EFFECTS OF PRETHERAPY MODELING
MODEL STATUS AND THERAPIST STATUS
0N CLIENT SELF-DISCLOSURE:

AN ANALQGUE STUBY-

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
”{HADDEUS ES “HUS STACHOWIAK
1974

gt“

'1‘ ‘

“A.“ ,

‘ e, .
v y,‘;..;.'

 

,u..

wry-eer- ‘ '

This is to eertify that the

thesis entitled

Effects of Pretherapy Mbdeling, Model and
Therapist Status, on Client Self- Disclosure:

Date

An Analogue Study.

presented by

Thaddeus I. Stachowiak

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Education

degree in

 

 

Major professor

4/19/74

 

0-7639

LIBRi: {Y

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

   

MRY BINDERS

”41'

 

«Lineman i

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF PRETHERAPY MODELING
MODEL STATUS AND THERAPIST STATUS
ON CLIENT SELF-DISCLOSURE:

AN ANALOGUE STUDY

BY
Thaddeus Ignatius Stachowiak

In the investigation of the psychotherapeutic
relationship, the behavior of the therapist and the
behavior of the client share equal importance. In
determining the success of therapy, the client's behavior
becomes the prime target of investigation. For purposes
of this study, it is assumed that the client's behavior
ultimately determines whether therapy is successful.
Consequently, if the effectiveness of psychotherapy is to
be maximized, then the impact of therapy situation upon
the client must be understood.

The need to thoroughly understand the therapy
situation from the client's point of view has been
reflected within the past decade by an increase in the
investigation of client variables, such as the client's
knowledge about therapy before the client actually enters
the therapy situation.

It has been demonstrated that pretherapy

information can positively affect the behavior of clients

p
C/\

l
:i Thaddeus I. Stachowiak

during therapy. This study investigated several
variables which were thought to be important for
pretraining clients through modeling procedures.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the
importance of three variables related to pretraining
clients for therapy: 1) the level of the model's self~
disclosure (high vs. low); 2) the status of the model
(high vs. low); and 3) the status of the therapist (high
vs. low). There were three independent variables, with
two levels of each variable.

Fifty six, undergraduate, female subjects were
randomnly assigned to two experimental groups. Both
groups listened to an eight minute recording of a male
model self-disclosing. One group heard the model self-
disclose to a high degree. The other group heard the
same model self-disclose to a low degree on the same
t0pic. Before hearing the model, subjects were informed
that the model was either a graduate student (low status)
or an experienced professional (high status). After
listening to the model, each subject was interviewed by
a therapist, to whom a high or a low status was also
attributed, defined similarly to the status of the model.
Therapists asked subjects to self-disclose for five
minutes on each of three topics--Anger, Embarrassment,
and Hurt, the three dependent variables. At the end of

each tOpic, therapists rated the level of the subject's

Thaddeus I. Stachowiak

self-disclosure by means of the Self-Disclosure Rating
Scale, a four level scale adapted for this study ranging
from impersonal to personal content. Subjects also
completed a one-item questionnaire which was intended to
reflect the subject's willingness to self—disclose
further to the same therapist.

All interviews were tape recorded. Two independent
raters rated the first, fifth, and tenth interviews, and
three weeks after the study therapists were asked to
rate their own first, fifth, and tenth interviews a
second time. Reliability estimates were performed on the
therapists' and raters' ratings, and measures of
association were computed for the one-item questionnaire.

The design was a 2 x 2 X 2 posttest only, balanced
and completely crossed. Multivariate and univariate
analyses were performed to test the main and interaction
hypotheses related to l) the level of model self-
disclosure, 2) the status of the model, and 3) the status
of the therapist. High levels of the independent variables
were hypothesized to elicit more self-disclosure than the
low levels. Multivariate hypotheses were tested at
a = .05, and univariate hypotheses at a = .017.
Additional analyses were performed to investigate the
effect of the sex of the therapist and the therapists
themselves (four male, four female). The design for

the additional analyses was unbalanced, and the p of a

Thaddeus I. Stachowiak

Type I error set at .05

The results of the study were as follows. The
null hypothesis of the level of model self-disclosure
was not rejected (p<.0651). The null hypotheses for
the status of the model (p<.1818) and the status of the
therapist (p<.2863) were also not rejected. These
results did not support previous studies related to the
level of model self—disclosure and the status of the
model. The null hypotheses for the interaction effects
were not rejected.

Reliability for the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale
was .91 for training, and ranged from .52 to .89 on actual
sample data. A positive but low correlation was found
between the subjects' self-disclosures on the topic of
Hurt and their reported willingness to self-disclose
further.

The results of the additional analyses were as
follows. The null hypothesis for the main effect of
therapists was not rejected. The null hypothesis for
the main effect of therapist's sex was rejected at a=.05.
It was concluded that the level of subject self-
disclosure on the t0pic of Hurt was higher according to
female therapists than according to male therapists.

The implications of the results and recommendations

for future studies were discussed.

EFFECTS OF PRETHERAPY MODELING
MODEL STATUS AND THERAPIST STATUS
ON CLIENT SELF-DISCLOSURE:

AN ANALOGUE STUDY

BY

Thaddeus Ignatius Stachowiak

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1974

© Copyright by
THADDEUS IGNATIUS STACHOWIAK
1974

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the c00peration of many individuals, this
study would not have been possible. I would like to
express my appreciation to all those who contributed
cognitively and emotionally to the completion of this
study. I would like to thank the following individuals
in particular.

William C. Hinds, committee Chairman and major
advisor, who supported me throughout my graduate study
with his helpful contributions and his friendship, and
provided an often needed anchor.

William W. Farguhar, committee member, who extended
a friendly hand to me at the beginning of my studies, and
provided challenging ideas and a feeling of respect.

Samuel Plyler, committee member and practicum
supervisor, whose impact on me will always be remembered
as a turning point in my life.

Charles Bassos, committee member and practicum
instructor, who willingly spent many hours with me in
my research struggles, and contributed greatly to my
learning by sharing his ideas.

Cecil Williams, practicum instructor, who filled
many critical needs, and positively affected my skills
as a therapist.

Linda Glendening, research consultant, for her
many hours of patience, encouragement, and willingness to
explain many, many times.

The eight therapists who participated in this study,
for their willingness to give up precious time and be
inconvenienced for my benefit.

Becky, my wife, for many things, but in particular

for her patience and perserverance at a time that pushed
understanding to its limits.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM . . . .

Introduction.
Need . . .
Purpose . .
Hypotheses .
Theory. . .
Overview . .

REIVEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Preconceptions About Therapy

Client Anxiety . . .
Need for Structure. .

Perceptual Anticipation

Low Prognosis Clients.
Direct Training. . .
Example Setting. . .
Theory. . . . . .

Role Induction Interview.

Therapeutic Reading .
Film Modeling . . .
Audio Modeling . . .
Model Characteristics.
Self-Disclosure. . .
Summary . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. .

Sample. . . . . .
Sample Characteristics
Generalizability . .
Procedure. . . . .
Experimental Apparatus
Independent Variable:
Status of the Model
Independent Variable:

Vicarious Therapy Pretraining

Self-Disclosure of the Model

Independent Variable:

Status of the Therapist .

Questionnaire . . .
Therapists . . . .

iii

Page

Chapter

IV.

V.

Independent Raters .

Training of Therapists
and Independent Raters.
Dependent Measure

Reliability Estimates

Design . . .
Control Group.
Hypotheses. .
Analysis . .
Summary. . .

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Hypothesis 1 .
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5 .
Questionnaire.

Additional Independent Va
Unbalanced Design

Summary. . .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

Summary. . .
Conclusions .

Model Self-Disclosure

Model Status .

Therapist Status.

Interactions .
Questionnaire.

Therapist Effect.

Sex Effect. .
Discussion. .

Model Self-Disclosure

Model Status .

Therapist Status.

Therapist Sex and Self-Disclosure

Limitations .

Implications for Future Research

LIST OF REFERENCES .

APPENDICES

Appendix

A.

cage-coo.
H
(D
oomoooooo

ooHoooooo

DISCUSSION

Transcript of High Self-Disclosure

of the Model

iv

Page

122

Appendix

B. Transcript of Low Self-Disclosure

of the Model . . . . . . . . .
C. Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. . . . .
D. Agreement to Participate as a Subject. .
E. Master Sign-In Schedule for Subjects . .
F. Agreement to Participate in a Research

Study on Meaningful Communication . .
G. Introduction to Participants

Low Status Model. . . . . . . .
H. Introduction to Participants

High Status Model . . . . . . .
I. Low Status Therapist Instructions for

the Interview. . . . . . . . .
J. High Status Therapist Instructions for

the Interview. . . . . . . . .
K. Experimental Instructions for Therapists.
L. Questionnaire for Participants . . . .
M. A Final Note to Participants. . . . .
N. Rating Scale Score Sheet . . . . . .
0. Guidelines for Training Therapists. . .
P. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of

Therapists and Raters Following

Training on the Self-Disclosure Rating

Scale . . . . . . . . . . .
Q. Data and Computation of Intraclass Correla-

tion Coefficient for Anger . . . .
R. Data and Computation of Intraclass Correla-

tion Coefficient for Embarrassment. .
S. Data and Computation of Intraclass Correla-

tion Coefficient for Hurt. . . . .
T. Research Assistant Instructions. . . .

Page

126
130
131
133

143

144

146

148

149
150
161
162
163
164

181

182

184

186
188

Research Assistant for Collection of

Transcripts of Levels 2 and 3 of the

Self-Disclosure Rating Scale .

Schedule of Randomn Assignment of

Subjects to Therapists .

Appendix
U.
Data . .
V.
W.
X. Raw Scores .

vi

Page

191

193

201
202

Table

3.1

4.6

4.7

LIST OF TABLES

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations:
Reliability Coefficients of the Self-
Disclosure Rating Scale on Actual
Sample Ratings . . . . . . . .

Variable Matrix. . . . . . . . .

Frequency distribution of experimental
conditions (matrix cells) as assigned
randomnly to therapists . . . . .

Variable Matrix and Cell Means A Completely
Crossed and Balanced Design. . . .

Pooled Within Cell Correlations for the
Three Dependent Measures. . . . .

Multivariate Analysis of Variance Three
Independent Variables Three Dependent
Variables. . . . . . . . . .

Univariate Analyses Three Dependent Measures
Model Self-Disclosure: H1 . . . .

Means of the Three Dependent Measures for the
Model Self-Disclosure Treatment . .

Model Status Treatment Means Three Dependent
Measures: H2 . . . . . . . .

Therapist Status Treatment Means Three
Dependent Measures: H3 . . . . .

Point-Biserial Correlations. . . . .

Unbalanced Design Three Independent Variables:
Sex, Therapist, and Model Self-Disclosure

Unbalanced, Mixed Design ANOVA on
Embarrassment . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

59

62

63

70

71

73

74

75

76

77
80

84

88

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page
4.1 Mean scores of male and female therapists

under high and low disclosure
conditions . . . . . . . . . 86

viii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

This study is an investigation of the importance
of several variables which have been used to pretrain
clients for psychotherapy. The direction of the study
emanates from the writings of Gilbert (1952), Sanford
(1953), Kiesler (1966), Krumboltz (1967), and others who
have called for an end to "Does it work?” research in
psychotherapy.

From a practical point of view, the potential
client may justifiably ask the question, "Does psycho-
therapy work?" From a scientific point of view, Sanford
(1953) suggests that this question is meaningless. He
states, "The question is, which peOple, in what circum-
stances, reSponding to what psychotherapeutic stimuli."
The "question", as Sanford (1953) states it, assumes
that psychotherapy does work. It also implies that
sometimes psychotherapy doesn't work, and more specific
information is needed to understand why some variables

do not perform the same from study to study.

Therapy is a heterogeneous phenomenon (Kiesler,
1966). Therapists and clients are the logical indepen-
dent variables in a research study related to psycho-
therapy. But they are also rich sources of other
variables which frequently confound experimental results.
If the relevant variables are to be systematically isolated,
therapy research cannot continue to regard clients,
therapists, and the therapy process as homogeneous. In
order to set up a therapy situation so that it can have
the greatest, therapeutic effect (Krumboltz, 1967), the
essential variables, including client and therapist
behaviors, must be defined in very precise terms (Kiesler,
1966). "One of the extremely important problems in
psychological counseling and therapy is that concerning
the need for being able to describe and quantify different
types of psychotherapeutic relationships" (Gilbert, 1952,
p. 360). The task is complex, because human relationships
are complex, and the investigation of psychotherapeutic
relationships is largely an investigation of human
relationships. In the psychotherapy relationship, it is
the behavior of the therapist and the behavior of the
client in that particular situation which Gilbert (1952)
prOposes to "describe and quantify."

In the investigation of the psychotherapeutic
relationship, the behavior of the therapist and the

behavior of the client are equally important. In

determining the success of therapy, however success may be
defined, the client's behavior becomes the prime target

of investigation. For purposes of this study, it is
assumed that the client's behavior ultimately determines
whether therapy is successful. Consequently, if the
effectiveness of psychotherapy is to be maximized, then
the impact of the therapy situation upon the client must
be understood.

The need to thoroughly understand the therapy
situation from the client's point of view has been
reflected within the past decade by an increase in the
investigation of client variables, such as the client's
knowledge about therapy before the client actually enters
the therapy situation.

Some studies indicate that clients approach their
first therapy situation with a variety of preconceptions
about the process of therapy (Goldstein, Heller, & Sechrest,
1966). "Only the most SOphisticated (clients) are perfectly
clear about why they are there and what they expect"
(Frank, 1961, p. 128). Pretherapy information can affect
the client's behavior during therapy, particularly the
beginning phase of the therapy process.

Certain information, or lack of information, may
lead to a serious disruption of the therapy process. One

possible result is that the client does not remain in

therapy. If the client fails to remain in therapy long
enough, the developmental process of therapy will not
have a chance to have an impact on the client, and the
client's desire for behavior change is likely to be
frustrated. Persistence in the therapy situation is a

critical ingredient.

A number of studies have investigated the
characteristics of clients who persist in
counseling or therapy. Studies tend to show
that approximately 30 to 60 percent of people
seeking help from outpatient facilities
terminate in six visits or fewer (Feldman,

1958; Garfield and Kurz, 1952; Kurland, 1956).
This tendency seems to Operate rather consistently
across all types of treatment or treatment
facilities and represents a phenomenon which
Stieper and Wiener (1965) term a "phase theory."
It is as though an initial process of engagement
between counselor and client must be explored
before much productive interaction can occur.
This writer chooses to call this phase of
counseling the "negotiation period." Apparently
only from one-half to two-thirds of the typical
clientele of most counseling facilities survive
this negotiation stage (Blocher, 1967, p. 6).

Perhaps the "negotiation period", which Blocher
(1967) associates with high client mortality, is the
period during which the client tries to find out what the
therapy situation is all about, i.e. what the therapist
expects and what he, the client, is supposed to do. The
drop-out client has frequently been characterized as
"resistant," or "unamenable to psychotherapy." However,

another explanation is suggested by Goldstein, Heller, &

Sechrest (1966), namely that limited experience may
contribute to the appearance of "resistance“ in the client
substantially more than actual unwillingness.

The effects of "limited experience" are not
peculiar to psychotherapy. In several studies involving
perceptual-motor learning, Garner (1962) reported that
perceptual anticipation could affect the subject's learning
and performance. He cited several studies which lead
to the conclusion that uncertainty and the inability to
anticipate or predict in an unfamiliar situation
consistently results in poorer performance.

The reduction of the client's uncertainty about
therapy is a prime responsibility of the therapist,
according to Lennard & Bernstein (1967). They believe
that teaching an individual how to be a client and what
to expect from a therapist is an important part of therapy,
and that the process of therapy will be disturbed if the
therapist does not take time in the early sessions to
prepare the client in his role as client.

It is quite possible that many clients, out of a
need to reduce the ambiguity of the therapy situation,
struggle for information and cues to give meaning to
their behavior, but are many times frustrated in this
struggle. It would be reasonable to assume that a client
who is faced with continual role frustration will not

return to the therapy situation.

Several authors have suggested that it would be
beneficial to the client to provide the client with advance
information about the behaviors which the therapist expects
(Hoehn-Saric, Frank, Stanley, at alii, 1964). If the
information is not Specifically given, the client is likely
to take whatever information is available through contact
with the therapist and other cues, and formulate his own
meaning of the therapy situation. This meaning may emanate
more from the client's uncertainty and fear than from an
accurate perception of the therapy situation, and the result
can easily be the client's internal decision to discontinue
therapy. The therapist may perceive the client as lacking
motivation.

”Some patients who appear to lack motivation for
treatment may be capable of profiting from psychotherapy
if they are taught what to expect, if they understand the
rules of the game" (Orne & Wender, 1968, p. 1202). This
study focuses on providing potential clients with
information about the expected behavior during the initial
contact with a therapist, and the effect of this information

on the client's behavior.

Need

The literature contains sufficient research to

strongly support the notion that pretherapy information

does positively affect the behavior of clients during
therapy. The issue at hand is not whether pretherapy
information is effective, but rather what kinds of
information are needed, what methods of providing the
information are most effective, and to whom should the
information be presented. This study will attempt to
pursue some aspects of Sanford's (1953) question:
"...which people, in what circumstances, responding to
what psychotherapeutic stimuli."

Investigators who studied the effects of providing
clients with information about the expectations and the
process of psychotherapy have used a wide variety of
techniques. The basic techniques used include transmitting
the information to the client verbally, by written
materials, by having the client listen to an audio
recording of information, view a video recording of "good"
and "bad" client behaviors, and various combinations of
these approaches. Several of these methods will be
considered further in the Review of the Literature in
Chapter II.

The method used to communicate the information to
the client is an important consideration in pretherapy
training. This investigator, however, will not pursue
methodological questions in this study. The direction of
investigation will be to focus on the content of the

pretherapy information, and certain characteristics which

may affect the client's attention to the information, and
subsequent performance in an interview.

One important variable which contributes to the
success of psychotherapy, according to Orne & Wender (1968),
is the extent to which the client understands his role as
a client, and is able to fulfill that role. Certain
characteristics of the pretherapy information may affect
the client's ability to fulfill his role as client.

A key characteristic of psychotherapy is the
client's behavior (Orne & Wender, 1968). The client must
exhibit frequent, verbal behavior if therapy is to take
place. To assist the client in his verbal task, and to
help the client and the therapist avoid frustration and
dissatisfaction, Orne & Wender (1968) suggest that the
client be prepared for the therapeutic interaction by
means of a process called "anticipatory socialization."
This process essentially enables the client to anticipate
the specific therapy interaction, to know what responses
the therapist will expect, and to give the client some
immediate idea of what therapy is about.

Providing clients with advance information is not
a guarantee that the clients will be able to profit from
psychotherapy. The client may still resist therapy.
However, providing clients with advance information may

greatly alleviate client and therapist frustration which

may result from the client's ambiguity about the therapy
situation, and particularly the client's role in that
situation.

