....:.. .. . Z...

 

 

 

  

......T....
1......3...

                          

    

.2
.....‘u. ...-...

  

.....-

............ .....H............
......._-...~fl_v..._.. . . . . ...-....

    

 

2.2.... ...
1.... .1..-

  

.
1....

   

...: T...

 

 

-..-.. ......._
.. 7...

 

   
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

  

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

..
_.

........

   

     

 

     

. . xx. ... .37.}.

                 

    

  

........ .. ............. .:.:.......1_2... 33...}..11
...- .....:.. .....‘2..- ..........::..:. 37.....3...)
......... .. ......... .. 3....-. . ..\....._:. ......

 
 

 

 
 

.................. ................... ...s.

 

      

  

.. 1.. .. . ...z . . . .
.. .. .. 1...... .._,_.....,r .......r..._.. ..«nu..r§.|..w...x. ...}.F.......~:,a.. ....»th
.13..” I... ... ...: .
Mani... .....3: 5...... ....

E

....._....... ... .....r...._:.:
........r...............

  
 
 
   

     

...... ....
r : .. ...
M.~.....r.... .72...

  

  

        

    

...-... . m

...-

 
 

 

 

  
   
   

  

L is: A g y
Michigan Sm:
University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

OUTCOME EFFECTS OF TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENT

CLIENTS IN FACILITATIVE SELF-RESPONDING

presented by

David Walter Cabush

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Counseling,
Personnel Services and
Educational Psychology

 

 

Date May IA, 1971

0-7639

 

 

£555 1‘! 43 25W.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

OUTCOME EFFECTS OF TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENT
CLIENTS IN FACILITATIVE SELF-RESPONDING

BY

David Walter Cabush

The purpose of this experiment was to examine two
fundamental questions: (1) Can clients be trained to
respond to their own problems at minimally facilitative
levels of empathy (E), regard (R), genuineness (G), and
concreteness (C)? And, (2) does such training in "facili-
tative self-reSponding" have a therapeutic effect in terms
of client interpersonal functioning and behavior change
in the direction of the individual's counseling goals?

To seek answers for these questions two treatment
conditions were established with the intent of making
systematic comparisons of outcome. Twenty—two subjects
were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment con-
ditions, or groups. The subjects were college students
who were seeking individual counseling for personal-social
concerns and who had volunteered to participate. Subjects
in Group 1 received individual counseling integrated with

Systematic training in facilitative self—responding.

David Walter Cabush

Subjects in Group 2 received individual counseling with no
systematic training. Both groups received treatment for
one hour a week over a six-week period.

Four counselors provided the treatment for Group 1,
while five other counselors provided the treatment for
Group 2. All nine counselors were judged equivalent on
the dimensions of helper functioning using the Carkhuff
scales for E, R, G, and C. Counselors were also deemed
equivalent on the basis of experience, level of training,
sex, age, and general therapeutic orientation.

The procedure used for training in facilitative
self—responding was developed by the researcher from pre-
vious work that Carkhuff and associates had done in regard
to facilitative interpersonal functioning. Hence, the
procedure was an extension of the Carkhuff model and em-
ployed modeling, didactic, and experiential sources of
learning to shape higher levels of E, R, G, and C in self-
help responses. Training followed two sequential phases:
(1) training in the discrimination of levels of each of
the facilitative dimensions, and (2) training in the com—
munication of increasingly higher levels of each of the
dimensions in response to the trainee's problems.

To directly measure posttreatment training effec-
tiveness subjects in Groups 1 and 2 were cast into the
self-help role by being asked to respond as helper to

three problem statements which were taken from a recording

 

David Walter Cabush

of their own intake interview. The responses were subse-
quently rated by three independent judges on each of the
facilitative dimensions. Reliability estimates for the
ratings were .96 on E, .92 on R, .90 on G, and .94 on C.
The results showed Group 1 to be functioning at about the
3.0 level on all dimensions and at about one level higher
than Group 2. Univariate analyses of variance showed the
differences to be statistically significant (a = .05) for
each of the four measures.

The Behavior Rating Form (BRF) was developed to
measure group differences beyond the behaviors for which
Group 1 was directly trained and behaviors generally
accepted to be related to client benefit. Specifically,
the BRF measured interpersonal functioning with items
based upon the constructs of E, R, G, and C. Also, it
measured behavior change in the direction of individual
counseling goals with items based upon idiosyncratic
problem behaviors identified by each subject prior to
treatment. The BRF was administered to each subject and
the two significant other observers whom each had identi—
fied prior to treatment. Reliability estimates for the
interpersonal dimension were .88 for observers and .79 for
subjects, and for the counseling goals dimension were .80
for observers and .49 for subjects. Univariate analyses
of variance showed Group 1 to be significantly better

(a = .05) than Group 2 on the dimensions of interpersonal

David Walter Cabush

functioning and behavior change toward counseling goals as
reported by observers, but not as reported by subjects.
The differences reported by observers were not only sig—
nificant but were meaningful. That is, according to ob-
servers the behavior of Group 1 was in the desired direc—
tion and that of Group 2 was not. Also, though group
differences for subject ratings were not significant, they
were in the direction favoring Group 1.

In addition to the univariate analyses, overall
treatment differences were assessed by considering all
eight dependent measures together in a repeated measures
analysis of variance. The results showed that Group 1
did significantly better (a = .05) than Group 2, but also
yielded a significant ordinal interaction for groups and
measures.

In conclusion, facilitative self—responding was
considered to be an effective therapeutic intervention.
systematically training a client to respond to his own
problems in a more facilitative manner, thus functioning
more effectively as his own helper, is a promising
direction for further exploration and development within

the helping professions.

 

 

OUTCOME EFFECTS OF TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENT

CLIENTS IN FACILITATIVE SELF-RESPONDING

BY

David Walter Cabush

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1971

 

Copyright by
DAVID WALTER CABUSH

1971

 

TO ROCHELLE,

Joey,

Cathy,

and family

ii

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

Several very "significant others" contributed to
making this study possible. Their brief mention here can
scarcely convey the writer's deep feelings of appreciation.

My guidance committee were co—workers in the most
positive sense. Richard G. Johnson served as chairman,
making many helpful contributions and yet allowing me to
experience all that it meant for this to be "my study."
(Zecil L. Williams served as research sponsor within the
(Sounseling Center and never allowed me to feel that this
'was "just another dissertation." Andrew C. Porter's exper—
tise in design and statistics was invaluable, and his
emphasis upon meaningful research will not be forgotten.
And Andrew M. Barclay ably served as representative from
the Psychology Department.

Richard Pierce contributed immeasurably in the
early, but all important conceptual stages. He was in
every sense "facilitative."

Many Counseling Center staff cooperated in carrying
out the experimental procedures. Without their help the

various parts could not have come together successfully.

iii

Several fellow interns served as counselors and
generously gave of their time, energy, and most importantly
of themselves. For contributing to both the research and
the researcher I thank Jim Archer, Bob Dendy, Sam Dietzel,
Tom Fiester, Ken Hall, Tom Spierling, Bob VanNoord, and
Tom Zarle.

Mary Heiserman, Kathy Scharf, and Tom Zarle served
as raters. They turned all that had been previously in—
vested into that most important data. Kathy also served
as "special consultant," and will continue a very special
friend.

Lee Erlandson served as my internship supervisor
and was a genuine colleague. What I gained from our
relationship will remain a vital part of me, and my ther-
apy. In the terms of this study, he was truly a helper's
helper.

To Bill and Dinny Kell . . . thank you for defin-
ing training as growing, and for providing the quality of
nurture that allows adults to grow. And Bill, your "ESP"
will never be forgotten. I now know that to get "stuck"
is fundamentally human, but growth doesn't let one stay
there.

And then there is "Kelley" . . . subject,

client, friend . . . unique, and yet representative of

iv

 

'those with whom I was privileged to share the adventure,
the joy, the pain, and the love that can be therapy.
Finally, to Rochelle, my helpmate, my wife. Her
lanelfiSh love and giving create feelings for which there
eare no "concrete" labels or Operational measures, neverthe-

less, they will be expressed throughout our future together.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. RATIONALE . . . . . . . .
Introduction. . . . . . .

Purpose . . . . . . . .
Theory and Supportive Research.

Helping as an Interpersonal Process

Facilitative Interpersonal Functioning

Facilitative Dimensions and Their

Levels. . . . . . .
Training on the Facilitation
Dimensions . . . . .

Self-Directed Facilitative Conditions.

II. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . .

Overview . . . . . . . .
Sample. . . . . . . . .
Counselors . . . . . . .

Selection Rationale. . . .
Counselor Training . . . .
Subject Assignment . . . .

Materials. . . . . . . .
Measures . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

ix

wNI-J

004:.

16
20
24
24
26
28
28
32
32

33
37

Chapter Page

Facilitative Level of Self-Help

Responses . . . . . . . . . . 37
Behavior Rating Form . . . . . . . 41
Interpersonal Functioning. . . . . 41
Counseling Goals. . . . . . . . 43
Treatment Procedures. . . . . . . . 47
Experimental Group--Rationale . . . . 47
Experimental Group Format . . . . . 48
Stage I--Introduction (session 1) . . 48

Stage II-—Discrimination Training
(sessions 1-3). . . . . . . . 49

Stage III--Communication Training
(sessions 4-6). . . . . . . . 50
Control Group . . . . . . . . . 51
Treatment After Experimental Period . . 51
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Experimental Design . . . . . . . . 54
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . 55
III. RESULTS. 0 O O O C O O O O O O O 56
Treatment Effects. . . . . . . . . 56
Interaction Effect . . . . . . . . 59
Univariate Effects . . . . . . . . 61

Facilitative Level of Self—Help

Responses . . . . . . . . . . 61
Interpersonal Functioning . . . . . 65

Change Toward Individual Counseling
Goals 0 O O O O O O O O O O 66
Subject Mortality. . . . . . . . 70
Status of Research Hypotheses. . . . . 72
IV. DISCUSSION. 0 O O O O O O O O O O 73
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Limitations. . . . . . . . . . 76
Conclusions and Implications . . . . . 79
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . 89

vii

Page

APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Carkhuff Scales on Facilitative Dimensions . 94
B. Letter to Screening Counselors . . . . . 104

C. Procedural Guidelines for Screening
Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . 105

D. Standard Letter of Explanation to

Prospective Subjects. . . . . . . . 106
E. Subject Consent Form . . . . . . . . 108
F. "Part I"-—Pre-EXperimenta1 Data from

Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
G. Counselor Guidelines for Training in

Facilitative Self—Responding . . . . . 111
H. Typescript of Standard Helpee-Helper

Stimulus Tape . . . . . . . . . . 120
I. "Basic Dimensions of the Helping Process"——

Simplified Scales on the Facilitative

Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . 140
J. Letter to Significant Other Observers. . . 146

K. Instructions for Behavior Rating Form-—
subject 0 O O O O O O O O C O O 147

L. Instructions for Behavior Rating Form——
Observers . . . . . . . . . . . 148

M. Items on Behavior Rating Form Based on
Idiosyncratic Counseling Goals . . . . 149

N. Behavior Rating Form--Example . . . . . 153

0. Standard Instructions for Posttesting on
Self—Help ReSponses . . . . . . . . 154

P. Rating Form for Tape Ratings. . . . . . 155
Q. Raw Scores on Dependent Measures According
to Subject, Counselor, and Treatment

Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Mean Level of Functioning on Facilitative
Dimensions by Counselors With Subjects . . 30

2. Counselor Case Loads and Sex Distribution
Within Treatment Groups . . . . . . . 33

3. Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for Ratings
of Self-Help Responses on Facilitative

Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . 4O
4. Interpersonal Items on Behavior Rating Form

With Self and Observer Reliability

Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . 44

5. Self and Observer Reliability Coefficients
for Ratings on Idiosyncratic Goal Items. . 45

6. Mean Scores on Dependent Measures for
Experimental and Control Treatment Groups . 57

7. Summary of the Repeated Measures Analysis
of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . 58

8. Summary of Univariate Analyses of Variance . 62

9. Mean Level of Self-Help Responses on
Facilitative Dimensions With Group

Differentials (Carkhuff Scales) . . . . 65
10. Behavior Rating Form Sub Scale Reliability

Coefficients for Subjects and Observers. . 67
11. Raw Score Means From Behavior Rating Form. . 69

12. Final Subject and Counselor Distribution
Within Treatment Groups . . . . . . . 71

13. Raw Scores on Dependent Measures According to
Subject, Counselor, and Treatment Group. . 156

ix

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Pictorial Representation of Posttest Tape
for Measuring Facilitative Level of
Self-Help Responses . . . . . . . . . 39

2. Pictorial Representation of Experimental
DeSign O O O O O O O O O O O O O 55

 

3. Graph of Interaction Effect Between Groups *
and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4. Illustration of Behavior Rating Form Response
Format in Relation to Group Means on
Measures 5 Through 8. . . . . . . . . 69

 

 

C HAPT ER I
RAT IONALE

Introduction

Many professional helpers have advocated or implied
that one of the results of successful treatment be greater
independence or autonomy for the helpee. Krumboltz (1967)
is representative of those who have more formally proposed
that a primary function of counseling and counseling re-
Search be the discovery of improved ways of helping clients
prevent or learn to solve their own problems.

If one assumes that a person seeking counseling is
in fact manifesting his inability to resolve some problems
independently, then it follows that a central endeavor of
Counseling should be an improvement in the client's ability
to help himself. To implement such a goal suggests that
there is (1) an underlying problem solving or helping
process that is applicable across a range of problems,
and (2) that this process is amenable to predictable
change.

In recent years an impressive body of research on

such a helping process has been generated by Carkhuff and

his; associates. Their paradigm for "facilitative inter—
pearsonal functioning" has provided both a descriptive and
a tzraining model for improving the functioning of helpers.
Stuzh training has been successfully implemented for pro—
ikessional and paraprofessional helpers, significant others,
arud helpees in terms of their interpersonal skills (Cark-
hllff, 1969a, 1969b). However, prior to the present study
tliere has not been a systematic attempt to use this model
tc> train an individual client to function effectively as

hi 5 own helper .

Purpose

The purpose of this experiment was to determine
tine therapeutic effect of extending the Carkhuff model in
Stuch a manner so as to train an individual client to
:fiinction as his own helper. Specifically, this meant
iJuiividually training clients to assume a helping role
with themselves and to respond at higher levels on the
facilitative dimensions of (l) empathy, (2) regard,

(3) genuineness, and (4) concreteness.*

Effectiveness was evaluated by comparing counseled
clients who received systematic training in "facilitative
self-responding" over a six—week period to counseled

clients who did not receive training over the same time

*To be abbreviated as follows: E (empathy),
R (regard), G (genuineness), and C (concreteness).

 

period. Comparisons were made on outcome criteria which
were judged to be relevant and feasible.

(1) The level of E, R, G, and C in the responses
which a client made after treatment to his
problems as he was verbalizing them prior to
treatment;

(2) The client's interpersonal functioning in terms
of the communication of E, R, G, and C to others
as reported by the client and significant others;

(3) Change on the idiosyncratic problem—related be—
haviors which the client could identify when he
entered counseling as reported by the client and
significant others.

Using these criteria for comparing counseled clients
who received training to those who did not, it was hypothe—
sized that:

1. When cast in the role of being their own helper
counseled clients receiving training will score
significantly higher on the levels of E, R, G,
and C than will counseled clients receiving no
training.

2. Counseled clients receiving training will score
significantly higher in terms of the communication
of E, R, G, and C to others as reported by the
client and significant others than will the
counseled clients receiving no training.

3. Counseled clients receiving training will show
significantly greater positive change on idio—
syncratic problem-related behaviors as reported
by the client and significant others when com-
pared to counseled clients receiving no training.

Theory and Supportive Research

 

Because this study is an extension of what is an
already well elaborated and widely researched paradigm--
"facilitative interpersonal functioning"—-the researcher

Will focus upon its theoretical base and related research.

 

 

This model is essentially eclectic——incorporating didactic,
experiential, and modeling means for acquiring or changing
behavior. Consequently, the underlying theory has elements
in common with most of the major personality theories, and
the methods of therapeutic intervention share elements with
most schools of psychotherapy.

Such eclecticism has often been criticized for
logical inconsistencies or heuristic limitations. However,
even cursory review of the work of Carkhuff and associates
suggests that their paradigm does "hang together" theo-
retically, and that it is rich in both accomplished and
potential research. But of greatest importance to this
researcher is the degree to which it translates into
demonstrable human benefits. This would seem to be the
most valid criterion for any theory or model of helping.

Helping as an Interpersonal
Process

 

The model for facilitative interpersonal function—
ing rests upon a fundamental assumption.
Assumption: Helping processes and their training
programs are all instances of interpersonal
learning or relearning (Carkhuff, 1969b, p. 3).
Virtually every personality theorist has attended
t0 the nature of early interpersonal relationships. The
QUality of these relationships are seen as at least

Partially predictive of adult psychological functioning.

 

From early childhood an individual's emotional, intel-
lectual, and physical development can be viewed as having
been significantly dependent upon: (1) a "first person"
(e.g., parents, teachers, counselors); (2) a "second person"
(e.g., child, student, client); and (3) "contextual vari—
ables" (e.g., environmental factors, including conditions
offered by others). These first person and second person
roles also become defined as more knowing/less knowing,

and helper/helpee (Carkhuff, 1969a).

The issue of adequacy or quality of these inter—
personal processes, or helper—helpee relationships, lead
to some central propositions.

Proposition I: The helping process in any inter—
personal setting may have constructive or
deteriorative consequences.

The first published challenge to the effectiveness
of professional helping came from Eysenck (1952). Since
then many researchers have taken a closer look at counsel—
ing outcomes. The result has been that a significant in—
crease of both constructive and deteriorative consequences
has been noted on a variety of indices in treatment groups
When compared to controls. Such has been the case in pro—

grams of intensive treatment with hospitalized schizo—

 

Ehrenics (Rogers, Gendlin, Kiesler, & Truax, 1967; Truax

& Carkhuff, 1967), with outpatient neurotics (Barron &

 

Leary, 1955; Cartwright & Vogel, 1960), and with relatively

 

 

nonpathological guidance populations (Mink & Isaksen, 1959).

 

The evidence indicates that even when the statistics yield
no mean differences on outcome measures, the treatment
group variance is greater than the control group variance.
Therefore, the treatment group has increased positive and
negative scores which indicate that helpers do have an
impact-~for better or for worse.

Evidence of constructive and deteriorative conse—
quences also exists for other important interpersonal
relationships. Carkhuff (1969b) has reviewed the growing
body of literature concerning parent-child, teacher—
student, and helper trainer—trainee relationships. The
interpersonal learning within these relationships has been
linked with a wide range of consequences, including social
adjustment, manifestation of hostility, emergence of
SChizophrenia, academic achievement, and level of effec—
tiVeness as a professional helper.

Thus, our knowledge to this point indicates that
within a variety of interpersonal settings helping relation—
Ships can be facilitative or retarding. Consequently, much
research has assumed the approach of looking at the outcome
and tracing back through the process in an effort to deter—
mine the variables which promote, inhibit, or malign
growth. The following proposition has grown out of this

approach and it is fundamental to the Carkhuff model.

PrOposition II: "All effective interpersonal
processes share a common core of conditions
conducive to facilitate human experiences"
(Carkhuff, 1969b, p. 7).

Rogers (1957) delineated six conditions which were

posited as "necessary to initiate constructive personality

change."

1. Two persons are in psychological contact.

2. The first . . . , the client, is in a state of
incongruence, being vulnerable or anxious.
3. The second . . . , the therapist, is congruent

or integrated in the relationship.

4. The therapist experiences unconditional positive
regard for the client.

5. The therapist experiences an empathic understand—
ing of the client's internal frame of reference
and endeavors to communicate this experience to
the client.

6. The communication to the client of the thera-
pist's empathic understanding is to a minimal
degree achieved (pp. 95—96).

Other widely divergent orientations to counseling
and psychotherapy have subsequently emphasized the critical
nature of the helper and helpee process variables. Volumes
Could be written on the subject of these variables and
related research. A brief review serves to provide a
Zperspective for the variables central to this experiment.

Though sometimes given different labels, helper
‘Variables have included: (1) empathic understanding, (2)
Exositive regard or warmth, (3) genuineness, (4) self—
disclosure, (5) specificity of emotional experience, (6)
concreteness in problem solving, (7) appropriate confron—

tation, and (8) interpretation of the immediate helping

experience (Carkhuff, 1969b). Helpee variables have

 

 

 

included: (1) self-exploration (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967),
(2) owning of feeling, (3) commitment to change, (4)
differentiation of stimuli, and (5) changing behavior with
the helper (Kagan, et 31., 1967, 1969).

Facilitative Interpersonal
Functioning

 

In what are essentially eclectic extensions of
Rogers' (1957) "necessary and sufficient conditions,"
Carkhuff and associates (Carkhuff, 1969a, 1969b; Carkhuff
& Berenson, 1967; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) have added
helper-initiated dimensions to the helper—responsive con—
ditions. In this context, effective helping processes can
be broken down into two general components: (1) under-
standing, and (2) action. Within each component critical
variables have been delineated.

Understanding: (l) empathy, (2) regard, (3)
genuineness, and (4) concreteness.

Action: (1) confrontation and (2) immediacy.

The understanding component is fundamental to the
helping process and its variables are thus called "core
facilitative dimensions." However, it should be noted
that genuineness and concreteness have been considered
"swing dimensions" in that according to the developmental
phases of helping they may be either reSponsive or initi-
ative. All four dimensions represent the "common core of

conditions" referred to in Proposition II as "conducive to

 

facilitate human experiences,‘ and consequently define the
helping process as it is incorporated into this study.
Most therapeutic models can be viewed as having
at least two major interdependent phases which parallel
the components of understanding and action: (1) the "in-
ward" phase where the establishment of the relationship
and helpee self-exploration are the major elements; and
(2) the "outward" phase where directionality is established
and specific behavior changes are often sought. In terms
of the facilitative dimensions, during the initial phase
the concentration is upon empathy and regard. High levels
of E and R are posited as leading to feelings of being
understood, acceptance, and self-understanding which in
turn reduces anxiety related to what has been verbalized
and thus is reinforcing for further self-exploration.
During the later phase the focus is upon a genuine and
sharing relationship where specific direction emerges and
goals are implemented by concrete measures. Carkhuff and
Berenson (1967) have summarized the process accordingly:
(1) The therapist institutes high levels of facili-
tative conditions which (2) enable the client to
explore himself meaningfully and (3) sets the thera-
pist up as a potent reinforcing agent who helps to
give directionality to the client's struggle, and

finally (4) translates into constructive action on
the client's part (p. 142).

Facilitative Dimensions
and Their Levels
At this juncture the concept of "level" is criti—

cal. As Carkhuff and associates have defined the

 

10

dimensions of E, R, G, and C they are not some static
quality that a helper mysteriously has, or has not.
Rather, they can be seen as operational at some level in
any helper-helpee interaction. For each dimension five
levels have been defined, scaled from 1 through 5. Level
has been defined as the "minimally facilitative level of
interpersonal functioning" (Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967,
pp. 5-7) for all dimensions. Levels 4 and 5 facilitate
change in a positive direction while levels 2 and l in—
hibit positive change or produce negative effects. Con-
sidering the dimensions individually should help clarify
the rationale used in constructing the scales as well as
more thoroughly define the variables. (The actual scales,
where each level is defined, can be found in Appendix A.)
Empathy. At level 3 the verbal responses of the
helper and the verbal expressions of the helpee are essen-
tially interchangeable in that they express basically the
same affect and meaning. Below level 3 the helper's
responses do not attend to or significantly detract from
the expressed feelings of the helpee. Low level responses
often represent a distortion of the helpee's expression on
the part of the helper. Above level 3 the helper's re—
Sponses add noticeably to the expressions of the helpee
in such a way as to express accurately feelings and mean-

ings which the helpee was not able to verbalize.

