rarely described so that the effects of different treatment activities such as T-groups, theory seesions, non-verbal exercises or problem- solving tasks are difficult to assess because researchers have been remiss in identifying specific objectives and outcomes desired from the individual activities of the training design. Bunker and Knowles (1967) attempted to get at this problem when they explored the interactional effects of T-group training as l 35 compared to other learning activities. In general, they found that the T—group may not be the most growth producing experience within laboratory training. The weaknesses of methodology, experimental design, and theory have hindered the generali- zations which can be made about the relation- Ship between learning experiences and learning outcomes from sensitivity training. One of the problems of design was illustrated by a study by Danish (1969). This study attempted to assess the trainer's affective sensitivity and its effects on participants' changes in affective sensitivity. In general, Danish found that the trainer's affective sensitivity had no significant impact on participants‘ changes in affective sensitivity. This study highlights the problems of design and method- ology found in research on sensitivity train— ing. The study was methodologically weak because the intact training groups, which should have been the experimental unit of analysis, were regrouped according to their scores on affective sensitivity. This re- grouping is a questionable procedure because of the vast differences in experiences and interactions found within different training rhea val 36 groups. Regrouping increases the errors of measurement and limits the reliability and validity of the findings. Other studies by Burke and Bennis (1961), and Bass (1962) revealed other experimental design weaknesses involved in research on sensitivity training. The weaknesses identi- fied were not using control groups, the possi— bility of test-treatment interactions, contami- nations by use of pre-post test designs, and the absence of random assignment to groups which does not control for systematic pre- training differences between groups. Support for these concerns about methodology and de— sign in sensitivity research is reported by Miles (1965) when he said: . . . Research on any form of treatment is classically difficult, unrewarding, and infrequent. When the pro— duct of a process is change in persons, the criterion problem is ordinarily a major one, whether the treat— ment occupies the domain of education, mental health, or social functioning. . . . Thus, it is not surprising that 95 percent of all treatment efforts go unstudied and that 5 percent typically show serious defects in design, measurement, or data analysis steming from insufficient attention to the problems alluded to above (p. 218). 5. The problems involved in assessing the effects of sensitivity training are strongly related to the diverse outcomes which can be attributed to the many different types of training ch Develo but measuring theory within cult. The inf clarify resear were nine theo plain the lear training. Sch diversity in t ing outcomes were enhancem knowledge of h change in valu of behavior. for the lack c learning when . . . metl studies h: rather at] to either to explai: specified hardly ev Furth rigorous desi training when Ls 37 programs and the lack of unified theory to explain results and make predictions about change. Developing a unified theory is a difficult process, but measuring theorems and postulates of the learning theory within small group activities is even more diffi— cult. The influx of theory development has not helped clarify research results. In Bradford e3_al. (1964) there were nine theoretical formulations which attempted to ex- plain the learning and change processes within sensitivity training. Schein and Bennis (1965) reported that the diversity in theory was related to the wide range of learn— ing outcomes possible. For example, some of the outcomes were enhancement of self-insight and identity, increased knowledge of how groups operate and function, possible change in values, beliefs or attitudes, and modification of behavior. Miles (1965) identified one possible reason for the lack of a dominant theory of sensitivity training learning when he said: . . . methodological problems aside, most treatment studies have a central substantive weakness: being rather atheoretical they lead to no coherent additions to either science or practice. The variables presumed to explain the amount of change in subjects are rarely SpeCified, and change processes during treatment are hardly ever studied (p. 219)- Furthermore, Shepard (1962) suggests support for r1gorous designs and evaluation procedures of sensitivity training when he said: . . . the T-group is namely, th doing (p. In con training to in interpersonal rigorous and t Internal Crite in Sensitivit This s to type and qu of training. important cri and external are those meas tent and proce no direct rela the organizati of internal ca measuring char perception, 5 participants Altho personality c many studies Studies by Be Burke and Ber 38 . . . the ultimate value premise underlining the T—group is one which also underlines scientific work, namely, that it is a good thing to know what you are doing (p. 637). In conclusion, the effectiveness of sensitivity training to improve participants' self-understanding and interpersonal sensitivity might be improved through more rigorous and thoughtful scientific designs. Internal Criteria for Change in Sensitivity Training This section of the review is organized according to type and quality of criteria used to measure the effects of training. Martin (1957) identified that the two most important criteria of change during training were internal and external criteria measures. Internal criteria measures are those measures which are directly related to the con- tent and process of the training program, but which have no direct relationship to back home behavior or goals of the organization (Campbell and Dunnette, 1968). Examples of internal criteria measures are studies which focus on measuring changes in value, belief and attitude, self— Perception, simulation performances, and evaluation of Paiticipants liking for the program. Although some areas of internal criteria such as personality changes have not received extensive research, many studies have focused on internal criteria of change. StUdies by Bass (1962), Baumgartal and Goldstein (1967), Burke and Bennis (1961), Clarke and Culbert (1965), Gassner gall. (1966) are rel perception, pe result of sen haustive revi Campbell and training with' changes and i specific goal Studi generated the interpersonal change, group Self- self-perceptir in that no co: 1961; Gassner reports that seem to becom they are. Ca search in thi U I I the indeed cl there is are prodt types of even by ‘ descript one' 5 pr) 39 Gassner gt_gl. (1964), Kernan (1964), and Schutz and Allen (1966) are relevant to measuring the changes in self— perception, personality changes, and attitude change as a result of sensitivity training. In an extensive and ex— haustive review of the literature on sensitivity training, Campbell and Dunnette (1968) question whether senSitivity training within T-groups lead to any significant internal changes and if these internal changes are related to specific goals of training. Studies on the internal criteria of change have generated the following conclusions on perceptions of self, interpersonal sensitivity, attitude change, personality change, group composition, and individual differences. Self-perception.--The studies involving changes in self-perception from sensitivity training have been limited in that no control groups were used (Burke and Bennis, 1961; Gassner et al., 1964; Stock, 1964). Stock (1964) reports that participants who change most during training seem to become less self-confident and confused about who they are. Campbell and Dunnette (1968) summarized the re- search in this area when they reported the following: . - . the way in which an individual sees himself may indeed change during the course of a T group. However, there is no firm evidence indicating that such changes are Produced by T-group training as compared with other types of training, merely by the passage of time, or even by the simple expedient of retaking a self- descriptive inventory after a period of thinking ab??? one's previous responses to the same inventory (p. . sensitivity t and abilities tivity, and u sensitivity t relationships of Bennis et Exline (1953) helping to ar training's in and Dunnette . . . peo other peo terms. H question increased merely th A maj develop knowl interpersonal instruments t ported by Hat In summar personal an accept the-Shel: Anoti agreement of how theory I: cern by theo specific or 40 Interpersonal Sensitivity.——Another major goal of sensitivity training is to increase participants' skills and abilities in the area of interpersonal judgment, sensi- tivity, and understanding. In measuring interpersonal sensitivity there have been difficulties in identifying the relationships between training and outcomes. The studies of Bennis et al. (1957), Crow and Hammong (1957), Gage and Exline (1953), Hatch (1965), Smith (1966) are relevant in helping to arrive at generalizations about sensitivity training's impact on interpersonal sensitivity. Campbell and Dunnette (1968) reported that: . . people who have been through a T group describe other people and situations in more interpersonal terms. However, there is still the more important question of whether this finding actually represents increased sensitization to interpersonal events or merely the acquisition of a new vocabulary (p. 92). A major problem facing those who would like to develop knowledge about sensitivity training's impact on interpersonal sensitivity is the lack of reliable and valid instruments to measure sensitivity. This concern is re— ported by Hatch (1965) when he said: In summary, research on the measurement of inter— personal perception processes has not, as yet, yielded an acceptable approach to the construction of an "off— the-shelf" test of emphatic sensitivity (p. 86). Another problem in this area has been the lack of agreement of theoretical basis of sensitivity training and how theory relates to measuring processes. The major con— cern by theorists has been whether sensitivity is a specific or general ability. The studies in this area have fl lead to contra specific trait Hammond, 1957) (Cline and Ric In co zations: LT Egg relating sens. difficult to : cerned with a design and me attitude chan attitude char Orientation-I (1964), Schui stein (1967) able of chan results of t 41 lead to contradictory conclusions that sensitivity is a specific trait limited to specific situations (Crow and Hammond, 1957) or that sensitivity is a general trait (Cline and Richards, 1960). In conclusion, the research supports three generali— zations: 1. That interpersonal sensitivity is positively related to leader effectiveness. 2. That sensitivity to others is a general rather than a specific ability. 3. That measurement of interpersonality sensitivity is extremely difficult because of the lack of standardized instruments and inconsistent theoretical formulations. Attitude Change.—-There were relatively few studies relating sensitivity training to attitude changes. It is [difficult to make generalizations about the studies con— cerned with attitude change because of the poor research design and methodological problems involved in assessing attitude change. The primary instrument used to assess attitude changes was the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior questionnaire. Studies by Smith (1964), Schutz and Allen (1966), and Baumgartel and Gold- stein (1967) used the FIRO-B as the primary dependent vari— able of change as a result of sensitivity training. The results of these studies were inconsistent indicating that changes resultr pattern. The from the resea taken into con training on at P_ers_o_n with regard to there has beer changes due tc have yielded 1 result of sens (1964), Steele the negative 2 Personality r) bEll and Dunn. sonality vari. relatively sh) this area of indicate the peIlOd of till] GrouE 1mPOrtant for reported a nu of the tYpe c 42 changes resulted from training, but not in any consistent pattern. The important generalization which can be drawn from the research is that individual differences must be taken into consideration when evaluating the effects of training on attitude changes. Personality Change.--An important consideration with regard to this internal criterion of change is that there has been a lack of research measuring the personality changes due to sensitivity training. The studies to date have yielded few significant changes in personality as a result of sensitivity training. The findings of Kernan (1964), Steele (1968), and Bennis gt_al. (1957) indicate the negative and inconclusive findings with regard to the personality realm. The main conclusion reported by Camp— bell and Dunnette (1968) was that "changes in such per— sonality variables may be just too much to expect from a relatively short experience" (p. 95). What is needed in this area of research is longitudinal studies which will indicate the effects of sensitivity training over a long period of time. Group Composition.——This internal criteria is important for the objectives of this study. Stock (1964) reported a number of studies focusing on differences in group composition as an independent variable; however, the dependent variable usually consisted of observations Of the type of behavior and interaction within the group. This type of d‘ in establishin Campbell and D found designed internal crite an intensive r by Harrison er and Frank (195 vant to the di on sensitivity composition St 1. Tl g] 43 This type of data was quite subjective and does not help Vin establishing the effects of training on participants. Campbell and Dunnette (1968) reported that no studies were found designed to relate differences on either external or internal criterion measures to group composition. After an intensive review of the literature the following studies by Harrison and Lubin (1965), Lieberman (1958), Powdermaker and Frank (1953), and Schutz (1961) were found to be rele- vant to the discussion of the impact of group composition on sensitivity training outcomes. These studies on group composition suggest the following assumptions. 1. The participant who is placed in an unstructured group situation and does not find support for his traditional interaction patterns may ex— plore alternatives which are extremely differ— ent from their original orientation. Develop- ing new patterns for interacting with people is a desired outcome of training. Developing ’these alternatives was facilitated by hetero— geneous grouping (Powdermaker and Frank, 1953). 2. Harrison and Lubin (1965) have developed a model for facilitating an individual's learning within the T—group setting. Their model indi- cates that: . . . an individual's learning experience depends on the fit between the behavior he needs from others and that which they actually exhibit as a function of their own reactions to the learning situation (p. 412). 1. Compat flict , (Harri . Confli may le learni N 1 Person withdr may pr explor person 1958). .5) . Poorly have t ambigr learni In cor °ETIOUp compc mdneed more inTclimates r writer feels . strong theory within a sens it may be gen homcrude se learning of (1 Edge abQut ho in the deVelo T. group Setti ' 44 3. 'Harrison and Lubin (1965) summarized the re— search on group composition when they said: 1. Compatible, homogeneous groups may depress con— flict and inhibit learning for their members (Harrison and Lubin, 1965; Harrison, 1965). 2. Conflict and incompatibility of personal style may lead to exploration of alternatives and to learning (Harrison, 1965; Liberman, 1958). 3. Personal styles which depend on passivity and withdrawal for coping with interpersonal stress may prevent the exposure, confrontation, and exploration which are central to the inter— personal learning process in groups (Mathis, 1958). 4. Poorly integrated, stress—vulnerable individuals have difficulty functioning in groups where ambiguity and emotionality are optimal for the learning of others (Powdermaker and Frank, 1953). In conclusion, the findings concerning the effects of group composition were supported by only a few studies and need more theoretical basis before more effective learn— ing climates can be planned for different individuals. The writer feels that Schutz (1958) has developed a conceptually strong theory on group composition which needs more testing within a sensitivity training setting. From the research it may be concluded that training climates may be developed from crude selection instruments to help facilitate the learning of different types of participants. More knowl— edge about how group composition effects learning can help in the development of more effective training programs for participants who have trouble learning in the traditional T-group setting. Lite The ne learning exper increased in i mnungful and hntdemands b complexities c Meeting the st demands upon 5 mdworthwhile house of sme learning expei ueofthe in< hancing studer Iccent phenom) Blake instrumented Thel conclude. Viable technir “sand inter withthis res in90Utcomes Anoth college Stude less 9rOUps, 45 Literature on Sensitivity Training and Related Small Group Activities for College Students The need to develop "relevant" activities and learning experiences for college students has steadily increased in importance with students' demands for more meaningful and relevant educational experiences. The stu- dent demands have taken on more importance because of the complexities of social problems and rapidity of change. Meeting the student demands for "relevance" has placed new demands upon student personnel administrators for creative and worthwhile student programs. This pressure has lead to the use of small group activities and experienced based learning experiences to help create relevant programs. The use of the industrial training group as a method for en— hancing students' affective development has thus been a recent phenomenona. Blake and Mouton (1962) used the self-directed and instrumented laboratory design to train student leaders. They concluded that the instrumented group method was a viable technique for increasing students' self—understand— ing and interpersonal sensitivity. The one weaknesses with this research was the subjective evaluation of train— ing outcomes and the lack of adequate control groups. Another impetus for using the training group With college students came from the seven-year study of leader- less groups, at the University of Colorado, where researchers tr class working curriculum. I the effects of virorument thrr when he statet As we becz ally expel that group processes of growth scribed . a great (it of a grouj problems r learn to occurred The C the creation 011 college ca have the Capa and make deci effeCtiVe gro Selves and 0t Begun Ship training (.0 inCreaSe C training, and Of this inCre of evalua»C i or 46 researchers tried to assess the effects of a large college class Working in T-groups with no trainers, professors, or curriculum. During this study Bradford (1964) reported the effects of a trusting and more open educational en- vironment through the use of the training group approach when he stated: As we became less fearful and more trusting, we gradu— ally experimented with reduced controls. We found that groups tended to take over direction of their own processes and to move more quickly along the dimensions of growth when given greatest freedom and least pre- scribed . . . this experimentation led us to develop a great deal of confidence and trust in the abilities of a group of people to handle their own process problems when given support and freedom . . . groups learn to trust staff aims. Greater productivity occurred in terms of learning outcomes (p. 301). The Colorado Study has particular importance for the creation of self—directed sensitivity training groups on college campuses. The findings indicate that students have the capacity to develop their own group experiences and make decisions in regard to the development of an effective group which may help them learn more about them— selves and others. Begun initially in connection with student leader- Ship training, sensitivity experiences are now being used to increase communication between student-faculty-adminis— trator groups, racial encounters, teacher and counselor training, and curriculum development. One negative aSpect s the lack of this increase of the use of training groups i 0f evaluation and research reported about these programs- Studies and re (1966), Lorch (1969) are rel which are bein development. studies: tr at me 1‘ r t1 47 Studies and reports by Brass (1969), Dyer (1967), Johnson (1966), Lorch (1969), Morris §E_al. (1969), and Newgarden (1969) are relevant to the discussion of training programs which are being used to influence students' affective development. The following facts were reported from these studies: 1. Significant changes in self-insight and peer ranking of interpersonal behavior was reported by Dyer (1967) after twelve hours of sensitivity training over an eight-week period of inter- action within sensitivity training. Unfortu- nately, the study did not make clear the specific behavior changes, and whether the changes were in agreement with the objectives of the training program. 2. Newgarden and Gorden (1969) have reported favorable though limited results of the use of the training group in promoting better racial relations among students, faculty, and staff. Small group encounters were designed to make participants examine their feelings and reactions to black and white identities. 3- As far as course development the training group has been recently applied to the social science field. Lorch (1969) and Morris gE_§£- (1969) reported favorable results from using the ar C2 C In St Cdtors are n( developmen t. 48 training within the classroom setting. Specifically, Morris et al. (1969) has incor— porated the use of the encounter group in place of the traditional lecture method for an under— graduate course in the Psychology of Personal and Social Development at the University of California at Davis. The results of the study illustrate the potential potency of sensitivity training for helping to make higher education irelevant to student needs without sacrificing the amount of cognitive knowledge gained through the experience. Questionnaires were used to assess student reactions to the course. Findings indicate that students found the en— counter group experience made the course more relevant and meaningful than other courses already taken at college. The course increased their involvement with the material being pre- sented. Lastly, the students in the encounter groups scored as well as lecture groups on an identical final exam covering traditional course material. In summary, the above studies indicate that edu- cators are now using small group activities to create new experiences for students' affective and interpersonal development. Some educators are shifting their attention from traditiOI closed and aui interpersonal group experier activities mix effect on dew) development 0 In co tried to iden most salient interpersonal tentative gen interaction, techniques an (MP trainin 1. r t 49 from traditional techniques which are characterized by Closed and authoritarian structures to a humanized and interpersonal climate of openness within small encounter group experiences. More data on the impact of small group activities might facilitate the diagnosing of education's effect on developing the "total" student and help in the development of a more effective climate for learning. In conclusion, research on sensitivity training has tried to identify variables of group interaction which were most salient for facilitating participants' personal and interpersonal growth. In brief these studies suggest some tentative generalizations about the functions of group interaction, the objectives of training, the use of group techniques and activities, and the effects and impact of group training on participants. 1. Personal and interpersonal changes in the behavior, attitudes, and self-perception of participants are influenced by sensitivity training activities. Stock (1964) summarized this generalization in a succinct way when she indicated that participation in sensitivity training results in personal growth and change for some people, under certain conditions de- pending on the participants' initial person- ality needs, the climate or conditions under which change is attempted and the influence of 50 the participants' back home environments. Researchers have found many difficulties in trying to generalize about the impact of group experiences or identifying the specific activi— ties or variables which facilitate positive personal growth and development of participants. Structured activities such as non-verbal exer— cises, group simulation activities, focusing discussions about the "here and now" feelings, role-playing, psychodrama, fantasy techniques, relaxation exercises, body awareness exercises, and structured feedback activities have proven their usefulness under Specific conditions for certain participants depending on individual difference variables interacting with training variables. The following studies were relevant in formulating this generalization: Gibb (1952), Lieberman (1958), Danish (1969), Hurley (1967), Giffin (1967), Wolpe (1967), Gunther (1968), Bach (1958), and Morris §E_al. (1969). Sensitivity training and therapy groups can be effective and worthwhile processes for enhanc- ing and facilitating personal growth and inter- personal sensitivity without the presence or direction of a trainer or theraPiSt- Blake and Mouton (1962), Berzon and Solmon (1966), The Many studies to the m"TIJIOr 51 Rothaus et a1. (1966), Bloom gt_al. (1962), Fairweather (1964), Gibb (1964), Bass (1949, 1951) indicate support for this generalization by reporting that training and therapy groups can function and obtain positive results with- out the direction or intervention of a designated leader or trainer. 