MSU

LIBRARIES
n

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wi11
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

. ,

I451.)

 

 

-'s-‘~. ”1 7". - - .

. { v; A" 171317 4?. '3' '3
,Uz.‘ , '2 {A2 *3 i

“” '3 ”~34? :‘i .2“ 1t 317C” "'3 i E

 

m

 

 

/29 ”“5"

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AND
THE INQUIRY PROCESS IN INTERPERSONAL
PROCESS RECALL

by
Richard P. McQuellon

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology
and Special Education

1982

Richard P. McQuellon

ABSTRACT

This study explored the relationship between self-
consciousness, i.e., the tendency to be attentive to the
self, in a communication skills training course called
Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR). The specific focus
was on the basic training experience in IPR that is
designed to induce self awareness--the self-inquiry
session. The self-inquiry session consisted of one partici-
pant (the recaller) watching the playback of a previously
recorded interview in the presence of a third person (the
inquirer) who facilitated the recaller's self-exploration
of reactions to the interview. The general disposition to
be attentive to public and private aspects of the self was
considered to be a key variable in productive self-inquiry.

A sample of 51 volunteers was drawn from a population
of 79 students who enrolled in Education 414 (IPR) at
Michigan State University during Spring Term, 1982. These
students participated in weekly three-hour class sessions
and four two-hour labs over an eight-week term. Each
student completed the Self-Consciousness Scale at the
third, fifth, and final week of class, audio-recorded a
recall session, and rated their general satisfaction with
the interview and recall session. These data were used to

address four research questions. The first question focused

Richard P. McQuellon

on the relationship between self-consciousness scale scores
and productive self-inquiry, i.e., number of self-inquiry
episodes, time spent in self-inquiry and depth of self-
exploration during self-inquiry. Pre-lab measures of
overall self-consciousness, public self-consciousness and
social anxiety correlated negatively with inquiry time,
number of inquiry episodes and total interview time. High
levels of public self-consciousness and social anxiety were
associated with less time in self-inquiry, fewer self-
inquiry episodes and a shorter initial interview. The
second research question examined pre- and post-lab
measures of self-consciousness. No statistically signifi-
cant results were reported for t-tests. Further analysis
using a repeated measures MANOVA to determine change over
time for high vs. low self-conscious students yielded no
significant findings. The self-awareness inducing
properties of the IPR labs did not measurably alter students'
basic disposition to self-attend. The recaller-inquirer
relationship and productive self-inquiry was the focus of
the third research question. A statistically significant
positive correlation between the rated recaller-inquirer
relationship and an inquiry/interview time ratio was
reported. Finally, data were collected on the relationship
between the recaller ratings of the interview and recall
sessions and productive self-inquiry. A statistically
significant relationship was reported for ratings of the

recall session and amount of time spent in self inquiry.

Richard P. McQuellon

A discussion of the results, conclusions and implica-

tions for further research was presented.

DEDICATION

To Cyndee

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to many people for the support, care,
and encouragement they have given me over the past four
years. My parents, grandmother, family, and friends have
nurtured my spirit. Professors, supervisors, and
colleagues have taught me and stimulated my curiosity. I
deeply appreciate their help and want to specifically
acknowledge the following:

Norman Kagan: Norm served as the chairman of my
dissertation committee, and has given me many opportunities
to write, teach, and think with him. He has believed in
me, encouraged me, taught me, and helped me develop
professional direction.

Lawrence O'Kelly: Dr. O'Kelly stimulated me with his
enthusiasm for thoughtful discussion and introduced me to
the meaning of scholarship with his probing mind and
historical perspective.

John Schneider: John listened when I needed to hear
my own message, and supported my struggle to develop a
research topic.

Bruce Burke: Bruce supervised my teaching and offered
me support over the past four years. He also encouraged me

in the early stages of this research project.

iii

Doug Miller: Doug shared his keen insight into human
behavior and maturity as a psychotherapist with me.

John Powell: John listened deeply and understood my
struggle to stand on my own.

Richard Chiles: Richard offered the sustaining power
and support of enduring friendship.

Jay Athy, Jack Loynes, Romy Valdez, and Paul Fatell:
Jay, Jack, and Romy taught sections of Education 414 (IPR),
offered colleagueship, and supported my research efforts.
Paul helped with the audio tape ratings.

Gabriella Belli and Neelam Kher: Gabbi and Neelam
helped with the statistical analysis and computer program-
ming dimensions of this research. I am especially grateful
to Neelam for her insight and care.

Dennis O'Hara, Pat Lustman, Claudia Sowa, Mike Cowan,
and Jim Bryer: Dennis, Pat, Claudia, Mike, and Jim offered
me friendship, professional colleagueship, and encouragement
to persist.

Jeanette Minkel and Carla Williams: Jeanette typed
this dissertation on short notice. Carla has provided
support for the Education 414 course over the past several
years and helped me in the data collection efforts of this
research.

Cyndee and Meghan: Cyndee listened, cared and
encouraged me. She has always been there supporting my
personal and professional development. Meghan arrived and

gave me the impetus to move on.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . 1
Purpose. . 2
Statement of the Problem . 3
Need for the Study . . 5
The Interpersonal Process Recall Model 7
Theoretical Framework. 9
Theoretical Foundations of Interpersonal
Process Recall. . . . 9
The Structure and Theory of Self- -Inquiry . . 12
Interpersonal Process Recall and Self-
Focused Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Productive Self-Inquiry. . . . . . . . . . . 17
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 19
Basic Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Summary and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Interpersonal Process Recall - Research and
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Research on Training Applications. . . . . . 24
Acceleration of Client Progress in
Psychotherapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intra- Model Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Self- Focused Attention - Induced . . . . . 40
Self- Focused Attention - Dispositional and
Induced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

III.

IV.

V.

METHODOLOGY .

Population.

Sample. .

Education 414 (IPR) Course Format and Lab
Procedure . . . . . . .

Education 414 (IPR) Instructors

Physical Setting. . . .

Data Collection Procedure

Instrumentation .

Self- Consciousness Scale (SCS).

The Wisconsin Relationship Orientation
Scale (WROS) . .

Lab Rating Form . .

The Degree of Self- -Exploration Scale (DX).

Hypotheses.

Tape Ratings.

Data Analysis and Design.
Summary .

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Restatement of the Problem.

Self- Consciousness and Self- Inquiry Behavior.

Correlations.

The Impact of IPR Labs on Self- Consciousness:

Multivariate Analysis

Recaller Ratings of the IPR Session
Summary .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary .
Discussion.

Self— Consciousness Scores and IPR Self-
Inquiry Behavior . .

The Impact of IPR Labs on Self-
Consciousness. . .

Recaller Ratings of the IPR Lab Sessions.

Conclusions .
Implications for Further Research .

vi

Page
53

53
53

54
55
56
58
58
59
60
61
62

64
67

69
69

70
74

78

84
84

86
86
89
89

93
96

99
102

APPENDICES
A. EDUCATION 414 COURSE OUTLINE .
B. INQUIRER MANUAL: A GUIDE FOR THE INQUIRER'S
ROLE IN THE INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL
(IPR) METHOD OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
C. SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (SCS)
D. WISCONSIN RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION SCALE
(WROS) . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. LAB SESSION RATING FORM.
F. THE DEPTH OF CLIENT SELF-EXPLORATION SCALE
(DX)
G. EDUCATION 414 EVALUATION PROJECT CONSENT
FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H. PROJECT INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDENTS.
I. PROCEDURE FOR AUDIO RECORDING LAB #2
J AUDIO TAPE RATING FORM: INTERVIEWER RECALL.
K. SCS SUBSCALE PEARSON CORRELATIONS.
REFERENCES

vii

Page

108
108

109
112

113
114

115

117
118
119
120
121
122

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 Correlation Matrix - Self-Consciousness and
Measures of Self-Inquiry Behavior . . . . . 71

4.2 Analysis of Pre- to Post-Differences on the
Self-Consciousness Scale using the t-test
for Dependent Means . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.3 Analysis of Pre- to Post-Differences on the
Private Self-Consciousness Subscale using
the t-test for Dependent Means. . . . . . . 76

4.4 Analysis of Pre- to Post-Differences on the
Public Self-Consciousness Subscale using
the t-test for Dependent Means. . . . . . . 77

4.5 Analysis of Pre- to Post-Differences on the
Social Anxiety Subscale using the t-test
for Dependent Means . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.6 Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High and
Low Groups over Three SCS Administrations
on Total Self-Consciousness . . . . . . . . 79

4.7 Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High
and Low Groups over Three SCS Administra-
tions on Private Self-Consciousness . . . . 80

4.8 Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High
and Low Groups over Three SCS Administra-
tions on Public Self-Consciousness. . . . . 80

4.9 Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High
and Low Groups over Three SCS Administra-
tions on Social Anxiety . . . . . . . . . 80

4.10 Summary of Univariate F-Tests for Social
Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4.11 Spearman Correlation Coefficients for the
Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale
(WROS) and Measures of Self-Inquiry . . . . 82

viii

Table Page

4.12 Spearman Correlation Coefficients for
Lab Ratings and Measures of Self-
Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.13 SCS Subscale Correlations . . . . . . . . . 121

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure
3.1 Summary of Data Collection Procedures . . . . . 57
3.2 One Group Pretest—Posttest Design . . . . . . . 66
3.3 MANOVA Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Self-awareness is important in effective communication
and essential in professional helping relationships. It
includes awareness of one's own private and public
behavior. The private domain of the self includes inner
sensations, feelings, motives, and fantasies that are
observable only by the experiencing person. The public
self includes physical appearance and overt behavior
that is observable by others as well as oneself. Aware-
ness of private and public behavior during an interaction
can be a positive form of self-consciousness or self-
focused attention that can contribute to the quality of
being with another person. This is particularly true in
counseling relationships where it is important to listen to
the client and one's own blocks to effective communica-
tion with the client. Kell & Mneller (1966)suggest that the
counselor's awareness of what is happening in the counseling
relationship in and of itself is therapeutic and enables the
client to change. Kagan (1980) has developed a training
program to help counselors and a variety of other pro-
fessionals increase their self-awareness through self-study

and thus be more effective at positively influencing human

interaction. Individual differences in self-consciousness
may have implications for participant involvement in this
widely used interpersonal communication skills training
program called Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR).

IPR is a training program for influencing human inter-
action that provides a method for facilitating self-awareness
in human interaction (Kagan and Burke, 1976). The central
training experience in the model-~the inquiry session--
is designed to help participants observe and fully examine
behavior, thoughts, feelings, intentions, expectations, and
images that occur during an interaction. The inquiry
session is a complex dyadic interaction with one participant
(the recaller) attempting to learn about his/her inter -
personal communication style by reviewing an audio/video
recorded interaction. A second participant (the inquirer)
in the inquiry session helps the subject examine and recall
his/her interpersonal processes by asking non-judgmental,
non-interpretive questions from a relatively neutral frame of
reference. The recaller takes full responsibility for
stopping the tape and disclosing whatever s/he chooses. The
recaller's awareness of his/her private and public self may
be a key variable in the inquiry session. (The specific
steps in the inquiry session are described later in this

chapter.)

Purpose

The main purpose of this research is to explore

the relationship between the recaller variable of

self-consciousness and recaller self-inquiry behavior in

the recall session. Do differences in levels of self-
consciousness influence subjects' involvement with the

basic recall process? Would subjects high in self-
consciousness, i.e., the capacity for self-focused attention,
be more active in the process since they are accustomed to
attending to their own thoughts and feelings? A secondary
focus is on the impact of the recall sessions on the disposi-
tion of self-consciousness and the relationship between
self-inquiry behavior and (1) rated satisfaction with the
interpersonal process recall session, and (2) the relation-

ship between the inquirer and recaller.

Statement of the Problem

 

There is a considerable body of literature supporting
the effectiveness of IPR as a method of supervision (Kagan,
Krathwohl, et al., 1967; Spivak, 1972), a communication
skills training program for undergraduate paraprofessionals
(Dendy, 1971), and a procedure for promoting interpersonal
effectiveness (Archer and Kagan, 1973). Even with these
positive findings and anecdotal reports about the overall
effectiveness of-the IPR program, there remains considerable
difficulty in quantifying the effects of the process, and,
therefore, being able to identify with confidence the
variables which make IPR an effective training model. As
Kagan (1982) has suggested, ”The statistically significant

findings which have occurred in numerous studies must be

thought of as minimal . . . that which could be measured is
not, in all likelihood, all that was learned" (p. 24). He
also states that group evaluation in IPR research is very
difficult, since individuals are encouraged to learn at their
own rate and begin with the interpersonal issues of their
choice. Clearly individual differences influence partici-
pants' response to the IPR process. Blair and Fretz (1980)
and Hartson & Kunce (1973) have provided some supportive
evidence for this notion. Also, Cronbach & Snow (1977)

have demonstrated the importance of considering individual
differences when constructing training programs. Research
focused on how specific variables affect the basic training
experience in IPR--the inquiry session--may very well pro-
vide additional data for further explication of this complex
process. Self-consciousness is one such variable.

When applying the IPR method in the early 1960's, Kagan
observed that the recaller in self-inquiry would engage in
(1) self-evaluation of underlying thoughts and feelings, and
(2) evaluation of their own behavior and its impact on the
"other” in the recorded interactions. These observations
suggest that the IPR process facilitates exploration and
learning about two distinct aspects of the self: private
and public. Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) have
developed an instrument to measure self-consciousness,
which they define as the consistent tendency of a person to
direct attention inward (private self-consciousness) or out-

ward (public self-consciousness). Public and private

5

self-consciousness refer to a process of self-focused
attention, the very process necessary for active participa-
tion in the inquiry session. A third component of self-
consciousness has been labeled social anxiety, a reaction
to the process of public self-focused attention. Individual
differences in level of self-consciousness may moderate
participants' interpersonal process recall; that is, sub-
jects high in private or public self-consciousness may
respond differently to the basic recall experience.

In addition to being a moderator variable, the level
of self-consciousness of participants in IPR and the reac-
tion to self-focused attention, i.e., social anxiety, may
be influenced by IPR training itself. A major goal of IPR
is to foster increased self-awareness in participants.
Productive self-awareness can be facilitated by the process
of self-focused attention. The recall component of IPR
induces the process of self-focused attention, i.e., the
tendency to direct attention toward the self. Examining
private and public aspects of the self in the recall
session is further facilitated by the inquirer who poses
questions that direct the recaller's attention in these
areas. Subjects with little ability to focus on themselves

may develop this capacity through IPR training.

Need for the Study

 

The IPR training technique is used in undergraduate,

graduate, and professional programs of study in the U.S.A.

6

and many foreign countries. Hundreds of students and
professionals in a variety of disciplines complete the IPR
training annually. How does the capacity for self-focused
attention affect their involvement with the basic recall
process in the inquiry sessions?

The IPR model places the majority of the responsibility
for learning with the person (the recaller) reviewing a
previously recorded interview. Yet there is little research
on what variables affect the recaller's ability to engage
in the potential learning of the inquiry session. Explora-
tion of participants' individual differences in self-
consciousness may provide preliminary evidence to address
the question of what people are best suited to respond to
the structure of the IPR model. Also, the potential exists
for the training to be more efficient if it is shown that
high and low self-conscious subjects respond differentially
to the recall process. For example, participants might be
paired on the basis of their self-consciousness scores to
facilitate maximum learning.

Archer and Kagan (1973) have suggested that the recall
technique applied during the inquiry session is the most
potent component of the entire training model. It is the
inquiry session where the subject quite literally "makes
inquiry" into what happened in the previously recorded
interaction. Kagan (1980) has said that the inquiry session
gives participants“. . . an experience of studying them-

selves in action and an opportunity to come to know

themselves in new ways, in greater depth and detail"

(p. 105). The potential for developing increased inter—
personal self—awareness is greatest during the inquiry
session--the foundational component in the IPR model.
Previous investigators have focused primarily on the

global impact of the entire model rather than specific
components such as the inquiry session. This research pro-
poses to measure the impact of the self-inquiry as a part
of the IPR course taught each term at Michigan State

University.

The Interpersonal Process Recall Model

 

The Interpersonal Process Recall technique was
originally used by Kagan and Krathwohl, et al. (1967) as a
method of supervision and training in graduate counselor
education. The basic recall technique applied during the
inquiry sessions eventually developed into a five-component
model of counselor training with broad applicability. It is
more than a skills training program and has been referred to

as . a curriculum in human relations" (Brammer and
Allman, 1977, p. 3). The components of the model include
specific skills to be learned and are sequenced from least
to most complex. Kagan (1980) has described the components

in the IPR model for the beginning counselor. They include:

1. Elements of Effective Communication - Four verbal
response modes-~eproratory, listening, affective,
and honest labeling--are presented and practiced.
These are the most basic elements in skillful
communication.

 

2. Affect Simulation - A series of short stimulus
vignettes that convey intense feelings such as
anger, fear, sadness, and affection are shown.
The actors in the vignettes simulate affect in
order to stimulate reactions in the viewer.
Participants begin studying their own reactions
to emotionally laden encounters.

 

3. Inquirer Role and Function - An assertive, non-
judgmental questioning style emerging out of the
inquirer‘s interest in learning from the
recaller's self-observations is taught and
practiced. Effective inquirers facilitate
recaller exploration of the recorded interaction
during the inquiry session.

 

4. Theoretical Constructs - A conceptual framework
for understanding interpersonal styles and
behavior is introduced.

5. Recall Sessions - Interactions are videotaped and
then reviewedby the recaller in one of three
different formats: interviewer, interviewee or
mutual (both participants) recall. The inquirer's
task is to help the recaller explore the video/
audiotaped stimulated experiences of the previous
interaction.

This final component of the IPR model is the core of

the IPR process. In a sense, the previous four components

prepare participants for the recall session although the

recall technique has been used alone (Kagan, Krathwohl
and Miller, 1963).

Several key assumptions form the theoretical founda-
tion for the IPR model. This will be described in the next

section.

Theoretical Framework

 

The theoretical foundation of the variables selected
for study in this research is presented in this four-part
section. In the first sub section the basic assumptions of
the entire IPR model are described. This is followed by a
description of the structure and theory of the inquiry
session. The next two sub sections lay out the theoretical
threads connecting the construct of self-consciousness and
the recall process in the inquiry session. Finally, a
rationale is provided for the definition of productive self-

inquiry.

