... .3 . 1. . Sh .3343» .. 3 5...: ..... 113....-. 3.... .n. 33?... e. .: nix-.3: : 5%. L r‘ Svfin...‘ \ ... .Lu’ $3.. 91.3.3 ‘ A a . .23. 2. 2.5.3.3. a... :3. .. 2..- . \‘I. I ‘ . .Juxf : . to .‘L . .. 3:13.17 . :\ v “MI 10.3,: A... 1 Illlllll lllnllllfllulllflill 3 1293 01020 6070 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AFFILIATIVENESS AND BENEFITS OF INTERPERSONAL GROUP MEMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH TWO METHODS OF PREPARATION presented by DAVID B . ROSENBERG has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Psychology (/r l 1.. /4 jorwessor , /é John R. Hurey Date / 4‘ I MS U it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE ll RETURN Boxwmwombmunomywm TO AVOID FINES Mum on or More data duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE -L;l: WWW MSUlommmdv-MHVEWOMIW AFFILIATIVENESS AND BENEFITS OF INTERPERSONAL GROUP MEMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH TWO METHODS OF PREPARATION By David B. Rosenberg A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1 994 ABSTRACT AFFILIATIVENESS AND BENEFITS OF lNTERPERSONAL GROUP MEMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH TWO METHODS OF PREPARATION By David B. Rosenberg Primarily developed from Yalom's (1983; 1985) views of effective group psychotherapy, the hypothesis that participants who construct specific, here- and-now, and interpersonally-oriented written agendas will view their group sessions as more affiliative and beneficial than those who are given the alternative written task of summarizing their sessions. The construct of affiliation, central to theories of interpersonal behavior (Wiggins, 1982) was featured, rather than group cohesion, a more traditional but problematic construct (Evans 8 Jarvis, 1980). Ninety-one upper-level undergraduate participants in 14 small interpersonal skills groups routinely completed postsession ratings on a single Gain item, ”Everything considered, l have gained something of value from today's session," and on a brief Group Climate Questionnaire (GCQ-S; MacKenzie, 1983) yielding a 10-item measure of Affiliativeness (Hurley & Brooks, 1988). Participants in seven Agenda groups routinely constructed presession agendas that emphasized Yalom's three elements in written preparations for each group session while participants in seven Summary groups prepared parallel written accounts of their previous session. Manipulation checks confirmed differences between the two forms of written preparations on the specific and interpersonal elements. Each group met for about 20 sessions and data from series of four contiguous early, middle, and late sessions were separately analyzed. Multivariate analyses of the Affiliativeness and Gain measures found that Agenda participants averaged more favorable ratings than Summary participants, although these differences only attained significance (p s .05) by the Affiliation measure for early sessions. Substantial within-group variance for the Affiliativeness and Gain measures was a major obstacle to finding more meaningful differences. Although less conclusive than anticipated, the findings support Bednar and Kaul's (1978) view that designed exercises, if theoretically relevant and held early in the small group experience, tend to enhance participants' sense of group affiliation and benefits. Limitations of this study and implications for future work were also discussed. DEDICATION I had long decided, far before this work was ever completed, to dedicate my dissertation to three special individuals. Each of them has made my life more meaningful and I could not imagine achieving this goal without their help. This work is dedicated to Ruth Albert, John Hurley, and Riva Rosenberg. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge those who have made the completion of this dissertation (and my graduate training) possible. Dozier Thornton was a superb clinical supervisor who demonstrated respect and understanding for his clients and all those he supervised. Having him serve on my committee was important to me. Ray Frankmann has been a continued source of support throughout this, and prior projects. He has been extremely helpful and generous with his time. Bertram Karon has remained a hero of mine for the past 13 years. He serves as a tremendous inspiration for my clinical endeavors. Most important of all is John Hurley. I realize that l have been beyond fortunate to have had John as my mentor for the past dozen years. More than any one person in my life, John has remained a constant source of wisdom, motivation, comfort, and support. He has been most responsible for my personal and professional growth. His good humor and solid guidance during these past 12 years has been greatly needed and appreciated. I would also like to acknowledge someone who has made so many sacrifices to allow me the indulgence of eight years of graduate training. Riva has been with me since l began down this path and her love, patience, and understanding have made the road less bumpy. I remember hearing that wise men say only fools rush in, but as for myself, I couldn't help falling in love with her. Riva's presence in my life gives me balance and direction. Others have also been important to me during this project. Special thanks to my brother Mark who has been especially 'macsupportive', and to Stacy and Jen for all their rating help. Three of my more esteemed colleagues, Loren Brooks, Alexis Vlahos, and Mark Wagner, deserve mention for their continued support and friendship. Finally, while at Beth Israel Hospital, l was lucky enough to be in the same internship class with Lisa Horowitz. I thought that by this age I would have already made my most meaningful friendships. I'm glad I was wrong. Knowing her has enriched my life. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Models of Interpersonal Behavior and Group Development Cohesion (Affiliation) Difficulties Surrounding the Concept of Cohesion Structure Goal Setting, Contracts, and Member Agendas The Present Study Hypotheses Method Participants Leaders Procedures and Measures Group Climate Questionnaire Short Form and Outcome Question Practical Agenda Cards (Independent Variable) Session Summary Cards (Independent Variable) Statistical Analyses Results Present Versus Normative Samples Manipulation Check of the Independent Variable: PA vs. SS Groups Hypotheses vii 46 Correlations Between Affiliation , Gain, and the PA/SS Condition 50 Discussion 52 Sample Representation 52 Session Structure: Implications for Affiliation and Gain 53 Formulation of Practical Agendas (PAs) and Session Summaries (SSS) 57 Limitations of the Present Study 58 Implications for Future Research and Practice 61 Appendix A 63 Appendix B 65 Appendix C 66 Appendix D 71 Appendix E 74 Appendix F 99 Appendix G 108 Appendix H 11 1 Appendix I 112 References 1 13 viii LIST OF TABLES Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ-S), Scale, Item Descriptor, and Composite Comparisons of the Present and Normative Samples on Relevant Measures Product-Moment Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Averaged Ratings of PAs and $85 on the Three Criteria ANOVA and Comparison Tests of Hypothesis 1 ANOVA and Comparison Tests of Hypothesis 2 34 42 45 48 49 INTRODUCTION “Although group psychology is only in its infancy, it embraces an immense number of separate issues and offers to investigators countless problems which have hitherto not even been properly distinguished from one another. The mere classification of the different forms of group formation and the description of the mental phenomena produced by them require a great expenditure of observation and exposition, and have already given rise to a copious literature” (Freud, 1921, p.2). Once thought of as a passing fad, various forms of groups (i.e., therapy, interpersonal skills, encounter, self-help) have remained a viable treatment modality for over four decades (Yalom, 1983). However, the empirical question “What makes groups work?” remains largely unanswered. In an attempt to answer this question, many authors have linked positive outcome to primarily three broad areas: (a) leader characteristics (Hurley, 1976; 1986; Hurley & Rosenberg, 1990; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973; Yalom, 1985); (b) member or patient characteristics (Butler & Fuhriman, 1980; 1983; Freedman & Hurley, 1980; Llewelyn & Haslett, 1986; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles 1973; Yalom, 1985); and (c) group characteristics (Bednar & Kaul, 1978; Braaten, 1990; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973; Yalom, 1985). A continued problem in studying groups, given the above perspective, is that researchers and theorists have generated long lists of variables (which can usually be sorted via leader, member, or group characteristics) that presumably account for a major portion of the variance in group outcome. Further difficulties 2 arise in that considerable overlap exists among these three general areas. For example, leader warmth (leader characteristic) has been shown to be significantly correlated with members’ attraction to their group (member characteristic), and both of these phenomenon have previously been associated with positive outcome (Evans, 1984; Yalom, 1985; Hurley & Rosenberg, 1990; Ribner, 1974). Most importantly, few researchers have attempted to view these variables in relation to existing theoretical models of interpersonal behavior. A promising orientation for conducting group related research is the two- dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior adhered to by many personality theorists. Popularized by Leary (1957), proponents of the two-dimensional model hypothesized that the entire range of interpersonal behaviors might be plotted in a circular fashion around the x and y axes of the Cartesian coordinate system. Leary denoted these axes Love vs. Hate (x-axis) and Dominance vs. Submission (y-axis), although they are more commonly labeled afijflaflgfl and dgmjnaugg in the current literature (see Wiggins, 1982). It is interesting to note that the present day labels werethe same anchors reported in one of the earlier two-dimensional models proposed in 1951 by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, and Coffey. However, Adams (1964), and later Hurley (1976), have denoted these two central dimensions as Acceptance versus Rejection of Self and Acceptance versus Rejection of Others in view of evidence that these labels better represent the underlying psychological processes. Much subsequent research has confirmed the salience of the affiliation and dgmjflange dimensions in diverse models of interpersonal behavior. Upon reviewing the relevant literature, Wiggins (1982) stated, “The history of two- 3 dimensional representations of interpersonal behavior over the last thirty years...illustrate the remarkable convergences of conceptualization among different investigators that have occurred and the diversity of populations and topics to which such models have been applied” (p. 217). At about the same time, Conte and Plutchik (1981) reviewed empirical studies utilizing interpersonal personality data and reported that “...any factors after the first two account for very little of the total variance” (p. 707). The present study will examine the effect two separate structuring techniques have on members’ subsequent perceptions of affiliation (often referred to as cohesion in group literature) and benefit derived from their small group experience. Theoretical models of group development have prominently featured the constructs of cohesion (difficulties associated with this label will be discussed later) and structure (Bednar, Melnick, & Kaul, 1974; MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983; Neimeyer & Merluzzi, 1982; Tuckman, 1965; Yalom, 1985). Most models contend that groups progress through various developmental stages. It is important to note that these stages are not discrete and distinct, rather, they are often referred to as “fluid” or “continuous.” In addition, the labels for these stages, and the divisions between them appear rather arbitrary. In spite of these limitations, some researchers have reported considerable agreement about the underlying task at each stage of the group (MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983; Yalom, 1985). Cohesion and structure are often viewed as central themes in early group development although they remain important throughout the life of the group. Tuckman (1965) has received credit for identifying and labeling the developmental sequences found in most small groups. These stages were denoted forming, storming, norrning, and performing. In his model, group structure is an implicit feature of the forming phase. Tuckman wrote that the 4 initial phase is concerned with “orientation, testing, and dependence [on the leaders]” (1965, p. 396). It is implied that the leader will impose structure in order for the group to properly form. In fact, when detailing the final stage (performing), he stated that “structural issues have been resolved, and structure can now become supportive” (p. 396). With regard to cohesion, Tuckman viewed the norrning stage as critical. He hypothesized that, “resistance is overcome in the third stage in which ingroup feeling and cohesiveness develop” (p. 396). This early model of group development takes into account and highlights the importance of both cohesion and structure for a properly maturing group. In a more recent model, MacKenzie and Livesley (1983) labeled the initial phase of group development as engagement, and viewed the underlying task as the formation of group identity and cohesion. They stated that group identity is achieved “when all members have participated to some extent in personal self-disclosure and are committed to participate” (MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983, p. 105). Implicit in this statement is some form of structure to help group members to feel safe enough to participate and reveal personal information. This “structure” is often introduced to the group through the leader, although it may take the form of a contract in groups lacking a formal leader. Yalom (1985) stated that “it is only after the development of group cohesiveness that patients may engage deeply and constructively in the self- disclosure, confrontation, and conflict essential to the process of interpersonal learning” (p. 107). In his theory, Yalom hypothesized that the development of cohesion is aided by the patient’s feelings of universality; that is, the patient feels he or she is not the only one with these problems. However, he asserted that the therapist is the primary agent responsible for the group’s emotional climate. He wrote, “You [the leader] are the group’s primary unifying force; the 5 members relate to one another at first through their common relationship with you” (Yalom, 1985, p. 113). Yalom’s emphasis on cohesion as the sine qua non of successful group therapy was highlighted by his statement, “the therapist must recognize and deter any forces that threaten group cohesiveness” (1985, p. 113). He further hypothesized that cohesion would remain an important therapeutic factor throughout the life of the group. Thus, cohesion and structure appear essential ingredients of widely accepted models of group development. il' i As stated earlier, the concept of cohesion has been prominently featured in small group research. Stokes (1983) noted that much of the research related to cohesion has stemmed from task-oriented experimental groups conducted by academicians in the fields of social and organizational psychology. However, clinical and other applied psychologies have added to our understanding of the importance of cohesion in small groups and other treatment settings (Kellerman, 1981; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973; Moos, 1974; Yalom, 1985). Group cohesiveness has been referred to as the therapeutic counterpart to the “relationship” in individual psychotherapy (Budman et al., 1989; Rogers, 1961; Yalom, 1985). Research on psychotherapy outcome has clearly identified that the therapeutic relationship has emerged as one of the most salient variables influencing the outcome of individual psychotherapy (Parloff, Waskow, & Wolfe, 1978). Thus, it is not surprising that group therapists have placed a high value on group cohesion. Yalom (1985) considered cohesion to be one of the 12 basic therapeutic factors in group psychotherapy. Nine of these therapeutic factors were addressed in the first 18 pages of the third edition of Yalom’s acclaimed textbook, WWW 6 W. However, considerably more attention was given to cohesion; “I consider interpersonal learning and group cohesiveness so important and complex that l have treated them separately in the next two chapters” (1985, p. 4). How is cohesion curative? According to Yalom’s theory, cohesion serves to build one’s sense of personal and public worth through acceptance and understanding from peers. As acceptance increases, the patient becomes less defensive and more able to explore and express various aspects of his or her personality. In addition, to maintain this acceptance the patient’s behavior and beliefs must begin to conform to group norms which ultimately helps the patient to behave more adaptively in the group and beyond. Yalom (1985) wrote, “the members of a cohesive group are accepting of one another, supportive, and inclined to form meaningful relationships in the group” (p. 69). From a more traditional psychodynamic perspective, Kellennan (1981) asserted that cohesion is curative in that, “...identification with the affiliated group offers each member a revitalized interest in life and a sense of belonging to something of value” (p. 10). Furthermore, he hypothesized that “...this revitalization is reflected in the hope of reworking old neurosis, of having an opportunity to correct habitual and repetitive behavioral patterns, and of generally having the group represent a second-chance family” (p. 10). Beyond theory, much empirical evidence has shown that cohesion is an important therapeutic factor in group psychotherapy. Researchers have demonstrated a variety of ways in which cohesiveness, . or members’ sense of affiliation, benefits groups. In a study involving 63 personal growth groups, Hurley (1989) found that a measure of affiliativeness. correlated positively and substantially with two indices of group outcome. Kanas et al. (1989) have shown that schizophrenics who participated in short- 7 term groups that were viewed as high in engagement/cohesion reported improved psychological functioning. Similarly, Budman et al. (1989) reported that high cohesiveness was related to an increase in self-esteem and a reduction of reported psychological symptoms for patients in 12 time-limited psychotherapy groups. High levels of cohesiveness have also been associated with fewer dropouts and better group attendance (Dickoff & Lakin, 1963; Yalom & Rand, 1966). Butler and Fuhriman (1980) examined members’ perceptions of their group psychotherapy treatment by providing patients with 12 statement cards that corresponded to Yalom’s (1975) curative factors. Patients (day treatment and outpatient) were then instructed to rank order these statements based on their perceptions of what they found to be most helpful in their group experience. The results clearly indicated the high value that members in the day treatment program placed on cohesiveness as these patients ranked it as the most important of the 12 items. Cohesiveness was viewed as less important for outpatients as it was ranked the eighth most helpful factor by these group members. Butler and Fuhriman (1980) concluded that this sense of “belongingness” was an essential component of the treatment for the more severely disturbed day treatment members, while for the more functional outpatient members, “who have retained the capacity to be together . . . self- understanding” was most helpful (p. 383). However, in a related study Butler and Fuhriman (1983) found that members of outpatient psychotherapy groups ranked cohesiveness in the top third of Yalom's 12 curative factors. Several other works have shown that many constructive in-group behaviors (i.e., self-disclosure, member to member interpersonal feedback) are positively correlated with group members’ sense of cohesion (Bednar, Melnick, & Kaul, 1974; Crews & Melnick, 1976; Ribner, 1974; Yalom, 1985). Given this, it 8 has been argued that one of the primary tasks of the group psychotherapist is to build a cohesive environment (Budman et al., 1987; MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983; Yalom, 1985). The question then arises, “How does the therapist build cohesiveness?” Numerous writers have provided structured exercises aimed at accomplishing this, as well as other group-specific tasks ( Egan, 1976; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973; Middleman & Goldberg, 1972; Otto, 1970; Pfeiffer & Jones, 1974; Yalom, 1985). However, many individuals remain dissatisfied with the use of structured exercises and suggest that they are disruptive to the group process. This argument has been made on both theoretical and practical grounds. Further elaboration is warranted and will be presented later. 'ff' ' in f ' n Several researchers have pointed out noteworthy pitfalls in the “cohesiveness” literature. Mudrack’s (1989) recent review asserted that the construct “does not lend itself readily to precise definition or to consistent measurement” (p. 772). One example can be found in the Budman et al. (1989) study where the authors reported that their measure of cohesion correlated .95 and .98 (as measured early and late in the sessions) with a measure of group alliance. Group alliance was operationalized as “the interrelationships of the group members, and the members’ experience of this relationship” (p. 343). Budman et al. further commented that the “...Group Cohesiveness and Group Alliance Scales tap two dimensions of group process, namely, bonding and working ” (1989, p. 343). Their heavy empirical overlap suggests that these authors had tapped two measures of the same construct. Earlier works have also highlighted difficulties with cohesion research. In a review article on experiential group research, Bednar and Kaul (1978) 9 reported that although, the concept of cohesion “is ubiquitous in group treatment theory. . . there is little cohesion in the cohesion research” (p. 800). They pointed out three basic reasons for the “apparent confusion” regarding cohesion. They asserted that: (a) researchers use the term cohesion to refer to a variety of phenomenon; (b) cohesion scales typically have poor psychometric properties: and (0) authors have rarely acknowledged discrepancies between conceptual and operational definitions of cohesion. Cohesion has been defined as “the resultant of all the forces acting on all the members to remain in the group” (Yalom, 1985, p. 49), “a basic bond or uniting force” (Piper et al., 1983, p. 95), and a sense of belonging (Bugen, 1977). These definitions have typically been operationalized and measured as an arithmetic mean of individual attraction measures (Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973; Wright & Duncan, 1986). Evans and Jarvis (1980) stressed the importance of differentiating attraction-to-group and cohesion. They have asserted that: Much of the confusion associated with the concept of cohesion has been the result of equating cohesion with the combined attraction-to- group scores of individual group members. This approach does not capture the group nature of cohesion, and has confounded the conceptualization of cohesion and attraction-to-group. As a result, adequate measurement of both concepts has suffered (p. 366). Piper et al. (1983) noted that even Evans and Jarvis failed to provide a clear definition and operational measure of their “group cohesion” construct. In addition, Piper et al. emphasized that the “group nature” of cohesion described by Evans and Jarvis still requires “an arithmetic manipulation of individual 10 members’ scores” (p. 105). Evans (1984) addressed these criticisms in an investigation of the relationship between interpersonal attraction and attraction to the group “which seems a necessary first step . . . in understanding cohesion” (p. 172). Others have differentiated attraction to the group from interpersonal attraction (Wright & Duncan, 1986), although this line of research has not yet produced an adequate measure of “group cohesion”. Difficulties associated with the current body of literature has led some authors to “question the usefulness of the term group cohesion” (Piper et al., 1983, p. 105). Even more forceful was Bednar and Kaul’s (1978) suggestion, “that the term [cohesion] be dropped from the empirical vocabulary and that more representative alternatives be found” (p. 802). Kellerman (1981) used affiliation, cohesion, and attraction to group as interchangeable labels for the same phenomenon. Many authors appear to agree that the elimination of this redundancy in the literature would be a desirable step. In addition to difficulties related to definition, Evans and Jarvis (1980) also pointed out that the “...theoretical development of the concept of cohesion in a therapeutic context is almost nonexistent” (p. 364). Given this, and other researchers’ call to link cohesion with a developed theory (Bednar & Kaul, 1978), the present writer views affiliation as a more useful label. As previously mentioned, the construct of affiliation has a long history in personality theory. Recently, Hurley (1989) suggested that, “research findings related to group cohesiveness should also be indexed under affiliativeness given the former construct’s lack of any visible role in theories of personality" (p. 522). However, the American Psychological Association’s computer database program PsycLit referenced 634 articles when the constructs group and cohesion were entered into the search, but only about half as many articles were referenced using the key words group and affiliation (January 1974-June 1991). 