”nah“.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELING
PROGRESS AND EMfiATHIC UNDERSTANGING

Thesis for H1. Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
William Marris Lesser

1958

TH FSIB

This is to certify that the

‘w
.

I thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELING PROGRESS
AND EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

presented by
WILLIAM MORRIS LESSER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Eh_,_D_.__deqree inmmgy
I
» ’L /'(/l Wkémé M Mr“:

Major professor

 

Dayfié/JZZ /?J’j
//

0-169

I

I 631 115-7433?
3 w. /

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELING PROGRESS
AND EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

BY

William Morris Lesser

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1958

 

This study was designed to explore the relationship
between counselor understanding of his client and
counseling progress. An integral part of the research
was the analysis of certain client-counselor variables,
some of which had been previously viewed outside of the
counseling process.

The major test procedures used were Q-sorts, an
Empathic Understanding Scale and a Felt Similarity Scale.
Rank order correlation was the primary statistical means
used to determine the various relationships. T-tests
‘were also computed to determine the significance of the
difference between various findings.

Variables such as similarity, various perceptions
of similarity, prediction and refined empathy were
related to each other, and to the criterion measures of
counseling progress and empathic understanding. The two
criterion measures were also related to each other.

The population consisted of 11 counselors and 22 of
their clients undergoing personal counseling at the
Michigan State University Counseling Center.

In general the stated hypotheses of this study were
not supported. It was found that counselor empathic
understanding as herein measured was unrelated to
counseling progress. This raised some questions concerning
the generally accepted notion of the value of empathic
understanding, especially since the client group on the

whole showed positive counseling movement.

It was also found that similarity between client and
counselor self-perceptions was negatively related to
counseling progress. However, correct awareness of
similarity was positively related to counseling progress
which suggests that the counselor is able to overcome the
negative effects of similarity in the counseling process
when he correctly perceives this similarity. Contrary
to views of Fiedler an overestimation of similarity was
not related to counseling progress. Empathic understanding
was not related to similarity, to correct awareness of
similarity, or to overestimation of similarity.

Counselor ability to correctly predict his client's
self-perception was also found to be unrelated to counseling
progress but was positively related to the client's
feeling of his counselor's empathic understanding.
Results of other research findings concerning ability to
predict were found to be generally contradictory of
each other, however.

The refined empathy score of Bender and Hastorf
was found to be positively related to counseling progress
but unrelated to empathic understanding. This finding
suggests that care be used in eliminating the effects of
projection or of assumed similarity when considering
one's ability to predict the responses of another.

' The results of this study must be considered as

tentative due to the relatively small pOpulation involved.

However, question is raised concerning some of the
generally accepted notions concerning empathic under-
standing, similarity between persons, and the ability

to predict another's responses. It is felt that further
research is necessary to either support or refute the
findings of the present study. Consistency in research
designs and in use of terms is needed to make all of

the studies in this area comparable.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELING PROGRESS
AND EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

By
WILLIAM MORRIS LESSER

A THESIS
Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1958

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

At this time the writer wishes to express his
gratitude to those who encouraged and assisted him in
the course of this study.

Special thanks are due to Dr. Donald L. Grummon,
chairman of the writer's doctoral committee, who made
available untold hours and exerted much effort in the
development, the progress, and the completion of this
study.

The writer wishes also to express his appreciation
for assistance to the other members of his doctoral
committee: Drs. Paul Bakan, Donald M. Johnson, Walter F.
Johnson, Bill L. Kell, and Gerald F. King.

I An additional expression of gratitude must go to
Dr. Bill L. Kell whose moral support throughout this
entire study was of invaluable aid to this writer.

The writer thanks the eleven counselors and the
twenty-two clients who participated in this study. Each
gave much time and examined himself deeply for the
purposes of this investigation.

Finally, the writer is deeply grateful to his wife
Irma who married into the initial stages of this study.
Her constant support, ever—ready constructive criticisms,
and undying patience made life with a dissertation bearable

and worthwhile.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Chapter
I. BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Theoretical VieWpoints . . . . . . . . 2
ResearCh O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ll
conClUSion O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 [PO
II. HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED . . . . . . . . A2
III. PROCEDURES
Measuring InStmentS o o o o o e o 0 [#5
Reliability 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O [’9
Operational Definition of Terms . . . A9
SUbjeCtSeooeooooooeoooo 51
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . 55
Means of Analysis of Data . . . . . . 58
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . 63
V. IMPLICATIONS, CRITICISMS, AND SUGGESTED
FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . 8A

VI 0 SUI’INLARY AND CONCLUSIONS 0 e o e o o o e 103
BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 106
APPENDIX

FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTION
OF DATA 0 C O O C O O O O C C O O O O O 113

Q‘SORT STATEIWENTS o o o o o o o o e o o 12].
RAW DATA AND RANKED DATA . . . . . . . . 124

ii

Table

l.

2.

h.

5.

ll.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Reliability Coefficients of Scales

usedeoooeoooeoeooeoooo

Differences Between Self and Ideal Q-Sort
correlatiOHSOOOOOOOOQOOcoo

Differences of Counseling Progress and of
Self Sort and Ideal Sort Correlations
fromzerOoeeooooooeooooo

Relationship Between Counseling Progress
and Empathic Understanding . . . . . . .

Differences Between Mean Empathic
Understanding Scale Scores and Mid-point
scalescoreSeooooeoooooooo

Difference Between Client and Counselor
Ratings of Empathic Understanding . . .

Relationship Between Similarity and
Counseling Progress, Empathic Under-
standing, and Prediction . . . . . . . .

Relationship Between Prediction and
Counseling Progress and Empathic Under-
standing...o............

Difference of Prediction from Zero . . .

Relationship Between Similarity plus
Prediction and Counseling Progress and
Empathic underStanding o o o o o o o o 0

Difference Scores Between Similarity
plus Prediction Correlations and Similar-
ity and Prediction Correlations . . . .

Relationship Between Prediction minus
Similarity and Counseling Progress and
Empathic UnderStanding o o o o e o e o 0

Difference Scores Between Prediction
minus Similarity Correlations and
Prediction Correlations . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

49

64

65

66

68

68

69

7O
71

73

7h

75

76

Table
14.

15.

16.
l7.

18.

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page

Relationship Between Indices of
Perceived Similarity and Counseling .
Progress and Empathic Understanding . . . 78

Relationship Between Unwarranted Assumed
Similarity and Counseling Progress and
Empathic Understanding . . . . . . . . . 79
Difference of Similarity from Zero . . . 81

Difference BetWeen Mean Felt Similarity
Scale Score and Mid-point Scale Score . . 81

Relationship Between Refined Empathy and

Counseling Progress, Empathic Understand-
ing, and Similarity o o o o o o e e o o o 82

iv

CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

Introduction

It is the purpose of this investigation to explore
certain of the elements which seem to be involved in
the process of the counselor "understanding" his client.
More specifically this study will be concerned with the
relationship between these elements of understanding
and counseling progress.

One of the factors to be considered is that of
similarity between counselor self-perception and client
self-perception. Further exploration in this study
'will be concerned with the factor of correctness of
prediction of the client's self-perception by the
counselor. Consequent to the information gathered
concerning these two factors, this study will deal with
the further question of which is more closely related
to understanding and to counseling progress-~similarity
or correctness of prediction, or some combination of the

twe. Finally this investigation will attempt to study

2
various indices of perception of similarity by the
counselor and their relationship to understanding and .

to counseling progress.

Theoretical Viewpoints

Similarity

 

Adams says, "Any experience or mental process
in another organism can be inferred from structure,
situation, history, and behavior only when a similar
experience or mental process is or has been invariably
associated with similar structure, situation, history
and behavior in oneself; and the probability of the
inference will be proportional to the degree of the
similarity" (l, p. 24h).

David Bakan (A) feels that the ability to under-
stand others must stem from the fact that people in
general are pretty much alike. It is this, he feels,
that permits us to have general laws in psychology.
"And insofar as we are alike we might be able to
'understand' one another by referring each other's
expressions to our own experiences; and by some process
which, we will say, is very much like the logical

process of inference, we predict and thereby control the

3

behavior of the other person" (A, p. 658). Bakan
further says that the clinical psychologist must find
which experiences within himself he is to refer the
given item of behavior which he observes in others.
He thinks that there are some things which the client
says that "matter” more to the clinician than do other
things, and as the flow of conversation takes place,
a vast variety of experiences within the clinician
come to be referred to in this complex relationship.

Taft (59) points out that some theorists feel
that one learns to know others by observations and
inferences deriving from the introjection of the
behavior of others. This point of view appears to be
quite similar to that of Bakan's. Taft himself feels
that judges can better describe and understand other
peeple if the background of the judge and of the
subject are similar since the judge then ". . . has
the advantage of being readily able to use appropriate

norms for making his judgment" (59, p. 20).

Feeling for Another
Cottrell and Dymond (ll) emphasize Mead's work
with self and role theory as a contribution to how

one individual understands another. "Mead has contributed

4

the insight that genuine communication takes place
only when the actor or communicator can take the role
of the other and respond to his gestures in that role"
(11, p. 356).

Steinmetz says that given the motive to under-
stand the other person, to get along with the other
person, one must have a "Psychological perception of
the other person . . ." (56, p. 332). He emphasized
that to understand another person a true feeling for
that person is necessary. In other words the person
who is to truly understand and communicate with
another must be able to fully comprehend and feel
what the other is saying so that he himself can then
respond to this person. This ability for empathic
response would seem to be basic in all communicative
processes and essential in the develOpment of the
self.

Several others hold this same point of view and
some, such as Sullivan, Mead, and Horney feel that
the self is made up of reflected appraisals from
others. "Hence the child experiences himself and
appraises himself in terms of what the parents and

others close to him manifest“ (60, p. 21A).

Subjectivity

The point of view that one must give of himself,
so to speak, in order to understand another is held by
Rollo May (#3). He thinks of this in terms of
"objectivity" and "subjectivity." To be objective,
according to May, does not mean to be less of a
person, that is impersonal or disinterested about truth
or happiness or welfare. "Objectivity is the capacity
to affirm the growth and development of the other
person (if one is doing therapY) or scientific research
(if one is doing research) as more important than one's
own prejudices or needs or wishes" (#3, p. 39). I
Objectivity is not opposite to subjectivity but it is an
attitude, a way of behaving which undercuts this
dichotomy. One, therefore, cannot arrive at meaningful
truth about persons by a method which in itself involves
ruling out all personal elements.

May discusses Albert Schweitzer's feelings about
Bach's music. Schweitzer says that the art of the
objective artist is not impersonal but on the contrary
is superpersonal. One cannot rule himself out when he
is dealing with the problems of others but one must
value the potentialities of the other person so that one

can affirm them as much as his own interests.

6

wyatt (6h) discussing the self experiencing of the
psychotherapist, affirms that the therapist is a human
being while doing therapy and is not a robot. Furthermore,
this humanness is the therapist's chief asset, his only
vehicle for understanding another person, according to
Hyatt. 'In its (psychotherapy) subjective aspect the
therapist experiences himself as an instrument, sensing,
feeling-in, intuitively anticipating as well as weighing
and organizing data, tuned to the therapeutic effort"

(64, p. 82). At one and the same time, the therapist
must experience himself and must respond subjectively

to a variety of emotional stimuli and must respond to the
feelings of the client. The therapist, says Wyatt, must
be himself, must permit his own feelings and needs to
enter into the situation, enter into the understanding of
the other person.

Carl Rogers, summing up his own feelings after many
years as a psychotherapist says, "The better therapist I
have become (as I believe I have), the more I have been
vaguely aware of my complete subjectivity when I am at my
best in this function" (51, p. 267). The therapist cannot
be a stick, a wall, a mirror. The therapist truly must be
someone who gives his all, gives of himself completely.

It would therefore seem that one must be open to his

own feelings and experiences if he is to be aware of the

7
feelings and experiences of another--if he is to be

"understanding.”

Insight
“”T'Dymond (13) notes that "o - - there have been

suggestions from several different sources that empathy
may be one of the underlying processes on which our under-
standing of others is built” (13, p. 127). She further
~states that "It would seem that the ability to feel and
describe the thoughts and feelings of others, (empathy) is
accompanied by a better understanding of the relationships
one has with others, (insight)” (12, p. 232). Conversely,
Dymond feels that those who are less able to take the role
of others lack insight into their own interpersonal
relations. Thus she suggests that there is a positive
relationship between one's understanding of himself and
his underStanding of others. She feels that a lack of
insight into one's own selfepattern is based upon a lack
of empathic ability.:Empathy, according to Dymond, may be
defined as the imaginative transposing of one's self into
the thinking, feeling, and acting of another.) Insight is,
therefore, a product of this empathic process, and insight
into others appears to be dependent upon the ability to
take the role of others.

Projection

Dymond feels, however, that there is another side to
the relationship between empathy and understanding. She
believes that prediction of others may be based on
projection and thus runs the risk of distortion. ”Projection
seems to be an antithetical process to empathy since
projection involves the attribution of one's own wishes,
attitudes, and behavior to some thing, or some one other
than the self" (IL, p. 3AA). However, does not this
statement seem to be contrary to that which she has
previously stated? ”To put one's self into the self of
the other,“ ”to trulyunderstand the other"--does this
not, to a large extent, depend on the ability to project
one's own feelings and attitudes truly into the other?

' Normal quotes Overstreet as saying that ". . . empathy

. . . signifies the imaginative projection of one's own
consciousness into an object or person outside oneself
. . . we then enter imaginatively into his life and feel
it as if it were our own. .Although our bodily separateness
remains, we effect a psychic identification. ‘We stop
being an outsider, and become an insider“ (4A, p. 283).

Dymond quotes Koestler as saying that empathy can be
projection or introjection. ". . . both are metaphors
referring to the experience of partial identity between the

subject's mental processes and those of another with the

9
resulting insight into the other's mental state and
participation in his emotions” (1A, p. 344).

It seems to this writer that the confusion which has
apparently arisen with regard to "projection" is the
result of inconsistent use of the term among varying
writers.

Projection as originally defined by Freud is a
defense mechanism. "A person is projecting when he
ascribes to another person a trait or desire of his own
that would be painful for his ego to admit. Since the
act of projecting is an unconscious mechanism, it is not
communicated to others nor is it even recognized as a
projection by the person himself. Projection in the
Freudian sense, therefore, represents a misperception or
a false perception. The fault or the unsavory desire or
trait is still in the person's unconscious; it is not in
the person or object on whom the projection is made"

(2. p. 3).

Van Lennep (61) feels that this afore-mentioned
concept of projection has today been broadened so that it
is now used to include ”. . . all kinds of utterances and
expressions of the subject as far as they are personal and
not decided by the rules of his society" (61, p. 1&9). He
further points out that the distinction between these two

usages has been.made by Sears, but unfortunately few have

10
followed Sears' example. This distinction is between
motivationally determined perception and projection in the
sense of attributing characteristics to others. On the
one hand there is the expression of emotions and ideas,
real self-expression; on the other hand there is
projection as originally defined by Freud as a defense
mechanism.

Since the term projection is used in these varying
ways, it is necessary that one be careful when examining
apparently differing points of view. Oftentimes what
appears as disagreement is really a differing use of the
same term.

Consequently it is clear that projection, in the
Freudian sense, can result in a distorted view of the
other person and, instead of empathy, one could have a
lack of understanding.

This point is taken up by Strupp who quotes Fromm-
Reichmann as saying that ". . . because of the inter-
relatedness between the psychiatrist's and the patient's
interpersonal processes and because of the interpersonal
character of the psychotherapeutic process itself, any
attempt at intensive psychotherapy is fraught with
danger, hence unacceptable, where not preceded by the
future psychiatrist's personal analysis“ (58, p. 197).
This is a point of view held by some, but certainly not

11

by all in the field. However, it certainly suggests that
an understanding of oneself would help to better under-
stand another. Since projection as defined psycho-
analytically could be a major hindrance in the process
of empathy or understanding, it seems necessary that one
be aware of the possible distortions in this process.

