MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES w111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A SELF-ENRICHMENT PROGRAM FOR UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE HALL STUDENTS BY Peter Jon Birkeland A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1985 ABSTRACT A SELF-ENRICHMENT PROGRAM FOR UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE HALL STUDENTS BY Peter Jon Birkeland An experimental skill-based, mental health Self- Enrichment program for small groups of undergraduates was developed and implemented within selected Michigan State University resident halls. Thirty-seven college women par- ticipated in one of three treatment conditions: Self- Enrichment (S-E n = 14), Self-Enrichment Controls (SEC, n = 13), or Interpersonal Groups (IP, n = 10). Measures of interpersonal behavior's two prepotent dimensions, desig- nated Acceptance versus Rejection of Self (ARS) and of Others (ARC), locus of control, self-esteem, and defensiveness were administered at both pre- and post- treatment. An overall MANOVA identified no significant findings although 8-3 and IP participants encouragingly shifted to- ward their ”ideal person” on four of five pertinent dependent measures. Univariate ANOVA's revealed significant (p_< .05) intercondition shifts only on ARS, with greatest gains by S-E participants. Their shift away from I'Submissive" to slightly past neutral toward “Dominance“ on one of ARS's four subscales differed significantly from the SEC (9 < .01) and IP (p < .05) participants' contrary movement. Participants' subjective comments about the S-E program were unanimously positive and indicated that interpersonal sharing, trust. and privacy were this program's most valued components. The samples' uncertain representativeness of the populations from which they were recruited, their small nfs, and related procedural problems clouded the meaning of the statistical analyses and limited the findings' gener- alizability. Despite such problems, the S-E program appears worthy of further development as a potentially efficacious and low-cost supplement to traditional university counseling services. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Researching, conducting, and completing this disserta- tion study was a long journey filled with both discouraging and triumphant moments. Along the way, there were many contributing persons to whom I am most grateful. John Hurley. my chairperson, supported the novelty of this study and allowed me the freedom to work with people who have always been special to me--residence hall staff and students. He offered concrete, critical feedback and great- ly assisted in the written presentation of my work. I appreciated his direction and support throughout. The constructive feedback of my other committee members, Norm Abeles, Dozier Thornton, and my statistician Terry Allen, was also appreciated. Much of my gratitude is imparted on this study's parti- cipants, particularly the fourteen women of the Self- Enrichment program. Their strong commitment and courageous desire to grow accounted for the encouraging success of the program. I warmly recall our times together and wish them peace and happiness with themselves and others. My loving appreciation is offered to Kathleen Hamernik; my academic colleague, co-therapist, co-facilitator, office mate. bureaucratic liaison, and most especially, my friend. She supportively shared the hardships and fervently cele- brated the triumphs. Her friendship was a brilliant ii highlight of my graduate school years and I am most grateful for our times together, both past and future. I also wish to express my love to my family for their encouragement when I was down, accommodation when I needed recreation, and understanding when my goals imposed upon their lives. Despite the years of distant miles between us, their efforts made me feel warm and close to home. Finally, thanking Julie only scratches the surface of the appreciation I feel for her. She has been by my side for most of my graduate school years and has listened to countless hours of my verbalized fears, worries, plans, goals, and dreams. She has had the courage to share these dreams and added to them, a flavor of her own. Now, we are freer to pursue these dreams together. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Vi LISTOFFIGURES................. vii INTRODUCTION Definition of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . 1 Designing the Intervention Program . . . . . 3 Theory of student development . . . . . 3 Previous residence hall mental health program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Personal experience . . . . . . . . . . 10 Aims and Components of the Self—Enrichment Program 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 12 Evaluation of Self-Enrichment Program. . . . 15 Supplemental Evaluation . . . . . . . . 16 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 METHOD PartiCipants O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 23 Procedure. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 25 Evaluative Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 RESULTS Correlational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 33 MANOVAs of Dependent Measures. . . . . . . . 36 MANOVAs of Disparity Scores. . . . . . . . . 36 Skill Acquisition Measures . . . . . . . . . 39 SUbjeCtive self-Report O O O O O O O O O O O 42 DISCUSSION Sampling Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Use of Difference (Change) Scores. . . . . . 49 Correlational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Cluster A O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O 51 Cluster B O O O O O O O O C O I O O O O 52 Comparison of Intervention Outcomes. . . . . 55 Real-Ideal Disparity Scores. . . . . . . . . 63 SUWRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 64 APPENDIX A. O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 69 APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX E. APPENDIX E. APPENDIX G. REFERENCES. 70 81 90 94 97 98 99 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Focal Topics of the Self-Enrichment Group Sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2 Product-Moment Correlation Matrix of Total Sample for all Dependent Measures Organized by Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3 Summary of Mean Pre-, Post-Treatment, and Change Scores and Standard Deviations . . . 37 4 Summary of Mean Pre-, Post-Treatment, and Change Scores and Standard Deviations of Disparity Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5 Summary Results of Self-Enrichment Program Participants' Skill Acquisiton Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 vi LIST OF F IGURES Figure Page 1 Display of Dependent Measures' Clusters and Their Mean Shifts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2 Display of ARS Anchors' Mean Shifts. . . . . . 59 vii INTRODUCTION This project was a direct outgrowth of the author's four years of experience working in university residence halls. This program represents an attempt to provide efficacious assistance to a needy student population, within a system that had limited personnel and financial resources. Thinking that students' psychological needs were inadequate- ly addressed, the author designed a cost-effective approach aimed at enhancing students' personal efficacy. Wflmm University counseling centers address a variety of student concerns but recent budget cuts and departmental trimmings have severely lessened the number of qualified service providers. A very recent article in the collegiate newspaper of a large, midwestern university highlighted this problem: “Budget cuts have forced the MSU (Michigan State University) Counseling Center to focus on students' im- mediate crises; not on providing them with skills needed to cope with problems later in life...the Center has had to reduce full-time counseling staff by 50%" (Ghannam, 1984, p. 3). The difficulty of adequately addressing students' mental health concerns with minimal staff has caused campus counseling centers to increasingly share this task with university residence hall personnel. Unfortunately, 2 residence hall staffs were plagued with similar budget cuts and personnel limitations. Consider the author's two years of experience as a graduate advisor in a university 'megadorm,‘ a term coined by Fondacaro, Heller, and Reilly (1984, p. 1). This MSU residence hall was a 12 story, twin-tower structure that housed approximately 1100 undergraduates. Each floor housed nearly 50 students with each room being doubly occupied (and sometimes 'tripled'). The residence hall staff included a full-time resident director, four part-time graduate advisors (who were also enrolled full-time in a variety of graduate programs), and 24 fully-enrolled undergraduate resident assistants (RAs). Each RA was 'responsible' for the residents on his/her floor. This meant that they were to provide educational programs to meet the residents' needs, monitor students' behavior, refer for disciplinary action when necessary, facilitate floor activities, and monitor students' mental health. The latter responsibility was the area in which the RAs were the least trained and most naive. This deficit was partially due to economics since such training was both costly and time-consuming. It seemed to also be due to the residence hall department's reluctance to incorporate such skills into its training program for fear that staff members (especially RAs) would fail to appreciate their own intervention skill limitations and unintentionally intervene in harmful ways. Clearly, residence hall staffs were inadequately trained to fully share the responsibility of students' 3 mental health with the financially constrained university counseling center. Nevertheless, students' mental health problems were inevitably present and generally unaddressed. Problems such as suicide attempts, alcohol abuse, isolation and depression, and separation from family and friends were common. Within this context of quite limited professional resources, the present program was developed as an initial attempt to address these issues. The Self-Enrichment pro- gram was conceived to be a vehicle through which students could safely disclose feelings about these issues and, if necessary, receive a referral to mental health professionals. Wmmmmm The design of this study's Self-Enrichment program was guided by three sources of information: a theoretical foun- dation of college student development, previous residence hall mental health programs, and the author's personal ex- perience as both an undergraduate RA and an MSU graduate advisor. Each of these are discussed with the intent of clarifying the goals of the program. Ihggry,gf,stndent,dggglgpmgnt. A developmental theory often used as a basic model for university residence hall functioning, and the foundational theory of the MSU residence hall system, was that of Chickering (1972). He defined the developmental tasks of college students as con- sisting of seven aims: achieving competence, managing emotions, becoming autonomous, establishing identity, freeing interpersonal relations, clarifying purposes, and 4 developing integrity. When one studies the most frequent areas of concern addressed by university counseling centers, it becomes clear that these accurately reflect Chickering's theory. Campus counseling centers most frequently serve to address concerns about careers, academics, value clarifi- cation, and interpersonal relationships (Carney & Barah, 1976; Downey & Sinnett, 1980). Chickering's developmental theory appeared an adequate model for a mental health inter- vention with college students. Therefore, it was included in the design of this study's Self-Enrichment program. WWMWW programs. Ade- quately addressing students' mental health concerns was an issue even prior to the economic hardships that befell Michigan's universities in the early 1980's. The rate at which people sought mental health services generally appeared significantly below the actual incidence of mental health difficulties in the population (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960). This situation was mirrored on college campuses, and perhaps reflected an inability of university counseling centers to 'sell' their services or to provide them where they are needed most. ‘ Holmes and Jacobs (1972) compared students who sought help from the university counseling center and residence hall personnel. They found that the students who sought services from residence hall personnel were better adjusted than those who sought assistance from counseling center personnel. However, the ”residence hall consumers" were still experiencing difficult mental health problems. In fact, they exhibited self-confidence deficits and self- abasement tendencies equal to those of their counseling center counterparts. Therefore, it appeared that these students were "falling through the cracks“ of current university mental health services. These authors found that "residence hall consumers" had more favorable expectations of their counselors than did the "counseling center consumers.” Given the importance of efficacy expectations in therapy outcome (Bandura, 1977, 1982), university counseling centers wisely refocused ef- forts on developing mental health interventions within the residence hall setting. A typical early attempt to extend mental health services into the residence halls was the counseling out- reach program at the University of North Carolina (UNC) (Thompson & Fiddleman, 1973). There, a counseling team of four graduate students (clinical psychology, counseling and guidance. medicine and nursing) provided services to the 900 undergraduates of a co-ed residence hall. The team held regular office hours in the residence hall (9:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight on Monday through Thursday). A team member was ”on call” at all times for emergencies. The team provided direct counseling services to the students and training for the staff. Results of this study showed that 16% of the residence hall population were seen by members of the counseling team during the academic year. The average rating of these UNC services by the students was ”very good.“ Also, this particular residence hall utilized campus psychiatric services significantly less than any other hall on campus, indirectly indicating its effectiveness. The concerns addressed by this team were similar to those previously reported: academic, relationships, depression, and substance abuse. Results also showed that 93% of the residents were aware of the team's existence; a level of awareness greater than that of the eight other counseling services on UNC's campus. This counseling outreach program seemed most beneficial as an unthreatening vehicle by which to heighten students' awareness of available mental health services. Problems with this program included an inordinate amount of time spent by the UNC counseling team in casually making them- selves "visible' within the residence hall. The authors reported that UNC team members spent much effort in becoming familiar to the staff and residents by participating in numerous social and business activities in the residence hall. Also, given the size of some university residence hall systems (sometimes as large as 30 'megadorms'), financing and stationing one team to each hall becomes problematic. As the idea of mental health outreach into residence halls proved helpful, but personnel limitations plagued counseling centers, the use of mental health consultation with residence hall staffs became popular. Such con- sultation services were designed to continue the successful 'in-hall' format of mental health intervention, while diminishing manpower demands. These services no longer provided assistance directly to the residents, but rather through their residence hall staff. Several mental health consultation programs for residence hall staffs were reported in the literature (Davis, 1974; Averbach, 1976; Pierce & Shwartz, 1977). Mental health consultation services were discussed as being helpful in staff selection, in-service training, role devel- opment, and appropriate staff deployment. Although such programs were evaluated as moderately successful, they also shared continuing problems that were difficult to resolve. A major problem of these programs was the disparity between the needs of the staff as defined by the administration, and the needs as defined by the "front-line“ staff members. These discrepancies often caused friction between the consultant and the consultee resulting in a disunified team effort. It also placed the consultant pre- cariously between the demands of the service funder- administration and their staff recipients. The lack of explicitly defined and approved contracts between such consultants and consultees often led to program termination. Another problem with these programs was the residence hall staff's on-going perception that the consultant was an “outsider" to the residence hall. The staff's hesitancy to trust the consultant was evident in their lack of self- disclosure, persistent testing of the consultant's knowledge, and abstract-~rather than specific—-discussions of residents' problems. Researchers generally concluded that for mental health consultation of residence hall personnel to be optimally effective, good visibility and a strong rapport with the staff must be developed. Recall that these ingredients were also found to be important in the success of the UNC counseling center outreach program previously described. It should be noted that none of these studies assessed the actual effects of the consultation program on the residents' mental health, yet it was to this end that these programs had been developed. Consultation of residence hall personnel, although well-intentioned, seemed to have gone astray from the goals of the mental health outreach proqram. Davis (1974) recommended that the consultation be specifically used to train and supervise RAs in the direct provision of mental health services to their residents. She suggested that RAs be trained in counseling skills that would enable them to become "peer group counseling leaders and function as role models within these groups" (p. 99). She cited a study by Mitchell (1973) in which students unanimously approved of a short term group program where disadvantaged peer counselors worked with disadvantaged college freshmen. Fondacaro et a1. (1984) reported on the development and use of "friendship networks” to successfully reduce adjustment problems and feelings