4. The objectives of sensitivity training are considerably far more reaching than objectives of other group techniques. The types of de— sired behavioral changes are much more diffi— cult to observe and measure because of the failure of researchers to relate observed changes to training program objectives. There is a lack of evidence which supports the theory that the participants' experience more personal growth from performing structured learning dilemmas such as those activities recently developed by Schutz (1963) in comparison to the personal growth experienced by traditional unstructured T-group interactions where partici— pants develop their own learning dilemmas and solutions for these learning problems (Argyris, 1966). The literature on sensitivity training reports many studieSvshowing group differences which are related to the major objectives of training. However, researchers report that 56 that each par1 ml or externz individual di: to the group ( training repo: on personalitj equivocal or n focusing on t parameters as pattern of gr ternal criter I_. For m attempted to Effective gro been extensiv question of w or Whether tp some “On-addj further rGSea ber's interpe mlWant and to heed flirt) ported: as or 21000 studies 52 report that sensitivity experiences are unique and insist that each participant's pattern of change on various inter— nal or external dimensions of change is unique because of individual differences variables and individual reactions to the group climate. So the literature on sensitivity training reports many studies dealing with the changes on personality variables, but the results are far from un- equivocal or consistent. What is needed is research focusing on the effects of variation in such training parameters as the nature of group climate for learning and pattern of group composition and their effects on the in- ternal criteria of self-concept variables. Literature on Small Group Dynamics For many years, small group researchers have attempted to specify the variables which are essential for effective group functioning. Although the small group has been extensively studied, an answer to the theoretical question of whether individuals summate to form a group or whether the characteristics of individuals combine in some non-additive way remains an interesting area for further research. Specifically, the way in which a mem— ber's interpersonal needs are or are not transferred into relevant and worthwhile group experiences and outputs seems to need further study. McGrath and Allman (1965) have re— ported, as one of their main conclusions, from reviewing 2,000 studies on small group interaction, that the area of grouP pattern place for inv small group r studying grou they said: . . . the bers on u wholly pr the point teristics with res; and Allma Schut personal need worthwhile g1 overlooked in variable whiw Effective grr and incompat, members migh- and 00nsegue: ences and pe frustration likelihood 0 Would lower or enhance s could effect prmiuctivity ment methods htdSUred by 53 group patterns in personality needs should be the starting place for investigating the many unanswered questions in small group research. In regard to the importance of studying group composition patterns on personality needs they said: . . . the role of personality characteristics of mem— bers on various group phenomena . . . it would not be wholly profitable to pursue research in this area from the point of View of the individual personality charac- teristics. Rather, such properties should be studied with respect to the composition of the group (McGrath and Allman, 1965, p. 57). Schutz (1966) has suggested that the role of inter— personal need patterns in the development of relevant and worthwhile group experiences for participants has been overlooked in small group research. He suggests that the variable which could make a difference in regard to effective group functioning is the impact which compatible and incompatible interpersonal need patterns among group members might have on the group climate for interaction, and consequently effect the participants' group experi- ences and performances. Since incompatibility leads to frustration and unfulfillment of needs, there will be less likelihood of successful interpersonal relations which would lower the impact of the group experience to influence or enhance self-concept variables. Group compatibility could effect the amount of self-learning and level of group productivity between groups rather than the diverse treat- ment methods which have been frequently but inconsistently measured by past studies. Schutz (1966) has formulated I "The Postulat compatibility group, then t group will eX postulate has lations withi oate that the choice and or clusion, affe Further supp< through the : ment. The It showed the h (Schutz, 196 indicates th Powers. Pro amount of co amounts of g tested the r c(”IGSiveness CorrElation lationship t was the tote cations for mum and “(mp Predm 54 "The Postulate of Compatibility" which states that if the compatibility of one group is greater than that of another group, then the goal achievement of the more compatible group will exceed that of the less compatible group. This postulate has been supported by research with dyadic re— lations within a fraternity. The results of the study indi— cate that there was a strong relationship between roommate choice and compatibility on interpersonal needs of in— clusion, affection, and control (Schutz, 1960, p. 121). Further support for the compatibility postulate is related through the findings of the Harvard Compatibility Experi- ment. The results indicate that the most compatible groups showed the highest overall group productivity scores (Schutz, 1960, p. 135). Another study by Schutz (1960) indicates that compatibility scores have strong prediction powers. Problem solving groups which showed the highest amount of compatibility were strongly related to high amounts of group productivity. A study by Gross (1957) tested the relationship between group compatibility and cohesiveness. The results indicate a moderately strong correlation of .81 for total compatibility and its re- lationship to cohesiveness. The best predictor of cohesion was the total compatibility score. This study raised impli— cations for testing the relationship between group satis- faction and specific goals of training programs such as group productivity. Resea ing climates the group'5 5 aperiences h hock (1964) dunges and 5 conditions ur Argy1 mnsitivity 1 sdf—awarene: hwediate re: activities a. hfless these asunption t pants are en questionable point, of re "Style" of 1 11! main research We need 0f inter the memh I bEIiev For em 15 diffs two diff must the Pr0duce thEOry C feelings each mos L——— 55 Research concerning the effects of different learn- ing climates and design of different training programs on the group's self-awareness and satisfaction with group experiences has been remiss in small group research studies. Stock (1964) has reported that the key to human behavior changes and self-learnings is careful delimitation of the conditions under which influence for change is attempted. Argyris (1966) asserts that the new model for sensitivity training, namely the creation of structured self-awareness learning activities, is an area which needs immediate research. He reports that the structured group activities are based upon unsound psychological principles. Unless these activities can be supported by research, the assumption that the learning activities created for partici- pants are enhancing self-awareness and group development is questionable. Argyris (1966) speaks directly to this point, of research needs in examining the different "style" of learning in laboratory designs when he said: fly main purpose for making these points is to ask for research on these issues (of training procedures). We need to know much more about the different styles of interventions, theories of learning, impact upon the members, back—home consequences. . . . The differ— ences in various experiences are so antagonistic that I believe they should be clearly spelled out. . . . For example, an interpersonally oriented laboratory is different from an intergroup laboratory, and these two differ from a managerial grid laboratory. However, must they differ in their design of experiences that produce psychological success, confirmation, and feel- ings of essentially? . . . What we need is a validated theory of learning that helps us to integrate the feelings and intellectual components so that we use each most effectively to help individuals increase their competence (pp. 38—39). Therefore, SII search that i turn is based styles used a jectives for The : two sets of v tivity train. for enhancinv The two sets l.l 56 Therefore, small group research reports the need for re- search that is based on the "style" of training which in turn is based on specific climates developed, leadership styles used and activities designed in the setup of ob— jectives for the training program. Summary The integrated review of the literature identified two sets of variables which are crucial elements for sensi— tivity training to be an effective and worthwhile method for enhancing self-awareness and interpersonal competence. The two sets of variables are: 1. There is a need to identify the pattern of personality characteristics and need orien— tations which make up the group's composition (compatibility and incompatibility variable). 2. There is a need to research the effects of group's exposure to different climates of learning within the small group training de— signs. For example, is there a difference be— tween groups led by different leadership techniques or interventions such as instru— mented, leader—led, or self—directed groups following a structured program of self aware— ness activities? Since, sensi learning pro identify how training pro self-develop an important existential ing in the e study invest different gr ables follow Chapter III research stu I 57 The variables of group composition and the "style" of group learning which were identified as needing further research seem to be important to both the theoretical and practical level of sensitivity training. This study has important implications for increasing the value of sensi- tivity training as a means of increasing selfeunderstanding. Since; sensitivity training is a new and controversial learning program it, like other educational programs, must identify how and upon whom its many different and varied training programs have positive effects for participants' self—development. Sensitivity training will only become an important strategy for student personnel programs if its existential framework can be objectively verified as help— ing in the education of the "total" student. The present study investigates the effects of group compatibility and different group styles for learning on self-concept vari— ables following a three—day sensitivity group experience. Chapter III describes the design and methodology of this research study. Incl research des Focus of the design, expe for the stu Twel participants treatment gr awareness ar experimental direction we four separal students in groups were The subject 5005 and con’flic CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction Included in this chapter are discussions of the research design and procedures for this investigation. Focus of the chapter is on explanation of the research design, experimental procedures, treatment methods, samples for the study, and instrumentation. Research Design Twelve small groups of students (six to eight participants in a group) were randomly assigned to three treatment groups which were designed to enhance self- awareness and group effectiveness. All groups were treated experimentally in that leaders, audio tapes, or self— direction were assigned as leadership treatments for the four separate groups. Self-concept differences between students in the three different experimental treatment groups were examined at the end of the training program. The measure of group self-concept indices were subject scores on the self—eSteem, identity, self—criticism, and conflict scales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale 58 (TSCS) with serving as t hypotheses. this might h variables of To (1 concept vari mental Inter naire (FIRO- determinatio test scores, the statisti The because acco more than on given differ that a comps more, Harris The pros on traiI problem: feasibls of part: along S< Thus, as 10‘ different 01 because a C‘ the reseélrc of reseturch 59 (TSCS) with analysis of variance applied to the TSCS scores serving as the statistical test of the group treatment hypotheses. Pre-test on the TSCS were not used because this might have sensitized the participants to the dependent variables of self-concept. To determine the effects of group climate on self- concept variables, group compatibility scores on the Funda— mental Interpersonal Relations Orientation—Behavior question— naire (FIRO—B) were analyzed by means of t-tests. After determination of group compatibility based on FIRO—B pre- test scores, t-tests were applied to TSCS scores serving as the statistical test of group composition hypotheses. The traditional control group design was not used because according to Kerlinger (1965), whenever there is more than one experimental group and any two groups are given different treatments, control is present in the sense that a comparison has been made between groups. Further— more, Harrison (1965) states: The provision of adequate control groups for research on training is one of the most persistent methodological problems. . . . The first solution to be suggested is feasible where it is possible to give comparable groups of participants training which differs systematically along some important training process dimension (p. 2). Thus, as long as there is an attempt to make the groups different on the dependent variable, control is present because a comparison can be made between groups. Therefore, the research design was adapted from Kerlinger's discussion Of research desi ns and is identified as a "simple one-wa g Y analysis of follows: in which all different ex ment), X2 (1 directed tre on the same ment. This insure equal testing. Th would not be astrong cri This design effect and 1 Campbell an< ment of tea is secondarl whether or t have an eff test design effects or 6O analysis of variance design." The paradigm of the design follows: Y MEASURES (Independent or Criterion Measures) in which all the groups were randomly assigned (R) to the different experimental treatments: Xl (leader-led treat— ment), X2 (instrumented audio—led treatment), and X3 (self— directed treatment) and then all groups were post—tested on the same Y measures by means of TSCS criterion instru- ment. This design was selected because randomization can insure equalization of the experimental groups without pre- testing. This post—test design insured that the pre—test would not become part of the treatment which was considered a strong criticism of past research with small groups. This design controls for testing as the main experimental effect and interaction, but does not measure these effects. Campbell and Stanley (1963) reported that such a measure— ment of testing effects and interaction through pre-tests is secondary and unnecessary to the central question of whether or not the experimental treatments did or did not have an effect on the subjects' experiences. This post— test design was selected because it controls for reactive effects or contamination or pre-tests and controls for most other import in research ation, inst and interact that the mos bias between zation This “Post- sufficient c ship directi ' climate as 1 mental inver fact that t] generalizab: menter to gl for sensiti' does not al the effects observed ma the pre—tes pre-test PO cult to gen 61 other important internal and external sources of invalidity in research designs; such as the effects of history, matur— ation, instrumentation, regression, selection, mortality, and interactions among these variables. Thus, it was felt that the most adequate way of assuring the lack of initial bias between groups was randomization. This view is sup— ported by Campbell and Stanley (1963) when they say: For psychological reasons it is difficult to give up knowing for sure that the experimental and control groups were "equal" before the differential experi- mental treatment. Nonetheless, the most adequate all- purpose assurance of lack of initial biases between groups is randomization. Within the limits of confi- dence stated by the tests of significance, randomi— zation can suffice without the pretest (p. 25). This "Post—test one way analysis of variance, provided sufficient control for isolating the differences in leader- ship direction or style for learning and group interaction climate as the main independent variables in the experi- mental investigation. This design was used because of the fact that the post-test only design would add to the generalizability of the findings by allowing the experi— menter to generalize to unpretested groups of volunteers for sensitivity training. The pre-test post~test design does not allow for this type of generalizability because the effects of the experimental treatment (X) which are observed may be specific to the groups being warmed up by the pre-test (Stanley and Campbell, 1963). Thus if the pre-test post-test design was used it would become diffi— cult to generalize to the larger unpretested population which seemed going to have restructuring dents. Alsov was as short testing procc purpose of t] responses in quently, a do highly desir All tact time. consecutive cerning test 0f the proje tivity trair interaction. exercises 01 exercise, r The group exper ElWareness a SPOHSibilit ings were e informal me State UHive r a #4 62 which seemed desirable if this self-awareness training was going to have significance for educational institutions' restructuring of the affective experiences offered to stu- dents. Also, when the time lag between testing sessions was as short as in this experiment (three days) that the testing procedures might sensitize the participants to the purpose of the experimental treatment and thus effect their responSes in an unknown and possibly unfair manner. Conse- quently, a design which had unpretested groups remained highly desirable if not essential for this investigation. All groups met for the same total amount of con- tact time. Each group met for four hours a day for three consecutive days. All groups received instructions con— cerning testing procedures and were explained the purpose of the project in the same way. The groups received sensi- tivity training booklets which were the stimulus for group interaction. These booklets contained selfeawareness exercises outlining the purpose, method, and time for each exercise. The research schedule, appears in Table l. The groups had exposure to similar testing materials, group eXperience in terms of goals of enhancing self— awareness and orientation to the group's purpose and re- sponsibilities. The physical settings of the group meet- ings were equivalent since all groups met in relaxed and informal meeting rooms in the Student Union at Michigan State University. The subjects in all groups usually sat TABLE l.--Re: Session 63 TABLE l.-—Research procedures and schedule. Session Group Activities Time (a) (b v (a) (b) (a) (b v (C) ((1) Same for all groups: Intro- duction and assignment to groups and completion of personal data form, expectations questionnaire, and FIRO-B scale. Distribution of sensitivity booklets. Group interaction: IS treatment (tape recorder-led ‘groups); LL group interaction: LL treatment (leader-led groups); SD group interaction: SD treat- ment (group—led interaction). Distribution of sensitivity booklets IS group interaction LL group interaction SD group interaction Distribution of sensitivity booklets IS group interaction LL group interaction SD group interaction All groups given the same in— structions and explanations of testing instruments. All groups told to complete the testing material within a twenty-four hour period and return to experimenter within a week hours hours hours in a circle : monitoring d All teers from M in twelve gr sample for t teristics of analysis, it dents who we in the analy out of the e subjects pal dropped out and personal of training subjects we: plete testi ments makin to return p mit tests . the treatme 64 in a circle facing one another. Tape recorders or other monitoring devices were not used in the group sessions. Subjects for the Study All participants for this study were student volun- teers from Michigan State University. Ninety-six studentS» in twelve groups composed of eight members constituted the sample for the experiment. Before describing the charac- teristics of the eighty-two subjects used in the data analysis, it is necessary to account for-the fourteen stu— dents who were initially part of the project but not used in the analysis. The fourteen students who were dropped out of the anaysis were accounted for as follows: two subjects participated in one day of training and then dropped out because of lack of interest, time conflicts, and personal reasons; two subjects participated in two days of training and then dropped out for similar reasons; five subjects were dropped from the analysis because of incom- plete testing forms or gross errors on the testing instru- ments makinginterpretation impossible; five subjects failed to return postetests even after continual requests to sub— mit tests. The above mortalities were examined to see if the treatment groups were biased with regard to dropouts. An analysis of variance revealed no differences between or within groups as to the type of student who dropped out of the training program. The dropouts were considered to have occurred in randor should not be adv As a resu four groups havin experimental anal rather than a ran insure motivation Within Ta‘ the subjects by t sample there wer The sample reprej mean ages range f The actual age rzi years (see Table Within Ta by treatment gror subjects seventee dents, twenty-tw< thirteen were sop college. These training program grade levels . Desc This stu the different 16 led. and self—di 65 occurred in random fashion; thus, the findings of the study should not be adversely effected by the dropouts. As a result eight groups having six members and four groups having eight members constituted the sample for experimental analysis. Volunteers were used for the study rather than a random sample of the student population to insure motivation and commitment to the project. Within Table 2 the sex, age, and martial status of the subjects by treatment group are summarized. In the sample there were thirty-five males and forty—seven females. The sample represented a range in age of subjects. Group mean ages range from twenty years to twenty-three years. The actual age range was from seventeen to twenty—seven years (see Table 2). Within Table 3 the grade level of the participants by treatment group was summarized. In the sample of subjects seventeen of the participants were graduate stu— dents, twenty-two were seniors, fourteen were juniors, thirteen were sophomores, and sixteen were freshmen in college. These figures indicate that the sample of this training program was positively skewed toward the upper grade levels. Description of Experimental Treatments This study attempted to assess the usefulness of the different learning climates of instrumented, leader- led, and self—directed leadership techniques to enhance NnON fl V H ruqlvrunuErrtrchtrar ©00H0>HQ UMHHHME mHmfidm 0 m w 05$ . who“ Qmmz H 2 H .m ngz UfimEUUUHB . mfipmum HMUHHmE QDOHU unmm QDOHU mach—”mu - “USMQfiUHUHNAW HON “509.0 ”GmEUMQHU. \AOH ”5”?”va HQDHHME Mun“ \ mm“ \ uflflvmll I N ”Ana-HI. 66 mm me WNm mum wmw w menoe m NH no mm he Z QSOHU HII NI! WWI WMHW Ml! mH cho . . . . e 0.0m m vim a e H H v m.NN H m m . . N m N.NN m m N . . H h 0 ON v v H UmpowHHmleom H m .mll Elm HH 3 18.09 a I I c w moHN N v I w . . H m o.HN N v m H H m n.HN m m N . . H m o . om a N H ooqmnooooq H m NN H.NN HH pH Hmpoa . . . . m H.HN N v v . . H m o.MN N v m H N m v.0N m m N . . N m N.ON v v H popnoESHpmcH pooHo>HQ poHHHME onch mm< cows on2 chEom quEdz ucofipmoue msouw msouw mdonw .mspmpw chHHmz xom .mucmmHOHuHom How QSOHm ucwfiumwhu ha mducum HmuHHcE Usm .omc .Nomll.N mqmda i|il .mnmSOHm Dfimfimmnu Kan mubwflonfim m0 H0>0H HMCOHUMOSUWII.M HHMSH 67 aon poem a: «.3 e03 omensconom mm 5 mm 3 3 3 Hmnoe mm s e a m e eonoofionflom mN w n m m m poqlhopcoq mN v m m m m popcoesuumcH MMMWU mummDUMcHU MOHflwm HOHGSHJ OHOEO£Qow QQESWUHE #QMMWMWHB .mmsoum pcofipconp ha upcomnsm mo Ho>oH HMGOHDMOSUMII.M mqm<9 the self-awarenes sensitivity prog leader-led, and fully as follows Instrumented Gro untrue). Four gro were randomly de Instrumented tre interaction, ins awareness exerci This met by a pseudo-lead direction of for action without t behavior of a gr high status lead open and frank é a group which i pants (Bloom, Br stimulus materiz their concerns ' aware of more e stand how their havior, and how to them. Esse pants find out 68 the self-awareness of college students in a short-term sensitivity program. The treatments of instrumented, leader-led, and self-directed groups are described more fully as follows: Instrumented Group Treatment (IS) Four groups of the twleve included in the design were randomly designated to receive the IS treatment. Instrumented treatment means employing audio tapes for the interaction, instructions, and clarification of self— awareness exercises. This method can be generally described as an attempt by a pseudo-leader to help groups in the development and direction of forming a safe climate for interpersonal inter— action without the psychologically threatening and blocking behavior of a group leader. This technique eliminated the high status leader role which may threaten and block the open and frank discussions necessary for the development of a group which is to focus on self-awareness of the partici- pants (Bloom, Boyd and Kaplan, 1962). This method provided stimulus materials that tried to promote members to diagnose their concerns in interpersonal relationships, to become aware of more effective communication techniques, to under— stand how their feelings and behavior influenced their be— havior, and how these feelings influenced others' reactions to them. Essentially, the exercises tried to help partici— pants find out more about who they were and where they were going in life by concerns and nee The grou order to force c tendency of grou to group effecti awareness. The IS q purpose of the p understanding th ships based on t with others. Th IS groups was th design. The styl focused on inter structured lear: participants tah interaction of s exercises were < other in the "he The IS 5 more interperso developed, in a structured exer a physically pr pants were pre 69 going in life by interacting with others who have similar concerns and needs. The groups' time was structured very tightly in order to force confrontation with others and to avoid the tendency of groups to avoid dealing with issues irrelevant to group effectiveness and increasing participants‘ self- awareness. The IS groups were given instructions as to the purpose of the project to help them increase their self- understanding through more honest interpersonal relation- ships based on trust and need for more open communication with others. The twelve hours of interaction time for the IS groups was the same as the other treatment groups in the design. The style of learning created by this treatment is focused on interpersonal awareness through moderately structured learning climate. This treatment made the participants take responsibility for learning through the interaction of specifically defined exercises. These exercises were developed to help participants comfront each other in the "here and now" environment of the group. The IS group was designed with the assumption that more interpersonal sensitivity and self-awareness might be developed, in a short amount of interaction time, if structured exercises were explored without the threat of a physically present leader. In the IS treatment partici- pants were pressured into open interaction and confrontation by means of time action. Leader-Led Group In the le nethod of interac group facilitator four groups in t1 As used ing climate refe interaction and and interpret gr These groups rec which contained programmed self- group leaders we group developmer introducing, cle the sensitivity There we in the leadersh: ence in experie: ing groups may by group intera may be offset b it clear that t was to introduc 70 by means of time limits and structuring of the group inter— action. Leader-Led Group Treatment (LL) In the leader-led treatment a more traditional method of interaction was employed through the use of a group facilitator or trainer. This treatment was used with four groups in the design. As used in this investigation the leader-led learn— ing climate refers to the more traditional T-group form of interaction and leadership of having a group trainer clarify and interpret group interaction processes and conflicts. These groups received the same sensitivity training booklets which contained the purpose of the group and necessary programmed self—awareness exercises (see Appendix A). The group leaders were involved in active efforts to facilitate group development toward a deeper understanding of self by introducing, clarifying, and supporting the utilization of the sensitivity exercises. 