THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE FACTORS OF COUNSELOR-CLIENT SOCIAL CLASS SIMILARITY. , EMPA‘I‘HIC UNDERSTANDING, AND FELT .SIMILARITY Thesis fot the Degree of Ph. D. ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Richard E. Lawrence 1965 (mesxs This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE FACTORS OF COUNSELOR-CLIENT SOCIAL CLASS SIMILARITY, EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING, AND FELT SIMILARITY presented by RICHARD E. LAWRENCE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M1_ degree in Education 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE FACTORS OF COUNSELOR-CLIENT SOCIAL CLASS SIMILARITY, EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING, AND FELT SIMILARITY by Richard E. Lawrence This investigation was undertaken for the purpose of learning more about the counselor-client relationship in counseling. Three variables (social class similarity, empathic ability, and felt similarity), were selected following an extensive review of the literature. It was hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between social class similarity and empathic ability, social class similarity and felt similarity, and empathic ability and felt similarity. In order to test the hypotheses, scales were selected that would permit these three variables to be quantified. warner's Index of Status Characteristics (difference score), was chosen as the measure of social class similarity between counselor and client. The choice of the empathic ability scale was more difficult because of the relatively large number available from which to choose. After care- ful consideration, Dymond's Empathic Ability Scale was I‘GI V3] am am mez ma1 8 Ca 001 in the 2 Bidhard E. Lawrence selected. Finally, there was need for'a scale to measure felt similarity (counselor perceived). The Lesser Felt Similarity Scale was selected. To test the hypotheses, a sample of twenty college students from four Michigan colleges and universities was obtained. These students were entering personal ad- Justment counseling and volunteered to participate in the research project. The number of counseling interviews varied from six to thirty-two. When termination was anticipated, the counselor gave the client an envelope of materials including Warner's and Dymond's scales already mentioned and instructions for completing the scales. At this time the counselor also completed his envelope of materials which included warner's, Dymond‘s, and Lesser's scales, plus the necessary instructions. Client and counselor mailed the completed envelopes directly to this ;ihvestigator. The analysis of the data was accomplished by use of the product-moment coefficient of correlation. Fourteen null hypotheses were tested, and all but one was accepted at the 5% level of confidence. There was found to be a significant positive relationship (at the 1% level of confi- dence) between client-rated empathic ability and felt simi- larity as perceived by the counselor. The remainder of the hypotheses revealed either a negative relationship between the variables measured, or no relationship at all. The conclusions drawn from the investigation suggested that at least within the counseling relationship, similar- ity between counselor and client may not lead to under- standing as has been suggested in the literature. THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE FACTORS OF COUNSELOBPCLIENT SOCIAL CLASS SIMILABITY, EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING, AND FELT SIMILARITY By Richard E. Lawrence A THESIS Submitted to MiChigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to a number of people for the successful completion of this study: To Dr. Gregory Miller, this writer's major advisor, for guidance and encouragement; To the members of this writer's committee, Dr. walter thnson, Dr. Donald Lou, and Dr. Charles Hanley for their cooperation and assistance; To other persons too numerous to mention, who provided this writer with technical and statistical assistance; And to this writer's wife, Christine, for patience and understanding. I' * 'I' l- * * 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. PROBIMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 Pumose Of the StudyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Need for the Stud-yea...ooooooooooooooooeooe Statement Of the PrOblem..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Limitations Of the StudyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Operational Definition of Terms............ meoryooooooooooooooooooo00.000000000000000 ResearCh I-IYPOthesesoooooooooooooooooooooooo overvj-ewooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo II. REVIEW OF LITERATMOO0.000000000000000000000 1 \OmUt-P'WNHH O mpathic AbilityOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1o Similarity and Interpersonal Communication. 17 Social Factors and Personality Traits and TendencieSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... 23 smaryOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 27 III. DESIGN OF TIE STIJDYOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 29 sampleOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 29 measuring InStrumentSooooooooooooooooooeooo 3o IqethOd Of COllCCting mtaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 29 Statistical Hypotheses..................... Means of Analysis of Data.................. #3 summaryOOOOOO0....O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO “6 IV. ANALYSIS OF TI-E DATAOOO0.00000000000000000000 1+? ResultBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 1+? smmamoooooeooooooooooooo00000000000000... 56 V0 SIMMABI AND CONCLUSIONSOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 57 smaWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000COOOOO. 57 DiscuBSj-ODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 59 Implications for Future Research........... 61 BmImBAPfl.‘0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 63 APPENDICEOOOO0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 68 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Sex, Age, Academic Level, and Number of Interview Hours for the Constituents of the Client Group........................ 31 3.2 Scales for Making Primary Ratings of Four Status Characteristics..................... 3# #.1 Counselor-rated Empathic Ability (reversed dev1at1°n score)00......OCCCOCCCOOCCOCOCOOO [4'9 u.2 Counselorbrated Empathic Ability (right Score)ooooooooooeoeooooo000.000000000000000 50 4.3 Client-rated Empathic Ability (reversed dev1at10n Score)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 51 u.u Client-rated Empathic Ability (right score).. 52 4.5 Reversed Counselor-Client Social Class BaCRground SimilarityOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 5n 4.6 Felt SimilaritYOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.000.000... 55 iv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Questionnaire for Background Information..... 68 B. Empathic Ability Scale (Client).............. 75 c. Empathic Ability Scale (Counselor)........... so D. Felt Similarity Scale........................ 85 Be Raw Data..................................... 87 CHAPTER I PROBLEM Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to explore certain elements involved in the counselor more fully understanding his client. Specifically, this investigation is concerned with the relationship among selected factors of counselor- client background social class similarity, counselor'and client empathic understanding, and counselor-rated felt similarity. Need for the Study Recently researchers have given considerable thought to elements which might be involved in the process of the counselor understanding his client and means of determining counseling progress, and many investigations have been directed to this end. However, findings concerning the functional meaning and interrelationships of these phenomena to date, have been inconclusive. Moreover, none of these studies have dealt directly with actual counselorbclient similarity of social background. Lesser (27) stated, “The entire area of similarity seems in need of much investigation to add to our theoretical and practical knowledge“ (27, p. 93). Although as mentioned earlier, social class background similarity has not been systematically investigated in the past, other research studies have often referred to the need for inves- tigation of counselor-client similarity. In addition to the void in research noted above, there is almost a total absence of researCh drawing on social psychological theory and findings to postulate the elements or factors involved in the development of empathic ability and aspects of similarity. An understanding of these phenomena is necessary for a holistic appraisal of what happens in the dynamic coun- seling process. Statement of the Problem The problem is three fold: 1. To determine whether or not selected factors of counselor-client social class background similarity are related to the counselor's empathic ability (as measured by the Dymond Empathic Ability Scale). 2. To ascertain the relationship between selected factors of counselor-client social class background similarity and counselor-client social class similarity as perceived by the counselor. 3. To investigate the relationship between the counselor's empathic ability and counselor-client similarity as perceived by the counselor. Limitations of the Study The main aspects of this investigation are limited to college students who were voluntarily involved in personal adjustment counseling at the counseling centers of four Michigan colleges and universities. The counselors involved are more or less oriented toward self-theory and client-centered counseling techniques. The social class factors studied in this investigation are limited to those that have been identified with the Index of Status Characteristics by warmer with the addi- tion of his educational factor. Lastly, such variables as age, sex, education and possibly many other similar variables within the client and counselor groups have not been controlled. Research findings to date, are equivocal regarding the influence of such variables on the counseling relationship. More- over, this study makes no assumptions concerning the factors whidh might influence the development of empathic understanding and felt similarity. Therefore, the importance of controlling these kinds of variables in this investigation is minimized. 1. 2. Operational Definition of Terms _§ounselgr;client background social class similarity has a two—fold definition: (1) a reciprocal of the discrepancy between the counselors' and clients' scores on the Index of Status Characterb istics measurement; and (2) the addition of warner's educational factor used in combination with the Index of Status Characteristics. .A counseling pgrigd is the interim commencing at the onset of counseling and ending with its termination. Empathi9_abilitz’is the imaginative trans- posing of one's self into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and structuring the world as he does. Empathic ability in- volves seeing things from the other person's point-of-view. Operationally, empathic ability is measured by the score obtained on the Dymond Empathic Ability Scale. _§ounselor-rated felt similaritzbis the like- ness and sameness between counselor and client as perceived by the counselor. Oper- ationally, counselor-rated felt similarity is determined by the score obtained on the Lesser Felt Similarity Scale. Theory General. An attempt is made in this investigation to blend the tenets underlying two apparently divergent points-of-view concerning the commonality of motivational factors, attitudinal responses, and emotional experiencing and responsiveness of the human organism. The one group (an example might be phenomenologically oriented theorists). would look within the individual when attempting to underb stand human behavior and to assist the individual to better adjustment. The second group (an example might be theorists who stress social determinism), would look primarily outside the individual, to sudh things as one's environment, in order to gain an understanding of the individual and his behavior. Because of this apparent dilemma, it is deemed necessary to indicate some of the opinions of each group regarding the practicality of such research as is herein proposed. Phenogenological Point-of-View. A careful review of the literature will reveal that much of-the recent research in counseling and psycho- therapy has been undertaken by the Rogerian school (Phenomenologically oriented). The self-concept is one of the chief constructs underlying the work done by Rogers and associates, and self-concept theorists are of necessity, phenomenologically oriented. They believe that 'one cannot understand and predict human behavior without knowledge of the subject's conscious perceptions of his environment and of his self as he sees it in rela- tion to the environment” (#9, p. 6). Phenomenological theory places great emphasis on the uniqueness of the experiences of the individual. The chief motivators of behavior and attitudes, according to self-theorists and phenomenological theorists, lie within what is termed the individual's phenomenal field (49). It is impossible to understand or predict human behavior swithout knowledge of the nature of this phenomenal field, or as Lewin (28) indicates, without knowledge of the in- dividual's psychological environment. Consequently, phenomenologically oriented researchers do not attempt to postulate the cultural constructs responsible for atti- tudinal reactions and emotional states. Rogers (#0) contends that these are not generally considered to be relevant material for the determination of