Theoretical Foundations of Interpersonal Process Recall

The basic assumption in Interpersonal Process Recall
is that people are the best source of knowledge about them-
selves. In his theory of personality and behavior, Rogers
(1951) stated the following related proposition: "The
best vantage point for understanding behavior is from the
internal frame of reference of the individual himself"

(p. 494). In the inquiry session the inquirer helps the

recaller explore his/her frame of reference in relation to

specific points on the tape-recorded.interview. For
example, the recaller might stop the tape and comment, "I
seem to be avoiding eye contact there, and I look very
nervous. I was thinking that what I was saying wasn't
making any sense. I sound stupid." The inquirer would

attempt to help the recaller explore these reactions further

 

 

10

with a number of "inquirer questions." Implicit in this
assumption is the idea that people are inclined toward self—
discovery and awareness, and that to see oneself leads to
self-evaluation and the potential for change. This potential
varies widely among individuals, although there is some
empirical support for the hypothesis that there is an initial
reaction of self-evaluation to self-focused attention
(Wicklund, 1978). Video-tape playback provides a powerful

stimulus for self-focused attention.

A second assumption in the IPR model is that all people
act as naive psychologists with implicit theories of inter-
personal behavior. Simply stated, most people have ideas
about what they and other people are like without studying
psychology. Wegner and Vallacher (1977) point out that
"commonsense theories of psychology" are not particularly
novel, and have been discussed by influential psychologists
and philosophers such as George Kelly (1955), Alfred Schutz
(1932) and Fritz Heider (1958). Heider suggests that
" . the ordinary person has a great and profound under-

standing of himself and of other people, which, though

unformulated or only vaguely conceived, enables him to

interact with others in more or less adaptive ways"

(p.2). It is these vaguely conceived theories that are
explored and verbalized more fully in the recall sessions.
It is assumed that, provided with the proper stimulation,
ordinary people are able to explore their own intuitive

psychology and how it influences interpersonal relations.

11

The shortcomings of the "intuitive psychologist" are dis-
cussed elsewhere (Ross, 1978).

A third assumption in the model is that the language
labeling of interpersonal and intrapersonal processes
serves an ordering function. Describing physiological
reactions, cognitions, affect and fantasies gives the
person a sense of mastery over, not only vague sources of
anxiety or fear, but also over sources of joy and happiness.
Dollard and Miller (1950) describe the powerful function of
language in helping people change feelings and attitudes.
Language labeling is a necessary prerequisite to thinking
about an emotional response. Language allows people to
think about events and behavior. Kagan (1980) has described
the process by suggesting that:

Finding labels, finding words for what had been

vague thoughts, finding words for what had been

pre-language feelings, helps us know ourselves in

language. We may be literally informing one part

of the brain about the content of another . . . having

a language, having words makes our fears more manage-

able, less frightening. It's almost as if the

ferocious wolf, on close examination, is found to be
very old and toothless. (p. 103)

Berger and Luckman (1966) describe the process by saying
that:

. . . in the face-to-face situation . . . I hear
myself as I speak; my own subjective meanings are
ma e o jectively and continuously available to me and
ipso facto become "more real" to me. . . language
makes—“more real” my subjectivity not only to my
conversation partner but also to myself. (p. 38)

 

These assumptions have implications for the applica-

tion of the entire model as well as the inquiry or recall

12

session. The primary focus of this research is on the

inquiry session.

The Structure and Theory of Self Inquiry

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines the
word inquiry in the following manner: "a seeking for
truth, information or knowledge; an investigation, as into
an incident; act of inquiring, or seeking information by
questioning." This is precisely what happens ixr produc-
tive inquiry sessions in the IPR model. Both participants,
the inquirer and recaller are seeking information, investi-
gating the previous interview by questioning. The recaller
has full responsibility for stopping the tape and chooses
what aspect of the interaction to comment on. The recaller
questions him/herself about the previous interaction. The
inquirer also poses questions or "leads" to help the
recaller fully explore the observations made and to
encourage the language labeling of the experiences, feelings,
and behaviors that occurred during the session.

The recall technique applied during the inquiry session
is one component of the entire IPR model. As noted earlier,
it has been used alone and in conjunction with various parts
of the model (Dematatis, 1981; Tomory, 1979). This study
focuses on interviewer recall as part of the basic IPR
course offered to students at Michigan State University.

(Appendix A includes an outline of the course.)

13

The basic steps in interviewer recall proceed as
follows: First, a lO-minute interview is video-recorded
where the interviewer's task is to help the interviewee
explore a concern by using the four elements of effective
communication. Second, after the interview is completed,
the interviewee leaves the room and the inquirer enters.
The inquirer introduces the structure of the inquiry
session if the interviewer is not familiar with it. The
interviewer (now called the recaller) is encouraged to stop
the tape whenever a thought, feeling, reaction, image, etc.,
that occurred during the interview is recalled with the
general goal of self-exploration. Interviewers often
comment on the four basic elements of communication
learned in the first unit of the IPR course. The inquirer's
role (outlined in detail in Appendix B) is to facilitate
the recaller's self-exploration by the use of assertive,
nonjudgmental probes. Previous research indicates that
this process, along with the other IPR training activities,
helps the interviewer (recaller) learn the specific com-
munication skills and move toward more effective inter-
personal functioning (Archer and Kagan, 1973; Dendy,

1971).

The recall process is based on the assumption that in
any interaction much more happens between people than can
be acknowledged or discussed. The interpersonal process is
rich with meaning that participants typically do not fully

explore for a variety of reasons. Videotape replay and the

l4

presence of the inquirer stimulate the recalling and dis-
cussion of these interpersonal processes. Most participants
are able to engage in the learning by discovery aspects of
self-inquiry. They are able to take " . . . the opportunity
for 'stepping outside oneself' during or after an inter-
view and examining the session" (Kagan, 1979, p. 477). How—
ever, there is some variability in students' ability and
interest in talking about what occurred during the inter-
view. The construct of self-focused attention discussed in

the next section may be related to these differences.

Interpersonal Process Recall and Self-Focused Attention

The specific technique of interpersonal process recall
developed out of efforts to define valid and reliable

methods for training counselors.l It was and still is an

applied technique used most frequently in clinical, field
and training settings. The literature of IPR reflects the
fact that the concept grew out of applied educational
psychology-~most of the research focuses on the effect of
the technique as a component of the entire training program

in applied settings.

 

1Interpersonal process recall is a term in the litera-

ture that has come to signify both (1) an interpersonal skill
training program, and (2) a specific technique that is part
of that trainin program, This discussion uses the second
definition of t e term.

15

The construct of self-focused attention has an entirely
different origin. It is the core concept in a theory of
objective self-awareness developed by Duval and Wicklund
(1972) in highly controlled experimental research. The
theory holds that a person's attention at any given instant
is directed either wholly toward the self, or wholly toward

external events. A person in this state of attention will

typically discover shortcomings in themselves and experience
negative affect. Attention may oscillate between the self
and non-self, but cannot focus on both simultaneously. Thus,
one may speak of increased or decreased self-focused
attention. Wicklund (1978) describes how this process
operates in the following manner:

Theoretically, any symbol or reflection of a person

will cause a shift of his focus inward, and experi-

mentally we have often used mirrors and tape
recordings of the person's voice for this purpose.

Not only should symbols of oneself create self-

focused attention, but the knowledge of being

attended to by others should also create a set

toward self-observation. (p. 408)

The applied technique of interpersonal process recall
and the theoretical construct of self-focused attention
emerge from very different research traditions. The IPR
technique has been used as a microscope for studying human
interaction. It has been used to study real people in real
situations and can be said to have what Brunswik (1947)
has termed "ecological validity." The concept of self-

focused attention for the most part has been used to predict

non-interpersonal behavior in highly contrived situations.

16

The link between these lies in the assumption that the basic
IPR process induces a state of self-focused attention. The
videotaped replay of an interaction along with the presence
of the inquirer create a powerful set toward self-
observation. The theoretical construct of self-focused
attention and its measurement open up new possibilities for
further understanding of the effect of IPR training.

The concept of self-focused attention is directly
related to each of the basic assumptions underlying the IPR
technique. First, if we assume that people are the best
source of knowledge about themselves, then it follows that
their self-reports are important. They know more about the
meaning of their interactions than anyone else. The IPR
technique enhances subjects' ability to observe themselves in
interaction and discuss their observations. It facilitates
self-focused attention which allows people to tap their self-
knowledge source. There is some evidence suggesting that
self-focused individuals are more likely to provide valid
self-reports (Pryor, et a1, 1977).

Second, if we assume that people have their own

”theories of interpersonal behavior, then self-observation
and discussion of specific interactions may help them
articulate these implicit theories. Each IPR session allows
for the possibility of learning about the subject's implicit
theory of human behavior.

Third, the very structure of the IPR sessions

encourages the subjects to talk about any self-observations

17

which are made. They can articulate and label the overt
and covert behavior of the interaction. This final assump-
tion regarding language labeling is directly related to the

next section on productive self-inquiry.

Productive Self-Inquiry

 

There is a wide range of behavior that may be defined
as productive self-inquiry during the basic interpersonal
process recall session. For example, one recaller may
stop the tape numerous times and, with the help of a
skilled inquirer, discuss specific observations in depth;
while another may show little reaction to the video-
recording, stopping it only a few times. Which person has
had the most productive inquiry? Under the basic structure
of the IPR model, it is assumed that each has learned at
his/her own pace, and it is difficult to say who has
"learned more." However, it is possible to ask each student
to rate their experience with the process for a subjective
reading of what was learned. It is also possible to
quantify the learning by recording the time spent in
language labeling. Simply recording the number of inquiry
episodes and the time spent in dialogue with the inquirer
provides a measure of the learning taking place in IPR.
However, this is the case only if the language labeling
assumption of IPR is accepted as valid. Does talking about
thoughts, feelings, fears, expectations actually change

them?

18

Ulrich Neisser (1976) suggests that language surely
alters cognitive processes. The act of speaking changes
one's thoughts. When the recaller talks about what s/he
was thinking or experiencing, the very experience is
altered. The argument that observing and talking about
thought processses changes them was used to discredit intro-
spection as a tool for studying mental processes in the
early history of psychology. Talking about thinking changes
the thinking. Dollard and Miller (1950) also note the
importance of language in shaping thought and emotion. In a
similar manner, perhaps talking about thought and feelings
in IPR changes them and can be taken as a measure of pro-
ductive inquiry.

There is a second way that talking or "language label-
ing" during the IPR session may provide an index of change.
Talking about what was said and what one wanted to say may
be a form of behavioral rehearsal, a way of trying out new
behavior in the safety of a recall session (Kagan, 1980).
For example, students often write that they wish they could
~have used the basic interviewer responses more effectively.
In reviewing the tape they have the opportunity to stop and
say what they wanted to say. This happens often.

These two observations--that language changes thought
and that talking can provide a basis for behavioral rehearsal
form the theoretical rationale for using number and duration

of inquiry episodes as a measure of productive inquiry.

19

Definition of Terms

 

Special terms used in this research are defined as

follows:

1.

Self-consciousness - the consistent tendency of a

 

person to direct attention inward or outward.

a.

Public self-consciousness - the general aware-

 

ness ofithe self as a social object that has an

effect on others.

Private self-consciousness - the awareness of

*7—

one s inner thoughts and’feelings.

 

Social anxiety - a reaction to the process of self-

 

focused attention. A feeling of discomfort in the
presence of others.

Recall session - the time the recaller and inquirer

 

spend reviewing and discussing a video-recorded
interview. It includes:

a.

Inquiry episodes - the time elapsed between
stopping and’starting the video tape during the
recall session. Consists of recaller observa-
tions and inquirer probes.

 

Self-inquiry - the process whereby the recaller
stops the video tape to make observations about
his/her thoughts, feelings, actions, appearance,
etc.

 

Interviewer - the person who previously con-
ducted a I0+minute interview with the goal of
learning effective interview behavior and
discovering blocks to open communication.

 

Recaller - the interviewer becomes the recaller
during the recall session.

Delimitations of the Study

The following factors delimit any generalizations that

can be made from this study.

1.

Data was collected only on the interviewer recall

format of IPR. Observations and conclusions may not be

20

accurate for the two other recall formats, i.e., inter-
viewee and mutual.

2. There was no effort to measure the duration of
effects of the IPR sessions. Post-measures were
confined to the time period immediately following the
sessions.

3. In this study the IPR training model was not
compared to any other training method. No generalizations
can be made for training approaches other than IPR.

4. Since this was a field research study, no legiti-
mate control group was available. In light of this,
results must be viewed as preliminary and exploratory.

5. Students participating in this study were volun~

teers and presumably motivated to learn about themselves.

Basic Assumptions

 

The basic assumptions of this study are:

l. The students who participated in this study were no
different than other students who enroll in Education 414
each term at Michigan State University.

~ 2. Students' level of self-consciousness, inquiry
behavior, and reactions to the IPR technique can be

accurately measured.

3. Self-consciousness scale scores of students who
enroll in Education 414 are no different than other

students of similar age and background.

21

4. The disposition of self-consciousness influences
student behavior in the IPR sessions.
5. The disposition of self-consciousness can change

over time.

Research Questions

 

1. Is there a relationship between pre-course
measurement of self-consciousness and IPR self-
inquiry behavior in the recall sessions?

a. Is there a relationship between private
self-consciousness and IPR self-inquiry
behavior in the recall sessions?

b. Is there a relationship between public self-
consciousness and IPR self-inquiry behavior
in the recall sessions?

c. Is there a relationship between social anxiety
and IPR self-inquiry behavior in the recall
sessions?

2. Is there a significant difference between pre- and
posttest scores on the dimension of self-
consciousness following the IPR labs?

a. Is there a significant difference between pre-
and posttest scores on the dimension of private
self-consciousness following the IPR labs?

b. Is there a significant difference between pre-
and posttest scores on the dimension of public
self-consciousness following the IPR labs?

c. Is there a significant difference between pre-
and posttest scores on the dimension of
social anxiety following the IPR labs?

3. Is there a relationship between productive self-
inquiry and the relationship between the inquirer
and recaller as rated by the recaller?

4. Is there a relationship between recaller ratings of
both the interview and recall sessions and IPR
self-inquiry behavior?

22

Summary and Overview

 

This chapter described both the purpose and need for
this study which is to explore the relationship between
the disposition of self-consciousness and self-inquiry
behavior in the interpersonal process recall technique.
Also, the interpersonal process recall model and a theoreti-
cal framework for the variables selected for study was
described. Finally, specific terms were defined, and
delimitations, assumptions, and research questions stated.
Chapter II is made up of two sections focusing on
research and evaluation of the IPR model and experiments
in self-focused attention respectively. Chapter III
contains a description of the population sample, Education
414 (IPR) course format and lab procedure, course
instructors, physical setting, data collection procedure,
instrumentation, hypotheses and tape ratings. In
Chapter IV the data analysis is presented. Chapter V
contains a discussion of results, conclusions, implications

of this study and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Interpersonal process recall and the construct of
self-focused attention have been researched extensively in
a variety of studies. As noted earlier, this research has
emerged out of two distinctly different areas--counseling
psychology and experimental social psychology. The inte-
gration of these traditions can enrich the theory and
practice of interpersonal process recall. In this chapter
the IPR and self-focused attention literature will be

reviewed in two separate sections.

Interpersonal Process Recall - Research and Evaluation

 

The impact of the IPR training program has been
evaluated in many experimental studies. It has also been
reviewed (Lee, 1973) and compared with several other skills
training models (Brammer and Allman, 1977). Most studies
have been pree,post-evaluations of the effect of all or
major segments of the model. The literature can be roughly
categorized into three major areas: (1) research on train-
ing applications,in which the impact of the entire model is
measured, (2) acceleration of client progress in psycho-

therapy applications; and (3) intramodel studies. Several

23

24

representative studies from each area along with summary
statements of relevant research will be cited here.

Research on Training Applications. Kagan, Krathwohl,

 

et al. (1967), report a series of NIMH—supported studies
conducted on the early version of the model, which did not
include the affect simulation unit nor many of the recall
films. Results produced preliminary data validating the
efficacy of the recall technique in counselor education and
supervision, and the elucidation of specific elements of
effective communication leading to the development of the
four response modes. In addition to the procedures for
counselor education and for accelerating client progress in
counseling, several other areas were studied. These include
the measurement and characteristics of affective sensitivity,
nonverbal behavior and the communication of affect, and
studies in teaching-learning strategies. The affective
sensitivity scale, further developed by Kagan, Schneider &
Werner (1977) has been used to measure post-IPR training
gains iri numerous studies.

Using the Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS) as a
measure of therapist effectiveness, the initial research
efforts focused on the validation of effective procedures in
counselor education and supervision. One such study
(Goldberg, 1967) compared IPR-based supervision with
intensive, "traditional," audio-tape supervision. This
study provided evidence that the methodology could be used

to train counselors. Supervisors were either faculty

25

members or advanced doctoral students, trained by tradi-
tional supervisory methods, who assigned importance to
"relationship factors" in client change. Several hours of
training in the basic recall process was considered ade-
quate for assigning supervisors to the treatment groups.
Both groups of M.A.-degree candidates in counseling were
exposed to the same conceptual framework for effective
counseling, including the response modes in pre-treatment
training.

In traditional supervision, the supervisors observed
each of the trainees' interviews through a one-way mirror.
This was followed by a one-hour immediate review of the
session. An audio-tape recording of the counseling session
was used whenever the supervisor or supervisee chose to do
so. The IPR training model utilized the basic recall
technique, in which the supervisor and student counselors
conduct a recall session immediately following the counsel-
ing session. This occurred in three phases. In sessions 1
and 2 (phase 1) the counselor (trainee) observed a 15-
minute client recall and participated in a 45-minute
(counselor) recall. In sessions 3 and 4 (phase 2) the
counselor was paired with a colleague, listened to his/her
client recall with the colleague serving as inquirer, and
then served as inquirer with his/her partner's client. In
the final two supervisory sessions (phase 3), the supervisor
acted as inquirer for a mutual recall session between

counselor and client. Both groups received 10 hours of

26

supervision over an 8-week period. When the audiotapes
were rated (double blind) by independent judges, statisti-
cally significant differences in counseling skills, as
measured by the CVRS favoring the IPR groups were found.
This pattern of change was consistently observed in each
of the three successive academic quarters in which the
study was conducted.