Thus the question is raised: 'Do pe0ple empathize
better with those who are relatively similar to them-
selves?” If so, what is the role played by projection of
the non-psychoanalytic type? There are those who feel
that man can only understand what he has already
experienced and that this prior experiencing is vital in
the empathic process. '. . . without empathy a man
cannot make an accurate diagnosis and he can best

empathize with those whose responses resemble his ownn

(30, Po “9).

Research
In an attempt to see how some have investigated
certain of the afore-mentioned theoretical points of view,
the examination of research approaches of various workers

in the field seems warranted.

Empathy Test
In order to measure the ability to understand or

empathize with another Dymond, in l9h9, constructed a test

12

of empathy (13). This test was comprised of four parts.
Each part contains the same six items. In Part One the
subject rates himself on a five point scale for each of
the items. In Part Two the subject rates another person
on the same scale. In Part Three the subject rates
another person as he thinks this person would rate himself.
In Part Four the subject rates himself as he thinks this
other person would rate him. Fifty-three subjects-~29
females and 2h males--took part in this experiment. This)
class of 53 was broken into five groups of seven persons
each and three groups of six persons each. Each group met
once a week to work on a class project. Each subject did
all four ratings after his group had met three times. It
was found that there was a higher than chance (.01 level)
correct score in terms of predictability. This procedure
was repeated after the groups had had eight meetings. A
slight but insignificant improvement was found with time.
It was found, however, that although no difference was
found between males and females on the first testing,
females were better predictors the second time. It was
also found that those groups which functioned less smoothly
did somewhat worse the second time than the groups that
functioned better.

Dymond then took the five highest empathizers

(predictors) and gave them T.A.T.'s. She found, in

13
general, that the highest empathizers took the role of,
or empathized with, the story characters while the low
empathizers did not do this. She then had each subject
rate himself as to whether he was empathic or not, and she
found a poor correlation between this self—rating and the
subject's ability to predict, for low empathizers, but a
good correlation for the high empathizers. ”It seems that
those whose empathic ability is high, as measured by this
test, have better insight into the fact that they are high,
than those who are low have into the fact that they are low“
(13, p. 132). Dymond therefore presents evidence for her
view that self-insight and the ability to understand others

are positively related.

Factors in Understandigg

A study was conducted by Sears (53) in which fraternity
‘ brothers rated themselves and each other on a number of
traits, e.g., stinginess. Sears found that if one had
insight into his own trait he attributed less of it to
others. "Subjects lacking insight into their own
possession of a trait assigned more extreme ratings to
others on that trait than did subjects possessing insight"
(53, p. 161). This lends further support to Dymond's
contention that self-insight and accurate perception, or

understanding, of others are positively related.

lb

In a later study, in 1950, Dymond (1A) tried to
relate personality with empathy. She administered her
four part empathy test to a class and found that females
were more easily predictive than were males. She further
'found that it was more difficult to predict a person who
had low empathy as measured by the empathy test than a
person who had high empathy as measured by this test. She
also found that those whose self conception agreed well
with the concept others had of him were able to take the
role of others as measured by the empathy test. Thus
Dymond once again found a positive relationship between
insight and the ability to understand others.

These subjects were each then given the T.A.T., the
Rorschach, the Wechsler-Bellevue, and the California Ethno-.
Centrism Test. Dymond found that the low empathizers were
rigid, functioned best on an abstract level and poorest in
concrejz situations especially when dealing with other

qt

people, were more responsive to promptings from within

”I a: / .
than from without, were impulsive,]were infantile,firg

possessed little sensitivity and tact, {had'had difficult
family lives, mistrusted others, were afraid of being hurt,
were ego-centric, were dominating, and were insecure. The
high empathizers, as a group, were just the Opposite on
all counts. She thus did find a relationship between the

ability to empathize, as shown by her test, and various

15 .

personality descriptions. It would seem from these
results that the ability to empathize would be found only
in certain kinds of people, and tends to be associated
with feelings of freedom of self-expression, of being
open to experience, etc. Lit

Lindgren and Robinson (39) revised Dymond's test i
method slightly and got some similar and some different
results. The conflicting results led them to conclude:
”This raises the question of whether the test measures
the tendency of individuals to respond to an interpersonal
situation in terms of cultural norms rather than empathic
promptings' (39, p. 176). Thus Dymond's "Empathy Test"
has not been completely validated and work must continue
in this area. , A

The suggestion by Lindgren and Robinson that agfi
prediction may be somewhat related to cultural expectations
is noted also by Gage (27). He suggests that generalized
stereotyped responses expected of all people, plus stereo-
typed responses expected of certain sub-groups, e.g., male
or female, in addition to one's own expected responses all
affect one's prediction of another person. His view
therefore is that individual and cultural factors are both
important in the process of understanding. my

Bender and Hastorf (5) have done work which is similar"

to that of Dymond's. They feel that social perception

16
involves the awareness of the motivation of others. The
adequacy of this perception depends upon the capacity to
perceive and to be aware of the purpose of other organisms.
They performed a study in which the subjects were A6
psychology students. These students filled out three
scales: The Minnesota Inventory of Social Behavior, The
Ascendence Submission Study (Form for Men), and the Study
of Motives. Each person in the class filled out the same
scales as he thought one or two others in the class, whom
he knew well, would fill them out. The results were as
fellows:

1. Low positive correlation between obtained and
predic ted score 3.

2. No consistency in the ability to predict others
on each of the three scales.

3. The most difficult scale for predicting was the
Study of Motives. This suggested to Bender and Hastorf
that the subjects seemed to be projecting their own
feelings on this scale.

The authors explained the inconsistency of results by
the fact that people generally need be concerned not with
predicting other's thoughts and feelings and attitudes,
but only with another's behavior. They therefore felt that
the novelty of the task may have had a deterrent effect

upon the subjects. "It may be that so severe a measure

17
might be better suited to 'test' clinical psychologists"
(5, p. 560). Thus the element ef task familiarity is

suggested as a factor in ”understanding."

Refined Empathy ‘x

In 1952, these same authors, Hastorf and Bender (313
attempted to isolate projection from empathy. Fifty
subjects were given the Allport Vernon Study of Values,
and each subject chose another person whom he knew well,
and predicted his Allport Vernon Study of Values. Two
deviational scores were obtained: _

1. An empathy score, which was the difference between
the subject's prediction score and the actual score of the
predicted person.

2. A projection score, which was the difference
between the subject's own score and that which he
predicted for the other person.

The total difference scores were arrived at by
summating the item by item deviation scores.

The basic question here was: ”In attempting to
predict the responses of another person, well known to the
predictor, was the prediction closer to the responses of
the person predicted for (empathy) or was it closer to
the predictor’s own score (projection)"(31, p. 575)? The
method used to answer this question was the subtraction

of the subject's ”empathy score" from his ”projection

18
score." It was found that 28 of the subjects were
"projectors," 20 were "empathizers," and two were about
similar in projecting and empathizing. Comparing their
subjects' responses to the responses of those whom they
predicted, in the extreme cases, ”. . . brings forth the
fact that the ten 'projectors' are significantly (.02 level)
more similar to their associates than are the ten
'empathizers'" (31, p. 575). Despite making this latter
statement, however, the authors still felt that they
had to correct for projection in measuring empathy, or
else, they say, it does not make psychological sense.
They conclude by saying that "The results of this study
emphasize the fact that part of the successful prediction
of another person's responses may be due to projection
rather than empathy (and that a refined measure of empathic
ability will approximate more adequately the psychological
aspects of empathy when it is defined as'transposing oneself
into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so
structuring the world as he does')” (31, p. 576)! The
parentheses are this writer's because he feels that the
second half of the statement does not follow from the first
half. Although they admit that "projection" may be an import-
and factor in "empathy," in understanding another person, they

cannot accept this possibility. They continue to cling

19
to the idea that "projection" is bad, that it is something
to be avoided, even if it is of value. It appears that
these authors assume that similaritquugt result in
projection (as a defense mechanism). In view of the
literature which affirms the value of similarity it is
felt by this writer that Hastorf and Bender have taken a
stand which is too extreme and too inflexible.

Bender and Hastorf (6), in 1953, reaffirm their
earlier point of view; ”Our contention has been that if
a subject and his associate are highly similar, the
subject who projects would be given spurious credit for
empathic ability" (6, p. 503). At this time they
administered a #2 item form concerning feelings and
attitudes to 50 students. These subjects each then
predicted the responses of four friends, who also filled
(out the form. A projection score, a raw empathy score,

a similarity score, and a refined empathy score were
obtained., Results showed that there was a high correlation
between the raw empathy score and the actual similarity
between the two subjects, but that refined empathy

(empathy minus projection) was independent of the
similarity between the two subjects. Positive correlation
was also found between projection and raw empathy, while
negative correlation was feund between projection and

refined empathy. Moderate correlation between raw and

20
refined empathy ”. . . indicates the importance of differ-
entiating between the two measures" (6, p. 50h). These
results are not very startling, however, since projection
is defined by the authors as overlap between prediction
and similarity, and the method of obtaining raw and
refined empathy involves the addition or subtraction of
projection. The presence or absence of a correlation
between these scores of empathy and the projection score
is therefore actually pre-determined, or built into these
scores.
" Gage and Cronbach (28), too, point out that Bender
and Hastorf's correction procedure for obtaining "refined
empathy" results in concelling out those items in which
the predictor is actually similar to those whom he is
predicting. "Clearly, Bender and Hastorf did not arrive
at a measure of accuracy independent of AS (assumed
similarity) and RS (real similarity)” (28, p. #16). These
authors further show that individual differences in
prediction are more strongly determined by differences in
accuracy of prediction than by differences in assumed
similarity.' They believe that one's ability to predict or
to understand another person depends upon the degree of
favorability toward the other plus the predictor's implicit
personality theory which is based upon his own prior

experiences. Thus Gage and Cronbach suggest that

21
positiveness of one's feeling toward another plus the
effects of one's background and one's resulting view of
people combine to produce understanding.

In 1955, Hastorf, Bender, and Weintraub (32) re-
examined the “refined empathy” score. They found that
subjects marked a questionnaire for themselves and for
those whom they predicted according to patterns of
response. It was further found that a relationship was
manifest between a person's patterns of response and his
choice of the type of associate whose questionnaire he
predicted. "The patterns of response, previously
unperceived, act through the scoring system to influence
to a large extent the refined empathy score. A subject
receives a high refined empathy score, not necessarily
because of his empathic ability, but because of his
pattern of response and the pattern of response of the
associate whom he chooses" (32, p. 343). Thus, the
so-called ”refined empathy” score is ”. . . still an

unsatisfactory measure of empathic ability'I (32, p. 3h3).

Similarity

Halpern (30), using 38 female nursing students, had
each of these subjects reapond to the GAMINwith a ”yes” or
"no" response, prohibiting doubtful responses. Each of

these subjects later predicted five other peOple, two of

22
whom were most similar to herself, two least similar, and
one in the middle. Each subject also indicated if she was
pleased with herself or not on each of the personality
characteristics of the GAMIN. Results were as follows:

1. More accurate predictions were made for those

who were similar to the subjects than those
dissimilar.

2. Greater predictive accuracy was found on those

items which the subject and the person whom
she predicted marked similarly than on items
they marked differently.

3. A greater accuracy of prediction occurred on'

those items with which the subject was
pleased with herself, than on those with
which she was dissatisfied with herself.

A. There was no difference in accuracy of

prediction between those who were similar to
the subject and those dissimilar to the
subject on items which the subject and the
erson whom she predicted marked differently
(nonconcordant items).

5. There was no correlation between the ability

to predict on nonconcordant items and the
overall ability to predict.

Thus a greater predictive accuracy was obtained for
those subjects who were generally similar to the predictee
and where similarity occurred only in certain items or
areas. In discussing these results, Halpern feels that
they were not necessarily due to conscious attribution of
one's feelings to others, but that a subject might more
easily recognize feelings and patterns of behavior in

others if he has experienced them himself. It would seem

23

to the present writer that it matters little how we
explain these results, that is, whether it is projection,
attribution, or recognition. The important thing would
seem to be that this phenomenon does occur, that similarity
between people is related to their understanding of the
other. -

Normal (4h) compared the relationshipsamong acceptance-
rejection, self-other identity, insights into the self,
and the realistic perceptions of others by the use of a
rating scale. The difference between the rating a person
gave to himself, and the median of his ratings of three
other persons was called self-other identity. The
difference between the rating a person gave to himself and
the median rating of him by three other persons was called
insight. Normal then found positive correlations between
self-other identity and insight, and between self-other
identity and a realistic perception of others. As a
result of these findings which link perception of self and
perception of others, he concludes: "There is an entire
gestalt of personality with the related concept of self,
conceptions of others, and the self-other concept so
intimately intertwined that it is quite difficult to
speak of one facet without considering the others"
(at, p. 232). '

A further study of the effect of similarity upon

2h
prediction was conducted by Notcutt and Silva (45). Sixty—
four married couples were each given a self rating scale
and were also asked to predict for their spouses. The
predictions were significantly greater than chance.
"Successes were greater on items subjects rated themselves
similarly” (#5, p. 37). This tends to confirm the view as
stated earlier that others are judged by analogy with our-
selves, and the- less valid the analogy the less accurate
is the;hdgment. In other words, people are better judges
of those like themselves.

Wolf and Murray (63) had five judges meet with
subjects, each in #5 minute group sessions, and each
subject was marked on A0 personality variables. These
were then discussed within the group many times and
initial and final group ratings by majority vote were
obtained for each subject. Each judge then marked himself
and the other judges on the #0 personality variables, and
a score for each judge was an average of his own rating and
the ratings of the other four judges of him. These
average scores for each judge were compared with the way
he marked the 15 subjects.‘ Some contrast was found--that
is, if one was high in a trait, the tendency was to mark
the subjects low and visa versa. Each judge's rating of
every other judge was compared with the average group

rating of each judge and it was found that in six out of

25

ten cases it supported ”. . . the proposition that a judge
is most accurate when judging a person who resembles
himself, and least accurate when judging a person who is
different" (63, p. 358). According to the author ”The
best explanation seems to be the common one: that a man
can only understand what he has already experienced. One
might hazard the statement that without empathy a man
cannot make an accurate diagnosis and he can best
empathize wdth those whose response resemble his own”
(63, p. 358). These results therefore tend to support the
results of other studies in which similarity seems to aid
predictability. It further implies that similarity of
response suggests similarity of background, and results in
greater ability for understanding. I a.

This latter view is expressed also by Hollingshead
and Redlich (33) in terms of psychiatrist treatment. "All
too often, psychotherapy runs into difficulties when the
therapist and patient belong to different classes. In
these instances, the values of the therapist are too
divergent from those of the patient, and communication
becomes difficult between them” (33, p. 3&5). The
authors point out that the psychiatrists whom they
interviewed were irritated, as a group, by their lower
class patients' inability to think in their terms.
Hollingshead and Redlich feel that this social class

26

distance leads to a lack of understanding between

therapists and patients. They believe that this is a
major reason why neurotic patients in the two lower
classes of the group they studied dropped out of treatment
much faster than those in the higher classes.

Realizing the extended meaning these findings might
have, the writers caution that I'. . . the values of
therapist and patient need not be alike or even similar;
they merely cannot be too far apart socially and psycho-
logically unless the therapist has a real and sympathetic
understanding of the patients' class culture" (33, p. 347).

In effect, it appears that the findings of
Hollingshead and Redlich are in agreement with those of
many others herein mentioned who feel that similarity of
experiences, and of social and psychological make-up
between persons are important factors in the ability to
understand the other. They have carried their work beyond
the usual relationships studied, and into the area of
psychotherapy.