 

ll

Regard. At level 3 the helper communicates a
respect or positive regard and concern for the helpee's
feelings, experiences, and potentials. Below level 3 the
helper indicates a lack of regard. This may be communi—
cated in a number of ways such as responding mechanically,
passively, or ignoring the feelings of the helpee. Above
level 3 the helper communicates a deep respect and caring
for the helpee's feelings, experiences, and potentials as

a worthwhile person. He enables the helpee to feel free

 

 

to be himself and to experience being valued as an indi—
vidual.

Genuineness. At level 3 the helpee provides no

 

discrepancies between what he verbalizes and what other
cues indicate he is feeling, but also, there are no posi—
tive cues to indicate a really personal and genuine re—
5ponse to the helpee. Below level 3 there are discrepan—
cies indicated. The helper's verbalizations may be un—
related to what he is feeling, or he may be Spontaneous
and genuine with only his negative responses to the helpee.
Above level 3 the helper provides some definite cues indi—
cating a genuine response to the helpee in a non-
destructive manner. The helper is open to what he him-
self is experiencing and employs this constructively.

Concreteness. At level 3 the helper enables the

 

helpee to deal with personally relevant material in

Specific and concrete terminology. Below level 3 various

12

levels of vagueness and abstractness dominate the verbal

interaction. Above level 3 the helper enables the helpee
to develop in concrete and specific terms most instances

of concern. High levels are often characterized by con-

crete problem solving activities.

There have been efforts to analyze how these four
dimensions might be related structurally. One such study
(Muehlberg, Drasgow, & Pierce, 1969) used previous research
data to designate one high, one moderate, and one low level
functioning therapist. Audio tapes of therapy sessions
were rated for E, R, G, C and self—disclosure, and the
results factor analyzed. The results replicated the pre-
vious levels of functioning of the three therapists, and
the factor analysis yielded one principal factor for each
therapist. The limitations of this study are obvious, the
factors may well have been a function of the single thera-
pists.

A more carefully designed study (Berenson, Friel,
& Mitchell, 1970) explored the relationship of factorial
dimensions for just high— and low-functioning therapists.
Initial interviews of 13 high level therapists and 32 low
level therapists were rated for E, R, G, and C. The high
level therapists provided a more complex factor structure
involving three factors while the low level therapists
provided a simple factor structure involving only one

factor. Though the sample size was relatively small,

 

 

13

these results suggest that the processes provided by high—
and low-functioning therapists not only differ functionally,
but also structurally. One inference which might be made

is that high-functioning therapists have a larger reper—
toire of responses to offer clients.

An issue related to the helper's reSponse reper—
toire and level of functioning is how the type of affect
and problem content of the helpee expressions relate to
the helper's level of responding. To explore this
question Carkhuff (1969c) developed an audio tape with
15 helpee stimulus statements. Three classifications
of affect——(l) depression-distress, (2) anger—hostility,
and (3) elation-excitement——were crossed and balanced
with five problem content areas--(l) social-interpersonal,
(2) educational—vocational, (3) child—rearing, (4) sexual—
marital, and (5) confrontation of helper. Individuals
from four sub—populations--(l) general, (2) college stu—
dents, (3) lay personnel, and (4) professional helpers-—
were cast into the helping role and asked to respond to
the stimulus expressions. Their responses were rated on
the facilitative dimensions. Factor analyses indicated
that a single factor accounted for two—thirds of the
variability which suggests that all of the tests were
essentially measuring the same variable 15 times. This
was obtained independent of affect, content, and experi-
ence level. However, multivariate analyses for high-,

moderate-, and low-functioning helpers (in terms of E, R,

14

G, and C) yielded significant differences in group means
and dispersions. Yet, within these levels of functioning
the differences between affect and content areas were
slight and not meaningful. In summary: (1) respondents
who were inexperienced and/or low functioning tended to
respond to content almost exclusively, (2) respondents who
were experienced and/or moderate functioning tended to
respond to affect and content with equal frequency, and
(3) respondents experienced and systematically trained
and/or high functioning tended to respond to both affect
and content simultaneously. One conclusion one might
draw from this study is that it is characteristic of high
level functioning helpers to integrate problem content
and related affect in their responses to helpees. In
Rogerian (1961) terms it might very well be the helpee‘s
inability to achieve such an integration, or "congruence,"
independently that precipitates his seeking help.

The issue of how E, R, G, and C are related
structurally is complex and the research is incomplete.
At this point there is no basis for claiming that they
are necessarily independent of one another within the
helping process. Factorially there is evidence that
their relationship to one another, helpee affect, and
problem content, differs according to the levels of the
process.

Of primary importance is that the four dimensions

describe some critical aspects of the helping process

15

which has resulted in the formulation of a functional model
of the same. Research indicates that independent of the
theoretical orientation of helpers, these dimensions are
related to constructive process and/or outcome within
various interpersonal settings and with a range of helpees.
Examples include schizophrenics, both those in individual
(Berenson & Mitchell, 1969; Rogers et al., 1967; Truax &
Carkhuff, 1967) and group psychotherapy (Truax, 1961;
Truax, Carkhuff, & Kodman, 1965), and outpatient neurotics
or situationally distressed populations (Barrett—Lennard,
1962; Berenson & Mitchell, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967;
Halkides, 1958; Pagell gt al., 1967; Truax & Carkhuff,
1967). There is also evidence that supports the propo—
sition that these dimensions are related to learning in
formal teaching situations, childrearing, and effective
training programs in the helping professions. A review
of these findings can be found in Carkhuff (1969b, pp.
8—9).

In an attempt to gain an estimate of the levels
of E, R, G, and C offered in the everyday environment to
persons in need of help, Martin and Carkhuff (1967) cast
individuals from the general public in the helping role
and rated their level of functioning. The helpers'
average level of functioning across the core dimensions
was 1.5, with a range of 1.4 to 1.8. Carkhuff and

Berenson (1967) have interpreted these results as follows:

16

. . . in our assessments of the general population,
the first person, at a maximum, responds to the super—
ficial feelings of the other person, not only infre-
quently, but also continuing to ignore the deeper
feelings; he communicates little positive regard, dis-
playing a lack of concern or interest for the second
person; his verbalizations are somewhat unrelated to
what he is feeling, and most often he is responding
according to a prescribed "role" rather than by ex-
pressing what he personally feels or means; he fre-
quently leads or allows discussions of material per-
sonally relevant to the second person to be dealt
with on a vague or abstract level (p. 8).

Although the controlled research evidence is

cursory, this study lends support to the premise that the

 

levels of human "nourishment" available to the average
individual at a point of psychological crisis are inade-
quate. This condition offers further impetus to the
search for methods of self-help.

Thus far, it appears that at least some of the
dimensions of effective helping have been identified and
can be generalized across a range of interpersonal helping
situations and helpee problems. This leads to the funda-
mental issue as to whether these dimensions have been
sufficiently operationalized so as to effect change on
them through training procedures.

Training on the Facilitative
Dimensions

Proposition III: Individuals can be trained to
function interpersonally at minimally facili—
tative levels of empathy (E), regard (R),
genuineness (G), and concreteness (C).

17

Systematic training programs have been developed
for improving the interpersonal functioning on the dimen-
sions of E, R, G, and C. Research has shown that the
ability to discern a high level (above 3.0) from a low
level response is a prerequisite for, but not a guarantee
of, the capacity to initiate a high level response (Cark-
huff, Kratochvil, & Friel, 1968). This issue is not unlike
the insight-action conflict of therapeutic processes. An
individual may come to see (insight) but not act upon what
he sees, perhaps having a dynamic base of having been con-
ditioned to fear acting upon what he sees. Because of
this phenomenon, effective training has incorporated two
sequential phases--(l) discrimination training, and (2)
communication training. Both phases have included the
experiential, didactic, and modeling sources of learning
for shaping the facilitative level of trainee responses.

Training programs have followed three modalities—-
(1) training helpers, (2) training significant others,
and (3) training helpees directly.

Training helpers. Carkhuff (1969a) has made a

 

comprehensive review of helper training programs based
upon the facilitative dimensions (pp. 152-157). Trainers
have ranged from Ph.D. level psychologists to non-degree
personnel with no formal psychological training. Trainees
have ranged from doctoral students in clinical psychology
to laymen from various non-professional backgrounds. He

has summarized the results as follows:

18

Those trainees whose trainers were functioning above
minimally facilitative levels and approximately one
level or more above the trainees demonstrated the
most positive changes (p. 155).

Pierce and Schauble (1970) came to similar con-
clusions after studying counselors in graduate training
and their supervisors over a 30-week period. Interns
having supervisors who were functioning at high levels of
E, R, G, and C changed significantly and positively on
these dimensions. Those having supervisors functioning
at low levels on these dimensions did not change, in fact
tended to decline slightly.

Thus, when evaluating the training of helpers upon
the basis of their resultant level of interpersonal
functioning, the level of the trainers' functioning
appears to be the most critical dimension of effectiveness.

Training significant others. In situations where
the helpee or client has repeated contact with particular
individuals, training these significant others to be
effective helpers is most logical. Often such signifi-
cant others are in a position, in terms of time and
quality of the relationship, to have an impact that could
hardly be matched by professional helpers.

Training programs for such significant others have
been implemented for the parents of emotionally disturbed
Children (Carkhuff & Bierman, 1970), teachers (Berenson,
1970; Bierman, Carkhuff, & Santilli, 1970; Carkhuff &

Griffin, 1971), peers (Berenson, Carkhuff, & Myrus, 1966),

19

institutional attendants (Carkhuff & Truax, 1965a, 1965b),

 

 

nurses (Kratochvil, 1968), guards (Carkhuff, Banks, Beren—

son, Griffin, & Hall, 1971), and dormitory resident assist—

 

appg (Sharf, 1971). The results indicate that systematic
training of significant others has a positive affect upon
both the client and his symbiont. Further, in the only
research comparing experiential training with systematic
training in experiential dimensions (Berenson, Carkhuff,
& Myrus, 1966, using dormitory undergraduate counselors),
and systematic training with experiential counseling
(Carkhuff & Bierman, 1970, using parents of emotionally
disturbed children), the results significantly favor
systematic approaches.

Direct training of helpees. The most direct form

 

of any treatment would be the direct training of helpees
in those skills necessary to function effectively. The
particular skills necessary vary according to the problem
of the helpee and the therapeutic orientation of the
trainer. To remain within the scope of this study the
focus is upon interpersonal skills, particularly those
defined by the facilitative dimensions of E, R, G, and C.
Assuming the necessity of such interpersonal
Skills for getting and staying out of the hospital, Pierce
and.Drasgow (1969) employed systematic training on the
facilitative dimensions with a group of chronic neuro-

PSychiatric patients who were not otherwise being treated.

20

Comparisons were made with four control groups receiving
(1) treatment with drugs, (2) individual therapy, (3)
group therapy, or (4) a combination of the three. The
results were significantly in favor of the trained helpees,
both in terms of gains in process variables and outpatient
status. Vitalo (1970) has replicated these results with
other psychiatric populations.

Concerning the direct training of helpees, Cark-
huff (197lb) has concluded the following:

The most direct form of training as treatment, then,
is to train the client himself in the skills which he
needs to function effectively. The culmination of
such a program is to train the client to develop his
own training program. To say, "Client, heal thyself!"
and to train him in the skills necessary to do so is
not only the most direct—~but it is also the most
honest and most effective--form of treatment known

to man (p. 127).

One mode of training which has not been researched
to date is training the helpee to function as his own
helper within the Carkhuff paradigm. If at least some of
the dimensions of effective helping and/or functioning
have been identified and even laymen can be trained to
employ these as effective helpers, then a logical exten-

sion seems to be training for effective helping with

oneself.
.§e1f-Directed Facilitative
@nditions
Extending the model for facilitative interpersonal

functioning to a method of self—help implies that the

21

(dimensions of E, R, G, and C maintain important elements
of their meaning, and consequently their effectiveness,
when considered as self-directed. A brief overview of

the dimensions so construed should help further establish
the rationale for training in facilitative self-responding.

Self-directed empathy. The degree to which an

 

individual is able to discern and attend to those feelings
which he is verbalizing in the context of his "problem,"
and the affects and meanings which are related but not
verbalized. This seems closely related to the "owning

of feeling" dimension described and scaled by Shauble

and Pierce (1970). Self-directed empathy suggests an
accurate sensitivity to one's subjective, affective self.

Self-directed regard. The degree to which an

 

individual cares about his feelings, experiences, and
potentials. This may be viewed dynamically from various
persPectives, ranging from ego-strength to self-concept.

The essential factor seems to be that the individual cares
sufficiently about himself so as to become adequately in—
volved in some psychological growth process. The degree

to which one can be trained systematically on this dimension
is an open question, but it does appear that training might
at least aid an individual in gaining an estimate of where
he stands on this critical dimension.

Self-directed genuineness. The degree to which

 

one can be honest, spontaneous, and confronting with

22

himself. Being genuine relates to how well one can discern
discrepancies and incongruities within his behavior reper-
toire. Such awareness does not guarantee action, but would
appear to increase one's options for constructive and non—
conflicting behaviors.

Self-directed concreteness. The degree to which
one can deal with all instances of concern in specific and
concrete terms. Being concrete with oneself means dealing
with problem content and related affect in those terms
which are most likely to be amenable to direct problem
solving activities such as the development of specific
skills which may be needed.

When considering the facilitative dimensions as
self-directed there is the tendency to label the process
by changing the prefix from "inter" to intra" in the
Carkhuff nomenclature. But, this would be deceptive to
the extent that "intra" connotes purely private events.
The training model used was in fact an extension of that
which has been found to be effective interpersonally and,
therefore, was expected to replicate the positive results
in terms of interpersonal functioning. However, there
were three unique factors within this training procedure:
(1) during the discrimination phase of training, self-
help reSponses were modeled rather than other—helper re-
sponses; (2) during the communication phase of training

Self-directed helping responses were practiced in addition

 

23

to other-directed responses; and (3) the psychological set
and expectations of each counselor-trainer was different
to the extent that the goal was perceived as shaping self-
help responses. (The complete training procedure will be

detailed in Chapter II.)

In conclusion, the rationale for this study has
three major elements: (1) the development to date of the
Carkhuff model for facilitative functioning, (2) the
mounting evidence for training as an effective and even
preferred mode of treatment, and (3) the current emphasis
from various sectors of the helping professions upon pre-
paring their clients to resolve their own immediate and
future problems. Fundamentally, the experiment tests the
proposition that an individual can be trained to become a
higher level functioning helper with himself by employing
higher levels of empathy, regard, genuineness, and con-
creteness when dealing with his problems and concerns,
and that such training makes a positive difference in his
interpersonal functioning and the resolution of the idio-
syncratic problems which motivated him to seek counseling.
In humanistic terms, what has been attempted is to place
the tools of helping into the hands of the person asking

for help . . . and training him to use them.

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY

Overview

Twenty—two undergraduate college students who
were seeking individual counseling for personal-social
concerns volunteered to participate in a "six-week counsel-
ing research project." They were randomly assigned to one
of two treatment groups. One was the experimental treat—
ment group where they received individual counseling inte—
grated with systematic training in facilitative self-
reSponding. The second was the treatment control group
where they received individual counseling with no system—
atic training. Both the experimental and control subjects
received treatment for one hour a week over a six-week
period.

The systematic training procedure used with the
experimental group was developed by the researcher and was
an extension of the Carkhuff model for training in facili-
tative interpersonal functioning. The Carkhuff model was
modified so as to focus upon training subjects to respond
at higher levels of empathy (E), regard (R), genuineness

(G), and concreteness (C) to their own problems. For

24

25

experimental subjects this training accounted for approxi-
mately two-thirds of their counseling time.

Nine counselors participated in the study, four in
the experimental group and five in the control group. All
nine counselors were judged equivalent on the levels of
interpersonal functioning using the Carkhuff scales for
E, R, G, and C. The counselors were also deemed equiva-
lent on the bases of experience, level of training, sex,
and therapeutic orientation.

Prior to training, subjects were asked to identify
behaviors which they considered related to their problems,
the changing of which would constitute counseling "goals."
Also, subjects were asked for the names of two acquaint—
ances who would be in a position to observe their behavior
over the ensuing six—week period.

The Behavior Rating Form was constructed for the
purpose of measuring the interpersonal functioning of the
subjects and changes on the individual goals for counsel-
ing. The interpersonal items were developed upon the con-
structs of E, R, G, and C. The same items were used across
all subjects. The goal items were taken from those de-
scribed by the subjects prior to treatment and were thus
unique for each subject.

Following treatment the Behavior Rating Form was
administered to the significant others by mail, and to

the subjects in person. The instrument so administered

 

 

 

 

 

26

generated four dependent measures: significant—other obser-
ver ratings on (1) interpersonal behavior and (2) behavior
change in the direction of goals; self-ratings on (3)
interpersonal behavior and (4) behavior change in the
direction of goals.

So that posttreatment training effectiveness might
be measured directly, subjects in Group 1 (experimental
treatment) and Group 2 (treatment-control) were cast into
the self—help role by being asked to reSpond as helper to
three problem statements which had been excerpted (see
p. 38) from their own recorded intake interview. These
responses were rated by three independent judges on the
dimensions of E, R, G, and C. The ratings generated four
additional dependent measures respectively.

A repeated measures analysis of variance was per-
formed to test for a group main effect and group with
measures interaction. Univariate ANOVA's were performed
on each of the eight dependent measures. Reliability

estimates were computed for each of the dependent measures.

Sample

It was not feasible within this study to obtain a
random sample from the general population of interest.
Therefore, the sample and sampling procedure has been
carefully delineated, allowing the reader to judge how
this study's population compares with some population to

Which he might wish to generalize.

 

27

A sample of 22 subjects was obtained over the first
three weeks of winter term, 1971, at the Michigan State
University Counseling Center. According to Counseling
Center policy, students seeking counseling are seen the
same day by a screening counselor whose function it is to
make an assessment of the problem(s) and discuss possible
courses of action with the student. Eleven such counselors
agreed to participate in generating the sample. After
eXploring a student's concern a given screening counselor
was able to identify a prospective subject according to
provided guidelines (see Appendix C). Students so identi-
fied were introduced to the study as one alternative for
receiving help. They were shown a standard letter of
explanation (see Appendix D) which essentially stated that
the purpose of the research was to compare counseling
approaches, that the study would be for six weeks, and
pre and post responsibilities were explained. In no
manner was facilitative self—responding discussed. On the
basis of this information each student made a choice about
volunteering for the study. Screening counselors reported
that of those students who met the criteria and were pre-
sented with the letter of explanation, only two declined
to participate.

An audio recording was made of every screening
interview. No student objected to this procedure when

asked prior to the interview. These recordings were used

 

28

to construct a posttest which will be discussed in the
section entitled "Measures."

Sample Characteristics

 

1. Sex: 9 males, 13 females.
2. Age: range = 19-24 years, mean = 20.8 years.

3. Class standing at Michigan State University:
12 sophomores, 8 juniors, and 2 seniors.

4. Came to M.S.U. Counseling Center seeking
individual counseling, winter term, 1971.

5. Had a screening interview where client and
counselor agreed that the general classifi-
cation of the problem was "personal-social,"
as differentiated from educational, vocational,
or administrative.

6. Presenting problem was not judged by screening
counselor to be "urgent" or of a crisis nature.

7. Not a substantial history of psychopathology,
e.g., psychiatric hospitalization or previous
long-term professional psychological help.

8. Those responding positively when asked to
participate in the study.

Counselors

 

Selection Rationale

Nine counselors were available and willing to
participate in the study. Random assignment of counselors
to either experimental or control treatment conditions
was not possible. Though randomization was the preferred
method of controlling for individual counselor effects,
there were alternate bases for assuming the nine counselors

to be equivalent on dimensions relevant to counselor

 

 

29

functioning. In accord with the research and rationale
noted in Chapter I, it was concluded that the primary

dimensions of concern were the levels of helper empathy
(E), regard (R), genuineness (G), and concreteness (C).

Prior to the treatment period the researcher
requested an audio tape of a counseling session from each
of the counselors tentatively chosen for the study. These
tapes were rated by the researcher on the dimensions of
E, R, G, and C. The decision to retain the counselor for
the study was based upon whether his modal level of
functioning on all dimensions was 3.0 or above. All
nine counselors were judged to be functioning at 3.0 or
above, that is, they were functioning at minimally
facilitative levels.

This preliminary assessment of counselor function-
ing did not directly measure the counselors' level of
functioning with the subjects in the study. For this
purpose the fifth treatment sessions was randomly selected
for rating on the dimensions of E, R, G, and C. Three
4-minute segments-—first 4, middle 4, and last 4 minutes——
were excerpted from every counselor’s fifth session with
every subject. Rating was done by three independent
raters (see p. 40) for further discussion of raters).
Because the counselors were initially selected on the
basis of equivalent levels of functioning, the variance

of their ratings was small-~smaller differences than the

 

 

30

Carkhuff scales were designed to discriminate. This
limited range of ratings precluded conventional relia-
bility estimates. However, the same raters were known to
be reliable from other ratings where estimates were

possible (p. 40).

TABLE 1

Mean Level of Functioning on Facilitative
Dimensions by Counselors With Subjects

 

Facilitative Dimensions

 

 

 

Counselors
Empathy Regard Genuineness Concreteness

Experimental

1 3.56 3.56 3.50 3.50

2 3.56 3.33 3.17 3.72

3 3.44 3.17 3.17 3.39

4 3.39 3.22 3.17 3.50

Group Mean 21:13. 1.23 112.5. .322.

Control

5 3.22 3.17 3.17 3.50

6 3.33 3.33 3.39 3.50

7 3.39 3.33 3.39 3.33

8 3.11 3 28 3.22 3.06

9 3.22 3.33 3.28 3.28

Group Mean 3.27 3.31 3.39 3.33

 

31

The results of the tape ratings confirm that all
nine counselors were functioning at minimally facilitative
levels of E, R, G, and C. The slight differences which
exist are not meaningful in terms of how the dimensions
are defined. Therefore, there is a sound basis for assum—
ing that the counselors were essentially equivalent in
terms of their facilitative level of functioning with the
subjects in this experiment.

Though the level of functioning is of primary im-
portance, there was additional support for assuming counse-
lor equivalence across experimental and control conditions.
All nine were males, ranging in age from 28 to 35 years for
the experimental group, and 27 to 34 years for the control
group. All were doctoral level students at Michigan State
University having completed at least 80 per cent of their
academic work. They were first-year interns in the Coun—
seling Center, the selection process for which tends to
reduce differences by selecting from the applicants a
limited number who are considered most qualified on the
basis of diverse criteria. The internship itself is a
training program where trainees have many experiences in
common, both experiential and didactic. In terms of their
general therapeutic orientation all the counselors acknowl—
edged an emphasis upon interpersonal dynamics and their
developmental antecedents, and none of the counselors

identify primarily with the behavior modification model.