Spivak (1970) compared IPR with a classroom approach
in teaching basic interviewing skills to M.A. candidates in
counseling. With some design modifications, this study
replicated the positive results of the Goldberg study in
comparing the IPR supervisory technique with a traditional
classroom training experience using lectures, demonstrations,
tape critiques and discussions. In the coached client
situation, the IPR method produced significant differences
on the understanding, specific, and exploratory subscales
of the CVRS. When role-playing clients were used, signifi-
cant differences favoring IPR were found on all four CVRS
subscales. No significant differences were found on either
the Affective Sensitivity Scale (ASS) or Carkhuff's accurate
empathy scale.

Grzegorek (1970) compared IPR training methods with a
didactic approach that he called "cognitive-intellectual.”
A group of prison counselors served as trainees. Trainees
who used the IPR method made significantly greater gains on
the understanding, specific and exploratory subscales of

the CVRS and on a measure of empathic understanding. No

27

significant differences were found in affective sensitivity
as measured by the ASS.

Following the early IPR research on the training of
counselors, a number of studies were conducted on methods
for training paraprofessionals. Scharf (1971) compared an
intensified IPR format with a communications skills program
to train undergraduate residence—hall advisors. The IPR
format included the use of lectures on the facilitative
conditions of counseling, tape ratings of pre-recorded
helping interactions, helping skills training, role playing,
and client, counselor, and mutual recalls. The communica-
tion skills program was based on Carkhuff's model of empathy
training, discrimination training, role playing, group
discussion, and interviewing practice. Both programs were
offered for a total of 40 hours over 5 consecutive days.

The Affective Sensitivity Scale, the Counselor Verbal
Response Scale, and the Carkhuff Empathic Understanding in
Interpersonal Processes Scale: were used as outcome measures.
While the results were inconclusive, Scharf did suggest

that the intensified format was not as effective as weekly
sessions over time with either model.

Dendy (1971) evaluated a 38-hour IPR training program
for residence assistants. The program consisted of two
4-week training phases, 19 hours each. A 3-month period
separated the two phases. The 22 RA's in this treatment
group were compared with several other groups on the outcome

measures employed in the Scharf study. The comparison

28

group included (1) a group receiving the same training with-
out the affect simulation films, (2) the empathy training
groups used by Scharf, and (3) 8 professional counselors at
the Michigan State University Counseling Center. Dendy's
treatment group was tested before and after each phase of
training and showed significant gains in affective sensitivigr
and interviewing skills. The gains achieved in phase 1 were
maintained over the three-month summer recess. When compared
with Scharf's groups, significant differences were found on
the CVRS favoring Dendy's extended training model. Finally,
prior to IPR training there were large differences favoring
professional over paraprofessional counselors. Following
training, independent judges found no significant differences
between these two groups on the outcome measures employed.

In a follow—up study, Archer and Kagan (1973) found
that after training, these same undergraduate residence
assistants could effectively train fellow students. The
peer-instructed students scored significantly higher on
measures of affective sensitivity and self-actualization
than did other students who participated in an encounter
group of similar duration. They also scored higher than a
comparable no-treatment control group on these same
measures, and on scales given to roommates auui peers not in
the study. Additionally, they were selected as "people I
would be willing to talk to about a personal problem” by
dormitory residents who were given lists of potential

helpers. In evaluating this study, Kagan (1980) points out

29

that the students were carefully selected and were all
highly motivated, and that the results must be considered
in this light.

A recent study by Blair and Fretz (1980) examined pre—
medical students' response to two programs of communication
skills training: Interpersonal Process Recall and Human
Relations Training. Eighty-eight males and 40 females
volunteered to participate in one 3-hour orientation session
to one of the training models. The subjects were assessed
on a variety of personality characteristics before the
orientation session. After the session they indicated
perceived effectiveness and expected satisfaction for the
two programs. As might be expected, both programs were
positively evaluated by the subjects, but the IPR training
was seen as potentially more effective and satisfying by
anxious and defensive students. While this evidence is
only suggestive, it points to the possibility that
individual differences of participants may influence sub-
jects' perceived effectiveness of IPR and performance on
the various training experiences in the model.

Bedell (1976) conducted a study that bears directly on
the research outlined in this dissertation. He compared two
methods--the "outside" and "self-contained" version--for
training students in the inquirer role. He taught two
sections of the undergraduate IPR course using the tradi-
tional method, i.e., "outside" inquirers (graduate

asistants for the course) came into the lab recall sessions

30

to train students in the inquirer role. These sections were
compared with two additional sections where students acted

as their own inquirers--the self-contained version. There
were no differences in interviewer skill as measured by the
Counselor Verbal Response Scale or the Discrimination Index.
But the traditional group did report more satisfaction with
the lab sessions and made greater gains on the Personal
Orientation Inventory. Also an inquirer rating scale
designed specifically for this study indicated no differences
between the groups in inquirer skill level. This research is
relevant here in that Bedell recorded and rated the recall
sessions, a procedure used in this study. Apparently, the
procedure had no adverse effect on the students in the IPR
course.

Acceleration of Client Progress in Psychotherapy.

 

Kagan and McQuellon (1981) summarized the literature on the
use of IPR in the second major area of research-—acceleration
of client progress in counseling and psychotherapy. The
theoretical rationale for the process, like that in train-
ing applications, is on the study of self through
observation and discussion of interpersonal behavior, and the
exploration of concomitant covert processes. Representa-
tive experimental research (Hartson and Kunce, 1973);
Schauble, 1970; Tomory, 1979; Van Noord, 1973) and case
studies (Kagan, Krathwohl, and Miller, 1963; Kagan,
Krathwohl, and Miller, 1963; Kagan, Krathwohl, et al., 1967;

Resnikoff, Kagan, and Schauble, 1970) are reviewed here.

31

Hartson and Kunce (1973) employed a combination of
stimulus films, dyadic recall and group recall techniques in
assessing the effectiveness of IPR in accelerating group
psychotherapy with college students. In six sessions the
IPR treatment clients showed significantly higher changes in
self-disclosure and "readiness-for-group" behavior, and
participated in more therapeutic interchanges than clients
in traditional T-groups. However, the T-group clients did
show significantly higher satisfaction scores. Differential
treatment effects were observed in the separate sample
groups. In the low self-esteem, socially inactive subjects
(counseling center population) the IPR self-confrontation
methods were helpful, while the direct confrontation methods
of the T-group had an adverse effect. High self-esteem,
socially active subjects (participants in a YMCA social
skills training group) demonstrated no treatment differences.
The authors concluded that direct confrontation by another
person in the T-group method may have an adverse effect on
those with inadequate social skills and low self-esteem.
IPR videotape self-confrontation may provide a less
threatening experience. This study provides evidence
supporting the notion that subjects may respond differen-
tially to the IPR technique.

Schauble (1970), Van Noord (1973), and Tomory (1979)
conducted similar experimental studies attempting to
evaluate the effects of IPR training on accelerating client

progress in psychotherapy. All three studies were conducted

32

with college students in a university counseling center.

Schauble studied the responses to therapy of 12
clients. The IPR treatment, designed to facilitate therapy,
included video-tape recall of the client's response to
affect stimulation vignettes and recall of actual therapy
sessions. When compared with the clients who did not
receive the IPR treatment, significant gains were made on
three of the five dependent measures used. Schauble con-
cluded that the IPR training had accelerated client growth
in therapy on the measures used.

Van Noord (1973) conducted a similar investigation with
some design improvements, most notably adopting different
outcome measures, increasing the sample size and using
more sophisticated data analysis techniques. No signifi-
cant differences were found between those who received
traditional counseling and those who received the IPR
treatment on the objective measures, although subjective
comments by clients favored the IPR group.

Tomory (1979) built on these studies by introducing
flexibility into the treatment design. He allowed.therapists
to introduce segments of the IPR model when they found it
appropriate, with some guidelines; for example, he stipu-
lated that they had to use the various components of the
model a certain number of times in order to insure meaning-
ful comparisons. He compared a group of traditionally
counseled individuals with clients counseled with IPR plus

traditional methods and found no significant differences

33

on a series of objective measures, even though both
clients and therapists alike reported positive feedback on
the IPR techniques.

Intensive case studies have generally yielded positive
results in the application of recall techniques. However,
it should be noted that in each of the case studies cited,
variations of the recall process were introduced at different
times in the counseling process by expert counselors
familiar with IPR techniques. Kagan, Krathwohl and Miller
(1963) report the first case study using IPR with a 38-year-
old married female complaining of depression and an
unsatisfactory marital relationship. She had been in treat-
ment with one of the authors for five months prior to her
exposure to one recall session. The client is described as

rationalizing her behavior in long, cognitive

monologues In the procedure utilized, both client
and counselor simultaneously viewed the session with
different inquirers (called interrogators in the early
research) while in separate recall rooms. Any inquirer or
recaller could stop the playback, and discuss recalled feel-
ings and elaborate on meanings. Whenever the playback was
stopped by one member of either team, it automatically
stopped for the other team. The recall session seemed to
help stimulate movement through a therapeutic impasse by
helping the client recognize her excessive rationalizing,

and facilitating affective exploration. Following this

procedure, marked progress was noted, culminating in a

34

successful termination after a total of eight months and
approximately twenty sessions.

Resnikoff, Kagan and Schauble (1970) report a case
study with a highly intelligent, unmarried, l8-year-old
male high school senior suffering from mild to acute
psychotic reactions. A single IPR session was introduced
at session 12 of a 20-week, twice/week session contract.
The authors chose to utilize the IPR intervention when the
client showed clear signs of depression in order to ".
get at the dynamics underlying the depression" (p. 103).

The client recall was used with both inquirer and client
stopping the tape. The impact of the process was assessed
on four broad characteristics of client growth. The client:
(1) owns the discomfort--admits the feeling of discomfort
and begins to specify the locus of concerns, fears, and
discomfort; (2) is committed to change--cooperates rather
than resists the efforts designed to help facilitate change;
(3) differentiates stimuli--learns to perceive more and

more of the external stimuli and reacts to these as discreet
rather than stereotyped factors; (4) behaves differently--
reporting new behaviors outside the counseling relationship,
as well as trying out new behavior with respect to the
counselor. The client's progress in each area was discussed
and linked with the impact of the IPR session. The authors
concluded that "This pattern of resulting gains suggests
that this form of stimulus intervention has broad implica-

ion in the counseling and psychotherapeutic treatment of

35

clients experiencing a variety of personal difficulties
with various degrees of severity" (p. 110).

Additional case studies have been reported (Woody,
Kagan, Krathwohl, and Farquhar, 1965), and many have been
conducted during the early research on the IPR method at
Michigan State University. Also, Kingdon (1975) conducted
a study exploring the cost/benefits of IPR in terms of the
inhibitory effect of using videotape on client self-
exploration (cost), and of added client satisfaction and
increased counselor and supervisor empathy ratings (benefits).
The clients treated by counselors using IPR supervisory
methods, i.e., client, counselor, and mutual recall,
increased their level of self-exploration over time, while
demonstrating no inhibitory effects of videotape intervention.

In summary, the experimental research on IPR's
effectiveness in accelerating client growth provides mixed
results. The case study reports are generally supportive of
IPR intervention, suggesting that individuals may benefit
from the use of specific recall techniques at particular
points in the counseling process. Efforts to apply
structured programs without regard to the wide variety of
client problems and the highly idiosyncratic nature of inter-
action with different therapists yield only suggestive
evidence. More intensive case studies and research account-
ing for individual differences may yield clues to conditions

under which clients respond favorably to IPR intervention.

36

Intra-Model Studies. Intra-model studies have focused

 

on the effects of several major elements of the entire IPR
program. rcher, et a1. (1972) examined the impact of the
affect simulation vignettes and found that they stimulate
measurable physiological reactions in subjects. Grossman
(1975) conducted another study supporting the basic premise
that the affect simulation vignettes have an impact on
viewers. Since the affect simulation component is not the
central focus of this research, these studies will not be
reviewed here. Only literature bearing directly on the
recall process will be reviewed.

Katz and Resnikoff (1977) used a systematic, controlled
method to test the basic validity of the recall process.
They conducted two studies to test the extent to which
individuals could recall feelings they experienced during a
dyadic interaction when shown a videotape replay of that
interaction. They trained pairs of subjects (counseling
students and couples) to note on an event recorder the
intensity of their feelings (comfort or discomfort) during
dyadic interactions. They were then asked to repeat the
process during a videotape recall of the recorded inter-
action. A push button recording system.was used with the
self-rating data from live and recall sessions. Results of
the studies yielded moderate correlations between live
self-ratings and those recalled with the aid of videotape

stimulation.

37

Young (1981) attempted to build on methodological
weakness in the Katz and Resnikoff (1977) study. He
avoided the requirement that subjects make concurrent
ratings of their experienced affect, i.e., comfort-
discomfort, during the interactions, suggesting that this
introduced an artificial factor into the subject's exper-
ience of the interaction. He placed 12 subjects in 20-
minute pseudo counseling sessions with two counselors who
were trained to emit two highly visible nonverbal gestures
three times each in the session. The sessions were video-
taped and shown to the subjects twice following the
original interview. Subjects were asked to make two ratings
at specific points on the tape, i.e., where the counselor
exhibited the nonverbal gestures. The correlation between
the first and second ratings range from .508 to .822. The
author concluded that the videotape assisted recall
method has at least moderate reliability and can stimulate

the memory of previously experienced affect.

Summary and Discussion

 

Measurement of the qualities that the IPR program is
designed to influence is a challenging, complex task. The
instruments developed by Kagan and his associates (the
Affective Sensitivity Scale & Counselor Verbal Response
Scale), the Carkhuff Scales measuring accurate empathy and
other measures (the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory,

Wisconsin Relationship Orientation Scale, and the Personal

38

Orientation Inventory) have been used alone or in combina-
tion in an effort to measure the effects of IPR training.
Generally, following exposure to the IPR training program,
subjects are better able to recognize and to report affect
as shown in filmed vignettes, to use more affective
responses in interviews, and to demonstrate increased levels
of empathy in interaction. Anecdotal data supplied by some
students taking the IPR course suggests increased capacity
for self-focused attention.

The specific referents of these changes are difficult
to isolate. What elements of the IPR program are linked
with such changes? Is it the training in the response
modes? The affect simulation? The basic recall process?
How is recall influenced by the tOpic chosen, the skill of
the inquirer or the previous experience of the recaller in
reflective thinking and self-disclosure? It seems
reasonable to conclude that the overall program produces a
global impact on participants in the direction of increased
self-awareness and sensitivity to the richness of inter-
personal exchange, and an awareness that much more is
experienced in human interaction than can ever be described.
Further specification of how individual differences affect
responsiveness to the overall training program and to the
recall process specifically may result from research on
cognitive styles and personality traits. One such trait

is the personal disposition to focus attention on oneself.

39

Self-Focused Attention

 

Fenigstein (1979) has described several determinants
of self-focused attention.2 These may be termed situational
and dispositional. Ganellen and Blaney (1981) have used
this distinction to categorize the growing literature on
this concept, suggesting that these categories roughly
describe the two major methods for studying self-awareness.
The first method involves manipulations thought to induce
the state of self-awareness. This state can be brought
about by the presence of others, and by exposing subjects to
a reflective stimulus such as a mirror, camera, video images,
or an audio recording of his/her voice. Such experimental
conditions induce a heightened gpppg of self-awareness.
Buss (1980) differentiates state and dispositional self-
awareness by using the term self-awareness to refer to a
transient state and self-consciousness to refer to a habitual
pattern of focusing attention on the self. The second
method for studying self-awareness includes selecting for it
with the use of the self-consciousness scale (Fenigstein,
Scheier, and Buss, 1975).

To date, none of this literature has been directly
linked to the interpersonal process recall technique, even

though the IPR method induces a state of self-awareness,

 

2Wicklund (1978) has noted that the term self-focused atten-
tion (SFA) is nearly synonomous with the phrase objective
self-awareness (OSA). Since SFA more accurately describes
the process that is here linked to IPR training, it will

be used for the most part when summarizing the following
literature.

40

and the repeated exposure of subjects to the process may
influence their basic disposition to self-focus. Representa-
tive studies from each area are selected for review here.

The first section includes studies on induced self focus.

The second section includes research on both induced and
dispositional self-focus, since they are often studied
together.

Self-Focused Attention - Induced. Geller and Shaver

 

(1976) conducted two studies designed to discover whether

a manipulation of self-awareness would activate self-
relevant thoughts. In the first study 57 female college
student volunteers were led to believe they were performing
a series of tasks that would reflect their level of
intelligence. The three tasks included: (1) naming the
colors of rows of X3 (each row was printed in a different
color), (2) reading a list of words printed in black ink--
these were self-relevant or self-evaluative for half the
subjects and neutral for the other half--, and (3) naming
the colors of these same words that were printed in a
variety of colors on a second list of words. (The authors
drew on previous research suggesting that latency of color
naming for a word increases whenever a subject has been
thinking about something related to that word.) The third
task was the focus for data collection. While naming the
color of the print of certain words, subjects were faced
with (l) a mirror and television camera,or (2) neither. The

major dependent variable was change in color-naming latency

41

due to the independent variables (manipulation) of self-
awareness (mirror and camera or none) and type of word
(self-relevant vs. neutral). The mean change in the mirror
and camera/self-relevant words condition was significantly
higher than the other mean. However, the analysis of
variance produced two significant main effects rather than
the hypothesized interaction between the mirror/camera and
self-relevant words. A second experiment was conducted
deleting the second task of experiment one in order to
refine the procedure for testing the interaction hypothesis.
Under these conditions the hypothesized interaction occurred.
The authors concluded that the presence of a mirror and a
camera act as inducers of self-awareness and activate self-
relevant or self-evaluative thoughts in memory.

Diener and Srull (1979) designed a study to assess
whether subjects would be more likely to judge their behavim:
from a social perspective under induced self-aware vs. non-
self-aware conditions. Twenty-four male and 24 female
introductory psychology students made a series of 12
perceptual judgments and generated a standard of accuracy
within which they would consider an individual's performance
to be successful. Later they were given systematically
varied bogus feedback concerning their own performance
levels, their self-standards of success, and social
standards of success ostensibly generated by their peers.
This created conditions on which the subject surpassed both

standards, one or the other standard, or neither standard.

42

Participants were allowed to reinforce themselves (give
points that could later be converted to money) under self-
aware and non—self-aware conditions (presence or absence of
their image on a television screen) on the basis of social
and self-standards and their own performance levels. The
major finding was that subjects relied more on their
personal standards of accuracy for evaluating their per-
formance under the non-self-aware conditions; they relied
more on the social standards of accuracy when they were
self-aware. Self-aware subjects were more concerned with
their social selves and felt more pressure to comply with
the social standards. The authors speculated that self-
aware persons take on a social perspective of themselves in
a social situation and judge their performance from an
external vantage point. They further suggest that the
increased reliance on social standards may hold only for
public self-awareness or self-awareness produced in a social
situation.

