, . 'THE STRENGTH. or SENSING '-"NT:U'T'0N{PREFERENCE“' .‘

FEELINGMESSAGIE‘S :O‘FZ'OT'HERS. ~ '

 

 

 

 

 

Dissertation: rot the" Dégr

 

eeb f
IMICHIGANSTATEU-NIVERSITY. ,A

 

 

 

 

fv PhQD;

 

 

ON THE MYERSf BRIGGS-TYPE INDICATQREAS‘A'RELATED
,: TO EMPATHIC DISCRIMINATION’oE-...ovI:R}T{0R:-icovERTj~ .. _-*-

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   
     

  

LIBRARY

M!HWLNJMLWIILMMIQMUMWWI Michigan
Wm?"

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Strength of Sensing-Intuition Preference
on the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator as Related to
Empathic Discrimination of
Overt or Covert Feeling Messages of Others

presented by

John Kesley DiTiberio

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D . degree in Education

 

Major professor

Date July 29, 1976

 

0-7 639

 

 

 

 

 

G/O/é‘i'é

ABSTRACT

THE STRENGTH OF SENSING-INTUITION PREFERENCE
ON THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR AS RELATED TO
EMPATHIC DISCRIMINATION OF
OVERT OR COVERT FEELING MESSAGES OF OTHERS
BY

John Kesley DiTiberio

The major purpose of the study was to examine the
relationship between alternative modes of perception and
the way individuals attend to feeling messages of others.
The theories of C.G. Jung were consulted to obtain a
model for alternative modes of perception. Jung's dis-
tinction between Sensing and Intuition was postulated to
be consistent theoretically with particular styles of at-
tending to feelings in others. Sensing was assumed to be
the appropriate mode of perception for overt expressions
of feeling. On the other hand, when subtle or covert ex-
pressions of feeling exist, more indirect (or Intuitive)
methods of receiving the message were expected to be neces-
sary.

The focus of the study centered on the initial dis—
criminative aspect of empathy. Subsequent processes of

communication of empathic understanding were not considered.

John Kesley DiTiberio

In a review of relevant literature, no empirical studies
were found which examine modes of perception as they affect
the discriminative task of empathy.

The Sensing—Intuition scale of the Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator was employed as a measure of alternative percep-
tive styles. Internal consistency reliability estimates
for the sample were found to be .816 and .829 using both
split-half and coefficient alpha.

Because instruments purporting to measure empathic
discrimination were found to be invalid for the current
investigation, the Identification of Feelings Exercise was
constructed. From an original pool of 100 audiotaped vi—
gnettes, 50 were selected through several processes of re-
finement. Each taped vignette included a spoken statement
of experience involving feeling messages. After a short
training exercise, ten university counseling center psycho-
logists determined the appropriate predominant feeling for
each statement. Five additional university counseling cen—
ter psychologists rated the same 100 vignettes on a four—
point continuous scale to determine level of overtness, and
obtained inter-rater reliability of .88. A pilot test of
the vignettes was conducted with 67 Michigan State Univer-
sity dormitory residents. Indices of discrimination and
difficulty were obtained from an item analysis of the re—
sults of the pilot study.

The final 50-item instrument included examples for

each of five feeling categories: Contempt/Disgust, Distress,

John Kesley DiTiberio

Joy, Fear and Anger. The instrument further included 25
overt and 25 covert vignettes, and was entitled the Identi-
fication of Feelings Exercise. Kuder Richardson #20 re-
liability data from a cross—validated sample produced an
estimate of .523.

A sample of 139 subjects was drawn from Summer Term
students at Michigan State University. All subjects par-
ticipated in the study voluntarily in return for receiving
an interpretation of their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator re—
sults. Tested in nine separate groups, subjects were first
presented the Identification of Feelings Exercise. Each
taped item was played, followed by a 4—6 second pause for
recording answers. Subjects were instructed to record the
predominant feeling expressed in the vignettes by checking
one of the five feeling categories. At the end of the 50-
item exercise, subjects were administered the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator.

A multivariate repeated measures design was employed.
Independent variables included Sensing—Intuition preference
from the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator and the strength of
continuous preference scores. Sensing—Intuition scores
falling thirty points on either side of the midpoint were
labeled Moderate. The remaining scores at each end of the
continuum were pooled into one group labeled Exceptional.

Four major hypotheses were tested by analysis of
variance procedures. Alpha was set at the .05 level. The

following were the results of the tests of the hypotheses:

John Kesley DiTiberio

Intuitors more accurately identified feeling
messages than Sensors.

No differences existed between Intuitors and
Sensors on accurate identification of overtly
expressed feeling messages.

Intuitors more accurately identified covertly
expressed feeling messages than Sensors.

No differences existed between Exceptional and
Moderate strengths of preference on accurate
identification of feeling messages.

Furthermore, the following additional conclusions

were reached from the data:

1.

It

affected

Differences between scores on the overt and
covert dimensions of the Identification of

Feelings Exercise were significant for both
Sensors and Intuitors.

Extraversion-Introversion, Thinking—Feeling
and Judging—Perceiving scores on the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator did not account for
differences between Sensors and Intuitors
in accurate identification of feelings.

Females more accurately identified feeling
messages than males on the overt dimension
and over—all, but no significant differences
existed on the covert dimension between the
sexes.

was concluded that empathic discrimination is

by one's preferred mode of perception.

THE STRENGTH OF SENSING-INTUITION PREFERENCE
ON THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR AS RELATED TO
EMPATHIC DISCRIMINATION OF

OVERT OR COVERT FEELING MESSAGES OF OTHERS

BY

John Kesley DiTiberio

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

Department of Counseling, Personnel
Services and Educational Psychology

1976

 

In Memory

Joseph C. DiTiberio

1917-1976

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The difficulties involved in completing this project
have, at times, been awesome. The work, in addition, has
not gone on in a vacuum. Events and experiences had their
way of calling out abruptly to corners of my being which
never were invested in the present work. The two sides of
myself thus stood in conflict sometimes for weeks on end.

In the midst of the stalemate, particular individuals
came forward. Each in a unique way kept me mindful of the
fact that the two worlds, though in conflict, each may re-
ceive due attention. I therefore acknowledge the following
for being with me while this study moved toward completion:

William Farquhar, chairman of the doctoral committee,
for going the extra mile with after-hours consultation on
the writing of this document.

Cecil Williams, for his inspiration to examine the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and for his ability to listen.

William Hinds and Al Aniskiewicz, for their important
questions about what it all means.

Robert Wilson, for the months of patient thoroughness
on the particulars of research methodology, and for his com—
raderie as we approached the finish together.

Imogen Bowers, whose therapy supervision taught me

that attention to my own feelings, even in tragedy, need
not immobilize efforts in other areas.

John Powell, who was there when I needed him, and who
embodies better than anyone I know the meaning of "empathy."

William Mueller, who said "let it heal from within,"
and whose insights as well as personal support have never
ceased to amaze me.

Friends and colleagues who contributed their voices
to the making of the stimulus tapes, who volunteered time
and energy for rating the tapes, or who recruited subjects.

Barb Palmer, who through her typing now knows how
boring sections of this report can be.

My Mother, who has continued courageously to meet the
test which each new day of unchosen solitude has brought.

Lisa, above all, who has felt the conflict of the two
worlds as strongly as I, who tirelessly edited, typed, re-
edited and re-typed, but who through it all has continued
to love and care in times of trouble as well as times of

happiness.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . .

Need for the Study . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . .
Definition of Terms as Used in the Study
Research Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Theory . . . . . . . .
Overview of the Study . . . . . . .

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . .

Empathy as a General Area of Study . .
The Dual Nature of Empathy . . . .

Discrimination of Feelings as One Task of the

Empathic Process . .

Personality Characteristics and Their Effect

on Human Relationships . .

Jungian Perception and the Myers— Briggs Type

Indicator . .

Previous Efforts to Measure Empathic
Discrimination .

Overt and Covert Qualities of Expression of
Feeling . .

Studies of Perception as Related to Empathy
Discussion of Previous Research . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER III: DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . .

Selection and Description of the Sample .
Setting and Procedures

Reliability and Validity of Instruments Used

in the Study . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . .
Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . .
Analysis Procedures . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

o

Page

viii

H

NU‘IDWNH

H

l4
16

18

19

23

48

48
53

55
58

60
61

CHAPTER IV: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE . . .

Preparation of Audio Stimulus Tapes . . .
Validation of the Instrument . . . . . .
Pilot Test of the Instrument . . . . . .
Selection of Items for Form B . .
Reliability of Identification of Feelings
Exercise (Form B) . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER V:

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . .

Hypothesis I: Effect of Sensing- Intuition on
Empathic Discrimination : Total . . .

Hypothesis II: Effect of Sensing- Intuition on
Empathic Discrimination: Overt Stimulus
Conditions

Hypothesis III:

Empathic Discrimination: Covert Stimulus
Conditions .

Hypothesis IV: Effect of Exceptional—Moderate
Strength of Preference . .

Investigation of the Overt- Covert Scales . .

Inve

stigation of Interaction Effects: Sensing—

Intuition with Exceptional-Moderate . . .
Regression Analysis of Three Covariates on

th

e Dependent Variable . . . . . . .

Additional Findings . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER VI

: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . .
Discussion of the Findings . . . . . .

Limi

tations of the Study . . . . . . .

Suggestions for Future Research . . . . .

APPENDICES

A.

Memorandum Presented to Education Teaching
Assistants . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance: Source of Subjects
and Three Myers— Briggs Type Indicator
Dimensions . . . . . . . .

Myers- Briggs Type Indicator Data on Final
Sample . . . . . . . . . .

Instruction Sheet for Identification of
Feelings Exercise . . . . . . . .

vi

Effect of Sensing—Intuition on

75

76

77

78
80

82

100

102

104

106

 

E. Answer Form for Descriptive Data on the
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F. Instruction Sheet for the Myers—Briggs
Type Indicator . . . . . . . .

G. Instruction Sheet for Raters of the
Identification of Feelings Exercise
Correct Answer Key . . . . . . . . .

H. Instruction Sheet for Raters Using the
"Scale of Overt or Covert Disclosure of
Feeling" . . . . . . . . . . .

I. Inter-Rater Reliability Using the "Scale
of Overt or Covert Disclosure of Feeling" .

J. Type Distribution on Pilot Study Sample:
Spring 1976 . . . . . . . .

K. Data of Reliability for Identification
of Feelings Exercise (FormsA—land A—2) . .

L. Summary of Item Data for Identification
of Feelings Exercise (Forms A-1 and A-2)

M. Summary of Item Data for Identification
of Feelings Exercise (Form B) . . .

N. Data of Reliability for Identification
of Feelings Exercise (Form B) . .

O. Univariate Analysis of Variance for
Type by Strength Interaction . . . .

P. Regression Analysis Data of Extraversion—
Introversion, Thinking— Feeling, and Judging-
Perceiving on the Dependent Variable . .

Q. Descriptive Data in Relation to Subjects'
Scores on the IdentificationxofFeelings
Exercise . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii

107

108

110

114

118

119

120

123

127

129

133

134

138

141

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table
3.1 Distribution of Subjects by Descriptive
Information . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Analysis of Variance Examining Differences Among
Sources of Subjects by Continuous Sensing-
Intuition (S-N) Scores . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Stratification of Sample by Strength of Scores
on Sensing- Intuition . . . . . . . .
3.4 Summary of Procedures Followed with Each Group
of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Agreement of Raters on Correct Answer Key for
Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form A) . .
4.2 Overt-Covert Rating, Feeling Distribution and
Rated Right—Answer Agreement Variables for Items
from Identification of Feelings Exercise
(Form A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Distribution of Overt and Covert Items from
Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form B)‘
by Feeling Category . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Data of Reliability for Overt, Covert and Total:
Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form B). .
5.1 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Sensing—
Intuition on Identification of Feelings
Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Sensing-
Intuition on Overt Scale of Identification of
Feelings Exercise . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Sensing-

Intuition on Covert Scale of Identification of
Feelings Exercise . . . . . .

viii

Page

49

50

53

54

58

66

71

72

73

76

77

78

Table Page
5.4 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Exceptional-
Moderate Strength of Preference on Identificaw
tion of Feelings Exercise . . . . . . . . 80

5.5 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Overt-Covert
Effect on Identification of Feelings Exercise . 81

5.6 T—tests Examining Differences Between Overt-
Covert Scores by Type . . . . . . . . . 81

5.7 T—tests Examining Effect of Sex on Differences
in Identification ofFeelingsExercise Scores . 84

ix

 

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM

The way one identifies feelings in the messages of
others (one of the crucial tasks of the empathic process)
is likely affected by the way one perceives the world in
general. Helping relationships demand minimal levels of
empathic understanding in order to be effective. Specific
information regarding the roots of difficulty that indi—
viduals have in attending to feelings in others is there-

fore important.

Need for the Study

 

Differences in the ways individuals are empathic may
involve either the communication of understanding by the
listener, the way the understanding develops in his mind, or
the way the original perception of the other‘s feelings is
received. It is important to examine each step in the
empathic process. Yet the whole process hinges on the first
crucial perception. The varying ways individuals actually
perceive feeling messages when they are expressed by another
person therefore deserve specific attention.

Examination of alternative modes of perception might
give clues to the nature of differences in interpersonal

effectiveness. This would be especially true for persons

who must attend to feeling messages of others. Selec-
tion processes for training programs in counseling,
teaching or mental health could benefit from knowledge
about the different ways trainees approach clients or
students when feelings are involved. Certain interpersonal
tasks may demand one mode of "empathic" perception, while
others require another. Individuals who habitually attend
to feelings in particular ways could therefore be selected
for specialized situations consistent with their strength.
Differential training modalities could also be developed
to increase the effectiveness of persons of varying per—
ceptive styles. Regardless of one's habitual pattern of
identifying feelings, an individual may be given oppor—
tunity to develop new patterns of perception. These new
patterns could subsequently be used when situations demand
an alternative approach.

A study such as the one proposed would futhermore
contribute to greater theoretical understanding of the
empathic process. The interpersonal effects of perception
differences would also be understood more fully in rela—

tion to personality theory.

Purpose of the Study

 

The problem, therefore, is to find means of examin—
ing alternative modes of perception in relation to discri—
mination of feeling messages from others. The purpose of

this study is to determine the degree to which

the ability to identify feelings empathically is consis—
tent with preferred habitual patterns of behavior associa-

ted with alternative modes of perception.

Definition of Terms as Used in the Study

 

In subsequent pages, the following terms have been
employed frequently. An understanding of the content of
the current study requires clarification of those terms
as used hereafter.

Empathy refers to the process of communicating to
another one's understanding of his or her feelings. Note
that the listener is not required to feel as the speaker
does. Empathy refers therefore more to cognitive than
affective processes in the listener.

Empathic Discrimination refers to the identifica-

 

tion of the feelings or emotions associated with the ex—
perience of another person. Empathic Discrimination is to
be distinguished from Empathic Understanding, which moves
beyond the process of perceiving or identifying feelings
into higher levels of cognitive structuring. Furthermore,
Empathic Communication involves an expression of under—
standing to the other person. It is assumed that Empathic
Discrimination is a necessary component that must precede
both Empathic Understanding and Communication.

Feeling Labels refer to the cognitive terms which
are associated with emotional experience. When one is

said to identify empathically the feelings in another's

 

message, it is meant that the individual can apply an ap—
propriate label to the perceived emotional experience.

Perception refers to the means of taking in or
registering information from the environment. As dis-
cussed by Jung (1923), perception may involve either of
two alternative ways of taking in and registering infor-
mation: Sensing or Intuition.

Sensing (S) as a mode of perception involves a pre-
ference for receiving information from the environment
primarily through the five senses, focusing on precise de-
tails and tangible data.

Intuition (N) as a mode of perception involves a
preference for registering information from the environment

in patterns and wholes rather than in specific detail.

Research Hypotheses

 

The following general hypotheses were formulated
for the study, and are considered in testable form in
Chapter III.

I. Invidivuals who habitually prefer Sensing
as a mode of perception are less accurate
in identifying the feeling messages of
others than those who prefer Intuition.

II. Individuals who habitually prefer Sensing
as a mode of perception are more accurate
in identifying overtly expressed feeling
messages of others than those who prefer
Intuition.

III. Individuals who habitually prefer Sensing
as a mode of perception are less accurate in
identifying covertly expressed feeling messages
of others than those who prefer Intuition.

 

IV. Individuals with Exceptional strength of
preference for one mode of perception over
the other are less accurate in identifying
either overt or covert feeling messages of
others than those with Moderate preference.

Theory
The need for the current study has considerable
theoretical roots, which are now discussed.

Empathy as an Area of Study. The ability to com-

 

municate empathic understanding for another person is
a core aspect of helping relationships. Although there
are many varying definitions for the term "empathy,"
Rogers' approach (1957) has received much attention in
counseling research. In Rogers' use of the term, empa—
thy in counselors includes the demonstration of under-
standing of the client's world as if it were one's own.
Reviews of the literature on empathy such as that
of Buchheimer (1963) have recommended efforts toward iden—
tifying specific components of the empathic process rather
than treating it as a unitary phenomenon. In this regard,
Carkhuff (1969b) has developed a scale to measure empathic
response. His work has served to define levels of effec—
tiveness, and therefore provides information about the
subroles of empathic responses.

Perception and the Empathic Process. Contrary to

 

other discussions of empathy, the Carkhuff school (fol-
lowing Rogers' lead) asserts that empathic perception and

understanding are not enough. Carkhuff believes that

listeners must effectively communicate their perception and
understanding to the speaker. Efforts to measure empathy
have been facilitated by this operational focus on the ob—
servable behaviors of communication. What has been left
behind, however, is an adequate examination of what goes
into the internal process of perceiving, identifying or
discriminating feelings of another.

Individuals also function at different levels on
various tasks of empathy. In parent training programs
which focus on empathic active listening (Gordon, 1970),
it has been noted that participants often find it dif-
ficult to learn skills foreign to their natural styles.
Differing rates of acquisition of such skills during
training are a further manifestation of the issue of in—
dividual differences in empathic effectiveness.

In explaining individual differences in empathy,

a few researchers (Campbell, et al., 1971) have suggested
that two alternative states of perception may exist:

a sensory one and an interpretive or labeling one. Anxi-
ety may intervene between sensation and labeling, thus
accounting for differences in empathic perception. Even
in the absence of anxiety, however, there may be basic
differences in the way individuals perceive the stimulus.
In this regard, Cronbach (1955) was one of the first to
describe the effect of "implicit personality theory" on
interpersonal perception.

There remains, then, the problem of examining the

 

reasons for variations in empathic ability. The way in
which personality differences affect the processes of per-
ception of feelings must be examined.

Ability to discriminate feelings in another does not-
necessarily lead to ability to communicate effectively that
awareness (Carkhuff, 1969a; Campbell et al., 1971). Never-
theless, if not sufficient, discrimination is most certainly
necessary for the empathic process to begin, and is most
closely connected to the moment in that process when per—
sonality differences might have their effect.

Jungian Differences in Perceptive Style. The theories

 

of C. G. Jung (1923) include a discussion of personality
type differences dealing with modes of perception. Con—
sistent with his emphasis on the dichotomous nature of
human character, Jung's personality typology presents bi—
polar alternatives on three dimensions: Extraversion or
Introversion as primarily inborn general attitudes toward
the world; Sensing or Intuition as perceiving functions;
and Thinking or Feeling as judging functions. Jung believed
that each individual has a habitual preference for one al—
ternative over the other on each dimension. Yet he placed
importance on the validity and contributions of the oppo—
site of one's preferred type in various life situations.

Perception and the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator. In

 

recent years, Jung's type distinctions have been measured
in a variety of settings through use of the Myers—Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI). Much of the data resulting from

research with the MBTI have demonstrated that type dif-
ferences account for variations in occupational choice,
academic performance, and classroom attitudes toward learn-
ing and teaching, among other areas (McCaulley, 1975; Myers,
1962; Myers, 1971). The MBTI therefore seems to have pro—
mise as a device for identification of personality dif-
ferences as they relate to levels of interpersonal effec—
tiveness.

With the MBTI each individual receives a score on
four dimensions: Extraversion-Introversion (E-I), Sen—
sing-Intuition (S—N), Thinking—Feeling (T-F), and Judging-
Perceiving (J—P). Judging-Perceiving was not discussed by
Jung as a separate dimension, but has been included in the
MBTI to add meaning to scores in the other areas. The J-P
scale identifies the preferred mode of one's outward be—
havior with others. The opposite of one's J—P preference
therefore identifies the preferred mode of inward reflection.

Perception has been identified as the initial step
in the process of empathy (Truax and Carkhuff, 1967). The
perception dimension (Sensing-Intuition) of Jung's typology
is therefore of particular interest.

The Sensing alternative (S) is described as a prefer-
ence for receiving information from the environment primar-
ily through the five senses, focusing on precise details
and tangible data. Particularities are observed more clearly
than patterns and large relationships. Precision and

practicality are valued in Sensing.

 

Intuition (N) is described as a preference for reg-
istering information from the environment unconsciously
in patterns and wholes rather than in specific detail.
Stimuli are observed for complex relationships and abstract
deeper meanings rather than peculiarities and details.
Hunches and potentialities are valued in Intuition.

If perception leading to accurate affective discri—
mination is the first step prior to communication in the
empathic process, the alternative modes of perception as
outlined by Jung and measured by the Myers—Briggs Type In—
dicator might therefore explain differences in empathic
ability.

Overt and Covert Expression of Feelings. How openly

 

an individual expresses the feelings he is having deter—
mines in part how a listener attends to and then communi—
cates understanding for that person. One situation might
demand of the listener an attention to subtle covert mean—
ings. Messages of this nature might be missed by one who
listens for feelings primarily through the explicit state-
ments of others. If this is true, Jung's Sensing—Intuition
distinction is appropriate as a conceptual model for under-
standing differing levels of performance in empathy
research.

The Value of Both Poles of the Dichotomy. It seems

 

clear that helping relationships require ability both with
overt and covert stimuli. Some speaker messages will be

clear and explicit while others will be veiled and inexplicit

 

10

in many ways.

Carkhuff (1969b) has identified two types of responses
as appropriate in communication of empathic understanding.
Some responses must be interchangeable with speaker affect,
and others must evolve from what is 29: said, involving
attention to underlying meaning.