 

32

Therefore, on the bases of (1) level of facilitative
functioning, (2) sex, (3) age, (4) level of experience,
(5) level of training, and (6) general therapeutic orien-
tation, there is strong evidence that counselors were a
highly homogeneous group and that differential treatment

effects could be assumed attributable to other factors.

Counselor Training

 

All nine counselors were experienced with various
training methodologies, particularly those dealing with
paraprofessionals. The experimental counselors had one
90-minute session together where the counselor guidelines
(see Appendix G) were reviewed along with the SHeHrS tape
(described on p. 35). They did not receive pre-treatment
experiential training in facilitative self—responding.
Though such training may have Optimized trainer effective—
ness, it was considered too great a threat to the internal
validity of the experiment. That is, experiential train—
ing for Group 1 counselors may have altered their estab-
lished equivalence with Group 2 counselors. The other
alternative was to provide training for all counselors,
but this was impractical within the limits of this study

and could have contaminated the control treatment.

§Bbject Assignment
The 22 subjects were randomly assigned to either

the experimental or control group. They were then assigned

 

 

33

to their individual counselor according to scheduling and
case load practicalities. All counselors were supplied
with a standard student folder containing academic records,
demographic data, and notes written by the screening

counselor.

TABLE 2

Counselor Case Loads and Sex Distribution
Within Treatment Groups

 

Sex of Subjects

 

 

 

Counselors Number of Subjects
Females Males
Experimental
1 5 3 2
2 2 l 1
3 2 l l
4 .1 1 1
Totals 11 6 5
Control
5 3 l 2
6 2 2 O
7 2 2 0
8 2 l l
9 .1 1 1
Totals 11 7 4
Materials

 

Various materials were required for particular
Phases of the study and were Obtained or developed by

the researcher.

 

34

Counselor pre-tapes. All nine counselors tenta-
tively chosen to participate in the study were asked to
supply an audio recording of one counseling session. These
were rated by the researcher to assure that all counselors
were functioning at minimally facilitative levels.

Selection and use of screening counselors. Obtain—
ing the cooperation of screeners and equipping them for
obtaining subjects involved the following materials:

1. An open letter to screening counselors seek—

ing their cooperation in obtaining the sample
(see Appendix B).

2. "Procedures for Screening Counselor" (see
Appendix C).

3. Letter explaining the study to prospective
subjects (see Appendix D).

4. "Consent Form" to be signed by those agreeing
to become subjects (see Appendix E).

Pre-experimental information from subjects. "Part
I" was given to subjects by their screening counselor
immediately after screening. This provided two types of
Pre-experimental information needed from subjects (see
Appendix F).

l. Behaviors they could identify as related to
their problems, the changing of which would
constitute counseling goals. This information
was for developing the posttest Behavior Rating

Form and was not made available to counselors.

 

2.

35

The names of two significant-others who could
function as observers and complete the Behavior

Rating Form after the treatment period.

Experimental treatment materials. Special materials

 

were used at different stages of the training in facili—

tative self-responding.

l.

The Standard Helpee-Helper Stimulus tape
(SHeHrS) was an audio tape recording contain-
ing 13 assorted helpee problem statements, each
followed by three self-help responses. The
self—help responses were designed so that one
of them was at least minimally facilitative
(3.0 or above) and at least one level (Cark-
huff, l969a) higher than the others. This
section of the tape was used for discrimination
training. Following these were 11 assorted
helpee statements without responses. Subjects
were asked to respond as helpers to these,

thus constituting communication training. All
of the statements and responses were record—
ings of role-playing by non-professional
actors. A typescript of the SHeHrS tape was
made available for the experimental group
counselOrs (see Appendix H).

The Carkhuff 5-point scales for measuring the

levels of E, R, G, and C were revised to

36

obtain 3-point scales. Concrete examples

were written for each level of the four dimen-
sions. These revised scales were incorporated
into a handout entitled "Basic Dimensions of
the Helping Process" (see Appendix I) which
was made available for scheduled presentation
to the training subjects.

3. The original Carkhuff 5-point scales were made
available to counselors in the experimental
group for their further understanding of the
dimensions and their levels (see Appendix A).

4. Guidelines were written and copies given to
counselors doing the training in facilitative
self-responding (see Appendix G).

5. An audio tape recorder was provided for train—
ing sessions in addition to the one used in
recording the sessions. This machine was
used for the SHeHrS tape, and for recording
and playback of scheduled role-play exercises.

No special materials were required for the control

counseling sessions other than an audio tape recorder and
Sufficient tapes for recording all sessions.

Letter to significant-other observers. In order

 

to obtain the cooperation of the observers in completing
the Behavior Rating Form, an explanatory letter accompanied
the instrument. Both were mailed after the subjects had

completed the sixth session (see Appendix J).

37

Measures

There were essentially two modes of measurement
used to compare treatment outcomes. One sought to answer
the question: "Can subjects be trained to respond to
their own problems at minimally facilitative level of E,
R, G, and C?" The second sought to answer the question:
"Does training in facilitative self-responding make a
significant and meaningful difference on dimensions re—
1ated to subject benefit?"

Facilitative Level of Self-
Help Resppnses

 

To measure the posttreatment facilitative level
of self-help responses, every subject was cast into the
helping role and asked to respond to his own problem state-
ments. This was considered the most direct and valid
measure of the behavior of interest.

Three problem statements were used for each subject.
The statements were excerpted from the recorded screening
interviews, thus sampling directly from how the subjects
were verbalizing concerns at the time they were seeking
help. This is an important point in terms of construct
validity. Theoretically, a given subject is seeking a
Inxafessional helper because he is not able to obtain
mininml facilitation from others or himself. Therefore,
haw he is functioning at that point as helpee is important,

for it is an integral part of the facilitative process.

 

38

It was decided to use three excerpts for several
reasons. Some subjects tended to verbalize the same
problem content and affect repeatedly during the screen-
ing interview, others had divergent themes of content and
affect. Therefore, using three problem statements in-
creased the content validity of the instrument. It would
appear that this more inclusive sample of problem expres-
sion would also increase the face validity of the measure
to the subjects. Finally, using the three problem state-
ments, rather than just one, should have made for a more
reliable instrument (Anastasi, 1968) by providing a larger
sample of behavior and thus a more adequate and consistent
measure.

All excerpting was done by the researcher prior
to knowing the group assignment of any subject. Excerpts
were chosen only after the entire screening interview was
reviewed. One of the three was always taken from the
initial expression of concern by the subject. The state—
ments ranged from 15 to 130 seconds in length, however,
the three statements always totaled a minimum of 150
seconds in length.

A posttest tape was made for each subject which
COntained his three problem statements and blank segments
to record his reSponses. The format for this tape can

be Seen in Figure l.

 

 

39

 

. 2—minute 30—
"Statement problem
number one" / statement / cue / reSponse / cue / second
t1me pause

 

Note: Sequence is repeated for all three problem state—
ments.

FIGURE 1. Pictorial representation of posttest tape for
measuring facilitative level of self-help
responses

The testing format was such that every subject
came to a research room in the Counseling Center at an
appointed time the week following the sixth treatment
session. The testing was administered by the researcher.

To reduce sources of bias a standardized set of instruc—

tions was shown to every subject (see Appendix 0). If a

subject had any questions he was referred back to the in-

structions which were known to be adequate. Once a subject
indicated he understood the procedure and was ready to
begin the researcher left the room and did not return until
the test was completed. All mechanical procedures for
playing and recording with the test tape were conducted
from an adjacent room, therefore, during testing the
subject was alone.

All of the completed test tapes were recorded on

a master tape. The order of subjects on the master tape

was randomized. Three independent and experienced raters

were given copies of the master tape and asked to rate all

helpee responses using the Carkhuff scales for E, R, G,

 

 

40

and C. They were provided with a rating form to record
their ratings (see Appendix P). Because all three raters
were experienced in using the scales they required no
special training. From previous experience with the
raters the researcher knew them to be functioning above
minimally facilitative levels as helpers (above 3.0 on
E, R, G, and C). Cannon and Carkhuff (1970) have found
rater level of functioning to be an important factor.
Essentially, raters functioning below minimally facili-
tative levels tend to distort what they hear and thus
reduce reliability.

Rater reliability was estimated using an analysis
of variance method developed by Hoyt (1941). The ANOVA
was calculated on the CDC 3600 computer using a program
developed by Jennrich (1961). This procedure yielded
estimates of reliability of the ratings on the four
dependent variables of interest. The results are re-

ported in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for Ratings of Self—
Help ReSponses on Facilitative Dimensions

 

Empathy Regard Genuineness Concreteness

.957 .918 .901 .936

*

 

41

Behavior Rating Form

The Behavior Rating Form (BRF) was developed by
the researcher. It was an l8-item instrument with a 6-
level response format. The BRF was administered after
treatment to subjects and the significant-other observers
whom they identified prior to treatment. The instrument
was designed to measure two categories of outcome be-
havior: (l) interpersonal functioning, and (2) idio-
syncratic behavior changes in the direction of individual
subject counseling goals.

The response format used for all items on the BRF
was as follows:

1. I strongly feel that it is not true.

2. I feel it is not true.

3. I feel it is probably not true, or more

untrue than true.
4. I feel it is probably true, or more true
than untrue.

5. I feel it is true.

6. I strongly feel it is true.
The instructions used for subjects and observers can be

Seen in Appendices K and L, respectively.

Interpersonal Functioning
All subjects had classified their concerns as
"personal-social," as distinguished from educational,

vocational, or administrative. Such a classification

42

dictates that at least some attention be given to inter-
personal relationships. In addition, a rationale for
emphasizing a qualitative consideration of interpersonal
relationships was presented in Chapter I. There it was
posited that dyadic relationships were, to a large degree,
facilitating or retarding as a result of the levels of E,
R, G, and C within the communication processes. Conse—
quently, this instrument sought to evaluate interpersonal
functioning on these dimensions.

Three items were constructed for each of the four
facilitative dimensions. Some of the items were modifi-

cations of those in the Relationship Questionnaire

 

develOped by Truax (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). The 12
items were clustered to measure the single variable of
interest—-interpersonal functioning. Subjects' ratings
and observers' ratings were considered separately, thus
forming two dependent variables for analysis: (1) self
ratings on interpersonal functioning, and (2) observers'
ratings on interpersonal functioning.

Reliability estimates were obtained using an
analysis of variance method developed by Hoyt (1941).
The ANOVA's were calculated differently for self and
observer ratings. The FORTAP program (Baker & Martin,
1970) was used for self ratings, while a program developed
by Jennrich (1961) was used for observer ratings because

these were average scores (two observers for each subject)

 

43

and the FORTAP could not handle the non-integers which
frequently resulted from averaging. All 12 items with
sub-scale and overall reliability coefficients are pre—

sented in Table 4.

Counseling Goals

The second category of outcome behavior which the
BRF sought to measure was change on those behaviors
identified as directly related to the problems for which
subjects were seeking help. Prior to treatment every
subject was asked to write down (see Appendix F) at least
five such behaviors, the changing of which would consti-
tute counseling goals. From these five "goal" behaviors
four items were constructed for the BRF. As much as
possible the items were framed in the same language used
by the subject. However, they were all written in terms
of "change" in the direction implied by the subject. The
four items were clustered so as to measure a single vari-
able of interest--behavior change in the direction of
idiosyncratic subject goals.

It should be noted at this point that in a real
sense the subjects had assistance in identifying some
"goal" behaviors. Though the screening counselor did not
discuss this.procedure with the subject directly, most
screeners were known to function in such a manner so as
to help clients clarify some general goals for counseling.

Because subjects performed the research task immediately

44

TABLE 4

Interpersonal Items on Behavior Rating Form With Self
and Observer Reliability Coefficients

 

Sub-Scale Overall
Reliability Reliability

 

Self

Observers

Self

Observers

 

 

FUNCTIONING

INTERPERSONAL

EMPATHY

Even when others cannot quite say what they
mean, he seems to know what they feel.

He sometimes understands others so well
that he seems to know what they are feeling
even when they try to hide their feelings.

What he says does not seem to fit what others
are feeling.

.38

.68

 

REGARD

He communicates a respect for what others
have to say, whether he agrees with them
or not.

He really seems to care about the feelings,
experiences, and potentials of others.

Others do not feel free to be themselves
around him.

.45

.65

 

GENUINENESS

He is spontaneous, expressing what he
seems to be actually experiencing at the
time.

He gives genuine feedback, not keeping
back his feelings because he thinks it
will make others feel one way or another.

What he says is different than what he
seems to be feeling.

.45

.80

 

 

CONCRETENESS

 

When discussing a concern with others,

he gets down to what really seems to be
going on--what the specific issues and

feelings are.

He is able to help others get the right
words for what they are feeling.

He does not get down to concrete terms,
often remaining general and vague.

 

.66

 

.78

 

.79

 

.88

 

*Items stated in converse.

45

after their screening interview, there is reason to believe
that screening had some effect. However, such an effect
was not considered undesirable for it undoubtedly helped
some subjects write down more meaningful goals. Also,
some counseling researchers consider the setting of goals
as an essential and specific counselor-client process
(Krumboltz, 1966). Finally, whatever the differential
effect between subjects was, it could be considered random
between treatment groups.

Reliability for self and observer ratings on goals
was calculated in the same manner as for interpersonal
functioning (see pp. 41—42). The reliability estimates

are noted in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Self and Observer Reliability Coefficients
For Ratings on Idiosyncratic Goal Items*

 

 

Self Observers

 

.49 .80

 

 

 

 

*Four items for each subject.

A listing of all goal items according to subjects can be
found in Appendix M.
Thus far, 16 items of the 18-item instrument have

been considered--12 interpersonal and 4 goal items. Two

 

 

46

additional items were used to provide a check on the
appropriateness of the observers.

-—"I have had at least as much contact with him
over the past three weeks as is usual for us."

—-"I consider mySelf in as good a position to
make the above responses as most other of his
acquaintances."

It was planned to disregard any BRF where the observer
rated either of these items below level 4 (toward "not
true"), but none did so.

Before the BRF was ready for administration some
final procedures were carried out. First, the 18 items
were arranged in random order. Then, several naive indi-
viduals were asked to complete the form with a friend or
themself in mind. Their suggestions resulted in some
minor modifications in wording. Finally, an individual
BRF was prepared for each subject, written in the appro~
priate gender and incorporating the idiosyncratic goal
items. An example appears in Appendix N.

The BRF was administered to subjects and observers
the week following the sixth treatment session. It was
given to subjects immediately after they had completed
the measure on self-help responding, using standardized
instructions. Observers were mailed the BRF along with
a letter of introduction (see Appendix J), standardized
instructions, and a stamped, addressed envelope. The
materials used with observers did not identify the

subjects as being in counseling, only that they were

47

participating in a social science research project on
campus. After repeated follow-up on observers who did
not return the BRF after one week, a 95 per cent response
rate was realized within two weeks of the sixth treatment
session. This return resulted in two observer ratings

on all subjects, except for one in each group for whom

there was only one rating.
Treatment Procedures

Experimental Group--Rationale

Training in facilitative self—responding incor—
porated the (1) modeling, (2) didactic, and (3) experi—
ential sources of learning for shaping the facilitative
level of trainee responses. Modeling of high-level helper
responses was provided by the counselor and the SHeHrS
tape. Didactic presentations were made on the facilitative
dimensions by the counselor and through the handout en—
titled "Basic Dimensions of the Helping Process" (see
Appendix I). Also, trainees were instructed in the
rationale behind facilitative self-responding and the
training process. Experientially, trainees came to know
the effect of their counselor's high-level helper re-
Sponses and eventually their own. They practiced facili-
tative self-responding while receiving feedback and

selective reinforcement from their counselor.

48

The necessary skill for discerning a high-level
(above 3.0) from a low-level response was known to be a
prerequisite for, but not a guarantee of, the skill for
initiating a high-level response. Therefore, training
was divided into two sequential phases: (1) discrimi-
nation, and (2) communication.

The overall procedure took place during six one-
hour weekly sessions. Counselors were instructed to spend
a minimum of two-thirds of that time in direct training
activities. The provided guidelines (see Appendix G)
summarized the rationale for the study and delineated

three sequential stages with suggested time allotments.

Experimental Group Format

 

Stage I--Introduction (session 1)

1. Establishing the relationship. Listening to

 

and communicating an understanding of the
client's presenting problem was considered
an important factor in client motivation, as
well as an opportunity for modeling high—
level facilitative conditions.

2. Presenting training rationale. The training

 

rationale was summarized for the client so as
to optimize his participation and resultant
training effectiveness. The counselor pre—

sented the rationale from that provided him

49

in the guidelines and framed his presentation
in terms of the client's problems as much as
possible.

Questions concerning participation. The
counselor dealt directly with problems related
to client participation. These ranged from

scheduling difficulties to client motivation.

Stage II--Discrimination
Training (sessions 1—3)

1.

Gross discrimination. Practice in gross

 

rating (good, fair, poor) of helper responses
on the SHeHrS tape. Counselor gave feedback,
focusing on the dimension of empathy.

Presenting the facilitative dimensions

 

(session 2). A didactic presentation was

made Of the facilitative dimensions. The
client was presented with a copy of the simpli-
fied Carkhuff scales for independent study
between the second and third sessions.

Modeling levels of the facilitative dimensions.

 

The SHeHrS tape was used for modeling high,
minimally facilitative, and low levels of E,
R, G, and C in self-responding.

Rating practice. Clients used the SHeHrS tape

 

to practice rating self—help reSponses on the

levels of E, R, G, and C. Counselors gave

 

 

50

appropriate feedback—-reinforcing accurate

discriminations and correcting faulty ones.

Stage III——Communication
Training (sessions 4-6)

1.

Practicing helper responses. Client responded

 

in the helper role to helpee statements on the
SHeHrS tape (statements 14—24) with counselor
giving appropriate feedback.

Roleplaying helpee and helper roles with

 

counselor. Counselor and client alternated

in helpee and helper roles with one another.
Client was encouraged to use real problem
statements as helpee. During this procedure
the counselor focused on the dimensions and
role which needed the most improvement.

Practice in facilitative self—responding.

 

Client was asked to state a real and personal
problem which in turn was recorded. The
problem statement was played back and the
client was asked to respond as helper, which
was also recorded. Then, the entire sequence
was played and the helper responses rated by
the client on the facilitative dimensions with
counselor giving appropriate feedback.
Eventually, the procedure was followed without
use of the recorder and with increasingly less

dependence upon the counselor.

 

 

51

Control Group

 

Clients in the control group received individual
counseling in one-hour weekly sessions over the same six-
week period that the experimental group received indi—
vidual training. All counseling sessions were recorded.
The counselors were given no special instructions and were
not informed about the nature of the treatment in the
experimental group. If a client had a question about his
participation in the study, he was referred to the re—
searcher for the necessary information.

Egreatment After Experimental
Period

All subjects were informed initially that the
experimental period was for six weeks only. They were
also told that at the end of this period they and their
counselor could consider together future treatment pro—
cedures. Therefore, all subjects knew of the opportunity
for treatment beyond the experimental period and conse-
Quently spent some time during the sixth session discuss-

ing this option with their counselors.

Hypotheses

 

Research or alternate hypotheses will be designated
With the letters "HA" numbered 1 through 8. All eight null
hypotheses will be formally stated in Chapter III and the
SymbOl "H0" will be used to identify them. The first

exPeCtation of this study was that counseled clients who

 

 

52

received training in facilitative self-responding (Group 1)
would respond at higher levels of E, R, G, and C to their
own problem statements than would counseled clients who did
not receive training (Group 2). Such a prediction implied
the examination of four distinct hypotheses:

1. H u > u

A1: 1 2
The posttreatment level of empathy in the
self—help responses of Group 1 will be higher

than the posttreatment level of Group 2.

 

'2. HA2: 111 > 1.12

The posttreatment level of regard in the

self—help responses of Group 1 will be higher
than the posttreatment level of Group 2.

3. H : u > u

A3 1 2

The posttreatment level of genuineness in the

self-help responses of Group 1 will be higher
than the posttreatment level of Group 2.

4. H : u > u

A4 1 2

The posttreatment level of concreteness in the

self-help responses of Group 1 will be higher

than the posttreatment level of Group 2.

A second expectation was that counseled clients

Who received training (Group 1) on the facilitative
dimensions would function at higher levels interpersonally
than would counseled clients who did not receive training
(Group 2) as assessed by the clients themselves and
SiSnificant-other observers. This prediction implied two

additional hypotheses:

 

53

HA5: 111 > u

2

The posttreatment level of interpersonal
functioning of Group 1 will be higher than
the posttreatment level of Group 2 as
assessed by the subjects.

H u > u

A6: 1 2
The posttreatment level of interpersonal
functioning of Group 1 will be higher than
the posttreatment level of Group 2 as

assessed by significant-other observers.

A third expectation was that counseled clients who

received training (Group 1) would show a greater change on

behaviors related to pretreatment counseling goals than

would counseled clients who did not receive training

(Group 2) as assessed by the clients themselves and

significant-other observers. Thus, two final hypotheses

were implied:

7.

HA7: ul > u

2

The posttreatment change on goal behaviors
of Group 1 will be greater than the change
of Group 2 as assessed by the subjects.

H u > u

A8: 1 2
The posttreatment change on goal behaviors
of Group 1 will be greater than the change
of Group 2 as assessed by significant-other

observers.

 

 

54

Experimental Design

This experiment used a factorial elaboration of
the "posttest-only control group design" described by
Campbell and Stanley (1969). Figure 2 provides a pic—
torial representation. Though the statistical tests
available for a pretest-posttest design are more powerful,
it was decided that pretesting was too great a threat to
internal validity, particularly in regard to the effect
of pretesting on the posttests and change in test re-

spondents over time.

Analysis of Data

A repeated measures analysis of variance was per—
formed on the eight dependent variables. This analysis
allowed for considering all eight measures together in a
test for treatment main effect, and treatment with mea-
Sures interaction. Also, univariate ANOVA's were per-
formed to test for a treatment effect on the eight measures
individually. The repeated measures ANOVA was calculated
k6? a computer program develOped byJennrich (1961), while
the univariate ANOVA's were calculated as a part of a
Imultivariate program developed by Finn (1970). The re-

SUlts will be discussed in Chapter III.

 

 

M6

M7
M8

5
R < 10
S11
512
T
7- S13
k S20"

55

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

 

 

 

 

F 51
S2
S3
T1 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 2. Pictorial representation of
experimental design

Random assignment
Subject

Experimental treatment group-~individual counseling
with training in facilitative self-reSponding

Treatment-control group—-individual counseling
Empathy level of self-help responses

Regard level of self—help responses
Genuineness level of self-help responses
Concreteness level of self—help responses

Level of interpersonal functioning as reported
by 8

Level of interpersonal functioning as reported
by observers

Change on goal behaviors as reported by S

Change on goal behaviors as reported by observers

 

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Treatment Effects

 

The differential effect of the two treatment pro-
cedures on the eight measures can be observed in terms of
the resultant means in Table 6. Differences between groups
can be compared across measures directly in that the raw
scores were transformed so as to standardize the variance
across measures and approximate a common metric. The
transformation was accomplished by dividing each score on
a given measure by the square root of the pooled within
experimental and control group variance of that measure.
(Raw scores according to subject, counselor, and treatment

group appear in Appendix Q.)