11 In summary, theory and research related to cohesion has demonstrated positive correlations of this variable with a variety of group phenomena, including outcomes. Critics of the cohesion literature have argued that measures of cohesion are too varied, usually unsuccessfully operationalized, and intrinsically flawed given their disconnection from psychological theory. The present work addressed these concerns by using a well-established instrument that has been shown to measure one of the primary dimensions of interpersonal behavior (affiliation) as noted in personality theory. In light of this, the construct cohesion may also be thought of as affiliation. Structure Historically, the use of structure in human relations training, or various psychotherapy groups has been a source of ongoing controversy (McGuire et al., 1986). Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1973) devoted an entire chapter to structured exercises in their seminal book W. In their study of encounter groups held at Stanford University, the authors found that all groups labeled as low in the use of exercises (fl = 5) had some overall gain whereas only half of the high exercise groups (n = 4) yielded similar gains. Additionally, their high exercise groups contained considerably more variation in outcome scores than the low exercise groups. This variability was suggested to be a result of particular leaders’ who were unable to maximize the efficacy of structured exercises. However, in summarizing their findings regarding such exercises, Lieberman et al. wrote; “...exercises are irrelevant to producing positive change (there are other leader strategies that seem more productive)” (p. 412). This conclusion appears premature in view of their small sample size (N = 9) and the large variability of scores in the high exercise group. 12 In the same study, Lieberman et al. examined statements made by participants regarding the incidents which they found to be most significant during their group’s sessions. These statements were coded into nine categories termed “critical incidents”. The authors compared critical incidents about specific exercises with nonexercise related incidents. The findings indicated that structured exercises differed significantly on only one of the nine categories, group closeness. That is, group members who made statements about structured exercises tended to view their group as more closely knit than did members who made no statements about structured exercises. Furthermore, when investigating the effects of structured exercises on group processes, Lieberman et al. found that high structure groups were rated significantly more cohesive than low structure groups in both early and late group sessions. In spite of these findings, the authors final appraisal was, “exercises appear at best irrelevant in that they do not yield markedly different results whether they are used or not; more likely, it can be inferred that they are less effective in general than more unstructured strategies” (p. 419). This opinion was partially based on the finding that these high exercise groups yielded less stable gains and also had significantly fewer “high learners” than did members of those groups which used few exercises. Even so, it was surprising that these authors’ final evaluation of exercises appeared so negative. Participants in the Lieberman et al. study reported much more favorable perceptions. Testimonials obtained at termination and at a six month follow-up revealed that members of groups that used frequent structured exercises perceived their leaders as “more competent, more effective, more active, and using better techniques than did members in low exercise groups” (p. 418). Furthermore, members of high exercise groups stated that they desired to be in 13 another group with the same leader significantly more often than did members of low exercise groups. Lieberman et al. noted that testimonials regarding the “constructiveness of the experience” at six month follow-up was identical for both high and low exercise groups. At termination, members of high exercise groups rated “constructiveness of the experience” significantly greater than did the members of low exercise groups. Lieberman et al. suggested that this decrease in perceived constructiveness supported the theoretical assertion that “leader-directed activities are more transitory because group members do not experience what happens as a product of their own activity” (p. 419). Many existential-humanistic theorists seem in agreement with the assertion that stable therapeutic gains are more likely to occur in unstructured settings and will be maintained longer when the client perceives that she or he is responsible for doing the “work” of therapy. Thus, in his client-centered theory and clinical applications, Carl Rogers strongly opposed the use of structure. He directly addressed this issue in, We; Groups (1970): I try to avoid using any procedure that is m; I have a real “thing” about artificiality. If any planned procedure is tried, the group members should be as fully in on it as the facilitator, and should make the choice themselves as to whether they want to use that approach. On rare occasions, when frustrated or when a group seemed to reach a plateau, l have tried what I think of as devices, but they rarely work. Probably this is because I myself lack faith that they are really useful (p. 56). 14 Other theoretical perspectives have also discouraged the use of structured exercises in groups. Some psychodynamic group theorists maintain that the absence of structure increases ambiguity which in turn maximizes patients' defenses and projections (Rabin, 1970). Once these defenses and projections are made apparent in the group, it is theorized that the patient then becomes more aware of her/his feelings and motivations, and is able to relate to others in a more productive fashion. This view was partially confirmed by Hutchinson (1980), who examined the group variables of leadership and structure in relation to counselor training. Hutchinson ( 1980) found that members of unstructured groups reported an increased awareness of feelings when compared to high structure group members. Additionally, he reported that members of a low structure and active leadership condition faired best on various measures related to interpersonal behavior. In an earlier study that examined the effect of structured and unstructured groups on members’ self-concept, Wright, Morris, and Fettig (1974) found that, “the unstructured approach appears to be more effective overall, that is, having obtained significant results in more TSCS (Tennessee Self-Concept Scale] areas” (p. 219). However, the authors also reported that the structured groups were successful in social skill development. In their conclusion, Wright et al. recommended structured groups for social skill development, and an unstructured format for studying social growth. Although some favor an unstructured approach to group leadership, other evidence suggests that structured exercises can help facilitate, rather than impede, the group process. Levin and Kurtz (1974) examined participants’ perceptions of their group experience in “structured and nonstructured” human relations training groups. They found that the “superiority of structured exercises in generating more favorable participant perceptions of group 15 experience is consistent across a wide range of leader experience and participant characteristics” (p. 529). More specifically, Bednar, Melnick, and Kaul (1974) contend that structure presented in the initial stages of a group facilitates appropriate group behaviors like self-disclosure and responsible risk taking which in turn lead to more cohesive groups. This view was partially corroborated by Crews and Melnick (1976) who found that groups given structured exercises at sessions three and four were rated more favorably for early sessions (greater self-disclosure and feedback with less confrontation) than groups with either delayed structure (structured exercises at sessions 7 & 8) or no structure. However, similar ratings taken later in the group revealed no statistical differences as the delayed structure and no structure groups had increased about equally in self-disclosure and feedback. Similarly, McGuire et al. (1986) found that structure in the initial phase of a group was associated with higher levels of self-disclosure than in nonstructured groups. However, these differences again disappeared in the latter stages of the group. These data suggest that the moderate use of structure, particularly early in the life of the group, likely facilitate important group processes (i.e., self- disclosure, cohesion). Bednar, Melnick, and Kaul (1974) outlined a three phase model for structuring early group sessions. Cognitive Learning (Phase one) is characterized by exposing group members to fundamental concepts of group psychotherapy. For example, the authors suggest that group leaders inform members that; (a) people interested in group therapy probably have difficulties establishing or maintaining satisfying interpersonal relations, (b) expressing feelings while they are happening is helpful, (c) early group dropout or unrealistic expectations for quick resolution of members' problems impede group development, and (d) appropriate expectations for benefit to members 16 based on previous group experiences. Thus, this first phase emphasizes the importance of preparation for participation in a group experience. This rationale has been supported elsewhere in the group literature (Yalom, Houts, Newell, & Rand, 1967; Yalom, 1985). Vicarious Learning (Phase two) is characterized by exposing group members to “videotaped examples of openness" (p. 36). Openness was specified to include examples of selfodisclosure, interpersonal feedback, and group confrontations. Following videotaped examples of openness, the authors suggest that members “should discuss what they saw, what effects it seemed to have on individual and group participation, and their own attitudes toward engaging in these behaviors in their own group“ (p. 36). In the final phase, Behavioral Practice, the authors suggest that members practice the openness behavior through leader initiation of such techniques as the animal or first impression game.1 In sum, the authors contend that adhering to a specific model for structuring the initial stage of group development will allow for greater interpersonal trust, safety, and cohesion. The debate surrounding “structure” versus “nonstructure” in group psychotherapy, or human relations training seems fruitless. It becomes clear that the argument is based on degrees, and not absolutes. Virtually all groups exist in the presence of some sort of structure. For example, members are often recruited to overcome a specific problem (i.e.,. adult children of alcoholics, weight reduction, etc.), to meet others similar to themselves (i.e., Parents without Partners), or to increase personal awareness (i.e., interpersonal growth 1The animal game is an exercise where each member selects an animal that best describes the identified member(s) based on the animals characteristics (i.e., “Don seems like a lion because he's so courageous“). In the first impression game, members share their initial impression of each other. Following both exercises, members are encouraged to discuss their perceptions and reactions. 17 groups). Additionally, groups tend to have specific meeting times and locations. Most researchers or practitioners would agree that each of these examples represent varying degrees of explicit or implicit structure. In spite of this understanding, many researchers continue to report experimental conditions using the labels “structure and no-structure.” A closer examination of the no-structure condition in one work revealed that “the leader provided W [emphasis added] and direction at each session as to how the group was to proceed” (McGuire et al., 1986, p. 271). What varied in this study was the amount of explicit structure, not the presence or absence of structure. The apparent lack of agreement in the group literature regarding what constitutes structure is a vital issue. Much like the difficulties associated with cohesion, the label structure can be operationally defined in myriad ways. Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1973) attempted to resolve this issue by defining structure as, “a leader intervention that includes a set of specific orders or prescriptions for behavior" (p. 409). However, this definition does not address structure imposed through contracts, goal setting, or leaderless groups. Goal setting and contracts are especially germane to the present work and will be discussed later. In summary, there is continued controversy surrounding the use of structure in human relations training and psychotherapy groups. In addition, the concept of stmcture is too broad and operationally diverse to answer definitive questions regarding its impact on groups. However, much of the empirical evidence supports the use of some form of structure at least early in the life of a group. Thus, groups that include early structured activities have been found to be rated higher on several important group variables (i.e., self-disclosure, cohesion). 18 WW Much of the research in the area of goal setting has been conducted by social and industrial organizational psychologists (see Evans & Dion, 1991 for a recent review). From a clinical perspective, goal setting (occasionally referred to as a interpersonal contracts or client agendas) has been a widely employed technique for facilitating behavioral change in individual and group psychotherapy (Berglas & Levendusky, 1985; Egan, 1971 , 1976; Kanfer & Schefft, 1988; Ribner, 1974; Shapiro, 1968; Yalom, 1983, 1985). In addition, empirical studies have demonstrated that client participation in goal setting is associated with greater goal attainment and more favorable treatment outcome (Hart, 1978; Kivlighan & Jauquet, 1990; Kivlighan et al., 1993; Leszcz, Yalom, & Norden, 1985; Maher, 1981; Schulman, 1979). Two types of goal setting, problem cards and agendas, have proven especially useful for psychotherapeutic and personal growth groups. The use of problem cards for aiding clients to set goals and to encourage interaction between clients was supported by Flowers (1979). Pn‘or to each session, group members were instructed to write down two specific problems (one difficult, and one less difficult) that they were currently experiencing. Clients were also told to identify an external person (someone who is not participating in the group) who was capable of assessing change regarding the client’s problem. During the group session, clients were encouraged to disclose one of the problems on their card. They were given the alternatives of disclosing either problem, or not to share at all. Flowers (1979) claimed that these cards served multiple uses: (a) prompt and prepare members for group; (b) help members to formulate and operationalize their problems; and (c) allowed for differing levels of participation (difficult disclosure, less difficult disclosure) rather than speaking versus silence. 19 At various points throughout his study, Flowers instructed clients to give the external person a copy of their client problem list to rate that client's progress (or failures) regarding each problem. Furthermore, group members were also asked to rate each other’s progress on these problem lists. The purpose of this was to reduce rater bias and enhance reliability. Unfortunately, Flowers (1979) reported that interrater reliability (ratings made between outsiders and group members) yielded correlations that ranged from -.4 to .7 with a mean of approximately .35. In spite of this, the problem card has remained a fruitful resource for group leaders and members (Kivlighan & Jauquet, 1990). Like problem cards, agendas are a useful technique for enhancing the group experience. Egan (1976) described agendas in his book, Interpersonal i ' .- ‘ ki . on A o.ro h to m.--,n-Rl ions Tri in i . . ,- . He suggested that after every meeting, group members write out their experiences, behaviors, and feelings regarding each member of the group. From this written log, the members were then instructed to complete an agenda for the upcoming session. Egan (1976) wrote: As you read your log, you can come to some decisions on what you want to accomplish in the next group meeting. Therefore, each weekly log should conclude with a practical agenda for the next group meeting. . . . Concrete logs lead to concrete agendas. . . . concrete agendas increase the probability of your involving yourself more directly and concretely with your fellow participants (p. 33). Agendas may well be more constructive than problem cards because they frame group members’ issues more positively; “What will you accomplish?” versus “What are your problems?” In addition, agendas are more apt to be 20 interpersonally based. That is, agendas can be directed toward here-and-now relationships between members of the group, as opposed to more intrapsychically framed problems like depression or loneliness. Finally, properly constructed agendas are concrete and specific. This allows for more accurately directed feedback from other members or the leaders regarding progress on a given issue. Agendas are not limited to human skills or personal growth groups. Yalom (1983) has written extensively on implementing an exercise using agendas for in-patient group psychotherapy. This “agenda go—round”, was developed to allow the therapist to make brief contact with all members of the group. Time is a precious commodity for an in-patient or traditional psychotherapy group. Often, a member joins an inpatient group for only one or two days, and making the most of that persons time becomes paramount. According to Yalom, roughly the first 30 minutes of a typical 75 minute session is spent having the new patients formulate and share their agendas. Once this has occurred, another half hour is used to “fill as many agendas as possible” (1983, p. 210). The remaining time is spent on therapist and patient summaries and responses to the session. In describing how he structures group sessions, Yalom (1983) stated: In my opinion, a highly effective way of beginning a meeting is to ask each patient to formulate a brief personal agenda for the meeting. The agenda identifies some area in which the patient desires change. The agenda is most effective if it is both realistic and “do- able” in the group meeting that day. I urge the members to formulate an agenda that focuses on interpersonal issues and, if possible, on 21 those that in some way relate to one or more members of the group meeting in that session (p. 214). In this statement, Yalom emphasized the importance of the interpersonal nature and concreteness of agendas. He also remarked on the value of keeping agendas focused in the here-and-now. Thus, his agenda go-round exercise meets similar criteria to Egan’s (1976) notion of a practical agenda. Although the use of agendas has been highly recommended by several authors, few empirical studies have been conducted regarding their efficacy. In one study, Leszcz, Yalom, and Norden ( 1985) examined in-patients’ perceptions regarding various treatment modalities to determine the patients treatment of choice. Of the 11 different forms of treatment (i.e., group therapy, individual therapy, medications, relationships with peers, ward activities, etc.), group therapy was second only to individual therapy. In addition to determining that group treatment was highly valued, the study sought to evaluate a structured, voluntary, and functionally homogeneous therapy group. The structure consisted of the agenda go-round exercise and group rehashes or summaries. The results indicated that the in-patient group which used agenda go-rounds and rehashes “utilized therapeutic factors in a way that was highly correlated (p < .01) with the outpatient groups” (p. 428). However, several methodological weaknesses, including unmatched groups and unreported measures, lessen confidence in these findings. More recently, Kivlighan and Jauquet (1990) explored the quality of group members’ agendas in relation to the emotional climate of group sessions. The setting for their study was at a large midwestem university and the participants were advanced students (graduate and undergraduate) enrolled in an elective class on group theories. All students were required to participate in personal 22 growth groups led by doctoral candidates in counseling psychology. In all, six solo-led groups meeting twice weekly (75 minutes per session) for a total of 26 sessions were examined. Members completed problem cards (Flowers, 1979) prior to sessions 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 22. All students were instructed that they “could indicate up to three items per card”, and “there were no requirements that the contents of the problem card (agenda) were to be stated in the group session” (p. 210). Group members also completed the Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ- S) at the end of each specified session. MacKenzie (1983) developed the GCQ-S in an attempt to measure three dimensions of group climate; Avoiding, Conflict, and Engaged (this instrument will be reviewed fully in the Method section). Kivlighan and Jauquet then combined the data for sessions 2 and 6, sessions 10 and 14, and sessions 18 and 22. These data sets were denoted the early, middle, and late periods respectively. Kivlighan and Jauquet (1990) hypothesized that session quality would be enhanced as group members approached sessions with more realistic, here- and-now, and interpersonal agendas. This hypothesis was supported. Trained judges rated each of the problem cards and found a statistically significant increase in all three variables across time. The relationship between these three variables and the GCQ-S’s three miniscales was also examined. For early sessions (2 & 6), the only statistically significant correlation that occurred was between the miniscale Engaged and judges ratings of problem cards as realistic. Thus, members perceived their groups as more engaged when they set realistic agendas. For middle sessions (10 & 14), the Engaged miniscale linked positively and significantly to the interpersonal and here-and-now ' qualities of member agendas, while ratings on the Avoiding miniscale had significant negative correlations with these agenda qualities. A similar pattern 23 held for later sessions (18 & 22). Therefore, members of groups who set more interpersonal and here-and-now agendas perceived their middle and late sessions as higher on Engaged and lower on Avoiding. The above study clearly demonstrated that how members approach group sessions may be associated with the general atmosphere or climate of such sessions. Kivlighan and Jauquet (1990) provided several directions for future research. In their study, the average rating of judges for the realistic, here-and- now, and interpersonal agenda characteristics was roughly a three on a five- point scale. The authors concluded that there is “latitude for improved goal quality and that techniques for improving individual and group goal quality could be profitably investigated” (p. 216). Kivlighan and Jauquet also suggested that outside raters be employed to determine if they too viewed sessions as more constructive (e.g., more affiliative). This concern was addressed by Slough (1986) who had trained observers rate small groups on a measure of affiliation. Finally, a logical extension of the above study is to determine if groups that employed an agenda or problem card exercise are viewed as more constructive than groups utilizing other procedures. new The present study sought to extend the work of Kivlighan and Jauquet (1990) and Leszcz, Yalom, and Norden (1985). By using measures and structured exercises grounded in psychological theory, the goal was to provide additional guidelines for the implementation of structured exercises in human relations groups. In doing so, it is likely that this work can help to move beyond the “structure vs. no structure” debate. Thus, this study compared groups that used a Practical Agenda exercise to groups that were given an alternative exercise of Session Summaries. Additionally, the present work provided group 24 members with feedback throughout the course of the group regarding the quality of their agendas and summaries. Finally, the Practical Agenda (PA) and Session Summary (SS) groups were compared to see if differences exist on how members valued these experiences at various stages in the group. Session Summaries were chosen as the alternative exercise to PAs primarily due to their ties to the group literature. Also, group members in the present study were enrolled in a course on interpersonal leamings which mandated that both types of groups (SS & PA) have relatively parsimonious requirements. As aforementioned, Egan (1976) described a procedure for constructing a group log. The initial portion of this log was termed the experience section. Members were instructed to write out how they experienced other individuals in their group. This experienced section is analogues to the SS in the present study. Yalom (1985) described a similar technique for group therapy that he termed written summaries (typically two or three typed single-spaced pages). He characterized these as: an editorialized narrative which describes the flow of the session, each member’s contribution to the meeting, my contributions (not only what I said, but what I wished I had but did not say, or what I did say and regret), and any hunches or questions that occur to me after the session....