Modeling has frequently been used to prepare
clients for therapy. The content of the modeling and
the characteristics of the model have been varied and
investigated under a variety of conditions. Some studies
have suggested that model characteristics are important
in eliciting imitative behaviors from observers (Mowrer,
1950; Sears, 1957; Asch, 1948; Lefkowitz, Blake, & Mouton,
1955; Bandura & Huston, 1961: Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963;
Burnstein, Stotland, & Zander, 1961; Stotland & Patchen,
1961). In a recent investigation, Doster & McAllister
(1973) reported more self-disclosure from subjects when
the model was identified as having clinical expertise
than when the model was attributed peer status. The
investigators presented identical modeling content to
two groups of subjects, identifying the model to one group
as an experienced professional, and identifying the same
model to a second group as a peer. The higher status of
the model elicited more self-disclosure from subjects than
did the lower status of the model.

The results of the Doster & McAllister (1973) study
raise a question regarding the important ingredients of

effective therapy pretraining. Their study suggests that

10

the effectiveness of pretherapy training may be related
to more than an accurate presentation of what the client
is expected tozdo in the therapy session. As suggested
by the Doster & McAllister (1973) study, is the status
of the model vital to improving subjects' imitation of
modeled behaviors? In the modeling of therapy behaviors,
is the status of the model as important, more important,
less important than the content of the modeling?.

In order to prepare clients as adequately and
efficiently as possible, more information is needed about
,the importance‘of certain model characteristics.
Knowledge of the effects of these variables upon the
actual interview behavior of the client may be helpful‘

in making pretherapy training more effective.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the
importance of modeling content, status of the model, and
status of the therapist in pretraining subjects to self-
disclose in an actual interview with a therapist. The
main effects of high versus low self-disclosure of the
model, high versus low status of the model, and high
versus low status of the therapist are inveStigated.
Several interactions are also investigated for first

and second order interaction effects.

ll

Hypotheses

The first three hypotheses are related to the main
effects of the three independent variables--level of self-
disclosure of the model, model status, and therapist status.

1. Subjects who are exposed to a high degree of
model self-disclosure self-disclose more than subjects
who are exposed to a low degree of model self-disclosure.

2. Subjects who are exposed to a high status model
self-disclose more than subjects who are exposed to a low
status model.

3. Subjects who are interviewed by a high status
therapist self-disclose more than subjects who are

interviewed by a low status therapist.

The following two hypotheses are related to
interaction effects of the independent variables.

4. Subjects who are exposed to a high degree of
model self-disclosure and a high status model self-disclose
more than subjects who are exposed to a low degree of
model self-disclosure and a low status model.

5. Subjects who are exposed to a high degree of
model self-disclosure, a high status model, and a high
status therapist, self-disclose more than subjects who

are exposed to other second order combinations of

12

independent variables.

Theory

Miller & Dollard, Mowrer, and Bandura are the
primary theorists who have contributed to a theoretical
understanding of the process of learning through modeling.
The theoretical explanations of each of the theorists will

be considered briefly.

Miller & Dollard

 

Miller & Dollard (1941) offered an explanation of
imitation learning in their theory of matched-dependent
behavior. Matched-dependent behavior consists of a
drive, followed by a cue, followed by a response, which
is followed by a reward. The matched-dependent theory
pr0poses that a model's behavior acquires a reward value
when the observer matches the model's behavior and the
Observer's imitation of the model's behavior is followed
by a reward. Matched behaviors can generalize to other
situations in which the behavior was imitated and
rewarded. The more similar the situation, the more the
transfer is likely to occur.

Miller & Dollard's (1941) theory of matched-
dependent behavior accounts for the learning of behaviors

when these behaviors are matched by an observer. However,

13

since direct reinforcement seems to be a necessary
ingredient in the learning process, the matched-dependent
theory is not able to explain novel responses, such as
those which might occur as a result of modeling. Miller &
Dollard hold that even the observation of the model
receiving reinforcement for the modeled behavior has no
effect upon the imitation of modeled behavior. Miller &
Dollard (1941) would argue that if imitation occurred,

direct reinforcement was present.

Mowrer

Mowrer deviated from Miller & Dollard's (1941)
position and introduced the concept of empathic learning.
According to Mowrer (1960), empathic learning occurs
when the observer sees the model being reinforced,
anticipates a similar consequence to the behavior
exhibited by the model, and imitates the model's behavior
"in hopes" of achieving the same or a similar reward. In
empathic learning, the consequence of the model's behavior
takes on a reward value. Miller & Dollard (1941) attribute
reward value to the model's behavior only when the observer

imitates the model and actually receives a reward.

Bandura
Bandura (1962, 1965b) argued that neither Miller &

Dollard nor Mowrer adequately accounted for the learning

14

of modeled behaviors which occurs in situation in which
the observer makes no response, and neither the model nor
the observer receives a reward. Bandura (1969) divided
the process of learning modeled behaviors into two phases,
acquisition and performance, and stated that the two
phases are influenced by different variables. The acqui-
sition of a matched behavior "results primarily from
stimulus contiguity and associated symbolic processes,
whereas the performance of observationally learned
responses will depend to a great extent upon the nature of
reinforcing consequences to the model or to the observer"
(Bandura, 1969, p. 128). The variables or conditions
under which a modeled behavior is learned are not the same
conditions under which the observer performs the modeled
behaviors. In the study involving children observing a
filmed model of novel responses, Bandura (1965b) demon-
strated that learned behaviors would not be performed
unless the reinforcement conditions were sufficient to
elicit the behaviors.

Perhaps Bandura's most radical departure from
the positions of Miller & Dollard (1941) and Mowrer (1960)
is his preposition that behaviors can become part of the
observer's repertoire without actually being performed or
rewarded at the time they are observed. Miller & Dollard

(1941) hold that the observer has to experience

15

reinforcement in order for imitation to occur. Mowrer's
(1960) Opinion is that the observer has to see the model
being reinforced in order to imitate the behavior.
Bandura (1963, 1965b) pr0poses that imitation can occur
even though the model is not reinforced for his behavior,
and the observer is not immediately reinforced for
imitating the behavior. His reasoning is that reinforce-
ment can be experienced vicariously. "The anticipation
of positive reinforcement for matching responses by the
observer may...indirectly influence the course of
observational learning by enhancing and focusing observing
responses" (Bandura, 1969, p. 120).

Bandura's notion of observational learning is
that it can lead to novel responses, i.e. vicarious
reinforcement conditions are capable of eliciting novel
responses. Subjects in the present study were asked to
self-disclose. It is quite likely that all of the
subjects in the study have a history of self-disclosing
behavior. Rather than have the effect of eliciting novel
responses, it is more likely that the effects of the
modeling will have a response facilitation effect (Bandura,
1969) upon the subjects. Bandura's concept of vicarious
reinforcement provides the theoretical framework for
the occurrence of behavioral imitation under conditions

of no reinforcement.

16

Overview

In this study the effects of three independent
variables on subject self-disclosure during the initial
interview with a therapist were investigated. The three
independent variables were; 1) level of modeled self-
disclosure (high versus low), 2) status of the model
(high versus low), and 3) status of the therapist (high
versus low). Following Bandura's (1969) concept of
vicarious reinforcement, subjects were placed in nonrein-
forcement modeling conditions, and asked to perform
behaviors similar to those which were modeled.

In Chapter II, the literature pertinent to
pretraining clients for counseling and psychotherapy is
reviewed. Chapter III contains a description of procedures,
subjects, hypotheses, measures, analyses, and the
experimental design. In Chapter IV, the analyses of the
data are presented, and the results are interpreted for
each of the hypotheses. A summary of the study, discussion
of the results and their implications for continued

research can be found in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Research efforts directed at training clients in one
or more therapy variables have generally investigated the
following: 1) the extent to which pretrained clients
fare better in psychotherapy than untrained clients;

2) the variables which are amenable to a pretraining
procedure; and 3) the procedures that best accomplish
the pretraining. In reviewing the literature, each of

the three research directions will be considered.

Preconceptions About Therapy

A variety of pretherapy attitudes and expectations,
not all of which are helpful to either the client or the
therapist, are generated by cultural overtones regarding
therapists, by public conceptions about mental illness,
and by the "mystery" of what actually happens during the
therapy process. Few potential clients are clear about
why they enter therapy, or what to expect (Frank, 1961).
Perhaps ambiguity is one of the main factors contributing
to the various preconceptions which clients bring with
them to the initial therapy encounter (Bordin, 1955).
The client's uncertainty about the therapist's expectations

makes the therapist's first task imperative--acquainting

l7

18

the client with the process of therapy, clarifying the
therapist's expectations of the client, and structuring

the task before the client (Frank, 1961; Bordin, 1955).

Client Anxiety

The anxiety which clients bring to psychotherapy
is not, of itself, an inhibiting force to the process of
change. There is evidence to support the notion that
clients who show anxiety are more likely to profit from
the therapy experience than clients who show a lack of
anxiety (Frank, 1961). However, a client who is over-
whelmed by anxiety is likely to direct all of his energies
in self-preserverative efforts, leaving little or no
energy for therapeutic movement (Bordin, 1955). If the
chief, immediate objective of clients is to survive in
the highly ambiguous therapy situation, they are not likely
to focus on the task of changing their behavior. Excessive
ambiguity leads to excessive anxiety which detours the

client's energies from the purpose of coming to therapy.

Need for Structure

inch of the client's anxiety during the initial
session of therapy can be thought of as an attempt to
create structure, to make meaning out of his experiences

in the therapy situation. The need to organize novel

19

experiences into some meaningful structure is not peculiar
to the novice client in therapy. The human cognitive
processes seem to naturally organize and incorporate novel
experiences into some meaningful and useful concept.

When a client is not able to make sense of the variables
he perceives before him, increased anxiety and a sense of
impotence is likely to result (Garner, 1962).

The search for structure seems to be such a
dominating characteristic of behavior that structure will
be created if none exists (Garner, 1962). If the client
has to structure the therapy situation without new
information, he is likely to be frustrated in his attempt
to find meaning in what is before him, and the therapist's
task becomes increasingly complicated. If no meaning is
offered, the client will decide on his own what meaning to
attribute to the therapy situation. The meaning that the
client attributes may be formed from variables which the
therapist considers irrelevant. Consequently, a situation
can be generated in which the therapist's meaning and the
client's meaning about the therapy situation are highly
discrepant.

Effectively prestructuring the therapy process by
providing advance information to the client about what
is expected of him and what he can expect from the therapist

is likely to reduce the client's ambiguity and anxiety,

20

free more of the client's energy for immediate, therapeutic
movement, and ease the therapist's task in assisting the
client in reaching his personal goals. Anxiety about
personal difficulties can be a positive ingredient in
helping the client to solve the personal difficulties.
However, anxiety about the therapy situation itself is

not productive, and simply detains the client from the
therapeutic task before him. In some cases, anxiety

about the therapy situation may prevent the client from

any therapeutic growth.

Perceptual Anticipation

Studies on perceptual anticipation, i.e. having
advance information about a coming event, suggest that
performance on a task can be improved when the subject is
given some information about the task before it is
encountered (Leonard, 1954). Poulton (1957b,c) found
that subject performance on a task increased significantly
when the subject was given advance information about the
stimulus and the required response. Garner (1962) was of
the Opinion that even passive observation of a stimulus
sequence may be of great value to the subject.

‘Specific to psychotherapy, Orne & Wender (1968)
translate perceptual anticipation (Leonard, 1954) into
the concept of "anticipatory socialization." These

authors believe that inadequate preparation about role

21

expectations and treatment expectations in psychotherapy
can lead to anxiety, resistance, discontent, hostility,

and impede the effects of therapy.

Low Prognosis Clients

 

Inadequate preparation for psychotherapy may show
its effects most strongly in the low prognosis client,
usually resulting in an early termination from therapy
(Warren & Rice, 1972). Traditionally, the low prognosis
type client has been regarded from the onset as poorly
motivated for therapy. Some recent studies have offered
an alternate explanation, suggesting that the low prognosis
type client may be more unprepared than he is unwilling.
Heller (1969) reports that many clients do not have the
behaviors available to them which are necessary for
successful therapy. Limited experience may appear as
resistance, but resistance may in fact be a lack of
appropriate in-therapy behaviors (Goldstein, Heller, &
Sechrest, 1966). Heller (1969) supports the idea that
providing unprepared clients with an opportunity for
observational learning in a benign therapeutic environ-

ment will serve to overcome these behavioral deficiencies.

Direct Training
Carkhuff (1971) suggests that the most direct and

effective way to help clients is to train them in those

22

behaviors which will help the client move to a higher level
of functioning. Such training involves providing the
client with an understanding of the treatment process and
the client's role in it (Carkhuff, 1969). Carkhuff's
concept of direct training is a step beyond client
preparation for psychotherapy. It is a form of therapy
itself. Pierce 8 Drasgow (1969), using chronic neuro-
psychiatric patients, Minuchin, Chamberlain & Graubard
(1967), using disturbed, delinquent children, Carkhuff
(1970), using ghetto school children, and Gittelman (1965),
using aggressive, acting-out children, have demonstrated
the effectiveness of using direct client training to

teach apprOpriate social behaviors and to increase

interpersonal skills.

Example Setting

Kell & Burrow (1966) view modeling as essentially
example setting in which the therapist stimulates
thinking, feeling, and risk-taking in clients, which leads
not to a complacent imitation of the therapist, but to
independent and creative develOpment for the client.
bodeling is aimed not so much at telling the client what I
he should be, but more at demonstrating the process

which the client can use to facilitate change.

23

Theory

Some of the research efforts which have direct
bearing on theoretical constructs related to learning
through modeling are presented below. The theories
themselves were presented earlier in Chapter I.

The matched-dependent behavior theory of Miller &
Dollard (1941) seemed to account for the learning of
matching responses (drive-cue—response-reward), but
did not explain the acquisition of novel responses.
Mowrer (1960) introduced the concept of empathic learning
which did not require that the observer be reinforced for
performing the modeled behavior. Mowrer predicted that
the observer would imitate the behavior in anticipation
of receiving the reward which the model received.

Bandura was not satisfied with either Miller & Dollard's
or Mowrer's explanations. Bandura (1962, 1965b) pointed
out that neither of the two preceeding theories accounted
for the occurrence of imitation in situations where the
observer made no re8ponse, or neither the model nor the
observer were reinforced.

Bandura (1969) divided learning into an acquisition
and a performance phase, and theorized that behaviors can
become part of the observer's behavioral repertoire without
actually being performed or rewarded at the time they are

Observed. Flanders (1968) and Berger (1966) found support

24

for Bandura's position. However, Kelly, Thibaut, & Mundy
(1962) argued that modeling conditions are not without
reinforcement. They propose that an implied or eventual
reward situation may exist when an observer is exposed
to a consistent pattern of responses. Their contention is
that persisting behavior, even in the absence of apparent
reward, suggests that some reward is occurring or will
occur.

The vicarious reinforcement effect is implied
by Stotland (1969) in the situation in which an individual
is perceived as potentially being effective in providing
help, and the mere presence of the individual has a
rewarding effect upon the perceiver.

Rosenbaum & Arenson (1967) and Gilmore (1967)
suggested that the very act of imitation, irrespective
of apparent reward, has a reinforcing effect. Their
reasoning is that, in the past, rewards were received for
doing what others did. These rewards occurred frequently
enough that the S-R imitation chain itself now holds the
promise of a reward, even though none may be apparent
in the immediate situation. (It is also possible that
the apparent reward is not the reward eliciting the
modeled behavior from the observer.)

If it can be assumed that no response is emitted
or continued without reinforcement, the difficulty of

explaining why some behaviors are acquired or maintained

25

without apparent reinforcement lies partly in the present
inability of researchers to identify the multitude of
reinforcers to which individuals differentially respond.
Complicating the identification of reinforcers is the
fact that reinforcers do not always remain constant.
They seem to shift through the develOpmental stages of
human growth. Even within a stable period of human
development, reinforcers seem to shift frequently, sometimes
from one day to the next.

Perhaps Miller & Dollard (1941) are accurate in
their statement that imitation does not occur without
direct reinforcement, and that it is our present inability
to identify reinforcers that lead us to explain imitation
behavior by way of such constructs as vicarious reinforce-
ment. However, for the present, the theoretical formulations
of Bandura (1969), particularly with reSpect to the
acquisition and performance phases of learning, provide
the strongest framework for investigating modeling and

behavioral imitation.

Role Induction Interview

Based on the anticipatory socialization concept
(Orne & Wender, 1968), Hoehn-Saric, et alii (1964) designed
a study to impart apprOpriate expectations about certain
aspects of psychotherapy to patients of an outpatient

clinic. The procedure, called Role Induction Interview,

26

consisted of an interview between patient and psychiatrist
before assignment to a therapist for actual therapy. The
Role Induction Interview was an informal exchange between
patient and interviewer in which the task of the inter-
viewer was to stress points which seemed apprOpriate to
each patient, but to include the following points in each
interview with each patient: 1) a general exposition of
psychotherapy: 2) a description of what was expected from
the patient and what the patient might expect from the
therapist; 3) a preparation for typical events in the
course of therapy, such as resistance, etc.; 4) an idea

of what the patient could realistically expect in terms
of improvement within a specified period of time.

One of the outcome expectations was that the
patients who received the Role Induction Interview would
present themselves to their therapists as more favorable
candidates for therapy, evoking a more positive response
from therapists, and in turn resulting in a more favorable
outcome for the patients. The therapy sessions were tape
recorded and analyzed. The authors concluded that the Role
Induction Interview patients showed significantly more
"good therapy patient" behaviors with more improvement
from treatment than the patients who did not receive the
Role Induction Interview. In addition, the authors
reported that an analysis of the tapes from the first

sessions showed that therapists gave control patients

27

significantly more role induction than was given to the

patients who received the Role Induction Interview.
Hoehn-Saric and his associates (1964) were not

concerned with possible interaction effects which may

have contributed to the effectiveness of the Role Induction

Interview. However, they did raise the question of the

importance of status. A senior psychiatrist, presented

as senior to the therapists who conducted therapy,

gave the Role Induction Interview to all patients. Whether

a high status individual is essential to the effectiveness

of the Role Induction Interview is a question the authors

raised for further study.

Vicarious Therapy Pretraining

Vicarious Therapy Pretraining (VTP) is the name
given by Truax & Wargo (1969) to a procedure designed to
provide clients with cognitive and experiential structuring
of "good" therapy behaviors. In VTP, clients are exposed
to a thirty minute tape recording of excerpts of "good"
patient in-therapy behavior. Vicarious Therapy Pretraining
was used by Truax & Wargo (1968) on a mildly disturbed,
neurotic outpatient group, hypothesizing that patients
receiving VTP prior to group therapy would show a greater
evidence of constructive personality change than patients
not receiving VTP, as measured by a battery of ten tests.

The study was conducted over twenty-four therapy sessions.

28

Truax & Wargo (1968) reported that "There is a
striking tendency for VTP to show therapeutic advantage
over NVTP" (p. 442). On other measures used in the study,
the authors concluded that the subjects in the VTP condition
self-explored more than NVTP subjects, and that this increase
in self-exploration was positively related to therapeutic

outcome.

