AN BtPERlMENTAL-STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF 24-HOUR MARATHON ; ENCOUNTER GROUPS 0N. SELF CONCEPT Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. Di MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DAVID W. MESSMORE 1972 This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Experimental Study on the Effects of 24-Hour Marathon Encounter Groups on Self Concept presented by David W. Messmore has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Edugtion WW Major pfi Date September 1, 1972 0-7639 HMS 8 SUNS' 800K BINDERY INC. ‘ 1E. LIBRARY amt): as ”3131:9281. MICIIGA‘N ABSTRACT AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF 24-HOUR MARATHON ENCOUNTER GROUPS ON SELF-CONCEPT by David W; Messmore Purpose The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 24-hour marathon encounter groups on self-concept, as measured by the Miskimins Self-Goal-Other Discrepancy Scale. Sample The participants were seventy-two volunteers recruited from the College of Education at Michigan State University during the Summer Term, 1972. In addition, the sample included volunteers from the greater Lansing, Michigan area. Each participant was asked to designate a significant other, who was also included in this study. The sample included 45 men and 27 women, with education levels varying from one year of community college to post-master's work. The mean age was 32.5 with a range of 20 years of age to 45 years of age. Procedures An experimental three-celled design (24-hour, 6-hour, and control) was employed with three groups in each cell. The volunteers were randomly assigned a number and that number randomly assigned to a group within one of the three cells. Due to this randomization process, a post-treatment measurement was used. In addition, the significant others were asked to rate the participants two weeks after the completion of the treatment. Results The post-test scores were analyzed using a multivariate and univariate analyses of variance. No treatment effects could be demonstrated at the .10 level of significance using any of the scales employed. AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF 24-HOUR MARATHON ENCOUNTER GROUPS ON SELF CONCEPT A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Higher Education by [Li'* David WI Messmore September 1972 0((?\ TABLE OF CONTENTS Q;\ L IST OF TABI‘E S O O I O O O O O O O O I 0 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . BRIEF HISTORY OF T-GROUPS . . TYPES OF GROUPS . . . . . . . DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis One . . . . . . . Subhypothesis one . . . . Subhypothesis two . . . . Subhypothesis three . . . Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . Subhypothesis one . . . . Subhypothesis two . . . . Subhypothesis three . . . SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY . . RELEVANCE TO EDUCATION . . . . OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATION . . . 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE OF THE MARATHON GROUP MARATHON GROUP RESEARCH . . . FUNCTION or THE LEADER . . . . i Page iv 10 11 ll 11 13 18 ii Chapter Page FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 SELF THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 SELF/IDEAL SELF DISCREPANCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 PROBLEMS IN RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 INSTRUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 INSTRUCTION TO LEADERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 DATA COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 TESTABLE HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Subhypothesis one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Subhypothesis two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Subhypothesis three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Subhypothesis one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Subhypothesis two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Subhypothesis three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 sabhypOthe 8 1 8 one o o o o o o o o o o o .' o o o o o o 3 8 iii Chapter Page Subhypothesis two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Subhypothesis three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Subhypothesis one . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . 41 Subhypothesis two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Subhypothesis three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 PROBLEM AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 METHODOLOGY.......................45 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 SUBJECTIVE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 DISCUSSION.......................50 SAMPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 DESIGNANDSTATISTICS.................. 51 INSTRUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 TREATMENT ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 CONCLUSION.......................53 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................54 APPENDICES........... ..... ............55 BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................61 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Characteristics of the Sample: Age and Sex . . . . . . . 30 3.2 Prior Experience of Participants . . . . ... . . . . . . 32 4.1 Univariate Tests for Differences Between Treatment Groups on Six Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 40 4.2 Multivariate Test . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.3 Treatment Group Means and Pooled Standard Deviations for the Six Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.4 Intercorrelation Matrix Among the Six Dependent Variables 44 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study was concerned primarily with the change in self- concept that results from a 24-hour marathon encounter group experience. To date, marathon encounter group research has been primarily of testimonial and anecdotal nature. Because of the dearth of experi- mental measurement for the effect on self-concept of participants in this particular type of encounter group, an experimental design will be used in this study. A systematic attempt was made to collect data using a post-measurement; in addition, there was a rating by significant others two weeks after the group experience. PURPOSE In this study the following questions will be investigated: 1. Does a significant difference in self-concept exist between individuals who have participated in a 24-hour marathon and those who have not? Is there a difference in self/ideal self discrepancy between individuals who have experienced a 24-hour marathon encounter group and those who have not? If a difference in self-concept exists will it be apparent to significant others? 1 BRIEF HISTORY OF T-GROUPS The concept of sensitivity group, T-group, or encounter group originated in 1947 as training laboratories at the State Teachers College in New Britain, Connecticut. This learning research enterprise was sponsored jointly by the Connecticut Inter-Racial Commission, the Connecticut Department of Education, and the Research Center for Group Dynamics located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (10). Notable authorities participating in the program included training leaders Kenneth D. Benne and Leland P. Bradford and researchers Kurt Lewin and Ronald Lippitt. The training laboratories were established to analyze the "back home" problems that individual participants brought to the T-group. ‘Marrow states that one of the salient problems often discussed was inter-racial prejudice (50). The major modality for this problem analysis was group discussion supplemented by role-playing when applicable (10). Each participant was encouraged to help himself through the assistance of the group; that is, to diagnose and experiment 'with his own feelings, attitudes, and behavior in the group. During this time a small continuing group, the Basic Skill Training (BST) was formed to aid the individual in learning and changing skills as well as changing his self-concept. The group used anecdotal data collected by an observer and made available for discussion and growth; in addition, exercises were included to enhance awareness. Experimental research was the primary interest of the BST group; 'however, the trainer could not function in the dual role of researcher and group facilitator created by the formation of BST. Subsequently, an evolution in T-groups began; a separation of the action-research model from the clinical approach. According to Bradford (9), T-group history can be separated into two periods. The first period, from 1945 to 1955, saw the initial formal development of laboratory training, with the focus on the elim- ination of extraneous functions of the leader. In the initial stages of development, many were concerned that the T-group was too clinically- oriented and perhaps analogous to therapy. Therefore, the name of the first group, BST, was renamed T-group (T for training), and the emphasis was placed on sociological small group theories of Lewin, with further emphasis on the transference of learning to the "back home" setting. The role of the trainer was changed to that of a facilitator who no longer gave structured feedback to members, but encouraged spontaneous feedback by members and the leader. The second period, from 1955 to present, emphasized the expansion of the T-group into a more comprehensive laboratory program. Groups with varying emphases were developed, including occupational groups, company groups, couples groups and organizational groups. In addition, outgrowth-laboratories in the Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles areas developed under the auspices of National Training Laboratory (57). Over the last 10 years, according to Rogers, the encounter movement has permeated almost every social institution in our culture (65). Because of this rapid growth, there has been: (1) a lack of qualified trainers, (2) little or no licensing and certification of leaders, and (3) little support from universities and foundations. In an attempt to ameliorate this situation, many writers have posed recommendations. Gazda g£,§1., recommends that associations, such as the American Psychological Association, American Personnel and Guidance Association, The American Group Psychotherapy Association and the American Psychiatric Association, should convene a national conference and not only set guidelines for policies, licensing, and certification, but also define ethical behavior and practices for T-groups and their leaders (24). Currently the vast majority of T-groups are being conducted as "self-awareness" groups, (therapy for normals), which departs from the clinical approach (10). TYPES OF GROUPS During the past decade the terms encounter group, marathon group, sensitivity training, and T-group have been used interchangeably. Eddy and Lubin have defined encounter group as a small, intensive group experience, in which the focus is on expanding awareness, reducing dysfunctional inhibitions, and gaining sensitivity to interper- sonal conflicts (18). The leader's role is more directive and active, with little emphasis placed on the group pg; 35 as a learning modality. Sensitivity training is currently used as a generic term with all small group training approaches subsumed under it. T-group is a relatively unstructured experience in which the participants are responsible for utilizing the group to deve10p, support, learning and feedback for their growth. In the T-group, the members have an oppor- tunity to receive feedback from other members as well as the leader. The participants are encouraged to experiment with various kinds of roles and new behaviors. In addition, members of this group learn to understand group dynamics and to develop a sensitivity to others' feelings. Personal growth is the focus of the T-group; the group itself is utilized as a learning instrument. The marathon group is defined by Eddy and Lubin as a time- extended encounter group that utilizes the element of fatigue to reduce participants' defenses in order to facilitate growth (18). DEFINITION OF TERMS For this study, the marathon.ggggp is defined as an encounter group consisting of 24 hours of interpersonal interaction. The emphasis here is on expanding awareness, reducing interpersonal conflicts as related to the group in the "here and now", and reducing dysfunctional inhibitions. Self-concept.