7 There were a number of similarities and differences in the leadership styles of the four trainers. The differ— ence in experience and personal needs gained from conduct- ing groups may be sufficient to result in significant leader by group interaction effects. However, these differences may be offset by the instructions to the leaders which made it clear that throughout the group interaction their role was to introduce group exercises and clarify group problems. Their role was tc but non-directive interaction had 5 give the group t1 group interactior of the four trai] in their doctora basic philosophy action it was as similar leadersh sensitivity trai participants' r which interpers and resolved by necessity of a p responsibility c expected that al similar experiei clarification o: Self~Directed G. Treatment (SD) The sel participants fr learning within The SD groups n direction and c treatment was c' 71 Their role was to be active in introducing the exercises but non-directive and supportive once group activity and interaction had started to develop. The leaders were to give the group the responsibility for the development of group interaction and learning climate. Since, three out of the four trainers were supervised by the same advisor in their doctoral work and all the trainers agreed on the basic philosophy and methods of self—directed group inter— action it was assumed that the groups would be exposed to similar leadership styles. All the leaders approach sensitivity training from the viewpoint that it is the participants' responsibility to develop the climate in which interpersonal and personal concerns can be related and resolved by members helping themselves without the necessity of a professional trainer. Learning is the responsibility of the group not the trainer. Thus, it was expected that all four leader-led groups would have rather similar experiences in terms of leadership, direction and clarification of exercises to be performed. Self-Directed Group Treatment (SD)v The self—directed treatment was designed to give participants freedom to determine the process of self— learning within a mimimally structured learning environment. The SD groups met without a leader present or without direction and clarification via the tape recorder. This treatment was different from the IS and LL treatments in that no leader 0 This treatment w As used ' learning climate which each group decision making, action. The SD g ing booklets wit the other treatm difference for t aieader and the for performing e to make their ow they wanted to p order or manner group's goal of the enhancement treatment create vacuum, and deci of the structure The groups had i leadership strul self-understand responsibility of how interact group. This tr 72 that no leader or direction was provided for the groups. This treatment was used with four groups in the design. As used in this investigation the self-directed learning climate referred to group directed learning in which each group developed its own pattern of leadership, decision making, and level of participation for inter— action. The SD groups received the same sensitivity train- ing booklets with programmed self—awareness exercises as the other treatment groups (see Appendix A). The major difference for these treatment groups was the absence of a leader and the elimination of designated time allotments for performing exercises. The SD groups were instructed to make their own decisions on what exercises, if any, they wanted to perform and to use the exercises in the order or manner they felt would best help to achieve the group's goal of honest interaction and communication for the enhancement of participants' self-understanding. This treatment created a dilemma for learning, a leadership vacuum, and decision making conflicts through the presence of the structured exercises and absence of leadership. The groups had to resolve their learning conflicts and leadership struggles which would hopefully add to their self—understanding and sensitivity for others. The primary responsibility of what was to be learned and the process Of how interaction was to be structured was left to the group. This treatment tried to create stimuli and conditions for i define their own these goals. Le on how to use th was left to the create the learn reported would c logical competen that the self-un entirely their r The SD g a learning clim minimal structu support of this Berzon (1966) , E (1966) have indi to others, and s hanced by group: from the ample treatment was t structured exer were pressured minimal structu appointed leads for self-explor without the tin 73 conditions for interaction where the participants could define their own learning goals and methods for achieving these goals. Leadership, power, status, and decision making on how to use the structured agenda of programmed exercises was left to the groups. Therefore, this treatment tried to create the learning environment which Argyris (1966) has reported would create the best learning climate for psycho- logical competence and security. The groups were informed that the self-understanding gained from the program was entirely their responsibility. The SD group was designed with the assumption that a learning climate which emphasizes self—direction with minimal structure would facilitate self-understanding. In support of this assumption research investigations by Berzon (1966), Fairweather (1966), Gibb (1964), and Rothaus (1966) have indicated that group development, sensitivity to others, and self-understanding are facilitated and en- hanced by groups which are self-directing. The variation from the completely self-directed group included in this treatment was the use of stimulus models through the structured exercises. So in the SD treatment participants were pressured into meaningful interaction by means of a minimal structured environment, the elimination of an appointed leader for direction, and allowed more freedom for self-exploration and planning for their own learning without the threat of evaluation and judgment by a leader. No stan for this investi Fundamental Inte Orientation-Bebe The FIRO numerous studies workshops, such instrument has b relations durin use of the inst sition, using t been limited. focused on the of interpersonal small groups tr} usual test for : . . . since the bility is the a The usual level per cent of all scale scores. very high and c the limos. s; consistency for for all the sc: 74 Instrumentation Two standardized measurement techniques were used for this investigation. They are described as follows: Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) The FIRO-B (see Appendix B) has been used in numerous studies for the evaluation of human relations workshops, such as sensitivity training groups. The instrument has been used to measure changes in interpersonal relations during and following training experiences. The use of the instrument in experimentation with group compo— sition, using the FIRO-B techniques of compatibility has been limited. The FIRO—B measure was used because it focused on the crucial theoretical and practical dimensions of interpersonal relations and self—understanding which small groups try to enhance. Schutz (1967) reported, "The usual test for internal consistency is the split-half method . . . since the FIRO—B are all Guttman scales, reproduci— bility is the appropriate measure of internal consistency." The usual level for appropriate reproducibility is that 90 per cent of all responses are predictable from knowledge of scale scores. The reproducibility for all the scales is very high and consistent over all samples for studies using the FIRO-B. Specifically, the coefficients of internal consistency for the FIRO-B indicate a coefficient of .94 for all the scales (Schutz, 1967, p. 5). He also states that the measure validity based 0 man scales and c differences betw are already kno attitudes. For was used withou instrument in t patibility of t interpersonal n Schutz consider basic and unive being possessed a"sufficient s the prediction . (Schutz, 1958, ‘ characteristica instrument whic of interaction Schutz facilitate gror compatibility . compatibility . within both dy. bility theory for example in relationships ‘ 75 that the measurement has some content and concurrent validity based on the theory for the development of Gutt— man scales and correlational studies which have supported differences between occupational groups whose attitudes are already known and FIRO—B scales prediction of these attitudes. For this research, the FIRO-B questionnaire was used without change of format or presentation. The instrument in this study was used to determine the com- patibility of the groups on three fundamental areas of interpersonal need: inclusion, control, and affection. Schutz considers these three need areas as being quite basic and universally expressed in group situation, as being possessed by every individual, and as constituting a "sufficient set of areas of interpersonal behavior for the prediction and explanation of interpersonal phenomena" (Schutz, 1958, p. 13). The instrument measures how a person characteristically relates to other people. Thus, it is an instrument which can be used to identify the compatibility of interaction styles between people. Schutz has presented a useful way for helping to facilitate group interaction through his theory of need compatibility. He has developed useful definitions of compatibility and developed formulae for deriving scores within both dyadic and group situations. The compati- bility theory has been used mostly in dyadic situations, for example involving marriage partners or therapist—client relationships (Levinger, 1964; Sapolsky, 1960, 1965). In therapeutic succ the FIRO-B comp personal relati Tennessee Self (recs) The TSC ments which the of himself. Th self has be in much of to his gene The scale t poses-~coun research in etc. (Fitts Thus, this inst cifically desig condept which I of the newly de of its extensi portant aspect various dimens criticism scor concealment, t level of self- a person is as 76 both of these studies the degree of compatibility was found to be positively related to marriage success and therapeutic success. Thus, there is a precedent for using the FIRO-B compatibility scores as a predicter of inter- personal relationships. Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS) The TSCS consists of 100 self descriptive state— ments which the participant uses to portray his own picture of himself. The scale was, according to its manual: . . . developed to meet the need for a scale which is simple for the subject, widely applicable, well standardized, multi—dimensional in its description of the self concept . . . the individuals concept of him- self has been demonstrated to be highly influential in much of his behavior and also to be directly related to his general personality and state of mental health. The scale therefore can be useful for a variety of pur- poses—-counseling, clinical assessment and diagnosis, research in behavioral science, personnel selection, etc. (Fitts, 1965, p. 1). Thus, this instrument was selected because it is spe— cifically designed to measure those dimensions of self— condept which related directly to the stated objectives of the newly designed self—awareness program, and because of its extensive use as a research device in measuring im— portant aspects of self-concept. The scale includes various dimensions of self-evaluation, including a self— criticism score measuring amount of defensiveness or self concealment, total positive score measuring the overall level of self-esteem, a self-identity score measuring what a person is as he sees himself, self-acceptance score which measures how a p In addition the moral-ethical, p by the person. tered as a post ent group treat The TSC involving sensi studies has bee test criterion used it becomes change and test and Fitts repor reliability, ra. all sub-scales, of this scale h bility coeffici sub-scales base dents over a tw presented evide version of the efficient of . self-esteem sc ported in the . . . evid able simil peated mea periods of 77 measures how a person feels about the self he perceives. In addition the TSCS has scales measuring the physical, moral-ethical, personal, family, social self as perceived by the person. The counseling and testing form was adminis— tered as a post—test to determine the impact of the differ- ent group treatments on the self—concept of participants. The TSCS has been used in numerous research studies involving sensitivity groups.“ One fallacy of most of these studies has been the use of the test as a pre- and post- test criterion of change. When such a pre-post design is used it becomes difficult to distinguish between true Change and test treatment interaction change. Ashcraft and Fitts report, that the scale has both satisfactory reliability, ranging between the high 80's and 90's for all sub-scales, and substantial validity. The reliability of this scale has been assessed through test—retest relia— bility coefficients ranging between .62 and .92 on the sub-scales based on test-retest with sixty college stu- dents over a two-week period (Fitts, 1965). Congdon (1958) presented evidence for reliability when he used a shortened version of the TSCS and still obtained a reliability co— efficient of .88 for the total positive score on the self—esteem scale. Other evidence of reliability is re- ported in the manual: . . . evidence of reliability is found in the remark— able similarity of profile patterns found through re— peated measures of the same individuals over long periods of time. . . . Related to this is the fact that reliability ments used i .80 to .90 r Fitts' ( kinds: content correlation wit ity changes und studies indicat groups whose be (1964) found si offenders and r were in the pre predicted direc Quinn (1957) a Total P and the negative correl which indicates fleets low self substantial evi struct validity Additional Inst Persona (see Appendix I biographically. 78 reliability coefficients for the various profile seg- ments used in computing NDS Score fall mostly in the .80 to .90 range. Fitts' (1965) validation procedures were of four kinds: content validity, discrimination between groups, correlation with other personality measures, and personal— ity changes under particular conditions. The validity studies indicate that the scale differentiates between groups whose behavior is different. A study by Lefeber (1964) found significant differences between first law offenders and repeated offenders. All of the differences were in the predicted direction. The scale correlates in predicted directions with the MMPI scales. In a study by Quinn (1957) a correlation of —.534 was obtained between Total P and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. The negative correlation reflects that high scores on the MTAI, which indicates unhealthy attitudes toward children, re— flects low self concepts. In general, the manual presents substantial evidence for concurrent, predictive, and con- struct validity from research investigations. Additional Instruments Personal Information Sheet.--A personal data sheet (see Appendix D) was used to describe the participants biographically. Appendix E) --a to rate the wor mate (accepting openness in sha worthwhileness one to nine. T weak points of this data was 0 to the evaluat ' ceptions, and Grou T). This form suring group ir relevant to the measure of grox the mutual choi to identify lee the objectives evaluating the action pattern Expect These question developed by t fulfilled the 79 Session Reaction.——Session Reaction Form (see Appendix E)--a subjective form which asked the participants to rate the worthwhileness of the session, the group cli— mate (accepting-rejecting), their degree of participation, openness in sharing feelings, level of conflict, and worthwhileness of structured activities on a continuum from one to nine. This form tried to pinpoint the strong and weak points of the whole self—awareness program. Although this data was of a subjective nature it was felt important to the evaluation because it relates the experiences, per- ceptions, and feelings of the participants. Group Member Perception Instrument.—-(See Appendix F). This form was used as a means of evaluating and mea- suring group interaction variables which were felt to be relevant to the success of the program. From this form a measure of group cohesiveness was obtained by identifying the mutual choice pairs within each group. The form tried to identify leaders, friendship cliques, and resistors to the objectives of the program. This was a method for evaluating the experience from the perceptions and inter- action patterns of the participants. Expectation and Learning Outcome Questionnaires.—- These questionnaires (see Appendices G and H) which were developed by the writer tried to identify whether the groups fulfilled the participants' expectations (Appendix G) for fi learning. The ways and in wha for trying to i pants. The par entering the tr (after the trai categories used learnings, (2) standings of ot for focus on: (2) development acting. The f' on a nine poin whileness, sati members to bett also asked to c‘ and hindering e participate in so as to help : tate planning Group For evaluation development an sented. This the groups ' at 80 learning. The learning outcome form identified in what ways and in what areas the program fulfilled its objectives for trying to increase self-understanding of the partici- pants. The participants' learning expectations (before entering the training program) and their reported learning (after the training program) were compared with the follow- categories used as the basis for comparison: (1) group learnings, (2) self learnings, (3) interpersonal under- standings of others. Each category was further analyzed for focus on: (1) increased awareness or understanding, (2) development of personal skills or tools for inter- acting. The final questionnaire contained overall ratings on a nine point scale of the program's relevance, worth- whileness, satisfaction, and effectiveness in helping members to better understand themselves. Participants were also asked to describe what they felt were the most helpful and hindering elements of the program and if they would participate in the program again. These data were collected so as to help in the evaluation of this program and facili— tate planning for future programs. Group Effectiveness Instrument.--(See Appendix I). For evaluation of the effectiveness and degree of group development an exercise on group decision making was pre— sented. This decision making exercise tried to evaluate the groups' ability to utilize all of the group resources * in solving a si under stressful to evaluate the vital aspect of 81 in solving a simulated life or death problem of surviving under stressful conditions. The moon landing problem tried to evaluate the groups' ability to be a group which was a vital aspect of this training program. This c the analysis 0 search. The s variance, E—te frequency tabl sending the fi sidered to be . level of confit major research awareness prog: total program It also includ findings . Tests of Group Hypotheses The t1“. hypotheses 1'5 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This chapter presents the findings of the study and the analysis of the data from each measure used in this re- search. The statistical methods of one—way analysis of variance, E-tests, Spearman rank order correlations and frequency tables were used in analyzing the data and pre— sending the findings of the study. Differences were con- sidered to be significant if they reached values at the .05 level of confidence. The chapter includes a testing of the major research hypotheses, an evaluation of the self— awareness program sessions, and summary reactions to the total program from the point of view of the participants. It also includes relevant biographical and descriptive findings. Findings of the Study Tests of Group Treatment Hypotheses The theoretical basis for the group treatment hypotheses 1—5 was derived from the proposition that—-groups 82 presented with provided with s tivity exercise more than group Research by Ber Sill: (1966) 5 small groups c out the presen report that mi promoted group proposition it corders would not better the for group inte arm tr. The re failed to reac null hypothesi statistically different trea scores. The a between and wi presented in 'l 83 presented with minimal leadership (instrumented) and yet provided with stimulus for interaction (programmed) sensi- tivity exercises) would effect self—competence variables more than groups that were led by leaders or self-directing. Research by Berzon (1966), Fairweather (1964), and Rothaus 2341i' (1966) support this proposition by revealing that small groups can function and obtain positive results with— out the presence of a designated leader. These studies report that minimal leadership and supportive structure promoted group interaction and development. From this proposition it should follow that groups led via tape re- corders would effect self-concept variables as well as if not better than groups led by leaders or left on their own for group interaction and direction. Hl There is no significant differences in mean scores on the Self—Esteem scale of the TSCS among groups with different self—awareness training: IS, LL and SD treatments. The results of the one-way analysis of variance failed to reach statistically significant levels. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected. There were no statistically significant differences found between the different treatment groups on the self-esteem mean group scores. The analysis of variance examining the differences between and within the IS, SD, and LL treatment groups is presented in Table 4. TABLE 4.--Analy tween 15, LL, a Source Treatments Error Total suits of the o statistically groups' effect: analysis of va: within the IS, Table 5. TABLE 5.--Anal IS, LL, and so S Source S Treatments Error 2 Total 1 84 TABLE 4.--Analysis of variance of Self-Esteem scores be— tween IS, LL, and SD treatment groups. Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Signifi- Squares Freedom Squares Ratio cance Treatments 46.6 2 23.3 .2389 not sign. Error 878.2 _2 97.5 Total 924.8 11 H2 There is no significant difference in mean scores on the Identity scale of the TSCS among groups with different self-awareness training: IS, LL, and SD treatments. Hypothesis 2 also failed to be rejected. The re- sults of the one-way analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups' effects on the identity scale of the TSCS. The analysis of variance examining the differences between and within the IS, LL, and SD treatment groups is presented in Table 5. TABLE 5.--Analysis of variance of Identity scores between IS, LL, and SD treatment groups. Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Signifi- Squares Freedom Squares Ratio cance Treatments .7702 2 .3851 .3085 not sign. Error 11.2301 _2 1.2477 Total 12,0003 11 there were defensivene treatment g to be rejec of defensiv The results Table 6. TABLE 6. --A between IS, Source Treatment Error Total Th statistica scores for hypothesis differenc 85 H3 There is no significant difference in mean scores on the Self-Criticism scale of the TSCS among groups with different self—awareness training: IS, LL, and SD treatments. The one-way analysis of variance indicated that there were no significant differences between the level of defensiveness (Self—Criticism) scores for the different treatment groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. It seems evident, then, that the levels of defensiveness in the three treatment groups were random. The results of the analysis of variance is presented in Table 6. TABLE 6.—-Ana1ysis of variance for Self—Criticism scores between IS, LL, and SD treatment groups. Source Sum of Degrees of Mean R Signifi- Squares Freedom Square Ratio cance Treatment 1.82 2 0.91 .1508 not sign. Error 56.3 __2 6.03 Total 58.12 11 H4 There is no significant difference in mean scores on the Total Conflict scale of the TSCS among the groups with different se1f~awareness training: Is, LL, and SD treatments. The one-way analysis of variance failed to uncover statistically significant differences between the conflict scores for the different treatment groups. Thus, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. If there were any differences in the amount of conflict between groups the analys differ three of the TABLE betwel Sou Treat Error Wall: on t teri d ta was naki The to t the fest m Wmfl_m , i 86 analysis failed to give statistical support for these differences. It can be assumed that total conflict in the three treatment groups was of a random nature. The results of the analysis of variance is presented in Table 7. TABLE 7.--Analysis of variance for Total Conflict scores between IS, LL, and SD treatment groups. Sum of Degrees of Mean F Signifi— Source . Squares Freedom Square Ratio cance Treatment 78.62 2 39.31 .2321 not sign. Error 1520.14 _9 168.90 Total 1598.76 11 H5 There is no significant difference between self-directed, leader-led, and instrumented groups on the NASA group effectiveness scores. This hypothesis was analyzed through the Kruskal— Wallis analysis of variance by ranks. The post—test scores on the NASA decision making exercise were used as a cri— terion measure of a groups' productivity in accomplishing a task related goal. The total group effectiveness score was computed by subtracting group scores from the decision making answer key for each group within a treatment (N=4). The group productivity or effectiveness scores were used to test the difference between the sums of ranks of the three treatment groups. The null hypothesis is symbolically restated below: where is = instrumented treatment group sd = self-directed treatment group 11 = leader-led treatment group and ER = sum of ranks. The alternative statistical hypothesis takes the >llowing form: H : ERiS 7% Ede 7! ERll This non—parametric statistical test served pri- rily as a device for uncovering whether the group effec— veness scores of the different treatment groups could be nsidered as coming from significantly different popu- tions or from the same population. The null hypothesis the Kruskal—Wallis is that the samples came from the ne population, and are not shifted or differentiated :h respect to each other (Kruskal and Wallis, 1952). A an group effectiveness score was computed for each treat- 1t group and Table 8 shows the results of this compu- :ion by treatment groupings. Table 9 presents the results of the Kruskal—Wallis .lysis of variance by sums of ranks test. The null Iothesis failed to be rejected. The results of the lysis of variance by sum of ranks revealed no Gro —————’ gr, Ti 88 TABLE 8.——Group Effectiveness scores on the NASA exercise by treatment groupings.a Group Mean Median Range SD 30.0 30.6 24—32 'IS 33.2 32.9 24—46 LL 31.7 31.7 25—44 aSD (N=4) Self-Directed (N=4) Instrumented (N=4) Leader-Led IS LL II I! ll TABLE 9.--Group Effectiveness scores on the NASA exercise for all groups showing the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of vari- ance by sums of ranks by treatment groupings.a ISb SD LL Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank 34 9 24 1.5 44 11 29 5 38 10 26 4 24 1.5 30 6 25 3 46 12 32 7.5 32 7.5 E Ranks 27.5 25.0 25.5 N 4 4 4 aNot significant at p < .05 level of confidence. bIS = Instrumented Groups; SD = Self-Directed roups; LL = Leader-Led Groups. 89 :tatistically significant differences between and within .he IS, LL, and SD treatment groups. ests of Compatibilipy ypotheses The theoretical basis for the compatibility hy- otheses can be stated as-—the more similar or mutually hared needs that members express the greater is the poten- ial of the group atmosphere to positively influence self— oncept variables. From this theoretical proposition it mould follow that the atmosphere of the group may be de- :ribed in terms of the total amount of interchange occur- Lng in the need areas of inclusion, control, and affection. )r the compatibility scores the amount of interchange de- .red was measured by combining expressed and wanted scores. )r each need area there is a possible eighteen points and 1e lower the scores the more compatible the score for an :dividual. Arbitrarily, individual scores below nine re considered compatible and scores above nine were con- dered incompatible. By combining area scores, a total mpatibility score of 216 for eight—member groups and 162 r six-member groups were identified. H There is no significant difference between the mean scores on the Self—Esteem scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to incompatible groups. inc par sig pol COI 90 The effects on self-esteem between compatible and ncompatible groups are presented in Table 10. The scores n the self-esteem scale for the compatible groups in com— arison to incompatible group mean scores was found to be ignificant at the .05 level of confidence. The null hy- othesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis that ampatible group mean scores were significantly different :om incompatible group mean scores was accepted. The re- zlts of the E—test analysis comparing the differences for >mpatible and incompatible groups on self-esteem scores 7e presented below in Table 10. .BLE lO.-—T-test analysis of differences between compatible id incompatible group mean scores on Self-Esteem scale of Degrees of p Signifi— Mean SD Freedom Value cance mpatible 342.6 26.4 compatible 312.1 18.4 10 2.07 sign.a p 05 at value needed for significance at .05 level is 312. "w H There is no significant difference between the mean scores on the Identity scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to incom— patible groups. The results on the identity scale for compatible lups in comparison to incompatible group mean scores was , Significant at the .05 level of confidence. The null 91 hypothesis failed to be rejected. The results of the p—test analysis are presented in Table 11. However, careful examination of the analysis indicate that the identity scores for the compatible groups yielded trends in the predicted direction, the null hypothesis could not be clearly rejected from this data. In conclusion, supportive trends were apparent for the identity scale measure, al- though these did not attain statistical significance. The failure of the data to more completely sustain the compati— bility hypothesis predictions is discussed in detail in Chapter V. TABLE ll.