Therapeutic Reading

 

Bibliotherapy is a form of therapeutic reading
which has been used with a variety of clients, and with
limited success (Wolberg, 1954). Reading has been introduced
into several pre-therapy training studies as another means
by which a client could be prepared for therapy. The
emphasis on therapeutic reading is not as an alternative to
therapy, but as a means to facilitate the client's
participation in the psychotherapy process. Sauber (1971)
conducted a study in which he compared the merits of
therapeutic reading with two other pretherapy training
procedures, Role Induction Interview and Vicarious
Therapy Pretraining. Thirty-six female clients were
randomnly assigned to one of four experimental conditions:
1) Role Induction Interview, 2) Vicarious Therapy Pre-
training, 3) therapeutic reading, 4) no treatment.

In the role induction interview condition, nine

subjects met in a group, as a group, with the interviewer,

29

and were given a verbal introduction and description of
the counseling process. In the vicarious therapy pretraining
condition, Sauber reported that subjects were shown a
videotape which focused primarily on the dialogue, showing
what actually took place in a ”live" therapy session. This
investigator reviewed the transcript of the videotape, and
disagrees with Sauber's contention that the vicarious
therapy pretraining condition focused primarily on in-
therapy dialogue. It was this author's impression that
the videotape was primarily a monologue of instruction of
"good" client behavior. Consequently, this author questions
the appropriateness of labeling this treatment condition
"vicarious therapy pretraining."

In the therapeutic reading condition, subjects
were provided with instructions related to the counseling
process, and examples of therapy dialogue. It was
Sauber's expressed intent to keep the content of the pre-
training constant, and to vary only the method of presenting
the information. This author questions the extent to
which Sauber maintained content across methods. It is
quite likely that content varied with the method, and
that the treatment conditions were methodologically
contaminated.

Sauber concluded that the Role Induction Interview

was the most effective method in preparing clients for the

30

therapy process. The Vicarious Therapy Pretraining and
therapeutic reading conditions were statistically signi-
ficant over the control group on several measures. His
conclusions were based on self-reports elicited through
questionnaires. Apparently all subjects receiving some
kind of treatment reported that their experience was
"worthwhile". It is not clear what meaning "worthwhile"
can have in this study. Since subjects were measured
before therapy actually began, "worthwhile" apparently

is not related to the subsequent therapy sessions. The
subjects had no way of evaluating how helpful the pre-
training might have been for therapy, since the subjects
had received only the pretraining at the time that the
measures were taken. Herein lies one of the major
difficulties in assessing the meaning of this study. Sauber
investigated the effects of several pretraining methods
upon the self-reports of subjects. The reports which the
subjects gave were independent of their subsequent
experience in therapy, because their reports were made
before they actually entered therapy.

The statistical findings of Sauber's study require
further analysis. In the Role Induction Interview, Sauber
presented his treatment to subjects in groups of three. He
failed to take account of this unit of treatment and

analysis in his statistical procedures, thus violating

31

the independent assumption necessary for the statistical
methods which were used to analyze the data. It is quite
possible that the probability of a Type I error is greater

than assumed.

Film Modeling

Whalen (1969) concluded that modeling with a video-
tape alone was not sufficient to produce interpersonal
Openness in leaderless groups. Male college students
participated in leaderless, group discussion after receiving
one of four treatment conditions: 1) a film showing
interpersonal openness, accompanied by written, detailed
instructions (F-DI); 2) the film of interpersonal Openness,
accompanied with minimal instructions (F-MI); 3) detailed
instructions only (DI); 4) minimal instructions only (MI).
Whalen concluded that the F-DI groups exhibited more
interpersonal Openness than the other groups. Whalen
further concluded that film modeling alone is not enough
to occassion imitation of complex verbalizations.

Whalen's latter conclusion is difficult to follow
on the basis of the study, since there was no film only
treatment condition in the study. Whalen apparently
equated the F—MI condition with a film only condition.
However, in doing so Whalen did not allow for the possible
negative effects of minimal instructions which may have

offset the positive effects of the film only condition. It

32

is quite possible that the film only condition produced

the effects which Whalen attributed to the F-DI condition.
Ohlson (1970) reported results from film modeling

which were not supportive of Whalen (1969). Videotapes of

peers were presented to male subjects who were engaged

in sensitivity training. In one tape, the peer models were

emitting maximum levels of self-disclosure. In a second

tape, peer models were self-disclosing only minimally. A

third group of male subjects served as a no treatment group.

The sensitivity training session which followed exposure

to the films was itself videotaped and rated for level and

content of self-disclosure. Ohlson concluded that a single

training session using only film models was sufficient to

elicit significantly higher levels of self-disclosure.

Audio Modeling

 

In an analogue study, Greenberg (1969) found support
for the notion that information about the therapist given
prior to an actual therapy experience can affect the therapy
relationship. To four different groups, Greenberg presented
information about the therapist's warmth or coldness and
experience or lack of experience. All four groups listened
to the identical audio tape. Greenberg showed that
information about therapist characteristics can significantly

affect the therapy relationship.

33

Anstett (1971) concluded that subjects who are given
information about apprOpriate client role behavior will
disclose themselves more to their counselors, explore
themselves more deeply, better express their problems to
their counselors, and demonstrate more apprOpriate role
behavior during the first counseling interview.

Liberman (1970) investigated the effects of modeling
on certain patient behaviors--attraction-to-the-therapist
and self-disclosure. His subjects were male, alcoholic
inpatients. Liberman concluded that high disclosure modeling
behavior resulted in significantly greater self-disclosure
than either low disclosure modeling, or no modeling. He
was not able to report significant results regarding
attraction-to-the-therapist. Given the procedures used
in this study, Liberman's results suggest that self-
disclosure is easier to model than attraction-to-the-therapist.

Klepper (1971) showed that instrumentation may
Offset any actual differences which result from treatment
conditions. His intent was to increase self-disclosure
through audio tape modeling. However, in collecting his
data, Klepper attempted to have his subjects exhibit
self-disclosing behavior to an unresponsive interviewer.

In a study aimed at increasing self-exploration,

Goi (1971) exposed university counseling center clients to
one of three treatment conditions: 1) a nine and one half

minute audio tape which contained instructions and examples

34

of essential concepts and behaviors related to the process
of self-exploration; 2) an eleven and one half minute audio
tape of general counseling information; 3) a no-treatment
condition. Goi found no treatment differences, but found
that females self-disclosed significantly more than males.
However, his study showed an attempt to measure treatment
affects on actual clients after an actual interview with

a therapist.

In an attempt to improve the effects of time-limited
group psychotherapy, Truax, Shapiro & Wargo (1968) wanted
to improve self-exploration in clients by giving them
examples of other clients engaging in high levels of
expected in-therapy behavior. The treatment consisted of
exposure to audio recordings of several segments of actual
group therapy interactions involving relatively deep
exploration of problems and feelings. The subjects were
groups of hospitalized mental patients and groups of
male juvenile delinquents. The authors concluded that the
treatment (vicarious therapy pretraining) had its greatest
effect upon the patients' concepts of what they ought to
be. The training proved to be effective in teaching the
patients what the therapist expected from patients when
they described themselves, but it apparently did not have
much effect on the patients' self perceptions after

psychotherapy.

35

In a follow-up study with a group of outpatient
neurotics, Truax & Wargo (1969) found that exposing out-
patient neurotics to a thirty minute VTP tape recording
(vicarious therapy pretraining) prior to the first session
showed a greater improvement on twenty-one of twenty-three
measures of outcome than non-VTP patients.

Warren & Rice (1972) focused on typically resistant
and high drOp-out clients, and achieved positive results
when these clients were given additional training and
intervention. Thoresen & Krumboltz (1967) significantly
affected the information seeking behavior of high school
students interested in receiving counseling about their
future educational and vocational plans. These authors
used modeling procedures. Zerfas (1965) found modeling
procedures to be effective in teaching role expectations

to both hospitalized psychotics and college undergraduates.

Model Characteristics

Doster & McAllister (1973) investigated the effect
of the "status" Of the model upon the imitation of self-
disclosing behavior of subjects. Based on the research
findings presented by Bandura (1969), these authors
hypothesized that a model identified as having professional
training in psychotherapy would elicit greater imitation

of modeled behavior than would a model identified as a peer.

36

Thirty, male, undergraduate psychology students
listened to a tape recording of a model who disclosed
feelings of discomfort in social situations. Ten subjects
were told that the model was an experienced therapist,
ten subjects were told that the model was a peer, and ten
subjects did not listen to the audio tape. The tape was
approximately four minutes long.

After treatment, experimental and control subjects
were escorted to an interviewer's office and were requested
to spend about four minutes self-disclosing on each of six
topics (spare time, fear, shame and guilt, sensitivity,
self-esteem, and sexual gratification). One interviewer
interviewed all subjects. He served primarily as a time-
keeper and was instructed to avoid verbal and non-verbal
cues to the subjects. The interview tOpics were presented
sequentially to the subjects on 3 x 5 cards. The interviews
were tape recorded.

An analysis of the tape recordings of the subjects'
self-disclosures showed that both experimental conditions
(high and low status) resulted in significantly more
self-disclosing than the control group condition. Further,
the authors reported that the higher status model condition
elicited significantly more self-disclosure from subjects
than the lower status model, even though both disclosures
were identical. The authors attributed the difference to

the characteristic of "status" which differentiated the

37

model to the two experimental groups. They stated that
the training and experience associated with the pro-
fessional status enhanced the value of the modeled behavior.
The Doster & McAllister (1973) study underscores
the need for users of modeling procedures to attend more
closely to the characteristics of the model. It also
raises the question of the relationship between character-
istics of the model and the content of the modeling. Is
one more important than the other? Is it possible for one
to negate the effects of the other? For instance, would
knowledge that the model is of low status have a detri-
mental effect upon an otherwise effective modeling
procedure? Does the status of the interviewer signifi-

cantly affect the subject's self-disclosing behavior?

Self-Disclosure

Although a thorough review of the literature on
self-disclosure would not be apprOpriately included with
this study, it does seem apprOpriate to mention the role
that self-disclosure in psychotherapy is given by
several prominent writers.

Most of the pretherapy training studies published
have centered on the task of facilitating the client's
self-disclosure to the therapist early in the therapeutic
relationship. Jourard (1964) states that there is a

curvilinear relationship between self-disclosure and

38

mental health. The Optimum amount of self-disclosure is
undetermined. However, too much or too little self-
disclosure seems to be associated with maladaptive
functioning. For Jourard (1964) the quantity and quality
of self-disclosure is related to the presence of pathology,
and the process of therapy. With respect to the presence
of pathology, Jourard (1964) states, "Every maladjusted
person is a person who has not made himself known to
another human being and in consequence does not know
himself" (p. 26). With reSpect to the process of therapy,
Jourard (1964) states, "An Operational analysis of what
goes on in counseling and therapy shows that the patients
and clients discover themselves through self-disclosure
to the counselor" (p. 24). The right amount of self-
disclosure is a symptom of a healthy personality. "A
person who displays many of the other characteristics

that betoken healthy personality will also display the
ability to make himself fully known to at least one other
significant human being" (Jourard, 1964, p. 25).

For Mowrer (1966), self-disclosure is "confession"
which allows the individual to check troublesome impulses,
take responsibility for his guilt, and allow him to
reintegrate himself with his family or community. Mowrer
believes that unless secrets are unveiled which generate

internal conflict, the internal conflict cannot be resolved.

39

Self-disclosure is an ongoing process of "confession." It
is followed by some form of "penance", which leads to a
reintegration of the self with the environment (family,
neighborhood, community, etc.). It is a process of emotional
honesty and uncovering of misdeeds, followed by behavioral
actions which restore integrity in interpersonal relation-
ships.

Without self-disclosure, one does not know oneself,
and is incongruent (Rogers, 1959). The therapy process is
one of exploring and coming to know oneself through self-
disclosure. An accurate experiencing of oneself leads to
a state of congruence. Truax & Carkhuff (1965) found that
constructive personality change was directly related to
the degree of self-disclosure.

Self-disclosure is an integral part of the theories
of psychotherapy mentioned above. Self-disclosure was
also used extensively by Freud (1920) in uncovering

repressed and unconscious material through free association.

Summagy

The use of modeling procedures to maximize the
effectiveness of psychotherapy have their strongest
theoretical foundations in Bandura's (1965) research on
behavioral imitation under vicarious reinforcement

conditions. While the theoretical explanations of

40

modeling and imitated behaviors are still debated (Miller &
Dollard, 1941; Kelley, et alli, 1962; Bandura & McDonal,
1963; Marston & Kanfer, 1963; Kelley, Thibaut, Radloff,

& Mundy, 1962; Wheeler, 1966; Willis, 1966; Stein, 1967;
Walters & Amoroso, 1967; McMains & Liebert, 1968),
researchers have demonstrated that providing clients with
advance information about the process of therapy has
facilitated clients' participation in the therapy process.
Pretherapy information can serve to establish "the rules
of the game" (Orne & Wender, 1968), reduce the ambiguity
of what is expected, and positively affect the client's
participation (Lennard & Bernstein, 1967).

Several methods have been used to pretrain clients
for therapy, such as verbal explanations (Hoehn—Saric, et
alii, 1964), written instructions (Sauber, 1971), video-
tape modeling (Ohlson, 1970), audio tape modeling (Anstett,
1971), role rehearsal (Doster, 1972), and a combination
of procedures (Whalen, 1969). The results of these
investigations indicate that pretherapy training can be
an effective way of facilitating the client's participation
in the therapy process.

The majority of investigations have dealt primarily
with the client's imitation of the verbal behavior modeled.
However, investigations related to characteristics of the

model have been reported as early as 1948 (Asch), with the

41

conclusion that some characteristics of the model seem to
account for differences in behavior imitated by clients.
Bandura & Huston (1961), Hicks (1965), Hetherington &
Frankie (1967), Klinger (1967), and Bandura (1969) reported
that various model characteristics differentially affected
responses imitated by observers. Doster & McAllister (1973)
found that the status of the model significantly affected
the self-disclosure of observers. The study by Doster &
McAllister (1973) raised several questions regarding the
relationship between the behaviors modeled and the model
characteristic of status.

This study is investigating the main and interaction
effects of self-disclosure of the model, model status,
and therapist status. Each of the independent variables
have two levels, high and low. The use of multiple
dependent measures provide an Opportunity to observe
possible effects of the independent variables on the

topics presented for self-disclosure.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Sample

The population for this study consisted of single,
undergraduate, female students who resided on the campus
of Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
during the fall term of 1973. The subjects who parti-
cipated in this study resided in one of three residence
halls-—Shaw, Fee, or McDonald. All three halls were
within short walking distance to the offices of the Fee
Counseling Center, the site of the study.

Subjects for this study were solicited from groups
of students who were interested in taking a personality
test under the direction of the University Counseling
Center. The study itself was not associated with the
personality test. Prior to the administration of the
personality test by Counseling Center personnel, the
investigator was permitted several minutes to ask for the
students' cooperation. If interested, students were
asked to sign a written agreement (personal commitment
contract). After the signed agreements (Appendix D) were
collected, the investigator left the room. Subjects for

this study were obtained in the above manner over a

42

43

period of approximately six weeks.

At the time that subjects were asked to participate
in this study, they were informed that the study was a
research project for a doctoral dissertation. They were
told that the study would investigate several variables
which were thought to be important to the process of
meaningful communication. They were informed that the
investigator was particularly interested in the communi-
cation that occurred between a client and a therapist.
Their involvement in the study was explained very
generally by informing them that they would receive some
information, and then would be asked to give some infor-
mation. Nothing else regarding the study was made known
to the subjects at the time they were asked to participate.
Several days prior to the study, subjects were notified

in writing of the exact time they were to be present.

Sample Characteristics

A total of 100 undergraduate female subjects
agreed to participate in the study. These 100 subjects
were given written notification of the exact time they
were scheduled to participate. The notices were
delivered four days before the day of the study. At the
time that subjects were recruited, they were told that

their participation would take approximately one-half hour.

44
Of the 100 subjects who originally agreed to participate,
fifty nine actually kept their agreement and were present
for the study. In order to have equal observations (7)
in each of the eight cells of the variable matrix, it was
necessary to randomnly exclude three subjects. The total
number of subjects for this study was fifty six. Twenty
seven were freshmen, twelve were SOphomores, thirteen were
juniors, and four were seniors. Two were 17 years of age,
twenty seven were 18, twelve were 19, eleven were 20,

and four were 21.

Generalizability

In generalizing the results of the study to other
populations, the specificity of the pOpulation from.which
the sample for this study was taken must be considered
(Cornfield & Tukey, 1956). The subjects in this study
were individuals who expressed an interest in learning
something about their own personalities, as evidenced by
their volunteering to take a personality test, and have
the results interpreted to them. Those who signed the
agreement to participate probably had an interest in
meaningful communication, or were hoPeful of learning
something about themselves, or were willing to be helpful
to the investigator. The fifty six subjects who actually
participated in the study were probably highly motivated.

For these subjects, participation in the study meant a

4S

disruption of their Saturday morning, sometime between
8:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. It can be assumed that the level
of motivation of these subjects was greater than the
motivation of individuals of a similar age range and

academic status.

Procedure

 

Subjects were scheduled to participate in the
study for one-half hour blocks of time, beginning at
8:30 A.M. The last group of subjects was scheduled for
1:00 P.M. The experimental procedures were able to
accomodate eight subjects during each one-half hour block
of time, and the entire study was set to include ten such
groups of eight subjects. The number of subjects who
actually composed a group could vary from 0 to a maximum
of 8, depending on how many subjects actually kept their
agreement. Since a total of 100 subjects were scheduled,
more than eight subjects were scheduled for each one-half
hour block in anticipation that not all subjects would
keep their agreement.

When subjects arrived at the place of the study,
they were greeted by a receptionist who took the letter
which the subjects were instructed to bring with them.
This letter had been sent to the subjects several days
before the study. It contained the name of the place at

which the investigation would be conducted, and the time

46

the subject would be expected. Each subject was asked to
be present ten minutes before the actual start of the
study. The receptionist then had each subject sign the
master schedule next to a code number (Appendix E). The
code numbers had been previously assigned to experimental
conditions by means of a table of random numbers (Glass &
Stanley, 1970). The subject was then given a 3 x 5 card
which contained the following information: 1) the time
the subject was scheduled to participate in the study;

2) the subject's code number; 3) the room number in which
the subject would be interviewed by a therapist; and

4) the number of the cell in the variable matrix which
corresponded to the experimental conditions administered
to the subject. The subjects were instructed to keep

the 3 x 5 cards for the duration of the study.

Experimental Apparatus

After signing the master schedule, subjects
proceeded to a large room which was a few feet away from
the sign-in area. The room contained an oblong table,
large enough to accomodate eight chairs. On the table were
eight sets of headphones, linked to a stereo tape recorder.
Four headphones were connected to the output of one half
of the tape (one channel), and four were connected to the
other half of the tape output (a second channel). This

electrical arrangement permitted the simultaneous output

47

of two, different, monaural recordings of modeling content.
When the subjects entered th room, two research assistants
seated them at a headphone which corresponded to the
modeling content to which the subject had been randomnly

assigned.

