ABSTRACT TRAINING INCARCERATED FELONS IN COMMUNICATION SKILLS USING AN INTEGRATED IPR (INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL) VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK/AFFECT SIMULATION TRAINING MODEL BY Nolan C. Singleton The rehabilitation of convicted felons has remained a thorny problem for society. The ineffective- ness of current treatment for prisoners has been sub- stantiated by the fact that 80% of all felonies are committed by repeaters (Atkins & Glick, 1972). Neither imprisonment nor current rehabilitation efforts have adequately reduced felonies. This research was designed to evaluate a treatment modality which might reduce criminal behavior. The difficult nature of rehabilitating prisoners has been well documented in the literature, though the literature typically has been based more upon descriptive data rather than experimental research. Bailey (1966) reviewed 100 reports on correctional treatment outcome and concluded that "evidence supporting the efficacy of correctional treatment is slight, inconsistent, and of questionable reliability." Nolan C. Singleton The purpose of this research was to assess the effect of a 40-hour training program in counseling and communication spread over 12 days. The treatment, also the independent variable in the study, entailed use of the Interpersonal Process Recall methods developed by Kagan (1967). Affect Simulation, one part of IPR, was used with the prisoners to teach the identification and labeling of their own emotional reactions as well as the identification and labeling of emotions demonstrated by an actor or actress on a film. The affect simulation films are composed of brief vignettes in which an actor or actress directs various emotional statements at the viewer. Stimulated recall, another part of the IPR methods, required that the prisoners form dyads in which one person presented a brief problem while the other person practiced effective communication skills as a helper. The videotape was played back to one or both of the prisoners and the group leader, serving as "inquirer," facilitated the recall of what their thoughts and feelings were during the original interaction. The recalls were helper recalls, helpee recalls, or mutual recalls. Another focus of the training program was learning and practicing the following four communication response modes: affective, exploratory, listening, and honest labeling. Nolan C. Singleton The subjects were convicted male felons in the state of Michigan who were beginning serving time for sentences. They all resided in the Reception and Guidance Center for prisons in the state. Subjects were randomly selected but could choose not to partici- pate in the experiment. The size of the groups ranged from 6 to 15. Six groups of prisoners received IPR training and these groups were compared with six groups of prisoners who received no special treatment. The dependent variables included two measures which were taken immediately after the communication training. These measures were the mean Bipolar Psychological Inventory score for each group and the mean Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination score for each group, a non-IPR-based test of communication skill. Five other measures were taken two months after a resident arrived at the particular correctional facility to which he was assigned. These measures were the mean Correctional Personnel Questionnaire score for the group, the mean number of residents in the group who received "tickets," the mean number of tickets received by the group, the mean number of residents in the group who received days in segregation, and the mean number of days in segre— gation received by the group. Nolan C. Singleton The fact that all of the measures pertain to group rather than individual performance is noteworthy. Because individuals within groups interacted with one another, the unit of statistical analysis had to be each small group rather than each individual. Multivariate analysis of variance was the statistical test used to analyze days in segregation and tickets. Empathy, the Bipolar Psychological Inventory, and the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire were analyzed using one-tailed t tests. The alpha level was set at .05. The research was a Posttest-Only Control Group Design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The design permitted comparison of the six IPR/Affect Simulation treatment groups and the six no treatment control groups. Resi- dents were randomly assigned to groups. Similarly, trainers were randomly assigned to groups. The results of the statistical analyses were that two of the seven research hypotheses were accepted, whereas for the other five measures the null hypotheses failed to be rejected. More specifically, the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination detected significant differences at the .01 level favoring the IPR communication training groups. Furthermore, the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire detected significant differences at the .05 level favoring the IPR communication training groups. Though of too low a frequency to be tested statistically, Nolan C. Singleton there were no escapes by any of the IPR group members. Nor, were there any residents in the IPR group who were emergency psychiatric referrals. Although the members of the IPR group apparently made changes, the experience was not one of excess strain or one which stimulated self-defeating episodes. TRAINING INCARCERATED FELONS IN COMMUNICATION SKILLS USING AN INTEGRATED IPR (INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL) VIDEOTAPE FEEDBACK/AFFECT SIMULATION TRAINING MODEL BY \ \ c Nolan C? Singleton A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1975 DEDICATION Dianne A wonderful person, warm friend, and sensitive Spouse. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my chairman, Norman Kagan, for allowing me the freedom and independence to pursue my own area of interest. I also thank Albert Rabin, Samuel Plyler, and Richard Johnson for serving on my disser- tation committee. Zbigniew Tyszkiewicz provided con- siderable support and allowed me to ventilate when, during the early stage of the experiment, it appeared that the research would have to stop. Paul Bedell agreed to be a trainer and relinquished his evenings, for six weeks, during the summer. Without his willing- ness to train, the study could not have been done. Jack Reiskie helped stimulate my thinking. Special thanks go to Don Houseworth, Charles Anderson, and Perry Johnson for granting permission for the study to be done with Department of Corrections clients. Thanks are in order to the residents (prisoners) and correctional personnel who willingly participated in the study. Larry Donovan, Lee Lampman, and Dave Haskel were particularly helpful. Mr. Guernsey and Mr. Triplett helped provide videotape equipment and repairs needed for the study. iii Bertram Karon provided two necessary incentives. First, he made me realize that it is possible to be of significant assistance to incarcerated felons and second, he provided me with an unfailing belief that research can and should be worthwhile. Without this fundamental assumption or inspiration, I might never have started such a project. Charles Gatewood spent innumerable hours per- forming clerical duties which allowed me the time and energy for other tasks. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . Purpose . . . . . Definition of Terms. . Hypotheses. . . . . Theory . . . . . . Overview . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . Introduction . . . . Treatment for Prisoners Communication Skills Training. Group Counseling . . Miscellaneous Treatments Training as a Mode of Treatment. IPR O I O O O O 0 Training Programs. . Acceleration of Client Growth. Summary. . . . . . III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . Description of the Experimental Pro- cedures . . . . . IPR Training . . . Day 1 . . . Day 2 . . . . Days 3 and 4. . Day 5 . . . Days 6, 7, 8, 9 Day 10. . . 45 48 48 49 50 54 55 Chapter IV. V. Videotaped Lectures . . . . . . Days 1 - 9 . . . . . . . . Day 10. . . . . . . . . . No Treatment . . . . . . . . Setting. . . . . . . . . . . san‘ple O O O O O C O O O O O ReSidentS O O O O O O O O O Trainers. . . . . . . . . . Raters . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . Bipolar Psychological Inventory . . Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimi— nation. . . . . . . . . . Correctional Personnel Questionnaire Hypotheses. . . . Analysis of the Data . . . . . . sumary O O O O I O O O O I 0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . Hypotheses 4, 5, 6, and 7. . Summary. . . . . . . . SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . The Problem. . . . . . . . . Design Methodology . . . Results and Conclusions. . . . Discussion. . . . . . . . . Personal Reactions of the Residents to the Training. . . . . . . Videotaped Lecture Control Groups . Miscellaneous Measures . . Subjects Unwilling or Unable to Par— ticipate in the Research. . . . vi Page 57 57 57 58 58 59 59 64 67 68 69 71 73 77 78 79 82 84 85 86 87 90 90 90 91 95 95 96 99 102 104 Chapter Page Implications . . . . . . . . . . 109 Critique of the Study . . . . . . . 112 Recommendations for Future Research . . 114 APPENDICES Appendix A. AN OUTLINE OF THE INQUIRER ROLE AND OFTEN USED INQUIRER LEADS. . . . . . . . 118 B. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCALES - BIPOLAR PSY- CHOLOGICAL INVENTORY . . . . . . . 125 C. CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL QUESTIONNAIRE. . . 128 D. INDIVIDUAL DATA OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS. . . 131 EFEENCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 3 7 vii 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Size of Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Subjects . . . . . . . . Bipolar Psychological Inventory Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients . . . . . . . Discrimination: Deviations in Levels of Counselor Responses to Helpee Stimulus Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores of Group Data . . . . . . . Results for Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination . . . . . . . . . Results for Bipolar Psychological Inventory . Results for Correctional Personnel Question- naire . . . . . . . . . . . . Results for Hypotheses 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Tickets and Segregation). . . . . . . . . . Results for the Miscellaneous Measures . . . Combined Behavioral Measures of Residents Unable or Unwilling to Participate in the Research . . . . . . . . . . . Behavioral Measures on Residents Unable to Participate in the Research . . . . . . Behavioral Measures of Residents Who Chose Not To Participate in the Research. . . . Individual Data of Research Subjects. . . . viii Page 63 65 71 74 83 85 86 87 88 103 105 106 107 131 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Schematic representation of the experimental deSign O O O O O O O O O I O O O 44 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM This study has been an endeavor to improve the rehabilitation of incarcerated felons. More specifi- cally, the study examined the effects of communication training upon prisoners. There have been no existing rehabilitation modalities which eliminate recidivism. In other words, the prison experience has not tended to extinguish future criminal behavior. The ineffectiveness of current treat- ment for prisoners has been substantiated by the fact that 80% of all felonies are committed by repeaters (Atkins & Glick, 1972). If four-fifths of major crimes are done by people already known to the criminal justice system, something clearly has not been working as intended. Neither imprisonment nor current treatment efforts have adequately reduced felonies as much as needed by society. Because of inadequate record keeping and varying definitions of recidivism from one prison system to the next, there are only estimates of national recidivism figures. The statistics range from a prediction of 30% to 80% of released offenders being reimprisoned within five years (Atkins & Glick, 1972). Careful records are maintained by the Michigan state prison system. Further verification that there is a strong need for effective prison treatment programs is the fact that at least 32% of the peOple incarcerated in the Michigan state prisons in 1970 previously had been confined in a correctional institution. Over 32% of the 1970 state prison admissions had a history of referral, examination, or diagnosis for mental or emotional disorders (Criminal Statistics, 1970). Most studies evaluating the outcome of treatment are inadequate. Research regarding the outcome of treat- ment efforts with felons generally has been poorly designed, with inadequate outcome measures, numerous confounding variables, and inadequate control procedures. PUEEOSG The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of interpersonal communication skills training upon incarcerated felons. The communication program taught the use of affective, exploratory, listening, and honest labeling responses, provided self—study oppor- tunities and made use of videotape feedback and affect simulation. The study was designed to determine if increasing the "interpersonal communication skills" of felons had an impact upon their subsequent prison behavior. Definition of Terms The terms used in this study are defined as follows: Resident: A convicted felon residing in a cor- rectional institution. Correctional Institutions: Prisons, half-way houses, jails, camps, and correction centers. Recidivism: The repetition of crime by persons previously convicted of a felony. Ticket: A formal written document indicating a resident's violation of prison rules and regulations. Skating: The act of a resident being in unauthor- ized locations in the correctional institution.’ Segregation: The total confinement of a resident to a special cell without privileges to leave it for such purposes as eating, going outdoors to the prison yard, and engaging in recreational activities. Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR): The process of recording on videotape any interpersonal interaction and then playing back the videotape to enable either or both of the participants to examine the interpersonal dynamics and gain a greater understanding of the original experience. Inquirer: The third person in the IPR model conducts the recall session for the interesting dyad. The role and function of the inquirer is to serve as a neutral stimulus for facilitating the exploration of the dyadic interaction. The inquirer consciously avoids establishing a new complex relationship with either or both participants by focusing on the videotaped inter- action. Stimulated Recall Session: A phase of the IPR process during which the videotape of the dyadic inter- action is played back and the inquirer assists in facili- tating the examination of the underlying dynamics of the interaction. Affect Simulation: A technique used to teach the identification and labeling of one's own emotional reactions and the identification and labeling of emotions demonstrated by an actor or actress on a film. The affect simulus films are composed of brief vignettes in which an actor or actress portrays strong emotions and directs these at the viewer. Counselor Verbal Response Scale: A rating instrument used to assess communication skills. There are four sub-scales which designate the following com— munication modalities: Affective-Cognitive, Exploratory- Nonexploratory, Listening-Nonlistening, and Honest Labeling-Distorting. Affective responses generally make reference to the feelings of the person. Exploratory responses encourage a person to talk freely about some- thing, generally in greater depth than the person already has. Listening responses let a person know that another person is trying to hear what is being said. They allow the person to disagree if the listener's perceptions of what was said were incorrect. Honest labeling responses are accurate reflections of what has been said without minimization, avoidance, or distortion (Kagan, Krathwohl, et al., 1967). Affective Sensitivitnycale: A scale which pur- ports to measure affective sensitivity (empathy) using a multiple choice test format. The examinee views a series of vignettes on a videotape or film and answers questions regarding the affect expressed by the counselor and client in each vignette (Campbell, Kagan, & Krath- wohl, 1971). This scale is referred to in the literature but was not used in this study. Hypotheses The hypotheses which were tested by the current study were as follows: Hypothesis 1: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR based model have lower mean scores on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination than groups of residents who received no special training. Hypothesis 2: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR model have lower mean scores on the Bipolar Psychological Inventory than groups of residents who received no special training. Hypothesis 3: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR model have lower mean scores on the Correctional Personnel Question- naire than groups of residents who received no special training. Hypothesis 4: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR model received a smaller mean number of tickets than groups of resi- dents who received no special training. Hypothesis 5: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR model have a lower mean number of residents who received tickets than groups of residents who received no special training. Hypothesis 6: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR model have a lower mean number of days in segregation than groups of residents who received no special training. Hypothesis 7: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of communi- cation training by means of an IPR model have a lower mean number of residents who received days in segregation than groups of residents who received no special training. Theogy The theory underlying the communication training program for prison residents is based upon the belief that a major cause of criminality has been the destruc- tive influences of other human beings in the earlier lives of the prisoners (Fenton, 1957). Consequently, negative feelings about other people or themselves have developed. Additionally, interpersonal communication skills either were never learned, or if learned were reinforced in a negative manner. Based upon evidence that elements of minimally effective communication can be identified (Carkhuff & Traux, 1967), it has been a logical extension to develop paradigms for training people in these specified communi- cation skills. If prisoners were taught interpersonal communication skills, it was appropriate to expect changes in their behavior consistent with remediation of their past deficiencies in relating to others. The potential impact of improving prisoners' communication skills only can be speculated at this point in time. Possibilities, however, include such things as a reduction in need for thievery since effec- tive communication skills could serve to improve former prisoner's self-presentation in job interviews as well as to improve on-the-job performance, particularly since most jobs require at least some interpersonal inter- action. Stealing might be less necessary when one has a source of income. Prior to conducting this study, it was thought that tension within prisons might be reduced by improved abilities to express thoughts and feelings. Improved communication skills might enable a resident to better use prison facilities during the term of incarceration. For example, a resident might be better able to listen, hear, and understand what facilities were available to him as explained by a Department of Corrections employee. Increased self-assurance in communicating with others might encourage more residents to enroll in prison courses, and also learn more from those they take because of more willingness to ask questions of the instructors. By fostering an awareness of one's own emotions and those of others, feelings could be expressed with greater frequency. For example, effective communication of a resident's anger might reduce the need to act out the anger in a destructive manner. Free expression of feelings reduces the pressure-cooker effect of withholding feelings until there is a sudden explosion of the pent-up affect. Similarly, a resident might be able to respond in an acceptable manner to a hostility-provoking person because of an increased ability to understand and identify the feelings being experienced by the other person. The IPR and Affect Simulation procedures for teaching communication skills were developed around an interpersonal theory of "everyday communication" (Kagan, 1973b). The tenets of the theory include people's need for interpersonal stimulation, the fear that people learn to have of each other, and the resultant inability of people to achieve optimal intimacy in interpersonal relationships. By increasing the repertoire of communi- cation modes, people increase their flexibility to communicate with others. The increased flexibility can lead to increased intimacy with, and reduced fear of, others. Thus, more interpersonal stimulation and con- sequent satisfaction are achieved. The use of videotaped playback of encounters came about when it was discovered that people were able to relive a situation when stimu- lated by the videotape. The inquirer was found to be able to further stimulate the recall process. The affect simulation films were able to help people learn to identify their own feelings because 10 they were in a safe, relatively nonthreatening environ- ment. By having people observe provocative films in a safe environment, they are able to explore their own emotions. Observers can share their reactions to the filmed vignettes and check out their perceptions with one another. Similarly, IPR allows people an opportunity to look carefully at themselves and share their perceptions of what took place. Did the people in the dyadic encounter agree about what happened? For example, if one person perceived the other to be angry, did the person actually feel angry? The recall process, with videotaped playback of an encounter, facilitates deeper exploration of thoughts and feelings. IPR fosters accurate, honest observations rather than stereotypical ways of experiencing and responding to others. Overview In this chapter a statement of the problem, purpose, definition of terms, underlying theory, and hypotheses for this study were presented. Chapter II contains a review of the literature pertinent to the current study regarding existing treatments for prisoners, training as a type of