The argument about whether empathy is primarily an
intuitive process or simply another form of inference (All-
port, 1937) therefore misses the point. It seems important
to examine each side of this dichotomy as openly as the
other. Indeed, the empathic listener, even though he might
habitually prefer one mode of perception over another, ought
to have access to the other mode as well.

Problems in the empathic process come, therefore, from
habitual patternssolocked into one mode of perception that
the listener cannot employ the other. Preference for Intui-
tion, for example, may be so strong as to make it awkward
for the individual to operate in situations which demand
attention to details and facts. Preference for Sensing, on
the other hand, may be exceptional enough to preclude the
listener's ability to grasp the larger picture of the speak-
er's experience. Subtle and inexplicit messages (whether
nonverbal or connotative) may be missed, which give hints
to meanings much deeper than the outward or overt message.
Exceptional as opposed to moderate strength of preference
for modes of perception must therefore be investigated in

relation to empathic effectiveness.

11

A Model of Health. In spite of much of his impres—

 

sive research on the place of empathy in human relation-
ships, Carkhuff has at times employed a heavy-handed
approach to the issue of different levels of performance.

Some individuals [he has written] can deliver

and some cannot. Those who cannot deliver must

be trained. Those who cannot be trained must

be treated. Those who can be neither trained

nor treated must not hold positions of respon—

sibility in the areas of human relations.

(Carkhuff, 1969b, p. 289)

In contrast, the present study is conducted with
attention not so much to weaknesses in personality as to
potentialities. Instead of indicating degrees of pathology
in his type theory, Jung suggested that individual differ—
ences are all valid, necessary and healthy. He chose to
associate pathology with the failure to accept and make con—
structive use of unpreferred, yet real, divergent sides of
oneself. This positive growth-oriented nature of Jung's
ideas stimulates the selection of the Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator as the instrument of primary focus in the current
study.

Some individuals may require psychotherapeutic re-
mediation of anxiety before they can be said to be mini-
mally empathic. But the present study follows the
assumption that those who volunteer for helping relationship
training, regardless of perceptive style, have within them
the potential to build "interpersonal bridges" through the

use of empathy (Kell & Mueller, 1966). Each mode of per—

ception may provide an important way of creating the link

 

 

12

between one person and another. The belief is that alter-
native tendencies in people can be shaped and encouraged
while those people continue to maintain their basic approach

to life and other human beings.

Overview of the Study

 

The need has been stated for a study focusing on
differences in mode of perception as they affect ability
to identify feelings in messages of others. The theory
underlying the need has also been examined. The remainder
of the study is presented as an investigation of the problem
itself. In Chapter II, the pertinent literature is re—
viewed. In Chapter III, the design and methodology em—
ployed in carrying out the experimental part of the study
are presented. Chapter IV is included as a special section
describing the development and validation of an instrument
to measure empathic discrimination of overt and covert
messages of others. Chapter V includes the analysis of the
results of the investigation. Chapter VI presents a summary
of the study, the conclusions reached, a discussion of issues
that emerged from the study, and suggestions for future

research.

 

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The focus of the present study is on the effect of
the personality variables of Sensing and Intuition on
ability to discriminate empathically the feeling messages
of others. In line with this emphasis, the review of per—
tinent literature includes studies on empathy as a general
area of consideration, the dual nature of empathy, dis-
crimination of feelings as one task of the empathic process,
personality characteristics and their effect on human rela—
tionships in general, Jungian modes of perception and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, previous efforts to measure
empathic discrimination, and overt or covert qualities of
feeling expression.

A review follows of studies pertaining to perception
differences as related to empathy. Two studies in particu-
lar have been examined. In one the specific functions of
Sensing and Intuition were correlated with an aspect of
empathy. In the other qualities of empathic discrimination
were investigated in depth. A discussion and summary of the

review of the literature conclude the chapter.

13

14,

Empathy as a General Area of Study

 

The concept of empathy has been a source of consid-
erable interest in the literature for some time. There
have been several attempts to review and summarize these
studies (Buchheimer, 1963; Guiora, 1967; Strunk, 1957). It
is clear, however, that the term "empathy" has come to be
used in a variety of ways with highly divergent meanings.
One school of thought follows the early writings of Lipps
(1907), stating that empathy (from the German "einffihlung"
or "feeling oneself into") involves a sort of emotional
contagion. The perceiver in such a case experiences the
same feeling state as the person being perceived (Kerr &
Speroff, 1954; Stotland et al., 1971). The psychoanalytic
school has described empathy through a variety of Freudian
constructs: identification and transference (Fenichel,
1945; Stewart, 1954); introjection followed by reprojection
(Fox & Goldin, 1964); realistic object relations (Olden,
1958); differentiated projection (Lundy, 1956); transient
emotional identification (Fox & Goldin, 1964); moderate
psychoanalytic interpretation (Bergin, 1966); and a deriva—
tive of oral introjection (Greenson, 1960).

Dymond (1949) has developed a technique for the "imag—
inative transposing" of oneself into the thoughts and feel-
ings of another through prediction of the other's responses
on a questionnaire. Other researchers tried to improve this
predictive empathy approach by filtering out projections

from empathic perceptions (Bender & Hastorf, 1953). Cronbach

 

15

(1955) warned of the dangers of "implicit personality
theory" having an extraordinary effect on one's perception
of another. He also suggested that examination and control
of stereotypes in perceptions be included in any empathy
research. Smith (1966), however, believed that sensitivity
to others is enhanced when one becomes more accurate in em-
ploying stereotypes.

Another rather unique definition of empathy is that
of Hogan (1969), who has completed considerable research
through the measurement of what he calls "a broad moral per-
spective."

Scheler, as reviewed by Allport (1954), identified
eight separate variations of the "forms of sympathy."
"Einfuhlung" was distinguished from "nachffihlung," among
other variations. The former, in Scheler's View, involves
reflexive motor mimicry, while "nachffihlung" is seen as a
conscious and detached process, discriminating the per—
ceiver's feeling from that of the perceived. Rogers (1957)
also treated the empathic process as one of detachment,
where understanding of the experience of the other is com-
municated in a "client—centered" fashion. Empathy, in his
view, is one of the necessary and sufficient "core conditions"
for effective therapeutic interactions.

Carkhuff (1969b) and Truax (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967)
also agreed with Rogers that empathic communication is
essential, but they did not find it sufficient. Their de-

velopment of rating scales for determining counseling

 

16

effectiveness has considerably advanced knowledge about
empathy and other conditions of effective helping relations.
Shantz (1975) has called attention to the affective-
cognitive dimension of empathy, and noted that there is
often little correlation between the two. Iannotti (1975)
has written similarly, adding that both affective and cogni-
tive components are needed in helping relationships, a view

shared by Feshbach (1975).

The Dual Nature of Empathy

 

Allport (1937) described empathy as a phenomenon fall—
ing between inference and intuition, inference being a
process of associations and analogies in perception that
lead to precise categorization, and intuition being a direct,
immediate and often unconscious process. With inference,
prior experience similar to that of the observed is necessary
for one to make associations to the other's message. With
intuition, events and persons are apprehended in their total—
ity, and the uniqueness of each new person or event perceived
is retained intact, since the individuality of the other is
grasped in an immediate unconscious fashion.

In a later work, Allport (1961) criticized many
approaches to the understanding of others as half-way
theories, and argued that one needs both inference and in-
tuition. He stated that the intuitive process has been
sorely neglected, while logical processes of association

have been firmly emphasized. Such a view was recently

17

shared by Goodyear (1976).

Others have also written about the intuitive side of
interpersonal understanding. Sarbin et a1. (1960) suggested
that the premises of one's perception may not be obvious,
but this does not mean that they are not there. The "in—
tuitive" process was therefore called "clinical inference"
by Sarbin et al. The use of hunches in therapy was popu-
larized by Reik (1948) as a form of listening with a "third
ear." Katz (1963) warned against the professional techni—
cian of empathy, and instead suggested that empathy demands
"giving up temporarily our carefully cultivated habits of
alert observation, and surrender to nonrational processes."
(Katz, 1963, p. 24).

Some writers have argued the opposite view—-that in—
tuition involves "obscure hypothetical constructs" (Davitz,
1964). Schlien (1970) stated that intuition has received
excessive emphasis in counselor training programs, and that
the place of the literal and concrete in therapy needs to
be encouraged.

Another view holds that both processes of Allport's
inference-intuition dichotomy are important. Smith (1966)
listed among the "causes of insensitivity" 1) a rigidity
that does not allow for openness to persons of differing
experience (the mistake of the pure inference-oriented per—
son), and 2) a kind of "psychological-mindedness" that is so
preoccupied with underlying meanings that the obvious is

overlooked. Greenson (1960) likewise has taken note of

 

18

therapist-trainees who are "oblivious to the obvious."

Fox & Goldin (1964) have stated that empathy involves both
primary and secondary processes. Similarly, Taft (1955)
made reference to the dual processes of analytical and non—
analytical empathy. Asch (1946) expressed the view that
gaining impressions involves two processes used in varying
degrees. The first process includes fixing each stimulus
trait in isolation and noting its meaning. The second in—
volves the forming of homogeneous undifferentiated general

impressions.

Discrimination of Feelings as One Task of the Empathic

 

Process

Rogers (1975) has described empathy as including
certain forms of perception. Traux & Carkhuff (1967) also
referred to empathic understanding as "perception, then
communication." Dendy (1971) identified successive pro—
cesses of listening, understanding, and then communicating.

Much of the research from the Rogers school has cen—
tered around measuring levels of effective empathic communi-
cation rather than the perceptual awareness of feelings.
Others have developed methods of investigating empathic
awareness, which they have called "affective sensitivity"
(Campbell, 1967; Campbell et al., 1971; Chapman, 1966;
Danish & Kagan, 1971). Their methods involved situational
tests of empathy, in which there was no interaction between

the listener and the stimulus person. The process itself

 

19

involved detecting and describing the affective messages
presented on film or videotape.

One issue involved in the separation of empathic
perception from empathic communication centers around
whether the first implies the second. Carkhuff (1969a)
has written that discrimination in empathy training does
not necessarily lead to effective interactions with others,
a view shared by Kurtz & Grummon (1972). Campbell et a1.
(1971) admitted that this is probably the case, but still
argued that affective sensitivity is necessary, if not
sufficient, and thus must precede empathic communication.

Davitz (1964) has reported on studies of "emotional
sensitivity" which investigated variations in the way people
attend to stimulus differences in others. Therefore, Davitz
ignored the process of communication of understanding.
Bergin & Solomon (1970) have reported that the Davitz
technique measured skills unrelated to performance in exer—
cises where interaction is required of the subject. They
concluded therefore that Davitz' technique is not valid for
studying live emotional communication between two individ-

uals.

Personality Characteristics and Their Effect on Human

 

Relationships
Studies in which personality characteristics have
been examined in relation to human interaction contribute

helpful information about empathy. Shrauger & Altrocchi

20

(1964) included the character of the perceiver as one
factor influencing interpersonal perception. Similarly,
Cline (1964) reported that the nature of the perception
is altered by the fact that the perceiver is simply pre-
sent. Examination of the effect of "implicit personality
theory" on the measurement of interpersonal perception
has been encouraged by Cronbach (1955), who drew these
notions from personal construct theory as discussed by
Kelly (1955).

While agreeing that personality differences have
an effect on interpersonal perception, Campbell (1962)
presented the view that specific subroles of effective
interviews are too precise to be explainable by general
personality characteristics. This view was clearly not
shared by Danish & Kagan (1971), whose studies of empathy
trainers indicated that personal training styles were pre-
dictive of differences in affective sensitivity scores.
Stotland et a1. (1971) found that perceptual set, which
they induced prior to their experiment, did affect their
subjects' empathic ability (as defined according to the
Lipps tradition of sharing the emotions of the other).

A host of studies have been reported in which correl—
ations between various personality characteristics and
empathy were investigated. But each researcher has employed
a slightly different measure either of empathy or of per—
sonality characteristics. Personality instruments employed

have included: semantic differentials (Bellucci, 1971);

 

 

21

the Tennessee Self—Concept Inventory (Passons, 1968); the
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Swenson, 1970);
the Personality Orientation Inventory (Fisher, 1970); the
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, Gough Adjective Checklist
and Sanford Rigidity Scale (Felker, 1970); the Edwards Per-
sonal Preference Schedule (Demos & Zuwaylif, 1966); the
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale of Values (Halpern, 1957);
the Thematic Apperception Test, Rorschach Projective Tech-
nique, and California Ethnocentrism Test (Dymond, 1949);
paragraph completion tests to measure conceptual level
(Goldberg, 1974; Guy, 1971); self-developed measures of
perceptual defense against anxiety (Milliken & Kirchner,
1971); the K Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (Gowan, 1955); and the Rokeach Dogmatism Test
with several of the above (Bellucci, 1971; Felker, 1970;
Fisher, 1970; Hungerman, 1970; Passons, 1968). The results
of these studies over-all were inconclusive, with some
reporting lack of significance, and others contradicting
previous findings employing similar instruments.

One of the few authors to report replicative studies
is Bergin (Bergin & Jasper, 1969; Bergin & Solomon, 1963;
Bergin & Solomon, 1970). He found personality disturbance
as measured on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-
tory (MMPI) to be correlated negatively on the pathological
scales of Depression (D) and Anxiety (Pt) with communication
of empathic understanding as rated by judges using Truax

scales.

 

22

Some studies by Halpern (Halpern, 1955; Halpern &
Lesser, 1960) suggest that similarity between perceiver and
stimulus person will increase empathic ability. Asch (1946),
on the other hand, did not View similarity either of person-
ality or of experience as necessary for effectiveness in
forming impressions of others.

While it seems probable that personality character-
istics explain differences in the level of interpersonal
effectiveness across individuals, it seems especially likely
that intensity of the characteristics is a crucial factor.
Some studies have shown, for example, that moderate yet not
excessive elevation on the K Scale (defensiveness) of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory correlates with
empathic ability (Gowan, 1955). Berlew (1961) found that
subjects with moderate scores on a measure of personal needs
performed better on tasks demanding interpersonal sensi-
tivity than did those with extreme scores. Halpern (1955)
found a stronger capacity for predictive empathy in indi-
viduals who score near the center of the range on a.given
characteristic of the Guilford—Martin Inventory of Factors
(GAMIN).

Most of the reported studies of personality, however,
do not offer much in the way of understanding different
ways of being empathic. There appears to be little effort
exerted to explain why certain specific personality vari-
ables have been selected for study, since theoretically

many of the constructs do not relate to particular tasks

23

of the empathic process.

Jungian Perception and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Although some of the above-mentioned studies reported
significant correlations between personality and effective
human relationships, none dealt with the issue of empathic
perception. The theories of Jung (1923) have inspired
efforts to measure the perceptive dimensions of Sensing and
Intuition, and Myers' (1962) work in the development of the
l66—item Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has been especial-
ly fruitful in this regard. A thorough review of the liter—
ature on the MBTI has recently been included in a study by
Carlyn (1976).

Data of reliability for the Myers—Briggs Type Indica-
tor (MBTI) show the scales of Extraversion—Introversion
(E-I), Sensing-Intuition (S—N), and Judging-Perceiving (J—P)
with internal consistency estimates regularly above .70.

The Thinking~Feeling scale reports lower reliability scores
(Stricker & Ross, 1964a). Stricker & Ross (1963) also re-
ported comparative data of reliability from college and high
school populations: .64-.83 for high school and .7l-.84 for
college, with the lower scores in each case being for the
Thinking-Feeling scale. Mendelsohn (1970) noted that few
test—retest studies have been completed, with the only re—
ported data being above .70 for all scales except Thinking-
Feeling, which fall at .48. Mendelsohn concluded that the

reliability data for the MBTI are similar to those for other

 

24

self—report personality instruments.

The properties of the Sensing—Intuition (S—N) scale,
with which this study is mostly concerned, are not without
weaknesses. According to Stricker & Ross (1964b), each
MBTI scale measures constructs that may be interpreted in
a variety of ways. Although the S-N dimension seems more
homogeneous than Extraversion-Introversion or Judging—Per-
ceiving in this regard, concurrent studies with other per-
sonality and interest instruments show that there are
intelligence and occupational interest components to the
Sensing-Intuition preference in addition to basic percep-
tual differences.

Correlations between the S—N and the J—P scales have
been found to be between .26 and .47 (Mendelsohn, (1970).
Similar results were obtained by Webb (1964). As a quali-
fication, however, it should be noted that the J-P scale
measures a distinction which was mentioned only in passing
by Jung, and he did not identify this as a separate dimen-
sion for consideration. Gray & Wheelwright (1945), for
example, have not included J-P on their 85—item instrument
to measure Jungian types. This instrument, the Gray-Wheel—
wrightPsychologicalType Questionnaire, was developed in-
dependently of the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Strong and positive correlations with the MBTI have been
reported on the three basic scales: Extraversion—Introver-
sion, Sensing—Intuition and Thinking—Feeling. However the

MBTI has been shown to have higher internal reliability

 

data for each scale, probably due to the greater length of
the instrument (Myers, 1962).

Ross (1966) expressed the View that the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) is a valid instrument, but not for
deep—seated psychological differences. Nevertheless, there
does appear to be sufficient validity to the Sensing—
Intuition scale for it to be used as a measure of percep—
tion differences. Stricker & Ross (1964a) found a clear
distinction between the direct, stimulus-elicited quality
of Sensing and the indirect, holistic nature of Intuition.

In terms of construct validity, Mendelsohn (1970)
suggested that the scales were not a successful operational-
ization of Jung's typology. Sundberg (1970) countered this
by finding only the Extraversion-Introversion and Judging—
Perceiving scales inconsistent with their constructs. A
study by Bradway (1964) reported 75% agreement between
Myers—Briggs and Gray-Wheelwright Sensing-Intuition (S-N)
scores. She also reported 68% agreement between Myers—
Briggs S—N scores and self-descriptions of Jungian analysts,
based on their knowledge of Jungian constructs. This would
suggest then that asra measure of Jung's type dimensions
there is indeed some construct validity to the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator.

At any rate, the Sensing—Intuition Scale seems to
be one of the most reliable of the MBTI scales. It also
measures constructs that appear relatively compatible with

the nature of perception differences that Allport (1961) and

 

26

others have identified as influential in interpersonal

observation.

Previous Efforts to Measure Empathic Discrimination

 

Confusion as to the appropriate definition for empathy
has contributed to difficulties in its measurement as well.
One of the first techniques of empathy measurement was de-
veloped by Dymond (1950). Each subject was asked to predict
the answers another would give on a self-description inven-
tory. A similar predictive empathy instrument was construc—
ted by Kerr & Speroff (1954). Hogan (1969) developed an
instrument which he reported as a measure of empathy, but
which appears to evaluate the ethical behavior and attitudes
of subjects more than the degree to which one attends to
emotional messages of others. Truax & Carkhuff (1967) have
employed a set of rating scales to measure levels of com—
munication of empathic understanding.

The difficulties of empathy measurement were emphati—
cally illustrated in a study by Kurtz (1970). Using the
same counselor subjects, he compared the results of six
different measures of empathy: two predictive empathy tech-
niques, one employing the Leary Interpersonal Checklist and
the other employing the Kelly Repertory Test; the Affective
Sensitivity Scale developed by Campbell (1967); two judges'
ratings using Carkhuff's rating scales of Empathic Under—
standing; and two estimations of counselor empathy using the

Barrett—Lennard Relationship Inventory (one completed by the

 

 

 

27

client, the other by the counselor). Kurtz found no cor-
relation among any of the six techniques. Astin (1967)
reported similar lack of relationship between a predictive
empathy test and ratings of subjects' responses to stimulus
tapes.

It is therefore especially important to define clearly
which aspect of empathy is being considered at a given in—
stance. The focus of the present study is intended to
follow this principle by examining perception of discrimin—
ation of feelings expressed by another. Empathic discrim—
ination is intended to be separate from either empathic
communication or prediction of the other's future behavior.

An instrument studied by Kurtz has also been developed
with this separation in mind: the Affective Sensitivity
Scale (ASS), first reported on by Chapman (1966). Subjects
were asked to attend to kinescope recordings of counseling
interactions and to indicate the adjective most appropriately
describing the affective state of the stimulus person.
Campbell (1967) further refined the instrument by employ—
ing a multiple choice answer key with qualifying phrases
instead of simple adjectives to describe the stimulus per-
son's experience. The procedure for the ASS was described
as a "situational test" of empathy, since it simulated an
interaction without actually requiring the subject to be
interpersonally involved.

Campbell concluded from his study that affective sen-

sitivity was a measurable psychological trait: scores

J
J
i,
g,

28

varied across individuals and could be improved through
training. The instrument itself obtained internal consis-
tency estimates between .58 and .77, and test-retest reli—
ability figures of .75 (Danish & Kagan, 1971). Supervisor
ratings of the counselors studied correlated positively
with ASS scores, falling between .35 and .64. Campbell
suggested that differences in scores may be a function of
defense mechanisms which distort perceptions, and he rec-
ommended correlational studies with personality instruments.
A later study (Campbell et al., 1971) called attention to
two states of perception as part of affective sensitivity:
a sensory phase and an interpretive or labeling one. It
was suggested that anxiety intervening between the first
and second phases accounts for difficulties in accurate
identification of feelings.

A similar procedure to measure counselor perceptions
of client experience was developed by Rank (1966), who
filmed excerpts of actual interviews. Subjects were asked
to describe their perceptions for each filmed segment on
an "agree-disagree" Likert scale in reaction to question-
naire items for each film vignette. Test-retest reliabil-
ity figures were listed at .69 on this instrument, called
the Film Test of Counselor Perceptions (FTCP).

Another series of techniques for studying empathy
was initiated by Davitz & Davitz (1959). They investigated
the differences in qualities of stimulus material as they

affected emotional sensitivity. Using a content—free

29

procedure, subjects listened to taped recitations of the
alphabet, each example with inflections and other nonverbal
characteristics representing a particular emotion. The
technique was altered somewhat by Beldoch (1964), who em—
ployed content-standard conditions. All stimulus persons
recited the same phrases, which purportedly included no
emotional material in the strictly verbal message. Each
example was likewise intended to portray nonverbally a
given emotion. Test—retest reliability figures of .74
were obtained. Beldoch went on to find correlations be-
tween this exercise which focused on the vocal, yet non-
verbal, message and two similar exerciseswheresubjects
attended to musical and artistic expressions of feeling

respectively.