Ickes, Wicklund and Ferris (1973) conducted three
experiments to test the hypothesis that self-focused
attention can alter self-esteem levels. In the first two
experiments a modified version of the real-ideal self
questionnaire served as the dependent measure. Self-
awareness was the independent variable. It was manipulated
by exposing subjects (male undergraduates) either to the
sound of their own tape-recorded voices (self-aware) or a

recording of another voice (non-self-aware). Subjects

43

whose attention was focused upon themselves showed lower
self-esteem than subjects who heard another voice. This
finding is consistent with the Duval & Wicklund (1972)
theory of objective self-awareness that postulates initial
self-evaluation in the form of self-criticism when subjects
are exposed to self-reflective stimuli.

In the third experiment the variable of positive-
negative feedback on a fictitious personality trait was
added to the self-focused attention variable. The purpose
of this study was to test the original theoretical statement
of Duval and Wicklund (1972) which states that objective
self-awareness is a state of self-criticism. The authors
offer an alternative hypothesis, i.e., objective self-
awareness is a state in which the individual's prevailing
moods and self-evaluation are exaggerated. Thirty-two
male undergraduates were given feedback on a trait (surgency)
unfamiliar to them. They were rated either toward the top
or bottom of the social hierarchy with regard to that trait.
They then rated themselves on surgency and on several other
traits for which no feedback had been given. These ratings
were completed under conditions of low or high (mirror
facing the subject) objective self-awareness. Self-ratings
on surgency were higher under high OSA than low OSA, but
only within the positive feedback condition. Also there was
an interaction between feedback and OSA on the other combined
ten traits. A component of this interaction was a tendency

toward higher ratings under high OSA in the positive

44

feedback condition. OSA made no difference under the nega-
tive feedback condition. The authors suggest that there were
some processes operating within the positive feedback condi-
tion that are not implied by the original statement of the
objective self-awareness theory. Perhaps objective self-
awareness is not always a self-critical state, and is
influenced by other conditions. Objective self-awareness
may operate to exaggerate the person's estimate of his real-
ideal positive or negative discrepancies; or the positive
feedback may have given subjects a set toward looking only
for positive information about themselves; finally, the
positive feedback on surgency may have created a state of
elation which could not be explained by the subjects since
the meaning of the trait had not been given. They may have
then concluded that their general well-being and success

was responsible for their present state and rated themselves
accordingly, i.e., high on the self-esteem traits.

The authors concluded that these three experiments
support the hypothesis that objective self-awareness is a
variable basic to self-esteem. The relationship between
OSA and self-esteem depends on the nature of the feedback
given, but when there is no feedback or when feedback is
negative, general estimates of self-esteem decline in the
presence of self-reflective stimuli.

Duval and Wicklund (1973) conducted two experiments
to test the effects of objective self-awareness on the

attribution of causality. In the first experiment,

45

12 female and 21 male undergraduates responded to 10 hypo-
thetical situations which presented the possibility that the
subject or someone else was responsible for a negative
consequence. After each situation was presented, the sub-
ject was asked to estimate the extent to which s/he caused
the consequences. Half of the subjects engaged in a motor
activity while replying to the situation. This condition
served to reduce the degree of attention focused toward the
self. In experiment two, 45 female undergraduates underwent
the same procedure with several changes. First, there were
five hypothetical situations with positive consequences and
five with negative consequences. Second, half of the sub-
jects were exposed to a stimulus (mirror) that directed
their attention to themselves. Both experiments indicated
that attribution of causality to the self was greater when
attention was focused on the self. In the second experi-
ment this effect was found to operate independently of good
or bad consequences.

Self-focused attention has been shown to have conse-
quences for many different behaviors, including those noted
in the previously cited literature. Inducers of self-
awareness can activate self-relevant or self-evaluative
thoughts, influence subjects to rely more on social standards
of accuracy about a particular task, alter levels of self-
esteem, and impact on attribution of causality toward the
self. Almost all of these behaviors are non-social, involv-

ing little interaction with others. What is the impact of

46

self-awareness or self-focused attention on interpersonal
behavior? This research, along with studies of disposi-
tional self-consciousness, will be reviewed in the next
section.

Self-Focused Attention--Dispositiona1 and Induced.

 

Fenigstein (1979) conducted two experiments to test the
effects of self-focused attention on positive and negative
social interactions. These are the first efforts in the
literature to extend the study of self-focused attention
into the area of social interaction. His research examined
the role of public self-consciousness in social interaction.
In the first experiment it was hypothesized that subjects
high in public self-consciousness would be more sensitive
and react more negatively to rejection by a group. They
would also hold themselves responsible for the rejection to
a greater degree than those low in public self-consciousness.
The study employed a 2 x 2 factorial design with one manipu-
lated variable (rejection vs. acceptance) and one subject
variable (high vs. low public self-consciousness). Eighty
female undergraduates served as subjects in the study. They
were selected on the basis of scoring in the upper and lower
thirds of the distribution of public self-consciousness
scores.

Following the experimental manipulation, i.e.,
acceptance or rejection by a peer group, subjects responded
to a questionnaire measuring the dependent variables of

affiliation and attraction for the group along with causal

47

attributions for the way the group behaved toward them. The
primary findings were that individual differences in public
self—consciousness had strong and consistent effects on
reaction to interpersonal rejection. More specifically,
after being shunned by a peer group, high publicly self-
conscious women were less attracted to the group. They were
also less likely to continue affiliating with that group
than women low in public self-consciousness.

Experiment number two was designed to provide a test
of the effects of both positive and negative interpersonal
feedback under conditions of induced self-awareness. A
total of 52 female undergraduates participated in this 2 x 2
factorial design with favorable and unfavorable interview
content crossed with mirror or no mirror. The major
dependent variables were affective responses to the inter-
view and interviewer. The procedure consisted of conduct-
ing an interview with the subjects and giving them negative
or positive feedback on 11 different personality charac-
teristics. Subjects were told that the purpose of the
interview was to get their intuitive reactions to recent
findings on the effects of birth order and personality.
When the interview was critical, subjects responded signifi-
cantly more negatively in the presence of the mirror than in
its absence; the effect for positive feedback was in the
expected direction but was not significant

These studies taken together indicate that there is an

increased responsiveness to the evaluations of others when

48

persons become more aware of the self during social inter-
action because of either chronic disposition toward self-
consciousness or the reflection of their images in a
mirror. The author suggested that as we attend to ourselves
in social situations, e.g., an interview, we become more
aware of ourselves as objects of attention to others.
Public self-consciousness rather than private self-
consciousness is the crucial factor in how much the evalua-
tions of others affect us. Raising or lowering attention
toward oneself may heighten or diminish the impact of
others' evaluations, and thus self-attention may have impli-
cations for the way people deal with everyday social
feedback.

Scheier (1976) conducted research designed to study the
effect of (l) the induced state of self-awareness, and
(2) the disposition of private self-consciousness on the
affective reaction of angry aggression. In a 2 x 2 x 2
factorial design he employed one subject variable (private
self-consciousness) and two manipulated variables (mirror/
no mirror and anger/no anger). The basic procedure entailed
the subjects (undergraduate men) ostensibly "teaching” an
experimental accomplice a particular task. The subjects
were either angered or not angered by the accomplice and
then told to administer a shock for each wrong response made
by the accomplice on the learning task with or without a
mirror present. The dependent variable was the mean

intensity of the shocks delivered to the ”victims."

49

Results confirmed the author's hypothesis that angry
persons made self-aware by a mirror agress more intensely
than those not exposed to a mirror and that angry persons
high in private self-consciousness agress more intensely
than those who are low in private self-consciousness. The
author explained these results by suggesting that self-
focus may simply increase the salience of a person's anger.
Self-aware people are more cognizant of a given level of
affect. An alternate explanation holds that self-directed
attention provides the basis for a feedback cycle whereby
the anger incubates and increases in intensity.

The author discussed dispositional-situational inter-
actions. Dispositional tendencies might sensitize a person
to the impact of environmental stimuli such that high self-
conscious persons are more affected by self-awareness
manipulations than low self-conscious persons. Or perhaps
high self-conscious persons are at a ceiling and may be
attending to themselves so much that manipulations do little
to increase self-focus. If so, inducers of self-focused
attention should affect the behavior of low but not of high
self-conscious persons. Finally, there may be no disposi-
tional-situational interactions. High and low self-
conscious persons may be equally sensitive to self-awareness
manipulations, but high self-conscious people may simply
begin at a higher baseline.

Scheier and Carver (1977) conducted a series of four

experiments to further study the effect of self-focused

50

attention on four affective states, i e., attraction,
repulsion, elation, and depression. In the first experi—
ment undergraduate men viewed and rated slides of nude
women in the presence of a mirror or with no mirror. The
dependent measure was the mean pleasantness rating of the
six stimulus slides following their presentation. In
experiment three subjects were placed either in a mirror or
no-mirror condition and read a set of mood statements which
became either increasingly positive or increasingly nega-
tive. The dependent measure was the subject's average mood
rating made after the experimental manipulation. Experiments
two and four replicated experiments one and three by select-
ing subjects on the basis of private self-consciousness.

In each study, self-focused attention (either induced or
dispositional) increased the subject's response to his
transient affective state. The authors concluded that self-
focused attention heightens a person's awareness of and
responsivity to affect.

The analysis of experiments two and four is particularly
relevant to the research proposed here. In these experi—
ments where subjects were selected on the basis of their
scores on the private self-consciousness subscale, the
authors conducted subsidiary analyses to determine the
effect of public self-consciousness and social anxiety.

Thus they examined the effects of all three subscales of
the self-consciousness scale. This research proposes to

analyze the data in like manner.

51

Summary_and Discussion

 

The research on dispositional self-focused attention or
self-awareness suggests that awareness of the self during
social interaction can (1) heighten or diminish the impact
of others' evaluation, (2) heighten the experience of a
salient affect, i.e., anger, which in turn influences the
tendency to agress, and (3) generally increase a subject's
response to his transient affective state.

The basic research on both induced and dispositional
self-focused attention has implications for the applied
technique of interpersonal process recall. IPR employs
videotape playback and the presence of an inquirer as
inducers of self-focused attention. Self-reflective stimuli
have been shown to activate self-relevant thoughts and
influence experimental subjects on a variety of other
dimensions. Extensive exposure to self-reflective stimuli
may influence a person's basic tendency to self-focus.

More specifically subjects may increase their level of self-
focus following repeated exposures to IPR lab sessions.

Also, subjects with differing levels of self-
consciousness, i.e., high or low, have been shown to behave
differently, e.g., high self-conscious subjects are more
sensitive to their own experience of rejection from a peer
group. Differences in dispositional level of self-
consciousness may affect a person's behavior in the self-
inquiry of interpersonal recall. This study addressed

these questions in an effort to bridge the gap between the

52

theory of self—focused attention and the practice of inter-

personal process recall.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter contains a description of the population,
sample, Education 414 (IPR) course format and lab procedure,
Education 414 (IPR) instructors, physical setting, data
collection procedure, instrumentation, hypotheses, and tape

ratings.

Population

 

The research subjects were drawn from a population of
79 students enrolled in Education 414, Interpersonal Process
Recall, Spring Term 1982. This population consisted pri-
marily of female, pre-nursing and dietetics majors with

sophomore or junior standing.

Sample

The sample for this study consisted of 67 students who
volunteered to participate by signing the ED 414 evaluation
project consent form (see Appendix G). This number was
further reduced to a final sample size of 51 when 16

students failed to complete all the data required.

53

54

Education 414 (IPR) Course Format and Lab Procedure

 

Education 414 is generally taught over the course of
a nine or ten-week term. In the Spring Term of 1982 the
Memorial Day holiday reduced the number of class meetings to
eight for three sections, with the remaining section meet-
ing for nine sessions. Each section met for one three-hour
class period per week and followed the general class
schedule found in Appendix B.

Classroom activities included short lectures, film
presentations, discussions and skills practice. The five
components in the IPR model, i.e., elements of effective
communication, affect simulation, inquirer role and func—
tion, theoretical constructs, and recall sessions, were
introduced and explained in the large class sessions. In
addition to the classroom meetings, students were required
to practice the IPR technique in four laboratory sessions.
The lab sessions and inquiry process are the focus of this
study.

Each lab was made up of three students who met for
two hours in weeks 5-8 of the term.2 Prior to meeting in
labs students had become acquainted and practiced some of
the IPR skills in the large class sessions. During the

labs each student functioned in the role of interviewer,

 

2Two labs consisted of four people. In these labs an

additional round of interview and interviewer recall was
conducted.

55

recaller, interviewee, and inquirer. The labs proceeded as
follows: Student A conducted a five-to ten-minute video-
recorded interview with student B. After the interview,
student B left the lab room and student C (the inquirer)
entered and conducted a 10-20 minute recall session with
student A, who now became the recaller. (Appendix B
describes the inquirer's role.) This procedure was then
repeated twice, so that every student conducted an inter-
view, recalled that interview, served as inquirer, and
acted as interviewee. There were two interviewer recall
labs, one interviewee, and one mutual recall lab for a
total of four labs. The interviewer and interviewee recall
lab procedures were essentially the same, the only
difference being the person, i.e., interviewer or inter-
viewee, who functioned as the recaller. In mutual recall,
the inquirer conducted a recall session with both the
interviewer and interviewee viewing their previously

recorded interaction.

Education 414 (IPR) Instructors

 

There were four IPR instructors including the
researcher. Each was a doctoral student in counseling
psychology with previous experience teaching the IPR class.
One instructor had taught the course three times, a second
six times, a third seven times, and the fourth nine times.
The instructors followed the format described in Appendix B.
The lab procedures and physical setting were identical for

all instructors.

56

Physical Setting

 

The lab setting in two 6'x lO'rooms was identical.

A Sony video camera was anchored on a wall near the ceiling,
focused and set to record the interviewer and interviewee,
who sat facing each other on a slight angle in two chairs
directly across from the camera. The lab participants sat
adjacent to a Sony VTR unit so they could stop and start it
without moving. The l9-inch television monitor was located
on a wall shelf next to the video camera. A third lab room
was slightly larger (10 x 14) and contained identical equip-
ment. Students were trained to use the equipment during
the third class session. All labs were conducted in these

three rooms.

Data Collection Procedure

 

The data collection procedures and lab schedule are
summarized in Figure 3.1. At the first class session a
letter introducing the research evaluation project (see
Appendix H) along with a student consent form (see
Appendix G) was distributed. The instructors then described
the project and emphasized the fact that participation had
no effect on the students' grade of pass (P) or no credit
(NC). At the third class session the self-consciousness
scale was administered. A second administration of the
scale occurred at the fifth class session, prior to any
video-taped lab sessions. This second administration
served as the pretest for comparing pre- and post-IPR lab

levels of self-consciousness. This procedure was used to

57

 

Week Procedure

 

l 1. Course evaluation project described.
Consent form signed.

3 2. SCS administration #1 (Pretest #l)

5 3. SCS administration #2 (Pretest #2)
Lab #1

6 4. Lab #2

a. Interviewer recall audio recorded

b. Students rate interview and lab
recall experience

c. Students (recaller) rate inquirer-

recaller
7 5. Lab #3
8 6. Lab #4

a. SCS administration #3 (posttest)

 

Figure 3.1. Summary of Data Collection Procedures

control for regression toward the mean from the first to
third administration which could produce invalid signifi-
cant differences when high and low self-consciousness groups
were compared. Also, during the fifth week of class,
students conducted their first (interviewer) lab.

In the sixth week of the term.students conducted their
second (interviewer) lab. At this session the lab procedures

outlined earlier were followed with one notable exception--

58

the recall session was audio-recorded. All students were
provided with specific instructions for this lab (see
Appendix I). Also, the experimenter was available to
answer any questions and attend to any equipment problems.
After each round of interviewing and interviewer recall,

the interviewer (recaller) rated (1) the interview
experience, (2) the recall experience (see Appendix E),

and (3) the recaller-inquirer relationship (see Appendix D).
Labs three and four were conducted in weeks seven and eight.
Also during week eight the self-consciousness scale was
administered for the final time. Students were invited to
seek feedback on their SCS scores during the ninth week of

the term.

Instrumentation

 

Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS). The Self-Consciousness

 

Scale (see Appendix C) was developed by Fenigstein, Scheier,
and Buss (1975) in order to assess individual differences
in self-consciousness, i.e., the consistent tendency of a
person to direct attention inward or outward. It yields a
total self-consciousness score along with three subscale
scores: (1) private self-consciousness, (2) public self-
consciousness, and (3) social anxiety. The SCS consists of
23 items rated on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging
from extremely uncharacteristic (l) to extremely character-
istic (4). Previous research has established that the three
subscales represent separate factors that can be reliably

measured (Fenigstein, et al., 1975; Scheier, 1976) and that

59

the scale as a whole has considerable discriminant validity
(Carver and Glass, 1976; Scheier and Carver, 1977).
Test-retest correlations for the subscales following
a two-week interval between administrations have been
reported as: private self-consciousness, .79; public self-
consciousness, .84; social anxiety, .73; and total score,
.80. Norms for the SCS have been established for college
men and women and show no significant gender differences.

The Wisconsin-Relationship Orientation Scale (WROS).

 

The WROS (see Appendix D) was originally deve10ped as a
measure of the relationship existing between the counselor
and client as perceived by the client (Steph, 1963). The
scale consists of five steps which range from total avoidance
of the counselor to the feeling of being able to talk with
the counselor about almost anything. It has been used in
previous IPR research (Kagan, et al., 1967) and is adapted
here as a measure of the relationship between the inquirer
and recaller. As used in this study the inquirer is
analogous to the counselor, while the recaller is analogous
to the client. Thus, this is a measure of the relationship
existing between the inquirer and the recaller as perceived
by the recaller.

Lab Rating Form. These forms have been used as a

 

regular part of the ongoing evaluation of Education 414 (see
Appendix E). They measure the students' general satisfac-
tion with the interview and recall segments of the IPR labs.

The interview evaluation segment consists of four items

60

measuring degree of involvement, personal content discussed,
relevance and threat experienced during the interview con-
ducted by the subject. The recall evaluation segment
consists of three items measuring relevance, personal
involvement and threat perceived during the recall of the
previously recorded interview. All items are rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale.