--The E—tests between the compatible groups and incompatible groups mean Identity scores on the TSCS. Degrees of p Signifi— Group Mean SD Freedom Value cance Compatible 124.6 8.2 Incompatible 118.2 12.4 10 1.65 not sign. H8 There is no significant difference between the mean scores on the Self-Criticism scale of the TSCS for compatible groups in comparison to incompatible groups. The results of the p-test analysis of scores on the self-criticism scale for the compatible groups in compari- son to incompatible group mean scores was found to be Significant at the .05 level of confidence. The null hy— ?othesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis that 92 compatible groups were displaying a normal, healthy open- ness and capacity for self—criticism was accepted. Com- patible groups were less defensive indicated by a signifi- cantly higher self-criticism mean score than the more de— fensive incompatible group scores. The results of the E- test analysis are presented in Table 12. TABLE 12.--The t—test analysis between the compatible and incompatible graup mean scores on the Self-Criticism scale of the TSCS. Degrees of p Signifi— Group Mean SD Freedom Value cance Compatible 36.1 6.5 Incompatible 27.1 7.2 10 2.27 sign. p 05 H9 There is no significant difference between the mean scores on the Conflict scale of the TSCS for compatible in comparison to incompatible group scores. The scores on the total conflict scale for the com- patible group means in comparison to the incompatible group means was found to be significant at the .05 level of confi- dence. The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis that compatible groups are more harmonious and Clearer about self-perception than incompatible groups which displayed confusion, contradiction, and general con- flict in self-perception. This finding is consistent with self theory which states that people find out who they are 93 rom interacting with others. The more similar the people ho a person interacts with the clearer the picture he ts of himself. The results of the p—test analysis are resented in Table 13. ABLE 13.--The p-test analysis between the compatible and ncompatible groups mean Conflict scores on the TSCS. Degrees of E Signifi- Group Mean SD Freedom Value cance Jmpatible 24.2 7.8 compatible 34.1 10.2 10 2.84 sign p .05 Hlo There is no significant relationship between compatible group scores and cohesiveness group scores. The theoretical basis for hypothesis 10 is derived om the proposition that--since compatible groups lead to lfillment of needs there will be more likelihood of ccessful personal relations or cohesiveness. This hy— thesis was a direct test of Schutz‘s (1958) theorem that the compatibility of one group was greater than the com— tibility of another group then the more compatible group 11d be the most cohesive. Schutz's (1958) states: To the extent that cohesiveness measures general satisfaction with the group activities and a member's place in those activities, it should be related to compatibility (p. 137). 94 To test this hypothesis groups which were identi— ied by the FIRO-B instrument as compatible on interpersonal eed behaviors were rank ordered according to compatibility ores. Then the compatibility scores were compared to cup cohesiveness scores for the purpose of identifying e relationship between the scores. An investigation of Table 14 reveals a highly gnificant positive relationship of .85 between the mea- res of compatibility and cohesiveness. Since a signifi- nt correlation at the .05 level is .66, the null hy— thesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis that here is a highly positive relationship between cohesiveness id compatibility measures is confirmed at the .05 alpha nfidence level. The results of the Spearman Rank Order ho) correlation coefficient are presented in Table 14. BLE l4.--Comparison of FIRO-B compatibility scores and ciometric cohesiveness scores. Group Cohesiveness Rank Compatibility Rank X1 4 3 X2 . 5 7 X3 3 2 X4 1 1 X5 6 6 X6 7 5 X7 8 11 X8 12 9 X9 9 12 X10 2 4 X11 10 10 X12 11 8 Correlation Rho = .85 significant at p < .05. 95 11 There is no significant relationship between group achievement or effectiveness, as measured by the NASA decision making exercise, and the compatibility scores of groups. The theoretical basis for this hypothesis can be tated as--the more compatible a group is in terms of need nterchange (likeness in amount of contact, similarity in aking and giving orders, and in expressions of intimacy and motional involvement) the greater the group's potential for chieving effectiveness in group performance on a task exer- ise. From this theoretical proposition it should follow hat compatible groups with greater potential for cooper- tion on a task will tend to be associated with lower scores indicating greater group effectiveness) on the NASA group ecision making exercise. The results of the correlation between the rank rder of the twelve groups on productivity measure (NASA ecision making exercise) and the rank order of the groups a compatibility are shown in Table 15. An examination of 1e correlation analysis reveals a highly significant posi— Lve relationship of .91 which suggests that a high level : competence with the decision making task (NASA) is :rongly related to the degree of group compatibility. .nce a significant correlation at the .05 level was eached the null hypothesis is rejected and the alter— tive hypothesis that there is a strongly positive re— tionship between group achievement or productivity and mpatibility scores is accepted. The results support hutz's (1958) theorem that the more compatible groups 96 will tend to be more productive in achieving task related goals (p. 128). The results of the Spearman Rank Order (Rho) correlation coefficient are presented in Table 15. TABLE 15.--Comparison of NASA productivity scores and FIRO—B compatibility group scores. Group Productivity Rank Compatibility Rank X1 2 3 X2 6 7 X3 3 2 X4 1 1 X5 7 6 X6 5 5 X7 10 11 X8 8 9 } x9 11 12 ‘ X10 4 4 x11 12 10 X12 9 8 Correlation Rho = .91 significant at p < .05. iographical Data: Analysis of ersonal Information Form Relevant personal and biographical data for partici— ants was obtained on the Personal Information Form (see ppendix D). Table 16 presents the responses in the form E a frequency table, arranged according to the treatment :oup in which the respondent participated. The tabulation of biographical data in Table 16 stablishes a clearer picture of the students who volun— eered to participate in this self-awareness training pro— am. Several of the clearest comparative conclusions of e responses are now presented. 7’ 97 BLE l6.~-Summary of biographical responses for participants from rsonal Data Form. 1. What is Your Marital Status? Treatment Group Single Married Divorced nstrumented (N=28) 22 5 l elf-Directed (N=28) 23 4 1 eader-Led (N=26) 22 _1 ’£ Total 67 12 3 Percentage 82% 15% 3% 2. What Year Are You in, if Attending School? Treatment Group Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate strumented (N=28) 5 5 4 9 4 lf-Directed (N=28) 6 5 4 7 7 ader—Led (N=26) _§ _; _§ _§ _§ Total 16 13 14 22 17 Percentage 19% 16% 17% 27% 21% 3. What is Your Educational Major in College? , _ . Social Edu- . Humani- L a Treatment Group SCience Science cation BuSiness ties Other strumented (N=28) 3 8 8 2 6 l lf—Directed (N=28) 4 12 5 l 4 2 Fader-Led (N=26) _4 _§ _5 _£ _3 _l Total 11 28 18 7 l4 4 Percentage 13% 34% 22% 8% 18% 5% 4. What is the Educational Level of Your Parents? Mean Treatment Group Mean Range Father Mother strumented (N=28) 14.2 6-18 15.7 12.7 lf—Directed (N=28) 15.35 10—18 17.2 13.5 ader-Led (N=26) 13.95 6—16 16.0 11.9 How Would You Classify the Social-Economic Level of Your Parents? reatment Group LOWer Class Middle Class Upper Class trumented (N=28) l 26 1 f—Directed (N=28) . . 24 2 der-Led (N=26) 7 21 . . 6. Have You Ever Participated in Sensitivity Training? :eatment Group Yes No .rumented (N=28) 6 22 4Directed (N=28) ll 17 er—Led (N=26) _§ 18 tel 25 67 rcentage 27.2% 72.8% aOther category included three non-preference majors and one zering major. 98 In item one, all three treatment groups reported :hat the majority, 82 per cent, of participants were single. In reporting their level of schooling, the popu- Lation was skewed toward upper grade levels; 65 per cent 3f the students were juniors or above, while 35 per cent were freshmen and sophomores. In response to item three, ducational major, the population was over represented by ocial Science (Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, nd Social Work) and Education majors. On items four and ive the groups revealed no significant contrasts in re- ard to the educational level of their parents or socio- conomic status. The participants came from middle class nd high school educated families. Under item six the elf-directed groups reported more participants who had revious sensitivity training experiences (SD = 11, LL = 8, 3 = 6). Descriptive Data: Results Pertaining to Related Questions udent Expectations and arning Outcomes What are the reported changes between initial expectations for learning and learning outcomes reported in the areas of self-awareness, inter- personal, and group dynamics skills? The participants were asked to set down their ex— tations for the training program in the areas of self- Loration, group functions, and interpersonal relations. 99 he expectations for change and learning outcomes were athered through the use of a structured questionnaire (see Appendix G). The learning outcomes were reported by eans of a similar questionnaire (see Appendix H). To com- are their reported learning with their initial expec- ations, the comments on the expectation and learning out- ome forms were classified into three categories: (a) elf-understanding, (b) group dynamics, and (c) inter— ersonal. Each category was further analyzed for focus n: (1) increased awareness, (b) skill development. For ample, the comment, "I would like to learn why I am shy b a group" would be scored (a) self-understanding--(l) ncreased awareness. Responses were evaluated and assigned atings by three judges. The interrater reliability of the idges ratings was a strong .82 coefficient. The comparison f the learning expectations of the subjects with what they alt they really learned is contained in Table 17. The re— llts indicate that most of the subjects expected to learn ire about themselves, and their expectations were well it. The largest differences were in the interpersonal tegory for both increased awareness and skill develop- nt. Only twenty-nine subjects reported expectations to arn skills and increase their awareness about others, but venty participants felt they had made gains in that area a result of the training program. Another departure )m expectations was apparent in respect to participants > expected to learn skills pertaining to group processes and functions. Only twenty—five subjects expected to learn in the area of group dynamics, but three times (N=75) as many subjects indicated that they had learned much about group functions and skills. For detailed frequenty tally of participants' comments about expectations and learnings see Table 17 below. TABLE 17.--Learning expectations and perceived learning outcomes as reported by self—awareness training participants. Self- Group Inter- Understanding Dynamics personal A* S T A S T A S T Expectations 35 47 82 42 40 82 40 35 75 45 25 7O 10 15 25 19 10 29 Learnings *A = Awareness; S = Skill; T = Total. Student Interpersonal Values What are the participants' interpersonal value orientations in the areas of control, trust, ex- pression of feelings, openness, and self-disclosure of experiences as measured by the Value Dimensions ' Interpersonal Relations Form? The following frequency distribution table (Table 8) summarizes the responses to the Value Dimensions Form see Appendix J). valuation of Training essions What important descriptive data can be identified from participants' reactions to the worthwhileness, acceptance of group climate, openness in expressing feelings, level of conflict, and worthwhileness of structured activities in the three different days of training? 101 TABLE 18.-—Ratings of participants' responses to Value Dimensions Questionnaire. l. I feel that control should be distributed in interpersonal relationships by means of shared or unshared control? Code: 1 = unshared control desired 9 = shared control desired Group Mean Range IS 7.519 4—8 SD 7.777 5—9 LL 7.165 5—8 I feel trust should be distributed in interpersonal relation- ships in the following wa y: 2. Code: 1 = low trust 9 = high trust Group Mean Range IS 8.320 6-9 SD 7.922 5—9 LL 8.040 6—9 3. I feel that personal feelings should be relevant information to be shared in interpersonal relations in the following way: Code: 1 = low importance 9 = high importance Group Mean Range IS 8.215 6-9 SD 7.892 5—9 LL 7.987 4-9 4. I feel that openness to receiving new information, different points of View and reactions from others about your behavior should be distributed in interpersonal relations in the following way: Code: 1 = closed or guarded 9 = open Group Mean Range 15 8.297 5—9‘ SD 8.317 6-9 LL 7.945 3-9 5. I feel that authentic self-disclosure of my personal experi- ences and feelings to others should be distributed in inter— relations in the following way: personal Code: 1 = not important to be authentic 9 = very important to be authentic Group Mean Range is ' 8.209 3—9 SD 8.102 5-9 LL 7.665 4—9 102 At the conclusion of each sensitivity session participants were asked to rate different group processes and activities. These reactions were obtained through a questionnaire. The results of the participants' reactions and perceptions on the Session Reaction Form (Appendix E) are shown below. From these data it can be inferred that the training program was perceived as a worthwhile and successful experience in terms of the questions asked, see Table 19. Post Traininngvaluations The results of the summary of the Training Program Experiences Evaluation Instrument (see Part Two of the Learning Outcome Questionnaire Appendix H) completed by the participants at the close of the self—awareness train— ing program are reported in Table 20. These subjective perceptions and reactions to the training program were tabulated and organized according to treatment groupings of instrumented, self—directed, and leader-led classifi— cations. The following questions were examined: What are the reported reactions and perceptions of 5 the participants to the training programs trans—- ferability, worthwhileness, relevancy, satisfaction, and help in increasing self—understanding? How many participants (would/would not} have participated in this training program if they had a chance to do it over again? How many participants intend to participate in more sensitivity programs? 103 TABLE l9.--Mean ratings of individual sessions worthwhileness, acceptance of group climate, level of participation, openness in expressing feelings, level of conflict, worthwhileness of structured activities. Group Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 l. Worthwhileness of Session [Code: = low worthwhileness; 4-6 = somewhat worthwhile; very worthwhile.] IS 8.00 7.35 7.77 SD 6.57 7.88 7.38 LL 7.25 7.61 8.07 Total 7.27 7.61 7.74 2. Degree of Acceptance in Group Climate [Code: low acceptance; medium acceptance; 7-9 high acceptance.) IS 7.56 7.63 8.34 SD 6.73 7.05 8.03 LL 7.39 7.33 7.23 Total 7.23 7.34 7.87 3. Level of Participation 4-6 = medium participation; [Code: low level of participation; high participation.) IS 6.91 6.61 7.19 SD 6.15 6.83 6.17 LL 6.15 6.60 6.84 Total 6.40 6.68 6.73 4. Openness in Expressing Feelings [Code: 1'3 little openness; 4-6 = medium openness; 7—9 much openness.] IS 6.98 5.36 7.87 SD 5.41 7.72 7.35 LL 6.27 6.84 7.50 Total 6.22 6.64 7.57 5. Worthwhileness of Structured Activities = low worthwhileness; somewhat worthwhile; very worth— while.] IS 6.84 6.43 6.37 SD 5.97' 5.17 4.67 LL 6.80 5.02 5.77 Total 6.54 5.54 5.60 104 TABLE 20.--Frequency distribution and percentage computation of learning outcome items. Categories Groups l-3 4—6 7—9 Mean Score No. % No. % No. % = little amount of transfer; 4—6 = some 1. Transferability [Code: 1—3 = great amount of transfer.] amount of transfer; 7—9 IS 0 0 8 28.5 20 71.5 6.75 SD 0 O 6 21.4 22 78.6 7.14 LL 1 3.8 8 30.8 17 65.4 6.47 Total 1 1.2 22 26.8 59 72.0 6.79 2. Worthwhileness [Code: 1—3 = not worthwhile; 4-6 = somewhat worth- while; 7-9 = very worthwhile.] IS 0 0 6 21.4 22 78.6 7.96 SD 0 0 10 35.9 18 64.1 7.48 LL 2 7.7 8 30.7 16 61.6 7.22 Total 2 2.5 24 29.2 56 68.2 7.55 3. Relevancy [Code: 1-3 = irrelevant; 4-6 = somewhat relevant; 7-9 = very relevant.) 7 25.0 21 75 7.68 IS 0 0 SD 0 0 9 32.1 19 67.9 6.98 LL 2 7.7 10 38.5 14 53.8 6.57 Total 2 2.5 24 31.7 54 65.8 7.02 unsatisfying-low satisfaction;'4-6 = 4. Satisfaction [Code: 1-3 = 7-9 = high satisfaction.] moderate satisfaction; IS 0 0 4 14.3 . 24 85.7 7.54 SD 2 7.2 8 28.5 18 64.3 6.92 LL 3 11.5 12 46.1 11 42.4 6.25 Total 5 6.2 24 29.2 53 64.6 6.90 5. Programs' Effectiveness in Increasing Self Understanding [Code: l-3 = ineffective; 4-6 = somewhat effective; 7—9 = very effective.] IS 0 0 6 21.4 22 78.6 7.22 SD 0 O 8 28.5 20 71.5 6.71 LL 5 19.2 15 58.8 6 22.0 5.88 Total 5 6.0 29 35.4 48 58.6 6.63 6. If I had to do it over again, I (would/would not) have participated in this sensitivity program. Number Per Cent Would , 79 96.3 Would Not 3 3.7 1 Total 82 100.0 7. Do you intend to participate in any more sensitivity training programs? Number Per Cent Yes 73 89.0 No 2 2.4 Not Sure 8.6 Total 82 100.0 105 At the conclusion of the training program, in addition to the questionnaire items, all participants were asked for general comments about their experiences and to evaluate the parts of the program which helped or hindered their participation. The eighty—two students in this study indicated that they felt that the experience was very worth- while and that it had carry-over possibilities. The follow- ing comments reveal the atmosphere present at the end of the training sessions, suggestions for improvement of the program, and a flavor of participants' reactions to and percentions of the program's success and shortcomings. An aggregate of these comments are presented below. General Comments About Experience I really liked the program because I discovered that I am a worthwhile person who can communicate and feel with my fellow human beings. . . . A real happening all I can say is wow. . I feel that this group had real trust and love for others. . Discussion of feelings really helps clean you out. Found new parts of People can be myself that I did not know existed. loving and free if given the right type of structure. I needed feeling for group members beneficial to my self understanding. . . . Feelings can hurt and '. . I felt safe to relate to help relationships. . people. . . . Discussions took place in a warm and non— threatening atmosphere where I know I would get un— varnished feedback on my behavior and attitudes. . . . Most important thing seemed to be the desire of each group member to really try and learn and understand A group like this could have The activities themselves and others. made most any program worthwhile. really helped they caused people to talk about them— the group and their reactions to things. . . selves, For me the sensory exercises made me feel close to I was scared at the be- people without words . . . ginning but the group's warmth made me come alive. . . . People are so real and honest when given the opportunity to relate on a feeling level. . I feel 106 that this experience is what life is all about--getting to know yourself and other people. . . . Life is beauti— ful if we could only solve our problems in relating to others. . . . I feel closer to people because I found out that working and feeling part of a group of con- cerned people is not always damaging to my own self. . . . It is a groovey thing the feeling of participation and activity with fellow students made me feel good. . . . At last I was free to express myself as I have always wanted to. . . . Awareness that I could help other people and thus contribute to my own growth. . . . Our group needed more time we are just beginning to relate. . . . I liked the people in our group and the feeling of self—direction to carry out our own thing. . . . This is a beautiful way to grow. . . . The people in charge seemed to be sensitive and concerned about keeping the group as productive and worthwhile as possible. . . . My reflection in the eyes of others help me get a clearer picture of "ME". . . . Freedom of group to decide level of interaction made me feel secure. . . . The experience gave me an entirely new picture of how to meet and interact with people more openly and trusting. . . . Best personal experience I have had in a group of my own age ever——very satisfying and encouraging. Comments About Shortcomingg of the Program Groups too large not enough time for everyone to receive needed attention. . . . None everything was just great. . . . too structured for me. . . . no room for self- initiative . . . not enough time allowed to discuss activities in depth, so a lot of reactions and feelings were ignored . . . too many exercises must cut down on number of exercises if program is to remain three days long. . . . Non-verbal exercises should come at the end of sessions so members can warm up and then be able to express their feelings . . . too much discussion and criticism of members and not enough supportive com- ments . . . only hindrance came from within me. . . . I need more training to give advice on good or bad aspects of training . . . some of the non-verbal exer— cises scared me. . . . I am often nervous about people touching and getting close to me--but I would not drop it from the program because maybe it's good opportunity to get over these fears . . . lack of trainer inhibited freedom of responses for fear of hurting a member . . note taking during the triads was inhibiting and frustrating to the note taker because I want to help with the problem . . . tape recorder was not sensitive enough it got us started but could not help when we 107 needed it . . . group became anxious about time limits on exercises maybe groups should be free to choose activities and amount spent on exercises. . . . Would like a more liberal and less up tight group a leader who could understand the ethical and moral generation gap would have helped. . . . The presence of group leader repressed and inhibited honest and open re— sponses--just when things got going the leader directed us away from conflict. . . . Strict adherance to activities schedule cut down on the freedom for inter- action. . . . Non-verbal exercises were not helpful to the progression of the group as a whole. . . . Some of the exercises tended to split the group up into sub- groups because of the meaningfulness of sub-group activities. . . . Program too short—-on the whole group activities were really helpful. . . . Not enough empathic understanding so I could not open up the group. . . . The group was too clinical and so I was threatened. . . . Group wandered from planned activi— ties, often resulting in periods of silence and useless chit-chat. . . . Nothing; everything was well designed and the group executed the activities to get the most out of them for self-understanding. . . . Too much sequential structuring-~need more freedom. . . . There was a long lag between loss of interest on my part in group activity and change to the next activity-—must push group more to other activities rather than waiting for them to decide. . . . Would like longer group experience to help me get involved and trust my feel- ings and others' reactions to me. . . . My feeling that the schedule was not flexible. . . . Smaller groups than eight are needed for more intimate interaction and so no one gets lost from inattention. . . . I felt that I was being rushed and thus felt that my emotions were being toyed with my impersonal and uncaring machine. . . . Our group needed stronger trainer; he gave us too much freedom and not enough direction. . . . The struggle to find direction on the first day and the conflicts involved in making decisions and deciding on leadership made some of my experiences in the group frustrating. . . . Some of the exercises were not in depth. . . . I feel depressed when its over because it demonstrates what life could really be like if people trusted, cared and honestly communicated with others. . . . Four hours too long to interact on such a personal level. . . . Activities became a crutch we might have gotten further if we had to rely on our own resources. 108 Comments About Strengths of the Program People involved. . . . I started to see that the real important thing about groups is knowing where you are going. . . . Freedom to be yourself was built into the program. . . . Sensitivity training gave me the oppor— tunity to become more out going and accepting of other people's faults. . . . Good way to air your pent up frustrations. . . . I respect my fellow students' ability to help others. . . . Non-verbal communication exercises make verbal communications more meaningful. . . . The structured activities-—all of them helped interaction they were great. . . . The program helped me to look at my problems in perspective because I am not alone in the troubles I have. . . . This program would be a great way to humanize a classroom situation because then I would feel more comfortable in inter— acting if I knew the other students. . . . Our group leader helped to clarify and point out group problems of communication. . . . Structured activities were well constructed and facilitated interaction on a personal level. . . . Trust within the group helped strengthen the program. . . . The fact that it did not cost any— thing was great. . . . Group size was optimum for inter— action. . . . Free and open discussions help me to understand myself better. . . . Activities caused people to relate in a more feeling way—~I have been in groups like this before where people didn't know what to do so the exercises help getting the group off the ground. . . . The group warmth including the machine help me participate. . . . Tapes clarified feelings and experiences very well and created a comfortable atmosphere. . . . Not having a trainer present helped members to be more open and less guarded. . . . All discussions after exercises especially non—verbal exercises clarified and strengthened the group. . . . The groups freedom to improvise. . . . The freedom an support to say things about other people in a honest and leveling manner help create a honest group. . . . The opportunity for self-evaluation help my partici- pation. . . . Exercises involving the taking of roles of others. . . . The sensory‘activities which required physical movements and expressions. . . . I had the chance to find out who I was through a non—threatening experience. . . . Relaxed non-studious atmosphere. . . . Inexperience of group members made us all feel that we were in the same position. . . . Group size gave us the opportunity to be alone and free to learn at our own pace. . . . The leader let us talk openly about and realize our own hangups--he sure was a human being. . . . The group was just right not to much of this body awareness stuff but enough material to help 3'1- .j- '— —-..— w— “‘1?! 1'"; -.. 109 people can insights into their behavior and others. . . . Everything should be continued as is with a little more emphasis on non-verbal exercises. . . I started to gain insights into myself—-this was the first time this ever happened so I must say the pro— gram should remain as is. . . . Structured exercises spurred the group to get going. . . . No leader helped members to learn to depend on themselves. . . Good time of the day 7-11. . . . The openness of every- one to try to find out who they were. . . . A safe climate for learning. smart This chapter was devoted to the analysis of the research hypotheses and explorative questions. Both ob- jective data from the standardized research instruments . and subjective comments from group questionnaires were presented as findings for this study. The five Group Treatment hypotheses were tested by analysis of variance and the null hypotheses failed to be rejected. Six Com- patibility hypotheses were tested by means of E-tests and Spearman Rank Order correlations. Compatible in comparison to incompatible groups on Self-Esteem, Self-Criticism, and Total Conflict scores on the TSCS were found to be sta- tistically different in the predicted direction. Also, strong positive relationships were found between compati— bility and group cohesiveness and group productivity. Summaries of participants comments and reactions to the training program were presented and revealed that students reacted favorably to the experience and its potential for transfer to their life experiences. I:— 110 The last chapter will summarize the findings of this research, and will draw conclusions and suggest recommendations for future studies and uses for this program. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this chapter a summary of the study is pre- sented. This study attempted to evaluate the impact of a structured self-awareness training program on college stu- dents' self-concepts. A summary of the study design, dis— cussion of findings, conclusions, implications, and recom- mendations generated by this research are presented. Summary The major purpose of this research was to deter— mine the effect ofga structured sensitivity program upon college students' self—concepts. Specifically, the re- search was designed to assess the effects of different learning climates (leader-led, instrumented, and self— directed treatment groups) and group atmosphere (compati— bility and incompatibility of group composition) on se— lected self-concept variables. The underlying rationale for this kind of research was the value judgment that there was a need to help students become more aware of them— selves and that universities need to develop meaningful 111 : r 112 and relevant affective experiences which can have positive impact on students' self-development. During the summer term of 1969 at Michigan State University, a three day self-awareness training program consisting of structured exercises and three different "styles or climates for learning" was conducted for student volunteers. A total of ninety-six student volunteers were randomly assigned to twelve experimental groups composed of eight members. Schutz's (1958) Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation—Behavior (FIRO-B) questionnaire was used to assess the interpersonal need compatibilities or incompati— bilities of each group's interaction climate. The self-concept criteria variables were assessed by means of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. The TSCS is "a scale which is simple for the subject, widely appli— cable, well standardized, and multi-dimensional in its description of the self~concept" (Fitts, 1965, p. l). The self-concept was used as a criterion measure because the individual's concept of himself has been demonstrated to be highly influential in both academic and social behavior. Subjective evaluations by means of group questionnaires were also included in the investigation to assess the worthwhileness and relevance of the training program to students' self-development. 113 A review of the literature on sensitivity training, student needs, and small group dynamics research emphasized the following points relevant to the study's objectives: 1. Sensitivity training techniques are a proven method for helping normal people to improve their capacity for living through increasing their understanding of self, others, and environment. 2. Student personnel services have been remiss in creating programs which would help influence students' self—development and increase their human relations skills. 3. The educational environment is an unhealthy one. Many studies provide distressing evi— dence concerning the low level of students' personal and interpersonal functioning. 4. The need exists to create small group activi- ties which might facilitate students' use of their personal environment to meet their emotional and interpersonal needs. 5. From the literature on sensitivity training and small groups two variables needing re- search were identified: the effects of differ— ent learning climates and group composition or atmosphere on learning outcomes. From the above points, research hypotheses and explorative questions were developed for testing. In 114 addition biographical and subjective evaluations were col- lected. Results on the FIRO-B, TSCS, biographical forms, evaluation questionnaires, and group experience forms pro- vide the data for the findings of this study. Discussion of Findings Group Treatment Hypotheses 1-5 This section discusses the group treatment hy- potheses (see Chapter IV), that the learning climates of instrumented (IS), leader-led (LL), and self—directed (SD) groups would effect differently the self-concept variables of self-esteem, identity, self-criticism, conflict, and group productivity has not been supported by this research. Three possible explanations for this failure should be considered. 1. In order for groups to show differences in the dependent outcome variables the experimental groups must be exposed to significantly different and independent treat— ments. Since, the IS, LL, and SD groups were exposed to identical programmed sensitivity activities it was assumed that the only difference for the groups would be style of leadership. Isolating the style for learning (leadership techniques) might have resulted in too similar learning climates for the different treatment groups. Thus, if the treatments were similar because of the stronger impact of the structured sensitivity activities it is not surprising 'ug 4&1. “A..." ‘-,5; M“ "" 3.“ " "up.“ ‘ m‘JW— 115 to find no statistical differences between the treatment groups. This interpretation is also supported by sub— jective data which reports that the groups were being experienced as positive and worthwhile activities regard- less of the treatment group. 2. The measurement technique employed was in- capable of adequately supporting or rejecting the treatment group hypotheses. Since the TSCS was originally designed to assess primary and stable self-concept characteristics one possible reason for the finding was to suspect that a short-term (three-day) sensitivity type experience was not potent enough to effect deep—seated and long lasting self- concept variables. Also, a common problem in measures based on self-report is that people sometimes try to pre- sent a socially desirable picture of themselves. This tendency to answer with a response set might level off any true differences between treatments. This reasoning is supported by the low self—criticism scores reported for the treatment groups. Such low scores indicate that the participants were making a deliberate effort to present a favorable picture of themselves (Fitts, 1965, p. 2). This fact alone might be responsible for the TSCS appearing to be sufficiently insensitive to report differences between treatment groups. Furthermore, the small numbers contri— buted to a large standard error of the mean and this also reduced the chance of discriminating between groups. 116 Thus, problems of measurement were operating in this research which give cause to suggest that even if the group treatment techniques had differently effected learn- ing outcomes, this could not have been adequately demon- strated by the assessment techniques used. 3. A third explanation for lack of support for the group treatment hypotheses is that there is no difference between the IS, LL, and SD experimental treatment effects on self—concept variables of self-esteem, identity, self- criticism, conflict, and group effectiveness variable. Statistical differences or no differences depend on more than just the experimental variables being measured. For example, randomization of participants into the different treatment groups could have ignored some important vari- ables which might have been operating to more heavily in— fluence outcomes than the experimental variables of IS, LL, and SD. The apparent inability of the principal measuring device, the TSCS measure, to effectively discriminate be— tween groups, suggests that the Group Treatment Hypotheses 1-5 were not adequately tested by the present research design. Discussion of Group Compatibilipy Hypotheses 6—9 Hypotheses 6 through 9 predicted that groups identified as compatible would manifest greater self-esteem, identity, and lesser self-criticism and conflict than those 117 groups assessed as incompatible on need interchange among group members. The assumption that compatibility on need interchange would lead to significant differences between compatible and incompatible groups was supported for self- esteem, self-criticism, and conflict scores, but not for the identity scores. The prediction that compatible groups would mani— fest greater self—esteem was supported statistically. Also, the null hypothesis for self-criticism and conflict was re- jected, however, the identity scores yielded trends in the predicted direction. This finding was not too surprising when considering the confusion in sensitivity research concerning the best type of group composition for learning. Research by Harrison and Lubin (1965, 1966) suggest that homogeneous groups may depress conflict and that incom— patibility of personal styles may lead to confrontation with different people thus leading to higher levels of identity. Furthermore, compatible groups‘ accustomed per— ceptions and styles are not challenged, thus the status quo interaction patterns and behavior are reinforced and not threatened by the possibility of change. Compatible groups may make the learning climate so comfortable that meaningful alternatives and challenges to present self— identity do not take place. Self—learning might be more facilitated by a group climate that gives support for a‘ person's need orientations and at the same time confronts memberS/with meaningful alternatives to their personal 118 style. Another reason that the data failed to more com- pletely sustain the theoretical predictions might be that the identity scale of the TSCS was incapable of sufficient discrimination between groups. The measurement problems reviewed in the discussion of the group treatment hy- potheses seem equally relevant to the identity hypothesis. In View of the lack of support for the identity hypothesis from the findings, it appears reasonable to conclude that further testing is needed regarding the effects of com— patibility on group identity scores. The limitations of instrumentation conclude that a rigorous test of Hypothesis 7 was not conducted by this research. Discussion of Hypotheses 10 and 11 Hypotheses 10 and 11 concerning the correlations between level of group compatibility and cohesiveness and compatibility and group effectiveness were strongly sup— ported by the findings. The finding that there was a strong positive relationship between group Compatibility and cohesiveness gives support to Schutz's theorem that if the compati— bility of one group was greater than the compatibility of another group then the more compatible group would be most cohesive. The finding that satisfaction with group activities (cohesiveness) was strongly related to compati- bility which measures mutually shared need orientations for interaction was not surprising. The present research 119 offers clear support for the predicted positive linkage between group atmosphere, in the sense of being compatible or similar on need orientations, and group cohesiveness, in the sense of being satisfied with group activities. The finding that group compatibility was strongly and positively related to group effectiveness of pro- ductivity was surprising in light of the mixed assortment of positive and inconclusive findings in small group re- search on this issue. The strong positive correlation of .91 between group compatibility and group effectiveness in achieving high scores on a task related exercise gives strong sup- port to Schutz's theorem that the more compatible a group is the more success the group will have in achieving task related goals. Schutz's theorem received minor support from a study conducted by Rudner (1953). The finding was somewhat surprising since Schachter (1951) study on pro- ductivity and cohesiveness indicated that cohesive groups will do worse on a task if the members do not want to do what is imposed upon them. From this finding it can be surmised that compatibility can contribute to groups' non— productivity in that groups can set up both high and low standards for achieving group goals. For example, a com- patible group would be more capable of a strike than an incompatible group since compatibility leads to more successful personal relations and less frustrations in decision making. Obviously, the compatible groups in this :13”- ‘ SW- ' .__.n ‘.—.. “4 v . J . 120 research decided to set a high standard for productivity on the NASA decision making exercise. However, the present research offers clear support for the predicted positive relationship between group com- patibility, in the sense of an acceptant group climate for interaction, and group productivity or effectiveness, in the sense of making accurate predictions on the NASA group decision making exercise. Discussion of Explorative Questions and Subjective Data From the Biographical Analysis the following data was obtained from students: the majority of students were single, 82 per cent; distribution by classes was 19 per cent freshmen, 16 per cent sophomores, 17 per cent juniors, 27 per cent seniors, 21 per cent graduate students; and the population of the study was over represented, 56 per cent, by Social Science and Education majors. The groups showed no significant contrasts in regard to their parents‘ edu— cational level or socio-economic status. As far as experi- ence in sensitivity training the self—directed groups con- tained eleven experienced members, instrumented groups six experienced members and the leader-led groups, eight experi— enced members. Results from the Expectation and Learning Outcome Form indicated that the participants expected to learn more about themselves, and these expectations were met. The 121 greatest discrepancy between expectations and learnings was in the area of interpersonal awareness. Only twenty—nine subjects reported expectations to learn more about others, but seventy participants felt they had increased their awareness and skill in dealing with others. In the area of group dynamics another large discrepancy was found be— tween expectations and learnings. Only twenty-five sub— jects expected to increase awareness and skills pertaining to group processes and functions, but seventy—five subjects indicated they had learned in the area of group functions and skills. Dorothy Stock's (1964) comment on the partici— pants' confusion about expectations and learning outcomes seems appropriate at this point, she states that; "It is possible that what people Say they want to learn does not jibe with what actually happens as a result of the T—group" (p. 409). The findings of this study certainly support Stock‘s contention. Findings from the Interpersonal Value Scale (see Appendix J) indicate that there were no significant differ- ences between treatment samples on pre-test value orien- tations of control, trust, expression of feelings, open— ness, and self-disclosure (see Table 18 for findings). This finding might be clarified because group members re— ported that on the post-test instruments they felt they were much more honest in responding to questionnaires realizing that they had tried to present a favorable pic— ture of themselves on the pre—test instruments. Another 122 reason for the lack of differences on this measure might be the lack of validity of the questionnaire to discriminate between groups. Individual Sessions Evaluation.-—The findings for the training sessions evaluation indicate that participants found all the sessions to be of about equal worth, the mean rating for session one was 7.27, session two 7.61, and for session three 7.74. All of these ratings fall in the very worthwhile category (see Table 19). Other findings indicate that the groups had an accepting group atmosphere, the mean rating for session one was 7.23, for session two 7.34, and for session three 7.87; that groups had a medium level of participation, the mean rating for session one was 6.40, for session two 6.68, and for session three 6.73; that groups indicated a moder— ate degree of expressing feelings, the mean rating for session one was 6.22, for session two 6.64, and for session three 7.57. These findings reveal an increasing level of worth, accepting group atmosphere, level of participation, and openness in expressing feelings from session one to session three. The one surprising finding was the rating of the worthwhileness of the structured activities, the mean ratings for session one was 6.54, for session two 5.54, and for session three 5.60. Thus, the structured activities were rated as being somewhat worthwhile which is encouraging for the first testing of these structured ‘activities. 123 Post TrainingfiEvaluations.--The following findings are among the most important feedback on the program's impact on participants. 1’ Seventy-two per cent of the students felt that their learnings in this program would have a great amount of transfer to their lives. Sixty-eight per cent of the students felt this training program was very worthwhile. In addition, 65 per cent of the students felt this experience was Very relevant to their life at present. Also, 64 per cent of the students were highly satisfied with the program's activities and experiences. Fifty-eight per cent of the students reported that the self-awareness training program was "very effective" in helping them to increase their self—understanding. It was also discovered that 96 per cent of the students would have participated in the pro— gram, if they had the chance to do it over again. Eighty-nine per cent reported that they in- tended to participate in more sensitivity training programs. 124 In summary, the program can be reasonably con- sidered a success based On the comments and evaluations made by participants concerning the individual training. sessions and the total program. The subjective findings provide some support for continuing and improving this program as a positive strategy for improving the self— awareness experiences of college students. Conclusions Few educators would argue with the proposition that small group relationships have a crucial impact upon stu- dents' self-development. However, higher education in general and student personnel services in particular have been remiss in developing programs which might facilitate students' affective development. Relatively little is known about the influence of small group activities, such as self—awareness training, on students' self-development. There is an unfortunate tendency to avoid group research because of its complexity. In spite of the limitations and problems involved, this research demonstrates the possibility of a controlled approach to the examination of the complex variables operating in small group activi- ties that will hopefully stimulate other efforts in creating more relevant educational experiences for meet— ing students' affective needs. Within the limitations of this study the following conclusions are made: 125 The Hypotheses 1. The different styles or climates for learning did not noticeably effect the group productivity or self-concept variables. Group composition had a significant impact on self-concept outcomes and productivity of groups. Compatibility of groups increases the effect of training on self-concept variables and group effectiveness. Compatibility of groups is strongly related to group cohesiveness. Compatibility of groups is strongly related to group effectiveness or productivity. Personal Conclusions 1‘ The results indicate that the participants felt the program was worthwhile and satisfying in helping them to better understand themselves and their effects on others. In order for self-awareness activities to be effective, meaningful experiences which focus on the worth and dignity of all individuals must be used. A more optimal balance between the cognitive and affective domains of learning is needed in higher education. Structured self-awareness 126 training activities may be one strategy to help in creating a better balance. Group composition is important for determining the effectiveness and learning resulting from small group interaction. , Small group activities, such as this self- awareness program, might have a positive impact upon students' self-understanding and overall mental health. Human relations seem to be the key concept to effecting students' "total" development. Much is already known about how to influence a student's cognitive development, but little is known about how to influence a student's affective development. The problem is impor- tant. Group characteristics which make for more of an acceptant and compatible psychological cli- mate can be identified by use of paper and pencil instruments. Attention to group composition and its effects on learning may improve upon the general practice of composing training groups on a ramdomly, heterogeneous, and maximally mixed basis. 127 Implications For College Orientation The self-awareness training program had demonstrated that it can be an effective and worthwhile strategy for facilitating students' interaction and self-exploration. The most important time to acquaint students with the pro— cess of self-discovery and self-direction is at the begin— ning of their college career. Freshman students are often eager to discover more about themselves and others, but traditional orientation programs often overlook the impor- tance of self-evaluation and meaningful group activities in helping students adjust to college life. Small group activities started in orientation programs could be followed- up so that peer group relationships and concerns could be dealt with through a more effective manner. This type of experience could impress upon students that fellow students are their best resource for understanding and problem solv- ing. Developing "therapists at large" would be the goal of this orientation program. For Academic Departments This program could be used to help students who are having academic problems or on probation. The program could be used by the students themselves without a leader. This program has the advantage of creating groups low in threat and suspicion because no formal or informal evalu— ation is being made of students. Such a program shows 128 students that the university is not just interested in their cognitive potentials but also in their human feelings and self—development. This program could help students uncover the personal concerns and problems which may be blocking their academic performance. It can also help students' clarify their vocational aspirations and objectives. For Student Governments This program can help student leaders build programs which are meaningful for the majority of students. This type of program could help student leaders maintain communi— cation with student peer groups so that meaningful objec— tives and activities might be developed to meet unfulfilled student needs. This type of program could be used in orientation of campus leaders so that they could improve their understanding of themselves and thus serve students in a more productive manner. For In—service Trainipg The positive results of this study indicate that the program could be used to develop better working and planning teams within the university organization. The result of structured small group interaction could be im— proved interpersonal relationships, understanding and communication among administrators, professors, and stu- dents. Especially, in the area of professional development of student personnel workers the use of the voluntary self— awareness group has significant potential. For example, 129 student personnel objectives, campus issues, communication problems, and personal frustrations could be more openly discussed and resolved within the small group atmosphere. This type of group would be an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the student personnel program and, as a result, its impact upon the college community. For Faculty-Student Interaction It is often assumed in higher education that close faculty-student relationships are influential in students' self—development. Recent research has indicated that for faculty members to have an impact the contact must be structured to meet student needs. The self—awareness pro— gram would provide a vehicle for structuring meaningful interaction between students and faculty. Faculty members should be more involved in informal relationships with stu- dents so as to make the college community more of a human— ized environment. Out of such groups might come reform programs for curriculum and behavioral objectives for higher education. For Residential Livipg Research has revealed that the college peer group is the most powerful influencing agent in effecting what students learn during their college careers. A self- awareness program could structure learning within college Peer groups and so provide a vehicle for having a positive 130 impact on students' learning. The ideal place to structure learnings for students would be in their living areas. The residence hall could become less a place to eat and sleep and more a place that provides a sense of belongingness, self—identity, and a feeling of human contact for students. Through small group activities students might begin to listen to others more empathically and achieve a greater level of mutual understanding. If such dormitory groups could achieve their anticipated goals of self-understanding and interpersonal sensitivity the morale and atmosphere for higher education might be improved. For Students Self—awareness training might help students in- crease their understanding of self in relation to others which might improve students' social adequacy and leave them freer to develop their academic potentials. This opportunity for self-development and self—understanding might provide the student with a chance to assume more responsibility for his own life which is what the con- temporary student is asking for. This program could be developed for commuting and adult education and married students who are neglected segments of the academic communities. These students have many concerns and problems which relate directly to their feelings of rejection and isolation from the main body of 131 undergraduates. Such a program of self-awareness could help these students feel more a part of the university. For Instruction The results of this study indicate that this pro- gram could be used in courses being offered in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The self—awareness program might be a useful teaching strategy which could help in creating a new structuring of classes so as to assist students in learning more about themselves and human behavior. Class- rooms could become real life laboratories for learning. The learning potential in every personal interaction within a classroom could be exploited for meaningful and relevant learning. For the Administrator The self—awareness program provides an effective way to supplement the overburdened and under-maned counseling services of the university at a minimal cost, thus reducing the demand for hiring large numbers of pro- fessionally trained people. The program could be used as a method for prevent- ing student unrest by bringing together different sub- groups of the university for constructive confrontation and discussion of needs, concerns, and goals of the uni- versity community. For example, the group interaction program could provide a device for black students, student IIIIIIIIIIIIII___________________________7 132 radicals, the silent majority, administrators, and faculty to see one another as human beings. Small group activities could be used by adminis- trators to develop yearly objectives and evaluate the accomplishment of these objectives. Also, every administrator, either as part of his professional training or as an upgrading strategy, should undergo activities aimed at increasing self-understanding and interpersonal sensitivity. Such a self-awareness training program could be used as an in-service training technique to help administrators adjust to change, respond to conflict, institute innovative programs while still re- maining sensitive to others' needs and feelings. The first step in helping others is to be able to understand ones' self. Recommendations for Further Research The Self-Awareness Training Program For more clearer information on the impacts of the program research must be done on the effects of and re- actions to individual exercises within the program. Evalu- ations on the effects of time limits on exercises must be made. More effective instruments for measuring students' behavioral development and interpersonal sensitivity must be developed. Identification of group interaction by means by video tape or tape recorders would add to the richness 133 in evaluating the effects of the different learning cli- mates of instrumented, leader-led, and self—directed training. Future programs using the strubtured group program should recruit participants who could be followed-up to see the influence of the program on back home behavior. More research is needed in varying the lengths of exposure to the program. The program could be used for a marathon group (twenty-four hours or longer), ten—week program, year—long program, one—week program, or a number of variations to see in Which way it is most effective in accomplishing its goals for self-understanding. Change in Self—Concept A very worthwhile, though difficult to structure and measure study, would be to determine whether or not the program could effect change in self—concept or behavior over time. The writer feels that the results of such a study would not show significant statistical change due to the insensitive and poor measurement techniques now avail- able. Productivity and Group Compatibility More research is needed to determine the complex relationship between group productivity and group compo— sition. A study should be designed to assess the effects of student grouping on interpersonal needs and achievement 134 levels. If grouping is to be used effectively we must be aware of the effects of group composition on student learn- ing and personal growth. Relationship Between Cognitive and Affective Learning Research support is needed for the proposition that understanding of self and sensitivity to others has a definite if not a positive relationship to how well cogni- tive material is learned and used by students in their environmental relations and social living. Climate and Personaligy A very difficult study, but a worthwhile endeavor, would be to determine the effects of different climates for learning (accepting, rejecting, compatible, and incompati- ble) on individual personality types. This would be very valuable because then it would be possible to create groups which would have a predictable impact on individuals. Training Outcomes and Training Climates More attention must be given to the interactions and effects of specific programs on long-range outcomes. Many different sensitivity programs exist but the effects of these programs on self-development, interpersonal relationships, and institutional effectiveness remain relatively unknown. Trainers cannot assume positive effects of such programs without long-range follow-up studies. More Through Investigation The findings of this study are a beginning in pro— viding the basic foundations for more intensive research on the effects of group composition for self—learning. Actually the findings are largely speculative and sug- gestive in nature. There is no subject more worthy of investigation than small group activities and its impact on students' affective development and the development of relevant affective educational experiences. For this type of research it will take far-sighted, creative, and per— sistent researchers to accept the challenge of developing meaningful small group activities for college students. The findings of the study concerning the effects of group atmosphere on training outcomes must be subjected to more intensive research to uncover the effects and relationships of complex variables which will facilitate the learning in regard to self, others, and environment. The following are examples of the many questions that have been raised by this study: Can relationships and communication between adminis— trator-student-faculty-community groups be improved through the use of structured group experiences? What will the long -term effects of group awareness experiences mean for the improving of learning and organi— zation climate of higher education? Can programs be developed which will facilitate the development of students' cognitive and affective potentials? 