‘ a.
- “7C -' - ~'
' h‘ ‘13?“‘4'i

* 9'3":

Ls}: ! r
mam 44: 9"
.-. :21 '.
“it

‘41

“if:

"0

t-~‘#“"'

AZ";

V 3‘

I, H ‘ .... ”2;.
‘ . ,

' |.ri.." .1" I

 

WWIIWW!!!WIN!!!MINIMUMMINIMUM

01602 4089

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M www.mu

 

.-.-I
A,

  
     

  

2.235.813 A

LIBRARY-
‘ 'Michigan State
; avUniversity

. ' ' This is to certify that the
I ’ ‘ _
thesis entitled

3 THE STRUCTURE; RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF
THE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE (FORM D):
A MEASURE 0F~A COMPONENT
OF EMPATHY
presented by

, , Donald W. Werner ‘

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D.

 

degree in

 

; Department of Counseling, Personnel
' Services and Educational Psychology

Date 1///2/77 V

 

0-7639

@ I977

DONALD WILLIAM WERNER

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE STRUCTURE, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF
THE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE (FORM D):
A MEASURE OF A COMPONENT
OF EMPATHY

BY

Donald W. Werner

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of CounselingyPersonnel Services

and Educational Psychology
1977

ABSTRACT

THE STRUCTURE,RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF
THE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE (FORM D):

A MEASURE or? A COMPONENT
OF EMPATHY

BY
Donald W. Werner

The Affective Sensitivity Scale (A.S.S.) was first
developed by Kagan and co-workers in 1962-65 as an instru-
ment for the measurement of affective sensitivity. Affec-
tive sensitivity was defined as the ability to accurately
perceive and identify the feeling communication of another
person. This behavior was believed to be a necessary com-
ponent of empathy and its measurement useful in the devel-
opment of counseling skills. This instrument, the A.S.S.
was comprised of a sequence of videotaped scenes from actual
counseling sessions and a multiple choice test requiring
the identification of client feelings. Studies of the in-
strument indicated that it was both a reliable and valid
measure of affective sensitivity.

A revised version of this instrument, the Affective

 

Sensitivity Scale (Form D) has been created by Kagan and
Schneider, which offers a much improved film portion and a
new multiple choice test. This new version offers the ad-
vantage of a wider range of stimulus situations, ranging

from class room scenes to psychotherapy. The nature of

Donald W. Werner

the item alternatives was modified, as well as increased,
in number and a revised scoring scheme provides subscale
scoring which is specific to situation and setting.

This study investigated the structure, reliability and
validity of this new version of the Affective Sensitivity
Scale. Normative data for the instrument has been provided
based on 3103 subjects and norms are available for a number
of educational and professional groups.

The structure of the instrument was investigated by
factor analysis which did not support the subscale scoring
method although it did indicate responses to the instrument
were situation specific.

The instrument was reported to be reliable over a one
week test/retest period (rho = 0.64) and the internal con-
sistancy as measured by Chronbach's alpha was 0.75 for the
total scale.

The validity of this form of the A.S.S. (Form D) was
investigated by testing several hypothesis. The results of
the tests of these hypothesis are as follows:

1. The instrument is able to distinguish a high em—
pathizer referent group (N = 18) from the norm group.

2. The effects of training known to be effective in
increasing affective sensitivity can be distinguished by
the instrument.

3. Members of homogeneous professional or educational
groups have mean scores which are different from other dis—

similar homogeneous groups of persons.

Donald W. Werner

4. The instrument (A.S.S. - Form D) is not correlated
with its predecessor (A.S.S. - Form C) and hence does not
measure the same behaviors.

5. Scores on the new instrument are not correlated
with being typed as a "thinker" or "feeler" on the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator, but is correlated with raw Extrover-
sion and Judging scores.

Based upon these results this form of the A.S.S.

(Form D) has not been demonstrated to be a valid measure of
affective sensitivity. The instrument would appear, how-
ever, to be a reliable measure of some cognitive component
of empathy. This conclusion was derived from all of the
above findings plus an analysis of the items included in
the multiple choice test portion of the instrument. The
reporting of scale scores according to the nature of the
stimulus situations (situation specific) appears to provide
feedback to subjects which has been reported as offering
considerable heuristic value. The instrument has a face
validity which presently permits its use as a formative
evaluative device, but which will require further develop-
ment and modification if it is to be used as a summative

evaluative instrument.

To My Mother and In Memory of My Father

ii

ACKNOWLDEGMENTS

This dissertation represents the results of the com-
bined efforts of many persons, and while there is only one
author, without the contributions of these other people
it would never have been written.

Norm Kagan, who served as my major professor was,
and is a continuous source of inspiration, offering advice,
support, and insight into what this work was all about. I
feel a deep sense of appreciation for the personal involve-
ment he has shared with me and his continued confidence in
me both as a student and colleague.

John Schneider, who as a committee member has had a
significant impact on my thinking about this project, of-
fered me insight into what the important questions were
and shared a considerable part of the work of finding the
answers. His influence on me has extended far beyond this
work and has provided learnings which will continue to '
facilitate my own growth.

Bruce Burke, who also willingly served as a committee
member, reminded me that scholarly writing can also read
well. His patient reading and editing of this thesis
taught me about the logical progression of ideas and how

to make the complicated seem almost simple.

iii

Bill Schmidt, who as a committee member shared his
extensive understanding of statistical methodology, intro-
duced a real sense of excitment about the capabilities of
statistical procedures. He went beyond that which was re-
quired by this limited study and his impact on this work
will continue beyond its present stage of development.

As a guidance committee these four individuals made
this process into an enjoyable learning experience for me.
At all times I was aware that they had confidence in me and
the work I was doing. 'While I clearly began this process
as a student I felt treated as a colleague, which certainly
helped accelerate my own growth.

Besides those directly involved with the writing of
this dissertation a number of other persons contributed.
First of all there are many unnamed persons who used the
Affective Sensitivity Scale and shared their data with us.
Without them we would be a long way behind. Ken Bullmer
of Western Michigan University provided cross-validation
measurements between various forms of the instrument. James
Ayres of the University of Minnesota provided advice and
suggestions on the development of the emperical scales.
Thomas Parmeter of the Office of Medical Education, Research
and Development (MSU) provided support in terms of computer
time.

A number of collegues in the Counseling Psychology
program, at Lyman Briggs College and at STRIDE all made

this venture feasible. They were excited by what I was

iv

doing, patient when my mind seemed elsewhere, and support-

ive when the work was going slowly. I hope that they know

in some small way the depth of appreciation that I feel for
their friendships.

Finally, this work was made easier because of the
support of Susan (Hierta), who throughout the time this re-
search was being undertaken, provided encouragement, caring
and warmth. Her frequent insightful questions prevented
many mistakes from being made. But most important she
shared the joys of success as well as the frustrations of
failure, and was a companion to talk things out with and a

partner who shared in the enterprise.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O I O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF FIGUMS O O O O O O O O O O O 0

CHAPTER

I

II

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose . . . . . . . . .
General Problem . . . . .
Need for this Study . . . . .
Definitions of Terms . .
The Development of the Origina
The Creation of a New Revised

Instrument . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . .
Delimitations of this Study
General Outline of the Study

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Definitions of Empathy . . . . .
Empathy as Cognition . . . . . .
Empathy as Affect and Cognition .
Empathy as Affect . . . . . . . .
The Measurement of Empathy . . .
Predictive Measures of Empathy .
Situational Measures of Empathy .

Instruments Which Employ Photographs

and Pictures as Stimulus . .

Measures Which Employ Written Client

Statements 0 O O O O O O O 0

Measures Which Employed Audio Recordings

as Stimuli . . . . . . . . .

a1 Scale
Ve ersion

Measures Which Employ Video Media .

Measures that Employ Live Situations for

the Measurement of Empathy .
Other Measures of Empathy . .

Empathy in the Psychological Literature .

smary O I O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

t

O I O O D. C O O O O

Page

ix

OIU'INlr-‘H l-‘

14
14

16

17
17
19
23
27

33
34
35

38
42

47
51
S3
58

CHAPTER

III

IV

STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . .

Introduction . . . . . .'. . . . . .
Sample Population and Computer Scoring
Optimization of Scoring . . . . . . .
Research Questions and Hypothesis . .
Research Procedures . . . . . . . . .
'The Structure of the Scale-Factor
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reliability Studies . . . . . .
Questions of Validity . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis Related to the Structure of
Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reliability of the Instrument . . . .
Validity of the A.S.S. . . . . . . . .
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . .

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure of the Instrument . . .
Reliability of the Instrument .
Validity of the Instrument . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Form C and Form D . . .

Present Utility of the Affective Sensitiv-

ity Scale (Form D) . . . . . . . . .

Implications for Further Research on the

Present Form of the Instrument . . .

Implications for Modification of A.S.S.

(FormD)..............

APPENDIX C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

A
B

:20”! MUG

Affective Sensitivity Scale, Form C .

Affective Sensitivity Scale: Examiner'

Manual, Form D and E . . . . . . . .
Scales and Subscales, Item Content . .
Affective Sensitivity Scale, Form D .
Norms for Affective Sensitivity Scale,

Form D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inter-Item Correlations . . . . . . .
Inter-Scale Correlations . . . . .
Summary of the Overlap of Factors and

Subscales . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page
62

62
63

71
74

74
75
77
82

83

83

83

88

93
106
109
109
114
115
116
119
122
123
127
128
131
136
136
151

167
173

215
228
231

232

Page
I Computer Produced Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . 233

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 34

viii

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Preferred, Acceptable, and
Other Item Choices for the Four Revisions .

Item Analysis of A.S.S. (Form D) Revision
Four 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of Item Analysis Data for Form D .

Distribution of the 3103 Subjects, by Educa-

tion or Profession, Used to Establish Norm-
ative Data for the A.S.S. (Form D) . . . .

Results of Principal Component Factor Anal-
ysis: Eigenvalues and Percent of Variances

Results of Principal Component Factor Anal-
ysis: Factors and Item Loadings . . . . .

Summary of Item Loading on First Factor . .

Results of Test-Retest Study for A.S.S.
(Form D) - One Week Interval . . . . . . .

Internal Consistancy of A.S.S. (Form D):
Chronbach's Alpha . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of High Empathizer and Low Empa-
thizer Referent Groups with Norm Group . .

Data Resulting from the Administration of
A.S.S. (Form D) on a Pretest and Posttest
Basis to Groups Involved in Communication
Skill WOrkshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA and Post Hoc Test for Comparable
Groups 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Correlations Between A.S.S. Form C and
A.S.S. Fom D O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0

Correlation Between MBTI and A.S.S. (Form D)

by Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation Between MBTI and A.S.S. (Form D)

by Raw Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Page

67

68

70

71

84

86
87

89

92

94

97

100

103

105

107

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I Homogeneous Groups (95% Confidence Interval
for Mean Total Scores) . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The general purpose of this study was to investigate the
structure, validity, and reliability of a new version of the

Affective Sensitivity Scale. The instrument was developed

 

as a measure of affective sensitivity, a significant com-
ponent of empathy. Previous versions of this instrument have
been reported as valid and reliable. This study sought to de-
termine if the new instrument measures what the earlier ver-
sions measured. Further, the study explored what modif-

ications may be needed to increase the scale's utility.

‘General Problem

 

Empathy has been described as a significant factor in
the processes of counseling and psychotherapy. It has also
been postulated as a central factor in nearly all interper-
sonal communication; specifically to the extent that the
presence or absence of empathy is significant in predicting
the outcome of many kinds of human interaction. Positive
outcome of therapy has been found by a number of studies to
be correlated with the therapist's empathic abilities.

The study of empathy is considered to be an important

2

area of research in the psychological and social sciences.
For such studies to be possible, it is necessary that re-
searchers share a common definition of the term which is
sufficiently specific to distinguish it from other related
terms. In addition, there need exist instruments which
can measure the degree to which the "empathy" is or is

not present in the subgect.

Need for this Study

 

While there is significant agreement on the importance
of empathy in interpersonal communication, there is not
agreement on the definition of empathy. Several different
definitions exist and what is understood to represent empa-
thy in one study is not considered to be empathy in another.
In addition, tests which have been developed to measure em-
pathy measure different qualities.

One way to avoid the confusion inherent in the use of
the term empathy is to use terms which are less global and
more descriptive of measurable behavior. While empathy may
be seen as the "imaginative projection of one's own conscious-
ness into another being" or the "putting oneself in the place
of another," it necessarily requires the ability to identify
the affective state of another. The term affective sensi-
tivity represents the ability of a person to accurately de-
code (detect and identify) the affective communication of

another person. Unlike the term "empathy," the term

3
"affective sensitivity" is more easily operationalized and
the development of tests to measure its presence in inter-
personal communication is possible.

Hence the use of the more limited concept of affective
sensitivity may permit more meaningful discriminations to be
made. For example, it is difficult to speak of a person as
demonstrating a high level of empathy if researchers apply
different definitions to the term. There would likely be
more agreement if the subjects were described in such terms
as demonstrating a high degree of accuracy in decoding the
affective messages of other persons. While affective sensi-
tivity is not empathy, as mentioned previously, it is likely
to be a significant part of being empathic.

An instrument for the measurement of affective sen-
sitivity was developed by Kagan and his co-workers in 1962-
1965. The development of this instrument, the Affective
Sensitivity Scale, provided in part what was lacking in
the empathy measures available at that time. The instru-
ment was unique in that it avoided the ambiguities in the
definition of empathy while at the same time, measured be-
haviors which are likely to be included in most any defin-
ition of empathy. In addition, it measured affective sen-
sitivity under circumstances which approximated real-life
by providing both auditory and visual stimuli. This was
accomplished by employing a sequence of video tape segments
of counseling sessions and a set of objective questions a-
bout the feelings portrayed in these segments. This result-

ed in an instrument which could be economically administered

to large numbers of people and which was easy to score.
Subsequent research on the instrument demonstrated it to be
a valid and reliable measure of affective sensitivity.

During the last few years, it has become apparent that
there are weaknesses in the instrument. Its reliance on
video taped stimulus means that the persons shown during
the presentation of the scale are dressed in the fashions
of fifteen years ago and many of the concerns expressed by
these people are dated. In addition, advances in the state-
of-the-art of video media has improved considerably so that
the instrument is of technically poor quality when compared
to that which is available today.

In response to these deficiencies and in an attempt to
provide a measure of affective sensitivity which would have
greater discriminating powers, a new version of the instru-
ment has been developed by Kagan and Schneider (1975). This
new Affective Sensitivity Scale exists in two forms (known
as Form D and Form B) which, while modeled after their
earlier version, has been modified both in content and in
scoring.

This new instrument has been well received by the pro-
fessional community as is evidenced by the more than fifty
users and the greater than four thousand administrations that
have been completed to date. Yet for use in research, this
instrument also needs to be demonstrated as reliable and
valid as a measure of affective sensitivity.

The purpose of this studywas therefore to meet the above

5

stated need. This involved investigating the extent to
which this new version of the Affective Sensitivity Scale
measures the same behaviors as the earlier scale and to de-
termine the degree to which it is both reliable and valid

as a measure of affective sensitivity.

Definitions of Terms

 

Affective Sensitivity is defined as "the ability to

 

detect and describe the immediate affective state of an-
other, or in terms of communication theory, the ability to
receive and decode affective communication" (Kagan, Krath-
wohl, and Farquhar, 1965). For purposes of this study, def-
initions of empathy will be discussed; but in view of the
semantic confusion and theoretical disagreements which are
associated with the term, no new overarching definition will
be offered. The measurement of affective sensitivity, a
more limited construct, is the primary interest of this
study.

Affective Sensitivity Scale - refers to both the

 

film portion and the associated multiple choice test of
the instrument. The initials A.S.S. will be used as an
abbreviation. Since there are other versions of this
instrument in existence, unless otherwise noted the term
Affective Sensitivity Scale or A.S.S. will refer to Form
D. In addition, the scoring key for this form has under-
gone several revisions, the last being Revision Four. Un-

less otherwise noted all scoring referred to in this report

will refer to this Revision Four Scoring.

The film which is the stimulus part of the instru-
ment is comprised of a series of short film segments which
will be referred to as scenes. A sequence of scenes which
include the same people will be referred to as an episode.

The instrument will refer to the affective sensitiv-

 

ity film and the multiple choice test which accompanies it.

The Development of the Original Scale

 

The Affective Sensitivity Scale was created between
1962-1965 by Kagan and his co-workers (Chapman, 1966) to
provide a reliable and valid measure of affective sensitiv-
ity. This instrument was specifically designed for use in
evaluating the affective sensitivity of counselors. The
instrument included a series of video-taped segments of
actual counseling sessions, most of which involved high
school aged clients. The subject watched and listened to
a short segment of the session, usually about a minute or
two in duration, and then responded to several multiple
choice questions about the client's feelings about them-
selves (self-awareness) or about the client's perception of
the relationship between him or her and the counselor. The
subjects' responses were scored as either correct or incor-
rect and a single scale score was produced by counting the
number of correct responses.

The instrument underwent several revisions in the

course of its development and was extensively investigated

7

with regards to its validity and reliability. Concurrent
validity was indicated by a 0.53 Correlation between coun-
selor ratings of affective sensitivity in M.A. counselor
training groups and the instrument (Kagan, pp 31., 1967,“

p. 177). In a study which compared subjective supervisor
ratings of NDEA students and A.S.S. scores, a correlation of
0.42 to 0.16 was reported, while peer ratings of counselor
sensitivity had a correlation of 0.64 to -0.10 with the
A.S.S.

A predictive validity study by Kagan, pt 31., (1967)
reported a correlation of 0.49 between initial A.S.S. scores
and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness for students in-
volved in a year long NDEA institute. In general, the A.S.S.
was noted to be a better predictor of failure as a counselor
than of success.

Kuder-Richardson split-half reliability for the scale
was reported to range from 0.53 to 0.77 for homogeneous
groups of counselors or counselor trainees, with the major-
ity of the values above 0.70 (Kagan, 1967, p. 189).

Most of the original research was carried out employ-
ing a version of the instrument which contained 89 miltiple
choice items and which presented 41 videotaped segments of
11 different clients and counselors. This was referred to
as revised Form.B (Campbell, 1967,). Subsequently, a shorter
version (Form C) was created from the revised Form B by'elim-
inating 22 items and 8 videotaped segments. Kagan (1977)

reported that item analysis indicated that this shorter

version provided the same relative scores as the previous
form. Most of the research since 1971 has employed this
newer (Form C) version (Archer, 1971; Dendy, 1971; Rowe,
1972). A copy of the multiple choice portion of this in-
strument can be found in Appendix A.

In the last few years it has become clear that there
are several serious limitations to this version of the scale.
The most apparent weakness is in the audio and visual qual-
ities of the videotaped portion of the instrument. While
its video and sound qualities represented the quality that
was then state-of-the-art, it is poor when compared to what
is available today. It is known that poor sound quality re-
sults in significantly lower performance scores (Campbell,
1968, p. 81). Not only was the sound quality poor when the
instrument was created, but subsequent copies and recopies
have deteriorated. It has been the experience of some re-
searchers that frustration with the at times almost

inaudible sound has resulted in serious biasing of scale

results for some individuals. It is likely that the instru-
ment discriminates against those with some form of hearing
loss.

A second limitation is the rather limited range of
situations presented in the video excerpts. These included
settings which were exclusively counseling and the majority
of the clients were high school students. This meant that
the content of the instrument was less familiar to persons in

professions other than counseling, such as medical students,

9

teachers, etc. Other limitations included the dating of the
video sequences in terms of dress and commonality of problems
presented, for while most of the concerns are still relevant

today, the norms of persons in this age group have changed.

The Creation of a New Revised Version of the Instrument

 

A new version of the instrument has been created which
is intended to correct some of the faults of the previous
version. It offers the advantages of a more refined scoring
system and a more fully developed set of normative data.
While the earlier versions were black and white, the new
form is in color and was produced under more ideal studio
conditions. It uses film rather than videotape to produce a
scale of much greater fidelity and to avoid the variations
inherent in videotape playback equipment which is often in
improper working conditions. The filmed sequences include
a much wider range of situations, persons, ages, and emotions.
Not only are counseling situations presented, but the new
version provides situations from medical, psychotherapeu-
tic, informal, group, and educational settings. In addition
the new film invites the subject to focus on the affect of
all the persons involved in the scene, while the earlier
version referred only to the affect of the client.

Besides the changes in the film portion, there have
been changes in the multiple choice response portion of the
test. This includes the existence of five multiple choice

responses instead of three, which includes both affective and

10
cognitive statements, plus a significant revision of the
scoring procedure. The revised Form C had 66 items which
yielded a single total score based on a correct (1 point)
versus incorrect (0 point) item choice. The new form has
63 items, but these are scored as preferred (2 points),
acceptable (1 point), or random (0 point). In addition to
a single total score, the scale offers subscoring—-the sub-
scores representing subsets of items which have in common a
single sex, level of maturation, or situation. So all items
which involve males are scored together, as are the items
in the following dichotomies: client/interviewer; adult/
child; male/female; group/dyad; education/healthcare/infor-
mal/counseling/ and psychotherapy setting. A description of
these scales can be found in the users manual which is in-
cluded in Appendix B. The reason for these subscores is
that the instrument's authors postulated that a person's
affective sensitivity was likely situation dependent and
that issues of age, sex, status, setting, and the numbers
of individuals present in a situation would influence that
person's affective sensitivity.

In addition to the above subscale scores, nine empir-
ical subscales or indicies were created to see if there were
any other underlying structure to the instrument. These em-
pirical scales were defined as follows:

High Intensity (High): A subscale composed of 31
items which referred to scenes in which the emotions ex—

pressed were intense.

11

Impactful (Impact): A subscale composed of 26 items
which referred to scenes in which the content was impactful,
such as talking about death, but in which the emotions ex-
pressed were not strong.

Inferred (Interp): A subscale composed of 25 items
which referred to persons who were frequently not visible
to the subject or who provided few cues as to their emotions.
The subject had to infer the affect by reference to the sit-
uation presented or by the responses of other persons in
the film.

Observed (Observ): A subscale which referred to items
in which affect could be clearly observed. Involved 32
items.

Suspiciousness (Susp): An empirical index which counted
the number of incorrect item choices which implied suspic-
iousness on the part of the subject toward the person re-
ferred to in the item choice. It included a total of 31
possible choices which came from 30 items.

Discounting (Disct): An empirical index which recorded
the number of incorrect responses chosen by the subject which
implied that the person on film referred to was not capable of
dealing with their own feelings, nor capable of taking care
of themselves. A total of 48 choices were possible from 42
items.

Pollyanna (Poly): An empirical index which recorded
the number of incorrect choices chosen by the subject which

implied that the situation presented was more positive or

12

problem free than it actually was. Included only six item
choices.

Feeling Denial (Feeldn): An empirical index based on
incorrect item choices which denied the expressed feelings
of the person referred to by the item. Thirteen item
choices made up the index.

Feeling Awareness (Feelar): An empirical index which
was produced from correct item choices which indicated ack-
nowledgement of feeling self-awareness expressed by the per-
son referred to by the item. A total of 20 item choices
comprised this index.

A table of the items or item choices which made up the
empirical subscalescnrindicies can be found in Appendix C.

These nine empirical subscales or indicies are not con-
sidered as a formal part of the instrument and are not de-
scribed in the users manual, although they have been pro-

vided to the instrument's users in order to encourage

discussion. An example of the reporting format may be
found in Appendix I.

Not only was the new version of the Affective Sensitiv—
ity Scale (A.S.S.) different in both the film and written
portions, it was provided in two different forms, each of
63 items length and with similar but not identical film
portions. These were labeled as Form D and Form E. At
this time only the form D is in wide use with the latter
form awaiting validation of the former. The existence of

two forms of the scale potentialy permits using different

13

forms of the instrument for pre and post testing. A copy
of the multiple choice test manual for Form D can be found

in Appendix D.

Research Questions

 

As mentioned previously, for this instrument to be a
viable tool in research, it must be demonstrated as both
reliable and valid. In addition the nature of the instru-
ment itself needs to be better understood. For example, do
all the items included in the test discriminate positively
between high and low scores? The questions raised by the
authors when they proposed the subscale scoring need to be
considered, namely is affective sensitivity a unitary factor
or is it situation specific?

There are three general research questions to which
this study addressed itself. They are as follows:

1. Is the affective Sensitivity construct a simple
construct as is suggested by the single scale
scoring of the earlier forms or is it more situa-
tion specific as is suggested by the new versions
subscale scoring? ‘

2. Is the new A.S.S. a reliable measure of affective
sensitivity?

3. Is the new A.S.S. a valid measure of affective
sensitivity and if so, does it measure the same
behaviors as did the earlier scale?

This study will address these questions only to the newly

14

created Form D of the instrument.

Delimitations of this Study

This study is intended to be a preliminary investiga-
tion of the new version of the Affective Sensitivity Scale
(A.S.S.) Form D. This study will determine if the new in-
strument measures the same behaviors as the previous scale,
but if what it measures is different no steps will be taken
to determine what it measures, although possible explana-
tions will be offered.

While a number of the specific procedures employed in
this study will involve statistical inferences the focus
will be on meaningfulness, not simply significance. The
primary goal is to understand how well this instrument
operates as a measure of affective sensitivity and to gain
some insight into what the scores mean when considering the

potential of the instrument as a research tool.

General Outline of the Study

 

This study began by developing methods for computer
scoring of the instrument. Normative data was collected and
item analysis is employed to optomize the scoring procedures.
Once a scoring procedure is decided the study proceeds to
consider the three research questions, namely to investi-
gate the structure, validity, and reliabilty of the instru-
ment.

A review of the literature related to empathy and its

measurement appears in Chapter II. The experimental

15

methodology is presented in Chapter III along with a des-
cription of the populations used in the study, the experi-
mental design and methods of analysis, and a statement of
the specific research questions. Chapter IV contains the
results of the various analysis employed. Chapter V con-
tains a summary, conclusions, discussion, and suggestions

for future research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Empathy is frequently seen as a critical parameter in
a wide range of interpersonal processes, from psychotherapy
to marital harmony. This review will consider the liter-
ature on empathy from three perspectives: (l) the ways in
which it is defined, (2) the methodologies of measurement,
and (3) the research on the significance of empathy in in-
terpersonal situations.

Empathy can be conceptualized as the ability to place

 

oneself in the role of another person. It represents the

 

ability to comprehend events as another person sees them,

to appreciate them as though you were that person. While
this definition would appear to have general agreement among
most writers, there is not common agreement on what indicates
the presence of empathy in a person. Recent reviews on em-
pathy (Gladstein, 1977; Iannitti, 1975) have catagorized the
indicators of empathy as either cognitive, affective-cogni-
tive or affective. So either a person needs to have a cog-
nitive understanding of another to be empathic in some
definitions, cognitive understanding mediated by an affective
response in others, or simply an affective response to an-
other in still other definitions. In addition to these

16

l7

categorical definitions each type of definition has associ-
ated with it one or more operational definitions. These
latter definitions are dependent on some sort of instrument
or scale to provide a measurable quantity which is supposed
to be synonomous with the categorical definition.

This review will employ this three level approach in
presenting the various ways in which the term empathy is
employed. The operation definitions will be presented more

fully in the section on measurement.

Definitions of Empathy

Empathy as ngnition

Hogan (1975) suggests that an empathic person is one
who "is socially perceptive of a wide range of interpersonal
areas . . . (and) seems to be aware of the impression he
makes on others" (p. 15). Hence to be empathic is to know
the impact that one makes on others, to know how they are
likely to respond to you and to know what is their likely
reactions, opinions, feelings, etc. Other authors concurs
with this definition. Weinstein (1969) asserts that "the
individual must be able to take the role of the other ac-
curately; he must be able to correctly predict the impact
that various lines of action will have on other's definition
of the situation" (p. 757). Others (Aronfreed, 1969;
Burns and Cavey, 1959; Dymond, 1949; Feshback and Roe,'
1968; Shelton, 1949) support the notion that the abil-

ity to place oneself in the role

18

of another, is a central factor in being empathic; This
definition of empathy is easily operationalized and a num-
ber of instruments have been developed to measure empathy
defined in this manner (Dymond, 1949, 1950; Hogan, 1969;
Kerr, 1947).

A number of writers contend however that this defin-
ition is too limited. They maintain that the ability to
identify with others or the ability to accurately predict
the behavior of others does not entirely describe the pro-
cess. Feshback and Feshback (1969) point out that "social
insight or the ability to understand and predict another
person's feeling and behavior" is insufficient for acting
empathically. Feshback and Roe (1968) point out that "this
approach conceives of empathy as primarily a cognitive phen-
omenon and fails to consider the affective connotation of
empathy as a vicarious emotional response of a perceiver to
the emotional experience of a perdeived objectf'

According to Iannotti "individuals who are high in em-
pathy are those who frequently and appropriately respond to
the feelings of others." Hence a cognitive definition of
empathy limits the definition in such a way as not to distin-
guish those persons who have social insight but who fail to
respond_appropriately to others to indicate that they (1) un-
derstand and (2) are concerned about the feelings of others.
Shantz (1975) supports this notion by indicating that cogni-
tive understanding and affective responsiveness are not al-

ways found together.

l9

Empathy as Affect and Cognition

 

Certainly the most commonly employed definitions of
empathy used today are those in which both cognition and
affect play an integral role. The inclusion of both these
processes allows a distinction to be made between empathy
and other similar but not identical behaviors, such as iden-
tification, projection, and sympathy. There is, as Fash-
back (1975) points out a certain confusion as to the rela-
tionship between the affect and the cognition, for "it is
possible to conceptualize empathy as a cognitive product
mediated by emotional factors or as an affective response
mediated by cognitive processes" (p. 25). But while this
distinction may be important in some cases in instances it
is more useful to understand the process as an interaction
of cognition and affect. For example Carl Rogers, defines
empathy as:

The way of being with another person which is
termed empathic has several facets. It means enter-
ing the private perceptual world of the other and
becoming thoroughly at home in it. It involved being
sensitive, moment to moment, to the changing felt
meanings which flow in this other person, to the fear
or rage or tenderness or confusion or whatever, that
he/she is experiencing. It means temporarily living
in his/her life, moving about in it delicately without
making judgments, sensing meanings of which he/she is
scarcely aware, but not trying to uncover feelings of
which the person is totally unaware, since this would
be too threatening. It includes communicating your
sensings of his/her world as you look with fresh and
unfrightened eyes at elements of which the individual
is fearful. It means frequently checking with him/her
as to the accuracy of your sensings, and being guided
by the responses you receive. You are a confident com-
panion to the person in his/her inner world. By point-
ing to the possible meanings in the flow of his/her
experiencing you help the person to focus on this

20

useful type of referent, to experience the meanings

more fully, and to move forward in the experiencing.

To be with another in this way means that for the
time being you lay aside the views and values you hold
for yourself in order to enter another's world preju-
dice. In some sense it means that you lay aside your
self and this can only be done by a person who is
secure enough in himself that he knows he will not get
lost in what may turn out to be the strange or bizarre
world of the other, and can comfortably return to his.
own world when he wishes.

Perhaps this description makes clear that being
empathic is a complex, demanding, strong yet subtle
and gentle way of being.

Rogers (1975, p. 4)
While Rogers' definition is far from operational or testable
it indicates that being empathic is both a cognitive and
affective process in that it involves comprehending the
"meanings"<xfanother person while at the same time it in-
volves affect in terms of experiencing the world within
someone else. The cognitive and affective components are
never separate although a clear distinction is always main-
tained between whose feelings are being sensed. An impor-
tant component of empathy by this definition is communcia-
tion of what is being sensed, in an attempt both to obtain
further understanding and to indicate that this is a shared
experience and not simply an analysis.

Rogers refers to several authors who have attempted
operational definitions of empathy which help make the cogni-
tive-affective distinction more clear. For example the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Barrett-Lennard,

1962) operationalizes the definition in terms of item choices

which range from empathic to nonempathic. A rating of

21

empathic responsiveness is obtained by asking a client to
rate his therapist according to the following dimensions:
a) He appreciates what my experience feels like to mg.

b) He understands what I say from a detached, objec-
tive point of view.

c) He understands my words but not the way I feel.
Entailed in this definition is that the empathic lis-
tener both understands (cognition) while at the same time
he appreciates (affect) the feelings involved. An addition-

al operational definition can be found in the Accurate Em-

 

pathy Scale developed by Traax (1967). This scale has nine

 

levels which dichotomize between non-empathic and empathic
response behavior. A total lack of empathy would be repre-
sented by state one, where the:

Therapist seems completely unaware of even the

most conspicuous of the client's feelings. His re-
sponses are not appropriate to the mood and content

of the client's statements and there is no determinable
quality of empathy, hence, no accuracy whatsoever. The
therapist may be bored and disinterested or actively
offering advice but he is not communicating an awareness
of the client's current feelings.

The highest level of empathic understanding, stage nine,
would differ in the following ways:

Therapist unerringly responds to the client's full
range of feelings in their exact intensity. Without
hesitation, he recognizes each emotional nuance and
communicates an understanding of every deepest feeling.
He is completely attuned to the client's shifting emo-
tional content; he senses each of the client's feelings
and reflects them in his words and voice. He expands
the client's hint into a full-blown but tentative elab-
oration of feeling or experience with unerring sensi-
tive accuracy. Both a precision in understanding and
a precision in the communication of this understanding
are present. Both are expressed and experienced by the
therapist without hesitance. (p. 567)

22

Like Rogers, other authors have offered similar, although
different, categorical definitions of empathy. For example,
the developers of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
offer the following definition:

Qualitatively it (empathic understanding) is an active
process of desipingpto know the full present and chang—
ing awareness of another person, of reaching out to
receive his communication and meaning, and of trans-
lating his words and signs into experienced meaning
that matches at least those aspects of his awareness
that are most important to him at the moment. It is

an experiencing of the consciousness "behind" another's
outward communication, but with continuous awareness
that his consciousness is originating and proceeding

in the other (Barrett-Lennard, 1962).

 

 

 

 

In general it would appear that the relationship be-
tween cognition and affect entailedturthese definitions uses
affect primarily to modify cognition. One experiences the
' world of another person and feels what that person is likely
to feel. Yet at the same time the awareness is maintained
that these are the feelings appropriate to the other person
and not those of the listener. This distinguishes projection
or compassion from empathy, for in projection it is the list-
ener's own feelings that are attributed to others-~usually
with some lack of correspondence although in many familiar
situations these may be the same. The same would be true for
identification, although here the cognitive is stronger. If
one assumes that others will respond identically in similar
situations then it is possible to accurately identify feel-
ings—-provided, of course, that there are in fact no differ-
ences in the situations. This is especially noticeable in young

children in which "the likelihood of an empathic response

23

(cognitive and/or affective) increases as the similarity
between the child and who he is judging increases, and as
the familiarity of the others situation increases" (Shantz,
1975, p. 19). Several authors (Shantz, 1975; Chandler, 1972)
point out that seemingly appropriate response3rought not be
construed as empathy unless the child can also accurately
identify and respond to feelings in situations different
from those which are familiar.

Affective-cognitive definitions of empathy stress that
the feelings of another need to be sensed and appreciated
as belonging to the other person and that the response of
the listener needs to be affective. The listener need not
experience the identical feeling, although the significance
and meaning of these feelings ought to be appreciated. For
example, according to the Accurate Empathy Scale of Traux
an empathic response ought to convey not only the nature of
the emotion being shared but its intensity as well. The
listener's voice tone ought to reflect the intensity of the
emotion being responded to. Yet the listener need not be
experiencing the identical emotiOn as the other person, al-
though as previously stated, he needs to appreciate its

significance.

Empathy as Affect

 

At the other end of the continuum from cognitive defin-
itions of empathy are those which describe the process essen-

tially as affective. These definitions require a close

24

parallel between the emotion observed and the emotion felt
by the observer. So Stotland and Dunn (1963) suggest that
empathy is a "special case of identification in which the
identifier acquires the model's . . . emotion." This def-
inition is consistent with the psychoanalytical definitions
which view empathy as a natural result of identification.
Sullivan for example, describes empathy as akin to the
archaic communication that passes between a mother and young
child.

Empathy is the term that we use to refer to the
peculiar emotional linkeage that subtends the relation-
ship of the infant with other significant people--the
mother or the nurse. Long before there are signs of
any understanding of emotional expression, there is
evidence of this emotional contagion or communication...

We do not know much about the fate of empathy in
the developmental history of people in general (but)
there are (a) few unmistakable instances of its function
in most of us . . . in our later years.

(Sullivan, 1947, pages 8-9)
Again, Fenichel (1945) describes empathy as consisting of
two acts:

(a) an identification with the other person, and

(b) an awareness of one' s own feelings after the

identification, and in this way an awareness of
the object' 5 feeling (p. 511)

Empathy defined as an affective process implies that
empathic understanding is a "process which allows an obser-
ver to understand the affective state of another by means
of some subjective, inner awareness" (Chandler). Hence it
is understanding gained by a process other than cognition

which can be variously described as identification

(Stewart, 1954), or projection (Borke, 1972), or a

25

combination of these (Fromm-Reichman, 1950; Guiora, 1965;
Sullivan, 1947). In psychoanalytic terms this involves the
relaxing of the ego boundaries between the observer and the
observed. The primary response is affective with the ob-
server feeling in tune with the other person.

In summary, Empathy has been variously defined along
a continuum from representing a cognitive function to an
extreme of parallel affect.between two persons which (com-
pletely)lacks cognition. Since empathy is a construct which
has received considerable attention in the current psycho-
logical literature the presence of non-equivalent definitions
creates confusion. The fundamental question is what does
empathy represent and what distinguishes it from other psy-
chological processes. There appears to be general agreement
that it represents a way of responding to the feeling commun-
ication of others--but the universality of definition is lim-
ited to that. For some authors a response which is nothing
more than a cognitive awareness is synonomous with empathy,
for others awareness along with an affective response, and
for still others the experience of an emotional state which
parallels the feelings of another.

Some authors (Chandler, 1972; Hogan, 1975) point out
it may be either. It would appear that empathy as most
authors use it is a mixture of cognition and affective re-
sponses, that it represents not a single process but rather
a number of behaviors which include cognition, identification,

affective responsiveness as well as congruency in affect

26

plus facility with language. To be empathic in the ways
that most authors suggest, is to be able to accurately
identify the feelings of others, to have an affective aware-
ness of the feelings that others are experiencing and to
appreciate the range of meaning that these feelings might
have, to be Open to new meanings for feelings when they
differ with those in one's own past experiences, and to be
able to communicate in both words and in affect the under-
standing and possibly the impact of what another has said.

If empathy represents only one of the several behaviors
mentioned previously then there are other words already in
existence that adequately describes the process and the word
empathy may be dispersed with. Yet the concept of empathy
seems to be a unique concept that has been traced back as
far as the early Greeks (Astin, 1967) which suggests that
it represents a notion which may be similar to other pro-
cesses such as identification, role-playing ability, etc.,
but which is a more global concept. If this be the case then
it may be that the concept of empathy is fairly complex, that
it does not represent a single behavior but rather reflects
an outcome of a number of processes, an outcome which is
called empathy.