The Degree of Self-Exploration Scale (DX). The DX

 

scale (see Appendix F) has been derived in part from the
work of Truax and Carkhuff (1967) on the measurement of
depth of intrapersonal exploration. It has been validated
in extensive process and outcome research on counseling and
psychotherapy as a measure of client self-exploration.

The DX scale has been adapted here as a measure of pro-
ductive self-inquiry, i.e., self-exploration in an
interpersonal process recall session. Used in this manner,
the inquirer is analogous to the counselor, while the
recaller is comparable to the client.

The DX scale consists of five levels, with level one
being the lowest possible score and level five being the

highest possible score. A rating of level one indicates

 

that the recaller's behavior shows no evidence of self-

exploration. At level two the recaller may respond to the

 

introduction of personally relevant material by the inquirer,

but does so in a remote and mechanical way. At level three,

 

the recaller introduces personally relevant material but

without inward probing to discover new feelings or

61

experiences. At level four, the recaller introduces

 

personally relevant material but does so without a distinct
tendency toward self-exploration. At level five the

recaller is fully and actively self-exploring.

Hypotheses

 

The null hypotheses are presented here. The first set
of hypotheses were derived from research question number
one. This question asks if there is a relationship between
the recaller disposition of self-consciousness and IPR
self-inquiry behavior.

1. Self-Consciousness Scale Scores and Inquiry
Behavior

Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between
overall self-consciousness scale (SCS) scores and
IPR self-inquiry behavior.

 

Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between
private self-consciousness subscale scores and IPR
self-inquiry behavior.

H othesis 3: There is no relationship between
puEIic seIf-consciousness subscale scores and IPR
self-inquiry behavior.

 

Hypothesis 4: There is no relationship between
social anxiety subscale scores and IPR self-inquiry
behavior.

 

The second research question asks if there is a
difference between pre- and post- overall and subscale
self-consciousness scale scores.

2. Pre- and PoSt-Levels of Self-Consciousness

Hypothesis 5: There is no difference between pre-
and post-IPR lab self-consciousness scale scores.

 

62

Hypothesis 6: There is no difference between pre-
andpost-IPR lab private self-consciousness subscale
scores.

 

Hypothesis 7: There is no difference between pre-
and post-IPR lab public self-consciousness sub-
scale scores.

 

Hypothesis 8: There is no difference between pre-
and post-IPR lab social anxiety subscale scores.

 

The third research question asks if the relationship
between the recaller and inquirer as measured by the WROS
is related to self-inquiry behavior.

3. Recaller-Inquirer Relationship

 

Hypothesis 9: There is no relationship between the
rated recaller-inquirer relationship and productive
self-inquiry behavior.

 

The fourth research question asks about the relationship
between recaller ratings of the interview and recall and
self-inquiry behavior.

4. Ratings of Interview and Recall Sessions and Self-
Inquiry BéhaVior

 

Hypothesis 10: There is no relationship between
recaller ratings of the interview and self-
inquiry behavior.

 

Hypothesis 11: There is no relationship between
recaller ratings of the inquiry session and self-
inquiry behavior.

 

Tape Ratings

 

All 51 audio tapes were rated by two raters trained in
the use of the Degree of Self-Exploration Scale (DX). Both
raters were doctoral students in counseling psychology. The
researcher served as one rater and had previously partici-

pated in a two-hour training session on the use of the scale.

63

The second rater was trained by the author in two, two-
hour training sessions. At the first session, the scale was
described, and five recaller self-inquiry episodes were
rated. Each episode and reasons for rating it a particular
way were discussed. Episodes were defined as the time
periods when the recaller stopped and started the video-
tape player during the recorded interview. During the
episode the highest rating achieved by the recaller was
scored. The second training session consisted of inde-
pendently rating seven tapes that included a total of 32
inquiry episodes.3 Again, ratings were compared and
discrepancies discussed until a single rating could be
agreed on. Ratings were recorded on the audio tape rating
forms found in Appendix J.

Before the final ratings on all the tapes were made,
four tapes with a total of 33 inquiry episodes were inde-
pendently rated by each rater. These tapes were randomly
selected from the sample of subjects. For the 33 ratings,
25 were identical, and eight differed by only one category.
Thus, the raters agreed on 76% of their ratings for this
subsample. While interobserver agreement percentage has
been criticized by Mitchell (1979) it nevertheless remains
one of the most widely used methods in research that

requires human observation and judgment.

 

3The practice tapes were recordings of students who were from
the same population as the subjects but were not included

in the final sample because they failed to complete all the
required data.

64

On the basis of 76% inter-observer agreement, the
remaining tapes were rated. These tapes were rated
randomly by the researcher who also designated the location
of the inquiry segments on the audio tape counter, recorded
the number of inquiry episodes and the amount of inquiry
time. The second rater also randomly selected and rated
the tapes, but only listened to the inquiry segments since
they had been located by the researcher. A Pearson Product
Moment correlation coefficient of .67 was calculated for the

two raters based on 353 inquiry episodes.

Data Analysis and Design

 

The data from research question one were analyzed
using a Pearson Product Moment Correlation. Correlation
coefficients were calculated in order to determine the
degree of relationship between the specified variables.
For research question number two a t-test for dependent
means was calculated for overall self-consciousness scores
and each component of the self-consciousness scale, i.e.,
private and public self-consciousness and social anxiety.
Borg and Gall (1971) state that the t-test for dependent
means is the appropriate test statistic for comparing
pretest-posttest scores on a single group. They caution
that the one group pretest-posttest design should be used
only when the dependent variable (i.e., self-consciousness
in this study) is reasonably stable, when the interval

between the pretest and posttest can be kept reasonably

65

short and when it is impossible to obtain a control group.
These conditions were met for this study.

A one-group pretest-posttest design was used for the
second research question, since no appropriate control
group was available. The design is shown in Figure 3.2.

Following the t-test procedure, a multivariate repeated
measures analysis of variance (MANOVA) was computed to test
for changes in self-consciousness scale scores between
groups designated as High or Low self-conscious on the
three different administrations.

The dependent variable was the self-consciousness
scale score achieved during the third, fifth, and eighth
week of the term. The independent variable was the level of
self-consciousness which was defined as the upper or lower
25% of the distribution of scores for the SCS pretest (#2)
and designated as either the High and Low group. The design
for the MANOVA is depicted in Figure 3.3.

Three hypotheses were tested in the MANOVA. The first
hypothesis tested for an interaction; i.e., cell specific
effects, over time. The second tested for the effect of
time, while the third tested for the effect of self-
consciousness group, i.e., High or Low, over time. The
effect of group was not reported, since by definition the
groups were significantly different. The multivariate
repeated measures analysis was performed for the SCS and
each subscale. The MANOVA subprogram of the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) (Nie, et al., 1975)

66

 

IPR LABS
Pretest Posttest

(SCS #2) l 2 3 4 (SCS #3)

 

Figure 3.2. One Group Pretest-Posttest Design

 

 

SCS Administrations

l 2 3

 

High Self-
Consciousness

 

Low Self-
Consciousness

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.3. MANOVA Design

reported four tests: (1) Wilks Lambda, (2) Hotellings
trace criterion, (3) Roy's largest root criterion, and
(4) Pillai's trace criterion. Only one test result was
reported, since all tests yielded the same value.

Harris (1975) indicates that univariate ANOVA's are
appropriate follow-up tests to a statistically significant

MANOVA. These tests were automatically conducted by the

67

SPSS MANOVA computer program and reported where appro-
priate.

Spearman rank order correlations were computed for
research questions three and four. All computer programs
were taken from the Statistical Programs for the Social

Sciences.

Summary

The sample for this study consisted of 51 volunteer
students enrolled in Education 414, Interpersonal Process
Recall during Spring Term, 1982. Most of these students
were female and majoring in nursing or dietetics, with
sophomore or junior standing. The Education 414 classroom
activities included short lectures, film presentations,
discussion, and skills practice. The four class sections
met for three hours weekly. Through the term students
conducted four, two-hour video lab sessions which were the
primary focus of this study.

The lab groups were made up of three or four students
who each participated in video-recorded interviews that were
played back for the interpersonal process recall session.
Instructors for the course were doctoral students in
counseling psychology with previous teaching experience in

the course.

68

The data collected in this exploratory study included
tape ratings of the depth of self-exploration (DX) in the
audio-recorded recall sessions, time spent in self-inquiry
and number of inquiry episodes. These were defined as
measures of productive self-inquiry behavior. Also, recaller
ratings of the recaller—inquirer relationship (WROS) and
recaller ratings of the lab and recall session were
recorded. These data were Collected at the second lab
session during the sixth week of class. Finally, a measure
of self-consciousness (SCS) was administered at weeks three,
six, and eight. All hypotheses were stated non-directionally
in the null form. The data were analyzed using a Pearson
Product Moment correlation computation, t-tests for
dependent means, a multivariate repeated measures analysis
of variance, and a Spearman rank order correlation computa-

tion.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

An analysis of the data and a restatement of the
problems are presented in this chapter. Research hypotheses

are restated and data relevant to each are discussed.

Restatement of the Problem

 

This exploratory study was designed to investigate the
role of self-consciousness or self-focused attention in
interpersonal process recall self-inquiry behavior. Self-
consciousness was defined as the general disposition to be
attentive to the self. Two major research questions were
formulated. The first focused on the relationship between
self-consciousness and defined measures of productive inter-
personal process recall self-inquiry behavior. Pearson
product moment correlations were calculated to test this
relationship. The second question focused on the impact of
four IPR lab sessions on the disposition of self-
consciousness. Pre- and post-lab self-consciousness scores
were recorded and analyzed using t-tests for dependent
means. The data of this question was further analyzed

with a repeated measures MANOVA for designated

69

70

groups who scored in the upper and lower 25% of the distri-
bution of SCS scores.

Several secondary questions were posed. The third
question was formulated to explore the link between IPR
self-inquiry behavior and the recaller-inquirer relationship.
The final question focused on the relationship between IPR
self-inquiry behavior and the recaller-rated lab experience.
Spearman rank order correlations were computed for these

data.

Self-Consciousness and Self-Inquirnyehavior Correlations

 

Pearson correlation coefficients for self-consciousness

scores and measures of productive IPR self-inquiry behavior

4 SCS scores were correlated

are presented in Table 4.1.
with video tape interview time, audio tape inquiry time, an
inquiry/interview time ratio, number of self-inquiry episodes
and the average scores of both raters on the depth of

self-exploration score.5

 

4Videotape interview time is not a direct measure of pro-
ductive self-inquiry. SCS correlations with interview time
were reported since it represented the total video tape
time available for recaller self-exploration, Interview
time was also used to compute an inquiry time/interview
time ratio to take account of the differences in students'
interview time which could have affected inquiry time and
number of inquiry episodes.

5The average overall rating of both raters was taken to be
the most conservative estimate of subject depth of
self-exploration.

71

Table 4.1. Correlation Matrix - Self-Consciousness and Measures of
Self-Inquiry Behavior

 

 

 

Videotape Audiotape Inquiry/ Number of Depth of
Interview Inquiry Interview Inquiry Self-Exploration
Time Time Time Ratio Episodes (Average Score)
SCS —.338 -.302 -.004 -.290 .103
(overall) p = .008** p = .016 * p = .490 p = .019* p = .235
PRSC —.O86 -.028 .092 -.110 .137
p=.274 p=.422 p=.260 p=.221 p=.l68
PUSC -.322 -.293 -.007 -.208 .038
p= .011** p= .018* p= .481 p= .072 p= .413
SAN -.339 -.364 .111 -.326 .031
p= .007** p= .004* p= .219 p= .010“ p= .414

 

*
p ‘1 .05
**p < .01

SCS = Self-Consciousness Scale
PRSC = Private Self-Consciousness Subscale
PUSC = Public Self-Consciousness Subscale
SAN = Social Anxiety Subscale

Four hypotheses were derived from the first research
question--What is the relationship between self-consciousness
and IPR self-inquiry behavior? The hypotheses were tested
at the .05 level of significance. They are restated here in
the null form.

Hypotheses 1: There is no relationship between overall

self-consciousness and IPR self-inquiry
behavior.

72

Significant negative correlations were found between
overall self-consciousness and (1) videotape interview time
(r =‘.338), (2) audio tape self-inquiry time (r = -.302),
and (3) number of self-inquiry episodes (r = -.290). There-
fore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Subjects high in
overall self-consciousness spent less time conducting IPR
lab interviews, less time in self-inquiry, and have fewer
inquiry episodes. The inquiry/interview time ratio and
depth of self-exploration ratings did not correlate signi-
ficantly with overall self-consciousness scores.

Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between private
self-consciousness scores and IPR
self-inquiry behavior.

No significant correlations were found. These results
indicated a failure to reject the null hypothesis. Private
self-consciousness did not correlate significantly with
measures of IPR self-inquiry behavior.

Hypothesis 3: There is no relationship between public
self-consciousness scores and IPR
self-inquiry behavior.

Significant negative results were found between public

self-consciousness and (1) videotape interview time

(r = -.322) and (2) audio tape inquiry time (r = -.293).
Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. This pattern
was similar to that observed in overall SCS scores except
that the correlation between PUSC and number of inquiry
episodes only approaches statistical significance

(r = -.208; p = .072). This was a logical finding since the

overall SCS score included the PUSC subscale.

73

The inquiry/interview time ratio, number of inquiry
episodes and depth of self-exploration ratings did not
correlate significantly with PUSC.

Hypothesis 4: There is no relationship between social
anxiety scores and IPR self-inquiry
behavior.

Significant negative correlations were found between
social anxiety subscale scores and (1) video interview time
(r = -.339), (2) audio tape inquiry time (r = -.364), and
(3) number of inquiry episodes (-.326). Therefore, the null
hypothesis was rejected. This result was similar to the
pattern noted with overall SCS and PUSC scores. High levels
of social anxiety were associated with shorter interviews,
less time spent in self-inquiry and fewer inquiry episodes.
The inquiry/interview ratio, and depth of self-exploration
ratings did not correlate significantly with the social
anxiety subscale of the self-consciousness scale.

Taken together the negative correlation for all four
hypotheses formed a distinct pattern with video tape inter-
view time, audio tape inquiry time, and number of inquiry
episodes varying indirectly with overall self-consciousness
scores, public self-consciousness and social anxiety. The
correlations between these variables were all statistically
significant with the exception of public self-consciousness
and number of inquiry episodes which approached significance
at the .05 level. The same direction of the relationship,
as indicated above for PUSC, also held for private self-

consciousness, but the correlations were not statistically

74

significant. While there were no statistically significant
findings between the depth of self-exploration and self-

consciousness, the correlations were all positive.

The data shows that high levels of public self—
consciousness and social anxiety were negatively correlated
with lab video tape interview time, IPR self-inquiry time
and number of inquiry episodes. This relationship is
more clearly understood when the link between public self-
consciousness and social anxiety is described. The social
anxiety subscale does not measure a tendency to focus on
some aspect of the self, but rather a particular kind of
reaction to self-focus, especially public self-focus.

Carver anui Scheier (1981) suggest that social anxiety
derives from public self-consciousness, since social anxiety
presumes the existence of focus on the public self along
with apprehensiveness about being evaluated by others.
Students who were highly aware of the publicly displayed
aspects of the self (public self-consciousness) and appre-
hensive over being evaluated (social anxiety) were likely to
spend less time in the video taped interview, have fewer
self-inquiry episodes, and take less time in those inquiry

episodes.

The Impact of IPR Labs on Self-Consciousness

 

The second research question focused on the difference
between pre- and post-IPR session score on the self-

consciousness scale. The four hypotheses derived from this

75

question are restated here in null form. Two-tailed tests
of significance were used for these non-directional
hypotheses.

A significance level of .10 was selected in this
exploratory study for the four t-tests taken together; how-
ever, since more than one test was conducted on the same
data, the .10 level was divided by four and the alpha level
for each test was set at .025.

Hypothesis 5: There is no difference between pre- and
post-IPR lab self-consciousness scale
scores.

The results of the t-test reported in Table 4.2
indicated a failure to reject the null hypothesis. No
significant differences in pre- and post-scores on the
self-consciousness scale were found. Students' SCS scores
were not affected by the self-focus inducing prOperties of
the four interviewing IPR lab sessions.

Hypothesis 6: There is no difference between pre- and
post-IPR lab private self-consciousness
subscale scores.

The results of the t-test reported in Table 4.3
indicated a failure to reject the null hypothesis. No
significant differences in pre- and post-scores on the
private self-consciousness subscale were found. PRSC was

not affected significantly by the self-focus inducing

properties of the four IPR lab sessions.

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.2. Analysis of Pre- to Post-Differences on the Self-
Consciousness Scale using the t-test for Dependent Means

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD df t p (2 tail)

2.77 .364 2.79 .348 50 -.71 .480

Table 4.3. Analysis of Pre— to Post—Differences on the Private Self-
Consciousness Subscale using the t-test for Dependent Means

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD df t p (2 tail)

2.77 .461 2.78 .438 50 -.11 .915

 

Hypothesis 7: There is no difference between pre- and

post-IPR lab public self-consciousness
subscale scores.

The results of the t-test reported in Table 4.4

indicated a failure to reject the null hypothesis. No signi-

ficant differences in pre- and post-scores on the PUSC

 

6

SCS scores were converted from raw scores with a possible

range of 23-96 to a possible range of 1-4. Thus, the mean
scores were reported along a range of extremely
uncharacteristic (l) to extremely characteristic (4).

77

subscale were found. The self-focus inducing properties
of the IPR lab did not significantly affect the disposition

of PUSC.

Table 4.4. Analysis of Pre- to Post—Differences on the Public Self-
Consciousness Subscale using the t-test for Dependent Means

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD df t p (2 tail)
2.96 .584 3.01 .570 50 -l.39 .169

 

Hypothesis 8: There is no difference between pre- and
post-IPR lab social anxiety subscale
scores.

The results of the t-test reported in Table 4.5
indicated a failure to reject the null hypothesis. No signi-
ficant differences in pre- and post-SAN subscale scores were
found. The self-focus inducing properties of the IPR labs
did not significantly affect the social anxiety level of
subjects.