of isolation among graduate students in a large residence hall. A consultation team trained and supervised RAs as they strategized and implemented programs that fit the residents' needs. Such programs included structuring mealtimes for maximal social interaction, and educational exchanges between American and foreign students as a way of reducing social and cultural isolation. Staff and residents reported much satisfaction and positive change in the residence hall environment as a result of these supervised interventions. The importance of the consultation team seemed to lie in bolstering the staff's confidence and problem-solving abilities, especially in times of crisis. One ultimate goal of the program was also accomplished because following its implementation, the number of suicide attempts by the residents has decreased from 2 or 3 per year, to none. Schilling (1974) discussed a University of Florida peer counseling program. It combined the RA program with a volunteer "Big brother - Big sister" type program. The latter intervention involved sophomores who were "hooked-up" with freshmen for the purpose of assisting them in their adjustment to college life. The volunteers relieved much of the RAs' burden by assisting them in development of floor activities, referrals of students to campus resources, and providing answers to the residents' questions. Given this assistance, the RAs were free to engage in more intense training of counseling skills (i.e., communication skills, listening skills, empathy training). This resulted in better quality and more direct mental health services to the students without sacrificing the essential maintenance functions of the residence hall staff. As Avery (1978) reported, and the paraprofessional literature concurred (Durlak, 1979a, 1979b; Cowen, 1982; 10 Gershon & Biller, 1977), RAs can be successfully trained in some basic counseling skills with dramatic effects on their residents. Given adequate supervision and training, RAs can be cost-effective mental health service providers in residence halls, and a valuable adjunct to university counseling centers. Persgnal, experience. The author's experience as an undergraduate resident assistant at the State University of New York at Binghamton (2 years) and as an MSU graduate advisor (2 years) also contributed to the design of this study's Self-Enrichment program. One of my main concerns was the prevalence of suicide attempts in the residence halls, and at times, the staff's ignorance of these events. At one time I supervised an RA who, by chance, noticed blood stains on a resident's bathroom sink. He questioned the resident and discovered that he had attempted suicide by cutting his wrists, but that this attempt had occurred three days earlier! One wonders how many other attempts were never discovered by the staff. This study's Self-Enrichment program may function as a screening for residents with severe mental health problems so that an appropriate referral may occur prior to a suicide attempt. In my experience, residents seem to value peer- acceptance over self-acceptance. This leads to severe con- flicts as the residents often succumb to peer pressures (especially in the areas of alcohol consumption and sexuality) despite their own personal convictions. I have found residents intoxicated and asleep on the bathroom 11 floor, and upon follow-up, discovered that the resident believed that s/he had to drink as much as his/her 'friends' to be accepted in their crowd. I often met with residents who were responsible for hall damage and found that some claimed to have “followed the leader" and contributed to the damage so as not to be ostracized from their peer group. Peer pressure was also partly responsible for the residents' apparent apathy concerning hall activities. Often student government members were insulted and mocked, and their planned activities poorly attended, because it was 'uncool' to attend non-alcoholic, “nerdy" functions. Alcohol abuse was another of my main concerns. Too often, I have found residents who were unwilling to assert themselves and refuse the 18 shots of whiskey so "generously" offered in celebration of the 18th birthday. Freshmen were particularly vulnerable, as upperclassmen sought to initiate them to college life by 'humbling them before the porcelain god“ (making them sick enough to spend the night vomitting in the toilet). At times, the abuse of alcohol has been so severe that respiratory arrest occurred. However, not all of the alcohol abuse was the result of a lack of assertiveness to peer pressure. An appreciable number of residents had a severe drinking problem and re- peatedly denied this when approached by staff. This study's intervention program, through the use of interpersonal feed- back and assertiveness training, was intended to indirectly impact the alcohol abusers through assisting them to begin changing their destructive behavior. 12 Roommate conflicts, relationship problems, and sexual values and orientation differences, in my experience, com- prised a major portion of the residents' concerns. Residents seemed to lack the communication and negotiation skills necessary to resolve conflicts as evidenced by the seemingly countless number of roommate meetings that I had facilitated. Relationship problems, often centering around sexual issues, highlighted the peer pressure to be sexually active and the need for basic education about contraception and human anatomy. A Self-Enrichment program was also con- ceptualized as an opportunity for sharing sexual concerns, and to acquire basic information about human sexuality from one's peers and/or facilitators. The pressure to be sexually active and involved in intimate relationships often contributed to depression, loneliness, isolation, and even peer chastisement. This seemed to be true of both men and women, although it was more obvious among women. A Self-Enrichment program could serve as a forum for the safe disclosure of these feelings, while establishing some interpersonal contacts for the isolated resident which may continue outside of the group. Aimsandflmnentanfthefielflnrichmentm Having discussed the theoretical concepts of college student development, prior research on residence hall mental health interventions, and my own personal experience as a residence hall staff member, the resultant aims of the present student Self-Enrichment program were: 13 (a) It was designed to address the students' need to manage their emotions, especially depression, isolation, and hurt from the loss of significant relationships (i.e., parents, friends at home, intimate partners). This was to be accomplished using Rational Emotive Training (RET) (Ellis, 1975, 1977), relaxation training, and by providing an accepting environment for such feelings to be shared and discussed. (b) It attempted to assist students in freeing their interpersonal relationships and allow for optimal growth and satisfaction within them. Empathy, assertive- ness, and communication skills training were provided to facilitate this aim. (c) It provided students with an opportunity to develop autonomy and establish their identity. The program's focus on self-care and assertiveness of one's values and preferences was believed to be facilitative of this aim by combating the extensive peer pressure (especially when related to alcohol consumption) that detracts from one's autonomy and overshadows one's identity. (d) Although this Self-Enrichment program did not provide specific interventions for the purpose of clarifying students' purposes and career goals, or directly assist them in achieving competence in these areas, it provided an open forum in which concerns could be discussed, and a referral base from which to begin seeking answers to these important questions. 14 (e) Additionally, this program sought to include the ingredients of successful residence hall mental health programs reported in the literature. Since students were found to be more accepting of peer facilitators than of "outsiders,” the program was designed to eventually be led by RAs after they had received minimal training. The para- professional literature reported that the skills included in this Self-Enrichment program were trainable to, and effectively dispensed by, nonprofessionals. Furthermore, the design of this program to accomodate the eventual use of RA facilitators was deemed most beneficial because RAs were excellent peer role models, had high visibility to the residents, had good rapport with fellow staff members, and were already in a position that required extensive availability to the residents. In summary, this Self-Enrichment program addressed college students' developmental needs, included components of previously successful residence hall programs, and re- flected the needs of students as defined by the author's personal experience as a residence hall staff member. The program appeared suitable for facilitation by the RAs, and was thought to be cost-efficient and clinically beneficial. However, it is clear that the merits of the program needed to be empirically assessed, rather than merely asserted, and that some of its components may require modification prior to the submission of a formal proposal for its implementation in a residence hall system. 15 Wfimwmm The S-E program was evaluated using participants' subjective reports of the group experience, and specific psychological measures expected to be sensitive to the pro- cesses of the program. A Defensiveness scale was considered an appropriate evaluative measure since the group process was one in which the participant was encouraged to take risks through self-disclosure and homework exercises. The K-scale of the MMPI had been independently used to measure defensiveness and repression of psychological conflicts in chronic pain patients (Watson, 1982), and in cancer patients (Fox, 1982). Butcher (1969) reported that high K-scorers were concerned about their own social desirability, had difficulty in social relations, and were unaccepting of unconventional behavior in others. These areas were included in the S-E program's focus and therefore, the K- scale was selected as an evaluative measure. Locus of control had been frequently used as an evaluative measure of assertiveness and communication training, two areas of focus in the S-E program. Henderson and Hollin (1983) reported that delinquents shifted towards a more internal locus of control as a result of social skills training that used role playing, Rational Emotive Training (RET), and interpersonal feedback, all of which are S—E program components. Levine-Welsh (1982) reported that adult women who were trained in assertiveness and RET also moved significantly towards heightened internal locus of control as a result of that experience. Locus of control, 16 therefore, was regarded to be another appropriate evaluative measure of the S-E program. Interpersonal competence is a broad concept purportedly measured by Hurley's (1976) ARS and ARO scales that also assess the two most salient dimensions of interpersonal behavior, more commonly labeled figminange and affiliation (Wiggins, 1982). These scales separately assess one's ac- ceptance and rejection of oneself and of others, in the interpersonal domain. Because of this program's emphasis on interpersonal skills and relations, these scales seemed especially appropriate. Finally, a measure of self-esteem was believed pertinent because it was expected that as participants be- come more autonomous, assertive, and self-accepting, they would experience increased self-esteem. Increased self- esteem has been found to be a result of social skills training (Spence & Spence, 1980), assertiveness training (Vinick, 1983), and communication training (Martin, 1983). These all reflect major S-E program components and, therefore, supported the use of a self-esteem scale as an evaluative measure. In summary, defensiveness, locus of control, self- esteem, and self- and other-acceptance/rejection scales were included as evaluative measures of this S-E program. The use of these measures was both intuitively appealing and empirically supported as being appropriate for this study. WW1 Themefthssslfzimass disparity score. The self-image disparity is defined as the 17 discrepancy between one's real and ideal perceptions of him/herself on a given self-concept measure. Self-image disparity scores have often been used to evaluate clinical interventions, yet much confusion about the interpretation of these scores exists. There are two basic views con- cerning self-image disparity score interpretation: the Rogerian and the Ziglerian positions. The Rogerian position (Rogers & Dymond, 1954) contends that the self-image disparity is a general indicator of ad- justment, with the larger discrepancy reflecting greater maladjustment. Numerous studies have used the self-image disparity score as a measure of self-satisfaction (COOpersmith, 1959; Fielder, Dodge, Jones, & Hutchins, 1958; Loor, Katz, & Rubenstein, 1958), self-esteem (Rosen, 1956; Sharma, 1956), and self-acceptance (Helper, 1955, 1958: Leary, 1957; Zuckerman & Monashkin, 1957). Tucker (1982) argued that the self-image disparity score of body physique afforded greater utility for exploring personality adjustment than did a simple objective measure of physique alone. He found that of those who were dissatisfied with their body parts and/or abilities, 70% reported significant discrepancies between their real and ideal perceived somatotypes. DeMan (1983) reported that young adult women exhibited a significant relationship (L.= .48, (p < .02) between self- image disparity scores and their degree of psychological adjustment as measured by the adult form of Rotter's Incomplete Sentence Blank. This study was a follow-up to an 18 earlier finding (DeMan, 1982) that women reported higher self-image disparity than did men on his autonomy—control scale. The self-image disparity score has also been used to measure therapeutic outcome. Butler and Haigh (1954) found that clients in therapy significantly demonstrated a reduced self-image disparity score while a control group (waiting- list clients who were motivated and interested in therapy) did not. Rudikoff (1954) successfully replicated this study. The self-image disparity score showed significant decreases in depressed clients (Sheehan, 1981), problematic boys (Caplan, 1957), and chronic pain patients (in Millon, Green, & Meagher, 1982) as a result of using psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions. Gough, Lazzari, and Fiorvanti (1978) used the self- image disparity score across five adjective checklists with 200 subjects and concluded that “internal components of self-ideal congruence (an alternate way to express self- image disparity) have differential implications that overall measures will obscure or even fail to detect“ (p. 1085). It was with this in mind that the disparity score was included in the evaluation of this study's S-E program. Despite the support for the use of the self-image disparity score in personality and therapy outcome research, strong arguments against these scores have also been voiced. Philips, Raiford, and El-Batrawi (1965) challenged the Q- sort's reliability and validity as a tool for measuring therapeutic outcome (as had been used by Rogers and his 19 colleagues). They empirically demonstrated that Rogers' conceptual use of “congruence" (the degree to which one's real self-image correlates with one's ideal self-image) was problematic because it erroneously assumed that real and ideal self-image are independent constructs. This study demonstrated little shift in item position of the various sorts as a result of therapy. Contrary to Rogers' findings (only the real self-image moved towards a position of con- gruence), the real and ideal self-images moved equally toward congruence. Satz and Baroff (1962) tested Rogers' main premises of self-theory and found support for the fact that real-ideal discrepancies are “characteristic of inadequate self- organization and poor psychological adjustment" (p. 291). However, their study failed to support the decreased real- ideal discrepancies purported to be the result of therapy. In fact, such discrepancies increased, though not significantly, in their study. Rogers' disparity scores, used as a measure of emotional adjustment, have been criticized for their poor ability to discriminate between psychopathologies. Schizo- phrenics and normals demonstrated similar real-ideal dis- parity scores (Hillson & Worchel, 1957; Friedman, 1955) on indices of self-regard. Rogers (1958) himself reported findings that suggested that psychotics' disparity scores were actually less than the comparable scores of normals. Barry and Miskimins (1969) also criticized Rogers' self-concept theory as being limited in its ability to 20 differentiate between psychopathologies. They elaborated self-concept measurement using the Miskimins' Self-Goal- Other Discrepancy Scale and demonstrated its effectiveness in discriminating between psychopathological categories. The 'self-goal-plus' factor, similar to the real-ideal dis- crepancy score, was found to be significantly and positively correlated with a neurotic diagnosis (similar to Rogers' original hypothesis). Unfortunately, the author is unfamiliar with any usage of this scale for therapeutic outcome research. The Ziglerian position (Achenbach & Zigler, 1963) views the self—image disparity score as being positively correlated with the individual's level of maturity and a natural concommitant of normal growth and development. The rationale behind this position was based on two factors that have been empirically supported (Katz & Zigler, 1967). First is the individual's capacity to experience guilt. Maturity allows for the increased capacity to incorporate social values and mores, make greater self-demands, and consequently experience more guilt from being unable to meet these demands. It was argued (Philips & Rabinovitch, 1958: Philips & Zigler, 1961) that more mature persons exhibit greater self-image disparity and, as a result, experience more guilt than less mature persons. The second factor involves the greater cognitive differentiation that occurs with normal development. More mature persons should demonstrate greater disparity, as a 21 result of their increased differentiating ability, when comparing their real and ideal self-images. Additional empirical support for this position included Achenbach and Zigler's (1963) work with the self-image dis- parity scores and social competence. They found that high socially competent people manifested higher self-image dis- parity scores than did low socially competent people. Philips and Zigler (1980) reported that children's self- image disparity scores were developmentally derived, but that experiential factors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status influenced the disparity scores. Self-image disparity scores on the Locus of Control, ARS, and ARO scales discussed above, were included as sup— plemental evaluative measures of this study's S-E program. Though difficult to interpret, the relationship between these scores and the scores of the other evaluative measures may clarify whether the disparity represents maladjustment and neurosis or cognitive maturation. Decreased disparity with increased self-esteem, self-acceptance, other- acceptance, and a move toward internal locus of control may be supportive of Rogers' view. Increased disparity with similar results on the other measures may be supportive of Zigler's position. mm It was expected that the report of a positive subjective experience in the S-E program would be accompanied by decreased defensiveness, shifts towards internal locus of control, shifts away from the external 22 facets of locus of control,and increases in self-esteem, acceptance of self (ARS), and acceptance of others (ARO). Such changes were not expected to be found in an idle con- trol group recruited from the same sample as the S-E program participants. The additional inclusion of participants from a less structured, interpersonally oriented group program was deemed important to control for the effects of the participants gathering for the sessions, which was not part of the s-E control groups' behavior. The outcomes of this interpersonal group, though expected to be positive, were not included in this study's a priori hypotheses. A supple- mental evaluation of the program used self-image disparity scores that were expected to be in concordance with the primary evaluative measures. METHOD mm The participants were 37 women enrolled at Michigan State University throughout the 1983-84 academic year. Only women were chosen for the study because prior research (DeMan, 1982, 1983) had effectively utilized this population in several self-image studies, and because of the few men who initially volunteered. The participants were separated into three treatment groups: Self-Enrichment (S-E; n,- 14, separate groups of 4, 4, and 6, respectively), waiting list S-E Control group (n.