136 Can self-awareness groups be successfully incor— porated into the outdated activities of student personal work (extra-curriculum) and into the curriculum courses of higher education (e.g., sociology, psychology, anthropology, social work, English, or mathematics)? 1 Can researchers begin to apply the principles ofr human learning in developing and specifying the conditions and elements within small groups which may produce desired behavior, attitude, value, and personality changes? Can we begin to specify different goals for affective development and ways to facilitate reaching these goals for different students? Can research identify the types of people who do not respond to sensitivity type activities? Can authoritarian type personalities be positively effected by more structured group activities than unstruc- tured groups? What types of findings could be discovered in the comparison of different training programs; for example, a worthwhile study would be the comparison of the following training designs: personal growth training versus organi- zation training, case study versus t-group training? \ Can other methods be discovered which are more effective in increasing self—understanding or interpersonal sensitivity than sensitivity training methods? 137 All the above areas and more need immediate research if sensitivity training methods are going to gain acceptance as a meaningful educational strategy in effecting students' affective development. Many of these areas will be diffi- cult to examine but that should not stop action research and evaluative research studies which are the first steps in changing the bureaucratic and stifling climate of higher education institutions to a more equalitarian and creative climate for learning. Carl Rogers (1968) has made a prophetic statement about our lack of knowledge in interpersonal relationships which provides a particularly fitting summary upon which to conclude: Man's greatest problem at this point in our swiftly changing technological progress, concerns our ability to assimilate change. With the population doubling during the next generation, can we humanize crowded living? The intensive group experience, perhaps the most significant social invention of this century, may help. . . . It is the question of how much change the human being can accept, absorb, and assimilate, and the rate at which he can take it . . . potentialities for change and enrichment in the interpersonal world of the year 2000 most assuredly exist. There can be more intimacy, less of loneliness, an infusion of emotional and intellectual learning in our relationships, better ways of resolving conflicts openly, man—women relation— ships which are real, a sense of community which en- ables us to face the unknown. All this is possible if as a people we choose to move into the new mode of living openly as a continually changing process (pp. 265-80). ' S E C N E R E F E R REFERENCES Adams, D. V. An analysis of student subcultures at Michigan State University. Michigan State Uni- versity, 1965. Adorno, T. W. et al. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1950. Argyris, C. Explorations in human relations training and research. Washington: National Training Laboratories, NBA, 1966. Bass, B. M. An analysis of the leaderless group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, (1949), 33, 527-533. Bass, B. M. Situational tests:_ II. Variables of the leaderless group discussion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (1951), 11, 196-207. Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Bass, B. M., & Dunteman, G. Behavior in groups as a function of self, interaction, and task orien- tation. Journal of Abnormal Social ngchology, (1963), 66, 419—428. Bach, G. R. The marathon group: Intensive practice of intimate interaction. Psychological Reports, (1966), 18, 995-1002. Barger, B. Programming for prevention. Community Mental Health Journal, (1965). Baumgartertel, H., & Goldstein, J. W. Need and value shifts in college training groups. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1967), 3, 87-101. Baur, E. J. Achievement and role definition in the college student. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cooperative Research PrOJect No. 2605. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, 1965. 138 139 Beach, L. R. Study of personality in the church related liberal arts college. Journal of College Per- sonnel, (1967), 8, 105-108. Bennis, W. et al. A note on some problems of measurement and prediction in a training group. Group Psycho- therapy, (1957), 10, 328-341. Bennis, W., Benne, K. D., & Chin. (Eds.) The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Berzon, B., & Solomon, L. N. Research fronteir: The self— directed therapeutic group--three studies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1966), 13, 491-479. Bettelheim, B. Too many misfits in college. U.S. News and World Report, (April 7, 1969), 61-63. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. The instrumented training laboratory. In J. R. Weschler and E. H. Schein (eds.), Issues in human relations training. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, NBA, 1962. Bloom, S. W., Boud, I., & Kaplan, H. B. Emotional illness and interaction process: A study of patient groups. Social Forces, (1962), 41, 135-141. Bradford, L. P. Membership and the learning process. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, and K. D. Benne (eds.), T:group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Brass, R. V. College student turn to community action. Journal of College Student Personnel, (1969), 10, 2-6. Bratten, L. S. Suicidal tendencies among college students. Journal of National Association of Student Per— sonnel Administrators, (1965), 2, 35-37. Brigante, T. R. Opportunities for community mental health training within the residential college campus complex. Community Mental Health Journal, (1965). 140 Bunker, D. R., & Knowles, E. S. Comparison of behavioral changes resulting from human relations training laboratories of different lengths. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1967), 2, 505—524. Burke, H. L., & Bennis, W. G. Changes in perception of self and others during human relations training. Human Relations, (1961), 14, 165-182. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966. Campbell, J. R., & Dunnette, M. D. Effectiveness of t—group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, (1968), 70, 73—104. , Clarke, J. U., & Culbert, S. A. Mutually therapeutic perception and self-awareness in a t-group. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1965), 1, 180-194. Cline, U. B., & Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal perception: A general trait? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (1960), 60, 1-7. Committee on the Student in Higher Education. The student in higher education. New Haven, Conn.: The Hazen Foundation, 1968. Congdon, C. S. Self theory and chlorpromazine treatment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1958. Cowley, W. H. Nourishing future alumni. The Educational Record, (1938), 19, 494. Crow, W. J., & Hammond, K. R. The generality of accuracy and response sets in interpersonal perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (1957). Quoted in Henry C. Smith, Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Danish, S. J. The influence of leader empathy (affective sensitivity) participant motivation to change and leader—participation relationship on changes in affective sensitivity of T-group participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State State University, 1969. Durham, L. B., & Gibb, J. 1947—1969. and research. R. A bibliography of research, Explorations human relations training Washington, D.C.: Applied Behavioral Science, 1967. Dyer, R. NTL Institute for D. The effects of human relations training on the interpersonal behavior of college students. Un— published doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. Elton, C. P., & Rose, H. The face of change. CounselingpPsychology, Journal of (1968), 15, 372. Erickson, E. H. Late adolescence. In D. H. Funkstein (ed.), The student and mental health. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1959. Fairweather, G. W. The task groups: leadership, communi- cation system, rewards, cohesiveness, norms, and composition. In G. W. Fairweather (ed.), Social pgychology in treating mental illness: An experi— mental approach. New York: John Wiley, 1964. Faw, V. A psychotherapeutic method of teaching psychology. American Psycholggist, (1949), 4, 104-109. Feldman, A. P., & Newcomb, T. M. The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1969. Fitts, W. H. Manual for the Tennessee Department of Mental Health self—concept scale. Nashville, Tenn.' Department of Mental Health, 1955. Form A. The identity crises--the college syndrome. Reprint from Residence hall programs office, Michigan State University, 1966. Foulds, M. L., & Guinan, J. F. The counseling service: A growth center. Personnel and Guidance Journal, (1969), 48, 111-118. Gage, N. L., Leavitt, G. 8., & Stone, G. C. The inter- mediary key in the analysis of interpersonal per- ception. Psychological Bulletin, (1956), 53, 258—266. Gage, N. L., & Exline, R. V. Social perception and effectiveness in discussion groups. Human Relations, (1953), 14, 381—396. Gassner, 8., Gold, J., & Snadowsky, A. M. Changes in the phenomenal field as a result of human relations training. Journal of PsycholOgy: (1964), 58, 33, 41. 142 Gibb, J. R. Climate for trust formation. In L. P. Brad- ord, J. R, Gibb, and K. D. Benne (eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. Gibb, J. R., & Gibb, L. M. Leaderless groups: Growth centered values and potentialities. In H. A. Otto and J. Mann (eds.), Ways of growth. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1968. K. Interpersonal trust in small group communi- cation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53, 224. Giffin, (1967), Gold, J. S. An evaluation of a laboratory human relations training program for undergraduates. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967. Goodman, P. The community of scholars. New York: Random House, 1964. Goodman, P. Compulsory mis-education. Press, 1962. New York: Vintage Gorden, V., & Newgarden, P. Be aware: whites on racism. Presentation at the Annual Convention of American Personnel and Guidance Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1969. Grey, W. S. Provision for the individual in college edu- cation, proceedings of the Institute for Adminis- trative officers of higher education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932. Gross, E. F. An empirical study of the study of the con— cepts of cohesiveness and compatibility. Unpub— lished honor thesis, Harvard University, 1957. Gunther, B. Sense relaxation. New York: 1968. Macmillian Co., Harrison, R. Problems in the design and interpretation of research on human relations training. In Explorations: Human relations training and research. Washington, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1965. Harrison, R. Group composition models for laboratory design. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1965), 1, 409. 143 Harrison, R., & Hopkins, R. L. The design of cross— cultural training. Explorations in human relations training and research. Washington, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1966. Harrison, R., & Lubin, B. Personal style, sition and learning. group compo— Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1965), 1, 286-301. Harvey, W. A. Identity and depression in students who fail. In L. A. Pervin, L. E. Reik, J. W. Dalrymple (eds.), The college dropout and the utilization of talent. Princeton, N.J.: Prince- ton University Press, 1966. Hatch, R. A. The sixth mental measurement yearbook. Oscar K. Buros (ed.). New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1965. Hazen Report. The student in higher education. New Haven: The Hazen Foundation, 1968. Heath, D. Growing up in college. San Francisco: Joseey- Bass Publishers, 1968. Hurley, J. H. Self—disclosure in counseling groups as influenced by structured confrontation and inter- personal process recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. A. E. et a1. Differential perceptions of college environment: Student personnel staff and students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, (1967), 46, Izard, C. E. Ivey, 17-21. Personality change during the college years. Journal of ConsultingfiPsychology, (1962), 26, 482. Jacob, P. E. Changing values in college. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Johnson, L. K. The effect of trainer interventions on change in personal functioning through t-group training. ‘Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1966. Katz, J. No time for yguth: Growth and constraint in college students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1965. 144 Kernan, J. P. Laboratory human relations training: Its effect on the "personality" of supervisory engi— neers. Dissertation Abstracts, (1964), 25, 665-666. Kimball, Salon. Social science research and higher edu- cation. Human Organization, (1963), 21, 271—279. Koilie, E. A. Higher education programs; students. Review of Educational Research, (1966), 36, 236. Kruskal, W., & Wallis, W. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Sta— tistical Association, (1952), 47, 583-621. Larson, A. E. Community mental health on a college campus. Community Mental Health Journal, (1965). Lefeber, J. The delinquent's self-perception. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964. Lehmann, I. J., & Dressel, P. L. Critical thinking, attitudes and values in higher education. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1962. LeMay, M. L. An experimentally controlled investigation of the effects of group counseling with college underachievers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1966. Levinger, G. Note on need complementarity in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, (1964), 61, 153—157. Lieberman, M. The influence of group composition on changes in affective approach. In Dorothy Stock and H. A. Thelen, (eds.), Emotional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. Lorch, T. M. The t—group method on campus: Adaptations and applications. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1968. Maloney, R. Group learning through group discussion: A group discussion implementation analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, (1956), 43, 3-9. Martin, H. O. The assessment of training. Personnel Management, (1957), 39, 88-93. !lIIl!lIlII_________________________-IIII 145 Mathis, A. Trainability as a function of individual valency pattern. In Dorothy Stock and H. A. Thelen, Emotional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. McConnell, T. R., Clark, B., Heist, P., Trow, M., & Yonge, G. Student development during the college years. Cited in T. M. Newcomb and K. A. Feldman, The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969. McGrath, J. E., & Altman, I. Small group research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966. Merenda, P. F., & Clark, W. Influence of college experi- ence on the self concept of young male job appli- cants. Journal of Psychology Studies, (1961), 12, 49—60. Miles, M. B. Human relations training: Processes and outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1960), 7, 301-306. Miles, M. B. Changes during and following laboratory training: A clinical—experimental study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1965), 1, 215-242. Montagu, A. Speech given at a conference of the Inter— national Institute for Euthenics. In C. H. Patter- son, Pupil personnel services in the automated school. Personnel and Guidance Journal, (1969), 48, 101-108. Morris, S. B., Pflugrath, J. C., & Emery, J. R. Personal encounter in higher education. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, (1969), 47, 1001-1007. National Training Laboratories. Reading book: Twenty- first annual summer laboratories in human re— lations training. Washington, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1967. Newcomb, T. M., & Wilson, E. K. College peer groups. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1966. Nichols, R. C. Personality change and college. NMSC Research Reports, Vol. I, No. 2. Evanston, 111.: National Merit Scholarship Corporation, 1965. 146 Patterson, C. H. Pupil personnel services in the auto- mated school. Personnel and Guidance Journal, (1969), 42, 101—110. Pemberton, W. A. Ability, values and college achievement. University of Delaware Studies in Higher Education,‘ No. 1. Newark, De1.: University of Delaware, 1963. Plant, W. T. Changes in ethnocentrism associated with a four-year college education. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, (1958), 49, 162-165. Powdermaker, F. B., & Frank, J. D. Group psychotherapy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953. Quinn, M. C. A study of the relationship between attitudes toward teaching and attitudes toward the self, of forty—eight teacher—trainees at Tennessee A & I. Nashville: Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial State University, 1957. Redfied, R. The educational experience. Pasadena: The Fund for Adult Education, 1955. Rogers, C. R. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton : Mifflin Co., 1961. l Rogers, C. R. Interpersonal relationships: U.S.A. 2000. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1968), 4, 265—280. Rokeach, Milton. The three Christs of Ypsilanti. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Co., 1964. Rothaus, P., Johnson, D. L., & Lyle, F. A. Group partici- pation training for psychiatric patients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1964), 11, 230—238. Rudner, R. Unpublished paper on small group problem solving, 1953. Cited in W. C. Schutz, FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. Sanford, N. (Ed.) The American college. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Sanford, N. Where colleges fail. San Francisco: Jossey— Bass, 1967. K 147 Sapolsky, A. Relationship between patient-doctor com- patibility, mutual perception and outcome of treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, (1965), 70, 70—76. Schachter, S. et al. An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, (1951), 4, 229-238. Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. Personal and organizational changes through group methods: The laboratory approach. New York: Wiley, 1965. Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A three dimensional theory of inter- personal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. Schutz, W. C. On group composition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (1961), 6, 275-281. Schutz, W. C. An approach to the development of human potential. In a report of the Continuing Human Relations Laboratory at Methal, Maine, August, 1963. Schutz, W. C., & Allen, V. L. The effects of a T-group laboratory on interpersonal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1966), 2, 265—286. Schutz, W. C. Joy: Expanded human awareness. New York: Grove Press, 1967. Shaffer, R. H., & Martinson, W. D. Student personnel services in higher education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. Shepard, H. A. The T-group as training in observant participant. In W. Bennis, K. D. Benne and R. Chin (eds.), The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Sherwood, J. S. Self-identity and referent others. Sociometry, (1964), 23, 66-81. Smith, H. C. Sensitivity to peqple. New York: McGraw— Hill, 1966. Smith, P. B. Attitude changes associated with training in human relations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, (1964), 3, 104—113. 148 Spivack, J. Sensitivity training. Unpublished paper. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1968. Steele, F. I. Personality and the laboratory style. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (1968), 4, 25-45. Stern, G. G. Studies of college environments. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Cooperative Research Project No. 378. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University, 1966. Steward, L. H. Change in personality test scores during college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1964), 11, 211—230. Stock, D., & Thelen, H. A. Emotional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. Stock, D. A survey of research on T-groups. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne (eds.), -group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Stoller, F. The long weekend. Psychology Today, (1967), 1, 28-33. Sullivan, H. S. Psychiatry: Introduction to the study of interpersonal relations. New York: Hermitage Press, 1949. Summerskill, J. Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (ed.), The American college. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Sunderland, S. C. Changing universities: A cross _ cultural approach. Journal of Applied Behav1oral Science, (1967), 3, 461. TOCh, H., & Smith, H. C. (Eds.) Social perception: The development of interpersonal impre581ons. Princeton, N.J.: D. VanNostrand, Inc., 1969. Trent, J., & Medesker, L. Beyond high school. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1968. Wallace, W. L. Student culture. Chicago: Aldine Press, 1966. 149 Webster, H., Freedman, M. B., & Heist, P. Personality changes in college students. In N. Sanford (ed.), The American college. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Werdell, P. W. College suicides. America, (1966), 502, 115. Whitehead, A. N. The aims of education and other essays. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1927. Williamson, E. G. The dean of students as educator. The Educational Record, (1957), 230-240. Williamson, E. G. Student personnel services in colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Wilson, Logan. The misuses of the university. Unpublished speech, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. Wise, W. M. They come for the best of reasons: College students toda . Washington, D.C.: American Counc1l on Education, 1958. Wolpe, J. The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1969. Zimet, C. N., & Fine, H. J. Personality changes with a group therapeutic experience in a human relations seminar. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (1955), 51, 68. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SELF-AWARENESS TRAINING PROGRAM: STRUCTURED EXERCISES .1 STRUCTURED SENSITIVITY PROGRAM First Day Outline of Exercises on Group Development and Getting Acquainted Micro—lab exercises (1 hour) (audio tape). a. Village Square: Introductions and Greetings. b. Back to Back Communications. c. Hand Exploring and Sensory awareness. d. Relaxation and Tension release. e. Happiest and Sadest Experience Self-Disclosure. f. Childhood Fantasy. Non—Verbal get Acquainted Exercise (30 minutes). Dialogue with your inner selfs (30 minutes). Verbal get Acquainted (30-45 minutes). First Impressions: Structured confrontation (20—30 minutes). Periodic Check on Group Processes (15—30 minutes). Dominance and Submission Confrontation (15—30 minutes). Open Chair Feedback (15-30 minutes). Group Life (15 minutes). Group Interview (15 minutes). Session Reaction Forms for Feedback on group experience (Appendix E). 151 Non—Verbal Get Acquainted We communicate with one another not only by words but also by our actions. However, we usually get more practice at analyzing, and are more sensitive to words. Purpose of this exercise is to: 1. Give each person an opportunity to try to communicate with another without using words. 2. Give each person an opportunity to try to "read" non-verbal communication from another person. Steps: 1. Pair off in the T-group. 2. Decide in each pair who will begin. 3. That person then will take 5 minutes to tell the second person anything he wants to about himself-~BUT NON—VERBALLY. The second person may NON—VERBALLY react, question, check out, etc. 4. At the end of five minutes, the pair spends three minutes sharing the experience VERBALLY. 5. Steps 3 and 4 are repeated, with the second person now being the one who tells about himself NON-VERBALLY. 6. The entire Trgroup shares reactions, insights, feelings about the experience. What was easy to tell others about yourself?‘ Why? What was difficult? Why? What did anyone in the group do that was particularly outstanding‘in communicating non-verbally—-something difficult, something creative and unusual? 