therapeutic progress. Phenomenologically oriented researchers hold that one cannot generalize concerning the effects of environmental stimuli upon the individual's phenomenal field. Although these stimuli might modify the existing phenomenal field, the nature of this modification cannot be predicted by other persons because of the uniqueness‘ of the individual's perception of these stimuli, which is ultimately based upon his already existing self-concept. Empathic ability is held to be a determinant of counseling progress. Yet, empathy is neither suffic- iently defined Operationally, nor is the process and dynamics by which such ability is achieved, fully clari- fied. It is hoped this investigation will shed some light on this problem. Social Deterministic Point-of-View. Some contemporary social psychologists (32, 18, 2h) subscribe to the notion that all behavior, and behavioral and attitudinal tendencies are learned by the individual. This learning takes place as a result of the interaction of social, biological, and general environmental influences. Granted, this is an oversimplification of a complex prin- ciple, but for the purpose of this investigation the overb simplification seems to be sufficient. Self-theorists do not deny this principle, but on the other hand they do not postulate a connection between this and the develOpment of the phenomenal field, a major construct in their theoretical scheme. The social psycholo- gist would probably say that empathic ability is an aspect of social skill and social skills are learned patterns of behavior. If this is the case, then one whould be able to identify, define, and manipulate some of the factors inp volved in the learning process. There will be more on the social psychological point-of-view under the “Review of :Literature' section. Research Hypotheses ‘As will be revealed in the discussion of “Review of the Literature,” previous research findings tend to sugz gest that differences in background social class experiences between two people might lead to a limitation in their ability to deeply understand one another. When viewed with respect to the counseling situation, it is evident that such an inability on the part of the counselor to under- stand his client, or vice versa, might result in problems of communication and ultimately retard counseling progress. The results of previous research, when viewed relative to the theoretical considerations underlying this study, sug- gest certain hypotheses. Taft (#6) believed that background similarity and understanding go hand in hand. Halpern (30) has suggested that understanding of another person is related to the degree of similarity between the two people involved. Consequently, the following hypothesis is advanced: 1. Empathic ability is positively related to counselor-client background social class similarity. ‘wolf and Murray (#8) indicated that background simi- larity seemed to aid one's ability to predict such things as personality variables. They hypothesized that in gen- eral predictability would be improved when the person predicting (the counselor), is similar in background to the other person in the relationship (the client). This hy- pothesis follows: 2. Counselor-client background social class similarity is positively related to felt similarity. Fiedler (12) suggested that when one believes a person thinks and feels as he does and is similar to himself, then his attitude toward him is more friendly and positive and there is greater understanding. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed: 3. The extent to which the counselor feels that his client is similar to himself is positively related to empathic ability. Overview The overall plan of this dissertation is as follows: a review of the literature will be presented in Chapter II; the design of the study will be explained in Chapter III along with a description of the sample, a summary of the measuring instruments, and an explanation of the means of analyzing the data; and analysis of the data will be reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Empathic Ability Historically, a review of literature pertaining to empathic ability dates back to at least the late 1930's. In 1936, Sears (#3) asked fraternity brothers to rate themselves and each other on a number of traits such as stinginess. He found that if one had insight into this trait in himself, he attributed less of it to others. On the other hand, subjects lacking self-insight assigned more extreme ratings to others on a given trait than did subjects possessing this insight. He concluded that self- insight and accurate perception or understanding of others are positively related. In 191:9, Dymond (8) Olmstructed a test of empathy in order to measure the ability of one to understand or empathize with another. This test was composed of four sections. Each of the four sections contained the same six items. In part one, the subject rated himself on a five-point scale for each of the six items. In part two, the subject rated another person on the same scale. In part three, the subject rated another person as he thought 10 11 that person would rate himself. In part four, the subject rated himself as he thought the other person would rate him. . The population consisted of fiftyathree subjects, twenty-nine females and twenty-four males. These fifty- three subjects were divided into five groups of seven perk sons each and three groups of six persons each. Each of these ten groups met once a week to work on a class project. Each of the fifty-three subjects did all four ratings after'his particular group had met three times. The re- sults were significant at the .01 level with respect to predictability. This same procedure was repeated after the groups had completed eight sessions. Slight improve- ment was found but this improvement was not significant at the desired level of confidence. Dymond next took the five highest empathizers (pre- dictors), and gave each the T.A.T. In general, she found that the highest empathizers took the role of the story characters while the low empathizers did not. Dymond then requested each subject to rate himself as to whether or not he was empathic. A poor correlation was found between this self rating and the subject's ability to predict for low empathizers. A high correlation was found for high empa- thizers. Dymond concluded that it would appear as though those Whose empathic ability was high had better insight into the fact that they had such ability, while those whose 12 empathic ability was low had less insight into the fact that their ability was low. Dymond concluded further that self-insight and ability to understand others are positively related. In 1950, Dymond (9) investigated the relationship between personality and empathy. She administered her fourbpart empathy scale to a class and found that females were better predictors than were males. In addition, she discovered that it was more difficult to predict a person who had low empathic ability than a person who had high empathic ability as measured by the scale. Dymond again found a positive relationship between insight and ability to understand others or empathize withothers. Dymond then administered the T.A.T., the Rorschach, the California Ethno-Centrism Test, and the wechsler-Bellevue and found that the low empathizers were rigid, impulsive, infantile, mistrusted others, and were ego-centric, dominating, and insecure, among other things. As a composite group, the high empathizers were just the opposite on all counts. There seems to be then, a relationship between the ability to empathize and various personality descriptions. It could be concluded from these results that the ability to empathize would be found only in certain types of people. A refined empathic ability scale was developed in i952,by Hastorf and Bender (21). One of the main purposes of this scale was to isolate projection from empathy. The (I 13 Allport-Vernon Study of values was administered to fifty subjects. Each of these subjects chose another person whom he knew well and predicted the values that would be obtained on the Allport-Vernon Study of values. A pro- jection score and an empathy score were obtained. The projection score was the difference between the subject's own score and that which he predicted for the other person. The empathy score was the difference between the subject's predicted and the actual score for the predicted person. A total difference score was obtained by summing the item. by-item deviation scores. The basic question that Hastorf and Bender were trying to answer was this: “In attempting to predict_the responses of another person, well known to the predictor, was the prediction closer to the response of the person predicted for (empathy) or was it closer to the predictor's own score (projection)"(21, p. 575)?- Subtracting the sub- ject's "empathy score” from.his "projection score“ provided the answer to this question. The results showed that twenty-eight of the subjects were “projectors,“ twenty were “empathizers." and two were about similar in empa- thizing and projection. In the extreme cases when comparing their subjects' responses to the responses of those whom they predicted, the ten “projectors” were more similar to their associates than were the ten "empathizers.“ The authors concluded by saying, "The results of this study 19 emphasize the fact that part of the successful prediction of another person's responses may be due to projection rather than empathy, and a refined measure of empathic ability will approximate more adequately the psychological aspects of empathic when it is defined as 'transposing one's self into theifidnking, feeling and acting of another and so structuring the world as he does"‘(21, p. 5?6).‘ Bender and Hastorf (2), reaffirmed their earlier viewpoint in their 1953 study. Their contention had been that if a subject and his associate were highly similar, the subject who projects would be given spurious credit for empathic ability. A forty-two item form cnncerning feelings and attitudes was administered to fifty students. Each of these subjects predicted the responses of four friends, who also filled out the form. (A raw empathy score, a simid larity score, a refined empathy score, and a projection score were obtained. The results showed that there was a high correlation between the actual similarity and the raw empathy score of the two subjects; but refined empathy (empathy minus projection), was independent of the simi- larity between the two subjects. A second finding was that a positive correlation was found between projection and raw empathy while a negative correlation was found between projection and refined empathy. It seems then that the presence or absence of a correlation between these scores of empathy and projection is actually predetermined, or 15 built into the scores. Gage and Cronbach (17) also pointed out that Bender and Hastorfts correction procedure for obtaining the “refined empathy“ results in cancelling out those items in which the predictor is actually similar to those whom he is predicting. They believe that Bender and Hastorf clearly did not arrive at an accurate independent measure of assumed similarity and real similarity. Gage and Cron- bach further show that individual differences in prediction are less strongly determined by differences in assumed similarity than by differences in accuracy of prediction. One's ability to understand another person depends upon the degree of favorability toward the other, plus the predic- tor's “implicit personality theory which is based on his own prior experiences'(17, p. 395).“ Gage and Cronbach thus suggest that the :positiveness of one's feelings toward another, plus the effects of one's background and resulting view of people combined to produce understanding or what we might call empathy. Two years later, in 1955, Hastorf, Bender, and Hein- traub (22) investigated again the concept of “refined empathy.“ Subjects marked a questionnaire for themselves and for those whom they predicted according to certain patterns of response. There was a relationship manifest between a person's responses and his choice of the type of associate whose questionnaire he predicted. These authors 16 found that a subject received a high refined empathy score, not necessarily because of his empathic ability, but be- cause of his pattern of response and the particular pattern of response of the associate whom he chose. This would suggest that the ”refined empathy” score was still an un- satisfactory measurement of empathic ability. The research that has just been discussed does not reveal any clear answer to the questions: What is empathy? and, How is it measured? The results were inconsistent and there are many ramifications and possible meanings of the test results. In 1958, Lesser (27) used the stort method to assess counseling progress and found that empathic understanding was not related to counseling progress. Lesser concluded that perhaps a maximum of empathic under- standing is not necessarily most conducive to counseling progress. Others have felt similarily; namely, that some tension is necessary for the purpose of motivating the patient or client to work through his problems. Another of Lesser's findings was that the clients continuing in counseling appeared to be better understood by their counselors; however, clients who terminated showed greater progress. One possible conclusion is that empathic understanding may hold a client but may not necessarily help him. From the numerous studies discussed in the preceding pages, it is quite evident that empathy, as related to psychotherapy, is not clearly understood and to a great extent still remains an unsolved mystery. 