- 13: separate groups of 7, 3, and 3, respectively), and volunteers from several Interpersonal groups (IP; n_= 10). Volunteer participants in the S-E program and its control groups were recruited via an announcement distri- buted by the residence hall staff (See Appendix A). The announcement was designed to avoid the implication that one must be in severe distress to be eligible to participate. Instead, it emphasized this program as an opportunity to improve the quality of a person's life in the residence hall through small group sharing and the acqusition of practical enhancement skills. This announcement was aimed at sophomore women because it was believed that freshmen are often too overwhelmed in their first year away at college to 23 24 fully commit themselves to participate in such a group. Also, sophomores have lived in a residence hall for a year and are, therefore quite familiar with its problems both generally and as personally experienced. Academic time schedules and availability were also determinants of the membership of these two groups. This ensured that motivation and interest were as similar as possible between the 8-H and S-E Control groups. The Interpersonal (IP) group participants included women enrolled in Psychology 400 during the Spring and Fall of 1984. This upper level psychology course consisted of a relatively unstructured small group experience which em- phasized present-moment interpersonal processing as a means to developing better interpersonal skills. These skills included empathic listening, articulation of feelings, appropriate and timely self-disclosure, and constructive confrontation (Hurley, 1985). The groups met for two 90- minute sessions per week for 9 weeks. Additionally, each group convened for two 12-hour “marathon" sessions near the third and seventh weekends of the IP program. Facilitators of the group were former group members selected from volunteers for further training. It was believed that the data generated by these participants would serve as an additional control for the S-E program by providing a means to assess whether the 8-H outcome was due solely to the interpersonal aspects of the group, or to the structured skill training as well. 25 The IP participants generally lived off-campus and were of upper-class academic status (juniors and seniors). This was a by-product of the 400 course level, not the intent of the experimenter. Since the primary focus of this study was on the S-E program's effectiveness, this class standing difference was considered acceptable. W Participants in the three treatment groups were administered evaluative questionnaire packets on a pre- and post-treatment basis. The measures in this packet (see Appendix B) included the following: Locus of Control (real, ideal, and how others perceive you), Acceptance versus Rejection of Self and of Others (ARS and ARO; real, ideal, and how others perceive you), Self-Esteem (real), and Defensiveness (real). At the conclusion of the respective treatments, all participants received an explanation of the nature of the measures and the aims of the study. The S-E program consisted of 16 sessions, each of two- hour duration. There were two sessions per week for eight weeks. The sessions were purposely structured to be psy- choeducational rather than solely interpersonal. Therefore, sessions focused on skill training, practice, and appli- cation in one's life. Session topics were as depicted in Table l and are presented in more detail in Appendix C. The S-E program's initial focus was on self-care. RET was utilized to assist participants in managing difficult and self-defeating behavior. A self-care protocol and the instruction of relaxation skills were included to emphasize 26 Table 1 E9£a1.Tenics.ef.ths.Self:£nrichment.firnn2.Sessigns Session I Topic 1 Organizational meeting 2 Introduction of group members 3 Rational Emotive Training (Ellis 5 Harper, 1975) 4 Rational Emotive Training (cont.) 5 Self-care 6 Relaxation Training (Jacobsen, 1938) 7 Feedback and genuineness 8 Genuineness 9 Assertiveness training (McIntyre, Jeffrey & McIntyre, 1984) 10 Assertiveness training (cont.) 11 Empathy/understanding training 12 Empathy/understanding training (cont.) l3 Empathy/understanding training (cont.) 14 Open session; use of skills for personal issues 15 Open session; use of skills for personal issues 16 Termination 27 one's responsibility to take more than adequate care of oneself and to give such permission to those who felt inhibited. The S-E program moved to taking care of oneself within a social context. Interpersonal feedback, genuineness in communication, and assertiveness training were the emphases at this point. The S-E program moved to helping others with the primary focus on empathy/understanding training. The program concluded with open-ended sessions designed to allow participants to assist each other in addressing ongoing issues in their lives. S-E groups were co-led by two doctoral level students (one male, one female) in clinical psychology. The author served as one leader. He held an M.A. degree in clinical psychology with three years of graduate school training. His background included four years of residence hall staff membership during which he became aware of pressing students' concerns and two universities' inadequate attempts to address these. He was motivated by his desire to develop a cost-efficient, efficacious mental health program for residence halls. His relevant training included Rational Emotive group and individual therapy and research, relaxation training research and practice, and presentation of psychoeducational programs and workshops to college communities. The author's colleague and friend of three years served as the other leader of the S-E groups. She also had three years of graduate training in clinical psychology and was 28 about to receive her M.A. degree in that field. She was motivated by the desire to gain experience in working with psychoeducational groups, especially with a college popula- tion. Her relevant training included 5 years as a full—time presenter of empathy and listening skills workshops and programs, and a strong Rogerian phenomenological theoretical orientation. S-E group participants responded to several additional measures designed to directly assess the effectiveness of the skill training received. Having separate S-E groups allowed for a small 3-month follow-up on the retention of these skills. WW 1) Locus of Control (Levenson, 1974). This is a modified version of Rotter's (1966) Internal-External (I-E) scale. While it still includes the internal dimension, it separates the external dimension into "powerful others” and "chance“ elements on the basis of prior (Levenson, 1973b) factor analytic studies. Since the study's S-E programs involved the assertion of oneself in a social context (i.e., with "powerful others”), it was deemed important to assess both external facets. Unlike the original true-false Locus of Control scale, this modification used a 6-point Likert format making each scale functionally independent. Reliabilities of these scales were reported comparable to those for Rotter's (1966) I-E scale. Levenson (1974) reported Kuder—Richardson internal consistency, split-half, and one week test-retest 29 stabilities to respectively be as follows: Internal scale (.64, .62, .74), Powerful Others (.77, .66, .74), and Chance scale (.78, .64, .78). Construct validity of Levenson's measure has been de— monstrated in terms of perceived parental antecedents to the locus of control orientation (Levenson, 1973a). Persons who reported experiencing their parents as punishing and con- trolling were found to show stronger expectations of control by powerful others. Others who viewed their parents as using unpredictable discipline standards showed stronger chance control orientations. Validity was also demonstrated by the finding that college students predominantly of the chance orientation were not as actively involved in political-environmental issues as were students holding alternative locus of control orientation. Stronger believers in chance apparently had lesser hopes for control, and therefore, a weaker sense of involvement in such matters. 2) ARS and ARO (Acceptance versus Rejection of Self and of Others). Hurley (1976, 1980) extensively reviewed evidence suggesting that interpersonal behavior can be ade- quately characterized by two principal dimensions. He labeled these Acceptance versus Rejection of Self (ARS) and Acceptance versus Rejection of Others (ARO). as endorsed by several other authorities (Foa, 1961; Adams, 1964). Hurley's two composite semantic-differential measures consist of four bipolar subscales. ARS's elements are Shana 30 mm. W. Expressing Guarded, and Dominant;;fiubmissiyg. The ARO subscales are W.Belmmhera:fiamsmhers.msmhsrs:= .Bfiififitfi.9thsrsJ and Gentlszzfiatfih- Evidence for discriminant and convergent validity of these measures has been documented (Gerstenhaber, 1975; Hurley, 1985). Construct validity for these measures has been strongly supported by interscale correlations (Hurley, 1976). Predictive validity in selected interpersonal situations has also been demonstrated (Small & Hurley, 1978). It is important to note that much of these measures' validational work was based on their use as peer ratings, though self-rating usage has also been positive (Gerstenhaber, 1975). 3) Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). This scale is a ten-item Guttman self-esteem measure. Participants are asked to respond to each statement by indicating strong agreement, agreement, disagreement, or strong disagreement. Rosenberg (1965) discussed the validity of the scale in terms of low self-esteem manifesting itself as depression. There was a strong association between low self-esteem and observers' ratings of depression and disappointment. The scale has also associated with peer ratings of interpersonal adjustment. Unfortunately Rosenberg did not use correlational analysis in his validational studies, obscurring the degree of the association. Fleming and Courtney (1984) also found the scale to be unidimensional and demonstrated its validity by its strong 31 correlation (r_= .78) with Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton's (1976) "self-regard" facet of their self-concept hierar- chical structure. Fleming and Courtney (1984) reported the one week test-retest stability to be .82, while its coefficient alpha (.88) showed good internal consistency. 4) Defensiveness Scale. This is the K-scale of the MMPI (Hathaway & Meehl, 1951) and was reported to have a one year test-retest reliability of .76. Originally intended as a measure of a person's defensive attitude while taking a test, it has been used as an overall measure of defensive- ness with mixed results. Butcher (1977) and Ziegler, Rogers, and Kaiegman (1966) used the scale in the medical setting to measure defensiveness as a prognostic factor and also as a consequence of specific medical procedures. Ries (1966) used the K—scale as a defensiveness measure and found it to be a good predictor of psychological treatment out- come, with medial scores (9 - 15) most associated with positive outcomes. More extreme scores, either too defensive or too unguarded, were not good predictors of positive treatment outcome. Contrary to these results, Sweetland and Quay (1953) and Smith (1959) concluded from earlier studies that the K- scale is only a measure of defensiveness for the “abnormal“ population, while indicating personal integration and healthy emotional adjustment in more 'normal' populations. Heilbrun (1961) echoed these sentiments but reported that the K—scale correlated with defensiveness in females more than in males, regardless of the sample's psychopathology. 32 5) Skill Training Effectiveness Measures. Upon com- pleting the S-E program, participants were requested to respond to several short measures (see Appendix D) for the purpose of assessing whether the designated skills had been taught effectively. These measures addressed the Rational Emotive, relaxation, genuineness/assertiveness, and empathy training portions of the program. Each measure was used here for the first time except for the Rational Emotive measure which had previously been found to be an effective evaluator of this training (Birkeland, 1983). These measures were blindly and independently rated by the S-E program's co-leaders. RESULTS Three separate MANOVAs were performed on the dependent measures to ascertain whether overall analysis could be simplified by collapsing each treatment condition's sub- groups. Self-Enrichment subgroup's MANOVA, using Pillai's Trace, was £(2, 39) - 1.81, (p,- .15), indicating no sig- nificant intratreatment differences. Likewise, the S-E Control subgroup's MANOVA was {(2, 36) c 1.53, (p,- .25), and the Interpersonal (IP) subgroup's MANOVA was 211, 18) . .31, (p_- .90) both indicating no significant differences between subgroups. Furthermore, only 6 of 49 (the total number of all possible intratreatment subgroup comparisons given seven subgroups and seven dependent measures) intra- treatment subgroup t—tests performed resulted in significant differences. Examination of their scattergrams showed that these were attributable to a few outlying scores. Conse- quently, it seemed advisable to collapse these subgroups of each treatment into a single treatment group for further analysis. Correlatinnal.Analxsis Pre- and post-treatment correlation matrices (depicted in Table 2) of the seven dependent measures resulted in two distinct clusters. Cluster membership was defined by the average percent of each members' contribution to the total 33 34 .umou cosmos-” an no. . mo .uaou eoaaau-~ an as. . an .uauu commas-“ an moo. . ma .uo. ha aamwuass .m saw .couuuao one namedoop aa< ca voosaocu you own use anaconda 0:» cu czosm and mucouuuuuoou auwuanoum ucoEuuouuuuuoa usmwo> acoauauuunoun .u:o«uoa90aoo oucnuuo>ou . 0002 .uuocuo no sawuuonom usauo> oocsumouut I out .uaom uo noduooflom usauo> oucouauou¢ I ma< .soouuu-u~om u an ..oucaau a o .auonuo Hauuozoa n a .Hacuoucu u H. Houucoo no .9004 u can ..x-umzx. unoco>wac0uoa a AECuoo .ooonn. .noo~a_ .wovo. _~omo. .so~h_ .so.a~_ .mono. .mo~n. .svsm_ .mmuu_ a.a~ n.~o p.vs ~.aw n.¢m o.~n v.¢n . xuuunsham .amvnn_ .mnvmu. .vnuoa. .moum. .onav. .moom. .vwca. .osvn. .mon~_ .moaa. .«mu_ .maam. ~.om _¢~.m_ .an. can aw- can- o.~v .maan. hav- own- a“- cocoa .o a .smca. n.s~ .mvco. can .ms. ma- on- s.- .maow. an- AN- m~u «noon .0 z _~npo_ «.on _~nnm_ has- om- .ou. n~m a.o~ .oo¢~_ - v- on 024 .n m .maoo. o.~o .novs. «am. can- use .Ncc o.m .ass. «a - «a guano .a x In. a. 4 u m a A.o~ s.- n.m~ n.on ~.mv «.5» o.~o a nauuqsnsm .mpaaa. .mnbp. .mom~. .nauu. .moom. .Hc-_ .n.n-_ _m~m~. .oaav. .onmn. .mmu_ a .nHH._ «.no .ooo~_ can- can v~ um u.on .mama. .np. o~ h~ ”noon .0 m .maao. 8.”. .amna. on- s~n as can c.am .vnav. am. .ms. can an .h o .osoo. ~.n« .vsu__ mm- ~A- a” .N o..s .maav. an ave .0». m¢< .a a < days“. a xauuoensm d~uu_ 0-003 mason om: .xvuuo a saunasnsm .Nuu_ Hnooa um mm¢ a nouasau 4 nounsau B 2 a I 9 ¢ m a 9 I u z A uuouusdu an vouuccmuo seasons: unaccomoo AH: new cameom «such «0 xwwuux nodusaouuou ucoaozluusvoum N Oanoh 35 covariance of the pre- and post-treatment submatrices. Central to cluster A was the Acceptance versus Rejection of Self (ARS) scale closely followed by the Self-Esteem (SE) and the more weakly attached Internal Locus of Control (Loc- I) scales. All members of this cluster were positively inter-linked. The moderately bipolar cluster B was posi- tively anchored by the aligned Defensiveness (Def-K) and Acceptance versus Rejection of Others (ARO) measures. Each of these were negatively correlated with the two external elements of Locus of Control scales: Powerful Others (LoC- P) and Chance (LoC-C). The organization of these seven dependent measures shows these two clusters to be relatively independent aside from the same-method variance among the Locus of Control measures that likely accounted for three (of four) significant intercluster correlations (among 24 possible). The relative homogeneity of the present sample (all college-age women) likely attenuated these correlations. It was believed that the interpretation of the data would be facilitated by comparison of each treatment condition's dependent measure correlation matrix. Treat- ments differed in both approach and amount of structure and the evaluative measures may reflect these differences. Therefore, treatment conditions' separate correlation matrices are shown in Appendix E, although it is noted that their small njs required large rfs to attain statistical significance. Overall, it seems that the dependent measure clusters previously discussed are strongly evident in the 36 Control group, less so in the 8-H condition, and weaker still in the IP condition. .HANQ!AS.9£.D£2£BQEBL.HEBEBLES MANOVA of the dependent measures' pre-treatment scores using Pillai's Trace, was 2(2, 108) - 1.66, (p,- .09), suggesting that marginally significant differences existed at the outset of treatment. The S-E Control groups' higher scores, particularly on cluster A, seem responsible for this finding. MANOVA of the dependent measures' change scores (post minus pre) was E(2, 108) - .91, (p - .55), indicating no significant intertreatment differences. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations and univariate ANOVA results of each measure by treatment condition. Although no statistically significant MANOVA was found, a significant univariate ANOVA was demonstrated on the ARS scale. The S-E condition showed more of an increase in self-acceptance (mean gain of 2.79) than did either the IP group (mean gain of .70) or the Control condition (mean loss of .44). Both the 5-H and IP conditions yielded statis- tically nonsignificant gains on the same set of five (of seven) dependent measures (ARS, SE, LoC-I, ARO and LoC-P). Warmmm MANOVA of the disparity (real minus ideal) change scores (post minus pre) using Pillai's Trace was [(2, 108) I .87, (p,- .57), indicating no significant intratreatment differences. Table 4 shows the means, standard deviations, and univariate ANOVA results of each disparity measure in 37 Table 3 Summary of Mean Pre-, Post-Treatment, and Change (Post Minus Pre) Scores and Standard Deviations ’Treatment Conditions +represents a change score indicative of improvement. Total Self-Enrichment Interpersonal Control Univariate F Measure (n = 37) (n 8 14) yjn = 10) (n = 13) (n = 37) ARS Pre 23.04 (2.84) 20.79 (4.92) 22.10 (6.08) 26.23 (5.37) 3.85* Aa Post 23.87 (5.09) 23.57 (4.55) 22.80 (5.94) 25.23 (5.07) 0.69 Change 2.79 (3.31)+ 0.70 (3.20)+ -1.00 (3.19) 4.44* SE Pre 31.37 (4.12) 30.21 (4.92) 30.60 (4.12) 33.31 (4.94) 1.64 Ab Post 32.55 (4.56) 31.21 (3.26) 32.60 (4.12) 33.85 (5.84) 1.14 Change 1.00 (3.90)+ 2.00 (3.43)+ 0.54 (2.54) 0.55 LoC-I Pre 35.22 (5.38) 34.29 (4.39) 34.00 (6.68) 37.38 (5.01) 1.57 Ac Post 36.26 (4.26) 35.29 (3.29) 34.80 (5.03) 38.69 (3.82) 3.48* Change 1.00 (4.15)+ 0.80 (3.55)+ 1.31 (3.61) 0.05 Def(K) Pre 14.17 (3.85) 14.50 (3.74) 14.00 (2.26) 14.00 (5.03) 0.07 Ba Post 14.37 (4.17) 15.29 (3.65) 13.90 (3.70) 13.92 (5.11) 0.46 Change 0.79 (2.05) -0.10 (2.28) 0.08 (2.87) 0.56 ARO Pre 29.72 (3.77) 31.00 (3.46) 28.00 (3.33) 30.15 (4.53) 1.83 Bb Post 30.41 (3.10) 31.21 (2.64) 29.10 (2.85) 30.92 (3.82) 1.46 Change 0.21 (2.86)+ 1.10 (3.07)+ 0.77 (2.89) 0.28 LoC-P Pre 22.48 (5.92) 23.79 (5.54) 22.20 (6.22) 21.46 (6.00) 0.55 Bc Post 22.00 (5.96) 22.29 (4.51) 21.70 (6.18) 22.00 (7.18) 0.03 LoC-C Pre 21.44 (5.46) 23.29 (5.68) 21.50 (5.02) 19.54 (5.25) 1.65 Bd Post 22.87 (5.71) 24.07 (4.06) 22.50 (6.55) 22.00 (6.71) 0.47 Change 0.79 (3.73) 1.00 (4.06) 2.46 (3.23) 0.81 *2 < .05. 38 mCOAHflUcou ucmEummHB .mo. v a. am.o on.mv oo.H AHm.mv oo.H Amm.mv as.ou omameo c mo.~ Ams.mv mm.a Amo.mv om.m Asm.av so.m Amm.av om.m pmoa m .H~.m Aqo.av mm.o Ama.mv om.¢ Aom.mv m~.¢ Amm.av mm.m mum ouuoq so.o 1H4.mv mm.o- Amm.ov om.o- Amm.sv «H.Hu omcmno o NA.H mom.sv m~.H on.ov om.m Ams.mv om.o Amm.sv am.~ smog m ~o.m Amm.sv ~8.H Amm.mv om.o Asm.mv am.a Amm.mv ma.m mum muuoq ms.o Asm.sv no.0 Amo.mv o~.H Amm.mv mm.ou mocano h mm.o Ama.mv mm.Hu AH~.mv om.mu Amm.mv om.a- Ao~.sv Hm.~- umom m H¢.H Amo.mv mm.mu A-.sv os.v- Asa.mv «H.H- Amfl.mv om.~u mum 0mm ~m.o Asm.mv mH.m Amm.av om.o Avo.sv sm.~ mmcmeu o HH.H Asm.ov mo.H- Amo.sv oa.v- Ams.mv mm.m- Amm.mv ~m.~- owed a 44.0 168.4V m~.a- Am~.mv os.su AHH.eV sm.mn Asm.vv mm.v- mum Huooq ma.~ Amo.mv Hm.a Amm.mv om.o- Am~.mv oo.m omaaau a mm.o Ama.mv mH.~- Ams.vv om.mu Asa.sv so.mu Asm.mv Hm.mu bmom « mm.o Amm.mc ov.m- Ama.ov mo.¢u Asm.mv so.mu Am~.ev om.vu mum mma "Am u 1mm" :3 Rom n :3 Eva u as Lam n as magnum: .m OUMHHQ>HCD HOHDCOU HmCOmHOQHOHCH HGTEfiUMHGMIMHOm HMHOB mmHSmmoz “Hmme mac“: dummy hufiummmfln mo mGOADMfl>oO Unmpcmum can mmuoom Amum mzcwz umomv mmcmno can .ucmfiummnalumom .Imum cums mo MHmEESm v OHQMB 39 all treatment conditions. The pre- and post-treatment disparity scores of all treatment conditions consistently showed the perceived ideal to be more in the direction of the measure's positive pole, than the perceived real. The ARS, ARO, and LoC—I measures' disparity scores were all negative indicating that the perceived ideal was more self- and other-accepting, and more internally oriented than was the perceived real. Likewise, the disparity scores for the LoC-P and the LoC-C were positive with the perceived ideal scoring less externally oriented (i.e., less influenced by powerful others and chance) than the real. Recall that 'ideal' responses had not been requested for either the Def- K or the S-E scales. Appendix F shows a complete table of pre- and post- treatment 'ideal' means and standard deviations. Viewed with Table 3, this appendix shows the nature of disparity score shifts on a pre- to post-treatment basis (i.e., is the movement of the real score, the ideal score, or both responsible for the disparity score shift?). WWW As described earlier, the 5-H participants also responded to informal measures designed to assess their acquisition of the program's skills. Their responses were blindly and independently rated by the S-E groups' co- leaders with a resulting average interrater reliability of r - .83 (using Spearman-Brown correction formula). Table 5 shows a summary of the results of these measures. Though not a complete sample of the participants (these measures 40 .Hawxm mo mocca3ocx mcwxuoz cwHOm m mounuuw:0&mp u m .mumflumoummmcw mums mmcwusu 0m .m>fiumuwu:msv >Hmusm mmz mwmxamcéa “Haflxm mo ompma3ocx mcwxnoz ommum>m cm mmumuumcoEmp u m “Hawxm mo ombmH3ocx deflxuoz wauufia moumuumcoaop n H "mason mcwumu zoom Mom .mmusmmoe mmmsu mo mmfimoo Hmsuom Mom a xwpcomm< mom .muoz gmucoamumum no.~ o~.v 03» omocu ou mmcommou mcflccmumumncs cm m>flu= mm.o sm.m mH.v =.mcmeamumnooas. camaaxmg :m:0wuomuou:w Mao cw muonuo mam: m3 om.~ om.m mmmz coeeoo owns» cacamxm: anummem =o>fluuommm mm on mufimmp so» cmnz muonuo stum3om om.~ om.~ .omsmoc. 0» mums amen: zmmococwscmo was hh.o om.m om.m mmmco>fluuwmm< ummwucou= :o>fiuummm4 wcwom 0:0 ou 5H.¢ mm.m moaomumno GOEEOU uquz mmocm>wuwmmm< somcommmm mumwuwcH « oo.m oo.m ou mumswuufl mo nonfiszs concommom newumxmamm ma.v mv.m mumwuacH ou ammm 30m: coaumxmaom ammocmfiwmmxm ascomumm mm.o mo.~ ~>.m 039 means mucosa mo omvma3ocx mumuumGOEmns mp.a mv.m :wmmumze 5mm camamxm: 9mm .Nwwawnmaaom my and: :V :mmz wmumuumucH QDI3OHHom ucmEumowa Hawxm nDGOZum lumom mousmmwz cofluwmfiswod Haflxm .muccafi0fluumm unmanowucmnmamm mo muasmom anneesm m manna 41 were added to the research design at a point which made the first S-E subgroup ineligible for post-treatment assessment, but available for follow-up measurement), it appears that they acquired an "average" to "solid" working knowledge of the program's skills. Using the same skill acquisition measures at a three month follow-up with a very limited sample (n = 6), participants maintained the assertiveness and relaxation skills but evidenced some post—treatment decline to their RET and empathy skills. The follow—up sample was limited in size because only the first and second S-E subgroups were polled and two of these participants abruptly left the university with no available forwarding address. The third S-E subgroup was excluded from this sample because it was thought that the summer time follow-up period of this subgroup would have been a confounding factor in measurement. The summer would have involved experiences and opportunities very different from the colleagiate, residence hall living experiences that characterized the follow-up periods of the other participants. Additional results on a Likert scale measure of the RET training (1 - "not at all,“ 5 a "very much so"; see Appendix D) indicated that the RET material had been relatively easy to understand (MEAN - 4.63, SD n .72), and that participants viewed these skills as readily usable outside of the program (MEAN - 4.33, SD - .49). Participants reported feeling more in control of their thoughts and feelings as a result of this program (MEAN - 4.00, SD - 0.0), and also more aware of 42 how cognitions influence their emotions (MEAN : 4.47, SD - .52). WW Participants in the S-E program were also requested to comment on their experience in the group as part of the termination session (see Appendix C). Excerpts from these written responses, selected for their consensual validation among group members, to the question, “What about this Self- Enrichment experience do you wish to take with you as you leave?“, are included here: “I feel reassured about myself, much more self- confident.“ “RET really helped me examine why I feel the way I do and how to get myself out of it.“ “I felt really valued and respected in the group.“ “I feel close with everyone here (in the S-E group), almost like a family, and we didn't even know each other when we came in.“ “The group is a place to have a chance to talk openly about things we don't normally have a chance to talk about.“ Participants submitted no negative comments about the S-E program experience. Although this may have been partially due to situational demand characteristics, the author be- lieves that the participants' 99% attendance record (only 4 of 14 participants missed a total of 6 of 48 sessions re- sulting in a 99% attendance rate defined by 666/672 “parti- cipant-sessions“), and their overtly expressed verbal 43 commitment to the program strongly supported the validity of these comments. Several participants expressed astonishment that such a sharing experience could occur within a large student residence hall where interpersonal contacts were typically superficial and cordial. It appears that providing the residents with an opportunity to share an open and intimate experience was the subjective cornerstone of the program. Figure 1 shows an illustrative summary of the results of this study as an adjunct of their discussion below. .SflifiaflmfiflHuflgcflfig £8883 admghflsnagfligugfifiafln hm H HH _- cu C Cd 0 m HoumaHu UIuoH mJuoH mam m~.o~ m~.e~ a flaw RAH H I'll-l. . Niljmni: q! a? . . m~.nH m~.m~ . n u u u n n u m~.- . u s u . m~.- - n - n u . m . . a m" H mH.H~ m~.H~ H H . m~.c~ _m~.o~ _r|||||||#. m . . a. H m~.mH m~.aH « m~.oH m~.oH H m~.sH m~.sH H HH H H 33 H 3.3 » H H m~.mH o.oN c.aN _. « 98------1 _o.Hn n o.~n o.nn mN.nH mN.vHI I _m~.mH ZEELAHSSHV Q c.on c.nn H 44 .H shaman sandman aHonucno mwm Hucsmuunuuacu acuesuuusuluuow 1 Houmsdo HnuoH mmm mh.«m m.o~ 0 o flunm # méu fl L O 928 * £32m W m.- o.~nl I n I u n . mb.mnn I a u u . m.n~ m>.on m.v~ mh.hn _ m.m~ I H O H ms on m on H H H mh.mn m.h~ mh.oo n.o~ mh.Hv m.a~ H m.on DISCUSSION Sampling (issues. Participant recruitment procedures resulted in a nonrandom sample of residence hall students, so the Self-Enrichment (S-E) and Control participants were probably not fully representative of the residence hall population. A seemingly large proportion of these volunteers were motivated, articulate, active in the com- munity (i.e., student government representatives, campus organization members, resident assistants, etc.), and generally socially adept. Some volunteered for this study because of their familiarity with the author's interpersonal style and his previous residence hall presentations. These participants probably did not represent the student popu- lation for which the S-E program was originally intended. Consequently, these participants' baseline levels on the evaluative measures were likely to be more favorable than would be those of the program's eventual target population (i.e., persons who are depressed, isolated, agitated worriers, socially anxious, etc.). As seen in cluster A of Figure l, the Controls registered higher pre-treatment self-esteem, acceptance of self and others, and internal locus of control than did their S-E co-recruits. Perhaps some Controls presented themselves as healthier in order to compensate for their 45 no se 93' th. Co: me: wh. Cox re: 88! grc vo] grc un] ex; Hov the the no: The Nev the Pro Sam tte 46 nonparticipation in the 5—H program (i.e., to convince them- selves or the experimenter that they were not in need of the S-E experience). This was possible since some questionnaire packets were returned after group membership was determined through the use of matching schedules. Consequently, some Controls responded to the measures after their group assign- ments were made. Unfortunately the author does not know which Control participants are in question here. Neverthe- less, the pre-treatment discrepancy between the 5-H and the Control groups' scores reflect a major sampling problem that remains unexplained. An improved procedure and a larger sample probably would have avoided this problem. Another sampling issue involved the Interpersonal (IP) group participants. These women were nonrandomly selected volunteer members of several independently facilitated sub- groups from two academic terms. Therefore, they were unlikely to have been fully representative of the IP experience because each subgroup was intrinsically unique. However, participants' scores on the evaluative measures of the Interpersonal program (MSU Psychology 400 course) showed that this study's IP participants were generally similar to nonparticipants of this study enrolled in this course. There were no marked differences on the ARS and ARO scores. Nevertheless, participants likely differed in regards to their subgroup's interpersonal interventions, group climate, processing, and facilitation. These inconsistencies and the sample's small size (n,- 10) complicated the use of this treatment for comparisons with the 8-H program. 47 The non-representativeness of both the 8-H and the IP groups' samples might have been attempted by more energetic and careful recruitment and follow-up procedures. The most serious flaw of this study, particularly from a statistical point of view, is its small sample size. This rendered statistical analysis less powerful and made statistically significant findings improbable. These problems consistently overshadowed the study's outcome. The small sample size of the 8-H and Control groups may have been due to a number of factors. The commitment of 32 hours of personal time without any formal academic credit was cited by many potential recruits as a deterrent to participation. As previously discussed, and seemingly para- doxical in an academic setting, the residence hall social “atmosphere“ is generally one that frowns upon participation in educational programming. Finally, the recruitment letter (see Appendix A) may have been misperceived as being targeted for residents with severe mental health problems, causing others to shy away from participating. Solicitation of residents from other residence halls may have increased the sample size and broadened its repre- sentativeness. Such solicitation though, may have sacrificed the benefits of having a convenient meeting place (i.e., within the same residence hall that housed all of the participants) and the residents' familiarity with the pro- gram's initiator. Both of these factors have previously been noted as important in residence hall intervention 48 programs (Thompson & Fiddleman, 1973; Davis, 1974; Pierce & Shwartz, 1977). An interesting aspect of the recruitment of the S-E participants involves the size and perhaps the “atmosphere“ of the residence hall. Recruitment in a smaller residence hall (population approximately 250 males and females) for the third S-E subgroup was much more successful (8 partici- pants from approximately 130 women) than was recruitment from the large “megadorm“ (19 participants from approximate- ly 525 women), despite the smaller hall residents' unfamiliarity with the facilitator. It is difficult to account for this finding as many factors are probably involved. Perhaps the smaller hall's “atmosphere“ may have been more intimate and sharing, thereby making the S-E program a more acceptable activity than in the “megadorm.“ The residence hall staff's programming emphases and philosophy may have also differed between the two halls, leading to differential acceptance of the 8-H program. Finally, the spring term scheduling of the program in the smaller hall may have coincided with lighter academic loads, more perceived need for the program experience (after a year in the same residence hall), and a greater desire to engage in self-enhancing activity (which frequently occurs in the area of body physique in the spring time); all of which may have boosted recruitment. The IP groups' small sample size may have been due to the fact that these women lacked personal familiarity with the experimenter and received no clear benefits from their 49 participants aside from perhaps satisfying some altruistic desires. A more energetic recruitment effort and ongoing contact with them after the initial pitch would likely have increased this sample's size and representativeness, as well as, diminished their waning of interest and motivation that, in at least one case, led to attrition. Attrition was not an obvious problem except for follow- up S-E participants when 2 of 8 women failed to return the questionnaire packet. Both had abruptly left school for health and personal reasons and were unable to be contacted for follow-up with the skill acquisition measures. The experimenter's failure to obtain home and alternative addresses of recruited participants contributed to this attrition. Use Qf_differenge_ighangel scgres, The use of change scores defined as the difference between the pre- and post- treatment measures raises some difficult questions with which researchers have long been struggling. “Essentially, the question behind the problem is: When measuring any kind of change in a person, where there is a pre- and post- assessment, how can the change be calculated so that the individuality of the person's pre-score is accounted for and yet his change can be represented in terms which allow for a fair comparison to changes in others?