Some authors make the distinction, which is important
from a meaSurement perspective, between empathy as a process
of perceiVing and empathy as a process of responding. So
empathy Which involves an understanding and appreciation of

the feelings of others is called empathic sensitivity while

 

27

empathy demonstrated in the form of a response to another

person is called empathic communication. It is conceive-

 

able that a person may feel empathically toward another
person in the sense that he cognitively and affectively un-
derstands but that he chooses not to respond, or is incap-
able of responding in an empathic manner. Bachrach (1976)
points out that "Empathy provides information about the pa-
tients' inner experience. What the therapist does with it,
whether he simply listens more, reflects the feeling, con-
fronts, or interprets is a strategic therapeutic decision."
Mood (1974) noted that while children may correctly identify
how another child feels there is a tendency for the child
not to communicate a similar feeling.

The final part of the problem is one of measurement.
How do we know that someone has been empathic; what are the
operational definitions which permit measurement of this
behavior? The next section of this review will concern it-
self with the instruments that have been developed to measure
empathy. Special empahsis will be placed on the relation-
ship between the operational definitions suggested by these
instruments and the categorical definitions commonly accept-

ed.

The Measurement of Empathy

 

Despite the fact that empathy has not been consistently
defined nor operationalized, a number of instruments have

been created to measure it. These instruments, like the

28

definitions of empathy itself, vary widely both in method-
ology and in what they actually measure.

Instruments are usually divided into two types (Astin,
1957), predictive and situational. Predictive instruments
determine the degree which a subject is able to predict the
self-ratings or preferences of either other individuals or
groups. Situational measures assess variously the ability
to identify either another's affect, the similarity of feel-
ing of subject and object, or the apprOpriateness of a help-
ing response which reflects understanding. In addition
there are instruments which depend either on self-descrip-
tion or which objectively measure qualities which are re-
lated to empathy. I

Most instruments, intended for the measurement of em—
pathy, provide some sort of stimulus which provides the
basis for the subject's response, which in turn is trans-
formed into some sort of score. The stimulus range from
pictures and photographs and transcripts of conversations
to employing on-going experiences out of the subject's own
life situation. The response to the stimuli are obtained
variously as multiple choice test questions, sentence come
pletion or descriptive essays, written or verbalized response
statements and verbatum transcripts or recordings of actual
response statements. The responses are then analyzed by
either comparison to some external referent or by the appli-

cation of some form of a rating scale.

29

Predictive Measures of Empathy

 

Representative of this type of measurement is the tech-
nique developed by Dymond (1949). It requires that the sub-
ject be part of an existent group or that an experience be
shared with the group such that the subject has some know-
ledge about the others. The subject as well as the other
members of the group then rates himself and others in the
group according to some predescribed dimensions. Then the
subject rates others as he believes they would rate them-
selves, as well as he thinks they would rate him.

Scores are created by first combining the subject's
rating of himself and his perceptions of how others rated
him. This is done for the subject as well as all the other
individuals in the group. The scores from the subject and
the average combined scores of the group for that subject
are then compared. If the combined rating of the subject
and the ratings from the others compare closely then this
represents a high degree of predictive empathy.

In practice the method is as follows: two subjects
A and B each rate themselves (a) and then each other (b).
Each then rates the other as he thinks the other would theme
selves (c) and then each rates themselves as they think the
other would do (d).

For each individual his (a) and (d) scores are com-
bined as are the other's ratings about him (i.e. (b) and
(c)). These combined scores are compared such that the

closeness of these scores is taken to be a reflection of

30

the degree to which the person is empathic. This method
of comparison did not yield satisfactory discrimination, so
others have attempted more refined procedures (Hastorf and
Bender, 1952; Bender and Hastorf, 1953) which attempted to
take into account the similarities of self-description of
the two individuals. Using this method of scoring the ac-
curacy with which the subject identified dissimilarities
was used as a corrective to the original set of scores.

The measure of empathy provided by the scale would be

of cognitive empathy since it says nothing about the af-

 

fective experience of either of the subjects. This is
especially interesting since Dymond herself (1950) defined
empathy as "the imaginative transposing of one's self into
the thinking, feeling and acting of another" (p. 343). In
addition, it does not adequately distinguish empathy from
either projection of identification, nor does it include any
notion of the self-other distinction. Dymond's procedures
have been employed by other researchers (Bender and Hastorf,
1950, 1953; Cowden, 1955; Hawkes and Egbert, 1954; Halpern,
1955; Weiss, 1963; Lindgren and Robinson, 1953). Test-
retest reliability of 0.60 was reported by Dymond (1949)

and she suggested that some validity was provided by her
analysis of TAT profiles that she had obtained from subjects.
Lindgren and Robinson (1953) reported a split-half relia-
bility of 0.69.

A second measure of predictive empathy is The Empathy

 

Test developed by Kerr and Speroff (1954). The authors

31

defined empathy as "the ability to put yourself in the other
person's position, establish rapport, anticipate his feel-
ings, reactions, and behavior" (Kerr and Speroff, 1955).

The instrument required subjects to (1) rank the likely pop-
ularity of five types of music for various occupational
workers, (2) rank the circulation value of a set of period-
icals, and (3) to rank the annoyance value of different be-
haviors, such as seeing a person's nose run.

Despite the large difference between the categorical
and operational definition of empathy employed by the au-
thors the test has been successfully used. It was related
to union business agents and their leadership rank (Van
Zeist, 1952) and between automobile salesman and the sales
success (Tobolski and Kerr, 1952). A split-half reliabil-
ity of 0.87 was found (Van Zeist, 1952) and some construct
validity was reported by Speroff (1953) and later Jarrard
(1956).

Several other attempts at creating predictive empathy
measures have also been made. Maloney (1960) developed the

Literature Test of Empathy, a pencil and paper instrument

 

which required answering questions about personalities pre-

sented in short literature selections. The Empathy Inven-

 

tpgy was developed by Brunclik, Thurston, and Feldhusen (1967) .
The instrument, intended for nursing instructors, asked sub-
jects to pick responses to questions as they thought other
persons in their profession would be likely to choose.

Both measures lacked validity studies although split-half

32

and test-retest reliability was reported for the former.

In general the response of most reviewers to predic-
tive tests of empathy has been overwhelmingly negative.
Dymond's methodology has been criticised by many authors on
the grounds that it is confounded by projection and identi-
fication (Bender, 1959; Dowden, 1955). Lindgren and Robin-
son (1953) suggest that the instrument is more likely a
measure of the subject's ability to respond to cultural
norms; as such it is a measure of conformity.

The response to Kerr and Speroff's The Empathy Test

 

(TET) has been likewise negative. Bell and Stopler (1956)
investigating both the TET and Dymond's Empathy measure
found no correlation between the scores of these measures

nor between the TET and the Sensitivity to Other Persons

 

Test scores. A similar lack of correlation was found be-
tweenwthe TET and the Edward's Personal Preference Scale
(affiliation, intraception, and nurturance), nor the MMPI K
scale. In a review of the Empathy Test by Hall (Buros,
1965, p. 205) the following conclusion was rendered:

In view of these negative features and the implication

that the test is more a measure of general information

and prediction of opinions than of interpersonal em-

pathy, there appears little to recommend this test for

the purpose stated by the authors.

In summary, none of the predictive empathy tests find
much support in the literature. The "specific other" type
of instrument of Dymond is faulted because of its high

degree of confounding with identification and projection

as well as its failure to adequately measure what it purports

33

to measure. Similarly, the instruments which utilize the
"generalized other" predictive approach have been criticized
for being measures of social information and likewise are
confounded with projection (Cowden, 1955; Murstein, 1957).
In addition the categorical definitions of empathy proposed
by the authors and the operational definitions suggested

that the instruments themselves are disparate.

Situational Measures of Empathy

 

In general the situational measures of empathy offer
the advantages of having a closer correspondence to cate-
gorical definitions of empathy than do the predictive mea-
sures. The advantage results from the fact that the subject
is asked to respond directly to some specific stimulus, and
to respond by either identifying the emotions or feelings
involved or by choosing or phrasing an appropriate response
to the situation. The instruments differ from one another
by the nature of the stimulus provided and the nature of the
response expected. So the stimulus is likely to range from
pictures, written statements, audio recordings, video re-
cordings, to live situations. The response modes vary be-
tween asking the subject to choose between various feeling
labels or between possible response alternatives or to gen-
erate their own labels or response statements. There would
appear to be certain advantages to instruments which more
nearly match the circumstances in which empathy is likely

to be displayed. Such instruments are those which more

34

nearly approximate the actual life situation in both stim-
ulus and response. The disadvantage however, is that the
more the instrument makes the approximation, the more costly
and time consuming it is to administer as well as to score.

For the sake of this review the situational measures of
empathy will be grouped according to the type of stimulus
they provide. It needs to be recognized however that this
choice may sometimes be arbitrary and that some instruments
may demonstrate more similarity across categories than with-
in.

Instruments Which Emplqerhotographs and
Pictures as Stimulus

 

 

The simplest of the situational empathy measures were
those that employed pictures or photographs (Burke, 1971;
Deutsch, 1975; Gates, 1923; Gorden, 1939; Feshback and Roe,
1968; Paetyka, 1974; Walton, 1936). These instruments were
generally intended for use with children and usually asks
the child to describe the feeling that they associated with
a drawing or picture of a face or situation. The definition
of empathy employed was frequently affective, for with child-
ren empathy Was often defined as the ability to feel feelings
that they witness in others (Feshback, 1975). The correct
answers were usually referencial againSt adult norms.

A representative example of such an instrument was the

Affectiye Situation Test developed by Feshback and Roe (1965).

 

It involved a sequence of slides which depicted a boy or

girl in different affective situations. Usually equal

35

numbers of happy events were paired with equally unhappy
events. Immediately following each slide sequence the child
is asked simply to state how he or she felt. In order for
empathy to be scored, the affect reflected in the response
has to be a specific match with the affective situation ob-
served (Feshback, 1975, p. 26). Considerable research has
been carried out (op.cit.) in order to identify whether it
was empathy that these measures assayed or more likely iden-
tification or projection. The question is particularly rel-
evant since Piaget postulated that genuine empathy was not
possible in children prior to the age of seven. With regard
to children, at least, the question may be less meaningful
according to Berke (1972) "the use of projection, identifi—
cation, and stereotyping in no way negates the conclusion
that young children realize other people have thoughts and
feelings which are different from their own" (p. 106).

In any event the use of pictures as a stimulus to mea-
sure empathy has been essentially limited to children and
with some success, while the use of these procedures for
adults is likely to introduce the same problems as encoun-
tered by the predictive instruments, namely problems dealing
with projection and identification, as well as cultural

stereotyping through pictures.

Measures Which Employ_Written Client Statements

 

One of the earliest attempts to devise an instrument

for the measurement of empathic response mode was developed

36

by Porter. The instrument, later called the Helpinngela—

 

tionship Inventory(Pfeiffer and Jones, 1973) was one of a

 

series of tests developed to permit therapists to investigate
their own therapy styles. The instrument included 25 short
(one paragraph) problem statements as might be given by

a potential client. Five written response alternatives

were offered, among which the therapist was to pick their
preferred mode. These modes included one which was de-
scribed as understanding (and which would today be referred
to as 'empathic') with the remaining responses being labeled
as either probing, interpretative, supportive or evaluative.
It provided the subject with a rank ordering of their pre-
ferred response mode. No correct answers were assumed al-
though Jones (1964) provided profiles which compared various
professional groups. As such it does not measure the degree
of empathy that the subject is capable of displaying but
rather whether the therapist is likely to prefer an empathic
response over some other type of response. (This instru-
ment was influenced by the then pioneering work of Carl
Rogers).

O'Hern (1962) developed a similar test that assumed.
empathy to be "operationally defined . . . as the ability to
choose a counselor response which was most sensitive to the
feelings and concerns of a client" (Hurst, 1973, p. 92). It
employed a series of transcripts of actual client statements
and a set of alternative responses which differed in the

accuracy with (established by agreement among clinicians)

37

which they responded to the clients' feelings. However, the
test failed to show any relationship to clinical supervisor
rating of subjects on sensitivity, affective evaluation or
insecurity.

A similar instrument to that developed by O'Hearn was
later produced by Carkhuff (1969) which has been referred

to as the Counselinngimulation Inventory or CSI (Colling-

 

wood, Hefele, Muehlberg, and Drasgow, 1970). It included
sixteen transcribed client statements and four alternative
counselor responses for each statement. The instrument was
scored in two ways. In one method by a rating (similar to
Porter's) which provided comparison between the ranking of
the subject and those of experts. The dimension considered
was the degree to which the responses was facilitative. The
second procedure involved the subject picking their pre-
ferred response which resulted in a single score taken to
be an index which reflected his degree of empathy, respect,
and genuineness.

Carkhuff (1969) refers to numerous unpublished studies
which provided concurrent and predictive validity to the
instrument and reported the Test-retest reliability as 0.80
to 0.90. A modified version of this instrument was devel-
oped by Sydnor, Abridge, and Parkhill (1973), which they
report provides scores which are highly correlated with sit-
uational empathy and other helping skills.

The real advantages of these instruments is that since

they are totally paper and pencil they are readily

38

administered and easily scored. They are not widely used
however, which is likely due to a lack of construct valid-
ity, the ease with which the appropriate response is coach-
able, and the fact that the answers for these particular in-
struments are published in the open literature. In addition
they lack the advantages which are provided by instruments
which include nonverbal communication as part of the stim-

ulus.

Measures Which Emplqyed Audio Recordings as Stimuli

 

A series of situational tests for empathy have been
developed which employed recordings of either role played
or live situations as a stimulus for measurement. One of the
earliest instruments was developed by Reid and Saydos (1947)
in which actual counseling sessions were phonographically
recorded. A series of excerpts were played to a group of
student counselors who were asked to identify the feelings
communicated in the recordings. The modal feelings were
taken as the correct feeling although there was usually
only about 50% agreement. A comparison was made between a
ranking of the counselors provided by their practicum pro-
fessor and the frequency of modal choices made by each coun-
selor, yielding a correlation of 0.70. Use of a typescript
instead of audio recordings yielded a correlation of only
0.49.

Astin (1957) develOped a similar instrument using a

series of recorded affective statements produced by a

39

professional actor. The ten statements were taken from
transcripts of actual therapy sessions, although the actor
was permitted to use his own judgment concerning the feel-
ings he expressed. The statements were selected "because
they verbalized feeling experiences, and because they had
elicited alike responses by a criterion committee of expert
counselors" (p. 53). Subjects were asked to listen to the
recording and then to respond as if it had been an actual
counseling session. The responses were recorded and pre-
sented to a panel of experienced psychologists who ranked
the subjects dependent on the degree of empathy expressed.
Astin had defined empathy as "the extent to which the re-
sponse communicates an understanding of the essential feel-
ing and content expressed in the client's statement" (p.
58). The author reported the interjudge reliability as
0.82, and that the instrument distinguished between coun-
selors and noncounselors. In addition, the instrument dis-
criminated better among the non-counselors than among the
counselors, a situation which she attributes to the consis-
tent training among counselors.

A more recent attempt at such an instrument was made
by O'Hern and Arbuckle (1964) in which professional actors
role played some thirty different client problems. Again
the problems were chosen to have affective content and which
"could be of a threatening nature to the counselor, such as
areas concerning death, interpersonal relationships, re-

ligion, and sex" (p. 572). Thirteen subjects were asked to

40

make a response (which was recorded) to each of the recor-
ded segments. The original segments and the responses of
each of the 13 individuals were spliced together. The tape
was circulated among a group of professional counselors
who rated the responses on their degree of sensitivity em-
ploying a four point scale. Sensitivity was defined as "the
capacity to perceive or the awareness of what is happening
in the treatment process from the verbal statements and the
verbal behavior of the client. The counselor understands
quickly and accurately the emotional basis, the moods, and
the conflicts that underlie the client problem" (p. 573).
The judgments of the expert panel indicated that 94 of
the original 294 responses were significantly differentiat-
ing. The remaining items and the original client problems
were combined into an instrument referred to as the Sepgi—

tivity Scale. This instrument was administered, along with

 

the Concept Mastery Test and the Security-Insecurity Inven-
tory to over 200 subjects enrolled in a Summer Guidance &
Counseling Institute. The teSt indicated no significant
correlation between the instrument and the variables of age,
sex, education, occupation, years in occupation, personal
security, intelligence, or undergraduate grade point. The
authors did, however, believe that the instrument provided
"some predictive value in that potential counselors who were
judged most effectiVe in counseling practice scored signifi-
cantly higher in the Scale than those judged least effective"
(p. 575).

41

Chournos (1970) developed an instrument which had sub-
jects responding to a seventeen minute audio recording of a
counseling session. The response was in the form of answers
to open ended questions about the nature of the problem,
the relationship involved and their prediction of the out-
come. These responses were compared to the responses of
experienced clinicians and a discrepancy score computed.
The results, however, showed no correlation between super-
visor evaluations of the subjects and their discrepancy
scores. Hurst (1973) points out that this is reasonable
considering the predictive aspect of the measure, although
the situational portion of the instrument appeared to have
failed also.

A more recent measure which employs audio stimulus is

the Human Empathic Listeninngest (HELT) developed by Gray,

 

Nida, and Coonfield (1976). The author employed Guiora's
(1965) definition of empathy as the constructs behind the
test. Empathy here was defined as "an immediate emotional
apprehension of the affective experience of another, this
being used by the cognitive function to gain understanding
of the other" (p. 780). Twelve recorded vignettes selected
to represent situations encountered in telephone—base crisis
'intervention work were recorded "using trained readers act-
ing as callers" (Gray, et a1., p. 201). Each vignette

was followed by five items asking how the subject Would
respond to the situation. Of the 60 text items 32 were

multiple choice representing the "Understanding" dimension,

42

12 items measured ”interest" and 16 items measuring "response
ability." Validation studies were conducted by employing the
"known groups" method (Scott, 1968) using criterion groups

of undergraduates, graduate counseling students and telephone
crisis workers. The instrument could distinguish signifi-
cantly between the undergraduates and the other populations
but not between the graduate counseling students and the tel—
ephone crisis workers. Chronback's alpha for the instrument
was reported as between 0.82 and 0.88 for the population on
the Understanding subscale and 0.40 to 0.66 for the Response-
Ability subscale.

Other researchers have constructed similar instruments,
(Selfridge, et a1., 1972) either using a multiple choice
response format for computing discripancy scores or by rating
written responses employing a rating scale like the Accurate

Empathy Scale of Traux.

Measures Which Employ Video Media

 

According to Campbell (1967) "with the presence and
increased use of film and television videotape, the possi-
bility of constructing a measuring instrument which makes
use of total stimuli presented in actual counseling situa-
tiOns has become more feasable." The use of visual as well
as audio stimuli then offers the possibility of Constructing
a meaSure which is more "true-to-life” in the assessment of
a subjeCt's empathic abilities.

A three part situation test of empathy was developed

43

by Buchheimer, Goodman, and Sircus (1965) which employed
motion picture film. The first part (Silent Set) of the
test contained sequences from actual therapy sessions with
the sound deleted. Subjects were to respond by writing what
they believed was occuring during the session. Part Two
(Free Response) was similar to part one but only the ther-
apiSt statements had been eliminated from the sound track.
In this instance the subjects were to watch the sequence and
then respond into a tape recorder as if they were the actual
counselor. The third part (Structured Response) was a re-
peat of part two except in this instance the subjects were
to respond by choosing one of a set of five responses for
each of the statements that the client made.

The first two parts of the instrument were rated by a
group of judges employing a specially designed rating scale.
The third part was rated on a 1 to 5 scale where a one re-
sponse was least empathic and a 5 response most empathic.
Differential success was experienced with the three parts of
the test. Part one was clearly an indication of the sub-
ject's ability to decode nonverbal behavior while part two
measured the response ability of the subject along with the
ability to accurately identify the feelings involved in the
situation. The author's noted however difficulty in maintain-
ing consistency with the rating of these two parts. It re-
quired, especially for the second part, a great deal of
equipment in proper working order, and necessitated that the

judges be apprOpriately trained to maintain consistent

44

ratings.

All parts of the measure indicated that subjects with
counseling experience scored significantly higher than with
inexperienced individuals. Parts two and three, interest-
ingly enough, were significantly correlated. Part three was
correlated 0.58 with empathy ratings for 24 subjects. The
most usable part of the instrument was then part three which
required the selection of the appropriate counselor response
from among five alternatives.

An instrument similar to part three of Buchheimer's et
a1. measure was developed by Rank (1966). This was a motion-
picture situational empathy test which employed short seg-
ments of counseling sessions. A series of statements (15
to 20) about the segment were presented to the subjects who
were instructed to respond by indicating their degree of
agreement on a five point scale ("strongly agree" to "strong-

ly disagree"). The test, called The Film Test of Counselor.

 

Perception (FTCP), was devised to measure changes in the per-

 

ceptions of counselor trainees during their practicum, and
to determine the relationship between the trainees' percep-
tions and their effectiveness as counselors. The scoring
procedure employed was complex with each item weighted for
both pre and post testing. The weighting was based upon the
number of those in the criterion group, the individuals
judged counseling effectiveness, and within-category vari-
ence associated with their effectiveness.

The FTCP was successful in discriminating the subjects

45

rated lowest in counseling competence although the correla-
tion with final staff rankings of subjects was 0.41 and no
correlation was found with the Guidance Comprehensive Exam-
ination nor the Miller Analogies Test.

Kagan and Krathwohl ,and Farquhar (1964) devised a mea-
sure which employed filmed excerpts of actual counseling in-
terviews to which subjects were asked ”to feel whatever the
client felt at the end of the interview and to indicate,
using a list of adjectives, to what extent each adjective
described the feeling" (Cambell, Kagan, and Krathwohl, 1971,
p. 407). The value of the scale was dubious, however, as it
was unable to differentiate between persons judged both high
and low in empathy (Chapman, 1966). This failure was attri-
buted to the poor technical quality of the film employed,
that the meanings of the adjectives employed were not uni-
formly agreed upon by subjects, and the uncertainty of the
actual scoring.

Subsequently another instrument, The Affective Sensi-

 

tivity Scale (Kagan, Krathwohl, et a1. 1967) was developed.

 

This test was designed to measure what the authors describe
as a component of empathy, affective sensitivity, defined as
"the ability to detect and describe the immediate affective
state of another" (p. 463). The concept has been described
elsewhere as either cognitive empathy or empathic sensitiv-
ity. This instrument (Form B) was comprised of 41 video
taped segments of counseling sessions, in a sequence of

eleven different clients. A total of 89 multiple choice

46

responses were required, each response having three choices.
The subject was requested to pick the choice which most ac-
‘curately reflected the feelings of the client at the end of
the scene. A typical set of responses are as follows:

1) Say, this all right. I like this.

2) I'm not feeling anything deeply. I know what I
need.

3) It's embarrassing and difficult. I feel a little
annoyed.

The results of a test-retest reliability study over a
one week period was 0.75 and the results of the Kuder-
Richardson Formula 20 split-half reliability was 0.74. A
number of studies of concurrent and predictive validity have
been carried out (Kagan, et a1., 1967)._ One Concurrent val-
idity study determined the correlation between a therapist's
ranking of group members sensitivity to feelings and their
scale scores. This correlation ranged from 0.35 to 0.64 for
three separate groups (average rho was 0.53). A second
study yielded a correlation of 0.32 and 0.28 for supervisors
rankings of doctoral practicum students sensitivity and the
students scale scores. Construct validity was suggested by
noting the gain in scale scores as a consequence of a coun-
selor education program. The authors suggest that there is
evidence of predictive validity although it was not yet
established (Resnikoff, 1972).

An abbreviated version of the scale (Form C) has been
produced which has fewer video sequences and only 63 item

choices.

47

Measures that Employ Live Situations for
the Measurement of Empathy

 

 

In theory the most valid test for empathy would employ
events in the normal life of the subject. This would pro-
vide the necessary realism to determine under actual cir-
cumstances how the subject behaves. In theory this is met
by the rating approach which consists of employing trained
judges who apply defined criteria to observed interactions
between persons. While other authors had employed a simple
rating approach (Astin, 1957; Buchheimer, 1961; Bachrach,
1968) the first systematic attempt was by Traux (1961).

His measurement scheme, the Scale for the Measurement of

 

Empathic Understanding, commonly known as the Accurate Em-

 

pathy Scale (EA) was an attempt to operationalize Rogers'
(1951, 1961) definition of empathy as an interpersonal pro-
cess.

In practice this method required that raters be provided
with a audio or video recording of some dyatic interpersonal
situation. The scale itself consisted of a set of opera-
tion definitions which corresponded to various levels of em-
pathic understanding. It provides for nine levels with the
first level indicative of a complete lack of awareness of
the others' feelings while the last level, the ninth, the
highest level, implies that the subject has understood even
the innermost thoughts of the other and that he possesses
the sensitivity run: to push the other beyond What he can

comprehend. In practice it is the response of the subject

48

that is rated, hence a lack of responsiveness is taken to be
a lack of empathy. If the interaction is lengthy each inter-
change is rated separately and the final score taken as the
average of all of them.

A second rating scale for the measurement of empathy
was developed by Carkhuff (1969). The scale, known as the

Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Understanding (EU) is

 

essentially identical in method to Traux's scale and differs
only slightly as to the operational definition of the levels,
of which there are five instead of nine. As with the Traux
scale subjects are not said to be empathic (a trait) but
rather to demonstrate empathic responsiveness in interper-
sonal situations.

The studies that support the use of these scales are
quite extensive as are the articles which question their
very foundations. In general the similarity of the scales
are such that research that support one is equally applic- ‘
able to the other--the same is true for criticism. Both
authors have accumulated considerable support for the pre-
dictive validity of these scales. Traux and Mitchell (1971)
summarized the results of fourteen studies involving over
1000 clients from a wide range of situations. They report
that out of 80 outcome measures twenty-nine supported the
predictive validity of the AE ratings and were statistically
significant. An additional twenty-nine studies were not
supportive, although none of these were statistically sig-

nificant. Carkhuff (1969, 1972) has likewise summarized

49

the support provided by a number of additional studies.
Other authors (Bachrack, Mintz, Luborsky, 1971; Hefele and
Hurst, 1972; Beutler,Johnson, Neville, Jr. and Workman,
1973) have also supported the validity of this scale.
Some very serious criticism of these scales has arisen
in the last few years, however. Chinsky and Rappaport (1970)
argue that since the scale only rates the therapiSt's re-
sponse (AE) that this is inconsistent with the definition
of empathy employed. Moreover, the ratings of tapes with
the client responses deleted had the same ratings as with
the client responses present. In another paper Rappaport
and Chinsky (1972) suggest that what the scale measures is
rather a more global "good" therapist quality. Chandler
supports this view, stating that,
Within the limits of this study, it was concluded that
Accurate Empathy is a reliable operationalization of
a group of variables which are associated, in the minds
of both naive and experienced raters with 'good ther-.
apitst.‘ The primary component of the group is per-
ceived accuracy of understanding. However, the inter-
relationship of all these variables with Accurate
Empathy raises questions about the usefulness of the
scale in training therapists and as heruistic substi-
tute for an outcome criterion in research or psycho-
therapeutic process. (1970)
A factor analysis by Machlberg, Pierce, and Drasgow (1969)
on empathy, respect, genuiness, and concreteness yielded a
single factor which accounted for practically all of the
therapeutic effect. The existence of a single factor which
underlies all four of these constructs suggests they are

measuring the same thing. It could well represent the

"good" therapist quality suggested by Rapaport and Chinsky

50

(1972). A similar study (McNally and Drummond, 1974)

factor analyzed EU, Genuiness, and respect and found that
empathy and Genuiness had loadings of 0.88 on the first
factor. A number of other authors (Chinsky and Rappaport,
1970; Avery and Danish, 1976; Blass and Heck, 1975) have

all questioned what it is that the scales measure and strong-
ly suggest that it may be something other than empathy.

An interesting criticism, suggested by Bachrach (1976)
suggests that empathy is really an intrapsychic process
while the operational definition provided by Traux has shift-
ed the definition from a way of perceiving to a way of com-
municating. He suggests that "since the finding that it is
possible to evaluate empathy devoid of anything the patient
says was based on this reconceptualization of the meaning of
empathy, one might wonder whether or not it was the verbal
facility rather than a clinical conception of empathy that
was being measured" (p. 37).

In summary then, the rating approach seems to offer
many advantages as a measure of empathy. Of all the instru-
ments mentioned there exists a large body of validating evi-
dence and predictive validity seems especially well estab-
lished. The primary, and most significant defect is in the
construct validity since many researchers question what ex-
actly is being measured and whether what is rated is empathy.
The mechanics of the method are difficult, time consuming
and costly. The system is not adapted for measuring the

empathy of a large number of subjects quickly and

51

economically. Finally Avery and Danish (1976) point out
that raters trained by different researchers may not be in

agreement in the definitions of the various levels.

Other Measures of Empathy

 

Another approach to the measurement of empathy, es-
pecially the empathic ability of counselors is the perceived
empathy approach (Kurtz, 1970). This method uses the client
as the rating agent. This is accomplished by asking the
client to rate his therapist following a session by means of
either an interview, a Q-sort technique, or more likely, a
questionnaire.

The method has been employed by Barrett-Lennard who
developed the Relationship Inventory (1962). By asking the
client to respond to questions such as "he tries to see
things through my eyes" or "he always knows exactly what I
mean" an empathy index is developed for the counselor. The
definition of empathy employed was derived from the work
of Carl Rogers. The author reports a split-half reliabil-
ity of between 0.82 and 0.96 and that the amount of empathy
the client experienced was positively correlated to outcome.

While this instrument would appear to have some advant-
ages, especially in its simplicity and economy of administra-
tion, other studies question its validity. Several studies
(Burnstein and Carkhuff, 1968; Hansen, Moore, and Carkhuff,
1968; Traux, 1966) found client perceived empathy and the

empathy ratings by trained judges as unrelated. Rogers, et

52

a1. (1967) similarly found a low correlation between client's
rating of therapists empathy and the therapists' perception
of their own empathy, although he noted that therapists'
perception were less likely to correlate with therapy out-
come than were either the clients or the ratings of trained
judges. Caracina and Vicory (1969) suggest that the client
ratings are more a reflection of the broader client-thera-
pist relationship than simply empathy. The inter-relation-
ship between empathy and genuiness has already been noted
earlier (McNally and Drummond, 1974). Kurtz (1970) noted
that there was a strong postive correlation between client
perceptions of counselor empathy (or measured by the Rela-
tionship Inventory) and the client's positive affect toward
the counselor.
A different kind of perceived empathy measure is Egg:
an's Empathy Test (Hogan, 1969). This instrument employed a
cognitive definition of empathy:
Empathy means the intellectual or imaginative appre-
hension of another's condition or state of mind without
actually experiencing that person's feelings. Although
this definition implies a task, it says nothing of ac-
curacy . . . (which) is not a neCessary part of the
concepts meaning (p. 300).
Hogan's Empathy Test (HET) is cOmprised of 64 items Of which
39 items are found in the CPI, which results in the subject
producing a consensual self-description. The Kuder-Richard-
son Formula 21 reliability was reported as 0.71 and test-

retest reliability over a two-month period as 0.84. The

author notes that "this emperically-keyed empathy scale has

53

been extenSively validated since 1966. It routinely yields
correlations above 0.4 with rated empathy, rated social
acuity, and skill at playing charades” (Hogan, 1975, p. 15).
The value of this instrument as a test of empathy may
be questioned both on the grounds of the categorical defin-
itions used and the operational definition which resulted.
Given the outcome of previous studies on self rated empathy
(see the prior discussion of the Bennett-Leonard Relation-
ship Inventory) there is strong indication that this bears
little relationship to the empathy perceived by others. In
addition the idea of empathy without accuracy seems to sug-
gest a new concept, but not one accepted by other authors
as empathy. Wellston and Weitz (1975) found no correlation
between the self-description provided by the HET and the
subjects performance as measured by a behavioral rating
scale (Selfridge, 1972). They conclude that "How a person
views and/or projects himself on a self-report scale bears
only slight resemblance to how he performs on a behavioral

test of the same dimension." (p. 569)

Empathy in the Psychological Literature

 

The significance of empathy in the psychological lit-
erature is demonstrated by the large number of articles con-
cerning the role of empathy that have appeared in the last few
years and the numerous Ph.D. thesis have been published with
empathy as one of the primary variables in this study. This

interest in empathy seems to stem largely from the conclusion

54

reached by early advocates (Traux, 1971) that empathy is the
essential core dimension in helping. This position has been
supported by numerous other authors (Aspy, 1972, 1975; Aspy
and Roebuck, 1975 ; Barrett-Lennard, 1962; Bergin and Jasper,
1969; Bergin and Strupp, 1972; Halhedes, 1958; Mullen
and Sales, 1971, Rogers, 1967, 1975; Tausch; Bastine, Ben-
net, Musil and Wiebel, 1972; Tausch, et a1., 1970; Truax,
1966).

Rogers in his review of the literature on Empathy in-
dicates that the following conclusions regarding the nature
of empathy in the therapeutic process:

1. The Ideal Therapist is first of all empathic.

2. Empathy is correlated with self exploration.

3. Empathy early in the relationship predicts later
success.

4. Understanding is provided by the therapist, not
drawn from him.

5. The more Experienced the therapist, the more likely
he is to be empathic.

6. Empathy is a special quality in a relationship,
and therapists offer definitely more of it than
even helpful friends.

7. The better integrated the therapist is within him-
self, the higher the degree of empathy he exhibits.

8. Experienced therapists often fall far short of
being empathic.

9. Brilliance and diagnostic perceptiveness are un-
related to empathy.

10. An empathic way of being can be learned from em-
pathic persons.
11. Empathy is clearly related to positive outcome.
(Rogers, 1975, p. 5-6)

Rogers' conclusion is that empathy plays a major role in
psychotherapy, as well as in many interpersonal situations,
from early childhood develOpment to teaching, and that it
is highly correlated with positive outcome in these situa—

tions. The role of empathy in teaching has been investigated

55

by Aspy (1972, 1975) who notes that while the existence of
empathy greatly facilitates learning a survey of over 10,000
classroom teachers indicated that the empathy skills of a
teacher are correlated with academic success (Sapolsky,
1960; weiss, Krasner, and Ulman, 1960; Chambers, 1957;

Dixon and Morse, 1961) and that the students of these teach-
ers are more socially adjusted (Truax and Tatum 1966; Dis-
kin, 1956).

The relationship between empathy and the development of
psychopathology has been extensively investigated. Hill
(1970) noted that the parents of suicidal adolescents demon-
strate lower empathy than do parents of well adjusted or
even emotionally disturbed but not suicidal adolescents.
Adjusted parents in general were found to be more empathic
than those not well adjusted (Irving, 1966). In addition,
alcholics were shown to be lower in empathy than non alchol-
ics (Chaddick, Leipoid and Leipoid, 1970), as were schzo-
phrenics compared to normals (Helfand, 1955; Jackson and
Carr, 1955;. Milgram,1960; Rosenman and Drenner, 1967).

The relationship between social prejudice and low empathy
has also been demonstrated (Banks, Berenson, and Carkhuff,
1966; Davidoff, 1945). Empathy has also been connected to
marital succeSs (Dymond, 1953; Goodman and Ofshe, 1968).

In short, virtually every positive human enterprise would
seem to benefit by the existence of empathy among those in-
volved. .

Yet, while empathy seems to have been established as

56

a major factor in so many impersonal processes, articles
have begun to appear which begin to question the universal-
ity of these generalizations. For example, while Traux and
Carkhuff (1967) offer a rich source of evidence supporting
the role of empathy, others such as Laborsky, Chandler,
Auerbach, Cohn and Bachrach (1971) have begun to raise
questions. They agree that empathy certainly does facil—
itate the growth of patients in psychotherapy but question
if the research supports the findings. Even stronger objec-
tions have been raised by Wertzoff and Kornreich (1970) who
suggest that the results of the research to that time was
ambiguous and not conclusive. A recent review (Lambert and
DeJulio, 1977) evaluating the outcome research in Carkhuff's
human resource development training programs strongly crit—
icises the research methodology, procedures which are highly
indicative of research on empathy in general.

Of interest is a study by Mitchell, Truax, Bozarth and
Krauft (1973) in which a study of 75 expert therapists with
120 clients yield no correlation between empathy or warmth
and outcome. This was true even when the most and least
changed clients were selected for analysis. Bergin and Quinn
(1975) in discussing the measurement of therapist variables
in therapy point out that the variables of empathy, warmth,
etc., "are not as prepotent as once believed; but their pre-
sence and influence is ubiquitous, even showing up strongly
in behaviour therapies" (p. 521). GladStone (1977) in a

review of the literature on empathy and its relationship to

57

counseling concludes that the relationship has not been es-
tablished and that "unfortunately, the empirical evidence

is much too mixed to draw any neat implications for counsel-
ing practice." The basis for his criticism was three fold;
first because the definition of empathy is still ambiguously
employed, second because the measuring instruments which
exist don't measure the same things, and third because the
most widely used measures, the Traux and Carkhuff rating
scales may not be measuring what they purport to measure.
The authors further conclude that "dispite the large num-
bers of theory, discussion, cases, and process articles
describing the positive relationship between empathy and
counseling outcome the empirical evidence still remains
equivocal" (p. 75). Based on this review counselor prepar-
ation programs are advised to be cautious in emphasizing the
role of empathy in the c0unseling process.

,Still other studies have considered the interaction of
empathy and the therapist's style. Beutler and others
(1972) point out that Bétype therapists are more empathic
with neurotic patients than they are with schizophrenic
patients, while for Aetype therapist's the opposite is found
to be the case. Such studies Support the idea that empathy
is not a trait whiCh a therapist has 0r doesn't have but
rather represents an aspect or the interaction between ther-
apist and client, between the therapist's style and the
patient's pathology.

In summary, there is Considerable literature that

58

supports the central role of empathy in the process of ther-
apy and establishes its significance in interpersonal rela-
tionships. An equally impressive body of literature has
begun to develop which introduces some uncertainty into

these conclusions. The nature of the disagreement suggests
many causes. To a large extent part of it reflects the meth-
odological inadequacies of the studies themselves (Lambert
and DeJulio, 1977) and points to the need for well conceived
and carefully controlled studies. A significant part of

the problem can also be traced to the ambiguity of the defin-
itions of empathy employed by various researchers, the lack
of agreement as to what constitutes outcome in therapy, and
a reasonable uncertainty with regard to the measurement in-

struments presently available.

Summagy

Empathy, as a term in psychological literature, does
not have a common usage. It has been variously defined as
the ability to recognize the feelings of others (cognitive
empathy), as the ability to both recognize and affectively
respond to feelings (cognitive and affective), or as an
affective response, without cognition, to the feeling com-
munication of another (affective empathy). This lack of a
clear definition requires that each reference to empathy
needs be compared to the authors implied definition.

Tests for the measurement of empathy introduces addi-

tional complications because while most are based on some

59

categorical definition the operational definition frequently
differs. Tests for empathy usually fall into three categor-
ies. Tests which depend on the subject's ability to make
predictions about others (predictive empathy), tests which
require the subject to identify feelings or to frame an
appropriate response to another involved in a particular
situation (situational empathy), and tests which rely on

the subject's self description (self-reported empathy).

With a few notable exceptions the majority of these instru-
ments demonstrate poor predictive validity and only fair
concurrent validity. They are mostly all reliable. How-
ever, the few that demonstrate predictive validity, the rat-
ing scales, have been criticised on their lack of construct
validity-~what they measure may or may not be empathy.

The lack of consensual definition and the wide var-
iety of measuring instruments is a strong indication that
empathy may be a global construct, as many recent authors
contend. Some attempts have been made to separate empathy
into components, such as tests which measure only the abil-
ity to accurately identify feelings (affective sensitivity
or empathic sensitivity) although these attempts have been
few. Only the instruments intended for children have made
an attempt to clearly isolate the effects of identification,
projection, and intelligence.