--is defined as the manner in which the individual views himself and his relationship to his environment. Participant.--is an individual who has volunteered for the 24-hour marathon experience. Significant other.--is defined by the participant himself in response to "The person who knows me best is ." Observer.--is used interchangeably with significant other. Ideal self.--is defined as the self the participant would most like to be. HYPOTHESES {After reviewing the literature on sensitivity groups, specifi- cally marathon encounter groups, the following directional hypotheses have been formulated: Hypothesis One There will be a significant difference in self-concept between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell and the control cell. Subhypothesis one. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell will be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as measured by the Miskimins Social Subscale. Subhypothesis two. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell will be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as measured by the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. Subhypothesis three. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell will be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as measured by the Miskimins Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale. Hypothesis Two There will be a significant difference between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell, and the control cell as rated by the significant other. Subhypothesis one. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell will be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins General Subscale. Subhypothesis two. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell will be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins Social Subscale. Subhypothesis three. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell will be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The rapid growth of encounter groups, T-groups, and marathon groups has not produced the research and theory desired by leaders and participants. The literature is replete with empirical observations by participants; however testimonials alone are inadequate. .Although there is intrinsic value in empirical observations, more objective, experimental research is needed. The laboratory method of education does not have a theory of its own; rather, it draws from the large amount of research of social psychology and the sociology of the small group. Carl Rogers has contributed to the development of a theory ‘with his individual, client-centered therapy approach. He has kept accurate records and recorded entire sessions in order to glean from the data as much information as possible, relative to theory devel- opment (34). In view of all the data collected, trainers, leaders and participants are asking what occurs in the T-group. How do you know what the outcome'will be? How can you predict the outcome of a given group? Obviously, research is needed to answer these and other questions, and to assist in the development of a theory for the encounter movement . As Mintz observes, the wide use of the specific type of sensi- tivity group known as the marathon is rapidly expanding; however, 8 research has not kept abreast. At this time, the marathon group, as a technique is still experimental (55). Many authorities, such as Mintz (57), Gazda (24), and Eddy and Lubin (18) agree on the need for experimental research on all types of laboratory training, especially the marathon group. Therefore, it is possible that this study could contribute to the needed research. RELEVANCE TO EDUCATION During the last decade, higher education has been criticized because it both lacks relevance and provides a depersonalized exper- ience for the college student, Goodman (31), Sanford (70), Katz (43), Billington (7). Criticisms, along with the student demand for relevancy in education, have prompted some universities to evaluate and renew their programs. The keystone of student discontent with higher education is the lack of a "personal" educational experience, that is relevant to contemporary society and individual needs, Morris gg.‘_l., (50), Goodman (31), and Sanford (70). In spite of the stated goals of the majority of colleges and universities, few have implemented the student personnel view as stated by Williamson: to educate the whole person, both affect and cognition (87). There is abundant psycho- logical evidence indicating that emotions have significant influence on cognitive development and learning, Maslow (51), Brown (11), and Parson (21). Further, Brown states that little learning occurs without the support of the affective domain of the individual. He continues by saying that without the realization of the self, an integrated wholeness in which the individual finds his identity, little learning occurs (11). Erikson states that an individual who is not sure of his identity tends to shy away from interpersonal friendships and inti- macies (20). However, as his identity comes into focus, he begins, ‘with increased inspiration, to seek out friendships and roles in lea- dership capacities. Encounter groups in general, and more specifically marathons, can be utilized in.a variety of ways in higher education to aid the individual in finding himself. These groups can be initiated through the student personnel programs, including residence halls, counseling center, and any organization wishing to use this learning experience. As a training device for graduate students in student personnel, counseling and other graduate programs, the encounter group approach provides a "learning by doing" opportunity. Speaking on human relations training, Jenkins stated that it is difficult to effectively direct our own behavior in relation to the group, if our understanding of the social and psychological factors are incomplete (40). The encounter group experience seems to have particular relevance for the training of teachers. Bradford directs his thoughts towards teaching. He feels teaching calls for more than knowledge of human behavior. What is needed is the skills that enable the teacher to interact with the group and the individual learner (8). Traditional methods of training teachers ignore the development of the sensitivity and skills needed for effective interaction. In an earlier period, Thelen voiced the need for teachers to develop understanding and sensitivity, which requires interpersonal perception and empathy, so 10 that they could perceive the learners' frame of reference. The cited authorities and many others are juxtaposed in the opinion that teachers need to develop sensitivity, understanding, and the ability to take the frame of reference of the learner. These goals can be attained through the marathon encounter group. The marathon encounter group could be included in course work in the College of Education, Department of Psychology, Department of Social work, or any other college or department with access to qualified leaders. Some universities have included this training as a part of their curriculum in the Department of Psychology (59). In sum, education, in particular higher education, needs to be responsive to its critics and student population if it is to meet its purpose of developing human potential. One way of meeting the demands for more meaningful personal education is the use of marathon encounter groups. OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATION This thesis has been divided into five chapters; chapter one is the introduction. .A review of relevant literature is discussed in chapter two. Chapter three contains the research design, sample, instruments and procedures for evaluation. Chapter four consists of the discussion and analysis of the data, relative to the hypotheses. The final section, chapter five, includes implications and recommen- dations for further research and a summary of the conclusions. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION This chapter contains a review of the current literature concerning the marathon encounter group. Also included are discussions concerning the purpose of the marathon encounter group, participants' rules, function of the leader, and factors contributing to change in the group. A discussion of self theory, including the genesis and function of the self, is presented. The chapter continues with a section concerning the discrepancy between the self and the ideal-self; in conclusion, the problems found in researching the marathon encounter group are mentioned. PURPOSE OF THE MARATHON GROUP According to Murphy, the affective domain is the primary concern of the marathon group. However, the cognitive domain is also impor- tant (60). Demos states the purpose of the marathon encounter is to assist the participants in becoming more sensitive to themselves and to others and to show how conscious and unconscious behavior affects ourselves and others. He continues by saying that a participant can learn that others value him.for his good points, but do not dislike him after seeing some of his weak points. As others accept him, the participant can begin to accept himself (16). ll 12 Bach sees the marathon as an opportunity for participants to have a unique chance to be honest and open and to become psychologically intimate in a day and night human encounter (1). Rogers feels the purpose of the marathon is to assist people to get in touch with their feelings, to become more spontaneous, open, empathetic, and accepting of others, and to realize more self- potential (65). Gibb and Gibb see the marathon as a vehicle to assist participants in becoming role free. This includes becoming more personal, replacing facades with intimacy and directness, becoming more self-determining, developing the capacity for interdependent rela- tionships, and becoming more self-actualizing (28). Schutz supports the above by stating that the purpose of the marathon encounter group is to assist the participants to develop their potential as human beings, to assist in the development of the feeling that they can cope with the environment, feel competent as a significant person, feel free to express feelings, and become more self-regulating (72). Several authors, Bach (l), Stoller (79), and Demos (16) have developed guidelines for the participants to follow during a marathon encounter group. Because these guidelines overlap to a great extent, those presented here are a synthesis of the above authors' guidelines and expectations. 1. The group is to remain together for the entire marathon experience. 2. Sub-grouping is not allowed. 3. Exercise, meals and rest are decided on by the group. 4. Alcohol and drugs are not allowed. 13 5. The leader must adhere to the same guidelines as the participants. 6. Threats or physical violence are not allowed. 7. Observers are not permitted; active participation is desired. 8. The "here and now", not past experiences, are relevant for the group. 9. Transparency and sharing of true feelings are to be accomplished as much as possible. 10. Participants are to give spontaneous feedback to one another. 