Overt and Covert Qualities of Expression of Feeling

 

In studying the process of empathic discrimination,
it is important to examine closely the properties of the
stimulus person's expression of feeling. Truax & Carkhuff
(1967) have described variations in level of speaker ex-
pression from obvious to veiled to preconscious. They have
suggested that communication of empathic understanding
should coincide with the nature of the expression. Rommet—
veit (1960), in his study of intuition, noted that subtle
covert stimuli are often discriminated without clear aware-
ness by the observer.

Studies of the nature of self-disclosure, such as

30

that of Benner (1968), shed light on qualities of feeling
expression in the stimulus person during the empathic
process. Benner found in his study that self-disclosure

is clearly an interpersonal phenomenon, and that character-
istics of the discloser, the listener, and the relation-
ship between the two are all crucial ingredients that
deserve attention.

The measurement of self-disclosure often involves
as many problems as the measurement of empathy, since
definitions are equally diverse in each area. Stachowiak
(1974) attempted to use a four-point continuous rating
scale. Judges were asked to identify the speaker's level
of disclosure by focusing on the outward rather than the
latent meanings being expressed. Allen (1960), on the
other hand, had judges rate tapes of counseling interactions
on a seven—point scale for subtleness of feeling. A weight-
ing system gave each rated counselor a higher level if he
responded to the more subtle messages in his client's ex—
pression.

Degrees of overtness in speaker's messages are there-
fore important as cues for listeners. Langer (1953) broke
some important ground in this domain by distinguishing be-
tween what she called the discursive and nondiscursive
elements of emotional expression. The discursive mode in-
volves verbal labels, has a clear syntax and order, and is
verifiable. The nondiscursive, however, depends on intuition

and direct insight for understanding, has no clear

 

31

nomenclature or syntax, and (in Langer's View) is not veri—
fiable. Although Beldoch (1964) has since presented data
that seem to show nondiscursive expressions to be measur—
able, Langer's division of the two modes still seems useful.
Others have referred to similar distinctions by the terms
denotative and connotative (Ostwald, 1963).

In order to investigate the usefulness of the meta-
phor in emotional expression, Davitz & Mattis (1964) fol-v
lowed Beldoch's technique for studying the nondiscursive
mode (controlling content in order to examine nonverbal
qualities), but by reversing the focus. By eliminating

7 voice sounds and other nonverbal characteristics, they
asked subjects to identify feelings which were being com—

. municated in a series of written statements. Their effort
represented an attempt to examine another aspect of covert
emotional communication.

The particular emotional experience of the stimulus
person itself also seems to be an important factor affect—
ing the observer's perception. Iannotti (1975) found that
empathy for some stimulus feelings may develop at differ—
ent rates than for others. Furthermore, Deutsch (1974)
reported, in a study of preschool children, that differ—
ences in emotional sensitivity depended on whether the
stimulus material was congruous or incongruous. Greenberg
et a1. (1969) stated that affective sensitivity tended to
focus on three general factorial groupings of feeling: de—

pendency, anger/hostility, and avoidance. The three clusters

9

 

 

32

accounted for more than half of subjects' perceptions on
the Affective Sensitivity Scale.

Means of recording the observer's perception thus
deal with the problem of how one communicates in some
measurable fashion both the feeling, and the perception
of the feeling. Studies have employed adjective lists
(Chapman, 1966), descriptive phrases (Campbell, 1967; Rank,
1966), multiple choice feeling work lists (Beldoch, 1964;
Davitz, 1964), and semantic differential techniques using
feeling labels (Greenberg et al., 1969).

Since there are clearly hundreds of feeling states of
which human beings are capable, collecting information about
feelings is a problem. Davitz (1969) has found that feel-
ings cluster into similar groupings. He has come up with
twelve groupings representing positive, passive-negative
and active-negative dimensions crossed with levels of acti-
vation, approach-avoidance, comfort—tension and competence.
Tomkins (1963) has written extensively on eight primary
affect categories: anger—rage, fear-terror, joy~enjoyment,
shame-humiliation, distress—anguish, contempt—disgust,
surprise—startle, and interest—excitement. Plutchik (1962)
likewise has identified eight groupings. Although his
labels are slightly different from Tomkins', they each
represent similar qualitative emotional dimensions with
only one exception. Shame, for Plutchik, involves a com—
bination of fear and disgust, and thus is not a separate

cluster. The incorporative feeling state of acceptance

 

 

 

33

is identified as his eighth grouping.

Studies of Perception Differences as Related to Empathy

 

Few studies approach empathy and perception differ—
ences in the way the current effort is directed, especially
employing measures of Sensing and Intuition. Bergin &
Solomon (1970) found that the need for order on the Ed—
wards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) correlated nega-
tively (-.41) with empathy, while the need for autonomy
correlated positively (+.37). Myers (1962) has reported
correlations of autonomy on the EPPS with Intuition on the
Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (+.3l). Order correlated like—
wise with Sensing (+.34), suggesting that Intuition might
therefore be the preferred mode of empathic individuals.

Studies with the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
itself have also shown links between Intuition and empathy.
Levell (1965) demonstrated that effective secondary school
counselors tended to prefer Intuition as a mode of percep-
tion. Braun (1971) likewise found Intuition to be related
to therapists' abilities to predict clients' feelings
toward them. Hogan (1969) found very mild correlations
between his version of empathy ("broad moral perspective")
and the Sensing—Intuition scale (Sensing —.l6; Intuition
+.l6). Boles (1975) sought to examine both Sensing-
Intuition and Judging-Perceiving differences in relation
to communication of empathic understanding before, during

and after training. But she obtained no significance for

 

34

any of her hypotheses. Lack of adequate controls of var-
iables affecting subjects over time was given in explana-
tion.

Another study which also failed to produce signifi-
cant correlations between MBTI scores and empathy was that
of Aldenbrand (1974). Even though hypotheses examining
Intuition—Sensing and Thinking—Feeling differences in pre-
dictive empathy were not supported, her method and dis—
cussion of these negative findings raise some important
questions.

After watching a videotaped interaction among four
individuals, Aldenbrand's subjects were asked to predict
how the stimulus persons would describe their thoughts or
feelings, and how they would answer questions on a personal-
ity test. Her model for empathy therefore followed the
Dymond school of prediction of future behavior.

Aldenbrand concluded that recognition of emotion in
others was related to 1) the method of stimulus presenta-
tion, 2) the degree of discrimination demanded of the sub—
ject, and 3) the extent to which feeling labels used by the
subject are self-generated. The problem of veridicality
(who really knows the feelings of the stimulus person?)
was raised, and Aldenbrand's methods admittedly fell short
of solving the problem. "Expert" raters, questionnaire
answers, and even a statement by the stimulus person him-
self all must be tentative as criteria to determine accur-

ately the appropriate feeling. The coding of feelings

 

 

 

35

perceived in Aldenbrand's study was facilitated by a short
training for subjects using feeling word lists.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores were then trans-
lated onto a continuum, in keeping with recommendations
for research by Myers (1962). Extraversion-Introversion
(E-I) was controlled by taking only subjects with mid-range
scores, who therefore could not be clearly identified as
E or I.

One problem reported by Aldenbrand was that stimulus
persons were selected randomly, contributing to uncontroll-
able stimulus variables. She recommended that replicative
studies undergo a more careful screening procedure to en—
sure that subjects may attend to particular stimulus var—
iables without distraction.

The level of interaction on many of Aldenbrand's
stimulus tapes was considerably less intimate than seemed
necessary for feeling states to be distinguishable at all.
Each taped sequence was viewed by subjects for several
items. Subjects tended to look for messages which were
similar to their prior perceptions of those stimulus per—
sons. Aldenbrand recommended, as a result, that initial
responses only be recorded. She also suggested that sub-
jects be allowed to stop the tape when they have perceived
a feeling or thought process, since asking for responses
at cued moments is artificial.

Aldenbrand concluded with several statements about

the nature of empathy. Empathy research, she noted, often

36

focuses on the products of interactions (correct answers)
and ignores the process. Most research methodologies also
assume that individuals are equally empathic over time;
that feelings, thoughts and actions all may be perceived
at once; or that only one correct empathic response exists
per given situation. She stated that these assumptions
are in general quite false.

Aldenbrand's use of the predictive model of empathy
is not consistent with the intentions of the present study.
On the other hand, Davitz (1964) has contributed important
work in the area of discrimination of immediate feelings.

Davitz' study began with an attempt to find correla—
tions between personality and emotional sensitivity, the
latter measured by the 37—item instrument of Beldoch (1964).
Thirty-three correlations were sought from scales of the
Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS), the Allport-
Vernon—Lindzey Scale of Values (AVL), the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS), and the Hysteria (Hy) and Anxi-
ety (Pt) scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI). Only three of the correlations differed
significantly from zero: heterosexuality +.34 and aggres—
sion +.42 from the EPPS, and general activity +.39 from
the GZTS. Chance alone could account for so few correla—
tions, he concluded. In his view, personality characteris-
tics, especially as measured by paper—pencil tests, offer
little in the way of explaining differences in scores of

emotional sensitivity.

37

A second part of Davitz' study turned attention to
perceptual/cognitive aspects of emotional sensitivity,
which he suspected would hold more promise than personality
test information. The measures used produced more easily
observable data. They included the Seashore Measure of
Musical Talents to describe capacity for making auditory
discriminations; the Progressive Matrices Test to determine
cognitive ability; judges' ratings of cued emotional vocal
sounds produced by subjects as a measure of ability to
interpret emotions; and a forty item vocabulary test to
measure verbal intelligence.

All measures were correlated with an instrument of
emotional sensitivity similar to the one used in the earlier
part of the study. In the current edition, forty items were
taped recorded expressing eight different emotional mean-
ings; five were nonemotional or neutral items. The content—
standard technique of Beldoch (1964) was employed, where
nonverbal or covert qualities of expression were the only
distinctions among items. Davitz reported that answer keys
for each item were obtained when a plurality of listeners
agreed with the intended emotional meaning of the speaker.
He did not indicate who served as the criterion group. Test-
retest reliability data were reported at .82 with thirty—
eight subjects.

Results of the study showed consistent significance
among all characteristics. The perceptual/cognitive qualities

intercorrelated positively between +.26 and +.3l, and figures

38

of correlation between each of the characteristics and

emotional sensitivity ranged from +.34 to +.50.

Discussion of Previous Research

 

One of the problems in empathy research has involved
absence of agreement on clear and precise working defini-
tions. Kurtz' study (1970) showed lack of correlation
among six common means of measuring empathy, thus illustra-
ting the need for clarity. In contrast, the present study
seeks understandings about one aspect of the process of
empathy: the simple discrimination of feelings in the
spoken messages of others. It is distinguished from those
which examine communication of empathic understanding or
empathic prediction of future behavior. Each of the other
facets of empathy depend on discrimination of feelings as
a necessary first step.

Previous instruments intended to measure simple em—
pathic discrimination have reported results quite different
from instruments where effectiveness in situation is mea—
sured. The need, nevertheless, exists for understanding
how people differ in perception of other's feelings.

Many studies have investigated the effects of personal-
ity differences on empathy. There was little agreement
among these studies about which personality variables were
crucial and which were not. Very few studies presented a
theoretical basis for selection of the instruments or scales

they used.

—=:—

 

 

39

The effect of perception differences in particular
has been neglected in the literature. Some have reported
significant correlations between empathy and a variety of
personality measures loosely related to Intuition. But
these studies have used either the predictive empathy
model or ratings of communication of empathic understand—
ing according to the Carkhuff design.

The notion that empathy may involve dual processes
such as Sensing and Intuition has been supported by theo-
retical writings, but empirical research is still lacking.
There is a question as to whether Allport's conception of
inference is the same as Jung's Sensing alternative. Some
studies have indicated that Intuition may be more consistent
with empathic processes than Sensing (Braun, 1971; Levell,
1965). But there is at least theoretical support for the
notion that each pole of the dichotomy indicates a valid,
if not equivalent, means of attending to emotion in others
(Allport, 1961).

Some studies have reported that moderate or midrange
scores on an instrument or scale indicate greater versatil—
ity in human relations (Berlew, 1961; Halpern, 1955). Even
though Myers (1962) warned against over-interpretation of
the strength of personality preference scores, it seems
fruitful to examine their possible meaning empirically. The
intriguing theOretical notion of easy accessibility to alter-
native modes stimulates this aspect of the present investi-

gation.

 

40

At first glance, the Affective Sensitivity Scale
(ASS) (Campbell, 1967) seemed valid as a potential instru-
ment for use in the present study. As a situation test,
no interaction with other individuals was required. How-
ever, stimulus material for the ASS included no separation
between overt and covert expressions of affect. Multiple
choice options for many items involved thinking and complex
cognitive expressions. Such multiple choice options are
questionable as affective material. Since stimulus mater-
ial was on film, subjects took their cues from visual as
well as auditory stimuli. This appeared to be realistic,
but interpretation of results is difficult if one is inter—
ested in how subjects perform under specific stimulus
conditions.

The Affective Sensitivity Scale (ASS) has been shown
to have further problems. Subjects were directed to "feel
the emotion of the other." The ASS therefore represents in
this way the Lipps school of empathy, by expecting one to
have an affective experience consistent with the stimulus
person. Some of the multiple choice answers refer to feel-
ings the stimulus person had early in the excerpt; others
ask for feelings expressed at the moment the excerpt ended.
The lack of consistent focus is further compounded because
subjects are expected to focus attention on more than one
person in each vignette. The procedure is thus very in-
volved and confusing, and not analagous to many one-to—one

helping relationships. The authors have recommended

 

41

follow—up studies, using personality data, to understand

differences in scores across subjects. However, signifi—
cant results might not reveal which task correlates with

which personality variable.

Similar objections have been found for the Film Test
of Counselor Perceptions (FTCP) (Rank, 1966). Subjects
waited from one to five minutes until a segment was com—
pleted before indicating their perceptions. Their percep-
tions were recorded on an agree-disagree continuum in
reaction to written statements about the excerpt. The
written statements often did not include actual emotional
expressions.

Since other instruments measuring empathic discrimin—
ation seemed invalid, an effort was made in the present
study to construct a measure that is more appropriate to
the issues under investigation. Special consideration was
given to the control of stimulus conditions in order to
provide a clear set of variables for investigation. Re—
ported reliability estimates of .58—.77 for the Affective
Sensitivity Scale and .69 for Rank's test have provided a
range of comparison with the new instrument.

Studies by Aldenbrand (1974) and Davitz (1964), al—
though not identical in purpose to the present study,
nevertheless provide important guidelines for future re-
search. Aldenbrand's discussion section included the state-
ment of need for clear control of variables in stimulus

conditions. This procedure may sacrifice conditions of

42

realism, but it is still valid, she reported. She found
that the intimacy level of her stimulus tapes was too
shallow for feeling messages to be discriminated. That
there exist distinct levels of disclosure, and that de-
grees of subtleness or overtness characterize these levels,
has been supported in the literature. No study examined
in the present review has reported efforts to examine
both overt and covert distinctions with perceptive style.
One of the purposes of the present study is to fill the
need for investigation of both overt and covert stimulus
material.

Feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are all a part of
stimulus material in helping relationship settings. Sel—
dom are individuals expected to respond to more than one
of these dimensions at a time. At Aldenbrand's encourage—
ment, only feelings are investigated in this study. She
further recommended recording only the initial response of
each subject.

Davitz' findings have also contributed to the need
for the current study. He has illustrated that covert
("nonverbal") qualities of stimulus material can be per-
ceived apart from the spoken message, and that perceptions
of this material can be successfully measured. His efforts
to find personality correlates of emotional sensitivity
were haphazard, since he presented no a priori explanation
for selection of instruments. When nonsignificant results

were obtained in his study, he also seemed quick to condemn

 

43

the practice of employing self—report paper-and—pencil
personality measures. Rather than replicate his study,
Davitz moved to a new set of variables for examination.

Significant correlations were obtained between
perceptive/cognitive measures and emotional sensitivity
in Davitz' follow-up study. The results, however, were
not necessarily more meaningful than the results of his
first effort. Instruments used in this second study pro-
vided more concrete data on physical and intelligence
variables, but alternative mgges of perception were not
examined. In effect, he substituted aptitude instruments
for personality instruments in the hope of coming up with
more satisfying results.

Where Davitz' study lacked, Aldenbrand's was often
strong, and vice versa. The current effort attempts to
separate overt from covert in stimulus material (one of
Davitz' key contributions), measure differences in ability
to identify immediate feelings expressed in such stimulus
material (another strength of Davitz' work) and correlate
results with differences in perception as described by Jung
(1923). Aldenbrand employed the Myers-Briggs Type Indica-
tor to measure the latter, unfortunately in combination with
a model for empathy that is not valid if one is interested
in empathic discrimination of immediate messages. Yet the
critique of her own study when added to ideas of Davitz con-
tributes to planning for the present study. The current

effort seeks the best of both approaches, while hopefully

 

44

controlling for the shortcomings of each.

Summary

Literature was reviewed which addressed the problem
of personality correlates as related to differences in
empathic discrimination. Numerous studies were found with
unsatisfactory implications. Measures of empathy were often
not appropriate to the problem under consideration in the
present study. Personality instruments or scales employed
were chosen without explanation of their appropriateness to
studies in empathy.

The literature was reviewed pertinent to the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator and the Sensing-Intuition scale in
particular. Both internal consistency and test—retest
reliability figures were discovered to be above .70 for
Sensing—Intuition. Studies have reported satisfactory
conclusions regarding the validity of Sensing-Intuition as
a measure of Jung's construct.

Efforts to measure empathy were found to be at least
as diverse as the definitions of empathy. One study found
that six instruments which were purported to measure aspects
of empathy were unrelated. The Affective Sensitivity Scale
(ASS), one of the instruments, appeared at first to have
face validity for possible inclusion in the present study.
Subjects were asked only to identify the affect perceived.
They were not expected to respond or interact in any way

with another individual. The ASS was reported internally

consistent between .58 and .77 and held test-retest reli—
ability of .75. But the purpose of the current study is to
investigate empathic discrimination as it varies from overt
to covert stimulus qualities. The ASS did not differentiate
overt and covert conditions. Nor did all multiple choice
answer options comply with the concept of "affect." Stim—
ulus material was both visual and auditory, and included
more than one stimulus person per example. These short-
comings made the ASS inappropriate for use in the current
study.

An examination of another similar instrument, the
Film Test of Counselor Perception (FTCP) was made. Test-
retest reliability was reported at .69. However, more than
one stimulus person was included per example. In addition,
items were answered by subjects only after each stimulus
example (one to five minutes in length) was completed. An—
swer options did not always focus on feelings. Thus, the
FTCP was another instrument found unsuited for use in the
present study.

Two forms of a test of emotional sensitivity were also
reviewed (Beldoch, 1964; Davitz, 1964). Covert qualities of
stimulus material were examined alone by the use of content-
standard examples. Test—retest reliability was reported at
.74 for the first form, and .88 for the second. It was con-
cluded that nonverbal or covert sensitivity can be measured
effectively. However, the absence of overt material on the

test excluded it from consideration in the present

46

investigation.

Two studies were reviewed in some depth. Aldenbrand's
study (1974) of two Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Scales and
predictive empathy reported nonsignificance. However, her
thorough recommendations for future research suggested
identifying specific aspects of stimulus materials. She
also suggested recording only the initial perception of
the subject. A minimal level of affective self—disclosure
was missing from her stimulus tapes, and was believed to
contribute to her disappointing results. Each of Alden-
brand's suggestions have been considered in preparing the
present study's design.

Davitz (1964) examined personality variables as re—
lated to emotional sensitivity. Lack of significance was
reported, but the variables for examination were poorly
selected. Davitz admitted to lack of theoretical base for
much of his work. The present study has attempted to avoid
such a gap in theoretical support.

Hypotheses for the current study derive primarily
from theoretical notions of Intuition (N) and Sensing (S)
and the nature of overt and covert stimuli. Only mild
correlations were reported in the literature of empathy
with S-N (-.16 for S; +.16 for N). However, concurrent
validity studies show S correlating with order (+.34) and
N with autonomy (+.3l) on the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule. One study reported significant correlations be—

tween empathy and each need: positive (+.37) for autonomy

 

and negative (-.41) for

The review of the
ical support exists for
differences in empathic
however, was discovered

cant results. Problems

47

order.

literature indicated that theoret—
examination of Sensing—Intuition
discrimination. Research data,

to be sparse and lacking signifi-

encountered in methodology were dis-

cussed and considered for use in designing the current

study.

Chapter III includes the design and methodology

employed in carrying out the experimental part of the

study.

 

 

CHAPTER III: DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The methodological part of the study involved ad-
ministration of the Identification of Feelings Exercise
and the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator to subjects. Tests
of significance were then performed for the major hypo—
theses by comparing scores from each instrument. A des—
cription of the design and procedural aspects of the

study follows.

Selection and Description of the Sample

 

The 139 subjects who participated in the study came
from two sources. The first source of subjects included
undergraduate and graduate dormitory residents at Michigan
State University during Summer Term 1976. Each of the
students had volunteered to take the Myers-Briggs Type In—
dicator (MBTI) for their own self—awareness. In return
for receiving an interpretation of their MBTI scores, they
agreed to participate in the present study by completing
the Identification of Feelings Exercise. Of the 74 stu-
dents included in the sample from dormitories, 23 were
either Resident Assistants or Graduate Assistants serving
as Residence Hall Staff for Summer Term. These and other

descriptive data may be noted in Table 3.1.

48

 

49

Table 3.1 Distribution of Subjects by Descriptive Infor-
mation: N = 139

 

Sex: Male = 55 Female = 84

Interpersonal Yes = 36 N0 = 103
Skills Traininglz

Counselingz: Yes = 7 N0 = 132

Source of Subject: Dorm = 51 RA 23 Ed5 = 65

 

lcompleted feeling-based interpersonal skill training
program within the last twelve months

2had counseling for eight or more regular sessions with-
in the last twelve months

3Michigan State University dormitory residents during
Summer Term 1976

4Michigan State University dormitory resident assistants
during Summer Term 1976

5Michigan State University students enrolled in a
teacher education course during Summer Term 1976

The second source of subjects included 65 undergrad—
uates in Teacher Education classes during Summer Term 1976.
They were spread among four separate class sections, and
volunteered to participate in the study in return for re—
ceiving an interpretation of their Myers—Briggs Type Indica—
tor scores. The memorandum used to solicit participation by
Education Teaching Assistants and their sections may be
found in Appendix A.