In summary, the results of the t-tests computed for
research question number two indicated a failure to reject
the null hypothesis in each case. There was no evidence to
support the assumption that IPR labs change the disposition
of subjects to self-focus. An additional analysis was

conducted to test the informal hypothesis that groups of

high and low self-consciousness subjects might respond

78

Table 4.5. Analysis of Pre- to Post-Differences on the Social Anxiety
Subscale using the t-test for Dependent Means

 

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD df t P (2 tail)
2.53 .548 2.54 .548 50 -.13 .898
differentially to the IPR labs. The results are reported

in the next section.

Multivariate Analysis

 

A multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted to test whether groups designated as
high (upper 25% of the distribution) or low (lower 25% of
the distribution) in self-consciousness responded
differentially to the four IPR lab sessions. Two basic
questions were addressed. First, did the difference between
the mean scores of the two groups change over the three
administrations of the SCS - interaction effect. Second,
were there any changes in the mean scores of the two groups
over time - time effect. The MANOVA was performed for the
two groups on (1) overall SCS score, (2) PRSC scores,

(3) PUSC scores, and (4) SAN scores. Results of each multi-
variate analysis are reported in Tables 4.6 through 4.9.

No statistically significant findings were reported for

79

overall SCS, PRSC, or PUSC scores. A significant inter-
action effect (p = .004) was reported for the multivariate
analysis of social anxiety.

When the multivariate test yields statistically signi-
ficant results, it is appropriate to examine the univariate
F-tests. The results are reported in Table 4.10 and show
that a statistically significant change (p = .002) in mean
social anxiety scores occurred between the first and second
administration of the SAN subscale. The change cannot be
attributed to the IPR lab sessions since they occurred
between the second and third SAN administration. This find-
ing is difficult to interpret without further analysis.

It may be the result of regression toward the mean, some
non-specific effect of the Education 414 class, or simply a

chance event.

Table 4.6. Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High & Low Groups
over Three SCS Administrations on Total Self—Consciousness

 

 

 

Degrees of Freedom
Effects (Hypotheses, error) F-Value p

 

Interaction (2, 20) .302 .743

Time (2, 20) .399 .676

 

80

Table 4.7. Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High and Low Groups
over Three SCS Administrations on Private Self—Consciousness

 

Degrees of Freedom

 

Effects (Hypotheses, Error) F-Value p
Interaction (2, 22) 1.431 .260
Time (2, 22) 2.471 .107

 

Table 4.8. Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High and Low Groups
over Three SCS Administrations on Public Self-Consciousness

 

Degrees of Freedom

 

Effects (Hypotheses, Error) F-Value p
Interaction (2, 25) 2.005 .155
Time (2, 25) 1.319 .285

 

Table 4.9. Summary of Multivariate Analysis for High and Low Groups
over Three SCS Administrations on Social Anxiety

 

Degrees of Freedom

 

Effects (Hypotheses, Error) F—Value p

*
Interaction (2, 25) 6.912 .004
Time (2, 25) 1.62 .218

 

*
p <..01

81

Table 4.10. Summary of Univariate F—Tests for Social Anxiety

 

 

 

Degrees of Freedom

 

Variate (Hypotheses, Error) F-Value p
SAN 1 vs SAN 2 (1, 26) 12.15 .002
SAN 2 vs SAN 3 (l, 26) .360 .553

 

Recaller Ratings of the IPR Session

 

Research questions three and four were formulated to
explore the relationship between self-inquiry behavior and
(l) the recaller rated recaller-inquirer relationship,
and (2) the recaller rated experience of the interview and
recall session. The Wisconsin Relationship Orientation
Scale (Appendix D ) and the IPR Lab rating forms
(Appendix E ) were used to quantify the data of questions
three and four respectively. The hypotheses derived from
these questions are restated here in the null form. The
four items for the interview section on the lab rating
sheet were combined to form a single rating that was
correlated with the measures of self-inquiry behavior. The
three items for the recall section were analyzed in the
same manner. High ratings are indicative of a more
favorable experience of the interview and recall sessions

in terms of interest, personal content discussed, degree of

82

of threat experienced, amount of learning that occurred,
relevance, and personal involvement.

Hypothesis 9: There is no relationship between the
rated recaller-inquirer relationship
and self-inquiry behavior.

The results are reported in Table 4.11. A signifi-
cant positive correlation (r = .321) was found between the
recaller-inquirer relationship as measured by the WROS
and the inquiry/interview time ratio. Therefore the null
hypothesis was rejected. Subjects who rated their inquirer
as someone they could talk with were more likely to spend
more time in self-inquiry relative to overall interview
time. These data provide some support for the common sense

notion that the relationship formed between the recaller

and inquirer is related to the time spent in self-inquiry.

Table 4.11. Spearman Correlation Coefficients for Wisconsin Relationship
Orientation Scale (WROS) and Measures of Self-Inquiry

 

Video tape Audio tape Inquiry/ Number of Depth of Self—
Interview Inquiry Interview Inquiry Exploration
Time Time Time Ratio Episodes (Average Score)
WROS -.O35 .147 .321 .022 -.01
*
p = .403 p = .152 p = .011 p = .438 p = .-472

 

83

Hypothesis 10: There is no relationship between
recaller rating of the interview and
self-inquiry behavior.

The results are reported in Table 4.12. No signifi-
cant results were found indicating a failure to reject the
null hypothesis. Thus, the rating of the interview con-
ducted by the recaller was not related to recaller self-
inquiry behavior.

Hypothesis 11: There is no relationship between
recaller ratings of the recall session
and self-inquiry behavior.

The results are reported in Table 4.12. A significant
positive correlation (r = .292) was found between recaller
ratings of the recall session and time spent in self-inquiry.
Students who spent more time in self-inquiry also rated

their experience of inquiry more favorably. No other

significant relationships were found.

Table 4.12. Spearman Correlation Coefficients for Lab Ratings and
Measures of Self-Inquiry

 

 

 

Video tape Audio tape Inquiry/ Number of Depth of Self-
Interview Inquiry Interview Inquiry Exploration
Time Time Time Ratio Episodes (Average Score)
Interview .118 -.003 .191 -.024 .079
Ratings p=.206 p=.490 p=.091 p=.433 p=.291
Recall .191 .292 .180 .179 .153
Ratings p=.090 p=.019* p=.103 p=.104 p=.142

 

*p <{ .05

 

84

Summary

There were two major research questions in this study.
The first focused on the relationship between the disposi-
tion of self-consciousness and self-inquiry behavior in
interpersonal process recall sessions. Pearson product
moment correlation coefficients were calculated and yielded
negative relationships between self-consciousness scores
(overall self-consciousness, public self-consciousness,
and social anxiety) and self-inquiry behavior (inquiry time
and number of inquiry episodes). All correlations were
statistically significant (p‘< .05) with the exception of
the relationship between public self-consciousness and
number of inquiry episodes which was approaching signifi-
cance (p = .072). Also, overall self-consciousness scale
scores and all SCS subscales with the exception of private
self-consciousness correlated negatively (p‘(.01) with
total interview time. No other statistically significant
correlations were reported.

The second research question focused on the impact
of the self-focus inducing properties of the four IPR lab
sessions. Pre- and post-lab measures of self-consciousness
were analyzed with t-tests. No statistically significant
results were reported. An additional analysis (MANOVA)
was performed to test for differential change over time.
The level of self-consciousness (High or Low) served as the
independent variable with analysis being performed on the

three measures over time.

85

The only statistically significant findings were
reported for the multivariate test of the social anxiety
subscale. The univariate F-test results showed a signifi-
cant change between the first and second administrations
of the SAN subscale.

The third research question focused on the recaller-
inquirer relationship and self-inquiry behavior. A
statistically significant (p = .011) Spearman correlation
coefficient was reported for the WROS (a measure of the
recaller-inquirer relationship) and the inquiry/interview
time ratio.

The fourth research question focused on the recaller
rated experience of the interview and recall session. A
significant (p = .020) Spearman corrrelation coefficient was
reported for the recall ratings and amount of time spent in
inquiry.

The summary and conclusions of this investigation are

presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

This investigation was an attempt to explore the role
of self-consciousness, sometimes referred to as self-
focused attention, in a communications skills training course
called Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR). The need for
this study came from the fact that no research existed on
how individual differences in self-consciousness affected the
basic component in IPR--the self-inquiry session. It was
suggested that individual differences generally and the dis-
position of self—consciousness in particular could have an
important role in IPR.

The literature on the IPR training model supplies evi-
dence that the overall program provides participants with an
opportunity for developing increased self-awareness and
sensitivity to interpersonal exchange. The general disposi-
tion to be attentive to the self was considered to be a key
variable in productive involvement in the basic IPR
component--the recall session. (Productive involvement was
defined as amount of time spent in self-inquiry, number of
self-inquiry episodes, and participant depth of self-

exploration during the episodes.) Self-consciousness is a

86

87

construct that has considerable predictive utility in experi-
mental settings (Carver and Scheier, 1981). This study
attempted to integrate the assumptions and structure of the
interpersonal process recall technique with the theoretical
foundations of self-focused attention in a field (classroom)
setting.

A sample of 51 volunteers was drawn from a population
of 79 students who enrolled in four sections of Education 414
(IPR) at Michigan State University during Spring Term, 1982.
All sections were taught by Counseling Psychology doctoral
students familiar with the course format. Since this study
was an attempt to apply the theoretical construct of self-
consciousness in a field setting, the basic course structure
was altered as little as possible. Part of that structure
included four, two-hour lab sessions where groups of three
or four students video-recorded interviews and conducted
interpersonal process recall sessions. These sessions were
conducted in the following manner: After an interview had
been recorded, one of the participants (the recaller) watched
the interaction in the presence of a third person (inquirer)
who facilitated the recaller's self-exploration of his/her
reactions to the interaction.

The second lab served as the major data collection point
for the first question: Is there a relationship between the
disposition of self-consciousness and self-inquiry behavior?
The recall session was audio-taped and measures of productive

inquiry were recorded from it. These measures were

 

88

correlated with pre-lab self-consciousness scale scores

and yielded negative relationships between (1) overall self-
consciousness, (2) public self-consciousness, (3) social
anxiety and self-inquiry behavior (inquiry time and number
of inquiry episodes). All Pearson product moment correla-
tions were statistically significant with the exception of
the correlation between public self-consciousness and
number of inquiry episodes. Also, all self-consciousness
scores with the exception of private self-consciousness
correlated negatively with total interview time. Generally,
high levels of Inflfljx: self-consciousness and social anxiety
were associated with less time in self-inquiry, fewer self-
inquiry episodes and a shorter initial interview.

Pre- and post-lab measures of self-consciousness pro-
vided the data for the second research question: What is
the impact of the IPR labs on the disposition of self-
consciousness? No statistically significant results were
reported for the t-tests. An additional analysis was con-
ducted using a repeated measures MANOVA to determine
differential change over time for High vs. Low self-
consciousness students. It produced no significant
findings.

The third research question was: Is there a link
between the recaller-inquirer relationship and self-
inquiry behavior? A statistically significant positive
correlation between the rated recaller-inquirer relation-

ship and an inquiry/interview time ratio was reported.

89

The final research question posed was: Is there a
relationship between general satisfaction with the inter-
view and recall session and self-inquiry behavior? A
statistically significant positive relationship was
reported for the recall ratings and amount of time spent

in inquiry.

Discussion

 

The results of the study are discussed in this
section. These are presented in three subsections that

include issues raised by the data of each research question.

Self-Consciousness Scores and IPR Self-Inquiry Behavior

 

All four hypotheses derived from the first research
question were stated in the non-directional form. This was
to allow for the possibility that relationships between the
relevant variables could be positive or negative. Even
though both possibilities were considered it was implicitly
assumed in the theoretical rationale of Chapter One that
subjects who score high on self-consciousness would also
score high on measures of productive self-inquiry. The
underlying assumption was that subjects who were accustomed
to attending to the self would notice more about their
video-recorded interaction and therefore have more material
to report in greater depth and detail. The data reflect a
negative relationship between overall self-consciousness

and self-inquiry behavior. The capacity for self focus was

90

not associated with more active involvement in the self-
inquiry process as defined in this study. The data show
self-consciousness to be an important individual difference
in the self-inquiry process, but for reasons other than
what was originally suspected. What might account for this
finding?

First, being attentive to the public and/or private
self was not associated with productive self-inquiry.
Recall that the defined measures of productive self-inquiry
in this study relied on verbal reports of subjects. Sub-
jects had to stop the videotape recorder and spend time
talking about themselves in some depth in order to score
high on the measures of self-inquiry. Perhaps individual
differences in verbal ability, or experience in self-
disclosure were more directly related to the verbal dis-
closure of what was recalled and observed in the videotaped
interview. ‘It has proven to be an erroneous leap of logic
to assume that focusing on the self is directly related to
reporting what was noticed in the presence of the inquirer.

Second, the negative relationship becomes more under-
standable when the SCS subscales are examined more closely.
Previous research has shown public self-consciousness to
correlate moderately ( r520) with both private self-
consciousness and social anxiety, while the correlation of
private self-consciousness with social anxiety fluctuates
around zero (Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss, 1975). In this

sample these correlations were somewhat different, namely,

91

public—private self-consciousness, r = .086; public self-
consciousness - social anxiety, r = .439; private self-
consciousness-social anxiety, r = .209. (See Appendix H

for the table of SCS correlations.) Public self-
consciousness and social anxiety were not only highly
related with measures of productive inquiry in this sample,
they were highly related to each other.

Carver and Scheier (1981) have clearly defined public
self-consciousness and social anxiety.

Public self-consciousness is the tendency to be

aware of the publicly displayed aspects of the

self, the self as social object that creates

impacts on other people. People who are high on

this dimension tend to be cognizant of how they

are viewed by others. (p. 46)
The social anxiety subscale measures a sense of apprehensive-
ness over being evaluated by others, a discomfort in the
presence of others. It is a reaction to self-focus, particu-
larly public self-focus. The relationship between these two
subscales has been described by Fenigstein, Scheier, and
Buss (1975).

First a person becomes aware of himself as a social

object. Given this public self-consciousness, he may

then evaluate himself and become apprehensive; that

is, public self-consciousness may be a necessary

antecedent of social anxiety. (p. 525)

Perhaps students were uncomfortable in the presence of
the inquirer and videotape replay and were thus less
inclined to stop the tape and talk about their own interview

performance and possible evaluation by the inquirer. To

stop the tape and spend time talking about their

92

observations may have prolonged their discomfort. This
finding and interpretation is consistent with the results
of the Fenigstein (1979) experiment where PUSC was the
crucial factor in how much the evaluation of others

affected subjects.

Another related explanation for these negative correla-
tions is applicable. Perhaps the students simply had less
video interview time to view and consequently fewer
opportunities to engage in productive self-inquiry. There
was a highly significant correlation between both public
self-consciousness and social anxiety and videotape inter-
view time. This factor may have heavily influenced the
correlations reported for the self-inquiry measures. It is
likely that the public self-consciousness - social anxiety
relationship described by Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss
(1975) operated in both the video-taped interview and the
recall session. Under the scrutiny of the camera, publicly
self-conscious subjects became anxious and responded by
minimizing their exposure to the situation, i.e., spending
less time in the interview and the self-inquiry sessions.

The relationship between private self-consciousness
and self-inquiry behavior is difficult to interpret since
no significant correlation emerged. A simple explanation
is that there is no relationship between the tendency to
pay attention to internal states and self-inquiry behavior.
Reflective people may not necessarily be inclined to

verbally report their reflections.

93

An alternative hypothesis might account for this find-
ing. Perhaps there is a curvilinear relationship between
private self-consciousness and self-inquiry. Both low and
high levels of private self-consciousness may be associated
with low scores on productive self-inquiry behavior, much
like low and high levels of anxiety are associated with
poor performance on a number of tasks (Sarason, 1972).

This would result in a negligible correlation and obscure
what might be a clear but nonlinear relationship. Of
course this raises the question of why public self-
consciousness and social anxiety would not relate to
inquiry behavior in a similar fashion. It may simply be
that since both public and private self-consciousness are
theoretically and empirically distinct from each other,
their relationship with self-inquiry in IPR is different

also.

The Impact of IPR Labs on Self—Consciousness

 

Four hypotheses were derived from the second research
question to test whether the self-focus inducing properties
of the IPR labs had any impact on post-lab self-conscious-
ness scores. If the lab sessions induced the process of
self-focused attention, why were no changes in the disposi-
tion recorded?

One explanation may be found in the distinction
between self-awareness and self-consciousness. The early

research on self-awareness or self-attention grew out of

 

94

Duval and Wicklund‘s (1972) theory of objective self-
awareness. The research was conducted primarily by social
psychologists who induced self-awareness and observed the
consequences on particular behavior. Eventually
personality psychologists reconceptualized the self-
attention construct as a dispositional rather than a situa-
tional variable. They labeled this personality construct
"self-consciousness" in order to distinguish it from the
manipulated transient state of "self-awareness." Thus the
SCS measures a disposition, a relatively stable trait. It
is unlikely that exposure to the labs over such a short
period of time could alter an enduring disposition. The
labs may have induced a transient state of self-awareness
rather than impacting on the disposition of self-
consciousness. It is possible that a series of self-focus
inducing experiences over a longer period of time could have
altered the basic tendency to self-attend. There was not
enough time spent in the IPR labs and they did not occur

over a long enough period to alter a basic personality trait.

A crucial assumption made in this research was that
the video-taped interview and presence of the inquirer
during the inquiry session would induce a general state of
self-focused attention. This assumption was based on
experimental research where a theoretical case had been
made for the self-focus inducing properties of any symbol

of the self. More recently, researchers have begun to

 

 

95

argue that some manipulations such as video cameras, people
and voice recordings induce an awarenress of the public
self while other manipulations such as mirrors stimulate

an awareness of the private self (cf. Carver and Scheier,
1981). The IPR labs were clearly manipulations of public
self-awareness, so it is likely that any pre- to post-
changes would occur on this scale. (In fact, there was a
slight but not statistically significant gain in posttest
public self-consciousness scores.) In this light, it is not
surprising that overall self-consciousness, private self-
consciousness and social anxiety scores were not affected

by the IPR labs.

There may be another very important distinction that
is important here--that is the differences between self-
awareness as a process variable or an enduring way of
behaving and self-awareness as a content variable, i.e.,
knowledge of facts about oneself. Self-awareness as a
process refers to the transient state of focusing on public
or private aspects of the self. It is a state of self-
focus that allows people to learn about themselves. For
example, following the IPR labs, students often comment
about their facial expression, hand gestures, voice tone
and general physical appearance--all public aspects of
the self. The process of self-focus induced by the video
camera calls these self-observations into awareness. These

then become the content or facts of self-awareness.