treatment, and the Interpersonal Process Recall and Affect Simulation training techniques. Chapter III includes a description of the research design, treatment, samples, scheduling 11 procedures, setting, data analysis, instrumentation, and hypotheses. Chapter IV contains the analysis of the data collected during the study. A summary of the study, a discussion of the results, and the implications for future research are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction There are three areas of research which are relevant to the study of communication training for convicted felons. First, the literature regarding the effects of various treatment programs for prisoners is reviewed. Second, the impact of training as a mode of treatment is examined. Finally, the use of communication skills training following Kagan's (1972) IPR model with a variety of populations is discussed. Treatment for Prisoners Prisoner treatment consists of procedures under- taken with the specific intent of altering the conditions which caused the violator's undesirable behavior (Gibbons, 1965). Treatment for prisoners has come to include a variety of activities. Rehabilitation efforts in the United States for prisoners began in 1773 with religious services and instruction. In 1826 educational programs were initiated with the intent of teaching illiterate offenders to read (Vukcevich, 1964). In addition to 12 13 religious and educational programs, such activities as vocational training, medical care, recreational programs, and individual and group counseling have been recognized as types of treatment for prisoners (Richmond, 1965). The literature regarding prison rehabilitation efforts is usually descriptive rather than evaluative (Wilkins, 1969). For example, Bailey (1966) reviewed 100 articles containing empirical data on correctional treatment. Of the 100 studies examined, 22% were based upon an experimental design with a control group, 26% used systematic-empirical designs with control procedures without control groups, and 52% employed nonsystematic empirical designs lacking control procedures. An overview of the entire literature on correc- tional treatment is summarized in the following words: " . . . there is very little evidence in these studies that any prevailing mode of correctional treatment has a decisive effect in reducing the recidivism of convicted offenders" (Kassebaum, Ward, & Wilner, 1971). Recidivism, the most frequent criterion of the success of a given treatment program, refers to the return to crime after some form of disposal by the courts (Wilkins, 1969). Bailey (1966) reviewed 100 reports on correctional treatment outcome. The studies included in his review were published between 1940 and 1960, based upon empirical data in which the treatment evaluated was 14 dependent upon the manipulation of some form of inter- personal relations as the independent variable, and the behavior to be corrected had a negative value in the sense of being subject to legal sanctions. Based on review of these studies, Bailey noted that "evidence supporting the effiacy of correctional treatment is slight, inconsistent, and of questionable reliability." Because this study of training prisoners in com- munication skills was conducted in groups, studies per- taining to group therapy or counseling for prisoners are reviewed along with other attempts to train prisoners in communication skills. Other forms of prisoner treat- ment such as therapeutic communities and educational pro- grams are only briefly reviewed because they have less direct bearing upon the present study than do treatments which emphasize development of interpersonal skills. Communication Skills Training Carkhuff and associates (1974) have assessed the effects of using Carkhuff's human relations training models (1969) with prison guards, officers, and inmates. In all their studies, they selected trainees from volun- teers, a factor which limited the pOpulation to which the conclusions can be generalized. A group of 14 guards and officers at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary received 40 hours of training and 40 hours of practicum experience in human relations 15 skills. They were rated higher, following training, than the control subjects on a variety of interpersonal dimensions. Additionally, they significantly decreased their authoritarianism score on the California §_scale and differed significantly at the end of training from the control subjects. Twelve of the 14 trainees, following training, were appointed as correctional counselors. Descriptive statistics showed that of the 15,000 counseling interviews the 12 men conducted during the first year, "success" was experienced in many of the counseling cases. Of those cases not referred to another source and which had been terminated, by the prisoners' own reports, 64.9% of the cases were "fully resolved" and in 17.2% of the cases the problems were “partially resolved." A possible outgrowth of employing the 12 correctional counselors has been the significant increase in work attendance and a significant decline in sick call visits within the Atlanta Federal Peniten- tiary (Carkhuff, Berenson, et al., 1974). An outgrowth of the Atlanta training program was a similar 80-hour Institute in Correctional Counseling and Human Relations. The purpose of the institute was to ascertain how best to select trainees from pools of applicants for such training. The evaluation of the possible selection criteria are not discussed here. However, it is notable that the trainees, 23 first-line 16 correctional supervisors, were able to significantly improve their ratings on measures of interpersonal functioning such as empathy, respect, genuineness, con- frontation, specificity, and immediacy (Carkhuff, Berenson, et al., 1974). The current research study gains support from the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary and Institute in Cor- rectional Counseling and Human Relations programs. If prison staff members effectively could be taught human relations skills to the benefit of prisoners and prison environments, it seemed reasonable to directly train prisoners in interpersonal communication skills. Group7Counse1ing A well-designed, comprehensive study was conducted to systematically evaluate the effects of participation in a correctional group counseling treatment program on prisoners in California Men's Colony - East. The group counseling was defined as . . . an effort to use the small group method to constructively increase the positive impact of correctional employees or inmates and parolees. It is an effort to develop more healthy communi- cation and relationships within the prison. It is focused on conscious reality problems and feelings - past, present and future. The counselors included vocational teachers, correctional officers, shop foremen and others who had considerable contact with inmates. Prisoners were randomly assigned to living units within the prison. Some living units 17 had mandatory group counseling, others had voluntary group counseling, and yet others had mandatory no group counseling. There was no significant difference in parole prognosis between treatment and control groups prior to treatment. The released inmates were evaluated 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after release on measures including drug and alcohol use, unemployment, jail terms, and financial dependence. Although some small percentage differences were found (usually in favor of the prisoners on the voluntary group counseling living units who chose Hg§_to participate in the group counseling, there were no statistically significant differences found. Findings did not suggest that the level of training of group counseling leaders had any effect upon the outcome measures. Men whose opinion of counseling was low, regardless of their participation in the program, did better after release. Additionally, prisoners who scored low in opposition to staff experienced less difficulty on parole than did those whose opposition to staff was high. No significant differences were found between prisoners who had high attendance records in group counseling or who had the same group leader throughout and prisoners who attended fewer than 40 group sessions or who had several group leaders (Kas- sebaum, Ward, & Wilner, 1971). 18 Group psychotherapy was conducted with 257 Cali- fornia inmates by six therapists between 1958 and 1962. The therapists were two psychiatrists, two psychologists, and two correctional counselors. All of the 257 inmates studied had at least one continuous year of group therapy with the same therapist. The inmates averaged 40 months of incarceration and the majority were white. Forty per- cent had prior prison terms. Most of the prisoners were approximately 30 years old at the time of treatment. All of the subjects were serving indefinite sentences, having been judged by the prison staff as requiring psy- chological treatment. The comparison group subjects were chosen by matching inmates who were released between 1958 and 1962 with the experimental inmates. The control subjects were different than the experi- mental subjects in that they were never referred for psychological treatment. Thus, the groups were not truly comparable. The criterion for evaluating the subjects' success was whether they did or did not return to prison after their release. Follow-ups were con- ducted one, two, and four years post-release. The inmates who received group therapy treatment had sig— nificantly fewer returns to prison than did the control subjects during the one—year post-release period. How- ever, the two- and four-year post-release returns to prison did not significantly differ for the treatment 19 and control subjects. Thus, the experimenters concluded that the effects of group therapy are diminished over time following release. These findings suggest that post-release follow-up treatment programs for prisoners should be implemented and evaluated (Jew, Clanon, & Mattocks, 1972). Truax, Wargo, and Silber (1971) randomly assigned 70 delinquent girls to treatment or control conditions. Treatment consisted of group psychotherapy on a twice weekly schedule for 24 sessions with therapists rated high on accurate empathy and nonpossessive warmth measures. The girls who received treatment had less recidivism during the year following their release than did the girls in the control group. The treatment sub- jects also scored significantly lower on the "C" scale of the Minnesota Counseling Inventory than did the con- trol subjects. The "C" scale is a measure designed to differentiate delinquents from nondelinquents. However, the treatment subjects' scores on the "C" scale following treatment, while significantly lower than the scores of the control subjects, continued to be classified as delinquency prone when their "C" scores were compared to the criterion group on which the Minnesota Counseling Inventory was standardized. Short-term group therapy, either three times per week for three weeks or once per week for three weeks, 20 was compared to no group therapy intervention on measures of hostility and anxiety on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. No significant differences were found on the two measures for the three groups. There were 19 recently incarcerated inmates in each group (Arnette, 1967). The effect of group psychotherapy on numbers of disciplinary or infraction reports was evaluated by Wolk (1963). The results favored prisoners in group therapy. They received significantly fewer disciplinary and infraction reports than did inmates who did not par- ticipate in group therapy. Several defects in the research design limit the conclusions one can draw from this study. It was not clear whether prisoners were randomly selected to participate in group therapy or were self-selected or referred by prison officials. Another limitation of the study was that the guards, those who wrote the disciplinary or infraction reports, knew which prisoners participated in group therapy. One also might speculate about whether recurring disciplinary reports within a prison setting is indicative of positive or negative mental health. A group of 24 prisoners volunteered to participate in sensitivity training for 10 weeks. Ten prisoners par- ticipated for the full 10 weeks, and 14 prematurely terminated. The completers and terminators were 21 compared on a variety of measures to determine differ- ential treatment effects. No significant differences were found between the completers and terminators on the pre- and post-testing measures on the Index of Adjustment and Values which purports to measure self-concepts, the Semantic Differential which also is a measure of self- concepts, the Personal Orientation Inventory which assesses the degree to which a person is self-actualized, and the Mountain Home Arousal Scale which measures anxiety (Miller, 1971). Several aspects of the research design weaken the results. First, only volunteer sub- jects were used. Thus, one can generalize the results of the study only to prisoners who volunteer to par- ticipate in sensitivity training. Second, it is unfor- tunate that comparisons were limited to completers and terminators of sensitivity training. There was no evi- dence that people who complete or terminate early in sensitivity training were necessarily the same. In order to interpret the results in a meaningful way, it would have been necessary for the outcome of the sensitivity training to be compared to other prison treatments or lack of treatment. The sample size of 24 was rather small. A fourth research design inadequacy was that only one sensitivity leader was involved. Thus, the results could perhaps be due to interaction with that particular leader rather than due to the actual sensitivity training. 22 Unlike the studies previously reviewed, research done by Barbash (1963) evaluated individual therapy along with group therapy. The results of the study indicate an unusually high rate of post-release success, specifi- cally 72%, for prisoners who were perceived as having experienced "emotional interaction" in group or indi- vidual therapy. Success was defined as a released inmate not violating parole by conviction, by breaking parole rules, or being arrested again. "Emotional inter- action" involved "both conscious and unconscious, negative as well as positive feelings toward the treatment specialist." The therapists were the determiners of whether or not "emotional interaction" had occurred. However, looking just at the variable of participation ‘or nonparticipation in group or individual therapy, the differences in success rates were less. Forty-three per- cent of the therapy cases had remained in free society, whereas only 25% of the nontherapy cases had been successful. The inmates who were in group therapy in combination with individual therapy were more successful in remaining in free society than those who received only group therapy. The implications of this study certainly support the important role of an inmate's affective involvement in treatment. Four studies more typical of prison treatment literature present various treatment programs without 23 including empirical data of the treatment outcome. Wil- mer, Marks, and Pogue (1966) described an experiment at San Quentin Prison which entailed group counseling for the families of prisoners. Spouses, children, and inmates were included in the group counseling sessions which met once a month for two hours. The purpose of the groups was to facilitate more honest, intimate interaction within family units as well as to provide children and spouses an opportunity to share their feelings and experiences with others in a similar predicament. For some children and spouses, it was the first time they felt free to reveal their feelings about having their father or husband incarcerated. The involved counselors felt the program was highly useful for the families as well as the prison staff. Because of the staff inter- action with the families, they felt able to make more accurate recommendations for an inmate to the parole board. A second study lacking empirical data involved a pilot project in parole group counseling (Ghastin & Wells, 1965). The groups for parolees were led by trained volunteers. The parole officers who had parolees participating in the group counseling had mixed subjective evaluations of whether or not the counseling was beneficial. Similarly, the subjective response to a therapeutic community program for 24 prisoners following Maxwell Jones' model was not con- sistent. While the benefits of large group meetings of inmates and staff were believed to be valuable for some inmates, others appeared to gain nothing from the experience (Reimer & Smith, 1964). In a fourth study Ernst and Keating (1964) described the use of Trans- actional Analysis in group therapy for incarcerated felons. The authors believed that this technique was more useful than the "psychoanalytic type group therapy." The various attempts at using group therapy for prisoners presented in the foregoing literature review suggest that group treatment has, by and large, not pro- vided a viable means of reducing recidivism. It seems that the well-designed studies with control groups reported considerably less success than the articles based upon clinical judgments or subjective opinions. The potential for psychological treatment seemed at its highest when therapists felt "emotional interaction" had existed between them and their clients. This suggests that exploration of methods to involve inmates in treatment would be highly appropriate. Miscellaneous Treatments Other studies which found no significant dif- ferences between experimental and control groups include the evaluation of group counseling and therapeutic community in a halfway house for narcotics parolees 25 in California (Geis, 1966), the evaluation of social casework and group therapy for delinquent girls (Meyer, Borgatta, & Jones, 1965), and the California Civil Commitment Program for Drug Addicts (Report on Civil Commitment for Narcotics Users, 1967). Daniel Glaser (1964) compared matched samples of "successes" and returned violators to ascertain the role of the educational programs in federal prisons. Inmates who had enrolled in the prison school had lower rates of post-release success than did the nonparticipants. However, residents who enrolled in prison classes had a disproportionately lower education than the residents who were not enrolled in prison education classes. More specifically, a higher percentage of residents who enrolled in prison classes had less than an eighth grade education. The Glaser (1964), Geis (1966), Meyer, Borgatta, and Jones (1965), and Civil Commitment for Narcotics Users (1967) studies provide further evidence that there is a tremendous need for some type of program or programs which can reduce recidivism among prisoners. There are few, if any, treatments for prisoners which significantly reduce the likelihood of them returning to prison because of additional crimes. 26 Training as a Mode of Treatment Training may be considered a special type of treatment (Carkhuff, 1971). Several researchers have used interpersonal skills training with a variety of groups of peOple needing or desiring changes in them- selves (Carkhuff & Bierman, 1970; Pierce & Drasgow, 1969; Vitalo, 1971; Carkhuff & Banks, 1970; Cabush, 1971). The effects of the training programs were compared to several more traditional treatment modalities. Treatment by training, therefore, was conceptualized as a learning process. The basic tenet underlying the use of training is that it is a more direct way to produce desired behavior change than traditional individual or group therapy, which because of their broad scope are viewed as a circuitous method of effecting specific changes. Parents of emotionally disturbed children were trained in interpersonal skills consisting of empathy (which was the most emphasized skill), respect, con- creteness, genuineness, confrontation, and immediacy. The study included 42 parents who were divided into five groups consisting of the following: (1) Ten parents who received 25 hours of skill training; (2) Eight parents in a group therapy with a high level facilitative functioning (as measured 27 by Carkhuff's scales of facilitative function- ing) therapist; (3) Eight parents in a group therapy with a moderate level facilitative functioning therapist; (4) Eight parents in a group therapy with a low level facilitative functioning therapist; and (5) Eight parents in a time control group. The results of the study were that the training group parents demonstrated significantly greater improvement than the other four groups in communication and discrimi- nation of the six skills. However, the training group parents did not manifest these interpersonal skills in a play situation with their children. Evidence from this study suggested that people should be trained specifically to do what is desired. In other words, if improved interpersonal skills with their children were the desired goal, the parents should have been trained in interpersonal skills with their own children rather than with other parents (Carkhuff 8 Bierman, 1970). Pierce and Drasgow (1969) and Vitalo (1971) trained psychiatric patients in interpersonal skills. Pierce and Drasgow trained seven male patients in empathy, genuineness, regard, and concreteness skills during 20 hours of communication skills training. The 28 four comparison groups consisted of a group of patients receiving drug therapy, patients receiving individual therapy, patients in group therapy, and patients getting no treatment. All of the patients were measured on their empathy, genuineness, regard, and concreteness skills before and after their respective treatments. The training group made significant changes on the four dimensions, the changes being significantly greater than those of the four other groups. It is unfortunate that systematic observations of ward behavior entailing interaction with others were not conducted. Twenty-nine hospitalized mental patients were assigned to a training group (TRG), group therapy control (GTC), and nonspecific treatment control (NTC). The TRG patients were trained to function at higher levels of empathy, positive regard, and genuineness. It was found that training produced significant improvement in their interpersonal functioning within 15 hours. The TRG patients showed significant improvement in ward sociali- zation, although interpersonal functioning improvement did not translate into immediate intrapersonal gains. The overall findings of the study can be symbolically represented as follows: (1) Ward behavior: TRG = GTC > NTC; (2) Decreased clinical pathology: GTC > TRG and TRG = NTC; 29 (3) Decreased anxiety level: GTC > TRG and GTC > NTC; (4) WOrk level: TRG = GTC = NTC (Citalo, 1971). An article by Carkhuff (1971) in which he discussed training as the preferred mode of treatment noted that a follow-up study on Vitalo's training group patients found that they left and stayed out of the mental hos- pital with greater frequency than the patients who were treated by group therapy. Training in interpersonal skills has been used as a treatment for increasing communication across gen- erations and racial boundaries. Twenty hours of training over three weeks on interpersonal skills labeled by Carkhuff as empathy, respect, concreteness, genuineness, confrontation, and immediacy were used to improve com- munication between 14 white teachers and 10 black parents. A white and black trainer were assigned to the groups in counter-balanced design. Initially training was conducted within the same racial groups and later they were mixed. Both groups did improve their skills significantly, but both remained slightly better within their own racial group. The race of the trainer was found to be much less important than the trainer's level of interpersonal functioning (Carkhuff & Banks, 1970). 