Data were gathered describing the sample by sex,
number who had completed interpersonal skill training in the

previous year, and number who had been in counseling or

 

50

therapy for eight or more regular sessions in the previous
year.

It may be noted from Table 3.1 that there were more
females than males in the sample in a ratio of approximately
3:2. Recent interpersonal skill training only accounted
for 36 of the 139 subjects. Those having recently been in
counseling were even fewer in number (7).

Data from all four scales of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) were obtained for each subject. Analysis
of variance procedures were employed to determine if the
sources of subjects for the study (dormitory, resident
assistant, and education) accounted for any significant
differences in scores on the four MBTI dimensions. A
summary of this data is included in Appendix B. It may be
noted in Table 3.2 that dormitory resident assistant and
education groups did 29: differ significantly on the Sens—
ing—Intuition dimension.

Table 3.2 Analysis of Variance Examining Differences Among

Sources of Subjectskanontinuous Sensing-Intuition
(S—N) Scores.

 

 

 

N S—N Standard F F Prob-
Mean Deviation Ratio ability
Dorm@ 51 102.41 24.78
@
RA@ 23 109.96 26.53 2.387 .096
Ed __ 96.81 25.51
Total: 139 101.04
@

Dorm = Dormitory, RA = Resident Assistant, Ed =
Education

 

51

It was therefore concluded that the three groups could be
treated together as a unitary single sample of 139 with
regard to Sensing—Intuition. A summary of all MBTI data
on the sample is included in a type table in Appendix C.

Subjects in the sample were stratified according to
two dimensions: Sensing-Intuition (S-N) preference from
the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and strength of
preference score on this same dimension. Items scored "S"
refer to preference for concreteness,realism, adjustment
to facts as they are over efforts to alter them, valuing
statements over concepts, and wishing others were clear
in saying exactly what they mean. Items scored "N" refer
to the preference for imagination, liking abstractions and
concepts, valuing the figurative over the literal, and
appreciating the stimulation of change rather than accept—
ing and adjusting to reality.

Subjects' S—N scores were placed on a continuum
according to transformation procedures suggested by Myers
(1962). Sensing types thus ranged in score from 33 to
99, and Intuitive types from 101 to 161. Scores are odd—
numbered in order to provide a type classification for in—
dividuals near the zero point. Zero is transformed to 100
on the continuum.

Subjects with scores from 71 to 129 were considered
Moderate scorers. Subjects with scores at 69 or below and
131 or above were considered Exceptional scorers. Myers

(1962) and McCaulley (1971) have each written about the

52

need for differential (yet cautious) interpretations of
individual scores above or below these particular division
points.

Based on the meaning of the Moderate-Exceptional
separation of scores which is suggested here, the follow-
ing descriptions result.

Exceptional Sensing (ES) refers to the mode where

 

there is a clear preference expressed for attention to
details, facts and sensory stimuli in the environment. One
operates only awkwardly or not at all in the Intuitive mode,
tending to perserverate in the Sensing mode in frustration
even when evidence shows this to be ineffective.

Moderate Sensing (MS) refers to the mode where clear
preference is expressed for attention to details, facts and
sensory stimuli in the environment. Comfortable functioning
when necessary, however, is possible in the Intuitive mode.

Moderate Intuition (MN) refers to the mode where clear

 

preference is expressed for attention to the environment in
complex patterns and wholes, perceiving possibilities and
potentialities for the stimuli. Comfortable functioning
when necessary, however, is possible in the Sensing mode.

Exceptional Intuition (EN) refers to the mode where

 

there is a clear preference expressed for attention to the
environment in patterns and wholes, perceiving possibilities
and potentialities for the stimuli. One operates only awk—
wardly in the Sensing mode, tending to perseverate in the

Intuitive mode in frustration even when evidence shows this

 

53

to be ineffective.

Employing the criteria just described for classifying
subjects, the sample for the present study was stratified
into Sensing-Intuition and Exceptional-Moderate groups. It
may be observed in Table 3.3 that only 39 of the 139 sub-
jects were found to have Exceptional scores for either

Sensing or Intuition.

Table 3.3 Stratification of Sample by Strength of Scores

 

 

on Sensing or Intuition: N = 139.
Exceptional Moderate Total
Scores Scores
(33—69 or (71—129)
131—169)
Sensing (S) 21 47 68
Intuition (N) 18 53 71

 

Setting and Procedures

 

The 139 subjects were tested in nine groups, ranging
in size from seven to twenty-three. Residence hall staff
met together in one group, the remaining dormitory residents
met in groups by floor, and Education students met in their
regular class groups.

In each situation, a short description of the general
purpose of the study was presented. Mark-sense answer sheets
and a procedure sheet for the Identification of Feelings
Exercise were then distributed. A copy of the procedure

sheet may be found in Appendix D. A paraphrasing of the

 

54

general directions followed and questions about the pro-
cedure were answered.

The Identification of Feelings Exercise (IFE) in—
cluded 50 audio item—vignettes, each with one person
describing a recent experience. Items varied in length
from a few seconds to a minute. Emotional material was
expressaieitherovertly or covertly. Subjects were not
told about the overt-covert distinctions. They were only
instructed to listen to each item and to identify the pre-
dominant feeling they heard being expressed.*

After the general directions were explained by the
experimenter, each item of the IFE was presented, with a
4-6 second pause between each to allow subjects to record
their answers. A summary of the procedures followed is
included in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Summary of Procedures Followed with Each Group
of Subjects

 

I. The experimenter directs the completion of the answer
form (name, sex, and student number) and paraphrases
the general directions for the Identification of Feel—
ings Exercise.

II. The experimenter gives directions for the Identifica—
tion of Feelings Exercise in more detail:

A. Subjects are to listen to each taped example.
Feelings will be expressed whiCh fall into one
of five categories: A) Contempt/Disgust, B) Dis—
tress, C) Joy, D) Fear, and E) Anger.

 

*

Answers were to be recorded by checking a letter
corresponding to one of five feeling categories: Contempt/
Disgust, Distress, Joy, Fear or Anger.

 

55

Table 3.4 (continued)

 

B. Subjects are to identify the predominant feeling
each stimulus person was experiencing as he spoke
in the example. If more than one feeling is
heard, the predominant feeling should be marked
on the answer sheet.

C. Subjects are to mark only one answer per item,
and answer all items.

D. Subjects are told that after a 4—6 second pause
to record their answer, the experimenter will
play the next item on the tape.

III. At the conclusion of the test, the experimenter asks
subjects to sign the release form and indicate Inter—
personal Skills Training and Counseling experience.

IV. Myers—Briggs Type Indicator materials are distri-
buted. Subjects are encouraged to complete items as
fast as possible, but without a specific time limit.

 

All groups except one completed the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) following the Identification of Feelings
Exercise (IFE). Dormitory Resident Assistants had comple—
ted the MBTI individually prior to the session when the IFE

was administered.

Reliability and Validity of Instruments Used in the Study

 

The two instruments employed in the present study
were the Identification of Feelings Exercise (IFE) and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Data of reliability
and explanation of validation procedures in the construc-
tion of the IFE are included in Chapter IV.

Reliability estimates for the Sensing-Intuition Scale

of the MBTI on the present sample were determined by two

56

separate procedures. Carlyn (1976) has reported that split-
half and coefficient alpha procedures have each produced
similar estimates for the MBTI. In order to check this find-
ing, the present study employed both methods.

Following Myers' (1962) suggested item assignment for
split—half procedures, items were hand-scored for the x—half
and y—half of the Sensing—Intuition (S-N) Scale. Since con-
tinuous scores were to be used to test the major hypotheses,
each x-half and y—half total was similarly transformed onto
an S-N continuum. Pearson product-moment correlation coef—
ficients were calculated comparing the two halves. These
data were corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula
for reduced length of the instrument. The estimated internal
reliability of the Sensing-Intuition scale for the present
sample was found with this method to be .8160.

The Cronbach coefficient alpha system (1967) produces
an estimate of the reliability of all possible split—halves
for a given instrument. Since each item on the Myers—Briggs
Type Indicator may be scored 0, l or 2 in the direction of
either bipolar alternative, subjects' answers on the Sensing—
Intuition (S-N) items were recorded by a -2, —1, 0, +1, +2
system. The negative values referred to items scored for
Sensing; thepmsitivevalues for Intuition. Using this data,
internal reliability of the S-N scale was computed by Cron—
bach's system. The resulting value was .8291.

Validity of the Sensing—Intuition (S-N) scale has

been demonstrated by several means. Estimates of

 

57

correlation between S-N and scales of the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule, the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,
and the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale of Values have been
reported, among others, by Myers (1962). Myers (1962) also
has reported that in using a college student sample the S-N
scale correlates strongly and positively (.58) with the
Sensing—Intuition scale of the Gray-Wheelwright Psycholog-
ical Type Questionnaire. The Gray—Wheelwright is an inde-
pendently constructed measure of Jungian type distinctions.
Similar results were obtained by Bradway (1964). Stricker
& Ross (1964b) found the Extraversion—Introversion (E-I)
and Judging-Perceiving (J-P) scales of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator lacking in construct validity, but not the
S—N scale. The S-N scale has also been reported to be

theoretically sound by Sundberg (1970).

Design

The present study employs a repeated measures design
with fixed factors. Two crossed factors over subjects
(Sensing-Intuition type crossed with strength of prefer—
ence) and one factor over measures (scores on overt and
covert dimensions of the Identification of Feelings Exer—
cise) are included. A pictorial representation of the

design is presented in Table 3.5.

58

Table 3.5 Design of the Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dl D2
I
I1 S 3
P1
l
12 S s
I
I1 S S
P2
l
12 S 8
P1 = Perception Preference for Sensing
P2 = Perception Preference for Intuition
I1 = Intensity of Preference: Exceptional
I2 = Intensity of Preference: Moderate
S's = Subjects
D1 = Disclosure Level of Stimulus Person: Overt
D2 = Disclosure Level of Stimulus Person: Covert

 

Statistical Hypotheses

 

Statistical hypotheses were developed to investigate
the effect of Sensing—Intuition (S—N) on three aspects of
the dependent variable: Identification of Feelings Exer—
cise (IFE) total scores, and overt and covert divisions of
stimulus material on the IFE. Exceptional and Moderate

strength of preference differences were also of concern

 

for their effect on IFE scores. Null hypotheses and their

directional alternatives were determined. The following

symbols are used to describe the hypotheses:

O

H
a

II.

— Null Hypothesis

= Alternate Hypothesis

Mean Scores

= Sensing

= Intuition

= Exceptional Strength of Preference
= Moderate Strength of Preference

Effect of Sensing—Intuition on Empathic Discri-
mination: Total

Null Hypothesis: Mean scores do not differ be-
tween Sensing and Intuitive types on an exercise
measuring empathic discrimination of feeling
messages of others.

HO: MS = MN
Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores of Intuitive
types exceed those of Sensing types on an exer—
cise measuring empathic discrimination of feeling
messages of others.

- <
Ha' MS MN
Effect of Sensing—Intuition 0n Empathic Discrim-
ination: Overt Stimulus Conditions

Null Hypothesis: Mean scores do not differ be-

tween Sensing and Intuitive types on an exercise
measuring empathic discrimination of overt feel—
ing messages of others.

HO: MS = MN
Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores of Sensing
types exceed those of Intuitive types on an
exercise measuring empathic discrimination of
overt feeling messages of others.

Ha: Ms > MN

60

III. Effect of Sensing—Intuition on Empathic Discrim-
ination: Covert Stimulus Conditions

Null Hypothesis: Mean scores do not differ be-
tween Sensing and Intuitive types on an exercise
measuring empathic discrimination of covert feel—
ing messages of others. _—

Ho: MS =MN
Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores of Intuitive
types exceed those of Sensing types on an exer-
cise measuring empathic discrimination of covert
feeling messages of others.

- <
Ha' MS MN
IV. Effect of Exceptional—Moderate Strength of
Preference

Null Hypothesis: Mean scores do not differ be-
tween Exceptional and Moderate Strengths of prefer—
ence on an exercise measuring empathic discrimin—
ation of feeling messages of others.

HzM =M

o exc mod
Alternate Hypothesis: Mean scores of Moderate
Strength of preference exceed those of Exception-
al Strength of preference on an exercise measur—
ing empathic discrimination of feeling messages
of others.

HzM <M
a exc mod

Analysis Procedures

 

Hypotheses were tested by use of multivariate re—
peated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Two~way
ANOVA was employed to test main and interaction effects.

A regression analysis was carried out for three covariates
on the dependent variable. The three covariates corres—
ponded to the Extraversion—Introversion, Thinking-Feeling,

and Judging-Perceiving scales of the Myers—Briggs Type

61

Indicator (MBTI). The regression analysis was used to de—
termine the appropriateness of subsequent analysis of co-
variance (ANCOVA) with regard to the three MBTI dimensions.
Post hoc procedures were also employed. Where signi-
ficance was found, data from the two-way ANOVA were examined
to determine the direction of the effect. T—tests were per-
formed on the particular variables to examine the differen-
ces. Univariate procedures were also employed to examine

each dimension (overt and covert) of the dependent variable.

Summary

Subjects were obtained from dormitory floors and
Teacher Education classes during a Summer Term session
at Michigan State University. Subjects were administered
the Identification of Feelings Exercise (IFE) and the
Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The IFE was developed
as a measure of empathic discrimination. The MBTI was in-
cluded for its Sensing-Intuition scale as a measure of mode
of perception. A stratification of subjects was based on
expressed preference for Sensing or Intuition on the MBTI
and the strength of that preference. Strength of preference
was described as either Exceptional or Moderate, and was
defined by specific ranges of continuous Sensing—Intuition
scores. The criteria for selection of Exceptional-Moderate
division points was discussed. A description of the setting
and procedure employed with subjects was also presented.

Reliability estimates of the Sensing-Intuition scale

62

with the present sample were obtained in two ways. A split-
half procedure corrected by the Spearman—Brown prophecy for-
mula produced an internal reliability of .8160. The Cron—
bach coefficient alpha procedure was used as a check on this
figure. Data from the latter procedure showed the Sensing-
Intuition scale reliable at .8291.

The design of the study was presented. The multi—
variate repeated measures design for fixed factors was
developed to investigate the relationship between strength
of Sensing-Intuition preferenceandscores from the Identi—
fication of Feelings Exercise. Statistical hypotheses and
analysis procedures for testing the hypotheses were included.

A description of the Identification of Feelings Exer—
cise and a report on methods of its construction and valida—

tion are presented in Chapter IV.

 

CHAPTER IV: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

OF IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

Previous efforts to measure identification of feel-
ings independent from empathic communication have fallen
short in many ways. In the absence of instruments appro—
priate for the current study, a measurement device of
empathic discrimination on overt and covert dimensions
was developed. A description of the development of the

Identification of Feelings Exercise follows.

Preparation of Audio Stimulus Tapes

One hundred audiotaped expressions of personal ex-
perience were collected. These tapes served as the stimulus
material for the Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form
A). Each audiotaped item involved a simulated expression
of experience by one individual to a hypothetical other per—
son. The item-vignettes were acted by thirty-six different
individuals (eighteen males, eighteen females), all of whom
had been involved in either teaching, counseling, interper—
sonal skill training, or social work. Each vignette was
developed to present a specific predominant feeling and
level of overtness.

Previous research has suggested that stimulus

63

 

64

conditions be firmly controlled without sacrificing realism.
In this regard, audiotaped rather than videotaped expres-
sions were adopted in the present study. Each subject there-
fore received a limited amount of stimulus material.

Stimulus persons ranged from late adolescence to
middle age, with the bulk falling in the early twenties.
Situational content for the items included various life
styles and social status. However, a large proportion of
the items represented experiences that involved male-female
couple relationships, drug—related issues” and academic
frustrations. The content of most examples thus applied
to the college population from which the final sample for
the study was drawn.

Each of the one hundred examples in the instrument
was intended to represent one of five feeling clusters:
Contempt/Disgust, Distress, Joy, Fear, or Anger. The five
groups were selected from categorizations by both Tomkins
(1963) and Plutchik (1962). Tomkins and Plutchik each pro—
posed a system of eight primary affect clusters. One of
Tomkins' groups (shame) was not identified as a separate
cluster by Plutchik. One of Plutchik's categories (incor—
poration or acceptance) likewise was not discussed by Tom—
kins. Due to such lack of consensus, both shame and incor—
poration were excluded from the present study. In addition,
the affect of surprise was omitted, since by definition it
is one of the more rapidly appearing and disappearing

emotions. It was assumed that with audiotaped material,

 

65

quick changes in emotion would be too difficult to identify

without the aid of visual stimuli.

Validation of the Instrument

 

Each of the five affect clusters represented one of
five multiple choice options. Answers were recorded on
mark—sense five-choice answer sheets for ease in scoring.

A priori suspicions about a correct answer key were
tested by a rating procedure. After a short training ex—
ercise, ten university counseling center psychologists
were asked to indicate the predominant feeling expressed
in each item-example. Of the ten individuals, six were
male, four female. Five held the Ph.D. in Counseling or
Clinical Psychology, while five were actively pursuing
doctorates in these fields. Four were senior members of
the University Counseling Center staff; sixwereinterns on
the same staff. All ten were currently seeing student
clients in therapy. Intensive regular therapy experience
was assumed to qualify the raters as experts on identifica—
tion of feelings.

The ten raters were given precise definitions of the
feeling category groups. The raters were encouraged to
attend to overt as well as covert messages to determine
their answers. The training procedure was thus intended
to counteract a bias on the part of therapists. It was
expected that this bias would lean toward use of covert

stimuli and intuitive processes to the neglect of their

 

 

66

alternatives (overt stimuli and sensory perception).

Raters were further instructed to focus primarily on
immediate feelings of the stimulus person. Eight taped
examples were played and discussed prior to beginning the
rating of items. Raters were scheduled in two groups of
five. The one hundred items were split into two sets of
fifty. The order of the two sets was reversed for the sec—
ond group. This procedure was established to control for
the effect of fatigue on ratings at the end of the exer-
cise. The complete training procedure is described in
Appendix G.

Information in Table 4.1 shows that a majority of the
items (83) received 60% agreement or better as to the cor—
rect feeling category. It was from this pool of 83 items
that construction of a final 50—item instrument began. An
answer key was developed by using the counselors' modal
response for each item rated.

Table 4.1 Agreement of Raters on Correct Answer Key
for Identification of Feelings Exercise

 

 

(Form A): N = 100 items; N = 10 raters.
Number of Number of Subtotal
Raters in Items Agreed Number of
Agreement Upon Items
10 24 24
9 18 42
8 10 52

7 21 73

67

Table 4.1 continued

 

 

Number of Number of Subtotal
Raters in Items Agreed Number of
Agreement Upon Items

6 10 83

5 13 96

4 3 99

3 _ 1 100

 

A second procedure was used to validate the overt—
covert character of each item. After a short training ex-
ercise, five university counseling center psychologists
(all different from the first group) were asked to rate the
level of overtness of each item by employing a four—point
continuous scale: the "Scale of Overt or Covert Disclosure
of Feeling." (Complete overt-covert training procedures
are described in Appendix H.) Of these five individuals,
two held the Ph.D. in Counseling or Clinical Psychology,
while three were actively pursuing doctorates in these
fields. Two were senior staff members; three were interns
on the same staff. All were male, and were currently see—
ing student clients in therapy. Intensive regular therapy
experience was assumed to qualify the raters as experts
of overtness or covertness in self-disclosure.

The use of four-point scales to determine levels of
disclosure has been demonstrated by Stachowiak (1974). The

bipolar nature of the overt-covert dimension especially

 

68

recommended an even—numbered scale approach. Eight taped
examples were played and discussed prior to beginning the
rating of items. Raters were scheduled in two sessions of
three and two each. The order of the two sets of fifty
items each was reversed for the rating groups similar to
the procedure for development of the answer key. Since
there were fewer raters in this part of the validation pro-
cedure, a check on agreement among raters was initiated.
Inter-rater reliability estimates were found to fall at
.88. Complete data from the inter—rater reliability esti-

mates are presented in Appendix I.

Pilot Test of the Instrument

 

A first estimate of reliability of the Identification
of Feelings Exercise was obtained by administering the in-
strument to 67 undergraduate dormitory residents at Michi-
tan State University during Spring Term 1976. The first
set of fifty items (Form A—l) was given to thirty-nine sub-
jects (twenty—seven female, twelve male); the second set
(Form A-2) to the remaining twenty-eight (all female).
Items from each form which had not obtained at least 60%
correct answer agreement from raters were omitted from the
scoring. Forty-three items remained for Form A-l, forty
for Form A—2.

The validity of the dormitory group as a criterion
was examined by administering the Myers-Briggs Type Indi-

cator (MBTI). Since items for a final form of the

 

69

instrument were selected in part from results of this pilot
study, it was important for the individuals tested to be
roughly similar in type to the group used as subjects to
test the hypotheses. A type table for the Spring Term
group may be found in Appendix J. Comparisons with the
final subject group (Appendix C type table) showed the
pilot test group to have a similar ratio of MBTI character-
istics. The size and sex distribution of each group dif—
fered considerably however.

As with the raters, the group of dormitory students
was instructed to indicate the predominant feeling ex—
pressed in each item. Unlike the raters, they were not
given training with regard to specific meanings of the
feeling categories. Nor were they told about overt-covert
distinctions. Students were told instead only what the
five options were, and were encouraged to answer every item
even if more than one feeling was heard per item.

Data of reliability and an item analysis were ob—
tained from this pilot test sample using the criterion
answer key derived from prior ratings. For Form A-l (first
fifty items) a Kuder—Richardson internal reliability esti—
mate of .43 was obtained. For Form A—2 (second fifty items)
the Kuder-Richardson internal reliability estimate was .54.
The sample was small, with fewer subjects than items for
each of the two forms. Thus reliability estimates for the
two halves were lower than desired. A complete report of

data from the pilot test of the instrument is found in

 

 

70

Appendix K.