11. Confidentiality is upheld. MARATHON GROUP RESEARCH The marathon encounter group experience is historically a new approach. Its genesis dates back to the late 1940's, when Kurt Lewin and others, under the auspices of the National Training Laboratory, began to study and experiment with T-groups (16). Gallagher and Demos note the expansion and experimentation of the marathon encounter group (23). The western Behavioral Science Institute in La Jolla, California, is currently involved in marathon group experimentation, as is the Center for the Study of the Person in San Diego, California. In 1966, a group working for the exploration of marathon encounter was established at the Esalen Foundation, Big Sur, California. The current technique of time-extended groups (marathons) was developed by Dr. George Bach and Dr. Frederick Stoller. Bach described the marathon encounter group as an authentic, human interaction that l4 resembled a group practicum in intimacy (1). He continues his description by noting that the marathon technique has certain unique aspects. The acceleration of transparency, the intensification of interaction by deliberate intent, and the use of group pressure to promote personal growth are some facets of the marathon encounter group. Mintz, after several years as a marathon leader, emphasizes the need for empirical research (57). The marathon encounter group, states Mintz, is in its infancy, and little research has been done to date. Sampling the growth centers around the nation in her quest for infor- mation regarding the research on marathon groups, she found that there 'were no organized research programs at that time. Each asked participants to complete a self-report assessment checklist after they had experienced a marathon group (2). The questionnaire was a multiple-choice type, using words and essays 'written by former group members. These data were collected from nine different marathon groups. Respondents were asked to check items that they felt best illustrated the way they received and offered help. Self-understanding was checked 25 percent of the time; aggression and confrontation, 20 percent; acceptance-warmth, 19 percent; empathetic- understanding, 18 percent and problem solving, 18 percent. In another study by Bach, the "least helpful" types of interactions were recorded (3). The results showed that 26 percent of the participants felt that the avoidance of aggressive confrontation was one of the least helpful interactions. This supports Bach's theory about the positive aspects of aggression in marathon encounter groups. Further support for the positive aspects of the aggressive confrontation is evidenced by Stoller, who utilized videotape as a 15 feedback modality to foster confrontation (80). In Stoller's study, those group members, who were focussed upon, responded by being self- confronting when the videotape was played back. Other participants were encouraged to express their feelings in response to the videotape. Hill's matrix was utilized to analyze the group process. The outcome showed that the growth ingredient of personal confrontation can be induced and increased by the use of videotape feedback. Guinan and Foulds tested Bach's hypothesis that the marathon encounter group is the most effective means of reducing alienation in our time (33). .A control and experimental group design was used; subjects were taken from a college population on a volunteer basis. Pre- and post-treatment was utilized using the Personal Orientation Inventory. The results showed that the experimental group scored significantly higher than did the control group. Significantly higher post-treatment scores for the experimental group were ascertained on the following scales: reactivity, spontaneity, self-acceptance, feeling, inner direction, acceptance of aggression, existentiality, and capacity for intimate contact. There was no significant change in the control group. Weigel did a follow-up study on marathon participants involving the observations of "significant others" (86). His follow-up data indicated that the "significant other" of the experimental group were able to observe more increased movement towards self-desired behavioral goals than could their counterparts in the control group. A study conducted on an extended group, or minimarathon (18 hours), by Saretsky showed mixed results (71). A class was divided into 4 section of 15 students each. One section was used as a control 16 feedback.modality to foster confrontation (80). In Stoller's study, those group members, who were focussed upon, responded by being self- confronting when the videotape was played back. Other participants were encouraged to express their feelings in response to the videotape. Hill's matrix was utilized to analyze the group process. The outcome showed that the growth ingredient of personal confrontation can be induced and increased by the use of videotape feedback. Guinan and Foulds tested Bach's hypothesis that the marathon encounter group is the most effective means of reducing alienation in our time (33). A.control and experimental group design was used; subjects were taken from a college population on a volunteer basis. Pre- and post-treatment was utilized using the Personal Orientation Inventory. The results showed that the experimental group scored significantly higher than did the control group. Significantly higher post-treatment scores for the experimental group were ascertained on the following scales: reactivity, spontaneity, self-acceptance, feeling, inner direction, acceptance of aggression, existentiality, and capacity for intimate contact. There was no significant change in the control group. Weigel conducted a follow-up study on marathon participants involving the observations of "significant others" (86). His follow-up data indicated that the "significant other" of the experimental group were able to observe more increased movement towards self-desired behavioral goals than could their counterparts in the control group. .A study conducted on an extended group, or minimarathon (18 hours), by Saretsky showed mixed results (71). A class was divided into 4 sections of 15 students each. One section was used as a control 17 in 4 to 6 months (38). Hall reported on a participant who had kept a ongoing diary of his experiences in a marathon group. This journal showed that the participant's feelings of self-acceptance and self- exploration had increased (34). Hunts notes that participants speak almost unanimously of marathons, as a positive and worthwhile experience (56). In another study by Lieberman et. al., 10 major approaches to leading an encounter group were evaluated. These 10 approaches were: 1. T-group (structured awareness experiences). 2. Synanon Group (very aggressive confrontation). 3. Transactional Analysis Group (study of parent, adult, child). 4. Gestalt Group (here and now, awareness techniques). 5. Non-verbal Group (use of awareness techniques non-verbally). 6. Psychodrama Group (use of psychodrama and role playing). 7. Leaderless Tape Group (no leader, use of tape recordings). 8. Psychoanalytically Oriented Group. 9. Rogerian Oriented Group (non-directive, unstructured). 10. Marathon Group. All groups were allowed to utilize 30 hours in any manner they desired. However, only the marathon group was allowed to utilize the total amount of time in a contimom mode. All subjects involved in this experiment were tested several weeks prior to their assignment to groups, 2 months after the pre-test, and 6 months after that. The research was evaluated on the following 11 scales: 1. Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy. 2. Interpersonal Constructs Systems. l8 3. Leader Ratings of Participants. 4. Identification of Psychological Causalities Resulting From the Group. 5. A.Study of Group Processes. 6. Interpersonal Changes. 7.’ Value Reorientation. 8. Peak Experiences. 9. Social Network Ratings of Change. 10. Effect on Life Decisions. 11. Learning New Ways to Deal with Problem Situations. The results showed that 75 percent of the group members felt their experience was constructive. However, only 35 percent of the experi- mental population showed significant improvement. Another outcome of this study indicated that although some groups had little, if any, growth, others showed significant growth for the entire group. These findings suggest that encounter leaders differ widely in leadership styles and functions (48). FUNCTION OF THE LEADER The leader's function initially was that of a clinical psychologist, whose input in the group was directed toward the individual (10). However, at this point their role has changed and is defined by Fiebert as a catalyst, who stimulates the group to take risks, communicate Openly and honestly, and share their feelings (22). Gibb and Gibb define the role of the leader as, "leader-as-person". Thus, the "leader-as-person" is as free as any other member to influence the group in a spontaneous manner and possesses the power to effect growth (29). 19 Another author, Jourard, supports the “leader-as-person” model. He stated that if the leader can be real (authentic, honest and open, transparent) the group will feel free to be the same (42). A more authoritative and directive leader is suggested by Ellis in his rational encounter. He feels the leader should direct and lead the group with the emphasis on rational thoughts and actions (19). To provide an accepting, warm atmosphere that is conducive to sharing and learning is the primary responsibility of the leader, states Bach (4). He continues at length to describe functions for the leader. These functions are to: I. draw out individual memberS'wifih the utilization of group influence, 2. focus candid feedback on individual members, 3. assist participants in identifying unconscious "pay offs" and defeating interaction patterns, 4. identify interpersonal rituals and games which are intimacy preventing, 5. reinforce change with a coaching type of support, 6. imaintain the group tension within manageable limits, 7. demonstrate the difference between helpful and hurtful communications, 8. assist participants in focusing on the "here and now", 9. assist participants in sharing feelings and perceptions, 10. provide a safe means for a full exploration and non- destructive expression of conflict and aggression, 11. provide a model of the authentic, Open, honest person, 20 12. assist the numbers into new stages of growth when other participants are resistant, l3. assist the group in obtaining the greatest advantages from crisis. Bach ends his guidelines with a suggestion that "before the end of the group experience", the leader should conduct a personal survey of the individual's feelings and attitudes toward himself and the group. If a participant is excessively disturbed, the leader should attend to him.immediately and hold a follow-up interview (4). Morris‘gg,‘gl,, feels the leader should encourage and foster openness and directness between group participants. They suggest that intellectualizing, verbiage and analyzing should be discouraged by the leader who should instead focus on the "here and now" with emphasis on the affective domain (58). They conclude by stating that the responsibility for change and growth, however, is on the individual in the group. Shapiro sees the role of the leader as a facilitator using himself as an instrument (73). That is, the leader should utilize his own personal strenths in an open and revealing manner in order to encourage risk taking and the development of trust in the group. He continues by stating that the leader "manages" the flow of the group in an attempt to develop group cohesion. He feels that harsh confron- tation can destroy this atmosphere. The importance of the leader was discussed by Back (5). He observed the effects of the leader on the dynamics of the group and its development. He found that the type of contributions and the amount of participation by the leader directly influenced the group. 21 The style and function of the group facilitator has been minimally researched (57). Furthermore, the theoretical background of the leader has been ignored. IMany authors' views of the role of the leader overlap, Rogers (65), Mintz (57), Morris 25. g_l_., (59), and Shapiro (73). Some authors feel that aggressive confrontation is a valuable part of the encounter, Stoller (80), Bach (3), and Ellis (19). Still other authors utilized the structured group and a variety of or techniques to gain desired ends, Schutz (72), Perls (62). FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CHANGE .Although there has been minimal research on factors contributing to change in the marathon group, it seems possible that they are interchangeable with factors contributing to change in the T-groups. The ability to be open about one's self, according to Glueck, is a requirement for change (30). Harrison and Oshry investigated characteristics of individuals and the way they related in the group (37). They found that participants who gained most were described as open to ideas, good listeners, tolerant and accepting of others, and were unlikely to place responsibility for organizational problems on the inadequacies of individuals. Miles found the factors of autonomy, security, and problem-solving skills were important aspects of learning in the encounter group (54). Sherwood found that group members' perceptions of an individual were related to the change in self-identity (74). However, other factors include the individual's involvement in the group and the amount of feedback given. 