The literature on the role of empathy in interpersonal
communication provides abundant evidence that whatever em-

pathy is, it is a significant factor in influencing the

60

positive outcome of many social and psychological processes.
Empathy has been postulated as a casual component in coun-
seling, psychotherapy, education, family communication, and
marital harmony. Yet even here the ambiguity of what empathy
represents introduces uncertainty into the majority of the
studies reported. It seems that everyone knows what em-
pathy means but there is little agreement between defini-
tions.

Some of the ambiguity inherent in the definition of
empathy has been avoided in this study by the use of terms
which are more restrictive and hence more descriptive. As
mentioned in Chapter I, the use of the term affective sensi-
tivity avoids this ambiguity while still referring to a
behavior which is entailed in the definition of empathy.
Affective sensitivity is understood as "the ability to de-
tect and identify the immediate affective state of another"
(Campbell, 1967, p. 3). An instrument for the measurement

of affective sensitivity, the Affective Sensitivity Scale

 

had been developed and is reported here to have been a re-
liable and valid measure of this behavior. The creation of
a new version of this scale which perports to correct some
of the weaknesses of the earlier one, as well as to offer
some improvements in discrimination through revised scoring,
needs to be demonstrated as having these qualities also.

The subject of this study will be to investigate this new
instrument and to indicate the extent to which these ex-

pectations are met. If this instrument is effective as a

61

measure of affective sensitivity, it will provide a tool
which will help answer some of the questions stated pre-
viously. In particular, it will provide a measure of be-
havior which is not ambiguously defined and which is likely
to have a necessary role in a wide range of interpersonal

communication situations.

 

u\

o

 

5“

CHAPTER III

STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

 

This chapter describes the experimental procedures
employed by this study in investigating the structure, re-
liability and validity of the Affective Sensitivity Scale
(Form D). There are three general research questions in-
volved in this study. They are as follows:

1. Is the Affective Sensitivity construct a simple
construct as is suggested by the single total scale scoring
of the earlier forms or is it situation specific as is sug-
gested by the new versions subscale scoring?

2. Is the new A.S.S. (Form D) a reliable measure of
affective sensitivity? 1

3. Is the new A.S.S. (Form D) a valid measure of af-
fective sensitivity and if so, does it measure the same be-
haviors as the earlier scale?

This research involved some preliminary stages which
include the acquisition of a sample population, computer
scoring of individual responses to the instrument, item an-
alysis to maximize scoring differences, and the formation
of a norm group. These procedures will be described first.

Next the research questions will be restated in terms of

62

63

more specific hypotheses. Finally a description of the
specific procedures used to test these hypotheses will be

outlined, along with the rationale for these procedures.

Sample Population and Computer Scoring

The Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form D) was commer-
cially available since 1976,* and was supplied to approved
research and educational institutions in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. Computer scoring of the instrument
‘was to be made available through the scale's authors.
Raw data sent by users was retained and employed to develop
norms for the instrument. From the considerable initial
interest expressed in this instrument, it was expected that
a wide range of data would be available from all around the
United States, as well as from Canada and Australia. It
was further expected that a wide range of subjects would be
tested, including undergraduates and graduate students,
medical students, family practice residents, physicians,
paraprofessionals and correction workers. Scoring of the
instrument was done employing a computer program which re-
ported total and subscale scores (see Chapter I). T-scores
‘were provided as normative data became available. Instru-
ment users were requested to return computer scoring sheets
which were optically scanned, a procedure designed to permit
rapid scoring of large numbers of tests at any one time and

and which provided a wide range of feedback to the users.

 

*
Mason Media Inc., Box C, Mason, Michigan 48854

Iri.‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

'\

‘-

64

Each set of test answers received was given a group number
and the description of the sample population was recorded,
including whether the sample was a pre or post test, what
kind of a population was involved and type of training, if
any.

The original scoring scheme was developed by the scales
authors, Kagan and Schneider, i.e. two points for a pre-
ferred answer, one point for an acceptable answer and no
points for random answers. The preferred and acceptable
answers were developed by reference to videotaped recall
data (Kagan, Schneider, and Werner, 1977; Schneider, Kagan,
and Werner, 1977), as well as the judgments of experts in
the areas of counseling and psychotherapy. Item analysis
was employed to determine if the scoring scheme was adequate
and revisions were made to increase the discrimination abil-
ity of the instrument. In particular a high empathizer
referent group was employed to check the validity of the
scoring and to provide a criteria for making changes. The
basic method of item analysis used was to compare the item
choices of high, medium and low scorers to determine an
index of discrimination and difficulty. Item analysis em-
ploying the techniques developed by Baker (1954) and Rasch
(Lord and Novik, 1968) were used to confirm the findings.
The plan was to provide normative data to users on as large
a population as possible, as well as all possible homogen-

eous subgroups of the available sample. The normative datazhr-

cluded such groups as males and females, high school students,

65

undergraduates,individuals in professions, including edu-

cators, physicians, clergy and corrections workers.

Optimization of Scoring

 

As mentioned previously, item construction was orig-
inally designed to include one correct response and four
less desirable alternatives. These items had been gener-
ated by the Scale's authors employing information obtained
from recall protocols and from expert reviewers. The orig-
inal scoring procedure, which usually included one correct
(preferred), three somewhat correct (acceptable) and one in-
correct (other) response, was based on the original recall
data. Subsequent changes in scoring were obtained using
three methods:

a) by reference to the item choices of a specific
group of subjects, in this case identified high
empathizers.

b) by reference back to the original recall data.

c) by reference to an item analysis which considered
the item of choices of subjects (1) who scored
(total score) one standard deviation above the
mean (2) subjects who scored within plus or minus
one standard deviation from the mean, and (3) sub—
jects who scored less than one standard deviation
from the mean. The SPSS (Nie, et a1., 1975) pro-
cedure of crosstabs was used for this analysis.

Four item revisions using this procedure were done to

66

increase the discrimination ability of the scale. They were
as follows:

Revision One: scoring revised to maximize the total

 

scores of the high empathizer norm group.

Revision Two: item analysis of the results of Revi-

 

sion One followed by changing the scoring on those
items in which high scorers (one standard deviation
or more above the means) did not agree with the high
empathizer norm group.

Revision Three: item analysis of the results of scor-

 

ing by Revision Two followed by reference back to the
original recall data.

Revision Four: item analysis on the pre and post scores

 

of all paired data employing Revision Three followed by

scoring revision which increased the gain scores due to

training. This was the final revision.

The original intent was to use the high empathizer ref-
erent group as a way of increasing the power of the index
of discrimination of the scale. However, because this group
represented so few persons and because there was significant
item choice variations within this group, it was decided to
continue the analysis even further. The final revision was
based on a careful analysis of the changes that had been
made previously as well as noting which items choices seemed
to discriminate best between persons before and after train-
ing known to be effective in increasing interpersonal sen-

sitivity.

67

The original scoring scheme had a large number of
items scored as acceptable (1 point). Many of these items
were negative discriminators between those who scored high
or low in total score. The distribution of preferred, ac-
ceptable and random item scores for all four revisions can
be found in Table 1. While the original scoring scheme
averaged about one preferred and three acceptable responses
per item, the final revision averaged one preferred and one
acceptable response per item.

Table 1. Distribution of Preferred, Acceptable, and Other

Item Choices for the Four Revisions of the Affec-
tive Sensitivity Scale (Form D)

 

Number of Number of Number of

 

Revision Preferred Acceptable Other Ratio

Original 63 163 89 l:2.6:1.4
One 63 - 138 114 1:2.1:1.8
Two 69 91 155 1:1.3:2.2
Three ' 67 71 177 1:1.1:2.6
Four ' 64 62 189 1:.97:3.0

 

The item difficulty, index of discrimination, and the
correlation of item selection to score for the final revision
can be found in Table 2. The mean item difficulty for the
preferred item choices was 53 and the mean index of descrim-
ination was 33. While there are five items which have no

preferred responses the majority of items have a difficulty

 
 

68

*
Table 2. Item Analysis of A.S.S. (Form D) Revision Four

 

 

 

Acceptable
Preferred Items Items
ID
# R D Index of D ID
Correlation Difficulty Discrimination

l .10 51 1 35 4

2 .19 59 27 . 24 -6

3 .29 66 34 21 0

4 -.06 55 -4 65 12

5 ' .15 57 15 24 1

6 .26 51 30 20 -2

7 .23 57 28 52 -21

8 .23 .03 58 17 26 13

9 .37 42 44 - -

10 .35 44 38 5 -3
ll .08 68 5 66 -3
12 .27 60 33 50 -18
13 .25 81 23 56 9
14 .51 .22 44 - -
15 .23 58 27 32 13
16 .23 64 28 22 -ll
17 .17 67 24 21 3
18 .49 53 53 16 6
19 .45 60 50 - -
20 .33 42 34 9 16
21 .48 37 49 - -
22 .18 55 23 ‘ 19 2
23 .35 84 24 20 16
24 .38 44 46 - -
25 .29 61 20 36 5
26 - - - 57 -2
27 .38. 45 45 16 -7
28 .26 .26 45 52 - -
29 .53 55 63 - -
30 .38 .07 30 41 - -
31 .31 47 .. 30 - -
32 .21 44 29 15 -4
33 .29 71 37 24 -4
34 .43 62 52 5 -3
35 - - - 63 4
36 .34 50 36 - -
37 .36 72 37 29 3
38 .20 .23 39 . 39 27 -9
39 .14 52 18 22 9
4O - - - 70 16
41 - - - 57 7

 

 

 

 

 

~.

~

5
'~

69

Table 2. (Continued)

 

 

 

Acceptable
Preferred Items Items
ID
# R D Index of D ID
Correlation Difficulty Discrimination

42 .42 34 42 15 -7
43 .41 42 44 - -
44 .28 50 37 26 -5
45- .18 .11 35 29 - -
46 .25 48 27 16 1
47 .26 73 22' 47 -3
48 .18 59 16 - -
49 .23 .34 54 52 - -
50 .44 61 45 - -
51 .46 57 50 - -
52 .43 40 45 - -
53 .37 57 40 24 -5
54 c.21 69 19 23 11
55 .25 41 31 6 -5
56 .22 50 34 - -
57 .36 39 38 13 -4
58 .17 64 14 42 3
59 - - - 74 20
60 .18 59 16 47 8
61 .43 37 45 - -
62 .34 47 37 21 -3
63 .13 74 10 25 6

 

 

 

*
R is the correlation between item choice and total
score.

 

D is the item difficulty, the % of subjects not pick-
ing the item choice.

ID is the index of discrimination which is the differ-
ence between the % of higher and low scores making the item
choice.

If more than one preferred response is possible than
both correlations are listed.

 

 

70
greater than 50 (37 of the 58 items). See Table 3 for these

ranges.

Table 3. Summary of item analysis data for Form D (Re-
vision Four) of the Affective Sensitivity Scale

 

Criterion = Total Scale Scores (2 point items only)
N = 3103
Summary Data

 

 

Distribution of Distribution of Discrim-
Item Difficulty ination Indices
Difficulty Number Index of Number

Percent Percent

Indices of Items Discrimination of Items

 

81-90 1 2 61-70 1 2
71-80 5 9 51-60 6 11
61-70 11 20 41-50 11 20
51-60 20 37 31—40 16 30
41-50 13 24 21-30 13 24
31-40 7 13 11-20 a 15
21—30 1 2 1-10 2 4

-9-0 1 2

 

Mean item difficulty . . . . . 53

Mean item discrimination . . . 33

 

71

Normative data was computed using a total of 3103 sub-
jects. Means were obtained for the general population plus
every identifiable subgroup in the sample. The general dis-
tribution of subjects with respect to education or profession
is indicated in Table 4, while the normative data for each
of these populations can be found in Appendix E.

Table 4. Distribution of the 3103 Subjects, by Education

or Profession, Used to Establish Normative Data
for the A.S.S. (Form D)

 

1254 college undergraudates
245 junior college students
60 graduate students
330 medical students
152 mental health aids
230 mental/physical health care professionals
71 family practice residents
419 occupational therapists (Australia)
33 educators
60 correction workers
249 other

 

Research Questions and Hypothesis

 

This study answered three general questions
about the structure, reliability and validity of the A.S.S.
(Form D). Since the three research questions were not dir-
ectly testable, more specific research hypotheses were de-
fined which are directly testable. These research hypothesis

were not stated irrthe traditional null form because at the

72

outset of this study too little was known about what the
instrument measured to state hypotheses in such a specific
format. The hypothesis are therefore stated in the research
form. For example, the questions addressed here were de-
signed to provide a measure of the extent to which the
A.S.S. (Form D) can be said to be a reliable and valid mea-
sure of affective sensitivity. For the most part, there-
fore, the questions raise issues of judgment rather than

of statistical significance.

Here, each research question is stated, followed by
the research hypothesis which was constructed to provide at
least a partial basis for answering each question. Confor-
mation of these specific hypotheses is believed to be a
necessary if not entirely sufficient step for answering the

research questions.

Structure of the Scale

 

Research gpestion 1: Is the Affective Sensitivity

 

construct a Single factor as suggested by the earlier ver-
sions of the A.S.S.'s single scale score, or is it situa-
tion dependent as is suggested by the multiple scale scor-
ing employed by the new A.S.S. (Form D)?

Hypothesis I: Principal Component Factor Analysis

 

will indicate a factor structure that is similar to the sub-

scale scoring.

.
P.

.\

73

Hypothesis II: Fifteen or fewer factors as indicated
by Joreskog factor analysis will adequately describe the

factor structure of the A.S.S. (Form D).

Reliability of the Scale
Research Question 2: Is the A.S.S. (Form D) a reli-
able measure of affective sensitivity?

Hypothesis III: No significant differences will be

 

found between original and retest scores on the A.S.S.
(Form D) taken a week apart for a group of subjects who
received no formal training.

Hypothesis IV. The internal consistancy of the scale

 

scores on the A.S.S. (Form D) will be sufficiently high so

as to indicate homogeniety.

Validity of the Scale

Research Question 3: Is the new A.S.S. (Form D) a
valid measure of affective sensitivity and if so, does it
measure the same behaviors as the earlier (Form C) version
of the scale?

Hypothesis V: The high empathizer reference group will

 

score higher than the norm group on all scales of the A.S.S.
(Form D).

Hypothesis VI: A low empathizer referent group will

 

score lower than the norm group on all scales of the A.S.S.
(Form.D).
Hypothesis VII: The post test scores of persons in

programs demonstrated to be effective in increasing affective

74

sensitivity will be higher than their pretest scores.

Hypothesis VIII: Persons who are members of groups

 

known to be homogeneous with regard to education or pro-
fession will have total scale scores on the A.S.S. (Form D)
which are more similar to their own referent group than to
any other dissimilar group of persons.

Hypothesis IX: Scores on the A.S.S. (Form D) will have

 

high positive correlation with scores on the earlier (Form
C) version of the instrument.

Hypothesis x: There will be a significant positive

 

correlation between subjects typed as "feelers" as compared
to "thinkers" on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and their

scores on the A.S.S. (Form D).

Research Procedures
The following procedures were employed to test the fore-
going hypotheses. In what follows the experimental proced-
ures employed are described, along with the Criteria for

accepting or rejecting the hypotheses.

The Structure of the Scale - Factor Analysis

 

It was postulated at the outset of this study that
affective sensitivity, like empathy, is not a unitary factor
and therefore that factor analysis of the A.S.S. item scores
could be expected to produce several factors. In addition,
it was expected that those factors would parallel the sub-
scale scoring developed by the instrument's authors.

To test Hypotheses I and II, two types of factor

75

analysis were employed. The first was the procedure of
Principal Component Factoring with Iteration (Nie, et a1.,
1975, p. 480), a common routine available in the widely
used SPSS system. The second method employed a Maximum-
Likelihood factor technique developed by Joreskog (Schmidt
and Scheifly, 1970). The objective of employing the first
analysis was to ascertain if the factor structure paralleled
the subscale categories, a finding which would support the
hypothesis that affective sensitivity is situation specific.
The second form of analysis, the Joreskog Maximum-Like-
lihoodj procedure, was used to see if the principal factors
found (i.e. accounting for at least 80% of the variance)

are statistically significant. Since this procedure begins
with an ad hoc number of factors which it tests for fit, a
first analysis with 15 factors was attempted. This number
of factors exceeds what would be reasonable for an instru-
ment of 63 items. If 15 factors are found to be sufficient
for significance, then the number of factors tested will be
reduced until the minimum number which yield the most par-

simonious model is found.

Reliability Studies

 

Research Question 2 and Hypotheses III and IV were in-
tended to provide information about the reliability of the
A.S.S. (Form D). Reliability studies on instruments such
as the Affective Sensitivity Scale are usually of two types,

test-retest and internal consistancy.

76

The test-retest reliability procedure is designed to
determine if a test is stable over time. The question ad-
dressed by this procedure is whether taking this instrument
twice, with a specific time interval of between a week to
several months, will result in identical or highly correl-
ated scores. If the test does not demonstrate test-retest
reliability, there is the possibility that the behavior be-
ing.measured is highly variable and changes day to day. The
test/retest procedure also is a check on the possibility that
just taking the test is a learning experience which influ-
ences subsequent retest scores. Thus it is desirable that
the scores not change over time.

In addition to establishing the stability of the test
over time, it was also considered desirable to measure the
test's internal consistency. The question here is whether
the test is a homogeneous measure. A test which measures
affective sensitivity ought to measure just this one be-
havior and not a variety of other related behaviors. If
the homogeniety or internal consistency is not high, it
'would be difficult to interpret scores, since we would not
know exactly how the various behaviors that are being mea-
sured combine to produce a single score.

The test-retest reliability was determined by using
volunteers from a course in Interpersonal Process Recall
(IPR)--a course in interpersonal communication skills. The
volunteers had taken the instrument as a pretest and the

retest was a week later. Since the class only met weekly,

77

it was assumed that there would be no special learning in
the intervening time. Test and retest scores were compared
by using a paired t-test. For the test-retest reliability
to be meaningful a correlation of at least 0.65 was deemed
necessary, together with no significant difference between
test and retest scores at the 0.05 probability level.
Internal consistency of the instrument was determined
by computing Chronbach's alpha. This coefficient repre-
sents the mean of all split-half coefficients resulting
from all possible splittings of a test. As such it is an
index of equivalence and represents the first-factor con-
centration of the test (Chronbach, 1951). This coefficient
was computed for the total scale score and all subscale
scores. A value of at least 0.65 is considered necessary

for a scale to be judged as homogeneous.

Questions of Validity

 

Research Question 3 and Hypothesis V to ){ address them-
selves to the validity of the A.S.S. The term validity is
used here to refer to the extent that a test measures what
it purports to measure. Construct validity studies of sev-
eral types were indicated as relevant to this study.

The first test of construct validity (Hypothesis V)
was to determine if the instrument could differentiate be-
tween subjects known to be highly empathic and all other
persons. The procedure used was to compare the scale scores

of a high empathizer referent group to all other subjects.

78
It was the judgment of the researcher that the high empath-
ic group should not only score significantly higher than
the norm group (at the .05 level), but also that the dif-
ference should be large enough (one standard deviation or
more) so as to indicate that this group demonstrates more
of these behaviors than does the norm group.

The second test of construct validity (Hypothesis VI)
was the opposite of the first. A sample of subjects de-
scribed as low empathizers was likewise compared to the norm
group. It was expected that this group would have signif-
icantly lower scale scores than the norm group and that the
differences should be meaningfully large (greater than one
standard deviation below the norm group).

A third check«onconstruct validity was to observe if
the scale is sensitive to the effects of training known to
be effecitve in increasing interpersonal sensitivity (Hy-
pothesis VII). A number of different populations and train-
ing experiences were considered in this instance. Included
were workships in IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall), in
interviewing skills, and in counseling and psychotherapy.
Three hundred and fifty persons were compared pre and post
during the adaption of Revision Four scoring. Subsequently
an additional 100 subjects were compared.

The fourth form of construct validity tested was the
comparison of what was believed to be comparable groups of
people (Hypothesis VIII). For example, if the A.S.S. was

a valid measure then professional groups ought to score

79

similarly. Because of the large sample and the wide diver-
sity of scale users several comparisons were available. In
particular, undergraduate college students from three dif-
ferent campuses around the 0.8. were compared, as well as
first year medical students, family practice residents, first
year psychiatric residents, occupational therapy trainees

and corrections workers.

In the case of the IPR workshops, which represented
the major training modality, the training procedure has
been demonstrated to result in increased scores on the
earlier version of the Affective Sensitivity Scale (Dendy,
1971; Rowe, 1972). While no data was available on the other
forms of training employed, they were carried out by pro-
fessionals in university environments, which supports their
credibility. A one-way analysis of variance was employed
to compare the mean scores of these pOpulations no see if
they were the same or different.

Another form of validity, concurrent validity was ob-
tained by comparing Form D scoring with the earlier and
previously validated Form C of this same instrument (Hypoth-
esis IX). Over 100 subjects were given both Form D and
Form C in one sitting. The populations were 60 student
teacher trainees and 40 graduate counseling students. Com-
parisons were made here by correlating total From C scores
‘with all Form D scale scores. For the new version of the
A.S.S. (Form D) to be measuring the same behaviors as the

earlier version (Form C) it was considered necessary that

80

the Pearson correlation between them be both positive and
have a rho that exceeds 0.50.

Finally, a second form of concurrent validity was de-
termined by employing a comparison between the "thinker"
and ”feeler" dimensions on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) (Myers, 1962) (Hypothesis X). The Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator is a self-report inventory based on Carl Jung's
theory of psychological type (Jung, 1923). This theory
assumes that variations in human behavior can be attributed
to basic differences in the way people use perception and
judgment. (Myers, 1962). Four pairs of preferences are
scored in a dichotomous manner in accordance with Jung's
theory. This forced choice method results in a subject's
four letter personality type (McCaulley, 1971), i.e. INFP,
according the following categories:

Introversion (I)/Extroversion (E): The direction of

interest. Does the subject's interest flow mainly to

the inner world of concepts and ideas (I) or the
outer world of actions, objects, and persons (E)?

 

 

Intuition (N)/Sensing (S): Perception. Does the sub-
ject attach more importance to the inferred meanings,

relationships, and possibilities of experience (N) or

to the immediate realities of direct experience?

 

Feeling (F)/Thinking (T): Judgment. In making judg-
ments, does the subject rely more on priorities based
on personal importance and values (F) or on logical
order and cause and effect (T)?

 

Perception (P)/Judging (J): Life Style. Does the
subject prefer to live in the perceptive attitude,
spontaneously, curiously, awaiting events and adapting
to them (P) or to live in the judging attitude, sys-
tematically, planfully, deciding what needs to be done
and attempting to control events (J)?

 

81

The MBTI has been extensively studied and its reli—
ability and validity established. The test manual reports
a reliability (split-half) of between 0.60 to 0.94. The
validation studies report high correlation with the Strong
Vocational Interest Blank, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study
of Values, the Edward Personal Reference Schedule, as well
as with job turnover, IQ, and scholastic performance
(Myers, 1962).

While this instrument is based essentiallycn1self-
descriptors, it was reasonable to expect that those who
scored higher on the A.S.S. would be more likely a "feeler"
on the MBTI than a "thinker." The test for this hypothesis
required that the thinker category be positively correlated
with A.S.S. scores with a rho greater than 0.20. In this
instance, the low value of rho was considered acceptable
since the interest of the study was to establish direction
rather than magnitude.

Correlations were also computed between all scales of
the instrument and the four type indicators of the MBTI.
While no specific hypotheses were stated in regards to these
correlations they could reveal further information about the
subscale scoring of the instrument. For example, we might
have expected the Observation subscale to be correlated with
the "sensor" type, while "intuitor" types correlated with

the Inference subscale.

82

Summary

The research procedures to be employed in this study
have been described. The identification of a reasonably
large sample population has been indicated and revisions
in the scoring procedures have been outlined. The three
research questions addressed by this study and a set of
more specific research hypothesis have been stated. The
specific tests employed in testing these hypotheses have
been presented along with the decision criteria which were
applied. The results of these analysis are presented in

Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents the data relevant to the ques-
tions and hypotheses under investigation. Each hypothesis
is restated, the statistical procedures described, and the
results of the analysis outlined. .

HypothesisJRelated to the Structure
of the Instrument

Research Question 1: Is the Affective construct a
simple construct as is suggested by the single total scale
scoring of the earlier forms, or is it situation specific
as is suggested by the new versions subscale scoring?

Hypothesis I: Principal Component Factor Analysis will

indicatele factor structure that is similar to the sub-
scale scoring.

The SPSS routine of Principal Factoring with Iteration
(Nie, 1975, p. 480) was used to test this hypothesis.
Twenty-three factors were found with eigenvalues in excess
of 0.1, which this test takes as the cut-off point.
The eigenvalues and variance accounted for are summarized in
Table 5. The first factor, which is the only significant
one, accounts for only 31% of the variance. The other fac-

tors and their respective item loadings can be found in

83

84

Table 5. Results of Principal Component Factor Analysis:
Eigenvalues and Percent of Variance, A.S.S. Form
D, N = 3103 Subjects

 

Percent of

Factor Eigenvalue Cumulative Percent

 

Variance
l 3.60 31.0 31.0
2 .73 6.3 37.2
3 .70 6.0 43.3
4 .62 5.3 48.6
5 .56 4.8 53.4
6 .49 4.3 57.7
7 .46 4.0 61.7
8 .41 3.6 65.3
9 .39 3.4 68.7
10 .37 3.2 71.9
11 .36 3.2 75.1
12 .32 2.8 77.9
13 .30 2.6 80.5
14 .28 2.4 82.9
15 .27 2.3 85.2
16 .26 2.3 87.5
17 .24 2.1 89.6
18 .22 1.9 91.5
19 '.22 1.9 93.4
20 .20 1.7 ' 95.1
21 .19 1.7 96.8
22 .19 1.6 98.5
23 .17 1.5 100.0

 

85

Table 6. Only items with loadings in excess of 0.2 are re-
ported. In general, there was a large gap between the load-
ings on items reported and those not listed, generally 0.2
or more.

The items which describe the first factor, (Table 7)
items 27 to 30, come from the same episode, which is an in-
formal dialogue between a man and a woman. The same pattern
can be observed for nearly all the remaining 22 factors, in
which the items that load heaviest on each of these factors
comes from the same episode or scene within the scale.

'The existence of a single general factor which accounts
for only 31% of the variance and 22 additional specific
factors, none of which account for more than 6% of the var-
iance, indicates that there is only one factor which ac-
counts for most of the variance. Nevertheless, in addition
to the single factor, there is a lot of "noise" in the scale,
meaning that, while one thing is being measured for the meet
part, there is considerable variation introduced due to the
large number of "subfactors" present.

The consistent loading of items from the same scene or
episode on each of the factors indicate that there is con-
siderable situation specific patterns of responses to the
instrument. These patterns do not parallel the subscale
scoring, i.e. no factors are found that load heavily on
"child" items, but rather parallel specific settings in the

instrument.

86

 

 

Table 6. Results of Principal Component Factor Analysis:
Factors and Item Loadings A.S.S. (Form D)
: Item (Factor Loading)
Factor
1 2 3 4 ’ 5

1 27(.47) 28(.49) 29(.39) 30(.34)

2 18(.47) 19(.50)

3 51(.48) 52(.51)

4 24(.39) 25(.34) 36(.22)

5 l4(.48) 15(.49)

6 43(.45) 44(.43)

7 20(.35) 21(.40)

8 37(.44) 38(.46)

9 60(.37)

10 56(.3l) 57(.30)

ll 33(.39) 34(.48)

12 49(.50) 50(.47)

l3 3(.27) 5(.3l) 6(.31)

l4 41(.31)

15 l(-.29)

16 31(.21)

l7 3(.26) 4(-.24)

18 11(.32)

l9 12(.’34) 13(.34)
20 46(.37) 54(.24) 55(.20)
21 16(.29)
22 35(.23) 61(.34) 62(.29)

N
w

 

87

Table 7. Summary of Item Loading on First Factor of
Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form D)

 

 

Item §3§§§§g Item £32339 Item iiig‘i’ig
1 -.03 22 -.02 43 .12
2 .07 23 .08 44 .06
3 .05 24 .07 45 -.02
4 .00 25 .10 46 .02
5 .01 26 .00 47 .05
6 .07 27 .47 48 -.01
7 .05 28 .49 49 .10
8 .01 29 .39 50 .01
9 .08 30 .35 51 .10

10 .06 31 .10 52 .03
11 .02 32 .06 ' 53 .11
12 .10 33 .07 54 .04
13 .04 34 .07 55 .04
14 .07 35 -.05 56 .06
15 .03 36 .07 57 .02
16 .07 37 .08 58 .00
17 .00 38 .09 59 .04
18 .12 39 .01 60 .01
19 .08 4o _ -.03 61 .05
20 .02' 41 .02 62 .06
21 .09 ‘ 42 .15 63 .03

 

 

 

88

Hypothesis II: Fifteen or fewer factors as indicated

by Joreskog factor analysis will adequately describe

the factor structure of the A.S.S. (Form D).

The analysis employed a method of factor analysis de-
veloped by Joreskog (Schmidt and Schiefly, 1970) which
seeks to test the empirical fit of a predetermined number
of factors to a sample. Fifteen factors were tested which
yielded a chi square of 1314, which with 1115 degrees of
freedom yields a probability less than .001. Since this is
a test for sufficiency, the null would need to be rejected
for the fit to be adequate. Hence 15 factors do not suf-
ficiently describe the factor structure of the A.S.S. at a
probability less than .001. This result supports the prev-
ious finding of 23 factors. Further fitting of the factor

structure to the scale was possible but was not conceptually

important.

Reliability of the Scale

 

Research Question 2: Is the A.S.S. (Form D) a reliable
measure of Affective Sensitivity?

Hypothesis III: No significant differences will be

found between original and retest scores on the A.S.S.

(Form D) taken a week apart for a group of subjects

who received no formal training.

This hypothesis was tested by comparing test and retest
scores for a sample of 20 subjects. A matched pair t-test
was performed on all scales of the instrument. Correlation
between test and retest scores was also computed. The re-

sults of this analysis can be found in Table 8.

Significant change was observed for eight of the

40..

 

.o-_y‘

I-UVO

,“_

B;
u.

 

 

 

 

 

'7

\ A
u .
-

 

89

Table 8. Results of Test-Retest Study for A.S.S. (Form D)--One week
Interval N = 20.

 

Pre Post

 

Scale Chan e Prob. Correlatio Prob.
Client 29.60 32.15 2.55 .03 .53 .01
4.63 5.16
Interviewer 29.25 31.30 2.35 .03 .54 .01
4.26 4.82
Adult 60.15 63.55 3.40 .04 .61 .001
7.25 8.20
Child 9.10 10.05 .45 .22 .52 .02
3.07 3.64
Male 38.15 41.90 2.96 .01 .63 .003
6.66 6.58
Female 31.10 31.70 0.60 .62 .37 .11
4.59 6.58
Group 14.55 14.94 .40 .58 .61 .001
3033 3.7-
Dyad 54.70 58.65 3.95 .02 .63 .003
6.58 8.44
Education 19.20 20.60 1.40 .03 .75 .0001
3.65 3.83
Health 10.55 12.20 1.65 .04 .54 .01
3.74 3.17
l
Informal 7.80 7.00 -.80 .25 .34 .14
2.48 2.75
Counseling 11.90 11.65 -.25 .68 .23 .33
1.99 2.23
Psychotherapy 19.80 22.15 2.35 .03 .50 .03
4.64 4.49
Total 69.25 73.60 4.35 .02 .64 .002

9.61

 

90

Table 8. (Continued)

 

 

Pre Post .
Scale Mean/S.D. Mean/8.0. Change Egsb. Correlation 552?.
High Intensity 34.20 35.60 1.40 .31 .43 .06
5.72 5.48
Impactful 29.50 30.80 1.30 .19 .59 .006
4.02 5.09
Inference 26.15 29.10 2.95 .007 .56 .01
4.46 4.87
Observation 34.85 36.75 1.90 .20 .42 .06
5.68 6.28
Suspiciousness 3.95 3.80 -.15 .59 .71 .0001
1.57 1.64
Dissenting 6.30 5.75 -.55 .24 .66 .002
2.61 2.12
Polyanna .10 .25 .15 .19 .19 .42
.30 .44
Feeling Denial .90 .80 -.10 .51 .55 .01
.64 .83
Feeling Awareness 8.05 8.70 .65 .37 -.07 .78

1.95 2.31

 

91

fourteen scale scores, including total score. Only the sub-
scales ”child," "female," "group" and ”counseling" showed

no change. On the other hand, only one of the nine empirical
scales or indicies indicated change. Change was assumed to
be significant if the probability was less than .05. While
changes in scores were observed, the pre to post scores were

correlated 0.64 for the total scale score. This significant

correlation indicates that the A.S.S. isfistable over

 

the one-week test/retest period, although a significant gain
in scores may be observed over this period. No changes were
observed on the empirical scale or indicies, however.

Hypothesis IV: The Internal consistancy of the scale

scores on the A.S.S. (Form D) will be sufficiently

high so as to indicate homogeniety.

The internal consistency of the instrument was deter-
mined by computing Chronbach's alpha. This index is a gen-
eralized form of split-half reliability. The values for
alpha and its corresponding probability can be found in
Table 9 .

The total scale alpha of 0.74 is acceptably high for a
scale of this length and purpose. It indicates that overall,
the test measures a single quantity. The alpha determined
for the remaining subscales are lower and seem to be related
to the number of items which comprise the subscale. This
would indicate that most of the subscales do not measure a
unique quantity and only as the number of items increase

does the reliability become reasonable.

The inter-item correlations found for this instrument

92

Table 9. Internal Consistancy of A.S.S. (Form D): Chron-
bach's Alpha N = 3103

 

 

Scale # Item Alpha*
Client 28 .546
Interviewer 26 .536
Adult 53 .720
Child 10 .239
Male 36 .666
Female 27 .503
Group 14 .434
Dyad 49 .697
Education 18 .421
Health Care 11 .473
Informal 6 .454
Counseling 9 .359
Psychotherapy 19 .499
Total 63 .748
High Intensity 31 .636
Impactful 26 .539
Inference 25 .523
Observation 32 .620

 

*
p < .0001

93
(see Appendix F) were generally low. This finding is not
surprising for according to Chronbach (1959) "a high first-
factor saturation indicated by a high alpha can be obtained

by cumulating many items which have low correlations" (p. 163) .

Validity of the A.S.S.

Research Question 3: Is the A.S.S. (Form D) a valid
measure of affective sensitivity and if so, does it measure
the same behaviors as the earlier (Form C) revision of the
instrument.

Hypothesis V: The high empathizer referent group will

score higher than the norm group on all scales of the

A.S.S. (Form D).

This hypothesis was tested by computing t-tests on the
scores of the high empathizer referent group and the nOrm
population. The high empathizer referent group included 18
persons, the majority of whom were identified by the instru-
ment's authors. The results of this analysis are presented
in Table 10.

A significant difference was observed between the mean
Total score of the high empathizer referent group and the
norm group at the 0.01 probability level. Significant dif-
ferences were observed for most of the subscale scores (six
of the subscale scores were not significant, however although
all were higher than the norm group). Since these t-tests are
not independent the error in these measurements is the sum of
the individual probabilities, hence 0.01 was taken as the
alpha level to reduce the likelihood of random error. A

more appropriate test in this instance would be a multivariate

€94

ummu coawmuaoco
.

 

 

6 6H . mean 2
6: 66.H 6.Hu 6.H 6.6 Ho. 66.~ n.H m.~ 6.6 m.~ «.6 mmmcuuosa mafiawmm
a: hv.d m. N.H v.H m: ma.HI mv.l as. vv. mm. mm. Hudson mcwamom
6: 6m.o no. 66.0 6m.o 6: 66.au m~.n 6m~. 66°. am.o em. mannaflom
m: 06.6 6.6 H.m 6.h Ho. ca..- ~.nu H.~ m.m n.n 6.6 mceucsoumfio
m: m~.H H.H H.~ 6.6 Ho. na.mu 6.Hn >.H m.~ 6.~ n.6 «moansoflowdnsm
6: 6H.o m.ou p.m 6.6~ Ho. a>.~ ~.6 6.n 6.~m «.6 h.6~ newu8>ummno
a: o~.~ 6.6- ~.6 6.5m Ho. 66.~ ~.m o.6 6.6m 5.6 «.mm 00cmumucu
6: 66.o o.Ha m.~ a.m~ Ho. 6m.~ n.n 6.m «.om 6.6 a.6~ ”guacamEH
6: ~6.H «.6- H.m m.6~ H6. ac.n 5.6 6.6 6.5m 6.6 H.~m suwmcmucH no“:
6: o6.H 6.6- 6.6 H.O6 Ho. hm.~ ~.m 6.6 p.6n H.na 6.56 Hmuoa
6: mm.o 6.H- m.m 6.6a Ho. HH.m m.m 6.6 m.m~ m.m o.o~ mauuonuoeoxma
6: od.o H.o+ 6.~ H.HH m: H6.H ~.H m.H ~.~H 6.~ o.HH mafiaouqsoo
6: 66.H 6.Hu v.fi m.6 ma 66.H m.a 6.~ «.6 a.~ 6.6 Husuouca
an 66.6 m.H- m.~ v.m m: oH.H o.H ~.m n.HH 6.m s.oH zuammz
m: cm.” 6.~u o.m c.6a m: ~6.H m.H 0.6 a.o~ v.6 6.6H coauoosvm
Ho. «6.6 6.6- 6.6. 6.66 Ho. 65.~ ”.6 a.» «.66 w.oa 6.mm case
6: m~.o 6.6- o.~ m.m~ m: 6~.~ H.~ 6.~ 6.6H m.m ~.ma daouo
a: wh.d o.ml N.m o.mN Ho. mm.~ v.n o.m «.mm H.w o.mN Geneva
6: FH.H 6.m- m.6 H.6n Ho. 66.~ 6.6 6.6 6.66 6.6 n.6n was:
6: 6m.H 6.Hu H.~ 6.6 6: o6.H H.H p.~ ~.HH m.~ H.6H cease
m: HQ.H m.mn m.m o.am Hc. mm.N H.m m.h m.mm o.HH v.5m Hanna
6: nn.o p.au 6.6 6.6m 6: mv.~ 6.n o.6 o.Hm «.6 n.6u um:o«>u0u:H
a: vh.d O.VI m.m m.m~ ma vH.N m.m m.v m.~m m.w m.mN acuuau
vm u 6 am m .vm u 6 am m cm m
madam

 

msouu nouanummem 30a

moouu nouacuoqemucmwz

msouw Euoz

 

 

 

 

An Buomv mamom xuw>wuwucom o>wuoouu<
HOu msouo Euoz nua3 mmsouo ucmuowom nouwnummem 30A can HenwcuomEm no“: no comfiuomeou .oa manna

95
test such as Hotelling's T2. Nevertheless it may be conclu-
ded that the high empathizer referent group can be distin-
guished from the norm group on Total scale scores and on
most of the subscales and emperical scales.

The magnitude of the difference ranges between .5 to
.7 standard deviation for the majority of the scales. Hence,
while the referent group does have higher scores, they are
not very much higher.