Selection of Items for Form B

 

Selection of items for inclusion in the new form
(Form B) of the Identification of Feelings Exercise was

based on several guidelines:

1. Items with answer key inter—rater agreement of
50% or less were omitted, due to lack of con-
sensus.

2. Items falling within two standard errors of the
mean on overt—covert rating were eliminated due
to indeterminacy of level of disclosure. Half
of the fifty items selected were to be overt,
the other half covert.

3. Indices of discrimination and difficulty from
the item analysis of the pilot study presented
further information. Those items with high and
mid-range discrimination were given strongest
priority.

4. An identical number of items for each of the
five feeling categories was sought.

5. Judgments of the experimenter based on a priori
item definitions were employed when item charac—
teristic data were equivalent on items, and when
some still needed to be dropped from the scale.

A table indicating the interaction of the guideline
variables for building the instrument is included in Table
4.2. All data on the original one hundred items may be
found in Appendix L.

Due to the factor of fatigue, it was decided to limit
the final form to fifty items. Twenty—five overt and twenty-
five covert vignettes were included. In Table 4.3 the

final balance of feeling categories employed for both overt

and covert portions of the exercise is identified.

Ifl

71

 

 

Table 4.2 Overt—Covert Rating, Feeling Distribution and
Rated Right-Answer Agreement Variables for Items
from Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form
A): N = 83 items

Average Contempt/

Level of Disgust Distress Joy Fear Anger

Overt-Covert

Rating

4.0 Y VY V VX VV
3.8 V VW -- X VWW
3.6 -- VXY -- V --
3.4 Y Y Y V --
3.2 WW -- VVW -- --
3.0 -- XX ZZ VWXYZ --
2.8 YZ VW W -- XY
2'6 7 items fell within 2 S.E.M. on overt-covert

R. = 2.57 S.E.M. = .091
2.4
2.2 —- VW -— YY —-
2.0 —— yz Y —— VWY
1.8 -- WXY Y -— Y
1.6 w -- -- -- z
1.4 vv —- x -- ——
1.2 XYZ -- Y WWY W
1.0 —- V Z V X
V = item where all 10 raters agreed on predominant feeling
W = item where 9 raters agreed on predominant feeling
X = item where 8 raters agreed on predominant feeling
Y = item where 7 raters agreed on predominant feeling
Z = item where 6 raters agreed on predominant feeling

 

 

72

Table 4.3 Distribution of Overt and Covert Items from
Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form B)
by Feeling Category: N = 50 items.

 

 

Feeling Category Overt Covert
Contempt/Disgust 3 4
Distress 7 7
Joy 3 4
Fear 7 4
Anger _§ _6
Total: 25 25

 

When the final group of items was determined they were
arranged in random order.
Performance of each item of the final Form B on the

earlier pilot test is summarized in Appendix M.

Reliability of Identification of Feelings Exercise (Form B)

 

With the increase in sample size plus the careful sel—
ection of fifty items from the original group of one
hundred, it was expected that internal reliability of
the instrument would increase. However, the performance
of the instrument only improved moderately. The reliabil-
ity (r = .52) also compared poorly with estimates from
other instruments in the literature which have been pur-
ported to measure constructs related to empathic discrim—

ination. The data for Form B are included in Table 4.4.

 

73

Table 4.4 Data of Reliability for Overt, Covert and
Total: Identification of Feelings Exercise

 

 

(Form B): N = 50 items.
Characteristics Overt Covert Total
Mean Item 40 48 44
Difficulty
Mean Item Discrimin- 27 25 21
ation
Kuder-Richardson .3254 .3014 .5231
Reliability #20
Standard Error of 2.2750 ’ 2.2566 3.2041
Measurement

 

Indices of discrimination and difficulty were also ob-
tained for each item. These data are listed in Appendix
N.

Reliability data on the instrument fell below gen—
erally acceptable standards. The decision was neverthe-
less made to conduct the research with the instrument as

formulated.

Summary

The procedures employed in construction of the Iden-
tification of Feelings Exercise were discussed. Audio-
tape stimulus material was prepared. Situational and
affective content for each item were examined and con-
trolled where possible. Affect categories for a five-
option multiple choice answer key were discussed.

The criterion answer key and degree of overtness of

 

74

disclosure for each item were determined from ratings of
university counseling center psychologists. Data of inter-
nal reliability from a pilot test of Forms A-1 and A—2 of
the instrument were reported to be .43 and .54 respectively.
Procedures for selection of items for a single fifty item
instrument (Form B) were discussed. Data of internal re-
liability on the final sample were reported to be .52 for
the instrument as a whole, .32 for the overt, and .30 for the
covert items.

In Chapter V an analysis of the results of the hypo-

thesis tests is presented.

 

CHAPTER V: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The main statistical hypotheses were tested by means
of a two-way analysis of variance procedure. Where F-tests
were significant at the .05 level or better, post hoc in—
vestigations were carried out to determine the direction of

the significance.

Hypothesis I: Effect of Sensing-Intuition on Empathic
Discrimination: Total

 

 

The first null hypothesis was formulated as follows:
Mean scores do not differ between Sensing
and Intuitive types on an exercise measuring
empathic discrimination of feeling messages
of others.
The first alternate hypothesis was formulated as
follows:
Mean scores of Intuitive types exceed those
of Sensing types on an exercise measuring
empathic discrimination of feeling messages
of others.
Obtained values from the statistical tests indicated that
the null hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level of sig-

nificance. Sensors and Intuitors did therefore differ in

75

 

76

the way they responded to items on the Identification of
Feelings Exercise. Examination of the mean scores for Sen-
sors and Intuitors indicated the direction of the differencer
to be in favor of Intuitors. The alternative hypothesis

was thus accepted. Results from the test of Hypothesis I
are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Sensing—

Intuition on Identification of Feelings
Exercise: N = 139

 

 

N Mean F Value p<
Sensors 68 27.15 *
4.2724 .0407
Intuitors 71 28.76

 

*
significant at the .05 level

Hypothesis II: Effect of Sensing—Intuition on Empathic
Discrimination: Overt Stimulus Conditions

 

The second null hypothesis was formulated as follows:
Mean scores do not differ between Sensing and
Intuitive types on an exercise measuring em—
pathic discrimination of gyert feeling messages
of others.

The second alternative hypothesis was formulated as

follows:

Mean scores of Sensing types exceed those of
Intuitive types on an exercise measuring em-

pathic discrimination of overt feeling mes—

 

sages of others.

 

77

Failure to obtain statistical significance at the

.05 level

indicated that the second null hypothesis was

not rejected. Sensors and Intuitors did not differ sig-

nificantly on their scores on the overt section of the

Identification of Feelings Exercise. Furthermore, an

investigation of the means for each group indicated that

the pattern did not match the direction expected by the

alternative hypothesis. The mean for Intuitors exceeded

the mean for Sensors, even though the difference was not

found to be significant. Results from the test of Hypo-

 

 

thesis II are found in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Sensing—
Intuition on Overt Scale of Identification
of Feelings Exercise: N = 139
N Mean F Value p<
Sensors 68 14.53
1.9676 .1630
Intuitors 71 15.21

 

Hypothesis III: Effect of SensingfIntuition on Empathic
Discrimination : Covert Stimulus Conditions

The third null hypothesis was formulated as follows:

Mean scores do not differ between Sensing and
Intuitive types on an exercise measuring em—
pathic discrimination of covert feeling mes—

sages of others.

The third alternative hypothesis was formulated as

follows:

 

78

Mean scores of Intuitive types exceed those of
Sensing types on an exercise measuring empathic
discrimination of covert feeling messages of
others.

The third null hypothesis was rejected at the .05
level. Sensors and Intuitors did differ in the way they
responded to covert items on the Identification of Feel-
ings Exercise. Furthermore, the direction of this differ-
ence favored Intuitors. The alternative hypothesis was
thus accepted. Table 5.3 includes results from the test
of Hypothesis III.

Table 5.3 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Sensing-

Intuition on Covert Scale of Identification
of Feelings Exercise: N = 139

 

 

N Mean F Value p<
Sensors 68 12.62 *
4.3062 .0399
Intuitors 71 13.55

 

*
significant at the .05 level

Hypothesis IV: Effect of Exceptional-Moderate Strength
of Preference

 

The fourth null hypothesis was formulated as follows:
Mean scores do not differ between Exceptional
and Moderate strengths of Sensing-Intuition
preference on an exercise measuring empathic

discrimination of feeling messages of others.

 

79

The fourth alternative hypothesis was formulated as
follows:

Mean scores of Moderate strength of Sensing-
Intuition preference exceed those of Excep—
tional strength of preference on an exercise
measuring empathic discrimination of feeling
messages of others.

The obtained values indicated that the fourth null
hypothesis was not rejected. Subjects with Exceptional
strength of Sensing-Intuition scores did BEE differ sig-
nificantly from subjects with Moderate strength of scores
in performance on the Identification of Feelings Exercise.
An investigation of the means for each group further indi-
cated that the pattern was not in the direction suggested
by the alternative hypothesis. Although the difference
was found to be nonsignificant, the mean for Exceptional
strength exceeded that of Moderates. Exceptional—Moderate
differences were further found not to be significant on
either the overt or the covert portions of the Identifi-
cation of Feelings Exercise. In Table 5.4 are the results

from the test of Hypothesis IV.

 

80

Table 5.4 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Exceptional-
Moderate Strength of Preference on Identifica—
tion of Feelings Exercise: N = 139.

 

N Mean F Value p<

 

Total Scores:

 

Exc1 39 28.59
1.2526 .2651
Mod2 100 27.73
Overt Scores:
Excl 39 15.05
.2846 .5947
Mod2 100 14.81
Covert Scores:
Excl 39 13.54
1.8724 .1735
Mod2 100 12.92
lExc = Exceptional 2Mod = Moderate

Investigation of the Overt—Covert Scales

 

Analysis of variance was employed to examine the over-
all effect of overt and covert distinctions on the Identi—
fication of Feelings Exercise (IFE). This was done by
using differences between overt and covert scores on the
instrument in relation to the Grand Mean. The obtained
values indicated that significant differences existed be-
tween the two scales at the .0001 level. The IFE was be-
lieved therefore, to be discriminating effectively on the
overt-covert dimension among subjects in the present study.

Results from this investigation are included in Table 5.5.

 

81

Table 5.5 Univariate Analysis of Variance for Overt—
Covert Effect on Identification of Feelings
Exercise: N = 139.

 

Sum Difference F Value p<

 

Grand

28.1261 1.70 47.8272 .0001*
Mean

 

*
significant at the .0001 level

In order to investigate how the overt and covert
scales operated with a single subgroup of the sample, t—
tests were performed for Sensors and Intuitors separately.
The obtained values indicated that significant differences
existed between overt and covert scores for Sensors at the
.000 level. Identical results were also obtained for Intui-
tors. An examination of the mean values for each group
showed that overt scores in each case were higher than co—
vert scores. Results from the t—tests are listed in Table

5.6.

Table 5.6 T-tests Examining Differences Between Overt and
Covert Scores by Type.

 

 

Mean Standard t df Proba-
Deviation value bility
Sensors:
Overt 14.53 2.79 5.87 67 000
Covert 12.62 2.89
Intuitors:
*
Overt 15.21 2.91 4.22 70 .000
Covert 13.55 2.41

 

*significant at the .000 level

 

82

Investigation of Interaction Effects: Sensing-Intuition
with Exceptional—Moderate

 

 

Interaction effects between the Sensing-Intuition
and Exceptional-Moderate dimensions of the independent
variable were examined. Since the effect of Exceptional-
Moderate scores had been found to be lacking in signifi—
cance when considered separatedy, the interaction effect
also produced lack of significance. Lack of significance
was found for Identification of Feelings Exercise scores
as a whole as well as on the overt or covert dimensions
individually. Data from the univariate analysis of var-

iance procedure employed are presented in Appendix 0.

Regression Analysis of Three Covariates on the Dependent
Variable

 

A regression analysis with the three Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator variables of Extraversion—Introversion
(E-I), Thinking-Feeling (T-F), and Judging—Perceiving (J—P)
was performed on the dependent variable. Significance was
not achieved either for the three covariates taken to-
gether or for step—wise regression estimates of the con-
tribution of each covariate on the dependent variable. The
results were interpreted to mean that E-I, T-F, and J-P did
not account for differences in subjects' scores on the Iden-
tification of Feelings Exercise, either when taken together
or when examined individually. Data from the regression

analysis are presented in Appendix P.

 

83

Additional Findings

 

Descriptive information about subjects was investi-
gated through post-hoc analysis of variance and t-test
procedures to show how each factor may have affected scores
on the Identification of Feelings Exercise (IFE). No sig-
nificant differences in scores either on the IFE as a whole,
the overt or the covert scales were found among the three
sources from which subjects were solicited (dormitory,
resident assistants, and education students). Completion
of interpersonal skill training in the previous year also
produced no significant differences in scores. Similarly,
no significant differences were found in scores as a result
of subjects' receiving regular counseling or therapy during
the previous year. These data are included in Appendix Q.

In contrast, one further variable did produce signi-
ficant findings. When grouped by sex, subjects were found
to differ significantly both on their total IFE scores and
on the overt dimension. In each case the level of signifi-
cance was .01. An examination of the means for each group
showed that females scored higher than males in every

category of IFE scores. These data are listed in Table 5.7.

 

84

Table 5.7 T-tests Examining Effect of Sex on Differences
in Identification of Feelings Exercise Scores

 

 

N Mean Standard t df 2—tail
Deviation vvalue Proba-
bility
Total:
Male 55 26.47 4.81 *
—2.84 137 .005
Female 84 28.71 4.38
Overt:
Male 55 14.09 2.95 *
—2.68 137 .008
Female 84 15.39 2.71
Covert:
Male 55 12.74 2.80
-l.24 137 .218
Female 84 13.32 2.60

 

*
significant at the .01 level

Summary
Four hypotheses were tested linking subjects' prefer—
ences for Sensing or Intuition on the Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) to scores on the Identification of Feelings
Exercise (IFE). The results of the tests were as follows:
1. In Hypothesis I it was stated that differences
in Identification of Feelings Exercise scores would exist
between Sensors and Intuitors, and that the differences
would favor the Intuitors. The null hypothesis was re—
jected at the .05 level. Examination of mean scores for
each group showed that Intuitors indeed did score higher

than Sensors.

 

85

2. In Hypothesis II it was stated that differences
in scores for 939g; stimulus conditions of the Identifica—
tion of Feelings exercise would exist between Sensors and
Intuitors, and that the differences would favor the Sensors.
The null hypothesis was not rejected.

3. In Hypothesis III it was stated that differences
in scores for covert stimulus conditions of the Identifica-
tion of Feelings Exercise would exist between Sensors and
Intuitors, and that the differences would favor the Intui—
tors. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level.
Examination of mean scores for each group showed that In-
tuitors indeed did score higher than Sensors.

4. In Hypothesis IV it was stated that differences
in Identification of Feelings Exercise scores would exist
between Exceptional and Moderate preference strengths, and
that the differences would favor the Moderates. The null
hypothesis was not rejected.

5. An investigation of the overt and covert scales
was carried out by examining the differences between the
two sets of scores. Significant differences were found be-
tween the two scales at the .0001 level. Differences further
were found between overt and covert for Sensors alone at the
.000 level, and for Intuitors alone also at the .000 level.

6. Interaction effects between Sensing—Intuition
and Exceptional-Moderate dimensions were investigated, and
were found lacking in significance.

7. The regression of Extraversion—Introversion,

 

86

Thinking—Feeling, and Judging—Perceiving Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator scores on the dependent variable indicated that
these three dimensions did not account for significant
differences in subjects' IFE scores, either taken together
or separately.

8. Examination of descriptive characteristics of
subjects found that neither interpersonal skill training
nor counseling during the previous year affected scores on
the IFE. Dormitory residents, residence hall staff, and
education students also did not significantly differ in IFE
performance. A sex difference in scores was found, however,
significantly (.01) favoring females over males on both
total IFE scores and on the overt dimension.

In Chapter VI, the findings of the study will be dis—
cussed, conclusions drawn, and implications for future re-

search considered.

 

CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The major purpose of the study was to examine the
relationship between alternative modes of perception and

the way individuals attend to feeling messages of others.

Summary
The theories of C.G. Jung were consulted to obtain
a model for alternative modes of perception. Jung's dis-
tinction between Sensing and Intuition was found to be
consistent theoretically with particular styles of attend—
ing to feelings in others. Overtly presented expressions
of feeling allow the listener to derive empathic understand—
ing from a concrete source. The assumption was that Sensing
as a mode of perception would be appropriate to an overt
expression of feelings. On the other hand, when subtle or
covert expressions of feeling exist, more indirect (or
Intuitive) methods of receiving the message are necessary.
The present study, therefore, began with a consider—
ation of theoretical issues behind the empathic process.
The focus of the study centered on the initial discrimina—
tive aspect of empathy. Subsequent processes of integration
or communication of understanding were not considered.

Relevant literature was reviewed related to empathic

 

88

discrimination and to the dual processes of Sensing and In—
tuition. Studies were found in which the authors investi—
gated relationships between a variety of personality
variables and empathy. However, the only studies which
examined specific modes of perception unfortunately ap-
proached the measurement of empathy from a point of View
incompatible with that of the present effort.

The Sensing-Intuition (S-N) scale of the Myers—Briggs
Type Indicator was employed as a measure of alternative per-
ceptive styles. Internal consistency figures of reliabili-
ty with the present sample were found to be .8160 and .8291
using two methods of estimation. Studies were quoted from
the literature attesting to the construct validity of the
S-N scale as well.

Since instruments purporting to measure empathic dis—
crimination were found to be invalid for the current in-
vestigation, the Identification of Feelings Exercise (IFE)
was developed. From an original pool of 100 audiotaped
vignettes, 50 were selected through several processes.

Each taped vignette included a spoken statement of exper-
ience involving feeling messages. Ten psychologists at a
university counseling center determined the appropriate
predominant feeling for each statement after a short train-
ing exercise. Five additional university counseling center
psychologists rated the same 100 vignettes on a four—point
continuous scale to determine level of overtness, and ob-

tained inter—rater reliability of .88. A pilot test of the

 

89

vignettes was conducted with 67 Michigan State University
dormitory residents. Indices of discrimination and dif—
ficulty for each vignette were obtained from an item
analysis of the results.

The final fifty item-vignettes were selected using
the above data, with attention also paid toward balancing
the number of examples for each of five feeling categories.
The feeling categories were Contempt/Disgust, Distress,
Joy, Fear and Anger. The final instrument included twenty—
five overt and twenty-five covert item-vignettes and was
entitled the Identification of Feelings Exercise (IFE).

A sample of 139 subjects was drawn from Summer Term
students at Michigan State University. All subjects par—
ticipated in the study voluntarily in return for receiving
an interpretation of their Myers—Briggs Type Indicator re—
sults. Tested in nine separate groups, subjects were first
presented the Identification of Feelings Exercise. Each
taped item was played, followed by a 4-6 second pause for
recording answers. Subjects were instructed to record the
predominant feeling expressed in the vignettes by checking
one of the five feeling categories. At the end of the
fifty-item exercise, subjects were administered the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator.

A multivariate repeated measures design was employed.
Independent variables included Sensing—Intuition (S-N) pre-
ference from the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator and strength

of continuous preference scores on the S-N dimension.

 

9O

Scores falling thirty points on either side of the mid-

point were labeled Moderate. The remaining scores at each

end of the continuum were pooled into one group labeled

Exceptional.

Four major hypotheses were tested by analysis of

variance procedures, and null hypotheses were rejected

when the .05 level of significance was obtained. The

following were the results of the tests of hypotheses:

l.

2.

Intuitors more accurately identified feeling
messages than Sensors.

No differences existed between Intuitors and
Sensors on accurate identification of overtly
expressed feeling messages.

Intuitors more accurately identified covertly
expressed feeling messages than Sensors.

No differences existed between Exceptional
and Moderate strengths of preference on
accurate identificationcfiffeeling messages.

In addition to tests of the hypotheses, the following

d1 scoveries were made:

1.

Differences between scores on the overt and
covert dimensions of the Identification of
Feelings Exercise were found significant for
both Sensors and Intuitors.

Extraversion-Introversion, Thinking—Feeling
and Judging-Perceiving scores did not account
for differences between Sensors and Intuitors
in accurate identification of feeling messages.

Females more accurately identified feeling
messages than males on the overt dimension
and over-all, but no significant differences
existed on the covert dimension.

 

9]

Discussion of the Findings

 

Although only two of the four major alternate hypo-
theses were accepted, some important conclusions and im-
plications have been discovered as a result of the study.

Intuitors scored significantly higher than Sensors
both on the covert dimension of the Identification of Feel—
ings Exercise (IFE) and over-all. This verifies theoret-
ical arguments found in the literature that awareness of
the emotional world of others requires nondirect and often
unconscious processes (Goodyear, 1976; Katz, 1963; Reik,
1948).

The fact that Sensors and Intuitors did not differ
on the overt dimension suggests that there are aspects of
feeling perception in which all individuals are of roughly
equivalent capacity. Scores on the overt dimension were
in general higher than covert scores for both Sensors and
Intuitors. Perhaps empathic discrimination does include,
therefore, a large element of attention to explicit messages
from others. If this is true, and if the IFE successfully
measures that phenomenon, then Sensors and Intuitors appear
equally qualified to be called empathic in attending to
overt messages of others.

On the other hand, the results of this study suggest
that the covert dimension is where Sensors have difficulty
in comparision with Intuitors. Attention to subtle cues,
tone or inflection of voice, hidden meanings of words, or

intensity of punctuation may not come naturally to those

 

92

who express preference for the concrete, the literal and

the particular. Results of this study suggest that if
Sensors are aware of covert cues, they do not trust these
perceptions. Sensors rather prefer to report on awarenesses
of others' feelings which can be clearly verifiable.

Item-vignettes for the Identification of Feelings
Exercise were designed to differentiate between explicit
and inexplicit stimulus cues. Some items (rated as overt
by a panel of trained therapists) included material where
the words used were congruent with the subtle cues. In
others (rated covert), the worded statement expressing one
feeling conflicted with tone of voice or implied meanings
indicating a more predominant feeling. Results of the study
show that the distinction between these two sets of items
apparently was clear enough to discriminate between Sensors
and Intuitors.