Fiedler (19). in 1950, using a Q-sort of 75 statements,
had trained judges rate the relationship between therapists
and clients after listening to a number of tapes. He
found that despite the school from which the therapist
came, that is, psychoanalytic, nondirective, or Adlerian,

experts of each of these schools showed empathic under-

27

standing of the patient, that is, were sensitive to the

patient's feelings, while, Fiedler claims, nonexperts were

swayed more by their own needs. Fiedler (20) lists three

main dimensions for describing patient-therapist relation-

ships:
1.

2.

3.

The therapist's ability to communicate with
and to understand the patient.

The emotional distance of tie therapist
toward the patient.

The status of the therapist in relation
to the patient.

In a later study, Fiedler (21) had one patient do a

self sort, and 22 therapists then attempted to predict this

patient's Q-sort. The therapists also did a self sort and

an ideal self sort. Four correlations were then obtained.

1.
2.

3.

h.

Patient and therapist self sort.

The therapist self sort and his patient
prediction Q-sort.

The therapist ideal self sort and the
patient's self sort.

The therapist ideal self sort and his
prediction of his patient's sort.

Fiedler claims:

1.

That the therapist's overestimation of

the patient's similarity to the therapist
means that the therapist wants the

patient to be more like him (the
therapist), than he (the patient) really
is. Fiedler feels that in this case the
therapist shows an empathic attitude, that
he accepts another as being like himself,
and understands his feelings.

28

2. Seeing the patient as different than
oneself means the therapist has a
negative attitude towards the patient.

3. Seeing the patient as more like the
therapist's ideal self, than the
patient's true self, means the therapist
perceives the patient as being better
adjusted than he really is, and suggests
to Fiedler that the therapist will then
.demand more of the patient.

h. Seeing the patient as less like his own
ideal means seeing the patient as
relatively helpless, and thus the
therapist must support the patient.

Supervisors then rated the therapists as to their
ability. The results were that good therapists, as rated
by their supervisors, showed (1) rather than (2), and (3)
or (L) less than (1). Thus, "good” therapists saw their
patients as being similar to themselves, and, inferentially,

x
used this similarity to advance the therapeutic process.
These findings and views by Fiedler certainly appear to
support the ideas of Hollingshead and Redlich (33) as
afore-mentioned.

A further study of patient-therapist relationships
was done by Fiedler and Senior (25). These authors feel
that each of the two persons in a therapeutic situation is )(
unconsciously, and in part consciously, aware of the
other's feelings. “It is the hypothesis of the investi-
gation that the attitudes which one of the two participants
had toward himself and toward the other person will be

meaningfully related to the attitudes held by the second

‘ 29
person? (25, p. 446). Fifteen therapists and one patient
per therapist, comprised the subjects in this study. Each
person did a self sort and an ideal self sort, and each
sorted as he thought the other half of his pair, that is
therapist or patient, had sorted himself.

Fiedler and Senior (25) here define self satisfaction
as the correlation between the self and the ideal self;
prediction as the correlation between predictive sort and
the other person's self sort, real similarity as the
correlation between the patient and therapist self sorts,
real similarity to the ideal as the correlation between one
person's ideal and the other's self sort, unwarranted
assumed similarity as the overestimation of similarity by
the statistical method of squared differences. Unwarranted
assumed similarity to the ideal is defined by a statistical
method of finding one person's overestimation of the
other's adjustment. A high unwarranted assumed similarity,
by the therapist, suggests to these authors that '. . . the
therapist sees the patient as a person with whom he can
identify, whom he can understand, like or respect; this
presumably is indicative of a good therapeutic relationship”
(25. p- LAB).

Therapeutic competence was then found via supervisor's

rankings. Results of this study showed:

30
1. Better therapists, as ranked by their
supervisors, are better able to predict
their patients self sort than are poorer
therapists.

2. Better therapists are not as self-
satisfied as poorer therapists.

3. The better therapist is seen by the
patient as more ideal than he really
is.

h. The more self-satisfied the therapist,
the poorer predictor he is.

5. "The greater the similarity of the

therapist to the patient's ideal, the
less the therapist tends to like, or
empathize with, his patients” (25, p. 4&9).

Among other things these results suggest that actual
similarity between a therapist and a client is a less
important factor in therapist understanding than the ‘<
therapist's feeling of similarity. Furthermore a close
relationship between the therapist's ideal self and the
client's real self seems to result in less understanding xx
on the part of the therapist. It appears teethisTwriter
that Fiedler and Senior are implying that there is a
perception on the part of the therapist of his own self
and ideal self concepts, and of the client's self and
ideal self concepts. Consequently, it seems that the
therapist's feelings about himself, his client, and the
total situation are of more importance than the reality

of himself, his client and the situation.

31

The results of this study by Fiedler and Senior are in
part similar to the results of an unpublished study by
Isaacs, Fiedler, and Fiske (35) in 1950 at the University
of Chicago. These authors feel that errors in understand-
ing of patients do not necessarily arise from the
clinician wrongly attributing his own self concepts to the
patient, nor from the direct similarities or differences
between patient and clinician, nor from the degree of
self satisfaction of the clinician. ”The errors of
prediction are suggested as arising one the one hand, in
those areas where the diagnostician has dissatisfactions
with himself; and on the other hand, from the diagnostician
being unable 29 accept that his own ideal and the patient's
self may be similar in some ways" (35, p. 5). Thus the
possibility of the patient being like the therapist's ideal
seems to be threatening at some level, and seems to)
interfere with the therapist's understanding of his patient.
”It seems likely to us that the similarity of the patient
to the ideal self of the clinician, is seen by the
clinician as a threat. As clinicians, we apparently are
able to accept patients as either similar or different
when compared to the way in which we look upon ourselves;
and we apparently can accept the patient as different from
our ideal self. However, we seem to have difficulty

accepting the patient as similar tocur ideal self" (35, P. 4).

32
If this be true, then a "good" therapist must be aware
of himself completely, of his self-concept, and of his
ideal picture of himself. This finding could be considered
as indirect support for Fromm-Reichmann's and Strupp's (58)
point of view that therapists should themselves have.
personal analysis before they do any therapy.

Fiedler independently states ". . . , we find that
good therapists see their patients as more like themselves
. . . and that good therapists assume their patients to
be more similar to themselves than to their ideals”

(23, p. 307). In a later paper, Fiedler (24) indicates
that he feels that ”assumed similarity“ by the therapist
for his patient suggests a positive attitude by the
therapist towards that patient. "When we believe that a
person thinks and feels as we do, our attitudes toward him
tend to be friendly and positive” (2h, p. lh3). Hence,
Fiedler feels, better therapists seem to havea warmer
feeling and more liking for their clients than do their
loss competent colleagues. With this redefinition and
perception of ”assumed similarity," Fiedler is able to show
why "good” therapists saw their patients as being similar
to themselves, and how this affected the therapeutic

relationship.

33
Clinical Training and Experience

In addition to the afore-mentioned research findings
and views concerning the effect of similar background,
similar modes of response, and felt similarity upon the
ability to predict and understand others, there has been
a good deal of thought and study given to the factors of
clinical training and experience and their effect upon
understanding. As was previously seen, Fiedler (19) found
that experts, i.e., therapists with much training and
experience, were more sensitive and effective as therapists
than non-experts, despite the theoretical school of
thought to which they belonged.

Concern about the effect of experience in those who
make clinical predictions led Luft (A1) to perform a study
in which he presented case conference summaries to
clinicians and non-clinicians. Each then had to predict
how the patient would respond to a questionnaire (STDCR),
which the patient had filled out. No significant difference
was found between the 30 clinicians and the five physical
scientists who were subjects in this study. Each of
28 physical scientists and 66 clinicians then read a one
hour diagnostic interview with two different patients, and
then predicted the questionnaire and also a sentence
completion test. Again, no significant difference was
found between the two groups. ”The results suggest that

there is no direct relationship between clinical training

34

and the ability to predict verbal behavior of an individual"
(41, p. 758). Horrocks and Nagy contend, however, that
". . . the ability to make a diagnosis from case study
data is only moderately related to ability to choose
acceptable remedial measures” (34, p. 145). Consequently,
as Luft points out, his results do not ". . . necessarily
mean that beth groups are equally able to handle or apply
their understanding for therapeutic purposes” (4, p. 758).

Luft also found, though with no consistent trend,
that different clinical specialists on a psychiatric team
(clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and social
workers) have a different understanding of the same case
.material. Thus, although there was little overall
difference in prediction for the three clinical groups,
there were sub-area differences in prediction. That is,
each of the clinicians seemed to understand a different
aspect of the same person. The fact that no consistent
trend occurred suggests that the application of knowledge
to each case tends to be highly unique. "This would tend
to support the notion that two clinicians could disagree
‘with each other yet both could be correct" (40, p. 18).

Gage (26), too, believes that there is an element
of uniqueness in understanding. As he puts it, "One kind
of perceiver may be more accurate than another, but only

for a certain kind of perceivee" (26, p. 129). Therefore

35

every empathic situation differs from every other one.
Consequently, one must look closely at both members of a
predictive pair to see the mutual effect of each upon
the other, in order to understand the uniqueness of the
total situation.

Sommer, Mazo, and Lehner (55) played a tape of a
therapy hour from which they deleted the therapist
comments and the client's direct replies to these comments.
The patient's tape was divided into 12 meaningul statements
of about one minute each. Each subject (therapist)
responded after each segment to the question: "What has
this patient told you?” Subjects were nine clinical
psychology trainee graduate students and ten therapists,
both clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. Half the
group were told the story that the patient had just
returned from a situation where she had become upset and
fainted. The judges' responses were examined on the basis
of descriptive or interpretative responses and also on the
basis of seven content categories e.g., the patient's
dynamics, behavior in therapy, etc. "Experienced therapists
were found to make significantly more interpretative
responses than trainees, but no differences were found
between these two groups on any of the seven content
categories used. Analysis of the possible effect of prior
clinical information about the patient yielded no significant
differences” (55, p. 136).

36

Strupp (58), in another study in this same general
area, feund no highly significant differences between one
group of experienced, analyzed therapists and one group of
unanalyzed therapists, in responding to printed patient's
statements in the areas of suicide threats, schizoid 3
productions, and transference reactions. He did find
though, that analyzed therapists were more active than
unalyzed ones. By analysis of covariance, length of
experience was rule out as an artifact.

Reid and Snyder (47) had one clinical psychologist
and 14 graduate students in clinical psychology taking a
nondirective counseling course at Ohio State University
listen to a counseling tape and note the feeling tone of
40 statements. Secondly, four selections totalling 104
items were presented to these subjects who were asked to
name or describe the feeling underlying these 104 items.
.All the responses were then placed into a number of groups,
under which various names for feelings would fit. For
example, under guilt would be self-blame, shame, guilt,
etc. No complete agreement was found on the labeling of
feelings, which led to the Conclusion that "It would seem
highly probable that it is the rule rather than the
exception for more than one feeling to be present in a

counselee's statement” (47. p. 132).

37

The professor's ranking of each subject as to how

good or bad a therapist he was then was correlated with

the agreement of the subject's feeling responses with the

modal response of all subjects.

1.

2.

4.

A moderate positive correlation was found,
that is, the better therapist tends to
find the more important feeling that is
present, more than does the poorer
therapist.

The good therapists also had a higher
agreement among themselves than did the
poor therapists.

It was also found that the most
experienced and trained therapists
developed ”. . . a relatively individual
pattern in the feelings they find
important" (33, p. 134). In other words,
certain therapists find certain feelings
more often than other feelings and this
is the case with the more experienced and
better therapists.

It was also found that good therapists
were able to find more feelings than
poorer therapists, that is, poorer
therapists had a more limited range of
feelings which they discovered.

The results of these last few studies (26, 40, 41, 47,

55, 58) suggest that therapist ability to understand

another person is, to some extent at least, related to

clinical experience, type of training, and to whether or

not the therapist has been in therapy himself.

MacFarlane (42) attempted to study a number of the

afore-mentioned--type of training, personality factors,

relationship between two persons-in a diagnostic interview

38
situation. After this initial interview had taken place,
the patient sorted statements concerning his experiences
about the interview, his self—picture at the time of the
interview, and his perception of the interviewer's
reactions in the interview. The interviewer alsodid all
these sorts, as he thought the interviewee would do them,
and the relationship between prediction and actual sorting
was considered as a measure of empathic understanding.
”Empathic understanding is the process of perceiving the
thinking, feeling, striving, and acting of another, of
being able to see him as he sees himself, and to see the
world as he sees it. It involves a person's being able to
see himself as the other sees him and this includes an
awareness of the reaction he produces in the other person.
He should be able to perceive how the other person
experiences and structures the relationship between them"
(42, p. 36).

One group of interviewers included five psychiatrists,
three clinical psychologists, and four social workers,
while the second group of interviewers was composed of four
clinical psychology trainees. The members of this second
grouP each saw four patients, and each of the trainees and
their patients also filled out the revised Allport-Vernon-
Lindzey Scale of Values, and the Cattell, Saunders, and

Stive Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.

39

Although the results were not statistically significant
MacFarlane found a trend that predictive accuracy
increased with increasing clinical experience. No
difference was found relating to type of clinical
experience, i.e., psychiatric, social work, psychological,
or trainee. ”. . . the ability to predict the responses
of patients is unrelated to clinical specialty or length
of experience” (42, p. 91).

A most interesting finding in this study was that
interviewers were able to predict significantly better how
the patient felt the interviewer reacted and how the
patient perceived the interview than how the patient was
feeling in the interview. Thus the interviewers seemed
to be more aware of the relationship, of their effect upon
the interviewee, and of the impression they made upon the
interviewee, and less aware of the actual self-experience
of the patient in the situation. The fact that this was
a diagnostic interview may account for this latter finding,
since the interviewer may have been more alert to factual
information and to his own reactions to these facts, and
less alert to the client's affective presentation of these
facts. The present writer would indeed be amazed if
similar results were obtained in therapy interviews.

No significant relationship was found between values

and empathic understanding, but certain of the measured

filflflflflhr .1 ...r.!...... c a; . .F b 4‘

 

40
personality traits did seem to be related to understanding.
More empathic understanding was found when the interviewee
and the interviewer did not differ greatly in ”independent
self-sufficiency," when they both enjoyed being with
people in "social companionship," when both possessed some
“altruistic love of others," when there was little
difference between them in Hsurgent-desurgent” character-
istics, and where there was little difference-in ”tension
or anxiety level" between them. Since, MacFarlane feels,
there was relatively little difference in anxiety level
among the interviewers, any difference in this respect
between interviewer and interviewee must come from
differing tension levels in the interviewee. Hence, he
feels that, ". . . as the patient is less anxiety-

laden empathic understanding of him is easier" (42, p. 124).

Conclusion

It thus seems from the studies herein reviewed that
there appears to be little consistency or agreement
concerning the factors which enter into empathic under-
standing. Some say that clinical experience and training
are necessary and important factors. Others refute the
importance of these elements. Some claim that similarity
of response and background enter into the process of
understanding. Others feel that felt similarity rather

than true similarity is of most importance. Still others

41
feel that similarity hinders true understanding of
others.

There will be an attempt made in the present study
to examine several of these factors. Similarity in self-
concept, correctness of awareness of similarity, and
ability to predict the other person's self—perception
are the major aspects of understanding which will be
examined. The relationship between understanding and

progress in personal counseling will also be reviewed.

CHAPTER II
HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED

Introduction

As seen from the review of the literature herein
presented, several studies have dealt with the role of
similarity between persons in understanding the other
person. In addition some work has been done which
compares "good" and "poor" therapists, as rated by their
supervisors, in ability to predict their client's self-
descriptions, and in similarity (both real and felt) to
their clients. However, there is no work known to this
writer which has compared variables of ability to predict
and similarity with regard to a therapist's ability to
achieve counseling progress with a particular client.

The present study, therefore, will attempt to study
whether any relationships exist between the counseling
progress of particular clients and counselor empathic
understanding of these clients, between each of these
measures and client-counselor similarity (both real and
felt), and between each of these measures and counselor

ability to predict these clients' self-concepts.