[The summaries are] mailed to the members the following day....To date, my students and colleagues and l have written and mailed thousands of group summaries to group members. It is my strong belief that the procedure greatly facilitates therapy (Yalom, 1985, 437). 25 The main difference between this exercise and the SS exercise was that 888 were written by members and not shared with the group in the present study, while Yalom’s written summaries were produced by the leader and subsequently shared with the group. Yalom provided several reasons for his belief that these written summaries facilitated the group process. Primarily, he asserted that a groups’ power increases as greater continuity occurs between sessions. These written summaries add continuity, in part, by giving the member another group contact between sessions. Yalom ( 1985) also hypothesized that these summaries aid the patient in understanding group processes, help shape group norms, provide therapeutic leverage, and allow for an additional avenue for therapist disclosure. Others have supported the use of written reports in group therapy and supervision (Aveline, 1986). Thus, the use of 88s in the present study appears an acceptable alternative to the PA exercise. Special considerations must be met given the use of what some authors term “trait ratings” in the present study. Prior works that have examined trait ratings have often employed measures which have inadequate or unexplored construct validity, solo raters, and methods which require many inferences by the rater regarding the target person (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Wylie, 1974). Recently, Kenrick and Funder (1988) asserted: research now indicates quite clearly that anyone who seeks predictive validity from trait ratings will do better to use (a) raters who are thoroughly familiar with the person being rated; (b) multiple behavioral observations; (c) multiple observers; (d) dimensions that are publicly observable; and (e) behaviors that are relevant to the dimension in question (p. 31). 26 These issues were addressed in the present study by using: (a) well- established measures with theoretical and empirical ties to interpersonal behavior; (b) multiple raters; (0) ratings based on naturally occurring behavior in group sessions; (d) ratees had full knowledge of who would be rating them and on the conduct being rated; and (e) raters who were well-acquainted with each other. Hypotheses H1: Members of Practical Agenda groups will rate their sessions, on average, as more affiliative on the Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ-S) than will the members of Session Summary groups. This will be most apparent for early meetings (sessions 3, 4, 5, & 6) and these differences may diminish for middle (sessions 9, 10, 11, & 12), and later meetings (sessions 14, 15, 16, & 17). H2; Members of Practical Agenda groups will value their group experience on a simple measure of group outcome (“Everything considered, l have gained something of value from today’s session”) more than Session Summary group members. This will be most apparent for early meetings (sessions 3, 4, 5, & 6) and these differences may diminish for middle (sessions 9, 10, 11, & 12), and later meetings (sessions 14, 15, 16, & 17). METHOD E l' . I The participants were 91 (62 women; 29 men) undergraduates enrolled in an upper-level psychology course at Michigan State University. The course, Small Interpersonal Groups for Experiential Learning (SIGEL; Psychology 400) has been offered every Fall, Winter, and Spring term since 1971. An unusual feature of this course is that it has been taught by the same professor, John Hurley, throughout the past 23 years. As a result, the SIGEL program has contributed data to about 30 publications as well as to a number of theses and dissertations. The present study utilized data collected from all 14 SIGEL groups functioning from Spring term 1991 through Spring term 1992. The fundamental goal of SIGEL is to heighten students awareness of their interpersonal style through several methods (i.e., practicing accurate empathy and advanced listening skills, appropriate self-disclosure, and respectful confrontation) described in the course text, Interpersonal Living: A Skills/Contract Approach To Human-Relations Training in Groups (Egan, 1976). Prior to entering a SIGEL group, students are asked to read a course description (See Appendix A) which states in part that the purpose of these groups is “to build an atmosphere of concern and respect for each member’s personhood while also attempting to respond to each participant’s behavior within a here-and-now context.” Students were also informed that SIGEL groups are not for psychotherapy, but that therapy groups were available to students free of charge through the Michigan State University Counseling Center. 27 28 Placement into SIGEL groups occurs during the first week of a 10 week term. Criteria for entering a group were as follows: (a) students were not to be well-acquainted with any other member in their group, especially the Ieader(s); (b) ability to meet at the group’s scheduled times; and (0) attempts were made to have an equal balance of males and females. Once formed, groups convened for the remaining nine weeks of the term meeting twice weekly for 90 minute sessions. In addition, there were two 12-hour marathon sessions, typically held near the third and seventh weekends of each term. Students were also required to attend a weekly class lecture where the instructor discussed various aspects of the SIGEL groups. Group members who showed promising interpersonal skills and a desire to continue in the SIGEL program were allowed to participate for an additional term, as observers, in preparation for possible group leadership. This second term entailed a minimum of 10 direct observations of SIGEL groups (excluding first, last, and marathon sessions) which regularly included a post-session dialogue with the group Ieader(s) regarding leadership style and session dynamics. Observers were instructed to choose a seat outside of the groups’ circle, but In plain view of members (not hidden behind curtains or mirrors). In addition, they were instructed to avoid eye-contact and verbal communication with group members and leaders. All members had full prior knowledge that observers were “leaders in training,” and would be present at some group meetings. Leadership training also included weekly readings and discussions of the small group literature, and participation in an advanced interpersonal group. At the end of their second term, observers were evaluated by the course instructor and graduate assistant. Typically, those individuals who completed the requirements were offered the opportunity to co-lead a SIGEL group. On 29 rare occasions an individual spent a second term of preparation prior to leading a group, or was separated from this program. Groups were led in a moderately unstructured fashion and based in part on the works of Egan (1976), Rogers (1970), and Yalom (1985). Leaders encouraged members to share here-and-now feelings about their group experience, provide behaviorally-specific feedback to other members (including the leader), and to practice alternative styles of self-expression. During the term, group leaders attended 120—minute weekly supervision sessions held by the course instructor, and additional supervision was available on demand. At these meetings, leaders discussed difficulties around specific issues or problematic behavior of group members, provided the course instructor with verbal progress notes, shared ideas regarding their groups’ progress, and reviewed group members’ charted session ratings on the Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ-S). In addition, leaders were provided with handouts (including journal articles or text chapters) regarding such topics as leadership behaviors associated with favorable group outcomes, advanced accurate empathy, and group development. These readings and weekly supervisory meetings fulfilled most of the administrative tasks of the SIGEL program. This program appears to have been successful from group members’ perspectives. Returns from over 95% of all group members for about the past ten years on the item , ”Describe SlGEL's value to you, as compared with other Department of Psychology courses“ yielded mean ratings between “above average“ and ”exceptionally good.“ Similar ratings were obtained when members were asked how they would describe SIGEL to other students unfamiliar with the SIGEL course (Hurley, 1989). The instructor also reported that “to the best of my knowledge, no one has left these groups with valid 30 feelings of damage from their SIGEL experience” (J. R. Hurley, personal communication, 1991). A very high rate of attendance (over 95%) at SlGEL's small group meetings for nearly the past ten years further indicated that the course has been well received by the students. The dropout rate from the Stanford University groups described by Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1973) was about three times higher than that of SIGEL groups (about 14.8% vs. 5%). This difference may in part be attributable to SIGEL groups more supportive and less confrontive atmosphere. Locum Leaders (9 women and 2 men) were primarily undergraduates (there was one recent graduate and a graduate student in Social Work) with an average age of about 23 years old. Leader assignment to either the PA or SS condition was determined by the coin toss method. No leader led more than one group per term, however, three of the leaders led multiple groups over the course of the study. One man and one woman each solo-led two groups and co-led a third, while another women solo-led two groups. Leaders were uninformed about the study’s hypotheses, but were advised that the instructor had decided to make some changes in the SIGEL course. Wm - 0 -0 u-. = Q : out. - :01 0,1140- on: 0. -: 0: MacKenzie (1981) reviewed the existing measures of group climate and found that they were either methodologically flawed or too cumbersome to be efficiently used in clinical settings. He developed the Group Climate Questionnaire (GCQ) in response to the need for a brief, psychometrically sound, measure of group climate. The original GCQ was comprised of 32 items that were rated on a seven-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “extremely" 31 and required about ten minutes to complete. MacKenzie (1981) noted that all items were written in nontechnical language and described small units of behavior that require the rater to use minimal inference (i.e., ”there was friction and anger amongst the members“). Despite this goal, it seems clear that considerable inference was needed for members to rate these group characteristics. For example, a member of an eight-person group must take into account the feelings and perceptions of seven other members plus himself/herself before rating the item, “T here was friction and anger amongst the members.” MacKenzie (1983) subsequently addressed this issue and stated that items “require a significant amount of inference [emphasis added] since the member must combine the behavior of all members for the entire session to make a rating” (p. 167). The 32 items were the basis for eight scales (Engagement, Disclosure, Support, Conflict, Challenge, Practicality, Cognition, and Control) which the author asserted, “represent important theoretical concepts in the psychotherapy literature” (MacKenzie, 1981, p. 293). Factor analysis of GCO protocols completed in 15 separate small groups (N = 119) identified seven factors, five of which reflected hypothesized scale dimensions. Mean item-scale correlations ranged from .54 (Control) to .79 (Disclosure) with an average correlation of .70. Further analyses indicated relatively independent scales with the exception of the high overlap between Disclosure and Practicality (I = .75). Also noteworthy were the correlations between Engagement and Support (I = .53) and Conflict and Challenge ([ = .45), although MacKenzie did not comment on these findings. A briefer version of the 600 (GCQ-S) was introduced in 1983 with the rationale that, “if studies are to be conducted in clinical programs, however, instruments must be devised which are practical from the standpoint of time and 32 convenience” (MacKenzie, 1983, p. 160). Item format remained consistent with the longer version of the GCQ (nontechnical language & behaviorally-specific). Oddly, MacKenzie reported that both the GCQ and the GCQ-S take “five to ten minutes to complete” (MacKenzie, 1981, p. 289, 1983, p. 161). However, the short form was chosen over the longer version in the present study largely due to its greater ease of application. In addition, the GCQ-S has been routinely used in the SIGEL program since 1983. Presented in Table 1, the 12 items of the GCQ-S reportedly formed three miniscales (Engaged, 5-items; Avoiding, 4 items; Conflict, 2 items). MacKenzie (1983) suggested that the Engaged scale is related to cohesion, participation, Insert Table 1 about here confrontation, and the “...Rogerian dimensions which have a lengthy documented relationship to effective individual therapy” (p. 165). The Avoiding scale reportedly assessed the degree to which members avoided inter— and intrapersonal encounters, and also whether members avoided taking responsibility for their own progress. Finally, the Conflict scale was established to gauge the amount of interpersonal conflict and distrust in the group. When viewed collectively, MacKenzie (1983) asserted that these three miniscales represent the important dimensions that therapists use in discussing groups. Several methodological criticisms have been levied against the GCQ-S (Hurley & Brooks, 1988) although this measure continues to be widely used in research and clinical settings (Braaten, 1990; Hurley, 1989; Hurley & Brooks, 1987; Kanas et al., 1989; Kivlighan & Jauquet, 1990). Gorsuch (1983) noted TABLE 1 Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ-S), Scale, Item Descriptor, and Composite. ”Emma” [1983) SEQ 5 new: 1. The members liked and cared about each other. 2. The members tried to understand why they do the things they do, tried to reason it out. 3. The members avoided looking at important issues going on between themselves. 4. The members felt what was happening was important and there was a sense of participation. 5. The members depended upon the Ieader(s) for direction. 6. There was friction and anger between the members. 7. The members were distant and withdrawn from each other. 8. The members challenged and confronted each other in their efforts to sort things out. 9. The members appeared to do things the way they thought would be acceptable to the group. 10. The members distrusted and rejected each other. 11. The members revealed sensitive personal information or feelings. 12. The members appeared tense and anxious. WW Engaged Engaged Avoiding Engaged Conflict Avoiding Engaged Conflict Engaged Anxious 33 Cared Reason Avoided Participated Depended Angry Withdrawn Confronted Normative Rejected Revealed Disaffiliative mm Affiliative Affiliative Disaffiliative Affiliative Disaffiliative Disaffiliative Affiliative Disaffiliative Affiliative 34 that works using factor-derived scales of six or fewer items have proven difficult to replicate. MacKenzie (1981) also pointed out this flaw when reviewing existing measures of group climate, commenting that factors having “only five, four, and three items....The low number of items in those factors makes their use problematic” (p. 288). However, MacKenzie failed to apply this criticism to his own GCQ-S miniscales which contained five, four, and two items. In addition, the GCQ-S was presumed to have construct validity based on “a review of scale results with individual therapists” (p. 294). This is contrary to the more traditional view of construct validity which advises that measures should be constructed or derived from psychological theory (Anastasi, 1988). Addressing such difficulties, a more recent work (Slough, 1986) has attempted to reforrnulate the GCQ-S. Slough (1986) conducted an analysis of 1752 GCQ-S protocols collected from SIGEL group members and found that MacKenzie's (1983) three miniscale structure is better represented as a 10-item bipolar affiliativeness composite. An affiliativeness pole identified in Table 1, is comprised of the five- item Engaged scale alleged to be “related to the concept of cohesion” (MacKenzie, 1983, p. 165). The disaffiliative pole is comprised of two items each from the Avoiding and Conflict miniscales plus Anxious, an item excluded from MacKenzie’s three miniscales. In a separate study using 1207 GCQ-S protocols from SIGEL groups, Hurley and Brooks (1987) found that the inter- item correlations again reflected this affiliativeness composite. Finally, this pattern was also confirmed in another study (Hurley & Brooks, 1988) that addressed differences between GCQ-S ratings made by SIGEL group observers and members. Thus, in the analyses of over 3000 GCQ-S SIGEL protocols, the salient variable was a 10-item bipolar Affiliativeness composite (sum of scores for the GCQ-S excluding items 5 & 9). 35 Members and leaders of all SIGEL groups completed postsession ratings on the GCQ-S at the end of each session. They were advised not to discuss or share their own ratings with other group members. However, a chart of the total group’s affiliativeness composite derived from ratings by all members’ was provided at each session (Appendix B). In addition to the GCQ-S, at the end of each session members responded to the simple outcome question, “Everything considered, I gained something of value from today’s session”. Like the GCQ- S, response format was a seven-point Likert-type with possible responses of “Not at all”, “A little bit”, “Somewhat”, “Moderately”, “Quite a bit”, “A great deal”, and “Extremely”. Members’ mean responses to this question were also presented on the GCQ-S chart. Hurley ( 1989) reported that this solo outcome item correlated positively and significantly with their group’s mean ratings on the affiliativeness composite (_ = .80, p < .001). In prior SIGEL groups, although each groups’ chart was available at every session, most members have expressed little interest in viewing or discussing these charts. It was not uncommon for several sessions to pass before a member asked to view the chan. Other measures of cohesion/affiliation were reviewed and found to be unacceptable for the present study. The Gross Cohesiveness Scale (GCS; Gross, 1957) was developed by a Harvard student who wrote an honor’s thesis on cohesiveness and compatibility. This GCS consisted of seven items scored on a Likert-type scale and remains widely used for measuring group cohesion (Johnson & Fortman, 1988). An examination of the items reveals that none satisfactorily addressed how members specifically behaved during the group session. Instead, items focus on, “How attractive do you find the activities in which you participate as a member of your group?” and “My feelings of belongingness with this group would be . . . ” Thus, the GCS items primarily 36 focused on the more superficial “attraction to group” construct, as opposed to the richer social and psychological process items associated with GCQ-S affiliation composite. More recently, Budman et al. (1987) developed the Harvard Community Health Plan Group Cohesiveness Scale (HCHP-GCS). Trained raters viewed 30 minute videotaped segments of outpatient groups and rated them on five bipolar subscales (Withdrawal and Self-Absorption vs. Interest and Involvement; Mistrust vs. Trust; Disruption vs. Cooperation; Abusiveness vs. Expressed Caring; and Focused vs. Unfocused) and one global cohesion dimension (Fragmentation versus Cohesion). Each of the scales was followed by a 10-point Likert-type format with descriptors and definitions at varying points (-5, -3, -1, +1, +3, +5). Initial reports of interrater reliability and validity appeared promising. However, use of the HCHP—GCS is limited to trained raters and provides no information on how group members’ perceive their experience. When commenting on differences in how patients perceive cohesion, Budman et al. (1987) suggested that “the Group Climate Questionnaire might be used to identify these patients” (p. 84). Previous works have also reviewed existing measures of cohesion (Hurley & Brooks, 1987; 1988; MacKenzie, 1981) and reported their findings with little enthusiasm. The present study’s use of the GCQ-S is in agreement with Hurley’s (1989) recent finding that the “Affiliativeness composite offers an integrated overview of group climate on a salient dimension of interpersonal behavior strongly associated with group outcome” (p. 522). Whig) As previously mentioned, the present study’s use of Practical Agendas (PA) was based on the related works of Egan ( 1976), Flowers (1979), and 37 Yalom (1983). Group members were provided with complete instructions regarding the rationale and construction of PAs. These instructions began, “PAs represent opportunities to enhance or further develop your relationships with other group members in the next group session”. Members were informed that well-constructed PAs have three fundamental characteristics: 1. Each shares some of the writer's feelings and experiences. 2. They have a hero- and-now focus. 3. Their content is concrete and specific as opposed to abstract. (Further elaboration of each of these characteristics can be found in Appendix C). Students were also provided with examples of PAs from past groups. Prior to the start of their SIGEL group, students were informed that course grades would be “unrelated to your behavior within group sessions. . . You will not be graded down if you choose not to share your PAs.” Course grades were influenced by the quality of written PAs as based on the above criteria, two in- class exams covering selected portions of the course textbook (Egan, 1976), and attendance. The assignment for the term read as follows, “You are to write a PA for four other persons in your group, plus yourself, for each session (including Marathons). . . Finally, your set of PAs for each session must average 100 words, or total at least 500 words.” A randomly drawn PA from the present study can be reviewed in Appendix H. Members placed their PAs into an envelope which the group leader put into the course instructor’s mailbox immediately following each session. Members were informed that group leaders would not be allowed to look at the PAs. PAs were reviewed by the course instructor, and the present study’s author. Feedback was provided through written comments on members PA cards. The cards were reviewed weekly, commented upon, and returned at the class lecture the following week. Approximately one year after all the data had 38 been gathered, two undergraduates from a university in Boston and a former group leader judged a randomly selected sample (_r1 = 307) of all PAs on their concreteness, here-and-now quality, and interpersonal focus (See Appendix E for Rating Manual). The PA’s were coded so that no identifying information about the author was available to these judges. Wisdom In the second condition, members completed Session Summary cards (SS). These cards were written accounts of how a member experienced another member of her/his group during the session. Students were instructed to “write out what led you to experience him or her in this fashion. Did you see X as withholding, courageous, or supportive? Explore your perceptions. Be specific. It will be helpful to include both verbal and nonverbal behaviors.” In addition, students were encouraged to share “...some of their fantasies and hunches about why they thought the other person was acting a particular way.” The full set of SS instructions is presented in Appendix D. As with the PAs, students were informed that their grades would be “unrelated to your behavior within group sessions.” Course grades for members who wrote 888 were influenced by two in-class exams covering selected portions of the course text (Egan, 1976), the quality of written 88s as based on the above criteria, and attendance. The assignment for the term read as follows, “You are to write a SS for four other persons in your group, plus yourself, for each session (including Marathons). . . Finally, your set of 88s for each session must average 100 words, or total at least 500 words.” Thus, the SS and PA exercises entailed required the same amount of written work, and were to be completed in the same time frame. 39 Following the same procedure for PAs, members placed their 88s into an envelope which the group leader put into the course instructor's mailbox following the session. Members were informed that leaders would not be allowed to look at the 888. 