 

96

Students may be said to have increased their self-
awareness in terms of learning about unknown aspects of
self, but they have not necessarily changed their basic
disposition to self-focus. Thus, the transient state of
self-awareness has increased self-knowledge but has not

affected the basic disposition to self focus.

Since no significant pre- to post-differences in SCS

scores were found, further analysis was conducted to see

 

if high and low self-conscious groups responded differently ’
to the IPR labs. A multivariate repeated measures ANOVA
was used to test for any effects of the lab and also to
check on the possibility of regression toward the mean
between the first and second administration of the SCS
(labs occurred between the second and third administration
of the SCS). The only significant finding occurred between
the first and second administration on the SAN subscale.
Regression toward the mean or some chance event may have
accounted for these results. The lack of significant find-
ings here is not surprising for two previously cited
reasons. First, the disposition to self-focus is a stable
trait and most likely resistant to short-term influence.
Second, the self-focus inducing properties of the IPR labs

may be relevant only to public self-consciousness.

Recaller Ratings of the IPR Lab Sessions
The third and fourth research questions were designed

to record the recaller's perspective on two key variables

97

of the IPR lab session (1) the recaller-inquirer relation-
ship, and (2) the experience of the interview and recall
session.

The assumption underlying the single hypothesis
derived from the third research question was that the
recaller would be more likely to engage in productive self- .
inquiry behavior if s/he were positively oriented to the
recaller-inquirer relationship as measured by the WROS.

In other words, if the recaller endorsed the item that ‘
reads, " . . . I could probably talk with this person
about almost anythingl's/he would be more likely to stop
the videotape and spend time self-exploring, i.e., talking
with the inquirer. Inquiry time relative to overall time,
i.e., the inquiry/interview time ratio, did vary directly
with the WROS ratings. The relationship between the ratio
and WROS ratings is difficult to interpret since neither
number of inquiry episodes nor inquiry were significantly
correlated with the WROS ratings. The ratio was intended
as a correction factor for the varying interview times.
While a logical case can be made for the importance of the
recaller-inquirer relationship in facilitating inter-
personal process recall, the data to support this argument
was only minimal.

The assumption underlying the final research question
was that a positive rating of the separate experiences
of interview and recall would be associated with more

productive self-inquiry. No significant relationships

98

emerged between the interview ratings and self-inquiry
behavior. Perhaps the major issue for the interviewer was
practicing the interviewing skills. (Following the inter-
view, the interviewer became the recaller.) The ratings
could have been directly related to perceived competence in
that area and unrelated to self-inquiry. In fact, a poor
interview could be associated with productive self-inquiry
if the recaller chose to fully examine the areas of critical
self-evaluation. S/he may very well rate the interview
experience as uninteresting, impersonal, threatening, and
generally a poor learning experience, and yet spend a good
deal of time exploring these areas of dissatisfaction dur-
ing the recall. It seems likely that this relationship
could go either way depending on a host of other variables.
It is less likely that an unfavorable rating of the recall
itself would be associated with the measures of productive
self-inquiry. The final research hypothesis examined this
possibility.

The overall satisfaction rating of the recall session
was significantly related to the amount of audiotape inquiry
time. Students who said they were involved in the inquiry
and found it a personally relevant and relaxed experience
were likely to spend more time in self-inquiry.

The simplest explanation of this finding is that
students who found the self-inquiry worthwhile tended to
engage in it. The direction of the relationship is unclear

and impossible to determine from the data. Were students

 

 

99

involved in personally relevant inquiry because they spent
time self-inquiring? Did they spend increasing amounts

of time inquiring because they were involved in personally
relevant self-inquiry? It seems likely that a reciprocal
relationship is involved. Students spend time in self-
inquiry as it becomes relevant to them, and it became

relevant as they engage in it.

Conclusions ‘

 

This study was designed to explore the relationship
between the disposition of self-consciousness and the
complex behavior of interpersonal process recall. Based
on the literature review, the analysis, the discussion of
results and the limitations of this research, the follow-
ing conclusions are presented.

The relationship between self-consciousness and IPR
self-inquiry behavior is more accurately conceptualized as
a relationship between each subscale of the SCS and IPR.
Each component of the SCS may have a different relationship
with self-inquiry behavior. Some researchers have sug-
gested that even further differentiations within the public
and private domains of the self can be made (Miller,
Murphy, and Buss, 1981). The only clear relationship
that emerged suggests that high levels of public self-
consciousness and social anxiety are negatively correlated

with self-inquiry behavior. The videotape and recall

100

experience may be an uncomfortable experience for students
who tend to be acutely aware of how they are viewed by
others. It is important to underscore here that high
levels of public self-consciousness may be maladaptive

and that PUSC is not synonomous with self-awareness. In
fact, PUSC is probably a measure of shyness or embarrass-
ment rather than self—awareness.

Exposure to the self-focus inducing properties of the
four IPR labs did not result in statistically significant
changes on any of the SCS subscales. Public self-
consciousness, private self-consciousness and social
anxiety are theoretically and empirically distinct disposi-
rippp. They are relatively enduring traits that are
unlikely to change over a short period of time. The lab
experience most likely induced the transient state of
public self-awareness which did not have a measurable
effect on the enduring disposition of self-consciousness.
It is possible that repeated exposure to transient states
of public and private self-awareness over a long period of
time could have a lasting effect on the trait of self-
consciousness.

Even though statistically significant correlations
were reported between public self-consciousness and self-
inquiry behavior, level of self-consciousness does not
ggpgg specific inquiry behavior. Correlation does not
imply causation. Also the correlation coefficients are

low and account for only a small percentage of the variance.

101

Therefore they should be evaluated cautiously in light of
the many other variables that may affect IPR self-inquiry
behavior. These variables include previous experience
with videotape, skill level of the inquirer, ability to
use the elements of communication, the topic chosen by the
interviewee for discussion, other course demands that could
result in students hurrying through their labs, etc.

The definition of productive inquiry used in this
study has not been used in any other IPR research. Even
though a reasoned argument based on the theoretical founda-
tion of IPR was made, these measures, i.e., number of
inquiry episodes and amount of time spent in self-inquiry,
may not be valid measures of the learning that occurred
during the inquiry episodes. This observation also holds
for a third measure of productive inquiry, the depth of
self-exploration scale, which is discussed next.

The question of validity of the measures used in
this research tempers any conclusions that can be made.
This is particularly true for the use of the Depth of Self-
Exploration Scale (DX) and the Wisconsin Relationship
Orientation Scale. Both have been used in psychotherapy
and counseling research and were adapted here from their
original use. (The DX scale was not significantly corre-
lated with any self-consciousness subscales.) Perhaps it
is not a valid measure of recaller self-exploration, since
its original application occurred in a counselor-client

context. The differences between self-exploration in a

102

counseling and recall session may be qualitatively
different. The same argument can be made against the WROS
as a measure of the relationship between recaller and
inquirer. Lack of significant finding certainly does not
rule out the possibility that the quality of the recaller-
inquirer relationship is related to productive self-
inquiry or that self-exploration is an important aspect of
self-inquiry. Valid and reliable instruments are needed to
measure these variables, as well as productive self-
inquiry.

The question of validity also arises in the applica-
tion of the SCS scale in this study. This is particularly
important in the hypothesized link between the self-
awareness inducing properties of the IPR labs and the
construct of self-consciousness. The second major research
question asked if the IPR labs had any impact on the disposi-
tion of self-consciousness. The logic underlying this
question was developed as follows: IPR labs induce self-
awareness. The SCS scale is an indirect measure of self-
awareness. Therefore, the SCS could be a measure of change
in level of self-awareness induced by the labs.

The SCS may be valid for the purpose of measuring the
relatively enduring trait of self-consciousness, but it may
not be useful for evaluating the tendency to objectively
introspect about oneself. In other words, the SCS may be
of questionable value in measuring the global quality of

self-awareness.

103

There is another related point. The term self-
awareness is defined differently in the experimental social
psychology and counseling psychology literature. Duvall
and Wicklund's (1972) experimental research in social
psychology used the precise definition evolving from their
theory of objective self-awareness. It holds that a
person's attention or objective self-awareness at any
given moment is directed either wholly toward the self or
wholly toward external events. This is a form of objective
self-awareness. Counselors in practice typically use a
broader definition that includes increased understanding of
thoughts, feelings, and experience (Patterson, 1974, p. 128).
The IPR process may in fact impact on these dimensions of
self-awareness, but it is unlikely that the SCS would
measure them. The SCS may simply be an instrument that does
not measure self-awareness as the term is typically defined
in counseling psychology.

Finally, any conclusions drawn from this study must be
considered in light of numerous uncrontrolled variables
that may have acted systematically to influence the results.
The research strategy was to study a theoretical construct
in an applied (classroom) setting. There are limitations
to such an approach, especially the many extraneous
variables that can jeopardize internal validity in the one
group pretest-posttest design used for the second research

question (cf. Campbell and Stanley, 1963).

104

Implications for Further Research

 

The results of this study raise several questions for
further research. The implications of these questions
along with recommendations for future research are
presented in this section.

The tendency to focus attention on the self, particu-
larly the public self, was negatively correlated with
productive self-inquiry behavior. This has clear implica-
tions for the initial experience of high publicly self-
consciousness students in the IPR labs. They may be
uncomfortable with the basic process and anxious about havhu;
their behavior videotaped and viewed by the inquirer. This
individual disposition may operate in spite of the structure
of IPR which stresses a non-evaluative, non-judgmental
stance by the inquirer. In fact, a skilled inquirer may
reduce but not completely eliminate discomfort felt by the
recaller. The apprehensiveness about evaluation may come
largely from the recaller him/herself and/or from what Orne
(1963) had called demand characteristics of the situation,
particularly the presence of the videotape camera. Anec-
dotal evidence suggests that students become more
comfortable with the videotape process in successive labs.
The data on self-inquiry behavior in this study was
collected at the second lab. Further research could focus
on the self-inquiry behavior of subjects high in PUSC at
later labs. Does their comfort and inquiry behavior increase

with repeated exposure to the lab experience?

105

There are broader implications. The interpersonal
process recall session is largely controlled by the recaller
and whatever perceptions, feelings, or reaction s/he brings
to the lab. The recaller takes full responsibility for
stopping the videotape and initiating the self-inquiry
session. At least one group of students, i.e., high public
self-conscious, becomes uncomfortable with the process.
Perhaps individual differences on other traits are associ-
ated with less involvement in the self-inquiry process.
Conversely, there may be factors such as a tendency to self-
disclose that are associated with productive self-inquiry.
A host of individual differences may influence student
response to the IPR process.

The relationship between social anxiety and inter-
personal process recall could be further explored. Buss
(1980) has defined public self-consciousness as the link
integrating four kinds of social anxiety--embarrassment,
shame, audience anxiety, and shyness. What impact do
these variables have on self-inquiry behavior? Could IPR
be used as a low—threat tool to reduce some of the various
forms of social anxiety? This question might be particu-
larly relevant for those who describe themselves as shy.
Zimbardo (1977) has described shyness as common and wide—
spread, and its effect on college students can be particu-
larly debilitating.

The possibility of a curvilinear relationship between

IPR self-inquiry behavior and private self-consciousness

 

106

could be investigated. The items on the PRSC subscale

are more clearly related to the process of self-exploration
stimulated by the video playback and inquirer. Perhaps
moderate levels of private self-consciousness facilitate
the self-inquiry process, whereas low or high levels
inhibit it.

The effects of the IPR labs could be evaluated with
a more appropriate instrument for measuring self-awareness.
Self-awareness could be operationalized in terms of
increased knowledge of internal states and interpersonal
behavior. Such a measure of self-awareness would more
accurately reflect the areas that IPR training can influence.

The relationship between the inquirer and recaller
could be a crucial variable in recaller self-exploration.
What are the specific skills of the inquirer that foster
the development of a relationship where the recaller would
actively self-explore the previously recorded interview?
And, further, how do the time limitations of a ten-week
term affect the development of a trusting relationship
where significant self-exploration and self-awareness could
develop?

Self-inquiry in interpersonal process recall is a
complex behavior pattern that is influenced by numerous
factors. These include the many interacting variables that
operate in any face-to-face interaction, e.g., needs,
fears, personal history, expectations, motives, attitudes,

perceptions, etc., along with the impact of videotape

107

technology and other characteristics of the physical

setting. Further research under more controlled condi-
tions could identify what external stimulus factors and
personal dispositions affect the active self-inquiry of

participants.

 

 

APPENDICES

' _

APPENDIX A
ED 414 COURSE OUTLINE

 

Week

Week

Week

Week

Week

Week

Week

Week

108

ED 414 General Class Schedule

Introduction to IPR; elements of communication--
exploratory and listening response modes. Complete
lab schedule forms. Reading assignment: student
manual, pp. 1-11.

Elements of communication continued--affective and
honest labeling response modes. Reading assign-
ment: student manual, pp. 14-25.

Affective stimulation--the study of self. Prepara-
tion for self-disclosure in labs. Individual recall
film--the recall process demonstrated. Reading
assignment: student manual, pp. 26-33; inquirer
appendix, pp. 50-53.

Inquirer training; demonstration of inquirer role.
Reading assignment: student manual, pp. 34-49.

Individual recall film--interviewer recall. Lab
demonstration; description of lab roles; i.e.,
interviewer, interviewee, inquirer.

Lab #1: Interviewer Recall.

Lab discussion, interviewer recall. Individual
recall film--interviewee recall. Interviewee
recall--the study of others.

Lab #2: Interviewer Recall.

Lab discussion, interviewer recall. Mutual recall
film--the study of interactions.
Lab #3: Interviewee Recall.

Lab discussion, interviewee recall. Theory dis-
cussion, interviewee recall. Theory discussion and
wrap-up. Reading assignment: The Nature of Loss.
Lab #4: Mutual Recall.

APPENDIX B
INQUIRER'S MANUAL:
A GUIDE FOR THE INQUIRER ROLE IN THE

INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL (IPR) METHOD
OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

 

 

109

THE INQUIRER ROLE

The inquirer's objective is to facilitate and encourage pglf-g;§:_
coverv by the participant. The inquirer must come to believe that, with
the help of the videotape playback, the participant is entirely capable
of learning about her/his inner processes. The inquirer must also believe
that the participant is-the only real authority on what was going on inside
her/him. In the inquirer role, a person must learn to get their satisfac-
tion from the participant's self-discovery. The inquirer's expertise is

at facilitating these discoveries.

The inquirer's first task is to explain clearly to the participant
what the recall process involves. An example of this introduction is as
follows:

"The mind, we know, operates much faster than the voice.’ So,
during the interview you had, there were many things going

through your mind that there wasn't time to tell or say. We also
know that there probably were things that you may have decided you
didn't want to tell. There may have been some feelings that you
had that were only vague and you couldn't find words for them, but
perhaps you'll be able to describe them now. There were impressions
that you wanted the other person to have and there were impressions
that you didn't want the other to have of you. Now, when you see
yourself on videotape, you will find that you will remember in
amazing detail all of these kinds of things-images, how your body
felt, ideas you had, and so on. All of these things will go
through your mind. We want you to stop the tape as often as you
can and tell me about the things you were thinking and feeling

and what you wanted the other person to think and feel."

Each inquirer should find words in their own vocabulary to express to parti-

cipants these same ideas.

Following this introduction, the inquirer must try to get the parti-

cipant to stop the videotape by her/himself; encourage her/him to talk

110

openly and freely (while also keeping questions brief); and keep the

participant's attention focused on reliving the experience on the video-

tape.

Inquirer leads should focus on the following:

\DmNO‘U5UNH
o

Feelings?
Thoughts?

Body?

Where?

Pictures?

Words?
Fantasies?

want from other?
Want to say?
Etc.

In addition to the actual leads used, the inquirer should have a_

basic attitude during the recall session which consists of the following:

O‘U‘J-‘wNH

Patience

Interest - excitement
Non-interpretation
Asking - not telling
Not counseling

Keep focus on tape

The following steps can aid the inquirer to conduct a smooth and

efficient recall session:

Please try to be at the lab room a few minutes early.
Have students "sign-in".

Don't view the tapes made by previous lab groups. Make
sure that your students know their tapes will also be

confidential and that no one will see them.

Rewind the tapes made in your lab group so that they will
be erased as the next group tapes over them.

Turn off all equipment before you leave.

Contact your instructor if there are equipment problems
that you can't correct, or students who don't show.

111

Give each lab participant an "Inquirer Feedback" form
and encourage them to fill it out right there.

Please make sure the room is left neat and clean.

Lock the door and return key to designated place.

1

Confusing, rigid, dull and uneventful recall sessions can be avoided

by noting the following:

1.

2.

Make sure that all lab participants know what is expected
of them during the lab period.

If lab participants do not know each other, allow them to
spend a few minutes getting to know each other before tap-
ing, if they so desire.

If time permits (when the participants and the inquirer do
not have time limitations and when the lab room is not
being used right after your lab period), allow them to
spend more than the regular 5 to 7 minutes for the inter-
view. The entire interview need not be recalled, but the
extra time may give the participants more meaningful inter-
views.

Before the taping begins, check to see if the individual who
is to share a concern has something real and meaningful. If
this seems to be a problem (coming up with a real concern),
you may give some possible areas to talk about:

-- Suggest that they talk about something that has been on
their mind lately.

-- Suggest that they talk about the impact their interviewer
has on them with the interviewer.

- Suggest that they talk about not wanting to talk about
something meaningful and close.

Keep in mind that everyone is starting from a different
place and learning at a different pace.

 

APPENDIX C
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE (SCS)

112

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE

Student #

 

ldease answer the following questions as accurately as possible as they apply to

you.

Circle the number that best describes your response.

A score of.1 indicates

Hut the statement is extremely uncharacteristic of you. A score of 4 indicates
Your responses will be

Hmt the statement is extremely characteristic of you.

 

kept confidential .

10.
11.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.
22.

23.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extremely Extremely
Uncharacteristic Characteristic

I'm always trying to figure myself out. 1 2 3 4

I'm concerned about my style of doing

things. 1 2 J L”

Generally, I'm not very aware of myself. 1 3 4

It takes me time to overcome my shyness 1 2 ,3 4

in new situations.

I reflect about myself a lot. 2 ,3 4

I'm concerned about the way I present 1 2 3 4

myself.