Independent Variable: Status of the Model

 

After the subjects were seated, the research
assistant handed each subject a written agreement which
they were asked to sign before the study began (Appendix
F). Part of the agreement informed the subjects that
they were completely free to discontinue participation at
any time. After each subject signed the agreement, the
research assistant presented each subject with written
introductory comments, briefly explaining the procedures
of the study. A second written page was also handed to
the subjects which identified the status of the model.

To some subjects, the model was identified as a graduate
student, and to other subjects the model was identified
as an experienced therapist (Appendices G & H). After
the subjects had sufficient time to read the written
material, they were instructed to put on their headphones,

and the tape recorder was turned on.

48

Independent Variable: Self-Disclosure of the Model

 

By using a stereo tape recorder, it was possible
to simultaneously play two monaural recordings of a
model self-disclosing. One recording was fed to four
headphones, and the second recording was fed to the
remaining four headphones. Subjects listening to one
recording had no way of knowing that other subjects were
listening to a different recording.

Both recordings were made by the same male model.
They were within four seconds of being the same length
of time, each lasting approximately seven minutes and
forty five seconds. In one recording, the male model
self-disclosed to a high degree on the tOpic of social
gatherings (Appendix A). In the second recording, the
same male model self-disclosed to a low degree on the
same tOpic (Appendix B).

The high and low self-disclosure levels of the
recordings were validated before the study by the
therapists who interviewed the subjects, and by the
independent raters. The validation was achieved in the
following manner. After the therapists and independent
raters had practiced for several hours, the two self-
disclosure tapes were presented with several other
recordings in order to establish the degree of agreement

achieved on the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. The

49

therapists and raters had no knowledge that two of the
recordings might be used as modeling tapes. On one tape,
there was 100 per cent agreement that the model self-
disclosed with a rating of 4, the highest level on the
Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. On the other tape, there
was 100 per cent agreement that the model had self—
disclosed with a rating of l, the lowest level of the

Self-Disclosure Rating Scale.

Independent Variable: Status of the Therapist

After the subjects listened to the tape recordings
of the model self-disclosing, they were given a brief set
of written instructions for the interview with the
therapist. The instructions identified the therapist
as a graduate student (low status), or as an experienced
therapist (high status) (Appendices I & J). After the
subjects completed reading the instructions, they left
the treatment room and proceeded to individual offices
where the therapists were present.

Each subject was randomnly assigned to a therapist,
and this randomnization was done prior to the study by
means of a table of randomn numbers (Glass & Stanley,
1970). The therapists were instructed to turn on the
tape recorder as soon as the subject entered the office.
Each office had a tape recorder which was used to record

the interviews. The therapist gave the subject brief

50

instructions (Appendix K), and the interview began.

Questionnaire

At the end of the interview, the therapists
instructed the subjects to return to a table near the
reception area. At this point a research assistant
handed each subject a one-item questionnaire. The
questionnaire was intended to assess the subject's
willingness to self-disclose again to the same therapist,
if given the Opportunity (Appendix L). After the
questionnaire was completed, the research assistant
collected the questionnaire and the 3 x 5 card which
had been given to the subject at the beginning of the
study. A final set of comments was given to the
subjects (Appendix M) which thanked them for their
participation and indicated that a summary of the results

could be obtained when available.

Therapists

The eight individuals who served as interviewers
were employed by a Community Mental Health Board as
professional therapists. Seven of the eight had exper-
ience beyond their Master's degree. The eighth had two
years of experience as a professional therapist, and was
in process towards a Master's degree at the time of the

study. Four of the therapists were male, and four were

51

female. Their ages ranged from twenty three to thirty,
with a mean age of twenty seven. Their professional
experience ranged from one to seven years, with a mean of
three years. At the time of the study, four were pursuing
advanced degrees while they were employed (one in process
for the Ms.W., and three for the Ph.D.). The theoretical
orientations of the therapists, as indicated by the
therapists themselves, were as follows: Rogerian;
Humanistic; Phenomenological; Ego-Psychology: Learning
theory. Some therapists indicated more than one of the

above orientations.

TherapiSt's Functions In this study the therapists

 

had two main functions: 1) to interview the subject; and
2) to evaluate the subject's self-disclosure on a specific
tOpic by using the rating scale provided. As an inter-
viewer, the primary task of the therapist was to faci-
litate the subject's participation in the interview.

The interview was not intended nor structured to be a

form of therapy for the subject.

It was the intent that the therapist serve as an
attentive recipient of the subject's communications, and
that ideally the subject would do all of the talking.

As facilitators, the therapists were instructed to help

the subject focus on whatever content the subject chose.

52

The therapist facilitated only when facilitation was
necessary, but did not remain completely passive during
the interview. Therapists were permitted to respond to
the subject's request for help in making a point and to
convey to the subject that the therapist understood
what was being said. The restrictions under which the
therapists Operated are outlined in more detail in
Appendix K.

After the subject's self-disclosure on the first
tOpic was completed, the therapist left the room for
approximately one minute to make the rating on the
Self-Disclosure Rating Scale Score Sheet (Appendix N).
The therapist returned to the room for the next tOpic,
and proceeded as above until all three tOpics had been
presented to the subject.

Approximately three weeks after the study was
conducted, the therapists were asked to rate their own
first, fifth, and tenth interviews a second time, as a
check for the stability of therapists' ratings. The

intra therapist agreement is discussed in a later section.

Independent Raters

 

Two independent raters were used as additional
checks for the reliability of the dependent measures,
and to serve as substitute interviewers if necessary.

(It was not necessary to actually use the independent

53

raters as interviewers.)

One independent rater was male, the other was
female. The male independent rater was thirty one years
of age, possessed an M.A. degree in Clinical Psychology,
had more than six years of experience as a professional
therapist, was currently employed by a Community Mental
Health Board, and was in process towards the Ph.D. degree.

The female independent rater was twenty seven
years of age, possessed a B.A. degree in Psychology, had
been employed more than two years as a therapist, and

was currently employed by a Community Mental Health Board.

Independent Rater Functions During the study, the

 

independent raters were seated in a private area. Each
had a set of headphones which were connected to a tape
recorder. Immediately after the first interview, the
independent raters began to rate the first interviews
which the therapists brought to them after the first
subject had departed.

The independent raters used the Self-Disclosure
Rating Scale to rate the tapes. The fifth and tenth
interviews were also rated by the independent raters
during and after the study. All ratings by the two
independent raters had been completed two hours after

the last subjects had been interviewed.

54

Training of Therapists and Independent Raters

Therapists and Independent Raters received the
same training in the use of the Self-Disclosure Rating
Scale. It was the intent that the independent raters
serve as alternate interviewers, in the event that it
was not possible for a scheduled therapist to participate
or continue in the study. For this reason, therapists
and independent raters were trained simultaneously.

The training manual used to train the therapists
and raters in the use of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale
can be found in Appendix 0. Several concepts in this
training manual were borrowed from a training manual
sent to the investigator in a personal communication

from Joseph A. Doster (1973).

Dependent Measure

The dependent variable in this study was verbal
self-disclosure, as defined and measured by the Self-
Disclosure Rating Scale. The Self-Disclosure Rating
Scale (Appendix C) is a modification of the Disclosure
Rating Scale used by Doster & Strickland (1971), and
Doster & McAllister (1973). The Disclosure Rating Scale
contains seven levels, ranging from impersonal to
personal content. The Self-Disclosure Rating Scale is a

four level scale, ranging similarly from impersonal to

55

personal verbal content. The modification was made with
the reasoning that the task of discriminating between
seven levels was not practical. In reviewing the
Disclosure Rating Scale (Doster, 1973), it was concluded
that the differences between several adjacent levels
were difficult to conceptualize, and presented diffi-
culties in training individuals as they listened to
actual tape recordings and attempted to apply the seven
levels of the Disclosure Rating Scale. Seven levels
seemed to be too much for therapists to keep in mind as
they listened to subjects self-disclose. It was felt
that a four level rating scale could be simpler for
individuals to learn, and provide good reliability without
sacrificing discrimination between impersonal and personal
content.

The four levels of the Self—Disclosure Rating
Scale are presented below. Level 1 represents impersonal
involvement on the part of the subject, and Level 4

represents a high degree of personal self-disclosure.

Level l.--Absence of personal involvement. The
tOpic has been explored in an impersonal manner-
The subject has made observations about others
rather than himself. The focus is on other
pe0ple, objects, events. Self-references are
lacking or few in number.

Level 2.--The subject has placed himself within
Efie context of the topic, but talked predominantly
about his ideas, rather than his personal
experiences. Self-references enhanced the picture
of the subject, but there was little exploration

56

or elaboration of personal thoughts, feelings,
behaviors. The subject talked about possible
feelings, thoughts, behaviors, but did not attach
personal meaning to the topic except in a general
way.

Level 3.--The subject dealt with the tOpic
predominantly on a personal level. He elaborated
on his thoughts and feelings, giving some idea
of how external events affect his thoughts and
feelings, and how his thoughts and feelings affect
his behavior.
Level 4.--The subject focused entirely or almost
entirer on himself. He talked about his thoughts
and feelings, and how these affect his behavior.
He used self-references entirely or almost
entirely, and evaluated his thoughts, feelings,
behaviors in terms of his like or dislike of them.
He discussed the personal impact of feedback from
others on his thoughts, feelings, behaviors. He
provided an idea of how he regards himself.
After approximately four hours of training in
the use of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale, the therapists
and independent raters achieved an IntraClass Correlation
of .91 (Ebel, 1951). The IntraClass Correlation was
computed from data obtained by having the therapists and
independent raters listen to tape recordings which
represented the levels of the rating scale. The recordings
were presented in randomn order, and during the same
training session that other practice tapes were heard.
The therapists and independent raters were unaware of
which recordings represented levels of the Self-Disclosure

Rating Scale. The ANOVA table and computation of the

reliability coefficient are presented in Appendix P.

57

Reliability Estimates

Reliability estimates for the Self—Disclosure
Rating Scale were computed on the actual sample data.

The IntraClass Correlation (Ebel, 1951) and the Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation (Hays, 1973) were the statistics
used to obtain reliability estimates.

Apge£,--The reliability coefficient for the Self-
Disclosure Rating Scale on the tOpic of Anger was .771.
The coefficient was computed on the ratings of the
therapists and the two independent raters by means of
the Intraclass Correlation (Ebel, 1951). The ANOVA table
and the computation of the reliability coefficient for
Anger are shown in Appendix Q.

Embarrassment.--The reliability coefficient for

 

the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale on the tOpic of
Embarrassment was .899. The coefficient was computed on
the ratings of the therapists and the two independent
raters by means of the Intraclass Correlation (Ebel, 1951).
The ANOVA table and the computation of the reliability
coefficient for Embarrassment are shown in Appendix R.
§p£3.--The reliability coefficient for the Self-
Disclosure Rating Scale on the tOpic of Hurt was .517.
The coefficient was computed on the ratings of the therapists
and the two raters by means of the Intraclass Correlation
(Ebel, 1951). The ANOVA table and the computation for

the reliability coefficient for Embarrassment are shown

58

in Appendix S.

Intratherapist.--Approximately three weeks after

 

the study was completed, therapists were asked to listen

to the recordings of their first, fifth, and tenth
interviews, and to rate them a second time, using the
Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. Seven of the eight
therapists complied with the request. Because not all
therapists had first, fifth, and tenth interviews (due to
subjects failing to participate), and because data was
missing completely from one therapist, the n for the
computation of the intratherapist reliability was limited
to 16--6 first interviews, 6 fifth interviews, and 4 tenth
interviews. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient (Hays, 1973) was used to obtain the reliability
estimates for each of the three tOpics. The intratherapist
reliability coefficient for Anger was .88, for Embarrass-
ment .53, and for Hurt .56.

Intertherapist and Rater.--By means of the Pearson

 

Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (Hays, 1973),
reliability coefficients for each of the three measures--
Anger, Embarrassment, Hurt--were obtained for ratings
1)between the two independent raters, and 2) between
each independent rater and the therapists. The reliabi-

lity coefficients are presented in Table 3.1.

59

Table 3.1

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations: Reliability
Coefficients of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale

on Actual Sample Ratings

 

 

 

Self-Disclosure Independent Independent Independent
Measures Raters A & B Rater A & Rater B &
Therapists Therapists
Anger .88 .75 .66
Embarrassment .53 .58 .62
Hurt .56 .33 .16

 

3
ll

56

60

Design

The experimental design of the study is described
by Campbell 5 Stanley (1963) as the Posttest-only design.
The matrix is a 2 x 2 x 2, consisting of two levels of
modeling (high and low self-disclosure by a male model),
two levels of model status, (high--experienced professional
versus low--beginning student), and two levels of
therapist status (high--experienced professional versus
low--beginning student). The level of status was defined
in a way similar to the Doster & McAllister (1973)
definition, that is, according to expertise. The high
level of model status was structured by the following
written instructions: ”This recording was made by an
experienced mental health professional who has worked
successfully as a therapist for the past five years."
Instructions for the high status therapist condition
were as follows. "The therapist for your interview,
whom you will meet shortly, is a professional therapist
who has spent the past several years working in the
mental health field, and is presently a practicing
psychotherapist."

Instructions for structuring the low level of
model status were as follows. "This recording was made
by a graduate student who has recently begun studies

related to the mental health profession." Instructions

61

regarding the low status therapist were as follows. "The
therapist for your interview, whom you will meet shortly,
is a beginning graduate student for the psychotherapy
profession."

It should be pointed out that the therapists who
conducted the interviews were totally unaware of any of
the experimental conditions in this study. In addition,
all research assistants were also unaware of the various
experimental conditions.

Subjects were randomnly assigned to experimental
conditions and to therapists. As a result, cells 4, 5,
and 8 in the variable matrix (Table 3.2) originally
contained an extra subject. In order to have equal
observations in each cell, one subject was randomnly
excluded from each of the three cells.

With randomnization, it was possible for a
therapist to be assigned the conditions of all eight of
the cells of the variable matrix, or to be assigned
repeatedly the conditions of only one cell. A breakdown
of the frequency with which therapists were actually
assigned to the experimental conditions, using randomn

assignment, is presented in Table 3.3.

Control Group
The study does not contain the traditional

no—treatment control group. The vast majority of studies

62

Table 3.2

Variable Matrix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent High Status Low Status n =
Variables Interviewer Interviewer
. Cell #1 Cell #2
H1gh Status n a 7 n g 7 l4
High Disclosure
Cell #3 Cell #4
Low Status n = 7 n - 7 l4
. Cell #5 Cell #6
High Status n 3 7 n g 7 l4
Low Disclosure
Cell #7 Cell #8
Low Status n = 7 n I 7 l4
n = 28 28 N = 56

63

Table 3.3

Frequency distribution of experimental conditions
(matrix cells) as assigned randomnly to therapists.

 

 

Therapist

Matrix Cells

 

 

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

(male)

(male)

(female)

(female)

(male)

(female)

(female)

(male)

 

 

3 4 5
1 2
1
2
2
2 1
3 2
l
2 2
7 7 7

 

56

64

in pretraining have shown that non-treatment conditions
consistently result in significantly less self-disclosure
than conditions in which there is even minimal pretherapy
information given (Heller, 1969; Doster & McAllister, 1973;
Flanders, 1968). The effectiveness of pretherapy training
on self-disclosure in a treatment versus no treatment
design has been demonstrated. It is the conditions under
which self-disclosure is Optimally facilitated which
require further investigation (Kiesler, 1966; Krumboltz,

1967; Blocher, 1967).

Hypotheses

1. Hull Hypothesis: There is no difference in
self-disclosure between subjects who are exposed to
modeling of a high degree of self-disclosure and subjects
who are exposed to modeling of a low degree of self-
disclosure.

1. Alternate Hypothesis: Subjects who are exposed
to modeling of a high degree of self-disclosure self-
disclose more than subjects who are exposed to modeling
of a low degree of self-disclosure.

2. Hull Hypothesis: The status of the model
has no effect on the self-disclosure of subjects.

2. Alternate Hypothesis: Subjects who are exposed
to a model of high status self-disclose more than

subjects who are exposed to a model of low status.

65

3. Null Hypothesis: The status of the interviewer
has no affect on the self-disclosure of subjects.

3. Alternate Hypothesis: Subjects who are
interviewed by a high status therapist self-disclose more
than subjects who are interviewed by a low status therapist.

4. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in
the self-disclosure of subjects exposed to a high degree
of self-disclosure modeling and a high status model, and
subjects exposed to a low degree of self-disclosure modeling
and a low status model.

4. Alternate Hypothesis: Subjects who are exposed
to a high degree of self-disclosure modeling and a high
status model self-disclose more than subjects who are
exposed to a low degree of self-disclosure modeling and
a low status model.

5. Null Hypothesis: Subjects who are exposed to
a high degree of self-disclosure modeling, a high status
model, and a high status interviewer self-disclose no
more than subjects exposed to any other combination of
conditions.

5. Alternate Hypothesis: Subjects who are exposed
to a high degree of self-disclosure modeling, a high status
model, and a high status interviewer self-disclose more
than subjects exposed to any other combination of

conditions.

66

Analysis

This study is composed of three independent
variables, with two levels in each of the independent
variables, and three dependent variables, each measured
by the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. The three dependent
variables are self-disclosure on Anger, Embarassment,
and Hurt. The data is analyzed using the Multivariate
Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). The MANOVA procedure was
chosen because of its ability to consider the relationships
among the three dependent measures. A multivariate approach
is likely to be more powerful than a univariate analysis
since it is possible to obtain significant multivariate
differences without obtaining significant univariate effects.
The MANOVA procedure weighs the contribution of each
dependent variable in such a way as to obtain the most
efficient combination of dependent measures. Using MANOVA
it is possible to obtain significance with groups of
measures, and not simply with a single measure examined
in isolation.

In considering the assumptions required for a
univariate analysis, one assumption is that each response
occurs independently of every other response. In this
study, it would be a questionable assumption that the

three self-disclosure's of each subject are independent

67

of each other. Self-Disclosure is a multi-faceted
behavior and seems best analyzed by a procedure that is
able to capitalize upon the relationships between several
dependent measures. In addition, MANOVA is less likely
than ANOVA to occassion a Type I error (Hummel & Sligo,
1971). The nature of this study would seem to necessitate
a close guarding against the possibility of a false
rejection of the null hypothesis.

The assumptions of the MANOVA are: the dependent
variables are multivariate normally distributed; have
homogeneous variances; and the errors of measurement are
normally distributed across the treatment pOpulation
(Cooley & Lohnes, 1971). Equal numbers of observations
in each cell were insured so that the test would be robust
to possible violations of the assumption. There were no
indications that the assumptions required for the

Multivariate Analysis of Variance were not met.

Summary

Fifty-six undergraduate, female residents of
Michigan State University were randomnly assigned to
experimental conditions involving three independent
variables: the degree of self-disclosure of the model
(high versus low), the level of status of the model (high
versus low), the level of status of the interviewer (high

versus low).

68

After hearing a recording of a male model self-
disclosing, subjects were interviewed by a therapist and
were asked to self-disclose on three tOpics (Anger,
Embarassment, and Hurt) for approximately five minutes
on each tOpic.