Since part of this referent group was employed in the
first revision of the scoring for this instrument, the re-
sults are likely confounded. Yet while this is the case,
the subsequent three revisions removed the gains made for
this group on the first revision. The differences which
exist at present are therefore not present simply because
the instrument was revised to obtain them.

Hypothesis VI: A low empathizer referent group will

score lower than the norm group on all scales of the

A.S.S. (Form D)

As with the previous hypothesis this was tested by
means of a single t-test. A low empathizer referent group
(N = 9) was obtained in part from a group of student tea-
chers for whom behavioral ratings, which included sensitiv-
ity to feelings, were available. The findings and statist-
ical results are summarized in Table 10.

No significant differences can be observed between the
referent and norm group on any of the subscales and differ-

ences are found for only two of the nine empirical scales.

96

However the mean scores are about a half standard deviation
below the norm group. Hence it may not be concluded that
the A.S.S. was able to distinguish between.a low empathizer
referent group and the general population.

Hypothesis VII: The post test scores of persons in

programs demonstrated to be effective in increasing

affective sensitivity will be higher than their pre-
test scores.

This hypothesis was tested by using paired t-tests on
subjects scores obtained both before and after a training
program. A total of 371 persons involved in fourteen dif-
ferent programs were tested. The results of this analysis
can be found in Table 11. The primary mode of training in-
volved is IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall) although some
of the programs included listening skill training, interview-
ing, and HRI training. Significant positive gain scores
were observed for nine of the fourteen groups with gain
scores ranging from 5 to 14 points, with the mean gain score
for the entire population being 4.8, and for the IPR train-
ing groups 5.3. None of the groups indicated a decrease in
scores.

Since this population was employed as a basis for scor-
ing Revision Four, they are necessarily confounded. Never-
theless, these differences existed prior to the revision,
although smaller in magnitude. Subsequent to this revision,
therefore, two additional groups were considered. While

no positive gain scores were observed, this particular

population failed to demonstrate positive gain for one of

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66. 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 666 66666666 6666666 666o66666666 66 666x666
66. 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 666 66666666 6666666 666666666600 66 666\66
6666. 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 666 66666666 666 66666600 666
6666. 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 666 666066 66666606 666
66. 66.6 6.6 66.66 6.6 66.66 666 66666666 6oo666 6666 66 66x66
666. 66.6 6.6 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 6666666666 6666666666 66 66x66
666. 66.6 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666660 666366>66666 66666666 666666: 66 66\66
66. 66.- 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666666666 6666666600 6oo666 66 66\66.6
66. 66.6 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 6 666 66666666666666 66 66\66
666. 66.6 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 66666666666666 66 66\66
.666. 66.6 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 66666 666666666 66660666666666666 666666 66666: 66 66\66
666. 66.6 6.6 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 66666>66666 66606666666 66 66\66
66. 66.6 6.6 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 66666>66666 66606666666 66 6\6
.666. 66.66 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 66666666 6666666 666066666600 66 66x66
66. 66.- 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 66666666 6666666 666066666666 66 66x66
6666. 66.66 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 6666666666066 6660 666666 66 66\66
6666. 66.66 6.66 66.66 6.6 66.66 666 6666066666066 6660 666666 66 66x66
666. 6.6 6.66 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 6666066666066 6660 666666 66 6\6
006606666666 066650 cm 6606 m 6606 cm 066 k 066 66666666 6066666606 .2 65060
umonuxuox 666xm 6066606656600 :6 00>6o>66 669060
06 a6n6n 66066606 666 6666666 6 so 69 5606. .w.m.< mo :o6uouum6cweod may 2066 666669606 0660 .66 o6n66

98

its two previous groups. Hence the result was predictable
for this population and therefore we may still reasonably
conclude that the A.S.S. is able to distinguish the effects
of training.
Hypothesis VIII: Persons who are members of groups
known to be homogeneous with regard to education or
profession will have total scale scores on the A.S.S.
(Form D) which are more similar to their own referent
group than to any other dissimilar group of persons.
This hypothesis was tested by comparing the group means
of seven sample populations which account for two-thirds of
the subjects involved in this study. This included under-
graduates, undergraduate social work students, occupational
therapy trainees, first year medical students, family prac-
tice residents, psychiatry residents, and corrections
workers. A one-way ANOVA was computed for these seven pop-
ulations (see Table 12) and since this was significant, a
post-hoc test performed to c0mpare the means. The results
of the one-way analysis indicated that the means of the
seven groups were not identical. The 95% confidence inter-
val for these means has been represented graphically in
Figure 1.
The plot of the group means and confidence intervals
supports the contention that the group means are dissimilar.
The post-hoc test, the LSD (least-significant difference

test), indicated the majority of the means were different,

although adjacent means did overlap.

99

A second way of looking at the relationship between
these populations is to compare the variance between the
groups to the variance within the groups. If the group
scores are very different from.one another than the vari-
ance within groups would be smaller than between groups.

This can be determined by calculating.the interclass cor-

 

relation coefficient (R). This coefficient is determined

by employing the formula

MSB'MSW

MSB + (K-l) MS

R:

 

W

where K is the average size of all the populations.

The interclass correlation coefficient (R) for these
groups is therefore 0.037, which means that only 4% of the
variance may be attributed as between groups while 96% is
within groups. This result would indicate that while the
mean scores are different for different educational or pro-
fessional populations there is considerable variability of
scores within these populations. Since the mean scores do
differ significantly this would suggest that, while there
is considerable variance within groups, some populations
are more likely to have a dispropionate number of high
scores while other populations have a dispropionate number
of lower scores.

With some certainty it can be concluded that groups

of persons will more likely have total scores on the A.S.S.

100

 

 

 

Table 12. ANOVA and Post Hoc Test for Comparable Groups--
Affective Sensitivity Scale N = 1962
Source df 33 ms f p less than
Between 6 11,496 1916 11.88 .0001
Within 1955 315,328 161.3
Total 1961 326,823
Group* Count Mean SD 95% Confidence Interval
A 408 68.4 12.6 67.2 to 69.6
B 426 67.1 12.0 65.9 to 69.6
C 58 60.1 12.6 56.8 to 68.2
D 24 56.2 15.9 49.4 to 62.9
E 837 69.6 13.0 68.7 to 70.5
F 149 70.9 12.7 68.8 to 72.9
G 60 64.2 12.4 60.9 to 67.4
Total 1962 68.3 12.9 67.7 to 68.9
Multiple Range Test--LSD Procedure for the .05 Level

Homogeneous Subsets

Subset

1
2

ca U? h w-

1._.

*See Figure 2 for a description

Groups

C & D
C & G
B & G
A & B
A & E

F

E &

J—

of these populations.

101

 

70"
H
(U
>
H
3
a 65—
H
0)
U
C
Q)
'0
-H
m:
G
8
60"
69
m
ox
m
0)
H
O
U
U)
G 4
m 55
0)
Z
50“

 

v —-—4

r—m—a
i———*r.1-—-l

r—m——I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.

Key:

Group

Homogeneous Groups (95% confidence interval for
mean total scores).

ommonmzv

Medical Students N = 408
Occupational Therapists N =
Family Practice Residents N
Psychiatry Residents N = 24
Undergraduate Students N = 837
Undergraduate Social Work Students N = 149
Corrections Workers N = 60

426
= 58

102

which are more likely to similar to persons of the same
educational level or profession than to persons of different
education or profession.

Hypothesis IX: Scores on the A.S.S. (Form D) will have

a high positive correlation with scores on the earlier

(Form C) version of the instrument.

This hypothesis was tested by computing Pearson cor-
relations for 113 subjects who had taken both forms of the
scale. These correlations are tabulated in Table 13. The
correlations between the two forms were uniformly negative
and the magnitude of the correlations were low, usually
less than 0.2. In particular, the total scale score was
correlated -.15, although this was a non-significant correl-
ation (P < 0.12).

Since Form C has two distinct kinds of items, i.e.,

items which refer to the clients self-awareness, and to

 

his preception of his relationship with the counselor, sub-

 

scores for these items were computed and also correlated
with the A.S.S. The correlations with the self-awareness
items were generally smaller and less negative than with
the relationship items.

Im may therefore be concluded that scores on the A.S.S.
(Form D) do not have a high positive correlation with the
earlier (Form C) A.S.S. In addition, those correlations
which do exist are negative. The A.S.S. (Form D) is more
highly (although negative) correlated with relationship

items on Form C than with self-awareness items.

.103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Correlation Between A.S.S. Form C and A.S.S. Form D
N a 113

Form C Form C Form C
Scale Total Score Self-Awareness Relationship

Rh£) Pst RhCD P<C Rhfi) p<
Form C - Tbtal Score 1.00 .001 .886 .001 .837 .001
Form C - Self-awareness .886 .001 1.00 .001 .489 .001
Form C - Relationship .837 .001 .489 .001 1.00 .001
Form D
Client -.200 .033 -.099 .294 -.260 .005
Interviewer -.144 .128 -.l36 .151 -.110 .244
Adult -.l61 .287 -.O66 .482 -.111 .240
Child -.271 .004 -.l69 .072 -.310 .001
Male -.125 .187 -.O69 .465 -.153 .104
Female -.l49 .115 -.114 .229 -.l46 .122
Group -.239 .001 -.212 .024 -.200 .033
Dyad -.099 .295 -.044 .640 -.l34 .154
Education -.266 .004 -.179 .057 -.289 .002
Health-Care -.129 .173 -.083 .377 -.144 .127
Informal .074 .436 .060 .527 .068 .471
Counseling -.118 .210 -.079 .402 -.l30 .170
psychotherapy 4.042 .656 -.026 .782 -.048 .609
Total -.149 .115 -.096 .309 -.167 .077
High Intensity -.178 .059 -.131 .164 -.130 .056

 

104

Table 13. (Continued)

 

 

 

Form C Form C Form C
Total Score Self-Awareness Relationship
Scale
Rho I’< Rho IP< Rho p<
Impactful . -.103 .276 -.081 .391 -.098 .299
Inference -.163 .083 -.098 .298 -.191 .042
Observation -.075 .428 -.037 .697 -.098 .300
Suspiciousness .281 .003 .230 .614 .258 .006
Discounting .243 .009 .211 .025 .209 .026
Polyanna -.101 .287 -.042 .654 -.l40 .138
Feeling Denial -.045 .632 -.055 .563 -.020 .826
Feeling Awareness .050 .599 .136 .150 -.066 .482

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis X: There will be a significant positive
correlation between subjects typed as "feelers" as
compared to "thinkers" on the MBTI and their scores

on the A.S.S. (Form D).

This hypothesis was tested in two different ways.
First, the dichotomous indicators of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) were assigned a value of either 1 or 2 and
these correlated with the A.S.S. scores obtained from the
same subjects. Second, the raw type scores for each subject
were correlated directly with their A.S.S. scores. The re-
sults of these two analyses are reported in Tables 14 and
15.

The "thinker" type was indicated as negatively correla-

ted with most all the A.S.S. scales, although the

105

 

 

 

Table 14. Correlation between MBTI and A.S.S. (Form D) n = 115
EvsI Ssz TvsF vaP
Scale
Rho P‘< Rho P‘< Rho P‘< Rho P‘<

Client .09 .16 .12 .10 -.11 .13 .06 .25
Interviewer .18 .03 -.02 .41 -.20 .02 .01 .46
Adult .15 .06 .18 .43 -.15 .06 .03 .38
Child .02 .41 .06 .26 -.13 .03 .06 .25
Male .15 .05 .03 .39 -.16 .04 -.002 .49
Female .07 .22 .03 .39 -.ll .13 .09 .18
Group .04 .34 .18 .03 -.20 .02 .04 .35
Dyad .15 .05 .03 .39 -.12 .09 .04 .35
Education .08 .20 -.03 .37 -.12 .09 .02 .41
Health .10 .16 .16 .05 -.14 .07 .03 .36
Informal .06 .26 -.14 .08 -.04 .32 .08 .21
Counseling .06 .27 -.05 .30 -.03 .39 -.07 .23
Psychotherapy .15 .05 .09 .18 -.16 .05 .05 .30
Tbtal .14 .07 .03 .38 -.16 .04 .04 .33
High Intensity .03 .37 .02 .41 -.10 .13 .07 .22
Impactful .11 .12 .08 .18 -.12 .11 .08 .21
Inference .21 .01 .06 .27 -.19 .02 .01 .47
Observation .05 .31 .03 .37 -.ll .13 .12 .22
Suspiciousness ' .03 .38 .02 .40 .26 .002 -.02 .40
Doscounting .000 .50 -.03 .36 .14 .06 -.14 .07
Polyanna .02 .92 .01 .45 .05 .31 .03 .36
Feeling Denial -.03 .36 -.04 .34 -.03 .37 .01 .48
Feeling Awareness .19 .02 -.02 .41 -.19 .02 -.04 .33

 

 

 

 

 

106

correlations were weak (between -0.1 and -0.2). Since this
is a dichotOmous indicator the "feeler" type was positively
correlated. The weak correlation suggested that those sub-
jects typed as "feelers" on the MBTI do have higher scores
on the A.S.S. , althoughthis correlation was weak. In gen-
eral, all of the correlations obtained by this method of
analysis were weak, most are under 0.1 and few are above
0.2.

The second method, correlating raw MBTI scores with
the A.S.S. indicated stronger relationships. See Table 15.
The strongest correlations formed were between E or I and
J or P. So type E (ExtrOversion) is correlated 0.28 with
total score on the A.S.S., while the type I (Introversion)
was negatively correlated (-0.28). Similarly, type J (Judg-
ing) was positively correlated (0.18) while type P (Percep-
tion) was negatively correlated (-0.19). Both S/N and F/T
correlated less than 0.1 with total score.

Hence, while there is little correlation between
"thinker" (T) or "feeler" (F) and scores on the A.S.S., there
are positive correlations between "Extroversion" (E) and

"Judging" (J).

Summary of Findings

 

Three research questions about the structure, reliabil-
ity and validity of the A.S.S. (Form D) have been considered
by the testing of ten hypothesis entailed by these questions.

The first two hypotheses, which questioned if the

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«o. «o.- ««. oo.- «6. Ho. ««. «o.- o«. «o. ««. «o. Ho. o«.- «o. «H. A mmoooumza «cHHmmm
««. «o. «o. Ho.- ««. «o. o«. HH. oH. «H. ««. oo.- ««. «o. o«. «H.- HuHcmo «oHHmmm
«H. «H.- «H. «H. ««. «o. o«. «o. H«. oo.- H«. «o. oo. ««. oH. «H.- occosHoo
«o. o«. «H. «H. «o. «o. «o. H«. «o. «o. ««. «o. «o. «H. ««. oH. «oHuoooomHo
«H. «H. «H. «H.- ««. «o.- o«. «o. o«. «o.- «o. «o. «H. oH.. ««. oH.- «mmcmooHonmsm
oo. ««.- «o. o«. «o. Hoo. «o. Ho.- «o. «o. «6. Ho. oo. ««.- «o. o«. ooHum>ummno
«H. «H.- ««. «o. «6. Ho.- o«. HH.- «H. «H.- HH. «H. oo. ««.- «o. ««. aocmumocH
«H. «H.- «o. «H. H«. oH.- «H. «H. ««. «o.- ««. oH. «o. H«.- «o. ««. HsouomasH
«o. oH.- «o. H«. «6. Ho.- o«. «oo. oo. «o. oo. «o. «o. «H.- «o. «H. «uHmowuoH o«Hm
«o. «H.- oo. «H. «o. «o.- H«. «o.- ««. «o.- o«. «o. Ho. o«.- «o. o«. Hmuoe
«H. «H.- «H. «H. «o. «o.- ««. «o. ««. oo.- ««. «o. oo. ««.- Ho. o«. «muuonuoooxmo
o«. HH.- «H. «H. «H. «H.- ««. oH. «o. «o.- ««. «o. «o. oH.- oo. ««. «:HHmmcooo
«o. o«.- «o. ««. ««. «o.- «o. «o.- ««. «o. o«. oo.- «o. o«.- «H. «H. Huguoon
««. oH.- ««. oo.- «H. HH.- HH. «H.- H«. oH.- «H. «H. «o. o«.- oH. «H. :uHomx
oH. «H.- «o. «H. oo. «H. «o. «H.- «o. «o.- ««. «o. «H. «H.- «H. «H. ooHuuooom
oo. ««.- «o. H«. o«. «o.- «6. Ho. Ho. «o.- H«. «o. Ho. H«.- Ho. ««. vase
o«. «o.- ««. «o. «H. «H. «o. ««.- ««. «o.- «H. «H. ««. oH.- «H. 6H” macho
«o. «H.- oH. «H. «o. ooo.- oH. oH.- o«. «o. «o. «o.- «o. ««.- «o. o«. oHusmm
«H. «H.- «H. «H. H«. «o.- «6. Ho. «H. «H.- «H. HH. «o. ««.- oo. ««. -oHoz
«o. «H. «o. o«. oo. «H. ««. oH.- o«. «o.- ««. «o. ««. «o.- «o. Ho. oHHoo
oH. «H.- oH. «H. o«. «o.- o«. «o.- o«. «o.- o«. «o. Ho. ««.- Ho. o«. uHoo<
«H. HH.- o«. «o. o«. oo.- ««. «o.- «o. «o.- ««. «o. «o. ««.- Ho. ««. 6636H>uouoH
«o. H«.- «o. o«. «o. «o. «6. Ho.- o«. «o.- ««. oH. oo. ««.- oo. ««. acmHHu
ya on: v« cox Va com v6 com .o cam vm cam vm 6:“ v6 ohm oHuom
A. z uOuUOHUGH

mouoom 3mm .3 "Ho u z a EH05 .m.m.¢ can Hem: :09..qu sawuoaouuoo .mH 0.309

108

instrument had a factor structure similar to the subscale
scoring scheme, were not supported. A factor structure was
found, however, which does support the contention that re-

sponses to this instrument are situation specific.

 

Hypotheses III and IV were related to the reliability
of the scale. The hypothesis that the instrument was stable
over a one-week test-retest period was supported. The in-
strument was found to be internally consistant with a relia-
bility of 0.74.

The last six hypotheses were related to the validity
of the scale. Hypothesis V, which indicated that the instru-
ment could distinguish high empathizers from other persons
was supported. The instrument was not able to distinguish
between low empathizers and the norm group (Hypothesis VI).

Hypothesis VII, indicating that the instrument could
distinguish the effects of training known to be effective in
increasing affective sensitivity, was supported. The hypoth-
esis (VIII) that subjects scores are more similar to persons
of the same educational level or profession than to persons
of dissimilar education or profession also was supported.

The last two hypothesis, that scores would be correla-
ted with the earlier version (Form C) and with the "thinker"
type on the MBTI were not supported.

The meaning and significance of these results are dis-

cussed in Chapter V.

109

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Summary

This study began on the premise that the measurement
of affective sensitivity, a necessary component of empathy,
offered some distinct advantages as compared to the direct
measurement of empathy.

The literature on empathy presents three ways in which
the presence of empathy is indicated. These ways include
a cognitive response, a mixed cognitive-affective response
or simply an affective response. The cognitive indicator
is an awareness of the impact that one has on others or the
ability to predict how another person is likely to feel or
behave according to the situation. Affective-cognitive
indicators require that a person have feelings along with
another person as well as a cognitive grasp of the separat-
ness from that person's experience. In this instance the
affective response to the other persons situation mediates
understanding. The definitions which include affective re-
sponse as an indicator of empathy require a similarity of
feeling between the subject and the other person or object
for empathy to be present.

The studies reported which focused on empathy in

110

interpersonal processes employed one or more of these indi-
cations of empathy as the basis for the conclusions reached.
These studies usually employed a research instrument, which
operationally defined empathy based upon some assumption of
what behaviors indicated its presence. A number of differ-
ent instruments have been developed to measure empathy--a1-
though little or no correspondence has been found between
these instruments. The failure of these instruments to
agree on what they measure is in part due to faulty instru-
ment design and in part due to the different understandings
of what exactly indicates the presence of empathy in a sit-
uation. These failings make it difficult to understand ex-
actly what is meant when a study reports on the relation-
ship of some outcome variable and empathy. It is, therefore,
difficult to decide what it is that a study may legitimately
conclude. It is equally difficult to make generalizations
based on more than one kind of study.

In order to limit some of the ambiguity involved in
the use and study of empathy, the use of the more limited
construct of affective sensitivity has been proposed. This
term, defined as the ability to detect and identify the feel-
ing communication of another person, offers several advant-
ages. These include reference to behaviors which are easy
to describe, common usage of the term among most researchers,
and the significant and necessary presence of these behav-
iors in most definitions of empathy. While the term is not

a synonym for empathy it does describe behaviors which make

111

up a major part of any definition of empathy, namely the
awareness of feelings of others as well as the ability to
identify what these feelings represent.

An instrument for the measurement of affective sensi-
tivity was developed by Kagan and his co-workers in 1962-1965.
This instrument, the Affective Sensitivity Scale (A.S.S.)
employed video tapes to provide a stimulus which approxi-
mated the events of everyday existance, plus an objective
multiple choice test. This instrument yielded a single
scale score which has been demonstrated as both a reliable
and valid measure of affective sensitivity (Kagan, et a1.,
1967).

While the instrument has proved useful for the purposes
for which it was intended, namely the measurement of affec-
tive sensitivity of counselors, several limitations are
apparent. First, the audio and video quality of the instru—
ment has deteriorated with time so that the present copies
are at times nearly inaudible. Second, the persons included
in the video portion are dated, both with respect to their
mode of dress and to the nature of the concerns they present.
In addition there is the need for an instrument useable in a
wider range of settings other than just counseling, e.g.
medical education, teacher training, as a diagnostic instru-
ment in communication training, etc.

In order to correct the shortcomings of this instru-
ment (A.S.S. Form C) and to increase both its utility and

discriminating powers a revised version of the Affective

112

Sensitivity Scale has been created by Kagan and Schneider.
This new version, which has two comparable forms (Form D and
Form B) has a greatly improved media fidelity, a wider range
of stimulus situations, and a new scoring scheme which pro-
vides a set of specific subscores in addition to the origin-
al total score.

The new scoring scheme scores item choices not simply
as correct or incorrect but rather as preferred (correct),
acceptable (somewhat correct) or other (not correct). The
intention of this three level system of scoring was to in-
dicate the extent to which the subject "risked" making the
correct response. The subscale scoring represented all sets
of items which had something in common, i.e. either they
referred to persons who were either male or female, adult
or child, client or interviewer or represented a particular
setting, such as health care, education, informal, counsel-
ing or psychotherapy. In addition to the thirteen subscales
nine emperical scores were computed. These scales attempted
to identify the response patterns of the subject, i.e. was
there a preference for items which discounted the persons
referred to, or did they indicate the subject was suspic-
ious of the motives of the persons involved. The increased
complexity of scoring necessitated computer scoring but
also permitted both raw scale scores and standard scores to
be provided to the user.

The purpose of this study has been to investigate the

structure, validity and reliability of this A.S.S. (Form D).

113

A study such as this was considered necessary in order to
demonstrate the viability of the instrument as a research
tool and as a measure of affective sensitivity.

The preliminary stages of this research involved sev-
eral revisions of the instrumentflsscoring key--in which
the original scoring suggested by the instruments authors
was revised to increase the discrimination ability of the
scale. Four revisions were carried out, the first based
on reference to a group of subjects acknowledged to be high
empathizers and the last to optimize the effects resulting
from training. Item analysis performed on the fourth revi-
sion indicated that this form of the instrument and its
scoring has a mean item difficulty of 53 and a mean index
of discrimination of 33. Raw data was obtained from over
40 scale users and was employed to develop norms for the
instrument. Norms based on a population of 3103 subjects
were computed as well as norms for every identificable sub-
group within the population, which includes males, females,
undergraduates, medical students, occupational therapy
trainees, family practice residents, psychiatric residents,
graduate students, para-professionals, clergy, and correc-
tions workers. This normative data is listed in Appendix E.

Three basic questions were addressed in this study.
First whether the construct of affective sensitivity repre-
sented a simple construct or whether it, like empathy, was
situation dependent. The second question was whether the

A.S.S. was a reliable measure of affective sensitivity,

114

i.e. was it stable over time and was it a homogeneous measure
of one behavior. The third question asked whether the in-
strument was a valid measure of affective sensitivity, i.e.
did it measure what it purported to measure. To answer

these three general questions ten testable research hypoth-

eses were stated and tested.

Structure of the Instrument

 

The first research question asked if the factor struc-
ture of the instrument paralled the subscale scoring scheme.
The implicit interest in this question was twofold:

(1) could the subscale scoring procedure, based on specific
settings or situations depicted in the stimulus part of the
instrument, be supported as having some basis in fact, and
therefore, (2) was the construct of affective sensitivity
situation specific. Two forms of factor analysis were em-
ployed to answer this question. The first method empiric-
ally determined a set of factors to fit the instrument and
the second method tested an ad hoc number of factors to see
if they would adequately describe the underlying factor
structure. This analysis indicated that the factor struc-
ture of the instrument did not parallel the subscale scor-
ing. Twenty-three factors were found, although only one
accounted for an appreciable part of the variance and even
then only 31% of it. The remaining 22 factors each account-
ed for 6% or less of the variance. Hence the instrument

has one general factor and many specific factors. These

115

factors all had one thing in common, however. They were
loaded most heavily by pairs of items which were derived
from individual scenes or episodes in the film part of the
instrument. Hence responses to the instrument were gener-
ally specific to each scene.

The first research question was answered by affirming
the situation specificity of the instrument although this

specificity did not parallel the subscale scoring procedures.

Reliability of the Instrument

 

Two types of reliability studies were performed on the
instrument, test-retest and internal homogeneity. The test-
retest study which involved a retest period of one week for
20 subjects indicated that the instrument is stable over
this short period of time; the correlation between the two
administrations on the total score was 0.64. This appreci-
able correlation and a net gain score on the total scale
of 4.6 may indicate that some learning occurs or that memory
of the items increases the likelihood of a correct response
on retest.

The second form of reliability testing employed was
the computation of Chronbach's Alpha for both the total
scale and all subscales. A total scale alpha of 0.74 in-
dicates that the instrument is reasonably homogeneous; there-
fore it measures essentially one behavior. However, the
lowinter-item correlations (<0.1) indicates that each item

varies considerably with respect to all other items, and

116
that each item may be measuring slightly different things.
The Chronbach alpha scores for the other scales were pro-
portionately smaller--the fewer the items which made up a
subscale, the lower the alpha. Hence the subscales are less

internally consistent than is the total scale.

Validity of the Instrument

 

Six hypotheses were tested in order to determine if the
A.S.S. (Form D) did in fact measure what it purported to
measure. Of particular interest was whether it measured
the same behavior as the earlier (Form C) version, which had
already been demonstrated as a valid measure of affective
sensitivity.

It was expected that the instrument would be able to
differentiate both identified high and low empathizers from
the norm group. A t-test for independent means was compu-
ted which indicated significant differences between the means
scores of the high empathizer referent group (N = 18) and
the norm group. While these differences were statistically
siginficant, their magnitude was generally less than one
standard deviation (~0.7 SD), which is not as large as one
might expect for a powerful instrument. No statistical
differences were observed between the low empathizer refer-

ent group (N = 8) and the norm group, although the

117

differences were all negative and about half a standard
deviation in magnitude.

A form of construct validity was demonstrated by com-
paring the pre and post test scores of subjects involved in
training previously demonstrated as likely to increase
affective sensitivity. A significant positive difference
was observed for the group as a whole as well as for most
all the individual workshops. A positive gain score of
4.8 was noted overall and 5.3 for the programs which em-
ployed IPR. Several of the populations reported no change
in scores although none decreased. A subsequent test of
two additional groups indicated no change, although this
was consistent with previous experience with these particu-
lar groups, which also indicated no change. Hence it was
still concluded that the A.S.S. (Form D) was able to dis-
tinguish the effects of training known to be effective in
increasing affective sensitivity. The significance of these
results may be questioned by the large gain score observed
during the test-retest period of one week. This gain,
about 4.6 pOints in magnitude, is about the same size ob-
served for these groups. However, the majority of this
training involved at least a month and its likely that mem-
ory effects would diminish over this time period. For this
assumption to be tested would require a test-retest analy-
sis to be done with at least a one month lapse between
testing.

It was also hypothesized that the A.S.S. would produce

118

scores which were more consistant with an individual's peer
group than any other dissimilar group. The population con-
sidered in this study was already relatively homogeneous

in that the vast majority of subjects were college educated
(or in cOllege) and were mostly members of the helping pro-
fession or in programs which were likely to lead to these
professions. Seven distinct groups of subjects were ident-
ified: college undergraduates, undergraduate social work
students, first year medical students, family practice res-
idents, psychiatry residents, occupational therapy trainees,
and corrections workers. Comparison of the mean scores of
these groups (based on 95% confidence intervals) indicated
that the group means differed and for the most part they
did not overlap. Hence it would appear that subjects do
have scores which are more indicative of their own referent
group than to other homogeneous groups.

The relationship between the A.S.S. (Form D) and its
predecessor (Form C) was determined by computing the corr-
elation between scores obtained by subjects on both instru-
ments. One hundred fifteen subjects were involved in this
study which indicated that no significant positive correla-
tions existed between these two instruments. The correla-
tion which was found was negative although weak (rho for
the total scale score was -0.15). This lack of positive
correlation indicates that the two instruments do not mea-
sure the same behaviors and does not provide support for

this indicator of the validity of the A.S.S. (Form D) as

119

a measure of affective sensitivity.

The final test for validity was based on the predicted
correlation between those typed as "feelers” on the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and their scores on the A.S.S.
(Form D). Two types of correlations were considered-—the
correlation between being typed either as a "thinker" or
a "feeler" and scores on the A.S.S. and the correlation be-
tween raw scores on all the MBTI scales and A.S.S. scores.
A weak positive correlation was observed between the A.S.S.
scores and those typed as feelers-~although the magnitudes
were usually less than 0.2. The correlations between raw
MBTI scores and A.S.S. scores were more significant. Essen-
tially, zero correlations were observed between the four
Thinking/Feeling and Sensing/Intuition raw scores while the
Extroversion/Introversion and Judging/Perception indicated
moderate correlations. In particular Extroversion and Judg-
ing had positive correlations and the corresponding Intro-
version and Perception were negatively correlated. This
test of validity therefore does not support the hypothesis
that those who are indicated as "feelers" on the MBTI are
more likely to have higher scores on the A.S.S. than do the

"thinker" types.

Conclusions

 

Based on the foregoing results the following conclu-
sions may be drawn.

1. The subscale scoring of the A.S.S. (Form D) does

120

not reflect the internal structure of the test. The respon-
ses of subjects as recorded by the subscale do not represent
a consistent pattern of responding. However responses to
the instrument appear to be situation specific in that re-
sponses to items are frequently consistent across those
items belonging to the same scene.

2. The instrument does appear to be reliable in that
its test-retest reliability is 0.64 and its index of homog-
eniety (Chronbach's alpha) is 0.74. For a test-retest
period of one week there is however apparent learning, re-
sulting in a significant gain score. This suggests that a
longer test-retest period may be necessary to measure accur-
ately the degree of learning.

3. The instrument is able to distinguish identified
high empathizers from persons in general. On the other hand,
it does not distinguish low empathizers from all-others, al-
though the present results suggests that it may be able to
do this for large samples.

4. The A.S.S. (Form D) is able to distinguish the
effects of training in programs known to be effective inin-
creasing affective sensitivity.

5. Members of homogeneous groups will have mean scores
on the A.S.S. (Form D) which are distinguishable from groups
of persons who differ either by education or profession.

6. On the basis of the analysis made in this study
the A.S.S. (Form D) does not appear to measure the same be-

haviors as does its predecessor, the A.S.S. (Form C). Scores

121

on Form D are not correlated with the earlier form, or at
best, are negatively correlated with.it.

7. The Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form D) does not
distinguish between those typed as "thinking" (T) or "feel-
ing" (F) on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. There is how-
ever, a positive correlation between the raw scores on the
Extroversion (E) and Judging (J) typologies.

Taken together, the last five conclusions may be em-
ployed to discribe the validity of the Affective Sensitivity
Scale (Form D). Since the instrument is not correlated
with its predecessor it is therefore not a measure of af-
fective sensitivity. Yet it is capable of distinguishing
between high and low empathizers and it does detect differ-
ences due to training known to be effective in increasing
affective sensitivity. Hence it must be a measure of be-
havior which are related to empathy. What these behaviors
are may not be directly inferred from the above conclusions.
Since it has been recognized that empathy is a global con-
struct many behaviors are likely entailed in this term.
Affective sensitivity represents the ability to detect and
identify the feelings of other persons, and is likely one
of these behaviors. Some of the other behaviors which
might also be included in empathy are likely to be cognitive
in nature, such as the ability to recognize the meanings
feelings have for different people, or the likely feelings

associated with particular experiences or events . In any case

122

this instrument would not appear to be a valid measure of
affective sensitivity although there is some support for
it as a valid measure of some other component of empathy.
What this component is has not been determined by this

study.

Discussion

 

It would seem clear on the basis of these findings
that this study has'not found support for the A.S.S. (Form
D) as a valid measure of affective sensitivity. On the
other hand there have been identified positive features of
the instrument. It would appear that it is a reliable mea-
sure, stable over time and internally consistent, able to
distinguish between persons identified as high and low
empathizers and sensitive to the effects of training in
interpersonal communication skills. The instrument has
also been reported by users as confirming their perceptions
of trainees' abilities, hence as having some kind of face
validity. While the instrument has not been demonstrated
as a valid measure of affective sensitivity, it does mea-
sure a behavior or behaviors which appear to be correlated
with empathy. Some clues as to what it measures may be in-
ferred by considering how it is similar to and in what

ways it differs from the earlier Form C version.

123

Comparison Between Form C and Form D

Form C of the Affective Sensitivity Scale (or more
correctly its predecessor Form B, of which it is a somewhat
abbreviated version) was developed with the intention of
having one correct and two incorrect choices to each item.
The correct responses were based on recall data provided by
the persons involved (Campbell, 1968) or on the judgment of
experts in the areas of counseling and psychotherapy. The
incorrect responses were generated by the idea of being
wrong--of reflecting feelings which were not present.

Form D items were also derived from recall data but
the alternatives were created with the intent to distinguish
the response preferences of the subject (Schneider, 1977)
and not simply to determine if the subject could identify
the correct from the incorrect item choices. Hence some-
times all of the item choices were somewhat correct. The
choice was not so much between correct or incorrect but be-
tween items which differed in the extent to which they re-
ferred to the central feelings or concerns. The other item
choices may have all been correct but they referred to
feelings or concerns which were not central to the situation.
In the final scoring revision these "less central" item
choices were usually scored as "other" (incorrect).

A second way in which Form D and Form C differ is the
construction of the item choices themselves. According to
Schneider (1977) some of these differences are as follows:

1. Items on Form C are feeling statements. Those on

124

Form D are statements about feelings. For example consider
items from each of these instruments:

Form C: "I feel rejected and empty inside. Am I
unloveable?"

Form D: "He can't really understand what it's like to
lose a year and a half of your life that way."

2. Form C emphasizes the importance of acknowledging
negative feelings about the self, while Form D attaches
greater importance to positive feelings. A comparison of
items which refer to either positive feelings (relief,
liking, happy, pleased, etc.) or negative feelings (embar-
assed, scared, hurt, rejected, etc.) indicates a large dis-
crepancy between the two versions of the instrument. In
Form C most of the item choices which refer to negative
feelings are the correct choices while this is true only
half the time on Form D. However for items which refer to
positive feelings they are likely to be scored as correct
on Form D and incorrect on Form C. A recent study employ-
ing the A.S.S. (Form D) by Ingram (1977) indicated that "a
chi square analysis found positive affect to be over repre-
sented in the multiple choice alternatives that were weight-
ed as most accurate ("preferred") and hostile affect to be
overrepresented in the error alternatives." Hence FOrm D
is biased toward the acknowledgement of positive affect
while Form C is biased toward negative affect.

3. While Form C was constructed with only three item
alternatives, Form D has five. The items on C are more

consistent and are statements of feelings. Form D items

125

are more varied and while some statements of feelings are
included more often they are about feelings or about cog-
nitions.

4. Form C items refer only to the client. In the case
of Form D a client is not present in all the episodes. In
addition items typically refer to the interviewer (therapist,
counselor, teacher, etc.) as well as to the client. Hence
all persons represented by the episodes may be the object
of an item and the subject is encouraged to focus on all
persons rather than just one.

5. The instruments are not similar in the difficulty
of selecting an appropriate alternative. Form C focuses
only on the client and asks the subject to choose an alter-
native from three possible of which only one is correct.
Form D asks the subject to focus on all parties in the scene
and to select from five possible alternatives the one which
is most correct. Because of the greater number of items
and.the generally more difficult nature of the items them-
selves the instrument may well be sensitive to the subject's
ability to read and to make quick decisions. This is espec-
ially significant since both Form C and Form D provide about
the same time (30 seconds per item) in which the subject is
to make a choice.

In summary Form D would appear to be a more difficult
instrument to take (this is substantiated by frequent com-
ments made by subjects about the frustration they experienced

while taking the test), which requires the subject to be more

126

attentive, to make decisions based on five alternatives
rather than three and between alternatives which all may
appear as correct. The test is likely to favor those who
read fast, as well as with good cOmprehension (Foreign‘
students and those for whom English is a second language
report difficulty reading all the alternatives in the time
limits). Most important, the items in Form D are about

feelings or thoughts rather than statements of feelings.

 

The lack of reference to what the person is feeling would
work against the instrument as a measure of affective sen-
sitivity. Finally the instrument is biased in the Opposite
direction from Form C in that it is more likely to refer to
positive affect while C refers to negative affect. For ex—
ample, in Form C 94% (31 of 33) of the item choices which
refer to negative affect (anger, hate, sadness, etc.) are
scored_as correct, while with Form D only 58% (31 of 53) of
such items are scored as correct. On the other extreme only
20% (3 of 15) of the item choices which refer to positive
affect (love, warmth, joy, etc.) on Form C are scored as cor-
rect, while 80% (20 of 25) of such item choices on Form D
are scored as correct.

Other evidence which supports the A.S. S. (Form D)
is a measure of a cognitive function is the correlation
between the scale and the Extorversion (E) and Judging
(J) raw scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
The Extorversion typology is related to a person's ten-

dency to look outward as a means of gathering data.

127

They are turned toward other people. The Judging function

is often related to a person's willingness to make decisions
based on available data. Hence the positive correlation that
exits with regard to these two MBTI types suggests that the
instrument measures behaviors which are in the cognitive
decision making domain. This would logically follow from

the requirement that subjects distinguish a correct alter-
native from other alternatives which are not quite incorrect,
but rather less relevant or less central to the concerns
contained within the stimulus scenes.

Present Utility of the Affective
Sensitivity Scale (Form D)

 

When the A.S.S. (Form D) was created it was the au-

thors' expectation that it would be employed for formative

 

evaluation to encourage self-knowledge and self-exploration

 

through feedback. The instrument has been successful in
meeting this goal as is indicated by the large number of
users and the large number of administrations. Reports

from users support the usefulness of the instrument for
formative evaluation and the present levels of validity and
reliability are acceptable for this purpose. Further re-
search on the instrument is necessary in order to understand
better what the precise qualities it measures. The instru-

ment in its present form would not appear to be appropriate

as a summative evaluative device, since it lacks the con-

 

struct validity necessary for decision making or criterion

setting evaluation.