30 Cabush (1971) hypothesized that counseling clients, following training in interpersonal skills, would be able to respond to their own problems with empathy, genuineness, regard, and concreteness sufficient to be categorized as at least minimally facilitative. Eleven counseling clients received communication skills training for six hours, the purpose being to learn how to respond to oneself in a facilitative manner. Eleven other counseling clients received six hours of traditional counseling. All 22 clients went through an intake inter- view prior to treatment. Three problem statements were taken from each client's intake interview. Following treatment, the clients were asked to respond to the three problem statements selected from their intake interview. The clients who had received interpersonal skills training responded to their own problems at level three (level one being the lowest and level five the highest, with level three considered minimally facilitative) on the empathy, genuineness, regard, and concreteness dimensions. The clients who received tra- ditional counseling responded to their own problems at level two. Research regarding training as a mode of treat- ment suggests that it may be an efficient and effective way of producing desired behavior changes. Convicted felons are a group of peOple who have been unable to 31 function apprOpriately in society. Since the core of human experience involves interpersonal relationships, it is logical to suspect that felons tend to have learned faulty interpersonal communication skills. £13 Norman Kagan and his associates (1967) developed a technique, Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR), to facilitate interpersonal communication. The IPR training model is a highly replicable program. Standardized films, instructor manuals, and illustrations have been developed. The technique consists of videotaping an interaction between people. Usually two people are engaged in the interaction, though it has been used with larger groups (Hartson, 1971). The videotape of the interaction is then viewed by one or more of the participants. It has been found that the videotape is a highly potent stimulus for causing the person or persons to recall or relive the original experience. The feelings and thoughts an indi- vidual had during the original interaction are brought back in vivid detail as the individual observes the videotape of the interaction. The words "Interpersonal Process Recall" are an accurate description of what occurs. The recall process, whether of one individual or both, the latter being titled mutual recall, is facilitated by a relatively neutral third person known as the inquirer. The inquirer encourages the participant 32 to allow the videotape to revive the original experiences during the interaction and to talk freely about the recalled feelings and thoughts. The inquirer does not attempt to foster a new complex relationship between herself or himself with the participant(s) but rather strives to keep attention focused on the "then and there" of the videotaped experiences. The inquirer asks questions designed to encourage participant probing of the recorded experience but does not offer his or her own reactions to the interaction. A second technique developed (Kagan & Krathwohl, et al., 1967; Danish & Kagan, 1969) and added to the IPR model to facilitate interpersonal communication skills focuses on participant analysis of simulated stressful components of interactions. Using a standard film con- sisting of emotionally laden vignettes, emotional reactions are elicited in the viewers. The observers of the Affect Simulation Films are encouraged to direct their attention to their own thoughts and feelings and to the thoughts and feelings of the person in each vignette. The vignettes consist of actors or actresses portraying such things as affection, hostility, sexuality, or guilt-inducing simulations (Kagan, 1973). The viewers may be further assisted to attend to their reactions to the vignettes by providing them with a videotape of themselves as they watched the vignettes, or by 33 providing them with physiological feedback about their bodily reactions as they observed the vignettes. Research done by Kagan and his associates using IPR and Affect Simulation techniques falls into numerous categories including both their use in training programs and their role in acceleration of client positive changes in counseling. These two mentioned areas of research which are reviewed below are those which pertain directly to the examination of the effectsof training prisoners in interpersonal communication skills. Training Programs Of the research done by Kagan and his associates, Grzegorek's (1971) study has the most direct bearing on the current study. He trained prison counselors using both IPR and Affect Simulation techniques. The emphasis of his study was the comparison of two similar training procedures, both incorporating IPR and Affect Simulation techniques upon the subsequent counseling behaviors of prison counselors. One of the training groups focused on a cognitive-intellectual approach emphasizing client dynamics and counseling techniques. The other group of trainees were also taught in an experiental-accepting manner but with emphasis upon counselor self-awareness as well as client dynamics. Measures included the Affective Sensitivity Scale and evaluations of audiotapes 34 of first counseling contacts with prisoner clients on the following five scales: Affect - Cognitive, Explora- tory - Nonexploratory, Specific - Nonspecific, Under- standing - Nonunderstanding (Kagan & Krathwohl, et al., 1967), and Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes (Truax, 1967). These measures of first interviews were taken pre- and post-treatment. Addi- tionally, some of the trainees submitted another coun- seling audiotape four weeks after the completion of training. Following 80 hours of training, the self— awareness training group scored significantly higher than the cognitive - intellectual group on the Empathic Under- standing, Exploratory, Specific, and Understanding measures. No significant differences were found between the two training groups on the Affect Sensitivity Scale or the Affect - Cognitive measure. Based on the com- parison of the four weeks after treatment audiotapes of first counseling sessions with the pre-measure and post- measures taken before and after training, there was an indication that no significant differences existed between groups over time and treatment. Since only six subjects submitted post-post tapes in each training group for the late measure taken four weeks after com- pletion of training, the results of no significant differences must be interpreted with caution. It is unfortunate that measures were not taken on the prisoners 35 whom the trained counselors saw in counseling. The impact of the two training programs on the clients of the counselors might have been the most meaningful measure of their effectiveness. The results of this study are similar to the Barbash (1963) study which found that affective involvement in a treatment program seems to positively effect treatment outcome. Danish and Brodsky (1970) attempted to sensitize policemen to their own feelings so they would be better able to control their aggressive feelings. Affect stimu- lus films, similar to those developed by Kagan, which consisted of actors portraying rejection of the viewer were shown to the policemen. Police were encouraged to focus upon their affective responses to the filmed vig- nettes. This controlled environment was designed to allow them an Opportunity to explore, and become desen- sitized, to hostility-provoking situations. The study did not include a systematic assessment of the results of the training program. Mary Heiserman (1971) compared an IPR training program with a cognitive-classroom teaching program for juvenile court caseworkers. Significant differences were not found on three of the four measures. However, the clients of the IPR trained caseworkers rated their per- ceptions of the counselor responses and counseling relationship higher on the Wisconsin Relationship 36 Orientation Scale than did the clients of the cognitive- classroom trained caseworkers. The three measures which were nondiscriminating for the two groups of caseworkers were the Counselor Verbal Response Scale (Kagan & Krath- worhl, et al., 1967), the Empathic Understanding Scale (Carkhuff, 1969), and evaluations of the caseworkers' written reports of usefulness in making case dispositions. As in Alfred Grzegorek's (1971) study, no measures were taken of the clients' behavior or the outcome of coun- seling. Training procedures including IPR and Affect Simulation techniques also have been used to train under- graduate college students to be paraprofessional helpers (Dendy, 1971: Scharf, 1971; Archer, 1971). Scharf and Dendy developed training programs for undergraduates, and Archer used the trained undergraduates to train their peers. The results from the Dendy and Archer research suggest that students can be taught to communicate effectively, specifically as "helpers,” and then in turn can train other undergraduates to develop these communication skills. The IPR training program, with additional emphasis upon affective and cognitive communication, was used to train counselor trainees who were M.A. and Ph.D. level students. Significant gains were obtained from pre- to post-training on the Affective Sensitivity Scale, 37 Affective and Specific sub-scales on the Counselor Verbal Response Scale, and the Empathic Understanding in Inter- personal Processes Scale. No significant differences were found on the Understanding and Exploratory dimensions of the Counselor Verbal Response Scale (Rowe, 1972). Spivack (1970) also measured the effect of an IPR train- ing program for counselor trainees who were M.A. students in a counseling course. He compared the IPR training program with a traditional classroom approach. Both training programs had four identical goals. Under role- played client conditions, the IPR group scored signifi- cantly higher than the traditional group on all dimensions of the Counselor Verbal Response Scale. No differences were found on the Emphathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes Scale or the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The research using IPR and Affect Simulation techniques with such groups as prison counselors (Grzegorek, 1971), policemen (Danish & Brodsky, 1970), undergraduate students (Dendy, 1971: Scharf, 1971; Archer, 1971), counselors-in-training (Spivack, 1970; Rowe, 1972), and juvenile court caseworkers (Heiserman, 1971) suggest that these techniques are viable methods for training peOple how to improve their interpersonal communication skills. The measures used to assess inter- personal communication skills included the Affective Sensitivity Scale, the Counselor Verbal Response Scale, and the Empathic Understanding Scale. 38 Acceleration of Client Growth Interpersonal Process Recall has been used to facilitate communication between psychotherapists and their clients. Case studies have been published which report clinical observations of the therapeutic process implementing IPR (Woody, 1965; Resnikoff, et al., 1970). The observations of the clients included their increased use of affect-laden statements, improved relationships with the therapists, increased ability to gain insight, and decreased use of defensive verbalizations. Addi- tionally, the overall therapeutic relationship was evaluated as having improved following use of IPR. Both the woody and Resnikoff studies were based, how— ever, only on single case studies. Schauble (1970) conducted a more systematic assessment of IPR and Affect Simulation to accelerate client movement in the initial stages of therapy. The experimental treatment was compared to traditional counseling. Measures of client movement were taken after six sessions. The experimental treatment model included videotape filming and recall of clients observing affect simulation vignettes, a counseling session followed by client recall with the continuation of the interview, and a counseling session followed by mutual recall with the continuation of the session. The first and sixth counseling sessions of the experimental clients 39 and the control group clients receiving traditional coun- seling were audio recorded. Judges rated these tapes, in a double blind fashion, on the dimensions of depth of self-exploration, commitment to change, differentiation of stimuli, and owning of feelings. The experimental subjects were rated significantly higher on these four measures than were the control subjects. Several weak- nesses in the design of this study detract from the generalizability of the findings. The total number of subjects, 12, was small, and also limited to females. The therapists for both the traditional and experimental treatments were the same two individuals, one of them being the experimenter himself. It is possible that the therapists were more enthusiastic or committed to the experimental treatment clients. It is unfortunate that more therapists and subjects were not included in the study. Van Noord (1973) attempted to replicate the Schauble study but did not find differences. Kingdon (1975) compared the supervision of Masters level counseling students using an IPR-based model and using a traditional supervisory model. No significant differences were found on measures regarding the counselors' empathy, client satisfaction, supervisor ratings, or clients' self-reported inhibition. However, the IPR supervised counselors had clients who engaged in greater self-exploration than clients of counselors 40 who were supervised in a traditional manner. Unfor- tunately, the clients and counselors were volunteer subjects, a factor which limits the generalizability of the study. Only three counseling sessions were super- vised in this study, another factor which is a limi- tation of this study. It is difficult to speculate what the results of this study would have been if the length of treatment (supervision) had been longer. Hartson and Kunce (1973) compared the effect of IPR on group work with T group procedures. The subjects in the two IPR groups had significantly higher change scores on measures of self-disclosure and readiness for groups. The members of the T groups had signifi- cantly higher satisfaction scores than the IPR groups. The clients in the IPR groups were rated as having the most effective communication. One IPR group and one T group were composed of university counseling clients, whereas the two other groups were composed of university YMCA members. It appeared that the higher self-esteem, socially active YMCA members were not affected dif- ferently by the IPR and T group methods. The university counseling clients with lower self-esteem and less social activity seemed to find IPR self-confrontation techniques beneficial. The direct confrontation of the T group appeared to have an adverse effect on the uni- versity counseling clients. Additional research 41 regarding the use of IPR with groups will help to answer questions regarding the types of groups for which IPR is particularly helpful. Summary The following three areas of literature were reviewed in this chapter: the literature regarding the effects of various treatment programs for prisoners; the literature regarding training as a mode of treatment; and the literature regarding IPR. The literature regarding treatment programs for prisoners is summarized in the following words: " . . . there is very little evidence in these studies that any prevailing mode of correctional treatment has a decisive effect in reducing the recidivism of convicted offenders" (Kassebaum, Ward, & Wilner, 1971). The dismal results of traditional treatment modalities with felons suggest that direct training in interpersonal skills might pro- duce more beneficial results than past treatments. Both the quality and quantity of systematic assessments of prison treatment outcome are grossly inadequate. Why is such research Sparse? It takes considerable money and staff time to conduct evaluations, but perhaps the more subtle reason for the inadequacy is that experimental results seldom have suggested that any treatment is more effective than no treatment whatsoever. Negative research findings tend to be repaid by legislative and budgetary 42 actions to reduce financial allocations to treatment efforts. At present, 95% of expenditures for cor- rections' efforts in the United States are for custody. Custody efforts include correctional facilities, guards, and general maintenance. Five percent are allocated to such activities as health services, education, counseling, and training programs (Atkins & Glick, 1972). Treatment personnel would be likely to engage in more evaluations if their efforts were then recompensed by budgetary additions. They scarcely are anxious to further reduce their already small share of the total corrections' financial apportionment. Both the literature regarding training as a mode of treatment and IPR had more positive outcomes than traditional methods of treatment. They both appeared to be effective techniques for helping people change in a beneficial direction. In this study the IPR training model was used with a population of peOple, prisoners, who have been shown to be a difficult group to help. The design and methodology of the study are discussed in the next chapter. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY In order to test the hypotheses stated in Chapter I, a Post-test-Only Control Group Design was used. Accord— ing to Campbell and Stanley (1963), it is one of three true experimental designs. The design permitted compar- ison of the IPR/Affect Simulation treatment groups and the no treatment control groups. Pre-measures were not used because randomization is the most adequate assurance of lack of initial differences between groups (Campbell 5 Stanley, 1963). A schematic representation of the design is presented in Figure 1. Because an experimental unit is the smallest group of experimental material that operates indepen- dently of another group, it was necessary to regard each of the 12 groups of residents as the experimental units and the units of analysis. In other words, inter- action occurred within the six treatment groups so the mean score of each of the groups' performances on the various measures were used in the data analysis rather than the individual performances on the measures. 43 44 R x c’1,2 T 03,4,5,6,7 R 01.2 T 03,4,5,6,7 Code: R = Random Assignment X = IPR 01 = Mean Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination score for the group 02 = Mean Bipolar Personality Inventory score for the group T = Time period of two months following arrival at a correctional facility 03 = Mean Correctional Personnel Questionnaire score for the group 04 = Mean number of residents in the group who received tickets 05 = Mean number of tickets received by the groups 06 = Mean number of residents in the groups who received days in segregation 07 = Mean number of days in segregation received by the group Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the experi- mental design. 45 Groups rather than individuals were the smallest units which were independent of each other. The independent variable in the study was the IPR-based treatment. The seven dependent variables -inc1uded two which were measures taken immediately after the IPR training. These measures were the mean Bipolar Psychological Inventory score for the group and the mean Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination score for the group (Carkhuff, 1969). The other five measures were taken two months after a resident arrived at the cor- rectional facility to which he was assigned. These measures were the mean Correctional Personnel Question- naire score for the group, the mean number of residents in the group who received tickets, the mean number of tickets received by the group, the mean number of resi- dents in the group who received days in segregation, and the mean number of days in segregation received by the group. Description of the Experimental Procedures The experimental procedures involved comparing the treatment group which received 40 hours of communi- cation skills training using IPR and Affect Simulation techniques with the no treatment control group which received no training whatsoever. The no treatment control group permitted comparison of the effects of 46 communication skills training with the effect of the usual treatment and activities in which prisoners par- ticipate as they are processed through the Recaption and Guidance Center. It should be noted that at the outset of the research there was a second type of control group which had to be eliminated after two such control groups were trained. These two control groups received 40 hours of videotaped lectures and discussions about psychology, sociology and criminal justice. The intended purpose of these control groups was to control for the effects of interacting in small groups, with other residents receiving extra staff attention, and the Hawthorne effect. However, after two of these control groups were completed, the Director of Michigan Corrections and two Assistant Deputies requested that these videotape lecture treatments cease because the value prisoners would gain from these groups was questionable. The measures taken on the two videotape lecture control groups are presented and discussed in Chapter V. Since there were only two such groups, it was not appropriate to include them in the statistical analyses. The individual group sizes varied from six to 15. The group size was variable for several reasons. At the outset of the experiment, ten residents were assigned to the groups. However, after the two videotaped lecture 47 control groups, one treatment group, and two no treatment control groups were run, it was decided to increase the initial size of the groups from 10 to 15 residents. This increase was necessary to make mean scores of the groups more stable. Furthermore, the attrition rate of the treatment group was larger than expected. Attrition refers to residents who could not or would not participate in a group as well as residents who actually dropped out of treatment once it had begun. The group size of 15 appeared large enough to maintain means score stability even with attrition. After either 10 or 15 residents were identified to be part of the research, residents were eliminated from the groups if they were either unwilling to be tested, or in the case of the treatment subjects if they were unwilling or unable to participate in the treatment. Residents who were unable to participate in the treatment were either ill, participating in Reception and Guidance Center testing or interviews during the time of the treatment, or moved from the Reception and Guidance Center to another correctional facility before the treatment was complete. The size of the groups is presented later in this chapter in Table l. The group sizes were large enough for varied points of view in discussions, but not so large as to be unwieldly or to detract from the oppor- tunity for individuals to Speak during discussions. 