#2

43
Generally this study will be exploratory in nature in
an attempt to further the knowledge of the process of
counseling, and to study measures previously viewed outside

of the counseling process. The results of previous

research have suggested certain hypotheses however.

Hypotheses

I. Counseling progress is positively related to the
counselor's empathic understanding of his client.

II. Counseling progress and empathic understanding
are each positively related to the degree of similarity
between the client's and the counselor's self-concepts.

III. Counseling progress and empathic understanding
are each positively related to the counselor's ability to
correctly predict his client's self-concept.)

IV. Counseling progress and empathic understanding
are each more closely related to a measure which combines
the degree of client-counselor self-concept similarity and
the counselor's ability to predict the client's self-
concept than to either of these measures alone.

V. Counseling progress and empathic understanding
are each more closely related to the counselor's ability
to predict the client's self-concept than to a measure
‘which subtracts the client-counselor self-concept
similarity from the counselor's ability to predict the

client' 8 self-concept.

VI.

are each

1+4

Counseling progress and empathic understanding
positively related to:

A. the counselor's feeling of similarity to
his client;

B. the counselor's overestimation of the
similarity between himself and his client;

0. the counselor's correct awareness of the

client-counselor self-concept similarity.

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES

Measuring Instruments

Q-Technique

”Q-technique" as described by Stephenson (57) will
be the major test procedure used in this study. This
technique requires a subject to order a number of
descriptive statements into a quasi-normal distribution
along a continuum from "least like" to "most like." Thus
a person may be asked to sort a sample of self-referent
statements into a normal distribution along the continuum
from "least like" to "most like" as he feels these state-
ments describe himself. He could then be asked to sort
these statements as they describe his "ideal self," the
person he would most like to be.

The correlation between these two sorts can then be
computed to obtain a coefficient which expresses the
similarity of an individual's self-estimate and his ideal-
self-estimate. Furthermore, two different persons may be
asked to sort these statements to describe how each feels
about himself, and a correlation may be computed in order

to arrive at a measure of the degree to which these two

45

 

 

“I?! IiIJAt-ztak. _.tl‘. «x. t f, . u

 

46
individuals are alike in terms of their self-perceptions.
Kell points out that this technique “. . . permits of
correlation between persons as variables rather than
between tests as is usual in other correlational
techniques” (37. p. 16).

The universe of self-referent statements used in
this study was developed by Butler and Haigh (8) for use
in the University of Chicago CounselingCenter Research (52).?4
The authors first obtained 100 self-referent statements 3
from actual therapeutic protocols. They then had their
subjects sort these statements into a normal distribution
of nine piles on the scales "like me" to ”unlike me” and
”like-ideal” to "unlike-ideal." '

” Butlerand Haigh felt that a discrepancy between the
self-concept and the ideal-concept reflected self—
dissatisfaction in an individual and they further felt
that this would diminish as a result of counseling.

"Our basic hypothesis is, then, that a reduction of self-
ideal discrepancies is a consequence of the self-concept
and the ideal-concept coming to rest on a broader base
of available experience than before” (8, p. 58). They
further believe that, with counseling, the self-concept
will change more than the ideal-concept, although the
ideal-concept can be expeCted to change to some extent

as well.

47

The subjects of their study were some of the subjects
in a larger research program at the University of Chicago
Counseling Center. Butler and Haigh's group consisted of
25 clients who had completed six or more counseling
interviews, and for whom follow-up tests after the
completion of counseling were available.

Their findings appear to confirm the hypothesis that
a more improved group of clients exhibits a greater
decrease in self-ideal discrepancies than a group of less
improved clients or a group of controls. "In our opinion
the results discussed here indicate that low correlations
between self and ideal are based on a low level of self-
esteem related to a relatively low adjustment level and
that a consequence of client-centered counseling for the
clients in,this study was, on the average, a rise in the

level of self-esteem and adjustment" (8, p. 75).

Empathic Understanding

A second test procedure used in the present study is
a measure of empathic understanding as obtained by the use
of an "Empathic Understanding Scale.” The 12 statements
of this scale were obtained by first formulating 16 state-
ments from many listed by Fiedler (23) as being characteristic
of therapeutic relationships, as being characteristic of
”expert" therapists, and as being characteristic of most

conducive therapeutic treatment.

48

Four judges, all graduate students in the Department
of Psychology at Michigan State University, and including
this writer, rated each of these statements as to whether
or not it was an example of "empathic understanding.”
Empathic understanding was defined as "the imaginative
transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and
acting of another and so structuring the world as he
does." On this basis, 12 of the 16 statements were
rated by all four judges as depicting empathic under-
standing, and these constituted the Empathic Under-
standing Scale.

Two forms of the scale were then devised so that
each counselor could rate himself and could be rated by
his client. Rating was along a seven point continuum

from "most" to "least.”

Felt Similarity

A scale which would measure counselor feelings of
similarity towards each of his clients was needed. Since
this writer found no such scale already in existence it
was necessary to construct a scale especially for the
present research. To accompliShthis, a seven item
scale of "Felt Similarity" was devised.

Rating of each item was along a seven point continuum

from "most" to "least."

49
Reliability

The results of the scales used in the present study
were analyzed in order to determine whether the present
client and counselor groups marked thesescales in a
consistent manner. The Odd-Even Test Reliability
Technique along with the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula
was used to estimate the reliability of the ratings of
these scales by the present subjects. Table 1 shows that
the reliability for each of the scales is beyond .90.
It may therefore be considered that these measuring
instruments are reliable, i.e., have been consistently

marked by the clients and counselors in the present study.

TABLE 1
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF SCALES USED

 

 

 

Scale Eith‘iififii’
Empathic understanding-cl .95
Empathic understanding-co .92
Felt Similarity ' .91

 

Operational Definition of Terms
1. Counseling Progress is the amount of change
between client initial self sort:ideal sort correlation and

client final self sort:ideal sort correlation.

50

2. Empathic Understanding is to be measured in two
ways:

A. the mean score obtained by the counselor on
the Empathic Understanding Scale as he is
rated by his client;

B. the mean score obtained by the counselor on
the Empathic Understanding Scale as he
rates himself.

These two measures will be referred to hereafter
respectively as Empathic Understanding-Cl and Empathic
Understanding:Co.

3. Similarity is the correlation between client
initial self sort and counselor self sort. This will be
considered as a measure of client-counselor self-concept
similarity.

4. Prediction is the correlation between the client's
initial self sort and the counselor's predictive sort of 7
the client. This will be considered as a measure of counselor
ability to predict his client's self-concept.

5. Similarity plus Prediction is a measure which adds
a counselor's rank in the group on prediction to his rank
in the group on similarity. This measure will be considered
as an index of the total effect of the two single measures.

6. Prediction minus Similarity is a measure which.

subtracts a counselor's rank in the group on similarity

51
from his rank in the group on prediction. This measure
will be considered as an index of the resultant effect
of removing the effect of similarity from the effect of
prediction.

7. Felt Similarity is a counselor's mean rating on
the Felt Similarity Scale.

8. Correct Awareness of Similarity is a measure which
subtracts the ranked similarity measure from the ranked
felt similarity measure. The sign of the discrepancy will
not be considered. This will be considered as a measure
of counselor correct awareness of similarity.

9. 0verestimation of Similarity is a measure which
subtracts the ranked similarity measure from the ranked
felt similarity measure. The sign of the discrepancy will
be considered. A positive discrepancy is indicative of
counselor overestimation of client-counselor similarity.

A negative discrepancy is indicative of counselor under-

estimation of client-counselor similarity.

Subjects
Eleven counselors on the staff of the Michigan State
University Counseling Center were involved in this study.
Eight of these 11 counselors possessed the degree of
Doctor of PhilOSOphy in Psychology or in Counseling, from

four different universities--Chicago, Michigan State,

52

Minnesota and Pennsylvania State. The other three
counselors were actively working towards the Ph.D. at
Michigan State University.

Of the eleven counselors, nine were male and two
were female. The eight Ph.D. counselors varied in age
from 30 to 47 Years, while the three non-Ph.D. counselors
ranged in age from 24 to 34 Years.

The eight Ph.D. counselors possessed 750 to 8000
hours of experience in personal-adjustment counseling. All
eight possessed many more hours of counseling experience
with problems which were of a more academic and vocational
nature than of a personal-adjustment nature. The three
non-Ph.D. counselors had from 40 to 250 hours of
experience in personal-adjustment counseling. They too
possessed many more hours of vocational and academic
counseling experience.

Seven of the eight Ph.D. counselors had from 15 to
225 hours of personal counseling themselves, while two of
the three non-Ph.D. counselors had 25 to 50 hours of
personal counseling.

In terms of theoretical orientation to counseling,
two of the Ph.D. counselors and two of the non-Ph.D.
counselors called themselves "Rogerian." Three of the
Ph.D. counselors and one non-Ph.D. counselor considered

themselves "Eclectic.” One Ph.D. counselor was

53
"Sullivanian," and two were "Rogerian-Analytic." Actually
almost all of the counselors in this study had basic
training along "Rogerian" lines, and all practiced
varying aspects of Rogerian and Analytic therapy.

Twenty-two clients served as subjects in this study.
All of these clients were "self-referred," that is, they
came to the Counseling Center of their own accord. Each
client had difficulties of a personal-social nature which
were disturbing him and about which he desired and sought
out professional counseling assistance. More specifically,
the range of presenting problems was quite wide. These
included acute anxiety attacks, continual inability to
study or to work, difficulty in attention and concentration,
difficulties in marital relations, and generalized fears
and anxieties concerning adequacy and worth.

Fifteen of these clients were males and all 15 were
students at Michigan State University. These men ranged
in age from 18 to 31 years. Two of the men were freshman,
three were sophomores, four were juniors, two were seniors,
and four were graduate students. Nine of these men were
single and six were married.

Seven females, ranging in age from 18 to 27 years,
comprised the remainder of the subjects of this study.

One of these females was a freshman, two were SOphomores,
and two were seniors. The other two females were the

wives of students. One of these latter two females was

54

a high school graduate, while the other was a college
graduate. Neither was going to school at the time of
this study. The female college graduate was the wife of
one of the male graduate students in this study.

Each of the 11 counselors saw one to five of the
clients. More specifically, four counselors saw one
client each; five counselors saw two clients each; one
counselor saw three clients; and one counselor saw five
clients.

At the time of completion of data collection these
clients had reached varying stages in counseling. To
have waited until all subjects had completed counseling
before final data collection might have taken too long
to make this study practical. In addition this study
was not formulated in an attempt to evaluate the
effectiveness of completed counseling. The goal was to
relate individual counseling progress to other measures
such as counselor empathic understanding and client-
counselor similarity. It was therefore decided that
certain practical time limitations would determine when
final data collection would take place.

Hence, 11 of the clients had terminated counseling
while 11 were still continuing when final data collection
occurred. Four of the 11 subjects who had terminated

counseling did so by simply not returning for further

55
counseling appointments although they did return to
complete the research. The other seven terminated
clients ended counseling in accordance with their
counselors.

Seven of the terminated clients had had anywhere
from three to seven hours of counseling while the other
four had had nine to 12 counseling hours.

At the time of final data collection ten of the
continuing clients had had nine to 12 hours of counseling
while one had had six counseling hours. I

Therefore, seven of the eight clients who had had
from three to seven hours of counseling had terminated,
while ten of the 14 clients who had had nine to 12

counseling hours were continuing.

Collection of Data
Initial Collection

Four basic steps were necessary for the initial
collection of the data for this study.

1. Each counselor on the staff of the Michigan State
University Counseling Center was asked to sort 100 self-
referent statements, to describe himself as he saw
himself, along a continuum from "least like" to ”most
like" himself. (See listing of Self-referent Statements

and Self sort Instructions in Appendix).

2.

56

Each new client who came to the Counseling

Center and who, it appeared, would return for at least

three personal counseling hours was asked to participate

in the study.

3.

A.

B.

Each counselor was asked to notify this
writer of all new clients after he had
seen the client for the first time. (See
Memo to Bill Lesser in Appendix).

This writer then contacted each client to
request his participation and to make an
appointment to see him before his second
counseling hour. (See Request Form and
Subject Availability Form in Appendix).
All counselors were immediately notified
as to which of their clients had agreed to
participate in the study. (See Memo to

Counselors in Appendix).

The client was seen after his first counseling

hour to obtain from him a sort of the 100 statements

describing the way he saw himself and describing his ideal

person, the person he would most like within himself to

be. (See Self Sort and Ideal Sort Instructions in

Appendix).

4.

The counselor of each new client was asked to sort

these same 100 statements as he felt the client would sort

57
them to describe himself. This predictive sort was
obtained some time between the first and second counseling
hour with the client. (See Predictive Sort Instructions in

Appendix).

Final Collection

 

The final data collection for each client took place
at whichever of the following three periods occurred first
for him

1. at the termination of counseling;

2. .at the end of 12 counseling hours;

3. during the second week of June, 1958, regardless
of whether or not the client had terminated
counseling or had had 12 counseling hours. This
was necessary because the end of the school term
occurred one week after this time and it was
necessary to set this time for completion of the
data collection.

The steps necessary for collection of the final data

were as follows:

1. The client was again asked to sort the same 100
statements to describe the way he saw himself and his
ideal person.

2. The client was asked to rate his counselor on
the Empathic Understanding Scale. (See Client Rating
Scale of Empathic Understanding in Appendix).

58
3. The counselor was asked to rate himself on the
Empathic Understanding Scale. (See Counselor Rating
Scale of Empathic Understanding in Appendix).
4. The counselor was asked also to rate himself
Ion the Felt Similarity Scale. (See Felt Similarity

Scale in Appendix).

Means of Analysis of Data
I. The relationship between counseling progress and
empathic understanding was obtained by a rank order
correlation between the measures of counseling progress and:
A. Empathic understanding-c1;
B. Empathic understanding-co.

II. The relationship between similarity and counseling
progress and between similarity and empathic understanding
was obtained by a rank order correlation between the
measures of similarity and;

A. Counseling progress;
B. Empathic understanding-cl;
C. Empathic understanding-co.

III. The relationship between prediction and counseling
progress and between prediction and empathic understanding
was obtained by a rank order correlation between the
measures of prediction and:

A. Counseling progress;
B. Empathic understanding-cl;

C. Empathic understanding-co.

59

IV. The relationship between felt similarity and
counseling progress and between felt similarity and
empathic understanding was obtained by a rank order
correlation between the measures of felt similarity and:

A. Counseling progress;
B. Empathic understanding-c1;
C. Empathic understanding-co.

V. Correct awareness of similarity was computed for
each counselor by subtracting the rank of his similarity
measure from the rank of his felt similarity rating. The
sign of this discrepancy was ignored since absolute
closeness between real similarity and counselor feeling of
this similarity was desired. The obtained discrepancy
between ranks was considered as the measure of correct
awareness of similarity.

VI. The relationship between correct awareness of
similarity and counseling progress and between correct
awareness of similarity and empathic understanding was
obtained by a rank order correlation between the measures
of correct awareness of similarity and:

A. Counseling progress;
B. Empathic understanding-cl;

C. Empathic understanding-co.

60

VII. Overestimation of similarity was computed for
each counselor by subtracting the rank of his similarity
measure from the rank of his felt similarity rating. The
sign of this discrepancy was considered in order to
measure whether the counselor overestimated or under-
estimated the real similarity between himself and his
client. A positive discrepancy between ranks was
considered as an overestimation of similarity, while a
negative discrepancy between ranks was considered as an
underestimation of similarity.

VIII. The relationship between overestimation of
similarity and counseling progress and overestimation of
shmilarity and empathic understanding was obtained by a
rank order correlation between the measures of over-
estimation of similarity and: .