“ (Menlo & Johnson, 1971, p. 193). Cronbach and Furby (1971) questioned the reliability and applicability of difference scores and favored the use of analysis of covariance (using the post-score with the 50 pre-score as the covariant) in studies where nonrandom sampling prevents the use of the post-score as the sole dependent variable. Oliver and Berger (1980) argued that pre-testing is desirable when group sample sizes are small, and where the pre- and post-test within-group dependent measure correlations are high regardless of the randomness of the sample. Under these conditions, Overall and Woodward (1975) suggested that analysis of change scores would provide the most powerful test of group differences. Rogosa and Willett (1983) supportively argued for the demonstrated reliability of the difference score “particu- larly when individual differences in true change are apparent“ (p. 341). They contend that the difference score can be a precise and accurate measure of change despite having low reliability. Criticism seems to be levied against difference scores for illogical reasons. Reliability (the ability to distinguish between individuals on a given trait or score) of difference scores drops when they quite naturally fail to discriminate change among in- dividuals that display nearly the same scores. Situations of minimal individual score differences should result in difference scores that are unable to distinguish between individuals. Yet, according to these authors, these situations dominate the literature critical of the use of difference scores. Cgrrelatlgnal, analysis. Overall, the dependent measures formed two distinct correlational clusters. Self- Esteem (SE), ARS, and Internal Locus of Control (LoC-I) 51 scales formed one unipolar cluster while the two external facets of Locus of Control (LoC-P and LoC-C), ARO, and the Def-R scales formed the other moderately bipolar cluster. Figure 1 displays these clusters. Cluster A seems to re- flect subjective self-worth as generated by self-acceptance and self-directedness in one's life. Cluster B seems to involve the “other“ interpersonal dimension in terms of acceptance of others (ARO), perceived threat of others resulting in a defensive posture (Def-K), and the perceived influence of others (LoC-P and LoC-C) on the direction of one's life. Cluster A. Self-Esteem (SE) and ARS were significantly and positively correlated (‘pre I .64, p < .001; ‘post I .53, p_< .01) consistently. This represents positive support for the validity of the ARS as a self-rated measure of self-esteem. Though this correlational relationship was mirrored within each condition, it was not significant within the S-E condition L‘pre I .30; I .36). Small Lpost sample size and sample homogeneity were likely determinants of this finding. Overall, the Internal Locus of Control (LoC-I) corre- lated positively with Self-Esteem (SE) although only signi- ficantly (L I .45, p_< .01) at pre-treatment. This positive correlation was strongest among the Control participants. The IP and S-E conditions displayed substantial decreases in positive correlation from pre- to post—treatment. It seems reasonable that since these treatments emphasized self- esteem, as being more than simply exhibiting mastery over 52 one's destiny, these participants may have used a broader set of criteria to evaluate their self-worth than was available to the Controls. The use of these broader criteria may have accounted for the decreased positive correlation between the SE and LoC-I scales. CIESLBL.B- Overall, the two external facets of Locus of Control (Powerful Others and Chance) were significantly and positively correlated (Ipre = .73, p,< .001: Ipost I .58, p < .001). This suggests that these scales may be less independent than Levenson (1973b) claimed (;_= .54, p < .01). The positive correlation between these scales was mirrored within all treatments, but not statistically significant for the IP or the pre-treatment S-E participants. As expected, the Internal Locus of Control (LoC-I con- sistently correlated negatively with the two external Locus of Control elements. This negative correlation was usually larger with the “Chance“ scale (overall r,= -.44) than with the “Powerful Others“ scale (overall 1, = -.20). These results made intuitive sense since belief in the mastery of one's destiny and the reliance on fate are more clearly opposing concepts than are belief in self-directedness versus the influence of powerful others in one's life. The interpersonal nuances of the “powerful others“ element may well serve to obscure its opposing relationship with the internal scale. Correlation of the defensiveness (Def-K; MMPI K scale) and the ARO scales was significant and positive across all COD pm fe: C0 VE 53 conditions (1, I .61, p,< .001; r, I .52, p_< .001). pme post This result is less intuitively appealing than were the previous findings and may reflect problems with the de- fensiveness measure. One possible interpretation of this correlation is that the acceptance of others may serve as a vehicle to maintain a defensive guard against one's negative and rejecting feelings towards others. Equally plausible is that acceptance of others may be a defensive projection of how one desires to be accepted oneself; afterall, rejection of others may give such others license to painfully reject oneself. Butcher (1969) reported the positive correlation between the present Def-K measure and social desirability. Viewed this way, a person who prefers to be socially desirable would consistently strive to convey an acceptance of others. Perhaps the Def-R scale failed its intention and instead measured this social desirability aspect of the participants which resulted in its strong positive linkage to ARO. Recalling earlier findings (Sweetland & Quay, 1953; Smith, 1959), perhaps the Def-K scores of this “normal“ sample reflects the participants healthy emotional adjust- ment, in which case the measure's strong correlation with ARO makes reasonable sense. Acceptance of others partially relies on an emotional stability that reduces the need for degrading social comparisons. 54 The positive correlation between the Def-K and the ARO scales was unconvincing in the IP condition ('rpre + .18; £9051: = .04), which again may be due to this sample's small size in (n,= 10). Perhaps, though, the IP experience was a more successful intervention in terms of freeing the participants to be more accepting of their negative, potentially re- jecting sentiments. This program's emphasis on interper- sonal feedback and processing may have been more facilitative of learning that such sentiments were healthy, acceptable, and noncatastrophic. These participants may also have learned that receiving such feedback was not a devastating experience and, therefore, did not require to be defended against by placating others. The IP group may have been best suited for allowing participants to relinquish any defensive purpose of accepting others. The Def-K scale was significantly and negatively corre- lated with both external facets of Locus of Control across all conditions (“Powerful Others“: =—.39. p < .05; {Tue 5512031: = -.29, and “Chance“: Lpre = -.51, p < .001; Lpost = -.39, p < .05). Defensive energy is generally spent to restrain one's impulses and feelings. If one believed that external forces directed one's life, defensiveness would be unnecessary since discharge of internal impulses is not perceived to be profoundly influential. Hence, the negative correlations of Def-K with both LoC-P and LoC-C. The converse belief (that internal factors are determinants of one's life experiences and, therefore, require defensive behavior to modulate the effects of internal impulse . . — 55 discharge) seems reasonable but was inconsistent with the present data (the Def-K and the LoC-I scales were not signi- ficantly positively correlated). Viewed again as a measure of social desirability, a positive correlation between the Def-K and the external elements of Locus of Control would be expected. As reported above, this was not observed here. The Def-X measure remains problematic because of its interpretive ambiguity as a measure of defensiveness, social desirability, personal integration, and emotional adjustment (Butcher, 1977; Ziegler et a1., 1966; Sweetland & Quay, 1953; Smith, 1959). While its significant correlations with ARO, LoC-P, and LoC-C are clearly evident, it is difficult to confidently interpret these results due to the measure's uncertain construct validity. Comparison ofinteuentiszn outcomes- Barlier cited self-reports by the 8-H participants indicated that interpersonal trust and support were the small group com- ponents most valued. Given that the immensity of Michigan State University and its residence hall system often fosters feelings of impersonalization, this was hardly a surprising finding. The S-E program successfully provided an open and safe forum for residents to risk self-disclosure and discuss their personal struggles. Residents viewed this group as a special place to share themselves with other committed persons. Members appeared to have assumed ownership and responsibility for the group as evident by their high attendance rate. 56 Within this program, the S—E members appeared to have acquired an “average“ of “solid“ understanding of the formal skills emphasized. Empathy and assertiveness skills appeared best acquired by the participants. This may be due to the extensive use of role play and related homework exercises in the training of these skills. These skills also appeared to be highly applicable to many of the parti- cipants' personal concerns (i.e., roommate conflict resolution, peer pressure). The relaxation training and RET skills required more cognitive processing to utilize and master. Therefore, “solid“ acquisition of these skills might well necessitate longer training than was provided by this program. Three month follow-up with six participants using the same skill acquisition measures yielded some interesting results. Most resilient over time were the empathy and assertiveness skills. RET skill acquisition declined sub- stantially, as would likely be expected due to its complexity and the very limited allotment of training time given to these skills. Relaxation skills showed an increase in frequency and effectiveness at follow-up. This was surprising since this complex skill requires consistent practice in order to achieve mastery. The participants informally reported little practicing of these skills throughout the duration of the program. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the use of these skills would increase during the follow—up period. It seems reasonable to view this finding as a function of 57 situational demand characteristics. The relaxation skills acquisition measure appeared most susceptible to demand characteristics because these items were quantitative unlike the other knowledge-based, qualitative items. It should be noted that follow-up participants' dependent measure change scores were consistent with the scores of the other S-E participants except on the LoC-P measure where a single extreme outlying score seemed responsible for the discrepancy. This overall consistency supports the follow-up participants' representativeness of the 5-H group. S-E participants demonstrated a nonsignificant post- treatment increase in internal locus of control, self- esteem, and acceptance of both self and of others. Participants also reported a decrease in the importance of “powerful others“ on the course of their own lives. All of these changes were in the direction of the participants' ideal scores on the measures where this facet was assessed. By most of these measures, however, Control participants shifted similarly. Comparison of these two treatments re- vealed that the only significant difference occurred on the ARS scale where the Self-Enrichments increased their self- acceptance while the Controls' comparable scores decreased. This finding was complicated, unfortunately, by large pre- treatment differences between these groups. Among the cluster B measures, the Self-Enrichments' Def—K score increased while the Controls' virtually remained the same. t1 58 IP group participants' shifts were quite similar to those of the 5-H members. These individuals demonstrated mildly greater increments in self-esteem and acceptance of others, but a smaller ARS increase than did the Self- Enrichments. The only statistically significant intertreatment difference was again evidenced on ARS. A finer analysis of the ARS scale is displayed in Figure 2 and detailed in Appendix G. It revealed substantial differences between the 8-H and the Control groups. Self-Enrichments and Controls shifted similarly towards “expressiveness“ but differed on the three remaining ARS anchors. One-tailed trtests of significance were utilized here because participants' ARS “ideal“ scores were consistently above their “real“ scores. The Dominant;: Submisslye subscale was most discriminating as the Self- Enrichments' shift towards “dominance“ was significantly larger (3,. 2.46, p < .01) than the Controls' opposite shift away from “dominance.“ Marginally significant differences were also found on the.Hides Feelings::Shows Feelings (t. = 1.62, p_< .06) and the Agjlge;;za§§lgg (t I 1.56, .2 < .07) anchors. S-E participants shifted towards “showing feelings“ and “active,“ while Controls shifted in the opposite direction on these anchors. Therefore, it appears that the 5-H program was facilitative of movement towards dominance, activeness, and the sharing of feelings in the interpersonal domain. ARS scale analysis also revealed that the ngmlnantzz Suhmissixe and the Suarded::£xnrsssive anchors were the most 9.0 (ma 0.0 7.0 6.0 4 5.0 4.5 4.0 0.C 59 Shows Feelings Expressive Active Dominant 9 . 0 (naxinum) I 1 8.0 i t I H H- H—<-<— H- 4 . 5 (midpoint) 7.0 i u l X» i u. l . f x i a A 6.0-- I 6, a; 5.0 LL—A_.' $ a 4.0 0.0 (minimum) Hides Feelings Guarded Passive Submissive Pre-treatment Post-treatment Self Enrichment ° “ Interpersonal A a 8-H Controls a I "Ideal" 1 I Figure 2. Display of ARS Scale Anchors' Mean Shifts (pre to post) (Brackets denote i 1 SD of the group's mean) 6O discriminating between the 8-H and IP programs. In fact, the Self-Enrichments' shift towards dominance was signifi- cantly larger (t,- 2.22, ,p < .05) than the Interpersonals smaller comparable shift away from “dominance.“ Self- Enrichments shifted towards “expressiveness“ while the Interpersonals shifted away from this pole, though minimally. It may be reasonable to conclude that the skill training and practice of the 8—H prOgram gave the partici- pants tangible experiences from which to perceive themselves as being more interpersonally dominant and expressive. Per- haps the present-moment processing of the IP group did not provide comparable experiences. The 8—H and the IP groups showed similar shifts towards “active“ and “showing feelings“ anchors. The greatest change occured on the Agtlye:;£asslve anchor with the S-E and IP groups registering mean gains of .86 and .60 respectively, versus the Controls' net loss of .08. This suggests that each intervention program tended to foster increased interpersonal activeness and initiative. Most intriguing was each treatments' pre- to post-shift towards increased “Chance“ Locus of Control and the comparable shifts on the “ideal“ facets of this measure. This suggests that the three treatments influenced partici- pants' beliefs so that reliance on fate to determine one's life's events was deemed desirable. These results were most surprising, and as yet unexplainable, since they appear contrary to other findings (i.e., increased LoC-I and decreased LoC-P). 61 While it seems that the S-E program was helpful in facilitating change, its positive effects, aside from ARS, were not notably different from those of the IP and Control conditions. The similarity of results between the Self- Enrichments and Controls remains puzzling. Recall that the members of these groups were simultaneously recruited but were assigned to their group on the basis of scheduling conflicts. The Controls' motivation to participate in the S-E program did not likely dissipate after their group assignment. They may have sought assistance and/or self- enhancement elsewhere; formally or informally (i.e., resi- dent assistant, residence hall programs, counseling center workshops, bibliotherapy). This factor was overlooked in the present study but needs thorough assessment in future evaluations of this S-E program. Despite these Control group problems, the small magnitude of positive change shown by the 8-H group is an issue in itself. This study attempted to evaluate the S-E program by the application of global and clinically relevant indices (i.e., defensiveness, self-esteem, locus of control, acceptance versus rejection of self and others). The broad, general focus of these measures may have contributed to their relatively nondifferentiating results. These measures may have simply been insufficiently sensitive to differentiate between the structured, skill-based S-E program, the unstructured IP experience, and the Control group. This may represent a significant flaw in the design of this study. ff! 62 In retrospect, it may have been more appropriate to have used specific measures to assess skill performance (not skill acquisition) in the s-E program's various training areas. Perhaps the Irrational Ideas Inventory (Kassinove, Crisci & Tiegerman, 1977) for RET, the Assertiveness Inven- tory (Alberti & Emmons, 1978) for assertiveness training, and in-vivo interaction videotapes for the evaluation of defensive, assertive, and empathic behaviors could be utilized. It also seems feasible that skin conductance measures could be taken at intervals throughout the program to measure participants' ability to acquire and maintain a relaxed state through the use of their relaxation skills. Such measures appear more likely to yield differential intertreatment results, and should be seriously considered in future developmental work with the 8-H program. The sole measure that significantly discriminated between treatment conditions was the ARS scale with the Self-Enrichments moving most towards self-acceptance as a result of their intervention experience. This program's emphasis on the responsibility for one's pleasure and satis- faction when alone, and for self-assertion and social mastery when with others, may have accounted for these results. Unlike for the two other conditions, these em— phases were directly communicated through skill training and concrete practice. Perhaps then, this scale was the study's most sensitive measure for differentiating the S-E program's structured, skill-training approach and the IP group's unstructured, process-oriented style. 