48 There were two trainers for the IPR treatment. The 40 hours of training were spread over 10 weekdays with 4 hours per day per group. With two trainers, six groups, and two weeks of training per group, the total number of weeks spent in training was 12. (One of the communication skills trainers also facilitated dis- cussion for one of the videotaped lecture control groups. A third person facilitated discussion for the second videotaped lecture group. The specific experimental procedures used with each of the two groups are described below. IPR Training. The 40 hours of IPR training, divided into 10 weekdays, entailed specific activities. The program of activities for each day is described below. 23y_$, The first day's activities included self— introduction of the trainer and residents, a description of the purpose of the communication training program by the trainer, and answers to the questions residents had about the program. The trainer provided a verbal overview of the entire program along with a written schedule of activities for the 10 days. The film of Unit I, "Elements of Therapeutic Communication," was shown to the residents. The content focused upon the factors defined on the Counselor Verbal Response Scale 49 which constitute effective communication. Specifically, affective and cognitive, exploratory and nonexploratory, listening and nonlistening, and honest labeling and dis- torting modes of communication were presented with numerous examples portrayed of each mode. The residents practiced responding to standardized stimuli using the eight modes of communication. 23y_g. The second day's activities included viewing a series of affect simulations. The purpose of Unit II, "Interpersonal Simulation," was to provide addi- tional training in the labeling of feelings and factors which tend to militate against one's effectiveness in human interactions. Reluctance to engage in intimate interpersonal relationships, fears of-rejection, and fear of expressing strong emotions are examples of such factors which interfere in human interactions. Vignettes of actors and actresses portraying strong emotions were shown to the residents with instructions to carefully attend to their own emotional reactions to the vignettes. The residents were encouraged to ignore their immediate environment and focus solely upon the people in the vignettes. The trainer suggested that the residents imagine being alone with the actor or actress in each vignette, so that it seemed that the person was speaking directly to them. The residents were encouraged to 50 develop a setting in which the interaction between them- selves and the actor or actress might likely occur. The residents were encouraged to allow the actor or actress to have an impact on them and therefore allow their emotions to develoP. After viewing each of the vignettes, the resi- dents were asked to talk about their reactions. Some possible questions for the residents regarding the view- ing of the vignettes were the following? What did you feel? What were your bodily reactions? When have you felt that way before? What were you thinking? What would you do? What would you want to do? How was the person feeling about you? What did you do to make him or her feel that way? What will he or she do? Days 3 and 4. "Interviewer Self Study," Unit III, was scheduled for the third and fourth days of training. The instructional training materials for this unit were divided into three parts which were as follows: film presentation, problem presentations, and stimulated recall. Dr. Kagan, via 16mm film,* presented the intro- duction for the unit. He explained that the residents were ready to observe and study themselves in action * Most of the IPR model is "standardized" via a filmed series of instructions and instruction manuals. 51 while participating in an interview. The interview would be videotaped and played back for scrutiny. During the remainder of the training, pairs of residents were used, one person serving as a helper and the second person serving as a problem presenter. The peOple in the pairs rotated roles so they had an opportunity to engage in all functions. The function of the problem presenter was to present a real personal concern to the helper. The residents were told to present problems of such intensity as to be meaningful and real, but not of such intensity that they could not be dealt with and left after the short five-minute interaction. The trainer provided some possible concerns including such things as their feelings and thoughts about loved ones, raising their own children, being in prison, how they were raised, school, drug addiction, and training programs in the prison. The helper attempted to use the communication skills that were a part of the instructional training package. Each of the trainers served as the inquirer for the helper in each dyadic interaction. In other words, he facilitated the process of Interpersonal Process Recall. The recall sessions were 15 minutes in length. While the helper observed the videotape playback of the original dyadic interaction, the helper was encouraged 52 to stop the videotape whenever he remembered thoughts, feelings, fantasies, impressions, hunches, or anything which he had experienced during the original encounter. The inquirer did not attempt to establish a relationship with the helper, but rather maintained a neutral stance in facilitating the helper's recall. The inquirer did not ask leading questions or provide any of his own impressions. The focus of the recall session was upon the helper's memories of the original interaction as stimulated by the videotape and not upon the current, here and now interaction with the inquirer. The recall of the helper emphasized such things as the helper's thought processes during the interview, what he was trying to elicit from the problem presenter, questions he thought about asking but chose not to ask, and hunches he had about the problem presenter. Additionally, the inquiry of the helper was directed occasionally toward such things as why certain alternatives were not chosen. For example, were questions or comments the helper decided not to make more risky or anxiety-producing than the questions he chose to ask? At the end of the recall with a helper, the inquirer usually asked the helper how he would conduct the interview if he had it to do over again. (Specific standardized instructions are taught to inquirers in one of the IPR instructional film.units.) 53 After all trainees had served in the capacity of both the problem presenter and the helper, additional videotaped instructional materials were shown to the full group. The videotape included two actual dyadic interactions with a helper and problem presenter followed by recall processes for the helpers facilitated by an inquirer. Group discussion of the instructional materials was encouraged and conducted by the trainer. Following the videotaped presentation of the two dyadic interactions, one with a graduate student serving as the helper and one with an experienced psychiatrist serving as the helper, a second set of dyadic inter- actions with Interpersonal Process Recall of the helpers was conducted. Pairs were used again, most often dif— ferent pairs so that the residents had an opportunity to interact with everyone in the large group. ng_§, On the fifth day of training, the resi— dents again worked in pairs, one serving as a helper and the other as a problem presenter. The time sequence and instructions for the dyadic interactions were the same as they were on the third and fourth days of train- ing. The trainer served as an inquirer for the problem presenter. The inquirer when conducting a recall with the problem presenter emphasized such things as what the problem presenter thought the helper felt or thought about him and what the problem presenter wanted the 54 helper to feel or think. In other words, the inquiry of the problem presenter involved asking the usual recall questions about the original interaction, but the emphasis was upon how the helper perceived and wished the relation- ship with the helper to be. The recall process took place between the inquirer and the helper. No one else observed this process. Days 6, 7, 8, 9. In the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth days of training, mutual recalls were conducted by the trainer with pairs of residents. It should be noted that the trainer was not present during the original five-minute interaction. Thus, as he watched the video- taped playback with the helper during the recall session, it was fresh for him. In other words, the trainer, inquirer, was less likely to have preconceived ideas about things that should be discussed during the recall session. As in the preceding days, the pairs of resi- dents exchanged roles as problem presenters and helpers. Mutual recall involved using the videotape play- back to both the helper and problem presenter to stimu- late their understanding of each other. By having both peOple recall what was going on covertly at the time of the interaction, increased awareness of the thoughts and feelings each had was facilitated. They discovered just how much was going on inside the other person that was not at all apparent during the interaction. This 55 was an opportunity for residents to relate with other residents in an intense interpersonal manner. The inquirer tried to avoid allowing the problem presenter and helper to get into a new, present relationship. Instead, the inquirer directed the attention of the two peOple to what had taken place during the original interview. The inquirer also sought to keep both people involved in reliving the experience rather than just one person. Day 10. The trainer conducted a concluding dis- cussion with the residents about the skills they had learned and practiced during the training program. He answered questions they had and discussed such things as the usefulness of the communication skills, potential ways they could implement the skills, the rationale underlying the training program, and the limits of their skills. Limitations of their skills were pre- sented in order to keep things in perspective. For example, they discussed how, while they now had improved communication skills, they could not expect to solve all their own problems or those of friends and family members. They were cautioned not to consider themselves expert helpers because of the likelihood that some problems they encountered would require such things as medical assistance or complex psychological help, neither of which they were trained to provide. 56 The emphasis of the final discussion, however, was upon how they effectively could use their communi- cation skills during, as well as after their terms of incarceration. Examples of specific situations which were discussed included the value of being able to effectively communicate with other residents, with guards and prison officials, and with family and friends. The important role of affect in communication was reiterated. Although inquirer training is typically part of the IPR training model, it was deleted from the training program for prisoners. While it would have been desirable to have included this, insufficient time necessitated its omission. The experience of being a helper and helpee was considered to be the most essential part of the program. Training in the inquirer role is a very difficult and complex process for which there was insufficient time. To adequately train the residents in the role of the inquirer, the treatment hours would have to had been expanded. With the speed of residents being processed through the Reception and Guidance Center, the training time could not be expanded. The final activities of the training programs were the administration of the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and the Bipolar Psychological Inventory. 57 Videotapgd Lectures Videotaped lectures regarding psychology, socio- logy, and criminal justice were shown to two groups of residents, one group composed of nine people and one group composed of 10 pe0p1e. On each day of training four videotaped lectures were played. The videotapes varied in duration from 40 to 55 minutes. Following each videotape, the trainer answered questions the resi- dents had and conducted a brief discussion with them regarding the content of the lecture. Days 1 - 9. On each of the first through ninth days of training, four videotaped lectures were shown. Each lecture was followed by discussion and questions. The lectures were made for prison employees by prison officials, faculty members of local colleges and uni- versities, and people employed by the judicial system. It should be noted that a weekend interceded between day five and day six of the training. Day 10. On the final day of training the trainer discussed with the residents ways in which they could implement the knowledge they had acquired during the nine days of observing videotaped lectures. The utility and limits of the knowledge in psychology, sociology, and criminal justice were discussed. They considered ways in which the information could be used both during 58 and after their incarceration. Finally, the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and the Bipolar Psy- chological Inventory were administered. No Treatment The third category of residents, composed of six groups of residents, received no treatment or prison staff attention beyond what typically is done for all residents as they are processed through RGC. The six groups served as no treatment comparison groups for the six groups who received a highly developed training program in communication skills, sociology, and criminal justice. Setting The residents were trained in facilities of the Reception and Guidance Center at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. The videotaped lecture control groups met in a large office in RGC for observation and discussion of the videotaped lectures. The communi- cation skills training groups met in a large room in RGC. The rooms were equipped with 10 chairs and video- tape playback equipment including a video monitor. Additionally, it was equipped with a videotape tele- vision camera, an unconcealed microphone, a movie screen, and a 16mm projector. 59 Following processing through RGC, residents are sent to various correctional facilities in Michigan. Thus, the five measures which were taken two months after the completion of treatment were taken in cor- rectional facilities throughout the state of Michigan. Sample Residents The residents participating in this study were convicted male felons in the state of Michigan who were at the Reception and Guidance Center of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. All male convicted felons in Michigan are sent to RGC for psychological, medical, educational, and vocational testing and interviews. When the interviews and testing are completed, the residents are classified. Classification entails the determination of to which state correctional facility the resident will be sent. Subsequent to classification, all first-time offenders serving five years or less for a minimum sentence are evaluated for participation in Parole Contracts. If accepted for a Parole Contract, the resident meets with the Parole Board and signs a formalized contract regarding what he will do during incarceration. The amount of time a resident spends in RGC may vary from several days to several months. 60 The residents participating in this study were randomly selected from the pool of residents in RGC and randomly assigned to either treatment or control con- ditions. At the outset of the experiment, as noted previously in this chapter, 10 residents were assigned to each group. However, after two videotaped lecture control groups, one treatment group, and two no treatment control groups were run, it was decided to increase the initial size of the groups from 10 to 15 residents because of the attrition rate. It was important that group size be large enough so that one individual's extreme score not unduly affect the mean score of the group. After either 10 or 15 residents were identified to be part of the research, residents were eliminated from the groups if they were either unwilling to be tested, or in the case of the treatment subjects if they were unwilling or unable to participate in the treatment. Residents who were unable to participate in the treatment were either ill, participating in RGC testing, had interviews during the time of the treatment, were being housed in segregation, were out to court or on appeal bond, or moved from RGC to another correctional facility before the treatment was complete. More specifically, a total of 20 residents were randomly selected to participate in the two videotaped lecture control groups. In one of the two groups, all 61 10 residents completed the control conditions, whereas in the other group, one resident refused to participate because he had a job as a barber in the prison during the time of the training. Eighty residents were randomly selected for the six no treatment control groups. Six of the 80 residents did not participate for the reasons which follow. Twenty residents were assigned to the first two no treatment control groups and one of these residents refused to participate. Of the 15 residents assigned to the third no treatment control group, two residents were not in RGC because they were involved 'in court proceedings. In the fourth no treatment control group, one of the 15 residents was unavailable because he was in segregation for disciplinary reasons. In the fifth no treatment control group, two of the 15 residents refused to participate. A11 15 residents participated in the final no treatment control group. Eighty-five residents were randomly selected to participate in the treatment groups. In the first group of 10 residents, only 6 actually completed the treatment. One resident was in the psychiatric unit of the prison, another was out of RGC on appeal bond, one left after seven days of treatment for court proceedings and one resident refused to continue in the treatment after three days of participation. Three of the 15 residents assigned to the second treatment group refused to participate, 62 one of these because his prison job schedule interfered with the treatment schedule. In the third treatment group, three residents refused to participate and one was in segregation for disciplinary reasons. Three residents refused to participate in the fourth treatment group. In the fifth treatment group three residents refused to participate, one was out of RGC on appeal bond and one was in segregation for disciplinary reasons. In the sixth treatment group, only one resident refused to participate. The number of residents who participated and dropped out of each treatment category is presented in Table 1. Because these residents were randomly selected from the population of convicted male Michigan felons being processed through the Reception and Guidance Center, descriptive data of this population is provided. Within the population of Michigan male felons, over 50% of the commitments are under the age of 25 years, 20% being under the age of 20 years. Sixty-two percent of the male commitments have an intelligence quotient of 90 or above as measured on the Army General Classifi- cation Test. Approximately 1 1/2% of commitments have attained a twelfth grade level in school grade ratings as measured on the Wide Range Achievement Test or the Stanford Achievement Test. Seventeen percent are at or below fourth grade level. Over 32% have a history of (53 0 ca a N Houusou H H m m a munuuoa emmauooes> H a va N m N m H m oa N m m m NH N v m H v .NH H n N H m NH a N N H H a v m H H usesuuous 0 ma 0 o N ma 0 m a H va a v N N ma o m H H m o N Nouusou 0 OH 0 H ucofiusoua oz nonwowoo uses mumsHHH ”MM“ 0 uwwsawms oousmem scausmoumom loam leafless a a a as m unsou non masonoouo swam Hosanna sowussmauoo anomouso no nonfisz . . . unannoua now seasom unease we seem a «Hams 64 referral, examination, or diagnosis for emotional or mental disorders. Finally, 60% have unstable work records (Criminal Statistics, 1970). Means and ranges of the following characteristics of the subjects in this study are presented in Table 2: (1) age, (2) race, (3) IQ as measured on the Revised Beta Examination, (4) average grade rating as measured on the Stanford Achievement Test or Wide Range Achieve- ment Test, (5) current reason for incarceration, (6) cur- rent prison sentence, (7) institution to which currently assigned, (8) previous jail terms, (9) previous prison terms, (10) juvenile commitments, and (11) previous probation. Trainers The two IPR trainers were each randomly assigned to three treatment groups. The first trainer was a psychologist at RGC, a job which entailed conducting diagnostic assessment interviews with incoming Michigan felons and leading several group psychotherapy programs for residents. He was an advanced counseling doctoral student. He had received training in communication skills from Norman Kagan, the Drug Education Center of East Lansing, Michigan and in doctoral coursework at Michigan State University. The second trainer, also a counseling doctoral student, was not a prison employee. 