22 Feedback is one of the most important factors in promoting personal growth in the encounter group. The effects of feedback on the individual were studied by Lippitt (49). His study paired 28 individuals and gave one‘member of each pair feedback on how the numbers of his group wanted him to change. The results were that 13 of 14 individuals who had received feedback, changed in the direction the group suggested. The group of 14 individuals who received no feedback showed changes in only 8 cases. The study by Gibb st, 51., showed that positive, feeling- oriented feedback resulted in the least defensiveness, more efficiency, and greater participation in the group (27). Conversely, Miles found that strong, negative feedback was most effective in inducing change (54). . Gibb and Platts combined feedback with special training (role-playing) (25). The results showed that participants receiving neither special training nor feedback showed no change in self-insight, while groups receiving both, changed significantly, and groups receiving only one or the other showed some change. In a study on giving and receiving feedback,‘Myers £5, 21,, found that individuals who both gave and received feedback showed more changes (61). Gibb studied the effects of role-playing on self-insight, role flexibility, and the ability to conceptualize a new role. The role- playing technique was found to be an important aspect in the group experience by enabling the individual to gain insight and reduce role- rigidity (26). Both negative and positive aspects of role-playing were discussed by Rosenberg (69). However, he did find that role-playing did assist individuals with new modes of behavior. 23 Bradford identified an individual phenomenon, that of response set (10). That is, participants who expect to change and attempt to utilize the group in a constructive manner generally change. At the same time participants who had no expectations of change did not change. Disenstadt found that readiness for change is not only important, but is a factor of personality (17). Another study by Miles found that although a readiness for change was desirable, that factor alone was not sufficient to produce change (53). Group composition has been found to be another relevant factor for change. The assumption that heterogeneity would increase the opportunities to learn new behaviors and homogeneity would facilitate communications were investigated. Lieberman researched the importance of group composition (47). Groups composed of dissim- ilar individuals showed change relative to affect. The participants who did not change were found to have personal characteristics similar to the group and, therefore, experienced little pressure or opportunity to experiment with behavior. Harrison and Lubin studied the difference between process- oriented and work-oriented groups (36). They found that homogenous grouping resulted in a lack of the confrontation needed for growth and learning. A homogenous group was studied by Greening and Coffey (32). These researchers found that significant learning seemed to be facilitated when group members could related their problems personally to other group members. Powers found that participants in a homogeneous grouping experienced more growth when combined with a leader whose orientation and style was similar to that group (63). Smith seems to support 24 Powers' findings with his research indicating that identification with the leader produces more change (75). Another factor that contributes to change is the individual member. A.scale was developed by Mathis to predict potential learning and change of the individual (52). The hypothesis was that inner conflict would foster individual's search for solutions via group interaction. The research supports Mathis' hypothesis. Another study by Winter £2, 51., showed that realization of discrepancy between personal goals and overt behavior was positively related to self- directed personal change (89). Stock found that individuals, who experienced conflict relative to their self-concept and were unsure of their own attitudes, displayed more change than members who experienced less conflict over their identities (78). Personality variables are important for growth and learning in the group; however, the interaction with the group is what facilitates change, according to Miles (53). The variables include a desire for change, active interaction in the group, being receptive to feedback, and attempting to change old behavior patterns. SELF THEORY Mead states that the genesis of the self is in infancy (81). Although the self is not present at birth, it is learned through the process of social experiences and activities. He continues by stating that every experience contributes its small quota, either positively or negatively, to the development of the self-concept. The environment plays an increasingly important role in the development of the self. 25 Mead feels that the individual learns to respond to himself as others have responded to him (81). Rogers feels that the self-concept or structure of self is an organized configuration of perceptions that are admissable to awareness. It is composed of several elements: (1) the perceptions of one's abilities and characteristics, (2) the concept of the self in relation to others and the environment, (3) the qualities that are perceived as associated with experiences and objects, and (4) ideas and goals that have positive or negative valence (68). According to Symonds, the self is the frame of reference in which a person conceives, perceives, and evaluates his environment. He further explains that the self has four aspects: (1) perceived self, or the self that the individual sees in the mirror and the voice he hears when he speaks, (2) concept, or the way in which the individual thinks of himself (i.e. a child views himself as "good" or "bad"), (3) value or interest which refers to one's curiosity about himself and the positive or negative feelings one has about himself, and (4) system of activities, the aspect of self that relates to the values, attitudes, and interest the individual holds for himself (84). A parallel view is presented by Snygg and Combs. They state that self-concept is a part of the phenomenal field that the individual has defined and differentiated as the characteristics of himself (77). White discusses the development of self-concept. He states that self-esteem.depends on what the individual judges valuable in his achievements and how people respond to him (87). Rogers states that psychological adjustment exists when the self-concept is relatively congruent‘with the experiences of the 26 individual. Psychological disturbance develops when a person's perception of himself is not congruent with his perception of the world. The knowledge about the self is gained through interaction with the environment. Therefore, we depend upon feedback and inter- action with others to learn about ourselves (67). The self, as it evolves, is composed of all the individual's experiences according to Jersild. He states that the self is the inner world of the person's thoughts, feelings, fears and attitudes related to his worth (41). SELF/IDEAL SELF DISCRERANCY An individual has two selves, the perceived self, which is the "here and now", and the ideal self, which is the one he would like to be. Butler and Haigh see the ideal self as a group of charac- teristics and emotional states that the individual holds desirable for himself on a conscious level (13). They suggest that the degree of disparity between the self and the ideal self indicates a measure of self-esteem or self-value. Their rationale is that the individual is evaluating himself in terms of his ideal self. They continue by stating that a reduction of self/ideal self discrepancy is a result of the ideal self and perceived self coming together and developing a broader base of available eXperiences. That is, these two concepts become more consistent (l3). Rogers says that the decrease in self/ideal self discrepancy results in the individual allowing himself to be less perfect and more realistic (66). In a study, Ratz and Zigler found that the self/ideal 27 self discrepancy was related to the age and intelligence of the individual. The findings showed that a decreased self-evaluation resulted from social demands and higher self-expectations of the individual (44) . Burke and Dennis found that personal adjustment was indicated by a low discrepancy between self and ideal self. They found a significant increase in self-satisfaction and a decrease in ideal ‘self discrepancy after an encounter group experience. They also observed a decrease in the discrepancy between an individual's self perceptions and perceptions of him by others (12). PROBLEMS IN RESEARCH In reviewing the problems of research, Campbell and Dunnette found one major problem to be measurement (l4). Researchers are interested in investigating the change of feelings and attitudes over a short period of time, and instruments have not been designed to measure these outcomes. The majority of research reports utilize the self-report technique. These reports are likely to be biased and, as Stroud reports, most people give positive ratings of their group experience (82). Saretsky suggests that it is difficult to find appropriate methodology and measurement for the study of the marathon (71). She points out the difficulty in isolating variables without diluting the complex processes that exist in the group (71). Mintz cites the insufficient research on leadership styles as a problem in determining change in a group (57). Other authors, Richards (64) and Bednar (6) have found that few research studies meet minimum research standards in the use of control groups and an objective criterion to measure change. 28 It is often difficult to measure change in a group because of the lack of both appropriate instrumentation and reliability of outcome studies to meet minimal research criteria. More research is needed utilizing objective instruments (57). SUMMARY A review of marathon literature showed a significant lack of objective, sound methodology and instrumentation relative to the mara- thon encounter group. The purpose of the marathon was discussed from the viewpoints of several authorities. It is significant to note the overlap of the purpose and definition of the marathon. The function of the leader was reviewed together‘with a list of guidelines for his function as stated by several authors. When discussing the factors contributing to change, it was seen that six factors need to be present for change to occur; which are: (l) ability to be Open about oneself, (2) response set, (3) group composition, (4) individual differences, (5) role felxibility, and (6) individuals' conflict over their identity. The genesis of the self together with its development was briefly discussed. The value and necessity of feedback on the development of the self was cited. The discrepancy between self and ideal self was explored. Finally, the problems in research were briefly presented. Chapter three contains research design and methodology together 'with instruments. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION This study was undertaken when a review of the literature on the subject revealed a lack of experimental research data in this area. The study was designed to determine the effects of a 24-hour marathon encounter group on the Self-Concept and Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy of the participants. SAMPLE The sample for this study was drawn primarily from the College of Education's summer term, 1972, students at Michigan State University. In addition, participants were recruited from the greater Lansing/East Lansing, Michigan area. The occupational make-up consisted of 28 teachers, 14 upper-division undergraduate students, 7 principals, 6 doctoral candidates, 6 master's candidates, 2 social workers, 2 dental hygienists, l teacher's side, 1 air traffic controller, 1 housewife, l minister, 1 free lance artist, 1 secretary, and 1 speech therapist. All participants volunteered for this study. The level of education ranged from one year of community college to postdmaster's study, with the majority of the participants having completed the Baccalaureate degree. 