The means indicate that Group 1 did better than
GrCNJp 2 on all measures. The repeated measures analysis
Of Variance allowed testing for the overall treatment
effect (G), and for treatment by measures interaction
(GM). (The main effect for measures (M) was not relevant
to the hypotheses of interest.) The results of the analy—

Sis are shown in Table 7.

56

57

 

 

muw>ummno >9 Oncommmu mamnlmawm
.muofi>mnmh Hmom co mmcmnu n m: .HO>OH mmmcmnmuocoo u a:
mamm we mmcomwmu mamnlmawm
.mHOH>MSOQ Hmom GO wmcmno N NE ~Hw>®H mmmcwcflscmw H m2
mnw>ummno wn mmcommwu mamelwamw
.mchOHpOGSM quOmmmmumncH n oz 1Hm>ma pummwm n NE
mawm wn wmcommmu mamslmamm
.mchOHUOGSM HMCOmuOmnOch u m2 ram>wa mgumafim n as "wmm
mmuoom coEuOmmcmuH*
mm.b w>.m na.o mm.w on.HH mm.m oa.m wm.m mm.m pcmuw
mm.m Hm.v vo.o mo.m om.HH ww.v mm.m oa.m mm.e Houucoo "NU
mw.m om.m mm.m mm.m om.mH «H.m am.m mm.> wh.m Hmpcmfiflummxm "H0
386 as E oz m2 :1 m2 N: as

 

mmsouo nemanmwne Houncoo
can Hmucmefinmmxm How monummmz ucmpcwdmo so 1.mOHOOm are:

m mqmfifi

 

58

TABLE 7

Summary of the Repeated Measures
Analysis of Variance

 

Sum of Mean

 

 

 

 

source Squares df Square F (df)
Grand Mean 9225.139 1 9225.139
G 255.228 1 255.228 122.705*
(1,18)
S:G 37.451 18 2.080
M 541.008 7 77.286
GM 85.579 7 12.225 14.484*
(1.18)”
SM:G 106.339 126 0.844
Total 1025.598 159 6.450

 

*Significant beyond the .05 level.
**Conservative F, see note.

Note: Repeated measures ANOVA assumes that the
measures are equally correlated, but there was no basis for
making this assumption with the measures used. Therefore,
the Geisser-Greenhouse (1958) conservative F test was used
which allowed violation of the assumption. With this method
the computational procedures for F are identical, but re—
duced degrees of freedom are used for determining the criti—
cal value of F. The conventional degrees of freedom would
have been 7 and 126.

 

59

The F test statistic for treatment effects was
122.705, which is significant at d = .05. Therefore, the
experimental group did significantly better than the con—
trol group when considering the eight measures together.
Specifically, this implied the rejection of the following

null hypothesis:

General H0: u1 = u

2

When considering together eight measures of
treatment effectiveness, the posttreatment levels
of Groups 1 and 2 will not differ from each other.

And allowed acceptance of the following alternate hypothesis:

General H :

A ul>u

2
When considering together eight measures of

treatment effectiveness, the posttreatment levels
of Group 1 will be greater than Group 2.

Interaction Effect

 

The F test statistic for groups with measures inter—
action was 14.484, which is significant at d = .05. The
Significant interaction effect indicates that the treatment
effect was not constant across all measures, in other words,
there was an effect due to particular combinations of the
leVels of groups and measures. Therefore, the overall
treatment effect may not hold for each level of measures.

The graph in Figure 3 illustrates that the inter—
action was ordinal, Group 1 doing better than Group 2
across all measures. An ordinal interaction such as this

is less restrictive to generalization of results than a

 

Means
10 —

Group 1
5 Group 2

 

Measures

FIGURE 3. Graph of interaction effect between groups
and measures
disordinal type. Though measures and groups interact,
they do not do so in a contradictory manner.
At least two major patterns can be observed from

the interaction graph. One is constituted by measures 1
through 4 which represent the facilitative level of self-
help reSponses. Clarely, group differences are greater
on those dimensions for which Group 1 was directly trained.
The second pattern results from measures 5 through 8 which
represent the scores on the Behavior Rating Form. For
these the group differences are noticeably less, particu—
larly for measures 5 and 7, the self—reports. To examine
further the group differences on the individual dimensions,

or measures, univariate analyses were required.

 

61

Univariate Effects

 

Univariate analyses of variance allowed for
directly testing group differences on each of the depen-
dent measures and thus provided tests for the eight
specific hypotheses stated in Chapter II. The procedure
used was a series of one—way ANOVA's and the results are
summarized in Table 8.

The univariate results will be considered in
accord with the rationale used in constructing the de—
pendent measures. Measures 1 through 4 used the ratings
of experienced judges to assess the effectiveness of train-
ing for particular behaviors--(l) empathic, (2) regardful,
(3) genuine, and (4) concrete self—help responses. Mea-
sures 5 through 8 were generated by the Behavior Rating
Form which focused upon interpersonal functioning as
assessed by (5) the subject and his (6) significant—
other observers, and change on idiosyncratic behaviors
related to counseling goals as assessed by (7) the subject

and his (8) significant—other observers.

Facilitative Level of Self—

Help Responses
As shOWn in Table 8, Group 1 did significantly

 

better than Group 2 when self—help responses were rated
on each of the facilitative dimensions. These results

focus directly on the first four hypotheses of this study:

 

 

62

 

.mmuMHum>Hcd mo menses on» .m an mo.
mo mzmam Hamuw>o one mchH>Hp mg pmcHEHmump mma zmocmummmu mo a: maze .mmmoo. v a
O>me on can mumaum>flcs one HO>OH mo. map cachmh uCMOHMHcmHm on 09 "muoz

.mp0: mom .Hw>ma mo. we» Ocommn “CMOHMHcmHm«

 

.OGGH.4H oaaa.o whom.m mum>nmmno an
.muofi>mnmn Hmom co mmcmnu m

Gmam.o Gmma.o HmmH.o mamm an
.muofi>mcmh Hmom co mmcmnu n

«mmma.ma ammm.o nmma.v muw>ummno ha
.mchOHuocsm HmcomummnmucH w

ooao.m qua.o Gama.o mamm an
.qucOHuOcsm HMGOmHmmHmucH m

.aakm.mm akoa.o amoa.a mmcoammu armaumamm
.HO>OH mmmcwumnocoo v

aomma.mo woao.o moma.m mmcommmu damclmamm
.HO>OH mmmqmcflscmo m

ammvm.Hv mama.o meH.m Oncommmu mamnlmamm
.HO>OH pummmm m

aamoa.aoa omaa.o onmm.aa Oncommmu mamclmamm

.Hm>ma mcnmmEm H

 

Houum cmm3pmm

s 0
“ma H .mpv m wumsqm new: mumsqm cams OHQMHHM>

 

mocmflnm> mo mommamca mumflum>flcb mo mumEEdm

m 392.

 

 

 

63

Hypothesis 1:

H : u

01 < u

1 2

The posttreatment level of empathy in the self-help
responses of Group 1 will equal (or be less than)
the posttreatment level of Group 2.

H01 rejected in favor of HAl'

H

: >
A]. 1.1 u

l 2

The posttreatment level of empathy in the self—help
responses of Group 1 will be higher than the post-
treatment level of Group 2.

Hypothesis 2:

H02: u1 < u2

The posttreatment level of regard in the self—help
responses of Group 1 will equal (or be lower than)
the posttreatment level of Group 2.

H rejected in favor of H

02 A2'

H : u > u

A2 1 2

The posttreatment level of regard in the self-help

responses of Group 1 will be higher than the
posttreatment level of Group 2.

Hypothesis 3:

H03‘ u1 s u2

The posttreatment level of genuineness in the self—
help responses of Group 1 will equal (or be lower

than) the posttreatment level of Group 2.

H03 rejected in favor of HA3.

 

 

64

H : u > u

A3 1 2

The posttreatment level of genuineness in the self—
help responses of Group 1 will be higher than the
posttreatment level of Group 2.

Hypothesis 4:

H u

04: s u

l 2

The posttreatment level of concreteness in the self—
help responses of Group 1 will equal (or be lower
than) the posttreatment level of Group 2.

H04 rejected 1n favor of HA4‘

H

: >
A4 u u

1 2

The posttreatment level of concreteness in the self—
help responses of Group 1 will be higher than the
posttreatment level of Group 2.

Thus, the statistical significance of training
efEEectiveness has been established. However, the issue of
"meaaningful significance" remains an important question.
hi Chapter I the concept of "minimally facilitative" was
discussed and was seen to be quantified as level 3.0 on
the 5—point Carkhuff scales. Since the scales were used
for measuring the posttreatment self-help responses, the
raw score ratings allow direct comparison of Group 1 and
Group 2 on the facilitative dimensions as originally de-
fined and scaled. If assumed that the control group did
not deteriorate in their level, then mean comparisons,
as ShOWn in Table 9, indicate that the trained group

gained more than one level on each of the dimensions.

 

 

65

Such a gain is meaningful by definition of the levels.
Also, the trained group achieved essentially minimally
facilitative levels on each dimension. The obtained
results are evidence that subjects in Group 1 were trained

to function as minimally effective self-helpers.

TABLE 9

Mean Level of Self-Help Responses on Facilitative
Dimensions With Group Differentials
(Carkhuff Scales)

 

 

 

 

Group Empathy Regard Genuineness Concreteness
l 3.02 2.81 2.99 3.00
2 1.47 1.80 1.88 1.59
Differen-
tials 1.55 1.01 1.11 1.41

 

Interpersonal Functioning

 

Hypotheses five and six focused upon how the treat-
ments compared in their effect upon interpersonal function-

ing.

Hypothesis 5:

 

H ulsu

05‘ 2

The posttreatment level of interpersonal function-
ing of Group 1 will equal (or be lower than) the
level of Group 2 as reported by the clients.

H05 failed to be rejected.

 

 

66

Hypothesis 6:

H : u

06 s u

l 2

The posttreatment level of interpersonal function—
ing of Group 1 will equal (or be lower than) the
level of Group 2 as reported by significant—other
observers.

H rejected in favor of H

06 A6'

HA6: u1 > u2
The posttreatment level of interpersonal function-
ing of Group 1 will be higher than the level of

Group 2 as reported by significant-other observers.

Change Toward Individual

Counseling Goals

Hypotheses seven and eight focused upon how treat-

 

ments compared in their effect upon changing behaviors

related to idiosyncratic counseling goals.

Hypothesis 7:

H u < 1.1

07‘ 1‘ 2
The posttreatment change on goal behaviors of
Group 1 will be equal (or less than) the change

of Group 2 as assessed by the clients.

H07 failed to be rejected.

Hypothesis 8:

H08: u1 S 112

The posttreatment change on goal behaviors of
Group 1 will be equal (or less than) the change
of Group 2 as assessed by significant—other
observers.

H08 rejected 1n favor of HA8'

 

 

67

H : u > u

A8 1 2

The posttreatment change on goal behaviors of

Group 1 will be greater than the change of

Group 2 as assessed by significant—other observers.

The results show that Group 1 did significantly
better than Group 2 on both dimensions of the Behavior
Rating Form--interpersonal functioning and behavior change
toward counseling goals--when assessed by observers, but
not when assessed by the subjects. Such results appear to
be contradictory in terms of the outcome criteria of pri-
mary interest.

One plausible explanation for the difference be-
tween subject and observer ratings is the differential
reliability of the two types of raters. Instrumentation
reliability was discussed in Chapter II and the results

are summarized in Table 10.

TABLE 10

Behavior Rating Form Sub Scale Reliability Coefficients
for Subjects and Observers

 

 

 

Outcome Dimensions Subjects Observers
Interpersonal Functioning .79 .88
Behavior Change Toward Goals .49 .80

 

The results show observer ratings to be more
reliable than subject ratings. As reported in Chapter II,

there were two observers for each subject in all but two

 

 

68

cases. This larger sample of ratings, together with their
higher reliability, lends support for inferring group dif-
ferences as indicated by observers. Also, it is to be
remembered that though group differences due to subject
ratings were not significant, they were in the desired
direction. Additional support comes from previous re—
search which tends to show counselors and clients to be
relatively poor judges of treatment outcomes (Meltzoff &

Kornreich, 1970). Such has been the case for judgmental,

 

descriptive, performance, and status type data. Finally,
it has been the researcher's observation that clients in
general become more critical of their overall behavior
repertoire during therapy, the effect of which might well
cancel out any real gains in either treatment group as
reported on an instrument such as the Behavior Rating Form.
Again, the question of meaningful significance is
relevant. The meaning of measures 5 through 8 can be
further clarified upon examination of the raw score means
in the context of the Behavior Rating Form response format
from which they were generated. The means appear in
Table 11 and their relationship to the response format
is illustrated in Figure 4. (The levels of the format are
detailed in Chapter II.) It can be observed by inspection
of the format that 3.5 is that critical value which differ—
entiates whether or not a mean is in the direction of

desired behavior. On this basis it can be inferred that

 

 

69

TABLE 11

Raw Score Means From Behavior Rating Form

 

 

 

 

Group 1 Group 2
Measures Experimental Control
M5 Interpersonal functioning,
by self 4.65 4.27
M6 Interpersonal functioning,
by observers 4.76 3.45
M7 Change on goal behaviors,
by self 4.40 4.23
M8 Change on goal behaviors,
by observers 4.26 3.17
6 A
H
5 E2:
Group 1 r——~—""_*“-al\\‘_____‘__—_* -Higg
mr:u
Group 2 4 O ®4J
v.9:
U H:
m o m
n-a s
-r-4:>H
wrap
2 6.:
U m.p
n o
p
1 ix '

 

 

f l I I

M5 M6 M7 M8

FIGURE 4. Illustration of Behavior Rating Form
response format in relation to group
means on measures 5 through 8

 

70

the statistically significant differences between groups

on measures 6 and 8 are also meaningful differences. That
is, observers reported only Group 1 to be functioning inter—
personally in a positive manner, and behaving in accord
with individual counseling goals. Applying the same cri—
teria to measures 5 and 7 it is apparent that groups were

not different in terms of meaning or statistical analysis.

Subject Mortalipy

 

Of the 22 subjects initially participating in this
study, 1 terminated prematurely from each treatment group.
In Group 1, a female subject was "no show" for the first
session and only came three times during the six-week
experimental period. Her counselor's assessment was that
she was not motivated for any therapeutic intervention at
that time. In Group 2, a female terminated after the first
three sessions, stating that she had received all the help
she wanted at that time. Her counselor also attributed her
early termination to insufficient motivation. The final
distribution of subjects and counselors within groups

appears in Table 12.

71

TABLE 12

Final Subject and Counselor Distribution
Within Treatment Groups

 

Sex of Subjects

 

 

Ccyunselors Number of Subjects
Females Males
Experimental
1 5 3 2
2 2 1 l
3 1 0* 1
4 _2 1 1
Totals 10 5 5
Control
5 3 l 2
6 2 2 0
7 2 2 0
8 2 l 1
9 _1 1* 1
Totals 10 6 4

 

*Subject mortality

 

 

2&1.

2X22.

E

1X3

m

114°

A5:

A6:

A7:

A8:

72

Status of Research Hypotheses

 

The posttreatment level of empathy in the self-help
responses of Group 1 will be higher than the post—
treatment level of Group 2. Confirmed.

 

The posttreatment level of regard in the self-help
responses of Group 1 will be higher than the post-
treatment level of Group 2. Confirmed.

 

The posttreatment level of genuineness in the self-
help responses of Group 1 will be higher than the
posttreatment level of Group 2. Confirmed.

 

The posttreatment level of concreteness in the self-
help responses of Group 1 will be higher than the
posttreatment level of Group 2. Confirmed.

The posttreatment level of interpersonal functioning
of Group 1 will be higher than the posttreatment
level of Group 2 as assessed by the subjects. Not
Confirmed. ——_

 

The posttreatment level of interpersonal functioning
of Group 1 will be higher than the posttreatment
level of Group 2 as assessed by significant-other
observers. Confirmed.

 

The posttreatment change on goal behaviors of Group 1
will be greater than the change of Group 2 as
assessed by the subjects. Not Confirmed.

 

The posttreatment change on goal behaviors of Group 1
will be greater than the change of Group 2 as
assessed by significant-other observers. Confirmed.

 

 

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION

Overview
This experiment examined two fundamental questions:
(1.) Can clients be trained to respond to their own problems
at: minimally facilitative levels of empathy (E), regard
(Ii), genuineness (G), and concreteness (C)? And, (2) does
Sllch training in facilitative self-responding have a posi—
‘tjsve effect upon dimensions of client benefit, specifically,
iIlterpersonal functioning, and behavior change in the
(iirrection of individual counseling goals?

To seek answers for these questions two treatment
Clcnnditions were established with the intent of making
Sfifstematic comparisons of outcome. Twenty-two subjects
VVEEre randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions,
(Dr‘ groups. The subjects were college students who were
Seneking individual counseling for personal-social concerns
and who had volunteered to participate. Subjects in
Group 1 received individual counseling integrated with
individual systematic training in facilitative self—

responding. Subjects in Group 2 received individual

73

 

74

counseling with no systematic training. Both groups
received treatment for one hour a week over a six-week
period.

Four counselors provided the treatment for Group 1,
while five different counselors provided treatment for
Group 2. All nine counselors were judged equivalent on
the dimensions of helper functioning using the Carkhuff
scales for E, R, G, and C. They were also deemed equiva-
lent on the bases of experience, level of training, sex,
age, and general therapeutic orientation.

The procedure used for training in facilitative
self—responding was developed from previous work that Cark—
liuff and associates had done in regard to facilitative
interpersonal functioning. Hence, the procedure was an
extension of the Carkhuff model and employed modeling,
didactic, and experiential sources of learning to shape
1ligher levels of E, R, G, and C in self-help responses.
Training followed two sequential phases: (1) training in
tile discrimination of levels on each of the dimensions,
arni (2) training in the communication of increasingly
Iligher levels of each of the dimensions in response to the
trainee's problems.

To directly measure posttreatment training effec—
tiveness subjects in Groups 1 and 2 were cast into the
self—help role by being asked to respond as helper to

three problem statements which were taken from their own

 

75

intake interview recording. The responses were subse-
quently rated by three independent judges on each of the
facilitative dimensions. The results showed Group 1 to
be functioning at about the 3.0 level on all dimensions
and at about one level higher than Group 2. Univariate
analyses of variance indicated the differences were sta-
tistically significant (d = .05).

The Behavior Rating Form (BRF) was developed to
measure group differences beyond the behaviors for which

Group 1 was directly trained and behaviors more obviously

 

related to client benefit. Specifically, the BRF measured
interpersonal functioning with items based upon the con—
structs of E, R, G, and C. Also, it measured behavior
change in the direction of individual counseling goals
with items based upon idiosyncratic problem behaviors
identified by each subject prior to treatment. The BRF
was administered to each subject and the two significant
other observers whom each had identified prior to treat—
ment. Univariate analyses of variance showed Group 1 to
be significantly better (a = .05) than Group 2 on the
dimensions of interpersonal functioning and behavior change
toward counseling goals as reported by observers, but not
as reported by subjects. The differences reported by
observers were not only significant but were meaningful.
That is, according to observers the behavior of Group 1

was in the desired direction and that of Group 2 was not.

 

 

76

In addition to the univariate analyses above,
overall treatment differences were assessed by considering
all eight dependent measures together in a repeated measures
analysis of variance. The results showed that Group 1 did
significantly (d = .05) better than Group 2, but also

yielded a significant ordinal interaction for groups and

measures .

Limitations

Before considering the many positive conclusions ’

 

and implications of the present study, it is appropriate
to review some of its limitations so as to properly qualify
inferences and to suggest directions for future research.
In terms of the internal validity of the experi—
Inental design, the "posttest only control group design"
UCampbell & Stanley, 1969) controls well for variables
thich might confound the experimental treatment effect.
Phswever, because counselors were not randomly assigned
tr) treatment conditions there remains this possible source
<Df systematic error. Though the researcher believed he
nyuld establish their equivalence on the bases of other
relevant criteria, randomization remains the best assurance
that the treatment effect was not the result of counselor
attributes. Further research might study the effect of
having the same counselors do both treatments. This would

control for all extraneous counselor effects, but then

 

77

creates the threat of between treatment contamination and

counselor bias.

An additional threat to internal validity was the
fact that the researcher served as a counselor for the
experimental treatment. Though the treatment was quite
structured and thus reduced opportunities for individual
variation, he might have biased the effect with higher
:motivation than the other counselors. However, it should
be recalled that his possible bias effect was controlled
for all testing situations.

A fundamental threat to external validity was the
Ipossible interaction effect of selection biases and the

eaxperimental variables. A random sample of some pOpu—
lxation was not possible, so strictly speaking the results
cuannot be generalized beyond the sample in this study.

Thawever, such a random sample is rarely possible in re—

suearch. Therefore, the selection procedure and the sample

Vflere carefully delineated (see Chapter II). Only two
ciLients declined to participate in the study, which allows
hunoader generalization than if more would have refused to
'participate. Overall, the sample was considered repre—
sentative of college students who come to counseling
agencies for help with personal-social concerns. An
additional source of selection bias was for counselors.
Hence,

important characteristics have been delineated which

allows the reader to assess how comparable the counselors

 

 

78

in this study are to those to which he might wish to
generalize.

The instrumentation used, namely the Carkhuff
scales and the Behavior Rating Form, also had its limi—
tations. The Carkhuff scales are in practice only mea—
sures of verbal behavior, therefore leaving one to
generalize verbalizations to other psychological and
behavioral dimensions of interest. Clearly, non-verbal
behavioral correlates of the different levels of the
scales need further investigation. But, given these
limitations, the researcher concluded from previous
research (see Chapter I) that there was strong evidence
that a change of functioning measured by these scales was
:related to change on other meaningful dimensions of
:Eunctioning and well-being. The results of the present
sstudy seem to add support to that relationship.

The Behavior Rating Form appeared to be a reliable
linstrument for observers, but not for subject self-ratings.
IIt holds promise, but further investigation and develOp-
Iment are needed. A factor analysis would help determine
fund the items function in relationship to one another,
and empirical studies would help establish its validity.
An analysis of the individual items, particularly the
goal items, reveals that they were not as Operational
as might have been desired. This limitation tends to
move the measurement process from the realm of quantifiable

behavior to the perceptual processes of respondents, and

 

 

 

79

thus obscuring the interpretation of results. Also,
subjects completed the BRF under controlled conditions
and observers did not. It can only be assumed that they
followed instructions and rated independently, or that
any error was random between groups.

Finally, the time limitations of this study must
be taken into account. The positive implications of a
short-term therapy are numerous, but the six-week time

factor also imposes limitations on the interpretation and

 

generalizability of results. The question remains as to
‘whether the differences between experimental and control
conditions would be maintained, increased, or would
cieteriorate over a longer period of time. This is an
(especially significant point in light of the fact that
nuost subjects continued in counseling after the experi—

nuental period, indicating they were not "finished."

Conclusions and Implications

In regard to the first fundamental question examined
hm? this experiment--"Can a client be trained to respond to
111$ own problems at minimally facilitative levels of E, R,
(3, and C?"——the results point to an affirmative conclusion.
It was possible to extend the Carkhuff model for facili—
tative interpersonal functioning to a self—help appli-
cation. The test of the basic proposition appeared to be
valid in that under controlled conditions subjects were

asked to perform the particular behaviors of interest

 

80

which were subsequently rated by independent, unbiased,

and reliable judges. However, an important corollary rests
upon inference—-that subjects successfully used the pro—
cedure independently when dealing with their problems.
Though there were no direct measures of this independent
application, the counselors of Group 1 reported that
subjects periodically mentioned using the "technique"
independently, and generally with satisfaction. Though
this might be viewed as "reinforcing the counselor," it
remains an indication of the desired effect.