65 m.NN|h.H o.NHum.N m.NHIH o.NH:H m.NNIA omssm vm.h mo.h No.5 no.5 NH.N sum: magnum oosuo omsuo>¢ mNHImN HNNIvv ONHION HNHIvv mNHIvv cocoa vm.wm n.vm mm.mm mm.vm vv.mm cam: OH o v m m a commxmsz o v 0H va va .Euomom .noaz n ma ma Nm mm pas: msfisflmua .nowz o Na NH mN Hm Eduuoum dado o m m Ha Ha oxen Nesamao m N H m o auuosousz H o 5 NH «a savanna coaxosn m wa NH mm on ouoHU scuxosh usossmwmu< confine o o o o 0 sense 0 o o o o ssNosH N a o N n access: a mN on so on snack o mm on as an xusam Guam avnma ovuma mmnoa mmaoa mmnoa omsdm AN.NN mm.mN Nm.mN mo.mN om.mN ass: em< A Auaouusou Amaouusoo Nouusou Houusoo unsaved ousuooq ousuooq oomuuooofi> usosusoua usmsusmus oz mmmuooow> Nouoa mmsuomow> Noyce msfiosaoxov mswosaocwv mansfius> moose uuoonnsm no sowumwuommo N canoe 66 soHou- osa>aooou “oNNQQEOuss as as accused «unwoawsn s sw unsound ausuuouso ass oswxsoum .co-uom s Eouu unsound «Shannon possess «huonnou oosus “unsecu4 ”so-Mum unswsmd v .souosooeosa nacho «noduuonaa usoooora lemon 0» panacea «omen Shannan». .omsm ”some "huuomoum unswso< .so-us “huuomoum a .006 enemas: no soauoaoa> Aida ousu uaoouo no scausaoa> «comes: omasoosou s mswhuuso «oHNnOEOuss as haze usw>auv asu3sass .usmsaouuonsu “knocked ocean “ousouuum endow «uxuono can "Odom Nuaooms NIo mIo nIo mIo mIo cased mo.H NN.H as. «N. No. ass: sewusaoum uasu4 vIo vIo NIo vIo vIo cased on. oN. mm. ov. vv. use: scausnoum sauso>sn vIo «Io vIo vIo vIo omssm Nv. mm. or. pm. on. sue: eases Iussaou causo>so vuo vno .Io cue vIo omens no. vN. on. «N. vn. use: such seesaw nsoa>oum oIo oIo ONIo ONIo ONIo oossm Nn.H Nv.N N aN.N 0N.N s10: sues Nash nsoa>oum o m N o m seasoned-six H v n h m N a a nevus! N HN NN vv wv vsonuom unsqsm< N N m h a son a o 0 NH MN - sue a NN mN on on nhuuodoum unsasma v o N ma NH sodas aseoom osauo no Oman .nu» on I .uu> N .sua mv I .IHN N .sua mN I .mu» mv I .nos a .uuh mv I .nos a sauna ow.o mN.a no.9 no.o Nv.o sue: oosousom aaasxu: no nausea .aua AN I .su» N\N N .nu> mv I .ux H .nu» ON I .IOE o .nuh mv I .uoa a .nu% mv I .-08 a Gouda Na.n ow.n vn.n mv.n mv.n ado: oosousom finesse: «0 sumsoa Asaouusou Asaouusou Nouusou/ «ouusoo ousuooq unsound ooosuoova> usssusoua usosusoua oz omsuoeow> smsuoooa> usuvsaoxov usavsaosav sanswus> macho voansucounuu manna 67 He also had received communication skills training from Norman Kagan and in doctoral coursework at Michigan State University. Each had experience using the IPR filmed material. He had been an IPR instructor for undergraduate MSU students for the year preceding this research project. The first IPR trainer facilitated the discussions for one of the two videotaped lecture control groups. He and another videotaped lecturer trainer were randomly assigned to the groups. This other trainer was a Vocational Counselor in RGC, a job which entailed assisting residents in the formulation of vocational plans by means of interviews, a computer matching pro- gram and interpretation of vocational tests. He has a B.A. in psychology and received communication skills training using IPR and Affect Simulation from Norman Kagan. He had no previous experience as a communication skills trainer. Raters Correctional officers and counselors who worked on the unit or block where one of the 158 resident subjects were incarcerated evaluated the resident's behavior on a questionnaire. One or more correctional officers are pre- sent on each unit at all times to insure adequate super- vision of residents. Their function is primarily custodial rather than treatment oriented. Each unit also has one 68 or more counselors assigned to it. Their job entails counseling around such issues as prison work assignments, academic and vocational training, prison adjustment, parole plans, rehabilitation efforts and personal con- cerns . Instrumentation Seven measures were used in the study. Four of these measures were strictly numerical values obtained from the prison records. These four measures, which were taken two months after the resident arrived at the institution to which he was assigned, were the following: (1) The mean number of residents in the group who received tickets, (2) The mean number of tickets received by the group, (3) The mean number of residents in the group who received days in segregation, and (4) The mean number of days in segregation received by the group. Thus, data concerning the number of tickets and the number of days in segregation for each resident were collected. Segregation and tickets were described in Chapter I in "Definition of Terms." A fifth measure, the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire, also was 69 collected two months after a resident had been at the assigned institution. The other two measures, the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and the Bipolar Psychological Inventory, were taken immediately after each training block on the last day of training. These two measures and the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire are described in greater detail below. Hipolar Psychological Inventogy A measure of psychOpathology was desired to ascertain if the IPR model would have a measurable effect on personality characteristics. The Bipolar Psychology Inventory was used for two reasons. First, several scales seemed to be particularly relevant to the research, for example, social withdraw--gregariousness, hostility-kindness, and insensitivity--empathy. Second, the instrument has normative data for incarcerated felons. The Bipolar Psychological Inventory (Howell, Payne, & Roe, 1971) purports to measure personality functioning. The test is designed for self-adminis- tration. It has 300 true-false items. The time for taking the test varies from approximately 30 to 120 minutes for this population. The 15 scales of the test are as follows: invalid-valid, lie—honest, defensive- open, psychic pain-psychic comfort, depression-optimism, self-degradation-self-esteem, dependence-self-sufficiency, 70 unmotivated-achieving, social withdrawal-gregariousness, family discord-family harmony, sexual immaturity-sexual maturity, social deviancy-social conformity, impulsive- ness-self-control, hostility-kindness, and insensitivity- empathy. A description of these scales is provided in Appendix B. Two sets of profiles exist for the Bipolar Psy- chological Inventory. One profile is for prison males, and therefore was used in this study. The norms for this profile were constructed from the responses of 431 Utah State Prison inmates. The other profile is for college men and women, based upon the responses of 712 students from three universities. The test items were constructed around 13 bipolar dimensions which were chosen by the authors of the test. Three hundred items were selected from the pool of 700 items according to several criteria. The criteria included such things as a minimum significance of .05 on item-dimension validity, appropriate length, content validity, clarity, and equal distribution of affective and behavioral items. Thus, face and content validity was assured by careful procedures in construction of the test. Construct, predictive, and concurrent validity data are being collected at the present time. Such data have not yet been published. The test - retest 71 reliability coefficients for the scales are presented in Table 3 (Howell, Payne, & Roe, 1972). Table 3 Bipolar Psychological Inventory Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients Lie-Honest .83 Social Withdrawal-Gregar- Defensive-Open .82 iousness Psychic Pain-Psychic Family Discord-Family Comfort .90 Harmony Depression-Optimism .85 Sexual Immaturity-Sexual Self-Degradation-Self- Maturity Esteem .79 Social Deviancy-Social Dependence-Self-Suf- Conformity ficiency .81 Impulsiveness-Self- Unmotivated-Achieving .67 Control Hostility-Kindness Insensitivity-Empathy .90 .85 .86 .81 garkhuff Index of Empathy DchrImInation It seemed apprOpriate to test whether or not the residents had acquired the skills taught during the IPR training. Rather than using the Affect Sensitivity Scale, the test specifically designed to measure IPR skills, the researcher used the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination. Because the Carkhuff Index is not IPR linked, it was considered to be a more critical, less biased measure of the residents' skills. Two other factors eliminated the possibility of using the Affect Sensitivity Scale. The researcher had access to neither the videotape equipment nor the high quality videotape 72 necessary for administering it. The quality of the videotape copy of the original Affect Sensitivity Scale was sufficiently poor to render it difficult to admin- ister. The Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination is composed of 16 written excerpts of what someone seeking help might say. Four possible helper responses follow each excerpt. The person responding to the instrument is asked to evaluate each of the helper responses on a 1.0 to 5.0 continuum according to the following directions: The facilitator (helper) is a person who is living effectively himself and who discloses himself in a genuine and constructive fashion in response to others. He communicates an accurate empathic understanding and a respect for all of the feelings of other persons and guides discussions with those persons into specific feelings and experiences. He communicates confidence in what he is doing and is spontaneous and intense. In addition, while he is open and flexible in his relations with others, in his commitment to the welfare of the other person, he is quite capable of active, assertive, and even confronting behavior when it is appropriate. . . . Rate each helper response 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 using the following continuum. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 None of Some of the All of the All of the All of the these con- conditions conditions conditions conditions ditions are are com- are com- are com- are fully communi- municated municated municated communi- cated to and some at a mini— and some cated any notice- are not mally are com- simul- able degree facilita- municated taneously in the tive level fully and con- person tinually 73 The residents' responses to this index were scored using a key developed by "expert" helpers according to Carkhuff. The score was a sum of the resident's deviations from the key. For example, if a resident rated a helper response as a 3.0 when according to the key it was a 1.5, the resident's deviation was 1.5. The deviations on the 64 ratings of responses were summed and divided by the number of residents in the group. Reliability data on this instrument are not available. However, one study assessed its concurrent validity. Does the instrument measure what it purports to measure? People having varying amounts of training in helping skills responded to the instrument. Their deviations from the scoring key were averaged. The results of this as presented in Table 4 suggest that the instrument indeed does measure helping skills. Correctional Personnel QuestionnaIre A measure of the residents' behavior and attitude was desired. Because there was no rating instrument in existence which could be used for such measurement, the researcher designed such a rating scale. The Correctional Personnel Questionnaire was designed for the use of correctional officers and counselors since they have more interactions with residents than other members of the prison staff. 74 Table 4 Discrimination: Deviations in Levels of Counselor Responses to Helpee Stimulus Expressions Level of Discrimi- nation (Absolute deviations of Populations N . (Levels) (No. of hilper ratitgs Subjects) rom expe 3 Standard Mean Deviation 1. General Population Outpatients 10 1.5 0.3 Parents 20 1.4 0.4 2. Undergraduates Freshman 330 1.1 0.3 Upperclass philosophy 30 1.1 0.3 Student leaders 30 1.3 0.4 Volunteer helpers 30 1.2 0.3 Senior psychology 30 1.1 0.2 3. Lay personnel Lay teachers 50 1.2 0.3 Lay counselors 50 1.2 0.4 4. Professionals Teachers 10 1.0 0.3 Beginning psychology 10 0.8 0.2 graduate students Experienced counselors 20 0.6 0.2 (not systematically trained) Experienced counselors 10 0.4 0.1 (systematically trained) From: Carkhuff, 1969 75 Correctional officers and counselors at the various correctional facilities where subject residents were sent upon completion of processing through RGC were asked to evaluate the residents. They did not know whether or not residents had received special training. Rather, they simply were told that the Department of Corrections was interested in evaluating different things that took place for various residents as they were processed through RGC. The questionnaire was designed by the author of this study. It consisted of 14 bipolar items describing behaviors demonstrated by the resident. The behaviors addressed on the questionnaire focused upon following rules and regulations of the correctional facility and upon their communication skills. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix C. Items were on a seven-point Likert-type semantic differential continuum. For most prisoners, three questionnaires were returned, one from a counselor and two from correctional officers. In some instances, only two questionnaires were returned. The score which was tallied was the average rating received on items by the two or three correctional personnel who rated the resident. With regard to reliability of the instrument, the test-retest reliability was considered to be crucial. More specifically, did the rating a counselor or cor- rectional officer give a resident depend upon chance 76 factors such as the particular time at which it was com- pleted, or did it accurately reflect how the counselor or correctional officer perceived the resident regardless of chance factors? In other words, did the instrument measure the same things from one time to the next? In order to assess this quality of the instrument, 1? correctional officers and counselors in the Reception and Guidance Center were asked to complete the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire on two or three of 30 residents employed in RGC. Four weeks later they were asked to complete the questionnaire again on the same two or three residents. When completed, 60 pairs of questionnaires were analyzed using a Pearson Product Moment Correlation. This cor- relation, the test-retest reliability was .79. This test-retest reliability was thus adequate. Neither split-half nor interrater reliability measures were considered to be particularly meaningful with regard to this instrument. Since only 14 items were on the instrument splitting it into two, seven item parts, would not be meaningful. A low number of items suggests that variance would be decreased and a low variance tends to result in a lower reliability. The instrument measured some interpersonal variables for example, such things as how the resident expressed feeling and communicated with the rater depended upon the rater and the resident. In other words, some items 77 on the questionnaire were not independent of the rater. Consequently, it seemed inappropriate and meaningless to measure if different raters rated the same resident the same way. Rather, it was considered more important if one person felt the same way about a resident over time as measured by the test-retest reliability. No validation data have been collected on this instrument. However, the face validity seemed acceptable in the sense that items were thought to be clear, under- standable, and addressed toward relevant behaviors by other prison employees who were asked to review the instrument and make comments and suggestions. Hypgtheses Seven hypotheses were tested in this study. These hypotheses were tested on a sample of incarcerated Michigan felons. They are as follows: H1: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model had significantly lower mean scores on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination than groups of residents who received no special training. Ha. Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model had significantly lower mean scores on the Bipolar Psychological Inventory than groups of residents who received no special training. 78 5; Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model had significantly lower mean scores on the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire than groups of residents who received no special training. “.43 Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model received a significantly smaller mean number of tickets than groups of residents who received no Special training. H2: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model had a significantly lower mean number of residents who received tickets than groups of residents who received no special training. HE: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model had a significantly lower mean number of days in segregation than groups of residents who received no Special training. HZ: Groups of residents who received 40 hours of com- munication training by means of an IPR-based model had a Significantly lower mean number of residents who received days in segregation than groups of residents who received no special training. Analysis of the Data The three measures which were analyzed using one-tailed t tests were the Carkhuff Index of Empathy 79 Discrimination, the Bipolar Psychological Inventory, and the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire. The six communication training groups were compared with the Six no treatment control groups. There was no reason to suspect that these measures were dependent upon each other so t tests were used. The alpha level was set at .05 as is customary in social science research. The other four measures were dependent upon each other so they were analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance. These four measures were the mean number of residents in the group who received tickets, the mean number of tickets received by the group, the mean number of residents in the group who received days in segregation, and the mean number of days in segregation received by a group. The groups, rather than individuals, were the units of analysis because individuals interacted within their group, though groups did not interact. Thus, statistically, the unit of analysis was the smallest unit which was independent of other units. Summary One hundred and eighty-five male incarcerated felons were randomly selected from felons being processed through the Reception and Guidance Center at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. The 185 felons were 80 randomly assigned to one of three treatment levels. Of the 185 residents, the following numbers refused to par- ticipate or were unavailable: 20 residents from the IPR treatment groups, 6 residents from the no treatment con- trol groups, and l resident from the videotaped lecture control groups. One treatment consisted of 40 hours of communication training using an Interpersonal Process Recall based model. The second level of treatment con- sisted of 40 hours of observation and brief discussion on videotaped lectures regarding psychology, sociology, and criminal justice. Because of unexpected difficulties conducting the videotaped lecture groups, only two of the intended six groups were conducted. Consequently, they were deleted from the statistical analysis. Their results will be discussed in Chapter V. The third treatment consisted of no treatment beyond what all residents receive as they are processed through RGC. A Posttest-Only Control Group Design was used. The data analysis consisted of t tests and multivariate analyses of variance for group differences on seven measures. The measures included the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination, the Bipolar Psychological Inventory, the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire, the mean number of residents in the group who received tickets, the mean number of tickets received by the 81 group, the mean number of residents in the group who received days in segregation, and the mean number of days in segregation received by the group. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Statistically significant differences were found between the treatment and no treatment groups in the analysis of the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire and the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination. No sig- nificant differences were found between the groups on the other five measures. The mean scores of the seven measures for the communication treatment groups, no treatment control groups, and videotaped lecture control groups are presented in Table 5. The alpha level for the tests was set at .05. The statistical findings for each of the hypothe- ses are presented in this chapter. However, it should be noted that the statistical analyses do not include the videotaped lecture control groups since there were only two of those rather than Six. Two seemed to be too small for meaningful analysis. 82 83 0N. om.H cm. on. NN.N mm.vm mm.om 0H N mmsouw Houusoo musuomq oo. oo. HH. HH. mm.N NN.HN HH.NN m H owmmuomoH> no. hm. NN. hm. om.N mh.Hm HN.NN VH m OH. ov.H om. om. mm.N vv.mm om.hm 0H m 00. 00. Ne. om. VN.N om.mm oo.vm NH v 00. oo. mo. mo. Hv.N oo.mHH nn.vh HH N oo. 00. mo. mo. Hv.N NN.mm Nv.wm NH N masouu oo. 00. NN. om. NN.H NN.mn mN.hN m H mmH oo. 00. NN. ov. Hm.N mm.hm Nm.om mH m mH. vm. NN. mm. mm.N NH.Nm mm.mm NH m HN. mn.v mN. vm. om.N Nv.nm oo.om VH v mo. HN.H HN. am. m¢.N No.5m mH.HOH NH N NN. mm.H om. oo.H mo.N NH.mm vm.mm m N museum Houusou oo. 00. OH. OH. Ho.N ow.Nm OH.mm OH H usmfiummua oz mumxoaa soHusmmumom soHusmmuomm . muoonB Hmcs0muom when mHmomm axon nonfisz wwmowm Honfisz HmsoHuowuuou HmwmmHm anWMMEm z sOmemmHme sOHUHosoo uwnfisz new: use: smwmz com: saw: 2 z o In“, 1' IIIIINI."."I.II.LIII.“II:II“II 4"" '1': .I sumo moose no mwuoom use: m OHQMB 84 Hypothesis 1 The data from the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Dis- crimination were analyzed using a t test. The alpha level was set at .05. The Six groups of residents who received 40 hours of training by means of an IPR model obtained significantly lower scores on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination than did the six groups of residents who received no special treatment or training while in the Reception and Guidance Center. The lower the score on this test, the more empathy the person taking the test is reported to have. Thus, according to this measure, the IPR groups had more empathic ability at the end of the study period. The t test results are presented in Table 6. The results were statistically Significant at the .01 alpha level. The IPR treatment groups had significantly better scores on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination than the no treatment control groups. The mean score for the IPR groups was 81.49 and 94.62 for the no treatment groups. 