1? Similarity and Interpersonal Communication Helpern (19) administered a personality trait inven- tory to thirty-eight female nursing students. Each stup dent was asked to predict the test performance of five other students, two of whom were most similar to herself, two least similar, and one in the middle with respect to similarity to herself. Each subject was also asked to indicate whether or not she was pleased with herself on each of the personality characteristics on the inventory. The results were as follows: 1. 5. More accurate predictions were made for those who were similar to the subjects than those dissimilar. Greater predictive accuracy was found on those items which the subject and the person Whom she predicted marked similarly than on items they marked differently. A greater accuracy of prediction occurred on those items with which the subject was pleased with herself than on those which she was dissatisfied with herself. There was no difference in accuracy of prediction between those who were simi- lar to the subject and those dissimilar to the subject on items which the sub- ject and the person whom she predicted marked differently (nonconcordant items). There was no correlation between the ability to predict on nonconcordant items and the overall ability to predict. Halpern discussed the results, and he seemed to feel that they were not necessarily due to consciously attri- buting one's feelings to others, but that a subject might more easily recognize patterns of behavior and feelings 18 in others if he had experienced them himself. The import- ant consideration here seems to be that similarity between people is related to their understanding of the other per» son involved. R.D. Normal (33) compared the relationships among acceptance-rejection, self-other identity, insights into the self, and the realistic perceptions of others by the use of a rating scale. Normal found positive correlations between self-other identity and insight, and between self- other identity and a realistic perception of others. Normal concluded that others appear to be judged by analogy with ourselves, and the less valid the analogy, then the less accurate the judgment. .A subsequent study was performed by Notcutt and Silva (34). In this investigation, sixty-four married couples were each given a self-rating scale. They were asked to make pre- dictions for their spouses. The results seemed to indicate that the predictions made were significantly greater than what would have occurred by chance alone. Notcutt and Silva concluded that successes were greater on items in which subjects rated themselves similarly; in other words, peOple are better judges of those like themselves. Still another type of study was conducted by wolf and Murray (#8). Five judges met with subjects for a forty-five minute group session. Each of the subjects were marked on forty personality variables. After a 19 thorough discussion within the group, each judge marked himself and the other judges on the forty personality variables, and a score for each judge was determined by averaging his own rating and the ratings of the other four judges who had rated him. These average scores were then compared with the ratings the judges had given the fifteen subjects. wolf and Murray concluded that a person can only understand that which he has already experienced. These results tend to support the results of other studies in which similarity seemed to aid predictability. There is a further implication; namely, that similarity of response suggests similarity of background and results in greater ability toward understanding the person involved - the client. These latter two views are expressed quite vividly by Hollingshead and Redlich (23) in connection with psychiatric treatment. They'state, “All too often, psychotherapy runs into difficulties when the therapist and the patient be- long to different classes. In these instances, the values of the therapist are too divergent from those of the patient and communication becomes difficult between them' (23, p. 3u5). The psychiatrists interviewed were irritated, as a group, by their lower class patients' inability to think in their terms. Hollingshead and Bedlich indicate that social class difference leads to a lack of understanding between patient and therapist. They further point out that this 20 appears to be a major reason why neurotic patients in the two lower classes of the group they studied dropped out of treatment much faster than did those in the higher classes. The authors continue, ' . . . the values of the therapist and patient need not be alike or even similar; they merely cannot be too far apart socially and paycho- logically unless the therapist has a real and sympathetic understanding of the patient's class culture' (23, p. 3&7). Fiedler (12) used a stort of seventy-five statements and asked trained judges to rate the relationship between therapists and clients after listening to a number of tapes. Despite the theoretical orientation of the thera- pist (that is Rogerian, Adlerian, or psychoanalytic), experts from each of these schools showed empathic under- standing toward the patient. In other words, they were sensitive to the patient's feelings, while nonexperts were swayed more by their own needs. Fiedler listed three main dimensions for describing patient-therapist relationships: 1. The therapist's ability to communicate with, and to understand, the patient. 2. The emotional distance of the therapist toward the patient. 3. The status of the therapist in relation to the patient. In a subsequent study, Fiedler (13) asked one patient to do a self-sort and twenty-two therapists attempted to predict this patient's self-sort. The self-sort and an 21 ideal self-sort was also done by a therapist. Four rather interesting correlations wereobtained: 1. Patient and therapist self-sort. 2. Therapist self-sort and his patient prediction stort. 3. The therapist ideal self-sort and the patient's self-sort. u. The therapist's ideal self-sort and his prediction of the patient's sort. Supervisors then were called in to rate the therapists as to their ability. Godd therapists, as rated by their supervisors, showed an empathic attitude toward their clients and seemed to understand their clients' feelings. In addition, they seemed to see their patients as being similar to themselves,andt inferentially, used this simi- larity to advance the therapeutic process. These findings and views by Fiedler support the ideas of Hollinghead and Bedlich as they were summarized earlier. ‘Fiedler and Senior (14) further studied the patient- therapist relationship. These authors decided that each of the two persons in a therapeutic situation is part consciously and part unconsciously aware of the other's feelings. The hypothesis of the investigation was, ' . . . the attitudes which one of the two participants had toward himself and toward the other'person will be meaningfully related to the attitudes held by the second person'. (in, p. ##6). Each of the persons did a self-sort 22 and an ideal self-sort, and each sorted as he thought either the therapist or the patient had sorted himself. The findings of this study were five in number: 1. Better therapists as ranked by their supervisors, are better able to pre- dict their patients' self—sort than are poor therapists. 2. Better therapists are not as self- satisfied as poor therapists. 3. The better therapist is seen by the patient as more ideal than.he really is. 9. The more self-satisfied the thera- pist, the poorer predictor he is. 5. The greater the similarity of the therapist to the patient's ideal, the less the therapist tends to like or empathize with his patients (25. p- 449). These results suggest that actual similarity between a therapist and a client is less important for a thera- pist's understanding of the client than the therapist's feeling of similarity. In addition, a close relationship between the therapist's ideal self and the client's real self seemed to result in less misunderstanding on the part of the therapist. Fiedler (13) indicated that he feels "assumed simi- larity“ by the therapist for his patient, suggests a posi- tive attitude by the therapist toward that patient. In other words, when one believes that a person thinks and feels as he does, then one's attitudes toward him tend to be friendly and positive. Better therapists, therefore, 23 appear to have warmer feelings and more liking for their clients than do less competent therapists. Social Factors and Personality Traits and Tendencies Sears (#4) wrote that the status level of a family in a social hierarchy determines the particular mode of child- rearing which is conventionally followed. Earner (#7) tended to agree with this notion after considering the results obtained from his studies of the social class in America. Gist and Halbert (18) have suggested that differ» ences in child-rearing practices can result in the develop— ment of differential social aptitudes on the part of the children. The above comments are only a few that suggest a close relationship between status and personality traits. There are many other social factors which act as deters minants of the type of interpersonal attitudes which even- tually become organized into the personality structure. Miller and Swainson (31) indicated that the scOpe of early socialization includes more informal and probably more effective training by the age peers. These authors continue, “from such diverse learning experiences with specific patterns of identification they produce, their gradually emerge differences in expressive styles, ego-defense systems, and moral control” (31, p. 61). Seward (45) demonstrated some of the relationships referred to by Miller and Swainson with selective subcultures 24 in contemporary United States. She found definable differences in personality characteristics and expressive tendencies between individuals Who were reared in, and who were members of, different subcultures. Social and cultural factors command increasing consideration in the area of psychiatric treatment. Opler (35) conducted numerous studies into the effects of sub- cultural and social experiences upon personality develop- ment. He indicated that few psychiatrists formally study social psychology and culture and " . . . fewer still utilized such knowledge in therapy. As for schools of thought, one can mention Myerian Psychiatry, for example, in which the various 'psychological' or biological and cultural factors were constantly_alluded to, as if for some plan of research . . .' (35, p. 125). Opler has considered the work of such neofreudians and ego-psychologists as Horney, Sullivan, Kardiner, Meyer, Fromm, and Hartmann and concluded that culture is not an empty abstract in human affairs inasmuch as a specific culture contains and includes all the substances of meaning by which a particular people understand and perceive experiences. Opler continued, “As such, it guides activity, forms sentiments, and motivates strivings in special channels according to sex, age, kinship, class, and other relationships it specifically ordains' (35. p. 126). Many years ago, in 1937, Karen Horney (25) became very 25 interested and profoundly influenced by tenets underlying status and culture and how they related to personality theories. At that time she began her almost literal trans- lations of neurotic syndromes from generalized cultural pictures and pictures of modern American Society. She observed in neurotic personalities that neuroses develop and are generated by ”specific cultural conditions” under which we live. Opler (36) used several cultural factors for the purpose of determining some of the social factors which might have entered into the dynamic personality picture of his schizophrenic subjects. Some of the more important factors which he isolated were intergenerational conflicts, environmentally imposed racial conflicts, the pace of acculturation in different cultural groups, and child rearing practices. From his findings, he concluded: "we find their (schiZOphrenics) problems of intergener- atmonal conflict and acculturation less related to class as such than to ethnic subcultural problems interwoven with class membership and to the whole spectrum of values - conflicts correlative to social and cultural change. These factors become important when apsychiatrist attempts to understand a particular patient, or a group of patients - their value systems, experiences, and symbolic communica- tions, verbal and nonverbal” (36, p. 127). 