A. Counseling progress;
B. Empathic understanding-cl; '
C. Empathic understanding-co.

IX. To determine whether counseling progress and
empathic understanding were each more closely related to
similarity plus prediction than to either of these measures
alone, the following procedure was used:

A. the ranks of similarity and of prediction
were summated for each counselor;
B. these sums of ranks were then ranked for

the total group;

61

C. a rank order correlation was obtained
between these ranks (ranks of sum of ranks)
and:

1. Counseling progress;
2. Empathic understanding-cl;
3. Empathic understanding-co.

D. The resulting rank order correlation
coefficientswere then tested, by the use of a
test for the difference between correlations
of correlated samples (46, p. 419), to see if
they differed significantly from the previously
computed rank order correlation coefficients
between:

1. Similarity and:
a) Counseling progress;
b) Empathic understanding-cl;
c) Empathic understanding-co.
2. Prediction and:
a) Counseling progress;
b) Empathic understanding-cl;
c) Empathic understanding-co.
X. To determine whether counseling progress and
empathic understanding were each more closely related to
prediction than to prediction minus similarity, the

following procedure was used:

A.

B.

D.

62

the rank of similarity was subtracted from
the rank of prediction for each counselor;
the resulting discrepancies between ranks
were then ranked for the total group;

a rank order correlation was obtained
between these ranks (ranks of discrepant
ranks) and :

1. Counseling progress;

2. Empathic understanding-c1;

3. Empathic understanding-co.

The resulting rank order correlation
coefficients were then tested, by use of a
test for the difference between correlations
of correlated samples (46, p. 419) to see if
they differed significantly from the previously
computed rank order correlation coefficients
between prediction and:

1. Counseling progress;

2. Empathic understanding-cl;

3. Empathic understanding-co.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before the various obtained relationships may be
presented and evaluated, it would seem necessary to
investigate the criterion measure of counseling progress.
Did the group of clients herein investigated make
significant counseling progress?

Three means of analyzing these results were used
in this study. The first method used is that of the Sign
[Test (16). 0f the 22 clients in the present group, 17 made
positive counseling movement (self:ideal correlation
increased) while five clients showed negative movement
(self:ideal correlation decreased). According to the Sign
Test movement for the total group is positive and signifi-
cant at the .02 level of confidence.

The second method used to determine the progress of
the group was the t-test between the means of two matched
groups (15). The initial and final self:ideal correlations
were converted to z, and the resulting t between the means
of z for the two groups was 2.692. Table 2 indicates that
this difference is statistically significant beyond the

.02 level of confidence.

63

64
TABLE 2
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELF AND IDEAL Q-SORT CORRELATIONS

 

 

 

 

Client Q-Sort fa E beig t

Correlations Means
Initial self sortzinitial ideal sort .24 .25 08 2 6 2*
Final self sortzfinal ideal sort .43 .46 ' ° 9

 

Initial self sort:fina1 self sort .64 .76 9
Initial ideal sort:final ideal sort .79 1,07 008 3.974***

 

*Denotes significance at .02 level of confidence.
***Denotes significance at .001 level of confidence.
aMean r equivalent of mean 2 scores. All statistical

analyses were done with z scores.

Thirdly the measure of counseling progress itself
(i.e., the difference between initial and final self:ideal
correlations after conversion to 2) was tested to see if
it differed significantly from zero (46). Table 3 shows
that the resulting t-test is statistically significant
beyond the .01 level of confidence.

Therefore it can be concluded with confidence that
according to the measure herein used, the present client
group did make significant counseling progress. These
results are in complete accord with the findings of

Butler and Haigh (8).

65
TABLE 3

DIFFERENCES OF COUNSELING PROGRESS AND OF SELF SORT
AND IDEAL SORT CORRELATIONS FROM ZERO

 

 

Client -Sort

 

Counseling Progress .21 .21 .29 .06 3.39**

Initial self sort:
final self sort .64 .76 .19 .04 19.56***

Initial ideal sort:
final ideal sort .79 1.07 .23 .05 21,84**#

 

**Denotes significance at .01 level of confidence.
***Denotes significance at .001 level of confidence.

aMean r equivalent of mean z scores. All statistical
analyses were done with z scores.

The present findings also confirm Butler and Haigh's
results that the self-concept changes more than the ideal-
concept after counseling. After conversion to z, a
t-test between the initial and final self sort correlation
and the initial and final ideal sort correlation proved to
be significant beyond the .001 level of confidence (Table 2,
p. 64). Thus, although both the self-concept and the
ideal-concept showed significant change, the self-concept

changed significantly more than did the ideal-concept.

The initial hypothesis of this study states that
counseling progress is positively related to empathic

understanding of a client by his counselor.

66

A view commonly held in the fields of counseling and
psychotherapy asserts that a counselor (therapist) must
be able to understand and empadlize with his client. This
is a major part of the philOSOphy of Rogers (50) and is
also emphasized by others, e.g., Rollo May (43). Fiedler
(20) notes that a therapist's ability to understand his
patient is an important dimension in good patient-therapist
relationships.

The results of the present study do not support this
hypothesis, however. According to Table 4 counseling
progress is not significantly related to empafilic under-
standing as rated by either the client or the counselor.

As a matter of fact, although the obtained correlations

are not statistically significant they do suggest a possible
negative relationship between counseling progress and
empathic understanding. This finding is certainly not

supportive of commonly held views.

TABLE 4

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELING PROGRESS
AND EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

 

 

Measure Rho p

—

Empathic understanding-cl -.291 .21
Empathic understanding-co -.292 .21

 

67

Further support for this finding results from an
examination of those clients who had terminated counseling
at the time of final testing, and those clients who were
still continuing counseling at the time of final testing.
The procedure used was that developed by White (16) for
determining the significance of the difference between two
sets of observations which are ranked together. The
results of this test show that the terminated clients
made significantly (.05 level of confidence) more
counseling progress than did the continuing clients.
However, client and counselor ratings of empathic under-
standing were significantly higher for the continuing than
for the terminated clients (.03 and .04 levels of
confidence respectively). Thus the sub-group of clients
who made less counseling progress was better ”understood"
than was the sub-group which made more counseling progress.

An examination of Table 5 shows that the mean ratings
by clients and counselors on the Empathic Understanding
Scale were significantly beyond the mid-point of the
scale. These scales were therefore not marked "in the
middle.” It may be further concluded that the client and
counselor groups generally rated the counselors high on
empathic understanding although there was variability of

ratings within the groups.

68
TABLE 5

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING SCALE
SCORES AND MID-POINT SCALE SCORES

 

 

_Mid-
Scale M. point SD SEM t

Empathic understanding-cl 5.76 4.00 .71 .155 11.355***
Empathic understanding-co 5.33 4.00 .72 .158 8.418***

 

***Denotes significance at .001 level of confidence.

The client group on the whole tended to rate the
counselor group as exhibiting more empathic understanding
than the counselor group felt it exhibited, however.
Table 6 shows that the t-test (between the means of non--
correlated samples) (46, p. 409) between these two groups
is significant at the .07 level of confidence. Although
this is not statistically significant (.05 level used for

significance) it is close enough that it bears consideration.

TABLE 6

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLIENT AND COUNSELOR RATINGS
OF EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

 

 

SE betWQ

Scale Nbans t p

Empathic understanding-c1 5.76

.221 1.946 .07
Empathic understanding-co 5.33

 

69
A rank order correlation between empathic understanding-
cl and empathic understanding-co is .178 which is not
significant, however. It therefore appears that client and
counselor perceptions of empathic understanding differ to

a considerable extent.

The second hypothesis of the present study asserts that
similarity of self-concept between clients and counselors
is positively related to the client's counseling progress
and to the counselor's empathic understanding of his client.
Table 7 shows that similarity has a significant
negative relationship to counseling progress, and is
unrelated to client and counselor ratings of empathic

understanding.

TABLE 7

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIMILARITY AND COUNSELING
PROGRESS, EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING,
AND PREDICTION

 

 

me 1*

 

 

Measure Rho p
Counseling progress -.378 .05*
Empathic understanding-cl -.027 , .90
Empathic understanding-co -.218 .35
Prediction .046 .85

 

*Denotes significance at .05 level of
confidence.

70
Hypothesis III states that the counselor's ability
to correctly predict his client's self sort is positively
related to counseling progress and to the counselor's
empathic understanding of his client.
Table 8 shows that prediction is unrelated to
counseling progress and to empathic understanding-co, but

is positively related to empathic understanding-cl.

TABLE 8

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREDICTION AND COUNSELING
PROGRESS AND EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

~— :-
—‘ _ T

 

Measure Rho p
Counseling progress -.124 .60
Empathic understanding-cl .481 .03*
Empathic understanding-co -.062 .80.

 

*Denotes significance at .03 level of
confidence.

These findings do not support Fiedler and Senior's (25)
results which indicate that "better” therapists (as ranked
by their supervisors) are better able to predict their
patient's self sort than are poorer therapists. Varied
findings concerning prediction have left this area 7

completely unsettled at the present time, however.

71
Although Table 9 shows that the ability to predict
their client's self sort was found to be significantly
different from zero for the total counselor group, it
appears from the results shown in Table 8 that this
ability is unrelated to counseling progress but is

somehow manifested to the clients as empathic understanding.

TABLE 9
DIFFERENCE OF PREDICTION FROM ZERO

 

 

 

 

 

.Measure Pa 2 ' SD SEM t p
Prediction .33 .34 .20 .04 8.50 .001*

***Denotes significance at .001 level of confidence.
aMean r equivalent of mean 2 scores. All statistical

analyses were done with z scores.

A further aspect of prediction which bears looking into
is its relationship with similarity. Several writers,
including Halpern (30) and Notcott and Silva (45), claim
that peOple who are similar to each other are better able
to predict each other's responses to various measures.
These writers, however, used nurses who were classmates
and knew each other fairly well (30) and married couples
(45) as their subjects. One wonders whether the possible
effects of the closeness of the relationships may be of
at least as much importance as similarity upon the ability

to predict.

72
In the present study, prediction took place after

the first hour of counseling. As seen frOm Table 7

(p. 69) the correlation between similarity and prediction
is nil (Rho = .046). Thus the effect of similarity
between client and counselor upon prediction of the
client's self sort after one hour of counseling seems

to be vastly different than the effect of similarity

between friends or spouses upon prediction.

Hypothesis IV asserts that a combination of similarity
plus prediction would be more closely related to counseling
progress and to empathic understanding, than would either
similarity or prediction by themselves.

This hypothesis was formulated upon the assumption
that similarity and prediction would each be positively
related to counseling progress and to the two measures of
counselor empathic understanding. Since this basic
assumption was not upheld it would be surprising if
Hypothesis IV were substantiated. As will be shown, this
hypothesis was not upheld.

The results of Table 10 show that there is no
significant relationship between similarity plus prediction
and counseling progress, and between similarity plus
prediction and empathic understanding. Comparing these

results with those of Tables 7 and 8 (pp. 69 and 70)

73
it appears that the combination of the two measures
(similarity and prediction) results in a single measure
which lies somewhere between the two parts that make it
up. The two individual measures thus seem to cancel

each other out when they are combined.

TABLE 10
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIMILARITY PLUS PREDICTION

AND COUNSELING PROGRESS AND
EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

*— .—

 

 

Measure Rho p
Counseling progress -.220 .32
Empathic understanding-cl .194 .37
Empathic understanding-co -.208 .33

 

Table 11 shows that the correlations with the
combined measure do not differ significantly from the
correlations with similarity and prediction alone.
Therefore, since the basic assumption underlying
Hypothesis IV was not upheld the hypothesis was not

validated.

Hypothesis V rested upon the same assumption as
Hypothesis IV. This hypothesis states that the removal
of similarity from prediction would result in a measure

(prediction minus similarity) which would be less closely

.Arzl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oocsoHMHanm Heoflpmwpmpm schemes moomonommfio.vosaeppo one mo osozm

 

mm:n.u xxxx xxxx mowpofieonm
mono. xxwx xwxx hpaasafifiwm
one ooummfiosmpmaoesm campemam

 

NXXN bmbm.au KNNK GOHpOfloohm
xxxx Nmmm.H MHNN hpflumawsfim
one HelwmfiommpmMouss earpemsm

 

xxxx xxxx ommo.an , mOHpoHoohm
xxxx NNKX NOHm.H hpwheafiaam
one mnoawonm mswaomssou

 

oonwcwummpm Holmmwvmmpm snomeHm
showmpfloampmmsm Teacup afinmmmmmr wcflHWmmdoo
one eoaoosoonm moan $2223

 

emZOHH<Ammmoo ZOHBOHQmmm 22¢ HBHM4AHSHm Qz<
mZOHB¢Ammmoo ZOHHUHQmmm mqu HBHmquEHm zmmzhmm mmmoom mozmmmmmHQ

HH mqmde

74

75,
related to counseling progress and to the two measures of
empathic understanding than would prediction.

The results of Table 12 indicate that prediction
minus similarity is positively related to empathic under-

standing-cl, and is unrelated to counseling progress and

to empathic understanding-co.

TABLE 12°

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREDICTION MINUS SIMILARITY
AND COUNSELING PROGRESS AND
EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

 

 

 

Measure Rho p
Counseling progress .128 .60
Empathic understanding-c1 .377 .05*
Empathic understanding-co .177 .41

 

*Denotes significance at .05 level of
confidence.

Table 13 shows that these correlations do not differ
significantly from the correlations between prediction and
counseling progress, and between prediction and the two
measures of empathic understanding. Since the basic
assumption of Hypothesis V was not upheld, the results

did not substantiate this hypothesis.

.oosmofimflmmfim Heowpmfiompm schemes neoconommflo vocfiepno on» no omozm

memo. NNNX xxxx ooumcwosmpmuooqd canpmdsm
sass Humm.l xxxx Hoammflvmmpmnoom: ownpmdsm
saws saws smoo. mmonmomm wmwaomcSOQ

new :oapoaoohm

 

ouummflomeUm ,IAonmeHosme‘ mmohMon
”woven popmmEMIIHMwb b swapsdam quHomesoD

use hpflneafisfim mamas soapofioohm

mmZOHB<Ammmoo ZOHBUHQmmm Q24 .
mZOHedqmmmoo MBHmquSHm mDZHE ZOHBOHQmmm zmmBBmm mmmoom MozmmmmmHQ

ma mqmde

76

 

 

 

 

 

77

Fiedler (21) and Fiedler and Senior (25) have claimed
that there is another side to the relationship between
similarity and understanding and good therapy. They feel
that therapist overestimation of his similarity to his
client is indicative of a liking of and a feeling for the
client and that this will result in more understanding of
the client. They further assert that this unwarranted
assumed similarity (25, p. 448) is indicative of good
therapists and hence of a good therapeutic relationship.
The role of feelings of similarity in the counseling
process is thus raiSed.

Hypothesis VI of the present study is therefore an
outgrowth of the aforementioned view. This hypothesis
states that felt similarity, overestimation of similarity
and correct awareness of similarity are each positively
related to counseling progress and to empathic under-
standing.

Table 14 shows that felt similarity and overestimation
of similarity are not related to counseling progress.
Correct awareness of similarity, however, is positively
related (beyond .05 level of confidence) to counseling
progress.

Due to the findings with overestimation of similarity

it was felt that use of Fiedler's unwarranted assumed

similarity in the present study would be in order. Thus

.oocooflmmoo Mo Hosea mo. pm oossofimfiswwm monocoas

 

 

 

be. mmo.| *mo. mom.l om. mum. oonwmflemmpmpoosd ofinpmmsm
mm. #00. cm. mmm.l ea. cum. Houwsfichpmmoomd oflnpmmsm
smo. one. 00. oma.l mm. OmH.| mmohwopm mmaaomqsoo
a one a one o one
anatoaassm do moansHHEHm to impassHaEem
mmosohm3< poohhoo compmefipmomo>o pamm madame:

 

soeessssam easements

UZHQZ¢BmMMQZD onadmzm
Qz< mmmmoomm UZHgmmzzoo 92¢
NBHmquSHm mmmeommm mo mmOHQzH zmmzhmm mHmmZOHsdqmm

dd mqmde

78

79
unwarranted assumed similarity was computed according to
Fiedler's method (21) and it was found to be unrelated to
counseling progress, as seen from Table 15. This
finding is consistent with that found between overestimation

of similarity and counseling progress in the present study.