'The standard deviation for the IPR groups was 5.15 and for the no treatment groups it was 6.37. The t value was 3.93. 85 Table 6 Results for Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination Carkhuff Index of . . . . t Sample Empathy Discrimination VaIue Mean Sd IPR Groups 81.49 5.15 = * (N 5) 3.93 No Treatment 94.62 6.37 Groups (N=6) * For 10 SE! p < .01 when t = 2.764 Hypothesis 2 No statistically Significant differences were found between the treatment and no treatment groups on the Bipolar Psychological Inventory. The qualities which are measured by this test are presented in Appen- dix B. The t test results which were analyzed for this measure are presented in Table 7. The mean score for the IPR groups was 93.93 and for the no treatment groups it was 93.95. The standard deviation for the IPR groups was 13.38 and 3.73 for the no treatment groups. The t value was .0035. .J '3‘ 86 Table 7 Results for Bipolar Psychological Inventory Bipolar Psychological Inventory t Sam 1e — p Mean Sd value IPR Groups 93.93 13.38 (N=6) .0035 No Treatment 93.95 3.73 Groups (N=6) 1.812 For 10 Hi, p < .05 when t Hypothesis 3 Statistically significant differences at the .05 level were found on the Correctional Personnel Question- naire. Residents who received the IPR course were rated more favorably than residents who did not receive the training. The residents were rated by one counselor and two correctional officers on their living units. The t test results are presented in Table 8. The mean score for the IPR groups was 2.39 and 2.81 for the no treatment groups. The standard deviations were .36 and .37 for the IPR groups and no treatment groups reSpec- tively. The t value was 1.9811. 87 Table 8 Results for Correctional Personnel Questionnaire Correctional Personnel Questionnaire t Sample vaIue Mean Sd IPR Groups 2.39 .36 (N=6) * 1.9811 No Treatment 2.81 .37 Groups (N=6) * For 10 Hf, p < .05 when t = 1.812 Hypotheses 4, 5, 6, and 7 Hypotheses 4, 5, 6, and 7 were tested using a multivariate analysis of variance because the four measures involved were dependent upon each other. The four measures were the following: (1) The mean number of tickets a group received, (2) The mean number of residents in the group who received tickets, (3) The mean number of days in segregation a group received, and (4) The mean number of residents in the group who received days in segregation. Typically, a resident who is assigned days in segre- gation has received at least one ticket and has received 88 days in segregation as a consequence. The number of days a resident spends in segregation is determined by a prison "disciplinary court." Although residents may receive a ticket and not be assigned days in segregation, the four measures are related to each other. The results of this multivariate analysis of variance are presented‘ in Table 9. The overall alpha level was set at .05. No statistically significant differences were found. The F ratio was .4202. Table 9 Results for Hypotheses 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Tickets and Segregation) Source of Degrees of F . . Variation Freedom Ratio Probability IPR 4, 7 .4202 .7900 Summary Two of the seven measures are statistically Sig- nificant differences between the IPR groups and the no treatment control groups. The E test conducted on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination was statisti- cally significant at the .01 level and the 5 test con- ducted on the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire was statistically significant at the .05 level. In both 89 instances, the IPR groups were favored. On the other five measures, the research hypotheses failed to be accepted. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY SummaEy The Problem The rehabilitation of convicted felons has remained a thorny problem for society. The ineffective- ness of current treatment for prisoners has been sub- stantiated by the fact that 80% of all felonies are committed by repeaters (Atkins & Glick, 1972). Neither imprisonment nor current rehabilitation efforts have adequately reduced felonies. This research was based upon the need to find a treatment modality which could reduce criminal behavior. More specifically, in this study the effect of training prisoners in communication skills using an IPR-based model has been examined. The difficult nature of rehabilitating prisoners has been well documented in the literature, though it typically has been based more upon descriptive data rather than experimental research. Bailey (1966) 90 91 reviewed 100 reports on correctional treatment outcome and concluded that "evidence supporting the efficacy of correctional treatment is Slight, inconsistent, and of questionable reliability." A review of the literature of treatments for changing behavior led the researcher to a training rather than a psychotherapy model to rehabilitate prisoners. Residents were provided a program based largely on self-study using the Interpersonal Process Recall methods. Design Methodology The research was a Posttest-Only Control Group Design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The design permitted comparison of the six IPR treatment groups and the six no treatment control groups. Random assignment of prison residents to groups was used to insure lack of initial differences between groups. Similarly, trainers were randomly assigned to groups. The independent variable in the study was the IPR based treatment. In the original design of the study a videotaped lecture control treatment was another independent variable. However, prison officials questioned the value of such "treatment" for residents and thus requested that it be discontinued. Only two such treatment control groups were conducted, a number 92 insufficient for meaningful statistical analysis. Con- sequently, the IPR groups were compared statistically only with the no treatment control groups. The dependent variables included two measures which were taken immediately after the IPR treatment. These measures were the mean Bipolar Psychological Inventory score for the group, a measure of 13 person- ality characteristics and the mean Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination score for the group, a test which assesses the respondent's ability to rate helpee responses according to the degree of empathic under- standing exhibited by the helper. The other five measures were taken two months after a resident arrived at the correctional facility to which he was assigned. These measures were the mean Correctional Personnel Questionnaire score for the group, a questionnaire designed to evaluate residents' behavior and attitudes in prison, the mean number of residents in the group who received tickets (disciplinary reports), the mean number of tickets received by the group, the mean number of residents in the group who received days in segregation, and the mean number of days in segregation received by the group. Because individuals within groups interacted with one another, the unit of statistical analysis had to be group rather than individual data. Multivariate 93 analysis of variance was the statistical test used to analyze the data regarding days in segregation and tickets. The measures of empathy, the Bipolar Psycho- logical Inventory, and the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire were analyzed using one-tailed t tests. The alpha level was set at .05. The subjects were convicted male felons in the state of Michigan who were beginning to serve time for sentences. They all resided in the Reception and Guidance Center for prisons in the state. Subjects were randomly selected but could choose not to participate in the experiment. The size of the groups ranged from 6 to 15. The 40 hours of IPR based training was divided into 10 weekdays. The content of the training program focused upon learning and practicing four communication modes in dyads. Specifically, affective and cognitive, exploratory and nonexploratory, listening and nonlisten- ing, and honest labeling and distorting modes of com- munication were taught. Residents were then encouraged to label their own feelings by the use of vignettes in which a filmed actor looks at the viewer and communicates a message which iS designed to stimulate stress in the viewer. The group trainers encouraged the residents to carefully attend to their own emotional reactions to the vignettes. The residents watched other videotapes to learn about Interpersonal Process Recall. They used 94 IPR techniques in their dyadic interactions. Within a pair, one resident presented a problem while the other resident practiced effective communication skills as a helper.* This brief interaction was videotaped. The videotape was played back to one or both of the residents and the group leader, serving as an inquirer facilitated their recall of what their thoughts and feelings were during the original interaction. Three recall formats were used over time with each student. The recalls were helper recalls in which the person in the helper role reviews the videotape of the original interaction with the inquirer; helpee recalls in which the person who was receiving the help reviews the videotape of the original interaction with the inquirer; and mutual recalls in which the inquirer does the recall with both the helper and the helpee as they review the original interaction. The two videotaped lecture control groups also received 40 hours of special treatment during 10 week- days. The treatment consisted of watching and discussing videotaped lectures in psychology, sociology, and criminal justice. *The effective helper responses taught to trainees were responses which encouraged the helpee to talk more about his problem, to expand, to elaborate, and to go further. Such responses focused on the affec- tive components of the statement and not the cognitive or story line elements. These statements actually labeled the intense and affect laden elements and did not distort or minimize their importance. 95 Results and Conclusions The results of the statistical analyses were that two of the seven research hypotheses were accepted. The research hypotheses could not be accepted for the other five measures. More specifically, the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination detected significant dif- ferences at the .01 level favoring the IPR based training groups. The Correctional Personnel Questionnaire also detected significant differences at the .05 level favor- ing the IPR based training groups. It appears probable that the IPR based training was the cause of the sig- nificantly lower scores on both the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire because the IPR treatment was the variable which was different for the treatment and no treatment groups. Discussion The statistical results of this study have exciting implications. However, before considering what the implications are, it is interesting to examine the data in a less formal manner. What responses did the residents have to the IPR training? What happened to those residents who were in the videotaped lecture control groups? Were there any other nonhypothesized outcomes? 96 Because groups were of unequal size it is impor- tant to note that both the smaller and larger groups con- tributed to the significant differences. This is an impor- tant issue because group size affects the size of the variance which also affects the size of the t value. The individual data are presented in Appendix C to document that both large and small groups contributed to the sig— nificant differences on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and Correctional Personnel Questionnaire. Personal Reactions of the Residents to the Training The IPR process was well received by the resi- dents. Among the residents who participated in the IPR training, many of them indicated that this was the first time in their life that anyone had really listened to them and taken an interest in their problems. For example, one resident who had been in and out of cor- rectional facilities from the age of 11 said during the noninterpretive probing of the inquirer of a mutual recall that, "Even though I've had lots of caseworkers, this is the first time that anyone has really listened to how I feel about my life." Another frequent response from the residents was delight at seeing themselves on television. For some of the residents, the attention to how they appeared on television was unusually narcissistic. They were very pleased with their choice of words, physical 97 appearance, and posture. For others, seeing themselves on television provided self-confrontation and insight into their own behavior that they had never had. For example, one resident when presenting a problem to the other resident he was paired with, described his former heroin addiction. Later when observing the videotape in a mutual recall, he saw physiological responses he had while talking about the addiction which were identical to withdrawal symptoms. At the time that he had described the addiction, he was quite unaware of his sniffing, running nose and shivering. Observing this made him exceedingly cognizant of his psychological dependence upon heroin. Merely talking about heroin caused him to have strong somatic reactions. There is yet another, and in IPR a more empha- sized quality during recall that entails the recall of covert processes which is different from the self- confrontation just described. An illustration of this basic recall dynamic was one resident's statement, "At that point I really was afraid to ask you how the murder of your father affected you." Other residents requested that they be allowed to participate in more than one training program. Of course, for research purposes this could not be per— mitted. However, after the first training program on the introductory first day of training for the other five groups, one resident from the preceding training 98 group spoke to the residents about what the training experience would be like and what they saw the value of it to be. This helped reduce suspicion among the resi- dents, although residents invariably were wary of being part of an experiment at the outset of the training. They were afraid that problems they revealed would some- how be used against them, though they were assured that everything was confidential and videotapes were erased. Nothing went into their prison record concerning the training. The residents, both treatment and control sub- jects, were suspicious of being asked to take the Bipolar Psychological Inventory and the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination. Interestingly, though understandably, the treatment subjects were the most wary of the testing. During the course of the 40-hour IPR training the resi- dents became familiar with their respective trainer while the control groups only saw the trainer on one occasion. The treatment subjects were eager to perform well for the group, themselves, and the trainer and were embar- rassed by their inability to read. Consequently, the treatment subjects were more reluctant to ask for assistance in reading the tests than were the control subjects. After the first treatment group, word seemed to Spread among the residents via the "prison grapevine" 99 that the training was a positive experience. Conse- quently, residents eagerly volunteered to participate in the training. Again, due to experimental procedures, namely random assignment, such volunteers could not be included unless by chance they had been randomly selected to participate in the training. One final comment concerns the therapeutic value of the IPR training. The residents were surprised and pleased to discover that they were able to help one another with their problems. The residents also seemed to gain insight regarding how their personal difficulties influence their criminal behavior. In designing the treatment plan "inquirer training," one phase of IPR was not included because of time limitations. Training for the role of the inquirer was eliminated. Inquirer training entails teaching people how to facilitate the recall. His function is to allow and encourage the person to discover for himself some of his thoughts and/or feelings which might have interfered with effec- tive communication during the original interaction. Examples of leads used by the inquirer are included in Appendix A. yideotaped Lecture Control Groups Because only two videotaped lecture control groups were conducted, the data collected about them were not statistically analyzed. However, the mean 100 scores of these two groups on the seven measures are included in Table 5, Chapter IV. The lowest, best mean scores of the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination were obtained by the communication skills training group and then close behind were the videotaped lecture control groups. The group means were 81.49 for the communi- cation skills training groups, 83.88 for the videotaped lecture control groups, and 94.62 for the no treatment control groups. The rankings of the groups for the Bipolar Psy- chological Inventory were different, with the videotaped lecture control groups having the lowest numeric score with a mean score of 82.89, the no treatment control groups the next best with a 93.95, and the communication skills groups doing the "worst" with a 95.6 mean score. Looking at the size and direction of these differences, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that had these scores been based on a larger number of groups, perhaps the videotaped lecture control groups would have done sig- nificantly better, that is, had significantly less pathology, than the treatment or no treatment groups. Another possible explanation is that high scores are "healthier" than low scores because prisoners are notorious deniers. Thus, by having high scores the prisoners may have been owning their pathology rather than denying it. 101 In the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire the communication skills treatment groups definitely obtained the best scores with a mean of 2.39. The videotaped lecture control groups and no treatment control groups had similar mean scores with 2.78 and 2.80 respectively. With regard to tickets, the groups received a similar mean number of tickets, but the no treatment control groups had a higher mean number of people who received tickets than the other groups. The mean number of tickets received by the no treatment control groups was .46, by the communication skills training groups was .42, and by the videotaped lecture control groups was .40. The mean number of people who received tickets in these groups was .34, .25, and .20 respectively. The treatment group fared best with regard to the segregation measures. They had a mean of .33 days in segregation and a mean of .03 peOple who got days in segregation. The no treatment control group had means of 1.37 and .08 on these variables and the videotaped lecture control group had means of .95 and .10. Synthesizing these findings, it does appear that the IPR training groups had results sufficiently dis- similar from the videotaped lecture control group that it seems unlikely that the Hawthorne effect could account for the differences. It is more probable that the com- munication skills training is what made the difference. The treatment groups did better on the segregation, 102 empathy, and correctional personnel measures. The tickets measures did not detect differences except that the no treatment control groups had a higher mean number of peOple who received tickets. For unexplainable reasons, the videotaped lecture control groups obtained scores on the-Bipolar Psychological Inventory which were less indicative of pathology than the scores obtained by the no treatment control groups and the communication skills training groups. However, it must be remembered that the videotape lecture group contained an N of two. Miscellaneous Measures Data were collected for the three types of treat- ment conditions which turned out to be measures of very low incidence. Because these measures occurred very infrequently, it was meaningless to analyze them sta- tistically because the variance of such low incidence measures would also be low. Nevertheless, they are interesting. None of the 65 residents who received IPR training escaped from prison facilities during the first two months after they arrived at the correctional facility, while 5 of the 19 residents in the videotaped lecture control groups escaped and 3 of the 74 residents in the no treatment control groups escaped. This very high percentage of escapes for the videotaped lecture control groups is totally unexplainable. Two of the 74 no treatment control subjects were hOSpitalized for psychiatric reasons whereas none of the 103 IPR training group members and one of the videotaped lecture control group members were hOSpitalized for such reasons. In this case, the lack of psychiatric hospitalization for the IPR treatment group is itself an important finding. Though the treatment had an impact, it is apparently not dangerous; nor does it appear to stimulate self-defeating behaviors. None of the IPR training group members received disciplinary transfers while this number was one each for the no treatment control groups and the videotaped lecture control groups. Certainly, these miscellaneous measures favor the IPR training groups. One final comment is that of the 18 residents who refused to participate in the IPR training, two escaped from the correctional facili- ties within two months of their arrival. The results for the miscellaneous measures are presented in Table 10. Table 10 Results for the Miscellaneous Measures Number Psychiatric . . . Sample of Escapes Hospitali- D18C1pllnary ' - Transfers ReSidents zation IPR Groups 65 o 0 0 No Treatment Control Groups 74 3 2 l Videotape Lecture Groups 19 S l l 104 Subjects Unwilling or Unable to Participate in the Research The reasons why residents did not participate in- the study were presented in Chapter III. Table 1 contains a numerical breakdown of the reasons why residents did not participate. While the proportion of treatment residents who did not participate was greater than the proportion of no treatment residents, it should be recognized that the no treatment control group only had to agree to take two tests while the treatment groups had to invest in 10 days of training and then be evaluated on how much of the training they assimilated. Treatment residents, therefore, had to be more c00perative from this stand- point of time investment. The residents who were either unable or unwilling to participate in the research project were followed for the two months after they left the RGC. The results of the follow-up are presented in Tables 11, 12, and 13. In Table 11 the follow-up measures on the subjects are presented. This table includes