Related to the issue of independent application
is the intriguing notion of "unconscious" application.
Without limiting the concept of such application to some
purely private psychic event, it can be contemplated that
subjects trained in facilitative self—responding might
well move from deliberate application of a "technique" to
a Spontaneous and natural facilitative approach to per—
sonal problems. Such a generalization effect seems
desirable. As it was previously noted, to be empathic,
respectful, genuine, and concrete in dealing with oneself
Would go a long way toward defining psychological well—
being from most perspectives. The degree to which the
Present limited training program accomplished such an
integration of these dimensions into "life style" or
"Personality structure" remains an open question, but

Seems worthy of theoretical and empirical investigation.

 

 

 

81

Another implication of effective training is that
the subjects experienced a qualitative and quantitative
improvement in their problem response repertoiries. A
qualitative gain was the focus of the discrimination phase
of training and the results were directly measured by use
of the facilitative dimensions. A quantitative gain was,
in a real sense, the focus of the communication phase of
training in that subjects were trained to initiate new
responses in accord with the facilitative dimensions. The
extent to which a subject's verbal response repertoire was
improved qualitatively and quantitatively implies improved
and increased behavioral Options upon confronting problems.

Though Group 1 showed quite comparable gains on all
of the facilitative dimensions, the differences between the
dimensions which do exist are of interest (see Table 9).
The greatest gain was on empathy (1.55). This might well
have been expected in that trainers keyed on this dimension,
particularly in the early phases of training. At the other
extreme, the least gain was on regard (1.01). The re-
searcher's earlier doubts about training on this dimension
(p. 21) appear to be reflected in the results. Regard has
been the most difficult dimension to Operationally define,
and it follows that it would be the most difficult to
affect through training. All trainers reported that next
tO empathy, they seemed to attend to concreteness most

Often. Its rank of second in gain (1.41) seems to reflect

 

 

82

this emphasis. Overall, the most important result in terms
of gains is still that Group 1 showed a meaningful gain on
all dimensions--one level or more--and achieved minimally
facilitative levels. However, comparing the dimensions
within Group 1 indicates that results are related to the
degree to which the dimensions are operationally defined
and the relative attention given each in training.

A further implication related to dimension differ-
ences is how clients might differ in their pretreatment
levels across E, R, G, and C. A "diagnosis" of within
client differences prior to treatment would allow for
systematically attending to those dimensions of lowest
functioning, thus Optimizing training efficiency and client
gains. Such a differential training emphasis was only
attempted informally in the present study, its potential
remains to be explored.

A final conclusion to be drawn from the posttreat—
ment level of functioning of Group 1 is that the subjects
moved toward, but did not attain, the level of functioning
of their counselor-trainers (see Table 1). Though the
subject and counselor ratings are not exactly comparable
in that the subjects were rated on self-help behavior and
counselors on helping others, the general results are con-
sistent with Carkhuff's (1969a) findings--that trainees
move toward, but do not exceed, the level of functioning

of their trainers. Further research is needed to directly

 

 

83

test whether or not there is an upper limit for training

in facilitative self-responding determined by trainer

level of functioning.

The second fundamental question examined by this
experiment was: "Does training in facilitative self-
responding have a positive effect upon important dimensions
of client benefit?" Two such dimensions were studied: (1)
interpersonal functioning, and (2) behavior change in the
direction of individual counseling goals. Both seemed
valid dimensions of counseling effectiveness in their own
right, particularly for clients seeking help for personal—
ssocial concerns. But, they were judged to be especially
Jrelevant tests for the effectiveness of facilitative self-
:reSponding.

Interpersonal functioning was considered a perti—
nenat outcome dimension in that it seemed reasonable to
e>qpect a subject who had been trained to function at
hixgher levels with himself to do so with others, parti—
CUJJiIly since training methodology incorporated many
intxarpersonal elements (see Chapter II). But testing this
exPeectation was not the only basis for selecting the inter—
Personal criterion. The value of empathic, regardful,
genuddne, and concrete interpersonal communication was
elabcnaated upon in Chapter I, where these dimensions were

ShOWTl'tO account substantially for the quality of

 

 

 

 

 

84

interpersonal relationships and subsequent psychological
well—being.

The results showed significant and meaningful
differences on the interpersonal dimension for observer
ratings, but not for subject ratings. Some plausible
explanations for the different results were considered
in Chapter III, including the lower reliability for
subject ratings, fewer subject than observer ratings, and
previous research showing subjects to be relatively poor
evaluators of their own therapy. Another consideration is
the relative homogeneity of the subject population when
compared to the observer population. Clearly, there were
several systematic selection factors which served to re—
duce differences between subjects which were not operating
for observers. Such homogeneity would seem to call for a
more highly reliable measure than the BRF to discriminate
even meaningful differences. In this context it is
important to recall that the non-significant differences
for subject ratings were in the direction favoring facili-
tative self-responding. Though there was not statistical
support from subject ratings favoring the experimental
procedure, neither was there statistical evidence directly
contradicting the differences reported by observers.
Finally, there is a logical basis for giving greater
validity to observer ratings. Observers would be rela—

tively free from confounding experimental effects, such

 

85

as loyalty to counselor, and generally more objective

than subjects making self-ratings. And two observers,
probably functioning independently, would seem to be better
judges of the interpersonal conditions being offered them
than would the single subject doing the offering.

The second dimension related to direct client
benefit was change on those behaviors which the individual
subjects identified as associated with the problems for
which they were seeking help. These behavioral correlates
of the presenting personal-social concern of the client
appeared to be fundamentally appropriate outcome criteria.
The dimension rests upon the assumption that individuals
seek counseling because they want something to change--
some personally meaningful difference in their behavior.
At times there is a tendency in the behavioral sciences
to consider variables of particular interest only to the
researcher, perhaps far removed from the "real world" of
the client. The inclusion of the goal dimension in this
study was an attempt to assure client relevancy in the
outcome criteria and subsequent generalizations of the
results.

Results on the goal dimension were parallel to
those for interpersonal functioning in that there were
significant and meaningful group differences for observer
ratings, but not for subject ratings. The possible expla—

nations sighted above for observer and subject differences

86

are also applicable for goals. However, it should be noted
that the reliability for subject ratings on goals was low-
est of all outcome measures--.49. Hence, the group differ-
ences would have had to been relatively large for statisti-
cal significance on this measure. Also, it should be
recalled that there were only 4 goal items on the BRF as
compared to 12 interpersonal items. The 4 items reflected
a wide range of goals, yet their scores were added to
comprise a single measure of "change toward goals." This
adding procedure gave the best single estimate of the
parameter of interest, but necessarily ignored such factors
as differential goal priorities and categorical differences
of the behaviors involved. It is likely that facilitative
self-responding is more effective for some types of prob-
lems than others, but this issue was left to further
research.

Overall, the evidence shows that facilitative
self—responding is a viable therapeutic intervention. In
terms of the two fundamental questions examined, the
answers, though tentative, are affirmative--clients can
be so trained, and it does make a meaningful difference.

A short-term helping program such as this has
numerous implications, many of which have been noted pre-
viously. However, some additional broad implications are
worth consideration.

The Carkhuff training model for facilitative

interpersonal functioning has been successfully used in

 

 

 

 

 

87

groups. Though additional research is needed, there is
reason to expect that the extension of the Carkhuff model
employed in this study can also be used successfully in
the group context. Group training would probably be more
efficient in terms of time and manpower, but there is also
promise for an integration with the interpersonal realm,
thus providing a truly comprehensive training program.

One advantage to an integrated program would be better
representation of "real world" interpersonal situations.
When a problem developed within the life of the group, the
individuals involved could move into the most direct form
of experiential training.

Another kind of integration is implied upon con-
sidering the potential of facilitative self—responding as
a therapeutic adjunct. Undoubtedly some clients function
in such a manner that this treatment would be of limited
help by itself. However, this does not rule out its
adjunctive application. Facilitative self-responding
would seem particularly complementary to the "insight
therapies" which have often been criticized for failing
to aid clients in learning the skills necessary to main-
tain their gains and improve functioning independently.
Also, its use as a pre-therapy training seems worth further
exploration. Every experienced therapist knows about the
so-called "good client"--usually referring to the client

who deals with problem content and affect in such a manner

 

 

88

that he "moves" in therapy. Somehow this client knows how
to use the helping relationship effectively, and engages
in high levels of self-eXploration with positive results.
The skills taught in facilitative self-responding appear
closely related to what characterizes the "good client."
Thus, it might well serve as a method of training clients
to be "good clients" and consequently optimize the effi—

ciency and effectiveness of therapy. Such an application

 

seems particularly relevant for counseling agencies with
long waiting lists for treatment.

Finally, by its essential nature facilitative
self-responding is educational as well as therapeutic.
The learning and relearning involved would seem applicable
to a broader population than self—referred counseling
clientele. Just as formal educational systems are moving
toward greater incorporation of training in interpersonal
skills, so might training in self—help behavior be in—
corporated. Increasing numbers of educators and students
--he1pers and helpees--are calling for greater emphasis on
the skills and conditions necessary to live effectively in
a rapidly changing and complex world. Facilitative self-
responding is a promising approach toward that goal of
"effective living." Effectiveness not only defined in
terms of research instruments, but also by the sense of
well-being that comes with having adequate personal re—

sources for confronting the problems in living.

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

 

LI ST OF REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: Mac—
millan Company, 1968.

Baker, F. B., & Martin, T. J. Fortap: A Fortran test
analysis package. Occasional Paper No. 10, 1970,
Office of Research Consultation, College of Edu-
cation, Michigan State University. I

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of therapist response
as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychologi—
cal Monographs, 1962, Z§(43), Whole No. 562.

Barron, F., & Leary, T. Changes in psychoneurotic
patients with and without psychotherapy. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 239-245.

Berenson, D. The effects of teacher training in inter-
personal skills upon student performance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1970.

Berenson, B. G., Carkhuff, R. R., & Myrus, P. The inter—
personal functioning and training of college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 441-446.

Berenson, B. G., Friel, T., & Mitchell, K. L. Factor
analysis of therapeutic conditions for high— and low—
functioning therapists. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
in press, 1970.

Berenson, B. G., & Mitchell, K. L. Confrontation in
counseling and life. Mimeographed manuscript, American
International College, Springfield, Mass., 1969.

Bierman, R., Carkhuff, R. R., & Santilli, M. Efficacy of
empathic communication groups for inter-city pre—
school teachers and family workers. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Sciences, in press, 1971.

 

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimgptal and quasi—
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally & Company, 1967.

89

 

 

90

Cannon, J. C., & Carkhuff, R. R. The effect of rater level
of functioning and experience upon the discrimination
of facilitative conditions. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, in press, 1970.

 

Cannon, J. R., & Pierce, R. Order effects in the experi—
mental manipulation of therapeutic conditions. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24, 242—244.

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: A primer for
lay and professional helpers. Vol. 1. Selection and
trainin . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
(a)

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: A primer for
lay and professional helpers. Vol. 2. Practice and
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

b

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Helper communication and discrimination
as a function of the helpee affect and content.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, l§(2), 126-
131. (c)

 

Carkhuff, R. R. The development of human resources:
Education and social action. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston, 1971. (a)

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Training as a preferred mode of treatment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18(2), 123-131.
(b)

 

Carkhuff, R. R., Banks, G., Berenson, B. G., Griffin, A. H.,
& Hall, R. The selection and training of correctional
counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971,
in press.

 

Carkhuff, R. R., & Berenson, B. G. Beyond counseling and
therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967.

 

Carkhuff, R. R., & Bierman, R. Training as a preferred
mode of treatment of parents of emotionally disturbed
children. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970,
11(2), 157-161.

 

Carkhuff, R. R., & Griffin, A. H. The selection and train-
ing of functional professionals for the inner—city
pre-school. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 1971, in press.

 

 

91

Carkhuff, R. R., Kratochvil, D., & Friel, T. The effects
of professional training: The communication and
discrimination of facilitative conditions. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 22(1), 68-74.

 

Carkhuff, R. R., & Truax, C. B. Training in counseling
and psychotherapy: An evaluation of an integrated
didactic and experiental approach. Journal of Con—
sulting Psychology, 1965, 22, 333—336. (a)

 

Carkhuff, R. R., & Truax, C. B. Lay mental health
counseling: The effectiveness of lay group counsel-
ing. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 22,
426—431. (b)

Cartwright, R. D., & Vogel, J. L. A comparison of changes
in psychoneurotic patients during matched periods of
therapy and no therapy. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1960, 22, 121-127.

Eysenck, H. J. The effects of psychotherapy: An evalu-
ation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, $9!
319-324.

Finn, J. D. Univariate and multivariate analysis of
variance and covariance: A Fortran IV program.
Occasional Paper No. 9, 1970, Office of Research
Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State
University.

Geisser, S., & Greenhouse, S. W. An extension of Box's
results on the use of the F distribution in multi—
variate analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
1958, 22, 885—981.

Halkides, G. An investigation of therapeutic success as
a function of four variables. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958.

Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of
variance. Psychometrika, 1941, p, 153-160.

Jennrich, R. I. 1604 analysis of variance. Laborator
Bulletin, 1961, Numerical Anslysis Department, Un1—
vers1ty of Wisconsin.

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D. R., Goldberg, A. D., Campbell,
R. J., Schauble, P. G., Greenberg, S. B., Danish,
S. J., Resnikoff, A., Bowes, J., & Bondy, S. B.
Studies in human interaction: Interpersonal process
recall stimulated by videotape. Educational Publi—
cation Services, Michigan State University, 1967.

 

 

92

Kagan, N., Schauble, P., Resnikoff, A., Danish, 8., &
Krathwohl, D. Interpersonal process recall. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 148, 365-374.

 

Kratochvil, D. Changes in values and interpersonal
functioning of nurses in training. Counselor Education

and Supervision, 1969, 2, 104-107.

Krumboltz, J. D. Behavioral goals for counseling. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 22(2), 153-159.

 

Krumboltz, J. D. Future directions for counseling research.
In J. M. Whiteley (Ed.) Research in counseling. Colum-
bus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1967.

Pp. 184-203.

 

Meltzoff, J., & Kornreich, M. Research in psychotherapy.
New York: Atherton Press, Inc., 1970. ‘

 

Mink, O. G., & Isaksen, H. L. A comparison of effective—
ness of nondirective therapy and clinical counseling
in the junior high school. School Counselor, 1959,
6, 12-14.

Muehlberg, N., Drasgow, J., & Pierce, R. The factorial
dimensions of high, moderate, and low functioning
therapists. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969,
25, 93-95.

 

Pagell, W., Carkhuff, R. R., & Berenson, B. G. The pre—
dicted differential effects of the level of counselor
functioning upon the level of functioning of out-
patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 22,
510-512.

 

Pierce, R., & Drasgow, J. Teaching facilitative inter-
personal functioning to psychiatric patients. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 2Q, 195—198.

Pierce, R., & Schauble, P. G. Graduate training of facili—
tative counselors: The effects of individual super-
vision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 22(3),
210—215.

 

Rogers, C. R. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1961.

 

Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting

Psychology, 1957, 22, 95-103.

93

Rogers, C. R., Gendlin, E., Kiesler, D., & Truax, C. B.
(Eds.). The therapeutic relationship and its impact:
A study of psychotherapy with schizophrenics. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.

Scharf, K. R. Training of resident assistants and peer
group members in the communication interactional pro—
cess skills of empathic understanding of student
feeling and student depth of self-exploration. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1971.

Schauble, P. G., & Pierce, R. Owning of feeling in inter-
personal process: A scale of measurement. Unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, 1970.

Truax, C. B. The process of group psychotherapy: Relation—
ships between hypothesized therapeutic conditions and
intrapersonal exploration. Psychological Monographs,
1961, 22(7), Whole No. 511.

 

Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective counsel—
ing and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, 1967.

 

 

Truax, C. B., Carkhuff, R. R., & Kodman, F. The relation—
ships between therapist-offered conditions and patient
change in group psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1965, 22, 327-329.

 

Vitalo, R. The effects of training in interpersonal
functioning upon psychiatric inpatients. In R. R.
Carkhuff, Helping and human relations. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

CARKHUFF SCALES ON FACILITATIVE DIMENSIONS

 

Scale 1

Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal
Processes. II

 

A Scale for Measurement1
Robert R. Carkhuff

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person

either do not attend to or detract significant2y from the

verbal and behavioral expressions of the second person(s)

in that they communicate significantly less of the second

person's feelings than the second person has communicated

himself.

Examples: The first person communicates no awareness of
even the most obvious, expressed surface feelings
of the second person. The first person may be
bored or disinterested or simply operating from a
preconceived frame of reference which totally
excludes that of the other person(s).

In summary, the first person does everything but express

that he is listening, understanding or being sensitive to

even the feelings of the other person in such a way as to
detract significantly from the communications of the second
person.

Level 2

While the first person responds to the expressed feelings
of the second person(s), he does so in such a way that he
subtracts noticeable affect from the communications of the '
second person.

Examples: The first person may communicate some awareness
of obvious surface feelings of the second person
but his communications drain off a level of the
affect and distort the level of meaning. The
first person may communicate his own ideas of
what may be going on but these are not congruent
with the expressions of the second person.

In Summary, the first person tends to respond to other than

what the second person is expressing or indicating.

94

95

Scale 1 - p. 2
(Rev. 7/67b)

Level 3

The expressions of the first person in response to the ex—
pressed feelings of the second person(s) are essentially
interchangeable with those of the second person in that they
express essentially the same affect and meaning.

Example: The first person responds with accurate under-
standing of the surface feelings of the second
person but may not respond to or may misinterpret
the deeper feelings.

In summary, the first person is responding so as to neither

subtract from nor add to the expressions of the second per-

son; but he does not respond accurately to how that person
really feels beneath the surface feelings. Level 3 con—
stitutes the minimal level of facilitative interpersonal
functioning.

 

 

Level 4

The responses of the first person add noticeably to the ex-
pressions of the second person(s) in such a way as to ex-
press feelings a level deeper than the second person was
able to express himself.

Example: The facilitator communicates his understanding of
the expressions of the second person at a level
deeper than they were expressed, and thus enables
the second person to experience and/or express
feelings which he was unable to express previously

In summary, the facilitator's responses add deeper feeling

and meaning to the expressions of the second person.

 

 

1The present scale "Empathic understanding in
interpersonal processes" has been derived in part from "A
Scale for the measurement of accurate empathy" by C. B.
Truax which has been validated in extensive process and
outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy (summarized
in Truax and Carkhuff, 1967) and in part from an earlier
version which has been validated in extensive process and
outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy (summarized
1n Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967). In addition, similar
measures of similar constructs have received extensive sup-
POrt in the literature of counseling and therapy and edu—
cation. The present scale was written to apply to all
interpersonal processes and represent a systematic attempt
to reduce the ambiguity and increase the reliability of the
Scale. In the process many important delineations and

 

 

96

Scale 1 — p. 3
(Rev. 7/67b)

Level 5
The first person's responses add s2gnificantly to the feel—
ing and meaning of the expressions of the second person(s)
in such a way as to (l) accurately express feelings levels
below what the person himself was able to express or (2) in
the event of ongoing deep self—exploration on the second
person's part to be fully with him in his deepest moments.
Examples: The facilitator responds with accuracy to all of
the person's deeper as well as surface feelings.
He is "together" with the second person or
"tuned in" on his wavelength. The facilitator
and the other person might proceed together to
explore previously unexplored areas of human
existence.
In summary, the facilitator is responding with a full
awareness of who the other person is and a comprehensive
and accurate empathic understanding of his most deep
feelings.

 

 

additions have been made, including in particular the change
to a systematic focus upon the additive, subtractive or
interchangeable aspects of the levels of communication of
understanding, For comparative purposes: Level 1 of the
present scale is approximately equal to Stage 1 of the
Truax scale. The remaining levels are approximately cor-
respondent: Level 2 and Stages 2 and 3 of the earlier
version; Level 3 and Stages 4 and 5; Level 4 and Stages 6
and 77 Level 5 and Stages 8 and 9. The levels of the
present scale are approximately equal to the levels of the
earlier version of this scale.

97

Scale 2

The Communication of Respect in Inter-
personal Processes. II

A Scale for Measurement1

Robert R. Carkhuff

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person
communicate a clear lack of respect (or negative regard)
for the second person(s).

Example: The first person communicates to the second per-
son that the second person's feelings and exper-
iences are not worthy of consideration or that
the second person is not capable of acting con-
structively. The first person may become the
sole focus of evaluation.

In summary, in many ways the first person communicates a

total lack of respect for the feelings, experiences and

potentials of the second person.

Level 2

The first person responds to the second person in such a way
as to communicate little respect for the feelings and ex-
periences and potentials of the second person.

Example: The first person may respond mechanically or
passively or ignore many of the feelings of the
second person.

In summary, in many ways the first person displays a lack

of respect or concern for the second person's feelings,

experiences and potentials.

Level 3

The first person communicates a positive respect and con-
cern for the second person's feelings, experiences and
potentials.

Example: The first person communicates respect and concern
for the second person's ability to express him-
self and to deal constructively with his life and
situation.

In summary, in many ways the first person communicates that

who the second person is and what he does matters to the

first person. Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of
facilitative interpersonal functioning.

 

98

Scale 2 - p. 2
(Rev. 7/67b)

Level 4

The facilitator clearly communicates a very deep respect and

concern for the second person.

Example: The facilitator's responses enables the second
person to feel free to be himself and to experi—
ence being valued as an individual.

In summary, the facilitator communicates a very deep caring

for the feelings, experiences and potentials of the second

person.

Level 5

The facilitator communicates the very deepest respect for

the second person's worth as a person and his potentials as

a free individual.

Example: The facilitator cares very deeply for the human
potentials of the second person.

In summary, the facilitator is committed to the value of

the other person as a human being.

 

1The present scale, "Respect or Positive Regard in
Inter—personal Processes," has been derived in part from "A
tentative scale for the measurement of unconditional posi—
tive regard" by C. B. Truax which has been validated in
extensive process and outcome research on counseling and
psychotherapy (summarized in Truax and Carkhuff, 1967) and
in part from an earlier version which has been validated in
extensive process and outcome research on counseling and
psychotherapy (summarized in Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967).
In addition, similar measures of similar constructs have
received extensive support in the literature of counseling
and therapy and education. The present scale was written
to apply to all interpersonal processes and represents a
systematic attempt to reduce the ambiguity and increase the
reliability of the scale. In the process many important
delineations and additions have been made. For comparative
purposes, the levels of the present scale are approximately
equal to the stages of both the earlier scales, although
the systematic emphasis upon the positive regard rather
than upon unconditionality represents a pronounced diver-
gence of emphasis and the systematic deemphasis of concern
for advice-giving and directionality, both of which may or
may not communicate high levels as well as low levels of
reSpect.

 

99

Scale 3

Facilitative Genuineness in
Interpersonal Processes

 

 

A Scale for Measurement1

Robert R. Carkhuff

Level 1

The first person's verbalizations are clearly unrelated to
what he is feeling at the moment, or his only genuine re—
sponses are negative in regard to the second person(s) and
appear to have a totally destructive effect upon the second
person.