TABLE 15
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNWARRANTED ASSUMED SIMILARITY

AND COUNSEEING PROGRESS AND
EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

 

Measure 4 Rho p
Counseling progress .078 .73
Empathic understanding-cl .090 .70
Empathic understanding-co -.083 .73

It must be remembered that whereas Fiedler used
supervisor judgment of ”good” therapists the.present study
used a more objective criterion of counseling progress of
individual clients. In this setting, counselor overestima-
tion of similarity and unwarranted assumed similarity
between himself and his client was not conducive to
counseling progress.

A very marked consistency appears with regard to
the relationships of each of the two measures of counselor

empathic understanding with felt similarity, overestimation

80
of similarity, correct awareness of similarity, and
unwarranted assumed similarity. As seen from Tables
14 and 15 (pp. 78 and 79), felt similarity is not
significantly related to empathic understanding but a
suggestion of a positive relationship is indicated;
overestimation of similarity is negatively related to
empathic understanding-co, and is not significantly
related to empathic understanding—cl although a negative
relationship is suggested; correct awareness of similarity
is unrelated to the two measures of empathic understanding;
and unwarranted assumed similarity is unrelated to empathic
understanding (c1 and co).

These results suggest that the correctness of similarity
feelings, although apparently effective in the counseling
process are not perceived by either client or counselor as
empathy. Since, however, empathic understanding and
counseling progress are unrelated (even tend to a negative
relationship) this finding is not completely startling.

Another aspect of these relationships should also be
noted here. It was found that in terms of the present
Q-sort items the clients and counselor groups seemed to
possess similar self-concepts, as seen from Table 16.
However, as seen from Table 17, the counselor group rated
the Felt Similarity Scale significantly below the mid—

point ratings of that scale. It thus appears that the

81
counselor group, although significantly similar to the

client group, felt generally dissimilar to this group.

TABLE 16
DIFFERENCE OF SIMILARITY FROM ZERO

 

 

Measure fa 2 SD SEM t p

 

Similarity .26 .27 .25 .05 5.40 .001***

 

***Denotes significance at .001 level of confidence.

V aMean r equivalent of mean 2 scores. All statistical
analyses were done with z scores.
TABLE 17

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN FELT SIMILARITY SCALE
SCORE AND MID-POINT SCALE SCORE

 

 

Mid- ,
Scale M ,point SD SEM t p

Felt Similarity 2.88 4.00 1.02 .223 5.022 .OOl***

 

***Denotes significance at .001 level of confidence.

The present findings concerning the relationships
between counseling progress and similarity, counseling
progress and various measures of feelings of similarity
and counseling progress and prediction led to reconsidera-
tion of Bender and Hastorf's (6, 29) attempts at eliminating

the effects of projection (which may arise from similarity)

 

1

 

 

 

82
from the ability to predict accurately. They labelled
the resulting measure ”refined empathy.” Using their
method (6) refined empathy measures were obtained for
the present group.

As seen from Table 18, refined empathy is positively
related to counseling progress, but is unrelated to the
two measures of empathic understanding. It therefore
appears that in the present case Bender and Hastorf's
method for eliminating ”projection” from prediction does
result in a measure which is positively related to counseling
progress. This measure appears strengthened by the fact
that similarity and refined empathy are significantly
negatively related. The present results thus seem to
support Bender and Hastorf's contention that projection
should be parcelled out from prediction in order to get a

more accurate measure of prediction (refined empathy).

TABLE 18

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REFINED EMPATHY AND COUNSELING
PROGRESS, EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING, AND SIMILARITY

 

 

 

Measure ' Rho p
Counseling progress .385 .05*
Empathic understanding-cl .235 .32
Empathic understanding-co .187 .40
Similarity “ell-56 002*

 

*Denotes significance at .05 level of
confidence.

83

From the foregoing discussion it would seem that
certain variables which have been viewed as being important
in the process of counseling may actually play little or
no part in this process. On the other hand certain
variables in the counseling process seem to play more
significant roles than has been viewed up to the present
time. However, this can only be considered a very
tentative conclusion since the study of 22 subjects,
several of whom had not completed their counseling, is a
hazardous basis for setting aside the clinical observations
of many, many competent therapists. These results do,
however, cast serious doubt upon the usually accepted
therapeutic axioms and demand either further confirmation

or refutation.

CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIONS, CRITICISMS, AND SUGGESTED)
FURTHER RESEARCH
Introduction

The findings of this study present both supportive
and contradictory evidence for previously reported
research. It is generally felt by this writer that the
area of counseling and psychotherapy, and the area of
"empathic understanding" are still essentially in their
infancy. More work is needed to relate these areas and
certainly more consistency in use of terminology and
design is needed. All too often the same measure is
labelled differently from researcher to researcher,
and similarly, different measures are called the same
thing. This is a problem which is, in this writer's

view, a major one in the field of psychology today.

Counseling Progress
In general the client group in the present study
made significant positive counseling movement. One
wonders if a more accurate picture of counseling progress
could be found for clients who had not yet terminated

counseling, however. Clients do not usually experience

84

85
successful counseling in a straight line manner and often
they feel "down" one day, and "up" the next. Since, as
previously mentioned (p. 67), terminated clients showed
significantly more counseling progress than did continuing
clients, it is conceivable that the present measure may
not be sensitive enough for estimating the overall
progress of clients still in counseling. It is possible
that clients still in counseling at the time of the final
data collection were at a low ebb and showed little or
no increase in self:ideal correlations. This does not
necessarily mean that the counseling was unsuccessful,
however. The question is therefore raised as to whether
the present measure of counseling progress is an
apprOpriate one for non-terminated clients.

Unfortunately, since the process of counseling may
be quite variable for any particular client, measurement
of counseling progress before termination would be quite
difficult. At the present time this writer is unaware of
any single measure that is generally considered totally
adequate for this purpose.

An entirely different index than that provided by
use of'Q-sorts might be considered in cases which have
not terminated counseling. Rogers' (49) sketch of a
process of change would appear to serve as a good

rationale for such a measure. If some sort of scale would

so
be adapted from this View of the counseling process,
change within the process might be more readily measured.

Examining continuing and terminated cases as a
single group raises a question. Since the present group
of terminated clients went fewer therapy hours in general
than the group of continuing clients, some factor which
was not here considered might be Operating. Grummon (29)
found that those clients who eventually terminated
therapy before six sessions had greater self:ideal
increases during a pre-therapy wait period than those
clients who eventually went beyond six sessions. It thus
appears that sOme force is Operating in those clients who
show the greatest increase over a relatively shortperiod
of time which is not Operating in those clients who stay
in therapy for a longer time.

This finding, which is consistent with the present
findings, suggests that further research in therapy
should keep separate those clients who terminate in a
shOrt time from those who terminate after a long period.
It is further suggested that the personality characteristics
of these two groups of clients be analyzed and compared.

In measuring counseling progress, consideration of a
recent technique in the use of the Q-sort procedure seems
in order. Reznikoff and Toomey (48) develOped a method of

weighting Q-sort statements along a continuum from most

87
indicative Of severe emotional disturbance to least
indicative of severe emotional disturbance. They felt
that this method could be used both for quantitatively
measuring emotional disturbance among individuals and
for quantitatively measuring personality change within
an individual. Further investigation of Reznikoff and
Toomey's method within the framework of the present
study is strongly urged by this writer in order that
this procedure be compared with the conventional Q-sort
procedure used in the present study.

It might also be profitable to move away from the
use of a single measure Of counseling progress.
Consideration of varying clusters of factors of
counseling change appears worthy. Cartwright (9) in a
review Of pertinent literature found that several factors
have been discovered with regard to counseling change.
Therefore, instead of using just one criterion measure
of counseling progress as was done in the present study,
an analysis of varying factors of change in relationship
to the variables of similarity, empathic understanding,
etc., might add greatly to the present store of knowledge.
(It is conceivable that combinations or clusters of factors

are more sensitive than is a single criterion measure.

88
Empathic.Understanding

One of the findings of the present study raises
serious question to the importance of empathic understanding
in the process of counseling. It was found that the
generally accepted view that empathic understanding is
very important in the counseling process was not sub-
stantiated. Counseling progress and counselor empathic
understanding were not related to each other. It is
conceivable that a maximum of empathic understanding is
not necessarily most conducive to counseling progress.
Oftentimes an Optimal amount of something is less than
the maximum possible. It is thus suggested that there
may be a curvilinear, rather than a linear, relationship
between empathic understanding and counseling progress.

The fact that the continuing clients in this study
seemed to be more understood while the terminated clients
showed more counseling progress suggests that empathic
understanding may "keep" a client but may not necessarily
help him, at least initially. It is conceivable to this
writer that the views expressed by WOlberg (62) and by
Bordin (7) may bear looking into as possible explanations
of the present results.

‘WOlberg feels that some tension is necessary in order
to get a patient to work through his problems. ”Tension

acts as a driving force by creating in the patient an

89
incentive for change through active participation in the
therapeutic process. On the other hand, a relaxed,
tensionless state tends to diminish activity" (62, p. 178).
To the extent that much empathic understanding may result
in a relaxed, tensionless state, the positive progress of
counseling may be frustrated.

Bordin also feels that an Optimal amount Of anxiety
is necessary for therapy to progress. ”In general, all
schools of psychotherapy seem to be agreed that peOple
must have some anxiety about their problems--must be
concerned about themselves--in order for therapeutic
progress to be possible" (7, p. 146).

_It may be that global measures of experienced empathic
understanding may really be measuring client and counselor
feelings of comfort during the counseling hours rather
than empathic understanding. It is conceivable that
examination of specific acts of empathic understanding
‘with specific clients in particular therapeutic situations
might yield entirely different results.

It is also possible, considering the views of Wolberg
and of Bordin, that too much empathic understanding might
result in too little anxiety for effective counseling to
occur.

Although the present results do not here reach

statistical significance it would seem that further

90
investigation of the relationship between counseling
progress and empathic understanding would be of value.

It would be interesting if the present group of
continuing clients could be again tested when they
terminated counseling to see if the present relation-
ship remains.

It is also interesting to note that the client group
generally saw their counselors as more understanding than
the counselors judged themselves to be. It is certainly
possible that the client and counselor pairs had good
relationships, and as a result the clients possessed
positive feelings for the counselors. These feelings may
have generalized so that the clients tended to see their
counselors as being much better in all areas than they
may have been objectively.

More detailed examination of the apparent discrepancies
between client and counselor views of counselor empathic
understanding would seem to be a worthwhile line of
approach. The obtained difference between client and
counselor perceptions of counselor understanding does
raise the possibility that each may perceive the counseling
process quite differently than the other. Examination of
these perceptions would probably add greatly to our still

limited views of the counseling process.

91
Similarity

The findings with regard to the value of similarity
between clients and counselors are not supportive of views
expressed by some writers to the effect that similarity
between persons aids in the understanding Of the other
(30, 33, 44, 45, 63).

A possible explanation for the discrepancy between
the present findings and the afore-mentioned views
(pp. 21-32) may lie in the measurement Of similarity
herein used. The present measure of similarity is a
correlation between client and counselor self sorts.

If the client and the counselor have similar present
self-concepts and if the client usually brings up
”maladaptive" feelings and experiences (as clients are
wont to do) then the counselor (having a similar self-
concept and similar feelings) may have difficulty in
dealing with these ”maladaptive” feelings and experiences
and would thus be less effective as a counselor. Hence,
counselingprogress would be negatively related to
similarity.

In addition it is conceivable that the counselor,
being similar to his client, becomes "disturbed” when
feelings which he himself has are raiSed as "problems"
by the client. The counselor then would probably have
difficulty in effectively reacting to and dealing with

92
these feelings. Hence, similarity would tend to be
negatively related to empathic understanding-co, although
this obtained correlation does not reach statistical
significance.

This conclusion is a very tentative one but this
writer feels that this is an area which might be examined
quite profitably. It is felt that analysis Of the items
which clients and counselors ranked similarly and
dissimilarly would result in a more precise view of the
client-counselor similarity. It is possible that there
are similarity factors which could be obtained and
examined within the counseling process.

It is conceivable that similarity would be positively
related to both counseling progress and to empathic
understanding if similarity were not in terms of present
self-concepts of client and counselor, but rather in terms
Of eXperiencesand feelings which the client may feel at the
present time but which the counselor has felt and has
mastered in the past. In this way, the counselor no
longer would have intense emotions tied up with these
experiences and could more effectively deal with them on
the client's level of present experiencing.

It is further felt that the similarity should be
viewed in other ways. For example, similarity of social

class as suggested by Hollingshead and Redlich, or

93
similarity of value systems, e.g., as measured by the
Allport-Vernon Study of Values, might be areas which
could well be examined for possible effects upon
counseling progress. The entire area Of similarity
seems in need of much investigation to add to our

theoretical and practical knowledge.

Perceptions of Similarity

The present results suggest that correctness of
the perception of similarity by the counselor seems to be
an important factor in viewing a client's progress in
counseling. When the counselor correctly perceives the
degree of similarity between himself and his client he
apparently perceives more correctly what the client is
saying and feeling, than when he merely feels similar or,
further, overestimates their similarity. These incorrect
perceptions seem to result in the counselor's misinterpreting
or misunderstanding what a client is saying. Feeling
similar to the client the counselor may tend to view the
client's words more in line with his own frame Of reference.
0n the other hand if the counselor underestimates their
similarity he may tend not to react in terms of his own
feelings and attitudes when he should. When he perceives
their similarity correctly, however, he seems to be more

effective as a counselor than when he misperceives the

94

similarity (and tends to "project" or "over-compensate").
Furthermore, misperception Of similarity seems to be
revealed to both client and counselor as lack of empathic
understanding. Apparently when the counselor overestimates
or underestimates similarity and therefore tends to
project or over-compensate, both client and counselor are
aware of the lack of real understanding by the counselor.

The present findings concerning overestimation of
similarity and unwarranted assumed similarity do not
agree with Fiedler's (20) findings about unwarranted
assumed similarity. It may well be that personality
characteristics which are associated with a person's
general tendency to overestimate the similarity between
himself and others is frequently found in "good”
therapists (Fiedler). However, even though possession
of these characteristics may be valuable for a therapist,
it does not necessarily follow that a particular
therapist will do his most effective work with those
particular clients whose similarity to himself he most
overestimates. That is, it is conceivable that a
general characteristic of "good" therapists does not
necessarily result in "good" therapy with a specific
client.

The relationship between unwarranted assumed

similarity and "good" therapists as found by Fiedler may

95
be explained in a different way than he explains it,
however. It seems to this writer that if clients and
counselors were dissimilar it would be "easier" to get
high unwarranted assumed similarity than if they were
similar. That is, if similarity is high, one could
not overestimate this similarity as much as one could if
similarity were low. Therefore Fiedler's findings of
high unwarranted assumed similarity being indicative of
good therapists could be interpreted as dissimilarity
between client and counselors being indicative of good
therapists. This interpretation would be consistent
with the present findings, i.e., similarity is negatively
related to counseling progress; the client-counselor
groups are similar; unwarranted assumed similarity is
unrelated to counseling progress.

Thus the present findings stress that there is a
negative relationship between client-counselor similarity
of self-concept and the progress of the particular client.
However, when this similarity is correctly perceived by
the counselor it can be handled by him and does not
obstruct his counseling effectiveness. When the perceived
similarity is inaccurate, however, it is not conducive
to counseling progress.

Since these findings do not agree with Fiedler's
findings, and since the situations in both studies did

differ to a large extent, it is suggested that further

96
research examine the possibility that "general" abilities
as a therapist differ from therapeutic abilities with a
particular client. Analysis of factors of therapist
ability or of counseling progress must keep this differ-
entiation in mind.