subjects who refused to participate and subjects who were unable to participate in the research. By looking at the scores on the measures for the unwilling and unable subjects and com- paring them with the scores for the research participants, it appears that the former were not systematically dif- ferent from the residents who did participate in the research. The measures which are contained in Table 11 105 Houusou o o o o o o o o N musuooq o o o H m H H H H commuooeH> o o o o o o o H m o o o o o o o m m o o o H m H H n v o o H o o o o v m o o H o o H H n N o o o H m H H v H usufiumous mmH o o o o o o o o m o o o H m H H N m o o o o o o o H v o o o o o o 0 ~ m o o o o . o o o H N o o o o o o o o H Houusou unosuuoua oz msOHDMN coHuummummm GOHuoo muwaHB .8 no umnfidz UHHDMH£o>mm mo umnEdz nuH3 musomouo sH muse musomouo u z Honeoz msouu NO RGC—.852 MO H0352 MO ngz NC “09:52 noummmwm on» sH mummHoHuHmm ou mcHHHH3CD Ho mHndsD mucmpHmom mo ashammoz HmHoH>mnmm omcHnEoo HH OHDMB 1136 mmsouu Houu m usoo wusuomH o o mmmuomvH> o o H o o o o o o o o m o o m o N o o o o o o O v W o o o O O o H m o o o o w o o w o o M unmfiuuoue mmH o o o o o H m o m H o o H o o o m o o m o o o o o o o o H v o o o o o o n o o o o o o N m Houunou o o o o o o o o H udofiunmua oz 0 o o o o o O o o o o o o o o maoauuum COHHMDOHDOm COHuMD MUOXUHH mumx0fl8 0“” .0» COHUGCOMMflfl COHuflVCOU cOHusu cH umuwwm now on: No oHnsco muons muoumsuua IHHmuHmmom momsomm ammo 30H; :H mama mucmpHmwm Honssz uonEsz xumcHHdHomHo OHHDMHcoamm mo Honsdz mucwnHmmm mo uwhsdz uo umnssz no umnfisz mo umnasz mo Honssz “ I a n n m NH OHDMB 107 Houusou N ousuooq o o o o H onuuoovH> o o H H H o m o o H o H o o o o o o o m m o o o o o o n v o H H m o o o H m o o n N 0 now H O O H H M H “GOSUOHB “QH o H o o o o H o o o o o o o o w o o m o o H N o o m H o v o o H o o n o o o o o o o o N Houucou o W o o w o o H H UGSHGOHB 02 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 undo undo COH9MOOHOOW fiOHUflD NUOXOHB QU$¥UHB 0” OH ”02 GOHUUSUHDOO COHUHUCOU coHuon cH Iwumwm uoo 0:3 mo omono msouo unamnadua IHHnuHQnom nomnowm whoa SUH3 ad m>uo mucovaom Hmnfidz 0:3 HOQESZ auscHHmHomHo OHHDcHnoaum «0 nonfisz nucoonom uo.uonsdz no nonEdz no Hanscz no Honssz no nonfisz MH OHQMB 108 for the unwilling and unable subjects the number of tickets received, the number who got tickets, the number of days in segregation, the number who received days in segregation, the number of escapes, the number of psy- chiatric hospitalizations, and the number of disciplinary transfers. On the latter two measures, zero subjects were involved. The following subjects were unwilling or unable to participate in the research: six no treatment control, 20 IPR treatment, and one videotaped lecture con- trol. One no treatment control received a ticket, whereas three IPR treatment and one videotaped lecture control received tickets. Each of these subjects received one ticket each. One no treatment control resident received three days in segregation. One IPR treatment subject received five days in segregation and another IPR subject received six days in segregation. One videotaped lecture control subject received three days in segregation. Two IPR subjects escaped from prison. Table 11 is divided into Tables 12 and 13 in order to differentiate between subjects who chose not to participate in the research and those who were unable to participate in the research. Although the numbers are quite small in both of these categories, there don't appear to be any systematic differences with the exception of the escape measure. Both of the residents who escaped from prison were subjects who had refused to participate in the IPR treatment. 109 Table 12 contains the results of the follow-up measures for the subjects who were unable to participate in the research. The only ticket received by a subject who was unable to participate was in the IPR treatment. Similarly, the only subject unable to participate and who received time in segregation (five days) was in the IPR treatment. There were no escapes, psychiatric hOSpitalizations, or disciplinary transfers for these subjects who were unable to participate in the research. Table 13 contains the behavioral measures of subjects who chose not to participate in the research. One such no treatment control subject received one ticket for which he received five days in segregation. Two residents who refused to participate in the IPR treatment and one resident who refused to participate in the videotaped lecture control treatment received one ticket each. One of these two IPR treatment refusals who received a ticket also received six days in segre- gation. The videotaped lecture subject who received a ticket also received three days in segregation. As mentioned previously, two IPR treatment subjects who refused to participate escaped from prison. Implications The results of this study have exciting impli- cations. As indicated in the review of the literature, few, if any, types of treatment have been effective with 110 prison populations. The fact that the residents who received IPR training did significantly better on the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination than did resi- dents who did not, primarily lets us know that the residents did indeed learn what they were expected to, and on an instrument derived from a training model dif- ferent from the one used. This difference is both sta- tistically and meaningfully significant. However, the fact that correctional officers and counselors responded more positively to the residents who received the training than those who did not is very significant. It appears from the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire that those residents who had received IPR training manifested behaviors which were significantly more positive than residents who did not according to ratings by correc- tional officers and counselors at the receiving insti- tutions. This difference is both statistically and meaningfully significant. Of course, this suggests that such training using IPR and Affect Simulation techniques somehow changes peOples' behavior in a way viewed more positively by others. Resident participation was determined on the basis of random invitations. Volun- teers who were not in the random pool were not included in the IPR training. Because strict experimental pro- cedures, namely random assignment, were used the findings are therefore considered conservative 111 estimates of the potential impact. Although not sta- tistically significant, the results for the miscellaneous measures are noteworthy since no member of the IPR training groups escaped, required psychiatric hospitali- zation, or received a disciplinary transfer. What are the implications of such positive responses by corrections personnel? It suggests that the residents are getting along well in the prison facility. If this is the case, it is probable that they will be released from prison earlier than the other prisoners and perhaps will take better advantage of rehabilitative programs while in the prison. Without further research, it is impossible to say if these positive behaviors will be maintained over time, par- ticularly after the prisoner is released. These questions will hopefully be answered by further research. Although for statistical purposes an N of six was used, the actual number of residents trained was 65. Therefore, a large number of residents were trained by only two staff people working part time. The training is consequently seen as being practical. One final implication of the results of this study is that psychopathology as measured by the Bipolar Psychological Inventory is not significantly affected by 40 hours of IPR training. This suggests that while behaviors may change, the underlying pathology remains 112 or it may be that the residents who received the IPR training were more able to "own" their pathology instead of deny it. Of course, this is speculation. Further research would have to be done to make such a statement conclusively. Suggestions for further research are discussed later in this chapter. If the treatment does work and is practical, what would happen if 20-30 or even 50% of all residents went through such a training program? Would not one expect the residents to be less destructive to each other and slowly evolve into a more "mentally hygienic" environment? Critique of the Study When interpreting the results of the current study, several shortcomings in the research should be kept in mind. First, it is unfortunate that six video- taped lecture control groups could not be run, because their omission from the statistical analyses leaves the results of the IPR training vulnerable to questions regarding the Hawthorne effect. However, the literature is replete with studies that show that the Hawthorne effect does nothing. It is plausible that the results could be explained by the extra attention they received while in the Reception and Guidance Center rather than the actual training they received. That was the rationale for having videotaped lecture control groups 113 included in the original design of the research. Resi- dents in those groups would have received equal time in a group and with a trainer. However, since the value of the prisoners watching videotaped lectures on psy- chology, sociology, and criminal justice was questionable, prison officials requested that this training be discon- tinued after only two such groups had been run. Of course, as noted previously in a review of the outcome data of those two groups, it appeared unlikely that the residents in those groups fared as well as the residents who were trained in IPR. Nevertheless, it was a handicap not to have had more than two such groups so they could be included in the statistical analysis. The results obtained from those two groups may have been due pri- marily to chance. Had six such groups been conducted, more meaningful evidence would have been available to answer questions surrounding how much of the results could be accounted for by the extra attention and being part of an experimental group rather than the actual communication skills training. Another shortcoming of the study was the very small number of groups which were trained. Six is a number sufficiently small that differences must be very large in order to be statistically significant. Of course, the fact that the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and the Correctional Personnel Questionnaire 114 were significant is particularly noteworthy since the sample size was so small. It seems unlikely that dif- ferences would be detected on the Bipolar Psychological Inventory regardless of how many groups were in the study. However, it does seem possible that had the sample size been larger, statistically significant dif- ferences might have been found on the segregation and tickets measures. Furthermore, it might also have been possible to detect differences on some other measures which occurred even less frequently than segregation and tickets such as escapes from prison and hospitali— zation for psychiatric difficulties. This issue of frequency of occurrence of measures leads us to note another difficulty in the current study. Segregation and tickets are things which are not of frequent occurrence. This means that differences on such measures would have to have been quite large in order to be significantly different. More validation and reliability data would have been useful with regard to the Bipolar Psychological Inventory, Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination and Correctional Personnel Questionnaire to provide assurance that the measurements were consistent measures of what they purported to assess. Recommendations for Future Research The results of this current study suggest further research regarding the effect of IPR training 115 upon prisoners be done. Since very few, if any, pro- cedures have been found to be effective modes of treat- ment with prison populations, the findings of this study are very encouraging and worth following up. It would be useful, first of all, to follow the residents in the current study over time. What happens to them especially ‘ after they are released from prison? Are the recidivism rates for residents who received IPR training lower than for those in the control conditions? Other shortcomings of the study pertain to time factors. It might have been useful to have measures taken over a longer period of time. The researcher plans to follow longitudinally the residents who were in this study. While it is valuable to know that the residents who received IPR training did significantly better on some of the measures two months after they arrived at the correctional facilities than did the other residents, it would be important to know how they perform over a longer period of time and after they are released from prison. Do the differences between the treatment and control groups disappear over time? Most importantly, do the differences maintain after the residents are released from prison? These questions lead us to consider recommendations for further research. As implied in the preceding discussion regarding the current study, larger sample sizes for future research 116 are recommended. Furthermore, the research design should incorporate methods to explore the possibility that the Hawthorne effect accounted for at least some of the dif- ferences. A potential type of control condition might be group therapy. Would when the training was conducted in relation- ship to the beginning, middle, or end of this sentence affect the outcome of the training upon the residents? Forty hours of training is a rather short amount of treatment. Would more training produce greater benefits? It seems that with regard to timing it might be maxi- mally beneficial to conduct this training after or just before a prisoner was released from prison. What about the effect of the 40 hours of training being spread over a time period longer than 10 days? Perhaps training with a peer group such as a therapeutic community during the period of incarceration would be impactful. Training with significant others, such as family members, shortly before release could be investigated. The selection of subjects could be from a volun- teer pool. That is, residents could be told about IPR training and offered an opportunity to sign up for this experience. Then the volunteers could be randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study with women prisoners. One final possibility for 117 further research would be to train prisoners to be com- munication skills trainers. Would prisoners receive more benefit from being trained by their peers than from prison staff members or outside consultants? The group leaders found the project both challenging and rewarding. The experience of training residents to more effectively communicate with other people was extremely satisfying. They found it exciting to see prisoners, typically people who have had difficult lives, discover new things about themselves and gain insight into their own behavior. It was especially rewarding for them to see peOple who have so much to learn and have an Oppor- tunity to grow in the ways that they did. Perhaps peers would find training their colleagues equally as inter- esting and rewarding as did the group leaders in this study. APPENDICES APPENDIX A AN OUTLINE OF THE INQUIRER ROLE AND OFTEN USED INQUIRER LEADS APPENDIX A INQUIRER'S APPROACH The INQUIRER'S APPROACH should be characterized as follows: 1. Exploratory, brief, open-ended questions 2. A mixture of questions, some about thoughts, some about feelings 3. Listening, rather than telling, interpreting, counseling, teaching 4. Avoidance of communication blocks; non- judgmental, nondiverting GENERAL INQUIRY STRATEGY Respectful, interested, active inquiry. Don't hurry--be patient. Convey interest, excitement. Don't interpret, don't tell him what you saw. Don't counsel him. After one or two responses to the probes, return to the tape. Listen and learn--don't teach. Follow up probes with appropriate next statements, i.e., "What effect did that perception have on you . . . ?" (Later, "Do you think he knew that you were so influenced or affected?"). At conclusion of interviewer or interviewee recall session, ask, "If you had it to do over again, what would you do differently?" At end of mutual recall session, inquirer leaves or arranges for participants to engage in new relationship without videotape or inquirer's presence. INQUIRY PROBES What were you thinking? What were you feeling? What pictures, memories or words were going through your mind? What did you think the other person was feeling? What did you want the other person to think or feel? How did you think the other person felt about you? How did you want the other person to feel about you? . Was there anything you wanted to say but couldn't find the "appropriate" words for? 8. Do you recall how your body felt-~can you recall any specific parts of your body reacting more than other parts? 9. Did you have any feeling of familiarity, like, "Here I go again?" 10. What did the sex or physical appearance of the other do to you? \1 O‘U‘lub WNI-J 118 119 INQUIRY OPPORTUNITIES If participants do not stop videotape-~here are places where inquirer might occasionally encourage participant(s) to stop although, whenever possible, participant is encouraged to take control of situation, barring that, inquirer stops tape by observing participant for non- verbal cues of excitement or "re-living." Only in case of failure of the above two does the inquirer stOp the tape at the following inquiry opportunities: 1. Instances in which either person clearly misinter- preted the other or appeared to not hear the other. 2. Use of vocabulary which describes intense feelings. 3. Changes in voice level, tone or pace. 4. Changes in directions of eyes. 5. Quick, abrupt switch from one topic of discussion to a different, unrelated topic. 6. Changes in position of body, head, arms or legs. INQUIRER'S DIDACTIC INSTRUCTIONS TO INQUIREE -- Mind works faster than voice -- Not time to say all -- Things you didn't want to tell -- Vague feelings - couldn't find words -- Impressions of other/His impressions of you -- Give inquiree switch -— Stop tape as often as you can -- Tell me images, body, ideas, feeling, thinking 120 OFTEN USED INQUIRER LEADS Compiled by: Don Werner Abigail Harris Often times after we have gained some experience in the inquirer role, we find that our use of particular responses or questions becomes repetitious. This can prove monotonous not only to the inquirer, but to the participants as well. It is helpful at this point, to consider some new or alternative leads. One way to accomplish this is to observe other recall workers. Another way is to brainstorm with some other inquirers about the approaches which they use in recall situations. As an aid in expanding your repertoire of inquirer leads, we have compiled an extensive list of inquirer leads which you might find helpful. Reviewing these leads may also suggest alterna- tive approaches that you might employ in the inquirer role. Some leads focus on feelings, others on the bodily focal points of these feelings, while other leads explore attitudes, expectations, and agendas. Often, leads may be used sequentially--the primary lead introduces the area of exploration, while secondary 121 leads amplify or pinpoint more specific issues, or con- sequences (i.e., "What did you feel after you realized that?"). In addition, some leads are particularly useful in client recall or mutual recall or at a particular time within the recall situation. This list may help you to develop other categories and leads that fit your particular style and vocabulary. Leads that Inspire Affective Exploration: How did that make you feel? How did that make you feel about him/her? Do you remember what you were feeling? Were you aware of any feelings? What did you do (or decide to do) about that feeling you had? Did you want to express that feeling at any time? Did you have fantasies of any risks? What do those feelings mean to you? Does that feeling have any special meaning to you? Is it a "familiar" feeling? Approaches which Encourage Cognitive Examination: What were you thinking at that time? What thoughts were you having about the other person at that time? Something going on there? Anything going on there? Had you any ideas about what you wanted to do with that? Did you fantasize any risks? Were you able to say it the way you wanted to? Did you want to say anything else then? Did you have any plan of where you wanted the interview to go next? Did you think the other person knew what you wanted? What kind of image were you aware of projecting? Is that the image you wanted to project? Can you recall what effect the setting had on you or the interaction? Can you recall what effect you thought the setting had on the other person? Did the equipment affect you in any way? (If affirmative, "What do you mean by 'nervous,‘ what did you feel, think . . . body reactions . . . when you felt 'nervous'?" If reaction to cameras, "What did you want [or not want] the cameras to see you as?") 122 Questions about Body Sensations Do you remember where in your body you felt that? . . . What did it feel like? Where in your body did you most feel the impact of that? Were there any physical sensations then? . . . Where did you notice them most? . . . When? If that physical sensation had a voice of its own, what would it have said? Getting at Images: Were you having any fantasies at the moment? Were any pictures, images, memories, flashing through your mind then? What was going on in your mind at the time? . . . Did it remind you of anything? Did you think you had "been there before?" Is that familiar to you? Where had that put you in the past? Questions which Help Search out Expectations: What did you want him/her to tell you? What did you want to hear? What would you have liked from him/her? Were you expecting anything of him/her at that point? Did you want him/her to see you in some way? How? What do you think his/her perceptions were of you? What message did you want to give him/her? Was there anything in particular you wanted him/her to say/do/think of you? What did you really want to tell her/him at this moment? What prevented you from doing so? What did you want him/her to do? Was he "with you?" How did his/her responses hit you? Did you want him/her to do something that would have made it easier for you? What would that have been? Explorations into Each Other's Mutual Perceptions: What did you think he/she was feeling about you? How do you think he/she was seeing you at that point? Do you think he/she was aware of your feelings/ thoughts? What do you think he/she wanted from you? What message do you think he/she was trying to give you? Did you feel that