The Self—Disclosure Rating Scale, a four level
discrimination of personal versus impersonal content,
was used by therapists to rate the degree of self-disclosure
of the subjects. The interviews were recorded, and first,
fifth, and tenth interviews were rated a second time by
therapists in order to have a measure of the stability of
ratings over time.

The therapists, four male and four female, were
professionally experienced. They were unaware of the
experimental conditions, and unaware of the exact purpose
of this study.

With three dependent measures for each subject,
the data was analyzed using the Multivariate Analysis of
Variance. The analysis of the data is presented in

Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The variable matrix for the study is shown in
Table 4.1. There were three independent variables,
with two levels in each variable: 1) model self-
disclosure, high versus low; 2) model status, high
versus low; and 3) therapist status, high versus low.

There were three dependent measures--the ratings
of subject self-disclosure on three tOpics, Anger,
Embarrassment, and Hurt. Each of the eight cells of the
matrix (Table 3.2) contained seven replications, yielding

a total sample size of fifty six. Both multivariate and
univariate analyses were performed.*

A multivariate analysis of variance, which included
all three dependent measures, was performed with the
probability of a Type I error for hypothesis testing set
at .05. In addition, univariate analyses of variance
were calculated separately for each dependent measure.

An attempt was made to control for the probability of a

Type I error for hypothesis testing by using a controlled

 

* I O
Finn program entitled "Univariate and Mult1var1ate

Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression, Version 4,
June, 1968"

69

70

Table 4.1

Variable Matrix and Cell Means
A Completely Crossed and Balanced Design

 

 

High Status Low Status
Therapist Therapist
*
A, 2.4 A 3.3
High Status E, 3.0 E 3.4
Model H 3.1 H 3.3
High Self-
Disclosure of
the Model
A 3.7 A 3.1
Low Status E 3.1 E 3.4
Model H 3.3 H 2.7
A 2.6 A 2.3
High Status E 2.4 E 2.6
Model H 2.9 H 2.4
Low Self-
Disclosure of
the Model
A 3.1 A 2.6
Low Status E 2.4 E 2.6
Model H 3.4 H 2.7

 

*
Cell Means of A = Anger n per cell
E = Embarrassment N

H = Hurt

71

alpha for each set of univariate analyses. The univariate
F tests were considered significant for p less than .017
(i.e., .05 divided by 3, the number of univariate F tests
in each set).

The results of the hypotheses are presented in
numerical order, beginning with hypothesis 1. It should
be pointed out, however, that the interaction hypotheses
were given first consideration because of their importance
in interpreting and limiting the generalizability of the
main effects.

Before proceeding with an examination of the
hypotheses, the correlation matrix of the pooled within
cell correlations of the three dependent measures is

presented in Table 4.2

Table 4.2

Pooled Within Cell Correlations
for the Three Dependent Measures

 

 

Anger Embarrassment Hurt
Anger 1.000 0.256 0.415
Embarrassment 0.256 1.000 0.348
Hurt 0.415 0.348 1.000

 

72

The pooled within cell correlations of the three
dependent measures are relatively low, suggesting low
redundancy of measurement.

The cell means of each dependent measure for each
cell of the experimental design are presented in
Table 4.1.

The hypotheses in this Chapter are stated in the
direction of anticipated significance. However, it is
understood that the analysis of variance test is a non-
directional test, and that directionality is established
on significant effects by means of post hoc techniques.

The results of the multivariate analysis of
variance are summarized in Table 4.3. Although the
complete results of the analysis are presented, no hypo-
theses were made in relation to the model self-disclosure
x therapist status interaction, nor in relation to the
model status x therapist status interaction. These two

sources of variation were not of interest in the study.

Hypothesis 1
Subjects who are exposed to a high degree of
self-disclosure modeling self-disclose more
than subjects who are exposed to a low degree
of self-disclosing modeling.
The multivariate F value for the main effect of
model self-disclosure was 2.58. This value was not

significant at the .05 alpha level (Table 4.3). The null

73

Table 4. 3

Multivariate Analysis of Variance
Three Independent Variables
Three Dependent Variables

 

 

 

Sources of df‘ Multivariate F p less
Variation than
Model Self-

Disclosure (A) 3 2.58 .0651
Model Status (B) 3 1.69 .1818
Therapist Status (C) 3 1.30 .2863

A X B 3 1.11 .3553
A x C 3 0.60 .6163
B X C 3 1.31 .2814
A X B X C 3 0.61 .6119

 

at
df for Error = 46.

74

hypothesis for the model self-disclosure main effect was
not rejected.

The univariate analyses were examined for each of
the three dependent measures--Anger, Embarrassment, and
Hurt. Each univariate F was tested at the .05/3 alpha
level, .017, with 1 and 48 degrees of freedom. The

univariate analyses for hypothesis 1 are presented in

 

 

 

 

Table 4.4.
Table 4.4
Univariate Analyses
Three Dependent Measures
Model Self-Disclosure: H1.
Dependent Mean Square Mean Square Univariate p less
Measure Error Hypothesis F than
Anger .69 3.50 5.07 .029
Embarrassment .80 4.02 5.00 .030
Hurt .64 0.85 1.36 .249
alpha = .017 df = 1, 48

Each of the univariate F tests exceeded the
controlled alpha level. It was concluded that none of
dependent measures were significant in either the high

or the low conditions of model self-disclosure.

75

The Self-Disclosure Rating Scale, which was used
to measure the self-disclosure of subjects on each of the
three tOpics, contained four levels. Levels 1 and 2
referred to exclusive or predominant use of impersonal
self-disclosure. Levels 3 and 4 referred to predominant

or exclusive use of personal self-disclosure.

Table 4.5

Means of the Three Dependent Measures
For the Model Self-Disclosure Treatment

 

 

Anger Embarrassment Hurt
High Disclosure 3.1 3.2 3.1
Low Disclosure 2.6 2.6 2.9

 

The treatment means for the high self-disclosure
of the model and the low self-disclosure were in the
direction predicted by Hypothesis 1. As shown in
Table 4.5, the means of each of the three dependent
measures are consistently higher in the high self-

disclosure of the model.

76

Hypothesis 2

 

Subjects who are exposed to a high status model
self—disclose more than subjects who are exposed
to a low status model.

The multivariate F value for the model status main
effect was 1.69. This value was not significant at the
.05 alpha level (Table 4.3). The null hypothesis for
the model status main effect was not rejected. It was
concluded that the status of the model had no measureable
effect upon the self-disclosure of the subjects.

The means for the independent variable Model Status

are presented in Table 4.6. The low status model means

Table 4.6

Model Status Treatment Means
Three Dependent Measures: H2.

 

 

Anger Embarrassment Hurt
High Status Model 2.6 2.9 2.9
Low Status Model 3.1 3.0 3.0

 

were higher on each of the three measures than the high
status model means. The differences between the high
and low status means were not regarded as significant, but

it is pointed out that the direction of the means were

77

Opposite the direction predicted by Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3

Subjects who are interviewed by a high status

therapist self-disclose more than subjects

who are interviewed by a low status therapist.

The multivariate F value for the therapist main
effect was 1.30. The null hypothesis of no differences
between the high status therapist and the low status
therapist was not rejected, since the probability of a
Type I error exceeded the .05 alpha level. The means for

the therapist status main effect are presented in

Table 4.7.
Table 4.7

Therapist Status Treatment Means
Three Dependent Measures: H3.

 

 

Anger Embarrassment Hurt
High Status
Therapist 3.0 2.9 3.2
Low Status
Therapist 2.8 2.9 2.8

 

Since the dependent measure Hurt yielded the
largest mean difference between the high status therapist

and the low status therapist conditions, the univariate

78

analysis for Hurt was examined. The univariate F for
the dependent measure Hurt on the therapist status main
effect was 3.361. The univariate F for Hurt was not
regarded as significant because with l and 48 df, the

p of a Type I error was .073.

Hypothesis 4
Subjects who are exposed to a high degree of
self-disclosure modeling and a high status
model self-disclose more than subjects who are

exposed to a low degree of self-disclosure
modeling and a low status model.

The multivariate F value for the interaction of
model disclosure and model status was 1.11. The null
hypothesis for the model disclosure X model status
interaction was not rejected because the probability
of a false rejection of the null hypothesis was greater
than .05. It was concluded that there were no treatment
differences which resulted from the model disclosure X
model status interaction. Therefore, subjects who were
exposed to a high degree of self-disclosure modeling and
a high status model did not self-disclose on any of the
three dependent measures more than subjects who were
exposed to a low self-disclosing model and a low status

model.

79

Hypothesis 5

 

Subjects who are exposed to a high degree of
self-disclosure modeling, a high status model,
and a high status therapist self-disclose more
than subjects who are exposed to any other
combination of conditions.

The multivariate F value for the interaction of
model disclosure, model status, and therapist status
was 0.61. The probability of a Type I error exceeded
the .05 level. Consequently, the null hypothesis was
not rejected. It was concluded that there were no
treatment differences attributable to the interaction of
model disclosure X model status X therapist status.
Therefore, subjects who were exposed to a high degree of
self-disclosure modeling, a high status model, and a
high status therapist did not self-disclose more on
the three tOpics than subjects who were exposed to any

other combination of conditions.

Questionnaire

 

After subjects had completed their interviews
with the therapists, each was asked to check one of five
statements which were intended to reflect the subject's
attitude towards future involvement with the therapist
(Appendix L). The purpose of the questionnaire was to
investigate a possible relationship between the

therapists' ratings of the subjects' self-disclosures

80

on Anger, Embarrassment, and Hurt, and the subjects'
willingness to self-disclose to the same therapists in

the future, if given the opportunity.

Table 4.8

Point-Biserial Correlations

 

 

Attitude
Anger .035
Embarrassment .131
Hurt .316

 

n = 56

The Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient was
used to estimate the association between the subjects'
reported willingness to self-disclose further to the
same therapist and the therapists' ratings of the subjects'
self-disclosures during the interviews. The Point-Biserial
was chosen because of its ability to measure associations
between nominal-dichotomous and interval measures. For
the purpoSe of obtaining a measure of association with the
five levels of the questionnaire, the data Obtained from
the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale was not assumed to have a
normal distribution, and was considered to be dichotomous.

The Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient is described

81

by Glass & Stanley (1970, p. 163).

The correlation coefficients shown in Table 4.8
suggest that there was no relationship between the
subject's willingness to disclose further to the same
therapist and the therapist's ratings of the subject's
self-disclosures on the tOpics of Anger and Embarassment,
and a positive but low association between the subject's
willingness to disclose further to the same therapist
and the therapist's ratings of the subject's self-
disclosure on the topic of Hurt.

The above statements regarding the Point-Biserial
Correlation Coefficients were made on the following basis.
The null hypothesis that the Point-Biserial Correlation
Coefficient is equal to zero in the population sampled
was tested for each of the three coefficients. The
coefficient for Anger yielded a t value of .257, which
exceeded the 60th percentile of the Student's t-distribution
with 54 df. The coefficient for Embarassment yielded a
t value of .970, which exceeded the 80th percentile of
the Student's t-distribution, with 54 df. The null
hypothesis that the Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient
for Anger and Embarassment is equal to zero in the
population sampled was not rejected.

However, it was concluded that the Point-Biserial
Correlation Coefficient for Hurt was not equal to zero in

the population sampled, since the t value of 2.450 exceeded

82

the 99th percentile of the Student's t-distribution, with
54 df. The method used to test the above null hypotheses
for the correlation coefficients can be found in Glass &

Stanley (1970, p. 318).

Additional Independent Variables

As shown in the variable matrix (Table 4.1), the
primary independent variables in this study were those
related to conditions of treatment. These conditions
were imposed by the investigator, and subject to mani-
pulation by the investigator. These independent
variables were l)self-disclosure of the model (two levels,
high and low), 2) status of the model (two levels, high
and low), and 3) status of the therapist (two levels,
high and low).

There were other variables in the study which
were less subject to direct manipulation, but which may
have been important in contributing to the results of the
hypotheses tested. The additional independent variables
which will be considered in this section are 1)the sex of
the therapists, and 2) the therapists themselves. It was
determined that it would be productive to examine the
variables of sex and therapists, with the reasoning that
they may provide some assistance in understanding the

results of the hypotheses previously tested.

83

In the randomnization process used to assign
subjects to experimental conditions, care was taken to
insure that an equal number of Observations would occur
in each cell of the design. Therapists were also
randomnly assigned to treatment conditions, but no attempt
was made to insure that each therapist appeared in each
cell of the design an equal number of times. It was not
possible to do this because it was not possible to predict
which subjects whould actually participate in the study.
Consequently, the rearranging of the data into a matrix
with sex and therapist as independent variables resulted

in an unbalanced design, as shown in Table 4.9.

Unbalanced Desigp

The independent variable level of model self-
disclosure was a fixed variable with two levels, high and
low. The results from the previous multivariate analysis
of variance (Table 4.3) were such that the probability of
a Type I error for the three main effects was least for
the main effect of model self-disclosure. The Type I
error probabilities for the model status and the therapist
status main effects were substantially greater than the
probability for model self-disclosure. For this reason
the model self-disclosure was chosen to be included in

the unbalanced design as an independent variable.

84

Table 4.9

Unbalanced Design
Three Independent Variables:
Sex, Therapist, and Model Self-Disclosure

 

 

High Self- Low Self-
Disclosure Disclosure
of the Model of the Model

 

T1 n = 3 5
T2 3 2
Male 28
T3 6 3
T4 3 3
T5 1 7
T6 5 1
Female 28
T7 4 4
T8 3 3
n = 28 28 N = 56

*
T = Therapist

85

In the unbalanced matrix, sex is a fixed inde-
pendent variable, with two levels, male and female.
Therapist is a randomn independent variable nested within
sex. To consider the therapist variable as a fixed
variable would have meant that the eight therapists were
the entire population of therapists to which the results
would be applicable. In order to have greater generali-
zability, the eight therapists were considered to be one
possible sample of eight therapists from a population of
therapists (Cornfield & Tukey, 1956). A description of
the therapists which were used as the sample for the
study can be found in Chapter III.

Prior to analyzing the data, the mean scores for
each of the dependent measures were graphed according
to the three independent variables, model self-disclosure,
sex, and therapists. Possible therapist or sex main
effects, or interaction effects involving therapist and
sex were not indicated in the graphs for Anger and Hurt.
The graph for the dependent measure Embarrassment is
presented in Figure 4.1.

In Figure 4.1 it can be seen that the scores of
the male therapists for both disclosure conditions were
consistently below those of the female therapists. The
lower scores of male therapists was the result of male
therapists reporting that their subjects self-disclosed

consistently lower on the tOpic of Embarrassment than the

86

   

 

 

 

 

Mean Score Dependent Measure = Embarrassment
4.0
3.9 T T = Therapist
3.8 6F F = Female
3.7 M : Male
3.6
3.5
3.4 T
3.3 1‘81‘. 8P
3.2 T3M
3’1 '1‘ '1‘ T
3.0 71” 5F 61"
2.9 9T \
2.8 2" 1‘" $73
2.7 T 5F
2.6 m \ Tm
2.5 '1‘2M
2.4 T
2.3 3M
2.2
2.1
2.0 Tar
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0

High Disclosure Low Disclosure

Y'= 3.179 §’= 2.643

Fig. 4.1. Mean scores of male and female
therapists under high and low disclosure
conditions.

87

female therapists reported.

To test the presence of a sex main effect on the
tOpic of Embarrassment, a univariate analysis of variance
was performed. Before presenting the results of the
analysis, it should be noted that an unbalanced design
does not allow the sources of variation to be tested
independently. The lack of independence of the sources
of variation means that the tests of significance are
dependent upon the order in which the tests are conducted.
Consequently, the sources of variation should be tested
in the order of importance, because a different sequence
of sources of variation would likely result in different
conclusions. The sources of variation were tested in the
order of their presentation in Table 4.10, i.e. the test
for an interaction of disclosure x therapist within sex
(DT:S) was done last, the therapist main effect (T:S)
was done second to last, etc..

The univariate analysis of variance was performed
with the probability of a Type I error set at .05. As
indicated in Table 4.10, the analysis suggested that the
subjects (female) self-disclose more on the tOpic of
Embarrassment to female therapists than to male therapists.
The mean score given by male therapists to the female
subjects on the tOpic of Embarrassment was 2.7. The mean
score given by the female therapists to the female

subjects on the topic of Embarrassment was 3.1. It was

88

Table 4.10

Unbalanced, Mixed Design
ANOVA on Embarrassment

 

 

 

Sources of df Error Mean Univariate
Variation Term Squares F
Disclosure (D) 1 DT:S 4.02 19.47
Sex (8) 1 T:S 2.62 6.35*
D X S l DT:S 0.03 0.16
Therapists:S (T:S) 6 R:DTS 0.41 0.48
DT:S 6 R:DTS 0.21 0.24

R:DTS (Residual) 40

 

*
significant at the .05 alpha level

concluded that the ratings of self-disclosure on the tOpic
of Embarrassment were significantly higher for female
therapists than for male therapists.

The second additional independent variable,
Therapist, failed to achieve significance.

No conclusion was made regarding the Disclosure
main effect in the unbalanced design. Because the sources
of variation were not independent of each other, the
Disclosure main effect was confounded with the sex main
effect, thus prohibiting an accurate test of the

Disclosure main effect in this particular design.

89

The multivariate analysis of the level of model
self-disclosure performed earlier (Table 4.3) led to
the conclusion that the level of model self-disclosure
did not have a significant affect (alpha = .05) on the

self-disclosure of subjects on any of the three tOpics.

Summary

Hypotheses were tested regarding the main and
interaction effects of the three independent variables:
1) level of model self-disclosure; 2) level of the model's
status; and 3) level of the therapist's status. The
dependent measures were the therapists' ratings Of the
subjects' self-disclosures on three topics--Anger,
Embarrassment, and Hurt. The ratings were made by using
the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. Multivariate and
univariate analyses of variance were performed with the
probability of a Type I error set at the .05 alpha level.
The null hypothesis was not rejected for any of the
hypotheses tested.

The questionnaire administered to subjects was
intended to reflect the subject's attitude towards future
involvement with the therapist. The results suggested
that there was a positive relationship between subjects'
willingness to disclose further and the therapists'
ratings on the topic of Hurt. No relationships were

indicated for the tOpics of Anger and Embarrassment.

90

It was concluded from the analysis of the
unbalanced, mixed design, with model self-disclosure,
therapist's sex, and therapists as the independent
variables, that the ratings of self-disclosure on the
tOpic of Embarrassment were higher with female therapists
than with male therapists. The random, independent
variable therapists did not achieve significance.

A discussion of the results of the analysis of

the data is in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION

This Chapter contains a summary of the investigation,
and the conclusions of the data analysis. The limitations
of the study and the implications for future research

are included in the discussion section.