152 Dialogue With Yourself We all belong to groups, but from another perspective we are also a Group within ourselves. We have our own private world of interacting parts—~our own internal society. We need practice in listening to and making use of our internal voices just as we need practice in listening to and participating more effectively with others in our outside, external society. In this exercise you are asked to tune in one of your internal pairs of voices you want to listen to from the list suggested below. Write a brief dialogue in the space provided, of the conversation between the two internal v01ces. The internal conversations concerning some current conflict or dilemma you might want to listen in on, might be: 1. Between the experimental "try something new" self, and the "conservative, familiar me" self. 2. Between the active, involved me, and the reflective, observing me. 3. Between the intellectual, task-centered me, and the emotional, sensitive me. Obviously, we each have within us some of each of these selves. One is not "right" and the other “wrong." Our need is to hear these voices more clearly, and to utilize them in planning our behavior. If you don't feel tuned in on any of these suggested internal conversations, select another that you can now hear. Write your report of the conversation as if it were the dialogue of a p1ay--the actual script. Be sure the conversation is focused on an issue, conflict, or confron— tation between the two selves which are involved. When you have completed your dialogue, place it face down in the center of your group. When all dialogues are in the center, each person is asked to draw one from the pile in the center. Carefully read the dialogue to yourself, and each group member interpret the dialogue to the group. The group may wish to spend more time on some dialogues than on others. Were you able to use yourself as a resource? Could you hear your conflicting inner voices? 153 Verbal Get Acquainted The following activities are designed to help you get acquainted with the other members of your group. As a group, you may wish to work through all of the activities or any combination of them. You may also wish to sub— divide into two or three smaller groups. Activity 1: If you were in a gift shop, what kind of gift would you get each of the members of your group to make them feel good about themselves as well as you. Share with the group. React to the gifts others gave you. Try to be honest with them. Would the gifts really make you feel good about yourself? Them? Activity 2: Describe the kind of house you think each member now lives in or would live in when married. What kind of husband or wife would each member choose? How would they raise their family? What kind of work? Hobbies? Entertainment? Share with the group. React to others' perceptions of you. Activity 3: Each member is to give a five—minute soliloquy about himself. Activity 4: Describe to the group what your name means to you. . Activity 5: If the members of the group could change their names and be someone else, who do you think they would choose to be? The figure can be from history, the present, or a character from a play or novel. Share with the group. React to others' insights of you. Would you really like to be such a person? Activity 6: Describe what you do least well. Each member is to take his turn. Then describe what you do best. Activity 7: Try to picture each member of the group at age eight or nine. What kind of a person was he or she? Shy? Aggressive? Leader? Follower? It may help to close your eyes and develop a mental image of the person. Share with the group. Activity 8: If art supplies are available, as a group, using finger paints or pastels, put your feelings on paper. It may be helpful to listen to different kinds of music via a record player, and express your feelings in relation to the moods of the music. Then try to guess who painted what and why. What does the art expression reveal about the person who did it? —: 7 .7 154 Can you think of other exercises which might be helpful in getting to know each other better? Which of the above exercises helped you most to get acquainted with others? 155 First Impressions First impressions are important in communication in that they may be largely responsible for determining whether and to what extent people will communicate with each other. It is important for us to know whether others see us as we see ourselves. In your group offer your first impressions verbally to any member or members of the group. Those on the receiving end simply receive, making no comment regarding the first impression offered. 1. What non—verbal communication accompanied the verbal comments? 2. How accurate were the first impressions given to you as an individual in terms of the way you see yourself? 3. Why, in terms of communication with others, is it important that the discrepancy between the way you see yourself and the way others see you not be too great? 156 Periodic Check on Group Process Within your group, pair off and for five minutes discuss the group and your performance in the group. How do you see each person performing in the group? How can the other person‘s performance in the group be improved? Where is the group now? What is going on? Is the group generally moving ahead, being helpfu1——or is it not being helpful, i.e., avoiding the task? What could you do to improve the performance of the group? 157 Dominance and Submission _________________________ Instructions: ____________ 1. Place two chairs facing each other in the center of the group. 2. Select or volunteer two strong—willed persons in the group to be pitted against each other in the center. They are to sit in the chairs. 3. One of the persons in the center is to get the other to lie flat on his or her back on the floor. Any means of convincing the other may be used except verbal. 4. The contest is over when one of the persons in the center has placed himself or herself flat on the floor. There is no time limit. The rest of the group may talk with each other or make comments to or about the participants in the center. Remember, the participants are not to talk or respond verbally to each other or the group. 5. When the contest is finished share your reactions with the participants. What creative means did they use? Did any of their actions or reactions surprise you? Fit in with your perceptions or feelings about them? What new things did you learn about them. The par— ticipants are also to share their reactions and feelings with each other and the group. Were there some means you thought of using but didn't? Why? 6. The exercise may be repeated using two new people. Perhaps two weak-willed persons will want to volunteer, or one member challenge another member. What could you learn about each other and yourself by using various combinations? Would you treat males the same as females? How would you react to the various members of the group? Would you feel dominance with some and submission with others? What did you learn from this exercise? Was it helpful? 158 Open Chair Feedback Exercise Instructions: ____________ Leave an open chair in the group. If any group member Wishes to volunteer to receive constructive feedback about his behavior in the group and its effects on the other group members, the member may choose to sit in the chair. The group members are then to give constructive feedback to the member, both positive and negative statements. Remember, feedback is to be constructive and helpful. At any point the group member receiving the feedback may choose to leave the chair open, at which time feedback is to stop. The process continues when another member volunteers to receive feedback. Criteria for Constructive Feedback: Feedback statements are helpful when they are: 1. Specific rather than general. "I don't think you heard Jack when he said . . . rather than, "You never pay attention." 2. Tentative rather than absolute. "You seem unconcerned" rather than, "You don't give a damn." 3. Informing rather than ordering. "I haven't finished yet" rather than, "Stop interrupting me." 4. Behavior descriptions. Reporting specific acts of the other than affect you. "You often cut in on me before I finish. For instance . . ." 5. Descriptions of your own feelings. "I was irritated when you cut in on me." 6. Your perceptions of others' actions.. "I thought you weren't interested in understanding my idea." 159 Feedback statements are not helpful when they are: l. Generalizations about others. "You never care about anything." 2. Name calling, accusative labeling. "You're rude." "You're a phony." 3. Accusations, imputing undesirable motives to others. “You enjoy putting people down." 4. Commands and demands that others chan e. "You're better stop talking so much." 1John L. Wallen, Constructive Openness, an unpublished manuscript, 1967. 160 Group Life Group life becomes more real when the members identify the issues they face together. By "issue" we mean the insoluble binds and tensions in which the group is involved. An issue is any big problem to which there is no immediate answer, but which demands that the group find a way of "living in the midst of" despite the continuing tension and pressure. By exploring issues the group forms its values and makes basic decisions concerning the atmosphere of its life. This exercise provides an opportunity to explore the issues your group is confronting. Each person completes in writing the statements: The principal issue confronting this group now is The values in conflict over this issue may be described as follows: The group will cope more effectively with this issue by I could help the group deal better with this issue by EACH PERSON READS HIS RESPONSES TO THE GROUP AND THE GROUP DISCUSSES. Was this exercise helpful? 161 Group Interview Objectives: 1. To share with the other group members some of your personal interests and life activities. 2. To share and discuss some of your beliefs. 3. To share and discuss some of the things you value. Instructions: The group interview may be conducted in one of two ways. Choose one of the following: Number One: Group members volunteer to be interviewed. (You may also choose not to be interviewed.) Then the group focuses on one member asking any questions of interest about the member's personal life, family, personal history or background, beliefs, or values. The interviewee may choose not to answer any question which he feels is too personal, untimely, or innappropriate. The interviewee may also ask the interviewer his purpose in asking the question before he chooses to answer. Number Two: The focus shifts rapidly from one group member to another with any member asking any other member questions of interest-~personal life, family, history and background, beliefs, values. The same ground rules apply. Ground Rules: 1. Personal information, beliefs, and values are to be shared and discussed on a voluntary basis. Please remember that there are things which all of us do not wish to discuss with others at a particular moment. This feeling should be recognized and respected by all members of the group. . 2. The group interview is not the place for argument or debate. Please respect each other's right to live differently, feel differently, think\differently, believe differently, and value differently. You may well disagree with someone in the group, but try to understand his position rather than telling him he is wrong to try to make him change. People are more apt to change life styles, beliefs, and values from experiencing more meaningful ones rather than being badgered into feeling their‘s are wrong. 162 Sample Questions: How many brothers and sisters do you have? Do you get along with your parents? What are your hobbies? What is the most exciting thing that has ever happened to you? What is the most embarrassing thing you have ever done? Do you believe that men should be free at all costs? What is one thing you would never believe in? What in your life do you value most? If you had to choose, would you rather be sickly, poor, or disfigured? 163 STRUCTURED SENSITIVITY PROGRAM Second Day Outline of Exercises on Increasing Self-Awareness and Sensitivity to Others Micro-lab exercises (30—45 minutes) (audio tape). a. Blindman's Bluff Exercise exploring the environment. b. Milling and Picking a Partner. c. Cooperation and Control: Hand clasping. Diagnostic Triads for Helping Others (1 hour). Developing Listening Skills with focused discussion (30 minutes). Group Process Analysis (15 minutes). Constructive Use of Feedback (45 minutes). Metaphors (20—30 minutes). Who gets the Money exercise (15 minutes). Draw a picture of this Group (15 minutes). Fish Bowl: Observation of Group Behavior (30 minutes). Session Reaction Forms for Feedback on group experience (Appendix E). .5 9+ 1.) :41; 15¢12 —- a... 1...”..4 164 Dia nostic Triads In this exercise you are asked to divided your group into Triads and take three consecutive 15 minute time periods, rotating every member of the Triad in each of the following roles: Role I: Helpee Role II: Helper Goal: To develop a Helping Relationship around a key operating problem or concern in the Helpee's back home work or family life. Role III: Interviewing Associate Function: To take a running record of the conversation, and to have available continuous clarification of the interview. The product of each Triad will be three short- written diagnostic statements describing each person's key operating problem concern. You might wish to focus the interview along the lines of the following model: Identification--Diagnosis-—Action Plans—— Implementation——Feedback and Evaluation When all Triads have completed the process, you are asked to form your group and discuss the process. Was the process helpful? What did the Helper do that was helpful? What did he do that wasn't helpful? What kinds of help did you receive? What did you feel about your ability as a Helper? As the Interview1ng Assoc1ate, what difficulties did you experience? Please, unless you object, give your diagnostic statements to the Trainer working With your group. The Helping Relationship.——It is hard to really admit our difficulties even to ourselves. It is not easy to give help to another individual in such a way that he Will be strengthened; nor, is it easy to receive help from another person that is the kind of help which makes us more adequate in dealing with our problems. If we really listen and reflect upon the situations in which we are in, either the helper or helping role, we not only are impressed With 165 the magnitude and range of the problems involved in the helping situation, but also realize that we can keep on learning as a helping person or a person receiving help as long as we live. 3 ,+ 166 Developing Listening Skills Effective interpersonal communication is a function of establishing a common frame of reference. This can only be accomplished if one person listens intently to what another person has to say. We usually begin listening to the other person, but frequently long before he has completely expressed himself we "turn him off" and begin to prepare our own point to be made. This "partial" hearing often results in only partial understanding of the other person and only partial acceptance of him. In your group for the next ten minutes each group member is asked to paraphrase what the previous speaker has said before making his own point. During this time, any member may feel free to remind any other, at the earliest time that it becomes obvious that the task is not being performed. Focus your conversation on the difficulties your group "here and now" is having. 1. Do we usually hear all that the other person is saying? 2. Does the other person always intend to convey the message he conveys? 3. Is it important to "check out" with the other person for more meaningful communication? 4. Why does this exercise create frustration? 167 Group Process Analysis We can identify two levels of action in the life of a group: content and process. Content is what you are talking about--the subject under discussion. Process is ppy you go about communicating or not communicating with each other. Process is the "language of relationship." Process describes how people are affected by what happens in the group. Often we fail to perceive the process of a group because we are so intent on following the content, and making our own contributions. Therefore we need to practice observing group life at the process level. This exercise provides an opportunity to identify what is happening in your group at the process level. Discuss what has happened in the group during the last thirty minutes. How would you describe the process? Possible points to cover: How well are we working together? To what extent do we feel we are members? How much do we trust each other? Who are the leaders? How are they leading us? What are our goals? How open are we about our feelings? Reflection 1. How was this exercise helpful? 2. How might the group change as a result of this exercise? 168 Constructive Use of Feedback All group members should read their program for five minutes. The next important goal for your group is to discover the use of constructive feedback in small group interaction. Feedback is reporting to an individual the kind of impressions he is making on your or reporting your reactions to him. Constructive feedback is rarely effectively used in interpersonal communication. Our society puts a great deal of emphasis on the value of honesty. Children are taught in their homes and schools that it is bad to lie about their behavior. Stealing, lying, cheating, and other dishonest acts are denounced in every aspect of life. Yet all of us are guilty of a great deal of dishonesty in interpersonal relationships all of the time. (Since children are often very aware of this it makes the learning of the value of honesty very complex.) We rarely express our honest feelings toward others in home or in school. Often this involves simply avoiding the expression of reactions which we feel would be detri- mental to others or ourselves. Often it involves what we call "little white lies" when we tell people something positive or reassuring rather than be direct, honest, or critical. People often feel threatened by the introduction of feedback exercises. The notion that people will be hurt by criticism is very prevalent. Yet think of how many peOple you know who have good intentions but irritate, embarrass, or behave in ways which dimish their effective— ness. The range of operating efficiently and productively in many areas in life is seriously hampered if we never have a chance to become aware of our impact on others. Most of us are quite capable of improving our styles of interpersonal communication and becoming much more effective as people--parents, teachers, whatever,——when we really become aware of our impact on others. Before going on to an exercise designed to give and receive feedback to others in the group, it is useful to think about destructive versus constructive feedback. Feedback is destructive when it is given only to hurt or to express hostility without any goal of improving the communication between people. It may be also destructive when only derogatory or extremely critical statements are given without any balance of positive evaluation. ’i— 169 Feedback is useful to a person when: 1. It describes what he is doing rather than placing a value on it. Example: "When you yell at me it makes me feel like not talking to you anymore." "It's awful of you to yell at me." 2. It is specific rather than general. 3. It is directed toward behavior which the receiver can do something about. 4. It is well-timed. 5. It is asked for rather than imposed. 9 6. It is checked to insure clear communication. Feedback Task for Group 9 Your group should now divide into triads. Each triad should have paper and pencil and go to separate corners of the room. Each triad should then list all the members of the group on the paper. The task for the triad is to discuss each member of the entire group (exclude yourselves) in terms of what would be the most useful positive and negative feedback statements to give each member. You will probably find considerable disagreement in your triads about your reactions to the various members. You must develop the positive and negative feedback statements which include the reactions of everyone in your triad. The triad should think about how to state the feedback so it will be very clear, direct, and useful to the recipient. Each triad should complete two statements for each member. Example: The most negative behavior that Member A exhibits in this group is The most valuable behavior that Member B exhibits in this group is . At the_end of twenty minutes the group will reform and each triad will give each member of the group their joint feedback report verbally. f 170 After the feedback report of each triad to the entire group is completed, the group should spend time comparing reports of different triads. Were the triad's reports similar or quite different? Why? or Why not? Were some triads more critical? Why? Were some reports more useful? Why? Why not? Learning to give constructive feedback to others is only one part of the processh‘ Learning how to receive feedback from others is equally important. Two extreme reactions to receiving feedback is (l) to ignore the feedback and devalue it as being unimportant, hostile or useless or (2) to pay too much attention to all feedback and to try to change in accordance with all feedback received. Neither reaction is constructive. It is important to learn to deliberately weigh feedback from others in terms of the motivation of the sender, the correctness of the sender's perceptions, and the appropri- ateness of the behavior when it occurred even if the consensus of the feedback received is negative. (An effective group leader or teacher must sometimes behave in a manner to which he will receive only negative feedback.) In some cases it is important to ignore negative feedback. However, consistently dismissing it is a different situation. While people generally have the most difficulty with critical feedback it is important to be aware that some pe0ple under-react or over-react to positive feedback also. Receiving_Feedback Task The group members should return to triads and discuss how the members of the triad felt about the feed- back they received. (1) Discuss the feelings about the feedback. Were you hurt, did you feel attacked, pleased, or what? (2) Are there ways of changing your behavior that would be appropriate or possibly related to the feedback received? .Members of the triads should help each other in turn to evaluate and suggest ways of effectively utilizing (or ignoring if appropriate) the feedback. Structured Confrontation Exercise The previous exercises in learning about the constructive use of giving and receiving feedback in the group have hopefully made each group member responsible for giving his own personal feedback to others. To the _ , 171 extent that people can do this spontaneously in the group, the group will have more meaningful interaction. Since some people find it difficult to give feedback to each other directly, this task is designed to facilitate this activity. It is important that you try to think about some very honest feelings that you have about each member of the group and to consider both the most negative and positive feelings you experience in your interaction with each member. There are many ways that you could express these feelings. Take a piece of paper and a pencil and list the most positive and negative statements you would make about each member. Now go over these statements and check how clearly you have communicated what you feel. When you can describe the particular behavior that makes you feel a certain way your feedback will probably be the most effective. When all the group members are ready each member should give his feedback to all the other group members. As each member finishes going around the circle the next person continues until each group member has given and received feedback from all other members. Next the entire group should discuss their reactions to this exercise. Where there patterns? How valid was the feedback? Were some people very cautious about giving feedback? Why? Was this constructive or less useful to others? Was individual feedback more or less direct than the triad feedback reports? __,_____i 172 Metaphors Increasing one's awareness and sensitivity to others is a first and major step in the process of self— growth. This exercise is designed to allow you to assess your present awareness and sensitivity to other's feelings. Instructions: Complete the unfinished sentence stems into metaphors. Example: I feel beat when I am an airplane; I feel worse when I am a mouse. When you finish, give this page to the trainer. Do not sign your name or show other members of the group. A designated person should then read the paired responses to the group. You are to copy them on the grid provided. Now, as a group, try to guess which member made which paired response. Include in the discussion the reasons for your choices. ‘ MEMBERS ARE NOT TO REVEAL THEIR RESPONSES UNTIL ALL OF THE PAIRED RESPONSES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. Now, identify and discuss. How accurate were your choices? Did the group find it easier to identify some members than others? Why? How can you increase your accuracy? (Tear Along Dotted Line). (Fold and give to the Trainer) I FEEL BEST WHEN I AM I FEEL WORSE WHEN I AM DO NOT SIGN OR SHOW OTHERS 173 Grid for Metaphor Exercise Name of the Person Identified Pairs Best Worse Whom You Guessed Member 1. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 174 Who Gets The Money? Instructions: Part I 1. Instructions: Part II 1. 2. 4. OTHER SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR GIVING MONEY AWAY: How committed the persons are. How open the person is. How flexible the person is. Other: As a group, seat yourselves on the floor in a close knit circle. Take out all the change you have on your person. Place the change in front of you. Your task is, when a designated person says go, give your money away to the persons whom you feel have been most helpful in the group. If you receive money from others, you may choose to keep it or give it away as you did your own money. At the end of a minute the Trainer will say stop. Share with the group your reactions as to how the money was distributed. What was the pace of the group in giving? What differences in individuals where visible? The group may wish to have one of its members act as a group observer to the process; and then share his perceptions of what happened. Place all of the change on the floor in the middle of the Circle. On the word go, you are to try to get as much of the money from the center as you can. You may use any means you choose. The money is not safe even when held by an individual. The session will last one minute. Share with the group your reactions to what happened. How did this part differ from Part I? A process observer may be helpful. _,, 175 Draw a Picture of This Group You have shared a variety of experiences in your group to this point. Undoubtedly you have impressions of your group as a whole. Purpose of this exercise is: 1. To share how we each see the group. 2. To discuss how and why people see the group differently-~if they do. 1. Take a sheet of newsprint and marking pens, if these are available. Otherwise, use a sheet of paper and pencil or pen. 2. Each person in the group, with no talking among group members, draws his impressions of the group at this time on the paper. 3. When everyone has had a chance to draw on the paper, then the entire group discusses the drawings: 9 What do the drawings say about the group? What do the drawings say about the person who drew them? What differences are there among the drawings? Why these differences? What differences are there in the ways people are seeing your group? Why? What do these differences say about what your group might do next? What non-verbal communication means are you now aware of that you weren't before doing this exercise? 176 Fishbowl: Observation of Group Behavior Often we are so concerned about our own partici- pation in a group that we do not observe all of the things that are happening. In trying to decide what we are going to say next, we do not hear what others are saying. We need practice in observing group life so that we can begin to identify and analyze the factors that are helping and hindering the group in the accomplishment of its work. Then we will have the necessary information to decide whether we want to change the way things are being done, or whether we are satisfied and want to continue in our present ways. This exercise provides an opportunity to observe another group at work and then to check out your observations by discussing with them what you saw and heard. Hopefully you will be able to learn more about observing group life in the role of observer by not having to participate. Of course, the skill we ultimately need is that of "participant—observer" to be aware of what is happening in the group at the same time that we are active members. Divide into two groups——A and B. Group A discusses for ten minutes the question: What are the barriers in this group to our communicating better? Group B observes and reports for five minutes on how they saw Group A working with actual communication problems which exist in the group life. Groups reverse roles (15 minutes). Reflection 1. How was this exercise helpful? 