128

Continued use of the instrument in its present form as
a measure of affective sensitivity however, is probably
not appropriate. This observation is based on the findings
of this study that the A.S.S. (Form D) has not been demon-
strated as a valid measure of this behavior. It does appear
to measure a behavior which is likely a cognitive component
of empathy, the nature of which remains to be delineated.
As a formative evaluative device the instrument would ap-
pear to be useful and its use as a stimulant to self-dis-
covery is supported.

The subscale scoring scheme would appear to offer some
benefits as a heuristic device, but subjects should be in-
formed of the lack of validity of these scales. The empir-
ical scales would appear to be slightly more valid al-
though this too has not been established. The results of
this study indicate that further research on the instrument
is desirable,especially research which would identify what
the instrument measures. In addition, if the instrument
(at least the film portion) is to be used as a measure of
affective sensitivity then modification of the multiple
choice test portion is seen here as necessary.

Implications for Further Research on
the Present Form of the Instrument

 

Further research on the present version of the A.S.S.
(Form D) would be fruitful, particularly if it would seek
to determine what it measures and how this relates to

affective sensitivity or empathy. Some possible avenues

129

for this kind of research are as follows:

It has been reported that the complexity of the item
choices favors subjects with high reading comprehension and
speed. The impact of these variables on scale scores
could be assessed by correlating scores on such instruments
as the Scholastic AptitudeTest (SAT). (Verbal scores)
which are available for many High School graduates, or with
other measures of reading skill, such as those routinely
employed by universities as part of the admissions proced-
ures. At Michigan State University all incoming freshmen
are required to take a reading comprehension test and these
scores could be available for correlation with A.S.S. scores.

Another way to identify the cognitive aspects of the
A.S.S. (Form D) would be to obtain I.Q. scores, particularly
from an instrument such as the Weschler Adult Intelligence
Scale. The Weschler offers particular advantages because
of its subscale scoring which includes six scales of Verbal
behavior and six of Performance behavior (Zimmerman and Woo-
Sam, 1973). Correlation between these subscales and the
A.S.S. would provide insight into the manner in which sub-
jects process information and their scores on the A.S.S.

It would be expected that verbal scores would correlate
highly with the A.S.S. (Form D).

Correlation of other personality measures with the
A.S.S. would indicate what personality characteristics are
likely to be reflected in scale scores. Some studies of

this nature have already begun. James Ayres (University

130

of Minnesota) has correlated the A.S.S. (Form D) with Tell-
egen's Differential Personality Questionnaire (DPQ) which
suggests possible correlations with Social Closeness.
Other instruments which might also be considered are the
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule and the Accurate Empathy Scale (AU).

Since the empirical subscales and indices appeared to
measure different behaviors from the total scale (see
Appendix G for inter-scale correlations) these scales might
be expanded and/or further analyzed. The empirical scales
were created by noting trends which appeared to run through
the item choices, so for example, the Discounting subscale
was generated by collecting all items which implied that
the Subject believed other persons to be unable to take care
of themselves or to know their own feelings. The present
scales could be refined and analyzed further.

Item correlations and factor analysis performed on
this instrument have only considered the items as units--
yet the item choices may be a more fundamental unit of the
test. Hence factor analysis based on item choices might
reveal a factor structure underlying the items themselves
which is independent of the scoring key. Correlation be-
tween item choices and the earlier Form C version would pro-
vide further insight into the ways that these instruments
are either similar or different. In general, given the lack
of homogeniety of the item choices themselves, correlations

between any other instrument and the A.S.S. (Form D) should

131

be made both with scale scores and specific item choices.
It may indicate that the instrument is capable of discimin-
ations which the present scoring key does not permit.

Implications for Modification
of the A.S.S. (Form D)

 

 

Based on the conclusions in this study there are two
approaches indicated to modify the new version (Form D) of
the Affective Sensitivity Scale, which promise increases
in this instrument's power. One approach is to focus on
increasing its effectiveness as a cognitive measure of em—
pathy--that which it does to some extent at present. A
second approach would be to make the changes necessary to
create a new instrument for the measurement of affective
sensitivity--the original purpose for which this instru-
ment was developed.

Continued development of the present form of the in-
strument would serve several purposes. First of all, the
instrument does make distinctions among subjects which ap-
pear to offer some heuristic value. Second, the instrument
has been extensively investigated already and there may be
some advantages in captializing on the research already
completed. Third, the instrument likely measures behaviors
which are of interest in the development of communication
skills.

The first change which would increase the power of the
instrument as a cognitive measure would be to eliminate

all item choices which are statements of feelings. This

132

would remove completely the affective component.

Another change which appears to be desirable would be
to reduce some of the ambiguity in item choices by elimin-
ating one of the five multiple choice alternatives. The
item to be removed should be the second most correct alter-
native, so that the distinction between the correct and
incorrect alternatives becomes more clear.

The factor analytic studies indicated a single primary
factor which accounts for only 31% of the variances of this
instrument. Item choices could be modified or eliminated
to increase the strength of this factor. This would likely
increase the homogeniety of the instrument as well as remove
the extensive sub-factor structure which underlies it. It
is expected that this factor is a cognitive factor and hence
such a change would increase the power of the instrument as
a cognitive measure.

Other modifications which would increase the utility
of the present A.S.S. (Form D) as a measure of the cognitive
component of empathy would be to define more clearly the
cognitive aspects of empathy and focused on them to write
items which reflect these aspects. For example, the items
could be statements which a subject might make in response
to the stimulus situation which would reflect either an in-
tervention Strategy or a label which indicate the nature of
the problem. This would provide the subject with feedback
on the modes in which he or she perceives interpersonal sit-

uations and permit comparison with other persons recognized

133

as experts, or with persons in the same or different pro-
fessions.

The use of the A.S.S. (Form D) as a measure of the
cognitive aspects of empathy would appear to offer some ben-
efits in communication skill training, or in professional de-
velopment. Continued use of this instrument as a measure of
a cognitive component of empathy might suggest that a new
name which reflects its cognitive nature might be more appro-
priate, such as the Cognitive Measure of Interpersonal Sen-
sitivity (CMIS) or other such name.

A second direction the modifications might take would
be to insure that the A.S.S. (Form D) were a measure of af-
fective sensitivity. The stimulus material (film portion
of the scale) would appear adequate as a stimulus in that it
does provide a wide range of situations which are emotion-
ally intense and which lend themselves to questions about
affect. Modification would require developing a multiple
choice test along the lines of the earlier Form C version
(this task has already been started by the scales authors,
Kagan and Schneider). Changes would involve developing item
choices which are statements of feelings, and with one clear-
1y correct and two incorrect alternatives. As with Form C
the items could be of two types, items which refer to the
person's awareness of themselves (selfawareness) and items
which reflect the person's feelings about the other person(s)
in the scene (relationship). This kind of modification would

lead to the advantages of the earlier scale plus the

vi.

‘s.

 

134

increased applicability of the instrument because of its
wider range of stimulus situations.

The instrument might also be modified to permit it to
determine response style. If the multiple choice portion of
the instrument were developed more along the lines of Por-
ter's Helping Relationship Inventory (Pfeiffer and Jones,
1973) then this would be a possibility. Porter's instrument
provided five different response modes to each (written)
episode, to which the subject provided a rank ordering of
the responses. Because the episodes in the A.S.S. are about
dialogues between other persons and not statements directed
toward the subject the responses would have to be of a dif-
ferent nature. The subject might be asked what statement
he or she would prefer in order to provide assistance, clar—
ification, or direction to the subjects in the episodes.

The subject could rank order several different intervention
strategies resulting in a preference score for one type
strategy over others. Another approach within this same
format would be to provide alternatives much like the pre-
sent kind, although structured such that they represent dis-
tinct attitudes of the perceiver, such as suspiciousness,
discounting, affectively, cognitively, feeling awareness,
sensitizing, repressing of feelings, etc. These various
responses would need to be plausible interpretations of the
situations presented and the subject would obtain a profile
which indicated their preferred mode of responding to inter-

personal situations.

135

Whether further research procedes along the lines of
developing a cognitive measure of empathy or a: measure of
affective sensitivity, or a combination of these two, the
stimulus portion of the A.S.S. (Form D) provides an adequate
base for stimulating research. What has been learned in the
course of this study and what was already known from earlier
studies on the instrument increases the likelihood that more
reliable and valid instruments will be created. The need
for such instrumentation has been demonstrated both by the
considerable use of the present instrument in its develop-
mental stages and in the number of studies both about and
with the instrument which have already begun.

The Affective Sensitivity Scale (Form D) in its present
form does have heuristic value in providing subjects with
a stimulus for personal and professional growth. Further
research is desirable to identify the specific behaviors
that the instrument measures and to determine the degree to

which these behaviors are a necessary part of empathy.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A
AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
FORM C

Reproduced here with the permission
of the authors.

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
Instructions

YOu will be viewing short scenes of actual counseling sessions. You are to
identify what feelings the clients have toward themselves and toward the
counselors they are working with.

Although in any one scene a client may exhibit a variety of feelings, for
the purpose of this instrument you are to concentrate on identifying his
last feelings in the scene.

0n the following pages are multiple choice items consisting of three
responses each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have one or three
items. After you View each scene, you are to read the items and ask
yourself the following question:

If the client were to view this same scene, and
if he were completely open and honest with him-
self, (i.e., if he could identify his real
feelings) which of these three responses would
he use to describe his feelings?

After you decide which response accurately describes what the client is
actually feeling either about himself or the counselor he is with, indicate
your choice on the answer sheet.

Here is a sample item:

CLIENT I
Scene 1
$232.1
1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It
makes me feel good.
2. I feel very sad and unhappy.
3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it
(all together.

After you had viewed Scene 1 for CLIENT I, you would read these three state-
ments (Item 1) and would then decide which one best states what the client
would say about his own feelings after viewing the same scene. For example,
if you decide number two best states what the client is feeling, you would
then find the number 1 on your answer sheet and darken in the space for
number two .

1. 1 :::: 2 [III 3 :::: 4 :::: 5 ::::
we will only make use of the first three answer spaces following each item
on your answer sheet.

Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in deter-
mining the most accurate description of the client's feelings.

 

After you view the appropriate scenes, you will have thirty seconds to

136

137

answer each of the first twelve items. For each of the remaining items,
you will be allowed twenty seconds.

CAUTION: The item numbers on your answer sheet go across the page,
not down the page as you would usually expect!

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM B

CLIENT I
Scene 1

Item 1

l. I feel sorry for my husband and the relationship
we have.

2. I don't really understand what I feel. Yet, I
do feel guilty about creating pain in others
which returns to me.

3. I feel pleased at seeing a possible relationship
between my feelings of anger and pain.

Item 2

1. He (counselor) doesn't have to like me. I just
want him to agree with me and tell me I'm right.

2. I'm trying to please you. Do you like me?

3. He's really understanding me now.

CLIENT I
Scene 2

Item 3

l. I feel calm and collected. I just want to think
for a while.

2. Yes, that is when I get angry. I see it all
clearly now.

3. I feel anxious and stimulated.

 

Item 4

1. I'll pretend I'm agreeing with him (counselor),
but I don't see the connection at all.

2. I like what he's doing. I don't feel as
uncomfortable now.

3. I wish he would stop pushing me in this
direction.

.138

CLIENT II
Scene 1
' Item 5
1. I'm pleased, happy; I feel good all over!
2. It was brought right back, that amazes me, but it
hits quite bad too. It hurts!
3. I'm not bothered by this. I can handle it. I'm
confident.

Item 6

1. He's (counselor) caught me; careful, I'm not sure
I want that.

2. I like him- He's trying to make the situation a
little lighter and made me feel better about it.

3. I don't feel he understands. He's sarcastic.
I don't like that.

CLIENT II
Scene 2
Item 7
1. I feel a little uneasy and self-conscious, but
not much.
2. This scares me. I feel frightened!
3. I feel flirtatious. I like this!
Item 8
l. I feel a little bit embarrassed, but that's all
right as long as I can keep my composure.
2. I have a feeling of sadness.
3. I feel flustered and embarrassed.
Item 9

1. He's asking for some touchy material, but that's
all right. It's about time he knew.

2. He's being very frank and open! I'm not sure I
want that. _

3. I'want him.to leave me alone--I want out of here.
I don't like this.

139

CLIENT II
Scene 3
Item 10
1. I'm getting so much attention. I really enjoy this.
It makes me feel good.
2. I'm scared by what I'm feeling. I feel embarrassed
and threatened. -
3. I have the feeling that what I wanted was wrong, and
I'm.a little ashamed of myself.

Item 11
I. This is good. We're really moving into my feelings.
2. He's too perceptive; he's looking right through me.

3. He's getting a little sticky; I'm not sure I like that.

CLIENT III
Scene 1
Item 12
l. I feel protective and defensive of what people may
think about my family.
2. All this seems so pointless! I'm puzzled and
bored.
3. We're having a nice conversation. Some of these
things really make me think.

Item 13

1. This guy (counselor) embarrasses me with the
questions he asks.

2. The questions he asks really make me think.
I'm not sure I like that.

3. I can't follow this guy's line of thought.
What's he trying to do?

CLIENT IV
Scene 1
Item 14
1. I'm concerned about my physical condition. I'm
worried about it.
2. I want pity. I want her to think "oh, you poor
boy".
3. I feel good--nothing's bothering me, but I enjoy
talking.

Item 15

1. She's too young to be counseling, and she's a
girl. I'm not sure I like this.

2. She likes me; I know she does.

3. I'd like her to think I'm great.

140

CLIENT IV
Scene 2
1.93.1.6.
1. I'm a little annoyed with my family's ambitions
for me.
2. That's a hell of a lot to ask! It makes me mad!
3. I feel sorry for myself, and I want others to
feel the same.
Item 17
1. She (counselor) really understands me! She's
with me now.
2. I don't feel much either way towards the counselor;
she's not important to me.
3. I wonder if she appreciates the pressure that's put
on me?
CLIENT IV
Scene 3
Item 18

1. This whole thing just makes me feel sad and unhappy.

2. It kind of angers me that they don't appreciate me
when I feel I did my best. I wish I could tell them
off.

3. No matter how well I do, I'm always criticized. It
doesn't bother me too much though because I know that
I did my best.

Item 19

1. I can tell she understands what I'm saying. She's
really with me.

2. I wish I could get out of here; I don't like her.

3. Understand what I'm saying; I want her to know
how I feel.

141.

CLIENT IV
Scene 4

Item 20

1. I really want to be successful, and somehow I know
that I can be.

2. That makes me feel kind of sad, unhappy. I don't
want to believe that it's true--I want to be good.

3. I don't know what I feel here. It's all very
confusing.

Item 21

l. I feel neutral towards her here. I'm not paying
any attention to her.

2. Please feel sorry for me and try to help me. I
wish she would praise me.

3. I like talking to her. She can be trusted even
to the point of telling her how I really feel
about myself.

CLIENT V
Scene 1

Item 22

l. I feel rejected and empty inside. Am I unloveable?

2. I feel a little lonely. I want my boy friend to
pay a little more attention to me.

3. I really don't feel much here; I'm just kind of
talking to fill up space.

15333—3

1. Please say it isn't fair, Mr. Counselor.

2. He really understands me. I can tell him anything.

3. I'm not sure I care what he says. It's kind of
unimportant to me what he feels about me at this time.

142

CLIENT V
Scene 2

Item 24

1. I'm afraid of marriage--insecure; it might not work
out, and I'd be lost.

2. I really can give him all the affection he needs, I
feel I'm.a worthwhile person to be desired. He
wouldn't dare step out on me.

3. I'm really not too worried; it'd all work out in
the end even if we have to go to a marriage counselor.

Item 25

l. I don't care if he (counselor) can help me or not.
I'm not sure I want his help.

2. He's so sympathetic. That makes me feel good.

3. Can you help me?

CLIENT V
Scene 3

Item 26

l. I feel I have some need to be liked, but it's not
real strong.

2. I'm not loveable; I don't really like myself.

3. I'm a good person; I'm loveable. Down deep I know

I am.

Item 27

l. I feel dejected, kind of insecure. I want to be
likeable!

2. My main concern is that it's hard for me to take

criticism. I usually think of myself as perfect.

3. I feel a little sad about all this; I do kind of
. want people to like me.

Item 28

1. He thinks well of me; I know he does, I can tell.

2. I want the counselor to really like me, but I'm
not sure he does.

3. I like it when he asks questions like that. They
make me really think about deeper things.

 

1143

CLIENT‘V
Scene 4
$592.12.
1. I wouldn't want to be treated like he treats Mother,
but I don't mind him (stepfather) too much.
2. I feel very little emotion about anything at this
point.
3. I hate hhm (stepfather)!
Item 30
1. Boy, I'm happy that he (counselor) agrees with me.
He sympathizes with me. I feel completely accepted.
2. I'm embarrassed to tell the counselor how strong my
feelings really are.
3. I'm not sure he'll be able to help me much after
all. I'll just have to work this out by myself.
CLIENT V
Scene 5
Item 31
l. I'm.kind of feeling sorry for myself, but I'm not
really too worried.
2. I want to move out of the house as soon as possible.
I feel I would be better off on my own.
3. My own parents don't want me; I feel cut off and
hurt.
Item 32
l. I don't feel he's (counselor) helpful at all, and
if he can't help me and see my side, I'm not
going to like him either.
2. He's got me in a spot, but I feel I can still get
him.to see me as a good girl who is persecuted.
3. I wish the counselor were my father. He's listening;
he understands how I feel.
CLIENT VI
Scene 1

Item 33

l. Disapprove! She'd kill me!

2. I feel jovial; this is real interesting.

3. I'm not sure how she would feel but the whole idea
of her finding out excites me.

Item 34

1. He (counselor) understands me completely. He
certainly is relaxed and comfortable.

2. I really don't care what he feels about me. I
just want someone to talk to--anyone will do.

3. I was wondering how he would feel about me and
what I'm.aaying.

144

CLIENT VI
Scene 2
£93.32
1. I think my brother is 0.x. We have fun together.
2. I don't know what I'm saying here. I'm a little
mixed up and confused.
3. I'm saying something that's important to me. I
like Doug.
CLIENT VI
Scene 3
Item 36
1. This is very confusing for me. I'm not sure I
understand what is going on.
2. This is how I really feel, I'm kind of starting
to be myself.
3. I'm just talking to be talking here; this really
doesn't mean much to me.
Item 37
1. I guess he's (counselor) all right, but I'm still
not sure he understands me.
2. Let's get going. I'm.impatient! I want to move
to more important matters.
3. I feel comfortable with him. He understands me.
CLIENT VI
Scene 4

Item 38

1. I love my brother, but not romantically. We just
have a good brother-sister relationship.

2.- I don't know about feeling this way about Doug;
it feels so good, but it concerns me too.

3. I feel better about my relationship with Doug now.
It helps to get it out in the open. Now I feel
it's all right.

145

CLIENT VI
Scene 5
Item 39
1. I'm not feeling much of anything here. I'm just kind
of talking to be talking.
2. I'm.mad at everyone at this point and don't know which
way to turn; I guess I'm mad at myself too.
3. Now I'm talking about things that are real. I'm not
on stage anymore. She is a louse!

Item 40

1. He (counselor) feels she's a bad person too. I can
tell; he agrees with me.

2. Don't you agree with me? I want to know what you

think.
3. He thinks this all sounds petty. He doesn't
understand.
CLIENT VII
Scene 1
Item 41

l. I felt angry with my mother, but this made me feel
guilty. I needed to make an excuse for her.

2. I'm really not angry with mother. It's not her
fault.

3. I'm in a very passive mood. I'm just relaxing
and talking about things that interest me.

Item 42

1. This counselor is all right. I feel I can confide
in him.

,2. I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure what this
counselor wants me to do.

3. I feel he wants me to talk about myself, but I
don't care. I'm going to talk about what I want
to talk about.

146

CLIENT VII '
Scene 2
Item 43
1. I'm very sensitive; I'm very easily hurt.

2. I'm somewhat sensitive and easily hurt, but not
deeply so.

3. I'm not sensitive or easily hurt at all. I just
like to make people think I am.

Item 44

1. That makes me mad, I can do it--I know I can, but
things just keep getting in my way.

2. It's really all his fault, if he just wouldn't
have been such a joker.

3. This makes me feel guilty; I need to blame someone
else instead of blaming myself.

Item 45

1. I'm neutral towards the counselor. I don't care
what he feels about me.

2. I'm afraid he doesn't like me and what Im saying
about myself. I don't want him to be harsh with
me.

3. He's easy to talk to. He understands what I'm
like, and he still likes me. I can confide in

him.
CLIENT VIII
Scene 1
Item 46

1. Say, this is all right. I like this.
2. I'm not feeling anything deeply.’ I know what

I need!

3. ‘It's embarrassing and difficult. I feel a little
annoyed.

Item 47

l. I feel I can rely on this guy, so I'll let him talk
and I'll just answer his questions.

2. I wonder what you think about this--please respond.
Give me some help!

3. The counselor is a good guy. I like his questions;
they make it easier for me.

147

CLIENT VIII
Scene 2
Item 48
l. I feel very unhappy about what I may eventually have
to do.
2. I don't know what I feel; I'm.confused about what I
feel. '

3. I'm damned uncomfortable; it's so confusing. I feel
kind of 'blah' about it all.

Item 49

1. He's (counselor) missing the point. He bugs me.

2. I can't really tell about this guy. I don't know
how I feel about him.

3. He seems like a good guy. He asks nice questions.

I like him.
CLIENT IX
Scene 1
151L533.
1. I'm not sure how I feel about this counselor. I
don't feel one way or the other about him.
2. I like the counselor very much--he makes me feel
good.
3. He understands me pretty well and is trying to
help. I guess I kind of like him.
CLIENT IX
Scene 2

£92.51

1. Goody, goody people don't really know any better,
so I can't be too disgusted with them, but it does
make me angry.

2. I don't really mind people feeling superior to me.
It just makes me a little angry.

3. It tears me up inside when people think they're
better than I am. I want people to be the same
as me.

Item 52

1. I'm every bit as good as they are. I really feel
I am. I know I am.

2. I kind of wished they liked me, but I can live
without being a member of their group.

3. Those smart kids make me feel stupid.

Item 53

l. I feel sorry for them; they just don't realize what
-they're doing to people like me.

2. I feel I'm not as good as they are, and it really
hurts when people act that way.

3. It makes me a little angry. I'm every bit as good
as they are.

148

CLIENT IX
Scene 3
Item 54
l. I feel a little insignificant, and this makes me
a little unhappy.
2. I'm a nobody. I'm always left out.
3. I'm unhappy with school. That's what is really
bothering me.

Item 55

1. He (counselor) doesn't quite understand, but I
don't care. It doesn't matter.

2. I don't feel one way or the other towards this
counselor, we're just having a nice talk.

3. He (counselor) is really listening to me, and I
feel he understands what I'm feeling.

CLIENT X
Scene 1
Item 56
1. I'm feeling scared, concerned. Is this for me?
2. I just feel uncertain about what to talk about.
If I once get started, I'll be all right.
3. I feel very deeply depressed.

Item 57

1. He (counselor) seems to be listening-~can he
understand how I feel?

2. He's really with me. I can tell he understands

me.
3. He doesn't keep things moving enough. I don't
like that.
CLIENT X
Scene 2 -
Item 58

1. I'd like to think I could make it, but I'm not
sure. I feel inadequate.

2. I just have an I-don't-care feeling; that's my
real attitude towards all of this.

3. I'm confused here. I really don't have any
definite feelings.

Item 59

l. I want to impress the counselor. I want him
to believe I can do it.

2. He believes me; he thinks I can do it; I can
tell.

3. I really don't care what the counselor thinks.
It's not important to me.

149

CLIENT X
Scene 3

Its—£29

1. What's the use of looking ahead? I'm scared to
think about it. '

2. I can accept my situation. Really, things aren't
so bad. Things may bother mela little, but really
not much.

3. I enjoy just living for today.

Item 61

1. He's (counselor) all right. He really understands

' me.

2. Nobody can really understand this. I don't think
he will be any different.

3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; he's not
important to me anyway.

CLIENT X
Scene 4
Item 62
l. I feel somewhat unhappy. I don't like to feel
this‘way.
2. There's something about me; I just don't fit
in, and that makes me feel real inadequate.
3. In some instances, I'm unsure of myself. I'm
afraid I'll do the wrong thing, but I can handle
this just by avoiding these situations.

CLIENT XI
Scene 1
Item 63
1. I'm unhappy about all this, but I'm afraid to
make a change.
2. It's not that I don't like school, it's just
that I want to do the things I like most.
3. I'm.not the student type. School bores me,
but it embarrasses me when I say it.

Item 64

l. The counselor is a nice guy. I like him, and
I think he likes me.

2. I wonder what the counselor thinks of me. He'll
probably think less of me for saying this.

3. I don't care what he thinks of me. It doesn't
really matter to me.

150

CLIENT XI
Scene 2
Item 65
1. I've found some new dimensions. I like to feel
that I can have some excitement, but this kind
of scares me too.
2. This doesn't really mean much. I'm not feeling
much of anything.
3. This makes me feel very guilty; I'm very ashamed.

Item 66

l. I suppose he'll (counselor) tell me that's wrong,
too. I'm not sure he understands me very well.

2. He's 0.K.; he's listening to what I have to say.
He really understands me and my feelings.

3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; it's not
important. I don't have any feelings towards
the counselor.

APPENDIX B

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
EXAMINER'S MANUAL
FORMS D AND E

Reproduced here with the permission
of the authors.

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
EXAMINER'S MANUAL

FORMS D & E

© Copyright 1975 Normal I. Kagan, Ph.D.
- John M. Schneider, Ph.D.

© Copyright 1977 Normal I. Kagan, Ph.D.
John M. Schneider, Ph.D.

Not to be reproduced without explicit written permission of the authors.

151

152

Affective Sensitivity Scale
Forms D & E

Examiner's Manual

Table of Contents

A.

INTRODUCTION

 

Purpose

Nature of examination procedures
Materials Included

Additional Materials Needed

RECOMMENDED EXAMINATION PROCEDURES

 

INSTRUCTION - FORM D 8 E

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FEEDBACK: DEFINITION & EXPLANATION OF
CATEGORIES

 

EXAMINER'S COPY OF FORMS D &/OR E

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE: A

 

DEVELOPMENTAL VIEW

 

CURRENT NORMS: FORM D

 

CURRENT NORMS: FORM E

 

153

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
EXAMINER'S MANUAL
FORMS D & E

by Norman 1. Kagan, Ph.D.
John M. Schneider, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose:

An evaluation instrument intended to measure one aspect of the
examinee's sensitivity in interpersonal interactions.

Nature of the Examination Procedure:

 

Each scale consists of 30 film segments taken from various inter-
personal encounters, ranging in time from eight seconds to approx-
imately two minutes. Following each scene, the examinee answers
multiple choice items designed specifically for that scene.

Necessareraterials:

 

l. Examiner's Manual

2. 16mm. color sound A.S.S. - Form D or E

3. Test booklets - Form D or E (one per examinee)

4. Answer sheet — IBM

5. 16mm. sound projector (if possible, the projector should
be located so that the noise of its operation is minimized)

6. StOpwatch

7. Examining room minimizing visual and auditory distractions

8. Examination pencils

B.

154

RECOMMENDED EXAMINATION PROCEDURES

1.

Make the examinees as comfortable as possible prior to the
start of testing. You may wish to share the following infor-
mation to help them anticipate the experience in addition to
instructing them to read the instructions at the beginning of
the test booklet:

a. They will be seeing a series of short segments from various
interpersonal encounters. Some will be of teachers with
students, doctors with patients, couples, families, class-
rooms and psychotherapy.

b. They will be asked: If the persons in the scene were being
honest with themselves, "what do you think the persons are
really saying to themselves at that point?"

c. There are two and sometimes three items per scene. Please
check carefully so that all items are answered. They are
to give only one answer per item.

d. Have the examinees note the "Confidentiality" statement in
the booklet, which also appears at the beginning of the
film.

e. Despite the fact that this is a test, some of the scenes
have a strong impact on the examinee. You may wish to
offer them the opportunity to discuss their reactions with
you afterwards.

f. Be sure to use the appropriate answer sheets. Remind the
examinees to place name and/or other appropriate identify-
ing data on the answer sheets. DO NOT MARK THE QUESTION
BOOKLET IN ANY WAY.

g. If any examinee has a marked booklet give them the oppor-
tunity to obtain a clean booklet, since such markings tend
to be distracting (and of uncertain accuracy).

Be sure the projector operator is alert to the end of a scene.
The projector must be stopped within 2 to 4 seconds of the end
of a scene. Previewing the film before showing for the first

time can help the operator anticipate the end of a scene.

Lights need to be off or dimmed during the playing of the film.
Adequate light is necessary for answering the questions. It is
possible to obtain one lignt level adequate both for viewing the
film and answering the questions.

Allow 39 seconds for each item. For all scenes, the total time

 

between scenes will be 60 or 90 seconds, depending on the number
of items. The instructor will need a copy of the exam to keep
track. Use a stop watch or second hand on a watch or clock to

5.

155

keep track of the time. At the end of the time period, immed-
iately start the projector. It is possible with the help of
your audio-visual department to splice an amount of black film
between scenes so timed (36 feet/minute) that the operator does
not need to stop and start the projector ( - sorry, we will not
permit videotape copies to be made from the film).

The total time of test should be approximately Z§_minutes.

As a result of the experiences of several users of the scale, we make
the following additional suggestions:

6.

10.

11.

Many examinees find the format of multiple correct answers for a
single item frustrating. As they prepare to take the test, it
would be helpful to tell them that this exam is probably unlike
any other they have taken in two ways:

a. They will be asked to observe a filmed encounter and answer
multiple choice questions on what they felt the person would
really say to her/himself at the 32d of the scene. Emphasize
they are to give only ppg_response per item.

b. For evegy item, more than one_pf_the answers ip correct.
Credit will be given for any correct responses.

 

 

A few scenes are very difficult because of their brevity. With
any scene shorter than 30 seconds, you should warn them of its
brevity prior to starting the projector.

In any case where the sound is of marginal quality, read the
dialogue aloud from the examiner's copy which has a complete
typescript of the dialogue.

If you have some question of the examinee's reading speed as a
group (i.e., below the level expected of a college student), you
may wish to lengthen the time per item to g9 seconds from 30.
Please indicate you have done so in any correspondence on this
data with us. Do pp£_lengthen the time for any group that has
high reading capacities, since they tend to "obsess" over the
responses rather than give their first impressions.

You may wish to take a break during the test or give the test in
two sessions. Our findings so far indicate this makes little
difference in their scores, as long as the examinees cannot go
back and change ppy_responses after the break on items completed
previously. If you do take a break, it would be best to do so
between two different scenes, rather than between different parts
of the same scene.

0n the answer sheet, make sure the examinees put their name, sex,
the date of the testing and the form of the exam taken (D or E).
Have examinees use a soft lead pencil.

156

12. There are some scenes where there are more than two items. Be
sure to allot sufficient time for completion. Alert the exams
inees so they will not neglect answering additional items, or
additional alternatives which may be on subsequent pages.

13. Post-test instructions. For examinees who have gone through IPR
training, or have seen any of the Kagan IPR materials, the follow-
ing suggestions are made to the examinees:

Don't 5 ynpg recall what ygu saw previously during trainipg
.pp determine how pp respond. If a particular scene looks famil-
iar, stay with your immediate reaction to it.

This is a 'sensitivity' not a 'memory' test. For most of us, our
memory of past feelings is not as accurate as our capacity to recog-
nize what's going on at the moment.

INSTRUCTION - FORM D & E
AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE

Forms D & E
Instruction‘£p_Examinee

 

You will be viewing short scenes of actual encounters between two or
more individuals. You are to identify what feelings the people have
toward themselves and toward the person they are working with. You
will be instructed just prior to each scene which individuals to fo-
cus on.

Although in any one scene a client or interviewer may exhibit 3 var-
iety of feelings, for the purpose of this instrument you are to concen—
trate on identifying each person's last feelings in the scene.

 

After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask youself
the following questions, depending on the specific instructions for
the scene:

If the people involved were to view this
same scene, and if they were completely
open and honest with themselves, (i.e.,

if they could identify their real feelings)
which of these responses would they use to
describe their feelings?

After you decide which response accurately describes what the people
are actually feeling whether about themselves or the others they are
with, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. 0n the following

pages are multiple choice items usually consisting of five responses
each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have one or three items.

Note the information you will be given: a) the context of what will
be happening. This can include seating positions. b) the opening
statement of the scene you will see, c) the length of time the scene

157

will be on the screen and d) the closing statement of the scene. In
addition, the participants in each scene will be identified.

Here is a Sample Item (minus the film segment)

 

Scene AX TEACHER - STUDENTS
a) Class discussing vocational planning

b) Opening Statement (Teacher): "Is there anyone who
knows the answer?"

Time: 18 seconds

 

After you have viewed Scene AX, you would turn the page and be given
the following information:

Scene AX TEACHER - STUDENTS (con't)
d) Closing Statement (Teacher): "You look pretty upset."

Item 1. What do you think the student is really saying to
himself at this point?

a. This exploring of my feelings is good. It
makes me feel good.

b. I feel very sad and unhappy.

c. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all
together.

d. I wish he hadn't said that. It makes me angry.

e. Upset! You don't know the half of it!

 

After you have viewed Scene AX, you would turn the page and read the
statements (Item 1, above) and would then decide which one best states
what the client and/or interviewer would say about their own feelings
after viewing the same scene. For example, if you decide "b" best
states what the student is feeling, you would then find the "b" on
your answer sheet and darken in the space for "b" (pencil only, please)

 

 

Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene for
determining your response.

After you view the appropriate scene, you will have thirty seconds to
answer each item.

158

The items on this test may seem very difficult. While there is a
preferred response, there are other alternatives which are also
scored as correct on each item.

CONFIDENTIALITY. All of the participants in the scenes have given

 

their informed consent as to the purpose and use of this material.
However, because of the nature of the material discussed and their
rights as human beings, we must ask you to treat all of the material
as if the person told it to you personally and privately.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FEEDBACK

It is our impressions that the most effective use of this scale is
(l) as a feedback instrument, with opportunities following to work
on selected areas, and (2) as a measure of change following a train-
ing program. For the purpose of feedback, alloting a half-hour for
individual feedback and discussion has been the most valuable method.
Group feedback, however, does provide opportunities to clarify the
meaning of the scores but does not readily permit us to help an
individual examine the meaning of the feedback to that person.

As mentioned previously, the skill of accurately reading another
person is considered an important component of accurate empathy and
effective interpersonal skills. The Affective Sensitivity Scale can
provide the examinees with feedback about their differential sensi—
tivity to a variety of context and types of individuals. For example,
examinee "A" may find herself highly sensitive when the setting was

a counseling setting but not so when the setting was more informal.
She may find she is more aware of what is going on in children and
women than in men. She may also discover that she is equally sensi-
tive to the interviewer and client.

This feedback could be useful in helping examinee "A" focus on the
areas in which she has difficulty pp focus only on working in the
settings or with the people where she is already effective.

Definition & Explanation of Categories
Current category scoring

We are currently using a series of subscales which are based on the
type of scenes we've used in scale development. Following is a
description of each of these categories which are shown on the Pro-
file Sheet in Figure l.

A. ROLE-related items. For those scenes where there is a clearly
identifiable interviewer and interviewee, we have compiled scores
into the following two cateogories: Client and Interviewer.

(Not included in this category are situations where there is no
client, i.e., the health care team, the classroom situation,
the informal discussion between friends.)

 

I.aIll.I»\ -.I I‘uiol \I.lul|ll¢lnlulllul|..| IIIIIII lllllllll

u d 1...... - \..-..0~z

BNMHZOU \UZHHHmm MNHm .595 Nmm mu< . maom

 

Illlllllllll'l

159
Figure 1.
c:

\O

 

on

'II'IIIIII'IIIIIII

 

o.»

Illllllll'llllllllllll

IIIIL

 

on

ll'll'l'llllll‘lllll"

lllll

 

oh

lllllllllllllll'lllllllll'lllIIII

Illll

 

om

OS

on

00

oh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 a O I H H S .a . O V I O
o
.2 m m m. s m. m m. m m m m. m n
u m. s o n m p .m I a n n. a m
d o o m u. .4 a u 3
K. _ I I. I.
. I O o a
B u M
1 e a
muon— a T. 1
«SOHO magnum EH>HHHmzmm EHHUMMM<

 

 

. mwuamvuzmamz

160

Client Sensitivity: these items involve any situation where there

 

is a clearly definable client/patient. It includes only those ques-
tions which ask the examinee to identify what the client/patient is
experiencing at a particular time.

We assume that this category assesses sensitivity to individuals who
are in subordinate positions, or where the role definition ascribes
them the role of the person seeking help or being interviewed.

Interviewer Sensitivity: these items involve any situation where

 

there is a clearly definable interviewer. These items occur in the
same situations as the client sensitivity items.

We assume that this category assesses sensitivity to individuals who
are playing a dominant, seeking or clarifying role with others. In.
the pre-post studies using IPR, we frequently find this to be one

of the areas of greater change. Our assumption is that this area
may also most closely reflect change in level of self-awareness,
which is a basic intent of IPR training.

AGE. We've also separated items based on the age of the person be-

ing observed.

Child Sensitivity: this scale includes all items where the examinee

 

is asked how a child (under 18 yrs.) is reacting.

Since these situations used to portray children are largely educa-
tional and of the high age level, we are hesitant to generalize
about sensitivity to children in other settings. For example, we
find many professional parents (meaning parenthood is the chief pro-
fession) scoring in midrange, despite evidence of sensitivity from
other sources. Also, sensitivity to childhood psychopathology is
not measured. We've found that usual IPR training shows no improve-
ment pre to post on this scale, largely we assume, because IPR
rarely involves children as clients or partners in the training.

Adult Sensitivity: includes all items not scored in the Child area
(53 items). .This category is probably the most reliable and general-
izeable of the categories because of its size and the breadth of
individuals used as stimuli.

 

SEX. Items have also been categorized in terms of sensitivity to
males and to females.

Male Sensitivity: All items in which the examinee is to respond to
a male adult or male child.

 

We've discovered, in interviewing people who have scored high on
male sensitivity, that this is frequently due to one or more of sev-
eral factors: a) that such sensitivity, developmentally, had "sur-
vival value" for the individual. That is, they needed to be aware
as children, what father or some other dominant male in their lives
was thinking or feeling in order to avoid punishment, rejection,

161

etc. b) Another reason offered was there was little anxiety in the
interactions with dominant male figures in their current lives.

c) There are also some individuals who are generally sensitive
who score high on both male and female sensitivity, who are able to
get beyond sex role stereotyping issues and see the more generic
problems of men and women.

Female Sensitivity: All items in which the examinee is to respond
to a female adult or female child.

 

The same factors influencing high male sensitivity also apply to
female. However, for both male and female sensitivity 12! scores,
we've also found multiple possible reasons: a) non-awareness of
what is going on with a person of that sex, based on lack of contact
in any depth with members of that sex. b) the use of defensive
strategies developmentally which emphasized denial, projection or
making general assumptions about the way individuals of that sex
react. c) there are some individuals who do not score high even
though there is external evidence of sensitivity and openness.

Our hypothesis is that individuals who grow up in, or currently
live in situations where affect is openly expressed and where each
person takes responsibility for their feelings, there may be little
need for being highly sensitive to subtle cues for what is going on.
We think there may be some who do not score high on the test gener-
ally because they aren't motivated by their personal or profession-
al life circumstances to see such sensitivity as necessary.