26 Honigmann (2h) discussed the factors affecting per- sonality patterns and indicated that socially and cul- turally imposed intercultural behavioral patterning affects the child's development of interpersonal characteristics and tendencies and capacities which become aSpects of the adult personality. Family relations become a prototype of interpersonal behavior. The implication is that if the family is characterized by distant relationships, the child is likely to be inclined to develop a characteristically distant attitude toward interpersonal relations. Relating this to the counseling situation, such an adult personality would probably find it difficult to relate to the thera- pist who has been conditioned by his experiences to be socially outgoing and warm. Peers and cultural surrogates also exert significant influences upon the development of interpersonal attitudes on the part of the child. Mitchell (32) conducted one of the very few studies which attempted to relate status and cultural background similarities between client and counselor to the thera- peutic relationship. He found that differences between client and counselor with respect to their social status led the therapist to misunderstand many of the dynamics and aptitudes of the client. He indicated that due to such misunderstandings, therapy was unsuccessful many times. On the other hand, progress in therapy was ob- served in the same case after a period of therapy with 27 another therapist. This study disclosed information which closely supported the main tenets underlying the current investigation. Although it would be difficult to prove that counselor-client understanding preceded and was a necessary element before therapeutic progress could be a reality, it does seem that this understanding between client and counselor was at least one factor. Further, it seems that the similarity in terms of social status factors contributed a great deal to this understanding. Gist and Halbert (18) found that the urban resident was more tolerant than his rural counterpart when it comes to persons who differ from him in race, nationality, or point-of-view. Again, the implication is present that social status differences can cause difficulty, when the differences between counselor and client background are markedly different. Summary The review of pertinent literature contained articles in three subject areas: empathic ability, similarity and interpersonal communication, and social factors and para sonality traits and tendencies. The meaning of empathy, as related to psychotherapy, has not been consistently and clearly defined in the research. It has been defined operationally by many different researchers, but the re- sults of these studies are inconclusive. Similarity of 28 background has been found to aid in understanding and in interpersonal communication, lastly, there seems to be a close relationship between social factors such as status and certain personality traits. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY SAMPLE The subjects consisted of students involved in per- sonal adjustment counseling and their counselors at the four Michigan colleges and universities mentioned earlier. Four of the seven counselors were individuals with Ph.D. degrees and three were Ph.D. candidates. All except one of the counselors had completed at least three years of experience in active personal adjustment-type coun. seling. All the counselors were, at least to some extent, oriented toward the self-theory and client-centered coune seling concepts and techniques. Six of the counselors were male and one was female. Six of the counselors were American-born Caucasians, and the remaining one was American-born and of the Negro race. The client group consisted of twenty individuals, twelve females and eight males. Eighteen of the clients were undergraduate students, and two were graduate students enrolled at four Michigan colleges and universities. The range in age was from 19 to 36 years, with only three of 29 30 the individuals exceeding the age of 25. Hours spent in counseling ranged from six to thirty-two. Table 3.1 presents the sex, age, academic level, and the number of hours spent in counseling for each of the twenty indi- viduals. Measuring Instruments Three measuring instruments were used in this study. These instruments included: (1) an instrument for the assessment of counselor-client social class similarity: (2) an instrument for the measurement of the counselor's ability to understand his client; and (3) an instrument for the purpose of measuring the extent to which the coun- selor feels that he is similar to his client. The first of these instruments was a part of a larger instrument constructed for the purpose of this and another investi- gation (5). This procedure will be discussed thoroughly in this section. The latter two techniques have been standardized or used by previous investigators and will be discussed only briefly. The Technique for Assessing Counselor-Client Social Class Similarity. The Questionnaire. {A questionnaire was constructed to assess background information which would lend itself to the classification scheme embraced by Warner's Index 31 Table 3.1. Sex, Age, Academic Level, and Number of Interview Hours for the Constituents of the Client Group Number of Client Academic Counseling Number Sex Age Level Interviews 1 Male 27 MA (Ph.D. Candidate) 32 2 Male 25 MA (Ph.D. Candidate) 28 3 Male 20 Junior in College 21 4 Male 25 Senior in College 6 5 Female 22 Senior in College 16 6 Female 20 Junior in College 16 7 Female 21 Junior in College 17 8 Female 24 Senior in College 6 9 Female 19 Junior in College 10 10 Female 21 Senior in College 8 11 Female 22 Junior in College 7 12 Female 21 Junior in College 7 13 Male 22 Senior in College 10 14 Female 22 Senior in College 15 15 Female 22 Sophomore in College 32 16 Male 36 Second year Special Student 24 17 Male 30 Second year Special Student 16 18 Female 20 Senior in College 15 19 Male 21 Senior in College 14 20 Female 22 Senior in College 6 32 of Status Characteristics (I.S.C.). Additional infor- mation was obtained by this questionnaire (information not needed to obtain this 1.8.0.), but such was not in- cluded in this study. _Ipdgx of Status Characteristics. Warnen (47) in his Yankee City study, analyzed evaluated participation of individuals in the social class hierarchy. He asked in- dividuals in the community to assign social classes to other constituent individuals. The assumption was that meaningful social class differentials in America lie within the perception of individuals with respect to who falls into what class. Social class differentials (socio& economic aSpects such as wealth and style of life), exist in America to the extent that they are perceived by the individuals who constitute various differential groups. warner examined the Yankee City material for the purpose of discovering what social characteristics correlated most highly with class as determined by evaluated participation. He then separated participation from social class charac- teristics and develOped a seven-point scale for the iso- lated characteristics. The final technique was to yield an index of status characteristics. The correlation of the various characteristics was undertaken to discover the relative importance with respect to a class criterion. The charcteristics were weighted accordingly. warmer states, “The index of status characteristics as a 33 measurement of social class is positive on two prOpositions: that economic and other prestige factors are highly impor- tant and closely correlated with social class; and that these social and economic factors such as talent, income, and money, if their potentialities for rank are to be realized, must be translater into social-class behavior acceptable to the members of any given social level of the community“ (47, p. 39). warner isolated four status characteristics and called these occupation, source of income, house-type, and dwelling area. The scales for making primary ratings of these characteristics are listed in Table 3.2. To obtain the Index of Status Characteristics, the ratings are emultiplied by the following weights: Occupation.....t...4 Source of Income...3 House Type.........3 Dwelling Area......2 The Index yields perceived social class status inas- much as the characteristics were obtained by means of evaluated participation. This Index, therefore, has rele- vance to how a person sees himself in his social class and ultimately to the development of social attitudes and self-concept. As warner puts it: "The most important fact to remember about using 1.3.0. as a measurement of social class is that, in order for it to be a reliable instrument and an accurate index of social class, each of the four characteristics and the points in their scales I ! Rakes! i 34 in medium condition; apartments in regup lar apartment buildings Table 3.2. Scales for Making Primary Ratings of Four Status Characteristics Status Status Characteristic Characteristic and Rating Definition and Eating Definition Occupation: Original Scale House Type: (continued) 1. Professionals and Pro- 5. Small houses in good prietors of large condition; small ‘businesses houses in medium 2. Semiprofessionals and condition; dwellings smaller officials of over stores large businesses 6. Medium-sized houses 3. Clerks and kindred in bad condition; workers small houses in bad 4. Skilled workers condition 5. Proprietors of small 7. All houses in very businesses bad condition; 6. Semiskilled workers dwellings in struc- 7. Unskilled workers tures not intended for homes originally Source of Income: House Type: Revised Scale 1. Inherited wealth 2. Earned wealth 1. Excellent houses 3. Profits and fees 2. Very good houses . Salary 2. Good houses 5. Wages . Average houses 6. Private relief 5. Fair houses 7. Public relief and 6. Poor houses nonrespectable income 7. Very poor houses House Type: Original Scale Dwelling Area: 1. Large houses in good 1. Very high; Gold Coast, condition NOrth Shore, etc. 2. Large houses in medium 2. High; the better condition; medium- suburbs and apart- sized houses in good ment house areas, condition houses with spacious 3. Large houses 11 bad yards, etc. condition 3. Above average; areas 4. Medium-sized houses all residential, larger than average Space around houses; apartment areas in good condition, etc. 35 Table 3.2. (continued) Status Status Characteristics Characteristic and Rating Definition and Rating Definition __ ‘— Dwelling Area: (continued) 4. Average, residential neighborhoods, no deterioration in the area 5. Below average; areas not quite holding their own, beginning to deteriorate, busi- ness entering, etc. 6. Low; considerably deteriorated, run down and semislum 7. Very low; slum must reflect how American feels and think about the relative worth of each job, source of income which supports them, and an evaluation of their’houses in the neighborhoods in which they live. For it is not the house, or the job, or the income, or the neighborhood that is being measured so much as the evaluations that are in the backs of all of our heads - evaluations placed there by our cultural tradition and our society. From one point of view, the four charac- teristics - house, occupation, income, and neighborhood - are no more than evaluated symbols which are signs of status telling us the class levels of those who possess the symbols. By measuring the symbols, we measure the relative worth of each; and by adding up their several 'worths,‘ reflecting diverse and complex economic and social values, we set a score which tells us what we think and feel about . . ‘H 411...! (u: f. D 7"“1 36 the worth of a man's social participation, meaning essen- tially that we are measuring his Evaluated Participation or social class” (47, p. 40). It becomes quite clear at this point that the tenets underlying the Index of Status Characteristics are not at variance, but in fact are quite similar to the tenets inherent in the major concepts which serve as the basis for the present study (i.e., the cnncept relative to fac- tors which enter.into the development of the self- structure and the concept of the influence of social fac- tors upon the development of interpersonal attitudes and understandings as they relate to therapy). This question- naire is found in the appendix. ‘Egpathic Ability Scale. Egasagiy As can be clearly seen from the research cited in the section "Review ofoiterature,' many attempts have been made to develOp a measure of empathic underb standing between counselor and client. These date back to at least 1949, and included studies by Rosalind Dymond; H.C. Lindgren (29); I.E; Bender (2); A.H. Hastorf (21); N.L. Gage (16); and L.J. Cronbach (7). Although some of these investigators have developed what they called 're— fined empathy,“ contrasting it with Dymond's original Ecale, there are many drawbacks and shortcomings from their research efforts. After reviewing all of the 37 studies in detail, it was decided by this investigator to use Dymond's scale of empathic understanding which was developed in 1949, and has been used numerous times since. Inasmuch as Dymond's scale was rather completely discussed in an earlier section, it does not seem necessary to go into any detailed explanation at this point except for a very short summary. Empathy, for Dymond, was "imaginative transposing of one's self into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so structuring the world as he does” (8). Dymond used such traits as self- confidence, superiority-inferiority, selfish-unselfish, friendly-unfriendly, leader-follower, and sense of humor as traits or characteristics which seemed to underlie empathic ability. The scale, it will be recalled, con- sists of four parts, each containing six items. A five- point scale was used which extended from, as an example, quite superior to quite inferior. Two people (a counselor and a client), must be involved and a rating of the coun- selor's empathic ability can be derived by calculating how closely his predictions of the client's ratings correspond with the client's actual ratings. The opposite would be done if the client's empathic ability was of interest. In conclusion, this inventory by Dymond seemed to do the best job of measuring what is called "empathic ability” (seeing things from the other person's point-of-view). a 1E§1 38 Scoring Procedure. Dymond (8) has used two scoring procedures, a deviation score and a “right score.” The deviation score is found by totaling the number of points the individual is in error in his prediction, disregarding sign. The'right score? indicates the number of right pre- dictions (a right prediction is one that coincides exactly with the actual rating). For Test I on the original group used by Dymond for standardization purposes, the range for the deviation score was from 37-70 with a mean of 51.3 and a standard deviation of 8.0. The ”right score” for the same test had a range of 18-39 with a mean of 28.8 and a standard deviation of 6.5. For the purposes of this investigation, both of these means of scoring will be used so as to be able to compare the results. Felt