Summary

The study focused on the effects of providing
pretherapy information to potential clients, and the
effect of this information upon the client's behavior.
Modeling has frequently been used as a method to prepare
clients for therapy. Modeling content and the characteristics
of the model have been investigated under a wide variety
of conditions. The purpose of this,study was to investigate
the importance of three variables related to pretraining
clients for therapy: 1) the content of pretherapy modeling;
2) the status of the model; 3) the status of the interview-
ing therapist.

The fifty six female subjects listened to one of
two audio recordings of a male model self-disclosing
on the tOpic of social gatherings. In the high disclosure
condition, subjects heard the model self-disclosing to a

high degree. A high degree of self-disclosure was defined

91

92

as consisting of predominantly personal responses. In the
low disclosure condition, subjects heard the model self-
disclosing to a low degree. A low degree of self-disclosure
was defined as consisting of predominantly impersonal
responses. Both high and low levels of self-disclosure

were validated by trained raters and therapists.

In the high status model condition, the subjects
were informed that the model was an experienced and
successful mental health professional who had been
practicing as a therapist for five years. In the low
status model condition, the subjects were informed that
the model was a graduate student who had recently begun
studies in the mental health profession, but was
essentially without experience.

After listening to an eight minute tape under the
above conditions, the subjects were interviewed by
therapists who had been identified to the subjects as
being of either high or low status. The status of the
therapists was presented to the subjects in essentially
the same concept as that of the status of the model, that
is inexperienced graduate student versus experienced
mental health professional. Therapists asked each subject
to self-disclose on three tOpics--Anger, Embarassment,
and Hurt for approximately five minutes on each tOpic.

Therapists rated the level of subjects' self-disclosure

on each tOpic by using the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale, a

93

four level rating scale adapted for this study. Levels 1
and 2 were related to exclusive or predominant impersonal
content, and levels 3 and 4 were related to predominant
or exclusive personal content. Independent raters were
used as a check for the stability of therapists' ratings.
Several weeks after the study was completed, therapists
rated selected recordings of their own interviews a
second time as a check for the stability of their ratings
over time.

Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance
were performed to test main effect and interaction hypo-
theses related to l) the level of self-disclosure of the
model, 2) the status of the model, and 3) the status of
the therapist. Additional analyses were performed to
investigate the effect of the sex of the therapists and
the therapists themselves. Four male and four female
therapists participated as the interviewers in the study.

After subjects had completed their interviews with
the therapists, each was asked to check one of five state-
ments which were intended to reflect the subject's attitude
towards future involvement with the therapist. The purpose
of the questionnaire was to investigate a possible relation-
ship between the therapists' ratings of the subjects'
self-disclosures on Anger, Embarassment, and Hurt, and

the subjects' willingness to self-disclose to the same

94

therapist in the future, if given the opportunity.

Conclusions

Model Self-Disclosure

The multivariate analysis of the effect of the
level of model self-disclosure led to the conclusion
that there was no significant difference between the high
level of model self-disclosure and the low level of
model self-disclosure. The treatment means of the high
level of model self-disclosure were consistently above
those of the low level of model self-disclosure across
all three measures, but the differences were not

significant at the .05 alpha level.

Model Status The multivariate analysis of the model

 

status main effect failed to reject the null hypothesis.

It was concluded that the status of the model was not a
significant variable in affecting the personal self-
disclosure of the subjects, as indicated by the therapists'
ratings. For each of the three dependent variables, the
means of the low status model condition were consistently
higher than the means of the high status model condition.
The direction of the treatment differences was the reverse

of the direction predicted by the model status hypothesis.

95

Therepist Status The status of the therapist who

 

interviewed the subjects apparently had no measurable

effect upon the content of the subjects' disclosures. The
multivariate analysis suggested that the status of the
therapist who conducted the interview was irrelevant in
affecting the personal or impersonal content of the subjects'
self-disclosures on each of the three topics--Anger,

Embarassment, and Hurt.

Interactions There were no significant interactions.

 

Consequently, the null hypothesis of no significant

differences was not rejected for Hypotheses 4 and 5.

Questionnaire

 

A positive but weak relationship was found between
the therapists' ratings of the subjects' self-disclosures
on the topic of Hurt and the subjects' indicated disposition
to self-disclose to the same therapist in the future.
The Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficients for Anger
and Embarassment were not sufficient to reject the null
hypothesis that they were equal to zero in the population
from which the sample was drawn. Almost all subjects
indicated that they would be willing to further disclose
some personal content to the therapists. It is likely that

the subjects had insufficient interaction with the therapists

96

to formulate decisive opinions about continued involvement
with the therapists, or that the experience of the subjects'
brief interactions with the therapists were, for the most
part, positive. The decision to self-disclose further

was apparently unaffected by the experimental conditions.
There was an indication that a greater willingness to
continue to self-disclose intimate information to the

same therapist was associated with the higher ratings of

self-disclosure on the topic of Hurt.

Therapist Effect A multivariate analysis of variance
was performed on an unbalanced, mixed design, with therapist
as the randomn variable. The purpose of the analysis

was to investigate the possible effect of therapists
themselves, irrespective of any other experimental
conditions. The analysis led to the conclusion that

there were no significant therapist main effects.

Sex Effect A sex main effect was found on the dependent

 

variable Embarassment. A univariate analysis was performed
on the unbalanced, mixed design, with Embarassment as the
dependent variable, and the null hypothesis was rejected

at the .05 alpha level. It was concluded that the

female therapists reported that the female subjects
self-disclosed more on the tOpic of Embarassment than the

male therapists reported.

97

Discussion

Model Self-Disclosure

 

At the .05 probability level of a Type I error,
support was not found for the prediction that subjects
who listened to a model talking about himself in a very
personal way would talk about themselves in a more personal
way than subjects who listened to a model talking in an
impersonal way. Hence, at the .05 alpha level, the null
hypothesis for the model self-disclosure main effect
was not rejected. The treatment means for the level of
model self-disclosure, as shown in Table 4.5 were found
to be consistently higher in the direction predicted
by hypothesis 1. Each of the three dependent measures
reflected differences between the means of the high
and low levels of model self-disclosure. These differences
were not sufficient to permit a rejection of the null
hypothesis at the .05 alpha level.

The absence of a significant model self-disclosure
main effect does not support Bandura's theoretical
position that imitation can occur without reinforcement
for the model or the observer (1969). In presenting
the modeled behaviors to the subjects, an audio recording
was used. The recording did nOt contain any reinforcement

for the model, nor were the written instructions or

98

verbalizations by the research assistants aimed at stating
or implying any type of reinforcement for the model. The
audio recording (Appendix A) contained only the model's
monologue. The subjects who listened to the model were
not directed or led to either written or verbal instructions
to perceive the audio recordings in a positive or negative
manner. It seems that the conditions for the occurrence
of behavioral imitation without reinforcement were met.
Bandura's (1969) concept of vicarious reinforcement
provided the framework for explaining the possible
occurrence of imitation under nonreinforcement conditions.
This is not to say that behavioral imitation did not
occur, but perhaps the design of this study was not
able to detect the occurrence of behavioral imitation
at the level Specified for this study, i.e., the
.05 alpha level.

Bandura (1969) prOposed that imitation learning
has two phases, acquisition and performance. In the
acquisition phase, Bandura theorized that behaviors can
become part of the Observer's behavioral repertoire
without actually being performed or rewarded at the time
they are observed. The present study failed to support
Bandura's acquisition phase of imitation learning.

Since it was not likely that this study would elicit
novel responses from subjects (i.e., the responses of self-

disclosing), it was not intended to produce observational

99

learning, which Bandura defined in terms of the occurrence
of novel responses. Bandura (1969) reported that modeling
could also have a response facilitation effect, that is,
the modeling of self-disclosure would have a disinhibitory
effect (Bandura & Sarah, 1973) upon observers, facilitating
the occurrence of responses already within the behavioral
repertoire of the subjects. Bandura's concept of response
facilitation through modeling was not supported by this
study.

Miller & Dollard (1941) held that if imitation
occurred, direct reinforcement was present. Kelley,
et alii (1962) are also supportive of the notion that
modeling conditions are not without reinforcement.
They contend that a consistent pattern of responses
suggests that reinforcement is occurring or will occur.
If the reader views the outcome of the main effect of
level of model self-disclosure as significant, then an
alternate explanation for the occurrence of behavioral
imitation, given Miller & Dollard's (1941) assumption
that reinforcement is present, might be that the
observance of a model self-disclosing is reinforcing to
the observer. Kelley, et alii (1962) would argue that
reinforcement is implied to occur for the imitation of
the self-disclosing behavior.

Jourard (1964), Mowrer (1966), and Rogers (1966)

might support the notion that self-disclosing is reinforcing

100

to the individual because it represents some kind of
movement towards greater harmony with the self, towards
increased self-understanding, less internal conflict,

and congruence. If the assumption is made that self-
disclosing is or can be reinforcing, then Miller & Dollard's
(1941) position that reinforcement is present when
imitation occurs becomes a plausible alternative to
Bandura's (1969) concept of vicarious reinforcement in
explaining the imitation of self-disclosing behaviors.
Bandura's concept of vicarious reinforcement provides

a more complete explanation. However, with the single
assumption that self-disclosing is or can be reinforcing,
Miller & Dollard (1941) provide an alternate, theoretical

explanation for the occurrence of imitated behaviors.

Model Status

Doster & McAllister (1973) exposed male undergraduate
subjects to a taped example of self-disclosure, and manipulated
the status of the model by identifying the model as either
a peer or an experienced clinical intern. These authors
reported that exposure to a model of clinical expertise
elicited greater imitation of modeled behavior than when
the modeled was identified as a peer.

The present study does not support the findings of
Doster & McAllister (1973) regarding the effect of model

status. In the present study, the imitation of modeled

101

behaviors did not seem to be significantly affected by
the status of the model. There was, in fact, a trend in
the Opposite direction as reported by Doster & McAllister
(1973). For each of the three dependent variables, the
means of the low status model condition were consistently
higher than the means of the high status model condition.

There are several differences between the present
study and the Doster & McAllister (1973) study which might
account for the failure to support the model status
hypothesis. It may be that the effect of model status
was not evidenced in behaviors which were measured by the
Self Disclosure Rating Scale. The Self Disclosure Rating
Scale was a modification of the rating scale used in the
Doster & McAllister (1973) study, and may not have been
as suited to the measurement of the model status effect
as the rating scale used by Doster & McAllister (1973).

The subjects in the Doster & McAllister (1973)
study were male, whereas the subjects in the present study
were female. It may be that the effect of status as
defined is greater upon male subjects than it is upon
female subjects.

In the Doster & McAllister (1973) study, a male
model was used for male subjects. In the present study,
a male model was used for female subjects. The effect

of the model's status may be related to the similarity

102

of sex between model and observers.

Another explanation of the difference in findings
between the Doster & McAllister (1973) study and this
study may lie in the definition of "status". In the
Doster & McAllister (1973) study, the low status was
defined as a volunteer peer, and the high status was
defined as a clinical intern with experience. In the
present study, low status was defined as an inexperienced
graduate student, and high status was defined as an
experienced professional. It is possible that in the
present study, the definitions of high versus low status
were not actually as different as assumed. Perhaps to
undergraduate female students, the status of a graduate
student is not really "low," and the status of an
experienced professional is not sufficiently higher
than the status of the graduate student. If the status
"graduate student" had a positive effect upon the self-
disclosure of the subjects, adding more status--
experienced professional-~may not have resulted in an
increase in effect, because the effect of status may
have peaked in the "graduate student" condition.

Perhaps the Doster & McAllister (1973) definition
of status permitted a more pronounced separation between
high and low status conditions. These authors defined the

low status condition in terms of peer status, and the high

103

status condition in terms of an experienced, graduate
student.

Although it was concluded that there was no
significant model status effect upon the self-disclosure
-of the subjects, the means of the three dependent
measures merit some attention, since all three were in
the Opposite direction predicted by the hypothesis, and
Opposite the direction found in the Doster & McAllister
(1973) study. Flanders (1968) cited several investiga-
tions which support the notion that high status models
are more effective than low status models. However,
there have been some indications that subjects who
believe that they are like the models in some qualities
are more likely to imitate models than if they perceive
that the models are very different from themselves
(Burnstein, Stotland, & Zander, 1961; Stotland & Patchen,
1961). If subjects cannot in some way identify with the
model, they may be less inclined to imitate the
model. The identification process may explain the trend
found in the present study, that the consistently higher
scores on all three dependent measures were associated with
the low status model condition. It may be that female
subjects were more able to identify with the low status
qualities of "student" and "inexperienced" than they were

able to identify with the qualities of "experienced" and

104

"professional." The separation of "student" and
"professional" also suggests an age separation, i.e.,
the "student" would more likely be of similar age

to the subject than the "professional."

Therepist Status

Similar to the model status condition, there were
no treatment differences attributable to the status of the
therapist. Unlike the model status condition, there were
no consistent directions in the means of the three dependent
variables. It is quite possible that the occurrence of
"status" more than once resulted in an overload of the
"status" variable, and that subjects were unaffected by

the second appearance of this attribute.

Therapist Sex and Self-Disclosure

In the ratings of self-disclosures made by therapists
at the end of each tOpic on which the subjects focused, a
therapist sex main effect was found for the tOpic of
Embarassment. Female therapists reported that the female
subjects self-disclosed more on the topic of Embarassment
than was reported by the male therapists.

One explanation for such a result is that the
subjects did, in fact, self-disclose more on the tOpic of

Embarassment to the female therapists than to the male

105

therapists. It is not surprising that female subjects
would have felt more comfortable in revealing personal
embarrassment to other females than to males. However,
one might also Speculate that female subjects would have
also revealed more personal anger and hurt to the female
therapists than to the male therapists. Apparently,
such was not the case, at least not statistically. It
should be pointed out, however, that the means for Anger
and Hurt favored greater self-disclosure to the female
therapists, but only self-disclosures on the topic of
Embarrassment achieved statistical significance.

From the female therapists perspective, it could
be argued that the female therapists were more responsive
to the disclosures of the female subjects, and tended to
rate the self-disclosures of the female subjects higher
than the male therapists rated the female subjects.
Perhaps the male therapists needed more blatantly personal
content for a particular rating than was needed by the
female therapists, i.e., the female therapists were
more sensitive to or understanding of "female"

embarrassment than were the male therapists.

Limitations

 

The limitations of measurement are not unique to

this study, but they are real and undoubtedly had their

106

influence. The verbalizations of the subjects in the
study were assessed for their personal versus impersonal
content, and the assessment was given a value along a
four point rating scale. The unit of analysis was the
therapist's rating of the subject's self-disclosure.
Consequently, the assumption is made that the therapist's
rating is directly related to subject self—disclosure.
To the extent that this is true, the dependent variable
was, indeed, self-disclosure.

The reliability of the Self-Disclosure Rating
Scale fell within acceptable limits, but its validity
is yet to be established. Acceptable reliability and
stability of scores with the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale
can be achieved with several hours of training. However,
the validity of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale must

remain questionable.

Sample The size and the sex of the sample limited
the power and the generalizability of the investigation.
In several instances, a larger sample would have possibly
provided sufficient power to achieve statistical -
significance.

A sample of male and female subjects would have
increased the generalizability of the results, and would

have permitted an opportunity to investigate the effect

107

of the sex of the therapist on male subjects. It was
found that female subjects apparently self—disclosed
more to female therapists on the tOpic of embarrassment.
Perhaps male subjects would have also favored their own

sex in the self-disclosure of one of the tOpics.

Treatment Effects and Instrumentation Subjects were

 

exposed to one of two examples of a model self-disclosing.
The levels of self-disclosure corresponded to levels 1
and 4 of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. Subjects who
were exposed to the Level I model could move in only one
direction in their own self-disclosures, that is, towards
a higher level. At worse, they would have remained at
Level 1. But, if deviation were to occur at all, it
could only be a positive deviation, towards Level 2 or
greater.

The reverse was true for subjects who were
exposed to the Level 4 model. If the subjects deviated
from the model's example, the deviation was in the
direction of a lower level. Because the models of
self-disclosure were representative of the extreme ends
of the rating scale, deviation occurred towards the
middle of the scale. It may be that the translation of
the extremes of a rating scale into examples of behavior
(to be rated by the rating scale) tends to encourage a

regression towards the middle of the scale, and create a

108

masking of the treatment effects. If the effects of
treatment are to be observed as accurately as possible,
perhaps measurement should not be limited to behaviors

which occur in one direction only.

Hawthorn Effect The subjects who participated in

 

the study were aware that they were in an eXperiment.

To the extent that this knowledge differentially affected
the subjects' responses, the results cannot be attributed
only to the experimental conditions. In addition, the
"demand characteristics of the experimental situation"
(Bracht & Glass, 1968, p.457), that is, the extent to
which the purpose of the study was clear to the subjects,
may have affected the subjects' behavior.

The effects of social desirability may have been
present in the study. Subjects who volunteer for
experiments want to do the right things, and be well
evaluated (Bracht & Glass, 1968). Subjects are likely to
perform Specifically for the experiment. "Once a subject
has agreed to participate in a psychological study, he
implicitly agrees to perform a very wide range of actions
on request without inquiring as to their purpose..."
(Orne, 1962, p. 777).

The external validity of experiments is a
difficult quality to assess, and perhaps is never totally

established (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The

109

above sources of external invalidity are mentioned, not
because it is known that these sources of invalidity
did in fact occur in the study, but more in keeping
with Campbell & Stanley’s (1963) position that dangers
to external validity may never be completely avoided,
and can always be expected to play a part as new

studies and refinements of previous studies are generated.

Implications for Future Research

Of particular interest would be the replication
of the model self-disclosure variable. The null hypothesis
for this variable was rejected at the .05 level, but
could have been considered significant at a higher alpha
level (.0651). In view of the relatively small sample
size of fifty six which was used, one possible outcome
of a replication with a larger sample would be a rejection
of the null hypothesis at the .05 level, indicating that
the present design lacked the needed power to reject the
null hypothesis at the .05 level. On the other hand,
replication might confirm the results of the present study,
i.e., no significant effects on self-disclosure attri-
butable to the self-disclosure of the model.

The independent variable status did not achieve
statistical significance in either the model or the

therapist conditions, but the means of the three dependent

110

measures in the model status variable consistently
favored the low status model treatment. The direction
of the model status means, though not significant,

was Opposite the direction reported by Doster &
McAllister (1973). These authors reported that more
self-disclosure was associated with the high status
model condition. The means of the model status condition
in the present study favored the low status of the model.
Since the Doster & McAllister (1973) study used all male
subjects and the present study used all female subjects,
it may be that either females do not respond to status

in the same way that males respond, or that females
respond to a different type of status. The failure of
this study to support the status main effect of the
Doster & McAllister (1973) study may also be due to the
differences between the two studies in the definition

of status.

In order to permit a more precise measurement of
the variability of subject responses than achieved in
the present study, it may be that a refinement of the
levels of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale is needed,
along with a modification of the modeled examples of
self-disclosure. The modeled examples used may have
encouraged a regression towards the mean of the Self-

Disclosure Rating Scale.

111

The application of modeling procedures to non-
college subjects needs to be investigated. It seems that
the Community Mental Health Centers which have recently
begun to provide mental health services to primarily
the non-college pOpulation would be an excellent source of
investigations for modeling procedures. In particular,
the male pOpulation has received less attention than the
female pOpulation in psychological experiments related
to the effects of modeling procedures and pretherapy
training.