I'm often the subject of my own fantasies. 2 3 4

I have trouble working when someone is 2 ,3 4

watching me.

I never scrutinize myself. 2 3 4
I get embarassed very easily. 2 3L4 4
I'm self-consciousness about the way 2 3y 4
I look.

I don't find it hard to talk to strangers. 1 2 3 4
I'm generally attentive to my inner 1 2 3y 4
feelings.

I usually worry about making a good 1 2 3 4
impression.

I'm constantly examining my motives. 1 2 3 4
I feel anxious when I speak in front of 1 3 4
a group.

One of the last things I do before I
leave the house is look in the mirror. 1 2 3 4
I sometimes have a feeling that I'm off
somewhere watching myself. 1 2 3 4
I'm concerned about what other people
think of me. 1 2 j 4
I'm.alert to changes in my mood. 1 2 3 4
I'nlusually aware of my appearance. 1 2 - 3 4
I'm.aware of the way my mind works
'when I work through a problem. 1 2 3 4
ILaige groups make me nervous. 1 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D
WISCONSIN RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION SCALE (WROS)

 

FL. LA; .

 

 

DIRECTIONS:

113.

WISCONSIN RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION SCALE

Check the item which best describes your feelings
toward the inquirer.

I would attempt to avoid any kind of interaction or
relationship with this person.

If no one else were available, I might consult this
person for specific information of a factual, e.g.,
educational or vocational nature, but I would avoid
ady personal exposure.

I would be willing to talk with this person about
factual, e.g., educational or vocational concerns,
and some of the personal meanings connected with
these.

I would be willing to talk with this person about
many of my personal concerns.

I have the feeling that I could probably talk with
this person about almost anything.

 

 

APPENDIX E
LAB SESSION RATING FORM

114
Education 414 Student #

 

Laboratory Rating Form Section #

 

To help you summarize your feedback about your experience in this lab the
flfllowing scales have been devised. Please circle the number on each of
the following scales which best indicates the quality of your experience
during this laboratory session.

'5

I INTERVIEW

You were not at all
interested or involved
in the interview

The content of the
interview was highly
impersonal

You felt highly
threatened or anxious
during the interview

You learned nothing
from the interview

11 RECALL

Recall was not at all
helpful to you

You were bored and
uninvolved in recall
session

Recall was a highly
threatening experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You were highly interested
and involved in the inter-
view

The content of the inter-
view was highly personal

You felt completely at
ease during the interview

The interview was highly
relevant and you learned
a great deal from it

Recall was extremely
valuable and personally
relevant

You were highly personally
involved in recall session

Recall was a highly relaxed
experience

APPENDIX F

THE DEPTH OF CLIENT SELF-EXPLORATION SCALE (DX)

HELPEE SELF-EXPLORATION IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES, II

A Scale for Measurement

Level 1

The second person1 does not discuss personally relevant
material, either because he has had no opportunity to do
such or because he is actively evading the discussion even
when it is introduced.

Example: The second person avoids any self-descriptions or
direct expression of feelings that would lead him
to reveal himself.

In summary, for a variety of possible reasons, the second
person does not give any evidence of self-exploration.

Level 2

The second person responds with discussion to the intro-
duction of personally relevant material by the first person
but does so in a mechanical manner and without the demonstra-
tion of emotional feeling.

Example: The second person simply discusses the material
without exploring the significance or meaning of
the material or attempting further exploration of
the feeling in our effort to uncover related
feelings or material.

In summary, the second person responds mechanically and
remotely to the introduction of personally relevant material
by the first person.2

Level 3

The second person voluntarily introduces discussions of
personally relevant material but does so in a mechanical
manner and without the demonstration of emotional feeling.

Example: The emotional remoteness and mechanical manner of
the discussion give the discussion a quality of
being rehearsed.

 

116

In summary, the second person introduces personally
relevant material but does so without spontaneity or emo-
tional proximity and without an inward probing to newly
discover feelings and experiences.

Level 4

The second person voluntarily introduces discussions of
personally relevant material with both spontaneity and
emotional proximity.

Example: The voice quality and other Sharagterist1cs of the
second person are very much w1th the feel1ngs
and other personal materials which are being
verbalized.

In summary, the second person introduces personally
relevant discussions with spontaneity and emotional
proximity but without a distinct tendency toward inward
probing to newly discover feelings and experiences.

Level 5

The second person actively and spontaneously engages in an
inward probing to newly discover feelings and experiences
about himself and his world.

Example: The second person is searching to discover new
feelings concerning himself and his world even
though at the moment he may be doing so,
perhaps, fearfully and tentatively.

In summary, the second person is fully and actively focusing
upon himself and exploring himself and his world.

 

l I 0
Second person = 1nqu1ree

2 C O I
F1rst person = inquirer

APPENDIX G
EDUCATION 414 EVALUATION PROJECT CONSENT FORM

117

Consent Form for ED 4l4 Evaluation Project

 

I have been informed to my satisfaction of the evaluation project being
conducted in Education 414 and agree to participate. I understand that
the general purpose of this project is to learn more about Interpersonal
Process Recall and improve this course.

I have been assured that the information to be collected during the
course is essential to the evaluation project, and will be kept confi-
dential. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation
at any time, and that involvement in this project is in no way related
to my final course grade.

I have been informed that any research report which may be made on this
project will not identify participants individually.

Signed Date:

 

 

APPENDIX H
PROJECT INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO STUDENTS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 11v

 

TEACHER EDUCATION CENTER

April 5, 1982

Dear Education 414 Student,

Education 4l4, Influencing Human Interaction with Interpersonal Process
Recall, is designed to help you be a better listener and communicator. The
course involves a series of integrated experiences where you will study

films of skilled communicators, practice specific interpersonal skills and
view your own interpersonal style on video tape. In an effort to improve

the course we invite you to participate in an evaluation project being
conducted this term. The project in no way alters the basic course structure,
and in fact may help you increase your interpersonal skills.

We are asking that you do the following during class time:

(l) Complete a 23 item questionnaire early in the term and at the last
class.

(2) Fill out several rating forms following your second video taped lab.

(3) Audio record a segment of your video taped lab. (audio tapes and
instructions for this portion will be provided)

Confidentiality will be honored. You will not be identified by name on the
questionnaire, rating forms or, audio recording. Also, participation in this
project will in no way affect your final course grade of P (pass) or N (no
credit).

At the final class session we will describe the project in more detail and
provide you with feedback which you may find personally helpful.

Please complete the attached form indicating your interest in this project.
Good luck and thank you for your participation.

Richard P. McQuellon, M.A.
Project Director

) . {r . . ,1. C: .'
I . )'__ z. ’ ‘1‘ l7, ' ’ L.\__—/

V

/J. Bruce Burke, Ph.D.
ED 4l4 Course Coordinator

pb

MSL' is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

APPENDIX I

PROCEDURE FOR AUDIO RECORDING
LAB #2 - INTERVIEWER RECALL

119
EDUCATION #14 IPR

Instructions for Second Lab - Interviewer Recall

Please read through these instructions before beginning your second lab.
This lab will proceed in the same manner as your first lab with some minor excep-
tions. Each of you will conduct an interview followed by an interviewer recall.
Additional procedures include 1) audio tape recording your interviewer recall
session and 2) completing the two rating forms. These procedures will help us
evaluate this course and make changes where necessary.

Audio Tape Recording Procedure

 

The object of this procedure is to record your 20 minute recall session.
Here's how:

Step 1: After completing your interview, rewind the video tape recorder
back to where you began. (This is made easier by setting the counter on
the VTR at zero before you begin your interview).

Step 2: There will be one audio recorder and tapes in a brown envelope
marked BLANK TAPES in your lab room. Select a tape and record your stu-
dent number and section number on side A.

 

Step 3: Begin audio recording on side A of your tape when you start the
videotape playback of your interview.

To Record: Press the button marked Play and Record simultaneously.
To Stop: Press the Stop-Eject button.

To Rewind: Press the button marked.Review .

 

Step 4: Return your tapes to the envelope marked Recorded Tapes.

 

Step 5: Following each Round of interviewing and interviewer recall, take
a few minutes to complete the two rating forms titled WROS and LAB RATING
FORMS. After each interview and recall, only the recaller completes the
forms. These forms are located in the envelope marked Rating Forms. When
you fimish, place the rating forms in the envelope marked Rating Forms —

Completed.

 

 

Repeat this procedure for each "round" of the interview and interviewer recall.

The project coordinator will be available in room 2A5 during the first part
of your lab. If you have questions about the procedure or equipment problems,
please contact him.

You may listen to your tape during the last week of classes if you choose
to do so.

 

APPENDIX J
AUDIO TAPE RATING FORM

120

APPENDIX J. Audio Tape Rating Form: Interviewer Recall

Tape I.D. Number
Section Number

 

 

Inquiry Tape Tape Length/ DX Rating
Episode Segment Episode 1 2

\OCXJNOU'l-PLONH

NI—‘l—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘Ht—‘H
OxoooxloxmwaI-Ao

Totals

Number of inquiry Episodes
Total Inquiry Time

Total Interview Time
Interview/Recall Time
Mean DX Score

LII-DWNI-i

APPENDIX K
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SUBSCALE PEARSON CORRELATIONS

APPENDIX K.

PRSC

PUSC

SAN

121

SCS Subscale Pearson Correlations
(Second Administration)

PRSC PUSC
1.00 .086
p=.274

-- 1.00

1

SAN

.209
.070

.439
.001

.00

References

 

Archer, Jr., J., Fiester, T., Kagan, N., Rate, L., Spierling,
T., and Van Noord, R. A new method for education,
treatment and research in human interaction. Journal
of Counseling ngchology, 1972, 19, 275-281.

 

Archer, J.,and Kagan, N. Teaching interpersonal relation-
ship skills on campus: A pyramid approach. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 29, 535-541.

 

Bedell, W.P. A comparison of two approaches to peer sgper-
vision in the training of communication skills using
a videotape recall model. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1971.

 

Berger, P.L.,and Luckman, T.L. The social construction of
reality: A treatise in the sociology 6? knowledge.
New York, Doubleday, 1967.

Blair, M.,and Fretz, B. Interpersonal skills training for
premedical students. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1980, 21(4), 380-384.

Borg, W.R.,and Gall, M.D. Educational research: An intro-
duction (2nd ed.). New York: McKay, 197T:

Brammer, L.,and Allmon, D. Reviews: Training packages.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, June 1977, 612-618.

 

Brunswick, E. Systematic and representative design of
psychological experiments. —Berke1ey: University of
California Press, 1947.

Buss, A.H. Self-consciousness and social anxiepy. San
Francisco: Freeman, 1980.

Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand

McNally,.1963.

 

Carver, C.S.,and Glass, D.C. The self-consciousness scale:
A discriminant validity study. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 1976, 39, 169-172.

 

122

123

Carver, C. 8., and Scheier, M. F. Attention and self-
regulation: A control theory approach to human
BEhavior. New York: Springer Verlay, 1981.

Cronbach, L.J.,and Snow, R.E. Aptitudes and Instructional
Methods. New York: Wiley, 1977.

 

Dematatis, C. A comparison of the traditional filial
program to an integrated filial-IPR program.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1981.

 

 

Dendy, R.F. A model for the training of undergraduate
residence hall assistants asyparaprofessional
counselors using videotape techniques and Inter-
personal Process Recall (IP). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

 

 

Diener, E.,and Srull, T.K. Self-awareness, psychological
perspective, and self-reinforcement in relation to
personal and social standards. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1979, 31(3),413-423.

 

 

Diener, E.,and Wallbon, M. Effects of self-awareness on
antinormative behavior. Journal of Research in
Personality, 1976, 10, 107-111.

 

 

Dollard, J., and Miller, N.E. Personality and psycho-
therapy. New York: McGraw Hill, 1950.

 

Duval, S., and Wicklund, R.A. A theory of objective self
awareness. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

 

 

Duval, 8., and Wicklund, R.A. Effects of objective self-
awareness on attribution of causality. Journal of
Egperimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 17-31.

 

 

Fenigstein, A. Self-consciousness, self-attention, and
social interaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1979, 31, 75-86.

 

 

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., and Buss, A.H. Public and
private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975,
£3, 522-527.

 

Ganellen, R., and Blaney, P.H. A cognitive model of
depressive onset. Paper presented at the American
Psychological Association, August, 1981.

 

 

124

Geller, V., and Shaver, P. Cognitive consequences of self-
awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1976, 12, 99-108.

Goldberg, A.P. A sequential program for supervising coun-
selors using the Interpersonal Process Recall technique.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1967.

Grzegorek, A.A. A study of the effects of two emphases
in counselor education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.

 

Grossman, R. Limb tremor responses to antagonistic and
informational communication. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975.

 

Hartson, D.J., and Kunce, J.T. Videotape replay and
recall in group work. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 1973, 29, 437-441.

Harris, R. J. A primer of multivariate statistips,
New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Heider, F. Theypsychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.

 

Hurley, S. Self disclosure in counseling groups as in-
fluenced by structural confrontation and interpersonal
process recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967.

Ickes, W.J., Wicklund, R.A., and Ferris, C.B. Objective
self-awareness and self-esteem. Journal of Experimental
Soc1a1 Psychology, 1973, 9, 202-219.

 

Kagan, N. Interpersonal Process Recall: A method of
influencing human interaction (Rev. ed.). 1980. (Mason
Media, Inc., 1265 Lakeside Dr., East Lansing, MI 48823.)

Kagan, N. Counseling psychology, interpersonal skills, and
health care. In G.L. Stone, F. Cohen, and N.E. Adler
(Eds.), Health psychology: A handbook. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1979.

Kagan, N. Influencing human interaction: Eighteen years
with IPR. In A.K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy spper-
VlSlon: Theory, research and practice. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1980.

 

125

Kagan, N. Interpersonal Process Recall: Basic methods and
recent research. In Dale Larsen (Ed.), Interpersonal
skills training models and methods, Brooks/Cole,
Monterey, 1982.

 

Kagan, N., and Burke, J.B. Influencing human interaction
using Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR): A student
manual. Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1976.

 

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D., and Miller, R. Stimulated
recall in therapy using videotape--a case study.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 10, 237-243.

 

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D.R., et a1. Studies in human
interaction: Inteppersonal—Process Recall stimulated
by videopspe (Research Report 20). Educational
Publicatlbn Services, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, 1967.

 

 

 

Kagan, N., and McQuellon, R. Interpersonal Process Recall.
In R. Corsini (Ed.), Handbook of innovative psycho-
therapies. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.

 

 

Kagan, N., Schneider, J., and Werner, A. The development
of a measure of empathy: The affective sensitivity
scale. Paper presented at American Psychological
Association, San Francisco, August, 1977.

 

 

Katz, D., and Resnikoff, A. Televised self-confrontation
and recalled affect: A new look at videotape recall.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1977, 23, 150-152.

 

Kelly, G.A. Theypsychology of personal constructs. New
York: Norton, I955.

 

Kingdon, M.A. A cost/benefit analysis of the Interpersonal
Process Recall technique. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 1975, 22, 353-357.

 

 

Lee, J. Book reviews: Influencing human interaction.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1973, 22(6), 428-430.

 

Miller, L.C., Murphy, R., & Buss, A. H. Consciousness of
Body: Private and Public. Journal of personalipy
and socialpsychology, 1981, 32, 397-406.

 

 

Mitchell, S. K. Interobserver agreement, reliability,
and generalizability of data collected in observa-
tional studies. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86 (2),
376-390. ——

 

kc]
I‘ J
C)’\

Neisser, U. Cognition and realiry; Principles and implica-
tions of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Free-
man,ll976.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. R., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K.,
Bent, D. H. Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill, 1975.

 

Orne, M. T: On the social psychology of the psychological
experiment: With particular reference to demand
characteristics and their implications. American
Psychologist, 1962, 22, 776-783.

Patterson, C. H. Relationship Counseling and Psycho-
therapy. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

 

Resnikoff, A., Kagan, N., and Schauble, P.G. Acceleration
of psychotherapy through stimulated videotape recall.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1970, 23(1), 102-
111.

Rogers, C. Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, l951.

Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:
Distortions in the attribution process. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Cognitive theories in social psychol-
pgy. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

 

Sarason, I. G. Experimental approaches to test anxiety:
Attention and the uses of information. In
C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiery: Current trends in
theory and research (Vol. 2). New York: Academic
Pfess, 1972.

 

 

Schauble, P.G. The acceleration of client_progress in
counseling andpsychotherapy through Interpersonal
Process Recall (IPR). Unpublished doctoral
dissertatlon, Michigan State University, 1970.

 

 

 

Scheier, M.F. Self-awareness, self-consciousness, and
angry aggression. Journal of Personaliry, 1976,
35, 627-744.

 

Scheier, M.F., and Carver, C.S. Self-focused attention and
the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion,
elation and depression. Journal of Personaliryyand
Social Psychology, 1977, 22, 627-636.

 

 

 

127

Schutz, A. On phenomenology and social relations: Selected
writin s. H. Wagner (Ed.). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press, 1970.

Spivack, J. The use of developmental tasks for training
counselors using interpersonal process recall.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.

 

 

Steph, J.A. Responses to hypothetical counseling situations
as a predictor of relationship orientation in school
counselors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1963.

 

Tomory, R.E. The acceleration and continuation of client
growth in counseling and psychotherapy: A comparison
oflInterpersonal Process Recalll(IPR) with traditional
counselingmethods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1979.

 

Truax, C. A tentative scale for the measurement of depth
of intrapersonal exploration (Dx). Discussion Papers,
Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute, University of Wis-
consin, 1963.

Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective
counselingand psychotherapy: Training and practice.
Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

Van Noord, R. Stimulated recall with videotape and simulation
in counseling and psychotherapy: A comparison of
effects of two methodologies with undergraduate student
dlients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1973.

Wegner, D.M., and Vallacher, R.R. Implicitypsychology: An
introduction to social cognition. New York: Oxford
University Press, l977.

Wicklund, R.A. Objective self awareness. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Cognitive theories in social psychology.
New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Wicklund, R.A. The influence of self-awareness on human
behavior. American Scientist, 1979, p1, 187-193.

 

Woody, R.W., Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D.R., and Farquhar, W.W.
Stimulated recall in psychotherapy using hypnosis
and videotape. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis,
1967, 2, 234-241.

 

 

128

Young, D. Reliability of videotape-assisted recall in
counseling process research. Unpublished manuscript,

1980.

Zimbardo, P. G. Shypess. Jove Publications, New York:
1977.