29 30 The participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: the age range and median ages of each group are shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Characteristics of the Sample: Age and Sex 24-Hour Cell 6-Hour Cell Control Cell Age Range 20 to 48 20 to 44 20 to 44 Median‘Age 34.5 31.5 31.5 Sex Distribution ‘Male 15 14 16 Female _2, _2_ _g Total Per Cell 24 23 25 The age and sex distribution.was not a significant variable factor in three treatment groups because of their even distribution across the treatment cells as shown in Table 3.1. Each of the 100 volunteers was randomly assigned a number. Then, again in a random manner, this number was assigned to one of nine groups. Of the original volunteers, 28 declined to participate after having been assigned to one of the three treatment cells. A.variety of rationales were given for withdrawal such as; moving, illness, objection of the spouse, and unknown reasons. This left a total of 72 participants. Also included in the study'were 72 significant others (observers) chosen by the participants themselves. The observers were individuals 31 who had known the participants for at least one year and anticipated the relationship to continue for the next year. The significant others were close friends, members of their family, or spouses. DESIGN A three-cell experimental design was utilized, consisting of 24-hour marathon encounter groups, 6-hour encounter groups, and control groups. Each treatment cell consisted of three groups. 0f the three groups the 24-hour marathon treatment cell, group 1 had 7 participants; group 2, 8 participants; and group 3, 9 participants: for a total of 24 participants in this cell. In the 6-hour treatment cell, group 1 had 7 participants; group 2, 8 participants; and group 3, 8 participants: for a total of 23 participants. The control cells three groups consisted of 9 participants in group 1, 7 in group 2, and 9 in group 3 for a total of 25 in the control cell. An attempt was made by the researcher to recruit volunteers who had no previous encounter experience. Of the 72 participants, eighteen reported having had a variety of group experience. Close observation revealed that 10 participants had experience in small group interaction in conjunction with a class at the university; 3 had experienced several weekend laboratory training groups; 2 had resident hall assistant training, with listening and empathy training being stressed rather than an encounter group experience; 2 had 24-hour mara- thon experience; and 1 had an encounter group experience for 6 hours weekly for one term. The remaining 54 participants had had no encounter group experience nor classes in small group interaction. Table 3.2 32 shows the distribution, after the initial random assignment, of participants with experience and those who had no experience. Table 3.2 Prior Experience of Participants 24-Hour Cell 6-Hour Cell Control Cell 24-Hour Experience 2 0 0 Class, Small Group 4 2 4 Interaction Weekend Lab 1 0 2 Resident Hall Training 0 l l 6-Hour Per Week, 1 Term. 1 0 0 No Previous Experience 18 20 18 .A pre-post measurement was not utilized because of the sensitizing effect on the 24-hour marathons and 6-hour encounter groups. Because participants were randomly assigned to treatment cells and to the groups within the treatment cells, a post-measurement was able to be employed. INSTRUMENTATION .After the consideration of several instruments, the Miskimins Self-Goal-Other Discrepancy Scale by R. W. Miskimins was chosen. The ‘Miskhmins is published by RMBSI Inc., P. O. Box 2037, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. This instrument provides a means of assessing self- concept, goal self-concept and the perceived responses of others. 33 The Miskimins was compared to the Taylor manifest Anxiety Scale, using 134 undergraduate students from.two major universities and 102 non-student normals. The non-student population.was chosen so that the educational level of the population was as follows: 25 percent had not completed high school, 50 percent had not completed college, and 25 percent had completed at least four years of college. The correlation ranged from a low .084 to a moderate .722. A correlation was also found with some scales of the HMPI, these ranged from a -.15 to .62. The internal consistency of this instrument on the four categories, General, Social, Emotional, and Personal have intercor- relations from .53 to .69, with significance level at .05 equal to .21, .01 equal to .30, and .001 equal to .42. The test-retest reliability was derived by giving the instrument to the same 51 university students on two occasions. The three subscales, which will be utilized in this study, have reliability coefficients from a low .28 to a high .81. In the development of this instrument, others were asked to rate participants on the Miskimins Scale, the same form that the participants utilized. They were asked to give their impression of where they saw the participants on the 15 items. INSTRUCTION TO LEADERS To minimize leadership bias, three leaders were utilized. Each was randomly assigned to one 24-hour marathon encounter group and to one 6-hour encounter group. None of the three were told the purpose of the study or the instruments to be used. Prior to the treatment, all three leaders were given instructions relative to the group. These 34 instructions were "to assist the group and the individuals to grow as 'much as possible in the time allotted for each group". The qualifications of the leaders were not dissimilar. All three leaders had over four years experience in encounter groups both as participants and leaders. .All three leaders were completing their doctoral studies. DATA.COLLBCTION Volunteers were asked to complete a short form giving biograp- hical data, occupation, education, previous encounter experience (if any), and a designation of a significant other. This information was collected prior to any treatment or assignment to groups. The signi- ficant other was chosen by each participant in completing the statement, "The person who knows me best is . . ." These data were collected individually and in groups by the researcher. (Appendix A). Forty-eight hours after the completion of each 24-hour marathon group and each 6-hour encounter group, the post~measurement data were gathered. The purpose for the delay in administering the instrument was to avoid the possible effect that fatigue might have on the participants of the three marathon groups in their completion of the instrument. To insure consistency of the data collection in the 6-hour treatment cell, the instrument was also administered 48 hours after the completion of the treatment. Data for the control groups were collected one week after the completion of the treatment groups. All participants were requested to meet individually with the researcher to complete the instrument. (Appendix B). The directions, given verbally by the researcher, consisted of: "Go through this 35 instrument twice and rate yourself on all 15 items. The first time rate yourself where you feel you are on the scale at this time, by placing an "X" in the SC row. Then rate yourself a second time, on where you would most like to be on the scale, marking this time in the 080 row. This should take approximately 10 minutes." Two weeks following the treatment, all Significant Others were sent a letter (Appendix C) requesting their cooperation in giving impressionistic data about the participant (Appendix D). These two weeks were to allow the significant others time to observe a change in participant behavior, if any. In addition, instructions for the completion of the rating scale were included. To facilitate returns and to insure confiden- tiality, a self-addressed stamped envelope was included for a return directly to the researcher. 0f the 72 Significant Other questionnaires 68 were returned for a return rate of 94 percent. An attempt was made to contact the four who did not return the scale. One letter was returned to the researcher marked, "no such address". Another Significant Other was out of the state and would not return until the end of August. Finally, numerous unsuccessful attempts were made to contact the remaining two. TESTABLE HYPOTHESES The following null hypotheses were formulated from the previously stated questions and purposes. Hypgthesis One There will be no significant difference in Self-Concept between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell and the control cell. 36 Subhypothesis one. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Social Subscale. Subhypothesis two. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. Subhmthesis three. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Self/ Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale. Mothesis Two There will be no significant difference between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell and the control cell as rated by the significant other. Subhypothesis one. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins General Subscale. Subhypothesis two. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins Social Subscale. Subhypothesis three. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. 37 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In order to test these null hypotheses a multivariate analysis of variance employing six dependent variables found in the Miskimins Self-Goal-Other Discrepancy Scale was used. These variables are: (l) Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale, (2) Social Subscale, (3) Emo- tional Subscale, and Significant Other ratings on the Miskimins Self- Goal-Other, (4) General Subscale, (5) Social Subscale, and (6) Emotional Subscale. The independent variable consists of the three cells (24-hour marathons, 6-hour encounter groups, and controls). The multivariate analyses are the statistics most appropriate to this study because it controls for the dependency (intercorrelation) that will undoubtedly be present among the dependent variables. By controlling for the dependency among variables, the multivariate analysis of variance reduces the chances of a type I error (finding significance when, in fact, none exists). The alpha rate for the overall experiment was set at .10 because of the exploratory nature of the study. Even though this rate enhances the occurrence of a type I error, it reduces the chances of committing a type 11 error (missing a significance when it does, in fact, exits), a hazard in any exploratory study. The researcher feels it is better to find a significance that does not exist than to miss a significance that does. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The statement of the problem in chapter one generated two major hypotheses with six subhypotheses stated in directional form. These hypotheses were restated in the null form in chapter three for the purpose of statistical analysis. The present chapter includes the results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of the raw data. The Alpha level of signi- ficance was set at .10. The statistical analyses were calculated at the Michigan State University Computer Center utilizing the 3600 computer system. The multivariate analysis of variance program used was developed by Jeremy Finn at State University of New'York at Buffalo. HYPOTHESES Hypothesis One “01 There will be no significant difference in self-concept between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell and the control cell. 3 Subhypothesis one. Hol The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Social Subscale. 38 39 8H. Subhypothesis two. 2 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. Subhypothesis three. 