In the present study, a male was used to model
verbal behavior for female subjects. Future studies
using modeling procedures might incorporate the sex of
the model with the tOpic of self-disclosure as independent
variables. It may be that same sex modeling would be
more effective in the modeling of some behaviors, but
less effective in the modeling of other behaviors.

Perhaps there are some behaviors for which an opposite
sex model would be more effective for pretraining clients.

The length of the modeled example has not been
systematically investigated. It would be helpful to
know the Optimum elngth of a modeled example. It is
possible that too much modeling may have the same effect
as too little modeling.

In the study, the tOpic of the modeled example

was not related to any of the tOpics which were presented

112

to the subjects for self-disclosure. It was intended
that the process of self-disclosure be the focal point
of the modeling. However, it may be that modeling of
the same tOpic which is subsequently presented for
self-disclosure results in greater self-disclosure for
that tOpic.

Ultimately, the purpose of research in modeling
procedures for pretherapy training is to discover those
variables which will maximize the effectiveness of
psychotherapy. In order to realistically assess the
value of pretherapy training, hypotheses need to be
tested with actual clients who have presented themselves
to therapists for the purpose of therapy. Long term
studies need to be conducted on actual clients, and the
effects of pretherapy training need to manifest them-
selves beyond the initial interview. The initial
interview has frequently been recognized as a critical
moment between client and therapist. However, whether or
not pretherapy training significantly affects the
disposition to change needs to be evaluated in terms of

the client who experiences the results of therapy.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anstett, Richard E. The effect of presenting clients
with information about appropriate role behavior
on the in-counseling behavior of clients.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1971.

Asch, S.E. The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and
imitation in social psychology. Psychological
Review, 1998,‘§§, 250-276.

 

Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In M.R.
Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press,
1962, Pp, 211-269.

 

Bandura, A. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies
on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1,
599-595. (a)

 

Bandura, A. Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial
learning. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, a, NewEYOrk,
Academic Press, 1965. (b)

 

 

Bandura, A. Behavioral modifications through modeling
procedures. In L. Krasner 8 L.P. Ullman (Eds.),
Research in behavior modification. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, 1965. Pp. 310-390. (c)

 

Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New
York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, 1969.

Bandura, A., 8 Barab, P.G. Processes governing
disinhibitory effects through symbolic modeling.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, fig, 1-9.

 

Bandura, A., 8 Huston, A.C. Identification as a process
of incidental learning. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1961, E3, 3114318.

 

113

114

Bandura, A., & McDonald, F.J. The influence of social
reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping
children's moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1963, E1, 274l261.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. Imitation of film-
mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1963, E2, 3-Il.

 

Berger, S.M. Observer practice and learning during
exposure to a model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 6964701.

 

Blocher, D. -What counseling can offer clients: Implications
for research on selection. In J.M. Whiteley (Ed.),
Research inlcounseling. Columbus, Ohio: Charles
E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1967, Pp. 5-20.

Bordin, E.S. Psychological counselin . New York:
Appleton-Century Crofts, I955.

Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. The external validity of
experiments. American Educational Research Journal,
1968, _5_, 437-474.

 

 

Burnstein, E., Stotland, E., & Zander, A. Similarity to
a model and self-evaluation. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1961, £2, 257-264.

 

Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quasi-
gxperimental desigps for research. Chicago:
Rand, McNally anHECo., 1963.

Carkhuff, R.R., Helping and human relations: A primer for
lay and proféssional helpers. Volume 2. Selection
ggd training. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

S9

 

Carkhuff, R.R. The development of effective courses of
action for ghetto children. Psychology in the
Schools, 1970, 1, 272-274.

Carkhuff, R.R. Training as a preferred mode of treatment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, lg, 123—131.

Cooley, W.W., & Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate data analysis.
New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.

115

Cornfield, J., 8 Tukey, J. W. Average values of mean
squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 1956, 21, 907-9u9.

 

 

Doster, J. A. Effects of instructions, modeling, and
role rehearsal on interview verbal behavior.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1972, 99, 202-209.

 

Doster, J. A., 8 McAllister, A. Effect of modeling and
model status on verbal behavior in an interview.
Journal of Consultipg and Clinical Psychology,
1973, 39, 2uo-2u3.

 

Doster, J. A., 8 Strickland, B. R., Disclosing of verbal
material as a function of information requested,
information about the interviewer, and interviewee
differences. Journal of Consultingyand Clinical
Psychology, 1971, 31, 187—194.

 

Doster, J. A. Disclosure rating scale. Mimeograph,
personal communication, 1973.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Psychometrika, 1Q, 1951, ”07-92”.

 

Feldman, R., Lorr, M., 8 Russell, S. A mental hygiene
case survey. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958,
15, 295-250.

Flanders, J. P. A review of research on imitative
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69,
316-337.

 

Frank, J. Persuasion and healing. Baltimore: John
H0pkins Press, 1961.

 

Freud, S. A note on the prehistory of the technique of
analysis, 1920. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Sigmund
Freud: Collectedypspers, Volume 5, 1959.

 

Garfield, 8., 8 Kurz, M. Evaluation of treatment and
related procedures in 1,216 cases referred to a

mental hygiene clinic. Psychiatric Quarterly,
1952, 33, ulu-uzu.

 

Garner, W. R. Uncertainty and structure as Psychological
Concepts. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1962.

116

Gilbert, W. Counseling: Therapy and diagnosis.‘ Annual
Review of Psychology, 1952, 3, 351-380.

 

Gilmore, J. B. Toward an understanding of imitation.
In Simmel, Hoppe, 8 Milton (Eds.), SOCial
Facilitation and imitative behavior. New York:
Allen and Bacon, 1969:

 

Gittleman, M. Behavior rehearsal as a technique in child
treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatpy, l965, 6, 251-255.

 

 

Glass, G. V., 8 Stanley, J. C. Statistical methods in
education and psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1970.

 

Goi, Fedele J. The effect of actual therapy pretraining
upon the depth of self-exploration of university
counseling center clients during the initial
interview. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Temple University, 1971.

Goldstein, A. P., Heller, K., 8 Sechrest, L. B.
Psychotherapy and the psychology of behavior change.
New York: Wiley, 1966.

Goldstein, A. P., 8 Shipman, S. G. Patients' expectancies,
symptom reduction, and aspects of the initial
psychotherapeutic interview. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1961, 11, 129-133.

 

Greenberg, R. P. Effects of presession information on
perception of the therapist and receptivity to
influence in a psychotherapy analogue. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, fig,
”ZS-H29.

 

Hays, W. L. Statistics for the social sciences. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8’Winston, Inc., 1973.

Heller, K. Effects of modeling procedures in helping
relationships. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1969, E3, 522-526.

 

Hetherington, E. M., 8 Frankie, G. Effects of parental
dominance, warmth, and conflict on imitation in
children. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1967, g, 119-125l

 

117

Hicks, D. J. Imitation and retention of film-mediated

 

Personality and Social PsychOIOgy, 1965, 2,

 

Hoehn-Saric, R., Frank, J. D., Imber, S. D., Nash, E. H.,
Stone, R. G., 8 Battle, C. C. Systematic
preparation of clients for psychotherapy. 1. Effects
on therapy behavior and outcome. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 1964, 2, 267-281.

 

 

Hummel, T. J., 8 Sligo, J. R. Empirical comparison of
univariate and multivariate analysis of variance
procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, lg,
#9-57.

 

Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. Princeton:
Van Nostrand, 1969.

 

Kell, B. L., 8 Mueller, W. J. Impact and change: A study
of counseling relationships. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1966.

 

 

Kelley, H. H., Thibaut, J. W., Radloff, R., 8 Mundy, D.
The development of cooperation in the "minimal
social situation." Psychological Monogpaphs,
1962, 16(19)(Whole No. 538).

 

Kiesler, D. J. Some myths of psychotherapy research and
the search for a paradigm. Psychological Bulletin,
1966, §§, 110-136.

Klepper, I. L. The effects of pre-interview exposure to
vicarious reinforcement on disclosure and attraction
in alcoholics: A psychotherapy analogue.
Unpublished, doctoral dissertation, Syracuse
University, 1971.

Klinger, E. Modeling effects on achievement imagery.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967,
Z: 99-62:

 

Krumboltz, J. Future directions for counseling research.
In J. M. Whiteley (Ed.), Research in counselin .
Columbus, Ohio: Charles ET Merril PubliShing o.,
1967.

 

Kurland, S. Length of treatment in a mental hygiene clinic.
Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 1956, i2, 83-90.

118

Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R., 8 Mouton, J. S. Status
factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals.
‘ Journal of AbnOrmal and SOCial'PsychOIng, 1955,
"§1,70u-7061

 

Lennard, H. L., 8 Bernstein, A. Role learning in psycho-
therapy. ‘PsyChOtherapy:'The0ry, Research and
Practice, 1987, E, 1-6.

 

Leonard, J. A. An experiment with occassional false
information.‘ Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 195M, g, 79-85.

 

Liberman, B. L. The effect of modeling procedures on
attraction and disclosure in a psychotherapy
analogue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Syracuse University, 1970.

McMains, M. J., 8 Liebert, R. M. The influence of
discrepancies between successively modeled self-
reward criteria on the adoption of self-imposed
standard. Journalof Personality and Social
Psychology, 1968, 8, 166-171.

 

 

Marston, A. R., 8 Kanfer, F. H. Group size and number
of vicarious reinforcements in verbal learning.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 63,
593-596?7

 

Miller, N. E., 8 Dollard, J. Social learning and imitation.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 19 I.

Minuchin, 8., Chamberlain, P., 8 Graubard, P. A project
to teach learning skills to disturbed delinquent
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1967, El, 558:567.

 

Mowrer, O. H. Learning theory and personality dynamics.
New York: Ronald, 1950.

Mowrer, O. H. Learning theory_and the symbolic processes.
New York: Wiley, 1960.

Mowrer, O. H. Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion.
Princeton: van Nostrand: 19657'

Ohlson, Ronald W. The effects of video-tape modeling of
self-disclosure upon client revealingness and .
personality change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Fuller Theological Seminary, 1970.

119

Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological
experiment: With particular reference to demand
characteristics and their implications. 'American
Psychologist, 1962, '_1_1, 776-783. ——'—"

 

Orne, M. T. 8 Wender, P. H. Anticipatory socialization
for psychotherapy: Method and rationale. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 1968,‘l2u, 1202-1212.

 

Pierce, R., 8 Drasgow, J. Teaching facilitative inter-
personal functioning to psychiatric patients.
Journal of CounselingPsychology, 1969, 2Q,

Poulton, E. C. Learning the statistical properties of the
input in pursuit tracking. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1957, 23, 28-32. *Ta)

 

Poulton, E. C. On prediction in skilled movements.
Psychological Bulletin, 1957, ii, #67-n78. (b)

 

Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality change. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1957, 22, 95-103.

 

Rosenbaum, M. E., 8 Arenson, S. Observational learning:
Some theory, some variables, some findings. In
Simmel, Hoppe, 8 Alexander (Eds.), Social
Facilitation and Imitation. New York: Aken and
Bacon, 1968.

 

Sanford, N. Clinical methods: Psychotherapy. Annual Review
of Psychology, 1953, i, 317-3u2.

 

Sauber, S. Richard. Approaches to precounseling and
therapy training: An investigation of its potential
influence on process and outcome. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Florida State University,
1971.

Sears, R. R. Identification as a form of behavioral
development. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept
of development: An issue in the study of’human
behaviBr. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1957.

Stein, A. H. Imitation of resistance to temptation. Child
Development, 1967,;22, 157-169.

 

120

Stieper, D. R., 8 Wiener, D. N. Dimensions ofxpsycho-
therapy: An experimental and clinical approach.
Chicago: Aldine, 1965.

 

Stotland, E.'The_psych010gy of hope. San Francisco:
Jossey:Bass, Inc., 1969.

 

Stotland, E., 8 Patchen, M. Identification and changes in
prejudice and in authoritarianism.‘ Journal of
Abnormal and Social'PsyChology, 1961. 62,

265—2714. "’

 

 

Thoresen, C. E., 8 Krumboltz, J. D. Sex of counselors and
models: Effect on client career exploration.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 23,

 

Truax, C. B., 8 Carkhuff, R. R. Personality change in
hospitalized mental patients during group psycho-
therapy as a function of the use Of alternate
sessions and vicarious therapy pretraining.
Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 1965, 22, 225-228.

 

Truax, C. B., Schuldt, J., 8 Wargo, D. Self-ideal concept
congruence and improvement in group psychotherapy.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1968, 22, 97-53.

 

Truax, C. B., 8 Wargo, D. G. Effects of vicarious therapy
pretraining and alternate sessions on outcome in
group psychotherapy with outpatients. Journal Of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 22,
uHO-DH7.

 

Walters, R. H., 8 Amoroso, D. M. Cognitive and emotional
determinants of the occurrence of imitative
behaviors. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 1967:§, l7h-186.

 

Warren, N. C., 8 Rice, L. N. Structuring and stabilizing
of psychotherapy for low-prognosis clients.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972,
22, 173-161.

 

Whalen, C. Effects of a model and instructions on group
verbal behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1969, 22, 509-521.

 

Wheeler, L. Toward a theory Of behavioral contagion.
Psychological Review, 1966, 22, 179-192.

 

121

Willis, R. H. Two dimensions Of conformity-
nonconformity. Sociometry, 1963, 26, 999-513.

 

Wolberg, L. R. The techniQue OfxpsyChothera . Part two.
New York: Grune 6 Stratton, I967.

Zerfas, P. G. Effects of induced expectancies and therapist
activity upon patient behavior in group
psychotherapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, 1965.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TRANSCRIPT OF HIGH SELF-DISCLOSURE OF THE MODEL

APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF HIGH SELF-DISCLOSURE OF THE MODEL

Uh...as far as social gatherings are concerned...
uh...I guess when I think about myself in relationship to
...ah, you know, a lot Of people I know, I guess I have to
say that uh...I don't feel that...uh...I'm a very sociable
person. Now, I enjoy, you know, being around people, but
at certain times uh...because I also enjoy my privacy. I
don't...uh...feel...uh...uh a need to have to be around
pe0p1e all the time...uh so I'm not one that goes out...
uh to a lot of parties or...or gatherings or that sort of
thing. It's ah...ah...hard for me if it's a social
gathering, you know, where there is a lot of people...ah..
that I don't know...ah...where you know that people are
carrying on and that sort of thing. I find it really hard
to get into the thing...to get with what's going on...to
join in the discussion or anything that might be going on

..and ah I've noticed this about myself, and it's even
worse, you know, if it's a large party...uh...you know...
uh like a place where...a-ah...the band's blasting so
loud, for instance, that it's...ah...you can hardly hear
yourself think. Ahh...in a situation like that, you know,

I...I can...I really get lost...ah...I...I can just sort

122

123

of feel myself fade...but...uh...well, once, you know,
once somebody will break the ice wflh me, or once, say, I
finally work up enough nerve to break the ice myself, I
can usually have a pretty good time and...uh, you know,
things go pretty well.

I can remember a few parties I have gone to where
uh...I just never really got that far into it. Ah...I
sort of just, you know, sat outside of things so to speak.
Uh...and I just really wasn't a part of what everyone
else was doing...I just wasn't a part of anything that was
going on and...uh...now, that was a pretty miserable
feeling...uh...sort of depressing...and I can remember
times when...uh...even though maybe I didn't want to admit
it at the time, I was depressed uh...and...and you know
in situations like that, sometimes I'll uh...try to force
myself to socialize, depending on my mood...uh...but then
again...sometimes I just...I just leave and I go home. To
give you an example...uh...this was about two weeks ago...
uh...I went to a party...uh...that was given for a new
university professor...uh...and because of where I work...
uh, you know, it was sort Of expected that I go and uh...
I knew a few people there...uh...at that party...uh, but
most of them were strangers to me...uh sort of, you know,
big shots...uh, and, you know, I really didn't know how to
aot...ahh...ahh...I kept, you know, I kept wanting to get
lost...uh that...that's what was going on inside me. Uh...

but probably on the outside, you know, I had this big grin

124

on my face...uh that I'm sure made other people think
that I was having a good time. Uh...well, that...that
plastered smile uh...really served me well because it
kept peOple away from me. Uh...I really don't know...uh..
you know, what I would have done uh...if one of those
pe0p1e uh...had walked up to me. Ahh...I...I guess I must
really feel self-conscious...uh...uh, you know, I really
wouldn't know what to say to someone who's supposed to be,
you know, that sophisticated and that full of prestige.
Ah...you know, all that high society SOphistication just
feels too heavy in my gut and...and I can't relax with it.

Ah...I really don't like feeling that...uh...I
guess that's why I don't go to those things very Often.
Besides, you know, it just really is not that important
to me uh...uh, you know, to be able to be a smoothy uh...
in those kinds of gatherings. Ahh...but I ran into a
couple there that I knew several years ago, and I spent
most of the evening with them, and uh...you know with
them I had a pretty good time...uh...because it, you know,
it was as if uh...uh...the three of us, you know, had just
sort of blocked everybody else out and...and like it was
like there was just three of us in that room and not that
big crowd.

Ahh...I guess there are times when I wish, you know
that I could do something about myself in this regard...
sometimes I really wish that it wasn't so doggone hard for

me to meet strangers...for me to go up to people that I

12S

don't know or I've never met before...uh...I...I feel
like I...I want to be more outgoing and more outward
toward people uh...but it's not something that, you know,
that bothers me a whole lot...uh...it does once in a while
but nothing to any great extent...uh...sometimes I think
it...it bothers other people more uh...when they see that
uh...I feel that I don't need that kind of thing all the
time...uh...and you know, like I'd...I'd almost rather do
things on the spur of the moment uh...when it comes to
doing things with other people. You know, like sometimes
when you say to somebody "Let's do this" or "Let's do
that" and you know you don't make a big production out of
the whole thing. You know, because like I said, I...I

do enjoy being around peOple, but at certain times...uh..
and then at other times, and...and probably, you know, I
guess I'd have to say the majority of the time...uh...I
enjoy just being alone, or with one or two, or perhaps

three other people.

 

This transcript is a modification Of an audio
recording received by personal communication from
Joseph A. Doster, Department Of Psychology, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, June, 1973.

APPENDIX B

TRANSCRIPT OF LOW SELF-DISCLOSURE OF THE MODEL

APPENDIX B
TRANSCRIPT OF LOW SELF-DISCLOSURE OF THE MODEL

Boy, that's...uh...that's sort Of a broad tOpic...
ahh...let's see...hmm...socia1 gatherings...hmm...uhhh...
social gatherings are pretty easy to find around here...
ahh...just about every day of the week, something is
going on...ahh...you can go to...ahh...a lot Of people
getting together for one reason or another. Ah, my idea
Of ah...a good social gathering uh...is a relaxed,
leisure situation uh...where...uh there are people...uh...
a guy can feel comfortable with. For most people ah...
what feels right one time ah...might not feel right another
...uh, that's why it's nice to...to have a lot of things
to choose from ah...uh...what I mean is ah...you don't
always feel like doing the same thing...uh, so it's nice
to have a lot of different things going on...uh...

