ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF SMALL SELF-UNDERSTANDING GROUPS ON THE SELF-CONCEPT AND ANXIETY LEVEL WHEN GROUP COMPOSITION HAS BEEN VARIED By Patrick w. McCary The purpose of this study was to investigate the human environment of students as represented by small self-understanding groups. The study focused upon the impact of three different group compositions (homogene- ous, heterogeneous and complimentary) upon the self- concept and anxiety level of undergraduate students. The composition of groups was Judged to be a crucial area to examine because of the known impact of peer groups upon their constituents and the importance of understanding how groups might be used to optimize anx- iety and enhance self-concept in the collegiate environ— ment. The literature in the area of small groups indi- cated that groups do influence their constituents and that the composition of groups was indeed a crucial vari- able in this impact. It was also shown that groups Patrick W. McCary could be formed so that the behavior of the group mem- bers could be predicted. The research design included the use of nine, small self-understanding groups (six to eight people) composed of undergraduate volunteers from the east cam- pus residence hall complex of Michigan State University. These students were assigned to either a homogeneous group (all members identical in personality type), a heterogeneous group (members have a wide range of per- sonality characteristics), or complimentary group (mem— bers are alike on some personality variables and differ- ent on others). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was used as the vehicle to vary the group compositions. Each group was led by a trained group leader who was a graduate student in student personnel work, with previous small group experience. The group leaders were instructed to behave in a non—directive fashion because of the focus of the study upon the interaction of stu- dents with students. The groups met for a total of 13 sessions. The first and last sessions were occupied with pretesting and posttesting. A total of ll treat— ment sessions were held, with the groups meeting twice a week for six weeks. The results of the study indicated no significant differences at the .05 level of significance from pre— test to posttest on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale or Patrick w. McCary Trait Anxiety Inventory for the three types of groups (homogeneous, complimentary or heterogeneous). The results from the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Respect, Empathy and Congruence Scale) also showed no significant differences at the .05 level of signifi- cance for the three different group compositions. A significant quadratic anxiety trend was found in the heterogeneous group at the .05 level of signifi— cance. No significant trend was indicated for the com- plimentary or homogeneous groups. These results sup- ported the hypothesis that the heterogeneous groups would experience more state anxiety than either the homogeneous or complimentary groups. The complimentary group reported that they would be more willing to volunteer again for a self- understanding group, understood themselves better after the group experience and had their expectations ful— filled to a greater extent than the homogeneous group members at the .05 level of significance. No signifi- cant differences were found between the heterogeneous group and complimentary or homogeneous groups on the same questions. Another discriminating question showed that both complimentary and heterogeneous groups indicated a significantly greater desire to continue their group experience than the homogeneous group. Patrick w. McCary The interactive effects of personality type and group composition were also explored. The results of the interactions were computed to explore areas for future research. The area of interactions was con- sidered a fruitful area for further investigation. The analysis of the Rokeach Value Inventory sug- gested that students who differed in personality type also held different values. The analysis of pretest trait anxiety comparing feeling types with thinking types did not support the hypothesis that the differ- ent types would significantly differ in their trait anxiety level. THE EFFECTS OF SMALL SELF-UNDERSTANDING GROUPS ON THE SELF-CONCEPT AND ANXIETY LEVEL WHEN GROUP COMPOSITION HAS BEEN VARIED By Patrick wl McCary ‘ A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere apprecia- tion to the members of his guidance committee, Dr. w. Harold Grant, Chairman, Dr. Dozier Thornton, Dr. Walter F. Johnson and Dr. Max Raines for their supervision through— out the doctoral program. He is also grateful to the secretarial staff of Lyman Briggs College, Miss Dori Card, Miss Sandy Dosser, and Mrs. Becky Morgan for their time and effort in work- ing on this study. The writer also extends his thanks to Gary Demarest, Walt Shaw, Pam Clark, Jim Archer, Jody Rotty, Bob Mauro— vich, Bill Donohue, Marilyn Mikilousky, and Les Leone for their tremendous cooperation and help in leading the groups. He also wishes to thank Jud Carlberg for his help in setting up the study and for his friendship of the past three years. Very special appreciation is extended to Mr. Eldon Rouse, Dr. Donald V. Adams, and Dr. W. Harold Grant, each of whom have had an extremely important impact upon my life. Mr. Eldon Rouse, as my high school basketball coach, encouraged me to have confidence in myself by ii having confidence in me and letting me know it. Dr. Donald V. Adams had confidence in me as a professional and let me know it. Dr. W. Harold Grant has had patience and confidence in me as a student, but much more impor- tantly has understood me as a human being. Without this understanding the present thesis would never have been started or completed. A deep appreciation is extended to my parents and sister, who in life and death, are extremely important to my thinking and behavior. The most special appreciation is extended to my wife, Diane, who has experienced the joys and difficul- ties of the last three years, and whose encouragement and understanding has sustained me in a way which cannot be expressed through words. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLLS LIST OF GRAPHS LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. Statement of Purpose Statement of Problem Need for the Study Definitions Assumptions Limitations . Hypotheses Tested Self-Concept Anxiety . . . . . . Respect, Empathy and Congruence Friendships. Feeling vs. Thinking--Trait Anxiety. Overview of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Self-Concept . Anxiety. . . . . . . . Relationship to Self-Concept Trait and State Anxiety. Group Composition . . . Homogeneous Groups Heterogeneous Groups. Complimentary Groups. III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE Selection and Description of the Population and Sample iv Page ii vi ix Chapter Page Formation of Groups . . . . . . . . 36 Homogeneous Groups. . . . . . . . 37 Complimentary Groups . . . . . . . 37 Heterogeneous Groups . . . . 38 Selection and Background of Group Leaders . . . . 39 Organizational and Testing Procedure . . A1 Instrumentation of the Study . . . . . AA Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. . . . . AU Tennessee Self-Concept Scale . . . . 50 Factor Analysis of Tennessee Self- -Concept Scale. . . . . . 53 State- Trait Anxiety Inventory . . . . 55 Rokeach Value Scale . . . 58 Barrett— Lennard Relationship Inven- tory (Respect, Empathy, Congruence Scales) . . . . 60 Factor Analysis of the Barrett- Lennard Relationship Inventory (Respect, Empathy, Congruence Scales) . . . . . . . . 63 Analysis of the Data. . . . . . . . 63 IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . 68 Self— ~Concept . . . . . . . . . . 68 Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Trait Anxiety . . . . . . . . . 71 State Anxiety . . . . . . 75 Respect, Empathy and Congruence . . . . 8H Questionnaire . . . . . . . 87 Interactive Effects of Group Composition and Personality Types . . . 91 Rokeach Value Inventory. . . . 102 Pretest Trait Anxiety Comparison Between Feeling Types and Thinking Types. . . . 10“ Results of the Research Hypotheses . . . 106 Self- -Concept. . . . . . . 106 Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . 106 Respect, Empathy and Congruence . . . 107 Friendships . . . . . . . . . . 107 Feeling Types vs. Thinking Types-- Trait Anxiety . . . . . . . . . 108 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. . . . 109 Summary of the Study. . . . . . . . 109 Discussion of the Study. . . . . . . 115 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1A7 Table 10. ll. l2. 13. LIST OF TABLES Pearson Correlations between Pretest and Posttest Scores for the Four Factors of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Multivariate Analysis of Variance Using Change Scores for the Tennessee Self- Concept Scale Analysis of Covariance for the Tennessee Self—Concept Scale . Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Mean Values and Standard Deviations Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Mean Values and Standard Deviations Pearson Correlation Between Pretest and Posttest Scores for the Trait Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Using Change Scores for the Trait Anxiety Inventory Analysis of Covariance for the Trait Anxiety Inventory Means and Standard Deviations for the Composite Groups on the Trait Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . . Trait Anxiety Inventory Mean Values and Standard Deviations . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance Using Change Scores for the State Anxiety In- ventory . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for the State Anxiety Inventory . Means and Standard Deviations State Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . vi Page 69 7O 7O 72 73 7A 7A 7A 75 76 77 78 79 Table Page 1A. State Anxiety Inventory Mean Values and Standard Deviations . . . . . . 81 15. Planned Comparison for the Homogeneous Composite Group on the State Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 83 16. Planned Comparisons for the Complimen- tary Composite Group on the State Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . 83 17. Planned Comparisons for the Hetero- geneous Composite Group on the State Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . 8A 18. Analysis of Variance of the Respect, Empathy and Congruence Scale . . . . 85 19. Means and Standard Deviations for the Composite Groups on the Respect, Empathy and Congruence Scale . . . . 85 20. Respect-Empathy-Congruence Mean Values and Standard Deviations . . . . - . 86 21. Question 1, Analysis of Variance . . . 89 22. Question 2, Analysis of Variance . . . 89 23. Question 3, Analysis of Variance . . . 90 24. Question A, Analysis of Variance . . . 90 25. Question 7, Analysis of Variance . . . 92 26. Question 10, Analysis of Variance . . . 92 27. Means and Standard Deviations for the Composite Groups for the Questions. . . 93 28. Means and Standard Deviations for the Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 9A 29. Kendall's Coefficients of Concordance for the Three Composite Groups on the Rokeach Value Inventory . . . . . . 104 30. Analysis of Variance for Feeling and Thinking Types on the Trait Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . . 105 vii Table Page 31. Mean Values for Feeling and Thinking Types for the Trait Anxiety Inventory. . . 105 viii Graph 10. ll. 12. 13. 1“. LIST OF GRAPHS State Anxiety Inventory 2; Heterogeneous- Composite Quadratic Relationship TSCS 1; Interaction with Intraversion- Extraversion. Question A; Interaction with Intraversion- Extraversion. Question 10; Interaction with Intraversion- Extraversion. Respect, Empathy, Congruence; Interaction with Feeling-Thinking. Question A; Interaction with Feeling- Thinking . . . . . . . . . . Question 7; Interaction with Feeling- Thinking . . . . . . . Question 10; Interaction with Feeling- Thinking . . . . . . . Question 2; Interaction with Intuition- Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . Question 3; Interaction with Intuition- Sensing . . . . . . . . . . Question A; Interaction with Intuition- Sensing . . . . . . . . . . Question 7; Interaction with Intuition- Sensing . . . . . . . . . . Question A; Interaction for Judging- Perceiving . . . . . . . . Question 7; Interaction for Judging- Perceiving . . . . . . . . ix Page 82 96 96 96 98 98 98 98 101 101 101 101 103 103 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. B. ’TUDTC’ H. State and Trait Anxiety Inventory Rokeach Value Survey Respect, Empathy and Congruence Scales Questionnaire to All Group Members. Comments Recorded on the Questionnaire Distribution of Personality Types Among Volunteers. Group Attendance. Instructions to Group Leaders Letters to the Students Page 1148 151 1514 158 162 183 185 187 193 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of different group compositions upon the self- concept and anxiety level of undergraduate students. This purpose then is related to how peer groups influ- ence their constituents and how small groups might be used to facilitate movement towards the goal of self- understanding in an atmosphere which is conducive to the enhancement of self—concept and proper handling of anx- iety. The importance of such a study will be shown through the following research studies which have exam- ined stress on the college campus. Statement of Problem In the past decade a number of researchers have examined the collegiate environment with the purpose of trying to understand the effects of this environment upon the student. A number of these assessments seri— ously question the assumption that collegiate environ- ments support the development of a majority of students. A recent and extensive study was done by Katz (1968) in which he followed entering freshmen at Stanford in 1961, through their college days until 1965. Using intensive individual interviews along with other psychometric data, Katz (1968, p. 3) concluded, "The collegiate environment is a highly controlling one, and it creates stress in many students." Katz (1968, p. A) continues to say that in between the students who are able to use such an environment to their advantage for development and those who passively accept the environment as part of their life styles are: the bulk of students, whose lives never reach an adequate expression of their potential because they are handicapped by inadequate self-awareness and inadequate self-assertion, as well as by the environment, whose demands and constraints dis- courage their spontaneity. Similarly disturbing data was collected by Trent and Medsker (1968, p. 78). Their research indicated that only 28% of the A,000 students studied graduated with their original entering classes after four years of col— lege. Summerskill (1962), in his review of the litera- ture, found that A0% graduated with their original clas- ses. Such information leads one to speculate as to where the energy of many students is directed. Some evi— dence would indicate that they are occupied with devel— opmental tasks which are not easily accomplished because of the constraints of the collegiate environment. (Katz, 1968). Offering support to this idea is the research of Bratten (1965) and Bryun and Seiden (1965) who found that the suicide rate among college students was significantly higher than the general population of the same age. Wer- dell (1966, p. 75) projects: There will be 1,000 students who take their lives this year, 9,000 others who will attempt to do so and 90,000 more who will threaten suicide. Other students will react to stress less violently. Ten to fifteen percent, without proper treatment, will have emotional problems serious enough to jeopar- dize their happiness and effectiveness in college and later. Countless more students will experience the most severe psychological problems of their lives. Although these studies do not prove that a causal relationship exists between the collegiate environment and suicides, it does offer support to the notion that college is not an ideal environment for all people and perhaps, as Katz has suggested, not for a majority of students. Others have also recognized that the experi— ences of college can be quite stressful. Sherburne (1966), Snyder (1966), Farnsworth (1957), Sanford (1967), and Blaine (1967) have discussed at length the possible stresses of being an adolescent involved in the transi- tion period between youth and adulthood and attempting to cope with the tasks as structured by the college. Perhaps a key to some of the stress experienced by students can be found in the lack of attention which most collegiate institutions give to the pressing needs of adolescent human beings who are groping for both U relevance and intimacy from their collegiate world. Heath (1968) in his study of Haverford students found that many of them had pressing maturational needs which had to be met before they could continue at maximum efficiency in their intellectual pursuits. Sanford (1967), Katz (1968), Fransworth (1957), and others have also recognized the inextricability of the social- personal and intellectual needs of the college student. Werdell (1966, p. 78) argues: The administrations of a large number of colleges . do not officially admit that student psy- chological problems exist. It is clear, accord- ing to John Schell, that educators at a good many American colleges and universities need some edu— cating themselves. In contrast to the very real need for professional guidance in the area of social and personality develop- ment of students, Katz (1968, p. 256) concludes: that the university as an institution showed relatively little interest in facilitating their social development. The challenge of aiding youth in developing academic, intellectual, and vocational skills was its area of competence, and the problem of supplying housing, social facilities and personal guidance was seen as a peripheral task. The students related to each other in ways that were both constructive and destructive, by trial and error, they developed varying degrees of social skills and responsi- bility, in spite of egocentric involvement with their own pressing developmental tasks, they offered various kinds of guidance to each other. In spite of the lack of social and personal guidance in many colleges, the development of the total person is often espoused as a goal for higher education. In fact, anyone who has read statements of purpose set forth by educational institutions cannot help but be struck by their committment to the accomplishment of something greater than the acquisition of knowledge. Yet, this something is often so etheral that its accomplishment is left to the initiative of the student and faith that the student's presence in the college environment will lead to a positive experience, and that this in turn will lead to the unfolding of the human potential of that student. Grant (1969, p. 27) has asserted that the colle- giate experience takes on relevance for many students only when it is integrated with their becoming a person. He views the narrowly defined curricular tasks as being a potential hindrance to the broader view of college as a place where students can come and develop the necessary behaviors needed to find greater fulfillment in life. Other educators would even go so far as to say that human understanding should not be a tangential concern of edu- cation but should be the primary focus. Edgar Frieden- berg (1967, p. 221) puts individual awareness of a per- sonal nature at the head of educational priorities when he says: The highest function of education I would main- tain, is for people to understand the meaning of their lives, and become more sensitive to the meaning of other people's lives and to relate to them more fully. The examination of the necessary conditions for such understanding to take place represents the primary focus of the present study. Need for the Study Before students can proceed in direct and purpose- ful ways in acquiring new behaviors they must have the opportunity to understand what behaviors they already have well developed and what behaviors they need to learn. The conditions for this self—exploration are of vital importance. Research will be presented in Chapter II which will show that groups develop certain “climates” which can either facilitate or impede the willingness of individuals to explore their personalities. The climate is greatly influenced by the behavior and personality styles of the other group members. Different personality styles require different group climates to optimize the anxiety level necessary for creative exploration. Integrally related to the group conditions neces- sary for self-understanding and self-exploration are the concepts of self-concept and anxiety level. These two personality components may be affected by the group cli- mate, and if this climate is too threatening it may cause some students to withdraw and inhibit further communica— tion with the group. It will also be shown in Chapter II that anxiety and self-concept are related to a number of behaviors which are of crucial importance to the goals of the student and institution. Many of the implications for self-understanding groups can also be applied to a student peer group. Often students live in residence halls or similar places of residence where people around them may affect their self-concept and anxiety level. A number of studies have shown that the peer group has a powerful effect on stu— dents. Some studies indicate that this influence is the most powerful in the entire university community includ- ing the influence of faculty. Since this impact does exist and since some students need a very supportive human environment to assist them in overcoming stress related to the developmental problems of adolescence, the understanding of how student groups can be used to accomplish these purposes is a fruitful area for examin- ation. Definitions 1. Homogeneous group - A group whose members are similar on each of the four dicotomous scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 2. Complimentary group - A group whose members share at least one of the four primary orientations (Intuition, Sensing, Feeling, Thinking) on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator, but does not possess any members scoring identically. 