63 Global program effectiveness measures remain an important means for assessing whether the skill training offered has a desirable effect on pertinent clinical con- structs. Perhaps differentiation of these treatment pro- grams by global measures would necessitate the development of scales that specifically addressed those personal con- structs within the specific context of university residence halls. For example, factors likely to be important in assessing self-esteem in residence halls are interpersonal relations and chosen field of academic pursuit. Paralleling Rosenberg's Self-Esteem scale, sample items of such a hypothetical scale may read: “I certainly feel useless when everyone has a date but me,“ and “At times I find it hard to have respect for myself given my academic major.“ Construction and validation of such residence hall specific scales would seem a promising addition for the evaluation of residence hall and counseling center programs, including the S-E program presented here. .Bsal;idaal, dispariiy, saaias, For the five measures (Locus of Control: Internal, Powerful Others and Chance; Acceptance versus Rejection of Self and Others) which assessed both the “real“ and “ideal“ facets, the ideal was generally perceived to be in the improved direction. This consistent positioning of the “ideal“ simplifies the discussion of the real-ideal disparity scores. As discussed earlier, the use and interpretation of the real-ideal disparity scores has often been controversial. This study's results did not appreciably clarify these 64 controversies. Furthermore, no present disparity score shifted significantly from pre- to post-treatment, though the ARS scale demonstrated the most substantial change in disparity. Recall that the ARS scale represented the only significant discriminator of the treatment conditions; the Self-Enrichments demonstrating the most movement towards self-acceptance on this measure. The Self-Enrichments' mean ARS disparity declined appreciably (from -6.07 to -3.07) while the Interpersonals' comparable score increased slightly (from -4.50 to -5.30). This offers some support, though not convincing, for Rogers and Dymond's (1954) assertion that decreased disparity between real and ideal scores on a relevant dependent measure reflected a healthy intervention outcome. Summazx The Self-Enrichment (S-E) program's data trends were generally encouraging even though the MANOVA analysis failed to yield significant results. Some specific skills (i.e., assertiveness and empathy) taught in the program were clear- ly acquired and also showed reasonable retention at three- months post-treatment. Participants especially valued the private, supportive, honest, and trusting environment created by the S-E program. Serious sampling limitations that consistently overshadowed this study's results included quite small nfs (10 to 14), and participants' questionable representative- ness of the population from which they were recruited. These sampling problems may have been responsible for the 65 Controls' higher pre-treatment scores (particularly on cluster A: ARS, Self-Esteem, and Internal Locus of Control), which complicated the interpretation of the findings. Examination of the overall correlation matrix for the seven dependent measures revealed two distinct clusters. The ARS, Self-Esteem, and Internal Locus of Control scales formed a unipolar cluster seemingly related to perceived self-worth. The ARO and the Defensiveness scales formed one pole of a moderately bipolar second cluster versus the two external Locus of Control (“Powerful Others“ and “Chance“) scales. This cluster was seemingly related to the perceived influence, threat, and relatedness of others to oneself. Other features of these pre- and post-treatment correlational matrices confirmed some expected relationships: Self-Esteem and ARS linked positively, while the two external facets of Locus of Control interlinked somewhat more positively than expected, although each correlated negatively with Internal Locus of Control. Unexpected features of these matrices included the positive correlation of Defensiveness (MMPI K scale) with Acceptance versus Rejection of Others (ARO), and the R- scale's negative correlation with the Locus of Control's two external scales. These seem to reflect problems with con- ceptualizing the MMPI R as a measure of overall defensive- ness. Although various researchers (Ziegler et a1., 1966) have used it as an independent measure of defensiveness, its strong positive correlations with social desirability 66 (Butcher, 1969) and with healthy emotional adjustment (Sweetland & Quay, 1953; Smith, 1959) undercut its construct validity as a defensiveness measure. This ambiguity may be responsible for its observed correlational relationships with ARO and also with the two external Locus of Control scales. The dependent measures, though perhaps too global to be differentially sensitive to the three treatment conditions (Self-Enrichment; S-E, S—E Controls, and Interpersonal; IP, groups), indicated that the S-E participants moved positively (albeit nonsignificantly) toward their ideals in internal locus of control and acceptance versus rejection of self and others. S-E members also demonstrated an increase in self-esteem. Comparison of the S-E, IP, and Control conditions revealed some interesting results. 8-H and Control partici- pants shifted similarly in Internal Locus of Control, Self- Esteem and ARO. A significantly different shift occurred on ARS, where the 8-H participants increased self-acceptance while the Controls' comparable score decreased. The IP intervention, by virtue of its own effectiveness, yielded results that were similar to, but weaker than, those of the S-E condition. Again, only the ARS proved significantly discriminating across conditions, with the S-E group exhibiting the larger pre- to post-treatment gain in self- acceptance (S-E I 2.79; IP I .70, S-E Controls = -.44). Also noticeably discriminating was the S-E groups' increased 67 defensiveness (MMPI K), and the IP and Control groups' virtual standstill on this scale. Finer analysis of ARS revealed that the Daminantz: submissiya, subscale discriminated between treatments signi- ‘ficantly, with the 8-H group moving towards “dominance“ while the IP and Control groups' moved away from this anchor. Additionally, the S-E group's shifts towards “showing feelings“ and “active“ were marginally significant from the Controls' shifts in the opposite direction on these anchors. It appeared that the 8-H program was facilitative of movement towards interpersonal dominance, sharing of feelings, and activeness. The inclusion of the real-ideal disparity scores on several dependent measures did not clarify the controversial issues surrounding the use of these scores. For four of the five pertinent measures, the 8-H group shift was toward participants' “ideal“ and consistent with Rogers and Dymond's (1954) controversial interpretation that such shifts indicate a positive outcome, but this evidence was not overwhelming. Development of the Self-Enrichment program for university residence halls seems to be a worthwhile endeavor. Specific skill performance measures need to sup- plement the global dependent measures to better discriminate between comparison treatments. At some point, paraprofes- sional facilitators of the program need to be utilized to avoid confounding the clinical psychology backgrounds of this study's leaders with the S-E program's outcome. 68 The implementation of such a mental health enhancement program in university residence halls, though appearing practically and economically advantageous, will likely en- counter both resident apathy and administrative resistance. The Self-Enrichment program's ability to reach its intended target population (i.e., persons who are depressed, isolated, anxious, etc.) remains to be demonstrated and requires careful attention to participants' motivation. Appealing packaging and generation of positive publicity, especially from former participants, warrant high priority as these would probably be essential for the program's 800C888. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Recruitment Armmoement 69 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WAIT.“ Of PSYCHOLOGY EAST MNS‘NG llCHIGAN - «sum: nwaxxoovauaumusuuomc Sunday, May 22, 1983 Dear Student: Life as a college student is often very complex. Each individual's experience is unique in many ways, but some common concerns among college students are personal relationships (male and female), academic pressures, family problems, social life, personal issues (like appearance and weight), career aspirations and fears, and self-definition. Your energies are likely focused upon both enhancing the positive aspects of your eXperience and caping with the negatives. Re have designed a self-enrichment program to help deal more effectively with such concerns. Within a small group setting, you will have the Opportunity to discuss issues that are of personal importance to you. He will also provide specific, practical skills that you can learn for coping with the problems and enhancing the assets of your daily living. These self-enrichment groups will consist of six sophomore women, each led by two doctoral candidates in clinical psychology (Pete and Kathleen). We will meet for eight weeks, from the week of September 26th through the week of November 14th; there will be two sessions per week, for 2 hours each, for a total program of 32 hours. We would like to know before summer begins how many women might be interested in such a program for the fall of 1983. We have scheduled a general information session, therefore, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24th, in Room 66 of Hubbard Hall. At this meeting, you will have a chance to meet us and ask any questions you might have. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, you are still eligible to participate in the program. Regardless of your decision, we would appreciate your completion of the form below. Please return the form to your R.A. by Wednes- day, May 25th. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Pete Birkeland Kathleen Hamernik NAME: [:3 I am interested in this program. Please contact me in the fall. [:3 I am not interested in this program. - (:3 I am uncertain about my interest. Please contact me in the fall. CURRENT ADDRESS: PHONE: NEXT YEAR'S ADDRESS: PHONE: NONE ADDRESS: PHONE: MN " ll mm Alfie-sluts Alison/Equal (Apron-mus Imslumlmm APPENDIX B Dependent Measures Please read the following statements carefully. as applied to you, circle the T; if a statement is to-you, circle the F. T —1 —o -+ 04 -4 .4 q —a a -4 -a a -w -a .4 -a :4 a a 1w a a a a ‘w a H H a F m 'n -n 'n 'n 'n 1 “ ‘H 'n 'n 'n -n 'n 'n -n 'n a q q q n m m n n m m m 70 BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY If a statement is TIUS or MOSTLY TRUE, FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as applied be sure to give your own Opinion of yourself. I think a great many peOple exaggerate their misfortunes in order to gain sympathy and help of others. worry over money and business. think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of trouble. am against giving money to beggars. have very few quarrels with members‘bf my family. "FD-Ima— find it hard to make talk when I meet new people. Peeple often disappoint me. It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or otherwise interrupt me when I am working on something important. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth. I frequently find myself worrying about something. I find it hard to set aside a task that I have undertaken, even for a short time. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same thing. At times I feel like swearing. : times I am all full of energy. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could speak them. I often think "I wish I were a child again." Often I can't understand why I have been so cross and grouchy. I certainly feel useless at times. At times I feel like smashing things. At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual. Host pe0ple will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than to lose. I have often met people who were supposed to be eXperts who were no better than I. what others think of me does not bother me. I have never felt better in my life than I do now. I like to let people know where I stand on things. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. I get mad easily and then get over it soon. I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special reason. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high that I could not overcome them. 71 INSTRUCTIONS 'Ihis is a questionnaire to find out the way in which certain important events in our society affect different peOple. Each item is designed to be measured on the six—point scale shown at the top of the questionnaire. 'Ihis is a treasure of personal belief: obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. Please answer these items carefully but do not spend too much time on any one of them. Try to respond to each item independently when rating them; do not be influenced by your previous ratings. 72 NOTE: For this questionnaire. please rate the items according to how strongly you believe it to be true of you. Please rate these items according to the following scale: l 2 . 3 h S 6 Strongly believe Strongly believe NOT TO To Be True Be True 1.___Uhether or not I get to be leader depends mostly on my ability 2.___To a great extent. my life is controlled by accidental happenings. 3.___I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people b.___Uhether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am 5.___Uhen I make plans. I am almost certain to make them work 6.___0 Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interest from bad luck happenings 7. _Hhen I get waht I want, it's usually because I am lucky 8.:A1though I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership re— sponsibility without appealing to those in positions of power 9. _How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am 10.:1 have often found that what is going to happen will happen 11. ___Hy life is chiefly controlled by powerful others lZ.___khether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck 13.___People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interest when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups 16.___lt's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good and bad fortune lS.___petting what I want requires pleasing those people above me l6.___Hhether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I am lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time 17. _If important people were to decide they didn't like me. I probably wouldn't —make many friends 18. ___I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life 19. ___I am usually able to protect my personal interests 20. “Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver 21. ___khen I get what I want. it' 3 usually because I worked hard for it 22.___ln order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who have power'over me 23. _My life is determined by my own actions 24. _It' s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many —friends 73 NOTE: For this questionnaire. please rate the items according to how strongly you believe that others think it is true of you. Please rate these items according to the following scale: I. Z 3 ’0 5 6 Strongly believe Strongly believe NOT To To Be True Be True whether or not I get to be leader depends mostly on my ability ___To a great extent, my life is controlled by accidental happenings. ”___I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people ___FMether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am ___khen I make plans. I am almost certain to make them work ___pften there is no chance of protecting my personal interest from bad luck happenings 7.___Uhen I get waht I want, it's usually because I am lucky 8.___A1though I might have good ability. I will not be given leadership re- sponsibility without appealing to those in positions of power 92___How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am lO.___I have often found that what is going to happen will happen 11. _Hy life is chiefly controlled by powerful others GU5UNH 12. _Hhether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck 13.:People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interest wwhen they conflict with those of strong pressure groups lé.___It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good and bad fortune lS.___§etting what I want requires pleasing those people above me 16. _Uhether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I am lucky enough to be _in the right place at the right time 17. _If important people were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn' t —make many friends 18. ___I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life 19. ___I am usually able to protect my personal interests 20. ___Hhether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver 21. _When I get what I want, it' a usually because I worked hard for it 22. :In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires —of people who have power over me 23. _Hy life is determined by my own actions 24 _It' s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many —friends 74 NOTE: For this questionnaire, please rate the items according to your view of an ideal person ofgyour age and sex. Please rate these items according to the following scale: l 2 3 a 5 6 Strongly believe Strongly believe NOT TO To Be True Be True 1 Whether or not I get to be leader depends mostly on my ability 2 To a great extent, my life is controlled by accidental happenings. 3 I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people 4. whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am 5 6 When I make plans. I am almost certain to make them work Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interest from bad luck happenings 7. _Uhen I get waht I want. it's usually because I am lucky 8. :Although I might have good ability. I will not be given leadership re- sponsibility without appealing to those in positions of power 9. _How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am 10.:1 have often found that what is going to happen will happen 11.:Hy life is chiefly controlled by powerful others 12. _Hhether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck 13. :People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interest —when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups 1b.