Similarity. The felt similarity scale selected was a scale developed by Lesser (27) in an unpublished doctoral dissertation in 1958. His investigation has also been discussed more fully under the ”Review of Literature“ and will be dealt with only briefly at this time. Felt sinilarity, as judged by the counselor, was defined as the closeness or the degree of likeness between counselor and client. Seven statements such as 'in many ways I am quite similar to this client“ and “it is amazing how similarly this client and I view the world} were used. The seven point scale, from least through most like me, was used. The scoring of this scale 39 is simply an additive procedure with the lowest sum indicating least like me and the highest sum most like me. This scale rates only the counselor's felt simi- larity in relation to his client. For the complete scale and the instructions given to the counselor, refer to the appendix. Method of Collecting Data The data reported were collected in conjunction with a second project dealing with the effect of counselor- client cultural background similarity upon counseling progress. For the purpose of the second project, an in_ strument for the assessment of the degree of personal adjustment was given before and at the termination of therapy. The results of this instrument do not fall within the scope of this study and have been reported elsewhere (5). In addition to the instrument for assessing the degree of personal adjustment, the felt similarity scale, the empa- thic ability scale, and the questionnaire for assessing social class data were administered at the termination of therapy. Letters were written and personal contacts were made with counselors at four Michigan colleges and universities - Michigan State University, Ferris State College, Central Michigan University, and western Michigan University. Counselors who agreed to participate in this investigation were asked to provide as many clients as possible within 40 a given period of time. The criteria for selecting clients included the following: 1. Client must be enrolled in college; 2. Client is voluntarily seeking counseling; 3. Counseling was to be of the personal adjustment type; 4. The nature of the problem indicated that the period of counseling would include at least four interviews;and 5. Client must avail himself to the study without reservations. Several of the counselors who agreed to participate in the study found they were unable to provide clients during the designated period, who met all five require- ments listed previously. At the termination of counseling the counselor was asked to give the client an envelope containing the empa- thic ability scale, the questionnaire for assessing social class information, and the instrument for assessing the degree of personal adjustment (the inclusion of the latter instrument has been previously explained), (5). Also included in the client's envelope was a set of general instructions and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The client was instructed to take the material home, complete it, and mail the completed forms and scales to the inves- tigator. The following were the instructions placed in 41 the client's envelope: This is your second and final envelope of materials to be filled out and mailed to 118. You will note that some of the material is the same as before. Again, we solicit your sincerity and honesty while filling out the enclosed material. It is important that you follow these steps (in the order listed). 1. 10. Take the inventory marked No. 1 from the envelope (put all other materials aside and do not open them for any reason until you have completed Inventory No. 1. Read the instructions on the cover of Inventory No. 1. Turn the page and begin. After you.have completed Inven- tory No. 1, seal it with the seal provided. Read the instructions on Inven- tory No. 2 (do not open the others). Turn the page and begin. After you.have completed Inven- tory No. 2, seal it and put it aside. Read the instructions for Inven- tory No. 3. Complete and seal it as in the case of Nos. 1 and 2. After'having completed all three of the mimeographed inventories, complete the ”Study of values' booklet. (Read the directions on Page 2 of the booklet before beginning). Complete the "Empathic Ability Scale.” 42 11. Fill out the “Questionnaire for Background Information.“ 12. You may complete all of the material in one day or you may do so in two days. However, you should not stop while doing a given test. If you desire to take a break, do so between tests. 13. Please complete the material within two days after you receive it and mail it immedp lately. A stamped envelope is provided for this purpose. 14. Before mailing, please check to be certain that all of the material has been completed. Please put your name on all of the material. Again, we would like to remind you that the information you submit will be seen only by the twb persons directly involved in the research project. Thank you.again for your cooperation. The counselor also received an envelope at this point. His envelope contained the scale for the assessment of social class information, the empathic ability scale, the felt similarity scale, and the instrument for assessing the degree of personal adjustment. A final visit was made to the counselors for the pur- pose of obtaining from them the record form, and other information the counselor was able to provide relative to the therapeutic situation. Special thanks were extended to the counselors for the part they played in the study. 43 Statistical Hypotheses Nullfigypothegis I. Empathic ability and social class background simi- larity are either negatively related or'not related. ‘Alternate Hypothesis IA. Empathic ability and social class similarity are positively related. Null Hypothesis II. Social class background similarity and felt similarity are either negatively related or not related. Alternate Hypothesis IIA. Social class similarity and felt similarity are positively related. Null Hypothesis III. Felt similarity and empathic ability are either negatively related or not related. Alternate Hypgthesis IIIA. Felt similarity and empa- thic ability are positively related. means of Analysis of Data The normality of each distribution investigated in this study was assumed. Product-moment coefficients of correlation were obtained on several distributions and in these cases independence, linearity of regression, and equal intervals were assumed. The following correlations were obtained: 1. The relationship between social 3. class without the education factor and empathic ability (deviation score), was obtained by a product-nmoment correlation between the measures of social class simi- larity and: (A) Empathic understandingaclient and“ (B) Empathic understanding-counselor. The relationship between social class simi- larity including education and empathic ability (deviation score), was obtained by product moment correlation between the meas urea: of social class similarity with edup cation and: (A) Empathic understandingbclient and: (B) Enpathic understanding-counselor. The relationship between social class similar- ity without education and empathic ability (right score), was obtained by a product moment correlation between the measures of social class similarity without educa- tion and: (A) Empathic understanding-client and» (B) Empathic understanding-counselor. The relationship between social class simi- larity with education and empathic underb standing (right score), was obtained by a 6. 45 product moment correlation between the measures of social class similarity in- cluding education and: (A) Empathic understanding-client and; (B) Enpathic understanding -counse1or. The relationship between social class simi- larity without education and counselor felt similarity was obtained by a product-moment correlation between measures of these two variables. The relationship between social class similaru ity including education and counselor felt similarity was obtained by product-moment correlation between the measures of these two variables. The relationship between the counselor felt similarity and empathic ability (deviation score), was obtained by a product-moment correlation between the measures of counse- lor felt similarity and: (A) Empathic understanding-client and (B) Empathic understanding-counselor. The relationship between the counselor felt similarity and empathic ability(right score), was obtained by a product—moment correlation between the measures of counselor felt 46 similarity and: (A) Empathic understanding-client and (B) Empathic understanding-counselor. Summary In this chapter the design of the study was presented. The sample consisted of 20 college students in personal adjustment counseling at four colleges and universities in Michigan. Three measuring instruments were used: warner's Index of Status Characteristics; the Dymond Empathic Ability Scale; and the Lesser Felt Similarity Scale. Data was collected from counselors and their clients, all of whom voluntarily participated in the re- search. Fourteen statistical hypotheses were drawn from the theoretical hypotheses. Analysis of the data will be accomplished by use of the product-moment correlation of coefficient. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS or THE DATA Product-moment correlation coefficients were obtained for each of the desired pairing of variables. The hypothe- sis that the population correlation was zero was tested, and the level of confidence for accepting or rejecting the null hypotheses with Nez degrees of freedom was pa .378 at the 5% level and p= .516 at the 1% level.* Each nullhvpothesis is presented in the subsequent pages of this chapter, followed by a short discussion of the findings. Further discussion of the findings and their implications will be undertaken in Chapter V. Résults amt; Hypothesis _1. Empathic ability and social class similarity are positively related. Null Hypothesis 1A. The counselorbrated empathic ability score (reverse** deviation score), and the reversed __ _ .- *Unless otherwise specified all statements of signifi- cance will be at the 5% level of confidence. **The term ”reversed” will be used on several occasions in subsequent pages of this study. It is used to describe the process of reassigning raw score values so that all of the null hypotheses may be written using the same general 47 48 counselor-client Index of Status Characteristics (exe cluding the education factor) difference score, are either negatively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.1. There was, in fact, a significant negative relationship between coun- selor empathic ability and social class similarity, as defined above. Null Hipothesis 18. The counselorbrated empathic ability score (reversed deviation score), and the reversed counselor-client Index of Status Characteristics (including the education factor)difference score, are either negati- vely related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.1. A signif- icante negative relationship between counselor empathic ability and social class similarity, as defined in the null hypothesis, was found. Null Hypothesis 19. The counselorbrated empathic ability score. (right score), and the reversed counselor-client Index of Status Characteristics (excluding the education factor) difference score, are either negatively related or not related. form. The subject with the highest score receives the lowest and so on down until the last subject (one with lowest score) is assigned the highest corresponding number. An example is given in Appendix E. 49 Table 4.1. Counselorbrated Empathic Ability (reversed deviation score) *— E====2 Product-moment Null Hypothesis; variables Correlation Significance Accepted or Coefficients Rejected Reversed coun.- Not significant client social at the 5% level class;bkgd. of confidence sim. s educ.* r=-.57 Accepted Reversed coun.- NOt significant client social at the 5% level class _bkgd. of confidence Accepted sim. c educ.* r=-.53 - _— *The following abbreviations will be used in each of the tables in this chapter: coun. - counselor; bkgd. - back- ground; sim. - similarity; educ. - education; s - without; and'E - with. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.2. Counselor empathic ability and social class similarity were negatively related, and this relationship was found to be significant. Null Hypothesis 1D. The counselorbrated empathic abil- ity score. (right score), and the reversed counselor- client Index of Status Characteristics (including the education factor) difference score, are either negatively related or not related. ' Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.2. There was 50 Table 4.2. Counselorbrated Empathic Ability (right score) W Product-moment Null Hypothesis; variables Correlation Significance Accepted or Coefficients Rejected Reversed ‘ Nd: significant coun.-client at the 5% ldvel social class of confidence. ‘ngd. sim. s educ. r=-.62 ‘ Accepted Reversed Not significant coun.-client at the 5% level social class of confidence. bkgd. sim. . O educ. r=- .58 Accepted _ h a significant negative relationship between counselor empa- thic ability and social class similarity as defined and limited in the above null hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 13. The client-rated.empathic ability score. (reversed deviation score), and the reversed counselor- client Index of Status Characteristics (excluding the education factor) difference score, are either negatively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.3. A signi- ficant negative relationship was discovered between the variables of client empathic ability and social class similarity as specified above. 