3. Heterogeneous group - A group whose members represent a wide range of personality characteristics as determined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and which does not have any two members scoring identically. A. Self-understanding group - A small group (six to eight members) whose purpose is to explore thoughts and feelings which help them to better understand them- selves. The task, once stated is left unstructured to allow each group to develop in a manner consonant with the needs of the group members. 5. Trait Anxiety - Operationally defined as the score on the Trait Anxiety Inventory. It may be anal- ogized to potential energy. "It indicates a latent dis- postion for a reaction of a certain type to occur if it is triggered by appropriate (sufficiently stressful) stimuli." Spielberger (1968, p. 22) Different individ- uals are predisposed to react in different ways to a wide range of stimuli with a sympathetic nervous system reaction. 6. State Anxiety - Operationally defined as the score on the State Anxiety Inventory. It may be anal- ogized to kinetic energy and "refers to an empirical pro- cess which is taking place now at a given level of intens— ity." Spielberger (1968, p. 22) It is the actual experi- encing of anxiety due to a "threatening" stimulus situa— tion. 7. Self-Concept - Operationally defined as the score on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. Assumptions The research hypotheses rest upon the assumption that similarity of personality type leads to more common ways of perceiving and responding to the world. The com— monality then should lead to greater acceptance and understanding between participants. The experience of being accepted and understood should lead to a less stressful group experience and one which enhances the self-concept. The assumption that greater understanding will lead to less stress is consistent with the findings of Grinker (1958, p. 136) who found that the best method of producing anxiety in subjects was to impede communi- cation in a dyadic relationship--to feign misunderstand- ing behavior. Limitations Perhaps the most outstanding limitation imposed on the present study was the use of volunteer undergraduate students. This method of drawing a sample limited the ability to generalize the study's findings to those stu- dents who would volunteer to participate in a small self- understanding group. Another limitation arose due to the frequency of use of the State Anxiety Inventory. The instrument was 10 administered at the end of four of the group sessions in order to assess any anxiety trends present in the differ- ent types of groups. Some degree of resistance to fill— ing out the inventory was expected. It is entirely pos— sible that this resistance may have taken the form of careless completion of the form. The final limitation was a result of the lack of complete standardization of physical facilities and meet— ing times for the groups. Because there were nine groups involved in the study, the meeting rooms for the groups were not identical. It was also impossible to schedule each group to meet at the same time on the same days. However, given the differences in rooms and time sched- ules, all groups sat in a circular formation without any obstruction between group members. Hypotheses Tested Self—Concept l. Homogeneous groups will experience a greater enhancement of self-concept than complimentary groups. 2. Homogeneous groups will experience a greater enhancement of self-concept than heterogeneous groups. 3. Complimentary groups will experience a greater enhancement of self-concept than heterogeneous groups. Anxiety Respect, 11 Homogeneous groups will experience less state anxiety than complimentary groups. Homogeneous groups will experience less state anxiety than heterogeneous groups. Complimentary groups will experience less state anxiety than heterogeneous groups. Homogeneous groups will experience a greater decrease in trait anxiety than complimentary groups. Homogeneous groups will experience a greater decrease in trait anxiety than heterogeneous groups. Complimentary groups will experience a greater decrease in trait anxiety than heterogeneous groups. Empathy, and Congruence 10. ll. 12. Homogeneous groups will experience greater respect, empathy and congruence than complimen- tary groups. Homogeneous groups will experience greater respect, empathy and congruence than heterogen- eous groups. Complimentary groups will experience greater respect, empathy and congruence than heterogen- eous groups. Friendships 13. 14. 15. Homogeneous group members will establish more friendships outside the group than complimentary group members. Homogeneous group members will establish more friendships outside the group than heterogeneous group members. Complimentary group members will establish more friendships outside the group than heterogeneous group members. 12 Feeling vs. Thinkingf-Trait Anxiety 16. Feeling type individuals will experience greater pre-test trait anxiety than thinking type indi- viduals. Overview of the Study Chapter I deals with the statement of the purpose, identification of the problem and need for the study. The limitations, definitions, and assumptions of the study and research hypotheses are also presented in this chapter. Chapter II reviews the literature on self- concept, anxiety and group composition. Chapter III dis- cusses the research design, procedure, instrumentation and the analysis of the data. Chapter IV presents the results of the study. Chapter V summarizes and discusses the results of the study and their implications. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Since the present study will focus on the effects of variously composed self-understanding groups and how they affect the self-concept and anxiety level of their members, the literature in these latter two areas will be examined. Literature on group composition will also be reviewed and, where possible, related to the research on self—concept and anxiety. Finally, implications will be drawn from the literature in these three areas and related to how educators might form groups or utilize existing groups in helping students to better accomplish the task of self-understanding in an atmosphere condu- cive to the enhancement of self-concept and the proper handling of anxiety. Self-Concept An examination of relevant literature in the area of self-concept reveals how certain experiences and asso— ciates in an individual's life can lead to an enhancement or diminuation of his self-concept. Ashcraft and Fitts (1964) found that individuals undergoing psychotherapy experienced an enhancement of self-esteem on 18 of 22 13 1U variables measured by the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. This was compared to a control group composed of subjects who were waiting for psychotherapeutic treatment and who experienced significant increases on only two of the 22 variables. Conversely, using the same instrument, Givi- dens (1959) found that paratroopers who were exposed to severe physical training, where the threat of failure and embarrassment were constantly eminent, experienced a diminuation in self-esteem as a result of their exper- iences. The troops who experienced failure were found to have a significantly greater loss of self—esteem than those in the passing group although all troops studied experienced a significant loss of self-esteem. Studies reviewed by Feldman and Newcomb (1969, p. 237-239) lend support to the idea that the self- concept is susceptible to influence through associations with others. The work of Davis (1966) showed that a student's concept of his academic abilities and chances for success in future occupations was influenced more significantly by his peers than by the general ability level of students entering his chosen field from all colleges and universities. Studies conducted by Skager, Holland and Braskamp (1966) and Astin (1963) also indi- cated that high ability students who attended college with other high ability students were more likely to 15 have a lower opinion of their abilities than students of high ability who attended schools with students of lesser ability. An interesting study by Asch (1956) has relevance for the view that the behavior of others in a small group can influence the perceptions and reactions of some indi— viduals. Asch formed groups of seven or eight indivi- duals where all members but one were confederates of the experimenter. He then proceeded to have the confederates purposefully give incorrect reponses to simple judgments concerning the length of lines. The results indicated that about one-third of the experimental subjects were deflected to give an erroneous answer in the face of group unanimity of incorrect responses. Also recognizing the influence of others on self- image are Borel (196A) and Sherwood (1965) who assert that the self—image is molded by the most significant others in one's environment. Wylie (1961, p. 121) in her review of the literature on self-concept concurs: (a) The self-concept is a learned constellation of perceptions, cognitions and values. (b) An important part of this learning comes from observing the reactions one gets from other per- sons. (c) The parents are the persons who are present earliest and most consistently. Anxiety Research studies reviewed in the area of anxiety reveal its close relationship to self-concept. These 16 studies offer substantial support to the idea that indi— viduals who are high in anxiety tend to have lower esti- mates of their own self-worth. These studies will be discussed, along with the work of Spielberger (1968), in which he dicotomizes anxiety into two major components-— trait and state anxiety. Relationship to Self—Concept Fitts (196A) reports_a correlation of -.70 between the total positive score of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and anxiety scores obtained from the Taylor Mani- fest Anxiety Scale. This correlation lends powerful support to the statement which Fitts makes regarding the importance of overall self-esteem as reflected by the total positive score on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and anxiety related feelings. Fitts (196“, p. 2) states: Persons with high scores tend to like them- selves, feel that they are persons of value and worth, have confidence in themselves, and act accordingly. People with low scores are doubt- ful about their own worth; see themselves as undesirable; often feel anxious, depressed, and unhappy; and have little faith and confidence in themselves. Levitt (1967) points out that an individual high in anxiety is more easily threatened by others than low anxiety individuals. This leads to a lower estimate of himself because he is so easily threatened. Rosenberg (1962) and Suinn and Hill (196A) also found an inverse l7 relationship between self-concept and anxiety. Rosenberg found a correlation of -.68 between self—esteem and anx— iety using the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale with junior and senior high school students. Suinn and Hill, working with college students, found a correlation of —.58 between self-esteem and anxiety using the Test Anxiety Questionnaire. These findings help make clear the relationship between anxiety and self-concept. In the same way in which self-concept is affected by the significant others in one's environment, anxiety may be viewed as being influenced. Grinker, et. a1. (1968) found that the single most effective way to produce anxiety in experi- mental subjects was to have an experimenter feign misun- derstanding behavior in a dyadic relationship. This method was superior to the threat of electrical shock and a number of other methods tested in an attempt to induce anxiety and was judged to be the single most effective way of producing an anxiety response across all types of experimental subjects. Trait and State Anxiety V An interesting finding in the research of Spiel- berger (1968) indicates that anxiety can be viewed as having two characteristically distinct components. He labels these as the ttalt of anxiety and the ttate of anxiety. The concept of trait anxiety encompasses the 18 general amount of physiological arousal which is charac- teristic of the individual. This arousal is mediated by an extremely complex interaction of cognitive and chemi- cal factors. Spielberger finds that individuals differ in their feelings of experiencing this general physio- logical arousal level. The other distinct component of anxiety is state anxiety which is characterized as an elevation in the general physiological arousal level due to a stimulus constellation which excites the individual. He notes that individuals who characteristically report a higher amount of trait anxiety also experience a greater elevation in their state of anxiety when threat— ened by some particular stimulus. Group Composition It has been shown that self-concept and anxiety are highly related to each other and are capable of being influenced by the significant others in the environment of the student. The present section has as its primary purpose the examination of research on how small groups composed in different ways affect certain outcomes. The possible impact on self—concept and anxiety will be of special interest in this review, although few studies on group composition dealt directly with these two areas. After reviewing a number of research studies, a major conclusion which this author reached was that sup— port for almost any type of group composition can be 19 found depending upon the purpose of the group under con— sideration. Because of the tremendous variance in research designs, number of participants in a group, and utilization of different independent and dependent vari- ables, it was considered helpful to draw upon the work of Harrison (1965), Stock (196A) and Haythorn (1968) who have presented excellent reviews of the literature on group composition and have reached some conclusions which are very relevant for the present study. These three reviews will act as a framework for relating the other studies which offer a great diversity in conclusions. Perhaps the most obvious conclusion which Harrison (1965), Stock (196“) and Haythorn (1968) reached was that group composition does have a definite effect upon a wide variety of outcomes associated with human behav- ior. In reaching this conclusion they review research studies whose most common method of forming groups or dyads was the homogeneity-heterogeneity method. This method of formation consists of taking high scorers and low scorers on some variable (attitudes, values, person- ality variables, symptoms, etc.) and then forming the groups or dyads with either all high scorers, all low scorers, or a combination of high scorers and low scor- ers. The homogeneity-heterogeneity dicotomy will be found in most of the following research studies presented. 2O Homogeneous Groups A number of studies were found which lend support to the concept that individuals who are similar on cer— tain variables are more attracted to each other than they are to those who are less similar. Izard (1960) found that people who are attracted to each other were more similar on personality profiles as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule than randomly matched pairs. Izard (1960, p. 50) concluded that, "personality similarity or similarity of affect needs and ways of expressing affect is a significant factor in interpersonal attraction." Jackson (1959) studied friendship choices of 36 female employees of a utility company and found that friends were more similar than non-friends on scores for security, sociability, and ascendance. He found greater attraction for similar profiles than for complimentary and opposite profiles. Precker (1952) states that college students chose to associate more with faculty members and peers who are similar to them in values. The study was conducted using sociometric ratings to assess friendship formations and an open ended questionnaire to rate 39 value criteria. Eigenbrod (1969) found that the more similar college roommates were on the Myers-Briggs Type Personality Indi- cator, the more satisfied they were with each other. 21 Kelley (1955) did a longitudinal study from 1935 to 195“ to determine the impact of marriage upon a number of dependent variables of marriage partners. He studied mental ability, values (Allport V-L), Bernreuter PI, Bell Adjustment Inventory, and Remmer's Generalized Atti- tude Scale. He states that he initially found correla- tions among couples in the range of -.02 to .58 on these scales. This lack of negative correlation for the 300 couples studied lead Kelley (1955, p. 680) to conclude: "We found no evidence to support the opinion that oppo- sites attract." After the follow-up study was completed he did not find any significant differences on these scales. In other words he did not find a homogenizing effect on any of his outcome measures. Of special interest in the present study are ways in which homogeneous groups might be used to help stu— dents explore similar characteristics together, there- fore enhancing the self-understanding process. Haythorn (1968), Harrison (1965), and Stock (196A) all concluded that groups which were homogeneously formed reflected the modal characteristics of the individuals in the group. This means that groups composed homogeneously along any particular dimension will evidence a pattern of behavior consonant with the pattern evidenced by the individual constituents. Harrison (1965) cites the following examples of this general tendency in homogeneous groups. Glidewell (1958) found that groups with a preference for depen- dency (present themselves as weak and appeal for help from others) and flight (members tending to withdraw) show less activity than groups characterized by fight (major way of interacting with others involves the expression of hostility and aggression) and counter- dependency (persons present themselves as strong and actively resist accepting help.) Stock and Luft (1960) formed experimental groups on the basis of trainer rat- ing of individuals as high and low on need for structure. High structure groups were found to be more active and expressed less emotion than the low structure groups. Harrison and Lubin (1965) found that by forming groups of work-oriented members and person—oriented members, differences in the expression of affect was readily dis- cernible. Schutz (1961) found that a homogeneous group of "counterpersonals" were judged to be unable to deal with feelings. Bass and Dunteman (1963), Lieberman (1958), Hill (1955), Hill and Stock (1958) are other studies which demonstrated the ability of researchers to compose and predict the behavior of participants. Closely related to the idea that homogeneous groups are a direct reflection of the homogeneous variable used 23 in their formation is an important concept which Harrison (1965, p. A26) refers to as "The Multiplier Effect". He states: "There seem to exist processes in the homogeneous group which tend to influence individuals to be- have in much more predictable ways than they nor- mally do. It is as though there were a kind of "Multiplier Effect" which operates when people who are selected to have some interpersonal char- acteristic in common are placed in a relatively unstructured group setting." He continues to say that members who are similar on a particular characteristic tend to place similar demands upon the group. The similarity of demands may be either reciprocal or antagonistic. The concepts of Haythorn (1968) become helpful at this point in understanding this reciprocity or antagonism. Haythorn categorizes relationships as (a) congruent or incongruent (b) com- plimentary or not, and (c) competitive or not, depending upon the variable under consideration. An example of a competitive homogeneous group would be all individuals high in need to control. A homogeneous group formed this way would be antagonistic in Harrison's model. The con- stituents would place a similar demand upon the group, but obviously all group members cannot fulfill their need to control. The result of their situation would exem- plify Harrison's "Multiplier Effect". If, however, all members were high in need for affection and were willing to both give and receive affection, the group would oper- ate to reciprocally meet the needs of these individuals. 