___It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good and bad fortune 15. _Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me 16. _Hhether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I am lucky enough to be —in the right place at the right time 17. If important people were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn't make many friends 18.___} can pretty much determine what will happen in my life 19. ___I am usually able to protect my personsl interests 20. _Hhether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver 21. :When I get what I want. it' a usually because I worked hard for it 22. :In order to have my plans work. I make sure that they fit in with the desires —of people who have power over me 23. _My life is determined by my own actions 24. _It' s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many —friends 75 muwnuo muownwm . . . . . . . . . mumnuo mummuoa ucmcfieoo . . . . . . . . . moflmmwenom maucwo . . . . . . . . . cmumm w>flmmmm . . . . . .. . . . m>Huum mumnuo mama: . . . . . . . . . mumnuo.mmamm m>Hmmmwam . . . . . . . . . omoumsw Boo . . . . . . . . . Ems mmCflonmh mzonm a o o o o . o o o mmCflHmmm mmmuflm .uofl>m£mn Hmsuum uao> on On m>mHHmn 30> umcz mcmmmmumxm mummom mHUMHUcm mmamom mo new umuwm may mom .COmuoouumcH ucwumMMflo >Hucmflam m nuHB mEflu comm .mmsfiu MDOM mmamom mmwcu.wumamsoo ou vmxmm mum 50> .msmfi> woo> mmmumxm xamumuooom ou owxume >Hflowmumo new ownmoflmcoo mamumummmm on umoe mamom comm mane .ummH on» so meHumEom one ucmwu ecu co mmsflumeom mum muococm =w~nmuo>mm= woos ecu umnu moo: mmmmam ..uoH>mnmn :30 usox mo mcowmmwuaefl Moo» wmmmmwmxm >Hmumusuom umoe was» .mewmu mcfluococm mo name 50mm cmwzumn .ucHOQ mnu mauuflucm mmmwam mmamum OCHSOHHOM mzu mo some so ABS-ARO 76 mumauo muommmm ucmcfifioo maucwu m>flmmmm mumnuo mEumm m>flmmmumxm GHOU mmcwawmm mzonm nofl>m£mn mnu mo 3mw> mumcuo mummood m>wmmflenom nmumm m>Huom mumcuo mmamm cucumsu Emma mmcflammm mmvflm .xmm vcm mom mEmm use» mo common Hmmvfl cm mo £30 use» oCHmmmume muCHom maouflocm wEHu mace ”m pom 77 mumnuo muomnmm womcwfioo maucmw m>wmmom mumnuo mEum: m>wmmmwmxm UHOU mmcflamwm m3onm “30> mo 3mfl> :30 use» mammmwumxm .mvcmflum mucwom mauuwocm ummmoHu mumnuo muamoom m>fimmfifinsm :mumm m>wuom mumsuo mmamm Umoumoo Emma mwcflammm mmvflm usox mflumzou uofl>mcmn mmamom no now was» co "m umm 78 mnmnuo muownmm ucmcfleoo maucmo m>wmmmm mumnuo mEumm o>wmmmwmxm vHOU mmcwammm m3onm muwnuo mummuod m>wmmmEnsm smumm m>Huo¢ mumnuo mmamm cucumsu En m3 mmcflammm mwvflm .Amocmwmu umwmoHU @CHUsHoxmv mmocmuCfimsvum Hmommo mwum30u uofl>mnwn woox mo 3mw> :30 woo» mcwmmmumxm mucflom maouwocm mmHmUm mo now was» :0 J umm 79 Check the statement which best represents your self perceptions. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least an equal plane with others. bDJND-d' H waH All in all, I am bWNI-J H bWNH H ubLJNl-J H bWNI—J Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly inclined Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly am able to do things as Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly feel I do not have much Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree feel that I have a number of good qualities. Agree Disagree to feel that I am a failure. Agree Disagree well as most other peOple. Agree Disagree to be proud of. Agree Disagree take a positive attitude toward myself. Agree Disagree SEUFESHEM 80 On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. l Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree I certainly feel useless at times. I Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree At times I think I am no good at all. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree waH Strongly Disagree APPENDIX C Self-Enrichment Training Schedule 81 APPENDIX C Self-Enrichment Training Schedule 'Ihe Self-Enrichment training schedule that follows is designed to teach a variety of skills within a naturally developmental approach. The program's emphasis flows from self-care independent of others, to self-care within a social world, to caring for others as we desire. 'Ihis schedule provides the reader with a description of specific session objectives and procedures . With minimal training, it is expected that paraprofessionals may ocmpetently use this schedule to facilitate a positive and effective self-ermic‘runent experience. 82 ucewefiflo one .380 so: umfi Ev magnum meflen usewehfio emfionwec, whence—a gem .use>e efi mo ecoflmeouem .mucemfloflhmm Heads 3 mm was» s some sun uce>e ecu ”Bone coflflfiomfi ucewemmwo fiemfi cefi . is page seasoned m Eofloe umfi 8V eocesvemcoo Hmcoflcme e5 emfimnweaw B 3539......th 303m 63958 oflaoemm 05m? scammem whoa ecu 05.30 oeumuumcgeo Hum mo memfimewm Hooamoa 3e..n>ewl seepage UImLm €an .mnmd .933 on me 3&3?th gene: hum so gown mooomeun mw gwmmem mafiaeem woo HDHEOO Geo e3 30: . euBewefi one magmoofi moo . Bod eEoo mofiHeem .30 so: “mucooofi woo Hocflooo one no mo some so: eumwumcflmep 3 Smog ems: cowmmem umma e5 mfiwoo oecenmoew one oeHmem .emoaecfie no Gun oeomam ewe newcommew H2 .HeQEeE @595 m we mommy: page 88c mfi 5 $3988 as so £88 33 8%: mam was,» Hemmd co wears» wenEeE some ” easmmmo e59. .Emflmogseo ma.” oofloooouufi wow Hence umfi om woumpwfiomm 5? Fumem .memoc com mwmew .memmefifig .mfimcewue decommem mo mfiumflmcoo meuuma ecu “Edgxumn one mownmmumfimeo mo mfimflgoo gov. ma» guns measuoseonuca =mum>auag new gosansa=u wagon» 92395 3533 m0 meagewm cameo egopwufin assumed 3 ugémoo 99.5 cmwanmpmel egg mo cogoocflcfll 2* coflmeem Susannah 30228 mimosa “588. ensues wow mefiaomeo one ems fies» . mefigofimeov SCH—memes 3398 one Bandung? sawmoum e5 B 92955 Hague.» MOM Hgogg some x2 . ecofleofidehfl one mooflmeov emflmu B 333% soada .mmeoowo moonm e5 mo ensue: one teauoowm B eoseweém . eoqmoceuum 339.00 ofimmefim pomeDdEBo mo summed taflepeo 5 .5398: gov ufimcoo nonmemew game one euoflhflmwvu mfigeofim 8:83- commeo nonmemew ugagl ace—5.2500 Menace—s ofiom ”Eugen coflmmwog wow ugmcoo H953 endowed: .3 cofimmem eHmUImaem mag—gm own/1 onmmMm 83 5 ma nOummnomwo . Euune>e enu upon—av emwe>noo mHmong mm .oezoah Amy mefinen Honouuog enu mu m He>eq .unennunem ...Heem H: enu . UV eoneovegoo Honoflge enu mun H Hex/.3 .Heomea none onunnen edged no mnOfluHmom 0.5 good egg .eafinisneez .mmeumoum mflu uoonm mmnfieem .593 one @596 enu .u—o mmenmoum enu mmoomwo mwoueuuflomul menu mo 01min ewoamxe 3 95mm 303m one uneEoE uneoeu one 3835s 3.8903qu a 82m 8 flqfiuouflmn on? 2.an .935 mmeflen Honouumnuu mo 38 mmoomflo one.v euoflwumflol eoneuweoxe enu mo Uumun enu mo noHumoEHHeHo enouonwum one mmeooum Ulmln enu eumwumngueo 332.9: magmas oumnn fins eofiomuo 3838?. song? mmefien goofing oHeoqoum enu ou mm magma eumonoe 3.3.58: mmewmonm .muqomwouuwom nuns xmmu oenouemm mausogeum mmoomuol wow usage one fimnoeem e998? 3." noummem mfiegoo oumum ecu SUSuum mo mnfieu nun une>e enu mo mumwamnm no owooew one ecu mo Dim—Id enu mo onwwouoaumeu woanQn ou ewe munmmuouuwmm .nofinum.umu.n..H ammuflnu one naming 3 oeflmwoce en noo enu wow unoomu eeamuonuum enu no em: enu mfimmebm umnu muednnm mufiofie uenu eoneuuemxe named 33%? no onuuees mo xmou e5 nmummmu o>fi>lnu no nuts muqmmwowucnmm eofl>oum| .. .eonflfifiwem: Huenu 8 mm xomnoeem ego ages e>mn one unmououuhmm nose 5.? eowuomum weamneaou em: .eHomoHomflolmaem E nouummuecrnoo mo ungnenvqmnne enu one .ueE umom 96: 0:3 eamoem 95 efi 5953 328950 mo unefimflnfime .nomuem Honda—fin: enu mo caufififlmmeoom uue>o mo maneu nun nowuomueunu .333 nomweo .8328? no Sufi; nOuuosmHeunH 93 finance £89. :8: 9.89:me scum? 333 now 333% mundane. eoneflwemxe munu mo munenogbo oumua e5 openness Em comma 82238 an edema 3338 Sun; uomunoo @93ng mo eoneuuemxe enu mmoomflou nuns mfivfiemm wow. munomuowuhom ewmmewml meonefiuemxe emenu mo munenomEoo Ulmld enu 9:ng nu muennfln umummm one meonefluemxe n30 .eunomuowuuom Spam meanwnmxe ems: mmefien sen emenu nuns eouonuoo umfiu meonesmvemnoo Honouanne . manganese /\ onmmmm E5... 84 fine e5 53 30mm 2038”. 3333 no 2.83 nouugomeu one emwouexe nofluexeaeu mo mmenefimuoemme mmenmoum .munemwofiuuem HeHQOm e .xmeu oenmwmme 3335.93 mo nounmmnomflol now xoecoefl one uuonESm eofiSuml 5 eueoumaem no..nmneu one muednne nounmmem ”ken ecu euomec e35 mo noduusoeulmaem nun eoneuuemxe one umeea ue emueHexe chu 5 ememne ou xmeu nmummeu eoflbeum Hesuoe cu? musemfleflhem eo..n>oum| mmenefiuoemme one ems mu.“ «0 nounmmnemflo mueuxne one mmeuum e5 Segue» coflmxflmm 28% gummmumoum 868 B and? fie, 33m 938m? 83: "1.638% mo coflmfimcenme 9675- .Hmoflomun fie, 338% wee/8m. 3 838m @995 ecu cu..5 oenefi nefi eHe memevflem omega .333: mu m8 5:3 e83 B B ~“.3398 mo eHee defloemm one :3 eceu ou «eno umeoxe eueolmaem 5 bfluflmcommmu do mo 30> be 329.8 m "“386 e365 Refluflnfins use 333960 B “895.: ceee "emexoem eueonmaem e no nowueeue... huguHOnEO cu? muGemweHuHem eo..n>oum| meme; 32... $2 8 39.3% uomfie 8m ..m>m3 “833.. can flag menu 6:3 memos £93 @383 cu xeem mg =m>e3 Emu}. nH . Amonefid emoHo use Meem ides e now 03 =m>e3 umemfl}. one Sunc m . eno unoce uemqu .953on gm meze 55 ..m»m3 .83: . 3839a Segue .968. mnflzoucuv gmmens emusnsz "mewuomeueo eencu mnums unsc cu? menace mo mmez eueuenem mHeccmE e>ecu eoCeflHemxe enu mo Unmué ecu mo noflueofluueao mmeumoum .munemueflhea cu? xmeu oenmwmme ham50w>eum mesomflol mo Page one coecoeem mod/cum: 2" nounmmem noflmmem flan >e3 ecu ou yoga efimmceuu uecu muneEQ: uguumwwo eaceofiame maaenomuem e nun mmeooum Ulmnc mne mo Ulmld ecu mnwnouflng mo xmeu nmummen ecu mo eowuoeum oQoneunemo eogeml _ mnofluwmom He>ea mo , uno one oun..H euenueuae muecEeE Hecuo .mHeoeeH mfi 833 mfifimmqmb fl p.23 3 38 fimfi mmeumxe ou He>eH ceee Boone ou ..no..an= 30am: memoomuomn < onmemm E9350 85 0000 0000050000 05 00 05.550000 000 05000 000000000 05 5503 000000000 05 00 00000000 00000000 00000000 000500 00 5 0000050000 00500000 00 00 0000000 000 00003 5 000000000 030 0005 0000000000 000 00000000 00 0000000 . 00000000 0 0500000 500 000000000000: 000000000000 00.0 000000000000 00050: 050000 00 00 0: 00000000000 0000 0000000005 00 0580 00:3 £005.28 0580 000 0800 003 «00 55m 8. 0000000005 :0 00 00000000000005 0003 .50000 00 0003 000 300 000 .0030: 0050000 0500 00 0000000 00000000000 00 0000000000: 05000050 5 000000000000 000000.. A5000 0500 0900000 000 03 0003 000000000 0000 00 0000 000 ......000 >090 000 0.000 300.. I 0000000 03 000000 000000000 000 0000000 00 5 00050 .0000 000 000000000 00 0000 "0500 . .0.0V 00000000005 000000 000 5 000>0£00 0000050000 030 00.00000 0500 0.000 00 00000 0003 00 0000000000.. 005 0000090 00 000000000000 0000000000: 00000 0000000005 00 0000000 00000 503 005.095 00000000 05 300.00: 00 00000000000 00 000000000000 0000000.. 0* 0000000 5000000 0000 050000 00000000005 05 00 00 00000 00 300 000 .1050? 0005 050000020 0000050000 5 05000000 000000000 0000 00003 05.0000 00 00 00000 00 300 00 0000000000.. 005 .00 0000000008 95000000 5 0000000.. 30050000000 05.000000 0000 0000000003 005 000 .0000 0050000 00 00 08080 3000 00 000 .83080 man 90 300m 90 00 0000 0 503 0000000 05 00>000 00000000000 500 005 00 0000050 005 000 00000 000002 00000 05 5503 00000 00000000 0 00 00900098 >055 000 005 60000000 000 .0000? 005 .00 000 0003 .003 030000098 00.00 5 000000 0 00 000000000 0005 0000000 00 00000 5 000000 500 00 05.00 00 030 000 00 0000000 0 0000000 00000000000 500 .0004 .003 0000500008 0.000 5 000000 0 00 000000000 000 0000000 00003 00 0000000 000000 005 500.0 050000 00 0x00 00:03 0>0000000 000 000050 000 005 :80 05 5 000000 0000 00 00000.5 000 000000000508 00 05 00000000000 0 E8 3003 350000000 £30000 00 005..- 003080 907:0 0003 350003000 000800. 00 0000005 000>00030000000 0000005500000 0.0000000 000 03 300 .00 00 000000 $005000 00 000000000? 0000000000000 00 00000 00000005.... 20 0000000 5‘ 00008800 00300080 2000000 86 mmmggmm m0 3%: 0» mm 8303633 300003300 «0 003959.”? mmwhmoum . 3:033...th m0 3% 0:0 xomncomm 0350: o: 003m0m 003mmm £82 05 B .830 H0353 93mm «0 H93 85 . 3.803300 mfinouflcg m0 xmmp £039? 3.330%” ummm .350 350 030333 .9350 3000.80 :93 mm98>§mm 05.43va @3033 00000.78 m0 mmdvfiznno Hmbhmmno £33 mwmam 309.. 10.3 .983 25 53m m fifi? 590 2.83 3.3 Ba 9:» mg um 003300 0 93: 8 $0030 00¢ 00 00% 35 08.30 603..” 50300.."ch mo 000m :300 303V 0030003 053mm cm 5 30339." H050 05 «0 H0300 05 gmmsmwp. 3 83380.3 «0 0033:3000: 933mm 3 B flqfifloflfifi 05 3.4.300“ umfiu 90.3033 300 m0 00303me new Ammfliouma mmmamfiscwm B fiagmv 933mm 053 30 30633? no coflmmsomfl? 0:00 >330 03: >93 mm umsm 00.300305 05.05% m “0m 0380 3.3500 58 0:0 333 c0300 00300520 am com: 35.2.» 3x030 >30st 03 9030003 0.232 . 3E3 05 03 3:309:00 H050 .3floao 39: mm uoommm 3.39:0» 0:38.33 30093330 3 mmmgcwm c0903 m8cwummm3 08m mmflwumadfim 0:» m0 0039030: xomnmowm 05m @3303 mumufiflomw 8 33000: a 00m: 00 3 >30 30H mfiuomcmumm . “5300.805 05 5 03000 .30 3:83am m0 0033900 3330003 0:0 .038m 908. mo mmfiEmm 93833 mfiéflflmfl x9...» 30303 353mm 3.0.035.me m0 00.3333 u03§ “$3030 :30 H330 m0 305% 03303 5.3 320303 0050.. 903033 mmgflhwmmm 5 00300.00 02.275 54...», muqafloflhmm magma: mmmégmmm nigh 803033 00052 .8»qu 8 23a £3 Bcfifloflua $38? 003030 $339. 030 H35 H330: B muiflog 33333.. mmwcmfifiwmmm m0 0.30» 05 m0 cofluoavouufin mmmumoum . 300303 “0m 0.3996 3 x0033 003000: 94 00333 :03m0m 88: Q3 ou 0030 033960 00 B 33 30005530 05 no 05333 can @096 mmmDQHHumm EEO 283mm 87 Hogmnwn 053$: $3335 mo 8&3 may 5933 couflmqufiuomflo co 9:903 xwmu gamma magofirmum mo counmmsomfif mmmnmoum .3533qu How urn—095m and £03.88 @3ng «2 838m “25:3 9:33 mo 89%» 05 gg Baguomflv 3 Emma and an wasp £0.38 mumfio umfi mgmumg Em hang m4... mfiusflcg mo xmmu gamma... .3338 93 5E Eggnog umm macawufihmm mfi mono .mmcommmu m5 m0 coflmnwamnumxr #85 9.3 3 ~33 mm>flm zoom 8:09me man no 8.56 mfiuflg 0cm. .mmcommmu Dag 9.3 no wuflmdv $5 3 mm unmafioflumm m5 8 53m mfl xomnwmmm £33333 mfimoHomflo 93 B gamma was» 9:3 and mmcommmu ogmgm :38 333 Baaflogm .mpcgwumum 33 w amp? moum 98 @5090 B Gamma no 930200 H3839 m ucmmmnm comm muoumuflflommu Amfifimfl 93 mo 968 m5 9:8. 8.33: mo 82 “393 mfiv mfioqfimumua 33p cam .333: $ 0:3 acmumm 3... £3 mfififlfig .coflmoflflfio How gnoflmmnfi 59.93 c3930 . @993 8H>mvm mo m8cwummm€ can mmflflfiagm mo 533036.. mmagflnm mfiummfifioo .323 5d: 33950 595: 98 834 C30 H35 a.“ unmmmum 3 35 0533385 98 as»? ofi mo mug 95: 960mg 3 muguuommo Eu 5? 35.33% m3>8mu much mafia—Bung wagwuom cm 5 @5288.“ 5. muflubmum 5.."3 flammflog $3259: 053$ HmcomumnHkufi Sm 5 “32.“an @533 m0 mwmhu cmmfimn magnum? 2* 833m Uflmflcwwom .mfincmumumg mo mmxwfi mo counmmnomunvl gammy? m0 893 mung—Ham? 0.3me m3 ma 3.5.3 mam g2 80 30: 33mg >43“ magma mo mocgummxm 9.3 mm mumfio was 896.88: ma 8 38m pun 30: mo c0398? mo mmwcwnmsfi .muqmmfloflumm 333MB? How mfinmo mmméfluwmmm 05.”?ku mmcommmu gfluuwmmm cm 8.260.” umcu 85.3 :30 mcoflmsfim and; 838.5 633$qu .mucdmflgfima 5 mcoflmsuwm 03.3QO wfld 30H: 95: 54.5 macawowfimm mcgouml Baum £08 338 coflmmdomwo @595 can mmsvfluunnu ngwmno mfims 35m mmmjcwamu :Em mnodnocno c953 .Umummumpfic: £953 #93 mam 8.2 . 6.3 mmwdnoo How mcoflmsuwm mmmcm>fluhmmmm :méwom H3: ms» mo 203355 E Kama maoul Havana» 9.8 5.3 mofluomum 03ng mmmagm mmSHHHBmo zDHmmMm 88 .0000000 0003 0000000 0000000 000 0000000 B 000800 00 0800 000000 0003 008300080 0 00>00000 00.0 0000 00000000 0:0 008 0900 no.8 002 B 000 0:0 00000000 00000000 030 00000 0000000 000000 0000000000 00 000000000000 0005 00 00 0000.0 00 "000.00 .00 000000 0000000 0000000: 00000000000 080000 000 00000 00 00900000 00000 00 00000 0000 000000 000 00000000 00000000 0000000 .000 0000 000.0000 0000000 000 000000 00 000000000000 000 0003 000000000000 0006.0: 30000 000v 00000 000 00 000000 300 0003 000000000000 0000 00000000000 000 0000 00000 000 00000 000 .00 000000 00000008 00 0000000000: 00000 05000000 0000 00 000000000 .00 00000000 0300 00003 000.?00000 0000 00000 0000000 0000 000 00 000 00000000 000:00:000 0000 0000000000: 000080000005 8. 00 0000000 0:0 00.23 000000000 000 00 00000 050000000 00.0 000000 00 0009 90080 30068 05000 0.03 000800000 05 008000 05.. .0009 00080.. 00 0000 003000000: 00000000000 0003 0000000000 03000000 0000000000000 000 0000000000000 908. £03 8.80585 000600000 @0290 0003 000>0000 0000000 00 00000 00003 00000000000 5000000000 000 00 000000000 . 000000000000 000 00 00000000 0000 800000 0000000000 .00 0000000000: 00.0000 00 000000 .00 8000 0000000 000 00000 0090000050000 .00 00000000 00000 0000.0 000 000000000000 0000000: 000000 0000000 00 0000000000000 00000 0003 00000000 000>0000 0000000000 . 0>0>|00 000200: 0000000000000 008. .003 08380 5:8 00000.02. 00000000 . 000000000000 000 0000000 000 00000000 000>000: 00000000000 000 :0 000090 0:0 8000300005 00090000: 00000 000 .000000 0000000 0003 000000: m 00000 00 mo 00000000000 00 00 00000000 00 0000 000000: 0000000000 00000000 00>00 0900000 "0000 m 0000 00000000000 300 000000000 0000000900 "00.00 m 0000 00000000000 300 000000000 000000000 ”0000 m 0080500900 00000000000 00580 B 0.000000\00000 000000000 0000000000000 "0000 m “0300000 00 0000000000 000000000000 00 000000000000 000 00 000: 0000000000000 00000 0003 0000000000 0000000000000 0000000 0 0003 000000000000 000>000u 000000 0000000 00 0000000000000 0000a 0003 00000000 00050000 00000000000 .0>0>:00 00.0600: 0.... . m0 . 000 00000000 0: 800000 955950 il‘ l mama/HERO 89 wocmfiummxm ugoflglmawm mg sod 38 H33 Em am? no: :3 6m? S? uqaflowuflmm comm ”a? mo scammsomflo 33:6me _zmhmoum unmanOflHchmawm may CH mocmflummxm .muwgamu 20mm on :Cflumqu 2H AN* scammmm Ecumv masmmmo mocwflumgxm coauquhamu gu 85908 no munwuHSO mo scammdomwvu msfifimom m 53 muqmmfloflhmm weak/8m: a; cowmmmm “8m msfi pawns mflgm 0350.3 93 mo coflmfiqus .8: so .330: 3 xomncowm mfim muqafioflhmm cad muoumuflflomw Am mam: 8 wugunommo .2..st whammm 3 3.353 30.." flaws m5 mamflmmm an 98 mmmDQmUQmm Ego onwmmm APPENDIX D Skill Acquisition Measures Sel f-Ehricl'ment Program 90 Rational Emotive Training Please answer the following according to the scale below, by assigning a number anywhere along the continuum l 3 5 Not Very Much At All Indifferent So _ The Rational motive Training made me feel more in control of my thoughts and feelings . _IfoundthatIcouldusethistrainingathoneonmymn. __ 'Ihe Rational Emotive Training was easy to understand and clearly presented . _ I have become nore aware of my thought processes and how they affect my feelings, through this training. Please answer the following briefly and clearly: 1) Please explain Albert Ellis' A—B—C theory. 