383 were reviewed by the course instructor and the course teaching assistant (a clinical psychology graduate student). Feedback was provided through written comments on members’ SS cards. The cards were reviewed weekly, commented upon, and returned to the students at the class lecture the following week. A random sample of $85 (a = 257) were also rated on the three criteria used for the PAs (concrete, here-and-now, & interpersonal) to determine if the exercises differed along these theoretically derived dimensions. A randomly drawn SS from the present study can be reviewed in Appendix H. StatistiQaIAnalyses Prior studies that have examined process variables related to group outcome have aggregated data into “phases” or “time periods” (Kivlighan & Jauquet, 1990; McGuire et al., 1986). For the present study, data from the first two sessions were excluded as group membership was less certain during these early sessions. To provide a stable sample of ratings that are representative of their proposed period, each time period was comprised of four sessions. Data from sessions 3, 4, 5, and 6 were combined to form an early period, data from sessions 9, 10, 11, and 12 formed the middle period, and data from sessions 15, 16, 17, and 18 formed a late period. Ratings from marathon sessions, and the final session were excluded due to their extended length and other atypical features. Marathon data were replaced by extending the period to include the next occurring session. For example, if session 4 of the early 40 period was a marathon, data from that session was dropped and replaced by data from session 7. All hypotheses were tested using a repeated measures analyses of variance and Fisher-protected tests for pairwise comparisons. The Affiliativeness composite and the singular outcome question (“Everything considered, I gained something of value from today’s session”) were designated dependent measures, while the Practical Agenda (3 = 7 groups; 44 members) and Session Summary (0 = 7 groups; 47 members) groups served as independent variables. Correlations between the Affiliativeness composite, Gain item, and independent variables (PA and SS conditions) were also examined. RESULTS WW Table 2 shows descriptive statistics and results of t—tests performed between the present sample (14 SIGEL groups) and a larger normative sample of 63 SIGEL groups (Hurley, 1989). Data used were the composite Affiliation score (Hurley & Brooks, 1988) derived from MacKenzie's Group Climate Questionnaire-Short Form (GCQ-S), and the singular Gain item "Everything considered, I feel that I have gained something valuable from today’s session.“ The present sample’s mean Affiliation rating was 15.91, significantly higher (mean difference = 2.93, p < .0001) than the normative data on this scale which ranged from -30 to + 30. A significant difference was also found on the Gain item, as the present sample's mean Gain rating significantly exceeded the normative sample (mean difference = .24, p 5 .0001; Gain potentially ranged from 0 to 6). Other differences between these samples included the present groups were significantly more often (86% vs. 25%) solo-led, and averaged slightly higher percentages of female than male participants (68% vs. 60%). In addition, the modal group size was smaller in the present sample (6 vs. 8 approximately), although both samples averaged about six members per group. 41 0110-101 E 'I . n Affiliation Gain Leadership Gender Females Males QLQMILSIZQ 1- 'r: - 0 Hurley 1989 63 SIGEL Groups (.N. = 374) MEL" 5.0 12.98 3.11 4.41 .34 SQLoied 3/2 15/63 25 n. 22 226 60 148 40 Mode Mean 8 6.10 TABLE 2 ormg iv 42 1m9: 01 ':|v:-l u=- : Present Study 14 SIGEL Groups (fl=91) Mean: 52 1 9 15.91 4.48 7.33 .0001 4.65 .72 4.66 .0001 l-I 3/_o x2 o 12/14 86 18.01 .0001 n_ % 61 68 29 32 Mode Mean 6 6.53 43 These differences suggest that the present sample may reflect important variations from the available normative data. The significance of these discrepancies will be discussed later. For the purposes of this study, the present sample appears within reasonable limits of the normative data despite the noted differences. M '. .. u h k of th Ind-vund Var'u-l: PA v. re-- Complete data was obtained from all PA groups; while only about half of the data from SS groups was available. Fewer 885 were collected as these exercises were not required to meet the below rating criteria. Thus, it was determined that 50% of the total sample would be reasonably representative of the SS condition. To obtain a representative random sample, each group's PAs were separated by time period (early, middle, and late), and each time period was blindly shuffled. Using a coin toss, the data from each group's early, middle, and late time periods were randomly reduced by 75%. Each group’s remaining PA's were combined and the total set was blindly shuffled. Again, using a coin toss, PAs were randomly drawn until the sample size was reached (3 = 307). The same procedure was used for the SS data (11 = 257). PAs and SSs were rated by three raters on the following dimensions: a) Abstract versus Concrete; b) There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now; and c) lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal. Two raters were undergraduate social science students, the third held an advanced degree in Social Work. Raters were trained during several 44 90-minute sessions that involved reviewing a manual designed for rating agendas on these three dimensions (Appendix E) and practice ratings on sample agendas. PAs and $83 from the study replaced sample agendas after the judges were able to consistently score within two points (on a 7 point scale) on all three criteria for the practice PAs and 883. Table 3 shows the interrater correlations for the PAs and 88s on the above three rating criteria. Descriptive statistics for the three judges' averaged ratings of PAs and SS at each time period are also reported in Table 3 (judges' ratings are listed separately in Appendix I). The correlations among raters averaged .68 for abstract vs. concrete and .73 for intrapersonal vs. interpersonal suggesting moderate interrater agreement on these two dimensions. However, a substantial drop in the averaged correlations among raters was found for the there-and-then vs. here-and-now criteria (1 = .27). The truncation of range on this criteria likely accounted for lowered correlation as the modal score for PAs and SSs was a seven (scores ranged from 1 to 7). In addition, scores of six or seven on the here- and-now criteria were given to PAs and SSs over 95 percent of the time by two of the raters, and over 85 percent for the other rater. Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 I! TABLE 3 -u- 3”, olT:. .On [13- nd -nd.r0 ,I‘V. 'on OI'AV3 10:. A n h r e ' 'a.’ R1 Fl 2 R 3 R1 R 2 R 3 R1 F1 2 R 3 .70 .71 .62 .11 .12 .08 -.08 .06 -.03 .33 .03 .05 .08 .24 .25 .75 .57 .60 .13 -.07 .07 .67 .65 .51 .10 .01 .10 .75 .71 .58 .68 .12 .00 .20 .78 .78 Practical Agenda Session Summary Early Middle Late Early M86852.) Meanlfim Meanfifl.) MeanISD.) mammrsm 5.14 (1.11) 5.52 (.98) 5.21 (.98) Middle . Late 2.51 (1.0) 2.45 (.99) 2.73 (1.02) 6.68 (.58) 6.59 (.65) 6.63 (.44) 6.65 (.47) 6.75 (.46) 6.54 (.68) 5.67 (1.36) 5.82 (1.37) 5.72 (1.42) 2.52 (1.13) 2.54 (1.12) 2.45 (1.26) (1 05) (99) (103) (99) (85) (73) ' Criteria 1 = Abstract vs. Concrete. Criteria 2 = There-and-Then vs. Here-and-Now. Criteria 3 = lntrapersonal vs. Interpersonal. 45 46 Considerable overlap existed between ratings on the abstract vs. concrete and intrapersonal vs. interpersonal dimensions as the correlation averaged (sum of each rater's L divided by 3) about .69 suggesting that nearly half of the variance of each dimension was shared by the other. However, the there-and-then vs. here-and-now dimension averaged sharing only about one percent of the variance with the other two dimensions. Raters scored PAs as significantly higher than SSs on the abstract vs. concrete (aggregated mean difference = 2.76 pg .0001) and intrapersonal vs. interpersonal (aggregated mean difference = 3.25 pg .0001) criterion for the early, middle, and late rating occasions. Ratings of PAs and 885 on the there-and-then vs. here- and-now criteria did not differ statistically significantly for any occasion (aggregated mean difference = .02). Thus, PAs were perceived by raters as more concrete and interpersonally-based than were SSs all through the life of the group. The high scores on the there-and-then vs. here-and-now criteria suggests that PAs and 88s both had a here-and-now emphasis. Alternatively, it may be that this rating scale was not sensitive enough to differentiate between the PA and SS conditions. 8192189195 It was hypothesized (H1) that members of Practical Agenda (PA) groups would rate their sessions, on average, as more affiliative (especially for early sessions) than would the members of Session Summary (SS) groups. Table 4 shows the results of the ANOVA and Fisher-protected tests for painlvise 47 comparisons of this hypothesis as well as pertinent means and standard deviations. Neither the Affiliation effect (the difference between the aggregated means for the PA versus SS groups) nor the Condition by Group, Time by Condition, and Time by Group effects were statistically significant. However, Affiliation did increase significantly over time (E = 3.43, p 5 .05). Statistically significant differences that were not predicted occurred for the Group within Condition effect (E = 3.34, p g .0006) and the Time by Group interaction (E = 5.33, p 5 .0001). Thus, considerably more variability existed between groups than within groups. Comparison tests were used to assess the specific temporal trends (PA vs. SS early; PA vs. SS middle; PA vs. SS late). Results indicated that PA group members rated their early sessions as significantly more Affiliative (t = 2.2, p = .05) than did members of SS groups. The middle and late period differences were not statistically significant, although the direction of each mean difference supported the hypothesis. Table 5 shows the results of the ANOVA and Fisher-protected tests for painrvise comparisons of the hypothesis (H2) which stated that members of Practical Agenda (PA) groups will value their group experience on a simple measure 01 group outcome V Seurce , d! Affiliation [PA/SS] 1 Group (Affiliation) 12 Subjects (Groups) ' 77 Time [earty,middle,late] 2 Time 2; Affiliation 2 Time x Group (Affiliation) 24 Time X Subject(Group) 154 TABLE 4 433.62 1708.73 3280.08 325.57 202.72 1138.83 1369.94 th Meanfiqueree 433.62 142.39 42.60 162.78 101.36 47.45 8.89 S. 1. 3.05 3.34 3.43 2.14 5.33 .11 .0006 .05 .14 .0001 Comparisons of PA Versus SS Early, Middle, and Late Sessions (N = 91) Practical Agenda (PA) Mean Early 16.48 Middle 17.26 Late 17.85 30 4.91 5.35 5.03 Session Summary (SS) Mean 5.0 13.35 4.62 13.28 6.15 17.49 5.55 2.20 1.93 .06 .05 .08 .95 * H1: Members of PA groups will rate their sessions as more Affiliative than will the members of Session Summary groups. This will be most apparent for early meetings and these differences may diminish for middle and later meetings. 48 TABLE 5 N n m ari T Selim SH W Gain [PA/SS] 1 3.81 Group (Gain) 12 26.48 Subjects (Groups) 77 1 10.35 Time [early,middle,late] 2 .88 Time X Gain 2 1 .75 Trme 2; Group (Gain) 24 22.90 Time 2; Subject (Group) 154 43.25 MeeLSeueree 3.81 2.21 .44 .88 .95 .28 1.73 1.54 .46 .92 3.40 .21 .13 .64 .41 .0001 Comparisons of PA Versus SS Early, Middle, and Late Sessions (N = 91) Practical Agenda (PA) Mean 30 Early 4.69 .82 Middle 4.81 .82 Late 4.79 .86 Session Summary (SS) Mean £12 4.56 .86 4.36 1 .03- 4.73 .81 1.63 .36 .13 .77 * H2: Members of PA groups will value their group experience on a simple measure of group outcome (“Everything considered, l have gejned something of value from today’s session”) more than SS group members. This will be most apparent for early meetings and these differences may diminish for middle and later meetings. 49 50 (“Everything considered, I have gained something of value from today’s session”) more than Session Summary (SS) group members, especially for early sessions. The relevant means and standard deviations are also reported in Table 5. The Gain effect (the aggregated difference between the PA and SS means) was not statistically significant. Similarly, the effect and interactions for Time (Time with Condition, & Time with Group) were also insignificant. However, consistent with the findings for hypothesis 1, the effect for Time by Group interaction was again statistically significant (E = 3.40, p s .0001), indicating high intergroup versus intragroup variability. The results of the t—tests for the early, middle, and late periods yielded no significant findings. However, the trend was in the predicted direction as members of PA groups on average rated their sessions higher on the Gain item than members of SS groups across all time periods. en ili ti n ain nd " n All correlations were tested using two-tails with significance levels as follows: I; = .21 (I! s .05); I: = .27 (Q s .01); and r = .32 (p _<_ .002). The three occasion measures of Affiliation correlated significantly with each other (early 5 middle = .65; early x late = .37; and middle x late = .49). The Gain correlations had a similar pattern (early 25 middle = .61; early x late = .46; and middle )5 late = .46). Seven of the nine intermeasure-interoccasion correlations (Affiliation early, middle, & late 25 Gain early, middle, & late) were significant with the late Gain measure involved in both nonsignificant relationships (Gain late )5 Affiliation early = .19, and Affiliation )5 middle = .16). The average correlation 51 between Affiliation and Gain across time was .53 (early = .49, middle = .60, and late = .51 ). As expected, Affiliation correlated significantly with the PA/SS variable at the early and middle sessions (rs = .32 & .33, p _<_ .05), but not so at the late sessions (I = .19). The Gain measure correlated significantly only once with the PA/SS variable (PA/SS x Gain early = .00; PA/SS x Gain middle = .24; & PA/SS x Gain late = .00). Thus, for middle sessions, PA group members rated the statement, ”Everything considered I have gained something of value from today's session", higher than did members from SS groups. Gender was included as a variable to determine if it related significantly or differentially to the Affiliation, Gain, or PA/SS conditions, but did not contribute to any statistically significant relationships. DISCUSSION I ti Several statistically significant differences were noted between the present data set and the best available normative data (Hurley, 1989). The present sample’s Affiliation scores averaged about one standard deviation higher and the Gain item was also significantly higher than the normative data. These discrepancies may have resulted from the author‘s use of temporal periods (early, middle, and late) which resulted in the exclusion of about 40% (8 of 20) of the average number of sessions in a typical SIGEL group (Hurley, 1989) or other data collection differences. However, significant structural changes in this small group course had also immediately preceded the present work. Unlike the present participants, those in the normative study had been required to keep detailed journals of their group experience. These journals were confidential and reviewed only by the course instructor or ancillary staff. Students infrequently brought their journals to SIGEL group meetings and were even less likely to actually read or share journal excerpts. Contrarily, the present study required all group members to bring at least five Practical Agendas (PA) or Session Summaries (SS) to every group session. Furthermore, group leaders often encouraged members to read their PAs or 83s during group sessions. In addition, the course instructions also emphasized that sharing one's PAs or 88s during a group meeting might be beneficial to the member and group. These changes in SIGEL’s structure likely contributed importantly to the differences in sample means on the Affiliation and Gain measures. Another difference was the significantly greater proportion of women than men in the present sample. Also, fewer group leaders were available for the 52 53 present groups resulting in an increased ratio of solo-led to co-Ied groups. Solo-led groups may be experienced by members as more affiliative due to the absence of conflicts between leaders. These several changes in the structure and membership of SIGEL groups makes it difficult to assess the present sample’s unrepresentativeness. Although statistically significant differences were found between the older normative sample and the present groups on the Affiliation and Gain measures, these differences seem unlikely to importantly influence the outcomes of this study. r ili t' in Theoretical and empirical writings converge to support the assertion that affiliation, often labeled cohesion, is a central dimension of interpersonal behavior firmly related to group outcome (Budman et al., 1989; Frank, 1957; Hurley, 1989; Kellennan, 1981; Kivlighan & Jauquet, 1990; Rogers, 1961; Yalom, 1985). The present study attempted to explore the relationship between two distinct structuring techniques and members' expressed sense of affiliation during the early, middle, and late stages of group development. It was hypothesized that the Practical Agenda (PA) structure would enhance group members' sense of affiliation more than the Session Summaries (SS) structure, although these latter groups were also expected to be highly affiliative. Similar findings were expected on the singular Gain item, “Everything considered, l have gained something of value from today's session.” Members of PA groups consistently rated their sessions higher for Affiliation than did members of the SS groups for sets of early, middle, and late sessions. This difference attained statistical significance (p _<_ .05) only for the early set of sessions. These findings supports prior works (Bednar, Melnick, & Kaul, 1974; Crews & Melnick, 1976; Levin & Kurtz, 1974) and strengthen the 54 view that early structured exercises are apt to be especially helpful for such groups. Members' responses to the Gain item averaged between "Quite a bit“ and ”A great deal“ for both the PA and SS conditions (4.8 and 4.6 respectively). Thus, PA and SS groups were not reliably distinguished on this measure. Ceiling effects may have contributed to the lack of clearer separation as approximately 89% of all Gain ratings were in the upper-third of this scale (”Quite a Bit“ or higher) for the early period. A similar pattern occurred for the middle and late periods as about 83% of the ratings were equally high. The limited variance evidenced on the Gain item may have reduced its ability to discriminate between the two types of structuring techniques. The Affiliation and Gain measures overlapped substantially at each time period (average 1 = .53, p 5 .001), consistent with Hurley’s (1989) finding. This relationship supports using the Affiliation measure as an index of group outcome. Both measures also showed reasonable cross-period stability, as for the early, middle, and late periods, the average correlation for Affiliation was .50 and .56 for Gain (p s .001 ). Although not initially included in the design of this study, gender effects were examined post hoc but yielded no significant correlations. This result should be viewed cautiously. SIGEL groups typically average about twice as many women as men. Men who opt to explore their interpersonal style, feelings, and relationships with others may differ importantly from men who do not undertake this experience. Similarly, selection bias may exist for women who enroll in SIGEL groups. Thus, generalizing from the present findings appears premature. Future works specifically designed to examine the effects of gender and member's perception of affiliation in the small group setting would be useful. 55 The results of this and other studies (Crews & Melnick, 1976; Flowers & Schwartz, 1985; Kivlighan & Jauquet, 1990; Levin and Kurtz, 1974; Ribner, 1974; Rose & Bednar, 1980), have consistently demonstrated that various group structuring techniques likely enhance members' perceptions of affiliation (often labeled cohesion) and the personal benefit they derive from small group experiences. In addition, several of the above studies have shown that structured exercises are most beneficial when provided relatively early in a group’s development, and that these advantages appear to diminish at later stages. Bednar, Melnick, and Kaul (1974) suggested that structure provided in the initial stages of group development served to "neutralize some sources of debilitating anxiety“ (p. 32). They also hypothesized that the early use of structuring techniques tends to clarify group membership roles and expectations through modeling and practicing effective behaviors. The present study addressed Bednar et al.'s (1974) theoretical and practical prescriptions for three phases for structuring early sessions (see W in Introduction). Prospective members reviewed statements by members of previous SIGEL group about their perceptions of the small group experience. SIGEL group members were prepared for group participation by reading materials (see Appendix F) about these groups prior to joining their small group (Phase one; Cognitive Learning). Examples of appropriate group behaviors were distributed to members in the form of readings and course lectures (Phase one; Vicarious Learning). Lastly, members were given structured exercises (Appendices C 8. D) to employ in their early group sessions (Phase three; Behavioral Practice). Differing from Bednar et al.’s (1974) recommendations, members of SIGEL groups continued the PA and SS exercises (Behavioral Practice) throughout the life of the groups in an attempt to foster and maintain an affiliative 56 atmosphere. The statistically significant difference between PA and SS groups early, and the nearly significant middle period difference, support the rationale of extending the Behavioral Practice phase beyond the initial sessions. Furthermore, ratings for both the PA and SS groups averaged in the upper- quartile of the possible range of Affiliative composite scores (PA = 79%tile; SS = 75%tile), indicating that members regarded their group experiences as especially Affiliative. The statistically significant Time by Group interactions by both the Affiliation and Gain measures (p s .0001) as well as the one Group by Condition interaction (Affiliation, p = .0006) were not anticipated. These findings indicated that for each time period considerably greater variability existed between groups than within these groups. This serves as an important reminder that statistical analyses using data from groups must account for the variability between groups within each condition. Had this component been overlooked or ignored, the results from both ANOVAs would have yielded statistically significant findings for the main effects (Affiliation and Gain), Conditions (PA and SS), and Times. Both Time by Condition interactions would also have attained statistical significance (Affiliation, p 5 .001; Gain, p 5 .03). Setting this source of variability aside led to diminished E values. Studies which do not account for this variance may falsely reject the null hypothesis. As mentioned earlier, leader characteristics (i.e., leader warmth), member characteristics (i.e., attraction to group), and group characteristics (i.e., group composition) have also been shown related to group outcome. Some or all of these features likely accounted for a portion of the variability in the present groups. Given this, and the considerable variability between groups, the present study’s main finding that PA members viewed their group as 57 significantly more Affiliative for early sessions than did SS group members seems even more noteworthy. For --.-|- 'raei. “mo... " - o = ion m .n: Yalom (1983) suggested that 88s help members to maintain continuity between sessions. Instructions for formulating SSs focused on having a group member write a mini synopses of what happened in the group between himself/herself and another member. Thus, the SS exercise was considered successfully completed as long as the member focused on what happened between herself/himself and the member the SS was written about. With few exceptions, members successfully formulated SSs. This exercise may have been less taxing than the PA exercise which had members plan an actual goal and/or interaction with another member. Furthermore, PAs were required to be concrete, interpersonally-based, and here-and-now. In spite of their relative complexity, members were usually able to successfully accomplish this task (a randomly drawn PA and SS are presented in Appendix H). Independent judges' ratings of the PAs and 88s on the concrete, here- and-now, and interpersonal criteria suggest that these two exercises were substantially different. PAs were consistently viewed by judges as significantly more concrete and interpersonal than 88s. However, both exercises were viewed as highly here-and-now as indicated by the three raters “ceiling” ratings on each time period (modal score = 7). This is consistent with the instructions for each of these exercises as the intent for both was to maintain a focus on the in-group relationship. SSs typically began with, “I experienced Bob as talkative last group session . . ." SSs of this nature focus on the author’s experience of the member during the previous group session. Even though the emphasis may be on the past session, this SS would be rated high on here-and-now 58 because it emphasized the relationship within the small group context. PAs commonly began, “Bob I support you for disclosing that you feel more relaxed in group . . ." Again, the emphasis is on occurrences within the small group, and PAs akin to the above would be judged highly on the here-and-now criteria. It is important to recall that the essential difference between these two exercises is that PAs required the author to plan actions that would enhance their relationship with someone else, while SS authors merely keep a record of the relationship. Stated differently, PAs were future-oriented and 88s were past- oriented, although both exercises were focused on within group behaviors. Supporting Yalom's (1983) hypothesis, Kivlighan et al. (1993) found that group members who set agendas that were more realistic, here-and-now, and interpersonal tended to engage in a higher frequency of related in-session behaviors. These authors later concluded that “the here-and-now dimension of session agendas may be especially important in helping group members make more productive use of the group sessions and in obtaining better outcomes“ (p. 186). This statement appears premature given their study’s numerous methodological constraints, including an especially small sample size (n = 2 for each condition). Interestingly, the here-and-now dimension was on average rated highest of the three dimensions for both PAs and 88s in the present study (although this may have been an artifact of the scale). This, along with the finding that the present groups were viewed by members as more affiliative than previous SIGEL groups, may offer some support for the Kivlighan et al. (1993) and Yalom (1983) findings. |"ll' III E ISI I Cohen (1992) recently asserted that within the social sciences, power analysis continues to be a widely neglected aspect of most empirical works. 