51 Table 4.3. Client-rated Empathic Ability (reversed deviation score) Product-moment Null Hypothesis; variables Correlation Significance Accepted or Coefficients Rejected Reversed Not s ignif icant coun.-client at the 5% level of social class confidence ‘Ekgd. sim s educ. r=-.57 Accepted Reversed Not significant coun.-client at the 5% level social class of confidence 2kgd. sim c educ. r=-.48 ' Accepted ‘Null Hypothesis 1F. The client-rated empathic abil- ity score. (reversed deviation score), and the reversed counseloruclient Index of Status Characteristics (including the education factor) difference score, are either nega- tively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.3. Client empathic ability and social class similarity were found to be significantly negatively related as these variables were defined above. Null Hypothesis 1G. The client-rated empathic ability (right score), and the reversed counselor-client Index of Status Characteristics (excluding the education factor) 52 difference score, are either negatively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.4. There was, in fact, a significant negative relationship found between client empathic ability and social class simi- larity as Specified in null hypothesis 7. Table 4.4. Client-rated Empathic Ability (right score) Product-moment Null Hypothesis Variables Correlation Significance Accepted or Coefficients Rejected Reversed Not significant counpclient at the 5% level social class of confidence 2kgdo 81m. 8 educ. r=-.57 Accepted Reversed Not significant coun.-client at the 5% level social class of confidence bkgd. sim. c educ. r=-.55 Accepted —_‘_H L.— - _— Null Hypgthesis 1H. The client-rated empathic abil- ity; (right score), and the reversed counselor-client Index of Status Characteristics (including the education factor) difference score, are either negatively related or not related. 53 Findings. The null hypothesis regarding client empathic ability and social class similarity was accep- ted. Interestingly enough, there was a significant negative relationship found between these two variables. Alternate Hypothesis 2 . Social class similarity and felt similarity are positively related. Null Hypothesis 2A. The reversed counselorbclihnt Index of Status Characteristics (excluding the education factor) difference score. and the felt similarity score, are either negatively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.5. Felt simi- larity score and social class similarity (as defined above), were found not to be related to one another. .EEll Hypothesis 2F. The reversed counselor-client Index of Status Characteristics (excluding the education factor) difference score; and the felt similarity score, are either negatively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.5. Social class similarity and felt similarity (as defined in the above hypothesis), were found not to be related to one another. Alternataflpothesiu. Felt similarity and empathic ability are positively related. 54 Table 4.5. Reversed Counselor—Client Social Class Background Similarity _ _— Product- Product- moment moment Correlation Correlation Variable Coefficients Significance Coefficients Significance —— # Felt Not signifi- Not signifi- Sim. r= .02 cant at the P= .06 cant at the 5% level of 5% level of confidence confidence The null hypotheses were accepted in both of the instances. __ _ A“ A - ‘— Null Hypothesis 3 . The felt similarity score and the counselorerated empathic ability score (deviation score), are either negatively related or not related. I Finding . The null hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.6. There was, in fact, a significant negative relationship between felt similarity and counselor empathic ability, as Specified in the above hypothesis. Null_Hygothesis%2§. The felt similarity score, and the counselorerated empathic ability score (right score), are either negatively related or not related. Findings. The null hypothesis regarding felt simi- larity and counselor empathic ability was accepted as shown in Table 4.6. Although the relationship was positive, it was not significant at the 5% level but did approaCh significance at the 10% level of confidence. Table 4.6. 55 Felt Similarity Product-moment Null Hypothesis; variables Correlation Significance Accepted nr Coefficients Rejected Coun.-rated empathic Not significant ability at the 5% level (rev. d.s.)* r=-.37 of confidence Accepted Coun.-rated empathic Not significant ability at the 5% level (r.s.)** r8 .29 of confidence Accepted Client-rated empathic Not significant ability at the 5% level (rev. d.s.) r=-.50 of confidence Accepted Client-rated Significant at empathic the 1% level of ability r= .65 confidence Rejected *“rev. d.s.' - reversed deviation score **“r.s.' - right score .3211 Hypothesis_3C. The felt similarity score, and the client-rated empathic ability score, (reversed devia- tion score), are either negatively related or not related. Findings. 5% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.6. The null hypothesis was accepted at the Felt simi- larity and client empathic ability were, in fact, nega- tively related as defined in the above hypothesis. Null Hypothesis_3D. The felt similarity score and 56 the client-related empathic ability score: (right score), are either negatively related or not related. .andings. The null hypothesis was rejected at the 1% level of confidence as shown in Table 4.6. A posi- tive relationship was found between felt similarity and client empathic ability as defined in the above hypothesis. Summary Fourteen null hypotheses were tested. They were derived from three broad research hypotheses involving social class similarity and empathy, social class simi- larity and felt similarity, and empathy and felt simi- larity. One of the null hypotheses was rejected at the 1% level of confidence (the relationship between felt similarity and client-rated empathic ability using the ”right score" method of scoring), and none were rejected at the 5% or the 10% levels of confidence. One hypothesis approached significanct at the 10% level of confidence (the relationship between felt similarity and counselor- rated empathic ability using the “right score" method of scoring). The remaining null hypotheses were accepted at the 5% level of confidence. CHAPTER V SUMMARI.AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This investigation was undertaken for the purpose of learning more about the counselor-client relationship in counseling. Three variables - social class similarity, empathic ability, and felt similarity - were selected following an extensive review of the literature. It was hypothesized that there would be a positive relation- ship among these three variables. In order to test the hypotheses, scales were selected that would permit these three variables to be quantified. warner's Index of Status Characteristics (difference score), was chosen as the measure of social class similarity be- tween counselor and client. The choice of the empathic ability scale was more difficult because of the relatively large number available from which to choose. After care- ful consideration, Dymond's Empathic Ability Scale was selected. Finally, there was need for a scale to measure felt similarity (counselor perceived). The Lesser Felt Similarity Scale was chosen. 5? 58 A sample of twenty college students from four MiCh- igan colleges and universities was obtained. These stu- dents were entering personal adjustment counseling and volunteered to participate in the research project. The number of counseling interviews varied from six to thirty-two. When termination was anticipated, the coun- selor gave the client an envelope of materials including warner's and Dymond's scales already mentioned and instruc- tions for completing the scales. At this time the couna selor also completed his envelope of materials, which included wanrer's, Dymond's, and Lesser's scales, plus the necessary instructions. Client and counselor mailed the completed envelopes directly to this writer. The analysis of the data was accomplished by use of the product-moment coefficient of correlation. Fourteen null hypotheses were tested, and all but one was accepted at the 5% level of confidence. There was found to be a significant positive relationship (1% level of confidence), between client-rated empathic ability and felt similarity as perceived by the counselor. The remainder of the null hypotheses were accepted at the 5% levels of confidence. The conclusion is that there is either no relationship or a negative relationship between the other variables measured. 59 Discussion In general, the results obtained from this study did not support the hypotheses that were advanced. The null hypothesis relative to felt similarity and client-rated empathic ability (right score), was found to be signifi- cant at the 1% level of confidence. This would suggest that client empathic ability, or the client's ability to understand the counselor (scored by the above-mentioned procedure), and the way the counselor feels about his client, are related. A second hypothesis, counselor- rated empathic ability and felt similarity, approaChed significance at the 10% level of confidence. This may be evidence of a trend toward linking the counselor's ability to understand the client and the way the counselor feels about his client. All of the hypotheses relating empathic ability, both client and counselor rated, to selected factors of social class similarity were significantly and negatively related at the 5% level, regardless of whether or not the factor of education was included. This seems to suggest that understanding and similarity of social class back- ground are not positively related and do, in fact, act in opposition to one another. As social class similarity increases, empathic ability decreases. This is in contrast to the theory proposed by Taft (46) and Halpern (30) regarding background similarity and understanding. It must be remembered though, that the 60 nature of the two previously cited studies was quite different from this present research. Both were attempting to measure predictive accuracy outside of a therapeutic setting and neither dealt either directly or indirectly with the counseling situation. This may be a significant deviation. Those hypotheses dealing with selected factors of social class background similarity and felt similarity show no relationship to one another. The remaining two hypotheses, those concerned with felt similarity and counselor and client-rated empathic ability, are signifi— cantly and negatively related. Empathic ability reveals a positive relationship using one method of scoring (right score), and a negative relationship using another method of scoring (deviation score). The same measuring instrument was employed on both occasions. This could suggest a weakness in the scoring procedure for empathic ability scales, but this flaw was not as evident when comparing empathic ability and social class background similarity. Fiedler (12) has suggested that when one believes another to be similar to himself, his attitude toward him is more friendly and there is greater understanding. This theory was not substantiated by this present study. In contrast there seemed to be no relationship between felt similarity and empathic understanding, which was, at least in part, supported by Lesser (27). 61 The results summarized previously are not in accord with the views discussed in the literature. Much of the research to date, in areas related to the present study, have concluded their studies with findings that are equiv- ocal. Occasionally trends and tendencies have been noted, but conclusive findings are lacking. Eventually, theory suggesting a positive relationship between similarity and understanding may be strengthened and enlarged; but certain weaknesses in research design, which are evident in nearly all research done in counseling, must be corrected. Some of these weaknesses will be discussed in the following section. Implications for Future Research This research study has certain shortcomings which must be discussed and which should be considered by those con- templating similar research in the future. The sample was small (twenty), and cannot be consid- ered representative of the population of college students seeking and involved in personal adjustment counseling. Only four colleges were involved, and each of these institutions were located in Midhigan. The sample was not selected randomly; but the study did include all students involved in personal adjustment counseling at the four colleges during a specified period, who volun- teered to participate and whose counselors were also 62 willing to participate. This procedure is definitely at variance with methods of random sampling. Moreover, the results of this study cannot validly be generalized to other types of populations which are basically differs ent from counseling in a college setting. The variance with respect to length of counseling may well have influenced the results in this study be- cause of the limited amount of exposure to one another. Counseling sessions ranged from six to thirty-two in number. For purposes of future research of this type, a minimum of twelve to fifteen hours of counseling might be desirable. The counselors who participated in this investiga- tion were generally oriented toward self-theory and client- centered teChniques. Perhaps,a greater variety of coun- selors with reapect to orientation, would have yielded different results. A greater variety of counselors, from the standpoint of social class background factors, might have also yielded different results. No attempt was made to insure representativeness within the popula- tion of counselors in regard to social class background factors. The same can be said concerning the sample of clients. If this study is to be replicated, the factors and conditions mentioned should be taken into consideration. As mentioned earlier, the present research should be re- garded only as an exploratory study. 10. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bender, I.E. and Hastorf, A.H., ”The Perceptions of Persons: Forecasting Another Person's Responses on Three Personality Scales," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, 1950, pp. 5562561. Bender, I.E. and Hastorf, A.H., “On Measuring Generalized Empathic Abilityfi' Journal of Abnormal 8. and Social Psychology, Vol. 1953, pp. 503-5367 Bordin, R.S., Ps cholo ical Counseling, New York: Appleton-Century-Cr5T%s, I955. Breslaw, B.J., “Development of a Socio—economic Attitude,” In R.S. woodowrth (ed), Archives of Psychology, No. 226, 1938. Cade, Alex J., “Relationship Between Counselor- Client Cultural Background Similarity and Coun- seling Progress," Unpublished doctoral dissere tation, Michigan State university, 1963. Cottrell, L.S. and Dymond, Rosalind F., ”The Empathic Responses," Psychiatny, Vol. 12, 1949, pp. 355-359. Cronbach, L.J. and Glerser, G.C., "Assessing Simie larity Between Profilesfi' Psychological Bulletin, v°1a 509 1953: PPO ”56- 73- Dymond, Rosalind F., ”The Measurement of Empathic Abilit ," Journal of Consulting Psycholog, Vol. 13. 1949. Pp- 1276133- , Dymond, Rosalind F., ”Personality and Empathy,“ .gournal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 14, 1950, PP-‘343-350-‘u Dymond, Rosalind F., ”The Relation of Insight and Empathy,“ Journal of ConsultingFPs cholo , Vol. 12, 1948, pp. 228-233. Erickson, G.E., Urban Behavior, New York: The Macmillan Co.,‘I954. 63 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1?}. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Fiedler, F.E., "Quantitive Studies on the Role of Therapists' Feelings Toward their Patients," in O.H. Mowerer (ed), Ps chothera Theo and Research. New York: RonaIH Pgess, I953, pp. 296-316. Fiedler, F.E., 'The Psychological-distance Dimension in Interpersonal Relations, Journal of Personnel Vol, 22, 1953, pp. 142-150. Fiedler, F.E. and Senior, Kate, ”An Exploratory Study of Unconscious Feeling Reactions in Fifteen Patient-therapist Pairs," Journal of Abnormal and Social Fsyshology, vol. 4 , , pp. . Gage, NtL., "Accuracy of Social Perception and Effectiveness in Interpersonal Relationships,“ _gournal of Personnel, Vol. 22, 1953, pp. 128-141. Gage, NQL., "Explorations in the Understanding of Others,” Educational and P3 chological Measure: ment, Vol. 13, 1953, pp. 1 -26. ‘ Gage, N.L. and Cronbach, L.J., "Conceptual and Methodological Problems in Interpersonal Per- ception.‘l Ps chological Reviss, Vol. 62, 1955, pp. 411-42 . Gist, N.P. and Halbert, L.A., Urban Societ . New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., I94I. Halpern, H.H., "Empathy, Similarity, and Self- Satisfaction,' Journal of ConsultingPsycholggz, Vol. 19, 1955, pp.*uw9-452. Harding, D.C.W.,_§ocial Ps cholo and Individual Values, London: Hutchinson's University Library, Hastorf, A.H. and Bender, I.E., ”A Caution Respecting the Measurement of Empathic Ability,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, cox. ’ , pp. - o Hastorf, A.H., Bender, I.E., and weintraub, D.J., ”The Influence of Reaponse Patterns on the 'Refined Empathy Score," Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps cholo , Vol. 51, I955, pp. 341-343. Hollingshead, A.B. and Redlich, F.C., Social Class and Mental Illness, New York: John Wiley & Sons, I958. ,v mv-llzgg'wh 65 24. Honigmann, J.J., Culture and Personality, New York: Harper and Bros., I954 25. Horney, K., New we 3 in Ps choanalysis, New Yerk: Norton 00., I939. 26. Isaacs, K.S., Fiedler, F.E., and Fiske, D.W., “Some Factors Involved in the Understanding of Patients by Clinicians,“ University of Chicago, Chicago: Mimeographed, 1950. 27. Lesser, W.M., "Relationship Between Counseling Progress and Empathic Understanding,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MiChigan State University, 195 . 28. Lewin, K., ”Field Theory in Social Science; selected theoretical a ers," D. Cartwright (ed), New IorE:' Harper afid’ ros, 951. 29. Lindgren, H.C., and Robinson, Jacqueline, ”Evalu- ation of Dymond's Test of Insight and Empathy," Journal_of Consulting Ps cholo , Vol. 17, 1953, pp. 172-176. 30. MacFarlane, T.G., ”Empathic Understanding in an Interpersonal Interview Situation,“ Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1952. 31. Miller, D. and Swanson, G.E., "The Study of Conflict,“ In M. Jones (ed), Nebraska Szpposium on Motivation, Lincoln: Universi y o e raska, 1956. 32. Mitchell, H.E., "Color Conflict as a Defense,” In G. Seward (ed), Clinical Studies in Culture .gonflict, Neijork: ‘The*RonaId Press C6.,I958. 33. Normal, R.D., "The Interrelationship Among Acceptance-rejection, Self-other Identity, In- sight into Self, and Realistic Perception of Others," gournal of Social Psycholsgy, Vol. 37, 1953. PP{‘205¥235- 34. Notcutt, B. and Silva, AfL.M., ”Knowledge of Other People,"_§ournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, V01. 459‘19515 PPo 30-3777 35. Opler, M.K., "Anthropological Aspects of Psychiatry,“ In J.H. Masserman and J.L. Moreno (eds), Frogress ‘%3 Psychotherapy, New York: Grune & StrattOn, 36. 37- 380 39- 40. 41. 42. 1+3. 44. 45. 46. “’7. 66 Opler, M.K., ”Epidemiological Studies of Mental Illness: Methods and Scope of the Midtown Study, New York, NY,” In D.M. Rioch (ed). _SymPosium on Preventive and Social Ps Chiatrv, washington, D.C.: WaIter Reed Affiy IfistItute of Research, 1958. . Opler, M.K. and Singer, J.L., ”Ethnic Differences in Behavior and Psychopathology,” Int. Journal of 1§scial PsyChiatric, Vol. 2, 1956, pp. II-23. Rennie, A.C., ”Epidemiological Studies of Mental Illness: Methods and Scope of the Midtown Study, New York City,“ In D.M. RioCh (ed), Symposium on Preventive and Social PsyChiatry, Washington, D.C.: walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1958. Richard, R.J., ”Self Culture Movement in New England,“ Thesis (M.A.), Michigan State Uni- versity, 1957. Rogers, O.H., Client-censored Therapy, Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1951. Rogers, C.R. and Dymond, Rosalind F., (eds), Ps chothera and Personalit Cha e, Chicago: UnIversIty 0; Chicago Press, . Rogers, C.R., ”Perceptual Reorganization in. Client-centered Therapy," In R.R. Blake and G.V. Ramsey (eds), Perception: An Approach to Personality, New Yerk: Ronald Press, 1951, PP- 307-327- Sears, R.R., “Experimental Studies of Projection: I Attribution of Traits," Journal of Social .Fsychologz, Vol. 7, 1936, pp. 151-163. Sears, R.R., et al., Patterns of Child Rearin Evanston, Ill.: Row, Patterson and Co., I957. Seward, G., glinical Studies in Cultural Conflict, New York: The RonaId Press CO.,‘I958. Taft, R., "The Ability to Judge People,” Psycholo- gical Bulletin, Vol. 52, 1955, pp. 1-23. warner, WtL., Social Class in America, New York: Harper and Bros., 1960. ‘— 67 48. Wolf, R. and Murray, H.A., ”An Experiment in Judging Personalities,” Journal of Psychology, Vol. 3, 1937, pp. 345-365- 49. wylie, R,C., The Self Conceps, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Pfess,‘196f. APPENDICES APPENDIX.A Questionnaire for Background Information Name: __Date:__ All of the items on this questionnaire are concerned with your life and experiences before you reached the age of 17 years. Please keep this in mind as you fill it out. Please proceed. 1. List the types of work your father (or stepfather) did before you were 17 years old (If you lived with both your father and a stepfather during this period, list the types of work both did). Types of Exnployment Duration of Father (Check)Step- Employment one) father 2. Was your father (or stepfather) in business for him- self during this period? What kind of business was he in?__ 3. Did your mother (or stppmother) work during this period?_‘ If ”yes," list the types of work she did. Types of Einployment Duration of Mother Step- mother (D 6. 8. 69 Please indicate the source of the family's income during this period by checking the appropriate pro- portion of the total famil income obtained from the following sources: (Check (hut One Two None Third Half Thirds All a. Inherited wealth b. Earned Wealth c. Profit and Fees d. Salary and wages e. Public Relief f. Other (list) ~« A v A “AAA v VVVV A “AAA“ V vvvvv A “AAA“ v vvvvv A AAAAA V vvvvv A AAAAA V vvvvv Approximately how many different houses did the family live in before you were 17? __ ____ The house in which we lived for the longest duration during this period was probably valued in the price range: (check one) a. ( ) Less than $5,000 b. ( ) 5,000-39,999 c. ( ) 10.000- 14.999 d. ( ) 15.000- 19.999 e. ( ) 20.000- 29.999 f: ( ) 30.000-x39g999 g. ( ) 40,000 or over We lived in this house years and it was about years old at the‘tIEE of my best memory of it. Other houses in which we lived during this period were, with respect to value and size, (check one) a. ( ) far superior to this house b. ( ) somewhat superior to this house c. ( ) about the same as this house d. ( ) slightly inferior to this house e. ( ) very inferior to this house The house we lived in for the longest duration before I was 17 (check one) a. ( ) was in the suburbs. b. ( ) was in the city. c. ( ) was in a rural area. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 70 In comparison to the other neighborhoods in the city or community, our neighborhood was generally consid- ered (check one) a. ( ) the highest b. ( ) quite ehigh)c )just about average d. ( ) average )just below f. ( ) low g. ( ) the lowest. Most of the other houses in which we lived during this period were (check one) a. ( ) in the suburbs b. ( ) in the city c. ( ) in a rural area Before I was 17, we lived mostly (check one) a. ( ) on farms. b. ( ) in towns with populations less than 2,000. c. ( ) in towns with populations less than 10,000 but more than 2,000. d. ( ) in towns with populations less than 25,000, but more than 10,000. e. ( ) in cities with populations less than 100, 000, but more than 25,000. f. ( ) in cities with populations less than 300, 000, but more than 100, 000 g. ( ) in cities with p0pulations over 300,000. The cities or communities in which we lived before I was 17 are mostly located in the (check one) a. ( ) South b. ( ) Midwest (North Central) c. ( ) East d. ( ) west e. ( ) others (list)__ In the nei borhoods where I lived, most people (Check one a. ( ) lived in apartments or flats. b. ( ) were renting homes. c. ( ) were buying homes. d. ( ) had paid for their homes. In these neighborhoods, (check “yes” or “no” for all items) .people were always talking politics..Yes _No___ b. as a rule people went to church almost every week....................Yes _Nq___ c. people put a lot of emphasis on educationOOOO0.0000000000000000000000YeS——No__ 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 71 d. pe0ple married, as a rule, before they were 21.........................Yes _Nq___ e. as a rule pe0ple were quite con- cerned about morals..................Yes___No___ Most of the families in the neighborhood where we lived for the longest duration probably had incomes whiCh were (check one) a. ( ) much greater than ours. b. ( ) somewhat greater than ours. c. ( ) about the same as ours. d. ( ) somewhat less than ours. e. ( ) considerably less than ours. What is your educational level (highest level achieved in sChool)?_ What is your father's (or stepfather's educational level?_ What is your mother's (or stepmother's) educational 1eve1?_k _ If your parents were separated or divorced, how old were you when this occurred? __ If your mother is deceased, how old were you when she passed? If your father is deceased, how old were you when he passed?__ With whom did you live until you were 17? (Do not use names.)_¥ How many of your sisters are younger than you? How many older?_‘ How many of your brothers are younger than you? How many older? Do you have stepsisters or stepbrothers?_¥ How many?_ What was your mother's age at the time of your birth? and your father's? , I was disciplined more by (check one) a. ( ) my mother. b. ( ) my father. c. ( ) about the same by each. 29. 30. 310 32. 33- 72 What is (was) your parents' religious faith?_w_ Before I was 17, my parents (check one) a. ( ) insisted that I attend church. b. ( ) strongly encouraged me to attend church. c. ( ) moderately encouraged me to attend church. d. ( ) did not encourage me to attend church. Before I was 17, my parents (check the most appro- priate) a. ( ) put a lot of emphasis on education. b. ( ) showed a desire to have me acquire an edu- cation but used little pressure. c. ( ) showed little concern about education. d. ( ) seemed to have a negative attitude toward education in general. My parents disciplined me mostly (You may check more than one, but put the approximate age range at which the type of discipline occurred before the corresponding letter.) a. ( ) by explaining the meaning and implica- tions of my wrong-doings. b. ( ) by making me feel somewhat ashamed for my misdeeds. c. ( ) by showing me that to be loved and appre- ciated, you must be good. d. ( ) by withholding privileges from me. e. ( ) by making me do some strenuous or dread- ful task. f. ( ) by locking me in my room or some other form of forced isolation. g. E ) by making me go to my room or to bed. h. ) by scolding me. i. ( ) by whipping or spank me. j. ( ) by other methods (list When I became a teen-agar, my parents (Check one) a. ( ) were very strict about not allowing me to keep late hours. b. ( ) showed concern about me keeping late hours, but were not too strict. c. ( ) more or less felt that I could take care of myself and did not worry too much about it. 34. 35. 36c 37- 38. 