Example: The first person may be defensive in her inter-
action with the second person(s) and this de-
fensiveness may be demonstrated in the content of
his words or his voice quality and where he is
defensive he does not employ his reaction as a
basis for potentially valuable inquiry into the
relationship.

In summary, there is evidence of a considerable discrepancy

between the first person's inner experiencing and his cur—

rent verbalizations or where there is no discrepancy, the
first person's reactions are employed solely in a destruc—
tive fashion.

Level 2

The first person's verbalizations are slightly unrelated to
what he is feeling at the moment or when his responses are
genuine they are negative in regard to the second person and
the first person does not appear to know how to employ his
negative reactions constructively as a basis for inquiry
into the relationship.

Example: The first person may respond to the second per—
son(s) in a "professional" manner that has a re—
hearsed quality or a quality concerning the way
helper "should" respond in that situation.

In summary, the first person is usually responding according

to his prescribed "role" rather than to express what he

personally feels or means and when he is genuine his re—

sponses are negative and he is unable to employ them as a

basis for further inquiry.

 

 

100

Scale 3 — p. 2
Level 3

The first person provides no "negative" cues between what he
says and what he feels, but he provides no positive cues to
indicate a really genuine response to the second person(s).
Example: The first person may listen and follow the second
person(s) but commits nothing more of himself.
In summary, the first person appears to make appropriate
responses which do not seem insincere but which do not re-
flect any real involvement either. Level 3 constitutes the
minimal level of facilitative interpersonal functioning.

Level 4

The facilitator presents some positive cues indicating a
genuine response (whether positive or negative) in a non—
destructive manner to the second person(s).

Example: The facilitator's expressions are congruent with
his feelings although he may be somewhat hesitant
about expressing them fully.

In summary, the facilitator responds with many of his own

feelings and there is no doubt as to whether he really means

what he says and he is able to employ his responses what—
ever the emotional content, as a basis for further inquiry
into the relationship.

Level 5

The facilitator is freely and deeply himself in a non—
exploitative relationship with the second person(s).

 

1The present scale, "Facilitative genuineness in
interpersonal processes" has been derived in part from "A
tentative scale for the measurement of therapist genuineness
or self-congruence" by C. B. Truax which has been validated
in extensive process and outcome research on counseling and
psychotherapy (summarized in Truax and Carkhuff, 1967) and
in part from an earlier version which has been similarly
validated (summarized in Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967). In
addition, similar measures of similar constructs have re-
ceived support in the literature of counseling and therapy
and education. The present scale was written to apply to
all interpersonal processes and represents a systematic
attempt to reduce the ambiguity and increase the reliability

 

 

 

101

Scale 3 - p. 3

Example: The facilitator is completely spontaneous in his
interaction and open to experiences of all types,
both pleasant and hurtful; and in the event of
hurtful responses the facilitator's comments are
employed constructively to open a further area of
inquiry for both the facilitator and the second
person.

In summary, the facilitator is clearly being himself and yet

employing his own genuine responses constructively.

 

of the scale. In the process, many important delineations
and additions have been made. For comparative purposes,
the levels of the present scale are approximately equal to
the stages of the earlier scale, although the systematic
emphasis upon the constructive employment of negative re-
aCtions represent a pronounced divergence of emphasis.

 

 

 

102

Scale 5

Personal2y Relevant Concreteness or
Specificity of Expression

 

 

A Scale for Measurement1

Robert R. Carkhuff

Level 1

The first person leads or allows all discussion with the
second person(s) to deal only with vague and anonymous
generalities.

Example: The first person and the second person discuss
everything on strictly an abstract and highly
intellectual level.

In summary, the first person makes no attempt to lead the

discussion into the realm of personally relevant specific

situations and feelings.

 

Level 2

The first person frequently leads or allows even discussions
of material personally relevant to the second person(s) to
be dealt with on a vague and abstract level.

Example: The first person and the second person may dis—
cuss "real" feelings but they do so at an ab—
stract,intellectualized level.

In summary, the first person does not elicit discussion of

most personally relevant feelings and experiences in speci-

fic and concrete terms.

Level 3

The first person at times enables the second person(s) to
discuss personally relevant material in specific and con-
crete terminology.

Example: The first person will help to make it possible
for the discussion with the second person(s) to
center directly around most things which are per—
sonally important to the second person(s) al-
though there will continue to be areas not dealt
with concretely and areas which the second person
does not develop fully in specificity.

In summary, the first person sometimes guides discussions

into consideration of personally relevant specific and con-

crete instances, but these are not always fully developed.

Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of facilitative

functioning.

 

 

 

103

Scale 5 - p. 2
Level 4

The facilitator is frequently helpful in enabling the second
person(s) to fully develop in concrete and specific terms
almost all instances of concern.

Example: The facilitator is able on many occasions to guide
the discussion to specific feelings and experi-
ences of personally meaningful material.

In summary, the facilitator is very helpful in enabling the

discussion to center around specific and concrete instances

of most important and personally relevant feelings and
experiences.

Level 5

The facilitator is always helpful in guiding the discussion
so that the second person(s) may discuss fluently, directly,
and completely specific feelings and experiences.

Example: The first person involves the second person in a
discussion of specific feelings, situations, and
events, regardless of their emotional content.

In summary, the facilitator facilitates a direct expression

of all personally relevant feelings and experiences in

concrete and specific terms.

 

1The present scale "Personally Relevant Concreteness

or Specificity of Expression" has been derived from earlier
work by C. B. Truax (summarized in Truax and Carkhuff, 1967L
Similar measures of similar constructs have been researched
only minimally. The present scale has received support in
research on training and counseling (summarized in Carkhuff
and Berenson, 1967). The systematic emphasis upon the
personally meaningful relevance of concrete and specific
expressions represents a pronounced divergence of emphasis.

 

 

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO SCREENING COUNSELORS

 

 

 

November 30, 1970
TO:
FROM: Dave Cabush
SUBJ: Screening -— Cooperation with a research project

During the first two weeks of Winter Term, January
4 - 22, I need to obtain subjects for my thesis research.
Volunteers will be sought from those students going through
screening during that period, therefore, I am seeking the
cooperation of several screeners.

Client participation will be subject to final app
approval by the Screening Committee. Those participating
will receive individual counseling from male interns for as
long as appropriate, though the research period will be for
only six weeks, January 25 — March 5. They will be randomly
assigned to either "traditional" counseling, or an "inno—
vative" approach where the traditional relationship will be
integrated with training the client to function more ef-
fectively as his own helper (employing an extension of the
Carkhuff model for facilitative interpersonal functioning).

Dr. Cecil Williams is my research sponsor and I have
discussed the project with Drs. Mueller and Abeles according
to their respective functions.

If you are willing to assist me in obtaining my
sample over the two week period, please follow the pro-

cedures as outlined on the attached page.

104

 

APPENDIX C

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR SCREENING COUNSELORS

 

 

OBTAINING SAMPLE--PROCEDURES FOR SCREENING
COUNSELOR

Record screening interviews

a. I will furnish tapes and recorder.

b. Obtain "Problem Statement"—-This is the primary pur—
pose for recording the interview. What I am seeking
is how the client is best able to state (uninter-
rupted) the problem(s) for which he is seeking

c counseling. You may find it helpful to structure
this by at some point making a request, like . . .
"As best you can, state the problem for which you
are seeking counseling."

Subject characteristics

a. Male or female

b. Sophomore or junior at M.S.U.

0. Problem is primarily personal—social (PS) in nature

d. Problem is not urgent or of a crisis nature

e. There is not a substantial history of psychopathol—
ogy, e.g., psychiatric hospitalization, previous
long—term professional psychological help, etc.

f. Client appears willing to make at least a 6—week
commitment to counseling.

Obtaining client's consent

a. Ask the client if he would be willing to participate
by simply reviewing with him the information on the
cover letter and Consent Form. Clients agreeing to
participate, and approved by the Screening Com-
mittee, can be assured of starting counseling the
week of January 25th. (This may be an incentive
for some in light of the waiting list.)

b. Have client sign the Consent Form.

Escort the client to the Test Office where he should
complete Part I before leaving the Center. This will
take about 15 minutes to complete.

Place the tape and Consent Form in my box for those
clients agreeing to participate.

Make the notation "SUBJECT" at the top of the screening
notes.

THANK YOU!

105

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

STANDARD LETTER OF EXPLANATION TO

PROSPECTIVE SUBJECTS

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823

 

Counseling Center Student Services Building

January 4, 1971

Dear Student:

We at the Counseling Center believe that one of the ways we
have of becoming increasingly helpful to students like your-
self is through careful study of the varying approaches to
individual counseling. Therefore, we are asking that you
help us in our study of counseling approaches and their
effectiveness by participating in a research project that we
are currently undertaking.

 

As a participant you will be assigned to a counselor whose
primary concern is helping you. You may find his approach
in some ways different from what you expected, but he will
be using proven concepts and methods, and there will be
nothing secretive or mysterious about the process. Again,
his primary concern is to be of help to you!

If you agree to participate, you are asked to complete the
attached form today. It is entitled PART I and has two
sections. In Section A you are to list as many different
ways as possible that your problem(s) affects your behavior,
or put another way, what would you hope to be doing differ-
ently as a result of resolving your problem? In Section B
you are asked for the names and addresses of two individuals
who know you and are in a position to observe your behavior
during Winter Term. After you have had about six sessions
with your counselor the two individuals you named will be
asked to respond to a brief checklist on which they will
indicate behavior changes they have observed in recent
weeks.

The research period will be for six weeks, January 25 -
March 5. During the week of March 8th you will be asked to
take two short tests, involving about 30—minutes of your
time. Though these are primarily research instruments you
will be free to discuss them with your counselor if you so
decide. After this period you may continue with your
counselor if you both agree it is appropriate.

In summary, your participation consists of: (1) making a
commitment to see your counselor one hour a week for at
least six weeks, (2) listing behaviors related to your
problem, (3) supplying the names and addresses of two people
we may contact in regard to any changes in your behavior

106

 

107

which they have observed. and (4) taking two short tests
after the sixth counseling session.

We want to emphasize that your willingness to participate
in no way affects your seeing a counselor at the Center.
Our most important consideration is to assist you with the
resolution of the problems that stimulated you to seek our
help. We do want you to know however, that through the
participation of students like yourself we are able to im-
prove our effectiveness.

Sincerely,

David W. Cabush
Intern Counselor

Dr. Cecil L. Williams
Associate Professor and
Research Sponsor

P.S. If by chance more students volunteer for the study
than are needed, those not participating will be
notified and assigned to a counselor according to
the normal procedure.

 

 

APPENDIX E

SUBJECT CONSENT FORM

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823

 

Counseling Center Student Services Building

CONSENT FORM

Code Name

 

Code Number

 

I, , student number ,

 

agree that information obtained during the course of my
counseling and testing sessions may be used for scientific
purposes. This permission covers the use of test results,
counselor reports, sound recordings, and behavior ratings
given by the individuals I have identified for that purpose.
This permission is given with the understanding that all
information will be treated in a professional manner and

that adequate safeguards will be taken to insure anonymity.

Signed

 

Date

 

108

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

"PART I"--PRE-EXPERIMENTAL DATA FROM SUBJECT

 

 

 

Code Name
Code Number

 

 

PART I

Section A

 

Think of the various ways that the problem for which
you are seeking help affects your behavior. . . . Put an-
other way, think of those behaviors which you would like to
change in some way. Now, make a list of what you would hope
to be doing differently as a result of counseling? These
behavior changes should be meaningful to ygg and likely to
be observed by others. Please list as many as you can, but
at least five.

 

A good example would be: "Talk more frequently and
openly with my roommate about
my feelings."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A pggg example would be: "Feel better about my room—
mate."

(The first is observable behavior, the second may not

be.)
1. ()
2. ()
3. ()
4. ()
5. ()
-—minimum-—
6. ( )
7. ()
8. ()

 

Next, look over your list and rank each behavior
according to its relative importance to you when compared
with the others. Do this by first identifying that which
you consider most important and placing a "l" in the paren—
thesis to the right, then a "2" to the right of that which
is second in importance—-and so forth until you have ranked
the entire list.

--GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE--
109

 

110

PART 1, Continued
Code Name

 

Code Number

 

Section B

As indicated in the letter given to you by the
counselor, we are asking you for the names and addresses of
two individuals who we may contact after you have had about
six sessions with your counselor. These individuals will be
asked to respond to a brief checklist which will indicate
behavior changes they may have observed during Winter Term.
They will ESE be told that you are seeing a counselor, only
that you are participating in a research project and have
given their names for the purpose of the checklist. (You
will also have a chance to respond to the checklist.)

When choosing these names please consider the fol—

 

 

 

 

 

lowing:
--Person should be in a position to have firsthand
knowledge of your behavior during Winter Term.
--To your knowledge the person will be willing to
cooperate when asked to complete the checklist.
Name
Address
(may be omitted if accurately listed in Student
Directory)
Name
Address
*Name
Address

 

*If you are doubtful as to the availability or will—
ingness of one of the above, please give us an alternate.
It is important for the success of this project to receive
responses from Egg individuals.
Again, we thank you for your cooperation! You will be noti—
fied soon about your counseling appointment.
PLEASE RETURN TO TEST OFFICE SECRETARY

APPENDIX G

COUNSELOR GUIDELINES FOR TRAINING IN

FACILITATIVE SELF-RESPONDING

 

 

 

COUNSELOR GUIDELINES
FOR TRAINING IN

FACILITATIVE SELF-RESPONDING

David W. Cabush
Michigan State University

Counseling Center

111

 

112

RATIONALE

If one assumes that a person seeking counseling is
in fact manifesting his inability to solve some problems
independently, then it follows that a central endeavor of
counseling should be an improvement in the counselee's
ability to help himself. This suggests that there is:
(1) an underlying problem solving or helping process that
is applicable across a range of counselee problems, and (2)
this process is amenable to predictable change. The helping
process upon which this study focuses is a modification of
the Carkhuff model for facilitative interpersonal function—
ing. The method for effecting change will be a direct

training procedure for counselees.

Facilitative Interpersonal Functioning

 

Virtually every personality theorist has attended
to the nature of early interpersonal relationships, seeing
them as at least partially predictive of adult psychological
functioning. From early childhood an individual's emotionaL

intellectual, and physical development can be viewed as

having been dependent upon: (1) a "first person" (parents,
teachers, counselors), (2) a "second person" (child, stu-
dent, counselee), and (3) contextual variables (in large

part the conditions offered by others in the environment).
These first and second person roles also become defined as

more knowing—less knowing, and helper-helpee.

 

 

 

113

The issue of adequacy or quality of these inter-
personal, helper-helpee, relationships has been a primary
consideration of theorists and researchers. Carkhuff and
associates have considered these relationships in terms of
various helper and helpee process variables. The primary
helpee variable has been self—exploration. The helper
variables can be divided into: (1) helper—responsive con—
ditions, and (2) helper—initiated dimensions. In this con—
text, effective processes are broken down into two general
components: (1) understanding and, (2) action. Within
each component critical variables have been delineated.

Understanding: (l) empathy, (2) regard, (3) gen-
uineness,* and (4) concreteness.*

Action: (1) confrontation, and (2) immediacy.

*Can be considered "swing dimensions." According

to the developmental phases of helping they may be either
responsive or initiative.

At this juncture it is important to note that the
above process variables have been shown to be directly
related to various outcome variables. These outcome cri—
teria range from paper and pencil psychometrics to direct
behavioral correlates ot helpee problems. Though these
outcome variables are not the primary concern of this phase
of the study, it should be kept in mind that changes in the
above process variables does affect covert and overt be—

havior in a predictable manner.

114

This study is directly concerned with the “under—
standing" component of helping, thus the "core“ facilitative
dimensions-—empathy, regard, genuineness, and concreteness.
When considering these dimensions the concept of "level" is
crucial. The facilitative dimensions are not some static
quality that a helper mysteriously has, or has not. Rather,
they can be seen as being operational at some level in any
helper-helpee interaction. Also, "minimally facilitative"
levels of these dimensions have been established. Numerous
experimental and correlational studies have shown 3.0 on a
5—point scale to be minimally facilitative.

We may say in general that level 3 of all dimensions
represents or establishes an openness or readiness to
respond at the higher levels. Only at the higher
levels, however, is it possible ultimately to make a
difference in the lives of the helpees. "Minimally
facilitative," then, refers to the minimal level of
conditions in which an effective and viable communica-
tion process of helping can take place (Carkhuff, 1969).

Another way to view the meaning of "minimally facil—
itative" is to consider it as that level of communication
where the helper can hear and respond to the helpee without
significant distortion. It is reflective in the most basic

sense. Also, an examination of the scales for each of the

dimensions further clarifies the concept of level.

Training on the Facilitative Dimensions
Systematic training programs have been developed
for improving the interpersonal functioning on the dimen-

sions of E, R, G, and C. Such training programs have

 

 

 

 

115

followed three modalities to date: (1) training helpers,

(2) training significant others, and (3) training helpees

directly within an interpersonal context. The evidence is
continuing to mount for training as an effective and even

preferred mode of treatment.

But there remains another mode of training which has
yet to be systematically explored, that of training for ef—
fective helping with oneself. Research has clearly shown
that laymen can be trained to function at higher levels of
the facilitative dimensions interpersonally, so we have
reason to expect that a motivated helpee can be trained to
function at higher levels with himself.

The most direct form of training as treatment, then,
is to train the client himself in the skills which he
needs to function effectively. The culmination of such
a program is to train the client to develop his own
training program. To say, "Client, heal thyself!" and
to train him in the skills necessary to do so is not
only the most direct—-but it is also the most honest and
more effective—-form of treatment known to man (Carkhuffl
1970).

The goal of this study then is to train helpees to

assume effective helping roles with themselves. In other

 

words, we will attempt to improve both qualitatively and
quantitatively a client's repertoire of verbal responses to
his own problems. This will mean increased levels of E, R,
G, and C for his own helping responses, and an increased

number of alternative responses for any given problem.

 

 

116

TRAINING FOR FACILITATIVE SELF-RESPONDING

Effective training incorporates the (1) modeling,
(2) didactic, and (3) experiential sources of learning for
shaping the facilitative level of trainee responses. You,
as counselor-trainee, will (1) model high level responses
at various phases of your interaction as helper, (2) tgggh
the elements of facilitative responding—-E, R, G, and C--
and the client will (3) experience the effect of your re-
sponses and practice responding to his own problems while
receiving feedback (selective reinforcement) from you.

The ability to discern a high level (above 3.0)
from a low level response has been found to be a prerequi—
site for, but not a guarantee of, the capacity to initiate
a high level response. Therefore, effective training has
been divided into two phases: (1) discrimination training,
and (2) communication training. The trainee must be taught
to recognize a high level response—-to discriminate-~before
he can be expected to communicate or initiate one.

The training procedure for our six-week study can
be broken down into three sequential phases which outline
the general direction and substance of training. These
phases are a necessary guide, but are not mutually exclusive
aspects. Trainees will differ in terms of the amount of
time different phases will take; the time indicated is

meant as a general guide.

 

 

 

117

Training Outline

I.

II.

Introduction (session I)

A.

Listen to, and communicate understanding of,
the client's presenting problem, i.e., estab—
lishing the relationship. This is a crucial
factor in client motivation as well as an
opportunity for you to be "facilitative." It
is at this point where the client will get most
of the answer to that question he's been think—
ing about for days--"Will this counselor care
about me as much as he does his research?"
Provide client with the rationale and goals for
training in facilitative self-responding. Feel.
free to use the earlier sections of this guide
to prepare your rationale. It is important
that the client believes you think this will
definitely be helpful for him with his particu—
lar problems.

Deal with any specific problems related to the
client's participation-—motivation, questions,

doubts, schedules, etc.

Discrimination Training (sessions 1 — 3)

A.

Practice gross rating (good, fair, poor) of
responses on the SHeS & HrR tape, with you
giving feedback; focus on feelings and empathy.
Make a didactic presentation of facilitative

dimensions (2nd session). Provide the client

 

 

118

with a written description of the dimensions and
their levels to study independently between
2nd and 3rd sessions.

C. Model high, medium and low levels of E, R, G,
and C in self-responding using the SHeS & HrR.

D. Practice rating levels of E, R, G, and C in
self-responding using SHeS & HrR, with you
giving feedback.

III. Communication Training (sessions 4 - 6)

A. Practice responding in helper role to SHeS
(PS 14 - 24), with you giving feedback.

B. Have client role play helper and helpee roles
with you, focusing on various dimensions of E,
R, G, and C as needed. Have client use real
problem statements.

C. Have client role play with self. You should
give periodic feedback designed to shape in-
creasingly higher levels of E, R, G, and C in
the self—help responses. Use the tape recorder

so you can discuss together various responses.
ADD IT IONAL NOTE S

Of the four facilitative dimensions empathy (E) is
the most important. Research has shown that the other
variables interact with this one. In the context of this
study, E relates to a client being "in touch" with his own

feelings, or "owning of feeling."

 

 

 

119

Training per se should be done for a minimum of
forty minutes within each session. Therefore, you may use
twenty minutes for working in other ways with the client.
The client has been assured our primary consideration is
him.

At some point clarify with the client that this may
be only the first phase of counseling (for some it may be
enough). After six sessions you can decide together on
future direction. You may wish to see the training as a
phase one in counseling where the client learns to be a
good client—-getting in touch with and accurately labeling
his feelings and other elements of his problems.

If you cannot meet at a regular appointed time,
please try to make arrangements for another hour within that
same week. It is important the client gets a minimum of
six sessions before March 9th.