2A This latter example illustrates Harrison's "reciprocity principle" and Haythorn's "congruence relationship". Haythorn's conception of incongruence and complimentarity are not applicable to homogeneous groups, but will be discussed in the heterogeneous and complimentary group sections. The important conclusion to be drawn from these examples is that homogeneous groups can be experienced as either highly distressing or very pleasurable depend- ing upon the independent variable used in their forma- tion. However, in the present study it is hypothesized that the task of self-understanding operates to modify conflict and that the "Multiplier Effect" helps to high- light similarities among group members. This then allows a clearer view of how each individual operates and gen— erally provides an experience which is satisfying (increases the self-concept and diminishes anxiety due to a focusing on the common characteristics of the mem— bers and the realization that others are like you). It is, of course, the purpose of this study to test such a hypothesis. Another characteristic of homogeneous groups deserving attention is highlighted by a study conducted by Steele (1968) using the Sensing and Intuition Scale of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. He found that the very process of meeting in a small unstructured group 25 atmosphere is an experience more adapted to the intuitive type of individual. The important principle to be under- stood is that certain characteristics are facilitative of group functioning and others depressive. Conse— quently, groups formed with all intuitive types are more likely to approach the traditional T—group "laboratory style." Steele describes this style as being very closely related to the behaviors of intuitive types which he defines as "high activity, individuality, collabora— tion: a preference for helping, experimenting, dealing with feelings, becoming involved, understanding processes and relating them to other situations." He found that the six laboratory staff members were all extreme intui- tive types. Conversely these findings seem to point to the fact that some personality types may find the T—group experience to be counter to their personal behavioral orientation. Harrison (1965) supports the above view with research indicating that homogeneous groups concerned with authority, power and control will tend to interact in a hostile and aggressive manner and express negative emotionality (Glidewell [1958]). Schutz [1961]. He also states that task-oriented and self-oriented group members tend to express negative attitudes toward their groups when homogeneously composed (Bass and Dunteman [1963]). These findings indicate that although groups 26 may be useful to all individuals in understanding common characteristics, there may not be an intrinsic enjoyment of a low—structure experience for all personality types. The findings also imply that self—understanding may be considerably easier for some personality styles than for others because of a disinclination among some individuals for introspection, self-revelation or other behaviors which are usually associated with T-grouping. Heterogeneous Groups Conflicting conclusions about the effectiveness of heterogeneous groups were found throughout the litera- ture. There appear to be two schools of thought held by researchers who have evaluated heterogeneous groups. The first has been well stated by Stock (196A, p. A06). She concluded that heterogeneous groups "are likely to be less efficient at problem solving, to display more frustration and anger and a higher level of affect and to display less perceptual accuracy." Stock goes on to suggest that the reason might be that these groups "devote much futile effort in an attempt to resolve their interpersonal differences." Supporting data was presented by Altman and McGinnis (1960) who studied the effects of varying group compositions using the California Ethnocentrism Scale. They formed two homogeneous groups, one high and one low on ethnocentrism, and three groups which they termed 27 heterogeneous but which were not identically formed. Two of the heterogeneous groups contained either high or low ethnocentric majorities, the third heterogeneous group contained equal numbers of high and low scorers. The groups were evaluated on discussion behavior (spon- taneity, rate of response, spread of participation, dir- ection of response), attitude change, attraction to the group, sociometric preference, importance of discussion topic and accuracy of interpersonal perception. The findings indicated that groups composed of equal numbers of individuals scoring high and low on the California E Scale: manifested less spontaneity, a lower rate of response, and fewer number of opposition dir- ected communications, were least accurate in their perceptions of the opinions held by other members, and were least likely to choose socio- metrically others in the group holding views congruent to their own. Another researcher reaching a similar conclusion was Schutz (1958) who found that groups composed of equal numbers of personal and counterpersonal compatibles were less productive in accomplishing a number of group tasks than groups homogeneously composed of all personal compatibles and all counterpersonal compatibles. Furst (1951) in discussing work done with homogeneous and heterogeneous therapy groups asserts that heterogeneous group members identify with the group more slowly, insight takes longer, therapy is longer, attendance is 28 less regular, members show more resistance and destruc- tive behavior and less rapid symptom removal than homo— geneously formed groups. Opposing opinions are held by researchers who found heterogeneous groups to be superior in the perfor- mance of certain tasks. Hoffman (1955) (1966) used the Guilford Zimmerman Temperment Survey to match students from psychology classes on certain personality charac— teristics. He conducted the original study in 1955 using 70 homogeneous groups and 128 heterogeneous groups and replicated the study in 1966 using 15 homogeneous and 18 heterogeneous groups. His findings indicated that the heterogeneous groups consistently gave higher quality solutions to the tasks they were performing (role play- ing and case studies). Tuckman (196A) also found that heterogeneously composed groups performed better in stock market simulations than homogeneously composed groups. Haythorn (1968) cites Hoffman and Smith (1960), Hoffman and Maier (1961), Triandis, Ewen and Hall (1965) and Hoffman (1959) as also finding heterogeneously com— posed groups to be superior on certain tasks. He also cites Pelz (1956) who studies the productivity of scien- tists and engineers. He found that daily contact with colleagues possessing training dissimilar from their own resulted in higher productivity than daily contact with similar colleagues. These results imply that the 29 stimulation provided by others with dissimilar training contributed to higher productivity. The disparate nature of these two groups of find- ings (heterogeneity superiority and inferiority) might be reconciled by some of the findings of Haythorn and Altman (1966) who studied dyads of servicemen in isolated conditions. They found that dyads formed incompatibly on the variables of need achievement, need dominance, and need affiliation performed better than homogeneously composed dyads. However, they also experienced greater interpersonal stress. Haythorn and Altman concluded that stress can be functional to a certain point and then it becomes dysfunctional. The research of Lonzetta (1955) and Berkrun, gt_§l. (1962) supports this thesis of the curvilinear nature of stress. Harrison (1965) also supports the view that too much stress is possible in a group, and that it can threaten and confuse some individuals who find themselves in a situation where their personality style cannot find expression. This may occur if the behavior of the other group members is not readily comprehensible because it is so different. The relevance of these findings is that in some heterogeneous groups the increased stress from encounter- ing others different from you can be channeled into con- structive and purposeful activity. However, in groups where interpersonal interaction is highlighted and 30 release for interpersonal stress is blocked or unable to be channeled into meaningful activity, the experience can lead to dissatisfaction and lack of understanding. Hoffman (1966, p. 306) states that "the data suggests that there may be some point beyond which differences among group members are so great as to lead to destruc— tive interpersonal relationships in a group." Whitaker and Lieberman (196A) propose that therapy groups be formed homogeneously on "Vulnerability" because stress, which some members can tolerate and may indeed thrive upon, can produce defensive and disintegrative reactions in others. Complimentary Groups It is helpful to think of complimentarity in terms of reciprocal interaction leading to the satisfaction of the needs of two individuals. Thibaut and Kelley (1959) describe human interaction as being a sequence of payoff matrices. They conclude: Individuals develop a complex set of needs, the satisfaction of which requires particular kinds of relations with other individuals. This fact presumably leads men to seek other men with whom satisfactory relations can be established. Newcomb (1956, p. 5) concurs, saying that we acquire our attitudes and feelings about others through the "recip- rocal reward principle" which he defines as the rewards and punishments we receive in our interaction with oth- ers. Haythorn (1968) defines complimentarity as a 31 relationship between two individuals with different but mutually supporting need structures. He gives the exam- ple of the individual high in need to give nurturance being matched with an individual with strong dependency needs. According to the above definitions then, a compli- mentary relationship or group is one where the needs of the individual members are met through reciprocal inter- action. This is contrasted to the homogeneous type of group which may or may not be experienced as "recipro- cally rewarding" depending on the independent variable used in its formation, and the heterogeneous group which, as the previously cited literature has indicated, may be quite stressful. Harrison (1965) contends that the ideal training group is one where each member is confronted with meaningful alternatives to his personality style while at the same time receiving support for the values and orientations with which he enters the group. This allows for a stimulating but not totally confronting experience. Two basic needs are implicitly recognized in such a statement. These needs are stimulation and security. The work of Schultz (1965) on sensory depri— vation and the writings of Ardrey (1966) support the notion that every human being has these two basic needs in varying degrees. The important point to be drawn from this line of reasoning is that the complimentary 32 group by definition provides for the satisfaction of these two needs by providing what Stock (196A, p. A06) calls "bridging" members. These members are able to act as semi-interpreters for those in a group with opposing personality styles. This provides each group member with others who are able, on some level, to understand his personality orientation. It would appear from the above description that the complimentary group is the best under any circum- stances. But, as Harrison (1965) points out, it is not difficult to envision times when the homogeneously com- posed group could offer an atmosphere of support to an individual who for one reason or another is not able to tolerate the stress of the heterogeneously formed group or the more moderately formed complimentary group. Grant (1969) has employed the advantages of both the homogeneous groups and the heterogeneous groups. He first uses homogeneous groups briefly (three to four sessions) to help each personality type understand his personality orientation by talking about and experienc- ing the same characteristics in others and to map out strong and weak personality areas. These groups are then dissolved and heterogeneous groups are formed where confrontation with others with different personality styles helps the student to understand other personality orientations. The student then attempts new behaviors 33 which have been assessed as weaknesses in the more sup- portive homogeneous groups and which are modeled for him by his new group members. Such a procedure highlights the very important principle of determining the purpose of a group and then composing it along the lines appro- priate to the accomplishment of that purpose. The present study has conceptualized a complimen— tary group in a way which was not found in the litera- ture on groups. The complimentary groups were formed using the multi—dimensional personality theory of Carl Jung and composed so that each of the group members shared at least one of Jung's four basic functions (sens- ing, intuition, thinking and feeling). This allowed for a "common language", as Haythorn (1968, p. 103) terms it, which means that each group member shared a charac- teristic which was also shared by every other member in his group. The other dimensions of personality were then varied to allow for meaningful confrontation with others while at the same time having a common language necessary for some degree of interpersonal understanding. The literature on group composition, self-concept and anxiety suggests a number of questions to which the present study is addressed. Do different group compo- sitions have an effect on the self-concept and anxiety level of undergraduate students? Are different person- ality types more anxious than others? Is it possible to 3A discern differences in the atmospheres created within small self-understanding groups of differing composi— tions? The answers to these questions seem crucial in helping college administrators understand in specific ways the impact of students upon other students and how this impact might then be optimized. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE The present chapter will examine the selection and description of the population and sample, how the groups were formed, selection and background of the group leaders, procedure in setting up the study, design of the study, how the data was analyzed, and a description of instruments used. Selection and Description of the Population and Sample The sample was selected from among students who volunteered to participate. A letter asking for volun- teers for the study was sent to all students in Holmes, Hubbard, Akers, and Fee Halls. These halls were selected because of their geographic location. They were all in the same residential complex and it was thought that by drawing the sample from one region it would make atten- dance at the group meetings considerably more convenient for the students participating. The total number of volunteers was 178 students from four co-ed residence halls on the East campus of Michigan State University. 35 36 The students were almost evenly divided as to sex with 88 men and 87 women volunteering. The sample was predominately freshmen and sophomores. The distribution of volunteers by residence hall was as follows: Holmes Hall 91, Akers Hall 21, Hubbard Hall 37, and Fee Hall 29. Formation of Groups The nine groups were selected by the method of stratified random sampling without replacement. This meant that each individual's name was placed in a "hat.“ The groups were then formed by drawing the personality types from the 16 different types as needed to fill the groups. The groups were originally designed to each have eight members-—four men and four women. However, some personality types were not available in the original sample of 178 (see Appendix F for the exact distribu— tion of personality types) so that the groups requiring those types met with less than eight members. Also, after being selected, a few students indicated they were not interested in participating. In cases where this occurred before the first group session (no new members were added after the groups began) an attempt was made to replace them. However, some of the types that dropped out could not be replaced due to a lack of individuals of the suitable personality type in the remaining sample. Hence, these groups met with less than eight members. 37 After all changes had been made, the groups ranged from six to eight in number and had a total of 69 partici- pants. The exact composition of the groups will be rep- resented in the following discussions of the homogeneous, complimentary, and heterogeneous groups. Homogeneous Groups These three groups consisted of students who scored identically in personality type. The types with the largest number of volunteers were INFP, ENFP, and INTP. Out of the 178 volunteers, 98 were of these three types. These types were selected for homogeneous groups because the other types with eight or more volunteers did not have enough in excess to fulfill the require- ments of the complimentary and heterogeneous groups. The homogeneous groups were composed as follows: Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Type - INTP Type - ENFP Type - INFP Sex - A Females Sex - A Females Sex - A Females A Males A Males A Males Group leader - Group leader - Group leader - INTP female ENFP male INFP female Complimentary Groups The complimentary groups were originally formed on the basis of three criteria: (1) No two people were identical in personality. (2) At least one function of the four primary orientations (thinking, feeling, sensing 38 intuition) was common to each member of the group. (3) The remaining three functions were evenly distributed among the eight people. The complimentary groups were composed as follows: Complimentary Group 1 Complimentary Group 2 (intuition) (feeling) Tine. £931 "£122 ax INFJ male ENFJ male ENFJ female ISFJ female ENFP female ENFP female INTJ male INFJ male ENTP female ESFP male INTP male INFP female INFP female ENTJ male Group leader - ENFJ female Group leader - INFJ male Complimentary Group 3 (thinking) Type Sex ENTJ male INTJ female ENTP male ISTP female INTP male ISTJ female Group leader — ENTJ male The functions of feeling, thinking, and intuition were selected for complimentary groups because of the avail- ability of personality types in those areas. Heterogeneous Groups The heterogeneous groups were formed so that as much variation as possible was evidenced on the four scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. That is: (1) No two people were identical in personality type. (2) One function was not common to all people in these groups as was true for the homogeneous and complimentary groups. as follows: Heterogeneous Group 1 Type ENTJ INFJ ISFP ENFP INTP ISTJ Group leader - impact of students upon other students. a2: male female male female male male INTJ female The composition of the heterogeneous groups was Heterogeneous Group 2 Type ENTP ISFJ ENTJ INFJ ISFP INTP ENFJ Group leader - Heterogeneous Group 3 Type ENFP ESFJ ISTJ INFP ESFP ENTJ INTJ Group leader - Se_x female male male female female female male ESFJ male Selection and Background of Group Leaders ses. female female male female female male male ESFP male The main thrust of the study was to evaluate the Perhaps the ideal situation would have been to have had no group leaders. However, due to responsibilities of a A0 professional nature, group leaders were included in each group. The leaders were assigned to the groups by per- sonality type as may be noted in each of the groups above. The homogeneous group leaders were similar in personality type to the members of their respective groups. The complimentary group leaders had the compli- mentary function in common just as did all the other members of their group. The remaining three leaders were randomly assigned to the three remaining heterogen- eous groups. The group leaders were told nothing about the nature of the study in which they were participating, other than that they were to be leaders of a self- understanding group. (Communications with the group leaders may be found in Appendix H) They were instruc- ted to: behave in an unobtrusively quiet manner. This simply means that you should not be conspicuous in resisting participation or act in a way that connotes to the group that you have taken re- sponsibility for the success or failure of the group. You will participate when you feel it will help another understand himself while at the same time allowing others to play this role. If the group behaves in such a way that the anxiety level or self—concept of a particular individual is, in your opinion not being enhanced, then behave in a supportive manner. The group leaders were all members of the student development seminar in the college of education at Michi- gan State University. They were in their third consecu- tive term of the seminar and had been members of small Al groups as well as having been group leaders with students as part of their practicum experience. Each was at approximately the same level of professional development in terms of working with small self-understanding groups. Organizational and Testing Procedure Late in the winter quarter a letter was sent to all residents of Holmes Hall informing them that a num- ber of small self-understanding groups would be formed during the spring quarter. They were asked to register at the Lyman Briggs College office if they were interested in participating. A response of 91 students was obtained. At the beginning of the spring quarter a second request for volunteers was sent to the residents of Holmes, Akers, Fee, and Hubbard Halls. Interested students were asked to call the Lyman Briggs College Office. The second letter received a response of 87 students. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was then sent to each student who signed up either winter or spring quarter. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicators were scored and the groups were then formed using those students who met the criterion for participation described in the sec- tion on group formation. A meeting of all nine group leaders was called the second week of spring quarter to explain the A2 pretesting procedures to be used. (Directions may be found in Appendix H) Each group leader was asked to meet with his group to administer the pretest and to arrange for a suit- able meeting time and place. Some students were unable to attend the first pretest session, so make- up testing was held. The first group session was organizational in nature and was considered prelim- inary to the treatment sessions. The group leaders were responsible for finding rooms for their groups in the East Complex of residence halls. Because of the total of nine groups, it was impossible to schedule each of them in the same room. Two of the groups (Complimentary l--intuition and Complimentary 3--thinking) met in the group leaders' residence hall apartments. The other seven groups met in Holmes Hall in the coffee room, graduate advisor's apartment, and conference rooms. Before the first official treatment group meeting each of the selected participants was sent a notice. The notice stated that if he did not feel at this time that he would be able to participate that he should contact the Lyman Briggs College Office so that an alternate could be selected for him before the first group meeting. A few students responded and were replaced before the first treatment session. 10. 11. “3 No replacements were made after this initial treat- ment session. The groups met twice a week for six weeks. All groups met in the evening and each session was limited to one and one-half hours. Although they met in different rooms, all groups sat in a circular pattern without a table or other obstruction between them. Some groups met on consecutive days, while others met with two or three days in between. Each participant was administered the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, State—-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Rokeach Value Inventory, and a brief biographical data sheet at the pretesting session. The State Anxiety Inventory was administered again after the fourth, eighth, and eleventh treatment sessions of the groups. The inventory was adminis- tered at the end of these sessions with the direc- tions that they were to answer the questions as they felt at that moment. The posttesting was held at the last meeting of the groups and was not considered one of the 11 treat- ment sessions. The tests that were administered were the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale; Trait Anxiety Inventory; Respect, Empathy, and Congruence Scale and a brief questionnaire designed to survey the AA participants attitudes toward the group experience and their friendships formed outside the group. Instrumentation of the Study Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is an instrument which has as its underlying theory the different per- sonality types as conceived by Carl Jung. The selection of this instrument for composing groups was made because of the author's belief that Jung's theory offers a viable starting place in the experimentation with different types of human environments. One favorable aspect of the theory and test is the classification system which lends itself to examination. It is the accessibility to examination that makes the use of this particular theory of personality more conducive to defining different group compositions than some other schools of personality theory (i.e., Psychoanalytic, Rogerian). Another consid- eration is summarized by Julius Seeman (195“) who states: Generally, the most powerful kinds of research studies are those based on a theoretical position and designed to test theory derived propositions. This is true because theory exerts an organizing force which brings together and explains discrete facts and which points out the places where addi- tional knowledge is needed. Theory derived research thus contributes to a coherent body of knowledge. The present research then, should contribute some insight into the effects of students upon each other in small “5 groups based on the Jungian model of personality. It should also allow for additional research to build upon the present findings. The Myers—Briggs manual reports that "the purpose of the Indicator.is to implement Jung's theory of types." The instrument has four scales: introversion--extraver- sion, sensing--intuition, thinking—-feeling, judging-- perceiving. Consistent with Jung's theory, the indicator is scored in a dicotomous fashion utilizing the forced choice method to determine preferences on each of the four scales. By using this method the test allows for 16 personality types. Each of these types is hypothe- sized to be different depending upon the responses chosen on each of the four scales. Characteristics of the indi- vidual preferences are as follows: Preference as between Description of preference Extraversion or Extraversion: Tends to be Introversion interested in his environment, is more outgoing, meets the world with his dominant func- tion and is easier to get to know. Introversion: Prefers to deal more subjectively with the world and tends to be quieter and more difficult to get to know. Conceals his dominant function. Sensing or Intuition Sensing: Has a more concrete mode of perception. Prefers to deal with factual and ob- servable stimuli. A6 Intuition: Has a more abstract mode of perception and prefers theory. Tends to be more creative. Thinking or Feeling Thinking: Has a logical mode of responding, appreciation of systematizing and ordering versus the subjective and per- sonal. Feeling: Has a subjective mode of responding, prefer- ence for subjective and per— sonal expression versus logi- cal and calculated expression. Judgment or Judgment: Has a preference Perception for order and decision making. Perception: Has a preference for adaptability and postpone- ment of decision making and responding. Reliability. The author states that reliability studies show the nature of the sample seems to make a difference in the reliability coefficients obtained. In reporting reliabilities of a number of samples using the Spearman- Brown Split Half Prophecy Formula it was found that age, intellectual ability, socio-economic status made a dif- ference. The general range for all samples reported was from .60 to .9A. National Merit Finalists and college students from Brown University and Pembroke College, along with gifted seventh through ninth graders evidenced the highest reliabilities (generally in the .85 area.) In the Brown University sample of 100 men, the reliabil- ities were as follows for the four scales: EI .7A, SN .88, TF .90, JP .76. The sample of 100 Pembroke College 147 women had the following reliabilities: EI .81, SN .83, TF .8A, JP .8A. Gerald Mendelsohn reviewing the Myers-Briggs in Buros Mental Measurement Yearbook (196A) stated that since the instrument has been in existence for more than 20 years an unusual amount of reliability and validity data is available. The manual summarizes a great deal of this data. He found little data, however, on the stability of scores. Test—re-test data over a 1A month period found reliabilities of about .70 for the El, SN, and JP scales with a reliability of .A8 for the FT dimen- sion which appears to be the least stable of the scales. The authors of the manual say that the reliabilities of these dimensions are confounded in the test—re-test sit- uation by the developmental nature of the theory as hypothesized by Jung. Two assertions are made by the theory as pointed out by Mendelsohn: (l) The scales are bipolar and discontinuous, the zero point representing a true dividing point of psychological significance, i.e., the dimensions are dicotomous. (2) The four scales interact in a complex manner in relating to behavior. The basic limitation is that given the reliabili- ties of the scales "it seems risky to infer basic per— sonality differences when the omission or change of a single item could alter a subject's classification." Validity. The Myers-Briggs Manual presents data which indicates the preference for certain occupations A8 is correlated with certain patterns of scoring on the MBTI. MacKinnon and associates reported that in their creativity studies at the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research that 97 per cent of the creative men that were studied scored as intuitive types. The sample was 115 men who were architects, research scien— tists, writers, mathematicians. The same study also found 96 per cent of the creative women studied were of the intuitive type. The manual specifies that the num- ber of intuitives in the general population is 25 per cent. Other results presented in the manual show corre- lations significant at the .05 level and above for the different preferences with the Strong Vocational Interest Blank as follows: INP--with professional occupations such as psychologist, architect, physician and dentist; INTn-with technical scientific occupations such as math— ematician, physicist, engineer and chemist; ESTJ—-with production management; ENF--with uplift occupations such as minister, social worker, personnel director; NFP--with musicians; T--with certified public accountants; SJ--with business detail and administration including accountant, office man, purchasing agent, banker, mortician and pharmacist; ES--with business contact such as sales man- ager, real estate salesman and life insurance salesman; A9 NP--wlth verbal and linguistic such as advertising, lawyer, author-journalist; STJ--with president of manu- facturing concerns.A Additional data is presented which shows the fol- lowing correlations between the type preferences and the Allport Vernon Lindzey Value Scale: E—-.20 with politi- cal; S——.A6 with economic; T--.37 with theoretical; J-—.12 with economic; I--.20 with aesthetic; N--.3A with social; P—-.l6 with aesthetic. Data is presented in the manual showing correla— tions between certain preferences on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and certain needs on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, faculty rating of students' perfor- mance, job turnover, IQ, academic achievement and a num- ber of other measures. This data is far too extensive for review in the present study. However, readers inter— ested in these studies are referred to the manual for details. The manual also presents correlational data show— ing that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is highly related to an instrument constructed by two Jungian ana— lysts called the Gray-Wheelwright Psychological Type Questionnaire. The instruments were constructed concur- rently and independently. The correlation between IE, SN, and FT with the scales on the Gray-Wheelwright Ques- tionnaire are .79, .58, and .60 respectively. The author 50 states that the two tests might be conceived as being parallel forms. It should be noted that the JP scale is not found on the Gray-Wheelwright Questionnaire, there- fore explaining the absence of a correlation with the JP scale of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Tennessee Self-Concept Scale The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale consists of 100 short statements which are responded to on a five point scale: completely false, mostly false, partly true and partly false, mostly true, completely true. The scale was designed to evaluate several aspects of the self- concept: identity, self satisfaction, behavior, physical self, moral—ethical self, personal self, family self, and social self. The TSCS also gives a score for the overall self-esteem which is considered the most impor- tant scale because of its inclusion of the other sub- scales. Persons scoring high on the total self-esteem scale are described by the author of the manual as those who tend to like themselves, feel that they are persons of worth and value, and they behave accordingly. People with low scores are doubtful about their worth and value, often feel anxious and have little self-confidence. Reliability. The manual specifies that there is evidence that test—re—test reliabilities of from .80 to .90 have been found with repeated measures with the same individuals over long periods of time. Through various 51 types of profile analysis the author has demonstrated that distinctive features of individual profiles are present for most persons a year or more later. Validity. Four types of validity procedures are cited in the manual: (1) content validity, (2) discrim- ination between groups, (3) correlation with other per- sonality measures, (A) personality changes under partic- ular conditions. (1) Content validity: Assessment of the items included in the scale was performed so that final inclu- sion in the scale depended upon complete agreement as to the content by seven clinical psychologists. A larger pool of self-descriptive items were narrowed to 90 items which were classified by this method of complete rater agreement. (2) Discrimination between groups: A group of 369 psychiatric patients was compared with 626 non—patients. Highly significant differences (at .001 level) were found for almost every score that is utilized in the scale. Additional data included in the manual indicates that individuals rated high in personality integration were also significantly different from the 626 non- patient norm group but in the Opposite direction from the patient group. It was also found that different patient groups were discernible on their self-concept 52 profiles. Other studies were reviewed showing the ability of the scale to differentiate between various groups. (3) Correlation with other personality measures: The reader is referred to the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Manual for correlations with other instruments. Two complete tables of correlations are presented relat- ing the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale to the MMPI and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The authors of the manual indicate that the MMPI scores correlate with the TSCS "in ways one would expect from the nature of the scores." Correlations were based on tests of 102 psychiatric patients. Of the correlations with the EPPS Fitts (1965, p. 2A) says: ”The very nature of the two scales is such as to contraindicate very many high linear correlations.“ The data presented indicates non-linear relationships between most scores on the TSCS and EPPS. Fitts suggests that extreme high and low scores on both measures would be correlated. The correlations are too extensive and complex to be summarized adequately in the present review. (A) Personality changes under particular condi- tions: Two studies have already been mentioned in the review of the literature. One indicated that paratroop- ers experienced a significant decrease in selfvesteem as a result of their experiences in military training 53 (Gividens [1959]). Also cited was a study by Ashcraft and Fitts (196A) which indicated that individuals under- going psychotherapy experienced a significant increase on 18 of the 22 variables as compared with an increase on only two of the 22 variables for a non-treatment con- trol group of individuals waiting for therapy. Factor Analysis of Tennessee Self-Concept Scale The results of the pre and posttesting for the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale were collated at the Van- derbilt University Computer Center. The results con- tained 29 different sub-scores. This large number of sub—scores was considered much too unwieldy for statis- tical analysis. Consequently, the results were factor analyzed and yielded four major factors. The procedure of factor analysis combines highly correlated scores into one factor. The assumption being that highly cor- related sub-scores are measuring essentially the same thing. It is also assumed that by having such a large number of sub-scores the information gained through such specificity is not significant enough to warrant separate consideration. A description of the four factors obtained is given below. The first three are considered to have theoreti- cal relevance from the standpoint of self theory. Factor 18, although included in the analysis of the data, was 5A not considered significant from a theoretical perspec- tive. As mentioned above, the 29 factors were condensed into these four factors to facilitate statistical anal- ysis. Perhaps the most important factor is Factor 5, which indicates the overall level of self—esteem for the individual taking the test. Definitions of The Four Factors of Tennessee Self— Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965, p. 2 ) used in the Study: TSCS Factor #l-—The self criticism score This is a scale composed of ten items. These are all mildly derogatory statements that most people admit as being true for them. Individuals who deny most of these statements most often are being defen- sive and making a deliberate attempt to present a favorable picture of themselves. High scores gen- erally indicate a normal, healthy openness and capa— city for self-criticism. Extremely high scores (above the 99th percentile) indicate that the indi- vidual may be lacking in defenses and may in fact be pathologically undefended. Low scores indicate defensiveness, and suggest that the positive scores are probably artifically elevated by this defensive- ness. TSCS Factor #2--The true/false ratio This is a measure of response set or response bias, an indication of whether the subject's approach to the task involves any strong tendency to agree or disagree regardless of item content. The actual meaning of T/F can be approached in three ways. (1) It can be considered solely as a measure of response set and interpreted in terms of the findings about the meaning of deviant response sets. (2) It can be treated purely as a task approach or behavioral mea- sure which has meaning only in terms of empirical validity. In this sense the T/F ratio differentiates patients from non-patients and correlates signifi- cantly with other tests. (3) It can also be consid- ered from the framework of self theory. From this approach, high T/F scores indicate the individual is achieving self definition or self description by focusing on what he is and is relatively unable to 55 accomplish the same thing by eliminating or reject— ing what he is not. Low T/F scores would mean the exact opposite, and scores in the middle ranges would indicate that the subject achieves self defin— ition by a more balanced employment of both tenden- cies——affirming what is self and eliminating what is not. TSCS Factor #5--Total positive score This is the most important single score on the counseling form. It reflects the overall level of self-esteem. Persons with high scores tend to like themselves, feel that they are persons of value and worth, have confidence in themselves, and act accord— ingly. People with low scores are doubtful about their own worth; see themselves as undesirable; often feel anxious, depressed, and unhappy; and have little faith or confidence in themselves. TSCS Factor #18--Distribution sub—scores “This score represents a count of the number of fives marked on the answer sheet.” State—Trait Anxiety Inventory The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was developed from a pool of items which were obtained from the IPAT Anxiety Scale, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, and the Welsch Anxiety Scale. Items which had proven relation— ship to A-Trait were selected from this pool. These items were then rewritten to retain the content of the item but the form was altered to allow for use in both the A-Trait and A-State portions of the inventory. Levitt, (1967, p. 71), in reviewing the State-Trait Anx— iety Inventory comments: "The STAI is the most carefully developed instrument, from both theoretical and method- ological standpoints, of those presented in the chapter. 56 Other tests reviewed in the chapter were Taylor's Mani- fest Anxiety Inventory, MMPI anxiety measures, IPAT Anx— iety Scale, S-R Inventory of Nervousness, Fear Schedule Survey, The Assimilation Scales, Affect Adjective Check List, The Subjective Stress Scale, Freeman Manifest Anx— iety Test, Test Anxiety Questionnaire, and Achievement Anxiety Test. Reliability. Substantial internal consistency reliabilities indicate that values of between .80 and .85 for both the A-State and A-Trait portions of the inven- tory were obtained under normal conditions. The reli— ability on the A-State portion of the STAI for undergrad- uate college students who had just taken a difficult intelligence test was .92 and .93 after they had observed an upsetting movie. The K-R 20 internal consistency reliabilities as modified by Cronbach were used to obtain the above reliabilities. Test—re-test reliabilities for undergraduate students over a 10A day period indicated reliabilities between .70 and .80 for the A-Trait portion of the STAI. Test-re-test reliabilities for the A-State portion were substantially lower (approximately .30) as might be expected from the theory of the A-State. The concept of A-State as being a vacillating condition of physiological arousal which is dependent upon the con- ditions at the time of administration would provide a rationale for these low reliabilities. 