8“03 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale. There was no significant differences found in the mean scores of the 24-hour, 6-hour and control cells on the three Miskimins Subscales, as indicated in Table 4.1. The multivariate test across the package of scores showed no significant difference with the significant level set at .10, F ratio equal to .075, and a probability less than .9991, as shown in Table 4.2. As would be expected, based upon the multivariate finding, each univariate indicates no significant difference between the groups, as shown in Table 4.1. In Table 4.3 the obtained means and pooled standard deviation are presented. It can be seen that the deviation is relatively small and ranges from 1.23 to 3.51. The Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale is a combination of three subscales, therefore producing higher mean scores and standard deviations, but showing no significant difference. Based on the statistical analysis, hypothesis one and its three subhypotheses, as stated in the null form, were accepted. Hypothesis Two no2 There will be no significant difference between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell, and the control cell, as rated by the significant other. 39 8H0 Subhypothesis two. 2 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. Subhypothesis three. 81103 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as measured by the Miskimins Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale. There was no significant differences found in the mean scores of the 24-hour, 6-hour and control cells on the three Miskimins Subscales, as indicated in Table 4.1. The multivariate test across the package of scores showed no significant difference with the significant level set at .10, F ratio equal to .075, and a probability less than .9991, as shown in Table 4.2. As would be expected, based upon the multivariate finding, each univariate indicates no significant difference between the groups, as shown in Table 4.1. In Table 4.3 the obtained means and pooled standard deviation are presented. It can be seen that the deviation is relatively small and ranges from 1.23 to 3.51. The Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale is a combination of three subscales, therefore producing higher mean scores and standard deviations, but showing no significant difference. Based on the statistical analysis, hypothesis one and its three subhypotheses, as stated in the null form, were accepted. Hypothesis Two Ho2 There will be no significant difference between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell, and the control cell, as rated by the significant other. 40 o nausea uouum mom eooooum mo moouwon N «Hosea soosuom aooooum mo moouwoo "uaoz was. mam. a~o.oa swe.~ meson Hucoauoam posse unsunmnsmam mam. mod. auo.m ohm. macaw Hanson nosuo assoamasuem «ma. sec. em~.e ecu. onom Hauasmu “mesa usuoamaaunm 3a. «8. «2.2 can. aofiaouofla 33 33:33 5533: 3a. 3m. omné Sm. 38m 18305 3595: com. m8. and «no. 33m :38 353:: ooze snug seesaw ouosvm huwfianmooum m ouoauo>wos use: casuazv one: awesome oaemwuo> E moaemwum> accesses: Nam so adsouu ufifln—UQQHH fiflflgflm mfiOH—OHOMMHQ HON mquH fiuflflhderGD H.¢ wands 41 Table 4.2 Multivariate Test F Ratio Degrees of Probability Freedom .075 12, 2 .9991 s §ubhypothesis one. HO1 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the‘Miskimins General Subscale. s Subhypothesis two. H°2 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins Social Subscale. Subhypothesis three. 8H°3 The mean scores of the 24-hour cell will not be lower than the 6-hour and control cells as reported by the significant other on the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. Again, there were no significant differences found in the mean scores of the 24-hour, 6-hour and control cells on the three Miskimins Subscales, as reported by the significant other, as indicated in Table 4.1 The multivariate test across the package of scores showed no significant difference in the significant other rating, with the signi- ficant level set at .10, F ratio equal to .075, and probability less than .9991, as shown in Table 4.2. Again as would be expected, based upon the multivariate finding, each univariate indicates no significant difference between the groups as presented in Table 4.1. 42 36 86 Ed 35 SA and 3:95 usoausoua 38% coaoom 8335“. Because. mo.n~ nn.~H mm.- an.HN me.m on.m masouu aouuooo now some: nn.¢a Ho.HH nn.~H c~.o~ qe.n no.m mmsouu noon new now some: 8.3 3.: 3.2 3.: $5 a} 88.5 852% ...8 28: #30395. $38 #333 uofio 3&5 sense :33 3am 3:333 333 #833sz usuoamesmwm 33333.0. 3333: endgame: «3333: nauseous uncoooeon saw ago you mooauua>on uncommon eoaoom use mono: moose usuausoua n.¢ «Hana 43 The obtained means and pooled standard deviations for the significant other rating are found in Table 4.3. lAs can be seen, the standard deviation slightly larger, however, is still non-signi- ficant. Based on the statistical analysis, hypothesis two and its three subhypotheses, as stated in the null form, were accepted. Correlations The results of the intercorrelation matrix show that of the fifteen intercorrelations, six were significant at the .01 level and two at the .05 level. It was found that the lowest correlation.was .17 and the highest was .90, see Table 4.4. SUMMARY In sum, the results of the multivariate analysis of hypothesis one and its three subhypotheses and hypothesis two and its three subhy- potheses reveal no significant difference between the treatment cells and the control cell, see Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. These data confirm that no treatment effects occurred in this study, using the measures which were employed. Therefore, hypothesis one with its auxillary subhypotheses, and hypothesis two with its auxillary subhypotheses 2255 accepted in their null form. no. as unsusmaswsms so. as unmoumnawamss co.” #0. seam. seam. seam. no. «Hana Huaoauqau umsuo unsusmsewam oo.H «Na. an. as. sea. ossum Husoom assoc sasonmnamam oo.H seam. no. «saw. «Hmom Hauoauo Hague unsusanMSA oo.s sacs. no. squamouoman HuoeH\uHom assesses 8; an. 38m 2:335 3533: 8; 038 3.88 5533: Husosuosm Hunuom Huuocuo fiuueH\mesm successes Hanson ”83353 333?»; usuuanfiam fiat—3: fiat—3s 55E: «335, moan—3.55 accuses—on in of 9.82 53oz soaumaouuouuouoa «J .3an 45 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION PROBLEM AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The encounter movement has grown phenomenally in the last decade. Some authors feel it has permeated the entire society (57) (65). .Although much research data have been compiled on the basic encounter group, the research for the marathon encounter group is insufficient. .A review of the literature to date shows that the majority of research on the marathon has been anecdotal and testimonial in nature. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a 24-hour marathon encounter group on self-concept. Unlike most studies in this area, an experimental design was used to investigate this specific aspect of personality. METHODOLOGY The sample consisted of 72 volunteers recruited primarily from the College of Education at Michigan State University. In addition, volunteers from the Lansing/East Lansing, Michigan area were included. The age range of the participants was from 20 to 45 years, with 32.5 years as the mean age. The sex distribution was 45 men and 27 women. The level of education varied from one year of community college to post~master's course work. The preceding three characteristics were evenly distributed across the three-celled design as the result of random assignment. Each 46 volunteer was randomly assigned a number, which was then randomly assigned to one of the three cells, that of 24-hour, 6-hour, and control. Each treatment cell was composed of three groups. In addition, 72 Significant Others were included. They were defined by the individual participant in response to the statement, "The person who knows me best is ". Participants in the 24-hour and 6-hour treatment cells were given the Miskimins Self-Goal-Other Discrepancy Scale 48 hours after treatment. The control cell was measured with this same scale one week after the treatment cells. All Significant Others were sent a packet two weeks after the completion of data gathering. This packet consisted of: (1) an introductory letter and instructions for completion of the instrument, (2) the Miskimins lS-item.Rating Scale, and (3) a stamped envelope addressed to the researcher. 0f the 72 rating scales mailed, 68 were returned completed, for a return rate of 94 percent. RESULTS Within the confines of the stated hypotheses posed in the null form in Chapter three, the following results are presented: 1. There was not significant difference found in the self- concept of the participants in the 24-hour treatment cell, 6-hour treatment cell, or the control cell. 2. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell were not lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as measured by the Miskimins Social Subscale. 47 3. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell were not lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as measured by the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. 4. The mean scores of the 24-hour treatment cell were not lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells as measured by the Miskimins Self/Ideal Self Discrepancy Subscale. 5. There was no significant difference between the 24-hour treatment cell, the 6-hour treatment cell, and the control cell as rated by the Significant Others. 6. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell were not lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as reported by the significant others on the Miskimins General Subscale. 7. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell were not lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as reported by the significant others on the Miskimins Social Subscale. 8. The mean scores of the 24-hour cell were not lower than the mean scores of the 6-hour and control cells, as reported by the significant others on the Miskimins Emotional Subscale. The analysis of the data revealed that the MANOVA model was appropriate for this design because of the high correlation presented in the matrix in Table 4.4. However, no significant difference was shown at the .10 level between the experimental and control groups. Further investigation revealed no significant difference between any of the treatment groups on the measures employed. Therefore, it was concluded that no effects could be attributed to the treatment. 48 SUBJECTIVE DATA Although the experimental data shows no significant difference between the groups, subjective data, informally collected by the researcher, indicates otherwise. Of the participants in the 24-hour treatment cell, only four reported negative feelings about their experience. One participant stated that he felt the group was not all it could have been because of the way in which the leader carried out his functions. Another felt that the leader allowed too much subgrouping, which diluted the effectiveness of the group. However, the majority of the marathon participants felt that their experience was positive and growth-producing. This is consistent with Mintz' statement that participants almost unanimously speak of the experience as positive and growth-producing (57). One participant reported five weeks after the encounter that, "The group was more effective than I had first thought. I am just now working out some personal problems that were uncovered during the group." An undergraduate participant stated, "At first I was hesitant to volunteer. In fact, I made up an excuse not to attend. But, somehow I decided to go through the experience. Thank you, Dave, for providing one of the most meaningful experiences since I started college." Still another participant showed his feelings toward the marathon by stating, "I wish my wife could have an opportunity to experience a group as I have." On two separate occasions, the researcher had an impromptu opportunity to observe one group from the 24-hour marathon cell and one group from the 6-hour cell. Their behavior was strikingly different. The people who had experienced a marathon encounter group greeted one 49 another with warmth, smiles, and embraces, after which they sat down and began to discuss their shared experience and the effect it had on their lives. In contrast, the