73 My parents seemed very concerned about the types of pe0ple with whom I associated. (Check ”True” or 'False”) True False They permitted me to participate in many family decisions. (check) - True False) For the most part, the communities in whiCh I was reared were made up of (check one) a. ( ) only whites b. ( ) only Negroes c. ( ) both Negroes and whites d. ( ) only Orientals e. ( ) several races, including Negroes and whites f. ( ) others (explain) .List the races from which you had associates, class- mates or close friends before you were 17. (Indicate after the races listed whether persons of the race were close friends, classmates or associates. If a given person was all three or two of the three indicate this. Please include your own race) In the city or community where you lived for the longest duration before you were 17, approximately what percentage of the total p0pulation did the following races or ethnic groups constitute? Negroes % Whites % Jews % Orientals % American Indians % Mexicans % Other Span- ish Americans % Others (list) 74 39. Please list the honorary and civic positions held by your father before your seventeenth birthday. 40. Please list the most frequent recreational activities of your parents. 41. How old are you? What is your sex? What is your race? '" ' "“" Thank you for your participation in this study. we realize that we asked a lot of you. we sincerely hope that as a result of your cooperation and that of others like you, this study will make a contribution to the understanding of some of the important needs of people and how they can best be met in the counseling situation. Alex J. Cade Richard Lawrence Items 1, 4, 6, 14, 18, and 19 were used for this study. The entire questionnaire was administered and used for another project. APPENDIXCB EMPATHIC ABILITY SCALE (Client) Your Name_¥ _F Date_¥ Your Counselor's Name_, On this form, you are asked to rate yourself and your counselor on six characteristics as you saw them in your relationship with him (her). The characteristics are repeated four times and you are to rate them from the perspective indicated following the Roman numeral. The counselor will be given the same scale and the ul- timate objective of this scale is to see how well you can predict what his ratings will be. I. HOW DO YOU HONESTLY FEEL ABOUT YOURSELF IN RELATION TO YOUR COUNSELOR? (check the appropriate box under each item) 1. How superior or inferior are you to your counselor? Quite Somewhat About half Somewhat Quite Superior Superior and half inferior inferior 2. How friendly or unfriendly are you to your counselor? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly 3. Which do you think you are (or would be) in your relations with your counselor, leader or follower? Always Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower 4. Which are you in your relations with your coun- selor, shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly very shy shy and half self-assured self-assured 5. Which do you think you are toward your counselor, sympathetic or unsympathetic? 75 76 Very Fairly About half Fairly un- Very un- sympathetic sympathetic and half sympathetic sympa- thetic Which do you think you are in your relations with your counselor, secure or insecure? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure II. 77 HOW DO YOU HONESTLY FEEL ABOUT YOUR COUNSELOR? (check the appropriate box under each item). 1. How superior or inferior do you think your counselor is to you? Quite somewhat About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendly or unfriendly is your counselor to you? very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly Which do you think your counselor is (would be) in his (her) relations with you, leader or follower? Always ‘Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which do you think your counselor is in his (her) relations with you, shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly very shy shy and half self-assured self-assured Which do you think your counselor is toward you, sympathetic or unsympathetic? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very sympa- sympa- and half unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic thetic thetic Which do you think your counselor is in his (her) relations with you, secure or insecure? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure III. 78 WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR COUNSELOR WILL SAY ABOUT HIMSELF (herself)? (check the appropriate box under each item) 1. 5. How superior or inferior will your counselor say he (she) is to you? Quite Fairly About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendl or unfriendly will your counselor say he (she is to you? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly Which will your counselor say he (She) is (or would be) in relation to you, leader or follower? Always Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which will your counselor say he (she) is in his (her) relation with you, shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly ' Very shy shy and half self-assured self-assured What will your counselor say he (she) is in his (her) relation to you, sympathetic or unsympathetic. Very Fairly About half Fairly very, sympa- sympa- and half unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic thetic thetic Which will your counselor say he (she) is in his (her) relations to you, secure or insecure? ' very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure 79 WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR.COUNSELOR.WILL SAY ABOUT YOU? 1. (check the appropriate boxes) How superior or inferior will your counselor say you feel to him (her)? ' Quite Somewhat About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendly or unfriendly will your counselor say you are to him (her)? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly Which will your counselor say you are (or would be) in relation to him (her), leader or follower? Always Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which will your counselor say you are in your: relations with him (her), shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very Shy shy ‘and half self-assured self-assured What will your counselor say you are in relation to him (her), sympathetic or unsympathetic? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very sympa- sympa- and half unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic thetic thetic Which will your counselor say you are in your relation to him (her), secure or insecure? Very Fairly. About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure Your name_‘ Date__ APPENDIX.C EMPATHIC ABILITY SCALE (Counselor) 'Your Client's Names_‘__ On this form, you are asked to rate yourself and client on six characteristics as you saw them in your relationship with him (her). The characteristics are repeated four times and you are to rate them from the perspective indicated following the Roman numeral. The client will be given the same scale and the ultimate objective of this scale is to see how well you can predict what his ratings will be. I. HOW DO YOU HONESTLY FEEL ABOUT YOURSELF IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE CLIENT? (check the appropriate box under each item) 1. 30 How superior or inferior are you to the client? Quite Somewhat About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendly or unfriendly are you to the client? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly WhiCh do you think you are (or would be) in your relations with the client, follower or leader? Always Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which are you in your relations with the client, shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very shy Shy and half self-assured self-assured 8O 81 Which do you think you are toward the client, sympathetic or unsympathetic? Very Fairly About half Fairly very sympa- sympa- and half unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic thetic thetic Which do you think you are in your relations with the client, secure or insecure? very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure II. 82 HOW DO YOU HONESTLY FEEL ABOUT THE CLIENT? (check the appropriate box under each item) 1. 50 How superior or inferior do you think the client is to you? Quite Somewhat About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendly or unfriendly is the client to you? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly Which do you think the client is (would be) in his (her) relations with you, leader or follower? Always Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which do you think the client is in his (her) relations with you, shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very shy shy and half self-assured self-assured Which do you think the client is toward you, sympathetic or unsympathetic? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very sympa- sympa- and half thetic thetic unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic Which do you think the client is in his (her) relations with you, secure or insecure? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure III. 83 WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CLIENT WILL SAY ABOUT HIMSELF (herself)? (check the appropriate box under each item) ' 1. How superior or inferior will the client say he (she) is to you? Quite Fairly About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendly or unfriendly will the client say he (she) is to you? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly WhiCh will the client say he (she) is (or would be) in relation to you, leader or follower? Always Mostly About half Mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which will the client say he (she) is in his (her) relation with you, shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly very shy shy and half self-assured self-assured What will the client say he (She) is in relation to you, sympathetic or unsympathetic? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very sympa- sympa- and half unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic thetic thetic Which will the client say he (she) is in his (her) relations to you, secure or insecure? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure 84 WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CLIENT WILL SAY.ABOUT YOU? (check the appropriate boxes) 1. How superior or inferior will the client say you feel to him (her)? Quite Somewhat About half Somewhat Quite superior superior and half inferior inferior How friendly or unfriendly will the client say you.are to him (her)? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very friendly friendly and half unfriendly unfriendly Which will the client say you are (or would be) in relation to him (her), leader or follower? Always Mostly About half mostly Always leader leader and half follower follower Which will the client say you are in your rela- tions with him (her), shy or self-assured? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very shy shy and half self-assured self-assured What will the client say you are in relation to him (her), sympathetic or unsympathetic? Very Fairly About half Fairly Very sympa- sympa- and half unsympa- unsympa- thetic thetic thetic thetic Which will the client say you.are in your relation to him (her), secure or insecure? very Fairly About half Fairly Very secure secure and half insecure insecure APPENDIX D FELT SIMILARITY SCALE Name or Number of Client____ Counselor_q Date Please note the following statements, as you feel they apply to your relationship with this client. Cir- cle the number on the scale following each statement which best describes you in relation to this client. A score of "1” indicates that the statement does not describe you at all. A score of ”7“ indicates that the statement describes you perfectly, when you look at yourself in relation to this client. Scores from '2" to ”6" represent intervals ranging from “less descriptive" to "more descriptive” of your perception of yourself and this client. 1. In many ways I am quite similar to this client. (1 2 3 4 5'6 7) (least most) 2. I think that I would have felt and acted just as this client felt and acted in many of the situa- tions as he has described to me. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) (least most) 3. Aside from some minor things, this client and I are very much alike. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ) (least most) 85 86 It is amazing how similarly this client and I view the world. (i 2 3 4 5 6 7) (least most) I am sure that my dynamicsdiffer only slightly from this client's dynamics. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ) (least . most) This client and I are so much alike, we could almost be siblings. (i 2 3 4 5 6 7) (least most) I usually feel much less similar to my clients than I do to this client. ( 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 ) (least most) APPENDIXIE n m mm m NH mm am he m e mm m as mm mm as e s cm s ea mm mm ea n me on ed as a n ma 3 H ma m m mm mm NH Ha ma mm ea as m a as m m mm m w mm mm ca 2 r em N a an an m m n ma m s m as m a ea mm s as an mm s m m on m on mm mm m a m on m NH mm mm m m m m n m mm mm s m s an s m mm mm m s m on m ca mm mm m s m an n ma mm mm a oaoom oaoom .poe .Sam oaoom oaoom Hoe .360 m. .036 m. mpoonosm enmam ooumoemm seem enmam somaoemm .sam .emso lasagna mamas hnpmesm aoHom-Soo “53.31830 pomu0>om «Eda 3mm 87 88 .m was .a .oa .mH .m .m .NH .mH .HHIIIIInIIIH amass: spas msapmmem mmaoom comaobmm .m« use .ma .m .m .:a .OH .5 .3 .wnnimosoom Hmsdwdao .on3pmooae wsaaoom summaobou: on» no oamsmwm um 1“ m m mm s A an on em a m mm m es an em ma m n mu m oa em mm ma 11H 1: as on m, m am am an oaoom oaoom .bme .sam A oaoom maoom .>oe .oseo m. .oseu m. mpoonosm onmam nomaoeom oaom cream homeroom sam .emsn hnpmmsm pnoaao hammesm aoaomssoo encaaol.nsoo pomuobom Ap.noov «Bdfi 3mm