57 Validity. The validity of the A—Trait portion of the STAI is presented in the manual in the form of cor- relations with other instruments of established valid- ity. A—Trait was found to be correlated .76, .79 and .58 with the IPAT Anxiety Scale, Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the Affective Adjective Check List, respec— tively, for a sample of 80 undergraduate men at Florida State University. The correlations were .75, .80 and .52 for a sample of 126 undergraduate females from the same institution on the above mentioned inventories. Correlations of .56 for males and .72 for females between the A—State portion of the STAI and the Zuckman Anxiety Scale (today form) were found for the undergrad- uate sample at Florida State. Validity studies for the A-State portion were also done utilizing four different experimental conditions. These conditions were relaxa— tion, normal condition, after taking a difficult examin- ation and after viewing a stressful movie. The results indicated that the A-State portion differentiated suc- cessfully between these four conditions with a progres- sion in anxiety from the relaxed state to the normal state to examination conditions and finally to the stressful movie. Full details of the results are reported in the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Manual (Spielberger, 1968) along with other results of studies which utilized the inventory. 58 Rokeach Value Scale The Rokeach Value Scale (Rokeach, 1969) consists of two separate lists of 18 values each. The first list is composed of "terminal" values which describe what might be called "end states of existence.‘' Such values as happiness, equality, salvation and true friendship are among the 18 terminal values which the subject is asked to rank from 1 to 18 depending on the priority he gives each value in his own life. The second set of 18 values are "instrumental" values and may be character- ized as being ways of behaving. Such values as cheer— ful, independent, loving and obedient are among the 18 values presented in this list. These values are ranked in the same way as the terminal values. Reliability. The reliability of the scale was determined by correlating (Rho) the rank-order of test data with the rank order of re—test data. The median reliabilities obtained for form E (the form used in the present study) with a college student sample of 189 was .7A for the terminal value scale and .65 for the instru- mental value scale over a three week interval in testing. Reliabilities for form D are reported as being .78 for terminal values and .72 for instrumental values over a four week, four day period with 36 students, and .78 for terminal and .71 for a seven week period using a sample of 100 college students. The two forms (D) and (E) are 59 identical except that form D uses gummed stickers to rank the items and form E uses a simple paper and pencil ranking of the items. Validity. Validity data in the form of discrimin— ations between different groups is presented by Rokeach (1969a) in his article ”The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research”. Rokeach (1969a, p. 555), states that the value scale discriminates between "men and women, hippies from non-hippies, hawks from doves, policemen from unemployed negroes, good students from poor stu— dents, fifth-graders from seventh-ninth and eleventh graders, retail merchants from sales clerks, Jews from Catholics, Democrats from Republicans, and so forth.” Rokeach (1969a) also presents data which indicates that different rankings on the value inventory are pre- dictive of differences in the behavior of certain indi- viduals. He cites differences in church going behavior as being significantly correlated to a high or low rank— ing of "salvation". Other data showed that students at Michigan State University who participated in civil rights demonstrations ranked "equality" fifth, while those who were unsympathetic toward civil rights demon- strations ranked it seventeenth in importance. Very interesting data was also presented on the differing values held by various political groups. Rokeach (1969b) studied the values of supporters of 60 Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, and George Wallace. He found that the values of a world of beauty, true friendship, wisdom, capable, clean, obedient, polite, responsible, and self-control were discriminating items. Barrett—Lennard Relationship Inventory (Respect, Empathy, Congruence Scales) One of the instruments used in the present study was an adapted version of the Barrett-Lennard Relation- ship Inventory. The inventory was administered in an endeavor to understand the perceptions of group members of their self—understanding groups on the dimensions of respect, empathy and congruence. The instrument was developed by Barrett-Lennard in an effort to measure the conditions of therapy which pro- moted client recovery resulting from a therapeutic rela- tionship. The inventory originally contained five sep- arate scales. These scales measured the therapists level of regard, empathetic understanding, congruence, uncon- ditionality of regard and willingness to be known. These scales were used to assess the feelings of the therapist about the client and the client about the therapist. The adaptions made for the present study consisted of drop- ping the scales of unconditionality of regard and 61 willingness to be known and then making the following changes in directions: (The full inventory is presented in Appendix C) ”Below are listed a variety of ways that one person could feel or behave in relation to another person (a group).* Please consider each statement with respect to whether you think it is true or not true in your present relationship with your therapist (group).* , Mark each statement in the left margin accord- ing to how strongly you feel it is true or not true. Please mark every one. Write in l, 2, 3; or -1, -2, —3, to stand for the followin answers: l: I feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. 2: I feel it is true. 3: I strongly feel it is true. -1: I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. -2: I feel it is not true. -3: I strongly feel it is not true. *-These words were substituted for the underlined words. Reliability. In order to shorten the testing time only the level of regard, congruence, and empathetic understanding scales were used. The reliability of each scale was computed using the Spearman-Brown Split half reliability formula. Reliabilities were computed for both client perceptions and therapist perceptions of the relationship. The following reliability coefficients were obtained: Level of regard, client data .93, 62 therapist data .93, empathetic understanding, client data .86, therapist data .96, Congruence scale, client data .89, therapist data .9A. Validity. Content validation of the scales was assessed by having five client-centered therapists judge each of the items for the directionality of the variable under consideration. They also rated the items from 1 to 5 and —l to —5 depending upon their perception of the strength of importance as a positive or negative indica- tor of the variable. Items which were agreed upon per- fectly by all five judges were included in the scales. The research of Barrett-Lennard showed a correla- tion between therapeutic change and different levels of respect, empathy and congruence as assessed by the rela- tionship inventory. The assessment of therapeutic change took the form of therapist and client ratings of the impact of therapy upon the clients. Also considered as outcome measures were the Q adjustment scale, Taylor Mani- fest Anxiety scale and MMPI D scale. Changes in the expected directions were found to depend on different levels of respect, empathy and congruence. They also demonstrated that expert therapists demonstrated more respect, empathy and congruence than non-expert thera- pists. ‘63 Factor Analysis of the Barrett- Lennard Relationship Inventopy (Respect, Empathy, Congruence Scales) The Respect, Empathy and Congruence Scales were factor analyzed to determine whether the scores were offering distinct information with respect to how the students felt about their groups. The results indicated that the scores on the three scales were highly corre- lated. Because the scales were highly correlated it was assumed that they were all measuring essentially the same thing. Consequently the scores for the three scales were combined to yield one total score. This total score was then used in the statistical analyses. Analysis of the Data The data collected was analyzed using a number of statistical and descriptive procedures. The computations performed in the study were primarily done on the 3600 computer. The first procedure used was a factor analysis of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and the Respect, Empathy, and Congruence Scale. The Tennessee Self—Concept Scale gave 29 different scores which were analyzed to find the major factors. Four major factors were found. The Respect, Empathy, and Congruence Scale was found to con- tain one major factor as a result of the factor analysis. Pretest and posttest scores on the Tennessee Self-Concept (3A Scale were correlated using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. A Pearson Correlation was also computed for the pretest and posttest measures on the Trait Anx- iety Inventory. Both the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and the State—Trait Anxiety Inventory were analyzed using a mul- tivariate analysis of variance with change scores. The change scores were a result of subtracting the pretest score from the posttest score (in the case of the State Anxiety Inventory, the first administration score was used as the pretest measure.) Analysis of variance using change scores assumes a slope of one between the pretest and posttest measures. As in the case of the present study, if the correlations are high between pre and post scores, it can be assumed that the slope is approaching one and that change scores may be used. Analysis with change scores was selected because of its simplicity of concept and its capacity to do a multivariate test. Since no significance was found through the above analysis an analysis of covariance was performed on the same data. Analysis of variance using change scores is more conservative. It is possible that significance could be reached with a covariance analysis even if it was not reached in the previous analysis. Covariance analysis takes into account the degree of correlation between pretest variables and posttest scores. The 65 pretest measure was the covariable in each analysis. It was not possible, however, to do a multivariate test with covariates for the instruments used in this study except the State Anxiety Inventory which used the first adminis- tration as a covariate for the other three administra- tions. The trend for the four administrations of the State Anxiety Inventory for each of the three groups was ana- lyzed using planned comparisons of group means. The method of planned comparisons is used when it is import- ant to avoid making a Type II error (not finding a dif- ference when one exists.) It is a more powerful method than the post hoc comparisons method. Since the planned comparisons showed a significant trend for the heter- ogeneous group, the procedure of least squares curve fit- ting with orthogonal polynomials was used. This analysis gave the coefficients of the appropriate equation (quad- ratic) so that a curve could be drawn to describe the trend. An analysis of variance was employed to analyze the differences between the three types of groups on the Respect, Empathy and Congruence Scale. A brief question- naire designed to determine the feelings of the group members on a number of questions related to the group experience was also administered. The answers to six of the ten questions were analyzed using an analysis of 66 variance. Significant differences between the three com- posite groups on these questions were further analyzed with the post hoc method of comparison. The remaining four questions were treated descriptively as they did not lend themselves to statistical analysis. The investigation of the interactive effects of group composition and personality types, although not the primary focus of the study, was considered to be of interest. Such interactions, where found, were graphed and treated descriptively. Because a completely crossed research design involving at least A2 groups would be needed to conduct a comprehensive study of the interactive effects of the 16 personality types and the three group compositions, a limited emphasis should be placed upon the findings presented. The method used to investigate these interactive effects was an analysis of variance. An analysis of variance was done on the pretest scores of the Trait Anxiety Inventory for feeling and thinking orientations to determine if there was a signi- ficant difference in anxiety between the two groups. All individuals originally participating in the study were included in the analysis regardless of whether they dropped out, as this analysis was not dependent on the treatment. 67 The Rokeach Value Inventory was analyzed for the three types of groups using Kendall's Coefficient of Con- cordance. Kendall's Tau coefficient gives values from 0.00 to 1.00 and indicates the degree of agreement within a particular category. A rank of 0.00 would indicate absolutely no agreement among members of a group and a value of 1.00 would indicate perfect agreement. The inventory is divided into two parts--terminal values and instrumental values--so two coefficients were found for each group. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY The results of the study are presented under the following sub-titles: self—concept, anxiety, respect— empathy-congruence, questionnaire data (including friend- ships formed), interactive effects of group composition and personality type, Rokeach Value Inventory, pre-test trait anxiety comparison between feeling types and thinking types. The hypotheses of the study are also summarized at the conclusion of the chapter. It should be pointed out before presenting the results that the results of the interactive effects of group composition and personality type are considered speculative and sug- gestive. They are included to highlight possible areas for future research. The study's design does not warrant heavy statistical emphasis upon the interactions pre- sented. Self-Concept The Pearson Correlations between pre—test and post- test scores for the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale are pre- sented in Table l. 68 69 TABLE 1.--Pearson correlations between pre-test and post- test scores for the four factors of the Tennessee self concept scale. Pearsonian Factor Correlation TSCS 1 ~76 TSCS 2 ~57 TSCS 5 '8” TSCS 18 -68 Table 2 indicates there was no significant differ- ence from pre—test to post-test for the combined Tennes- see Self-Concept Scale factors using a Multivariate Anal- ysis of Variance with change scores at the .05 level of significance. The Analysis of Variance for the individ- ual factors of the Tennessee Self—Concept Scale is also presented in Table 2 and indicates again no significance on any one factor at the .05 level. Since significance was not reached with change scores, the data was reanalyzed using an Analysis of Covariance. The pre-test score was used as the covari— able for the post-test score for each of the factors. The results shown in Table 3, indicate there were again no significant differences on any of the Tennessee Self- Concept Scale factors at the .05 level of significance. 70 TABLE 2.-- Multivariate analysis of variance using change scores for the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. (H o o O -r—l CH or-i E 43 0 +3 (DO U) m G)U v4 . H $40) 4-3 ,Q 4.) £100) CO 0 CU (1)31. 4-3 $4 4-) DEL EMU) (Lint/J Mult. Test 8 0 18 0 98 CH CH O 0 O O or-i CH «4 EC. E C 4..) O 4.) $4 (DOG) 00:: (DC) (DC. U) (D O (D'UQ) (DU?! 240) L4H or-i . H 43 LCDZ :40): C603 C263 4-3 .Q 4—) 0 bOCDP EMU-P 66134—3 C0543 (U 0 ('6 CU (1)940) (US-«H (DO‘G) (DU-H U $4 4-3 CL DCLLIJ C3343 2mm 2(03 EMU) Catt—4U) TSCS 1 2 6 3 59 3.93 0.91 0.A5 TSCS 2 2 6 0 00 0.01 0.15 0.85 TSCS 5 2 6 18.06 52.57 0.3A 0.72 TSCS 18 2 6 A.28 9.92 0.A3 0.66 TABLE 3.--Ana1ysis of covariance for the Tennessee Self- Concept Scale. o o a m *4 aafiic L«E c .p o p $4 0C0) 00:: (DO) (1):: U) U) o c m 'Uw4 $4® pr .H . H u oa)3 ~auc cuss scan 9 .o p 0 .0... “’2: 83:3 533:: :2 a 3 A 8:28 8a.; 5.2mm 2033 cm Mm TSCS l 2 5 O 28 3.01 0.09 0.91 TSCS 2 2 5 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.76 TSCS 5 2 5 17.93 53.70 0.33 0.73 TSCS 18 2 5 3.80 11.33 0.33 0.73 71 Tennessee Self—Concept Scale means and standard deviations for the composite (all three similarly com- posed groups combined) homogeneous, complimentary and heterogeneous groups are given in Table A. The means of the individual nine groups were used in computing the composite group means and standard deviations thus weighting each of the three individual groups in each composite group equally. Means and standard deviations for the Tennessee Self—Concept Scale factors for each of the nine individ— ual groups are presented in Table 5. Anxiety Trait Anxiety Table 6 shows the Pearson Correlation between the pre-test and post-test scores of the Trait Anxiety Inven— tory. Table 7 presents the results of an analysis of var- iance using change scores for the pretest — posttest mea- sures of the Trait Anxiety Inventory. No significant difference was found at the .05 level of significance. The data was then reanalyzed using an Analysis of Covariance. The pretest measure was the covariable for the posttest measure. Again, no significant difference was found at the .05 level as shown in Table 8. 72 Ha.: sm.ma ms.m mm.ma mm.oa ao.amm sm.ofi ms.©mm msomcmmowmpmx mpHmOQEoo mm.m om.mH mm.a mm.HH mfi.oa mm.mHm mm.m om.mam zsmpcmEHHQEoo mpHmOQEoo No.2 >©.ma m:.H om.:fi mm.ma m:.mmm 0H.Hm am.mam mzomcmwosom mpfimanoo Ta Tl as Ta Tm an Ta Ti as Ta Ti Mn Tu Tu ob Ta Ti m“ 10 Ta as In Tm ,n oms. onsa Jfis. Jase loos. omse .aos. Jase SD 839 and, SO? SD 83989.. 909 Qfisne finsu lnsnd qASnu fiasco lnsu A4¢sC lmsu 1 . 3 a . a 1 . 1. a . a Sal STL STL 81L 8/5 8,3 8-: 8/5 88 38 300 3'00 8 S 1. n4 n4 1. n4 1 mmoa. 2:00. mmma. memo. Ha.w :@.sm cw.a oo.mm msomcowogmpez opHmOQEoo memo. mmom. neoo. mmsm. om.a s:.aM mm. Ha.om scabcmeflflasoo mpflmoquo ammo. mama. ammo. mama. m:.H so.sm xa.m ms.mm mzomcmwoso: mnemanoo Ta Tm cs Ta Tm Mn .AaTl as Ta Ta mu Ta Ta cs Ta Tana“ .Aa.l as .a Tm wk ons. onsa ans. Jase noes. omse Jab. .aase Sad Sad? and and? COOS Sad? SLJ and? 1.000 QSU 1.80 QSU 1.8a gnu 3.511 QOQU 1 . 3 a . 3 3 . 3 a . a 38 98 87V 87p 8T. 9T. STL STL S S n4 1 S S 3 3 n4 n4 n4 3. 1"! .mCOprH>®U ULGUCMPm USN m®3H®> EmmE mfiwom UQTOCOOIMHQW mmmmTCC®9l|.3 MJQ:m mm.mm oo.m:m mazz. wmofi.a Omom. Noma.a m:.> Fm.mm wo.m H>.>m we mzomcomogoeo: 3:.m 2H.OH mm.m wm.m om.wm mm.mam Fm.mm mz.:mm zoom. awzw. wanm. cccx. No.0 mm.mm mm.m 5m.wm { msoozowosvczl mo.o~ oo.wH No.2 oo.mH m:.om wo.mzm Hm.zH mm.o:m owwa. mmmm. song. comm. am.n mw.mm mo.m oo.mm as mzomcemopoSo: NO.HH om.HH mm.> oo.oa NM.HN oo.Hmm ma.mm 02.0mm Como. scam. qmzm. 022$. em.m oo.©m no.0H oz.mm wcfixcfizu mu zpmpcoeflaasoo mm.HH wa.ma mo.o oo.MH :m.ma oo.mam mm.oa co.mfim wood. mmom. ocea. wacx. xm.o oc.mm Hm.: mm.wm wcfiammu ma 2prcmEHHano ma.> mw.oa HH.© oo.HH Om.om AN.MHm o:.om oo.me mama. area. mamfl. mama. cm.s mz.wm mm.o m:.wm . COHBHSBCA an - zsmpceEHHQEou No.0 oo.m mm.: as.ma Hm.mm as.ecm so.Hz as.eom mpmm. earn. Nova. am;o. mm.m :H.~m os.: oo.mm mezH mm mzomcmwoeo: =m.o ms.m~ mm.m mo.:H mm.mm sm.omm om.mm mo.mmm mmofi. omHo.H sacs. mace. no.0 om.om :m.: om.om mazm mm wzomcoono: om.o mm.oa mm.> mm.mfl we. m mm.mmm 2:.mm ma.mmm onH. owes. uxxfi. czar. mo.m mm. m nw.m mw.oz mBzH ax wsomcomoeo: 1a rm no yd Tm Mn rd Tu o ya rm m“ yd rm no rd rm m“ rd 71 no yd TL mm ye xi no yd .1 m” J; .m “a 7d :1 v“ yd 7L 0c 10 1m um Au Tm no we TL wn CS. 088 J S. Joo8 Onb. O 008 JCS. J PEG 0 S. O :8 J «3.. J .318 Q 3. 0 ~08 JCS. J S8 83 $39 83 838 SD $09 83 83? SS SSE 8A-... 839 SD SOB 83 839 .430 QSU 330 QSU QSO ASU 18G QSU 18G AEU 337.. QCU 183 QSU QSO 18a 4+ . 4+ 8 . 8 n4 . n4 8 . 8 3 . 1. 8 . 8 1 . A.» 8 . 8 Sun Sun Sun Sun Gun 8“.” Sun Sun ea” an" 34 S». 84” 8a” Sun Sun ST. ST. 3T. 1T SS Sr: 449 «49 83 SC 3: 3: STL STL fiwTL 3T. 18 3'8 00 8 3 n4 3 1. 3 fl» I1. H till" I)” l .m20apma>oc psmczdpm sec mozam> cams camom pacocoolmaom mommmccmEII.m mqm > Drum 0&3 ZUJCD ZQLSL £11m Clair-«U3 Trait 2 6 1.51 1.12 1 3A 0.32 TABLE 8.--Ana1ysis of Covariance for the Trait Anxiety Inventory. m $4 @ o o m o o H Rafi H EC: E c: p on 9 0(30) mt): a)m ¢>c m m m 00$ OCH he LH H .H H S4 (Dfiumlc3fia3 Etna] ECO3= mco 04m Trait 2 5 l.A5 1.35 1.07 0.A0 75 Means and standard deviations on the Trait Anxiety Inventory for the composite groups are given in Table 9. Individual group means were used in computing the com— posite group statistics. Individual group means and standard deviations for the Trait Anxiety Inventory are presented in Table 10. TABLE 9.