Another consideration in examining perceptions of
similarity is also suggested. In the present study the
results obtained concerning felt similarity, correct
awareness of similarity, and overestimation of similarity
all depended upon the Felt Similarity Scale. The implicit
assumption was that this scale measured the same areas of
similarity as did the self-concept Q-sort statements.
Since the counselor group, although significantly similar
to the client group, felt generally dissimilar to this
group, it is quite possible that the counselor ratings of
felt similarity were not drawn from the same reference
points as were their ratings of the self sort statements.
Thus a Scale of Felt Similarity might be better formulated
directly from the statements of similarity.

Another possible means of arriving at a measure of
felt similarity would be to simply have each counselor
predict the correlation coefficient between his own and

his client's self sorts.

97
Refined Empathy

Refined empathy was found to be positively related
to counseling progress. Hastorf and Bender's method of
arriving at refined empathy resulted from their desire
to remove the possible effects of projection from
prediction. In so doing, they cancel out the relationship
between a predictor's self sort and his predictive sort
of another (projection).

Their methodology suggests a reconsideration of their
theoretical point of view, however. The relationship
between a therapist's self sort and his predictive sort
of his client is viewed by Fiedler as a measure of
"assumed similarity." It appears that Fiedler's thinking
is as follows: if acounselor sorts statements for
himself in the same way that he feels his client will
sort them, then on some level he must feel similar to
his client. This relationship could thus be viewed as
the counselor's ”feeling" of similarity to his client,
and could be- considered as similar to the measure of
felt similarity used in the present study. Thus the
finding of a positive relationship between refined empathy
and counseling progress in the present study could be
viewed as being due to the removal of assumed or felt
similarity, rather than to the removal of projection.

This differing theoretical view demands further examination

and study.

98

It therefore seems to this writer that this
interpretation of these measures and the resulting
correlation cOefficients tends to support the earlier
suggestion that the mere feeling of similarity is not
conducive to counseling progress.

Thus Hastorf and Bender's refined empathy score
does seem to be a more adequate measure than was originally
considered (PP. 17—21). Looking at the theoretical
implications behind this measure from Fiedler's frame of
reference and considering the findings of the present
study, the important aspect to this writer is the effect
of incorrect feelings of similarity rather than the
effect of projection due to real similarity.

It is therefore suggested that ”feeling similar"
or "overestimating similarity" is not as important in
counseling progress as is consideration of "correct
awareness of similarity." It is conceivable that this
may be part of a factor cluster involved in the counseling

progress of a particular client.

Prediction
The area of ability to predict another's responses
is one of the most controversial issues to be found in
psychological literature today. Kell (37), for example,
found that experienced client-centered counselors were

better predictors of client self sorts than were

99
counselors-in-training and non-psychologically trained
physical scientists. Luft (#1), however, found no
difference between 30 clinicians, and 5 physical
scientists in ability to predict the responses to a
questionnaire by a number of hospital patients.

In the present study one major difference in
methodology must be considered in comparing the present
results to those of the afore-mentioned studies. This
study did not use supervisor's ratings of good or poor
therapists, but used the criterion measure of counseling
progress of a particular client. The fact that ability
to predict was positively related to empathic under-
standing-cl suggests that this ability does "Show"
itself to the client in some way. Possibly the "knowledge"
by the counselor of the client's feelings and attitudes
about himself and about other things is perceived by
the client as empathic understanding. This knowledge,
however, might be looked at as a diagnostic impression
which may bear no relationship to the actual counseling
process. In essence it is felt that ability to predict
another's responses to a measure such as the self sort
may be a diagnostic ability towards a particular client
but need not necessarily bear any relationship to one's

counseling ability with that client.

100

This latter point is raised also by Horrocks and
Nagy (34) who contend that the ability to make a
diagnosis is only moderately related to the ability to
choose acceptable remedical measures.

The present findings, plus the inconsistent findings
previously cited give rise to much questioning of the
value of counselor ability for prediction in the process

of counseling.

Client Termination

Several peOple who did not return for counseling,
although expected back by their counselors, were contacted
by this writer. In four of the nine cases this contact
although made in terms of the research program resulted in
the client's return to counseling. These results lead
to consideration of the question of whether a client who
doesn't return to counseling should be contacted by his
counselor. In general, feeling seems to be that if the
client is ”hurting" enough he will be back. If not,
the counselor should not assume responsibility for his
client's return to counseling. Although only a small
number of contacts is involved here, it is felt that the
results of these contacts suggest a possible reconsideration

of this counselor view towards non-returning clients.

101
Conclusion

Finally, two factors which may have affected the
results of this study deserve mention. For one thing the
total pOpulation was small. Although other studies,
published articles and books have also used small samples,
this writer feels that more conclusive results may have
been forthcoming with the use of a larger population.
Since many variables operate in the process of counseling,
and since the present measuring instruments might have
been more precise, a larger pOpulation would have added
greatly to the confidence placed in the present results.

Additionally, different kinds of clients participated
in this study. The range of initial self:ideal correlations
was large, some clients continued for some time, others
terminated after relatively short periods. The terminated
group was composed of some clients who left counseling
after discussing leaving with their counselors, while
others just never returned for their next counseling
appointment.

Acknowledging all of the limitations herein presented,
it would seem that of all the measures tested similarity,
correct awareness of similarity, and refined empathy are
of most predictive importance when viewing the counseling
progress of a particular client. Further work with these

variables, as was suggested, might prove to be very

102
beneficial in adding to the present knowledge in the
field of therapy.

Finally, and possibly of most importance, is the
need to allow much time for further studies of the process
of counseling. Measures which could be obtained at many
intervals over long periods of time and with many clients
and counselors would aid substantially in the value and
the conclusiveness of obtained results. With a larger
population and more measures, extremes of the total
group as well as the group as a whole could be examined

in an attempt to obtain more refined results.

 

 

Ii a

L,

 

 

 

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was designed to explore the relationship
between counselor understanding of his client and
counseling progress. An integral part of the research
was the analysis of certain client-counselor variables,
some of which had been previously viewed outside of the
counseling process.

The major test procedures used were Q-sorts, an
Empathic Understanding Scale and a Felt Similarity Scale.
Rank order correlation was the primary statistical means
used to determine the various relationships. T-tests
were also computed to determine the significance of the
difference between various findings.

Variables such as similarity, various perceptions
of similarity, prediction and refined empathy were related
to each other, and to the criterion measures of counseling
progress and empathic understanding. The two criterion
measures were also related to each other.

The population consisted of 11 counselors and 22 of
their clients undergoing personal counseling at the
Michigan State University Counseling Center.

103

104

In general the stated hypotheses of this study
were not supported. It was found that counselor empathic
understanding as herein measured was unrelated to
counseling progress. This raised some questions concerning
the generally accepted notion of the value of empathic
understanding, especially since the client group on the
whole showed positive counseling movement.

It was also found that similarity between client and
counselor self-perceptions was negatively related to
counseling progress. However, correct awareness of
similarity was positively related to counseling progress
which suggests that the counselor is able to overcome the
negative effects of similarity in the counseling process
when he correctly perceives this similarity. Contrary
to views of Fiedler an overestimation of similarity was
not related to counseling progress. Empathic understanding
was not related to similarity, to correct awareness of
similarity, or to overestimation of similarity.

The ability to correctly predict his client's self-
perception was also found to be unrelated to counseling
progress but was positively related to the client's
feeling of his counselor's empathic understanding.
Results of other research findings concerning ability to
predict were found to be generally contradictory to

each other, however.

105
The refined empathy score of Bender and Hastorf
was found to be positively related to counseling progress
but unrelated to empathic understanding. This finding
suggests that care be used in eliminating the effects of
projection or of assumed similarity when considering
one's ability to predict the responses of another.

. The results of this study must be considered as
tentative due to the relatively small p0pulation involved.
However, question is raised concerning some of the
generally accepted notions concerning empathic understanding,
similarity between persons, and the ability to predict
another's responses. It is felt that further research
is necessary to either support or refute the findings of
the present study. Consistency in research designs and
in use of terms is needed to make all of the studies in

this area comparable.

8.

IO.

11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, D. K. The inference of mind. Psychol. Rev.,
1928, 35’ 235-2520

 

Anderson, H. H. Human behavior and personality

growth. In H. H. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson (Ed.),
An introduction to projective techniques. New York:
‘Rrentice-Hall, 1931,13-25.

Arkin, H & Colton, R. R. Tables for statisticians.
New York: Barnes and Noble, 1950.

 

Bakan, D. Clinical psycholo yand logic. Amer;
Psychologist, 1956, 11, 655- 62.

Bender, I. E., & Hastorf, A. H. The perceptions
of persons: forecasting another person's responses
on three personality scales. J._abnorm. soc. Psychol.,

1950, 45, 556-561.

Bender, I. E., & Hastorf, A. H. On measuring
generalized empathic ability. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,

1953, 1+8, 503-5060

Bordin, E. S. Psychological counseling. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.

 

Butler, J. M., & Haigh, G. V. Changes in the relation

between self concepts and ideal concepts consequent

upon client-centered counseling. In C. R. Rogers and

Rosalind F. Dymond (Ed.), Psychotherapy and personality

change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954,
5-76-

Cartwright, D. 8. Methodology in counseling evaluation.
J. counsel. Psychol., 1957, A, 263-267.

Cohen, J. An aid in the computation of correlations
based on Q sorts. Psychol. Bull., 1957. 5#, 138-139.

Cottrell, L. S., & Dymond, Rosalind F. The empathic
responses. Psychiat., 19h9. 12, 355-359.

106

13.

I4.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. '

22.

23.

‘24.

\‘ 250

107

Dymond, Rosalind F. The relation of insight and
empathy. J. consult. Psychol., 1948, 12, 228-233.

Dymond, Rosalind F. The measurement of empathic
ability. J. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 127-133.

Dymond, Rosalind F. Personality and empathy.
J. consult. Psychol., 1950, 14, 343-350.

Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological
research. New York: Rinehart, 1950.

 

Edwards, A. L. Statistical methods for the behavioral
sciences. New York: Rinehart, 1954.

 

Erlandson, F. L. A computational aid in computing
Spearman's rank order coefficient. Personal
Communication. 1958.

Erlandson, F. L. Rank correlation methods. Personal
Communication. 1958.

Fiedler, F. E. A comparison of therapeutic relation-
ships in psychoanalytic, nondirective, and Adlerian
therapy. J. consult. Psychol., 1950, 14, 436-445.

Fiedler, F. E. The concept of an ideal therapeutic
relationship. J. consult. Psychol., 1950, 14, 239-245.

Fiedler, F. E. A method of objective quantification
of certain countertransference attitudes. J. clin1
PSXChOl;, 1951, 7, 101-107.

 

 

Fiedler, F. E. Factor analyses of psychoanalytic,
nondirective, and Adlerian therapeutic relationships,
J. consult. Psychol., 1951, 15, 32—36.

Fiedler, F. E. Quantitative studies on the role of
therapists' feelings toward their patients, In

0. H. Mowrer (Ed.), Psychotherapy theory and research.
New York: Ronald Press, I953, 296-316.

Fiedler, F. E. The psychological-distance dimension in
interpersonal relations. J. Pers., 1953, 22, 142-150.

Fiedler, F. E., & Senior, Kate. An exploratory study
of unconscious feeling reactions in fifteen patient-
therapist pairs. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47,

I'I’l-Fé-h53 o

26.

$27.

29.

¥\30.

\131.

2“]. 3 2 e

we 33.

34-

35-

36.

37-

108

Gage, N. L. Accuracy of social perception and
effectiveness in interpersonal relationships.

Gage, N. L. Explorations in the understanding of
others. Educ. and Psyehol. Meas., 1953, 13, 14-26.

 

Gage, N. L., & Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and
methodological problems in interpersonal perception.
Psyehol. Reyi, 1955, 62, 411-422.

Grummon, D. L. Personality changes as a function of
time in persons motivated for therapy. In C. R. Rogers
and Rosalind F. Dymond (Ed.), Psychotherapy and
personality change. Chicago: University of_Chicago

 

 

Press, I954, 238—255.

Halpern, H. H. Empathy, similarity, and self-satisfaction.
J. consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 449-452.

 

Hastorf, A. H., & Bender, I. E. A caution respecting
the measurement of empathic ability. J. abnorm. soc.

Psychol., 1952, 47, 574-576.

Hastorf, A. H., & Bender, I. E., & Weintraub, D. J.
The influence of response patterns on the "refined
empathy score." J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51,

31+1"'3 [+3 0

Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class
agdgmental illness. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1 5 .

Horrocks, J. E., & Nagy, G. The relationship between
the ability to make a diagnosis and to select
apprOpriate remedial procedures. J. gen. Psychq1.,

1948, 38, 139-146.

Isaacs, K. S., Fiedler, F. E., & Fiske, D. W. Some
factors involved in the understanding of patients by
clinicians. Chicago: University of Chicago,
mimeographed, 1950.

 

 

 

Kell, B. L. Adaptation of Butler's Q-sort techniques
correlation table. Austin: University of Texas,
mimeographed.

Kell, B. L. An experimental study of the ability to
predict the self concept of an individual from his
therapeutic interview behavior. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1950.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43-

5.! 44.

i 45.
46.

47.

48.

109

Levinson, R. B. Gating: the application of a
perceptual theory to the issue of diagnosis in
psychotherapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1957.

Lindgren, H. C., & Robinson, Jacqueline, Evaluation
of Dymond's test of insight and empathy. J. consult.
Psychols, 1953, 17, 172-176.

 

Luft, J. Some relationships between clinical
specialization and the understanding and predictions
of an individual's behavior. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,

1949.

Luft, J. Implicit hypotheses and clinical predictions.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950, 45, 756-759.

 

MacFarlane, T. G. Empathic understanding in an
interpersonal interview situation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1952.

May, R. Historical and philoSOphical presup ositions
for understanding therapy. In 0. H. Mowrer fEd.),

Ps chotherapy theogy and research.. New York: Ronald
Press, 1953, 9-44-

Normal, R. D. The interrelationship among acceptance-
rejection, self-other identity, insight into self,
and realistic perception of others. J. soc. Psychol.,

1953. 37. 205-235.

Notcutt, B., & Silva, A. L. M. Knowledge of other
peOple. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1951, 46, 30-37.

 

Peatman, J. G. Descriptive and sampling statistics.
New York: Harper and Bros., 1947.

 

Reid, Dorothy K., & Snyder, W. U. Experiment on
"recognition of feeling" in non-directive psychotherapy.
J. clin. Psychol., 1947, 3, 128-135.

Reznikoff, M., & Toomey, Laura C. The weighted Q sort:

a procedure for quantitatively estimating emotional
disturbance and personality change. J. consult. Psychol.,
1958, 22, 187-190. II

 

49.
50.
51.

52.

153.

54.

55.

57.

58.

“X 59.
so.

61.

62.

110

Rogers, C. R. A process conception of psychotherapy.
Amer. Psychologist, 1958, 13, 142-149.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered thsrapy. Cambridge:
Riverside Press, 1951.

 

Rogers, C. R. Persons or science? A philosophical
question. Amer. Psychologist, 1955. 10, 267-276.

Rogers, C. R., & Dymond, Rosalind F. (Ed.) '“
Psychotherapy and personality chapge. Chicago:
University ofChicago Press, 1954,

Sears, R. R. Experimental studies of projection:
I attribution of traits. J. soc. Psychol., 1936,
7, 151-163.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciencss. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Sommer, G. R., Mazo, B., & Lehner, G. F. J. An
empirical investigation of therapeutic "listening."
J. clin. Psychol., 1955. 11, 132-136.

Steinmetz, H. C. Directive psychotherapy: V. measuring
psychological understanding. J. qlin. Psychol., 1945,
1. 331-335.

Stephenson, W. The study of behavior. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953.

 

 

Strupp, H. H. The effect of the psychotherapist's
personal analysis upon his technique. J. consults

Psychols, 1955, 19, 197-204.

Taft, R. The ability to judge peOple. Psychol. Bulls,
1955, 52, 1-23.

Thompson, Clara. Psychoanalysis: evolution and
develppment. New York: Hermitage House, 1950.