The failure of the hypothesis with regard to overt
conditions was at first disappointing. Following the lead
of Allport (1937) among others, this study was designed to
examine contributions that alternative poles of the Sensing-
Intuition dichotomy have to offer in interpersonal effective-
ness. Results of the study show Sensors and Intuitors alike
performed equivalently in empathic discrimination of overt
messages. However, Sensors appear to need encouragement
to employ and trust intuition. The idea that each individ—
ual has potential for using both processes regardless of

preference has been suggested by Jung (1923). If that is

 

93

the case, training or nurturing the opposite of one's
preference appears appropriate if one is involved in
helping relationships.

The notion of easy access to the opposite of one's
preferred function was the theoretical source for presen-
tation of the Exceptional-Moderate hypothesis. No signi—
ficant differences were found between those who scored
between 71 and 129 on the Sensing-Intuition continuum
(Moderate) and those who scored on either end of the con—
tinuum (Exceptional). Myers (1962) has written that
strength of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores must be
cautiously interpreted, and her warning holds true in the
present study at least. She has suggested that strong
scores may indicate either a locked-in pattern in one mode,
9£ simply a clear understanding of one's preferences. The
latter would appear to be at least partially the case con-
sidering the closeness of mean scores in the present study.

That only 39 of the sample of 139 clustered into the
Exceptional group weakened the investigation, even though
these subjects were proportionately split between Sensing
(21) and Intuition (18). The division points were based
on previous references by Myers (1962) and McCaulley (1971).
Adjustment more toward the center of the distribution,
however, would have threatened description of the end
groups as "Exceptional."

Additional interesting results of the study emerged.

Regression analysis of each of the remaining Myers-Briggs

 

94

Type Indicator (MBTI) dimensions on the dependent variable
showed BEES of these scales significantly affecting dif-
ferences in Identification of Feelings Exercise scores for
Sensors and Intuitors. The conclusion has been drawn,
therefore, that the selection of the Sensing-Intuition scale
for consideration in the current study was, at least among
MBTI scales, an entirely appropriate choice. The Thinking-
Feeling scale, at face value an important dimension of
consideration for a study of this type, did not interfere
with examination of Sensing-Intuition scores as one might
have expected.

The significant difference in scores between males
and females tends to support stereotyped beliefs that women
are more perceptive of others' feelings than men. Curiously,
however, the main source of differentiation between the two
was on the overt rather than the covert scale. The ratio
between Sensing and Intuition for women (S = 40, N = 44)
was similar to the over—all ratio (S = 68, N = 71). There—
fore, type differences did not account for the higher overt
scores among women. This perplexing result deserves further
examination in replicative studies with the Identification

of Feelings Exercise.

Limitations of the Study

 

Due to the absence of reported research on the rela—
tionship between alternative modes of perception and em-

pathic discrimination, the findings of the present study

 

95

appear to break new ground. Some areas of concern have
emerged, however.

Self-report instruments for indication of important
personality differences must be employed with care. The
authors of the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) have been
especially cautious by encouraging interpretation of re-
sults as "preferences," not as concrete characteristics.
Studies such as the current one suggest parameters for un-
derstanding the behavioral limits of MBTI scales. If
follow—up studies continue to demonstrate links between
expressed preference for Intuition and accurate identifi—
cation of covert feeling messages of others, for example,
more certain statements about individuals' MBTI scores
could be made. As it is, many of the studies with the MBTI
correlate its dimensions with results from other self-
report instruments. Thus concrete observable data are
lacking for understanding type differences.

The reliability and validity of the Identification
of Feelings Exercise (IFE) clearly need further examination.
Present reliability estimates are modest at best (.52).
With only fifty items, reliability will remain deflated to
a certain degree. Increasing the length of the instrument
however, would introduce a fatigue factor for subjects.

The testing situation with the Identification of
Feelings Exercise (IFE) was only roughly analogous to real-
1ife situations where attention to feelings is required.

Subjects were cued to respond at certain moments rather

 

96

than allowed to present their perceptions as they received
them. This problem in empathy research has been also noted
by Aldenbrand (1974). In the IFE procedure subjects were
also asked to indicate feelings perceived through multiple-
choice options. They were not allowed to employ their own
feeling labels except to associate them with one of the five
already placed before them. Since each vignette with a new
voice and situation followed immediately within six seconds
of the ending of the previous one, what has been constructed
in the IFE may in many ways be an artificial test of empathy.
Such conditions result from the never-ending problem of
human research: how to keep the experimental atmosphere
realistic while still having an adequate means of collect-
ing data on the variable of consideration. In this light,
Campbell & Stanley (1963) have described one threat to ex-
ternal validity as the "reactive effects of experimental
arrangements."

One frequent criticism by subjects centered around
the presence of only one "positive" feeling category. The
important issue from a measurement point of View deals with
the balance of multiple choice options. If the difference
between positive and negative emotional contentis immedi-
ately obvious to subjects, then "joy" items on the Identi-
fication of Feelings Exercise should have received nearly
perfect identification across subjects. The above assump—
tion clearly needs investigation.

In summary, the following recommendations for

 

97

refinement of the Identification of Feelings Exercise are
suggested:

1. The instrument should be lengthened to im—
prove reliability without producing fatigue
for subjects.

2. Subjects should be allowed to use their own
feeling labels, which could later be coded
by the experimenter into broader classifica-
tions.

3. Subjects should be encouraged to record their
perception of feelings at their own rate rather
than at the rate of the experimenter.

4. A broader selection of feeling categories

should be employed in order to balance nega—
tive and positive emotional material.

Suggestions for Future Research

 

As a result of the efforts of the present study,
specific directions for follow—up research have emerged.
As noted in the previous section, the Identification of
Feelings Exercise (IFE) needs further refining. Valida-
tion studies with a variety of college major or occupa-
tional groups would test the ability of the IFE to iden-
tify differences in empathic discrimination that exist
across such groups. Item analysis data for each vignette
must be examined closely, and new items devised which
measure more reliably the constructs of overt and covert
feeling expression. Although internal consistency esti—
mates seem more appropriate for measuring reliability for
the IFE instrument, test-retest data would additionally
identify the level of stability over time of empathic dis—

crimination.

 

98

The method of data collection on the Identification
of Feelings Exercise (IFE) deserves special attention. The
number of multiple choice options might be expanded. Tests
should be run on the distribution of answers per feeling
category for a given group of subjects. Davitz (1964) has
suggested that some emotions are easily confused with others
in empathic discrimination. If this is true, the particue
lar feeling categories in conflict should be investigated
with regard to multiple choice options on the IFE.

An impressive piece of work has very recently been
completed by Carlyn (1976) using the Myers-Briggs Type Indi-
cator (MBTI). In addition to a thorough review of the
literature on the MBTI, she has made some helpful sugges—
tions for future research. In place of standard analysis
of variance procedures, she has encouraged use of phi and
tetrachoric correlation coefficients for comparing dicho-
tomous data with MBTI scores, which themselves are often
treated as dichotomous. Point-biserial and biserial correl-
ation coefficients were recommended for comparison of dicho-
tomous data with continuous data. The discovery of Carlyn's
suggestions at the moment the present study was concluding
was disappointing in one respect. On the other hand, her
recommendations seem appropriate for replication of the
current findings.

Results from the present study have led to the con—
clusion that Sensing-Intuition preferences in perception

may explain differences in the way people perceive feelings

 

99

in others. Such findings are important for their contribu-
tions to a theoretical understanding of the nature of em—
pathy. The results of the study also suggest that observ-
able and measurable manifestations of the Sensing—Intuition
dimension do exist. In the helping professions, attention
to Sensing-Intuition differences may be especially instruc-
tive. Although there is no evidence to show that empathic
discrimination implies interpersonal effectiveness, it seems
clear that the initial aspect of accurate identification of

feeling messages in others is a crucial function of empathy.

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM PRESENTED TO EDUCATION TEACHING ASSISTANTS

 

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM PRESENTED TO EDUCATION TEACHING ASSISTANTS

Ed 200 TAs
Summer 1976

John DiTiberio
355-8270

What I need: Groups of individuals who are willing
to spend 1% hours as subjects for my doctoral research.

TO:
FROM:
A.
(l)
(2)
B.

Identification of Feelings Exercise: 30 minutes
(listening to audiotaped stimulus and indicating
on answer sheet the predominant feeling message
heard per example)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: 30-45 minutes (to
be completed following Identification of Feelings
Exercise)

What I can give in return: An interpretation of Myers-

 

Briggs results which will focus on Self and Other
awareness as well as interpersonal issues that relate
to teaching/learning situations.

(1)

(2)

Awareness of Self: look at one's own tendency to
perceive and judge the world in certain preferred
ways rather than other ways. Encourage acceptance
of Self as legitimate in any case.

Awareness of Others: look at others who may be
different or similar in their preferred ways of
perceiving or judging the world. Encourage ac-
ceptance of Others as legitimate in any case
whether similar or different from Self.

Interpersonal Process: look at interactions with
others in light of knowledge of similarities or
differences in type preferences. Encourage use of
this knowledge less as a source of conflict among
individuals and more a a vehicle for appreciating
complimentary alternatives in given situations.

100

 

101

(4) Teaching/Learning Situations: look at relation-
ships between student and teacher in light of
type preferences (as well as teacher—teacher,
student-student, teacher-administrator, etc.).
Report on some research findings on type dif-
ferences in schools and their effect on learn-
ing, performance, satisfaction, etc.

The focus of my research: Strength of Sensing—Intuition
Preferences as an Indicator of Differences in Ability to

Identify Overt as Opposed to Covert Affective Messages
in Others.

 

APPENDIX B

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:

SOURCE OF SUBJECTS AND THREE

MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR DIMENSIONS

 

APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:
SOURCE OF SUBJECTS AND THREE

MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR DIMENSIONS

Table B.l Analysis of Variance Examining Differences
Among Sources of Subjects by Continuous
Extraversion—Introversion (E—I) Scores.

 

 

N E-I Standard F F Proba-
Mean Deviation Ratio bility
Dorm@ 51 102.75 28.37
*
RA@ 23 84.39 27.68 4.013 .020
Ed@ gs 93.98 24.57
Total: 139 95.61

 

@Dorm = Dormitory, RA = Resident Assistant, Ed =
Education

*
Significant at the .05 level

102

 

103

APPENDIX B (continued)

Table B.2 Analysis of Variance Examining Differences
Among Sources of Subjects by Continuous
Thinking—Feeling (T—F) Scores.

 

 

N T—F Standard F F Prob—
Mean Deviation Ratio ability
Dorm@ 51 106.09 23.14 1.060 .349
RA@ 23 112.22 18.28
Ed@ 65 111.03 19.49
Total: 139 109.41

 

@Dorm = Dormitory, RA = Resident Assistant, Ed =
Education

Table B.3 Analysis of Variance Examining Differences
Among Sources of Subjects by Continuous
Judging-Perceiving (J—P) Scores.

 

 

 

N J—P Standard F F Prob—
Mean Deviation Ratio ability
Dorm@ 51 97.86 23.90 .401 .670
RA@ 23 93.08 28.29
Ed@ 65 98.66 26.70
Total: 139 97.47

 

@Dorm = Dormitory, RA = Resident Assistant, Ed =
Education

 

APPENDIX c-

MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

DATA ON FINAL SAMPLE

 

 

APPENDIX C
MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR DATA ON FINAL SAMPLE

Table C.l Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:
Final Sample: Summer 1976

Type Distribution on

SENSING TYPES
with THINKING with FEELING

INTUITIVE TYPES
with FEELING with THINKING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1er ISFJ INFJ INTJ e g;
l
N: 4 N: 11 N: 9 N: 5 ‘c‘
%:3 %: 8 %=6 %=4 8 s w
'z' N 71
xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx. xxx 0
E T 43
0 0000 000 00 g F 96
o
<
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP Q J 80
3 P 59
N: N: 5 N:]5 N=2 ‘
%:3 %=4 %:11 %:1 E u w
a up 26
x xx xxxxxxx 2 EP 33
xxx fi 5 51
000 000 00000 00
ST 27
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP N: g;
N: 2 N: 10 N: 16 N: 5 E NT 16
%:1 %: 7 %=12 %=4 Q
1’, SJ 47
x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx g 5p 21
X XXX m NP38
0 00 000000 00 3 NJ 33
>
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ a n H
4 TP
N: 17 N= 15 N: 15 N24 "’ FP 46
9:: 12 9:: 11 9:: 11 94: 3 E FJ 50
O
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx E IN 31
xx xxx xx 0 EN 40
0000000 00000 000000 00 Is 24
0 j§ 44
NCHE& Total: 139
X Females (84)
0 Males (55)

104

 

APPENDIX C (continued)

Table C.2 Mean Continuous Scores for the Final Sample

on the Three Covariate Dimensions:

139.

 

 

E-I T-F J-P
Sensors (S) 92.81 106.0 87.74
Intuitors (N) 98.30 112.7 106.70
Exceptional (E) 93.77 109.7 93.92
Moderate (M) 96.33 109.3 98.82
ES 90.62 104.5 80.05
MS 93.79 106.7 91.17
MN 98.58 111.6 105.60
EN 97.44 115.6 110.11

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR

IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

 

APPENDIX D
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR

IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

Your answers in this exercise will be used along
with data from other individuals exclusively for the
purpose of a research project. When student numbers or
other identifying data are asked for, they will be used
only in the initial process of sorting out information
into understandable groups. Beyond this, all data that
you give will be employed strictly anonymously, and in
no way will the identities of the participants or their
answers or scores be divulged.

If you have any questions or comments with regard
to this project and its purposes, do not hesitate to
contact or call:

John DiTiberio
207 Student Services
355-8270

General Directions: You will be listening to a
series of taped statements of expression of feelings.
For each person you hear, fill in on your answer sheet
the letter of the feeling category below that includes
the predominant feeling the person seems to you to be
experiencing while you listen to him or her.

 

(A) Contempt/ (B) Distress (C) Joy (D) Fear (E) Anger
Disgust

Answer every item, even if it is difficult to decide

on the feeling involved. Mark only one letter for each
item however.

106

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

ANSWER FORM FOR DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON THE SAMPLE

 

APPENDIX E

ANSWER FORM FOR DESCRIPTIVE DATA ON THE SAMPLE

I agree that my answers on these exercises may be
used in comparison with scores from my Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator results for the purposes of research. My agree—
ment is based on the stipulation that all information will
be used strictly anonymously.

 

 

Signature

 

Interpersonal Skills Training: last 12 months (focus
on feelings)

Yes No
Counseling: last 12 months (8 or more regular sessions) i
Yes No
107

  
 

 

APPENDIX F

INST RUCTICN SHE ET FOR ‘

THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR I

 

APPENDIX F

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR

THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

Each individual should have a computer-scored answer
sheet and a Myers—Briggs booklet. When they are returned,
the booklets should be put in numerical order so as to keep

 

track of each one.

(A) THE ANSWER SHEETS are not used in exactly the
way you may be accustomed to, so read carefully the fol—

lowing:

1.

Use a soft (#2) pencil only. Do not use pen.
When you change an answer, erase the old one
completely. Do not write in the booklets.

On the top of the answer sheet, fill and code
in your last and first names in the boxes pro—
vided. You will see a place to print each
letter of your name, below which is a column
for the letter to be coded.

Do not code buyourmiddle initial. In this
box, code in either M or F for your sex. Do
not use the box marked "sex" for this purpose.
Fill and code in your student number in the
space provided.

Leave all other information boxes blank. The
only ones to be filled in therefore are your
first and last names, your sex (in the middle
initial column) and your student number.

 

 

(B) DIRECTIONS FOR TAKING THE MYERS-BRIGGS are pretty

 

clearly presented on the first page of the booklet. But keep
these additional things in mind:

1.
2.

Complete the Myers-Briggs all at one sitting.
Even though there is no time limit, answer
each item as fast as possible, and move to
the next item if more than a few seconds pass
before you can think of your answer.

Plan 30—45 minutes of time to be sure you can
complete it all at one sitting. You may find
that you finish in less time than this if you
move quickly through the items.

108

 

 

109

APPENDIX F (continued)

4. Do not talk about any of the items with
anyone until after you are completely fin-
ished.

5. If you are confused about an item, the gen—
eral rule is to respond in the best way you
can based on your understanding of the item.

 

I

 

APPENDIX G

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR RATERS OF THE
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE 1 -

CORRECT ANSWER KEY

 

APPENDIX G
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR RATERS OF THE
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

CORRECT ANSWER KEY

You have been asked to serve as a rater for a pre—
liminary screening and validation of a series of audio-
tape segments. The results of this process will lead
toward use of the tapes with subjects in a doctoral re-
search project.

1. In the exercise involved you will hear simulated .
presentations of personal experiences. One individual
will be speaking in each example to a hypothetical other
individual. A lot of the items are similar in nature to
concerns presented at crisis intervention centers, such
as drug or pregnancy related problems. Many others how-
ever are more casual statements of experience which might
be heard outside of a counseling situation.

Your task while listening to each example is to
identify the predominant current feeling the person seems
to you to be experiencing. Since human feelings are so
diverse, we have chosen to simplify this exercise by
using several groupings or categories of feelings as a
means of recording your answers.

 

 

2. Categories of Feelings. Among the thousands of
words that people—Ese to describe feelings or emotions,
some words in particular serve as feeling word labels, such
as happy, sad, angry, hurt, elated, etc. From studies that
have been done on categories of basic human emotions, we
have selected five groupings for use in this study: Con—
tempt/Disgust, Distress, Joy, Fear and Anger. There are,
of course, other categories of feeling, but the examples
and items that you will be hearing on tape have been devel-
oped with the intention of representing one of these five
groupings only. For a description of each category, refer
to the list of "Feeling Categories."

 

3. Directions. In each of the examples of this exercise,
the person speaking on the tape will be expressing a feeling
that falls within one of the five categories on the list of

110

 

111

APPENDIX G (continued)

"Feeling Categories." Your task is to listen to each exam—
ple, decide which of the categories includes the current pre-
dominant feeling of the person on the tape, and then to _—_
indicate your choice by filling in the appropriate letter on
the answer sheet corresponding to the feeling category you
have chosen.

You may hear more than one feeling being expressed in
a single example, but you should still decide which feeling
is the predominant one for the person as he speaks. Give
only one answer per item.

Be sure to answer every item, even if it is difficult
to decide on the feeling involved. You will hear each exam-
ple only once, but will be given a short period of time be-
tween items to identify the feeling and to record your
answer. (LISTEN TO EXAMPLES)

4. Different kinds of messages: Overt and Covert. Some
statements quite clearIy give an indicatioH—Ef the feelings
involved, while others are either less clear or give oon—
flicting messages. During this exercise, it is important to
discriminate the particular cue that identifies the predomi-
nant current feeling from other cues that may be distracting.

 

 

For example, the overt message and the feeling word
labels used by the individual may be decoys, with the
actual current predominant feeling being indicated by more
subtle cues such as tone of voice. On the other hand, these
inferential cues and more subtle covert messages may at times
be decoys themselves, or they may furnish no clear indica—
tion of feeling. In this case, the literal statement of the
person might be the primary cue. In still other situations,
there may be conflicting or contradictory messages given,
either overt, covert or both.

Furthermore, it is important to examine certain emo—
tional labels which could indicate either of two possible
feeling categories, and by themselves are only general state-
ments of feelings. "Bothered," for example, could be an in-
dication of Distress, Anger or Fear, depending on the context.

Whatever the case, your task in listening to the tapes
is still the same. You are to identify the current predomi-
nant feeling of the person speaking. Since you have no other
Ififarmation about each person other than that provided in
each short segment, the focus of your attention necessarily
must be on the person's immediate expression of emotional
experience.

112

APPENDIX G (continued)

(A)

(B)

(LISTEN TO SECOND SET OF EXAMPLES)

FEELING CATEGORIES

Contempt/Disgust as a category includes feelings that
make one want to reject or expel an object of dis-
pleasure, either physically (by spitting or vomiting)
or psychologically (by putting distance between one—
self and the object). It expresses an aversion to
ideas, things or people, and involves condescension,
or looking down on the object. Feeling word labels
that fall into this category include: repulsed,
spiteful, disdainful, condemning, disgusted, revolted,
skeptical, contemptful.

Distress as a category includes feelings that com-
municate a loss of some sort, either of a loved one,
of health, of self-esteem, or of anything important
to the person. A sense of deprivation and often a
need for comfort or help is associated with this
group of feelings, which tend to be more prolonged

in duration than others. Feeling word labels that
fall into the category include: anguished, sad,
sorrowful, lonely, hurt, rejected, grieving, despair—
ing.

ggy as a category includes feelings that are positive
in a rewarding way, and often such feelings bring
people together in warmth. This may be stimulated by
the onset of positive stimuli or likewise by the
cessation of negative stimuli. Feeling word labels
that fall into the category include: happy, cheerful,
proud, relieved, elated, ecstatic, inspired, pleased,
jubilant.

Fear as a category includes feelings that express a
desire to withdraw, to flee or to protect oneself.
These feelings usually have an inhibiting effect on
one's behavior, and result in hesitation, avoidance
or sometimes immobilization. Feeling word labels
that fall into this category include: scared,
apprehensive, timid, terrified, afraid, frightened,
panicked, hesitant.

 

Anger as a category includes feelings that mobilize
one's resources for confrontation with some disturbing

 

 

113

APPENDIX G (continued)

element in the environment. This may be stimulated
by frustration, a physical threat, a psychological
hurt, a violation of one's values or a failure of
fulfillment of expectations. Feeling word labels
that fall into this category include: irritated,
mad, annoyed, furious, resentful, enraged, hostile,

perturbed.
Example One (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Example Two (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Example Three (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Example Four (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Example Five (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Example Six (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Example Seven (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Example Eight (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

 

APPENDIX H

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR RATERS USING THE "SCALE

OF OVERT OR COVERT DISCLOSURE OF FEELING"

 

APPENDIX H
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR RATERS USING THE "SCALE

OF OVERT OR COVERT DISCLOSURE OF FEELING"

You have been asked to serve as a rater for a pre-
liminary screening and validation of a series of audio-
tape segments. The results of this process will lead to-
ward use of the tapes with subjects in a doctoral research
project.