59 The present work did not include a power analysis because the necessary parameter estimates cannot be properly developed for the data structure appropriate to this experimental design (R. Frankmann, personal communication, 1994). Thus, a post-hoc power analysis was not employed. However, future works should consider alternative designs that would allow for such analysis. This study had significant methodological constraints. The absence of minimally structured control groups (as wholly unstructured groups seems unimaginable) was most apparent. The SIGEL course structure did not allow for such conditions as all students were required to produce pertinent written materials. In addition, all group members participated in weekly 50-minute general class sessions that addressed group issues including, confrontation skills, relating within the here-and-now, appropriate self-disclosure, and empathic listening. These sessions sometimes focused on enhancing group members' participation in their SIGEL groups, and were often indirectly aimed at helping students formulate informal agendas for their group sessions. In some respects, these lecture sessions resembled the Practical Agenda structuring exercise and may have confounded the experience of Session Summary group members. Group sessions were not video- or audio-taped and it was not possible to determine if members actually read their PAs or SSs. However, Kivlighan and Jauquet (1990) indicated that formulating one's agenda was most crucial in preparing members for each session, and their study did not require the contents of the agenda cards to be read in group session. Yalom (1983) noted that formulating agendas can be helpful in “encouraging patients to assume a more active posture in psychotherapy” (p. 215). Whether or not PAs need to be shared during the group session or merely formulated prior to the session 60 appears to be a separate issue. Members in the present study had the choice of sharing as few, or as many, of their agendas at each session. This author shares the view of Kivlighan et al. (1990, 1993) that formulation of PAs is the most effective manner to prepare members for upcoming sessions. Additionally, it seems unconstructive to force, or require, members to share their agendas. Such demands may be counterproductive to a sense of affiliation, and perhaps contributing to feelings of resentment or anger, although this issue also merits further empirical examination. Members' perceptions of the value of the PA and SS exercises were not addressed in the present work. Future researchers may chose to poll members about the personal value of these various exercises. Nor did this work examine the effectiveness of the feedback given to members about their goals. Future studies should consider this component which may be helpful in determining individual differences in members' abilities to comprehend and/or perform such tasks. Leadership influences on session outcome was another unknown. Due to the limited pool of group leaders and their uncertain availability, it was not possible to assign the same leader to both conditions which would allow for statistical analysis of the leader by condition interaction. Some leaders led more than one PA or SS group over the duration of this study, and two leaders led each type of group. Future research ought to account for, and better control, leadership variables. The participants in the present study were upper-level college students, who were mostly Caucasian and from the Midwest. Additionally, the men (n = 29) may not be very representative of college-aged men on this campus. They volunteered to enroll in an elective undergraduate psychology course for the purpose of enhancing their interpersonal skills. It may be that such men tend 61 toward being more affiliative than the general population of males. The same may be true for the women who selected to participate, although some evidence suggests that the kinds of experiences provided by SIGEL groups (i.e., exploration of interpersonal relations, expression of feelings) are more ego- syntonic for women than men (Shadish, 1984). Implicatjpns [pr thgre Research and Pagtige Despite continuing debate in the group literature, the benefit of utilizing structured exercises has long been established (See lntroduction-fitmptme). The present findings suggest that small group leaders who implement theoretically designed exercises, especially when presented early n the group experience, can enhance members' sense of Affiliation with their group. Continued documentation of the role of structured exercises with regard to other aspects of group climate, or outcome is warranted. Future works could also focus on developing and/or refining specific structured exercises. Similarly, the application of these techniques to other group settings (i.e., weight loss groups, psychotherapy groups, assertiveness training groups) appears fruitful grounds for study. Several serious criticisms have been levied against research involving small groups. Chief among these is that group research often uses variables that are not well-connected to theory. Such is the case with the construct cohesion which has been most prominent in the group literature (Bednar & Kaul, 1978; Evans & Jarvis, 1980). As noted above, Bednar and Kaul (1978) suggested that the construct cohesion ”be dropped from the empirical vocabulary and that more representative altematives be found” (p. 802). Hurley (1989) addressed this concern in demonstrating that Affiliation is a more suitable construct because of its well-documented ties to personality theory. His 62 finding that the “Affiliative composite offers an integrated overview of group climate on a salient dimension strongly associated with group outcome" was also supported in the present study (Hurley, 1989, p. 522). Thus, it appears timely for future researchers and group practitioners to implement this empirically and theoretically grounded finding. LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A 0- z I: rice-in 0 ' -Vi 0.! M :9-r' 011m: SHALL GROUPS FOR AWARENESS OF lNTERPERSONAL PROCESSES Working in small grows of about 6'9 persons that meet for 90-minutes twrce weekly. plus i2-hour sessions near the terms Sth and mm weekends. PSY 480 focuses on better Identifying your style of relating to yourself and others. We endeavor to develop an atmosphere of concern and respect for each individual's personhood while also attempting to respond candidly and constructively to each's behavior within a here-and-now context. A oeneral orientation and a description of the basic skills for effective group partICipatlon is provided by the textbook, Egan's Interpersonal Living, Students are recurred to maintain an organized. detailed, and up-to-date account of her/his interactions, feelings. and thoughts toward self and each other group member. Weekly meetings of the entire class, textbook-based ourzzes, and other assslgnments provide Important tools for enhancing the individuals awareness of consistenCIes and discrepancres between how others perceive and react to one and self -Impre55ions. Selected for a strong interest in. and high potential for, relating constructively to others. one or two “facilitators” lead each group. When possible. they are selected from former class members and have had a term of preparation for this role. Eacn group's current status. potential problems, and progress is monitored. Over two-thirds of all students completing this course since I971 have rated their experience as closer to Exceptionally 600d than to Average when compared with their experience with other HSU courses in and outside of the Department of Psychology. Scheduling Is a special problem because the schedulae of group leaders“ often remain unsettled until the actual start of the new term. Consequently, the actual meeting hours of small groups often dlf f er from those listed in r1305 Schedule of Courses. We attempt to resolve these proclems in initial class sesstons. Students are strongly advised to attend these Inltlal meetings to Insure placement In a suitable group. Attendance at all class and group meetings Is required and absences not explicitly approved by the instructor are likely to adverse influence credit for this course. PSY 480 Is not Intended for personal counseling and/or psychotherapy. HSU‘s Student Counseling Center often provides groups for such purposes. This course aims to enhance your self-knowledge within a context of concern and respect for each individual; not a setting for uncaring “confrontations“. However, participants are likely to experience some conflicts and disagreements with accompaning anxiety and feelings of unhappiness. One may choose to view these temporary ego-bruises either as Challenges or as catastrophies. Individuals Wltl'i Ilttle reserve strength to cope with such experiences seem best advised to select another course. PSY 480 is generally open to juniors and seniors of any major and, more selectively, to advanced PSY sophomores, although the latter require permission from the instructor's (John Hurley: 355-46i5 or we 0lds Hall). Student accent-rte: on P3? 400 are given In this liq-'5 backside (over) 63 le. If. III. 64 I galned a clearer self-awareness. I galned a new leaderstandlng of the I-flllfl“ of the eapression of up foellngs for oy one personal auareness of ay lntarfl'm' style and sblll. I developed better sbllls of eon-uleatlon by praetlelng espress- lng uy faellngs and aaaulnlng lune l an parealved by others. l have bees-e uueh oora auare and In toueh ulth uysolf and uy feellngs. I've galn- ad sblll In aapresslng uysalf too. ' fl) Ablllty to be la—edlata ulth uy faadbaeb. I!) Ablllty to self-dlselosa parts of personallty. U) A better understandlng of uy ntlvatlons. I understand any I have the faellngs l have and only I say and do the things I do. I’ve gotten foedbaeb on ho- uy bahavlor affects other people. I reallaed a lot about ly Interpersonal style - I.o. - l raallao none that I a very passlvo. hour that I accept thls. I can torb on balng uora aetlva. l have galned a better understandlng of uyself by partlelpatlng In “GIL. lhls ls costly due to an Ineraaslng auarmss of oy Interpersonal style. I an no- auara of linen l dlseount oysalf and an able to do sooethlng about those feellngs. I an also can auare none of how paopla perealva us and hour I Influence thaIr pareeptlons. An lnelta Into ho- oy behavlors affect others. I have also learned a lot about oyself enleh l have not bnoun In the past. I also learned a lot about or faellngs as uoll as others feellngs. l have learned to be honest ulth oyself. volee uy feellngs. and hour to develop relationshlps. lt has helped oe Ioolt lnto oyself to raallse uhy I feel the way I do about people. and also to reallae that there are very good reasons edly people act the way they do smother l thlnb lts onnoyIng or helpful or not; and to be patlant and understandlng rather than judge-ental. for uy personal Ilfe l beeaala core at ease ulth physleal eontaet. lnoeledge that oy self-perceptlons were not always as accurate as I had prevlously thought. Although I thought of uysalf as coupleter open and honest. oy vleus on nysalf are M8 dlffarent. llhlle partlelpatlng In SIGIL I galned lnslght Into uy personal sbllls of relatlng ulth people. It uede oe a-are of oy strengths as uall as uy shorten-Inge. It also gave ae a startlng polnt to Ioprove on oy sltllls. l have deflnltaly galned value fro- uy group aaparlonca. l have galned lnslght about oysalf and other people In the group. I have also learned to be sore honest and lat-edlate ulth oy feellngs. the class uada no deal ulth Issues that I olght usually repress or Just not .thlnb about. I have gotten to understand uysalf better as hour I an perealvad by others. I have also gained an understandlng of how uueh one depends on aatornalloutslde thlngs In order to get to once soueone and he- slneare It really ls. l obtalned a vleu of uysalf. APPENDIX B -11t= 1-1 0 '0110. I’ .0 : -:r'rP;-.--o : I 'a 10 01 1‘ 0-0 11-. = 0. : I011-.f= 1010- - 0. 1t -. -..'nl GHJUP r0905 AVEPAEE POSTSESSIW RATIIES- ”WV 7"" smswlzzizezezmneeeeeeeeee 30.’ I ° l I T . 1 I T '1- r 4 - I . - 1 I 1 __ A . : 20:-' — 1' ' . L o l - ‘ O T I IO:- - .. v . I . “(93701 'O:‘ I l I EENEIAL ATMOSPHERE: AFFILIATIVE Rimes DISAFFILIATIVE ' 1 I I I " LH<—4D—P—flfipus_u.___ l U O 6 ‘8 EATIEHELY: A GREAT 4=OUITE A ' = HODEMTELY: 2 ' SMEWAT: A LITTLE 3W? A“. '20: DEAL: BIT: IITJ ALI: Subset of Affiliative item_s_ loo nubers filed and oand about each other 'he N-bers‘ tiled to solder-om Inky they do the thlugg they do. Irled to reason It ut the coders felt uhot not happening uos among-tend there use a sense of pres-aims. efforts to sort thlnas out he oo-bers uuoolod sensltlve personal infer-atlas or foelloos Me oo-bers challenged and auntie-nod each other In thilr Subset of Diet: ’f'iZiative items The net-bore we looblng at lsloortant Issues going abet tuloen tho-solves lone nos fries; and ”or bet-eon the canoe" It- uvooers urn distant and with fru- aach other he out-bars distrusted and nieces! each other to. oeooers ooaoored dense and us’ouo II II ll ll l ( g ' l . 9 I l l t t f l . 1 LIVERYTBING CONSIDERED. I GAINS!) WING OF VALUE TROY. TODAY'S 555510?! I I I I O 0 O l —-.— [a -.. 65 APPENDIX C Ins 'srnst'Pc'le Practical Agenda (PA): PAs represent opportunities to enhance or further develop your relationships with other group members in the next group session. What aspects of your relationship with person X are you able to work at in this next session? What We exist between you? Which of these are you willing to share? In what ways have you experienced X's actions that has left you feeling angry, sad, happy, mad, frustrated, excited, uneasy, or scared? Is there anything that you are willing to explore with member X? If not, why not, why are you avoiding sharing with X? It is especially important to be clear and specific when writing PAs. If you do not often engage in forming action-oriented agendas, this may be a new and difficult task for you. Vaguely written or noncommittal PAs assist the writer to evade important issues and reduce the likelihood of furthering relationships with others. For example, Susan wrote that another member of her group, Bill, had labeled her as shy. Her PA was: “I want to talk more with Bill.” This PA is too indefinite, too vague, and too weak to be a useful preparation for actually exploring her concerns with Bill. Its most likely outcome would be another session going by without further interacting with Bill. Instead of such a weak PA write. out what you would say--or at least would like to actually say) to Bill. It might be: “Bill, last session you told me that you sensed l was a shy person. I would like to hear more about what led you to think that about me. However, I felt uneasy when you called me shy. I became concerned that I would be labeled as our group's “shy member.’ I’ve noticed that you tend to label people as shy, strong, 66 67 or arrogant. I feel uncomfortable when labels are placed on me. I imagine this is a lot to hear and I want to hear your reactions to what I’ve just said.” Here are some examples of PA’s that previous group members have written (all names have been changed). 1. “Bob, yesterday you seemed very upset by my behavior. I felt very hurt by some of the things you said to me and wondered why you felt it was necessary and even okay to yell at me. I feel really scared and frightened when anyone yells at me. It’s my fantasy that emotional people, like me, threaten you in some way. It isn’t likely that I am going to change that part of myself because I like being that way. But I would like to know if you think that this will inhibit our relationship in this group. What do you think of this?” 2. “Sally, I was really glad that you were in my group. I felt misunderstood by everyone else and l was really happy when you seemed to understand me. It was really helpful having you clarify some of my perceptions and feelings. I often feel supported by you and yet I rarely voice my appreciation of your support. I have a real hard time letting people know that they’ve helped me. I like to think I can do it all by myself--like I can communicate my thoughts perfectly with anybody. I’m not sure how you feel. I guess if I were you I might feel unappreciated or taken for granted. How do you feel towards me?” 3. “Fred, I find it weird to talk to another guy about feelings and stuff. I never really talk about how other people impact me or what my actual feelings about people are. Its been really nice being able to do this with you in the group. I also think that our relationship is much closer than most other guys I hang out with. I know that the purpose of this isn’t to make friends, but if we 68 were in a different place in our lives I’d really like to be your friend. The important part of what I’m trying to tell you is that I find it very easy to talk to you and I wonder if you find it easy to talk to me. I’m not so sure why I find you so easy to talk to, but I’d like to better understand why this is. What are some of your thoughts?” No PA will be perfect, but each of these has three fundamental characteristics that make them very useful and close to 40$ if graded. The three characteristics are: 1. Each shares some of the writer‘s feelings and experiences. 2. They have a Here-and-Now focus. 3. Their content is Concrete and specific as opposed to abstract. Finally, your series of PAs for each session must average 100 words, or total at least 500 words. W: The authors of these PA’s wanted to express their feelings or perceptions about some aspect of their relationship with the other member. PAs represent efforts to enhance your relationship with the other. They are a starting point, not closing statements, from which to work toward more productive relationships. In the examples above, the authors directly invited others to share their “thoughts” or “feelings” towards them. In the past, students have used the PA section as an opportunity to “ask member X a question.” Questions are often perceived as attacks by the individual who is being “asked” to reveal something about himself/herself. The person asking the question often does not share their thoughts or feelings behind their questions. For example, someone might write the following PA, “Tom were you scared last session?” What does the person asking the question think about Tom? ls she/he making fun of him for being scared? Does she/he really believe Tom was scared? A more constructive PA would start something like, “Boy Tom, if I had been in your shoes last session I would have 69 been scared. I don’t like it when . . . I’m not sure if my perceptions are accurate and I’d like to hear what you think.” W: Your interactions with real or imagined others are the most important part of this experience. If you choose to talk about things that have happened or are happening outside of the group, make them relevant to what is happening inside of your group or to what you are experiencing or thinking about at the time. Egan also discusses the importance of being here- and-now in the group experience (pp. 51-2). W: Write out at least some of what you would like to say to the other person. Write down at least some of your conoems with regards to the particular member. Note how the examples above are written in clear and specific terms: “our relationship is much closer”, “I often feel supported by you”, and “It’s my fantasy that emotional people, like me, threaten you in some way.“. If you want to further your relationship with member X, be sure to write out how you plan to approach this. This will likely prove helpful to both yourself and also to the other individual. Grapes: Your grade is unrelated to W. It is the quality of your v_vmt_e_n PA that will influence your grade. You will not be graded down if you choose not to share your PAs. PAs will be turned in fimedjptejngflow—MQW. Facilitator(s) will pass an envelop around after each session and turn the PAs into Dr. Hurley. Facilitators _ijan be reading or looking at your written PAs. Your PAs will be reviewed weekly and handed back to you in class on the following Wednesday. So, if your group meets Mondays and Thursdays, you will receive those PAs on the next Wednesday during class. PAs turned in late may be marked down a full grade (i.e., 3.5 down to a 2.5). If you miss a group session, write out a fantasy PA (what you would like to have said had you been there) and turn it in at the next 70 session. AssignmeeLfeubeJeLm: You are to write Wm WWW (including Marath008)- If you have any questions about any portion of this material please leave a message for David Rosenberg at 339-0505 and I will return your call. Best wishes for a great term. APPENDIX D r' r n in in mmri Session Summaries (SS): 88s are your written accounts of hew YQu W of your group during the session. Write out thatJed mto experience him or her in this fashion. Did you see X as withholding, courageous, or supportive? 55W. Be specific. It will be helpful to include both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. For example, nonverbal behavior could be described as follows, “I saw Bob as anxious today. He was fidgety and he kept W, etc.” By verbal behavior, we mean “What did the person say.” Write either a short summary or a couple of sentences said by that person which influenced your experience of him or her. A common problem is that SSs tend to be either too brief or too vague. Some students have turned in SSs like, “I experienced Ed as quiet. He didn’t really say much”, “Suzy was really active today. She told Jake [the facilitator] a great deal. I think she really wanted to open up today”, and “I saw Dave as really helpful. He knew how to move the group along. He told me he saw me as a big contributor today". These SSs lack depth. Why might Ed have been quiet? What did Suzy say? In exactly what ways was Dave helpful? Answers to these questions add richness and meaning to your SSs. Allow yourself to tamaeize as to why you think the person was the way you experienced him or her? Did they have a bad day? Do they not like talkative women? Are they feeling threatened? Your fantasies cannot always be accurate. However, they will likely provide you with greater insight into how you think and feel about the person. Here are some examples of SSs that previous group members have written (all names have been changed). 71 72 1. I experienced Donald as withdrawn and later as belligerent. He sat leaning back in his chair, feet on the table, and with arms crossed on his chest. He often looked either at the ceiling or down on the floor. To me he seemed very unapproachable. He avoided any eye-contact with me. Later he said I was being stupid and childish for feeling upset because of what Liz said to me. He claimed that Liz was only trying to point out that I was hypersensitive and that my distress was only another example of what a big baby I am. He seemed to want me to confirm this opinion because he said to me, “Can’t you see that this is true?” My fantasy is that he feels threatened by my freedom to express my emotions. 2. Sally seemed really happy today. She told the group that she had been examining her interpersonal style not just with us, but with her friends too. Although she didn’t say this, my hunch is that her friends really appreciated her being more genuine with them. She told me that she was glad I had been supportive of her in the group. I sensed some sadness in her that the group was coming to an end. At one point she looked like she was going to cry. She was saying that she couldn’t believe how fast the term had gone and that she wants to get everybody’s number. I bet she’s been doing a lot of thinking about the ending of our group. 