—-Means and standard deviations for the composite groups on the Trait Anxiety Inventory. 4—) 4—) +3 4-) U) U) U) U) <1) <1) 4361) own) up opp CHJ-D Dov-4+: CH4) DH» mesa) «so a den mcn o:.p -L.& ms.o -L.o Stan. c054m seen. cesam Composite Homogeneous A2.88 1.63 Al.A6 2.69 Composite Complimentary A2.l7 5.57 Al.57 5.A8 Composite Heterogeneous A0.7A 0.80 38.72 0.77 State Anxiety The Multivariate Analysis of Variance using change scores revealed no significance at the .05 level of sig- nificance for the last three administrations (given after sessions A, 8, 11) combined on the State Anxiety Inven- tory as shown in Table 11. The first administration of the State Anxiety Inventory was used as a pretest measure. An analysis of variance of each of the last three 76 TABLE 10.--Trait Anxiety Inventory mean values and stan— dard deviations. 1 ti 4—) 4—) 4—3 4-) U) U) U) (I) <1) (1) 4-30) '4-90) 4-343 °+JJ—> Cor-4P 0H4.) CH4) QHP «3600) «5(1) «Scum corn ms.h -;.g 6:40 -:.0 29m mam 29m mam Homogeneous #l INTP Al.57 10.11 39.71 9.63 Homogeneous #2 ENFP A2.37 11.66 A0.12 12.19 Homogeneous #3 INFP AA.71 13.13 AA.57 8.92 Complimentary #1 intuition AA.57 8.73 A2.57 8.52 Complimentary #2 feeling A6.l6 A.ll A6.50 7.28 Complimentary #3 thinking 35.80 3.96 35.60 5.22 Heterogeneous #l Al.66 7.39 39.33 7.A2 Heterogeneous #2 A0.lA 9.22 39.00 8.30 Heterogeneous #3 A0.A2 1A.5A 37.85 12.11 administrations also showed no significance at the level. 77 These findings are included in Table 11. .05 TABLE 11.—-Multivariate analysis of variance using change scores for the State Anxiety Inventory. _.-.-—. -.— O O w-I CH 0H (HE J) O 13 00 U) (I) 'U 0H o .H °Q) 4-) D +3 we) m o m (DA .0 $4 4.) DEL elm mzzva Mult. Test 6 1.19 0.39 U 0 H CH °r"| ‘HEC ‘HE C 4—) o 4.) oc>m c>o:: q>o a)c m m 13m Una L.o swa H . .H -m:z -a): ecu: ecu: .a .o p wow wow map map a o B one mLH mow ®UH p L p Dina) c:e.3 Econ: 2:03: e.m o.mco State 2 2 6 9.85 2A.50 0.A0 0.68 State 3 2 6 65.A0 39.37 1.66 0.26 State A 2 6 31.96 10.05 3.17 0.11 Table 12 contains the findings of a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance done on the final three adminis— trations of the State Anxiety Inventory. differences were found at the .05 level. No significant Table 12 also includes the results of an Analysis of Covariance for each of the final administrations for which there was again no significance. In all computations the covariate was the first administration of the State Anxiety Inven- tory which was considered a pretest measure. ~— ~— 78 TABLE l2.-—Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for the State Anxiety Inventory. || 1! h o o O or-i C... or-i E u o p m o m w m'o ~H - H $40) 4—) .O .3 boa) 60 O (U a)h p L p cam mco 04mco Mult. Test 6 0.88 0.55 o o H 94 H GAEEC ¢+E C p O p ocnm ()0 c we) a): m m "0(1) “Cor—1 $40) S-aor-i °H . 0H -cH zumfixc< mpmpm mCOHpmH>mU GLHBCMum pew wcmmzll.MH mqm<9 80 Means and standard deviations on the four adminis- trations of the State Anxiety Inventory for the nine individual groups are found in Table 1A. Again, it should be noted that the corresponding composite group mean for the State #A was substituted for the Homogeneous Group 3 mean and the Heterogeneous Group 3 mean. The results of the planned comparisons on the four State Anxiety Inventory administrations for the homogen- eous, complimentary and heterogeneous composite groups are found in Tables 15, 16 and 17, respectively. A sig- nificant F ratio indicating a quadratic trend in anxiety was found for the heterogeneous composite group at the .05 level of significance (Table 17.) Comparison 1 rep- resents a linear trend, comparison 2-—a quadratic trend, and comparison 3—-a cubic trend. It should be noted that only the scores from those individuals who took all four administrations of the State Anxiety Inventory were used in the planned comparison analysis. Hence, those groups that were incorrectly administered the inventory at the last testing session were not included in the analysis. Graphs 1a, b, and 0 show the trends for the com— posite homogeneous, complimentary and heterogeneous groups respectively. The plotted values for Graph C were computed using the coefficients of the polynomial of the second degree as found by analyzing the State Anxiety Inventory heterogeneous scores with the Least Squares 81 .onsm co>flw CH endomoosq wcflpmmp Boospoocfl o» msw mazosw 030 segue no czam> 0002* *00.0m 00.0H 00.0: mm.0 00.0: 0H.0 No.0m me msomcmmozmue: 00.0 mm.mm 00.0 0H.mm 0m.0~ 00.0: 0:.0 Hs.nm a: mjomcomoscao: Hm.~ 00.0m >0.s 00.mm 00.0 0:.mm H:.> 0:.0m He mzoeccmosmum: mo.0 om.Hm m0.m m0.mm 00.x: mm.c: m0.s 0:.sm meaxcfles . mm mumpcwEHHQEoo 00.0 0H.0m 00.0 00.0: H0.ma 0~.0: 00.0 0H.H: w:HHooL we zgmpzosflaasoo as.0 00.0m mm.H: 0:.cm 00.0 as.sm 0:.: 30.50 coHSHspzfl an mgmacmEHHQEoo *mm.:: m0.mH 00.5: mH.HH 00.0: m0.0 0:.0m mazH mm msomzcmoEo: 0>.0H 0m.m 0:.0 00.0: 00.0H 00.H; 0o.0H 00.H: 0020 me msomzomoEo: Hm.0 m:.0: 0H.0 mm.sm H0.0H >0.mm 0m.0 :a.mm aBzH % msomcowoeo: Gus SIM. Abs aowu no 00 84... no 00 Si 3. 3.8 «4. A48 1.. 1.9 1.. 18 A8 A89 88 SEE 89 898 I9 I88 and qau fine qwu 1nd q+u Jae q+u a. a a. a e. a a. e .mCOHuwH>mp Upmpcmam 0cm mmzam> :mmE asepcm>CH xpmflxc< mumumll.:a mqmp Q>U p omam c0<3> cow) cam ECO elm < mo mopsom Between 81 02 3. 3.7“ U8 7. Categories Within 57 0.98 59 55.91 Categories 63.U0 Total TABLE 26.—-Question 10, Analysis of variance .pmpm m mo .nogm .oacwam .xouaa< oasmapmsm m ohmzqm cmoz Eoomohm mo .mwom mmhwsdm no Ezm mocmapm> no monsom 2.97 .09 A8 “.97 2. Between Categories Within 57 .00 59 57.21 Categories 62.18 Total for the composite groups for the questions. TABLE 27.—-Means and standard deviations 93 01 uotqsanb '0 'S OI uotqsana ueaw A uotqsanfi '0 'S L uotqsanb ueam h uotqsanb G '3 fr uotqsan® ueam £ uotnsana 'G 'S E uotgsanb ueau E uotisarfi '0 .3 C O H 1.) U) U (1)01 C (1) :3 O’ C_ (‘— -a 1 uotqsanb 'G '0 O I uotqsanb ueam Composite 2.6“ 1.00 3.90 1.18 50 1.6” .49 1.U1 . 5 H.59 Homogeneous Composite .6u H.05 3.38 2H 1.06 .U6 1.27 .00 1 . 00 MO 2.39 Complimentary Composite 1.05 3.95 1.03 1.10 .31 3.35 .UA 1.00 .30 3.11 Heterogeneous 9U mm. 00.: 00.0 H0.m 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 .m.: ma msomcmmOmemz 00.0 :H.z MH.H m:.m 00.0 00.H 03.0 00.H 00.0 00.H mw.m Hw.m m: msomcmmOhmpm: 00. 00.m 0H.H mm.m 00.0 mm.~ mm.0 0m.H no.0 mm.H 00.0 0H.0 a» mzomcowopopom 00.0 00.: :H.H 00.m 00.0 00.a 00.0 0:.H 00.0 00.& :0.H 0m.H mcflxcflgp m0 xpmpcoEHHQEoo 00.0 mw.m m0.0 mm.m fl:.0 >fl.fl 10.0 0a.a 00.: 00.4 0>.a 00.0 mcflaoom m0 zpwpcoEHHQEoo 00.0 :H.: 00.0 m:.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 :0.H 00.0 3H.m coflpflsch a» 0000:0EHHQE00 50.0 sm.m 00.0 00.0 mm.0 0:.a 00.0 m0.fl 00.0 0;.0 :0.m :H.m 002% m0 mzomcomoEo: 00.0 0m.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mfi.a 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 0020 mm msoocomoEo: 00.0 0H.m 00.0 H0.H 00.: H>.H 0c.0 :0.H m:.r Hw.fl 00.0 00.H .92H Hm mzowcomoEo: G o. .0 H .0) 0.... .0 H 10.1.. C .0. 1 .0 0.... .6 H... .3 no .0 H ,0 no .0 In. The n. me n. 08 n. he 0. 0.3, n. he 08 088 .18 ASE 0.8 898 ES (can... 88 889 18 188 80 SU SQ SH SH 3U SH SH Sn. SH SG 8U Ala». 1 A4.- Alfi Alfie Al». 1. AI». 1- 0.4. lo 1 T... TL. I. TL. I. T... I. TL. T... I. T. T. o o o o o o o o o o o o u u u u u u u u u u u u .mcoflpmmzv ozp pom m20aumfl>m© Upmwcmpm 0:0 mcmozll.mm mum. 2 “ § 3‘ 2“ There are no right or wrong answers. Do not 2 g n_ g .3 a spend too much time on any one statement but u: -° 0 6' give the answer which seems to describe how a you generally feel. __ Z]. 'fee‘ p'easantOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000IOOOOO ' 2 3 h 22. 't're unCk'YIO.IOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO l 2 3 a 23. 'fee‘ "ke cry‘ngO00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. ' 2 3 u 2A. 1 wish I could be as happy as others seem to be........ i 2 3 A 25. i am losing out on things because I can't make UPWMh‘d 5”“ enoughaaoaeaeaoooaeeaeaaooaaoaeaaeaoooe I 2 3 a 26. 'fe.‘ restedOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.000. ' 2 3 u 27' .m "6'”. cm', and co.'OCteduaaaeaaaaaaaoaaaaeaaaaee I 2 3 u 28. i feel that difficulties are piling up so that 'COHHOt overcm tMOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....OO l 2 3 l. 29. l worry too much over something that really doesn't matter................................................. l 2 30. I am happy............................................. i 2 3i. i am inclined to take things hard...................... l 2 32. I lack self-confidence................................. l 2 33. i feel secure.......................................... I 2 35. i try to avoid facing a crisis or difficulty........... l 2 35. .f... b'ueolO...0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. U 2 uwwwwwww Jeers-tree 36. |mcontent.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO0.. ' 2 37. Some unimportant thought runs through my mind and ”thers “0.0.0.0000...000......COCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0 I 2 3 h 38. I take disappointments so keenly that i can't put the.“ oat Of my M'ndaaaaaaeoaaeaaaaeaaaeaeaeaaaeaaaaaaoo I 2 3 h 390 'm’ S‘eady PersonOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00 ' 2 3 1‘ A0. I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I think over my recent concerns and interests.................. i 2 3 A 150 APPENDIX B ROKEACH VALUE SURVEY 151 Form E VALUE SURVEY Name Sex: Male Female Birthdate City and State of Birth Below is a list of l8 values arranged in alphabetical order. Your task is to arrange them in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life. Study the list carefully. Then place a I next to the value which is most important for you, place a 2 next to the value which is second most important no you, etc. The value which Is least Important, relative to the others, should be ranked l8. Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to change your answers. The end result should truly show how you really feel. __ A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life) ______ AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life) ______ A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution) '______A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) ______ A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts) ______ EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) ______ FAMILY SECURITY (taking care of loved ones) ______ FREEDOM (independence, free choice) HAPPINESS (contentedness) INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict) NATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy) NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack) PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life) SALVATION (saved, eternal life) ______ SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem) ._____ SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration) TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship) HISDOH (a mature understanding of life) ‘152 (c) I967 by Milton Rokeach Rflow is a list of another l8 values. Rank these in order of importance in the same way you ranked the first list on the preceding page. ____ANBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring) _____ BROADMINDED (open-minded) _____CAPABLE (competent, effective) __ CHEERFUL (lighhearted, joyful) ____.CLEAN (neat, tidy) ____COURAGEOUS (standing up for your beliefs) _____ FORGIVING Gwllling to pardon others) HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others) HONEST (sincere, truthful) IMAGINATIVE (daring, creative) INDEPENDENT (self-reliant. self-sufficient) INTELLECTUAL (intelligent, reflective) LOGICAL (consistent, rational) LOVING (affectionate, tender) ____ OBEDIENT (dutiful, respectful) POLITE (courteous, well-mannered) RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable) SELF-CONTROLLED (restrained, self-disciplined) 153 APPENDIX C RESPECT, EMPATHY, CONGRUENCE SCALES 1514 Directions: Below are listed a variety of ways that one person could feel or behave in relation to a group. Please consider each statement with reSpect to whether you think it is true or not true in your present relationship with your group. Hark each statement in the left margin according to how strongly you feel it is true or not true. Please Mark Every One. Write in +l, +2, +3; or -l, -2, -3 to stand for the following answers: +l: I feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. +2: I feel it is true. +3: I strongly feel that it is true. -I: I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. -2: I feel it is not true. -3: I strongly feel that it is not true. I. They reSpect me. 2. They try to see things through my eyes. 3. They pretend that they like me or understand me more than they really do. A. They disapprove of me. 5. They understand my words but not the way I feel. 6. What they say to me never conflicts with what they think or feel. 7. They are curious about the "way I tick”, but they are not really inter- ested in me as a person. 8. They are disturbed whenever I talk about about or ask about certain things. 9. They are interested in knowing what my experiences mean to‘mg. IO. They like seeing me. ll. They nearly always know exactly what I mean. l2. I feel that they have unspoken feelings or concerns that are getting in the way of our relationship. l3. They are indifferent to me. lh. At times they jump to the conclusion that I feel more strongly or feel more concerned about something than I actually do. l5. They behave just the way that they are; in our relationship. l6. They appreciate me. l7. Sometimes they think that I feel a certain way. because they feel that way. l8. I do not think that they hide anything from themselves that they feel about me. 155 Directions: +l: +2: +3: 'IH: ’IIZ: "Q3: Same as for the previous page. feel that it is probably true, or more true than untrue. feel it is true. strongly feel that it is true. feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. feel it is not true. strongly feel that it is not true. l9. They are friendly and warm toward me. 20. They understand me. 2l. They care about me. 22. Their own attitudes toward some of things I say, or do, stop them from really understanding me. 26. I feel 23. They do not avoid anything that is important to our relationship. 23. They feel that I am dull and uninteresting. 25. They understand what I say, from a detached, objective point of view. that I can trust them to be honest with me. 27. They are interested in me. 28. They appreciate what my experiences feel like to'mg. 29. They are secure and comfortable in our relationship. 30. They just tolerate me. 3i. They play roles with me. 32. They do not really care what happens to me. 33. They do not realize how strongly I feel about some of the things I discuss. 3h. There times when I feel that their outward response is quite different from their inner reaction to me. 35. They seem to really value me. 36. They respond to me mechanically. 156 Directions: 37: 38. 39. 40. hi. #2. #3. Ah. “5. #6. #7. #9. 50. 5|. Same as for the previous page. +l: I feel it is probably true, or more true than untrue. +2: I feel it is true. +3: I strongly feel that it is true. -l: I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true. -2: I feel it is not true. -3: I feel strongly that it is not true. I don't think that they are being honest with themselves about the way they feel toward me. They dislike me. I feel that they are being genuine with me. They are impatient with me. Sometimes they are not at all comfortable but we go on, outwardly ignoring it. They feel deep affection for me. They usually understand all of what I say to them. They do not try to mislead me about their own feelings or thoughts. They regard me as a disagreeable person. What they say gives a false impression of their total reaction to me. At times they feel contempt for me. When I do not say what I mean at all clearly, they understand me. They try to avoid telling me anything that might upset me. They try to understand me from their own point of view. They can be deeply and fully aware of my most painful feelings without being distressed or burdened by themselves. 157 APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE TO ALL GROUP MEMBERS 158 TO: Participants in Self-Understanding Groups FROM: Patrick McCary This is just a note to thank you for your tremen- dous cooperation in these groups. I apologize for the testing and ask your patience in completing these ques- tionnaires. They are very important to the completion of my research as you already know. The results will be made available either individ— ually or in your group as you prefer. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Pat McCary 159 Name l. Have you made friendships with group members which have carried-over outside the group? yes no; if yes, how much time have you spent talking to, or being with the other person(s). If more than one person, please indicate time for each, including group.léader. (Circle number of people) I 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 (Check appropriate Spaces) I 2 3 h 5 6 7 G.L. less than I hour total l-3 hours total 3-5 hours total __ _ __ __ I hr/week average more than I hr/week average 2. Knowing what you do now about self-understanding groups, would you volunteer again yes no Comment: 3. Do you feel that you understand yourself better now than you did before this group experience? yes no Comment: A. Do you feel that you would want to continue this experience? Comment: yes no 5. What do you consider to be the three most outstanding features in your college experience thus far? (rank l, 2, 3): classes . social events personal freedom .____ ?:;:':r;:?:::{s) activities self understanding groups -——-— t faculty members iob -———-:::?g:n:: athletics books read intellectual atmOSphere‘----’Other ("St) Comment: 160 9. l0. .LOJ. At the beginning, what did you expect to get from your participation in a self-understanding group? (Rank l, 2, 3) feel better about myself vocational advice get to know others other a new experience meaningful personal dialogue How well have your expectations been met by your participation in a self- understanding group? completely almost fully partially little not Comment: at all What is reSponsible for your expectations being met (or not met) to the extent you noted in item 7? (Rank l, 2, 3) group members lack of structure ___ meeting place group leader time schedule ____outside factors (job, class yourself group disagreements work, etc.) others(list) Specify What would you change if the project were starting again and you could control what happens? (Rank l, 2, 3): ioin different group meet at different time not participate change your behavior I ' - change members behavior. talk less be friendlier more even partncnpatlon talk more better attendance listen better friendlier behavior What is your overall evaluation of the small group experience for you? very favorable favorable mediocre poor very poor Comment: APPENDIX E COMMENTS RECORDED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE 162 COMMENTS RECORDED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE Question 2 Knowing what you do now about self—understanding groups, would you volunteer again? Homogeneous #1 (INTP) no yes yes no no no no Chances are pretty slim. I can predict how I'll react in the situation and it tends to be a waste of time. Conditional--A re—run of what I've done for the last few weeks is not worth all that time. I welcome a chance to be with a group of people, Just to talk. It didn't have any real meaning for me, although under different circumstances it might. I don't feel that our group interacted in a ben- eficial manner--and it definitely was a waste of time more than 50% of the time. Bored with it; I might for a "marathon" one, though because it wouldn't last for weeks. At least never an experimental one. Nothing accomplished. Homogeneous #2 (ENFP) yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes I love people and any chance I have of learning more about people I'll take it. It was fun and interesting, but I don't think that I have achieved any greater self- understanding. (No comment) I guess; it was an interesting experience. Made friends and visably helped me. (No comment) I feel that I have gained what I wanted from this experience and there is no need to repeat it. A little hesitantly, as the group seemed to bog down to mediocrity at the end, most people being talked out, and all activity being limited to talking. 