(1) In the exercise involved you will hear simulated
presentations of personal experiences. One individual will
be speaking in each example to a hypothetical other indivi—
dual. A lot of the items are similar in content to concerns
presented at crisis intervention centers, such as drug or
pregnancy related problems. Many others however are more
casual statements of experience which might be heard outside
of a counseling situation.

Your task while listening to each example is to iden—
tify the degree to which the speaker's overt verbalized
expression indicates the actual current predominant feeling
he or she seems to be experienceing. In order to record
your assessment of this level of overt expression, we have
chosen to use a four—level scale to describe these degrees
of verbal explicitness.

 

 

(2) Different kinds of messages: Overt and Covert. Some
statements of experience quite clearly give an. indication
of the feelings involved, while others are either less clear
or give conflicting messages. Nevertheless, every statement
has an overt message, including the literal meaning of the
words used to describe the experience. There are cases
where a feeling can be very explicitly expressed by words
without the use of particular labels that we associate
directly with feelings. But much of the focus of this ex—
ercise will be on the degree to which the speaker's use of
feeling word labels (such as happy, sad, hurt, angry, afraid,
etc.) is congruent with what seems to be his current pre-
dominant feeling.

 

 

 

Every statement also has a covert message, including
tone of voice, deeper implication of the words used, and
other subtle cues. These covert messages may or may not be

114

 

115

APPENDIX H (continued)

congruent with the overt verbalization, and thus it is
important to listen closely to each set of cues in order
to identify the actual feeling. As stated previously,
your task here is to indicate the degree to which overt
cues in each example are congruent with the current pre—
dominant feeling such that they alone could give an
accurate presentation of the feeling of the person in
question. The vehicle for determining the degree of this
congruence is the "Scale of Overt or Covert Disclosure of
Feeling."

(3) Summary of directions. In each of the examples on
the tape, the person will be expressing feelings that may
vary in degree of overtness from the beginning of the
statement to the end. Nevertheless your taSk is to decide
the appropriate level for the statement as a whole.

Although in reality it is difficult to find state—
ments that have only one feeling associated, the examples
in this exercise have been developed with the intention
of presenting expressions where one predominant feeling can
be identified, even where there are more feelings involved
in addition to the predominant.

Since you have no other information about each person
than that provided in each short segment, the focus of your
attention necessarily must be on the person's immediate ex—
pression of emotional experience.

Indicate your rating of the level of overt expression
by filling in either a l, 2, 3, or 4 on your answer sheet.
Leave #5 blank on every case, even though this option is
also listed on the answer sheet.

Answer every item, even if it is difficult to decide
on the level involved. You will hear each item only once,
but you will be given a short period of time between items
to identify your answer and to record it.

(LISTEN TO EXAMPLES)

 

APPENDIX H (continued)

SCALE OF OVERT OR COVERT DISCLOSURE OF FEELING

LEVEL 1 —

LEVEL 2 —

LEVEL g —

CLEARLY COVERT. The words used by the speaker
clearly distract from what seems to be the current
predominant feeling he is experiencing. Indica-
tion of the speaker's feeling comes only from more
subtle cues such as tone of voice or deeper impli—
cations of the way words, including feeling word
labels, are used. The speaker's outward statement
clearly either denies his feeling or projects it
onto others or away from the present. If gee
chose Ee listen only £9 Ehe words stated—by Ehe
speaker, these alone would clearly not give an
indication of the actual current prEEBminant_Feel-

 

 

 

 

 

SOMEWHAT COVERT. The words used by the speaker
tend somewhat to distract from what seems to be
the current prodominant feeling he is experienc-
ing. Indication of the speaker's feeling comes
considerably from more subtle cues such as tone

of voice or deeper implications of the way words,
including feeling word labels, are used. The
speaker's outward statement tends to describe his
experience in situational terms, either very hesi—
tantly dealing with feelings or using them face—
tiously in such a way as to distract attention
away from the actual current emotional experience.
If gee chose :9 listen only Ee the words stated

by the speaker, these alone would—give only a
HInETSf the actual current pféaominant feelng
which‘Eh5E_person seems to be experiencing.

 

 

 

 

 

SOMEWHAT OVERT. The words used by the speaker
tend somewhat to be congruent with what seems to
be the current predominant feeling he is exper—
iencing. Indication of the speaker's feeling
comes considerably from verbalized cues, such as
feeling word labels, however the labels may be
unspecific or unclear, there may be conflicts
between different feeling labels, and in general
it is necessary to attend to more subtle cues such
as tone of voice or deeper implications of the way
words are used in order to identify the actual
predominant feeling. If one chose to listen only

 

 

 

 

117

APPENDIX H (continued)

LEVEL 4 —

predominant feeling which that person seems 39 9e
experiencing.

CLEARLY OVERT. The words used by the speaker are

 

 

clearly congruent with what seems to be the current
predominant feeling he is experiencing. The words
also specifically identify that feeling by use of
feeling word labels. Indication of the speaker's
feeling comes primarily from verbalized cues. More
subtle cues such as tone of voice or deeper im—
lications of the way words are used provide no
message about the speaker's feelings that is not
also provided by his words. If one chose to listen

 

 

 

 

of the actual current predominant feeling which

that person seems to be experiencing.

 

 

Example One 1 2 3 4

Example Two 1 2 3 4

Example Three 1 2 3 4

Example Four 1 2 3 4

Example Five 1 2 3 4

Example Six 1 2 3 4

Example Seven 1 2 3 4

Example Eight 1 2 3 4

 

APPENDIX I
INTER-RATER RELIABILITY USING THE

"SCALE OF OVERT OR COVERT DISCLOSURE OF FEELING"

 

 

APPENDIX I
INTER-RATER RELIABILITY USING THE

"SCALE OF OVERT OR COVERT DISCLOSURE OF FEELING"

 

 

 

N = 5 RATERS N = 100 ITEMS
Rater Mean Standard a if Rater
Rating Deviation Deleted
Per Item
1 2.53 .989 .8782
2 2.70 1.096 .8481
3 2.64 1.039 .8419
4 2.47 1.209 .8714
5 2.52 1.167 .8484
Total: 2.57 .910
a = .8831
Standard Error = .091

118

 

 

APPENDIX J

TYPE DISTRIBUTION ON PILOT STUDY SAMPLE: SPRING 1976

 

 

APPENDIX J

TYPE DISTRIBUTION ON PILOT STUDY SAMPLE:

SENSING TYPES

with THINKING with FEELING with FEELING with THINKING

INTUITIVE TYPES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
N: 3 N: 8 N: 5 N: 1
%= 4 %= 12 %= 8 %= 1
XXX XXXXXX XXXXX X

00

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
N: 1 N: 4 N: 4 N: 0
%=1 %=6 %=6 %=0

XX XXXX
0 00

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
N=]_ N=4 N:15 :2
(yo: 1 0/0: 0/o=22 78:3
X I XXX XXXXXXX XX

XXXXXXX
0 0

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
N=2 N: 9 N=4 N=4
%=3 %=l3 %=6 %=6

XXXXXXX XXXX XX
X
00 0 00
NOES: Total: 67
X = Females (55)
O = Males (12)

119

ONIOCInI‘

3Alld3383d

3Alld3383d

ONIOGnF

SlHBAOHlNI

SlHJAVHlXB

SPRING 1976

 

IJ

IP
EP
EJ

ST
SF
NF
NT

SJ

SP
NP
NJ

TJ
TP
FP
FJ
IN

IS

 

IE_S

41
26

32
35

14
53

36
31

17

22
19

22
10
21
14

10

27
26

10
25
16
16

 

 

APPENDIX K
DATA OF RELIABILITY FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORMS A-l AND A-2)

 

APPENDIX K
DATA OF RELIABILITY FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORMS A-l AND A-2)

Table K.l Raw Score Distributions

 

 

 

FORM A-l FORM A-2
N = 43 SCORED ITEMS N = 40 SCORED ITEMS
N = 38 SUBJECTS N = 29 SUBJECTS
Raw Score Frequency Raw Score Frequency
39 l 32 l
38 l 31 2
37 l 30 l
36 l 29 3
35 1 28 3
34 3 26 4
33 4 25 6
32 l 24 3
31 9 23 1
30 4 22 l
29 4 21 l
28 3 20 2
27 2 15 l
26 1
25 1
23 1
Mean 31.00 Mean 25.58
Standard Deviation 3.44 Standard Deviation 3.76
Variance 11.84 Variance 14.18

 

120

 

121

APPENDIX K (continued)

Table K.2 Distribution of Item Difficulty and Discrimina-
tion Indices (Form A—l): N = 43 Scored Items.

 

 

Item Number Discrimi— Number

Difficulty of Items nation of Items
Index Index
91—100 —- 91—100 ——
81—90 -- 81—90 --
71—80 2 71—80 -—
61—70 3 61—70 -—
51-60 3 51-60 1
41—50 1 41—50 --
31—40 9 31-40 7
21—30 7 21—30 8
11—20 8 ll—20 9
00-10 10 00-10 16

Less than 00 2

Mean Item Difficulty 28

Mean Item Discrimination 19

Kuder—Richardson Reliability .4320

Standard Error of Measurement 2.5925

 

 

122

APPENDIX K (continued)

Table K.3 Distribution of Item Difficulty and Discrimina—
tion Indices (Form A—2): N = 40 Scored Items.

 

 

Item Number Discrimi- Number

Difficulty of Items nation of Items
Index Index
91-100 1 91-100 ——
81-90 2 81-90 -—
71-80 — 71-80 4
61-70 5 61—70 —-
51—60 4 51—60 3
41—50 3 41—50 3
31—40 6 31-40 --
21-30 7 21—30 12
11-20 5 ll—20 9
00—10 7 00—10 6

Less than 00 3

Mean Item Difficulty 36

Mean Item Discrimination 23

Kuder-Richardson Reliability .5438

Standard Error of Measurement 2.5394

 

 

 

I APPENDIX L

SUMMARY OF ITEM DATA FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORMS A-l AND A—2)

Table L.l Summary for Form A-l.

APPENDIX L

SUMMARY OF ITEM DATA FOR

IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORMS A-l AND A-2)

 

 

Item # Feeling Average Item Discrimi-
Ratings OVCOV Difficulty nation
(10 Raters) (5 Raters) (Pilot) Index
(Pilot)

1 10B 3.8 5 20
2 10C 3.2 11 10
3 10A 3.8 3 10
4* 9DlB 2.2 13 20
5* 10D 3.6 26 20
6* 9ElA 2.0 74 40
7* 7D3E 2.2 34 10
8 10E 4.0 24 10
9 7C2A1E 1.2 3 10
10 10C 2.6 0 0
11 7D2BlA 1.2 63 -10
12* 9E1A 1.2 68 40
13 10B 2.4 8 20
14 5B4E1A 2.6 -— --
15* 7C1B1D1E 1.8 32 10
16 10D 1.0 18 10
17 9A1E 3.2 11 0
18* 7C2B1A 2.0 24 40
19* 7B3D 3.6 61 30
20* 7B3E 4.0 24 30
21* 9E1A 3.8 18 30
22 10D 3.0 26 20
23 5B4A1E 1.6 -- '-
24 9B1E 2.4 5 20
25 9D1E 1.2 34 0
26* 7A3E 1.2 18 10
27* 5D4B1E 2.0 -- --

 

123

 

APPENDIX L (continued)

Table L.l (continued)

124

 

 

 

Item # Feeling Average Item Discrimi-
Rating OVCOV Difficulty nation
(10 Raters) (5 Raters) (Pilot) Index
(Pilot)

28 10C 4.0 0 0
29* 6C4A 1.0 32 o
30* 9D1C 1.2 26 20
31 4C3B3D 1.8 —- ——
32 3B3E3D1A 1.4 —— ——
33 6A4E 2.8 24 0
34* 10E 3.8 8 30
35 10A 1.4 5 10
36* 10E 4.0 11 30
37* 8D2B 3.8 53 40
38 5D3B2E 2.2 -— -—
39* 10B 2.2 34 30
40* 9BlD 3.8 18 40
41* 9D1A 3.0 47 40
42 5B5E 2.0 -- -—
43* 8E1A1B 2.8 53 30
44 9A1E 3.2 5 -10
45 6A4E 1.2 71 0
46* 7E3A 1.8 39 60
47 7B2E1D 3.4 39 0
48* 7B3A 2.0 55 30
49* 10B 1.0 37 40
50* 8DZB 3.0 39 20

* = Included in Form B

A = Contempt/Disgust

B = Distress

C = Joy

D = Fear

E = Anger

OVCOV = Overt-Covert Rating
Mean = 2.57
Standard Error = .091

 

125

APPENDIX L (continued)

Table L.2 Summary for Form A—2.

 

 

Item # Feeling Average Item Discrimi-
Rating OVCOV Difficulty nation
(10 Raters) (5 Raters) (Pilot) Index
(Pilot)

51* 10D 3.4 28 71
52* 9B1C 1.8 34 28
53* 7E1A1B1D 2.0 97 -14
54 7A3E 3.4 21 0
55* 6E3C1A 1.6 69 57
56 9C1B 3.2 0 0
57 9A1E 1.6 3 14
58 10C 3.2 0 0
59* 8E2A 1.0 41 43
60* 7B2D1E 1.8 34 72
61 5B2A2E1D 2.6 —- ~—
62 5A4E1B 1.8 —— _-
63* 8B2D 3.6 24 28
64 6D4B 3.0 55 29
65 10B 2.6 28 14
66* 7D2B1E 3.0 48 29
67* 10B 3.6 24 29
68 4B3A3D 3.0 —- -—
69 5D3A2E 2.2 —— ~—
70* 8C1A1E 1.4 7 29
71* 9E1B 3.8 45 72
72* 7E2A1B 2.8 90 -43
73 5B3D2E 3.2 —- -—
74 7E3A 2.6 l4 14
75* 6C3BlA 3.0 90 29
76* 8B2D 3.0 62 71
77 9B1D 2.8 14 15
78 5E3A2B 3.6 —- --
79 5A2D2E1B 3.0 -- —-
80 10B 2.8 10 0
81* 10E 2.0 62 28
82* 7A3E 2.8 31 43
83 6B4A 2.6 24 14
84* 10B 4.0 31 57
85 10D 4.0 14 15
86* 8B2E 1.8 59 14
87 8B1C1D 3.0 34 28
88 5B4E1D 2.6 —— --

 

 

126

APPENDIX L (continued)

Table L.2 (continued)

 

 

 

Item # Feeling Average Item Discrimi-
Rating OVCOV Difficulty nation
(10 Raters) (5 Raters) (Pilot) Index
(Pilot)

89* 8D1B1E 4.0 14 29
90 5A5E 1.6 -— ——
91 4A3E1B1C1D 1.6 -- ——
92* 7C3D 3.4 10 29
93* 10A 1.4 21 43
94 9C1A 2.8 10 14
95* 7D3B 2.2 69 —57
96* 9A1E 1.2 31 57
97* 7A3E 4.0 66 15
98 6B3DlA 2.0 52 0
99* 6C3A1E 3.0 17 29
100 6B2D2E 2.6 59 0

* = Included in Form B

A = Contempt/Disgust

B = Distress

C = Joy

D = Fear

E = Anger

OVCOV = Overt—Covert Rating
Mean = 2.57
Standard Error = .091

 

APPENDIX M
SUMMARY OF ITEM DATA FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORM B)

 

 

APPENDIX M
SUMMARY OF ITEM DATA FOR

IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

 

 

(FORM B)
Table M.l
Item # Former Correct OVCOV Item Discrimi-
Number Feeling Diffi— nation
(Form A) culty Index
(Final) (Final)
1 12 Ang - 76 3
2 53 Cont — 81 16
3 92 Joy + 40 22
4 49 Dist - 26 24
5 82 Cont + 47 36
6 84 Dist + 24 27
7 34 Ang + 19 19
8 95 Dist - 35 30
9 59 Ang - 67 27
10 5 Fear + 18 19
ll 93 Cont - 40 29
12 60 Dist - - 40 l9
13 66 Fear + 48 ll
14 39 Dist - 50 43
15 29 Joy — 51 ll
16 89 Fear + 22 27
17 15 Joy - 44 18
18 6 Ang - 86 3
19 51 Fear + 32 3
20 72 Cont + 44 27
21 63 Dist + 56 6
22 21 Ang + 40 19
23 96 Cont - 60 32
24 41 Fear + 49 19
25 40 Dist + 41 19
26 97 Cont + 40 49
27 67 Dist + 27 43
28 20 Dist + 35 27

 

 

127

 

APPENDIX M (continued)

Table M.l (continued)

128

 

 

 

Item # Former Correct OVCOV Item Discrimi—
Number Feeling Diffi- nation
(Form A) culty Index
(Final) (Final)

29 46 Ang - 35 19
30 71 Ang + 60 37
31 30 Fear — 40 16
32 75 Joy + 76 2
33 48 Dist — 60 ll
34 18 Joy - 36 33
35 27 Fear - 55 8
36 36 Ang + 10 8
37 4 Fear - 33 29
38 99 Joy + 16 27
39 26 Cont - 21 16
40 86 Dist - 18 29
41 37 Fear + 42 10
42 81 Ang — 71 19
43 43 Ang + 62 40
44 55 Ang — 85 21
45 52 Dist - 42 8
46 19 Dist + 72 0
47 7 Fear - 30 52
48 70 Joy - 13 25
49 76 Dist + 37 24
50 50 Fear + 43 24

Cont = Contempt/Disgust

Dist = Distress

Joy = Joy

Fear = Fear

Ang = Anger

OVCOV = Overt or Covert
+ = Overt

= Covert

 

 

APPENDIX N

DATA OF RELIABILITY FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORM B)-

 

APPENDIX N
DATA OF RELIABILITY FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

(FORM B)

Table N.1 Raw Score Distributions: Total N = 139 Subjects.

 

Total IFE Scores
(50 Items)

 

Raw Score Frequency

p-a
k0
I\)I—‘(.~-IU'|T\)I'—'U'|U'I\o

 

IFE = Identification of Feelings Exercise
Mean = 28.05

Standard Deviation = 4.64

Variance = 21.54

 

130

APPENDIX N (continued)

Table N.2 Raw Score Distributions: Overt and Covert.

 

 

Form B Form B
Overt Covert
(25 Items) (25 Items)
Raw Score Frequency Raw Score Frequency
20 4 l9 2
l9 6 l8 4
18 19 17 8
17 15 16 ll
16 22 15 16
15 l9 l4 l4
l4 l9 13 30
13 10 12 23
12 6 11 13
ll 7 10 4
10 6 9
9 4 8 3
8 2 7 2
6 l
5 2
Mean = 15.00 Mean = 13.05
Standard Deviation = 2.77 Standard Deviation = 2.70
Variance = 7.72 Variance = 7.30

 

Table N.3 Distribution of Item Difficulty and Discrimina-
tion Indices (Form B): Total N = 50 Items.

 

 

Item Number Discrimi- Number

Difficulty of Items nation of Items
Index Index
91-100 -— 91—100 —-
81—90 3 81-90 -—
71—80 4 71-80 --
61-70 2 61-70 --
51—60 6 51-60 1
41-50 10 41—50 3

 

 

131

APPENDIX N (continued)

Table N.3 (Continued)

 

 

Item Number Discrimi- Number

Difficulty of Items nation of Items
Index Index
31—40 13 31-40 5
21-30 6 21-30 16
11-20 5 11-20 15
00-10 1 00-10 10

Less than 00 --

Mean Item Difficulty 44

Mean Item Discrimination 21

Kuder-Richardson Reliability #20 .5231

Standard Error of Measurement 3.2041

 

Table N.4 Distribution of Item Difficulty and Discrimin-

 

 

ation Indices (Form B): Overt N = 25 Items.
Item Number Discrimi- Number
Difficulty of Items nation of Items
Index Index
91-100 —- 91—100 —-
81—90 —— 81-90 ——
71—80 2 71-80 --
61—70 1 61-70 --
51—60 2 51-60 -—
41—50 6 41-50 4
31-40 7 31—40 9
21—30 3 21-30 5
11—20 3 11-20 2
00-10 1 00-10 5
Less than 00 --
Mean Item Difficulty 40
Mean Item Discrimination 27

Kuder-Richardson Reliability #20 .3254
Standard Error of Measurement 2.2750

 

 

132

APPENDIX N (continued)

Table N.5 Distribution of Item Difficulty and Discrimin—
ation Indices (Form B): Covert N = 25 Items.

 

 

Item Number Discrimi— Number

Difficulty of Items nation of Items
Index Index
9l—100 —— 91-100 —-
81-90 3 81—90 --
71—80 2 71-80 ——
61—70 1 61-70 ——
51—60 4 51—60 --
41-50 3 41—50 ——
31-40 7 31-40 6
21-30 3 21-30 14
11—20 2 11-20 4
00—10 —- 00-10 1

Less than 00 -—
Mean Item Difficulty 48
Mean Item Discrimination 25

Kuder-Richardson Reliability #20 .3014
Standard Error of Measurement 2.2566

 

 

 

APPENDIX 0

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TYPE BY
STRENGTH INTERACTION (SENSING-INTUITION

BY EXCEPTIONAL-MODERATE)

 

APPENDIX 0
UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TYPE BY
STRENGTH INTERACTION (SENSING—INTUITION

BY EXCEPTIONAL-MODERATE) N = 139

 

 

 

 

Table 0.1
N Mean F Value p<
Total:
ES 21 28.57
MS 47 26.51
1.6853 .1965
EN 18 28.61
MN 53 28.81
Overt:
ES 21 15.09
MS 47 14.28
1.0318 .3116
EN 18 15.00
MN 53 15.28
Covert:
ES 21 13.48
MS 47 12.23
1.3395 .2492
EN 18 13.61
MN 53 13.53
ES = Exceptional Sensing
MS = Moderate Sensing
EN = Exceptional Intuition
MN = Moderate Intuition

 

APPENDIX P
REGRESSION ANALYSIS DATA
OF EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION, THINKING-FEELING

AND JUDGING-PERCEIVING ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

 

APPENDIX P
REGRESSION ANALYSIS DATA
OF EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION, THINKING-FEELING

AND JUDGING-PERCEIVING ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Table P.1 Statistics for Regression Analysis with Three
Covariates: Sum of Scores.