3. I experienced Fred as being really nervous today. He said he’s not used to being in a group and talking. A couple of times it looked like he wanted to bolt out of the room. My fantasy is that he’s afraid that others will think that he is going to be a burden to the group. Joe already tried to label him as “a quiet member.” I think he’s still bothered by that but he hasn’t said anything. He didn’t say much of anything else today. I think he’s feeling intimidated by the 73 group. His eye-contact was really minimal and I couldn’t get him to look at me. He also picked at his nails a lot which strengthened my belief that he was anxious. The above 88s are not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect SS. They are, however, relatively rich accounts of how individuals experienced other individuals in their group. They include examples of W ppmeflaLbehaLioL In addition, the authors shared some of their Lamaeieeang 00090.16 about why they thought the other person was acting a particular way. Including these characteristics will enhance your 885. Finally, your series of SSs for each session must average 100 words, or total at least 500 words. games: Your grade is unrelated to year eehaviez within gregp eeeeiens. It is the quality of your mitten SS that will influence your grade. You will not be graded down if you choose not to share your SSs. SSs will be turned in WW. Facilitator(s) will pass an envelop around after each session and turn the $85 into Dr. Hurley. Facilitators Manpt be reading or looking at your written SSs. Your SSs will be reviewed weekly and handed back to you in class on the following Wednesday. So, if your group meets Mondays and Thursdays, you will receive those SSs on the next Wednesday during class. SSs turned in late may be marked down a full grade (i.e., 3.5 down to a 2.5). If you miss a group session, write out a fantasy SS (what you would have said had you been there) and turn it in at the next session. Ae§jgnmen1_fer_me_te_r_mz You are to write one SS for Loppetbe; Wm]! for each session (including Marathons). If you have any questions about any portion of this material please leave a message for the Teaching Assistant (Betty at 000-0000) and she will return your call. Best wishes for a great terrnl APPENDIX E MANUAL lien SCORING PRACTICAL AQENDAS1 Intreeuetien The purpose of this manual is to provide a set of guidelines for rating Practical Agendas (PAs). PAs are special goals that represent opportunities to enhance or further develop relationships between individuals within a small group. These goals must meet certain criteria (to be discussed shortly), and it is emphasized that these goals or PAs must be potentially attainable in the next group session. PAs may be helpful to members of many different groups, however, the PAs that you will be reading will all be derived from small experiential groups for interpersonal leamings. The aim of these groups is to heighten students awareness of their interpersonal style through several methods (i.e., practicing accurate empathy and advanced listening skills, appropriate self-disclosure, and respectful confrontation). Additionally, these groups focus on building an atmosphere of concern and respect for each member’s personhood while also attempting to respond to each participant’s behavior within a here-and-now context. In short, these groups provide an opportunity for members to explore present, and potentially new, ways of relating to others. Practical Agendas aid group members in achieving such goals. Shortly after each session ended, group members were instructed to write a PA for the next session. It was made clear that these PAs ought to be concrete (specific and obtainable in the next session), here-and-now (based on 1'rne construction of this manual was aided by the works of Mary K. O’Farrell (1986) and John R. Hurley. 74 75 the member's “in the moment“ experiences and perceptions), and interpersonal (relationship based). Group members were asked to write a PA for half of the members in their group (in addition to a self PA). The PAs you review will have been written by group members. Only the members' first names will be available from the PAs; all other identifying information has been removed to protect the confidentiality of both the PA authors and fellow group members. You are requested to evaluate each PA by the three following criteria: 1) Abstract versus Concrete; 2) There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now; and 3) lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal. After reading a PA, you will rate it using seven-point Likert scales that correspond to each of the above criteria. Thus, on criterion one, rate the extent to which a PA is abstract or concrete. Criterion two addresses the extent to which a PA is There- and Then or Here-and-Now oriented. Finally, the third criterion will be used to rate the lntrapersonal or Interpersonal orientation of a PA. To aid you with this rating task, each criterion will be described fully. In addition, examples of different points along each criterion/scale will be presented. The last section will include sample PAs and how they were rated on all three scales. AMeAbeutlbesefle Students were instructed that their PAs for each session must average 100 words, or total at least 500 words (for a set of five PAs). However, you will not be rating PAs on number of words,spelling, or grammatical form. It is important to remember that a PA can be, for example, either There-and Then or Here-and- Now oriented independent of grammatical correctness or length. Furthermore, some PAs may be difficult to read due to poor penmanship or bad copy quality. Just do the best you can at reading and understanding them. 76 n 1: AB T T VER N RETE Concrete is defined by Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1983) as “referring to a particular; specific, not general or abstract.” Simply put, a concrete PA is specific and an abstractPA is vague or ambiguous. Consider the PA “Mary I want to get to know you better. . . ” This is very global and very vague. What about Mary did the writer want to know? How much better did he/she want to know her? How will she/he get to know her better? Exactly what does “know you better " mean? These questions cannot be answered from the above PA. Typically, abstract PAs like the above are stated in global and general terms. There may be a statement about a particular situation (“I’m feeling better about you Suzy ” or “No one listens to me ”), but no solution, or plan of action is offered. Often, these PAs use several vague words like good, bad, better, positive, and negative (“Jack, I feel bad about last session ” or “Jane, I feel positive towards you ”). PAs like these are especially vague and would receive a 1 (one) on the abstract versus concrete scale. Some authors may write a PA like the following: “Bob, I just wanted to let you know that I feel distant from you and I’m not sure what to do about it. What are your perceptions? ” This is more specific than the previous examples because the author is asking for help. Thus, this PA should be rated a 3 (three) on the abstract versus concrete scale. This is because a PA is supposed to be a plan of action on the authors part. The above PA does not offer a plan, however, it is more concrete than “I want to get to know you better. ” The reason for this is that pietapt is a specific feeling the author identified, while belle; (as in the previous example) is vague and general and can mean many different things to people. Building upon the above example, an even moreconcrete and specific PA would be, “Bob, I just wanted to let you know that I feel distant from you. Ihave 77 a fantasy that its because you told Mary that you don ’t like pushy people. I know that at times I can come across as pushy, so I guess I ’m concerned that you don’t like me. I do want to be closer to you. What are your perceptions? ” In this example the author offers his/her perception of what the “problem ” is about (feeling distant 8. not liked), and a desirable outcome (being closer). The author also offered the recipient of the PA specific feedback about why he/she is feeling distant and unliked (“you don’t like pushy people”). This PA was rated a five (5) on the abstract versus concrete scale. It was more concrete than abstract, yet no clear plan on how to become closer was offered by the author. Moving toward a more concrete PA will include increased specificity and a defined plan of action for achieving a goal. Thus, using the example PA for Bob, the following PA would receive a 7 (seven) rating on concrete. “Bob, I wanted to let you know I feel distant from you. I think, in part, its because you told Mary you don ’t like pushy people. I can come across as pushy, so I ’m concerned that you don’t like me. Last session when I told you I wanted to hear your feedback about Mary, I sensed you experienced my style as pushy or demanding. My goal was to understand what you were thinking, not to be pushy. When I approach you I will start by sharing more of my feelings like I did in this PA by telling you that I feel distant. I’d really appreciate your feedback of how you experience this PA. Also, if you have any suggestions for me about more constructive ways of approaching you, I’d be open to hearing them. ” The above example would rate a 7 (seven) for concreteness. The author stated a plan of action in behaviorally specific terms (“When [approach you, I will start by sharing more of my feelings like I did in this PA by telling you that I feel. . .”). In addition, the author stated several specific examples of his/her behavior related to the plan of action (”I sensed you experienced my style as pushy or demanding. . . but I’d really appreciate your feedback of how you 78 experienced this PA. Also, if you have any suggestions for me about more constructive ways of approaching you, I’d be open to hearing them ”). Remember, the average length of a PA is about 100 words. The above example is somewhat longer, but that does not mean that a PA rated a 7 has to equal 100 or more words. The following are examples of PAs rated on Abstract versus Concrete. .—.119|=01P-A :- =1 0 h A 1°13b- .. r : :1'on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ABSTRACT CONCRETE 1 (ONE) ABSJLBAH A. Judy I'm really feeling better about you. We were all talking about how much better things were now that you are a part of the group. I wasn't sure how I was going to feel when you decided to stay in our group, but I was thinking that you felt good. I think you probably still feel not great. These past few groups must have been really nice for you to listen to us. I hope you feel like we like you. B. Donald I think that you remind me of my uncle Bob. Uncle Bob is a E short skinny guy like you and you even have some of his mannerisms. I like my I uncle because he 's really nice. He does get into trouble because he 's so quiet. ! I don't think you are quiet like him. I bet you want to talk more in the group. Last time Joe told you to speak up when you want to say something. I think you wanted to talk more and I hope you feel like doing something soon. 4 (F OU R) A. Barbara, you were really outspoken last session. I liked what you had to say. I wish I could be more outspoken like you were last time. ljust didn't feel comfortable saying the things you said. I would really be interested in hearing more from you. I feel close and comfortable with you. lam going to work on 79 being more outspoken. I 'd also really like to be more spontaneous with my perceptions. B. Carl, thanks so much for being considerate of my feelings last session. I think that I speak for everyone in the group when I say thank you. ldon‘t always offer support and I want to work on that. You are so supportive of everyone in our group. Like when John told Debbie he was angry at her you jumped right in and told Debbie that you understood where she was coming from. I really thought that was great. I wish I were better at clarifying things between other people in the group. I 'm going to work on that. Both of the above examples were midway between abstract and concrete. While each PA was supportive of the recipient and shared some of the authors feelings and perception, neither of the above PAs offered a clear plan as to how to obtain the stated goal (i.e., I'd like to be more spontaneous, I wish I were better at clarifying things). In each instance you could ask the author, “How will you achieve this goal?" Inclusion of the author’s response would likely make each of these PA's specific and concrete (or rated a seven). 7 (Seven) ME: A. Hal, l was very upset that you told Mary she was flighty. [have experienced you as flighty. Often when members of the group are talking about serious or important things, I have noticed that you look out the window or become withdrawn. Last session when I was talking to Samantha about her feelings toward Tammy, you made several jokes. I want you to know that I felt discounted. It is important for me to share this with you so that you can know my feelings. I also feel less discounted when I let you know what is going on for me. Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I welcome your feedback, because when you respond to me in a serious manner, I feel more connected to you. 80 B. Steven, last session you told me I seemed cold and indifferent. I didn’t respond because I wanted some time to think about what you said. I think that l have a very difficult time sharing my feelings in a group. I decided that I would start by telling you that I feel scared. I'm afraid that you are going to jump on me when I ma y not agree with you. I will work on being more verbal with my feelings like I did in telling you that I feel scared. These were rated seven because they are concrete plans of action that have been executed during the session. In the first example, the author told the receiver specifically how he felt (discounted), and also shared ways in which he, and the receiver, could work on improving their connection (sharing feelings and receiving feedback) which appears to be one of the author's implied goals. In the second example, the author successfully completes the stated goal of sharing feelings (scared) and offered a realistic course of action for continued work on this goal (being more verbal). ri ri n g: THERE-AND-THEN VERSUS HERE-AND-NQW In his book, Interpersonal Living: A Skills/Contract Approach to Human- Relations Training in Groups, Egan (1976) discussed the here-and-now nature of small experiential groups which he referred to as laboratories for interpersonal learning. Laboratories generally deal with what is happening here and now in the group. Little energy is invested in recalling data from any member's interpersonal past, and little time is spent on what takes place outside the group. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that you can certainly deal with your past or with what is going on outside the group provided that you relate there-and-then material to what is happening here and now In the group. For instance, a person might 81 say “Whenever my wife or children make demands on me, I grow silent and tend to spend less time with them. Now that you people are beginning to place legitimate demands on me, I notice the same thing happening here; I can’t withdraw physically, but I notice I can withdraw psychologically.” In this instance, a there-and-then concern is related immediately to what is happening in the group. Since a major part of your work in the group will be concentrated on establishing and developing relationships with your fellow group members, it is only natural that your conversation revolve around the here and now (p. 6). Egan points out that “it is only natural that your conversation revolve around the here-and-now.” This is not always the case for the present groups. Many of the participants would like to talk about sports, their other courses, college majors, hometown news, religion, or even the local bar scene. So, several individuals may write out PAs that are more there-and-then oriented than here-and-now focused. For example, “I really like my father and I want to be closer to him ”, or “I used to be a shy person and I would like to know why that was. ” These PAs do not relate to the group or to any individuals within the group. Goals or PAs like these typically do not relate to group issues and other members would have difficulty relating to, or helping, a members’ PA. These types of PAs would be rated a 1 (one) on the here-and-now scale. PAs that are here-and-now are centered on issues or events that are presently going on in the group. Here-and-now PAs are immediate and in the moment. The PA “I do not feel safe in this group and Bob when you said . . .” addresses an immediate group issue and deals with an individual within the group. PAs that deal with immediate group issues and are connected to group members would be rated a 7 (seven) on the here-and-now scale. Some PAs may appear to be of a there-and-then quality when in fact, they are here-and- 82 now. Recall the example, “I used to be a shy person and I would like to know why that was. ” Add to this PA the statement, “I find myself being shy and quiet in this group too and that puzzles me. ” The PA takes on a here-and-now quality because it ties a past concern to a present issue in the group. Although this is not a very concrete PA (a 1 on the Concreteness scale), it is about midway (4) on the Here-and-Now scale. Often, group members will relate a there-and-then concern to what is happening in the group. PAs like these would be rated higher on the here-and-now scale than PAs that do not relate the concern back to an immediate issue in the group. For a PA to be rated a 7 (seven), it must be focused primarily on the immediate group issue. The there- and-then concern becomes secondary; it is mostly used by the member as an entry or avenue to the more immediate here-and-now issue. From a rating perspective, your rating judgments should be based on which concern is emphasized. Rate higher if the immediate (here-and-now) concern is given the most priority, and rate lower when the there-and-then concern is given more weight. The previously stated PA “I used to be a shy person and I would like to know why that was . . . I find myself being shy and quiet in this group too and that puzzles me ” would be rated a 4 (midpoint in the scale) because both concerns are given equal weight and the issue is not tied to any other person in the group. The following are examples of PAs rated on There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now. 4.11.0 : o 'A A a :0. On =T1: :-. - _:1 V -, a: :-. - w r ri 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 THERE-AND-THEN _ HERE-AND-NOW 83 1 (ONE) THERE-AND-THEN A. I think that the last group session was really hard for me. It reminded me of when I got fired from my job last summer. I really liked working for that environmental service. The money wasn't great, but I got to meet a lot of really neat people. My boss thought I was goofing-off but I was really struggling with my life. I'm graduating and I don't know what I'll do. My dad says I can move back home, but I really don‘t want to live in Detroit. I don 't know what I 7] do. B. Every time I come here I think about how great camp was. I remember that I thought summer camp would be real scary and tough. Boy was I surprised at how much I liked it. Everybody was so nice to everyone. There weren't any real fights or conflicts. I met my best friend there too. She and I eventually became counselors there and have stayed in touch ever since. 4 (F 0U R) A. I agree with Ron, I think that you remind me of my teacher from high school too. He would always try to get me to do more work. This group experience is like a classroom and in high school I always tried to succeed. I think that I do that here too. In high school I was elected the school's treasurer and I thought that was great. I'm not sure how others in high school saw me. I wish I had a class like this back then, because I do have some understanding of how some of you see me. [In—T a B. Sally, last time you mentioned that you were uncomfortable in crowds. I notice l’m uncomfortable in crowds too. Ever since I was very little my family told me that I didn‘t like to be with a lot of people. When you said that you were nauseous from seeing all those people I could totally relate. I get nauseous when I'm in the mall. I even have to leave sometimes because I get so sick. I want to work on this so I can feel good when I go out or see a lot of people. 84 Each of these PAs blends a here-and-now concern with a there-and-then situation. The focus is somewhat split between attempting to relate with a group member to offer support for a shared experience, and staying overly focused on a previous life event. Because of this, these PAs were rated a four. If you find that the author of the PA is placing greater emphasis on the here-and-now, you would rate the PA a five or six. Increased concentration on there-and-then issues would lower the rating to a two or three. 7 (SEVEN) HERE-AND-NOW A. Jennifer, I was very concemed when you brought up the issue of trust last session. I feel very trusting of the group, and especially trusting of you. Throughout the term I've counted on you for your “honest feedback" and I've come to trust many of your perceptions. Last session you mentioned that you thought there were several group members that were holding back their thoughts or feelings, and that this was related to your decreased trust. I'm not sure if you view me as holding back. Could you please give me some feedback on this. B. Patrick, it seems like the cat has gotten your tongue the last two sessions. I noticed that you became less active after Deter confronted you about some of your “bad habits. " I really miss hearing from you. I know that l have a tendency to not reach out to others when they become quiet-4 think its related to the way I dealt with my sister. At any rate, I want to reach out to you more in these few sessions and I thought a constructive way to start would be through sharing my perceptions like I did in this PA. These PAs clearly meet the criteria for being here-and-now. They address current group issues (i.e., trust, withdrawal from group). These authors take the issue that they are concerned about and relate their immediate, or in the moment, feelings to the group member. Typically, this will tend to increase 85 Here-and-Now discussions. When PAs are focused on There-and-Then concems, the conversation will likely move toward past experience or story telling. For rating purposes, try to think about how you would respond to a given PA. If you find yourself addressing current feelings and others' concerns, than it is quite likely that the PA is here-and-now oriented. ri r' n 3: INTRAPER ONAL VER INTERPER NAL This dimension may be most familiar to you. Interpersonal behavior, which includes speech, has become a favorite topic of study for both academic and popular media psychologists. Interpersonal communication is concerned with the way in which people relate to each other. Interpersonal goals, or PAs, are somehow focused on enhancing or enriching relationships between members. Keep in mind that this can be done implicitly (i.e., offering support) or explicitly (i.e., "I think that our relationship . . . "). What is most important from our rating perspective is the relational quality of the communication. Or, to what extent does the PA build on, add to, or othenlvise enhance the relationship. Each student was instructed to write PAs for about half the members in their group. They were also informed to begin the PA by addressing the recipient of the PA. For example, if I were writing a PA for John, my PA would begin in the following fashion, "John, I wanted to tell you that. . . ” Thus, to some extent, there is a bias toward the interpersonal anchor of the scale due to the inherent structure of PAs. However, it is still possible to have a PA that is not focused on improving or enhancing members' relationships. Consider the following: “Boy, Joan am I depressed. ldon't know what it is, but I really feel down. I 'd like to feel better, but I'm just not sure what is causing me to feel this way. I do think that verbalizing these feelings aloud is helpful to me. I will verbalize when I feel sad. 86 Like yesterday walking to school I felt sad, but I didn't really acknowledge it by stating it aloud. I will state my feelings aloud! " This PA does not meaningfully involve another group member (it only superficially mentions Joan). PAs that lack clear explicit (or readily discemable implicit) goal of furthering the relationship between group members would receive a 1 (one) on the third criterion. Interpersonal PAs facilitate increased interaction between group members. They specifically address one, or several members of the group. For example, “Jake, you seem to be pretty quiet today. Last session Max told you he didn't want to hear from you. If that were to happen to me, I might react similarly to how I see you reacting. I want you to know your opinion matters to me, and I'd like to hear your feedback about that issue . . . " This PA's emphasis is on the relationship between Jake and the author. It will likely lead to increased communication, and ultimately a richer understanding between Jake and the author. PAs of this nature would receive a 7 (seven) on the intrapersonal versus interpersonal scale. The above examples are at the extremes of the scale. PAs that have a dual emphasis on self and other fall somewhere in between the scale's two anchors. For example, ”Al, I like your style--you really seem to be able to trust people. I really want to learn to trust people more. I seem to be having a hard time trusting people. . . ” This would be rated a 2 (two) because it is primarily self-focused, yet there is some acknowledgement of another individual within the group. Increasingly relationship oriented PAs should be rated higher (closer to interpersonal). Consider the following PA , "Jan, you were angry last time we met. I know when I'm angry it's helpful to open up and talk more about it. I usually feel much more relaxed and at ease after sharing what it is that bothers me. Do you want to talk about it. " Although this PA is relationship 87 oriented, it has a significant emphasis on the author independent of his/her relationship to Jan, so it should be rated a 4 (four) on this scale. The PA would be rated higher if the author was more specific regarding her goals for her relationship with Jan. In other words, if she would have stated, “Jan, you were angry with me the last time . . . Do you want to talk more about your angry feelings with me. . . I think that this will help us. . . " There can be some confusion between the here-and-now and interpersonal criteria. It may be helpful to keep in mind that interpersonal goals must be relationship based. They do not have to identify a particular group member or group issue. The interpersonal scale only addresses the PA’s relational quality. Thus, "I want to be more connected to my step-mother. . . " does have a relationship concern, although it is likely to be more there-and-then oriented (depending on how the author completed the PA). Here-and-Now means that the PA is focused on a concern or issue that is relevant to the group. For example, "I just think that this topic is so depressing for me . . . I really feel sad when I hear people talk about friends . . This PA is concemed with events currently evolving in the group. However, it is not relationship based and it would score relatively high on criterion 2, but low on the third criterion. The following are examples of PAs rated on lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal. .