Use Room 203A, the interview room in the Research
Wing, for counseling. Sue will take care of setting up
tape if she knows in advance. If a problem comes up with
scheduling that room, my office has also been set up for

multiple recording.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

TYPESCRIPT FOR STANDARD HELPEE--

HELPER STIMULUS TAPE

 

 

 

 

hmusmo mcflammcsoo
wnflmnm>flco mumum cmmHQOHE

Smsnmo .3 UH>MQ

mmmcommmm DDOQDHB vmlea mpcmEmDMDm Emagoum

mmmcommmm QDHB maaa mnemamumnm Emaboum

mam/NB mDADZHBm mmmqmmlmmmqmm Qm<DZ¢Bm m0 BmHmommmwB

120

 

 

121

mMBOZ

.ufl mo #50 Homw
hafimms so» pew Honuocm mco Eouw DQMDmHU
Om Ewmm who: pesoum wamomm "O meOmem
.ms m>flm umsh 50% we Hmppwn Hmmw
p.50m wusm wu.50> pan Om m.ufl meHumEom
.mcflammm hamcoH CEBU m m.Dm5D paw .50> DSOQM
mumo on Snow u.cop wamowm "m mmcommwm
.DH £DH3 meow on can mmummp H50»
mcflpumm usonm co ow .pomm mean CH mcoam
Dos 0M.50> umnu we comm pmsfl ma op on come
50% ans: .SHHMHUOm who: pesonm wEHu boson
m mcfl>ma comb m>.so> om u< oncommwm

.Hoosom

DSOQDAB DH mcflhnu paw mefibu maosz map

mcflxosgo mxfla Hmww H moEHquom .mmHm upon

Imam pdonm musclnmnmo on mEmmm haamms Seeboc

pew mummw 03p umoEHm 30s who: coon w>.H mxfla
rsosx sow “mum: venous mmsoH 0m mem H

H BZMEMB<BW Zmflmomm

 

 

122

.tuog come
50% 30£0E0m HUD .wHQHmmomEH mamwm umsh wasp
.302 pamHm .cmEOB 230 H50» on pew .uempcwm
ImpeH on on mucus umnu .oou onmnu unmm
nonpoem m.mu0£p Dam .Eonu QDMHowumdm pew
0>0H 50> maosx 50> mo puma no mmcommmm
.mchmuumsHH sump m_uH
pew .mmcHHmmm meoupmllmpcmumm H50» usonm
mmsHH00H UmxHE m>me sow "m omeommmm
.muw so» 0Mm£3 Ewan Hku p.20t can
0H0£3080m ucmfipummm cm ODCH m>OE swap pew
HHOImsb on Soap HHoB .xmmun emmHo m mme
pmsfl mH 0p on p00: 50» pan: "d mmcommwm

.mng on Hmzmsw 050m on on now m.mum£u
paw .wmuoz cmunom mHHmmH m_uH .BOQM u.cop H
.pcmxom3 >Hm>0 0&0: meHEOO >8 udonm mcHnu
mHn m mme can #0H m we HHmo hon“ 30c usn
.msmEmo so ©0>HH pew uso pm>ofi H cmn3 uswuwm
IHHp on UHSOB DH phononp H .gosE oou wumo
moan mammfi mama 080m sH nmzn pmdn m.DH “may
mwmsm H uzm .wHHEmH mmoHo m WHHme 0H_03
QOmHummEoo 2H “map haw pHsoo 50> wwwsm H
.nomw :H .DSOQM Bosx H mncmumm may m0 080m
waH Doc hHHMHowmmm .umcp oxHH meHnuwcm Ho
.ms 05 Ummmmfi hHHmmH u.cm>m£ mpcwumm m2

mMBOZ N BZWZHBfiBm qumomm

 

123

mmBOZ

.mHmmma
03D QDHOB D0: m.DH .mcHMMD 0H.30> mmmHo
cho 05D mH mDHme HH mm Dom paw pHHOB
0HDDHH c30 DHmnD mH H0 MGHSD hme HHm 0xHH
mpcsom mmpcmamp DanmIMIDso £05m 0MME 0&3
zonwcm mwoum 0m0£D 0H0 0:3 "0 0mQOMmmm
.mHHSBM DOM DH DmmHOH Dmsfl mH
0p 0D town 50% Dan: .Dso MH03 HHm HHHB DH
.cme was 30c Domm DmnD ODQH Dwm mHmowm Dmoz
.DamHD as 0m Dom D.coo "m oncommmm
”camp m
nDuoz cm>m Dos m.DmnDIIDH5g ODIIDDO msoH>bo
one .HHmz 0bD CD as Umxomn mcHDDmm How HHmm
IDDOH bDHB mSOHHSH 0D.sow "e oncommmm

mmchDwD0>m Dw

“Ho ummmam E.H inn mama .DH aha: HHma on

hum pHsoo H bmHS Dmsfl H .mcop xnos DmnD

HHm Dom meHmmom D_cm0 H ”M003 Dxmsllms

mcHEOO 0nd mmem was .msp mummmm UHQSDm 03D

Dom 0>.H 30c tam mmo mmcHnD Dam 0>_H 0xHH
.Boax so» .op 0D Dms3 Song D.sop H .£<

m Bzm2m949m Endmomm

 

 

124

mMBOZ

.UCMDm 50» men3 305x 0D 6002 »HHM0H
50» D59 .EHQ 0D DQMDHOQEH mH £0Hmmm0H mHQ
Bocx 50»I|50» D5090 0H00 0D GOmHmm mHSD D503
50» Bocx 0p 50» meoxm .D503 50» D033 m.DH
QHMDHmo Dos 0H.50» tam .msHHmme500 EH meomm
1x0 50» DMQB D_smH mHQB "o wmsommmm
.SonmmmH sHmp mHn cam 50» cmszmn
onoso m mme 0D H0H0m2500 DmnD HHmD 0D
D£m50 50» 0MHH mpc50m DH "m 0mGOMm0m
.DHsa on
Hmemm on Dm5fl UH503 DH D5Q .mHmmH Honms5oo
H50» DMQB D50Qm 0HOE Bocx 0D mxHH p.50»
.oGHHOm5500 H50» D5020 CHMDHO0Q5 0H.50»
tum mmcHHmmm poxHE 0>ms 50» "< 0mCOMm0m

.30cx D.cop Dm5fl
H .mchD»H0>0 pew aonmmmH mHn DDHB »m5n
m.w£ .30£»sm 0EHD m.H0H0wC500 03D mcHDmmz
Dm5fl »Hnm90Hm E_H .mHHbsm HOH DH DomHOH 0D
HmDDmb 0n UH503 DH 0b»mE 0xHH .0H08»5m 0H5m
Doc Dm5n E.H paw DH D50Qm OQHHGHQD 500D 0>_H
.D5m .D5o meHOm mmcHnD 080m Dom mmwoon
03D cH 30£0E0m pew .mHmo UH503 D£m50£D H
Dng .Bocx 50» .OD RHMD 0D »©0b0§0m common
»HHme H mm5m0. @CHmeC500 How 2H wEmo H

v BZWEHB<BM qumomm

 

 

125

.DmH5Q 0D

0HQD5Q D0£D HOH »p00H 0Q pc0 H000 DH »0Hm

H0DD0m .»HH050HD080 000 @000 03D mmo wcHom
0H_50» 0MHH mUG5Om 0H5m "U 0mcommmm

.300 0HHH H0 0HOE mcH»0fl00 0H0 ©c0 »5m mHSD
D5090 poom wam »HH00H 50» "m 0m50mmmm

.Q0E03 0 0xHH 050 0>HH0

0H0E £058 OmIIH5HprQOB 000 mcHDHoxm mH

£0H£3||H00H 50» 30h 0ms0£0 D.smmop D0£D D5n
.pc0DmHmpc5 D0: »0E mHmnDO "d 0mcomm0m

.memem 305x 50>0 D.5©Hp H 0H0£D D50 UHHOB
H5HHD500Q 300 0H0£3 0 m.0H0£D 0xHH Hmmw H
.DH »0m 0D »03 HmsDo 0c Dm5fl m.0H0£Duu0>0H
CH 3058 On 0H.03 .H 000 mtz .D00Hm »HHO0H

m.DH .DcmHmmep Om H00H HIIMBOBIID0£D
D05“ m.DH .D.c00 mpcwHHm »E H0 DmOE 0MHH
IUQ0DmepC5 »HH00H n00 weo»c0 Db5op H

mMBOZ m BZWEMB<BM EMHmomm

 

126

 

mMBOZ

.gCHD»H0>0
CH mCOHDm m.»pogoz .0NHH00H 5o» C0CD DC0D
I0QE00 0HOE 0H.50» IHH0m no 0mC0Mm0m
.00 0D DC03 50» C08 0CD
mCH0Q 0D mH 0H0CD HH0 D_CmH D0CD D50 .m0p0Hm
0CD CDHB DH 0M0E C00 50» 30Cx 50» .HH0Em
»DD0HQ mH00H D0CD UCO .DO0QEH C0 0M0E D_C00
5o» 0xHH HO0H 50» »HHOH000 UCO »HH00Hm»CQ
mCHDOmEOO 0D w0E00 DH C033 ”m 0mCOMm0m
.DH CDHB m5lp0m »DCmHE mCHDDOm 0H.50»
UC0 m00H0 H0H0>0m CH H0mCHHDm|©C000m 0
0xHH H00H 50» 0xHH mUC50m "m 0mC0Mm0m

.BOCM D.Cop Dm5n »0CD
II0CHH Dm5fl mCHOU E.H xCHCD m©C0HHH »E 0C0
mxHOH »E .om .xHOB poom UHU .m0p0Hm @000
Dow .DC0p5Dm @000 0 C000 m»03H0 0>.H MmUH03
IH0DH0 »DDHCm H00H H .000 .D00m m.H0>HH©
0CD CH Q5 m©C0 C0>0 »HH05m5 HHHq 0CD .HH03
.0D0p 00 H C0C3 UCC .»5m H0CD0 0800 »b D50
D00b D0m 0D E000 C0>0 »HH05m5 HIImCHCD»H0>0
0C0 m0D0U OCHDD0WIIm5mE00 C0 0H0: DCmHH
m.DH .H0CDH0 mDHomm DOC Dm5fl m.DH D5m .pHp
H C0CD C0DH0 0H0E 0HDDHH 0 »0Hm 0D poom DH0H
0>0C UH503 DH D59 .mCHCD»C0 H0 HODm H0m5m
.Hz 00 0D DC03 D.C0© H .mCHHDm 0C000m D5000
U0UC0 m»03H0 H D59 rHH0Q0m0Q 0C0 HH0QD00H
HOH D50 DC03 H Hoosom CmHC CH C0>0 .HH03

m EZMEmB¢Bm qumomm

 

 

127

 

.C00H0m C30 H50» 09 0D 0>09 50» .00CODOHx0

H50» HOHDCoo D.C00 »09D .HHO D00 0D 0H093

809D HH0D 50» D_Cop »93 m»HmC0 00 50» 0908
D09D 0HQO0Q 0009D 0H0 093 "U 00C0m00m

.D0» 0H0 »HH00H 50» 093 0H50

DOC 0H.50» D59 .H0mC0H »C0 09 D.C00 50»
093 0H50 ©0C80p 0H_50» "m 0090m00m

.»03 0800

09D CH C00 H0mCoH 0C D59 ‘00 0D DC03 50»

meH9D Ho DoH 0 0H0 0H09B .DoH 0 p0mC090
0>.50» D09D 30C9 50» "0 00C0m00m

.00DC03 »09D D093 D05flu|09
0D 08 p0DC03 p30H0 09D D093 003 H .9Dm0p
0C 009 H .08HD D09D D0 003 H 093 003 D09D

D5m .Ho U50Hm 09 0D mCH9D0800 003 D09D
9CH9D 0D 0005 H =.»po9»H0>0 9DH3 mCOH0 0D0m
090 .Hooo 090 D.CmH= .09HH 00CH9D »00 0D
0005 0090HHH »8 HHC .»009»H0>0 9DH3 mCoH0
D00 0D 0005 H C093 08HD 0 003 0H09D 30C9
50» .H0H0HHH0Q50 CD 08000 HH0 DH .00000Hm
I00 0809 0800 H 0C0 .D0005 D0m H .0H08»C0
00800 0HDDHH UHQ5D0 HH09D »0Hm 0C0 0NHHOH000
0D 8000 D.COU H .0Hm00m 80HH mCH30HU
:aDHs 0Hmmms 08H0 H 050 .00 H >03 090 08H
|H00H mC0H3 Ho D9mHH 8.H HH 30C9 D_Cop H

m MBOZ \l EZMEMBANB m qumomm

 

 

128

mMBOZ

.»009
0 09HH mCHH00H D05fl C09D 0>0H EOHH 000C 0C0
DC03IIDC03 50» D09D 0H08 0.0H09D D09D 30C9
00H0 50» D59 .»HH05x00 C0803 0 09HH H00H
0C0 D00 C00 50» 30C9 50» no 00C0m00m
.»Dm80 wCHHO0H 5o» 00>00H
D09D 0C0 .QH90C0HD0H0H H5O» Ho D50 00H0
9058 D00 0D 0H09 0.DH D09D DHOQ DC0CH800
0 9050 080009 009 x00 "0 00C0M00m
.0HH930 How 8H9
9DH3 mCOH0 om 0D 0>09 D05fl HH_50» C0H00H 09
309 0C0D0H00C5 C00 50» .mCH9D 0 0H9 D09D
»HH00H DOC 0.DH .HH09 90 "C 00C0M00m

.0H08»C0 0>0H »9 C008 03 D093 0H50 C0>0

DOC 8_H D09D 8H9 9DH3 mCH9D 0H9 0 9050 09

OD cmuDom 0.DH imsHD 09D HHm Doc DmsHIIDH

030C9 09 9CH9D H 0C0 O0 »HH00H H .x00 »OnC0

D.CO0 H D09D DOC 0.DH .HH03 .8H9 9DH3 9000

09D ODCH H30H0 0D DC03 0_H 8H9 00>OH »HH00H H

HH D09D H09D0C0 H0 »03 0C0 90DHm 09D mCH908

8H9 9DH3 m5 00C0 DH 0C0 .0C000 009 »HH00H

0 I0H0009 0H9 0 CH 05 00C0 D05n DH .OD DC03

»HH00H D.Co0 H HH .H09D000D 0H.03 08HD»H0>0

D008H0 r3059 50» 09HH .009 CH 05 0C0 03

000HC5 »0009 DOC D05n 0.09 .»HODOH D5m .8H9
09HH »HH00H H .9DH3 @CHom 8_H »5m 0HCH

m BZHEWBflBm EmHmOMm

 

129

mmBOZ

.0000:

00000 000 00000 0.000 000 00 000 0000 .0003

.C08 000090 50» 0C000 09D 0.D09D HH D5m
.0H00 009 0800 00QQOH0 0>.50» 09»08 0C0
.900Hm 0 0H.50» 00 .M.O "0 00C0M00m
.mCH9D 0H093
09D 05 mCH>Hm D509DH3 .03OH 0009D 0H0>0
0D »03 0 0CHH 0D DC03 50» "m 0090m00m
.mCHC0D9mHHH C800 0.D09D
DH0m D09D 0_DH 0C0 rDC03 D.C00 50» 30C9
50» mCH9D0800 Dom 00H0 0>.50» D5m .0C000
0H093 09D 80HH DC03 50» @CH9D0800IImCH9D
10800 D00 0>.50» 30C9 50» "0 00Com00m

.0C000 009 0 09 »HH00H

C00 DH .C08 30C9 D.C00 H 09HH CD59 r9m5OH9D

DH 9HO3 08 00mH09 0C0 0C50H0 C009 »HH0505
0>09 00COHHH »E .30C9 50» 0009 mCH900H0

»HH00H 09HH C008 H MC08 303 0MHH .0H08859

H00H 0800 0C00 H 008HD 0Hm500 D00H 09D 0C0
. . »H0D0H HHDC5 H000 »HH00H C009 0.0CH9D
I»H0>m .0C000 m5H0 09D 9DH3 »>009 »DDOHQ

C009 0>.H D09D »00 0H500 50» 00050 H

OH 0 m mBZmSmBfiBm qumomm

 

130

 

950» 0D DC0DHOQ8H CH00 0H 90H93 D59 .0C0D0
IH00C5 D.C00 50» 0CH9D0800||0HQO0Q H09D0
9DH3 0CH00H8 C009 0>.50» D09D 0900HH 9DH3
0CH9D0800 0C50w 0>.50» 09HH .0CHmmHHD C09D
DH 0D 0H08 0.0H09D .0» no 00COM00m
.005H0 090D
D.CO0 093 0Hmo0m C0>0 00900HH 09HH 0Hmo0m
00000 0o 00H 0 .00000 0 000 0000 00: 0.00
.0900HH 09HH 50» 00 .9000 "m 00C0m00m
.809D 0CH00 0H0 D09D 5o» 0C50H0 0HQO0m
09D 9DH3 005H0 Ho 0D00HH0 09D 0CHD0H00000
DH0D0 OD »000 »DD0Hm 0.DH .0H5DH50950 0H093
09D 0D 005H0 09D 80HH D00 50» 090H9 09D
00NHH0H0C00 »H9090Hm 0>_50» n< 00C0m00m

.0HH03 Ho 0CH9 »HH00H 0.DH .30C9 D.Co0 H
.0900HH 9DH3 0CH09 0H0 0C0 900HH 0 0CH09 0H0
000H H 00000 0HH000 Hlu000 00003 000 .00000

0H093 09D 0.DH .HH03 .09HH .CO 08 0CH5D

D09D HH0 DOC 0.D09D D59 .0CH9D 0C0 0.D09D

0&5I0CHD0090 .0CHQmHHD 09H .HHO D0 08 059

D_Cm000 D09D 0CH9D0800 09HH .00D 0C000 0Ho93
09D D5090 0CH9D0800 0.0H09D 00050 H

mMBOZ 005CHDCOU .OH 0 0 mBZHEHB<Bm qumomm

131

 

.0H09D0 9DH3 D00H0DCH

»HH500000050 0D 0H9H00008H DH 0CH908 0C0

.0H00H50» HO 30H> 0>HD000C 0H9D 50» 0CH>H0

.0D050000CH H000 50» 0CH908I|0H09 DH50H D0
0H HHO0DH »DOH000 09»02 "U 00COM00m

.HO0H 50»

309 C0 D00 D.C00 50» 0050009 .OOD HH00H50»

9DH3 0.DH11809D D05n DOC 0.DH D50 9050HH5H
50» 0908 »09D .C80D "m 00C0m00m

.00 5o» C09D »H0>HD00HH0 0H08

809D 0H0C09 0H500 50» 90H3 50» 0C0 .»H0C0
50» 0908 »HHO0H »099 "a 00C0m00m

.D09D 00 D.C00
H 00000 H .000 ”HH09 00 00 00 HH0 E000
HH0D 0C0 809D 9DH3 D00Co9 09 0H500 H 90H3
D05fl H .0H08»C0 809D 0C50H0 09 0D DC03
C0>0 D.Co0 HIIHH00»8 D0 000 0000Hm D00
H 0C0 .HH03 0 Q5 08 0>HH0 »09B 900HC09Q
HO 90C59 0 D05n 0H_»09B .0H08»C0 809D
9DH3 0CH09 0C0D0 D_C00 D05fl H m0H0 »09D
9CH9D »09D 00 093 90HmO0m 0009D .C0z

mmBOZ HH BszmB<Bm qumomm

 

 

 

132

 

mmBOZ

.D50 DH 90HD0 D05fl

.H09DOC0 Ho 08HD 0C0 D0 0H0fl08 0H9H0000 H09Do
D5090 09CH9D »009»H0>0 .90 "0 00Com00m

.D.CO0 50» HH HH00H50» 09»08

D59 .000C090 50» HH 0DC0H0m H50» DCHomm00H0
»HH00H 0.50» 09HH H000 50» "m 00C0m00m

.CH0DH00

D09D 0H03 5O» 90H3 50» .00 OD 50» D00mx0
0H09D0 D093 H00H0 0H50 0.DH "0 00C0m00m

.DOH 0 00D00>CH 0>_»09D .902
.CODDOH 00CH9 HO0H H 0H0m08 0CHOC090 »H9H0000
D5090 9CH9D H C093 C0>m .0H9 0HDDHH 0 003 H
0OCH0 H0>0 H00CH0C0 C0 0CH09 08 Co 0CHH50HH
Ho 0CH9 C009 0>_»09D HH03 .09HOH »2 .DHO CH
0H5D5H 0C 0.0H09D 030C9 »009»H0>0 .DH0 ODCH
0CH00 D5090 0>09 H 000H 0H9D D5090 0CH9D
I0800 o0 0H500 H 90H3 D05n H .0D 08 0D00mx0
»009»H0>0 09HH .30C9 50» .30C CH 8_H Hofl08
0H9D 90HCHH 0H5O90 »HH00H H 00050 H

NH BZWEMB<Bm qumomm

   

 

133

.0H09DO 9DH3 0CH5C00
09 C00 50» 309 HO .0H 50» H00H 09D 093
CH0DH00 DOC 0H.50» 0COH 00 DH 0CO0 0>.50»
.D5m .00CHH00H H5O» 0CHH000C00 0C0 »CO9m
0CH09 HO 90H0 0H.50» no 0090M00m
.»03»C0 0Hmo0m 9DH3
0H95OHD ODCH 50» D00 D05n 00CHHO0H D002
.0Hmo0m OD 00HC 09 0»03H0 OD C5H 0COH 09D
CH HMO 0»0Q »HH00H DH D5m "m 00Comm0m
.0Hmo0m 9DH3 DO0C09 0CH09 DOC
9DH3 DH 009 »HH00H 0>.50» "H 00C0®00m

 

.0H08»C0 C00 C0>0 H 0H50

DOC 8_H .»009»C0 9DH3 00H0>0H »HH00H 0>_H

0OCH0 0C0H 00 C009 0.DH .0Hmo0m 0D 00HC

0»03H0 8.H 0»00 D09D 0C0 09Dul08HD 09D HH0
9008 0H9D 0CHH003 Ho 00HHD 00 D00 H

meOZ MH BZWEHBdBm EMHmomm

134

 

9000H0 D09D

003 H .C08 303 09HH .30C 0C4 .0CH9D

»8 D.C003 90080 C3OC9 0»03H0 0>_H 09HH

D59 .08HD 0C0H 0 How 0000 0CH00 C009

0>.H 09HH 0C0 .D90HC D00H m5 0CHDOO90
OD C08 000H0 D09D 0800 H .30C9 5O»

mH BZHEMB¢Bm ZWHmomm

.H000 00D DOC

0.D09D 0C0 . . . 000H0 0C0»C0 .30C9

50» . . . 0C0»C0 D00 D.C0>09 »HHO0H H

09HH .0HO3 09D 0CHDD00 »HHOCHH 8_H 3OC

D59 .00C0HHH mo DOH 0 00000C D09D 0Q»D
09D D.C003 H HH00»8 HH0D 0D 0005 H

mmBOZ 0H BZMSWB<Bm qumomm

 

135

 

.cm##ou mHHmwu Hmmw H mmsmo.