163 16A Homogeneous #3 (INFP) yes no yes no yes yes no (No comment) The group lacked organization, which is very hard for nine strangers to formulate. (No comment) I guess I pretty much understand myself. I enjoyed helping other people, but such oppor— tunities were too rare. I like getting to know others in the group, though it didn't really help me with myself. I think that it could have been better but I would try again. (No comment) Complimentary #l (intuition) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes I am interested in a sensitivity group with a competent instructor. ENTJ I really feel that I learned something about myself and about other people's feelings. INFJ (No comment) ENFJ The experience of meaningful conversation-- deeper than the hi's, what's your major type thing. In listening to others you discovered similar feelings (fears, problems). INFP I feel that the experience would be profitable in another group or continuance of the same group. INTP (No comment) INTJ This was more of a sensitivity and self- explaining group. Self—understanding came to individuals through group contact. (I believe I already know myself.) ENFP Complimentary #2 (feeling) yes yes yes yes yes yes Hoping it could be better having had one exper- ience. ENFP I believe that I did get to know myself better and to me this was worthwhile. ESFP I felt it satisfied a basic need of mine to relate to others in stimulating deep conversa- tions. INFP I enjoy this kind of discussion and seem to learn alot about myself. INFJ Always something to learn and group is a plea— surable way to learn. ENFJ (No comment) ISFJ 165 Complimentary #3 (thinking) yes yes yes yes yes 1’10 Heterogeneous #1 yes no yes yes yes no (No comment) ENTP (No comment) ESTP I enjoyed listening to what the other people in the group thought and felt. INTP (No comment) ENTJ But only on the condition that such a group was structured by the leader. I got very frustrated by the slow or often nil and inane progress and discussions. ISTJ I didn't gain any measurable amount of self- understanding from my participation in the group. fil‘ Though it was interesting to hear the varied viewpoints some of the others held on the topics we discussed, I felt the whole thing was in general a waste of time. INTJ I believe that next time I would be different—- not quite so obstinate and more willing to step in and start something. ENFP They take too much time for the benefit derived. I'd rather spend the time reading. ISFP If I had more free time. These things should be started in the fall and carried over a whole year. ENTJ If I were going only on the information obtained from this group I would probably think it over very carefully. Since I know people in other groups I would probably do so again because I think that the main problem with this group is that it never really got off the ground. INFJ (No comment) INTP It seems to be just a 1 1/2 hour bull session. ISTJ Heterogeneous #2 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes (No comment) ENTJ I'm not satisfied with the results so I want to try a different approach. INTP Would like to get more involved from here on-— go further and deeper than this group did. ISFP (No comment) ENTP (No comment) ENFJ Found it to be an exciting experience. INFJ They seem to really be of help to achieve their purpose--helping one to understand one's self. ISFJ 166 Heterogeneous #3 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes (No comment)3 ENFP Need more time, activities, etc. INTJ I've been very favorably impressed with this group's actions and reactions. ENTJ Beneficial in that you can learn about your- selves and others and build friendships. ESFJ (No comment) ISTJ (No comment) INFP (No comment) ESFP Question 3 Do you feel that you understand yourself better now than you did before this group experience? Homogeneous #l (INTP) no yes no no no no no Same as ever; sure didn't learn anything. A few realizations that I made outside of the group, while thinking about it, were inter- esting. I have not made any significant changes as far as beliefs or attitudes. This was just a rather pleasant thing. (No comment) (No comment) (No comment) (No comment) Homogeneous #2 (ENFP) no no yes no yes no no I understood my motives, morals, and values before and they haven't changed. I have learned to communicate better. I don't think that I have achieved any greater self-understanding. A little more. Not really, but perhaps I understand other peo- ple better but if I do understand myself better, it is due to other factors than the group, or rather, outside factors were more influential. It's hard to say I understand myself better now because I don't have anything to compare it with. But a general feeling I have says it has. Others, but not myself. (No comment) yes - 167 Not really, though I feel a little bit more “comfortable with myself, only by telling one thing that bothered me. On the other hand, I'd say yes, because I've interacted with per- sonalities different from my normal group of friends. Homogeneous #3 (INFP) yes no yes no no yes yes (No comment) (No comment) (No comment) My self-concept is decided finally in my own mind, though others do influence final decisions. (No comment) Every day I must learn something. A little. Natural course of two months and talk- ing with people. Complimentary #l (intuition) yes yes yes yes yes no no I have become more aware that my small number of friends is due to a tendency to orientate the talk around me in terms I understand and too few others do. ENTJ Especially how I project to others. INFJ I don't think I've made any real significant discoveries about myself, but I feel that any interaction with other people helps me see myself a little more clearly. ENFJ I see that I must talk more--not simply ask questions and offer brief comments. I must try to be more personal in my speaking, not talk of things and other people only. INFP A lot of worries I had had I found in other people also thus reassuring myself that I was normal. INTP Most of what has been discussed has occupied my thoughts previously. If there have been any new insights on my part I can't remember them. INTJ I already knew myself. ENFP Complimentary #2 (feeling) no yes - yes - (No comment) ENFP (No comment) ESFP Especially as far as trusting my perceptions of other people. INFP yes - yes — yes - 168 I understand the way I interact with a group of people and I understand making new friends. INFJ (No comment) ENFJ (No comment) ISFJ Complimentary #3 (thinking) yes — no yes yes no - yes — I understand more how others perceive me and how I relate to them. ENTP (No comment) ISTP Knowing that others share some of my beliefs _ and question some of the same things that I do I! makes me feel somewhat more secure. INTP (No comment) ENTJ It was a good social experience but it did not benefit me in such a way because of the nature of the group progress was slow, so when we could have benefited the experiment was over. ISTJ But I do not feel it is due to the group exper- ience, rather to certain interpersonal relation- ships I formed outside the group. INTP Heterogeneous #1 no - 1’10 - yes - no - yes yes no - (No comment) ENFP The group was not willing to give of themselves—- I was--after the first few meetings I stopped too. It seemed useless. ISFP With or without an understanding group, just by living from day to day you gain a greater under- standing of yourself. ISFP (No comment) ENTJ I feel that as a result of the few (1 or 2) really good sessions we have had that I might have gained a little, but I wouldn't say that I have made any startling discoveries or tre- mendous progress in understanding myself. INFJ (No comment) INTP It seems to be just a 1 1/2 hour bull session. (Repeat of answer to 2.) ISTJ Heterogeneous #2 yes - This is not however, a complete result of these groups. I have also done a great deal of per- sonal introspection not only as a result of this group, but also as a reaction to class material presented in several classes this term. ENTJ I’lO no yes yes yes yes 169 My main reason for joining the group was to try and understand other people so that my rela— tions would improve in the future. INTP I'm thinking more about myself now and am becom- ing even more confused. However, I think in time (???) this will clear up! ISPP Understand and realize what I have to do from now on. This has helped me out of a bad rut (or at least helped me move in it!) ENTP (No comment) ENFJ To some extent. INFJ I think I now know who I am and where I am going, and why I want to go there. ISFJ Heterogeneous #3 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Do you I really don't know who "myself" is. But since this is a point of semantics I would say "yes.” ENFP Kind of hard to say--i.e., I understand myself better, true; but how my behavior will be affected I'm not sure. INTJ I'm now able to express what I feel with having my ideas understood by others. ENTJ My self concept was strengthened and found weak— nesses in my character that need attention. ESFJ Due to outside factors, I prefer to say I changed at this time, but the group was only one factor involved. ISTJ (No comment) INFP Possibly. ESFP Question A feel that you would want to continue this experience? Homogeneous #1 (INTP) no yes yes no no It would be nice to continue if possibly the group could be meaningful. Occasionally it has approached this but the probability of any long term meaning is nil. Some different group members. (No comment) (No comment) I don't feel that our group interacted in a ben- eficial manner--and it definitely was a waste of time more than 50% of the time. (Same answer as 2) 170 no - What experience? no - (No comment) Homogeneous #2 (ENFP) yes - 7 no — 1 yes - I don't want to lose contact with the people in my group whom I see only at the meetings. yes - Possibly with new people added. Homogeneous #3 (INFP) yes - A no - 3 no - The group did not always open up. yes — Perhaps I needed more time. Complimentary #1 (intuition) yes - 7 no - 0 yes - I think we will. ENTJ yes - With more time I would have opened up more and gotten to know the others better. INFP Yes, because I like the people. INTJ I feel I would want to continue with this group, not the experiment. ENFP yes yes Complimentary #2 (feeling) yes — 5 no — 1 no - I want to put what I've learned into practice. ESFP yes - I think it would be beneficial to my growth. INFJ Complimentary #3 (thinking) yes — 5 no - 1 yes — We know each other some and I would like to know them better and help them if I could. ISTJ Heterogeneous #1 yes — A no - 2 171 yes — I think given enough time this group could get off the ground. yes - If I didn't have anything else to do. Heterogeneous #2 yes - 7 no - O Heterogeneous #3 yes - 7 no — 0 yes - yes - Definitely. We are going to. Question 5* .1 ._ ; Int: {J i What do you consider to be the three most outstanding fea- tures in your college experience thus far: Number of times item ranked 1: classes male friends female friends roomates residence intellectual atmosphere IOIMIOIO‘IOIO (rank 1, 2, 3) Number of times item ranked 2: 6 classes male friends female friends roommates residence intellectual atmosphere FJH LL» Pup _9_ social events 1:_ personal free- _1_ activities dom _9_ faculty members _1_ self under- _g_ athletics standing groups _§__other (list) _9_ job Loss of personal 2 books read freedom, Beinggaway from home, Counselor (3) _2_ social events _2_ personal free- _§_ activities dom _3_ faculty members _1_ self under- _1_ athletics standing groups _1_ other (list) _3_ job Bicycle racing 1 books read 172 Number of times item ranked 3: _1_ classes 0 social events 11 personal free- 7 male friends :E: activities —__ dom _6_ female friends _1_ faculty members _i_ self under- :E: roommates _g_ athletics standing groups _2_ residence _§_ other (list) 0 job ‘_3_ intellectual ”Grill Ratsf, Time —E_ books read atmosphere to think, T2) Counselor, Other group *Discrepancy in total number answering question is a result of some individuals not following directions (checking items, giving same rank to more than one item, not answering question, etc.) Question 6* At the beginning, what did you expect to get from your par— ticipation in a self-understanding group? (rank 1, 2, 3) Number of times item ranked 1: 15 feel better about myself 0 vocational advice 16 get to know others 3 other: sensitivity, 12 a new experience understanding myself and 13 meaningful personal dia- goals, find new things in logue myself Number of times item ranked 2: 10 feel better about myself 0 vocational advice 16 get to know others 1 other: to learn what 9 a new experience to expect from others 19 meaningful personal dia- logue Number of times item ranked 3: 12 feel better about myself 0 vocational advice 10 get to know others A other: understand 15 a new experience self as driven by same 10 meaningful personal dia- basic desires as everybody logue else, obtain more self confidence, help others to understand themselves, share my feelings with others *Discrepancy in total number answering question is a result of some individuals not following directions (checking items, giving same rank to more than one item, not answering question, etc.) 173 Question 7 How well have your expectations been met by your parti- cipation in a self-understanding group? completely little almost fully partially not at all Homogeneous #l (INTP) partially partially little not at all little not at all little It was a new experience, but there was little meaningful personal dialogue and no self-understanding resulted. A little of each. I feel that none of us has reached the others or been reached on a personal, real, basis. (No comment) (No comment) (No comment) (No comment) Homogeneous #2 (ENFP) almost fully little partially partially completely partially almost fully partially (No comment) (No comment) (No comment) I really don't know, for I actually didn't know what to expect from the group or vice-versa. It was a great experience. In my classes that I can participate (vocally) in, I am adding more and more meaning— ful comments. I did not get to understand myself better. (No comment) See 3, also. I gave the mediocre answer because the dialogue became less meaningful at the end. At times it was good. Item 2 was well satisfied. Item 3 was satisfied mostly outside of the group, not by group members but by my girl. 17A Homogeneous #3 (INFP) partially little partially little partially partially partially Complimentary #1 (intuition) almost fully almost fully partially partially little partially completely I feel that we spent most of the time just getting started and that we really didn't have enough time. My participation on the whole was satisfying but I expected more answers from the group than just questions. (No comment) Mostly it became a bull session. I do know others and it was a new experience but I don't feel any 5 better about myself. * (No comment) (No comment) Which means I have only started dis— cussing myself or really understanding what any other one person is. ENTJ I still feel there is a lot to be accomplished within myself and I feel that some of the others did not get as much out of the group as I did. INFJ (No comment) ENFJ I heard meaningful personal dialogues, but didn't participate. But still I heard my thoughts vocalized by the others which is "comforting". INFP I seem to have a much more intense drive towards my goals than others, but my experience (especially ego—destroying) in dating has been shared by the other men in the group. INTP Some "meaningful dialogue" a few new acquaintances. INTJ (No comment) ENFP Complimentary #2 (feeling) little partially almost fully - (No comment) ENFP We didn't get into people as deeply as as I Would have liked. ESFP I feel we have made a lot of progress in our group toward understanding, but we still could go farther. INFP almost fully almost fully partially 175 Except for slight lack of participa4 tion on other members' parts, I feel very satisfied. INFJ Could have gone on longer, still more to know of self and others. ENFJ (No comment) ISFJ Complimentary #3 (thinking) completely partially partially almost fully little little Heterogeneous #1 not at all almost fully almost fully little partially partially Heterogeneous #2 almost fully little (No comment) ENTP (No comment) ISTP Q I'm not sure exactly what goals were ; achieved, however, I'm sure the exper- ience helped me. INTP I really didn't know what to expect, other than I would try to understand the way I and others perceive them- selves. ENTJ Due to the unstructured nature of the group a lot of time was wasted on trivia. ISTJ I could not loosen up and relax with the group. It did not get easier as the time went by, rather more diffi- cult. I had personal problems almost the entire time which I felt I could not discuss with anyone, especially the group. Everyone else was so free and open that my inability to open up bothered me even more. INTJ Took me too long to get over suspi— cions of you - (P.M.) ENFP (No comment) ISPP (No comment) ENTJ (No comment) INFJ (No comment) INTP (No comment) ISTJ (No comment) ENTJ I felt as though I could understand and empathize with what other people had to say--unfortunately it was mostly trivia. INTP 176 little - We didn't seem to go too deeply into everyone's problems, just a few. This was a little disappointing. ISFP almost fully — I really didn't know what to expect, but some vague expectations have been realized. ENTP almost fully — (No comment) ENFJ partially - Better if all members would come-—if sessions were longer at times-~after an hour we just are getting started. INFJ completely - I understand myself. ISFJ Heterogeneous #3 partially - It's my fault that they haven't been met more fully. ENFP almost fully - Needed more time, different atmos— phere (i.e.,-—meet elsewhere than in dorm.) INTJ completely - (No comment) ENTJ almost fully — Not enough time allotted. ESFJ partially — (No comment) ISTJ almost fully - (No comment) INFP almost fully - (No comment) INFP no response — ESFP Question 8* What is responsible for your expectations being met (or not met) to the extent you noted in item 7? (Rank 1, 2, 3) Number of times item ranked 1: 31 group members 12 lack of structure 3 group leader 2 time schedule 7 yourself 2 group disagreements 5 others (list) 1 meeting place unwillingness of others 2 outside factors (job, to open up; no depth of class, work, etc.) communication, meaning- specify ful dialogue, false dis- cussion. "I" Number of times item ranked 2: ;_.u H l—' R.) I\.) O Number of times item ranked 3: Hit, :It 177 group members group leader yourself others (list) lack of interest, per— sonal experience and problems, subjective analysis by members group members group leader yourself others (list) the fact that we really talked, not knowing what we were after, help others learn to under- stand themselves, more individual counseling. lack of structure time schedule group disagreements meeting place outside factors (job, class, work, etc.) specify lack of structure time schedule group disagreements meeting place outside factors (job, class, work, etc.) specify discrepancy in total number answering question is a result of some individuals not following directions (checking items, giving same rank to more than one item, not answering question, etc. Question 9* ) What would you change if the project were starting again and you could control what happens? Number of times item ranked 1: 6 __g_ 16 __i_ 0 Number of times item ranked 2: 7 IolonIwH join different group not participate change members' behavior more even participation better attendance friendlier behavior join different group not participate change members' behavior more even participation better attendance friendlier behavior l~loIvI~lwlw (Rank 1, 2, 3): meet at different time change your behavior talk less talk mOre listen better be friendlier meet at different time change your behavior talk less talk more listen better be friendlier 178 Number of times item ranked 3: 3 join different group 2 meet at different time 3 not participate A change your behavior 2 change members'behavior A talk less 6 more even participation 5 talk more A better attendance 4 listen better 1 friendlier behavior 5 be friendlier Comments: have unlimited time on meetings have more relevant discussion different type of participation-—less intellec— tual, more emotional 3k discrepancy in total number answering question is a result of some individuals not following directions (checking items, giving same rank to more than one item, not answering question, etc.) Question 10 What is your overall evaluation of the small group exper- ience for you? very favorable favorable mediocre poor very poor Homogeneous #1 (INTP) mediocre - (No comment) mediocre - (No comment mediocre - It has not been an experience which greatly affected me or brought me greater awareness of myself, or others, or made me feel close to those in the group. very poor - Almost no meaningful interaction. poor — I think that main lack of structure was the immediate cause of our group's difficulty—-me and other members did not know how to begin to explore and reach each other through dialogue. very poor - (No comment) poor — (No comment) 179 Homogeneous #2 (ENFP) favorable favorable favorable very favorable very favorable very favorable favorable favorable In small groups I express myself bet— ter and I can get to know people bet- ter. There were all types of people not just one kind. I could be myself and be honest which I am working very hard on. It gave me a chance to try it out. It works. (No comment) (No comment) I think it was quite good. The friendships were the best part rather than the group aspect, and communi- cation was possible, with which I believe were quite truthful feelings—- was different and is perhaps the best feature, communication feeling other's emotions, becoming aware that others exist. Overall it developed in me a greater sense of confidence in myself. (No comment) (No comment) More or less previously explained. Good outside experience with group members was fun. Homogeneous #3 (INFP) very favorable mediocre favorable mediocre favorable mediocre mediocre (No comment) I feel a greater closeness with all the members in the group and experi- enced true feeling from my fellow companions but I lacked the ability to produce great friendships with the other members. I have strong walls. Mediocre. I enjoyed it and I'm glad I partici- pated. It gave me a chance to know people that I wouldn't have been friends with by myself. One of the members became good friends with me and helped me with some of my prob- lems. In some ways we didn't seem to get too far I do better on one-to-one basis. Complimentary #1 no answer very favorable favorable favorable favorable favorable favorable Complimentary #2 mediocre favorable favorable very favorable 180 (intuition) (No comment) ENTJ (No comment) INFJ Even though I don't feel that I dis- covered any new truths about myself, I feel that I learned quite a bit from hearing the others talk about themselves, and I enjoyed knowing new people. ENFJ It was relaxing in our group leader's apartment. There was more opportun- ity to participate-—1ess ”competition'i to speak with this number. The num- ber was convenient to handle in relat- ing. INFP (No comment) INTP Did see some people in a new light. INTJ It's much easier to communicate, ver- bally as well as non-verbally, with a small group. ENFP (feeling) 1. It didn't get started; not enough time. 2. No complete goal in depth of discussion. 