— pl: of'; .t '.:-n11:l r..-= . .v=1~_ n=19=1~01—. Emotion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 INTRAPERSONAL lNTERPERSONAL 1 (ONE) INTRAPERSONAL A. James, I know you are bummed about next year. I'm just happy to be a senior. I mean I know that I 'll be graduating and working for the old man. Being a plumber can be a great living. I know that for the first few years I'll have to 88 deal with house calls and junk, but everybody has to pay their dues. I think that I'd like to find someone who could understand that. My current girlfriend doesn 't understand how tough things are in the real world. Her parents give her everything and my old man makes me work like a dog. I don’t know if Cathy and I can stay together. All I do know is I'll be happy when school is over. B. Lisa, I'm glad that your birthday was so nice. I was thinking about my birthday and how bummed out I get. Last year everybody in the residence hall stopped by and my roommates made me a surprise party. I was so excited. This year nobody did anything--it's like nobody cared. l was so pissed at my roommates--they didn’t even get me a card. I guess the moral of the story for me is that l have to learn to ask for what I want. I mean I bet my roommates would have gone out with me or something if I just would have asked them. These PAs do begin with a brief statement to the receiver of the PA. However, the primary emphasis of the PA is on the author‘s own experience or situation. It is as if the author has lost sight of the other person. Notice all of the "l" statements and absence of "you", “us", or “we" statements. PAs that are rated a 1 (one) are usually structured around the author's issues/concems. Like the above PAs, they do not invite much response about the recipient's relationship with the author. 4 (FOUR) A. Harry, you seemed distant last time we met. I know when I’m feeling distant it's helpful to figure out what its about. I usually feel much more connected with people when I struggle and figure it out. Sometimes I even talk to them about it. It's helpful to sit back and imagine what you might say, then go ahead and say it. Do you want to talk more about it in this group. B. Sharon, you really seem like a nice person. I know a lot of people that have gotten walked all over for being nice. I used to live with this woman who 89 always gave rides to people. She took them to the mall, shopping, or even to class. One time she needed a favor and none of the people were there for her. Nobody offered to help her out. I guess the moral of the story is people will take advantage of you if you let them. You have to rely on yourself, or really know who your friends are. I know that this might be hard for you to hear. Both of these PAs have a relational component, that is, they address another group member. However, there is no explicit mention of a relationship goal. The first example starts and ends in a nonspecific manner. You should rate this PA higher if the author were to focus on her relationship with Harry being distant, and suggestions for discussing this with each other (as opposed to “the group"). In addition, these PAs have a significant portion which emphasized some aspect of the author that appears to be not related to, or independent of, any other group member. PAs like these, with implicit relationship goals (i.e., better understanding, support, clarification) ought to be rated around the midpoint of the scale. 7 (SEVEN) lNTERPERSONAL A. Cindy, I really appreciated it when you told me that you felt understood by me. I want to let you know that I often feel understood by you. Especially last session when I was feeling uneasy about Beth. Your feedback was very helpful. Its been kind of a goal of mine to verbalize more of my feelings about how we relate in the group. Our relationship in the group seems to be very supportive. I know we ha ven't talked about "us" before, but I 'd like to hear your perceptions. B. Flod, I wish you never would have told me that my "way of talking" bugs you. Ever since you brought it up two meetings ago I seem to be having 90 difficulty talking to you. I want to be able to interact with you. I thought I'd start by telling you that I'm working on not being so monotone. lam also going to write out a PA for you for each session like I did for today. I thought it was interesting that you experienced me as very bright. I see you as perceptive too. Do you have any thoughts or comments to what I ‘ve told you, or other aspects about how you experience us? The above examples focus on enhancing the relationship between group members. Each example makes explicit mention of the relationship. The goal in the second example implies that the author wants to work on having a more constructive relationship with Rod, while the first example has support and continued exploration of the relationship as it's goals. PAs rated as 7 (seven) will almost always explicitly use terms like "relationship" or "us". It is also possible to have a PA be rated 7 (seven) without using these words--enhancing the relationship must be the primary emphasis of the PA. tin f m le PA i h Thre c rin rit ri You ought to have a clear understanding of each of the three criteria that you will use to rate PAs. Reading the manual a couple of times, or until you feel comfortable and confident with the rating scales, will make you a more competent and efficient rater. In this section, try to rate the PAs on each criterion. Your ratings will be most accurate if you read the PA with only one criterion in mind at a time. Thus, you ought to read each PA three times and rate it on only one of the scales following each reading (read the PA and rate it for Abstract vs. Concrete, re-read the PA for There-and-Then vs. Here-and-Now rating, and read it one last time for lntrapersonal vs. Interpersonal rating). This may seem redundant but it will help you to maintain a focus on each of the scales. Good luck. Give your best shot on the following five PAs: 91 I #1 Mike, I was extremely appreciative of you voicing your opinions on my doodling habit. I assured you your points were well taken but I still felt apprehension in the air. Perhaps it is me, but it seems like there are many times you are dragging your heels. I wonder why you do that. I would like it if we could be more communicative and open. Perhaps that will come in time. Abstract versus Concrete-- There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now-- lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-- Examnlsiz Stephanie, l was very uncomfortable with the way you gave me feedback last session. It reminded me of a friend that drives me crazy. Her name is Dara and she is selfiSh and really spoiled. Last year her father bought her a car for her birthday and she was disappointed with it. I mean she is so ungrateful. We have been able to work through some of her problems and still be friends. We aren't as close as we used to be and I think its because I don't value all those material things. So, lhope we can resolve this and become closer. [didn't think me and Dara could ever stay friends and we did. Abstract versus Concrete-- 92 There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now---- lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-- Example—#3 Randy, I wanted to thank you for your support last session when l confronted Paula. It was hard for me to say that to her, so your support really helped. I have found you to be supportive and encouraging of me over the course of the group. I wonder if you also feel as supported by me. I have been working on voicing my support to you more, instead of just nodding like I used to do. This PA is another attempt to voice support. Please let me know how you feel about this. Do you feel supported? Abstract versus Concrete-- There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now---- lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-- Examnlm Mary, I heard you went to Florida. When I went to Florida I had such a great time. I went over Spring break and there were tons of people there. I met up with a bunch of people from my fratemity and we had a blast. Each morning 93 we went to the beach and then around dinner time we hit the showers and went out for great seafood dinners. The guys tended to party to much and that kind of bummed me out, but other than that it was a great trip. Abstract versus Concrete--1 There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now---- lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-- W Angela, I am very glad to have you in our group. My first impression of you is that you are a very lovely and caring person. I wonder how you were feeling in our group? At first, it seemed like you were a stranger. I don't know if you were feeling like a stranger but I would have felt that way. It is amazing how easy it was for the five of us to feel like we are a group. For me, it was great to hear from you that you think we all trust each other. I look forward to feel that trust with you. I would like to know you more. I think that I want to hear more from you next time. Abstract versus Concrete-- There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now---- lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-- 94 Now that you've had some experience rating PAs, compare your ratings with the ratings that these PAs received. There should not be large (more than two points) discrepancies between your ratings and the posted ratings. If there are large discrepancies, go back and review the section in the manual that applies and try to reason why the PA was given the rating that is posted. Example}; Mike, I was extremely appreciative of you voicing your opinions on my doodling habit. I assured you your points were well taken but I still felt apprehension in the air. Perhaps it is me, but it seems like there are many times you are dragging your heels. I wonder why you do that. I would like it if we could be more communicative and open. Perhaps that will come in time. Abstract versus Concrete--3 «this was rated less than halfway (4) because "more communicative " is vague. What specifically will the author work on with Mike? Additionally, "Perhaps that will come in time " is also more toward vague. The author did concretely thank Mike for stating his opinions about the "doodling habit". Thus the overall rating was a 3 (three). There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now«5 «the overall focus of this PA is to confront Mike on an here-and-now issue that has been impacting the author. However, the author refers to the many times that Mike seems to be dragging his heels and then wonders why he does that. A more here-and-now focused PA would point out aspects of Mike's behavior that have occurred in the group that have led the author to experience Mike in a "dragging your heels " manner. lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-J «this is an interpersonal goal as it is concerned primarily with the relationship between Mike and the author of the PA. 95 5253312912 Stephanie, l was very uncomfortable with the way you gave me feedback last session. It reminded me of a friend that drives me crazy. Her name is Dara and she is selfish and really spoiled. Last year her father bought her a car for her birthday and she was disappointed with it. I mean she is so ungrateful. We have been able to work through some of her problems and still be friends. We aren't as close as we used to be and I think its because I don 't value all those material things. So, I hope we can resolve this and become closer. [didn't think me and Dara could ever stay friends and we did. Abstract versus Concrete--2 «the only mention of a goal is to "become closer". No clear and specific plan is offered. There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now--3 «Even though the author mentioned that she wants to become closer and ' resolve “this ", the primary focus of the PA appears to be about an issue the author has with her friend and not the group member. lntrapersonal versus Interpersonal-«4 «As noted above, this PA contains considerable material regarding a person outside of the group. However, it does address Stephanie and speaks to the authors desire to become closer to Stephanie and resolve their differences. In this respect, the PA has a relationship component to it (although it is not a very strong component). Examnleia Flandy, I wanted to thank you for your support last session when I confronted Paula. It was hard for me to say that to her, so your support really helped. I have found you to be supportive and encouraging of me over the course of the group. I wonder if you also. feel as supported by me. I have been 96 working on voicing my support to you more, instead of just nodding like I used to do. This PA is another attempt to voice support. Please let me know how you feel about this. Do you feel supported? Abstract versus Concrete-J «this is a specific and clear PA with the stated goal of offering support and the 'plan of action' is to share the PA and to be more verbal (i.e., writing out a PA that states how the author feels and then sharing it). There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now«7 «this PA focuses on the here-and-now issue of feeling supported in the group. There is no meaningful there-and-then distraction from the group issue ofsuppon. lntrapersonal versus lnterpersonal«7 «this PA focuses on the author’s relationship with Randy. There is a primary focus of enhancing the relationship. Examnlsjfl Mary, I heard you went to Florida. When I went to Florida lhad such a great time. I went over Spring break and there were tons of people there. I met up with a bunch of people from my fraternity and we had a blast. Each morning we went to the beach and then around dinner time we hit the showers and went out for great seafood dinners. The guys tended to party to much and that kind of bummed me out, but other than that it was a great trip. Abstract versus Concrete«1 «this PA offers no clear plan or goal for enhancing relationships within the group. There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now«1 «the ”great trip " that the author took over Spring break is clearly there- and-then. 97 lntrapersonal versus lnterpersonal«1 «this PA is totally focused on the author and his "great trip ". ExamplLttfi Angela, lam very glad to have you in our group. My first impression of you is that you are a very lovely and caring person. I wonder how you were feeling in our group? At first, it seemed like you were a stranger. ldon‘t know if you were feeling like a stranger but I would have felt that way. It is amazing how easy it was for the five of us to feel like we are a group. For me, it was great to hear from you that you think we all trust each other. llook forward to feel that tmst with you. I would like to know you more. I think that I want to hear more from you next time. Abstract versus Concrete-<3 «this PA offers some implicit support by letting Angela know that the author thinks that she is a "lovely and caring person. " Furthermore the author attempts to empathize (further support) with Angela by letting her know that she too would have felt like a stranger. However, the main thrust of this PA is vague. How will the author "feel " more "trust " toward Angela? There is no plan of run action. For example, what specifically would the author like to ”hear more " a about There-and-Then versus Here-and-Now«7 «this PA is here-and-now focused. It primarily is aimed at discussing how l . the group member feels/thinks about being in the group. lntrapersonal versus lnterpersona|«6 «this PA is mostly interpersonally based. However, it received a 6 (six) due to the continued use of ”we" by the author (i.e., we are a group . . . we trust each other). A helpful rule is that as the use of the word "we" (as in "we the 98 group") increases, the interpersonal score often decreases. Authors should remain focused on the relationship with the person helshe is writing about. A Einal Note About Rating PAs Keep your focus on the three criteria provided for you and avoid rating or judging the goals on desirability (a clear and specific PA addressing anger is no less desirable than a clear and specific PA dealing with warmth and closeness). As noted previously, your ratings will be most accurate if you read the PA with only one criterion in mind at a time. Read each PA three times and rate it on only one of the scales following each reading (read the PA and rate it for Abstract vs. Concrete, re-read the PA for There-and-Then vs. Here-and-Now rating, and read it one last time for lntrapersonal vs. Interpersonal rating). Distinguishing between the here-and-now and interpersonal criteria may be somewhat challenging. It will be helpful to remember that here-and-now is focused on an issue within the group, whereas interpersonal issues are relationship issues and do not necessarily have to focus on in-group issues. Also, goals that use a lot of "I" and 'we" (as in "we the group . . . ") tend to be more intrapersonal. Finally, as mentioned previously, the legibility of the PAs was out of my control«so do the best you can at reading and understanding them. THANKS and GOOD LUCK! APPENDIX F l' 11-. 9:1:11 0..- fr :19=ro -|__‘- 10 100-. ‘00 1l1-o.1 -= 1'=1~11 |:9- mn o 00-. SYLLABUS for PSYCHOLOGY 400,W'92 Instructor: John Hurley Teaching Assistant: Abigail Gleason Office Hours: Tuesday, 2:00-3:00 49 SNgdar (inflame) Office: l06 Olds Hall \o-u, M a 00 Phone: 355-4615 332 -2060 (Residence) 1. Regular Class Meetings and Text Assignments. The total class will meet only on Wednesdays from l2: 40 - l :30 in 208 Olds Hall. Our textbook is G. Egan' 5 WWW inainingingmgns, Belmont, CA Brooks/Cole, l976. Text reading assignments for the term are: i/l5, pp. 3- 33, Ha, pp. 35- 89, i/29, pp. 9l-l70; 2/12 , pp. l72-2‘52; 2/19, pp. 253-295. Study questions for the first quiz are attached-~See pages 7-8. Before your regular group's first meeting, it is crucial that you read Guidelines to SIGEL (Syllabus pp. 3-6) plus pages 23-38 of Egan's textbook. Class meetings sometimes consist of an 'exercise' intended to be helpful in your SIGEL group meetings. Ouiz ‘l will be on 2/5 Quiz ‘2 will be on 2/26 2. W. These unusual rules are to protect the integrity of your small group experience so that it can fully serve as a meaningful laboratory for richer leamings. A 5.911115120113111!- To nurture the development of trust and appropriate self-disclosure, it is essential that each member protect the confidentiality of all self-revelations. This means no out-of-group discussions about what other members say or do within the group. Discussions of mg feelings or behaviors are OK However, these usually concern some other group member who must remain completely anonymous as to name and other identifying features. Avoid giving even such information about others as: 'he's a psychology major, ' "She lives in Brody,‘ etc Use only your first name in group sessions. 8. -- r n 1 Wings. Partly anesthetized persons cannot fully constructively contribute to their group's activities. This especially holds for extended sessions (marathons) which are sometimes held at off-campus Smoking tobacco dtring group sessions subjects others to carcinogens and is illegal in MSU rooms.- C. m Strong attractions among group members are DOt . uncommon However, dating during the nine weeks of the group's life i 99 100 inevitably generates subdivisions within groups which makes full and open discussions impossible. Such discussions are difficult under even optimal conditions, but the presence of dating partners--who.inevitably have secrets and alliances--make it impossible. Except on official class business, telephone calls are also highly inappropriate. 3. 551519;, Several factors will influence course grades. Each quiz will represent 20% of your grade. Another 40% will be based on the quality of your session summaries and 207. on class attendance. The required form of the session summaries will be discussed later. Additional factors which may influence grades include the following: (a) conscientious and prompt completion of your group's postsession ratings as well as similar attention and care in completing and returning the postmarathon ratings; (b) data coordination as described below; and (c) any violations of the Course Rules may also adversely influence grades. Students may enroll in this course under MSU‘s Credit-No Credit option without the instructor’s knowledge. 4. W. Grades may be raised by undertaking the role of group DC. Each group needs a DC who will have total responsibility for two principal tasks. The first of these concerns the short Postsession Ratings (PSR's). These PSR's need to be circulated at the end of each group session, collected, compiled into a running record so that it will be clear how the members are generally reacting to the group. The DC's second task will occur at two points in the term, soon after the lZ-hr marathons, when each group member will be asked to rate self and each other group member on a series of scales concerning behavior within that group. All necessary materials will be provided, including complete instructions for preparing both a listing of all ratings and a chart to depict these ratings. This task requires basic skills in arithmetic-- adding, subtracting, and dividing--as well as the ability to follow simple instructions. It will take from I to 3 hours of careful work on two occasions--or considerably longer if done carelessly or inaccurately. The satisfactory--meaning with minimal errors and on time--completion of both tasks (PSR's and Marathon Ratings) may raise the final course grade up to a full grade point (i.e., from 2.5 to 3.5) if all other classwork is satisfactorily completed on time and all other grading conditions have been satisfied. Occasionally DC's may be asked to distribute other questionnaires/ forms to members of their group and to collect them at near the end of group sessions. They will not be asked to do any processing of such data it is crucial that DC's attend all sessions of their group W W or other related forms. 101 GUIDELINES FOR SMALL I NT ERPERSONAL GROUPS FOR EXPERIENTIAL LEARNINGS (SIGEL) This statement is intended to assist you to~decide whether or not you want to participate in SIGEL. You must agree to attempt to abide by these guidelines if you decide to participate in SIGEL. Our overriding goal is to enhance your awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of your present ways of relating to others. A clearer sense of these assets and deficits often seems to be accompanied by a strengthened sense of competence in interpersonal relationships. MW: Your group will start with one or two assigned leaders who we call ‘facilitators. " She/he is likely to be an undergraduate student who has previously been a SIGEL group member and had at least one additional term of study of these groups and small group dynamics in preparation for this role. Usually SIGEL facilitators are not even graduate students in psychology, let alone professional psychologists, so it is unreasonable to expect them to provide 'expert’ advice, counseling or guidance. Usually they are quite interested, however, in the further development of their own interpersonal skills. Except for their relationships with cofacilltators and the SIGEL instructor and teaching assistant, they subscribe to the same course 'contract' that you do. As your group becomes accustomed to functioning within SIGEL's guidelines and members develop greater interpersonal skills, your facilitators are likely to act more as group members than as guides. They do have the special responsibility, however, of keeping the group on a constructive path that places them in a somewhat different role from others. Ideally, with the increasing maturity of your group, others will also assume greater responsibility for maintaining a constructive orientation and the group members will assume greater roles in its direction h vi I. CONFIDENTIALITY: Preserve the confidentiality of your group's sessions by not mentioning any other member's name or identity in other settings. Each member is entitled to expect that whatever is said within your group’s sessions will be held in confidence. This does not apply, of course, to the SIGEL instructor who has overall responsibility for Si GEL groups and who must be kept informed of any notable issues or problems. 2. AVOID SIPHONING: Generally avoid contact with members of your SIGEL group outside of its scheduled meetings. It you do encounter another member of your group in a different setting, take care to avoid any discussion of group issues or topics. 102 1' 11.01 0" -..._uor'.o|fol‘rf'll..o -.-.. W I: Lsamingmdioing. Use your own ongoing experiences in relating to other SIGEL group members as an exercise in learning. 2: WW. Reserve your Judgement of SIGEL until you have accumulated a sufficient amount of experience in it You cannot benefit from SIGEL without opening yourself to the experience. 3: W. Experiment with your own behavior during SIGEL sessions. Give yourself permission to relate to others in some ways that you would not ordinarily use. it is never acceptable, however, to hit or touch others without their explicit permission. 