KHmfiuflm @000 on mH mflau pan . . . gun:

m9 »HmeH U_w£ Bocx H ~EH£ nuflz Hm>mH

w.H MH .m: “H xoflm v.mg ammon wan pfl um

Umucflg mwcflx ®>.H wwwsm H .mHHmmu you psn

IImem H 30: usonm mmmemE map EH: m>Hm

Op UmHHu m>.H .mGOHw >5m mflsu mcflmcfluum
qmwn m>.H wwsmo. %#pH£w 0m mew H

PH BzmzmflflBm qumomm

.memwummw umm umsn H .HHwBIImucm3 mam
mcflaumgw>m auHB mcon monHoH w: 30: gsonm
MQHQu H cmaz Bocx 50w .wuwsu umsn m.m£
.HHmn .Umw HE 62¢ .wmso: map masu Ho wcfix
03m WMm UHDOO 50> ~HHm3 mum£#ofi m2

mMBOZ ma BZWEHBfiBm qumomm

 

 

136

 

.mmHm mumnshcm
umm u.:0© H mUHM uoom mmonu nuHB maflxuoz
mcflnmeOm umm H 30cx #msfl H mu.cow H psm
.UHsoo mam ~umpgmn pH wooumumwcs H HH mnhmfi
waH ~Bocx p.206 H .mE usonm Ucmumumwas
H.Cmmow mgm mafing ch0 map usoam mH mHSB
.HmEEdw mflnu Hoogom Op om ou mcflcuMHm uoc
gmeHmm mcflmn 8_H mxcflgu >HHmd#om mam K302x
sow .wmfluuma pwm Op cmHm m3 umap umumm
6cm ‘Hmmm pxmc mumsomum cmo H 0m Hoonow
HmEESm ou om ou ma mucmz mam .Unmpmumvcs
p.cmmow #msfl mam ~UG¢HHHHHH® >6 »HHMHommmm
.HHmB .mwcmHuH >5 Ho mEOm usm .mumzwm
mcflmeU on mcflvmmu maflaomwu Scum mcflnpwum>w
00 mg .mQMHUQH cmOHH®E< Ho mQHHp m cflnuHB
mcflxuoz 6cm mQH>HH .302x :0» ~mquESm wan CH
Emumowm muMm>om mflng apHB xuoz H HHmB

mmBOZ mH BZWEHB<Bm qumomm

137

.mHmowm Hwnpo CHHB >m3 mHCp mp UHDOO #H
CmHB H .mpMOHCCEEoo $3 um» \mwonHmmmHC
COHHHHE m m>mg m3 musm E_H .mE zoCx 50%
mxHH Hmmm H umm .50» usonm mCHprCm BOCx

wHHmmM #.Cow H .uH CHmmew u.Cmo H

ON BZMEdeBm qumomm

“CwE QC BOHQ og mpCm3 pmsn
wmmg we .pfl usonm xcflgu ow H cm:3 can
.600 .pH Cm>o mCHow Ho UwHHC E.H ow

~Hm>o UCm Hm>o Cwmws we CH “H Hw>o om H
.uH usonm mep on qu3 Cw>m u_C0U H \uH
psonm meu Op qu3 u.COU H .CH Came

mmHOZ ma BZWZmfifiBm qumomm

 

 

 

138

mmBOZ

 

.mmOHO

HHHmmH On HHHOm @Cm mBOH UCm mCmHC H50 Cuon

umnpo Comm CuHB wgmgm Op OHQM mn.w3 30C

.30Cx sow .OCHE HO mUCOHMH OOHHMOIOm mmmCu

Csz HCHOHMO u.Cmm3 H HH QC pH Bwuom @.H
BOCOEOm umnu pHmm w>m3Hm H COC3 .wuowmn
mmz pH mxHH pOC m.uH .Op mmOHO >CO> 8_H

OMCO 30C memHHH HO OHQCOO m pom m>.H

NN Bzmzme<em qumomm

manB mHHme
Cmo pH KBOCVH 50% .pH uCOQm mCHCumEOm
Ow Op mCH>Hp Cw>m mOEHumEOm CwCu UCm
meCHCu usonm HOOH H 30C usonm wuofi ouCH
mCHCCu Cmmn w>.H .OHOEmCm szm CEMU m
waH CODE Om OCHHOOH #OC E.H .mmmumoum
mcflxma E_H xaflgp »HHmmu H gun .ufl mam

ou Oflwumm pmofiHm 8_H COmmOu OEOm Com

HN BZMEMBfiBm qumomm

 

 

 

139

 

.mem H 30C HHHum m.pMC# nun ~30C uprmmou
HHOB wuwwnm mmCHCO pow O>.H 3OCx H mUCm

Op mCflmeCCOO uCMB #.Cmmow OE HO puma pmzu
ham Op OE COM mmCmm mCm mMmE pH mwoo

vN Bzmzmfiflfim qumomm

MOE pmsfl

usn .mmHm >UOQ>CM uOC COMO >E pOC CEOE

wE uOCIIOE HO mmdmomn Cmmmmn mmCHCu BOCM

H van .>Cmom OprHH m m.uH mwmz mEOm CH

UCC .BOC pm m.pH OHOCB #OC pmsh m.umau

COxHq .OHOE>Cm wa mHuuHH w waH COCE Om

HOOH u_COU umdn H .Hsz . . . pCQ K50> Op
vuflmz UCCOm Op mCflom »HQMQOMQ mH mHCB

MMBOZ MN BZMSWB<Bm qumomm

APPENDIX I

SIMPLIFIED SCALES ON FACILITATIVE DIMENSIONS

"BASIC DIMENSIONS OF THE HELPING PROCESS"

 

4 _ #Abg 44‘

BASIC DIMENSIONS OF THE

HELPING PROCESS

EMPATHY RESPECT GENUINENESS CONCRETENESS

Psychological study has shown that empathy, respect, genuine—
ness, and concreteness are important dimensions of human
interactions, particularly the helping process. These are
not some mysterious ingredients that a helper either has, or
has not. Rather, these variables can be understood as oper—
ating at some level within any helper-helpee interaction.
Helping can, therefore, be considered in terms of the help—
er's "level of functioning" on these dimensions.

The roles of helper and helpee can be considered inter—
personal, such as parent-child, teacher-student, counselor-
client, and one friend interacting with another friend who
is sharing a problem. Also, the helper and helpee roles
can be considered intrapersonal, such as the you who is
aware of a problem and the you who wants to help.

David W. Cabush The following scales are

Michigan State University based on those developed

Counseling Center by Robert R. Carkhuff.
140

 

141

EMPAT HY

Level of empathic understanding is the
degree to which the helper communicates
to the helpee that he hears and under—
stands the affect and meaning of his
problem statement.

Level 1

The helper does not attend to, or significantly detracts
from, the expressed feelings of the helpee. The helper
does not communicate that he heard or understood even the
surface or verbalized feelings of the helpee.

Example: Hel ee — "I feel so lousy around here! You know,
I've Been here almost two years and nobody seems
to care, really care about anybody else. Some-

times I just feel like chucking the whole bit
and trying it without school."

Helper - "SO you've been having a tough time
around here socially. What you need to do is
just face it that you're not alone in this spot.
GO on about getting your degree and be done with
it."

Level 2

The helper's response is essentially interchangeable with
the expressed feelings of the helpee. The helper communi—
cates that he heard and understood at least the surface

or verbalized feelings of the helpee.

Example: Helpee — same as above

Helper - "People around here seem so distant
from one another and you really feel out of it."

Level 3

The helper adds to the expression of the helpee in such a
way as to express feelings deeper than the helpee was
able to verbalize. The helper communicates that he heard
and understood feelings that were at a deeper level of
meaning than directly expressed by the helpee.

 

 

 

142

Example: Helpee — same as above

Helper - "People don't seem to care about you,
and that's a damn lonely feeling! Sometimes
it's so bad that you're sure it would feel
better if you just give up."

REGARD
The level of respect or positive regard is
the degree to which the helper communicates

to the helpee concern and caring for his
feelings, experiences, and potentials.

Level 1

 

The helper communicates a lack of respect for the feelings
and experiences of the helpee. The helper may respond
mechanically, passively, or ignore the feelings of the
helpee. The helper may communicate that the helpee's feel-
ings and experiences aren't worthy of consideration, or
that the helpee is not capable of constructive action.

Example: Hel ee - "I doubt anyone can really understand,
like most of my friends can't. It's just that
- Wow! - I feel so different. It's really great,

Mike and I, we're so much in love - there's just
no other way to say it. I feel like there's a
whole new beautiful world out there I didn't
even know existed."

Helper - "Sure sounds like you're going off the
deep end emotionally. Better play it cool and
be ready for that bubble to burst."

Level 2

The helper communicates a positive respect and concern for
the helpee's feelings, experiences, and potentials. The
helper makes clear that who the helpee is and what he does
matters to the helper. The helper communicates respect for
time helpee's ability to express himself and to deal con—
Structively with his life situation.

Example: Helpee - same as above

Helper - "You really feel good about this guy
and can enjoy more of life now."

 

143

Level 3

The helper communicates a very deep respect and caring for
the helpee's feelings, experiences, and potentials as a
worthwhile person. He enables the helpee to feel free to
be himself and to experience being valued as an individual.

Example: Helpee — same as above

Helper - "Others may not understand, but that
doesn't change how you fee1--which is exciting
and wonderful—-so much more alive and like a
woman."

GENUINENESS

The level of genuineness is the degree to which
the helper communicates, in a non—destructive
manner, his real and spontaneous self in response
to the helpee.

Level 1

The helper's verbalizations are unrelated to what he is
feeling at the moment, or he is genuine only with his
negative responses to the helpee. The helper may be de—
fensive and respond according to a prescribed role rather
than to what he is actually experiencing. The helper does
not give honest or sincere feedback to the helpee, and may
engage in "playing games" to avoid being genuine.

Example: Helpee - "Darn it, I feel so rotten about being
overweight. And I just know that others can
really get turned off by someone who looks like
he doesn't take care of himself. Sometimes I
just feel like a no good slob."

Helper — "Come on now, that's not true. It's
the real you that counts."

Level 2
\——

The helper provides no "negative" cues between what he
Says and what he feels, but he provides no positive cues
to indicate a really genuine reSponse to what the helpee
hais expressed. The helper doesn't seem insincere, but
d<Des not reflect any real involvement either.

 

 

 

144

Example: Helpee — same as above

Helper — "Sounds like you're pretty disgusted
with yourself."

Level 3

The helper provides some positive cues indicating a genuine
response (whether positive or negative) in a non—destructive
manner to the helpee. The helper is open to what he himself
is experiencing and employs this constructively. The helper
is being deeply himself in a non—exploitive relationship.

Example: Helpee - same as above

Helper — "I know you feel really low right now,

and I guess I can feel some of that frustration

and loneliness that's yours . . . but, I know I

also feel some disappointment and even anger for
you not acting on what you know you must do for

yourself."

CONCRETENESS

The level of concreteness is the degree to which
the helper enables the helpee to consider per—
sonally relevant material in specific and com-
plete terms.

Level 1

The helper leads or allows discussion to deal with vague
and anonymous generalities. The helper does not attempt
to consider feelings, experiences, and situations in
specific terms. The helper keeps the interaction with
the helpee abstract or intellectualized.

Example: Helpee — "I've always put out a 100% to get good
grades, and I've done it. My folks and class—
mates must think I'm doing just fine-~but I'm
not! I feel like something's really missing,
something important, and I don't know what to
do."

Helper - "There are bound to be times when we
feel rather distant from all that we've accom—
plished, in fact, psychologists have a name for
this phenomenon."

 

145

Level 2

The helper at times enables the helpee to deal with per—
sonally relevant material in specific and concrete terms.
At times the helper may promote specificity and direct
problem solving, while at the same time encourage some
obtuseness and gross generalizations.

Example: Helpee — same as above

Helper — "Sounds like what's missing is related
to your interactions with people. You haven't

taken the time to develop much interpersonally,
and you're beginning to feel it."

Level 3

The helper is usually helpful in enabling the helpee to
fully develop in concrete and specific terms almost all
instances of concern. When specific problems are clarely
understood the helper assists in direct problem solving,
at times helping in the development of specific skills
which are needed.

 

Example: Helpee - same as above

Helper - "What I'm hearing is that the l00%
academic world of yours is also a very lonely
one. People know your record, but they don't
know you. There are some skills you haven't
been learning up to now, and they have to do
with relating to people in ways that are
satisfying to you—-satisfying on a very human
level."

 

 

 

APPENDIX J ¢

LETTER TO SIGNIFICANT-OTHER OBSERVERS

 

 

Room 207
Student Services Building
Michigan State University

March 5, 1971

NAME
ADDRESS

Dear

 

Your name was given to us several weeks ago by

who is currently a participant in a social science research
project on campus. believed you would be
willing to cooperate by completing the enclosed form and
returning it to us.

Your responses will be kept confidential and used for
research purposes only. We ask that you complete the form
independently. will not see your responses
nor will he/she know how you marked them unless you choose
to discuss it with him/her after the project is over.

Quite frankly, , the number of subjects in this
project is relatively few, which makes every response vital
to its success. We greatly appreciate your prompt cooper-
ation. Thank you!

Sincerely,

David W. Cabush
and

Dr. C. Williams,

Research Sponsor

146

 

APPENDIX K 1

INSTRUCTIONS FOR BEHAVIOR RATING FORM--SUBJECT

On the attached form are a number of statements
that can describe a person's behavior. Many of them focus
upon how a person may act or feel towards others, some may

not directly involve others.

Consider carefully your behavior over the pasp
three weeks. Now, please respond to every statement using
the scale l-6 as indicated. You will note the statements
are written in the third person, but you should consider

them as referring to you.

 

On the following page, write in the blank the I

number which best represents your response to each state—

ment.
1. I strongly feel it is not true.
2. I feel it is not true.
3. I feel it is probably not true, or more
untrue than true.
4. I feel it is probably true, or more true
than untrue. 1
5. I feel it is true. 1
6. I strongly feel it is true.
When you have completed this form, please respond
as indicated on the last page. Remember, your responses

will be kept anonymous.

147

 

APPENDIX L

INSTRUCTIONS FOR BEHAVIOR RATING FORM-—OBSERVER

 

 

 

On the attached form are a number of statements
that can describe a person's behavior. Many of them focus
upon how a person may act or feel towards others, some may

not directly involve others.

Consider the behavior of

 

that you have been able to observe over the p255 Ehpgg
wggks. Your best reference of course is his/her behavior
in relation to you, but this need not be your only con-
sideration. Now, please respond to every statement using

the scale 1—6 as indicated.

On the following page, write in the blank the
number which best represents your response to each state-

ment.

1. I strongly feel it is not true.

2. I feel it is not true.

3. I feel it is probably not true, or more
untrue than true.

4. I feel it is probably true, or more true
than untrue.

5. I feel it is true.

6. I strongly feel it is true.

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED FORM IN THE ENCLOSED, STAMPED

ENVELOPE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT COOPERATION!

148

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX M

ITEMS ON BEHAVIOR RATING FORM BASED ON

IDIOSYNCRATIC COUNSELING GOALS

 

.u_._

ITEMS ON BEHAVIOR RATING FORM BASED ON
IDIOSYNCRATIC COUNSELING GOALS

 

Subject No.
Experimental

1 a. He seems to have a better understanding
of himself. '

b. He appears to have greater trust in his
own feelings and judgment.

c. He is better able to make independent
decisions without feeling guilty.

d. He is more open about his educational
experiences and potentials.

2. a. She seems to be more at ease around almost
everyone.

b. She appears to feel more self—confident.

c. She is less cynical than before.

d. She is more likely to tell others what
she is genuinely thinking or feeling.

3. a. He takes more action and does less self—
analyzing.

b. He appears to be less threatened by others,
more self—assured.

c. He becomes more involved on a feeling
level with people and activities.

d. He appears to be less self—critical.

4. a. He more frequently does things which are
important to him, rather than just think
about them.

b. He is more willing to assume responsi—
bility for his part of relationships.

c. He is more assertive in his relationship
with others, less dependent.

d. He is more likely to make decisions and
follow through with them.

5. a. She talks more freely about her feelings

with her close friends.

b. She has changed her eating habits so as
to eat less.

c. She appears less anxious when interacting
with people socially.

d. She is not as likely to read something
into a situation which, according to the
others involved, isn't there.

149

 

 

Subject No.
6

10

150

He has better control of his temper.

He has a better understanding of his
direction in life, has set some goals.

He is more able to face up to problems
when it is important to do so.

He is less sensitive to just the negative
things people might say.

She is more likely to express her strong
negative feelings in ways that are genuine,
yet respectful of others.

She is more assertive in terms of what

she wants and doesn't want in relation-
ships with others.

She seems to have better control over her
moods and feelings.

She appears to communicate more honestly
and directly with guys.

 

She seems to better understand when others
are being genuine and honest with her, and
can respond in the same manner.

She reflects a more positive attitude about
herself as a woman, is less likely to
assume an inferior role.

She appears less anxious in her relation-
ships with others.

She seems to be establishing more mutually
caring relationships with others.

He is more self—assured, less concerned

about failure.

He reflects a more positive attitude

toward girls.

He is less fearful of talking with

"authorities," such as professors.

He is more realistic with himself--faces .
the realities of various situations.

She seems to reflect a more positive atti-
tude about herself—-likes herself more.
She is less likely to "run“ when others
seem to want a strong or close relation—
ship with her.

She is less demanding of others than
before.

She is more responsive to the needs and
feelings of Others.

 

 

Subject No.

Control

11

12

13

14

15

151

She appears to act with greater confi—
dence, particularly in regard to her
beliefs and values.

She seems to have a better understanding
of her relationship with close friends.
She has a greater understanding of her
own actions and feelings.

She has a clearer sense of direction

and purpose in regard to her presence at
MSU.

She has a better relationship with her
husband.

She seems better able to cope with dis—
agreements in relationships with others.
She appears to have a better understanding
of what she contributes to a difficulty
within a relationship.

She appears to understand her relationship
with her husband in such a way so as to
improve the relationship.

He has been able to accept the loss of a
girlfriend—-is much less troubled by that
situation now.

He is more optimistic and reflects a
positive attitude toward life.

He is able to get sufficient and restful
sleep.

He is generally more relaxed, even smokes
less.

She appears less fearful about sharing
what she is really feeling with others.
She appears to have greater confidence
in herself and is less dependent upon
others.

She is more assertive and seems less
fearful of confrontations or arguments.
She gives a more favorable first impres—
sion to others.

He has made new friends.

He reflects a greater feeling of self-
confidence in what he says and does.

He is more talkative with people, whether
he knows them well or not.

He is better able to retain concepts and
information, particularly in regard to
course work at school.

 

 

 

Subject NO.
l6

17

18

19

20

152

She reflects a more positive feeling
about herself.

She is more assertive in terms of what
she feels or wants in relationship with
others.

She seems to have a better understanding
of what she wants out of life——what to do
in the future.

She chooses relationships in such a way
so as to be more enhancing and rewarding
for both.

He studies more Often and more intensely.
He is less insulting and negative in his
conversations with others.

He appears more relaxed and talks more
freely in groups of people.

He attends class more often.

She willingly offers more assistance to
others.

She more consistently is active and

seems to feel "alive."

She more often faces up to problems, even
when she is feeling down.

She is genuinely more cheerful.

He takes a more aggressive role with
others, particularly girls.

He responds more to others in ways that
make them feel significant.

He uses more humor in his conversations
with others.

He helps and encourages others to express
their feelings while conversing with him.

She is more open about her feelings,
particularly with her close friends.

She appears to be less self-conscious.
She seems to be more relaxed, not taking
everything so seriously.

She has become more aggressive, taking
the initiative more often.

 

 

APPENDIX N

BEHAVIOR RATING FORM--EXAMPLE

 

 

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

Code Number
What she says is different than what she seems
to be feeling.

She really seems to care about the feelings,
experiences, and potentials of others.

She is spontaneous, expressing what she seems
to be actually experiencing at the time.

What she says does not seem to fit what others
are feeling.

Goal item
Goal item

She gives genuine feedback, not keeping back her
ideas and feelings just because she assumes they
will make others feel one way or another.

Even when others cannot quite say what they mean,
she seems to know what they feel.

I have had at least as much contact with her over
the past three weeks as is usual for us.

 

She is able to help others get the right words
for what they are feeling.

She communicates a respect for what others have
to say, whether she agrees with them or not.

She does not get down to concrete terms, often
remaining general and vague.

Goal item

Others do not feel free to be themselves around
her.

When discussing a concern with others, she gets
down to what really seems to be going on—-what .
the specific issues and feelings are.

Goal item

She sometimes understands others so well that she
seems to know what they are feeling, even when
they try to hide their feelings.

I consider myself in as good a position to make
the above responses as most other of her
acquaintances.

DETACH AND RETURN THIS SHEET ONLY. THANK YOU!

153

 

 

 

APPENDIX 0 1

STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS FOR POSTTESTING

ON SELF—HELP RESPONSES

 

 

 

 

The purpose of this exercise is to estimate the level
of helpfulness of your responses to your own problems. To
accomplish this, we are asking you to respond as helpfully
as you can to three statements. These statements are ex-
cerpts from a tape recording of your initial interview
here at the Center.

This exercise is organized as follows: You will hear
a statement, followed by a tapping sound—-"tap-tap." When
you hear this sound you will know the statement has ended
and you will then have two minutes to make a response.
Your response will automatically be recorded. When the
two minutes are up, you will hear another "tap-tap," indi—
cating that your voice is no longer being recorded and that
another statement will begin in about thirty seconds. This
procedure will be followed for three statements; it can be
illustrated as follows:

 

 

"tap— / 2 minutes for / "tap— / 30—second

Statement / tap" your response tap" pause

 

Listening to one's own voice can make a person feel
tense, and seldom are we ever asked to respond to our own
voice. To minimize this "distraction" we suggest you
listen to a statement as if it were being made by a friend
who is seeking your help. Listen for the thoughts and
feelings being expressed in the statement, then respond
as helpfully as you can. Speak in the second-person, as
if he or she were in the room with you and you were speak-
ing directly to them. You are not expected to come up
with "the answer" to what is expressed, simply a helpful
response to that statement. The two minute response period
is yours to use as you wish--you.are not expected to re-
spond instantly, nor for the entire two minutes.

If you have any questions, please ask them now.
Thank you.

154

 

 

APPENDIX P

RATING FORM FOR TAPE RATINGS

 

 

 

RATING FORM Subject No.

 

RATER /l/ /2/ /3/ Counselor No.

 

Statement/Excerpt l

 

 

EMPATHY

 

RESPECT

 

GENUINENESS

 

CONCRETENESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement/Excerpt 2

 

EMPATHY

 

RESPECT

 

GENUINENESS

 

CONCRETENESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement/Excerpt 3

 

 

EMPATHY

 

RESPECT

 

GENUINENESS

 

CONCRETENESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

 

 

 

APPENDIX Q

RAW SCORES ON DEPENDENT MEASURES ACCORDING TO

SUBJECT, COUNSELOR, AND TREATMENT GROUP

 

 

 

 

156

TABLE 13

Raw Scores on Dependent Measures According to

Subject, Counselor, and Treatment Group

 

 

 

H u
o C
u r4 m
c) m E
m m +JO.
-r1 C. (U :5
'3 8 38 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
U) U E! (D
1 1 1 3.61 3.21 3.55 3.61 4.41 4.45 3.75 3.75
2 1 l 2.44 2.00 2.33 2.50 4.58 5.04 4.50 3.87
3 l 1 2.66 2.94 2.88 2.77 4.58 5.00 5.25 4.62
4 1 l 3.27 2.88 3.00 3.22 5.16 4.66 5.00 4.87
5 1 1 2.94 3.11 3.11 2.83 4.41 4.58 5.00 4.75
6 2 l 3.38 3.00 3.11 3.33 4.66 4.75 4.50 4.37
7 2 l 2.44 2.33 2.77 2.61 4.51 4.41 4.00 3.25
8 3 1 3.27 2.77 2.88 3.16 4.66 4.95 5.00 4.37
9 4 1 3.05 2.77 3.00 2.94 4.41 5.08 3.25 4.50
10 4 l 3.16 3.11 3.27 3.05 5.16 4.66 3.75 4.25
11 5 2 1.27 1.55 1.72 1.50 5.16 3.25 4.50 4.00
12 5 2 1.22 1.50 1.44 1.27 3.91 3.58 3.50 2.75
13 5 2 1.27 1.61 1.72 1.38 4.00 3.75 3.25 3.00
14 6 2 1.16 1.66 1.83 1.16 4.50 4.91 4.25 3.62
15 6 2 1.33 1.77 1.72 1.66 4.50 4.37 4.50 4.12
16 7 2 1.83 1.77 1.94 1.50 4.50 4.58 3.75 3.62
17 7 2 1.66 1.88 2.22 1.88 3.83 3.12 5.50 1.87
18 8 2 1.83 2.61 2.33 2.11 4.66 3.12 3.50 2.75
19 8 2 1.33 1.61 1.72 1.44 3.91 4.16 4.75 3.75
20 9 2 1.83 2.00 2.16 2.00 3.75 3.62 4.75 2.25
KEY: M1 = Empathy level, self-help reSponse
M2 = Regard level, self-help response
M3 = Genuineness level, self-help reSponse
M4 = Concreteness level, self-help response
M5 = Interpersonal functioning, by self
M6 = Interpersonal functioning, by observers
M7 = Change on goal behaviors, by self
M8 = Change on goal behaviors, by observers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, «111111111

1 3

   

“I”