 

 

% Addit. F df P<
Variab. Value
Acc. for

3 Covariates 2.3706 1.0684 3,132 .3649

Together

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variability
Accounted for

Table P.2 Step—wise Regression to Analyze the Contribution
of Each Independent Variable: Sum of Scores.

 

 

% Addit. F df p<

Variab. Value

Acc. for
Covariate E—I 1.0642 1.4413 1,134 .2321
Covariate T-F .2877 .3879 1,133 .5345
Covariate J—P 1.0187 1.3774 1,132 .2427

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variability
Accounted for

134

 

135

APPENDIX P (continued)

Table P.3 Statistics for Regression Analysis with Three
Covariates: Difference of Scores

 

 

% Addit. F df P<
Variab. Value
Acc. for

3 Covariates 1 9699 .8842 3,132 .4512

Together

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variability
Accounted for

Table P.4 Step-wise Regression to Analyze the Contribution
of Each Independent Variable: Difference of

 

 

Scores.
% Addit. F df p<
Variab. Value
Acc. for
Covariate E—I .5584 .7525 1,134 .3873
Covariate T—F .7212 .9716 1,133 .3261
Covariate J~P .6903 .9295 1,132 .3368

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variablity
Accounted for

136

APPENDIX P (continued)

Table P.5 Statistics for Regression Analysis with Three
Covariates: Overt Scale.

 

 

% Addit. F df P<
Variab. Value
Acc. for

3 Covariates 2.5295 1.1418 3,132 .3347

Together

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variability
Accounted for

Table P.6 Step-wise Regression to Analyze the Contribution
of Each Independent Variable: Overt Scale.

 

 

% Addit F df p<

Variab. Value

Acc. for
Covariate E—I .1863 .2501 1,134 .6179
Covariate T—F .7770 1.0435 1,133 .3089
Covariate J-P 1.5662 2.1210 1,132 .1477

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variability
Accounted for

 

 

137

APPENDIX P (continued)

Table P.7 Statistics for Regression Analysis with Three
Covariates: Covert Scale.

 

 

% Addit . F df P<
Variab. Value
Acc. for

3 Covariates l 9195 .8611 3,132 .4632

Together

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variability
Accounted for

Table P.8 Step-wise Regression to Analyze the Contribution
of Each Independent Variable: Covert Scale.

 

 

% Addit. F df p<

Variab. Value

Acc. for
Covariate E-I 1.7591 2.3995 1,134 .1238
Covariate T-F .0005 .0006 1,133 .9798
Covariate J-P .1599 .2152 1,132 .6435

 

% Addit. Variab. Acc. for = % Additional Variable
Accounted for

 

 

APPENDIX Q

DESCRIPTIVE DATA IN RELATION TO SUBJECTS| SCORES

ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

 

APPENDIX Q
DESCRIPTIVE DATA IN RELATION TO SUBJECTS' SCORES

ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF FEELINGS EXERCISE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Q.l Analysis of Variance Examining Differences in
Scores on Identification of Feelings Exercise
Among Scources of Subjects
N Mean Standard F F Prob—
Deviation Ratio ability
Total:@
Dorm 51 27.2157 5.0053
RA@ 23 28.2174 3.7290 .690 .504
Ed@ 65 28.1692 4.7056
Total: 139 27.8273
Overt:@
Dorm 51 14.7647 3.1597
RA@ 23 15.0435 2.7216 .080 .923
Ed@ 65 14.9077 2.7141
Total: 139 14.8777
Covert;
Dorm@ 51 12.8431 2.8098
RA@ 23 13.1739 1.8501 .355 .702
Ed@ 65 13.2615 2.8574
Total: 139 13.0935
@ = Dormitory, RA = Resident Assistant, Ed = Education

138

 

139

APPENDIX Q (continued)

Table Q.2 T-tests Examining Effect of Interpersonal Skill
Training (IPS) on Differences in Identification
of Feelings Exercise Scores

 

 

N Mean Standard t df 2-tail
Deviation value Proba-
bility
Total:
IPS 36 28.42 4.06
.88 137 .381
No IPS 103 27.62 4.86
Overt:
IPS 36 14.83 2.37
- 11 137 .915
NO IPS 103 14.89 3.03
Covert:
IPS 36 13.58 2.38
l 27 137 205

NO IPS 103 12.92 2.78

 

 

140

APPENDIX Q (continued)

Table Q.3 T-test Examining Effect of Counseling on Differ-
ences in Identification of Feelings Exercese

 

 

 

 

Scores
N Mean Standard t df 2-tail
Deviation value Proba—
bility
Total:
Cl 7 27.42 4.50
-.23 137 .818
NC2 132 27.84 4.69
Overt:
Cl 7 14.14 3.24
- 69 137 .489
NC2 132 14.91 2.85
Covert:
Cl 7 13.28 1.89
.19 137 .847
NC2 132 13.08 2.73
1 .
C = Counseling
2

NC = No Counseling

 

B IBL IOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldenbrand, M.L. The Effects of Intuition, Feeling and
Similarity on Predictive Empathy. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1974.

Allen, T.A. Effectiveness of Counselor Trainees as a
Function of Psychological Openness. Journal 9f
Counseling Psychology, 1967, 44, 35-40.

 

Allport, G.W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation.
New York: Henry Holt, 1937.

 

 

Allport, G.W. The Historical Background of Modern Social
Psychology. In G. Lindzey, ed., Handbook 9f Social
Psychology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954,
pp. 1-56.

 

 

Allport, G.W. Pattern and Growth i2 Personality. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961.

Asch, S.E. Forming Impressions of Personalities. Journal
9: Abnormal 4 Social Psychology, 1946, 44, 258-290.

 

Astin, H.S. Assessment of Empathic Ability by Means of a
Situation Test. Journal 9: Counseling Psychology,
1967, 44, 57—60.

 

Beldoch, M. Sensitivity to Expression of Emotional Meaning
in Three Modes of Communication. In J.R. Davitz, ed.,
The Communication 9f Emotional Meaning. New York:
McGraw—Hill, 1964, pp. 31-42.

 

 

Bellucci, J.E. The Development and Validation of a Measure
of Counselor Empathy. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Southern Illinois University, 1971.

Bender, I.E. & Hastorf, A.H. On Measuring Generalized
Empathic Ability (Social Sensitivity). Journal gf
Abnormal 4 Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 503—506.

 

Benner, H.J. Self Disclosure as a Construct. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1968.

141

 

 

142

Bergin, A.E. Some Implications<5fPsychotherapy Research
for Therapeutic Practice. Journal ef Abnormal Psycho—
logy, 1966, 14, 235—246.

 

Bergin, A.E. & Jasper, L.G. Correlates of Empathy in
Psychotherapy: A Replication. Journal e: Abnormal
Psychology, 1969, 14, 477—481. '

Bergin, A.E. &Solomon, S. Correlates of Empathic Ability
in Psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 1963, 48,
393.

Bergin, A.E. & Solomon, S. Personality and Performance
Correlates of Empathic Understanding in Psychother—
apy. In J.T. Hart & T.M. Tomlinson, eds., hey Direc-
tions l2 Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton—
Mifflin, 1970, pp. 223—236.

 

 

Berlew, D.E. Interpersonal Sensitivity and Motive Strength.
Journal 9: Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, §§,
390-394.

 

 

Boles, B.K. The Effect of Personality Factors and Training
on the Development of Interpersonal Skills by Fresh-
man Medical Students. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, The Ohio State University, 1975.

Bradway, K. Jung's Psychological Types. Journal 9: Analy-
tical Psychology, 1964, 9, 129-135.

Braun, J.A. The Empathic Ability of Psychotherapists as
Related to Therapist Perceptual Flexibility and Pro-
fessional Experience, Patient Insight, and Therapist-
Patient Similarity. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Fordham University, 1971.

Buchheimer, A. The Development of Ideas About Empathy.
Journal 9f Counseling Psychology, 1963, lg, 61—70.

 

Campbell, J.C. & Stanley, D.T. Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1963.

 

 

Campbell, R.E. Counselor Personality and Background and
his Interview Subrole Behavior. Journal 9: Counselihg
Psychology, 1962, 9, 329-334.

Campbell, R.J. The Development and Validation of a Multiple-
Choice Scale to Measure Affective Sensitivity (Empathy).
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni—
versity, 1967.

 

143

Campbell, R.J., Kagan, N. & Krathwohl, D.R. The Development
and Validation of a Scale to Measure Affective Sensi—
tivity (Empathy). Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1971, lg, 407—412. ‘“

 

Carkhuff, R.R. Critical Variables in Counselor Training. Jour-
nal 9T Counseling Psychology, 1969, T4, 238-245. (a)

 

 

Carkhuff, R.R. Helping and Human Relationships: A Primer
for Lay and Professional Helpers. Vols. 1 & 2. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. (b)

 

 

 

 

Carlyn, M. The relationship Between Myers—Briggs Personality
Characteristics and Teaching Preferences of Prospective
Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1976.

Chapman, J.L. The Developemnt and Validation of a Scale
to Measure Empathy. Unpublished doctoral disserta—
tion, Michigan State University, 1966.

Cline, V.B. Interpersonal Perception. In B.A. Maher, ed.,
Progress Th Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 1.
New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp. 221-284.

 

Cronbach, L.J. Processes Affecting Scores on "Understanding
of Others" and "Assumed Similarity." Esychological
Bulletin, 1955, E2, 177-193.

Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure
of Tests. In W.A. Mehrens & R.L. Ebel, eds.,Princi—
ples eh Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967, pp. 132—166.

 

 

 

Danish, S.J. & Kagan, N. Measurement of Affective Sensitivi—
ty: Toward a Valid Measure of Interpersonal Perception.
Journal QT Counseling Psychology, 1971, T8, 51—54.

 

 

Davitz, J.R. Personality, Perceptual and Cognitive Corre-
lates of Emotional Sensitivity. In J.R. Davitz, ed.,
The Communication 9E Emotional Meaning. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964, pp. 57-68.

 

 

Davitz, J.R. The Language e: Emotion. New York: Academic
Press, 1969.

Davitz, J.R. & Davitz, L.J. The Communication of Feelings
by Content—Free Speech. Journal e: Communication,
1959, 9, 6—13.

 

Davitz, J.R. & Mattis, S. The Communication of Emotional
Meaning by Metaphor. In J.R. Davitz, ed., The Egg-
munication 9E Emotional Meaning. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1964, pp. 157—176.

 

 

 

 

 

144

Demos, G.D. & Zuwaylif, F.H. Characteristics of Effective
Counselors. Counselor Education 4 Supervision. 1966,
T, 163-165.

Dendy, R.E. A Model for the Training of Undergraduate
Residence Hall Assistants as Paraprofessional Coun-
selors Using Videotape Techniques and Interpersonal
Process Recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1971.

Deutsch, F. Female Preschoolers' Perceptions of Affective
Responses and Interpersonal Behavior in videotaped
Episodes. Developmental Psychology, 1974, T9, 733-
740.

Dymond, R.F. A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Abil—
ity. Journal 9T Consulting Psychology, 1949, T4,
127—133.

Dymond, R.F. Personality and Empathy. Iournal 9T Consult-
ing Psychology, 1950, T4, 343-350.

Felker, S.A. The Relationship Between Communication and
Discrimination Skills and Selected Factors of Per-
sonality, Intellect and Experience in Counselor
Trainees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent
State University, 1970.

Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theory 9T Neurosis. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1945.

Feshbach, N.D. Empathy in Children: Some Theoretical and
Empirical Considerations. Counseling Psychologist,
1975, h, 25-30.

Fisher, 1.8. The Relationship Between Selected Personality
Characteristics and the Effects of Training to Devel—
op Small Group Productivity Skills and Interpersonal
Competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni—
versity of Miami, 1970.

Fox, R.E. & Goldin, P.C. The Empathic Process in Therapy:
A Survey of Theory and Research. Journal 9T Nervous
and Mental Disease, 1964, 138, 323—331.

Goodyear, R.K. Inference and Intuition as Components of
Empathy. Paper presented at the American Personnel
and Guidance Association Annual Meeting, Chicago,
1976.

Goldberg, A.D. Conceptual System as a Predisposition
Toward Therapeutic Communication. Journal 9T Coun-
seling Psychology, 1974, ET, 364—368.

 

145

Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: The
New American Library, 1970.

 

Gowan, J.C. Relationship of the "K" Scale of the MMPI to
the Teaching Personality. California Journal 9T
Educational Research, 1955, g, 208-212.

 

 

Gray, H. & Wheelwright, J.B. Jung's Psychological Types,
Including the Four Functions. Journal 9: General
Psychology, 1945, T2, 265—284.

 

Greenberg, B.S., Kagan, N. & Bowes, J. Dimensions of Em-
pathic Judgment of Clients by Counselors. Journal
9: Counseling Psychology, 1969, TE, 303—308.

 

Greenson, R.R. Empathy and Its vicissitudes. Internation-
ET Journal 9T Psychoanalysis, 1960, 4T, 418—424.

 

Guiora, A.Z. Toward a Systematic Study of Empathy. Com—
prehensive Psychiatry, 1967, g, 375—385.

 

Guy, S.A. The Influence of Conceptual Level and Training
on Empathy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni—
versity of Illinois, 1971.

Halpern, H.M. Empathy, Similarity and Self Satisfaction.
Journal 9: Consulting Psychology, 1955, T2, 449-452.

 

 

Halpern, H.M. Predictive Empathy and the Study of Values.
Journal 9: Consulting Psychology, 1955, ET, 104.

 

 

Halpern, H.M. & Lesser, L.N. Empathy in Infants, Adults
and Psychotherapists. Psychoanalysis g the Psycho—
analytic Review, l960, 41, 32—42.

Hogan, R. Development of an Empathy Scale. Journal of Con—
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, T}, 307—316.

 

Hungerman, J.M. The Relationship of Sensitivity to Others
to Certain Selected Personality Characteristics.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State Uni-
versity, 1970.

Iannotti, R.J. The Nature and Measurement of Empathy in
Children. Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5, 21—25.

 

Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. Translated by H.Gs Baynes.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1923.

 

Katz, R.L. Empathy: Its Nature and Uses. New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.

 

 

146

Kell, B.L. & Mueller, W.J. Impact and Change: A Study 9:
Counseling Relationships. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1966.

 

 

 

 

Kelly, G.A. The Psychology 9E Personal Constructs. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1955. .

Kerr, W.A. & Speroff, B.J. Validation and Evaluation of
the.Empathy Test. Journal 9E General Psychology,
1954, 59, 269-276.

 

 

Kurtz, R.R. A Comparison of Different Approaches to the
Measurement of Counselor Empathy in Personal Coun—
seling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michi—
gan State University, 1970.

Kurtz, R.R. & Grummon, D.L. Different Approaches to the
Measurement of Therapist Empathy and Their Relation—
ship to Therapy Outcomes. Journal g£ Counseling g
Clinical Psychology, 1972, T2, 106-115.

 

 

Langer, S.K. Feeling and Form. New York: Scribners,
1953.

Lipps, T. Das Wissen von fremden Ichen. Psychologische
Untersuchungen, 1907, T, 694-722.

Levell, J.P. Secondary School Counselors: A Study of
Differentiating Characteristics. Unpublished doc—
toral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1965.

Lundy, R.M. Assimilative Projection and Accuracy of Pre—
diction in Interpersonal Perceptions. Journal of
Abnormal g Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 33-38.

 

McCaulley, M.H. Type and Education. Unpublished paper,

McCaulley, M.H. Presenting MBTI Information on Indivi-
duals and Groups. Unpublished paper presented at
the First National Conference on the Uses of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Gainesville, 1975.

Mendelsohn, G.A. Myers—Briggs Type Indicator. In 0.
Buros, ed., Personality Tests and Reviews, 1970,
pp. 1126—1127.

 

Milliken, R.L. & Kirchner, R. Counselor's Understanding
of Student's Communication as a Function of the
Counselor's Perceptual Defense. Journal 9T Coun-
seling Psychology, 1971, Tg, 14-18.

 

 

147

Myers, I.B. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Manual.
Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1962.

 

Myers, I.B. Taking Type Into Account in Education.
Unpublished paper, 1971.

Olden, C. Notes on the Development of Empathy. The Psy-
choanalytic Study 9: the Child, 1958, T5, 505-518.

 

Ostwald, P.F. Soundmaking: The Acoustic Communication
9: Emotion. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1963.

 

Passons, W.R. The Relationship of Counselor Character—
istics and Empathic Sensitivity. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Washington State University,
1968.

Plutchik, R. The Emotions: Facts, Theories and E New
Model. New York: Random House, 1962.

 

Rank, R.C. Counseling Competence and Perceptions. Per-
sonnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45, 359—365.

Reik, T. Listening with the Third Ear. New York: Farrar,

Straus & Giroux, 1948.

Rogers, C.R. The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of
Therapeutic Personality Change. Journal 9: Consult-
ing ngchology, 1957, TT, 95—103.

 

Rogers, C.R. Empathic: An Unappreciated Way of Being.
Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5, 2-10.

 

Rommetveit, R. Selectivity, Intuition and Halo Effects
TB Social Perception. Oslo: Oslo University Press,
1960.

 

 

 

Ross, J. The Relationship Between a Jungian Personality
Inventory and Tests of Ability, Personality and
Interest. Australian Journal 9E Psychology, 1966,
18, 1-17.

 

Sarbin, T.R., Taft, R. & Bailey, D.E. Clinical Inference
and ngnitive Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1960.

 

 

Shantz, C.U. Empathy in Relation to Social Cognitive
Development. Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5,
18'21. o

 

 

148

Shlien, J.M. The Literal—Intuitive Axis and Other
Thoughts. In J.T. Hart & T.M. Tomlinson, eds.,
Ngw Directions in Client-Centered Therapy. Bos-
ton: Houghton—Mifflin, 1970, pp. 535—543.

 

 

Shrauger, S. & Altrocchi, J. The Personality of the Per-
ceiver as a Factor in Person Perception. Psycholo-
gical Bulletin, 1964, 53, 289-308.

Smith, H.C. Sensitivity 29 People. New York: McGraw—
Hill, 1966.

Stachowiak, T.I. Effects of Pretherapy Modeling, Model
Status and Therapist Status on Client Self—Disclo—
sure: An Analogue Study. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Michigan State University, 1974.

Stewart, D.A. The Psychogenesis of Empathy. Psychoan—
alytic Review, 1954, 4T, 216—228.

Stotland, E., Sherman, S.E. & Shaver, K.G. Empathy and

Birth Order: Some Experimental Explorations. Lin-
coln: University of Nebraska Press, 1971.

 

 

 

 

Stricker, L.J. & Ross, J. Intercorrelations and Relia-
bility of the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator Scales.
Psychological Reports, 1963, T2, 287—293.

 

Stricker, L.J. & Ross, J. An assessment of Some Struc—
tural Properties of the Jungian Personality Typo—
logy. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,
1964, 55, 62-717_(a) *

 

 

 

Stricker, L.J. & Ross, J. Some Correlates of a Jungian
Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports,
1964, T4, 623-643. (b)

 

Strunk, O. Empathy: A Review of Theory and Research.
Psychological Newsletter, 1957, 2, 47—57.

 

Sundberg, N.D. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In 0. Buros,
Personality Tests Egg Reviews, 1970, pp. 1127-1130.

 

Swenson, C.D. The Relationship Between Certain Person-
ality Traits of Advanced Counselor Trainees and
Their Ability to Express Congruence, Empathy and
Positive Regard. Unpublished doctoral disserta—
tion, Arizona State University, 1970.

Taft, R. The Ability to Judge People. Psychological
Bulletin, 1955, 53, 1—23.

 

'- . "aim?

149

Tomkins, S.S. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vols. 1
& 2. New York: Springer Publishing, 1963.

Truax, C.B. & Carkhuff, R.R. Toward Effective Counsel—
ing and Psychotherapy: Training and Practice. Chi-

cago: Aldine Publishing, 1967.

Webb, S.C. An Analysis of the Scoring System of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational Psycho-
logy 4 Measurement, 1964, 34, 765-781.

 

 

 

   
         
   

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1'}; ,. I . , , HHIHWIHHIIWIHIWIHIIIVHLW:

 

 

 

 

   

       

2‘...» -« ~-\ ~ ~
.4»..- .sztv-«v
. . . .-. ~ ~ ~

A . -

 
  

 

t-r'». a.-- x ‘
.u.‘ .3... 41-..:
.N...’,-

        

 

lam-u

 
 
  

23:33.32;

 

33

  

.w
:" .s.
:A..‘:.._‘;—... 12'...
m- .«u ..:‘.........«..~:
.- «7.. ..- ..~ ~‘. ..
—m

i
.

   
 
    
 
 

    
  

 

3

 

.9

..~.~..u~~-vsn~.m,...
:....-«-~vtom\~_'"~ v “-.-
“m “.13... :..->~.--“

 
   

'5!

       
 

 

w m... ..w.
«a... “in“.-.w «mm W...“
M...~q—-qumn—<s-~‘~W‘~‘ -~
wupvan‘f“ ~>""‘ ““
. W.W....»
“wow”...
u...
.. ..

1%

 
    

)
;

     
    
      

 

{I

 

,.

  

!

 
 
     

2

 
    
  
  

 

I
a

"1Wm~fl_.m
m. ..'~'.~~ ”1.3., :9».Z‘~..:m:
-.\ '- ~:“ .‘1' _m\ \: 'm'l'r‘ .1“, ”I":
4"?“ .
Saw“ ..,,...‘.....-.......;..‘..
”...k.w\.-....=-n- .3...
C ‘.

é
.

   

m

1. .W
”SN-i Tunwrrl
wannx:;..:1-
yup :51

.\

«v.

            
    
 
 
 
 
  

 

ml»
u. w thw- -m-v~~-

ww—J‘
1'..u‘.~-:n-:1,uu .. .‘.

”k w.

Q 3"-

 

UK“ 6.

     
 

35!?

‘
w-m -s-r: wan
«‘V-wg‘lrtvr

  

“1"“ M

 
     

u‘t‘
'8'!" i U
54“" 5.-..

 
 
 
 

 

.‘
.‘.,,‘::I.......
'...~~-»““"" \ ..

\ ,..‘.,...,