 

GROUP SIZE. Another way we have categorized the items is in terms
of the size of the group being observed.

Dyadic: Settings which involved only two people interacting. These
scenes provide relatively greater opportunity to focus on the one or
two individuals who are being observed.

Group Settigg: Items where more than two people were interacting
(classroom, health team, family). We've found some individuals who
are generally sensitive, but cannot handle more than dyadic inter-
actions. Hence, their profile shows generally high scores except
in this category. We've also observed instances in which the re-
verse takes place. This may be correlated with experience in group
settings. Again, one must be careful not to generalize from these
observations to all groups.

 

It's also possible that the difference between scores on dyadic
and group settings may reflect differential perceptual capacities
for focusing and scanning.

SETTING/CONTEXT: The remaining categories are based on all items
from a particular setting.

 

Educational settigg: Items included here are from classroom, teach-
er—student interactions, interactions between counselors, principals,
educational administrators. People who score high on this scale

 

162

tend to have more experience in this setting and are more sensitive
to the issues and problems in secondary education in particular.
It's difficult to generalize to other levels of education, because
most of the items are from primary/middle school/secondary educa-
tional settings. Some individuals who score low on this scale have
reported difficult experiences in their education, and one or more
of the scenes triggered unpleasant associations for them.

Health Care Setting: Items from doctor-patient interactions and
health team interactions. High scores tend to be more familiar
with health care settings and the issues involved. (We've found
that this doesn't necessarily apply to first year medical students,
who may or may not have had previous experience in a health care
setting.) Some people who score low describe past negative exper-
-iences with health care personnel which are triggered by the scenes.
Some people relied heavily on stereotypes of what doctors, nurses,
etc. are like to choose their responses.

Informal Setting: Items from the "Friends" interaction. Since
there is no defineable interviewer or client, or expected role for
either to play, we see this as sensitivity to more intimate, infor-
mal relations. One major handicap of this scale is size: there are
only a few items and only one setting. However, our impression is
that people who prefer informality in their interactions with others
tend to score higher than those who prefer more clearly defined
roles in their interactions with others. Hence, sometimes we find
someone who is very high on psychotherapy setting, but low in in-
formal, or vice-verse.

 

ProblemrSolvingySetting: Items where there is a clearly defined
issue being discussed between an interviewer/counselor and a client.
This includes discussing death and dying, marital problems, identity
problems (e.g. becoming a doctor), academic performance, etc. It
does ppt include medical problems or what we'll subsequently discuss
as "psychotherapeutic" or counseling issues.

 

We've found people scoring high who've had experience in crisis coun-
seling settings and thbse who see themselves and are seen by others
as effective problem solvers: peOple who can clearly define an issue
and see alternative ways to approach it. Low scorers sometimes are
the result of one or more of the issues being discussed reflecting
one of their personal concerns which influenced reactions to the
scene. For example, several people described difficulty with the
death and dying items because there had been a recent or unresolved
death in their family.

Counseling & Psychotherapy Setting: Items where the iesue is not
clearly defined; where the interaction is between a therapist and
client, or therapist and family; and where the purpose of the inter-
action is not one of solving a particular problem (at least not
immediately) but more one of clarifying feelings, assumptions over

a period of time to allow for personal growth and where the client
appears to be deeply troubled. Those who do well on these items

 

.163

 

 

 

 

 

SCORING
PREF- ACCEP- STANDARD
Category # ITEMS ERRED TABLE RANDOM TOTAL SCORE
Client 28
Interviewer 26
Adult 53
Child 10
Male 36
Female 27
Group 13
Dyad 49
Educational 18
Health Care 11
Informal 6
Counseling 9
Psychotherapy l9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o-h
F.\1

\

.TL
oh.

  

 

164

tend to be those who've had experience in these settings (on either
side of the couch) and/or who are sensitive to basic issues which lie
beyond the presenting concerns of the client. Low scorers may in-
clude individuals who've had negative experiences in psychotherapy
and bring these with them to their responses, or who find their reac-
tions triggered by the scenes they've witnessed. For example, several
people have had intense reactions to the discussion around divorce

and the children's reactions to the extent they couldn't be objective
about what they witnessed.

Total Score: All items summed together. We're not sure what the
total score means at this point, since we feel the variety of scenes,
situations etc. and the diversity of response to them suggests to us
that much of perceptual empathy is situation specific or dependent on
past experiences with a particular kind of individual. 0n pre to post
training, we've found some individuals becoming generally more sensi-
tive, which shows up on the total score, while others have shown no
total score change, but who've focused on specific areas and have ,
shown improvement there. Additionally we've found that those who
score high in the test tend to suspend judgment or interpretation of
what they have just witnessed, while low scorers are generally in-
clined to make assumptions or judgments about what they have witnessed.
(see Schneider, Kagan & Werner, 1977; Kagan, Schneider & Werner, 1977
for further details.) T’”

 

Generaliziability of results

 

We do not yet know to what extent the perceptual skill measured by the
A.S.S. is generalizable to the other interpersonal skills. It has been
found to accurately identify individuals with low capacity for empathy.
It has also proved sensitive to changes that take place in individuals
as a function of training. It has correlated with measures of commun-
icating skills in an interview setting in some studies. Further re-
search is necessary before we can claim much beyond this.

Not Measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale

 

This test is not intended to be an adequate measure of the following
components of accurate empathy:

Self awareness. This capacity of individuals to be aware of how a
situation or another person is affecting them on an intellectual, emo-
tional or physiological level is assumed to be an important factor in
being able to identify with others; to provide others with feedback
about'their impact on others (self-disclosure) , to differentiate own
feelings from those of others. Self-awareness is assumed basic to
these aspects of empathy. Because of various technical and logistical
limitations, this version of the A.S.S. does not measure this skill ex-
cept indirectly; i.e., one explanation for a lpg_score on the A.S.S. is
low self awareness, which prevents the examinee from being able to iden-
tify with or differentiate themselves from the individual in the film
vignettes.

 

., . f 3:. z. .. . - .-- f.
nix; 6L :- . ,. 1...: x o. .v- HE D "I“. 0 ti“ .7 .7. Ta. 5.. .3 I «U P. «3 v a‘ «r».— ..a .5 ..- «is «4 2. xi :4 .9» at 4,. .(J .C .3 a. a: b; . a .x. .m-

165

Response skills. Another component of accurate empathy not tapped by
this instrument is the communication skills necessary to convey to
another that they are aware of what the other person is experiencing.
These skills can involve (1) basic listening skills, i.e., that the
person wants to and is interested in hearing what the other is saying,
(2) interpretive skills, which convey that the person understands what
the other is saying and, (3) facilitative skills, which convey that the
person is willing and able to help the other listen to themselves and
understand and accept their own behavior. Again, the A.S.S. does 225
measure these skills.

Memory/continuity factors. Because the examinee is asked to respond
only to a series of very brief excerpts from various interviews, the
A.S.S. cannot assess their ability to associate previous knowledge of a
person with their current presenting concern, nor can it assess their
capacity to understand the person's difficulty in depth.

Interactional skills. In addition to the capacity to communicate em-
pathetic understanding to another person, there are the skills associ-
ated with establishing an effective working relationship, facilitating
the emergence of data, client education and the generation and testing
of hypothesis in an interview. This would require the examinees to
engage in an actual interview, report their behavior following the
session and be rated on all these behaViors.

Individual Feedback

 

Face validity. This has been our experience so far:

 

1. People generally felt there was a high correlation between their
test results vis a vis females, males and children, and their own
perceptions of their life experiences with these three groups.

2. When looking at patterns of scoring (number of +2 responses versus
number of +1 responses), students seemed to feel that these numbers
accurately reflected their general style. That is, people who had
mostly +1 responses characterized themselves as conservative in making
judgments about people--they say they always wait for more information.
On the other hand, people who had more +2 responses tended to report
that in general they judge people rather quickly, frequently relying
on "intuitive" feelings.

3. People did better on items from familiar settings. People who had
done counseling, for example, scored high on counseling and psychother-
apy. Most people felt that the "setting" scores accurately reflected
their past experiences.

Feedback Session. In general, we have found that the best way to go
through a feedback session is as follows:

 

1. Explain the chart to the examinee. The vertical lines divide the
scores into categories. Then explain each category at the top of the
chart, using the section, "Definition and Explanation of Categories"

166

as a guideline. Explain how the socres are standardized and what the
standard deviations are (x - 50, S.D. - 10).

2. Look at the person's individual scores. We usually focus on the
better scores first. Ask if the examinee felt the pattern of scoring
was reflective of his or her own perceptions of himself or herself, i.e.
their highs and lows i£_more than a S.D. apart. It is useful in pro-
ceeding from category to category to try to remind the person of which
film clips were included in that category.

3. It is especially useful to explain how the raw scores were derived
on the backs of the feedback sheet, so they are aware of the way they
have scored, and the size of the category in terms of reliability.

We feel that it is very useful to allow a half-hour/subject for the
feedback. Many people have made admissions to us (and for some of them,
for the first time to themselves) of feelings of deficiencies in certain
interactions and ability to relate to certain people. There was a great
need to talk this out and most of them asked for suggestions for improve-
ment.

We're reluctant to state that the test showed or that we felt they had

a problem. We let that come from them. We also never suggest ways one
might improve interactional skills unless it is specifically requested.
Some people who did not "do well" (in their opinion) on the test seemed
to need to defend that. We accept their defenses and agree that whatever
they say is certainly possible, while encouraging them to use the test
for whatever stimulus value it has.

Depending on the "contract" with people who take this test, it seems
only fair to offer people private feedback (or a chance to talk pri-
vately with someone about it if explanation of the scoring is done in
a group). For people enrolled in IPR courses, for example, this might
not be necessary, but for a class of students or another group of
people who do not have a way to improve their skills formally, then
individual feedback is desirable.

People who are going to undertake the job of providing feedback should

be thoroughly familiar with the test, the scoring, methods of feedback,
etc. They certaily should be people who have the capability of dealing
with some rather heavy life issues which may be revealed.

APPENDIX C

SCALES AND SUBSCALES, ITEM CONTENT

1(57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m n v v v v v v v v v m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Huuoa
amouosuoso>nm ma
x x x x x x x x x x x x unwaonnsoo NH
x x x x x x x x x x x HMEMOHcH Ha
cuaumm ed
demoduoosom m
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x come a
x x x x x 95.5 H.
x x x x x x x x x x x x madame m
x x x. x x x x x x x x x x can: m
x o««so v
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x venom m
x x x x x x x nosma>umusn N
x x x x x x x x x unmanu A
vn an an an on an mu on ow m~ va mN «N H~ ow ma ma no on ma va ma NH HA ca ‘ EouH oasomnsm
«— O z 2 A M n. H a h m 980m
a h moanwmm

 

 

 

a Buom - mason hua>auansom o>ouoouu¢ .mwsncoauuamm oasomnam - amuH

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Houoa
aH x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x hmuuonuonu>mm nH
a msHHmncsoo ~H
w HmEMOMGH HH
HH nuHuom OH
«H x x x x x x x x x x HucoHusUsom a
av x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x come a
vH x x x x x x x x macaw 5
ha x x x x x x x x mHquh w
on x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x OHM! m
OH x x x x x x oHHsu v
mm x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x uHso< m
on x x x x x x x x x x x x x uoon>umusn N
an x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ucoHHU H

wonaaz no no He ow mm an pm mm mm cm mm ~m Hm on me av so we we vv nv we Hv ov mm mm on mm mm . EmuH mHsounom
on 00 mm ‘4 N N x 3 > D m m 0 ocean
«H «H HH oH moooHou

 

 

HomocHucouv a soup I oHsom auH>Hancom o>Huomuu4 .mHsmsoHuHuom oHuounsw I Elan

 

Empirical Indicies

169

 

 

Item

Choice

 

b

C

 

\DmxlmU'l-hUNI-H

 

 

3,4

MPH -

NH HHm

MU'IH

N

 

NH

|-‘ HUI UlN

l-‘l-‘NU'I

gh-

WNNW

 

1,2

NLn era N
‘ NN

 

HfiHN
‘
N N

s
U

s
uh

NI—‘NN-hNNN

N

1,2

Empirical Indicies

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice
I tem
a b c d e
50 l 1
51 l 1,2
52 1,2 3
53 5
54 1,2
55 5 2
56 5 4
57 2 2
58 1
59 5 5
60
61 1,2 2 2
62 5
63 2
JKey l = Suspiciousness
2 = Discounting
3 = Polyanna
4 = Feeling Denial
5 = Feeling Awareness
Empirical Subscales
Subscale
r-I
u s 'o 'o
c 44 m m
Item '7 3 E a
.c m m m
0‘ O- 'H m
«4 E G .0
m H H o
l x
2
3 x
4 x
5 x
6 x x
7 x x

 

171

Empirical Subscales (Continued)

 

 

 

Subscale
.- 3 o o
c 44 m m
H +1 u >
Item 5 3 E 3
pi o. «4 m
-H E s .Q
B: H H O
8 x
9 x x
10 x x
11 x
12 x x
13 x x
14 x x
15 x x
16 x
17 x x
18 x x x
19 x x
20 x x
21
22 x
23 x
24 x x
25 x x
26 x
27 x x
28 x
29 x x
30 X x
31 x x
32 x
33 x x
34 X x
35 x
36 x
37 X x
38 X x
39 x x x
40 X x x
41 X x
42 x
43 x x
44
45 X X x
46 x x
47 x x
48 x x

 

 

172

Empirical Subscales (Continued)

 

 

 

. _4 Subscale
u .'3 13 c
G 'H o 4)
E H +J H >
m o H H
u .c m m m
H O) D- 'H m
-H E c .0
m F! +4 0
49 x x
50 x x
51 x x x
52 x x x
53 x x
54 X
55 x x x
56 x x x
57 x
58 x x
59 x x
60 X x x
61 x x
62 x x
63 x x x

 

 

APPENDIX D

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
(Fomnrn

Reproduced here with the permission
of the authors

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
Form D

@ COpyright

Normal 1. Kagan, Ph.D.
John M. Schneider, Ph.D.

1975
All rights reserved

6/75

173

174

AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE
Forms D & E
Instructions

You will be viewing short scenes of actual encounters between two or
more individuals. You are to identify what feelings the people have
toward themselves and toward the person they are working with. You
will be instructed just prior to each scene which individua1(s) to
focus on.

Although in any one scene a client or interviewer may exhibit a variety
of feelings, for the purpose of this instrument you are to concentrate
on identifying his last feelings in the scene. In some scenes, you
will also be asked about the nature of the last response.

After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask yourself
the following questions, depending on the specific instruction for
the scene:

If the people involved were to view this same scene,
and if they were completely open and honest with
themselves, (i.e., if they could identify their real
feelings) which of these responses would they use to
describe their feelings?

After you decide which response accurately describes what the people
are actually feeling whether about themselves or the others they are
with, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. On the following pages
are multiple choice items usually consisting of five responses each.
Most scenes have two items, but a few have one or three items.

 

Note the information you will be given: a) the context of what will be
happening. This can include seating positions. b) the opening state-
ment of the scene you will see, c) the length of time the scene will be
on the screen and d) the closing statement of the scene. In addition,
the participants in each scene will be identified.

Here Is A Sample Item

 

Scene AX TEACHER - STUDENTS
a) +Class discussion vocational planning

b) +Opening Statement (Teacher): "Is there anyone who knows
the answer?"

 

Time: 18 Seconds +'c)

 

 

 

175

After you have viewed Scene AX, you would turn the page and be given the
following information.

Scene AX TEACHER - STUDENTS (con't.)
d) +Closing Statement (Teacher): "You look pretty upset."

Item 1. What do you think the student is really saying to
himself at this point?

a. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes
me feel good.
*b. I feel very sad and unhappy.
c. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all
together.
d. I wish he hadn't said that. It makes me angry.
e. Upset. You don't know the half of it!

 

After you had viewed Scene AX, you would read these five statements
(Item 1) and would then decide which one best states what the client
and/or interviewer would say about their own feelings after viewing the
same scene. For example, if you decide "b" best states what the student
is feeling, you would then find the "b" on your answer sheet and darken
in the space for "b".

Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in
determining the most accurate description of the person's feelings or
response to same.

 

After you view the appropriate scenes, you will have thirty seconds to
answer each item. Generally there will be two or three items per scene,
so the total time will be 60 or 90 seconds for answering the items.

The items on this test may seem very difficult. While there is a pre-
ferred response, there are several alternatives which can also be cor-
rect. These alternatives will also be included in the scoring.

CONFIDENTIALITY All of the participants in the following scenes have
given their informed consent as to the purpose and use of this material.
However, because of the nature of the material discussed and their rights
as human beings, we must ask to treat all of the material as if the per-
son told it to you personally and privately.

176

Affective Sensitivity Scale
Form D

PLEASE DO NOT MARK 0N ANSWER.BOOKLET

 

 

 

Scene A FORMER TEACHER AND 4TH GRADE STUDENT
Setting: Woman and 9 year old girl sitting in chairs.

Opening statement (teacher): "I heard you made a movie
about your classroom."

 

Time: 49 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

.177

Scene A Closing statement (student): "I did it Tuesday."
Item.l. What do you think the little girl is really saying
to herself at this point?

a. Boy, am I glad Ms. S. is here. I'd really be
nervous otherwise.

b. Why is she asking me all those questions? She
already knows the answers.

c. I hope I don't get stuck and not know what to
say.

d. I'm really scared. Maybe she'll ask me some-
thing really tough.

e. Boy, those lights sure are hot.

Item 2. What do you think the teacher is really saying to
herself at this point?
a. I'm really nervous. What if Betsy won't talk?

b. Why am I asking her questions that I already
know the answers to?

c. I wonder what she is feeling about my asking
such dumb questions?

d. How can I make that Betsy shows what she
really can do?

e. I wish I didn't know so much about Betsy already -
it makes it hard to be spontaneous.

178

__' _'AALIL.JH_L _|__~_;'_LA L 1'0‘ ' v ,. .., .II

Scene B TEACHERPSTUDENT (con't.)
Setting: Same

Opening Statement (teacher): "How did you feel
about it?"

 

Time: 43 Seconds

 

 

.‘o 44. .AJ_4

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

179

 

 

Scene B Closing Statement (teacher): "You were afraid you
wouldn't be accepted."
Item 3. What do you think the student is really saying to
herself at this point?
a. Accepted. What does she mean by that?
b. Boy, I was really scared then.
c. I'm.aot sure I really want to tell her.
d. I wish she wouldn't ask me so many questions.
It's hard to think when she does that.
e. This is boring. I already told her all about
this.
Item 4. What do you think the teacher is really saying to
herself?
a. Now why did I say that. Accepted is an adult
way of saying it.
b. Now she knows I'm really with her.
c. Betsy never worries about being accepted. Why
did I say that?
d. I'm putting words in her mouth. I wonder what
she's really feeling?
e. She looks puzzled. Doesn't she know what
"accepted" means?
Scene C TEACHER-STUDENT (con't.)
Setting: Same
Opening Statement (teacher): "You say that people
make the difference?"
Time: 35 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

180

 

 

Scene C Closing Statement: "Let's talk first of all how the
classroom is different."
Item 5. What do you think the student is really saying to
herself at this point?
a. Whew, I don't have to answer that one.
b. Hey, I didn't get a chance to tell you what I
thought.
c. I'm getting confused. What does she want?
d. She's just like all big people. Won't give you
a chance to say anything.
e. I'm getting tired of answering so many questions.
Item 6. What do you think the teacher is really saying to
herself at this point?
a. I really wish she would sit still and pay atten-
tion to my questions.
b. I'm not feeling very effective in this situation.
c. Oh, oh. She's not going to respond. I'd better
change the topic.
d. She's taking too much time. I've got to fill
in the silence on the tape.
e. That's too hard a concept for her. Maybe I can
help her by switching topics.
Scene D COUNSELOR-RAPE VICTIM
Setting: Male counselor talking with woman rape
victim
Opening Statement (student): "I find him a disgust-
ing person."
Time: 25 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

181

 

 

Scene D COUNSELOR-RAPE VICTIM (con't.)
Closing Statement (Advisor): "What about him still
scares you?"
Item 7. At this point, what do you think the advisor was
really saying to himself.
a. She's really feeling sorry for herself.
b. Disgusting. Where does that come from?
c. She looks confused now. It's not clear what
the conflict is for her.
d. I want to help her deal with her feelings.
e. Frightening and disgusting - confused, too, it
looks like.
Item 8. At this point, what do you think the student was
really saying to herself.
a. Scared. If you only knew!
b. Gee, you really know what I am feeling. Right
on!
c. I'm not going to say anymore until I know if he
is judging me or not.
d. I'm not scared. I'm so angry I can't even
think straight.
e. I'm scared of all men now.
Scene E COUNSELOR-RAPE VICTIM
Setting: Same
Opening Statement (Student): "Everything about the
incident was so totally
unpredictable to me."
Time: 30 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

Scene E

Item 9.

Item 10.

Item 11.

182

Closing Statement (Counselor): "What are your

nightmares?"

What do you think the interviewer was really saying
to himself?

I want her to explore her fears in depth.

Her dream content will tell me what she really
is feeling.

I'm getting bored with what she is saying and
want to change the subject.

VI'm frightened about unpredictable people, too,

so I can't help her with that. Maybe if I can
distract her from that.

There is a whole mess of stuff she hasn't dealt
with. I wonder how to get her into it.

What do you think the client is really saying to
herself at this point?

a.

b.

I feel frustrated that he doesn't respond to
my concerns about the rapist's unpredictability.

The whole incident is so hard for me to under-
stand - it was so unpredictable - I wonder if
it will happen again?

I'd like to get my trust/faith in human nature
back again.

Nightmares! God, if he only knew!

He looks concerned, but is he - really?

What did the client want to hear at this point?

His unpredictability . . . that's what really
makes you afraid of him.

And now you're not sure you can trust others?
What are your nightmares . . . when you see
him in the halls, what are you afraid will
happen?

Irrational . . . fantastic . . . not normal,are
you afraid you are going crazy?

.183

Scene E Item 10. (con't.)

d. I don't think you are irrational
or not normal for reacting that
way.

 

Scene F TERMINALLY ILL MAN - INTERVIEWER

Opening Statement (man): "Three people in that group
- died the first week."

o
4L

 

Time:7 1 minute 39 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

184

Closing Statement (man): "So we had grown rather

close . . . ah . . . ah
. . . ah"

At this point, what do you think the terminally
ill man is really saying to himself?

My god, it's hard to believe that he is really

I'm really very lucky that it happened to him

I really don't want to talk about my feelings
about Tom, it's still too painful for me to

I really am glad I had a chance to get to know
Tom. I feel richer for the opportunity.

Why did he have to die? Dammit, it's just not

What is the interviewer really saying to himself?

He doesn't show much of his feelings.

You look like you could cry right now, Bob.

I didn't realize how close the two of you had

Can sometimes . . . could sometimes. Sounds
like he's still denying that Tom has died.

He's not telling me his feelings - he's talk-
ing about Tom and him. Must be it's too painful

 

*- -‘

TERMINALLY ILL MAN a INTERVIEWER

Opening Statement (Terminally ill man):

 

"Being occupied with life
is a way to make the fear
of death go away."

Scene F
Item 12.
a.
gone.
b.
and not me.
c.
acknowledge.
d.
e.
fair.
Item 13.
a.
b.
It's okay.
c.
grown.
d.
e.
still.
Scene C
Time: 63 Seconds

 

 

 

Do NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

Item 14.

Item 15.

185

Closing Statement (Interviewer): "You really cher-
ish those times."

(Ill man): "Yeah."
What do you think the interviewer is really saying
to himself?

a. To be able to cherish those times makes it
worth living. I can understand that.

b. But what about your anger, your fears?

c. That makes me uncomfortable. I really squander
those times myself. I don't want to deal with
that.

d. It still sounds like he is denying and escaping
into his work.

e. I wonder if he feels like I'm pushing him too
hard.

What do you think the terminally ill man really ex-
perienced in response to the group leader saying
"you really cherish those times."

a. It sounds like he understands, but how can he -
he isn't terminal.

b. Cherish . . . that's the word.

c. He understands how important those things are -
he must appreciate living, too.

d. He buys it. I wish I was half as convinced
myself.

e. It makes me happy just to think about it.

186

 

 

Scene H FEMALE PATIENT - MALE SURGEON
Post-operative interview (one month)

Opening Statement (Surgeon): "You had your operation
for peritonitis?"

 

Time: 37 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

187

 

 

Scene H FEMALE PATIENT - MALE SURGEON (con't.)
Closing Statement (Surgeon): "You don't remember
too much about that?"
(Patient): "No."
Item 16. What do you think the surgeon is really saying to
himself at this point?

a. She doesn't remember that! She sure screamed

loud enough at the time.

b. I didn't think she was conscious, but sometimes

you can't be sure.

c. I guess I was so busy with the technical details

I didn't even notice if she was awake or not.

d. Her smile tells me she does remember - but it's

too painful to recall.

e. I'm glad she doesn't remember much about that.

Item 17. What is the patient really saying to herself at this
point?

a. I may be smiling, but my memory of that whole

thing is a nightmare!

b. Glad - you better believe it!

c. You know damn well, doctor, that I was uncon-

scious at the time.

d. That was scarey. I don't want to remember.

e. It makes me uncomfortable to think about it.

Scene I PATIENT - SURGEON (con't.)

Opening Statement (Surgeon): "Do you remember how
desperate you were
feeling?"

Time: 1 minute 30 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

.188

Scene I PATIENT - SURGEON (con't.)

Closing Statement (Patient): "It's exciting just to

know I can smile, now."

Item 18. What do you think the patient is really saying to
herself at this point?

a. It's hard to believe it was really me going
through all that.

b. He can't really understand what it's like to
lose a year and a half of your life that way.

c. I really appreciate even the little things
now. It's such a relief.

d. I wish I could convince him that I really
feel much better than I have for a long time.

e. I'm not convinced, really, yet - but I'm work-
ing hard at convincing you I'm happy and not
depressed anymore.

Item 19. What do you think the surgeon is really saying to
himself at this point?

a. I wish I could believe what you are saying, but
I can't.

b. It's a relief for me to see you smile, too.

c. I must be careful not to get too optimistic.
She still could have a relapse.

d. Exciting, yes, but it still won't be easy to
re-create your life after the past year and a
half.

e. NOw comes the tough part - she's got to find
meaning in her life now that the pain is gone.

Scene J

189

 

 

Time:

 

58 Seconds

 

 

DOCTOR - PATIENT

Opening Statement (Doctor): "And the childbirth,
pregnancy."

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

190

Scene J DOCTOR - PATIENT (con't.)

Closing Statement (Patient): "No one ever did
explain to me."

Item 20. What do you think the patient is really saying to
herself at this point?

a. I'm still a little confused about it.

b. Nobody helps. NOBODY HELPS. Are you going to
join the "shit list" of nobody helps?

c. Even now, it really annoys me to think that he
really didn't take the time to explain it to
me.

d. He was so busy. I really accept that. I wish
he could have explained it though.

e. I still resent not knowing why for sure. Are
you going to be the same way?

Item 21. What do you think the doctor was saying to himself
at this point?

' a. She's saying it calmly enough, but it sounds
like she's still upset about it.

b. She expects a lot . . . and she complains a lot.

c. I'd better be careful not to get caught on the
same Spot. I'd better explain it to her.

d. I'm really uncomfortable with her attacking an-
other physician. Let's go on . . . I need more
information.

e. Is it just information she wants? What else?

 

Scene K DOCTOR - PATIENT (con't.)

Opening Statement (Patient): "Like for another baby
. . to have another."

 

Time: 50 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

Scene X

Item 22.

Item 23.

191

DOCTOR - PATIENT (con't.)

Closing Statement (Doctor): "So there are several

checks and balances."

What do you think the doctor is saying to himself
at this point?

a.

b.

I can understand your concern, but we really do
know what we are doing.

I'd better be straight with her. She doesn't
seem like someone who is going to back down and
just be a good patient.

I don't really want to get involved in this
right now.

I hope that is what she is asking, but I'm not
really sure. Could she be concerned about some-
thing else?

I'd better remind my nurse to give her that
pregnancy handout.

What do you think the patient is saying at this
point?

a.

b.

That's helpful. I didn't know they could do
that. I feel better.

But that's not what I'm worried about. I'm
really scared that nobody will tell me anything
when I really need to know.

But what are the risks?

I trust him. He is really being straight with
me.

But aren't x-rays dangerous too? Do you really
know what you're saying?

192

 

Scene L HEALTH CARE TEAM

Setting: Physician Nurse Social Worker Physician
(male) (female) (female) (male)

Opening Statement (Dr. on right): "About a week
after the baby

was born . . ."

 

Time: 59 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

.193

Scene L HEALTH CARE TEAM (con't.)

Closing Statement (Dr. on left: "I . . . I . .
don't remember
exactly."

Item 24. What do you think the doctor on the left (Dan) was
saying to himself at this point?

a. You son of a bitch! Putting pg on the spot
like that.

b. I'm really embarrassed. I should know, but I'm
blank.

c. Where did that come from? Is he playing games
with me?

d. Oh my God. What if some physicians see this?
They'll really think I'm a dummy.

e. He caught me not paying attention.

Item 25. What do you think the doctor on the right was saying
to himself at this point?

a. Dummy! Every doctor knows what Stevens-Johnson's
syndrome is.

b. Oh, oh. I've put him on the spot. He's gonna
get me for that.

c. I shouldn't have done that. I really embar-
rassed him.

d. Gee, I hoped Dan could answer that. After all,
we are the physicians here.

e. Well, I guess I'll have to take charge again.
Nobody else really seems capable of doing any-
thing else.

Item 26. What do you think the social worker (who asked what
Stevens-Johnson's syndrome was) is saying to herself
at this point?

a. He's passing the buck. Will anybody answer my
question?

b. I'd better be careful about showing what I don't
know. Look what happened to Dan.

(continued on next page)

194

c. WOw! That happened so fast I'm not sure what's
going on between the two of them!

d. He's; trying to exclude me by using those med-
ical terms.

e. What kind of game is he (physician on right)
playing? He really put Dan on the spot.

 

Scene M "FRIENDS"

Opening Statement (Man): "What do you want to talk
about?"

 

Time: 8 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

195

 

 

Scene M. "FRIENDS" (con't.)
Closing Statement (Man): "That kinda puts me on the
spot a little bit."
Item 27. What do you think he's saying to himself at this
point?
a. That bitch! She's really making me look bad.
b. Oh, oh, she caught me. How can I re-coup my
error?
c. I wish I could crawl away and hide. I'm really
embarrassed.
d. O.K., baby, don't you play games with me or I
won't be so nice with you.
e. She's right. We're in this together. But
how do we start?
Item 28. What do you think she's saying to herself at this
point?
a. He's not going to pass me the buck like he
usually does.
b. Oh, oh, I've put him on the spot. He'll get
me for that.
c. I usually let him do that, but not this time,
I'm.not going to take responsibility for start-
ing this.
d. He's uncomfortable. How can I help him?
e. He seems to be willing to share responsibility.
Now to start.
Scene N "FRIENDS"
Opening Statement (Woman): "Say, I don't know . . .
when I think about . .
Time: 25 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

196

 

 

Scene N "FRIENDS" (con't.)

Closing Statement (Man): "No."

Item 29. What do you think the man is saying to himself at
this point?

a. I hope she really understands that. She is
more important than that to me.

b. You may have a mind, baby, but you've got a
body that just won't stop!

c. If you really knew what I was thinking, I'd be
in trouble. I've got to be careful.

d.' That confuses me. Where did she get the idea
that I saw her as a body.

e. Sounds like she's got a hangup - she thinks all
men are after her body.

Item 30. What do you think the woman is saying to herself at
this point?

a. It's a relief to know he does feel that way.

I trust him.

b. He looks uncomfortable with that. Maybe he does
think I'm only a body?

c. You'd better feel that way, buster, or this is
the last you'll see of me!

d. I hope he sees me that way. Please say that
I'm.nore than just a body to you.

e. I've been burned so many times, it's not worth
it to even get involved if that's the way he
feels.

Scene 0 "FRIENDS" (con't.)
Opening Statement (Woman): "Know you're going to
hear me."
Time: 40 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

.197

Scene 0 "FRIENDS (con't.)

Closing Statement (Woman): "Exactly."

Item 31. What do you think the woman is saying to herself
at this point?

8.

b.

Exactly - schmackly. I don't even understand
what I just said!

We really are being very tentative with each
other. What are we afraid of?

It sounds like we are trying to reassure each
other. Maybe we aren't sure.

I wonder if we are talking about the same thing?

Maybe If I smile pretty, he'll change the sub-
ject.

Item 32. What do you think the man is saying to himself at
this point?

She sure is pretty when she smiles.

We are being very superficial with each other.
I wish I knew why.

Exactly! How can she say that when we are being
so vague?

This is really hard for me to talk about. I'm
really having trouble making the words come out.

I feel comfortable about our relationship.

 

Scene P CLASSROOM - COUNSELOR

Opening Statement (Teacher - counselor):

 

Time: 55 Seconds

 

 

 

"Last time when we talked

about career education. . ."

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

 

198

 

 

Scene P CLASSROOM - COUNSELOR
Closing Statement (Teacher): "O.K., your best
friend's deaf . . .
great . . . great."
Item 33. What do you think the teacher is saying to herself
at this point?

a. Wow, that's a heavy reason for choosing such a
career.

b. "Great." That's a dumb thing to say about her
best friend's deafness.

c. Well, I got her to talk. Now, who else can I
get to respond?

d. Oh, oh. What do I ask now?

e. That's really not a very good reason for going
into speech therapy, Linda, but I won't embar-
rass you in front of the class.

Item 34. What do you think Linda is saying to herself at
this point?

a. I'm confused. Does she really think it's great
my best friend's deaf?

b. She really isn't interested in me. She didn't
really listen to what I said.

c. I know what she means. She really is nice.

d. She must really be embarrassed after saying some-
thing like that.

e. Oh, oh. She must really think that's a dumb
reason. I'm so embarrassed.

Scene 0 CLASSROOM
Opening Statement (Teacher): "Can you tell us any-
thing about how you
came to that decision?"
Time: 28 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

199

CLASSROOM (con't.)

 

 

Scene Q
Closing Statement (Sherry): "Because . . . be-
cause, like . . ."
Item 35. What do you think Sherry is saying to herself at
this point?
a. She stole my idea. Now I'm.having to think of
something different.
b. I'm so embarrassed. I keep stumbling over these
words.
c. I forgot what I was going to say. My mind is
a blank.
d. I'm.ao nervous. Everybody is watching me.
e. I want to make this come out good. If only she
(teacher) will stay with me 'til I get it out.
Item.36. What do you think the teacher is saying to herself
at this point?
a. Sherry had her answer stolen. She doesn't know
what to say.
b. The poor kid. She really trying but she just
doesn't have what it takes.
c. I'd be embarrassed too if I stumbled over those
words.
d. I wish I could get you out of the bind you're
in, Sherry.
e. Come on, get it out. We don't have much time.
Scene R CLASSROOM
Opening Statement (Teacher): "Is there anybody here -
who hasn't thought
very much about . . ."
Time: 45 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

Scene R

Item 37.

Item 38.

200

CLASSROOM (con't.)

Closing Statement (Teacher): "Is that what you're

saying?"
(Garrick): "Yeah."

(Teacher): "O.K."

What might Garrick be saying to himself at this
point?

3.

She doesn't really understand, but it's o.k.
I won't push it.

Whew, I'm glad I got all that out without
stumbling over my words.

She heard me. She's o.k.

Well, that's just what I said. Why did she
have to repeat me?

I feel good. I opened my mouth and got a
stroke for it.

What might the teacher be saying to herself at
this point?

a.

b.

I'm really pleased I was able to hear him
right and have him agree. It feels good.

He really didn't say anything, but I made him
feel good anyway.

He doesn't speak often. I'm glad he did and I
could respond.

I didn't hear it all (I blanked for awhile).
I'll try to get out of it, see if I can fake it.

These kids are really being open. I'm enjoying
this.

 

201

Scene S PRINCIPAL - JR. HIGH SCHOOL

Opening Statement (Principal): "You were sent in
here again today."

 

Time: 28 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

202

 

Scene S PRINCIPAL - JR. HIGH STUDENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Student): "Right."
Item 39. What do you think the student is saying to him—

self at this point?

a. o.k., what's he going to lay on me this time?

b. This guy really turns me off.

c. I'm scared. What's he going to do to me?

d. There is no way he is gonna pin this rap on me.
I'll get out of it somehow.

e. It's hopeless. Nobody understands or even
wants to understand me. Why try?

Item 40. What do you think the principal is saying to himself

at this point?

a. I must be firm. He'll take advantage of me if
I'm not.

b. I'm being a jerk and this kid sees right
through it.

c. I'm angry. I don't like to do this, but he
keeps getting in trouble.

d. The way he said "right." He's scared. I'm
getting through to him.

e. Well, at least he agrees with me about that.

Scene T PRINCIPAL - STUDENT (con't.)

 

Time: 43 Seconds

 

 

 

Opening Statement (Student): "Like in career ed., I
honestly think . . ."

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

 

 

Scene I

h“

2033

 

 

Scene T PRINCIPAL - STUDENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Principal): "Well, you don't
have to . . ."
Item 41. What do you think the principal is saying to him-
self at this point?

a. He really doesn't understand the purpose of
career education. I'll explain it to him.

b. You little , you're putting me on the de-
fensive again, like you always do.

c. I'd better catch myself. I'm starting to de-
fend the teacher, and he may have a valid point
there.

d. How can I get across to him what I want. I'm
not doing it.

e. At his age, he should know what he wants to do,
or at least make a choice. He's just avoiding
responsibility.

Item 42. What do you think the student is saying to himself
at this point?

a. I've got him now, he's arguing with me. He
can't win.

b. He isn't responding to how I feel.

c. It's really hard for me in career ed. I wish I
could convince him of that.

d. This is boring. When will it be over?

e. No way he's gonna convince me to go back to
that class.

Scene U COUNSELOR - JR. HIGH STUDENT
Opening Statement (Counselor): "You kinda wonder if
you're gonna get the
suspension."
Time: 72 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

204

 

 

Scene U COUNSELOR - JR. HIGH STUDENT (con't.)

Closing Statement (Counselor): "You sound like
you're a little
bit concerned."

Item 43. What might the student be saying to himself at
this point?

a. He can see right through me. That scares me.

b. I'm gonna have to be more careful. He's getting

to close.

c. Not really. We had to talk about something,

though.

d. This is really a drag. I've heard all this

before.

e. He understands. He knows I'm worried. I can

trust him.
Item 44. What do you think the counselor is saying to him-
self at this point?
a. You and I both know we're talking about you,
Jerry. It's hard for you to admit, though.

b. He's uncomfortable. I've put him on the spot.
What's he gonna do with that?

c. He really doesn't know how else to ask for help.
I hope I can get through to him.

d. I guess I'm nervous too. I'd really like to

help him, though.

e. Oh, oh. I guess he's in more trouble than even

I know about.
Scene V THERAPIST - CLIENT
Opening Statement (Client): "But with me, she has
condemned me."
Time: 40 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

205

everything I do."

 

 

 

sad at this point."