participants in the 6-hour group politely said, "Hello, how are you?" and sat down. Little conversation ensued. Of the 6-hour participants, the vast majority felt that the allotted time was too short. Many stated, "We were just getting started and it was time to quit. I kind of felt that we really didn't deal with anything." One participant stated that he was disappointed in the outcome of the group and felt that he wanted to experience a 24-hour marathon. The reports of the three leaders at the completion of the 24-hour treatment cell were generally positive. Two of the leaders assessed the growth of the group as "good". They felt that the real effect, however, would be seen in 3 to 6 months. The other leader reported that he wasn't sure how the group progressed and that he had mixed feelings about his effectiveness. One of the three leaders observed that little anger was expressed during his 24-hour group and that he was hesitant in pushing for its expression. He felt that without a co-leader his effectiveness in handling the anger might have been diminished. All three leaders reported that the 24-hour experience was too long and tiring and that perhaps 18 hours would be more desirable. Of the 6-hour treatment cell, all three leaders stated that little growth occurred in their groups. They felt that several people in their respective groups hid themselves for 6 hours and then departed, untouched by the experience. One leader shared his feelings with the 50 researcher by saying, "We really didn't deal with anything. If we had had a longer period, the group would have probably drawn out the members who were hiding themselves. Six hours is just too short." DISCUSSION The present study shows no significant treatment effects. Although some factors may remain hidden, it.can be useful, in retro- spect, to recognize sources of potential error. The results obtained may be attributable, at least in part, to the following factors: sampling, design and statistics, instrumentation, and treatment. Each is considered in turn. SAMPLING Although sampling problems tend to be more confounding in survey studies, it merits discussion here. One of the questions is, If the sample differs systematically from those in earlier reported studies, will this affect the outcome of the study? There is no evidence to indicate that the groups in the present study are unique. Another salient question is concerned with how the sample was obtained. The participants were all volunteers; however, it is known that one professor agreed to utilize this experience as fulfillment of a requirement for a project in his class. Therefore, it is possible that the volunteers from his class participated in the study only to obtain a 0.5 increase in their term grade. Bradford's study found that a "response set" was necessary for change to occur (10). That is, if the individual expected to change, and utilized the group in a constructive way, change did take place. 51 In another study, Diesenstadt found that readiness for change needed to be present for change to occur,(l7). Furthermore, he stated that readiness for change was an aspect of personality. Thus, it is possible that this ingredient was not present among some of the volun- teers in the present study. Therefore, it is concluded that this aspect of the sample could have influenced the treatment effects. DESIGN AND STATISTICS The concern here is whether any treatment effects could have been hidden or distorted as a result of the design of the study or the analysis of the data. One consideration warrants comment. Because this study was designed to use the group as the experimental unit of analysis the degrees of freedom were reduced. Although the unit of analysis is properly utilized, it does increase the chance of a type 2 error; that of not finding significance when, in fact, significance does exist. Therefore, it is concluded that the above factor could have acted to obscure treatment effects. INSTRUMENTATION As discussed in chapter one of the most pressing concerns relative to marathon research is the lack of adequate instrumentation (57). The infonmation available on the Miskimins indicated that its selection would be adequate for this study; although it is possible that the instrument's reliability and validity are questionable, there is no evidence to indicate this. It can be further speculated that 52 the instrument employed was not sufficiently sensitive to measure treatment effects. It is concluded, then, that no factors related to instrumen- tation can be identified as depressing treatment effects. TREATMENT .After reviewing the literature and carefully analyzing the experimental and subjective data, four factors should be considered: (1) variation in leadership styles, (2) lack of expression of anger in the treatment groups, (3) the possibility of growth occurring over a longer period than this study encompassed, and (4) the possibility that no significant difference exists among treatments. The leadership variables can be important to the outcome of the group, as reported by Back,(5), and Lieberman (48). Back found that the leader's style affected both the type and amount of feedback given by group members. Lieberman attributed the lack of change in one of his experimental groups to the style of the leader. Because no significant difference was found in gpy_of the treatment groups, leadership style does not seem to be a confounding variable in this study. The subjective data revealed that little anger was expressed by the members of the groups. In Bach's study, the least helpful type of interaction was the avoidance of angry confrontation (3). Supporting this study, Stoller, using videotape to facilitate confrontation, found that the expression of anger must be present for growth to occur (80). Therefore, it is speculated that the absence of anger and its expression resulted in little or no change in the participants. 53 Two leaders stated that the real effects of the group experience would be manifest some time after the experience. A participant also reported that she was experiencing continuing effects of the group six weeks after treatment. It therefore, seems possible that change initi- ated by the group experience continued to take place after the experience ended. The experimental data shows that no significant difference occurred in the treatment groups. The subjective data, perhaps, indi- cates that some change did indeed take place. This was indicated by testimonies of participants and leaders and the observations of the researcher. These conflicting data seem to support other studies reported in the literature (57, 71). It is concluded that of the four factors of concern, two could have had an effect on the outcome of the study-~no expression of anger in the groups, and too short a time for change to be measured. It seems possible that problems associated with the presentation of treatments contributed to the results of this research. CONCLUSION As a result of the experimental data, the direct conclusion to be drawn is that treatment was no more effective than no treatment. While consideration should be given to the preceding discussion, it may also be true that the marathon encounter experience is ineffectual for the purpose of changing self-concept. The issues discussed present the difficulty involved in experimental research on the marathon encounter group. Because the experimental and subjective data are in conflict, the value of the 24-hour marathon is not clear. RECOMMENDATIONS As stated by Muntz, the instrumentation for measuring the effects of the marathon is greatly lacking (27). To measure the outcome of the marathon without diluting the complex processes of the group is very difficult. The experimental instruments currently in use do not seem to measure change adequately. Therefore, it is recommended that specific instrumentation for the marathon be developed. To augment instrumentation, more specific areas of investigation should be delineated. The aspects of personality that are expected to change due to effects of the marathon should be more precisely stated. Because of the conflict between the objective data and subjective data, it seems that some dimensions of personality are changing but not being measured. The cause of the change is not known, however, leadership style could be a factor in change. Many authors have found that the leader of a group is a potent figure (5), (19), (22). However, there are insufficient studies on the precise manner in which leaders and their orientations effect the group. Further investigations in this area are urged. APPENDICES 55 APPENDIX A Name Phone Address A83 Occupation Sex Education Previous Encounter Group Experience Significant Other: The person who knows you best should be an individual who you have known for at least one year and anticipate continuing the relation- ship for another year. Significant Others are generally, wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, and close friends. The person who knows me best is Their address Phone How long have they known you? 56 «nose emu emu asaoum suns wagon nemoum um um modem nomoum suns emu emu coco a aseauaum um cm s asssosumcn son sq< can one soon ass: Mom use uoz um um sow acouoasoo «was as emu owe «was an Hommmooosm om om Hammeooonenb u>nuuuuuusc= omo omo o>nuuuuuu< aflouusuasm um um afloaunuasm susawsuo one omm Handmauo a a o>susouo um um o>nuaouo uoz omo emu uoouoomH cm on usowHHHoucH .uamom sou so on on usoa sch sauna Aamoov umo .onom one so one so» when: Amaomv cm a Nanumm< S7 wood e: am noon 2.838 28.30am Hwoomuu on own Hosomuom «Hess: s.su om «Hess: manganese one emu ouncesusoo -msom ems um um -moam some use umo Own—OH. Um 0 “Uganda emu ome_ sans: om om cum mousse you can one «scene vogue—woo uoz 8 on non Eoocoo Managua emu omo Samaoom Hossuom on on euusss< sum ouauoaaoxz owe emu sum ouamoaao\z 23.333. vooo om OJ Aeoscsuaouv a xonzmmm< 58 «>32 one use?” 0mm om «>32 was Hana 335 £83 m x3592 59 APPENDIX C July 24, 1972 Dear , gave your name as the person who knew him/her best while participating in a research project I am conducting. Therefore, I am requesting your help in completing the final phase of my research. Enclosed is a questionnaire which I am asking you to complete and return to me in the enclosed stamped envelope pg later than August 1, 1972. All information given about this person is completely confidential and will not be released to anyone. Your name and the participant's name will not be used. Instead a number has been assigned for identifying returns. The enclosed questionnaire has been designed for you to provide impressionistic information about this person. Give your impression of the participant over the past two weeks by placing an "X" on each of the 15 items enclosed. Place an "X" in the square closest to the word or phrase that best describes your impression of the participant over the past two weeks. Do this for all 15 items. Please remember that you are giving your impression of the participant, NOT YOURSELF. It is requested that this questionnaire be completed by you alone and without the cOOperation of the participant. Your cooperation is greatly appreciate-~This study cannot be completed without your assistance. Thank you very much. Sincerely, David W. Messmore Enclosures 60 Intelligent Ignorant Creative and Not Creative Original and Original Physically Physically Attractive Unattractive Successful Unsuccessful in Life in Life Competent for Not Fit For Many Jobs Any Job Friendly and Unfriendly Warm and Cold Prefer Being With People Prefer Being Alone Good Relations With Opposite Sex Poor Relations With Opposite Sex Socially Awkward Skillful Socially Concerned Not Concerned For Others For Others Happy Sad Relaxed Tense High Self- Lack Self- Confidence Confidence Handle Can't Handle Personal Personal Problems Problems Alert and Dull and Active Lifeless BIBLIOGRAPHY 10. 11. 12. 13. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bach, G. R., "The Marathon Group: Intensive Practice of Intimate Interaction", Psycholggical Reports, Vol. 18, 1966, pages 995-1005. Bach, G. R., "Marathon Group Dynamics: Dimensions of Helpfulness", Psycholggical Reports, Vol. 20, 1967, (a) pages 1147-1158. Bach, G. R., "Marathon Group Dynamics: Disjunctive Contacts", Psychological Reports, Vol. 20, 1967, (b), pages 1163-1172. Bach, G. R., "Marathon Group Dynamics: Some Functions of the Professional Group Facilitator", Psychological Reports, Vol. 20, 1967, (c), pages 995-999. Back, K. W., "Interpersonal Relations in a Discussion Group", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 4, 1948, pages 61-65. Bednar, R. L., "Group Psychotherapy Research Variables", Inter- national Journal of Groungsychotherapy, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1970, pages 146-152. Billington, J. H., In U. S. Universities 'the humanistic heart- beat has failed', Life, XXXX, Vol. 64, 1968, pages 32-35. Bradford, L. P., "The Teaching-Learning Transaction", Selected Readings Series Three: Forces in Learning, washington, D. C., National Training Laboratories, National Education Association, 1961. Bradford, Leland P., "Biography of an Institution", The Journal ongpplied Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1967, pages 127-143. Bradford, L. P., J. R. Gibb, and K. D. Benne, T-group Theory and Laboratory Method, New York: Wiley, 1964. Brown, C. I., A Project for Plannipg the Organization and Operation of Two Regional ProggamLCenters for Humanistic Education, Proposal to Ford Foundation, 1968. Burke, R. L., and W. G. Bennis, "Changed in Perception of Self and Others During Human Relations Training", Human Relations, Vol. 14, 1961, pages 165-182. Butler, J. M., and G. V. Haigh, "Changes in the Relations Between Self-Concepts and Ideal-Concepts Consequent Upon, Client Center Counseling", Psychotherapy and Personality Changg, Rogers, Carl and R. Dymond, eds., The University of Chicago Press, 1954, pages 55-75. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 62 Campbell, J. P., and M. D. Dunnette, "Effectiveness of T-group Experiences in Managerial Training and Development", Ppychological Bulletin, Vol. 70, 1968, pages 73-104. Coulson, W. R., "Inside a Basic Encounter Group", The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1970, pages 1-27. Demos, 6., Marathon Therapyf-A New Psychotherapeutic Modality, Long Beach, California State College, Undated (Mimeographed). Disenstadt, J. W., "An Investigation of Factors Which Influence Response to Lab Training", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1967, pages 575-578. Eddy, W., and B. Lubin, "Laboratory Training and Encounter Groups", The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 49, No. 8, April, 1971, pages 625- 634. Ellis, A. A., "A Week-end of Retional Encounter", Encounter, Burton, A., ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970, pages 112-127. Erikson, E. H., Childhood and Society, New York: Norton and Company, Inc., 1963. Farson, R., "Emotional Barriers to Education", Psychology Today, Vol. 1, 1967. Fiebert, M., "Sensitivity Training: An Analysis of Trainer Intervention and Group Process", Psychological Reports, Vol. 22, part 1, 1968, pages 829-38. Gallagher, P., and G. Demos, eds., The Counseling Center in Higher Education, Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1970. Gazda, G. M., J. Duncan and P. Sisson, "Professional Issues in Group Work", The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 49, No. 8, April, 1971, pages 637-643. Gibb, J. R., and G. N. Platts, "Role Flexibility in Group Inter- action", American Psychologist, Vol. 5, 1950, page 491. Gibb, J. R., "Effects of Role-Playing Upon (a) Role Flexibility and (b) Ability to Conceptualize a New Role", American Psychologist, Vol. 7, 1952, page 310. Gibb, J. R., E. E. Smith, and A. H. Roberts, "Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback Upon Defensive Behavior in Small Problem Solving Groups", Paper read at American Psycholog- ical Association Meeting, 1955. Gibb, J. R. and L. M. Gibb, "Emergence Therapy: The TORI Process in an Emergent Group", Innovations to Group Psychotherapy, Gazda, G. M., ed., Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1968. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 63 Gibb, J. R., and L. M. Gibb, "Role Freedom in a TORI Group", Encounter, A. Burton, ed., San Franciso: Jossey-Bass, 1970, pages 42-57. Glueck, W. F., "Reflections on a T-group Experience", Personnel, Vol. 47, No. 7, 1968, pages 500-504. Goodman, P., Compulsory Mia-education and the Community of Scholars, New York: Vintage, 1962. Greening, T. C., and H. S. Coffey, "Working with an Impersonal T-group", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1966, pages 401-11. Guinan, J. F., and M. L. Fbulds, "Marathon Group: Facilitator of Personal Growth?", Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1970, pages 145-149. Hall, G. F., " A participant's Experience in a Basic Encounter Group", (Mimeographed), Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, 1965. Hall, M. H., "Carl Rogers speaks out on Groups and the Lack of a Human Science", Psychology Today, Vol. 1, No. 7, December, 1967. Harrison, R., and B. Lubin, "Personal Style, Group Composition and Learning, Part 1", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1965, pages 786-94. Harrison, R., and B. Oshry, Report to SAED of GESAED-BUHRC Training Study, Unpublished manuscript prepared for the Small Air- craft Engine Department of General Electric by the Boston University Human Relations Center, 1965. Hoff, G. R., Group Seminars, Santa Ana, California, 1967. Hurley, J. R., Personal Communication, 1970. Jenkins, D. H., "What is Group Dynamics", Selected Reading Series One: Group Development, Washington, D.C.,: National Training Laboratories, National Education Association, 1961. Jersild, At T., "Social and Individual Origins of the Self", The Self in Growth, Teaching and Learning, Hamachek, D.E., ed., EnglewoodCliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pages 196-208. Jourard, S., The Transparent Self, Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. Katz, J., No Time for Youth, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 64 Katz, P., and E. Zigler, "Self-Image Disparity: A Developmental Approach", Journal of Personality and Social Psycholpgy, Vol. 5, 1967, pages 186-195. Kemp, C. G., Perspectives on the Small Group Process, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. Lewis, R. W., "The Effect of Long Group Therapy Sessions on Participant Perceptions of Self and Others", Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. Lieberman, M. A., "The Influence of Group Composition on Changes in Affective Approach", Emotional Dynamics and Group Culture, Stock, D., and H. Thelen, eds., Washington, D. C., National Training Laboratories, 1958, pages 131-39. Lieberman, M. A., I. D. Yalom, and M. B. Miles, "The Group Experience Project: A Comparison of 10 Encounter Technologies", Confrontation: Encounters in Self and Interpersonal Awareness, Blank, L., G. B. Gottsegen, and M. G. Gottsegen, eds., New York: MacMillan, 1971. Lippitt, G. L., "Effect of Information About Group Desire for Change on Members of the Group", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, American University, 1959. Marrow,.A1fred J., "Events Leading to the Establishment of the National Training Laboratory", The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1967, pages 144-50. Maslow, A., Religlpns, Values,_and Peak-Experiences, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1964. Mathis, A. C., "Development and Validation of a Train Ability Index for Laboratory Training Groups", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1955. Miles, M. 8., "Human Relations Training: Processes and Outcomes", Journal of Counseling_Psychology, Vol. 7, 1960, pages 301- 306. Miles, M. 8., "Learning Processes and Outcomes in Human Relations Training: A Clinical Experimental Study", Personal and Organizational Chang; Through Gropp Methods, E. Schein, and W. Bennis, eds., New York: Wiley, 1965, pages 244-254. Mintz, E. E., "Time-extended Marathon Groups", Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, May, 1967, pages 65-70. Mintz, E. E., "Marathon Groups--A Preliminary Investigation", Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1969, pages 91-94. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 65 Mintz, E. E., Marathon Groups: Reality and Symbol, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971. Morris, 8. B., J. Pflugrath, and J. Emery, "Personal Encounter in Higher Education", The Personnel pnd Guidance Journal, Vol. 47, No. 10, June, 1969, pages 101-107. Morris, S. B., J. C. Pflugrath, and B. Taylor, "Encounter in Higher Education", Encounter, A. Burton ed., San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1970 Murphy, M., "Esalen Where It's At", Psychology Today, Vol. 1, No. 7, December, 1967. Myers, G., M. Myers, A. Goldberg, and C. Welch, "Effect of Feedback on Interpersonal Sensitivity in Laboratory Training Groups", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1969, pages 175-185. Perls, F. S., Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, Lafayette, California: Real People Press, 1969. Powers, J. R., "Trainer Orientation and Group Composition in Laboratory Training", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Case Institute of Technology, 1965. Richards, H. C., "Selected Group Psychotherapy Evaluation Studies", Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 67, 1962, pages 35-50. Rogers, Carl, "The Group Comes of Age", Psychology Today, Vol. 3, No. 7, December, 1969. Rogers, Carl and R. Dymond, Psychotherapy and Personality Change, The University of Chicago Press, 1954. Rogers, Carl, Client Centered Therapy, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. Rogers, Carl, On Becoming A.Person, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Rosenberg, P. P., "An Experimental.Analysis of Psycho Drama", Un- published Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 1952. Sanford, N., Where Colleges Fail, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967. Saretsky, T., "Uses and Abuses of T-groups", Paper presented at American Group Psychotherapy Association, New Orleans, 1970. Schutz, W., Joy, New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1967. Shapiro, S. B., "Myself as an Instrument", Challenges of Humanistic Psychology, J. Bugental, ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967, pages 235-239. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 66 Sherwood, J. J., "Self Identity and Referent Others", Sociometry, Vol. 28, 1965, pages 61-81. Smith, P. B., "T-group Climate, Trainer and Some Tests of Learning", Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Studies, University of Sussex, England, 1966. Smith, R. J., "A Closer Look at Encounter Therapies", International Journal of Grapp Psychotherapy, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1970. Snygg, D., and A. W. Combs, Individual Behavior, New York: Harper, 1948. Stock, D., and S. Ben-Zeev, "Changes in WOrk and Emotionality During Group Growth", Emotional Dynamics and Group Culture, Stock, 8., and H. Thelen, eds., Washington, D. C.,: National Training Laboratories, 1958, pages 192-206. Stoller, F. H., "The Long Weekend", Psychology Today, December, 1967. Stoller, F. H., "Therapeutic Concepts Reconsidered in Light of Videotape Experience", Comparative Gropp Studies, Vol. 1, 1970, pages 5-17. Strauss, Anselm, ed., The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, 1962. Stroud, P. V., "Evaluating a Human Relations Training Program", Personnel, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1959, pages 52-60. Suehr, J., Personal Communication, 1971. Symonds, P. M., The Ego and The Self, New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. Thelen, H., Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed., Gage, N. L., American Educational Research Association, Chicago: Rand MCNally and Company, 1963, page 701. Weigel, R. G., "Encounter Therapies", International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Vol. 20, No. 20, 1970. White, R. W., Ego and Reality in Psychoanalytic Theory, New York: International University Press, 1963. Williams, E. C., Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities, New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1961. Winter, 8. R., J. C. Griffith, and D. A. Kolb, "The Capacity for Self Direction", Werking papers, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967, pages 245-67.