2. How would you behave differently next time? 177 STRUCTURED SENSITIVITY PROGRAM Third Day Outline of Exercises Designed to Sustain Self-Awareness and Help in Making Action Plans Micro—lab (30-45 minutes) (audio tape). a. Conflict and Affection Lines. b. Group Fantasy: Sharing impressions. c. Trust Circle. Self-Assessment Stems (45 minutes). What are my strengths and weaknesses? (30 minutes). Verbal Expression of Hostility (30 minutes). Experiencing Rejection (20 minutes). Creative Expression of Feeling: Conference Phone Call (45 minutes). Group interaction and relating (1 hour). Moon Landing Exercise: NASA survival experience (30 minutes). Session Reaction Forms for Feedback on group experience (Appendix E). 178 Self-Assessment Sentence Stems ____________________________ Often there is a great deal of difference between what we believe about ourselves and what we really are. This exercise is designed to help you assess yourself on this issue. A. Complete each of the following sentence stems to read as a sentence. B. Pair off with another member of the T-Group. Exchange the completed sentence stems. Take turns and react to the statements which seem inconsistent with your partner's behavior. , C. Choose new partners and continue the process as many times as prove beneficial. 1. Those whom I work with the closest/ 2. In a group I am 3. If someone asked me to organize a new group 4. When other people are upset and hurt in a meeting I 5. With my immediate superior 6. The kind of person who always asks his superior for direction 7. People who seldom let me know where they stand 8. People Who agree with me make me feel 9. Strong independent people 10. When people depend upon me_I 11. I get angry when 12. I have accomplished 13. Being part of a group that has been together for a long time 14. I get real pleasure from being part of a group when‘ 15. People who expect much from me make me feel 179 What Are My Strengths and Weaknesses? Instructions: 1. Listed below the dotted line are two questions, "What are my strengths?" and "What are my weaknesses?" Answer them in the space provided. 2. Fold and place in the center of the group. Do not sign or show to the other group members. 3. The group then selects a member to read the paired responses. You are to copy them on the grid provided. 4. Now, as a group, try to guess which member made which paired response. Include in the dis— cussion the reasons for your choices. 5. When the group is finished guessing, identify and discuss. (Tear Along Dotted Line) (Fold and Give to the Trainer) WHAT ARE MY STRENGTHS? (Try to describe in one or two words.) U'lib-LAJNH I WHAT ARE MY WEAKNESSES? 0 U'lnbLAJNH 0 DO NOT SIGN OR SHOW GROUP MEMBERS 180 Grid for Strengths and Weakness Exercise Name of the Person Identified Pairs Strengths Weaknesses Whom You Guessed Member l. 2. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 181 Verbal Expression of Hostility One kind of emotion that many people have diffi— culty dealing with is HOSTILITY. Some of us have problems expressing our hostile feelings and also handling hostile feelings expressed to by others. Then, there are those who can express hostility but experience difficulty receiving it; and, some of us can receive hostility but have problems expressing it. There are those who are quite immobilized in any kind of hostile situation. There is evidence to indicate that in today's society the most effective human beings are able to deal with hostile feelings—-either their own or those of others. There is also evidence that people who continually repress their hostile feelings pay a great price in wasted energy as well as being the recipients of ulcers, headaches, heart attacks, and other physical malfunctions. The repressions of hostile feelings frequently deprive both the repressors and the recipients of valuable data for learning. Task: You are asked for the next twenty minutes to role play being the most hostile group, at the verbal level, anyone has ever heard. You are asked to imagine that your group is auditioning for a part in a movie requiring a very hostile group at the verbal, non-physical level. Remember to be non-physical. If you wish, you may take different names for this exercise. At the end of the twenty minute period, you are asked to talk about the feelings you had during the exercise. You might wish to relate your feelings during the exercise to situations you encounter in this group, and in other groups of which you are a member. 182 ExperiencinggRejection Most of us have experienced rejection at one time or another. It is often a threatening experience which we have learned to defend against by telling ourselves that "I really didn't care about him anyway." “He's a snob, and I don't want anything to do with snobs." "I'll get even by punishing him when the chance arises." We try to deny or avenge the feeling without understanding. It is difficult to admit to ourselves and others that being rejected is painful. Yet, it is much more healthy than denying the feeling and keeping it bottled up inside you or turning the feeling into destructive behavior. This exercise is designed to let you experience rejection in a less threatening environment, and then describe your feeling and better understand them with others. Instructions: As a group, select some criteria for rejection. On the first trial you may want to start with something which all of the members agree is not too threatening—— perhaps unwillingness to listen to others for long periods of time or unwillingness to confront differences. Make sure all of the group members agree to the criteria. Then nominate candidates and, by voting, reject four or five of your group. The rejectees are to form their own group and discuss their feelings about being rejected. The group members who rejected them are to form their own group and discuss their feelings about rejecting others. Do not rush the discussions. Try to be as honest with yourself and others as you can about your feelings. Finally, the two groups are to rejoin and discuss their feelings with each other. Was this exercise helpful? 183 Conference Telephone Call and Non—Verbal Creative Expression of Feeling At this point you are asked to do the following: A. You have been home from this experience for two weeks and your group decided to place a conference call to discuss the following issues: 1. How I felt about the experience 2. How I felt about the group and/or individuals in the group 3. How I felt the group helped me. B. Before commencing this exercise, please turn your chairs outward from the center of the circle. This will give you the "reality situation" of being on the telephone and therefore not able to see the other members of the group. C. After twenty minutes of this exercise turn your chairs toward the center of the circle and continue your discussion or conversation for the next thirty minutes. D. Stop discussion and place a large piece of paper in the middle of the circle along with colored chalk. Together, members of the group draw a picture which illustrates how they feel about the group at this point in time. This exercise should last about fifteen minutes. E. After completing the picture-—the group should discuss their reactions to the picture just completed. another others. 184 Group Interaction and Relating This exercise is designed to let you know how member of your group sees you as you relate to 1. Divide the members into two groups, A and B. Members in Group A are to pair off with members in Group B. 2. Group A is to discuss for fifteen minutes the statement: "The way others see me is not necessarily the way I really am." 3. Group B is to observe their partners as they relate to others. 4. At the end of fifteen minutes, the discussion is to stop and Group B, using the Tally Sheet, is to rate their partners along the seven dimensions of helpful—unhelpful relating as either positive or negative by placing a check in the appropriate tally box. 5. Group A continues, discussing the statement: "Justifying or defending my behavior to others is often a futile attempt to make them see me in a better light." 6. At the end of fifteen minutes, Group B is to repeat the rating by placing a check in the appropriate No. 2 tally boxes. 7. Group A continues discussing the statement: "I am responsible for my every act, feeling, and thought. 8. At the end of fifteen minutes, Group B is to repeat the rating by placing a check in the appropriate No. 3 tally boxes. 9. Now, the rater in Group B is to share his ratings with his partner. Discuss for fifteen minutes with your partner the reasons for the ratings. The ratee is not to defend or justify his behavior. 10. Group A and B are to reverse roles and repeat the above process. 185 N .oEflu CH ucmEOE zoz 02¢ mmmm .nofi>mson uwmm DOM mw>flbos no menu um mcfluom we on as: can mcflawww OB onezmeed mCOmmou co monsoom .mmcflamow can we cemnwd Hmnuo ecu 30: so momsoom HH> whomw amoeuoumflc co monsoom MUdmommm .co>em mCOmmwu m>aumfiuommc oc .Hmmm Eat mmme pH 30: qu>Ho buflz mcaccflwuuasmw be no mumbuo can mcfiuommu we 03 scans on mpsufluum H> mafiambda CH mommmcm .muobuo no Hoa>msmn cameommm ecu mmnfiuomwo pumsou mmcflammw mcaoccuflz .wabfimmom Bzommzoo .coficflmo mo gone when: cofiuflmom we: mchamxm OB lumwwflp mcflumum CH mDOOwwmmsm Mo .ousomno on moE mGOmmmH cmsonu mmmzwzHAqHz mwNHmOHomd .ucflom3wfl> ca mono cw>m hacmmo mmoqouwwwflc mommoumxm > lummwflp wo cofimwmumxw mpaoccuflz. mmmzzmmo .mns Hamu b.sm00p use muocuo .mGOHumoSv was mammamxm mwcasmxm mmouo :.uomou Ewbu .3me> mo venom c3o we: no mmcflaomm >H wme: o» mecuo oxo>oum Op moans poemflusmpH .maom usonm ammo mH .mnwsuo mmemEH Ob pom cm so made mozeemmooa 953.553 3 .mumcuo opsHocH osz¢U =.uso Eon» counmflmuum= 0b mmHuB ou mxoom .muonuo mo mucflomzofl> HHH .mamsgm swab wmoH we muocuo mumwue who How uommmmn new sumocoo mzosm .mwo Ewan mpsu .mumcuo muowflmm =Oszoomm= .mwm>b oucfl wamood .30Hm on 08 paw ou moflue .uOSUOHm topmflcflw pan waomfifin oHonxo on =.m5 some: onBszB< m we comuom cmsocu mm moaumfluwuom ou muuommm m.c0mnmm new on monouud HH numco wuflachmnmm co monsoom .mawww wmaflmZm :haamwn: conned chuo web 30: poops .wmcflcu moon mesons .mmcflamow mumbbo woodmom cemuwm Hocuo web 30: mpcmumuopCD H .pcmumnoccs Ob maflmm .ome 0» .Bofl> mo mucflom .mnocbo meow mcfihuu we chuocm ucflom ecu momma: MHAHBHmom m>HB¢omz Bmmmm wqqdfi APPENDIX B FIRO-B QUESTIONNAIRE For each statement below, decide which of the following answers best applies to you. Place the number of the answer in the box at the left of the statement. Please be as honest as you can. 1. Usually 4. Occasionally 2. Often 5. Rarely 3 . Sometimes 6. Never 1. I try to be with people. 2. I let other people decide what to do. 3. I join social groups. 4. I try to have close relationships with people. 5. I tend to join social organizations when I have an opportunity. 6. I let other people strongly influence my actions. 7. I try to be included in informal social activities. 8. I try to have close, personal relationships with people. 9. I try to include other people in my plans. 10. I let other people control my actions. 11. I try to have people around me. 12. I try to get close and personal with people. 13. When people are doing things together I tend to join them. 14. I am easily led by people. 15. I try to avoid being alone. 16. I try to participate in group activities. 186 187 For each of the next group of statements, choose one of the following answers: 1. 2. 3. Most People 4. A Few People Many People 5. One or Two People Some People 6. Nobody 17. I try to be friendly to people. 18. I let other people decide what to do. 19. My personal relations with people are cool and distant. 20. H let other people take charge of things. 21. I try to have close relationships with people. 22. I let other people strongly influence my actions. 23. I try to get close and personal with people. 24. I let other people control my actions. 25. I act cool and distant with people. 26. I am easily led by people. 27. I try to have close, personal relationships with people. For each of the next group of statements, choose one of the following answers: Most People 4. A Few People Many People 5. One or Two People Some People 6. Nobody 28. I like people to invite me to things. 29. I like people to act close and personal with me. 30. I try to influence strongly other people's actions. 31. I like people to invite me to join in their activities. 32. I like people to act close toward me. 33. I try to take charge of things when I am with people. 34. I 35. I 36. I like people like people try to have them done. 37. I like people discussions. 38. I 39. I like people like people activities. 40. I For each of the next group of statements, choose one of the following answers: like people . Usually 1 2. Often 3 . Sometimes 41. I try to be the dominant person when I am with people. 42. I like people to invite me to things. like people try to have like people like people try to influence strongly other people's actions. like people like people try to take like people activities. ~ 43. I __ 44. I __ 45. I _ 46. I _ 47. I _ 48. I __ 49. I _ 50. I _ 51. I 52. I like people 188 to include me in their activities. to act cool and distant toward me. other people do things the way I want to ask me to participate in their to act friendly toward me. to invite me to participate in their to act distant toward me. 4. Occasionally 5. Rarely 6. Never to act close toward me. other people do things I want done. to invite me to join their activities.- to act cool and distant toward me. to include me in their activities. to act close and personal with me. charge of things when I'm with peOple. to invite me to participate in their to act distant toward me. 189 53. I try to have other people do things the way I want them done. 54. I take charge of things when I'm with people. APPENDIX C TENNESSEE SELF CONCEPT ITEMS SELF-CONCEPT ITEMS Instructions: Please respond to these items as if you were describing you to yourself. Read each item carefully, then select one of the five alternative responses. Do not omit any item! On your answer sheet put a black mark in the chosen responses. If you want to change any answer after marking it, erase the old answer completely. Res ponses : . Entirely false . Mostly false . Part false and part true . Mostly true . Entirely true UlbWNH H H have a healthy body. 2. I am an attractive person. U) l H consider myself a sloppy person. 4. I am a decent sort of person. 5. I am a honest person: 6. I am a bad person. 7. I am a cheerful person. 8. I am a calm and easy going person. 9. I am a nobody 10. I have a family that would always help me in any kind of trouble. 11. I am a member of a happy family. 12. My friends have no confidence in me. I 190 l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 191 I am a friendly person. I am popular with me. I am not interested in what other people do. I do not always tell the truth. I get angry sometimes. like to look nice and neat all the time. H H am full of aches and pains. I am a sick person. I am a religious person. I am a moral failure. H am a morally weak person. have a lot of self-control. H I am a hateful person. I am losing my mind. I am an important person to my friends and family. I am not loved by my family. I feel that my family doesn't trust me. I am popular with women. I am mad with the whole world. I am hard to be friendly with. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about. Sometimes, when I am not feeling well, I am cross. am neither too fat nor too thin. H like my looks just the way they are. H would like to change some parts of my body. H I am satisfied with my moral behavior. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 192 I am satisfied with my relationship to God. H ought to go to church more. I am satisfied to be just what I am. H am just as nice as I should be. H despise myself. H am satisfied with my family relationships. H understand my family as well as I should. H should trust my family more. I am as sociable as I want to be. I try to please others, but I don't overdo it. I am no good at all from a social standpoint. I do not like everyone I know. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. I am neither too tall nor too short. I don't feel as well as I should. should have more sex appeal. H I am as religious as I want to be. wish I could be more trustworthy. H shouldn't tell so many lies. H am as smart as I want to be. H I am not the person I would like to be. I wish I didn't give up as easily as I do. I treat my parents as well as I should. (Use past tense if parents are deceased.) I am too sensitive to things my family say. I should love my family more. I am satisfied with the way I treat other people. 193 65. I should be more polite to others. 66. I ought to get along better with other people. 67. I gossip a little at times. 68. At times I feel like swearing. 69. I take good care of myself physically. 70. I try to be careful about my appearance. 71. I often act like I am "all thumbs." 72. I am true to my religion in my everyday life. 73. I try to change when I know I'm doing things that are wrong. 74. I sometimes do very bad things. 75. I can always take care of myself in any situation. 76. H take the blame for things without getting mad. 77. I do things without thinking about them first. 78. I try to play fair with my friends and family. 79. I take a real interest in my family. 80. I give in to my parents. (Use past tense for deceased parents.) 81. I try to understand the other fellow's point of View. 82. I get along well with other people. 83. do not forgive others easily. H 84. I would rather win than lose in a game. 85. I feel good most of the time. 86. I do poorly in sports and games. 87. I am a poor sleeper. 88. I do what is right most of the time. 89. sometimes use unfair means to get ahead. H 194 90. I have trouble doing the things that are right. 91. I solve my problems quite easily. 92. I change my mind a lot. 93. I try to run away from my problems. 94. I do my share of work at home. 95. I quarrel with my family. 96. I do not act like my family thinks I should. 97. H see good points in all the people I meet. 98. I do not feel at ease with other people. 99. I find it hard to talk with strangers. 100. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. END PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR NAME IS ON THE ANSWER FORM--THANKS! APPENDIX D PERSONAL DATA SHEET Name Phone Number _—._——___ Instructions: Please circle the appropriate letter or give short answers. 1. Sex: Male Female Age: 2. Marital Status: Single Married 3. Name and ages of children: 4. What year are you in, if in school? a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior e. Other (Please specify) 5. If you attended or are attending college what is your major? 6. Educational level of your parents: Mother Father 7. Estimate your parents socio—economic level: Upper—Upper Class Upper Class Upper Lower Class Upper—Middle Class Middle Class Lower Middle Class Upper Lower Class Lower Class Lower-Lower Class Hflrm m(Do.oz7m 195 APPENDIX E SESSION REACTION FORM Session Number Name Session Reaction Form 1. I felt this session was: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not very worth- worth— while while 2. How accepting was the group climate? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very very rejecting accepting 3. In regard to my participation in this session, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very very inactive active 4. In this session, there was: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very little much open open sharing sharing of feelings of feelings 5. The level of conflict in this session was: l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very very low high 6. In this session the structured activities were: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not very worth- worth— while while 196 APPENDIX F GROUP MEMBER PERCEPTION INSTRUMENT Name Date Place Group Group Member Perception Instrument Will you please answer the questions below? Give both first and last names of the group members. 1. 2' What two people in your group seem to be most like you in the way they think, act and feel? 1. . What two people in your group seem to express their trust of other people most easily in the group? 1. What two people in your group do you feel would make the best friend? 1. 2. What two people in your group seem to have most increased their understanding of themselves? 1. 2. What two people in your group seem to have most increased their ability to interact with other people? 1. 2. What two people in your group seem to express their feelings most easily in the group? 1. 2. What two people were the most warm and supportive of other group members? 1. 2. What one member was most effective in helping the group to make progress in analyzing and diagnosing their problems? 1. What one member seem to be most resistant to cooperating with the group sensitivity training program? 1. 197 APPENDIX G EXPECTATIONS FOR SENSITIVITY PROGRAM Name Expectations for the Sensitivity Program Instructions: The expectations for change and learning you describe below can be of great help in evaluating the program and in planning future sessions for sensitivity training. 1. List below three things that you would like to understand better about groups. b. c. 2. List below three things that you would like to learn how to do better when interacting in a group. 3. List below three feelings that you have in groups which you would like to change or improve. 4. List below three things that you would like to understand better about yourself. a. b. c. 5. List below three things which you would like to learn about yourself in relating to and interacting with other people. a. be Co 198 APPENDIX H LEARNINGS FROM THE SENSITIVITY PROGRAM uni-J -_'—.u- .l‘ -I Name Learnings From the Sensitivity Program Instructions: Identify the learnings and changes that have resulted from this program. Please answer the following questions with specific behaviors, insights and feelings rather than with vague generalizations. 1. List below three things that you understand better now about the processes of groups and how they function. a. b. c. List below three things that you have learned to do better when interacting in a group. List below three feelings that you have in groups that you have learned to better handle or change when relating to others. a. b. c. List below three things that you now understand better about yourself. 200 5. List below three things that you now understand better about yourself in relating to and interacting with other people. 6. If I had to do it over again, I (would/would not) have participated in this sensitivity program. 7. Do you intend to participate in any more sensitivity programs? a. Yes Comments b. No Comments c. I'm not sure Comments 8. What things helped you to take part in this program and should be continued? 9. What things hindered your participation in this program and should be drOpped from future programs? 10. What are the possibilities of transferring your learnings and experiences in this program toward your life on the outside? l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 little great transfer transfer 11. I felt this program of sensitivity was: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not worth- worth- while while 12. The relevancy of this program to your life was: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 irrele- very vant relevant 13. What is your overall satisfaction with this program? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 unsatis- very fied satisfied 201 14. The relevancy of this program in helping you to better understand yourself was: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very very ineffective effective '. gnu-g... ... APPENDIX I GROUP EFFECTIVENESS INSTRUMENT GROUP EFFECTIVENESS INSTRUMENT Instructions: This is an exercise in group decision making. Your group is to employ the method of Group Consensus in reaching its decision. This means that the prediction for each of the fifteen survival items must be agreed upon by each group member before it becomes a part of the group decision. Consensus is difficult to reach. Therefore, not every ranking will meet with everyone's complete approval. Try, as a group, to make each ranking one with which all group members can at least partially agree. Here are some guides to use in reaching consensus: 1. Avoid arguing for your own individual judgments. Approach the task on the basis of logic. 2. Avoid changing your mind only in order to reach agreement and avoid conflict. Support only solutions with which you are able to agree somewhat, at least. 3. Avoid "conflict- reducing" techniques such as majority vote, averaging or trading in reaching decisions. 4. View differences of opinion as helpful rather than as a hindrance in decision-making. On the "Group Summary Sheet" place the individual rankings made earlier by each group member. Take as much time as you need in reaching your group decision. 202 203 Instructions: You are a member of a space crew originally scheduled to rendezvous with another ship on the lighted surface of the moon. Due to mechanical difficulties, however your ship was forced to land at a spot some 200 miles from the rendezvous point. During re—entry and landing, much of the equipment aboard was damaged and since survival depends on reaching the mother ship, the most critical items available must be chosen for the 200 mile trip. Below are listed the fifteen items left intact and undamaged after landing. Your task is to rank order them in terms of their importance for your crew in allowing them to reach the rendezvous point. Place the number 1 by the most important item, the number 2 by the second most important, and so on through number 15, the least important. Little or no use on moon 15 Box of matches Supply daily food required 4 Food concentrate Useful in tying injured together, help in climbing _§ 50 feet of nylon rope Shelter against sun's rays _8 Parachute silk Useful only if party landed . on dark side 1; Portable heating unit _ Self-propulsion devices could _ be made from them 11 Two .45 calibre pistols Food, mixed with water for 12 One case dehydrated Pet drinking Milk Fills respiration requirement _£ Two 100 lb. tanks of E oxygen One of principal means of _; Stellar man (of the finding directions moon's constellation) CO Bottles for self— . propulsion across chasm, etc. _9 Life raft Probably no magnetized poles; _ thus, useless 13 Magnetic compass Replenishes loss by sweating, etc. _2 5 gallons of water 204 Distress call when line of sight possible 12 Signal flames Oral pills or injection _1 First aid kit containing medicine valuable injection needles Distress signal transmitter, possible communication with 5 Solar—powered FM another ship receiver—transmitter 205 msouw oecmu pmuwzomlumaom weapons coepooncfl mus ncnmucoo has sha umuflm mmumaw Hmamflm HMDMB mo msoaamm m mmmmfioo oeuocmmz new“ menu Asoflbmaamumcoo m_sooE map not has umnflmnm commxo mo xcmb .QH oom xHHE uom cobwupwcop wmmo mco mHoumHm ounfiawo me. 039 was: mafiumoc canopuom RHHm obscomumm omou COst mo .uw om mumubcwosoo boom mmflOflmg MO Nom coeboflooum QSOHU BMWEm WMdSEDm mDOMU APPENDIX J VALUE DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS Name Value Dimensions of Interpersonal Relations 1. I feel that control should be distributed in inter- personal relationships by means of: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 unshared shared control control 2. I feel that trust should be distributed in interpersonal relationships in the following way: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 low high trust trust 3. I feel that personal feelings should be relevant information to be shared in interpersonal relations in the following way: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not important very important or or irrelvant relevant 4. I feel that openness to receiving new information, different points of view from others and reactions from others about your behavior should be distributed in interpersonal relationships in the following way: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not important very important or need to be or need to be guarded or closed open 206 W AAAAA 111111114