Scene V THERAPIST - CLIENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Client): "She has to condemn
Item 45. What do you think the client is saying to himself
at this point?
a. I wonder if he knows what I'm trying to say
about my mother.
b. It's not fair. Why should my brother get all
her affection? It's not fair.
c. I am so mad at my mother that I'm having trouble
expressing how intense that feeling is.
d. Don't you try and tell me it's all in my head
buster, or I'll walk right out of here.
e. I hate her so much sometimes I think I could
kill her.
Item 46. What might the therapist be saying to himself at
this point?
a. He really hasn't resolved his Oepidal hangups.
b. He really hates her. She still is very important
to him.
c. He's trying very had to convince me. What's he
trying to hide?
d. I'd like to hear his mother's view. I bet it's
a lot different.
e. I really feel sorry for him. Still struggling
with his mother at his age.
Scene W THERAPIST - CLIENT
Opening Statement (Therapist): "You seem to feel
Time: 40 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

 

206

 

 

Scene W THERAPIST - CLIENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Therapist): "What are you
thinking?"
Item 47. What do you think the therapist is saying to him-
self at this point?
a. I would really like to know what he is saying
to himself at this point.
b. I'm confused. If he's not feeling sad, what
is he feeling?
c. He's really not in touch with himself. I
can't get him to admit his feelings. I'd
better shift gears.
d. He really is sad. So much he can't admit.
He's getting overwhelmed by it. I'd better
help him out.
e. He's depressed. Is he thinking about suicide?
I'd better check it out.
Item 48. What might the client be saying to himself at this
point?
a. He sees right through me. I don't want to talk
about it.
b. I'm confused what does he want me to say?
c. Sad? I've never been sad in my life. Where
did he get that?
d. If he only knew how sad I was, he wouldn't ask.
I could cry, but I can't admit it.
e. It's my mother's fault. If only she hadn't
driven my friends away.
Scene X THERAPIST - CLIENT
Opening Statement (Therapist): "There was a time
when she probably
had a major respon-
sibility."
Time: 55 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

207’

 

 

scene X THERAPIST - CLIENT (con't.)

Closing Statement (Client): "Brother, I can't get
to that answer yet,
but I'm working on
it."

Item.49. What do you think the therapist is saying to himr
self at this point?

a. "Brother." That feels good. He's with me.

we're working together.

b. He is hard to work with. He takes away any-

thing I give him.

c. He is working on it, too hard maybe.

d. That sure was a bunch of garbage he just shov-

eled at me. He's got a thought disorder.

e. How are you working on it? It doesn't sound

like it to me!
Item 50. What do you think the client is saying to himself
at this point?

a. I wish I knew. You're right on the money.

b. What right does he have to tell me I'm locked

into my mother?

c. Locked into her? If he only knew I wanted to

be even closer than I am!

d. I'm working on it, so don't you push me. I'll

get there.

e. He's listening. I've got to be careful about

what I say.
Scene Y THERAPIST - CLIENT

Opening Statement (Client): "People are supposed to
have nice relationships
with their mothers."

Time: 30 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

Scene Y

Item 51.

Item 52.

208

THERAPIST - CLIENT

Closing Statement (Client): "Maybe I misunderstood

something."

What do you think the client is saying to himself

at

this point?

Get off it, buster. Everybody knows that.
He's trying to make a fool out of me.
He's getting too close.

Is it possible? You mean I don't have to
get along with her?

What makes you think you know more about mothers
than other people do? Everybody else believes
that. '

What do you think the therapist is saying to himself
at this point?

a.

b.

Boy, is he denying. How am I ever going to get
him in touch with his feelings.

He has never really challenged that belief.
He looks surprised that it can be challenged.

He's not really believing it. He's putting me
on, pretending he's willing to think about it.

Maybe there's hope for him after all. He looks
like he's willing to work on that.

It's sad that it's taken so long for him to chal-
lenge that message. It may be too late to make
much of a difference.

 

Scene Z

 

Time: 55 Seconds

 

 

 

THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT

Opening Statement (Therapist): "Something this time

enabled you to do,
something that's
hard to do."

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL THE SCENE IS OVER

209

 

 

Scene 2 THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Therapist): "I don't like what
I have had to see
to become stronger."
Item 53. What do you think the client is saying to herself

at this point?

a. And I resent having to work pp hard to get there.

b. I guess that's why it's so hard to grow up - you
have to be willing to look at the bad as well as
the good.

c. It's an ugly, dirty mess. I find people disgust-
ing now.

d. I've had to see that I'm alone. I've got to
take care of me. It's not easy.

e. I feel sad. This has really hurt.

Item 54. What do you think the therapist is saying to himo
self at this point?

a. And I bet you resent me more than a little bit
for forcing you to see it.

b. What is it she's had to see? Reality?

c. It's hard for her to admit that she's been avoid-
ing seeing her parents as people. It's still
hard.

d. She's really sad as she says that. She's strug-
gling to give them up.

e. Her denial is still really strong. She even
closed her eyes as she said that.

Scene AA THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT
Opening Statement (Client): "She went to school and
she started crying."
Time: 1 minute 20 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

210

 

 

 

 

 

Scene AA THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Client): "They're really nice."
Item 55. What do you think the therapist is saying to himself
at this point?

a. That S.O.B. ex-husband. I'm pissed. I can
imagine what she's feeling.

b. It's humiliating. She's really hurting.

c. Maybe now she'll be able to give up waiting for
him to come around.

d. I want her to know I understand. But I'm feel-
ing I can't respond to her pain.

e. Same old story. Somebody else is always respon-
sible for her problems. It's exasperating to
try to get her to see how she contributes.

Item 56. What do you think the client is saying to herself
at this point?

a. He knows what I'm feeling. I don't feel so
alone.

b. I feel so helpless. So alone.

c. I'm so ashamed. He really understands . . .
but it hurts.

d. I wish I could crawl away and hide right now.
I'm so humiliated.

e. I should have expected it. That's the way he
is. No use staying upset. It's over and done
with.

Scene BB THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT
Opening Statement (Client): "I don't know why I
keep thinking that
sometime . . ."
Time: 20 Seconds

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

211

 

 

Scene BB THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT (con't.)
Closing Statement (Client): "I guess I've hoped
all my life."
Item 57. What do you think the therapist is saying to him-
self at this point?
a. Hoped all her life? For what?
b. It's hard for her to let go. She really gets
scared.
c. It's really hard for you to take responsibility
for that.
d. She's really a very helpless person. No wonder
she can't give up hope.
e. Prince Charming will never come, Cinderella.
Stop waiting.
Item 58. What do you think the client is saying to herself
at this point?
a. Is it hopeless? Must I give up?
b. What is there if you don't have hope? What's
left?
c. Hoped in the wrong people, that's for sure.
d. There's no future in continuing to hope. I
must learn to live in the now.
e. I wonder if he understands what I'm feeling.
It scares me.
Scene CC FAMILY
Setting: Therapist - Older son - Younger son -
Mother
Opening Statement (Son): "Well, I was mad at you."
Time: 1 minute 40 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

Scene CC

Item 59.

Item.60.

Item 61.

212

FAMILY (con't.)

Closing Statement (Mother): "Do you see the same

thing?"

What do you think the older son is saying to himself
at this point?

a.

b.

How can she say that? I haven't been happy
since he left.

I don't care what you just said. I'm still mad
at you for getting the divorce.

It's not fair. You (Mom) may be happier, but
I'm sure not.

It hurts so much to even know what Mbm just
said.

I don't agree. Nobody but her is getting any-
thing out of it.

What do you think the mother is saying to herself
at this point?

e.

I wish I believed what I just said.

He doesn't agree. How can I convince him that
I did it for them, too?

I wanted them to see it the way I do, but they
don't.

We've been over this so many times. When will
the pain be gone?

He must be angry with me. I've hurt him.

What do you think the therapist is saying to himself
at this point?

a.

b.

She really wasn't very convincing - even to me.

There's still a lot of pain here - all of them
are still hurting about the divorce.

Of course they don't see the same thing! How
insensitive!

Another divorce just so one person can feel
better at the expense of the rest.

.213

Scene CC FAMILY (con't.)

Closing Statement (Mother): "Do you see the same
thing?"

Item 61. (con't.)

e. They're having a hard time even listening to
her. They must really be angry at her.

 

 

Scene DD FAMILY (con't.)

Setting: Therapist - Older Son - Younger Son -
Mother

Opening Statement (Therapist): "Want to talk about
this . . ." (moves
chair)

 

'Time: 50 Seconds

 

 

 

DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL SCENE IS OVER

Scene DD

Item 62.

Item 63.

214

FAMILY (con't.)

Closing Statement (Older Son): "Grandpa and Grandma

always fight, too."

What do you think the mother is saying to herself
at this point?

a.

I really feel guilty. It's made me happier
but look what it's done to them.

They really are angry at me. I can accept that.

They're really hurt. I wonder if they'll ever
understand.

They don't believe me. They don't accept my
statement. I'm feeling really helpless.

Right now I don't know why I did get the divorce.
I wish I hadn't. We could have made it somehow.

What do you think the therapist is saying to himself
at this point?

a.

Oh, oh. They're afraid that she might leave
them, too, if she doesn't like what they are
doing. They're more scared than angry.

We gotta get this out. Mom, better pay atten-
tion!

They are really angry at her. It's important
for her to hear that.

I bet Grandma and Grandpa told him that. She
must be catching it from all sides.

Good. They're grieving. It's painful, but
it's necessary.

APPENDIX E
NORMS FOR AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE,

FORM D

Sunmary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - By Population

.—
O
.—
<5:
I:
o‘a'e
>-u.l
(I):
o..-
O
(.0
z
:3
O
U

INFORMAL

EDUC- HEALTH
ATION CARE

CHILD MALE FEMALE GROUP DYAD

ADULT

INTER-
VIEWER

CLIENT

IDENTIFICATION

 

O00
ON

18.8

53.8
10.8

TOTALS

 

00'!
ON

a“)

S.D.

1128 X

MALES

 

NO
NM

GO

2
5.0.

1862 X

FEMALES

 

mm
”N

12

HIGH EMPATHIZERS

 

PSYCHOTHERAPISTS

215

40'-
NM

 

N"?
OM

ON
UN

13.

Y

PSYCH. RESIDENTS 24

 

CO
000)

NN
on

NO
GM

71

FAMILY PRACTICE
RESIDENTS

 

”’0
UN

4
3

3O
6

S.D.

MEDICAL STUDENTS 330 ‘X

 

NM
NM

9

HOSPITAL STAFF

 

Sun-nary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. - (Form D) - By Population (Continued)

PSYCHO- TOTAL

COUNS.

INFORMAL

EDUC- HEALTH

DYAD

INTER- ADULT CHILD MALE FEMALE GROUP

CLIENT

N

IDENTIFICATION

THERAPY

CARE

ATION

VIEWER

 

57.
5.0 12.

17.5

10.2
2.9

5.5
2.7

UK
can

46.5 15.9
10.6 4.1

11.2
3.9

24.5

HEALTH CARL
PROF.

 

POO
NN

TRAINLLS

PARA-PROF.

HEALTH CARE

 

QC
01',

RN
can

52

TRAINEES

PARAMLDICAL

 

NO
on

151

AIDtS

MENTAL HEALTH

 

12115

NCO
KN

PK

0 0
out:
N

‘2
but:
in

.—
owe--
HH a
ha.“
:6
01:2
8%

 

F0
0N

Mr-
Q0

COUNSELORS

SLX LDUC.

 

Ch
ON

MN
MM

'—
Olin

TRAINING

CHAPLAIN IN

 

'0!
MN

SCHOOL COUNSELORS 64

 

0°
000',

00
our

137

TRAINEE

SCHOOL COUNS.

 

RN
WM

5.0.

I?

39

STUOtNTS (M.S.)

GRAD COINS.

 

I‘M
$0M

mo
05¢

21

GRAD COUNS.
STUUtNTS (PH.D)

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - By Population (Continued)

TOTAL

PSYCHO-
THERAPY

INFORMAL COUNS.

HEALTH

EDUC-
ATION

FEMALE GROUP DYAD

MALE

CHILD

CLIENT INTER- ADULT

IDENTIFICATION

CARE

VIEHER

 

FF

QN

SUPERVISORS

EDUCATIONAL

 

o—O
NM

44 ‘Y

W

m

u

2

H
z
”5
0-0-
a
Ema
aqub:
“5.»
9(2)
zg<
H V
X

 

mo
0M

73

TEACHER TRAINEES

 

217

G'O
NM

3
S.D.

592 X-

COLLEGE UNDER-
GRADUATES

 

MO
I‘M

3
5.0

170 'Y

SOCIAL HORK
UNDERGRADUATES

 

NR
RN

Rh

P
P

238 '7

HSU STUDENTS IN
IPR

 

O!—
‘0"

60

COMMUNITY
(CANADA)

CORRECTION

 

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Medical

Total

thera

Dyad Education Health Informal Counaeling Payche-
Care

Female Group

Mala

Inter- Adult Child
viewer

Client

Identification
Medical Students

Group
9

j

 

6.6
2.7

11.6
3.5

18.7
4.3

55.4
0.2

14.8
3.6

67 i 30.8
S.D. 5a

Medical Students

1976 - Mich.

42

s]

 

11.2

13.3 52.7 19.7 9.1 6.1

28.5

27.9

29.8

:0?

Clin. Medical

Studenta

55

2.7

3.6

4.6

6.3 12.9 2.5 8.6 5.4 4.3 10.6 4.7

5.4

S.D.

 

7.2
2.6

12.1
3.6

9
3

752 30.
s.0. 6.

Medical Studenta

1975 - Mich.

64

 

0
5

Medical Studenta 44 i 8
S.D. 4

Kanaaa

66

 

218

Medical Studenta 35 i
Ohio

70

 

30.3 27.8 57.2 10.7 38.8 29.1 14.1 53.8

72 X

Medical Students
NOD.

72

5.3 10.2 2.9 7.8 5.7 3.8 9.9

6.3

S.D.

 

29.2
6.2

' 30.0
5.0. 6.1

Community Medical 47 X
Studenta 1977 Mich.

86

 

’ 28.9 28.0 56.5

34 X

Medical Studenta

89

6.2 12.1

6.8

S.D.

Ohio

 

Sumnary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S.: (Form D) - Medical Residents

Total

therapy

Counaeling Paycho-

Informal

Care

Dyad Education Health

Female Group

Male

Child

Inter- Adult
viewer

Client

N

P Practice
Reaidenta

Group Identification
#

 

I00
on

6.5
3.2

9.2
3.8

17.3
3.

.5
10.4

3.5

13.0

25.9
5.6

.6

8.2

9.2
2.7

52.3
11.2

5.2

26.3
6.2

S.D.

Paldly Practice 47 x

Reaidanta

2

 

59.7
17.0

0—8
mm

N0

32.5
11.7

8.8
1.9

50.9
15.7

24.7
7.3

26.5
. 8.5

S.D

Palily Practice 11 X

Reaidanta, 8.0.

25

 

N0
00'!

Family Practice
Raaidanta, lanaaa

43

 

on
@M

In,
ON

13

leaidanta, lanaaa

'35 Palily Practice

 

219

o
v.
in.
u u
:8
1:1!
U'd
-
a:

8.
3.

0“”
InN

Raaidenta-Mich.

Paychiatry

3

 

«an
90-1

on
{N

(HI-0
NM

leaidanta , Kanaaa

Paychiatry

26

 

NO
IfiN

u i'

Paychiatry
Raaidenta, Minn.

37

 

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Mental Health Paraprofessional

Dyed Education Health

Total
there

Informal Counaelin; Payche-

Care

Gr0up

Female

Male

Inter- Adult Child
Viewer

Client

N

 

Health Care jCon't)

Identification

Group
9

040
ON

WM

46 i
5.0.

Mental Health
Therapy Aida, M.Y.

14

 

F‘N
ON

IflI-l
on

15.6
3.9

45.3
8.4

13.5
7.0

26.1
4.6

32.6
7.2

7.9
3.5

50.9
9.3

5.3

24.3

25.3
4.4

S.D.

Mental Health
Therapy Aida, N.Y.

29

 

MM
OM

00'
'00"!

11.1
3.2

51.4
13.0

25.1
6.2

28.0
6.6

S.D.

1%

Mental Health
Therapy Aida, I.Y.

31

 

00-.
RN

30.2
3.6

43.6
6.5

2.9

11.2

62.6
6.8

32.0
4.4

4.3

31.3

1053
Therapy Aida, M.Y.

Mental Health

32

NM
‘06"

Oh
N

as i
8.1).

Therapy Aida, M.Y.

Mental Health

61

 

 

MO
RN

NM
OI"!

890-0
00
N

S.D.

18 X

Mental Health
Therapy Aida, M.Y.

74

 

MM
0M

28.5
6.1

33.0
S.D. 7.7

17
Therapy Aide, N.Y.

Mental Health

91

 

221

evauoum o eenuauu

 

 

 

 

 

o.n~ o.o n.« o.~ o.e «.8 «.o~ N.e n.o n.o o.~ o.- 0.0 ”.5 .n.m uncouaeeuounauem
o.oo n.a~ o.o~ ¢.s o.o~ ~.w~ ~.nn n.n~ c.n~ ~.on o.o~ a.nn s.ou n.o~ m.on pug-e: deuce: ooH
luauofl— I Gouda;
e.- c.c O.“ s.u ~.n o.n n.o~ c.n «.n o.“ <.n o.o ¢.n 5.0 .a.m uaaoaaaeuoumeuem
n.0o n.0u n.o~ o.o n.- ~.o~ c.nm ~.n~ «.mu ¢.¢n ”.0“ n.on a.- 0.0“ .m on nu~eeu deuce: oo
Godheab I coca-ha.
o.- n.n «.n n.n ¢.n d.c n.o «.e o.n n.n <.« n.ou «.0 o.n .a.m anneaeeeuouneuem
n.no o.o~ n.cu A.“ 8.0” o.w~ o.~n a.n~ n.c~ n.5n o.o~ m.nm o.n~ n.»« .m on apnea: deuce: no
eouuogh u eemueua
o.- s.¢ a." n.n m.< n.n n.a o.n n.¢ a.» u.~ o.o n.n s.n .n.m mecca-eeuouaeuem
«.2. ~.N~ n2: mg n..: 0.2 5K... 5.: «.3 oéo n.o~ 0.3 0.0..” «.2 m «N named: any-.0! on
naeuaAu eueo u930«> .u.cou .eueo guano: *
~euoh somehow nuaueanoou Haauouou Juana: nodueusvm wean noouo nausea can: vgasu uH=v< auoucu unowuo. z mogueuuuuumevou macho

Aumacwucouv mpmcovmmmwotamcmm smem: Pause:

- Ac stony .m.m.< - mcompmw>ma vcmvcmum can meow: we >um523m

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Occupational Therapy Trainees

Total

Health Internal Counseling Psycho-

Pemale Group Dyad Education

Male

Inter- Adult Child

Client

Indentification

Group

there

Care

4__

viewer

Health Care. Con't.

i

 

 

“‘0
RN

29.2
0 O 5.6

103 i

Occupational
Therapist -Aust.

20

 

66.0
12.0

u-afl
EN

00
In

99E
Therapist -Aust.

Occupational

49

 

00
ON

575?
Therapist oAuat.

Occupational

90

222

 

“D

F.
O"

”Q
"N

QM
OM

9.1 37.0
2.6

55.1
10.3

27.2
5.

27.5
- 6.2

53 SE
3.!)

Occupational
Therapist -Aust.

101

 

Ina
GM

3 .

49 X
S.D

Occupatinal
Therapist -Auat.

102

 

‘00
MN

9.2
2.3

55.3
11.2

27.5

28.3
. 5.3

58 i
8.0

Therapist -Aust.

OccupationII

103

 

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Health Professional and Paraprofessionals

Total

Informal Counseling Psycho-

Dyad Education Health

Group

Female

Male

Inter- Adult Child

Client

N

Group Identification

there

Care

Viewer

Health Care

#

 

MO
ON

00
IflM

6.1
2.7

13.8
3.7

8.0

41.2

9.6
3.6

20.4
4.9

30.5
8.5

NB
”N

13 i 22.4
S.D. 4.2

Paramedical
Trainees, Aust.

47

 

66.2
11.3

19.4
5.3

10.5
2.7

6.6
2.8

10.9
3.4

18.7
3.9

52.1
8.8

14.1
3.8

28.3
5.7

37.8
7.9

10.3
2.6

55.8
10.2

29.7 27.0
S.D. 5.9 6.1

392

Phyicians, Aids,

N.C.

69

 

10.1 7.3 10.4

29.6 59.0 11.9 39.8 31.1 14.9 56.0 21.6

31.3

92'

Hospital Staff,

Mich.

13

3.3 2.1

6.4 6.5 3.1 7.5 3.9 2.0 8.5 4.0 3.1

5.4

S.D.

 

H0
MN

Q’s-l
NM

9.9
2.8

46.4
10.1

22.6
6.5

5.5

26.7

Health Professionals x
18 S.D.

Aunt.

11

223

9.5
3.1

5.4
2.8

8.9
3.6

15.5
3.9

46.1
3.6 11.4

10.5

23.9
5.3

32.6
10.1

8.6
2.5

47.9
12.3

23.2
7.1

25.
6.4

Health Professionals X
38 S.D.

Aust.

38

 

 

6.2 10.2 15.8 56.6

9.2
4.2

45.0 15.1

25.0 11.6

48.0 8.5 31.6
2.4

23.1

24.4

Health Professionals i

87

4.7 13.5

2.9

2.8

3.9

11.2-

7.1 3.7

7.7

12.2

5.9

6.7

27 S.D.

Aust.

 

71.
11.

7.1 11.2 22.4
2.9

11.1

14.1 57.6 19.9

31.8 30.1 60.8 10.9 1.4 30.3
7.5

asi

Mental Health

23

4.1

2.3

3.7

8.9 4.2

3.8

5.5

5.0 5.8 9.9 2.6

8.0

Paraprof Trainee

Florida

 

65.0

7.1 10.2 18.8

2.7

11.5

28.2 13.9 51.1

36.8

9.7
2.7

9.3

26.3

28.9

37?

Metnal Health

41

4.9 10.4

2.5

3.5

5.5 3.9 8.2 4.5

7.2

5.7

. 4.7

S.D

Paraprof Trainee

Florida

 

Health Professionals

Auat.

6

{h
MN

\00
OM

 

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Counselors

Total

Counseling Psycho-

Dyad Education Health Informal

Inter- Adult Child Male Female Group

Client

Identification
Counselors

Group

there

Care

viewer

#

 

12.7 48.4 16.6 8.3 6.1 10.4 19.7 61.1
4.1

26.3

9.3 34.8
3.2 11.1

51.8

24.6

Sex Attitude 21 28.0

36

5.9 15.3

2.9

2.9

3.7 13.4 4.9

6.3

7.7 7.3 13.6

8.0

Counselors - N.D.

 

59.4
15.3

~30
ON

MN
QM

Q0
”N

Ix 9
0m

Paraprofessional

Counselors

40

 

14.4 9.4 7.3 9.4 19.3 60.0
3.2

50.1

25.3 9.9

8.3 34.7

24.7 51.7
2.8

.8

25

Chaplains-in
training

45

12.5

4.1

2.7

4.4

10.5

5.8 3.4

8.6

6.4 4.9 10.6

S.D.

 

OM

11.5
3.0

7.4
2.9

11.2
3.9

19.4
3.9

14.0 56.3
6.2 3.8 11.9

29.8

9.9

10.8 40.5
3.0

59.5
12.5

29.0
6.2

30.9
7.6

School Counselors 64 i
NOY‘

4

 

0”
ON

54.2
12.1

26.4
6.1

27.1
7.0

85 X
5.0.

School Counselor
Trainees - Auat.

7

224

Nu-I

O
.4

22.3
5.1

9.5
3.0

5.6
2.9

9.7
3.6

17.1
3.4

25.2 13.2 51.0
2.3 7.8 4.0 2.4 9.7

10.2 39.0

54.0
8.8

27.3
5.9

28.5
4.3

10 X
S.D.

School Counselor

Trainees - Aust.

 

 

60.5
13.8

16.2 8.6 6.8 11.0 17.9
3.8

49.4

26.5

8.8 34.0

26.6 24.4 51.7
2.8

42E

School Counselor

Trainees

3.1 5.0

3.3

4.7

3.3 11.8

6.4 6.8 11.9 10.0 5.5

8.0

' Auste

 

69.6
12.6

20.3
5.5

7.3
2.6

11.8
4.3

18.0
4.7

55.9
10.0

13.7
3.8

30.4
5.2

39.3
8.7

9.7
2.7

59.9
7.0 10.9

28.6

31.0
5.6

28 X
S.D.

Grad Counseling

Students, MS

52

 

10.6 18.9 60.7

6.0
4.0

11.6 49.1 16.1 9.1

26.2

8.3 34.5

25.5 26.6 52.4

1635

Grad. Counseling

Students - M.S.

5.4 13.3

3.1

5.7 3.4 11.5 3.4 3.4

2.7 8.4

12.0

6.2 4.7

8.0

 

12.2 22.0 73.8

7.3
2.3

30.1 14.7 59.2 20.0 12.4

11.2 43.7

62.6
11.9

32.2 31.5

23)?

Grad. Counseling

Students - M.A.

4.5 14.1

3.1

6.0 3.9 11.8 4.4 4.6

9.0

3.4

8.0 6.4

S.D.

 

27.4 77.6

13.3

9.5 6.1
4.5

21.4

60.0

35.4

85?

Grad. Counseling
Students - Ph.D.

3.7 11.1

2.0

3.6

3.7

9.7

5.3

4.5 4.8 10.9 1.7

8.0

10.4 444.3

 

10.7

15.0 57.2 18.4 9.5 7.1

27.9

30.5 31.2 61.8

13 X

Grad. Counseling
Students - Ph.D.

96

2.9 3.8 3.2 3.1

10.6

3.4

5.8

7.6

2.6

10.9

7.4

8.0

 

A.S.S. (Form D) - Educators

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations

Total

therapy

Counseling Psycho-

Health Informal
Care

Dyad Education

Male Female Group

Adult Child

Client Inter-
Viewer

Identification

Educators

 

Group
#

69.9

28.4 14.3 55.6 18.2 11.6 6.9 11.1 22.1

29.6 30.3 60.6 9.3 41.5
3.7

Graduate Counselor 14 x

Education Students

46

12.8

5.6

2.0

5.5 3.5 2.6

11.2

5.4 3.5

8.7

7.9 5.1 10.2

0

 

OM
ON

31.9
4.9

43.7
7.2

11.9
2.7

63.8
9.5

32.1
5.7

32.6
5.5

Graduate Educational 25 X

Psychology Students

3.0

84

 

72.8

12.9 19.9

31.4 13.5 59.3 19.7 13.5 6.9
2.9

30e1 62.5 10.3 41.4

33.0

Kindergarten teacher 15 X

trainees - Aust.

63

10.0

4.8

2.6

2.6

8.8 3.1 6.4 5.2 3.2 7.6 4.1

4.9

4.9

S.D.

 

70.
12.

21.2

30.2 14.8 55.3 19.8 11.3 6.3

10.9 39.9

59.2

31.2

Teacher trainees 53 i
Mich.

94

4.9

2.3

5.9 3.8 10.4 4.5 3.5 3.1

9.0

2.6

11.8

5.9

5.7

 

73.9

31.4 63.0 11.0 41.7 32.2 15.3 58.7 21.2 12.0 7.3 11.7 21.8

32.3

20??

Parents

97

10.3

2.9 4.2

3.0

2.8

8.9 3.8

3.3

4.6 5.7 8.8 2.0 5.8 5.6

S.D.

 

Educational

8.5

9.4

57.6 11.5 40.5 28.5 13.5 55.5 20.2

28.2

.6

30

Supervisors - Ill.13 X

6.6 6.2 12.0 2.1 8.5 6.3 4.2 9.9 3.4 3.2

S.D.

 

Educational

16

7.8
2.1

59.1 10.1 40.7 28.4 12.1 57.1 17.9 10.1

28.2

.7

30

Supervisors - 111.20 X

3.8

8.6 4.1

4.3

6.3 5.6 9.3 2.9 7.0 5.3

S.D.

 

Ns-l
I‘M

8
5

29.
5.

Kindergarten teacher 29 x.

trainees - Aust.

S.D.

92

 

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Students

226

 

 

 

 

 

s-I v-ON MM [‘0 MN OM
e e e e e a a a e e
3 ON NN MN MO OM
‘9. 90—0 [\c-I 90-4 90—0 90—0
0 O§ OF! RN Oo-l 00
e e e a a e e a s e
.3. OM OM OM HM OM
g.” N N Fl
0
.1:
a.“
v0
a-I 00‘ Oh O'O MM GM
0 e a a e a e e e a a
o-ON v-‘N o-ON u-ON on
a and H s-d
O
U
H
E 06 OM 0N I-‘Q OF!
I O O I I O O O O I
8 [NM MN OM INN NM
6
H
£0 u-il‘ OM MM OM FOO
H“ e a a e a e e e a e
I6 '4” NM OM I-IM OM
“O F‘ H all! .4
:1:
fl
.3 MO QN NQ GO 0
U 0 I e a e e e e a a
Q OM OQ c-aflt Os? 0“?
0 e-I N H
:3
‘U
N
'3 he OM OM ON ‘00
O I O O O O O O O O
as §O O0 MO #0 ¢—s
MH M Mo-O Mr.
O- x? GO NM £5 e-IQ
a e e e e as as ea
0 QM \fs‘t NM QM 42¢
a... H o-‘ H H PI
0
0
.3 . «so: aha. uacu \o<3 unun
O O I O O I O I O C
5 GM F‘M 0O OM 00
N M N
ha
0 ”Q #M OM NM NG
p-l e e e e e e a e a e
i 00 v-‘M GO ON 00
M Q M M M
'U {G ON ON OM OM
d e e a I e e e e e a
H ON ON ON ON 09M
.6 P‘ H F.
U
0 NO as!" OM MM O
H a e e e e e a e e e
:3 wo-o HO Inv-I an an
'0 MP. 991-9 MP! M MP!
<
I u was no so MI-i «<7
‘5 e e e e e e a e a a
0g OM OVD [‘0 GM 00
U N M N N
Dd
H>
U OM NN OF: 00 NC:
a 00 H0 GO GM 09"
H M M N N N
e-l
O
O Q O 9
IX ' IN ° |>< ' IN 9 Ix °
\Dm Nm Q Om Om
z \D N M M M
.4 N ed e e
.3 .fl
0 O
n 3 3 a dig :32
3 ‘1' SJ U v0 v.
a: Q g I I I
Q =3 :1 Q I:
0 '0 '0 'U '6. '0.
*0. U I I .0 Sn
mu h h a a. MC
Vic w w e e-l find
80' H in s In“ no 5‘0
5'0 0 9 0.6 0v! 0 0
OD 'O>‘ 'UU 'Uo-t ‘0“ '08
'DU 8 ' {:H ‘2. £91 an.
HO: 2 :33: :30 H DH
:- Q In pt (I)
0% H M m
to
(D

71.3
12.1
70.7
12.6

20.8
4.9
21.3
4.9

9.8
3.1
11.3
2.5
11.6
2.9

7.0
2.9
7.4
2.7
7.5
3.0
7.1
3.0

10.9
4.2
11.8
3.6
11.1
3.8
11.2
3.5

18.8
4.8
4.0

20.6
4.1

19.5
4.5

52.3
12.8
56.6

9.2
56.5
10.1
56.4
11.1

13.5
4.1
14.7
3.8
14.8
5.6
14.3
3.2

28.5
7.0
30.4
5.6
30.3
6.2
30.1
6.3

37.3
10.2
40.9
7.8
41.0
7.8
40.6
7.7

10.2
3.1
10.2
2.9
11.0
2.6
10.6
2.9

55.7
14.0
62.8
12.1
61.0

9.9
60.2
10.7
60.1
10.8

27.0
7.1
31.0
6.0
30.5
5.2
30.6
5.4
29.8
5.7

29.1
7.5
31.5
8.1
30.4
6.1
30.1
6.3
30.8
6.6

72 x
s.p.
s.o.

78 i
s.o.
SID.

17?
937
47}

IPR Class - Mich.
IPR Class - Mich.
IPR Class - Mich.

Undergrads in
Undergrads in
Undergrads in
Social Work
Undergrads
Social Work
Undergrads

10
79
82
77
78

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations - A.S.S. (Form D) - Students (Continued) and

Correction Workers

Total

Counseling Psycho-

Health Informal

Dyad Education

Male Fremale Group

Adult Child

Client Inter-

Identification N

Group

therggy

Care

Viewer

L

Students (can't)

#

 

29.0 30.6 58.8 9.9 41.5 27.1 14.6 54.0 18.0 12.0 6.1

a?

Social Work
undergrads

95

8.7 9.5 18.2 3.4 12.9 7.9 4.1 16.7 6.9 5.2 4.0

S.D.

 

63.
14.

12.0 18.2

28.3 26.7 54.3 9.2 36.5 26.9 11.6 51.8 16.4 10.6 6.3

Students 12 i

8.
Ohio

58

5.9

2.8

3.5 10.9 5.2 2.0 12.5 4.2 4.1 2.6

12.3

6.2 7.1

S.D.

 

227

 

Correction Community

 

12

Correction Community

58.6

17.7

9.6

26.1 10.7 47.9 17.2 9.1 5.0
5.1

32.4

27.2 23.4 49.0 9.6

9)?

Canada

7.1

4.4

3.0

1.0

5.0 4.3

2.4

4.1

3.2 4.3

7.1

5.3

 

24

Correction Community

Canada

64.3

12.1 19.8

6.6
3.1

28.6 26.1 54.4 9.8 37.3 26.9 12.6 51.7 17.2 8.6
7.2

167?

13.7

4.9

1.9

10.8 5.3 3.8

4.7

6.3 11.6 2.6 9.2

6.8

 

67.9

12.4 21.1

6.3
3.1

26.8 57.2 10.7 38.6 29.3 13.9 54.0 17.8 10.3

31.