3. Arguments on levels of discussion being used. Too busy finding out only about what the person knows and understands, rather than helping him understand what he doesn't but is evident to others. ENFP I really felt it was worthwhile when one of the members would open up but when no one would open up it was rather draggy. ESFP I came into the group feeling that I had a number of personal problems in communicating that could be cleared up by others, but I have found more that just being with them and focus- ing my attention on them has given me the most confidence in myself. INFP I have experienced a new awareness of myself in a group situation. My responses are newly learned and my understanding of other peoples favorable mediocre Complimentary #3 very favorable very favorable favorable favorable mediocre poor Heterogeneous #1 very poor mediocre favorable mediocre 181 reactions and my own have been enlightened. INFJ It's not often that people take time out to sit down and think about their own motives and those of others; self— perceptions and perceptions of others. We did these things. ENFJ (No comment) ISFJ (thinking) (No comment) ENTP (No comment) ISTP There is a great deal that could be accomplished through a meaningful group discussion. By talking about yourself in relation to the people in the group helps develop an under- standing of what other people think. INTP (No comment) ENTJ More could have been gained, but it was an interesting experience. ISTJ With one or two other people and a lot of time to get to know them, the experience might have been more favor- able. But I could not feel free to discuss my inner feelings with six total strangers. I felt no inhibi- tions about talking to my group leader, but when it came to those other people who seemed so different in their values and outlooks, I couldn't do it. I didn't think they could possibly empathize with the way I felt or offer any advice or crit- icism that I would take. INTP This one only-~all others I have been in have been highly rewarding. ENFP (No comment) ISFP (No comment) ENTJ I think these things can be very good, but since this group never got off the ground it was rather mediocre. Many evenings I could have gained as much or more sitting in the grill 182 talking with my friends. On other evenings it was very worthwhile. INFJ favorable - Hot at all what I anticipated but interesting and informative. INTP mediocre — I don't feel I got any lasting good out of it. ISTJ Heterogeneous #2 I have always enjoyed small group interaction. These sessions were therefore very enjoyable and meaning— ful. ENTJ mediocre — My expectations not being reached left me unsatisfied and I look at it as a mediocre experience. However, maybe only later will I realize the effect this group had on me. I dis- approve of the short hour and a half sessions and would recommend a longer very favorable perhaps four hour sessions. INTP mediocre - (No comment) ISFP very favorable - (No comment) ENTP favorable - (No comment) ENFJ favorable — (No comment) INFJ very favorable - One is better able to get to know each person so much better--and you can really communicate with each other then. ISFJ Heterogeneous #3 very favorable — (No comment) ENFP favorable - (No comment) INTJ very favorable - Given on the first page. ENTJ very favorable - (No comment) ESFJ favorable - (No comment) ISTJ very favorable — (No comment) INFP no response — ESFP APPENDIX F DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONALITY TYPES AMONG VOLUNTEERS 183 18A DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONALITY TYPES AMONG VOLUNTEERS ENFP 32 ENTP 1a INFP A2 INTP 2A ENFJ 6 ENTJ 10 INFJ 10 INTJ 12 ESFP 5 ESTP o ISFP 6 ISTP 1 ESFJ 3 ESTJ 1 ISFJ 7 ISTJ 5 Total 178 APPENDIX G GROUP ATTENDANCE 185 GROUP ATTENDANCE The numbers represent the total number of sessions attended by each participating student out of a possible 13 sessions. INTP ENFP INFP l2 l3 13 11 13 13 12 10 l2 12 ll l2 13 13 13 l2 l3 12 ll 12 11 13 Complementary Complementary Complementary (Intuition) (Thinking) (Feeling) 12 13 9 12 10 10 12 13 10 ll 13 10 13 9 10 12 13 ll 13 Heterogeneous 1 Heterogeneous 2 Heterogeneous 3 ll 9 10 13 13 ll 7 13 ll 13 12 l2 l2 12 12 11 7 l3 9 l3 186 APPENDIX H INSTRUCTIONS TO GROUP LEADERS 187 Pretest Instructions For Group Leaders To: Group Leaders (self-understanding groups) From: Pat McCary The purpose of these groups is to help each of the participants to better understand himself. Your task as group leaders will be to facilitate this self-understand- ing which should lead to an enhancement of self-concept and reduction of anxiety level. Your behavior should be natual and normal while at the same time encouraging the group to interact. This means you should be unobtrusively quiet. This simply means that you should not be conspicuous in resisting participation or act in a way that connotes to the group that you have taken responsibility for the success or failure of the group. You will participate when you feel it will help another understand himself while allowing others to play this role. If the group behaves in such a way that the anxiety level or self-concept of a par- ticular individual is, in your opinion, not being enhanced, then behave in a supportive manner. The groups will meet for six weeks (12 sessions). A number of tests will be given to the groups. These tests are short and should not interfere with your ses- sions. At the first meeting I will provide materials for you and ask you to administer them. Miscellaneous directions: 1. Each session should last for exactly one and one—half hours. Because the groups are experimental it is essen- tial that they meet for the same amount of time. Please don't schedule extra sessions or extend the sessions past the hour and a half time period. I suggest that you explain this to the group and begin exactly on the hour and end on the half hour. 2. Explain confidentiality to the groups and emphasize the importance of keeping all communication confidential. 3. Explain to the group the importance of coming to each session and that by missing sessions they change the dy- namics of the group. 188 189 A. Please keep track of those people who are absent dur- ing the first session. Call them to find out if they are planning to participate. If they have decided not to participate we will replace them with someone else. 5. Please be responsible for scheduling a room in the East complex for your group meetings. Once I have the times for your meetings I would be glad to assist in helping you find a room. 190 HAVE STUDEN”S PUT THEIR NAME ON ALL MATERIAL. Directions for giving tests. 1. Please pass out the Tennessee Self—Concept Scale and go over the directions with the group. a. Be sure everyone puts their name on the test. b. Discuss the answer sheet with them. It can be confusing, the numbers are not in order. c. Collect the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale only after everyone is finished. d. Have them note the time they started and finished. 2. Pass out the self-analysis questionnaire. a. Go over the questionnaire with the group being sure to have them notice the different directions on both pages. b. Read the directions to them. If they ask ques— tions be non-committal and tell them to respond “as they feel now“ or ”as they feel in general". 0. Collect after everyone has finished. 3. Pass out Rokeach's Value Scale. Some of the Briggs students have already taken the scale. If they men- tion this just have them take it over again. a. Collect the Rokeach Value Scales. A. If questions are raised regarding the testing tell the students it is for research. You should not find it necessary to give any detailed information. Other4procedures Be sure to set a permanent meeting time for your group sessions which is convenient for all group members. We will notify the students in your group as to the permen— ent meeting room this weekend. DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION The STAI was designed to be self-administering and it may be given individually or to groups. Complete instructions are printed on the test sheet for both the A-State and the A-Trait Scales. Although the test has no time limits, college students generally require only six to eight min- utes to complete either the A-State or the A-Trait Scales when given independently, and ten to twelve minutes to 191 complete both together. Repeated administration of the A-State Scale typically requires five minutes or less. The validity of the STAI assumes that the examinee has a clear understanding of the state and trait instructions, and that he is able to shift from the "state-set", which asks him to indicate how he generally feels. In intro— ducing the STAI, the examinee's attention should be called to the fact that the instructions are different for the two parts of the inventory, and that both sets of instruc- tions must be read very carefully. It is generally help— ful to have the examinee read the directions silently while the examiner reads them aloud and to give the exam- inee an opportunity to raise questions. In responding to specific questions that arise in a test— ing session, the examiner should answer them in a non— committal manner, for example, "Just answer according to how you generally feel," or "Answer the way you feel right now.” Examinees should be told not to omit any items if this question arises. Although many of the items have face validity as measure of ”anxiety", this term should not be used when administering the STAI, nor should the examiner use the actual title of the inventory. Rather, he should refer to the STAI and its subscales as the Self-Analysis Questionnaire (the title that is printed on the test sheet. 192 Posttest Instructions For Group Leaders TO: Group Leaders FROM: Pat McCary The tests should be given in the following order on the final day of your group. 1. Tennessee Self—Concept Scale. 2. Trait Portion Self Analysis Questionnaire. 3. Group Questionnaire. Please read the directions over with the group, specially that portion of STAI. IMPORTANT! Please impress upon them the importance of the testing. Thank them for me and tell them I apolo- gize for as much testing as they have had. If your group wishes to schedule another meeting next week for test interpretation just let me know, other— wise either you or I can interpret their test results to them individually. Pat APPENDIX I LETTERS TO STUDENTS 193 First Letter To Residents Of Holmes Hall TO: Residents of Holmes Hall FROM: Patrick McCary (Director of Research - LBC) During the spring quarter a number of small groups of students will be formed. The purpose of these groups will be to help the participants to better understand themselves. The groups will be part of a project con- ducted to fulfill the requirements of my Ph.D. degree. If you would be interested in participating in a self-understanding group, please contact the Lyman Briggs College Office (E—3O Holmes Hall, 353-6A80). The groups will have eight students and a professionally trained group leader. They will be composed of equal numbers from East Holmes and West Holmes residents. Each group will meet once a week for the entire spring quarter. Because a limited number of students will be needed, it will be necessary that you leave your name in the Briggs Office before the end of finals week. It should be clear that you are under no obligation to participate by signing this list. It will only be after the general information session on Wednesday, March 26, that I will formally accept students to participate who have indi- cated their interest. Research indicates that students generally find such an experience highly rewarding and educational. 19A 195 Please give some thought to the project and if you have any questions, feel free to stop in to my office (E-187 Holmes Hall, phone 353-6A80) or contact Jud Carlberg (Head Advisor, East Holmes Hall, phone 353—7767). The secretaries in the LBC office will have a list which you may sign before March 15. The list is for planning pur- poses and obligates you in no way to participate. 196 Letter To All Residents Of Holmes Hall TO: All Resident of Holmes Hall FROM: Patrick McCary, Director of Research Lyman Briggs College If you didn't get the opportunity to sign up for a self-understanding group during final exam week I am still accepting volunteers. The last day for signing up will be Monday, March 3lst. The groups will begin shortly after this date. Please sign up in the Lyman Briggs Col- lege Office in Room E-30. A couple of minor changes have been made in pro- cedure. l. The groups will meet twice a week for six weeks. The sessions will be one and one—fourth hours in length. We will be finished at least two weeks before final exams. 2. There will be no general information session on Wednesday, March 26th. 3. Any results of the tests you take will be made available to you if you so desire, following the six weeks. The response so far has been amazingly high and I appreciate the cooperation already received in conducting this research for my Ph.D. TO: All Residents of Akers, Fee, Hubbard Halls FROM: Patrick McCary (Director of Research - Lyman Briggs College) During the spring quarter a number of small groups of students will be formed. The purpose of these groups will be to help the participants to better understand themselves. The groups will be part of a research project conducted to fulfill the requirements of my Ph.D. degree. If you would be interested in participating in a self-understanding_grogp, please call the Lyman Briggs College office (353-6A80), or stop into the Lyman Briggs College office (E-30 Holmes Hall). The groups will have eight students and a professionally trained group leader. The groups will contain students from Akers, Fee, Hubbard and Holmes Halls, both men and women's sides. Because a limited number of students will be needed, it will be necessary that you contact the Lyman Briggs College office by Wednesday, April 2 (3-6A80). Once you contact the Briggs office you will receive a brief questionnaire in the campus mail. The questionnaire should be completed and returned to the reception desk of your respective residence hall by Friday, April A, l969. Volunteers will be contacted directly by their group leaders and a meeting time determined to fit the schedules of the group members. Your group leader will be able to offer more direction and assistance to you in understanding the nature of the groups. The groups will meet twice a week for six weeks. Each session will last one and % hours. We will be finished with the project two weeks before final exams. During the group sessions a few brief tests will be administered. All results will be made available to you on a personal basis if you so desire at the conclusion of the groups. The information will, of course, be confi- dential and used only for research purposes. I will attempt to present some tentative findings of the study to all participants before the end of spring quarter. Research indicates that students generally find such an experience highly rewarding and educational. Please give some thought to the project and contact the Lyman Briggs College office by Wednesday,_April 2 if interested. 197 198 Memo To All Volunteers April 12, 1969 Dear The next meeting of our self—understanding group will be at o'clock in room . If you decide before this meeting that you are not going to participate, please contact me immediately at . Over 170 stu- dents volunteered and less than 70 are able to partici- 'pate. Replacements can only be made before the first meeting. After this time the groups will remain as they are. I am looking forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, Group Leader 199 Second Letter To Residents Of Holmes Hall (Volunteers Only) FROM: Patrick McCary (Director of Research) Lyman Briggs College DATE: March 2A, 1969 Dear Thank you for your interest in participating in a self-understanding group. A couple of minor changes have been made in procedure which I wanted to communicate to you. 1. The groups will meet twice a week for six weeks, each session will last one and one-fourth hours. We will be finished at least two weeks before final exams. 2. There will be no general information session on Wed- nesday, March 26th. Instead, I am going to ask you to complete a brief questionnaire which I have enclosed. 3. The questionnaire answer sheets will be confidential and are to be returned to the Lyman Briggs Office by Fri- day, March 28th. A. You will be notified as to when your group will meet by your group leader. 5. Although I would like to discuss at lenght the nature of your group, I cannot do so because of experimental reasons. However, I can tell you that the task of the group will be for the members to understand themselves and the others in the group. Your group leaders will be able to offer more direction and assistance in understand- ing this matter. 6. I will assume that if you do not return your question- naire completed by Friday, March 28th that you have decid- ed not to participate in a group. If you do not partici- pate please return the questionnaire to the LBC office. 7. During the group sessions a few tests will be admin- istered. All results will be made available to you on a personal basis if you so desire, at the conclusion of the groups. I will also attempt to present some tentative findings of my study to all participants in these groups before the end of spring quarter. 200 Even if you have decided not to participate in the project I appreciate your interest. Please remember to sign the answer sheet and return all materials to the Lyman Briggs College Office by March 28th. Do not write on the test booklets. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am unsmo - some»: 4332} tmwymoesoouaoa-nounsm April 10, I969 Dear I am unhappy to tell you that because of the large number of volunteers for self-understanding groups it will be impossible to include you in a group. It may interest you to know that well over lSO people volunteered to participate. Since the research calls for only nine groups it is possible to include only 70 students. However, I will make the results of the test you took available to you. You can expect these results in approximately six weeks. I appreciate greatly your Interest and cooperation in taking the time and effort to complete the test. It is my hope that we might have more self-understanding groups in the future so that you can participate. Sincerely, Patrick McCary Director, Research dc 201 May 29. I969 Dear Student: Thank you once again for your participation in taking the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Your results are enclosed. The experiment consisted of seeing if there were differences in self-concept and anxiety level as a result of participation in three different kinds of groups. The three kinds of groups were Homogenous (peOple who are all alike on the MB), Complimentary (peOple who were somewhat alike and somewhat different on the H8), and Heterogenous (people who were very different on the NB). The results have not yet been tabulated because the groups are just finishing with the project. IMPORTANT! These results are simply hypothetical! As you read the profile sheet you may find that it does not accurately describe your personality. Please don't put too much weight on what it says because it's not un- common for the results to be affected in such a way that you score differently than you would normally. If the test does not seem to describe you, simply regard this as a fault of the instrument and certainly not something with hidden meaning. The test is normally used in talking with a student about his strength and weaknesses in certain areas. If you would like to discuss the results, please contact me at E-l87 Holmes Hall. Once again thank you for your participation and cooperation. It is my hope that we might have more self-understanding groups in the future and that you can participate. Patrick McCary Director of Research Lyman Briggs College PH:dc 202 MN Am ”mg All” m 3 S 5 R E 4 VII m 3 U 0 m 3 A 9 T 2 S 1 N AI 3