he/she had any expectations of you at that point? What did you think he/she wanted you to think/feel/do? Do you think your description of the interaction would coincide with his/hers? 123 Was he/she giving you any cues as to how he/she was feeling? How do you think he/she felt about talking about this problem? How do you think he/she felt about continuing to talk with you at this point? Leads into Associations: Did he/she remind you of anyone else in your life? What effect did that have on you? What reaction did you have to his/her physical appearance? Shape? Color? How attractive or unattractive was he/she to you? What meaning did that have for you (especially after describing a thought or feeling perceived in the "other" person)? Checking out Unstated Agendas: What did that realization do to you, then or make you want to do or say, then? What would you have liked to have said to him/her at that point? How were you feeling about your role as interviewer at this point? What's happening here? What did you feel like doing? What had that meant to you? Any other feelings or thoughts here? (Also a good way to precede a return to the videotape playback.) If you had more time, where would you have liked to have gone? (Key word or phrase deliberately left incomplete--i.e., "And when you realized he wasn't listening, you . . . ") Especially During Client Recall What did he/she seem to think/want of or feel about you? What did you want him/her to think/want of or feel about you? Especially During Interviewer Recall (After A's description of a covert thought or feeling, Inquirer turns to B), Did you know or suSpect A thought (felt, etc.) that way, then? What did you think he/she thought at that moment? What were you, yourself feeling? (To B), Were you aware of that? 124 At End of Recall Session Do you like the "you" you saw on the screen? In retrospect, how do you think you felt about him/her throughout the session? What things did you learn from this recall? If you had it to do over, what (if anything) would you do differently? Are there any parts you'd like to see again? APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE SCALES - BIPOLAR PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE SCALES - BIPOIAR PSYCHOIDGICAL INVENTORY si Ends of the Scale Invalid-Valid (10 items) Lie-Honest (13 items) Defensive-Open (22 items) Psychic Paiinsychic Comfort (21 items) Depression-Optimism (21 items) Meanigg of Score High Score: Gross confusion (psychosis brain damage, retardation), inability to read, random marking of the answer sheet without reading the items, uncooperative, practical joker, or defiant individual. low Score: Accurate reading of items and following of directions. High Score: Dishonest in test taking, exaggerates positive traits, minimizes deficiencies. Low Score: Msticulously honest, tendency to exaggerate weaknesses. High Score: Defensive, doesn't like to reveal self or personal problems, keeps feelings to self, resists professional help, guarded, does not solicit feedback. low Score: Open, accepts help, reveals problems freely, solicits professional help. High Score: Psychic pain, emotional, behavioral, and physical symptoms of anxiety, dissatisfaction, nervous, tense 0 low Score: Comfort, contentment, relaxed, calm, satisfied, unconcerned, controlled. High Score: Depression, fearful of future, regret of the past, feeling of impending doom, suicidal, failure experiences, unhappy. low Score: Happiness, optimism,’ successful, satisfaction, cheerful, energetic. 125 Self DegradationnSelf Esteem (22 items) Dependence-Self Sufficiency (20 items) Unmotivated-Achieving (20 items) Social Withdrawal-Gregariousness (21 items) Family Discord-Family Harmony (22 items) Sexua l Inmaturi ty-Sexua 1 Maturity (24 item) 126 High Score: Self degradation, self critical, inferiority feelings, dissatisfaction with self, self depreciating, poor self image, low ego strength, intropunitive. low Score: Self esteem, secure, self satisfied, confident, self assured, high self regard. High Score: Dependent, inadequate, meek, gullible, follower, acqui- escing, submissive, deferent. low Score: Self sufficient, independent, assertive, confident, leader, self diE'ECtings High Score: Unmotivated, underachiever, lazy, procrastinator, unassuming, slothful, irresponsible. Low Score: Achievement oriented, competitive, aggressive, untiring, recognition seeking, academically oriented, successful, hard working, accomplished. High Score: Social withdrawal, loner, solitary, avoids interaction and confrontation, schizoid, social avoidance, introverted. low Score: Gregarious, sociable, seeks companionship, outgoing, extrovertive, affiliative. High Score: Family discord, hatred, mutual rejection, dissension and interpersonal conflict. low Score: Family harmony, closeness, pride, love, acceptance, and unity. High Score: Sexual immaturity, deviant tendencies, sexual anxieties, promiscuity, sexual guilt. low Score: Heterosexual maturity, adequacy and satisfaction, and sexual control. .127 Social Deviancy - Social High Score: Social deviancy, Conformity antisocial, criminal behavior, societal conflict, antiaestablishment (21 item) irresponsible, psychopathic, law breaking, rebellious. Low Score: Social conformity, law abiding, ethical, socially sensitive, conforming, prosocial attitude. Impulsiveness-Self Control High Score: Impulsivity, joy seeking narcissistic, uncontrolled, moody, (22 items) erratic, changeable, unreliable. Low Scores Self control, consistent, dependable, reliable, persistent, planful, stable. Hostility-Kindness High Score: Hostility, anger, challenging, aggressiveness, verbally (20 item) assertive, ”eye-for-eye" attitude, threatening, intolerant, violent, vengeful. low Score: Friendliness, easy going accepting, kind, forgiving, cooperative, peaceful. Insensitivity-Empathy High Score: Cruelty, insensitive, morbid, punitive, calloused, sadistic. (20 item) low Score: Empathy, concern, sensitive to others, kind, considerate, sympathetic. APPENDIX C CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL QUESTIONNAIRE JKPPTRHIIXIC! STATE OF MHCHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL PERSONNEL QUESTIONNAIRE Name of resident: Date: Name of employee: Institution: DIRECTIONS: Please evaluate the named resident on the items in this questionnaire. Each item consists of a behavior which is described in a bi-polar manner with opposite aspects of the same behavior serving as anchor points on each end of the item. The items are on a 7 point continuum. A rating of 1 indicates a maximum of the behavior on the left. A rating of 7 indicates a maximum of the behavior on the right. A rating of 4 indicates that behaviors described on the left and right are equally present or absent. Based on your knowledge of the resident, circle a number from 1 to 7 on each item unless you have insufficient information to rate the resident in which case, place a check mark in the space preceding the item. .128 INSUFFICIENT INFORMT ION .129 Based on my knowledge of the resident, the resident is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. Not aggressive toward other residents. 1 Not aggressive toward me 1 Does not take ad- vantage of others. 1 Does not violate institutional rules and regulations. 1 Does not skate or go to unauthorized locations. 1 Does not get into fights with others. 1 Attends academic Training programs. 1 Is not enrolled Attends vocational training programs. 1 Is not enrolled Attends institution. al work assignments. l Aggressive toward 2 3 4 5 6 7 other residents. Aggressive toward 2 3 4 5 6 7 me. Takes advantage 2 3 4 5 6 7 of others. Violates insti- tutional rules and 2 3 4 5 6 7 regulations. Skates or goes to unauthorised loca- 2 3 4 5 6 7 tions. Gets into fights 2 3 4 5 6 7 with others. . Does not attend 2 3 4 5 6 7 academic programs in which he is enrolled. in academic programs. Does not attend voca- 2 3 4 5 6 7 tional programs in which he is enrolled. in vocational programs. Does not attend insti- 2 3 4 5 6 7 tutional work assign- ments which he has. Does not have an institutional work assignment. Talks to others in an appropriate manner. 1 Does not talk to others or does so in an in- 2 3 4 S 6 7 appropriate manner. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ll. 12. 13. 14. Talks with me in a manner that encourages me to continue talking- Seems to hear me when I talk to him: Honestly labels what I am feeling or thinking when I talk with him. Expresses his emotions in an appropriate manner. 130 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Does not talk with me or talks with me in a manner that discourages me from talking further. Does not seem to hear me when I talk to him. Distorts or minimizes what I am feeling or thinking when I talk with him. Withholds expression of his emotions or lets them come out in sudden outbursts. APPENDIX D INDIVIDUAL DATA OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS o H mn.N eh om.00H o o o moH oo.Hm m pmmmomm o m no.N Nm oo.nm v o o om.H HHH oo.VNH m o 0 mm om.mNH N pommomm o o om.N mo oo.moH H m HH N mm.m mNH om.mn oH oHnuoHnoamm xosomumem o N oo.m mNH oo.nm m o H mn.v mm om.mm m o o mo.v oHHm>sH oo.voH h o 0 388a e33 em consume 0 o o mh.m vs oo.vHH m m N mm.N we oo.NHH v o H vH.m ow oo.mVH m o o mm.H hoH oo.mm N o o om.H mOH cm.mm H N o o mN.m NOH om.NHH oH o o om.H NoH oo.mn m o o om.N mm om.MOH m o o «H.N HOH om.wm n o o oo.n Nm oo.Nm m o o mo.N moH oo.HOH m o H Hm.N 50H om.Hm v ucofieoon aosemuoem o o mm.N HQH om.vm m o o mm.N mmH om.om N Houucoo o o Hh.N ow oo.vm H H unmEummuB oz coHusmouoom nuexowa HesGOmuom coHuscmHmeo axon no HenEdz no Honesz HocoHuoeuHoo ucHomHm anucmfim uoenn5m moose soHuHocoo mavennsm noncomom uo sumo HomoH>HocH ¢H oHndB Q XHQZNANd 131 1H32 o o oo.N mHH oo.OHH m o o oH.N oHHm>sH oo.mm m o o Nm.H we oo.moH n N N mm.m NHH om.om m o N mo.N me om.mm m o H pm.N Nm om.wn v o o pursued newswom m o v vm.m om om.om N o o HH.N HHH om.MNH H m o o hw.H om om.mm mH o H oo.H oHHm>sH oo.moH «H o o Nv.N mp oo.mn NH o o om.N vm oo.mw NH o o no.N we om.hm HH vN N mN.H No om.mo 0H 0 N mm.H VOH oo.am m o o oo.v vHH om.nn m nm N Hm.N oHH oo.om h o o coHuemeumem soHuomeumew o o o mH.N vm oo.moH m o o mvH oo.ooH v commomm o N Hm.v oHHo>sH om.Nm n o o mo.m NOH oo.moH N o o oo.m as om.nm H v o H mo.v mm oo.NoH mH o o mm.m mm om.om «H o o mm.m voH om.on MH OHHuoH20hmm hocemueam o o mo.v Nm oo.mHH NH 0 o om.m an oo.mHH HH NH N mo.n om oo.vm OH O o mv.H ms oo.HNH m o o nE500 on use 95.50 Ou use m o 0 ”H5400 ou ”.50 u«HHHHOU 0» use b soHuemoumem euexOHB Hoccouuem so posmHmoo e>eo uo Hensdz no Hensdz HacoHuoeuuoo ueHomHm acusmfim uoeflnsm Hmsouo GOHuHosoo emscHucou--eH oHnoe 133 o o oomswom menswem OH O o osom Hammad osom Hammad m m H oHcHHu 033233 2.320 oHuumanma m o N mH.N NNH oo.mm N o H on.H he om.mn w o o oH.H hm oo.nm m o o ucdoo om use unsoo 0» poo v when n Hound when N sound 0 o mo.N cm om.mm m o o Hm.H om om.oh N o o HH.N mn oo.nm H H HHeoom ammooum Hms0muomuoucH o o NH.N me 00.55 mH o o mm.H vs om.vs VH o H NH.N mHH om.NMH NH 0 o No.H om oo.Nm NH 0 o wN.N NoH om.Hh HH 0 o mm.N av oo.HOH 0H 0 o NN.H wVH oo.mm m o o mN.v oHHe>cH oo.HoH m o o on.H «NH oo.Nm h o N Hm.m no om.mm w o o mm.N mm oo.om m o o cm.N no oo.mh v o H mm.N oHHe>sH om.Nm m o H om.N ooH om.mh N o H Hm.N oHHo>cH oo.mNH H m o o mo.N mNH oo.mm mH N N Nm.H hm om.NMH «H m H newsman oemswom NH 0 o on.m em oo.oHH NH 0 o No.H oNH oo.NHH HH 0 o on.H oh om.om oH soHuomouoem muoqua Hescomuom soHuesmHmoo when no nonsdz uo uenasz HssoHuoeuuoo ueHomHm unarmem uoonndm msouo coHuHocou possHusOU:IVH eHnma 134 0 0 00.N oHHe>sH 00.N0 0 0 0 NN.N 00 00.00 0 0 0 0N.N 00 00.N0 v 0 0 00.N 00 00.0HH 0 0 0 oemsuem ommswom N 0 0 0H.N 55 00.00 H v 0 0 H0.N 00H 00.05 0H 0 0 Nm.N 05 00.00 «H 0 H 00.N oHHo>sH 00.N0 0H 0 0 00.N oHHe>sH 00.00 NH 0 0 00.N 55H 00.55 HH 0 0 soHuommumem :oHummmummm 0H 0 0 0N.N 00 00.50 0 0 0 00.0 05 00.00 0 oomoomm menswem oomsmmm 5 0 0 oemsumm pomsuum 0 0 0 5H.N HMH 00.00 0 0 0 N0.N 00H 00.N0 v 0 H ommsuem oemsmem m 0 0 n5.N 00 00.05 N 0 0 00.H pHHo>sH 00.55 H m 0 0 Nv.N 05 00.05 0H 0 0 00.H 50 00.00 «H 0 0 50.0 00 00.00 0H 0 0 0v.H HOH 00.00 NH 0 0 00.H 00 00.00H HH 0 0 00.N 50 00.N0 0H 0 0 N0.N N0 00.05 m 0 0 v0.N HNH 00.50 0 0 0 00.N 0HH 00.00 5 0 H 00.N 0NH 00.00 0 0 0 unnamed oemsumm 0 0 0 NN.N oHHm>cH 00.0HH v 0 H pomsmem pomowum m commune laces consume laced newness N 0 00.N 00H 00.00H H N coHuemeumem mueona Heccomuom so unconeo a>eo no Menssz mo Honesz HocoHuoeuuou HoHomHm acuomem noonnsm Honcho coHuHocou emsaHucou--vH «Hams 1J35 0 0 «0.N 00 00.00 0H 0 0 5H.0 00H 00.00 0 0 0 0N.« 0HH 00.«5 0 0 0 00.0 «0 00.N0 5 0 0 05.H 0HHe>sH 00.«0 0 0 0 05.0 H5 00.«0 0 0 0 5H.N 00H 00.N0 « 0 0 00.« 00 00.00 0 0 H N5.N 0HHo>sH 00.00 N 0 0 scanned ommsmem H 0 pecusuom psom Haemm< 000m Hammad 0H ue>oz 0 soHummeummm COHuomeumom «H 0 00.H 50 00.N5 0H 0 menswem pomsmmm NH 0 00.H 05 00.H5 HH 0 0005000 oemsuem 0H 0 « 5H.0 «0 00.00 m 0 0 «5.« 0HH 00.«0 0 «H N «N.N 00H 00.00 5 0 0 00.H 5HH 00.00H 0 0 0 «0.N 00 00.00 0 0 0 00.N 50 00.N5 « 0 N 00.0 0HHo>sH 00.HHH 0 0 0 «0.0 00 00.50 N 0 0 peanuom oemsuom H 0 0 H 05.H 00H 00.00 0H 0 0 0N.N N0 00.05 «H 0 H nonsmom menswem 0H 0 0 pomsuom pomsuum NH 0 0 uHuz 00 00.«0 HH so omnooHem 0 H H0.H 00 00.05 0H 0 H 0N.0 00 00.00 0 0 0 H0.N ««H 00.N0 0 0 0 00.H 00 00.00 5 :oHuomeuuem mueHOHa HessOmuem . sOHuosm 000 when no HonEsz no umnfimz HesoHuoeuHoo uoHomHm acuemem pooMQSm msouw soHuHocou eoscHusoouu«H oHnos 1336 0 0 05 00.00 0H oomsomm 0 0 H0.0 00 00.00 0 0 H 00 00.05 0 pomeomm 0 0 N«.N 00H 00.N0 5 0 « 00 00.00 0 oommomm o someone we om.mHH 0 0H 0 00.0 00 00.00 « 0 0 «m 00.00 0 oHuumHmo>mm hocemuesm 0 0 00.0 0HHe>cH 00.00H N 0 0 50.H H5 00.00 H N 0 0 00.N 05 00.05 0H 0 H 0N.N 05 00.00 0 0 0 0H.0 «0 00.N0 0 0 0 0N.H 00 00.05 5 0 0 No.0 00H 00.00 0 0 0 00.N 0HH 00.HOH 0 m H laces consume knows consume « 0 0 0N.N N5 00.00 0 0 0 00 00.50 N commonm Houusoo ousuooq ommuoopH> 0 0 00.0 0NH 00.50 0H 0 H 0N.N HOH 00.00 «H 0 0 05.H «0 00.05 0H 0 0 05.0 0NH 00.50 NH 0 0 N0.H 00 00.00 HH coHuemeumom muexUHB Heccomuem GOHuesmHmoo name no Henfisz mo Henfisz HocoHuoeHHoo uoHomHm anummsm noonndm moose soHuHosoo emscHucoo--VH .Hnms REFERENCES REFERENCES Akman, D. D., Normandeau, A., & wolfgang, M. E. The group treatment literature in correctional institutions: An international bibliography, 1945-1967. The Jgurnal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1968, 52, 41-56. Archer, J. Undergraduates as paraprofessional leaders of interpersonal communication skills training groups using an integrated IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall) videotape feedback/affect simulation training model. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1971. Arnette, J. L. The effect of short term group counseling on anxiety and hostility of newly incarcerated prison inmates. Journal of Correctional Edu- cation, 1967, 12, I8-22. Atkins, B. M. & Glick, H. R. (Eds.). Prisggs, protest, and politics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Bailey, W. C. Correctional outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports. The Journal of Criminal Law, Crimi- nology. and PoIice Science, 1966, 31, 153-160. Barbash, J. T. A study of psychological therapy and post- release adjustment. Agerican Journal of Cor- rection, 1963, g§, 26-29. Cabush, D. W. Outcome effects of training college stu- dent clients in facilitative self-responding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi- Experimental desi us for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 196 . 137 138 Campbell, R. J., Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R. The development and validation of a scale to measure affective sensitivity (empathy). Journal of CounselinggPsychology, 1971, 18, 407-412. Carkhuff, R. R. & Banks, G. Training as a preferred mode of facilitating relations between races and generations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 11, 413-418. Carkhuff, R. R. & Bierman, R. Training as a preferred mode of treatment of parents of emotionally dis- turbed children. Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 1970, 11, 1575161. Carkhuff, R. R., Berenson, B. G., et al. The selection and training of correctional counselors on physical, emotional and intellectual dimensions. Unpublished mimeograph, Center for Human Relations and Community Affairs, 1964. Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: Prggtice and research} Vol. II. New York: Holt, Rine- hart, & Winston, 1969. Carkhuff, R. R. Training as a preferred mode of treat- ment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, L-B—I 123-131e Criminal Statistics. Lansing: Department of Cor- rectibns, 1970. Danish, S. J. & Brodsky, S. L. Training of policemen in emotional control and awareness. American Psy- chologist, 1970, 25, 368-369. Danish, S. J. & Kagan, N. Emotional simulation in counseling and psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theogy, Research, and Practice, 969, g, 61, 263? Dendy, R. F. A model for the training of undergraduate residence hall assistants as paraprofessional counselors using videotape techniques and Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Ernst, F. H. & Keating, W. C. Psychiatric treatment of the California felon. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 1964, 120, 974-979. 139 Fenton, N. An introduction to group counseling in spa: rectional service. Col ege Park: American Cor- rectional Association, 1957. Geis, G. The East Los Angeles halfway house for_garcotic addicts. Sacramento: Institute for the Study a? Crime and Delinquency, 1966. Ghastin, J. F. & Wells, H. G. A pilot project in parole group counseling. American Journal of Correction, 1965p 21’ l4-l7e Gibbons, D. C. Changing_the lawbreaker. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,_l965. Glaser, D. The effectiveness ofiaprison and parole system. IndianapoIis: Bebbs-Merrill, I964. Grzegorek, A. E. A study of the effects of two types of emphasis in counselor training used in conjunction with simulation and videotaping. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Hartson, D. J. & Kunce, J. T. Videotape replay and recall in group work. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Hartson, D. J. Video replay and interrogation in group work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Missouri, 1971. Heiserman, M. S. The effect of experiential-videotape training procedures compared to cognitive- classroom teaching methods on the interpersonal communication skills of juvenile court caseworkers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Howell, R. J., Payne, I. R., & Roe, A. V. Bi olar s - cholo ical inventory. Utah: PsychoIogicaI Assoc1ates, 1971. Jew, C. C., Clanon, T. L., & Mattocks, A. L. The effec- tiveness of group psychotherapy in a correctional institution. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972, 122, 114-117. Kagan, N. Can technology help us toward reliability in influencing human interaction? Educational 140 Kagan, N. Influencing human interaction--eleven year of IPR. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, New Orleans, 1973. Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D. R., et a1. Studies in human interaction: Interpgpsonal process recall stimu- lated by videotgpe. Edficational Puincation ServiCes, MiChigan State University, East Lansing, 1967. Kagan, N., Schauble, P., Resnikoff, A., Danish, S., & Krathwohl, D. Interpersonal process recall. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 118, 365-374. Kagan, N. & Schauble, P. G. Affect simulation in inter- personal process recall. Journal of Counseling. Psycholggy, 1969, 16, 309-313T Kassebaum, G., Ward, D., & Wilner, D. Prison treatment and arole survival: An empirical assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971. Kingdon, M. A. A cost/benefit analysis of the inter- personal process recall technique. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, in press. MacLeod, A. W. Recidivism: A deficiengy disease. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1965. Meyer, H., Borgatta, E., & Jones, W. Girls at vocational high. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965. Miller, J. H. Sensitivity training with incarcerated criminals: Personality correlates of partici- pant duration and an assessment of therapeutic value. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1971. Pierce, R. M. & Drasgow, J. Teaching facilitative interpersonal functioning to psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, lg, 2953298. Reimer, E. a Smith, G. B. A treatment experience in prison community living. American Journal of Report on Civil Commitment Program for Narcotics Users. Sacramento: CalifBrnia Department o Cor- rections, 1967. 141 Resnikoff, A., Kagan, N., & Schauble, P. G. Acceleration of psychotherapy through stimulated videotape recall. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1970, 35, 102-111. Richmond, M. S. Prison profiles. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana, 1965. Rowe, K. K. A 50-hour intensified IPR training program for counselors. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1972. Scharf, K. R. Training of resident assistants and peer group members in the communication interactional process skills of empathic understanding of student feeling and student depth of self- exploration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Schauble, P. G. The acceleration of client progress in counseling and psychotherapy through interpersonal process recall. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1970. Truax, C. B. & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective counsel- ing and psychotherspy. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Truax, C. B., Wargo, D. G., & Silber, L. D. Effects of psychotherapy with high accurate empathy and non- possessive warmth upon female institutionalized delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Psycholggy, 1966 , _7_]-_' 267-274 e Van Noord, R. W. Stimulated recall with videotape and simulation in counseling and psychotherapy: A comparison of the effects of two methodologies with undergraduate student clients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Vitalo, R. L. Teaching improved interpersonal function- ing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1971, ‘21, l65-I7l. Vukcevich, U. 8. Teaching social adjustment to incar- cerated offenders utilizing principles of group dynamics. Journal of Correctional Education, 1964' 1.3, 932-936e Wilmer, H. A., Marks, 1., & Pogue, E. Group treatment of prisoners and their families. Mental Hygiene, 1966, :2, 380-389. 142 Wolk, R. L. The relationship of group psychotherapy to institutional adjustment. Group Psychothergpy, WOOdy, R. H., et a1. Stimulated recall in psychotherapy using hypnosis and videotape. The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1965, 1, 234-241.