4: Redneck. You are asked not only to react to others, but to tell them how their behavior impacts on you. Through feedback from others, you should be able to gain a better understanding of your own interpersonal abilities and limitations. Rules gf lmmediacy: lmmediacy is the skill of being able to examine with another person what is happening in the here-and-now of your relationship. l: W. Your interactions with one another are the most important part of this experience. if you have to talk about things that have happened or are happening outside of the group, you should make them relevant to what is happening in the group or to what you are experiencing or thinking about at the time. 2: ngmiign. This does not mean “being nice” for the sake of being nice. Cooperation includes the expression of feelings and sometimes requires confrontations. There is little lmmediacy unless you move toward another person in an effort to involve yourself with that person. 3: Axgidfisngnaiizaiigns: Be concrete and specific in your speech When speaking of yourself use 'i '. Avoid general references to other people, such as ”one“, ‘people', 'man', 'they', 'we', etc. Speak to individuals by name; avoid making speeches to 'the whole group.’ We: l: Empiign, Let yourself feel various emotions, do not try to hide them or to escape into intellectualization of them. 2: Humanianguage, Experiment with how you use language in the group. Try to avoid cliches. Remember that others' 'questions' are often lightly 4 103 disguised commentaries. Try to share your perceptions or feelings instead of “questioning“ without owning where you are coming from. W: You are asked to experiment with the following kinds of interactions. ' I: Self -Disclosure. Be open about yourself, get the “real you“ across to others. You are not asked to reveal your entire past life nor your darkest secrets. You are what is important, not your secrets. Keep your self-disclosures within the here-and-now. Facts about yourself from other times and places should be made relevant to the you that is in the group. If you are bored, let others know immediately but do not “blame“ them. It is, after all, your own boredom and it is likely to become worse and disabling if not “owned.“ 2: WM. Let emotion be part of the group experience. Without being abusive, speak frankly about the emotions you feel as a result of contact with each other. 3: Listening. Listening means reaching out for what another person has to say. Listen to the person, not just the Ideas or words. Attend to all the cues, both verbal and non-verbal. 4: Suggest. A sense of interest and support is often needed by persons who attempt to follow those guidelines. Remember that you can accept other people sincerely without approving of everything that they do, think. or believe. Encourage others to follow these guidelines and recognize and support them when they do. 5: ggnicgniinggingns. Sometimes you will find it impossible to agree with what another person is doing or saying. Tell that person what you think and/or feel as honestly as you can and offer some perspective on your - reaction Constructive confrontation is an invitation to another to examine or reflect upon her/his behavior “in community“. Irresponsible “telling a person off“ may illustrate destructive confrontation, but it is rarely helpful. Confront another because you are concerned about him or her and want to involve yourself with him or her. 6: W: If confrontation is responsible, the best response is self-examination. Avoid the instinctive human inclination to defend oneself by attacking or discounting the confronter. A Stance Against Flight Following these guidelines will not be easy, for humans tend to find ways of escaping to a more mundane level of interaction This is called “flight“ C 104 behavior. You are asked to take a stance against the many different forms of flight behavior (see Egan, pp. 254-272). Try not to flee from your anxiety by employing defenses. Rather, handle your anxiety by owning it and dealing with it in the group. Final Thoughts. These guidelines are not intended to be constraining, but to channel your behavior into more productive approaches. Some of your SIGEL experiences will probably be rewarding and others may be frustrating, much like life itself. Try not to expect too much or too little, but if you invest substantial effort in this enterprise, It will likely prove rewarding. FEEDBACK “Feedback is a way of helping another person to consider changing his/her behavior, it is communication to a person (or group) which gives that person information about hoe she/he affects others. As in a guided missile system, feedback helps an individual keep his/her behavior “on target“ and thus better achieve her/his goals.“ Some Criteria for Useful Feedback: I. Make it descriptive, not evaluative. Describing one’s own reactions leaves the other free to use it or to not use it as he/she sees fit. Avoiding evaluative language reduces the need for defensive reactions. 2. it is specific rather than general. To be told that one is “domineering“ will probably not be as useful as to be told that “just now, when we were deciding the issue, you did not appear to listen to what others said. I felt forced to accept your arguments or face attack from you.“ 3. It takes into account the needs of both the receiver and giver of feedback. Feedback can be destructive when it serves only our own needs and fails to consider the needs of the person on the receiving end. 4. It is directed toward behavior about which the receiver can do something Frustration is increased when a person is reminded about shortcomings over which helshe has no control. 5. It is solicited, rather than imposed Feedback is most useful when the receiver herself/himself has formulated the kind of question which those observing her/him can answer. 6. It is well-timed. In general, feedback is most useful at the earliest opportunity after the given behavior (depending on the person's readiness to hear it, available support from others, etc). 7. It is checked to insure clear communication. One way of doing this 105 is to have the receiver try to rephrase the feedback she/he has received to see if it corresponds to what the sender had in mind 8. When feedback is given in a training group, both giver and receiver have Opportunity to check its accuracy with other group members. Is this merely one person's impression or an impression shared by others? Feedback, then, is a way of giving help. it is a corrective mechanism for the individual who wants to learn how well his or her behavior matches his or her intentions. It is a means for establishing one's identity--for answering Who am I? (Adapted from material developed by the National Training Laboratories) 106 PSYCHOLOGY 400 QUIZ I STUDY QUESTIONS I. Iwntify Haslow's eruption mo, 8, 8: I1 naadsas modified by Em. I-low mUwapplytoYOUR style of participation in your group? 2. Imntify at least four of the “value assumptions“ uncbrgirding the laboratory learning experience according to Egan. 3. lrbntify the two components of self-esteem noted by Simpsm and Hastings. 4. Egan discussed 1 l different aspects of " interpersonal ster " Clearly identify six of these 5. Identify the two basic elements of the "contract" for the group experience according to Egan. 6. What did Emn Ideal as the four “core interpersonal skills. " 7. Ithntify the four “skilIs of shallow " 8. Identify at least three “ cultural obstacles” aid at least three “ intrapersonal obstacles” to self-disclosure that apply to YOU. 9. Distinguish between Egan's notions of “related self-disclosure" vs. “ unrelated self -disclosure. " Give exarnplee from your own SIGEL group experience. I 0. Give a convincing example of conflict between YOUR OWN verbal and nonverbal behavior within the group. i I. Distinguish between the mneral patterns of emotional expression likely to characterize personsmminatedby D. B.& N needs. i2. Cite at least 6 of the I I “feelings difficult to face" wcording to Emn. I3. What did Egan mean by the " discriminatim/communication " distinction. l4. Imntify the basic elements of physical attending miated with the SOLAR acronym. I5. Distinguish between the Primary andAdvanced levels of Accurate Empathy. I 6. Distinguish between Egan's use of the terms Behaviors and Feelings and identify the general ' attributes that influence the expression of each i7. Egan icentified I I different components of " respect " libhtify at least 6 of these * i 8. identify how the attributes ascribed by Egan to “' Detractors“. “Observers“, “ Participants“. aid “Contributors" relate to your own small group participation up to now. See pp. 233-240. 4* i9. Imntify the major varieties of “fligit” behaviors, individual and amp (pp. 250-273). *These items require reading far ahead of the regilar assimments. 107 ADHISSION TICKET TO FIRST HEETING OF YOUR SIGEL GROUP (YOUR FACILITATOR/S WILL COLLECT THESE AT THAT TIME) Please write a brief , yet concise definition for each of the following Important terms Conflmntiality. Confrontation PM Group Flight (pp. 254-272): Here-and-Now: lmmediacy: Indivimal Fiimt (pp. 254-272): Personal Level of Interaction: Self-Disclosure Siphoning: Support Signature Date I am aware of the terms which are mentioned above are also inclumd in Guidelines to SIGEL. I am alsoawarethat my understandingofthesetermswill assist myg-oup tohavemoraconstructive early sessions 9 9111 9112 9113 9114 9115 9116 9121 9122 9123 9124 9125 9126 9131 9132 9133 9134 9135 9136 9141 9142 9143 9144 9145 9146 9151 9152 U'IU'I#h-h-b-k-bwwwwODCDNNNNNN-t-fi-t-e—e-t APPENDIX G Flw frmh Paicin 'H175 1875 ‘H125 201M) '133 201M) '167 ‘H125 ‘H150 1L50 ‘h150 ‘H125 ‘H175 £100 £175 £100 ‘H150 'h125 (167 ‘H175 4150 T175 £175 4125 26$“) 2Kl75 AFFHJATI ‘H150 T125 1L50 1167 £167 H125 975 221KB 20IK) 2035 T125 H125 £150 4125 '133 '133 H100 1335 I150 H125 -L33 H100 H100 H100 2100 261X) N mg 181K) “H150 ‘H133 H125. ‘H125 £100 ‘H133 24ifl) 24IX) 2175 20ifi) 151M) 'H175 '100 141X) 2150 'H175 'H150 2§L75 £TL50 ‘H150 231K) £KL67 “H167 17575 'H150 108 W Early Middle L819 5100 £175 £150 £159 4100 £125 £167 £100 4100 4150 I125 4125 4175 4100 £100 4125 £150 4175 I100 1150 1150 £175 4100 1150 £125 (100 4100 £150 4150 4133 £133 4125 £150 £100 4133 4150 4150 4175 4100 1175 4150 1175 4175 4100 4100 1175 £133 4175 £100 4150 £100 (100 £125 E125 £100 £100 £175 4100 4167 £150 £125 £100 £125 £167 4100 1100 4150 1167 1175 4125 (100 4125 4150 I100 4167 4167 4150 575 9153 9154 9155 9161 9162 9163 9164 9165 9166 9167 9171 9172 9173 9174 9175 9176 9181 9182 9183 9184 9185 9186 9187 9211 9212 9213 9214 9215 9216 9217 9218 9219 9221 9222 9223 OOOOOOOQQQQQQQQVNVVVNQOGO’O’GOUIUIUI _L—L-L OOOCO 22.00 15.67 21.25 22.75 9.50 17.50 16.75 24.75 17.25 22.75 14.75 17.75 18.75 14.25 15.75 15.33 9.00 9.50 19.50 21.00 18.75 13.00 16.75 19.00 15.50 10.50 14.75 17.25 7.25 12.75 16.25 6.33 14.00 11.75 23.00 241K) 211K) 241K) 'H150 ‘H125 “H133 'h175 ‘h150 '125 24113 25£H5 181M) ‘H133 'H150 £Hl75 ‘H125 ‘H100 £133 ‘H150 ‘H175 T125 'H167 2§175 ‘H150 151K) 2Kl25 201K) 251K) 'H150 2KL25 £K125 £150 ‘ULOO EKLZ5 2N175 ‘TL33 ‘H150 ‘H125 241M) “H125 T175 181M) 271KB 211K) 251K) 231K) ‘h175 ‘H150 ‘H150 181M) '150 181K) 1?L67 201“) 13125 231%) T125 291KB 231K) ‘H125 2K175 T150 201K) 181K) 201K) 24AM) £150 'Hl75 'H125 261M) 109 £125 £100 4175 4175 1125 £100 4150 £175 4100 E150 5125 1150 4175 £150 4100 4133 4100 2100 (100 1175 5125 1150 £175 4175 5150 1100 1175 £125 4125 2175 4125 1125 1150 4100 £100 £175 £150 4150 £150 £125 £100 £125 4175 E100 £167 £175 4100 4167 (100 £150 4175 1175 “L67 5100 4175 4125 £150 (100 £125 5125 1150 £133 (100 1150 1100 £125 £175 £167 4150 E150 £133 4100 1150 E167 £150 4150 4175 £150 (100 £125 4100 1100 4125 £100 4150 1175 4175 E133 £125 E100 E175 €100 £100 £100 1175 1150 4150 1175 1125 1150 5100 1150 1125 ILOO (100 9224 9225 9231 9232 9233 9234 9235 9236 9237 9241 9242 9243 9244 9245 9246 9247‘ 9248 9251 9252 9253 9254 9255 9256 9261 9262 9263 9264 9265 9266 9267 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 1100 ‘H125 'H100 T100 H150 H150 2100 T100 1575 H125 1475 875 850 2000 1075 500 125 1975 2275 1850 1800 1950 1575 T133 T100 1100 1600 1333 833 1550 1100 T150 201M) H150 H150 221K) 2100 2275 221K! 1375 1175 4167 H150 H150 1150 '100 '175 2100 201K) 1125 H125 2100 H150 1875 '150 '175 H100 £125 5125 1100 H100 1575 2175 H100 H150 241X) 2150 231K) 2275 T125 T100 1275 H125 2100 H100 1125 '100 23£KI H100 2150 T125 22£§5 T100 T175 H100 S100 2125 221K) H150 1375 110 4175 4100 1175 4175 £125 (100 4150 £100 £100 £100 4125 4175 4100 4167 4100 1150 1125 5100 1175 £125 5125 1100 4150 4133 4150 4150 £100 £100 4133 4100 4167 4100 £100 £150 4150 (100 1100 E100 £100 4125 1150 475 4100 4125 1175 1125 1150 £150 4150 1125 4150 1167 5150 4125 4100 1175 (100 275 275 1125 4.00 3.75 5.00 5.33 5.50 5.25 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.00 3.67 4.50 4.50 5.00 3.75 4.50 5.25 5.50 2.75 5.75 5.00 4.75 3.50 4.50 5.50 4.75 6.00 4.75 4.75 3.00 APPENDIX H Samnls PA and 55 P n r "Liz, I was disappointed by some of your comments on Friday. I shared with you that I didn't think I knew the "real you" very well. I told you that my fantasy was that you're hiding your true feelings. I appreciated your honesty in telling me you hadn't been fully contributing to the group. I was having trouble understanding how you could be consciously aware of your behavior yet have no desire to change it. You said that you've choosen not to intiate any interactions; you said that you don't want to get into anything with anyone unless it's of a certain level of importance to you as if all of the self-disclosures l have made (my mother's death, break-up with my boyfriend, intense depression) are not of any interest to you. My perception of you as warm and caring has begun to change to seeing you as more cold right now." n ml Dr r r D I experienced Lynn as being very disappointed today. Lynn was visibly upset by Julie's comment about intiating conversation. Lynn said that she felt she contributed a great deal to the group and often started conversations and broke the silence. I chose to feel very proud of Lynn for confronting Julie. It took her a while but she finally disclosed that she was very upset. Once Julie explained that she felt Lynn was a contributor, Lynn's face lit up. She sat back up in her chair and proceeded to interact with other members. I have a fantasy that Lynn is easily upset by disapproval of others. I think that Lynn forgives and forgets easily. After Julie explained herself, Lyyn smiled and began to participate more. I don't think that Lynn holds a grudge against people. 111 U311 35s gn ihg anes Qriisria Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 N: 11' '1': o I Vi Ion * EARLY P_A, 5.44 (1.39) 5.05 (1.25) 4.92 (1.32) 6.83 (.73) 6.55 (.78) 6.65 (.62) 6.19 (1.46) 5.41 (1.49) 5.42 (1.64) (105) 55 1.60 (1.04) 3.13 (1.38) 2.60 (1.55) 6.56 (1.15) 6.74 (.44) 6.67 (.59) 2.61 (1.37) 2.61 (1.56) 2.35 (1.40) (99) APPENDIX I for ,.. hRae 1er-e:o R 'n- MIDDLE _P_A_ 5.77 (1.17) 5.50 (1.11) 5.29 (1.40) 6.56 (1 .11) 6.62 (.79) 6.59 (.61) 6.26 (1.38) 5.68 (1.57) 5.52 (1.79) (99) 1' Criteria 1 = Abstract vs. Concrete. 5.5 1.58 (.86) 3.01 (1.43) 2.75 (1.62) 6.68 (.89) 6.88 (.42) 6.68 (.64) 2.87 (1.67) 2.40 (1.48) 2.35 (1.46) (85) Criteria 2 = There-and-Then vs. Here-and-Now. Criteria 3 = lntrapersonal vs. Interpersonal. 112 OfP- 1|. LATE M 5.37 (1.18) 5.16 (1.28) 5.12 (1.22) 6.65 (.86) 6.58 (.53) 6.64 (.50) 6.10 (1.48) 5.44 (1.63) 5.61 (1.63) (103) 5.6 1.85 (.89) 3.19 (1.47) 3.14 (1.65) 6.36 (1.25) 6.69 (.81) 6.59 (.66) 2.88 (1.76) 2.30 (1.68) 2.16 (1.56) (73) LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Adams, H. B. (1964) "Mental illness” or interpersonal behavior? Meagan mm, 19. 191-197. Anastasi, A. (1988). Esmnglggigailesiing. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Aveline, M. (1986). Use of written reports in a brief group psychotherapy training- MW. 38. 477-482. Bednar, R. L., Melnick, J., & Kaul, T. J. (1974). Risk, responsibility, and structure: A conceptual framework for initiating group counseling and psychotherapy. MW, 21, 31-37. Bednar, R. L., 81 Kaul. T. J. (1978). Experiential group research: Current perspectives. In S. Garfield & A. Bergin (Eds.), flangibggkmgm MW (pp. 769- 815). New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. Berglas, S. & Levendusky, P. G. (1985). The therapeutic contract program: An individual-oriented psychological treatment community. Esygngjnflany, 22, 36-45. Braaten, L. J. (1990). The different patterns of group climate critical incidents in high and low cohesion sessions of group psychotherapy. inigmaijgnaL JoumaLcLGLounEsychmneLepx. 40. 477-493. Budman, S. H., Demby, A., Feldstien, M., Redondo, J., Scherz, 8., Bennett, M. J., Koppenaal, G., Daley, B. 8., Hunter, M., 81 Ellis, J. (1987). Preliminary findings on a new instrument to measure cohesion in group psychotherapy. IntematicnaidcsunaLcLanEmbotbeLapv. 31. 75-94. 113 (1mm 114 Budman, S. H., Soldz, 8., Demby, A., Feldstien, M., Springer, T., & Davis, M. (1989). Cohesion, alliance and outcome in group psychotherapy. Emhifllnl. 52.. 339-350- Bugen, L. A. (1977). Composition and orientation effects on group cohesion. W. 99. 175-181- Butler, T. & Fuhriman, A. (1980). Patient perspective on the curative process: A comparison of day treatment and outpatient psychotherapy groups. Small M, 11, 371-388. Butler, T. & Fuhriman, A. (1983). Level of functioning and length of time in treatment variables influencing patients' therapeutic experience in group Psychotherapy- MW. 33. 489-505. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. MW, 112, 155-159. Conte, H. R., & Plutchik, R. (1981). A circumplex model for interpersonal personality traits. WW9! 4.0. 701 -71 1 . Crews, C. Y., & Melnick, J. (1976). Use of initial and delayed structure in facilitating group development. a i ll P hI .23, 92-98. Dickoff, l-l. & Lakin, M. (1963). Patients' views of group psychotherapy: Retrospections and interpretations. W E— 25298218813011. 1.3, 61-73. Egan. G- E- (1976). WWWMW W. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. Egan, G. E. (1971). Contractual approaches to the modification of behavior in encounter 9rOUPS- In W- Hunt (Ed). Humanbehaxiotandhscomm Cambribge, Massachusettes: Schenkman, 106-127. 115 Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta- analysis. W12, 175-186. Evans, N. J. (1984). The relationship of interpersonal attraction and attraction to group in a growth group setting. NW, 172-178. Evans, N. J. & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and reevaluation. WM, 11, 359-370. Flowers, J. V. 81 Schwartz, B. (1985). Behavioral group therapy with clients with homogeneous problems. In D. Upper & 8. Ross (Eds.), fiandbggm W. New York: Plenum Press, 145-170. Flowers, J. V. (1979). A model for behavioral group therapy. In D. Upper & 8. Ross (Eds.), vi r I ro Th : nn I vi w. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 7-37. Frank, J. D. (1957). Some determinants, manifestations, and effects of cohesion in therapy groups. I m ' n I l f r W12. 53-62. Freedman, S. M. & Hurley, J. R. (1980). Perceptions of helpfulness and behavior in group. mug, 4, 51-58. Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossorio, A. G., &Coffey, H. S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of personality. WM, 20, 143- 161. Froud.S- (1921). W. New York: Nonon. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). EagtgLAnaiysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Gross, E. F. (1957). An empirical study of the concepts of cohesiveness and compatibility. Unpublished honor's thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 116 Hart, R. R. (1978). Therapeutic effectiveness of setting and monitoring goals. 493W. 11.6, 1242-1245. Hutchinson, D. R. (1980). The relationship of leadership and structure variables within small group training for counselor education students. W10. 6152A. Hurley, J. R. (1989). Affiliativeness and outcome in interpersonal groups: Member and leader perspectives. Esygnoilienapy, 26, 520-523. Hurley, J. R. (1986). Leaders' behaviors and group members' interpersonal gains. GEM, 1Q, 162-176. Hurley, J. R. (1976). Helpful behaviors in groups of mental health professionals and undergraduates. lntsmaiignal Jggmal Qf Qrgnn Psyghginsrany, 26, . 173-189. Hurley, J. R., & Rosenberg, D. B. (1990). Group members’ gains in acceptance of self and others associated with leader’s behavior. W Webs. 11.6. 413434. Hurley, J. R., & Brooks, L. A. (1988). Primacy of affiliativeness in ratings of group climate. EschclcdicaLBeoods. 32. 123-133. Hurley, J. R., 81 Brooks, L. A. (1987). Group climate’s principal dimension: Affiliation. W. 32. 441-448. Johnson, M. E., 81 Fortman, J. B. (1988). lntemal structure of the gross cohesiveness scale. W, 19, 146-152. Kanas, N., Stewart, P., Deri, J., Ketter, T., 81 Haney, K. (1989). Group process in short-term outpatient therapy groups for schizophrenics. 91mg, 13, 67-73. Kanfer: F- H" 8‘ 5'0th", B- K- (1988) We. 9113093. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press. Kellennan. H. (1981) W New York: Grune & Stratton. 117 Kenrick, D. T. & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. W51, 43, 23-34. Kivlighan, D. M., Jauquet, C. A., Hardie, A. W., Francis, A. M., & Hershberger, B. (1993). Training group members to set session agendas: Effects on in- session behavior and member outcome. Jgumal gf qunssling 831911191991. 40(2). 182-187. Kivlighan, D. M. & Jauquet, C. A. (1990). Quality of group member agendas and group session climate. W, 21, 205-219. Leary, T. F. (1957). W- New York: Ronald Press. Levin, E. M. 81 Kurtz, R. R. (1974). Structured and nonstructured human relations training. Mal—MW, a, 526-531. Leszcz, M., Yalom, l. D., 8. Norden, M. (1985). The value of inpatient group psychotherapy: Patients’ perceptions. WWW Wm. 35. 411-433. Llewelyn, S. P., & Haslett, A. V. (1986). Factors perceived as helpful by the members of self-help groups: An exploratory study. W W199. 1.4.. 252-262. Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I. D., & Miles, M. B. (1973). W tags. New York: Basic Books Inc. MacKenzie, K. R. (1981). Measurement of group climate. inismgijgnguginrngl Wrap! 3.1, 287-295. MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of a group climate measure. In R. R. Dies 8. K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.), W121; WW (159-170). New York: International Universities Press. 118 MacKenzie, K. R. 81 Livesley, W. J. (1983). A developmental model for brief group therapy. In R. Dies 81 R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Wm WM (101-117) New York: International Universities Press. Maher, C. (1981). Effects of involving conduct problem adolescents in goal- setting: An exploratory investigation. W, 18, 471-474. McGuire, J. M., Taylor, D. R., Broome, D. H., Blau, B. l., Abbott, D. W. (1986). Group structuring techniques and their influence on process involvement in a group counseling training program. MW Bic—[@9911 33, 270-275. Middleman, R. R. & Goldberg, G. (1972). The concept of structure in experiential learning. Th9 1922 annual handbggk fgi grgup faciliiaigrs Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press Moos, R. H. (1974). Evaluaiingirgaimsnisnvirgnmsnis. New York: John Wiley. Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: A closer look. HumanBeiations. 32. 771-785. Neimeyer, G. J., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1982). Group structure and group process: Personal construct theory and group development. Wm, 13, 150-164. O’Farrell M. K. (1987). The effect of timing of goal setting on outcome in personal growth groups. W, 18, 296. Otto, H.A.(1970). -- _- 11: ... . .o. . 1-.... .. = i '4 Beverly Hills, CA: Holistic Press. Parloff, M. B., Waskow, I. E., 8. Wolfe, B. E. (1978). Research on therapist variables in relation to process and outcome. In S Garfield & A. Bergin 119 (Eds.), .. ...o . _- . hr:._o .. d 0:1-.VI-I’-. 1-n-_= -n :11- I ananisjs. New York: Wiley, 233-82. Pfeiffer, J. W., and Jones, J. E. (1974). The concept of structure in experiential learning. lbs 1974 annual handbggk far gignn iaciliiaigns. Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press. Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. I_-I_timan_Leiatign_s, 36, 93-108. Rabin, H. M. (1970). Preparing patients for group psychotherapy. Iniamaiionai MW. 29. 135-145- Ribner, N. G. (1974). Effects of an explicit group contract on self-disclosure and group cohesiveness. W1, 21, 116-120. Rogers, C. R. (1970). W. New York: Harper & Row. Rogers, C. R. (1961). W. Boston: Houghton-leflin. Rose, G. 8., & Bednar, R. L. (1980). Effects of positive and negative self- disclosure and feedback on early group development. JggmaLQL W11, 63-70. Schulman, B. (1979). Active patient orientation and outcomes in hypertensive treatment. MagicaLQaia, 12, 267-280. Shapiro, S. B. (1968). Some aspects of a theory of interpersonal contracts. W. 22. 171-182- Shadish, W. R. (1984). Intimate behaviors and the assessment of benefits in clinical QFOUPS- W. .15. 204-221. Slough, L. J. (1986). Participant and observer perspectives on the interpersonal climate of small groups. W. 25. 1 52. Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: lnterrnember attraction, 120 instrumental value, and risk taking. W, 15, 163-173. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. WEI-twill. 53. 384-399. Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall 81 J. N. Butcher (Eds.), flandQQngLLesaaian mejhgdsjnfimicamsychglogy. New York: Wiley. 183-221. Wright, T. L. & Duncan, D. (1986). Attraction to group, group cohesiveness, and individual outcome: A study of training groups. WM, 12, 487-492. Wright, W., Morris, K. T., & Fettig, B. (1974). Comparative effects of social skill development. Small Qrgun Bahayigr, 5, 211-221. Wylie, R. C. (1974). lbs sali-ggncapi (Mal. 1, rav. a1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Yalom. I. D. (1985). WWW Ediijgni. New York: Basic Books Inc. Yalom, I. D. (1983). W. New York: Basic Books lnc. Yalom, I. D. (1975). h i f r hoh h Edjijgni. New York: Basic Books Inc. Yalom, I. D., Houts, P. 8., Nowell, G., 8. Rand, K. H. (1967). Preparation of patients for group therapy: A controlled study. AW 23920131131. 11. 416-427. Yalom, I. D., 81 Rand, K. H. (1966). Compatibility and cohesiveness in therapy grows. AW. 1.5. 267-276. IF“.—