15 X

Correc tions Comuni ty_

Canada

14.9

5.6

3.2

3.1

2.9 10.3 6.0 4.1 12.4 5.1

12.9

7.2

7.5

 

81

Correc ti on Comuni ty

Canada

63.9

10.8 18.6

51.5 18.2 10.6 5.8

12.4

27.6

27.1 53.6 10.3

.5

28

207

8.0

llol

4.8

2.6

3.5 4.9 3.4

9.8

3.4

4.2

3.0

10.1

4.2

5.4

 

APPENDIX F

INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

228

Appendix F. Inter-Ital Correlations of Affectivn Sensitivity Scale rbrl D

 

 

 

1 1.00
2 -,o7 1.00

3 -.03 .02 1.00

4 .03 .00 -.09 1.00

5 -.03 .02 .06 .02 1.00

5 -.03 .09 .1o -.01 .11 1.00

7 .01 .01 .03 .01 -.02 .01 1.00

a -.02 .01 .07 -.oz .03 .01 .06 1.00

9 -.03 .07 .06 -.01 .01 .05 .05 .06 1.00
10 .01 .04 .08 .oo -.01 .01 .05 .03 .11 1.00
11 .02 -.04 .04 -.oo .02 .oo .03 -.oo .04 -.05 1.00
12 —.01 .07 .os .01 .01 .03 .06 .03 .06 .05 —-01 1.00
13 .oo .03 .13 -.oo .02 -.oo .03 .03 .oo .03 -.01 .07 1.00
14 .05 .05 .oo .oo .01 .os .07 .04 .07 .12 .02 .05 .06 1.00
15 .02 .04 .06 -.03 -.oo .02 .01 .08 .os .07 -o1 .02 .07 .28 1.00
16 -.01 .05 .02 .01 .01 .04 .06 .02 .04 -.oo ~03 .03 -.oo .01 .04 1.00
17 -.02 .02 .02 -.03 -.04 -03 -02 .os .03 .01 -01 .07 -.01 .08 .12 .08 1.00
13 -.02 .06 .09 -.04 .oo .08 .1o .08 .11 .06 --02 .13 .05 .17 .16 .07 .12 1.00
19 -.oz .04 .05 —.01 -.02 .oo .09 .11 .07 .05 -01 .07 .06 .14 .12 .08 .12 .32 1.00

20 -.oo .05 .04 .01 .03 .04 .04 .05 .06 .06 -.oo .09 .04 .08 .06 .02 .06 .15 .09 1.00
21 .02 .04 .06 .02 -.oo .04 .04 .05 .12 .06 -.01 .03 .06 .07 .07 .08 .06 .16 .11 .19 1.00
22 -.00 ~04- .06 --01 .04 .01 '-°1 .02 .01 .04 .03 -.02 .oo .07 .04 .02 .03 .02 .05 .02 .07
23 -.02 .03 .08 -.06 -.01 .02 .03 .06 .07 .04 .02 .09 .07 .12 .11 .03 .07 .15 .16 .09 .09
24 -.00 -°1 .06 .00 .05 -07 -02 .01 .09 .05 .02 .02 -.01 .12 .09 .04 .05 .1o .07 .03 .12
25 -.03 .01 .04 .04 .04 .02 .03 .02 .07 .02 .04 .06 -.01 .07 .03 .04 .04 .12 .11 .06 .09
26 .01 --01 -.01 .00 .01 .03 -.00 -.oz -.04 .oo .04 .00 -.oz .00 -.02 -.03 -.os -.05 -.04 -.02 -.01
27 -.02 .06 .02 .03 .01 .09 .os .05 .06 .02 .03 .1o .07 .06 .07 .06 .02 .11 .08 .06 .12
23 -.06 .06 .08 -.01 .oo .07 .06 .04 .08 .03 -.01 .12 .06 .08 .os .07 .06 .17 .12 .07 .11
29 -.01 .06 .1o -.03 .03 .11 .07 .05 .09 .09 .01 .1o .02 .14 .09 .06 .06 .18 .16 .06 .10
3o -.02 .05 .05 -.02 .01 .03 .06 .01 .07 .06 .03 .06 .01 .09 .07 .os .04 .1o .09 .03 .04
31 .oo .04 .07 .01 .01 .03 .02 -.oo .06 .04 .01 .04 .02 .04 .02 .04 .03 .09 .02 .07 .09
32 -.03 .01 .04 -.01 .02 .07 .02 -.oo .05 .03 .02 .01 -.02 .07 .04 .02 .oo .05 .oo .04 .01
33 .02 .04 .03 -.oo .04 .03 .07 .07 .07 .04 -.oz .07 .os .05 .04 .06 .08 .12 '.o9 .06 .09
34 —.03 .07 .04 -.02 -.01 .06 .13 .10 .07 .04 -.01 .13 .06 .1o .09 .06 .09 .16 .11 .08 .1o

35 -.02 -.01 .01 -.01 -.oo -.02 -.02 .04 .03 .02 .01 .01 -.03 -.oz -.03 -.01 -.oo .01 .oo .03 .01
36 .00 .04 .06 .00 .oo .09 .05 .oo .05 .04 .01 .04 .01 .06 .03 .05 .03 .05 .06 .06 .08
37 -.03 .08 .06 -.03 .03 .06 .04 .04 .07 .06 .05 .07 .02 .06 .07 .os .07 .10 .12 .os .07
38 -.03 .06 .05 -.02 .02 .08 .oo .os .03 .06 .01 .06 .03 .12 .06 .04 .06 .12 .12 .07 .15
39 .04 .00 .05 .02 .02 .03 -.03 .04 .03 .03 .02 .02 -.o3 .06 .05 -.oo .01 .05 .01 .04 .06
4o .00 .02 .03 .oo .oo .01 -.01 -.oo .03 .06 -.02 .04 .05 .04 .06 -.03 .03 .06 -.01 .05 .02
41 .03 -.01 -.01 .04 .02 .01 -.02 .03 -.01 -.03 -.02 .01 -.oz -.02 .oo -.01 -.oz -.oz .oo .01 -.03
42 -.03 .04 .03 -.01 .02 .05 .06 .04 .08 .07 .oo .03 .07 .13 .06 .03 .04 .12 .1o .06 .03
43 -.01 .05 .08 -.03 -.oo .07 .09 .05 .05 .02 .03 .07 .05 .10 .os .07 .03 .13 .09 .03 .08
44 .03 .06 .06 .02 .01 .11 .07 .03 .08 .02 .02 .04 .01 .06 .06 .os .01 .07 .06 .06 .1o
45 -.o4 .02 .02 .01 .02 .01 .03 .os .04 .06 -.02 .06 .06 .08 .02 -.o1 .02 .09 .04 .06 .09
46 -.01 .00 .08 -.00 .03 .02 .01 .01 .01 .03 .06 -.02 -.05 .06 .06 .05 .02 .03 .03 .02 .02
47 -.oo -.01 .09 -.oo -.oo -.01 .03 .01 .04 .03 -.oz .05 .02 .07 .05 .oo .07 .08 .09 .02 .06
48 -.00 '-°° .00 .00 .01 -01 .02 -.00 -.02 -.02 .04 .oo -.03 .03 .oo .02 .01 -.03 -.04 -.06 .01
49 -.03 .04 .06 -.01 .04 .07 .06 .03 .09 .03 .02 .06 .04 .13 .11 .04 .05 .15 .11 .05 .13
so -.00 .03 .06 -.01 -.01 .04 .03 .04 .06 .05 .oo .04 .05 .12 .14 .01 .09 .15 .13 .07 .08
51 -.02 .02 .04 -.o1 .01 .01. .06 .os .07 .06 -.01 .10 .os .07 .04 .02 .04 .13 .13 .06 .05
52 -.01 .07 .06 .01 .03 .04 .03 .os .08 .07 -.04 .06 .01 .07 .08 .03 .02 .09 .06 .06 .08
53 -.02 .06 .10 .oo .03 .03 .05 .03 .04 .06 .03 .09 .04 .1o .02 .03 .07 .11 .09 .08 .08
54 —.03 -.01 .06 .03 .03 .02 -.oo .02 .06 .os .01 .03 .01 .06 .05 -.02 .02 .06 .09 .04 .oo
ss -.01 -.01 .07 -.oz -.01 .01 .02 .01 .os .05 .oo .02 .01 .06 .04 .os .05 .06 .06 .09 .06
56 .03 -.01 .04 -.oo -.02 .04 .04 .02 .05 .06 .01 .02 .01 .03 .04 .03 .02 .07 .04 .01 .05
57 -.05 .01 .09 .02 .os .os .os -.01 .1o .05 .04 .07 .02 .08 .04 .01 -.oo .09 .07 .04 .05
58 .oo .00 .03 .01 .01 -.01 .01 .03 .04 .oz -.o1 .02 .03 .06 .03 -.o1 .01 .07 .02 .os .04
59 -.01 .04 .01 -.01 ‘.01 .02 .03 .01 .06 .02 .oo .03 .03 .02 .03 .02 .02 .08 .06 .oo .07
60 .04 .03 -.o1 .02 .02 .01 .04 .oo .01 .07 .01 .01 .05 .04 .04 -.01 -.03 .03 -.01 .01 .02
61 .02 .07 .06 .01 .05 .04 .07 .06 .09 .06 .01 .07 .04 .09 .06 .06 .03 .1o .11 .04 .1o
62 .01 .08 .os -.00 .02 .03 .05 .02 .09 .09 -.03 .08 .04 .19 .03 .01 .04 .11 .09 .03 .12
63 -.00 .03 .01 .02 .01 .01 -.oo .01 -.01 -.01 -.02 .01 .03 .02 .04 -.oo -.02 .03 .oo .01 .01

 

229

 

 

 

Appendix F. (Continued)

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42
22 1.00
23 .05 1.00
24 .10 .08 1.00
25 .04 .09 .18 1.00
26 .02 -.03 -.02 -.oo 1.00
27 .01 .05 .10 .10 .02 1,00
28 -.01 .11 .07 .10 ‘-03 .31 1.00
29 .15 .14 .11 .10 -.OS .13 .21 1.00
30 .04 .11 .08 .06 ”.03 .13 -,15 .25 1_oo
31 .00 .01 .06 .04 -.O4 .01 .06 .09 .07 1.00
32 .04 .01 .10 .04 -.02 .03 .04 .03 .07 .09 1,00
33 .00 .08 .06 .01 -.04 .08 .10 .13 .06 .05 -.01 1.00
34 .04 .14 -06 .09 '-°3 .08 .11 .16 .09 .05 .oo .23 1.00
35 .01 .02 .01 .02 .01 -.01 -.03 -,02 .02 -,02 .02 .03 .04 1.00
36 .05 -03 -11 -11 -°1 .08 .08 .09 .05 .03 .06 .09 .12 -03 1-00
37 .04 .09 .03 .06 .02 .09 .10 .11 .09 .03 .03 .05 .14 .02 .08 1.00
38 .02 .09 .07 .06 --01 .10 .11 .14 .09 .05 .04 .10 .13 -.01 .11 .25 1.00
39 .01 .07 .05 .02 -.03 .02 .00 .03 .os -.03 .04 .05 .05 .01 -.01 .02 .04 1.00
40 .05 .01 .02 .01 -.03 .00 -.02 .05 .02 .05 .03 -,03 .03 -.02 .02 .03 .03 .09 1.00
41 -.02 .00 .03 .01 .03 .01 .03 .02 -,01 .03 -,oo .02 -_oz .00 .03 .01 -.01 .01 -.02 1.00
42 .04 .07 .08 .12 -.01 .13 .13 .15 .08 .05 .05 .05 .03 -.oo .05 .10 .12 .04 .01 .06 1.00
43 .03 .08 .07 .05 .01 .10 .12 .14 .10 .06 .04 .06 .11 -.02 .03 .11 .10 .01 .00 -.02 .12
44 .01 .02 .08 .03 '-02 .07 .09 .09 .03 .07 .05 .08 .06 .01 .05 .10 .08 .03 .01 .00 .09
45 .00 .08 .07 .08 ‘-03 .02 .05 .04 .01 .04 .02 .05 .03 .01 .04 .04 .07 .01 .03 -.02 .06
46 .06 .00 .10 .05 .01 .04 -.01 .10 .05 -,02 .03 .01 -,oo .04 .03 .08 .06 .01 .01 .01 .01
47 .02 .06 .06 .08 --01 .06 .06 .03 .02 -,oo .01 .05 .05 .00 .05 .05 .05 .02 .01 .OO .06
48 .00 -.02 .00 .04 .00 .01 .01 .01 —.02 ,oo .03 -,01 .,03 -.01 .00 .02 -.oo -.06 -.O4 .02 .05
49 .02 .09 .05 .09 -.02 .11 .11 .13 .05 .06 .02 .09 .11 -.02 .04 .09 .09 .03 .01 -.01 .12
50 .09 .14 .07 .06 “.02 .04 .08 .11 .05 .01 _01 .05 .11 -.02 .06 .09 .07 .04 .02 .02 .08
51 .01 .09 .06 .05 -.OO .09 .11 .15 .03 .02 .02 .11 .12 -.O4 .05 .09 .09 .02 .01 .01 .12
52 .01 .06 .07 .08 -.05 .08 .OS .09 .05 .03 .03 .07 ;05 -.03 .03 .05 .07 .03 .02 .03 .09
S3 .02 .17 .09 .05 -.01 .09 .12 .13 ,04 .05 .05 .05 ,07 .03 .06 .05 .05 .05 .03 -.03 .11
54 .01 .05 .05 .07 .02 .05 .04 .05 .04 -.01 .05 .01 .03 .04 .04 .07 .05 .01 .Ol .03 .03
55 .04 .08 .05 .07 -.02 .00 .03 .04 .03 .04 .03 .02 .03 .00 .04 .04 .06 .03 .01 -.Ol .09
56 .02 .02 .06 .06 ‘-02 .06 .06 .04 .05 .03 -,03 .03 .03 -.Ol .02 .04 .05 .01 -.OS .02 .03
S7 .05 .06 .09 .06 -.03 .07 .07 .09 .03 .04 .03 .05 .02 .05 .06 .08 .07 .00 .06 -.OO .09
58 .02 .01 .01 .04 .01 .03 -.01 .04 .02 .05 -.02 .04 .01 .01 .01 .01 .04 .02 .04 .06 .04
59 .00 .01 .05 .05 -.02 .04 .06 .04 ,03‘ .03 -,02 ,07 .03 -.01 .03 .07 .04 -.01 .04 .03 .04
60 .06 .05 .02 .01 .00 .03 .01 -.oo .05 .01 .05 —,oo .03 -.oo .01 .04 .03 .02 .03 .02 .05
61 .03 .08 .09 .09 -.O4 .08 .09 .10 .05 .07 .04 .03 .09 .05 .09 .09 .09 .04 .02 .05 .10
62 .01 .08 .08 .07 -.02 .05 .08 .11 .05 .05 .03 .07 .07 .05 .06 .06 .06 .05 .07 -.02 .ll
63 .oo .02 .04 .03 -00 .04 .02 .01 .01 .01 .03 -,04 ,oo .03 f.01 .03 -.00 .04 .02 -.02 -.00

 

230

 

 

 

Appendix F. (Continued)
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 52 53 S4 55 56 S7 58 59 6O 61 62 63
43 1.00
44 .23 1.00
45 .01 .02 1.00
46 .06 .04 -.02 1.00
47 .05 .00 .07 .06 1.00
48 .04 .66 .02 .02 -.01 1.00
49 .ll .07 .06 .10 .08 .05 1.00
50 .06 .07 .05 .09 .10 -.02 .28 1.00
51 .12 .05 .10 .03 .06 .04 .17 .16 1.00
52 .04 .08 .05 .10 .06 -.OO .13 .15 .28 1.00
53 .09 .05 .10 .01 .06 -.02 .14 .07 .12 .13 1.00
54 .03 .01 .01 08 .05 .05 .01 .05 .02 .02 .00 1.00
55 .03 .02 .04 .08 .06 .03 .05 .07 .03 .05 .05 .06 1.00
56 .10 .05 .00 .01 .04 .03 .04 .05 .05 .04 .07 .01 .07 1.00
57 .08 .07 .04 .09 .05 .03 .10 .08 .05 .08 .10 .08 .08 .10 1.00
58 .01 .05 .01 .01 .03 .01 .05 .00 .03 .04 .oo .02 .02 .02 .04 1.00
59 .02 .04 .00 .01 .01 .03 .05 .00 .03 .04 .OS .02 .01 .03 .06 .02 1.00
60 .01 .04 .09 .01 -.01 .02 -.OO .03 .00 .01 .02 .03 .02 .01 .00 .04 -.01 1.00
61 .06 .08 .08 .04 .03 .02 .12 .08 .09 .10 .09 .01 .05 .08 .ll .04 .11 -.01 1.00
62 .07 .07 .07 .04 .06 -.00 .05 .09 .09 .09 .08 .03 .06 .03 .03 .03 .06 .07 .15 1.00
63 -.00 .Ol .02 .05 -.OO -.01 .01 .04 .Ol -.01 .00 .03 .02 .02 .01 .00 —.OO .05 .01 .04 1.00

 

APPENDIX G

INTER-SCALE CORRELATIONS

231

 

 

4m. m~.u m~.1 a..- no.1 om. mm. mm. .m. me. am. am. am. .e. am. on. em. ~a. No. mm. mm. 6.. Hence
m~.1 v..- «4.1 5... am. .4. we. me. me. em. on. 6.. .m. Nm. pm. me. om. on. mm. o.. om. unocouaz< oc..oom
on. «N. no. nN.n .~.1 on.1 m~.1 o«.- 4..- 6... .~.1 n~.u o~.1 H«.: .N.. m~.1 .~.1 .~.1 an. n~.1 H«.:oo ucfi.oom
H«. m.. H«.: H«.- m~.u ««.- o~.1 m~.u e..- o..- .~.1 w~.u 4... .~.1 mm.. 60.1 .~.1 MN. o«.- ac:m>.om
a». a..- a..- a..- o..- .m.u ~..u om.u om.u om.1 H..- m..- m..- ~n.1 a..- m..- on. a..- mcflucsoou.a
«6.- h..- mm.1 «6.- mm.: mm.1 6a.- m..- m..- m..- N..- .m.1 w..- m..- ~o.1 .m. o..- mmocnsoflofidnsm
on. .6. mm. me. am. .6. no. me. am. .6. .5. Na. .6. pm. me. No. uo>uonno
on. co. 66. mm. .4. mm. on. ca. .6. .6. .m. 5.. mm. «a. mo. oucououeH
ms. or. on. mm. on. m4. .o. .m. flo. Na. «4. «a. «F. as. HauuoadeH
we. m4. on. .6. am. no. 66. as. ~a. mm. .m. as. mm. au.ucmucH :63:
cm. ««. mm. mm. mp. «m. .m. as. an. be. me. am. xduuuguonoxum
«N. NM. aw. .6. m~. o«. «m. «N. mm. a.. an. ma..un::oo
on. «m. co. .m. on. .m. n~. om. mm. mm. HaeuoucH
4m. mm. om. hm. mm. on. as. mm. mm. 26.66:
on. no. .5. am. .m. cm. .6. mm. cofiuuosvm
me. me. .a. .m. mm. «a. 4.. came
.6. .6. .m. .6. .6. pm. 6:066
mm. mm. A». um. om. 6.626»
.m. .a. ma. 4.. 0.4:
n4. .4. on. ouazo
he. om. uuzo¢
m m . H03flfl>HGUCH
unmade
mumummmmMMmumummmmummwum
'3 “a T. s s 3 .4. 5 K m .4. D. n U 0 W T. T U 3. 7..
1T. 1.... .A m d a a E U. D O .l O D. n a .l T. a a
3.... 9.... P I. I 1 D u. 8 m .4 p. d T. D. .4 1 u
an .1". u n o A a .4 I O a U. .4 a A .4
86 6 u u T. a u I. u m T. e .1. ....
s a. .4 o D. o n 3 .1. T. o a
8 T. n a .l a a u u M
u 8 U 1 .b 8
.D u S a. J
8 T. d
8 .4 .A
F .A

 

 

.o Euom. oamom >ua>wuwmcom o>auoouu< RON anewumaouuou manomuuoucH mo xuoEEsm .0 xficcomm<

APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF THE OVERLAP 0F

FACTORS AND SUBSCALES

(Form D)

232
Summary of the Overlap of Factors and Subscales - A.S.S.

Appendix H.

 

 

oozomno xxx x x xxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx x x
oucououcu xx xxxxx x x x x xx x xx
Houuuomem xxxxx xx x xx xx xxx
>mouofionu>mm . xxxxxxxxxxxx
mawaomcsoo x x x x x
Hosanna xxxxx
OHUU 5H0”: XXXXXXX
Hocozoosom xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
coma x....x x.. x....x x....x x x x....x x x..x x....x x..x x
95.8 xx xxxxxx xxx
mausom ..x x..x x.. x x x x xux..x x x v. x x
can: xxxxx x xxxx x x xxxxxxxxxx x x
UHHflU XXX X XX X X
”.16... x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xx xxxxxxxxxxxXx
uo3ow>uouon x x xx x x x x x xx xxx xxx x x
£830 xxx x xx x x x xx x x xx x x x
m.
1 97641124489970509979941983246153707814010749
m 22223333344245343344332342244.344354452233333
m . .
m
t 53773389955122774411116112488466022330000922
w 111111111 2 1112 1 211 2211 22
F
m
e 13345612345689014.578901345678134690124567012
n1. 11111111222222233333333444445555555666

 

APPENDIX I

COMPUTER PRODUCED SCORING

233

.Amumxomun cw. monoomua Hams» an om3oHHom mafia Eouuon may

cw woumfla mum monoom 36H HmOHHflmfim can muoom 36H Hmuoe one ..H x m + m x 4. ha when
Imuonu mmz ouoom gucmwao= 3mm one .momqommou .uoouuooofl HOV “mayo ma new .manmummooo
m .omuuomonm 6 .mnomoumo =uomwao= map ca .06: on pumnnom mama mflsu mom om .mow
Inommumo manomndm man no snow CH mucommmn omwu sumo mo Hones: on» umwa mGEsHoo one

.0 EHOMV .m.m.< on» How mcwuoom woosvonm Hmuamfiou

.ao.u:. @ c<4uwu as.a:- a ZDmeu .o.c:. 9 >30& «0.06- o homHo ~«.sm. o amsm .n.~:u ac Jake»
.0: m.e: m.~ n ”.5: 9.9m N.mn 04nm o.mm none 1.53 n.o¢ «.N: m.nm «.on h.¢c nwom s.cn macaw-»
n 0N «N on 0N s a nu cu «m nu 3N a: N 5m 8m kn 4<>Ob
an 8 mu m c N n % nW« m «a we : 9N % mu «m: 0
cu m a m o m o o m o m w4w4hcwo <
Na 0 a m m «N s« :N m« : oncawuwma
’flwmoc auuhzn hodutn Ion: oxu>ma amzaou tmouzn Ikdcuzh go: :0 w4<tuu ma 4: OJHIQ #4304 ¢>b2H mxmuau
0N «n maoo onma Hunbzwou mac: n 4<=uu> 92H ova anomu
o a Myloam « u zw>uu mthh I. a tack on ugdum >hH>HhHmzwm mtnhomuu< 0| 3 - zomumo mxoz

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, James Jr. Undergraduates as Paraprofessional
Leaders of Interpersonal Communication Skills Train-
ing Groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mich-
igan State University, 1971.

Aronfreed, J. The concept of internalization. In D. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Aspy, D. Toward a Technology for Humanizing Education.
Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1972.

Aspy, D. Empathy: Let's get the hell on with it. Counsel—
ing Psychologist, 1975, 3, 10-14.

Aspy, D. and Roebuck, F. From humane ideas to humane tech-
nology and back again many times. Education, Febru-
ary, 1975.

 

Astin, H.S. A comparative study of the situational and pre-
dictive approaches to the measurement of empathy. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of Mary-
land, 1957.

Astin, H.S. Assessment of empathic ability by means of a
situational test. Journal of Counseling_Psychology,
1967, 11, 57-60.

 

Avery, A.W. and Danish, S.J. Assessing intertrainer effects
on the empathic understanding scale: training the
trainer. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1976, g3,
404-407.

Ayres, James. Personal Communication, 1977.

Bachrach, H. Adaptive regression, empathy and psychother-
apy. Psychotherapy: Theorngesearch and Practice,
1968, 5(4), 203-209.

Badrach, H. Empathy: We know what we mean but what do we

measure? Archives of General Psychiatry, 1976, g;,
35-38.

234

 

235

Bachrach, M., Mintz, J., and Luborsky, L. On rating emp-
athy and other psychological variables: An exper-
ience with the effects of training. gggrnal of
Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 1971, §§, 445.

 

 

Baker, F.B. & Martin, T.J. Fortsp: A Fortrsg Test Analy:
sis Packags (Revised for use on the CDC 3600 and'CDC
6500 at Michigan State University by David J. Wright).
East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Research Consul-
tation, College of Education, 1970.

 

 

 

Banks, 6., Bevenson, B., and Carkhuff, R. The effects of
counselor race and training upon the counseling pro-
cess with Negro clients in initial interviews. Jour-
nal of Clinical Psychology, 1966, gs, 70-72.

 

 

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. Dimensions of therapist response as
causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological
Monographs, 1962, 76(43, Whole No. 562).

 

 

Bell, G.B. and Stopler, R. An attempt at validation of the
Empathy Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955,
33, 442-443.

 

Bender, I.E., and Hastorf, A.H. The perceptions of persons:
forecasting another person's responses on three per-
sonality scales. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 1950, 15, 556-561.

 

Bender, I.E., and Hastorf, A.H. On measuring generalized
empathic ability (social sensitivity). Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, fig, 503-506.

Bergin, A.E. and Jasper, L.G. Correlates of empathy in
psychotherapy: A replication. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1969, 11, 477-481.

 

 

Bergin, A.E. and Strupp, H. New directives in psychotherapy
research. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 16,
13-26 0

 

Bergin, A.E. and Suinn, R.M. Individual psychotherapy and
behavior change. Annual Review of Psychology, 1975,
gg, 509-556. ,

 

Beutler, L.E., Johnson, D.T., Neville Jr., C.W. and WOrkman,
S.N. ”Accurate empathy" and the A-B dichotomy. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972, gs,
372-375.

Blass, D.D. and Heck, E.J. Accuracy of accuracy empathy
ratings. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975,
22 243-246.

 

236

Borke, H. Interpersonal perception of young children:
‘ Egocentrism or empathy? Developmental Psychology,
1971’ E, 263-2690

Borke, H. The development of empathy in Chinese and Amer-
ican children between three and six years of age:
A cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology,
1973, 2, 102-108.

 

Borke, H. Chandler and Greenspan's "erstaz egocentrism":
A rejoinder. Developmental Psychology, 1973, g, 107-
109.

 

Brunclik, H., Thruston, J.B. and Feldhusen, J. The Empathy
Inventory. Nursing Outlook, 1967, 15, 41-44.

 

Buchheimer, A. The development of ideas about empathy.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 19, 61-70.

Buchheimer, A., Goodman, J. and Sircus, G. Vidiotapes and
kinescopic recordings as situational test and labor-
atory exercises in empathy for the training of coun-
selors. (Technical Report to the USOE, NDEA of 1958,
Title VII, Research Project 7-42-055041670) New York:
Hunter College, City University of New York, 1965.

Burns, N. and Cavey, L. Age differences in empathic ability
among children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1957,
11, 227-230.

 

Buros, O.K. The sixth mental measurements yearbook. High-
land Park, New Jersey: Gryphon, 1965.

Burstein, J.W., and Carkhuff, R.R. Objective therapist and
client ratings of therapist offered facilitative con-
ditions of moderate to low functioning therapists.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24, 240-249.

Campbell, R.C. Development and validation of a multiple-
choice scale to measure affective sensitivity (em-
pathy). Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 28(10-A),
3967-3968.

 

Campbell, R.J., Kagan, N. and Krathwohl, D.R. The develop-
ment of a scale to measure affective sensitivity
(empathy). Journal of Counselinngsychology, 1971,
lg, 407-412.

 

Caracina, P.F. and Vicory, J.R. Correlates of phenomenolog-
ical and judged empathy. Journal of Counseling Psy-
ChOlOSZ, 1969' kg, 510-515.

237

Carkhuff, R.R. Helping and Human Relations. VOls. I and
II. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.

 

Carkhuff, R.R. The development of systematic human resource
development models. CounselingyPsyghologist, 1972,
3' 4-100

Chambers, F.M. Empathy and scholastic success. Personal
and Guidance Journal, 1957, 3g, 282-284.

 

 

Chandler, D.R. Construct validity of a scale of accurate
empathy in psychotherapists. Dissertstion Abstracts
International, 1971, 32(3-B), 1836-1837.

 

Chapman, J.L. The development and validation of a scale to
measure empathy. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan, University
Microfilms, 1966, No. 66-14, 108.

Chapman, J.L. and Kagan, N. Development and validation of
a scale to measure empathy. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1971, 18, 281-282.

 

 

Chinsky, J.M. and Rappaport, J. Brief critique of the mean-
ing and reliability of "accurate empathy" ratings.
Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 1;, 379-382.

 

Chournos, G. Pretraining reactions to a recorded interview
as a means of screening counselor trainers. Disser-
gstion Abstracts International, 1970, 30(12-B),
5685.

 

Chronback, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-
ture of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334.

 

Collingwood, T., Hefele, T., Muehlberg, N. and Drasgow, J.
Toward identification of the therapeutic facilita-
tion factor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970,
36, 118-120.

 

Cowden, R.C. Empathy or projection. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1955, 11, 188-190.

 

 

Craddick, R.A., Leipold, W.C. and Leipold, V. Effect of
role-empathy on height of human figures drawn by
male alcoholics. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1970, 39, 747,752.

 

Davidoff, M.D. A study of empathy and correlations of prej-
udice toward a minority group. Purdue Uniyersity
Studies in Higher Education, 1949, 61, 1-67.

 

 

238

Dendy, R.F. A model for the training of undergraduate res-
idence hall assistance as paraprofessional counselors
using vidiotape techniques and Interpersonal Process
Recall (IPR). Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1971.

Deutsch, F. The effects of sex of subject and story charac-
ter on preschoolers' perceptions of affective re-
sponses and intrapersonal behavior in story sequences.
Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 112-113.

 

Diskin, P.A. A study of predictive empathy and the ability
of student teachers to maintain harmonious interper-
sonal relations in selected elementary classrooms.
Dissertation Abstracts, 1956, 16, 1399.

 

Dixon, W.R. and Morse, W.C. The prediction of teacher per-
formances: Empathic potential. Journal of Teacher

 

 

Dymond, Rosalind F. "A Preliminary Investigation of the
Relation of Insight and Empathy." Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, 1948, 11, 228-233.

 

 

Dymond, R.R. A scale for the measurement of empathic abil-
ity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 11,
127-133. '

 

Dymond, R.R. Personality and empathy. Journal of Consult-
ing Psychology, 1950, 11, 343-350.

 

 

Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalyt1gTheory of Neurosis, New
York: W.W. Norton, 1945.

Feshbach, N.D. Empathy in children: some theoretical and
empirical considerations. The Counseling Psycholo-
SiSt' 1975' 2' 25-30.

 

Feshbach, N. and Feshbach, S. The relationship between em-
pathy and aggression in two age groups. Development-
al Psychology, 1969, 1, 102-107.

 

Feshbach, N.D. and Roe, K. Empathy in six- and seven-year-
olds. Child Development, 1968, 11, 133-145.

 

Fromm-Reichman, F. Princip1es of intensivespsychgtherapy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.

 

Gates, G.S. An experimental study of the growth of percep-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1923, 11,
449-461.

 

239

Gladstein, G.A. Empathy and counseling outcome: An empir-
ical and conceptual review. The CounselingsPsychol-

Goodman, N. and Ofshe, R. Empathy, communication efficiency,
and marital status. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 1968, 11 597-603. -

Gordon, D. A device for demonstrating empathy. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1934, 11, 892-893.

 

Gray, 3., Nida, R.A. and Coonfield, T.J. Empathic Listening
Test: An instrument for the selection and training
of telephone crisis workers. Journal of Communigy
Psychology, 1976, 1, 199-205.

 

Guiora, A.Z. On clinical diagnosis and prediction. Psy-
chological Reports, 1965, 11, 779-784.

 

Guiora, A.Z. Toward a systematic study of empathy. Com-
pgehensive Psychiatry, 1967, 1, 375-385.

Halkides, G. An experimental study of four conditions nec-
essary for therapeutic change. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958.

Halpern, H.M. Empathy, similarity, and self-satisfaction.‘
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 11, 449-452.

Hansen, J.C., Noore, G.D.,and Carkhuff, R. The differen-
tial relationship of objective and client percep-
tions of counseling. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1968, 11, 244-246.

 

Hastorf, A.H. and Bender, I.E. A caution respecting the
measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 1952, 11, 574-576.

Hawkes, G.R. and R.L. Egbert. "Personal Values and the
Empathic Response: Their Inter-Relationships."
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1954, 11, 469-
476.

Hefele, T. and Hurst, M.W. Interpersonal skill measurement:
Prediction, validity and utility. The Counseling
Psycho1ogist, 1972, 1, 62-69.

Helfand, I. Role playing in schzophrenia: A study of
empathy. Dissertation Abstracts, 1955, 11, 1117.

 

Hogan, R. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33(3),
307-316.

 

240

Hogan, R. Empathy: A conceptual and Psychometric analysis.
The Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 1, 14-18.

 

Hill, M.N. Suicidal behavior in adolescents and its rela-
tionship to lack of parental empathy. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1970, 31(l-A), 472.

 

 

Hurst, M.W. An investigation of empathy and its measure-
ment: The development of an integrative systems
model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974.

 

Iannotti, R.J. The nature and measurement of empathy in
children. The Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 1,
21-25.

 

Ingram, Barabara. Defensive Style and Affective Sensitivity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1977.

Irving, S.G. Parental empathy and_adolescent adjustment.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1966, 27(3-B),
967-968.

 

Jackson, W. and A.C. Carr. "Empathic Ability in Normals
and Schizophrenics." gournal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1955, 11, 79-82.

 

 

Jarrard, L. Empathy: The concept and its industrial appli-
cations. Personal Psychology, 1956, 1, 157-167.

 

Jones, J.E. Helping relationship response tendencies and
occupational affiliation. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1967, 671-675.

 

Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. London: Rutledge and Ke-
gan Paul, 1923. [New translation, Princeton-Boll-
ingen Press. Volume 6 of complete works].'

 

Kagan, N. Personal Communication, 1977.

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D. R. and Farqurhar, W. W. A progress
report: Interpersonal process recall technique.
Submitted under Title VII to U. S. Office of Educa-
tion, Washington, D. C., 1964.

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D.R and Farquhar, W.W. Interpersonal
process recall: Stimulated recall by videotape in
exploratory studies of counseling and teaching-learn-
ing-final report, (NDEA Title VII, Grant No. OE 7-32-
0410-216) East Lansing: Michigan State University,
1965.

241

Kagan, N., Drathwohl, D., Goldberg, A., Campbell, R.,
chauble, P., Greenberg, 3., Danish, S., Resnikoff,
A., Bowes, J. and Bondy, S. Studies in human inter-
action: Interpersonal process recall stimulated by
videotape. (Final Report RR-20, United States De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare). East
Lansing: Michigan State University, Educational Pub-
lication Services, 1967.

Kagan, N. and Schneider, J. Affective Sensitivity Scale:
Form D, Mason Michigan: Mason Media, Inc., 1975.

 

Kagan, N. Schneider, J. and Werner D. Toward the creation
of reliable, valid and practical measures of inter—
personal sensitivity: The affective sensitivity
scale. Paper presented American Psychological Asso-
ciation, San Francisco, August, 1977.

Kalisch, B.J. An experiment in the development of inter-
active and predictive empathy in nursing students.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31(11-B),
6715. ‘—‘——‘_‘

 

Kerr, W.A. The Empathy Test, Chicago: Psychometric Affil-
iates, 1947.

 

Kerr, W.A. and Speroff, B.J. Validation and evaluation of
the empathy test. Journal of General Psychology,

 

Kurtz, R.R. A comparison of different approaches to the
measurement of counselor empathy in personal coun-
seling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1970.

Kurtz, R.R. and Grummon, D.L. Different approaches to the
measurement of therapist empathy and their relation-
ship to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1972, 11, 106-115.

 

 

Lambert, M.J. and DeJulio Outcome research in Carkhuff's
Human Resource Development Training Programs: Where
is the donut? The Counselinngsychologist, 1977, 1,
79-86.

Lindgren, H.E. and Robinson, J. Evaluation of Dymond's
test of insight and empathy. Journal of Consultisg
Psychology, 1953, 11, 172-176.

 

Lord, F.M. and Novick, M.R. Statistical theories of mental
test scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

 

242

Luborsky, L., Chandler, M., Auerbach, A., et a1. Factors
influencing the outcome of therapy: A review of
quantitative research. Psychological Bulletin, 1971,
11, 145-185.

Mohoney, S.C. The literature empathy test: Development of
a procedure for differentiating behavior "good empa-
thizers" and "poor empathizers." Dissertation Ab-
stracts, 1960, 11, 674.

 

McCaulley, N.H. Description of the Myers-Briggs Type In-
dicator, Unpublished manuscript, University of Flor-
ida, 1971.

McNally, H. and Drummond, R. Ratings of Carkhuff's facil-
itative conditions: A second look. gounselor Edu-
cation and Sgpervision, 1974, 11, 73-75.

 

Milgram, N.A. Cognitive and empathic factors in role-taking
by schizophrenic and brain damaged patients. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 11, 219-224.

 

Mitchell, R.M., Truax, C.B., Bozarth, J.D. and Kraft, C.C.
Antecedents to psychological outcome. NIMH Final
Report - MB 12306, 1973.

 

 

Mood, D., Johnson, J and Shantz, C.U. Young children's
understanding of the affective states of others.
Technical Report No. 14, Wayne State University,

Muehlberg, N., Pierce, R. and Drasgow, J. A factor analysis
of therapeutically facilitative conditions. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 11, 93-95.

 

Mullen, J. and Abelis, N. Relationship of liking, empathy,
and therapist's experience to outcome of therapy.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, 11, 39-43.

 

Murstein, 3.1. Some comments on the measurement of projec-
tion and empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1957, 11, 81-82.

 

Myers, I.B. Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indigator, New
Jersey: EducationaI_Testing Service, 1962.

Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K. and
Bent, D.H. Statistical Package for the Social Sci-
ences, 2nd Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

O'Hern, J.S. A study of sensitivity as a measurable concept
for the screening and evaluation of counselors. Un-
published doctoral dissertation. Boston University,
1962.

243

O'Hern, J.S. and Arbuckle, D.S. Sensitivity: A measureable
concept? The Personnel and Guidance Journa1, 1964,
11, 572-576.

Partyka, L.B. Two aspects of empathic awareness in young
children: Affective and cognitive role-flaking. Un-
published doctoral disserations, Michigan*State Uni-
versity, 1974.

Pfeiffer, J.W. and Jones, J.E. The 1973 Annual Handbook for
Groueracilitators, Iowa City, Iowa: UHiVersity
Associates, 1973.

 

 

Porter, E.H. An Introduction to therapeutic counseling.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1950.

 

Rank, R.C. Counseling Competence and Perceptions. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 11, 359-365.

 

Rappaport, J. and Chimsky, J.M. Accurate empathy: Confu-
sion of a construct. Psychological Bulletin, 1972,
11, 400-404.

 

Reid, D.K. and W.V. Snyder. "Experiment on 'Recognition of
Feeling' in Non-directive Psychotherapy." Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1947, 1, 128-135.

 

Resnikoff, A. A measure of discrimination for the predic-
tion of counselor effects. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1972, 11, 464-465.

 

Rogers, C.R. Client-ceasgred Therapy. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin Company, 1951.

 

Rogers, C.R. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1961.

 

Rogers, C.R. (ED.) The therapeutic relationsh1p and its
impact: A study of_psychotherapy with schizophren-
ics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.

 

 

Rogers, C.R. Empathic: An unappreciated way of being.
Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 1, 2-10.

 

Roseman, M.F. and Drenner, W.T. Empathy in schizophrenics,
neurotics, and normals. Psychological Reporgs,
1967, 11, 863-864.

 

Rowe, K.K. A 50-hour intensified IPR training program for
counselors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972.

244

Sapolsky, A. Effect of interpersonal relationships upon
verbal conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1960, 11, 241-246.

Schmidt, W.H. and Scheifley, V. Computer Programs for Max-
imum Likelihood Factor Analysis - An Adaptation and
Modification of K.G. Joreskogis Programs For Use
on the Michigan State UniversiEy CDC 6500 Computer.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,-
Center for Urban Afairs, 1970.

Schneider, J. Personal communication, 1977.

Schneider, J., Kagan, N. and Werner, D. The development of
a Measure of empathy: The Affective Sensitivity
Scale. Paper presented at American Psychological
Association, San Francisco, August, 1977.

Scott, W.A. Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey and E.
Aronson (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology.
Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968f

Shantz, C.U. Empathy in relation to social cognitive de-
velopment. Counseling Psycholog1st, 1975, 1, 18-21.

Selfridge, P.F. Effects of in-service training in inter-
personal communication skills on school counselors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University
of New York at Albany, 1972.

Shelton, J.L. The relationship of Various levels of accur-
ate empathy to rehabilitation outcome as measured by
the Interaction scale. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Utah, 1969.

Speroff, B.J. Empathy and role reversal as factors in in-
dustrial harmony. Journal of Social Psychology,

Stewart, D.A. "Psychogenesis of Empathy." Psychoanalytic
Review, 1954, 11, 216-228. '

Stotland, E. and Walsh, J. Birth order, in an experimental
study of empathy. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, 11, 610-614.

 

Sullivan, H.S. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry, Washing-
ton, D.C.: William Alanson White Psychiatric Foun-

dation, 1947.

Sydnor, G.L., Abridge, R.L., and Parkhill, N.L. Human Re-
lations: A Manual for Trainers. Minden, La. Human
Resources DevElopment Training Institute, 1973.

245

Tausch, R., Bastine, R., Bommert, H., Minsel, W.R. and

Nickel, H. Weitere Untersuchung der Auswirkung
unter Prozesse klientenzentrierter Gesprachpsycho-
therapie. Zeitscgrift fur Klinische Psychologie,
1972, 1, 1, 232-250.

Tausch, R., Bastine, R., Friese, H. and Sander, K. Vari-

ablen und Ergebnisse bei Psychotherapie mit alter-
nieranden Psychotherapeuten. Verlog fur Psychologie,
1970, 11, 1-34.

Tobolski, F.D. and Kerr, W. Predictive value of the Em—

Truax,

Truax,

Truax,

Truax,

Truax,

pathy Test in automobile salesmanship. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1952, 11, 310-311.

 

 

C.B. Toward a tentative measurement of central ther-
apeutic ingredients. Arkansas Rehabilitation Re-
search and Training Center, University of Arkansas,
1961.

C.B. Therapist empathy, warmth, and genuineness and
patient personality change in group psychotherapy:

A comparison of unit measures, time, sample measures,
patient perception measures. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1966, 11, 225-229.

C. and Carkhuff, R.R. Toward Effective Counselipg
and Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

C. and Mitchell, K.M. Research on certain therapist
interpersonal skills in relations to process and out-
come. In Bergen, A.E. and Garfield, S.L. (Eds.)
Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: An
Empirical Ana1ysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1971) 229-344.

C. and Tatum, C.R. An extension from the effective
psychotherapeutic model to constructive personality
change in preschool children. Childhood Education,
1966 3 fly 456-462.

 

Van Zelst, R.H. Empathy scores of union leaders. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 1952, 11, 293-295.

Wallace, J. An abilities conception of personality: Some

implications for personality measurement. American
PEXChOIQQiSt' 1966’ El, 132-138.

 

Wallston, K.A. and Weitz, L.J. Measurement of the core di-

mensions of helping. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
931' 1975' £3, 567-5690

246

Walton, W.E. Empathic responses in children. Ps chol.
Monogr. 48/213: 40-67(1936). Psychologicai Mbno-
graphs, 1936, 48/213, 40-67.

Weinstein, E.A. The development of interpersonal compe-
tence. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socializa-
tion Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNail ,
1969. -

 

Weiss, J.H. Effect of professional training and amount and
accuracy of information on behavioral predictions.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 11, 257-262.

Weiss, R.L., Krasner, L. and Ullmann, L.P. Responsivity to
verbal conditioning as a function of emotional atmos-
phere and patterning of reinforcement. Psychological
Reports, 1960, 1, 415-426.

 

Werner, D.W., Kagan, N. and Schneider, J. The measurement
of Affective Sensitivity: The development of an in-
strument. Paper presented at 16th Annual Conference
on Medical Education, Washington D.C., 1977.

Zimmerman, I.L. and Woo-Sam, J.M. Clinical Interpretation
of the Wechsler Adult Igtelligence Scale, New York:
Grune and Strattion, 1973.