2) Using your answer to No. 1, please list two of your own recent enotional experiences and " fit them" into this A-B—C theory by describing each cauponent part of the enotional experience . l) i 2) 91 Relaxation Training l 3 5 Very Very Difficult Neutral Easy __ How easy was it for you to initiate the relaxation response with this training? (when you first did it in the group) Same question as above except now (when you tried it at home on your own). How many times have you tried to initiate the relaxation response through this training? Were there any parts of your body that were resistant to relaxing? If so, what parts? Prior to completing this questionnaire , please attempt to fully initiate the relaxation response with this training and reanswer the first and third questions above . Were there If so, what parts? 92 Genuineness/Assertiveness What are two things that keep you fran being genuine/assertive in all of your interactions? 1) 2) Briefly describe the difference between assertiveness and genuineness. List two ways to "defuse" the power of the other (often demanding) person, when you find yourself in a position of wanting to assert yourself. 1) 2) 93 apathy/Understanding List 3 different ways of helping others and describe (recall the ways we discussed in the grouP) 1) 2) 3) What does it mean to help someone by being understanding? Give an understanding response to each of the following: A) "I don't know what to do...If my boyfriend leaves me I'll feel lost, yet the relationship is too hard as it is now - we always argue . " B) "I got a 3.5 inthe course and I shouldbehappy, but if I didn't blow the final I might have had a 4.0." APPENDIX E Producet-mment Cbrrelation Matrices of Each Treatment Cbndition ' s Dependent Measures 94 Product-htment Correlation of Pre- and Post—Treatment Dependent Measures Organized by Clusters Self-Enrichment Cbndition (_11 = ]4)* Pre-Treatment ARS SE IoC-I Def-K Am IoC-P LoC-C P Am (76) 3o -19 06 -07 4o 32 3 SE 36 (61) 3o 44 —12 -22 -24 T ICC-I -28 09 (45) 30 13 -16 --40 T R g Def-K 13 28 31 (85) 60° -36 -68b 1'}; Am 16 -18 -27 45 (59) -49 -71b f; Inc-P -02 05 -02 -38 -31 (64) 81a T LoC-C 03 -09 —67b -63b -19 3o (76) a2 < .001 by 2-tailed test. hp 4 .01 by 2-tai1ed test. CE < .05 by 2-tailed test. *All decimals anitted, nultiple by .01 for 5. 95 Prodmt-bhnent Correlation of Pre- and Post-Treatment Dependent Measures Organized by Clusters Interpersonal Condition (1; = ]O)* Pre-Treatment ARS SE IoC-I Def-K Am IoC-P IoC-C ARS (86) 76a 23 -37 11 14 28 S SE 52 (65) 25 -1o -14 —03 3o :- IoC-I 32 —03 (85) 18 -04 -11 -26 T R E Def-K -2o -05 -23 (81) 18 22 -23 1'; ARO 3o -49 41 ~04 (52) 55 ~07 g IoC—P -25 -so -05 -12 46 (84) 59 1; IoC-C 04 -05 -55 -17 15 59 (79) 5‘2 < .01 by 2-tailed test. *All decimals anitted, nultiply by .01 for g. 96 Prodmt-meent Correlation of Pre- and Post-Treatment Dependent Measures Organized by Clusters Control Condition (3 = 13)* Pre-Treatment ARS SE IoC-I Def—K ARO loC-P LoC-C P ARS (77) 7713 so 69b 72b -60° -58° 3 SE 64° (90) 66° 53 64° -40 —55° T IoC-I 51 49 (70) 14 55° -20 -37 T R i Def-K 32 39 37 ‘ (84) 77b —71b -60° 3 AK) 36 21 35 79° (77) -68b -7oID g LoC-P -52 -29 -53 -35 -46 (69) 73b T IoC-C -47 -53 -36 -48 -53 69b (88) ap < .001 by 2-tailed test. b2 < .01 by 2-tailed test. °p_ < .05 by 2-tailed test. *All decimals omitted, nultiply by .01 for _r;. APPENDIXF Means and Standard Deviations of the Dependent masures ' "Ideal" Dimension 97 Pre- and Posthreatment Dependent.MeasuneiMEans and Standard Efimensions on the "Ideal" Dimension and Their Shifts (Post minus Pre) Treatnemt.Condition Self- Total Enrichment Interpersonal Cbntrol Measure (n = 37) (n = 14) (n = 10) (n = 13) ARS Pre 27.84 (4.16) 26.86 (4.13) 27.50 (2.88) 30.08 (3.30) Post 27.37 (4.70) 26.64 (6.83) 28.10 (3.07) 27.47 (4.19) Change -0.22 0.60 -2.61 LoC-I Pre 40.15 (5.41) 40.14 (6.37) 38.70 (5.68) 41.62 (4.19) Post 39.18 (6.00) 38.57 (6.64) 39.20 (5.05) 39.77 (6.30) Change -l.57 0.50 -1.85 ARO Pre 32.95 (3.50) 33.14 (4.82) 32.70 (2.16) 33.00 (3.51) Post 32.56 (3.59) 32.23 (5.28) 32.60 (1.58) 32.85 (3.91) Change -0.91 -0.10 -0.15 IoCBP Pre 19.36 (6.47) 22.14 (7.83) 16.10 (5.67) 19.85 (5.90) Post 19.45 (7.11) 21.79 (10.22) 15.80 (4.96) 20.77 (6.14) m -0035 .0030 0092 IoC—C Pre 18.10 (5.66) 19.00 (6.69) 16.60 (5.38) 18.69 (4.92) Post 19.06 (5.43) 20.43 (7.59) 16.60 (3.57) 20.15 (5.13) Change 1.43 0.00 1.46 APPENDIX G Mean Change Scores and Standard Deviations of ARS Scale Arcl'rors 98 Acceptance vs. Rejection of Self (ARS) Mean Change Scores (Post minus Pre) and Standard Deviations of Scale Anchors Treatment Conditions Treatment Self- Inter- Total Enrichment personal Control mum: m=3n (n=M) (n=m) m=1n Hides/Shows Pre 5.85 (2.11) 5.57 (2.06) 5 30 (2.21) 6.69 (2.06) Feelings Post 6.06 (2.15) 6.14 (1.70) 5.80 (2.30) 6.23 (2.45) Change 0.57 (1.70) 0.50 (1.78) -.46 (1.39) Guarded/ Pre 5.58 (2.03) 5.21 (1.93) 5.30 (1.77) 6.23 (2.39) Expressive Post 5.79 (2.15) 5.71 (1.98) 5.20 (2.30) 6.46 (2.18) Change 0.50 (1.56) -o.10 (1.85) 0.23 (2.45) Active/ Pre 6.17 (2.02) 5.71 (2.13) 6.10 (1.79) 7.15 (1.63) passive Post 6.78 (1.61) 6.57 (1.74) 6.70 (1.49) 7.07 (1.61) Change 0.86 (1.46) 0.60 (1.07) -.08 (1.38) Sul'missive/ Pre 5.42 (1.58) 4.29 (1.49) 5.40 (1.65) 6.15 (1.46) Enudnant post 5.23 (1.60) 5.14 (1.51) 5.10 (1.97) 5.46 (1.33) Change 0.86 (1.29) -0.30 (0.48) -o.69 (1.55) REFERENCES REFERENCES Achenbach, T., & Zigler, E. (1963). Social competence and self-image disparity in psychiatric and nonpsychiatric patients. m1. of Abnormal and Social 25921121291 16(3) 0 197'2050 I Adams, 8.8. (1964). “Mental illness“ or interpersonal behavior? American W. 1.4. 191-197. Alberti, R., & Emmons, M. (1978). Ion; perfect right. San Luis Obispo: Impact Publishers. Averbach, 1.3. (1976). Group mental health consultation with college dormitory counselors. Mina]. of American College Health Winn. 21(4). 211-217. Avery, A.W. (1978). Communication skills training for paraprofessional helpers. American Journal, of Community W. 5(6) . 583-591. Bandura, A.T. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. anghglggiga1,3exien..81. 191-215. Berry, K.L., & Miskimins, R.W. (1969). Concept of self and post-hospital vocational adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 2531211912911. 31(1). 103-108. Birkeland. 12.0. (1983). Rational anniintrainins for shyness rsdnctinni An unexpected. failure. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Butcher. (LR. (1969). mi mwm clinical applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. Butcher. 3.11. (1977). use strum}. for indusirial medical screening. Unpublished manuscript. Butler, J.M., & Haigh, G.V. (1954). Changes in the relation between self-concepts and ideal concepts con- sequent upon client-centered counseling. In C. Rogers, W and wants change (pp- 55-75)- Athens, Ohio: University of Ohio Press. Caplan, S.W. (1957). The effect of group counseling in junior high school boys' concepts of themselves in school. Journal of Consulting W. A. 124-128- 99 100 Carney, C., & Barah, A. (1976). A survey of student needs and Student Personnel Services. Journal of, College Student Personnel. 11(4). 280-284. Chickering. A. (1972)- Edooation and ideniitx- San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Coopersmith, S. (1959). A method for determining types of self-esteem. Journal of Abnormal and Sooial Earsholoox: 52, 87-94. Cowen, E.L. (1982). Help is where you find it. Amerloan Psreholoeist. 21. 385-395. Cronbach, L., 5 Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure 'change" or should we? W1 Bulletin. 11(1). 68-80. Davis, K.L. (1974). Mental health consultative services in residence halls. Journal of .the College Health Association. 21(2). 98-101- DeMan, A.F. (1982). Autonomy-control variation in child rearing and self-image disparity in young adults. 2§¥£hfllflflifinl.flflfifllifim 51; 1039-1044. DeMan, A.F. (1983). Self-image disparity and adjustment in young adult females. Earsholmioal Resorts. .51. 78. Downey, R., & Sinnett, E. (1980). Characteristics of students seeking mental health services. Journal_ of College Student Personnel. 21(1). 9-14. Durlak, J. (1979a). Assessment of paraprofessionals on- the-job performance in an outpatient child guidance clinic. Journal of Community Esroholoor. l. 348- 353. Durlak, J. (1979b). Comparative effectiveness of parapro- fessional and professional helpers. ‘zayonolooloal Bulletin; fifi. 80-92. Ellis, A., a Harper, R.A. (1975). A,neu_ouide.ro.rarional lining. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Ellis, A. (1977). RET: Research data that suggests the clinical and personality hypotheses of RET and other modes of cognitive behavior treatment. Counaellno Psychology. 1m 2'42- Piedler, F.E., Dodge, J.S., Jones, R.E., 5 Hutchins, 3.8. (1958). Interrelations among measures of personality adjustment in nonclinical populations. Journal, of Abnormal and. Social W. 5.6.. 345-351- 101 Fleming, J.S., & Courtney, H.E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem. Journal of Personalirx and Social Boreholoor. 4s(2). 404-421. Foa, V.G. (1961). Convergence in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behaviors. Reyonolooioal 82113.8. 18.: 341' 353- Fondacaro, M.R., Heller, R., & Reilly, M.J. (1984). Development of friendship networks as a prevention strategy in a university megadorm. The Eeraonnel_and Enioance.Jonrnal. 52. 520-523. Fox, B.H. (1982). A psychological measure as a predictor in cancer. In J. Cohen (Ed ). Percholooioal aspects of oanoer (pp. 275- -295). New York: Raven Press. Friedman, I. (1955). Phenomenal, ideal, and projected conceptions of self. Journal of Abnormal. social Rsrcholoor. 51. 611-615. Gershon, M., & Biller, H. (1977). The orher heloere, MA: D.C. Heath 8 co. Gerstenhaber, L.M. (1975). Acceptance versus rejection of other and self in personality self reports. Disserrarion.Absrracts.International.1o. 4418-4423. Ghannam, J. (1984, April). Counseling cutback. The arare m5! 3(53)l p- 3. Gough, H.G., Lazzari, R., & Fiorvanti, M. (1978). Self versus ideal self: A comparison of five adjective checklist indices. Jonrnal.of.consnlrino ano.§linical Esrcbolocr. Ab(5). 1085-1091- Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Amerloana,xieu their menral,healrn. New York: Basic Books. Hathaway, 5.3., & Meehl. P.A- (1951). An atlas.for.tbe clinical nae of rhe MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Heilbrun, A.B. (1961). The psychological significance of the MMPI K-scale in a normal population. Journal of Consulting Psycholoor. 25(6). 486-491. Helper, M.M. (1955). Learning theory and self-concept. Jonrnal.of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51. 184-194. Helper, M.M. (1958). Parental evaluations of children and children's self-evaluations. Journal of Abnormal.ano Social Boreholoer. Eb. 190-194. 102 Henderson, M., & Hollin, C. (1983). A critical review of social skills training with young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1.0(3). 316-341. Hillson, J.S., & Worchel, P. (1957). Self-concept defensive behavior in the maladjusted. Journal of Consnlrino Psycholoer. 21. 83-88- Holmes, 0.3., 5 Jacobs, 3.2. (1972). Comparison of students who sought help and their expectations of counselors in a university dormitory and counseling center. Journal.of.consnlrinc.and.Clinical.2srcbolos!. 32(2). 269-272. Hurley, J.R. (1976). Two prepotent interpersonal dimen- sions and the effects of trainers on T-groups. Small Group beharior. 1. 77-98. Hurley, J.R. (1980). Two interpersonal dimensions relevant to group and family therapy. In L.R. Wolberg and M.L. Aronson, Crouo,anfl,family,rneraoy. New York: Brunner- Mazel. Hurley. J.R. (1985). Interpersonalbebariorirateriaranoe and personal securirr operations. Unpublished manuscript. Jacobsen, E. (1938). Progreaaiue‘nelaxarion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kassinove, H., Crisci, R., & Tiegerman, S. (1977). Developmental trends in rational thinking: Implications for rational emotive school mental health programs. Journal of Commits Esxcboloox. 5. 266-274- Katz, P., & Zigler, H. (1967). Self-image disparity: A developmental approach. Journal or and Social REYQDQIQQY. 5. 186-195- Kissinger, D. (1981). Marina, £rienfia, (videocassette). Hinghamton. NY: Psychological Services, State University of New York at Hinghamton. Knaus, W. (1977). Rational emotive education. Ineory_inro ' 1.6,, 251-255. Leary. map. (1957) . Interoersonal diagnosis or oeraonaliry. New York: Ronald. Levenson, H. (1973a). Perceived parental antecedants of internal, powerful others and chance locus of control orientations. neoelopmenral larcholoeo. 2(2). 268-274. 103 Levenson, H. (1973b). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal. of. consulting and clinical nuohologx. 11(3). 397-404. Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Eersonalirv. Assessment. 3.8.. 377- 383. Levine-Welsh, P.C. (1983). The effects of three treatments which incorporate reational emotive techniques and assertion skills training upon locus of control and assertive behavior in adult women. International. JAM-A) . 990-991. Lorr, M., Katz, M.M., 5 Rubenstein, R.A. (1958). The prediction of length of stay in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Pancholsru. 22. 321-327. Martin, M.A. (1984). The effects of communication training on self-concept and reading ability. Diaaerrarion Abstracts International. run-A). 3287. McIntyre, T.J., Balfour, J.D., 5 McIntyre, S.L. (1984). Case histories and shorter communications. aenaoioral Research Theraoies. 22(3). 311-310. Menlo, A., 5 Johnson, M.C. (1971). The use of percentage gain as a means toward the assessment of individual achievement. California Journal of Foucational Research. 22(5). 193-201. Millon, T., Green., C., 5 Meagher, R. (1982). Millon behauioral health inrentorx manual (3rd. ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Interpretive Scoring Systems. Mitchell. G.W. (1973). Effecricenessofshorrotermoroub at College. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Oliver, R., 5 Berger, P. (1980), Advisability of pretest designs in psychological research. Peroeorual, and motor skills. :1. 463-471. Overall, J.R., 5 Woodward, J.A. (1975). Unreliability of different scores: A paradox for measurement of change. Esxcholocical.bu11etin. £2; 85-86- Philips, S.L., Raiford, A., 5 Hl-Hatrawi, S. (1965). The Q-sort reevaluated. Journal of Consulting Esrcboloor. 22(5), 422-425. 104 Philips, L., 5 Rabinovitch, M.S. (1958). Social role and patterns of symptomatic behaviors. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psuchologx. .51. 181-186. Philips, L., 5 Zigler, E. (1961). Social competence: The action-thought parameter and vicariousness in normal and pathological behaviors. Journal, of, Abnormal and Social ESXQhQIQQYJ 52. 137-164. Philips, D.A., 5 Zigler. E. (1980). Children's self-image disparity: Effects of age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity. and gender. Journalof Personalitu and. Social Psxcholoox. 12(4). 689-700. Pierce, R.A., 5 Shwartz, A.J. (1977). Reflections on mental health consultations to residence hall pgsgggel. Journal of College Student Personnel. 1S(2) . Ries, H. (1966). The MMPI K-scale as a predictor of gigonosis. JournalofclinicalPsycholoou. 22. 212- Rogers, C., 5 Dymond, R.F. (1954). Payonorheraoy, and oeraonaliry,onange. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rogers, C.R. (1958). The self-concept in paranoid schizophrenia. Journal of clinical Psycholoou. 1.4. 365-366. Rogosa, D.R., 5 Willett, J.B. (1983). Demonstrating the reliability of the difference score in the measurement of change. Journal of. Educational Measurement. 211(4). 335-343. Rosen, E. (1956). Self-appraisal, personal desirability, and perceived social desirability of personality gang; Journal of Abnormal and Social Pmmbou. 5.2. Rosenberg, :4. (1965). Society. andtheadolescentself; image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control of reinforcement. Psuoholmioal Honourabhs. sou). (Whole No. 609). Rudikoff, P.C. (1954). A comparative study of the changes in self-concept in the ordinary person and the ideal in eight cases. In C. Rogers (Hd.), Payenorneraoy and oeraonalirg,onange. Ohio: University of Ohio Press. 105 Satz, P., 5 Baroff, A. (1962). Changes in the relation between self-concepts and ideal-concepts of psychotics consequent upon therapy. Journal 28151121991: .61. 291-298. Schilling, K. (1984). The peer counseling program in the residence halls of the University of Florida. Journal of.American College.Hea1th.Association. 22(3). 182-184. Sharma, S.L. (1956). Some personality correlates of change in self-esteem under conditions of stress and support. Journal.of Education and.Psrcho1ocr. Ii. 154-165. Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., 5 Stanton, G.C. (1976). Self-concept validation of construct interpretation. .Beuieu.of.Hducationa1.Hesearch. AS. 407-441. Sheehan, M.J. (1981). Constructs and "conflicts“ in depression. Sritish.Journa1.of. Psycholocr. 12. 197- 209. Small, D.J.. 5 Hurley, J.R. (1978). Work effectiveness and personal attributes of mental health paraprofessionals. In R.M. Nash, N. Lifton, 5 S.H. Smith (Eds.), The - Selected readinos (pp. 286-301)- New Haven: Advocate Press. Smith, 3.3. (1959). Defensiveness, insight, and the K- 33§1§57 Journal of. consultinc Psycholoor. 21(3). Spence, A.J., 5 Spence, S.H. (1980). Cognitive changes associated with social skills training. Behaxior Research.and.Iherabx..18. 265-272. Sweetland, A. 5 Quay, H. (1953). A note on the K-scale of :3: 31:121”. Journal of.Consu1tino .Psrcholoor. 1114). Thompson, J.R., 5 Fiddleman, P. (1973). Counseling outreach in a dormitory. zeraonnel, and Journal. 51(10). 734-738. Tucker, L.A. (1982). Relationship between perceived somatotype and body cathexis of college males. Percholoeical.neuorts. so. 983-989. Vinick, R.A. (1983). The effects of assertiveness training on aggression and self-concept in conduct disordered adolescents. Dissertation. Abstracts. International. 41(6), 1982. Watson, D. (1982). Neurotic tendencies among chronic pain patients: An MMPI item analysis. Pain, 11(4), 365- 385. 106 Wiggins, J.S. (1982). Circomplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P.C. Kendall 5 J.N. Butcher (Eds.) . Handbook of research mothsrls in clinical psychologi- New York: Wiley- Ziegler, F.J., Rodgers, D.A., 5 Kaiegsman, S.A. (1966). Effect of vasectomy on psychological functioning. Psuchosomatic Medicine. 2.8. 50-63. Zuckerman, M., 5 Monashkin, I. (1957). Self-acceptance and psychopathology. Journal of consulting Psucholoor. 21. [II III ”I "all I T'l 5” H V" N“ U" E“. fl " u H 9 3 4 o 8 5 0 3 0 3 9 2 1