 

 

 

Van Lennep, D. J. The four-picture test. In

H. H. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson (Ed.),

An introduction to projective techniques. New York:
‘Prentice-Hall, 1951, 149-180.

WOlberg, L. R. The technique of psychotherapy.
New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954.

 

 

 

 

111

W 63. ‘WOlf, R., & Murray, H. A. An experiment in judging
personalities. J. Psychol., 1937. 3. 345-365.

64. wyatt, F. The self-experience of the psychotherapist.
J. consult. Psychols, 1948, 12, 82-87.

APPENDIX

113
INSTRUCTION FOR SELF SORT ADMINISTRATION

Please sort these cards to describe yourself as you see
yourself today, from those that are least like you to those
that are most like you.

Step 1. Remove the cards numbered 1 to 9 and put them
to one side.

Step 2. Read the first statement. If it is descriptive
of you, put it on the table at the right. If it is not
descriptive of you put it on the table at the left. W‘If you
are doubtful or not sure whether the statement is descriptive
of you, put" it directly in front of you.

Step 3. Read each statement in turn, putting them into
one of the three piles. To the right you will have all the
statements you think are descriptive of you. Directly in front
of you will be all those statements about which you are doubt-
ful. To your left will be all those statements that you think
are not descriptive of you.

Step 4. Now arrange the cards numbered 1 to 9 in front of
you with the number 1 card to the extreme left, and the number
9 card to the extreme right. Think of these cards as representing
a scale with the number 1 card meaning the LEAST and the number
9 card meaning the MOST descriptive of you.

Step 5. Take the pile of statements at your extreme left
and select the one statement that is least descriptive of you.
Place that statement on top of card number 1.

Step 6. Take the pile of statements at your extreme right
and select the one statement that is most descriptive of you.
Place that statement on tOp of card number 9.

Step 7. Take the pile of remaining statements at your
extreme left, and select the four statements that are next least
descriptive of you. Place those statements on tOp of card
number 2.

Step 8. Take the pile of remaining statements at your
extreme right, and select the four statements that are next most
descriptive of you. Place those statements on t0p of card
number 8.

Step 9. Continue in the same manner, working from the
extremes toward the middle, until you have exactly the required
number of statements in each pack, as indicated in the middle
of each of the numbered cards. If you use up all of the
statements in either of the extreme packs, before you have put
the required number in each pack, select statements from the
middle or doubtful pile, to complete the exact number required
for each card number.

Step 10. When you have finished, put the statements for
each numbered card under that card. Pick up the nine packs,
putting the number 1 pack on top, and the number 9 pack on the
bottom, and replace the rubber band around the pack.

114

mm T0 BILL LESSER

A new client, , who, to the best of
my knowledge is not in your study, looks like he (she) will

return for several counseling appointments. This student
would appear to be a suitable person for your research
group. My next appointment with this student is on:

Day

 

Date

 

Time

 

 

Counselor's name

 

REQUEST FORM

The Counseling Center would appreciate your help in a
research project aimed at better understanding the
counseling process. ‘We need an hour of your time to
do some research tasks now, and possibly another hour
at a later date.

Participating in this research is not intended to be

of any direct help to you as it is completely separate
from the counseling process. It will in no way influence
your own counseling, and, in fact your counselor will
have no knowledge of the results. Nevertheless the
research has real value in that it will aid in serving
others in the future, and one value to you may be the
satisfaction of having contributed to scientific effort,
and to those who come after you.

115

SUBJECT AVAILABILITY FORM

 

 

 

Name ._ Age _1 College Class fi__
Local Address fi_ _ Tel. No. ‘_
Counselor

 

Date of first appointment
with counselor . . . . .

 

_

Please check possible times that you will be available to
participate for one hour in this research program.

I am available right now

 

I will be available at the hours checked below:

 
 

Menday esda ednesda Thursda

   

FHA '
pmeHoom

 

If you will be unable to participate, please indicate your
reason. This will enable us to know if our research group
is representative of the M.S.U. student body.

 

 

 

 

 

MEMO TO COUNSELORS

Memo to :

 

I have contacted , a new client
of yours, and he (she) has agreed to participate in my

research study.

Bill Lesser

116
INSTRUCTIONS FOR IDEAL SORT ADMINISTRATION

Please sort these cards to describe your ideal person--
the person you would most likevdthin yourself to be.

Step 1. Remove the cards numbered 1 to 9 and put them
to one side.

Step 2. Read the first statement. If it describes the
person you would most like within yourself to be, put it on
the table to the right. If it does not describe the person
you would most like to be, put it on the table at the left.
If you are doubtful or not sure whether the statement describes
the person you would most like within yourself to be, put it
directly in front of you.

Step 3. Read each statement in turn, putting them into
one of the three piles. To the right you will have all the
statements you think describe the person you would most like
within yourself to be. Directly in front of you will be all
those statements about which you are doubtful. To your left
will be all those statements that you think do not describe
the person you would most like within yourself to be.

Step 4. Now arrange the cards numbered 1 to 9 in front
of you with the number 1 card to the extreme left, and the
number 9 card to the extreme right. Think of these cards
as representing a scale with the number 1 card meaning the
LEAST and the number 9 card meaning the MOST you would like
within yourself to be.

Step 5. Take the pile of statements at your extreme left
and select the spe statement that least describes the person
within yourself you would like to be. Place that statement
on t0p of card number 1.

Step 6. Take the pile of statements at your extreme right
and select the egg statement that most describes the person
within yourself you would like to be. Place that statement
on t0p of card number 9.

Step 7. Take the pile of remaining statements at your
extreme left, and select the four statements that next least
describe the person within yourself you would like to be.
Place those statements on top of card number 2.

Step 8. Take the pile of remaining statements at your
extreme right, and select the four statements that next most
describe the person within yourself you would like to be.
Place those statements on top of card number 8.

Step 9. Continue in the same manner, working from the
extremes toward the middle, until you have exactly the
required number of statements in each pack, as indicated in
the middle of each of the numbered cards. If you use up
all of the statements in either of the extreme piles before
you put the required number in each pack, select statements
from the middle or doubtful pile, to complete the exact
number required for each card number.

Step 10. When you have finished, put the statements for
each numbered card under that card. Pick up the nine packs,
putting the number 1 pack on top, and the number 9 pack on
the bottom, and replace the rubber band around the pack.

117
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREDICTIVE SORT ADMINISTRATION

Please sort these cards as you feel your client,
, would sort them to describe himself as he
sees himselftoday, as he would describe himself.

Step 1. Remove the cards numbered 1 to 9 and put them
to one side.

Step 2. Read the first statement. If it describes your
client as you feel he would describe himself, put it on the
table to your right. If it does not describe your client as
you feel he would describe himself, put it on the table at
the left. If you are doubtful or not sure, whether the
statement describes your client as he sees himself, put it
directly in front of you.

Step 3. Reach each statement in turn, putting them into
one of the three piles. To the right you will have all the
statements you think are descriptive of your client as he sees
himself. Directly in front of you will be all those state-
ments about which you are doubtful. To your left will be all
those statements that you think are not descriptive of your
client as he sees himself.

Step 4. Now arrange the cards numbered 1 to 9 in front
of you with the number 1 card to the extreme left, and the
number 9 card to the extreme right. Think of these cards as
representing a scale with the number 1 Card meaning the LEAST
and the number 9 card meaning the MOST descriptive of your
client as he sees himself.

Step 5. Take the pile of statements at your extreme left
and select the ppe statement that you think is least descriptive
of your client as he sees himself. Place that statement on
t0p of card number 1.

Step 6. Take the pile of statements at your extreme right
and select the egg statement that you think is most descriptive
of your client as he sees himself. Place that statement on
t0p of card number 9.

Step 7. Take the pile of remaining statements at your
extreme left, and select the four statements that you think
are next least descriptive of your clientaas he sees himself.
Place those statements on top of card number 2.

Step 8. Take the pile of remaining statements at your
extreme right, and select the four statements that you think
are next most descriptive of your client as he sees himself.
Place those statements on t0p of card number 8.

Step 9. Continue in the same manner, working from the
extremes toward the middle, until you have exactly the
required number of statements in each pack, as indicated in
the middle of each of the numbered cards. If you use up all
of the statements in either of the extreme piles, before you
have put the required number in each pack, select statements
from the middle or doubtful pile, to complete the exact number
required for each card number.

Step 10. When you have finished, put the statements for
each numbered card under that card. Pick up the nine packs,
putting the number 1 pack on t0p, and the number 9 pack on
the bottom, and replace the rubber band around the pack.

 

 

118
COUNSELOR RATING SCALE OF EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

Please rate yourself on the following statements, as they
apply to your behavior with your client .

 

A score of "1" indicates that the statement does not
describe you at all. A score of "7" indicates that the state-
ment describes you perfectly, that the statement has been true
of you at all times in your counseling hours with ____

. Scores from "2" to "6" represent intervals
ranging from "less descriptive" to "more descriptive" of you,

 

 

 

as you see yourself as the counselor of s_ .

1. My comments are right in line with what

the client is trying to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LEAST MOST

2. I understand the client's feelings

well. < l 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I follow the client's line of

thought. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. My own needs do not interfere with my understanding

of the client. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I know just what the client is

saying. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. My tone of voice conveys complete understanding and sharing

of the client's feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I seem to know what the client is trying to get
across to me. la 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I am not in doubt about what the client
means. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. My remarks fit oin just right with the client's mood and
the contents of his words. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I do not find it difficult to think along the
client's lines. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I Seem to see the client as he
sees himself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I am not so concerned with being sympathetic that I don't
understand what the client is ,
feeling. 1 2 3 4 5 o 7

 

 

. ,4

‘1'“ ll Intel‘s-Hr a... ,... .m r L I

119
CLIENT RATING SCALE OF EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING

Please rate your counselor on each of the following
statements. Your counselor will have no knowledge of the
results, which will be used strictly as part of the
research program.

A score of "1" indicates that the statement does not
describe your counselor at all. A score of ”7" indicates
that the statement describes your counselor perfectly,
that the statement has been true.of your counselor at all
times in your counseling hours. Scores from "2" to "6"
represent intervals ranging from "less descriptive" to
"more descriptive" of your counselor, as you see your
counselor.

l. The counselor's comments are right in line

with what I am trying to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LEAST MOST

2. The counselor understands my feelings

well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. The counselor follow my line of

thought. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. The counselor's own needs do not interfere with his

understanding of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. The counselor know just what I am

saying. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. The counselor's tone of voice conveys complete understanding

and sharing of my feelings. 1 2 k 3 4 5 6 7

7. The counselor seems to know what I am trying to get
across to him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. The counselor is not in doubt about
what I mean. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. The counselor's remarks fit in just right with my mood and
the content of mvaords. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. The counselor does not find it difficult to think along
my lines. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. The counselor seems to see me as I
see myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. The counselor is not so concerned with being sympathetic
that he doesnt understand what
I am feeling. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

120
FELT SIMILARITY SCALE

Please rate the following statements, as you feel they
apply to your relationship with .

 

A score of "1" indicates that the statement does not
describe you at all. A score of "7" indicates that the
statement describes you perfectly, when you look at yourself
in relation to this client. Scores from "2" to "6" represent
intervals ranging from "less descriptive" to "more descriptive"

 

of your perception of yourself and _p.

1. In many ways I am quite similar

to this client. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LEAST MOST

2. I think that I would have felt

and acted just as this client felt

and acted in many of the situations

as he has described to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Aside from some minor things, this
client and I are very much alike.l 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. It is amazing how similarly this client and
I view the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I am sure that my dynamics differ only
slightly from this client's
dynamics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. This client and I are so mudlalike,
we could almost be siblings. l 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I usually feel much less similar to
my clients than I do to this
client. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.
2.
3.
4.

6.

7.
8.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.
‘30.
31.
32.
33.

34.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.

121

Q-SORT STATEMENTS

feel uncomfortable while talking with someone.
put on a false front.

am a competitive person.

make strong demands on myself.

often kick myself for the things I do.

often feel humiliated.

doubt my sexual powers.

am much like the Opposite sex.

have a warm emotional relationship with others.
am an aloof reserved person.

am responsible for my troubles.

am a responsible person.

have a feeling of hOpelessness.

live by other people's values and standards.
can accept most social values and standards.
have few values and standards of my own.

have a hard time controlling my sexual desires.
It's difficult to control my aggression.

Self control is no problem to me.

I am often down in the dumps.

I am really self-centered.

I usually like people.

I express my emotions freely.

Usually in a mob of peOple I feel a little bit alone.
I want to give up trying to cope with the world.
I can live comfortably with the people around me.
My hardest battles are with myself.

I tend to be on my guard with peOple who are somewhat
more friendly than I had expected.

I am optimistic.

I am just sort of stubborn.

I am critical of people.

I usually feel driven.

I am liked by most people who know me.

I have an underlying feeling that I'm not contributing
enough to life.

I am sexually attractive.

I feel helpless.

I can usually make up my mind and stick to it.

My decisions are not my own.

often feel guilty.

am a hostile person.

am contented.

am disorganized.

feel apathetic.

am poised.

just have to drive myself to get things done.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

HHHHHHH

46.
48.

I
I

122

often feel resentful.
am impulsive.

It's important to me to know how I seem to others.

I

don't trust my emotions.

It is pretty tough to be me.

EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

HHHHHHHHHHHPHHHHHHH

am a rational person.

have the feeling I'm just not facing things.

am tolerant.

try not to think about my problems.

have an attractive personality.

am shy.

need somebody else to push me through on things.
feel inferior.

am no one. Nothing really seems to be me.

am afraid of what other peOple think about me.
am ambitious.

despise myself.

have initiative.

shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty.

just don't respect myself.

am a dominant person.

take a positive attitude toward myself.

am assertive.

am afraid of a full-fledged disagreement with a person.
can't seem to make up my mind one way or another.
am confused.

am satisfied with myself.

am a failure.

am likeable.

y personality is attractive to the opposite sex.

am afraid of sex.

have a horror of failing in anything I want to accomplish.
feel relaxed and nothing really bothers me.

am a hard worker.

feel emotionally mature.

am naturally nervous.

really am disturbed.

11 you have to do is just insist with me and I give in.

feel insecure within myself.
have to protect myself with excuses, with rationalizing.
am a submissive person.

am intelligent.

feel superior.

feel hOpeless.

am self-reliant.

often feel aggressive.

am inhibited.

am different from others.

am unreliable.

123

95. I understand myself.

96. I am a good mixer.

97. I feel inadequate.

98. I am worthless.

99. I dislike my own sexuality.
100. I am not accomplishing.

RAW DATA

   
 
 

Similarity

Prediction

 
 

Client Initial
Self:ideal

 
     
 
 

Client AIHel—_
Selfzideal

  
   
 

 

 

Counseling

 
     
 

ent
Selfzfinal

 
  
 

  

Client Initial
Idealeinal

 
  
  

Counse-
lor

 
 
   
   
 

Felt
Similarity

 
 

 

Correct Aware-
ne of

 

   

  
 

Unwarranted
Assumed
Similarity

  
 
     
 

Overestimation
of Similarity

 
    
   

 
 

Refined
Empathy

   

I

Efifififfi
Prediction

    
  

 
 
     
 

t on
Similarity

 
 
 

Client

 
  
 

  

Number of
Sessions

  
 

 
 

Final Stage in
Counselinga

 
 

aC refers to clients still in counseling at the time of final data collection.

  
 

Pairs
124

T refers to clients who had terminated counseling at the time of final data collection.

Mg ROOM USE 01“.!

taxtflm

L"
fi;$'\ 3 1

MAR 31 (5‘ RUG," UDC UEIL!

”AWL 3
AM ‘- f
t L:- K' "v 91.

 

 

JUL 12 (1961' ”TI“? 155313!

APR-iflwtr‘e
“352-9618

W

 

 

 

   

M'Wfilfflfllllflifllfllfllflflflfifl11311111111“