Social gatherings are something ah...you have to
stay away from uh...uh...in order to appreciate...uh...
if you always go to them ah...they can become a drag...uh
something real dull...uh, I guess it's like anything ah...
you know, too much of it and you don't appreciate it
anymore...mmm...like going to bars...uh, the people who

really, uh...enjoy themselves the most are...are those

126

127

that uh...don't go to bars very often...ah...its sort of

a break for them, something different uh...eomething
enjoyable. Ah...some people go to bars..ah...like its
part Of their daily routine or... or something they do
automatically several times a week ...uh, and you can sort
Of spot them...uh...uh, they know all the waitresses by
name uh...and they're usually alone, uh...not uh... really
doing anything, just being there. Ah...I guess they're
probably lonely...ah... just killing time or ah... maybe
hoping that ah...aomething good will come their way. Now
they've overdone a good thing ah...going to the bars for
them has become a...a...you know, a compulsion ah...they'd
be better off ah...trying something different for a while,
like ah...ah... going to a house party with some friends,
if they have any.

Ahh...it can be fairly easy to get tired of social
gatherings...uh...because there is this constant bombard-
_ment Of people...you know, peOple all over the place ...
ah...particularly if there's something good going on...
ah...you...you begin to feel like sardines in a can, ah...
and the noise can be unbearable ah...where there is a lot
Of people there's bound to be a lot of noise...uh, it sort
Of makes you realize the population problem is getting
pretty serious...ah...

It's really hard to meet peOple in large crowds, uh

it sort Of makes me wonder how anybody ever meets anybody

128

else in those places. Ahh...a guy can really get lost.
Uh...when it comes to being around other peOple ah...you
sort of have to take a look at yourself and ...and decide
ah...what's best for you as an individual. Ah...some
people ah...sort Of like the idea of being around a lot
of people all the time, and ah...ah...you know, then on
the other hand there's ah...people who are...well, you
know, they're sort of like loners uh...they uh...uh,
maybe go out once in a while and ah... spend most Of their
time ah...by themselves. SO it's really kind of ah...ah..
ah...individua1istic kind Of thing and ah...the problem
with that is ah...though that ah...depending on who your
friends are and what...what kind Of a crowd you run with,
you can uh...uh...set some ah...pretty screwy feelings
about yourself ah...you know, for instance, if you have
some friends who really like ah...being around people all
the time and you...you don't, then ah...sometimes they can
give you a lot Of grief ah...particularly if uh...their
always doing something like ah...trying to get you to go
to the places that ah...they like to go to ah... and ah...
sometimes it's ah...pretty hard to ah...ah...to convince
people that you kind of like being alone uh...but ah...
ah...you don't want to be alone too Often because ah...
then ah...peOple can get the wrong idea about you.
Ahh...alcohol seems to really be a part of social

gatherings, uh, you know, when you take a look at...at

129

ah...what goes on most of the time ah...when you get a
large group of people together or even a small group Of
people ah...you know, there's always or usually it seems
like there is some kind Of drug involved and I guess the
most popular one is alcohol...ah, sort of makes you
realize that ah...somehow ah...unconsciously ah... ah
people are really uptight ah...about being in...in large
crowds with strangers and ah, you know, alcohol sort Of
becomes the ice breaker or it loosens you up a little bit
to the point where you...you don't feel so inhibited or
ah...sort of gives you some courage to somehow do things
that ah...you might not have done before that you might
have wanted to do like ah...going up to someone and

trying to meet them for the first time.

APPENDIX C

SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

APPENDIX C
SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

RATING LEVEL

 

 

Absence of personal involvement. The topic has been

explored in an impersonal manner. The subject made
Observations about others rather than himself. The 1
focus is on other people, objects, events. Self-

references are lacking or very few in number.

 

The subject has placed himself within the context of

the topic, but talked predominantly about his ideas

rather than his personal experiences. Self—references
enhanced the picture of the subject, but there was 2
little exploration or elaboration of personal thoughts
feelings, behaviors. The subject talked about possible
feelings, thoughts, behaviors, but did not attsCh

personal meaning to the topic except in a general way.

 

The subject dealt with the topic predominantly on a

personal level. He elaborated on his thoughts and

feelings, giving some idea of how external events 3
affect his thoughts and feelings, and how his

thoughts and feelings affect his behavior.

 

The subject focused entirely or almost entirely on

himself. He talked about his thoughts and feelings

and how these affect his behavior. He used self-

references entirely or almost entirely, and

evaluated his thoughts, feelings, behaviors in terms 9
of his like or dislike of them. He discussed the

personal impact of feedback from others on his

thoughts, feelings, behaviors. He provided an idea

of how he regards himself.

 

The Self-Disclosure Rating Scale is a modification
Of the seven level Disclosure Rating Scale received by
personal communication from Joseph A. Doster, Department
Of Psychology, The University Of Georgia, Athens, Georgia,
June, 1973.

130

APPENDIX D

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE AS A SUBJECT

APPENDIX D

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE AS A SUBJECT

RESEARCH PROJECT ON MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION

I am requesting the assistance of a number of
students for a research investigation. The general
purpose of the study is to learn more about the process of
meaningful communication.

Your participation in this study would entail
approximately 1/2 hour of your time on Saturday,
November 10, 1973, between 8:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M.
Although I am not able to set the precise time for your
participation right now, you will be notified before the
day Of the study regarding the time you would participate
for 1/2 hour. Consequently, you will not have to set
aside the entire day in order to participate, but only
enough time to allow for a 1/2 hour participation. You
will receive notification, for example, that your
participation is set for 11:00 A.M., or 1:30 P.M., etc..

If you feel you could participate, please sign
your name below and complete the information. The
information below is being requested for two reasons:

1) to know where and to whom to send the notification Of
the time for your participation; 2) to enable the
experimenter to formulate a descriptive picture Of the
total group Of participants. For purposes of the study
itself, the identity of individuals is not relevant, and
any single individual will not be able to be identified
in the results of this study. TO insure that strict
confidentiality is maintained, you will be given a code
number at the time of the study. This code number will
appear on all materials given to you and received from
you. The code number will be the means by which the
experimenter will follow you through the study.

131

132

The results of this study will be available to you
upon request after the study is completed. Around
January, 1979, send your request to me at the address
below.

Ted Stachowiak
230 Cedar Apt. 7
East Lansing, MI.

 

I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RESEARCH STUDY ON
MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION. I WILL BE WILLING TO SET ASIDE
1/2 HOUR OF MY TIME FOR THIS STUDY ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER
10, 1973, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:30 A.M. AND 1:30 P.M.

I WILL BE NOTIFIED BEFORE THE STUDY REGARDING THE EXACT
TIME I WILL PARTICIPATE.

 

Signature of Participant

 

 

 

 

NAME SEX: ____FEMALE __MALE
(please print)
RES. HALL AGE:
ROOM NO.
ACADEMIC STATUS: ___FRESHMAN
_SOPHOMORE
__JUNIOR

‘ SENIOR

APPENDIX E

MASTER SIGN-IN SCHEDULE

FOR SUBJECTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:30

NAME CODE C*
001 2
002 5
003 4
004 3
005 1
006 6
007 7
008 8

 

*C= cell number of Variable Matrix (Table 3.2)

*Th Therapist (numbered 1 through 8)

133

T*

9:

00

NAME

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CODE

009

010

011

012

013

014

015

016

135

9:30

NAME CODE

017

 

018

 

019

 

020

 

021

 

022

 

023

 

024

 

136

10:00

NAME CODE

025

 

026

 

027

 

028

 

029

 

030

 

031

 

032

 

137

10:30

NAME CODE

033

 

034

 

035

 

036

 

037

 

038

 

039

 

040

 

138

11:00

NAME CODE

041

 

042

 

043

 

044

 

045

 

046

 

047

 

048

 

139

11:30

NAME CODE

049

 

050

 

051

 

052

 

053

 

054

 

055

 

056

 

140

12:00

NAME CODE

057

 

058

 

059

 

060

 

061

 

062

 

063

 

064

 

141

12:30

NAME CODE

065

 

066

 

067

 

068

 

069

 

070

 

071

 

072

 

142

1:00

NAME CODE

073

 

074

 

075

 

076

 

077

 

078

 

079

 

080

 

APPENDIX F

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY ON

MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION

APPENDIX F

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY ON

MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION

I understand that this is a research study on
some variables which are thought to be relevant to the
process Of meaningful communication. During this study,
I will be given some information, and then will be asked
to give some information about myself, verbally. I will
also be asked to complete a one-item questionnaire.

I agree to allow my verbal responses during the
interview to be recorded. I understand that these
recordings are being made solely for the purposes of
research for this study, and that my confidentiality will
be strictly maintained.

I understand that at any time during this study I
am free to discontinue my participation totally. I am also
free to disallow recording Of my responses, if I so desire.

I understand that this study is not a form of
therapy or psychological treatment. Hence, I have no
expectation of experiencing beneficial effects as a
direct result of my participation in this study.

I understand that, upon request, I will receive
a written summary of the results of this study. The
summary of the results of this study will address itself
to the participants as a group, and the performance of
any single individual will not be provided, in accord
with the ethics of confidentiality.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this
study, and have not been Offered nor expect any
remuneration for my participation.

 

 

(Signature of Participant)

Date:

 

143

M—

APPENDIX G

INTRODUCTION TO PARTICIPANTS
LOW STATUS MODEL

APPENDIX H

INTRODUCTION TO PARTICIPANTS

Thank you for agreeing to spend some Of your time
with us in this investigation. This is a study about the
process of meaningful communication. Its general aim is
to investigate some of the aspects of meaningful communi-
cation that might be relevant to the communication that
occurs between a client and a therapist. With your
OOOperation, we hOpe to learn more about this important
area.

Please be assured that all information gathered
in this study is highly confidential. A coding system
is being used to insure that this information remains
confidential.

Your code number is . This number will
appear on all instructions given to you, and all information
received from you. It is the only means by which you are
identified. Its basic purpose is to allow the main
investigator to follow your participation in the study.

For approximately fifteen minutes, you will be in
an interview situation with a therapist, similar to what
would be encountered in an actual interview with a therapist.
This interview situation will be somewhat structured in
that the therapist will ask you to talk about yourself
on three tOpics. These topics are common areas Of
experience and are familiar to you. What you say to the
therapist is completely up to you. Only the broad,
topical areas will be designated. You are free to reapond
to these areas as you choose.

Your reSponse to the therapist will be recorded.
These recordings are solely for the research purposes of
this study. You and the therapist will be in a small,
private room. Confidentiality will be strictly enforced
by the use of the code number as the only means of
identifying the recordings.

146

145

LOW STATUS MODEL

Code

 

INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS

To give you an idea Of things to say to the
therapist, you are asked to listen to a recording which
was prepared for this study.

The tape you are about to hear gives one person's
idea of how to talk about one's self in the first inter-
view with a therapist. This recording was made by a
graduate student who has recently begun studies related
to the mental health profession. In making this recording,
he was asked to talk about himself on the tOpic Of "social
gatherings."

You will not be asked to talk about yourself on
the tOpic of "social gatherings," so you need not try to
remember what he says.

APPENDIX I

LOW STATUS THERAPIST

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEW

APPENDIX J

HIGH STATUS THERAPIST
Code

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEW

In a short while you will have an individual
interview with a therapist.

We ask that you not mention to the therapist
any information you received in preparation for the
interview.

The therapist will ask you to talk about yourself
on three tOpics, approximately five minutes on each
topic. The therapist will present these topics to you
one at a time.

The therapist for your interview, whom you will
meet shortly, is a professional therapist who has spent
the past several years working in the mental health field,
and is presently a practicing psychotherapist.

149

APPENDIX K

EXPERIMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THERAPISTS

APPENDIX K

EXPERIMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THERAPISTS

In this study, the therapist has two main functions:
to interview the subject and to evaluate the subject by
using the rating scale provided.

Therapist as Interviewer

 

As the interviewer, the primary task of the
therapist is to facilitate the subject's participation in
the interview. The interview is not intended to be a
form of therapy for the subject.

Ideally, the subject would do all Of the talking,
and the therapist would serve as an attentive recipient
of the subject's communications. As a facilitator, the
therapist helps the subject to focus on whatever content
the subject chooses. The therapist facilitates only when
facilitation is necessary.. The therapist may respond to
the subject's request for help in making a point, or
convey to the subject that the therapist understands what
is being said.

In responding to the subject, the therapist must
adhere to the following restrictions:

1) the therapist must not, in any way, self-disclose
to the subject. The therapist may not Offer
personal thoughts, feelings, behaviors, events
related to the topics of the interview.

2) the therapist must not Offer interpretations
to the subject. The therapist may verbally
reflect on the ideas, feelings, behaviors,
events which the subject discloses, but the
therapist may not give meaning to these beyond
the meaning attributed by the subject.

3) the therapist must not provide leading responses,
that is, responses which are intended to lead
the subject into areas which the subject has
not initiated. The therapist must not intro-
duce new content to the interview.

4) the therapist must not lead the subject into a

reSponse which would result in a change of the
subject's immediate degree of self-disclosure.

150

151

If the subject is self-disclosing at level 2,
the therapist may not entice the subject to
self-disclose at level 3.

As a facilitator, the therapist's task is to help
the subject, when necessary, to focus on the content the
subject chooses. -

Suggestions for Assisting the Subject If the subject
has difficulty beginning, the therapist should say something
similar to the following:

 

"What comes to mind when you think about ?"

"Sometimes it's difficult to get started. Don't
worry about being precise. Tell me whatever comes

to mind when you think about , and I think
you will find it will become eaSier as you begin
to talk."

"Sometimes it's best to begin by just saying what-
ever comes tO mind about . Even though you
may feel that your words aren't on target at first,
I think you'll find that things will come to you
once you begin."

Brief Disclosures If the subject indicates that he is
finished with the topic before the time is up, then con-
sider that the interview on that particular tOpic is
concluded.

 

Non-Disclosing Subjects It may happen that some subjects
will choose not to talk on one or any of the topics. If,
after trying to help the subject begin, it is clear that

the subject chooses not to talk on the tOpic, move on to

the next tOpic. If the subject again is reluctant to talk
on the tOpic, move on to the third topic. Each subject
must have an Opportunity to talk on all three tOpics.

 

Overly Anxious Subjects If the process of self-disclosing
generates an inordinate amount Of anxiety in the subject
which requires immediate and continued attention to the
subject, notify the experimenter. Assistance will be
available to subjects who require it.

 

Therapist as Rater

As the rater, the task of the therapist is to
evaluate the extent to which the subject self-discloses on
each tOpic. The subject's treatment Of a particular tOpic

152

can range from an impersonal approach to an entirely
personal approach. To assist the therapist in discri-
minating the meanings Of impersonal and personal, these
two concepts are defined as they relate to this study.

Definitions

Impersonal "...without connection or reference to any
particular person..." In this study, impersonal content
is content which has no connection or reference to the
subject providing the content. The subject's responses
do not pertain to himself as an individual.

Examples: ”Most peOple don't like to feel guilty."
"It's nice to get a pat on the shoulder."
"There's a lot of weird notions about
sex and marriage." '
"I know some peOple who get depressed
over nothing."

Personal "...Of or peculiar to a certain person;
private; individual...having to do with the character,
personality, intimate affairs, conduct, etc. of a certain
person..." In this study, the "certain person" is the
subject in the interview. The subject's responses refer
to himself individually.

Examples: "I don't like to feel guilty."
"I like to get a pat on the shoulder."
"Sex and marriage really confuse me."
"That makes me feel depressed."

Ratings

In the role as rater, the therapist must base
the rating only on what the subject says. The therapist
should avoid basing ratings on "latent" content, or basing
ratings on assumptions Of what the subject may have intended
to say. Ratings should be based only on what the subject
communicates verbally to the therapist.

 

 

 

IWebster's_§ew World Dictiona Colle e Edition
(New York: World Pfiblishing Co., I955§, p. 729.
2Ibid., p. 1092.

153

The therapist must base the rating on subject's
entire treatment Of the topic, not on segments Of the
interview. Individual expressions Of impersonal or
personal content should not be singled out and used as a
basis to represent the entire topic.

The quantity Of words used or the amount of time
used should not bias the rating. The therapist should be
concerned only with the content Of the subject's remarks
on the tOpic.

As the subject talks during the interview, the
therapist has the difficult task of serving as a facilitator
for the subject, and serving as a rater for the experimenter.
During the interview, the therapist must make a continual
effort to be aware of the extent to which the subject is
providing impersonal vs. personal content. For this
reason, it is imperative that each therapist have a clear
understanding of the various levels Of the rating scale.

If the therapist can accurately conceptualize the degree
of self-disclosure on each level of the rating scale, the
therapist's rating task will be simplified, and the
decision Of self-disclosure level will flow smoothly from
the subject's treatment of the topic.

154

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THERAPIST-INTERVIEWERS

Before the Study_Begins

 

1. Check to be sure you are in the assigned room.
Therapist numbers and room numbers are identical, e.g.,
therapist 1 should be in room 1.

2. Familiarize yourself with the recording
equipment. If you are unclear about the Operation Of
recorder you will be using, please check with the E as
soon as possible.

3. Make sure that the recorder is functioning
prOperly, and that the micrOphone is apprOpriately
placed to adequately record the interview.

4. Perform a brief "Testing l...2..." or whatever
by using the "Test Tape" provided. DO not use any of the
coded tapes for testing. With each recorder, a "testing
tape" is provided for the purpose of making preliminary
and as needed checks to make sure the recorder is
functioning properly. Use only the "testing tape" for _
testing the equipment. If the recorder does not seem to
be functioning prOperly, notify the E immediately.

5. Arrange the furniture as necessary to provide
for a comfortable interview situation. Remove anything
from the subject's potential vision that might be
excessively distracting. Please remember that the office
you are in belongs to someone else, so don't rearrange it
in a wholesale fashion, but you may need to make some
modifications.

6. Tape cassettes are pre-coded. Check each
cassette with your master schedule to make sure you have
all of the correct cassettes.

7. As time permits, review the procedures for
the interview, and review the content of each Of the
levels of the rating scale.

8. I would like to reemphasize the extremely
critical importance Of the proper Operation of the
recording equipment. Please make sure you fully understand
the Operating procedures of the machine, and for each

155

recording, PLEASE REMEMBER TO ACTIVATE THE RECORDING
MECHANISM.

S ecial Instructions For the Cassette Used For the First
and Tenth Interviews

 

Interviews will be recorded on cassettes in the
following manner:

 

Cassette Interview Number
First 1 5 10
Second 2 & 3
Third 4 & 5
Fourth 6 & 7
Fifth 8 & 9

Interviews will normally be recorded by first
using one side of the cassette, and then flipping the
cassette over to the other side for the subsequent
interview. As you see in the above listing, the
exception to this is that the first and the tenth
interviews will be recorded on the same cassette.

The following procedure should be used for the
cassette which will record the first and tenth interviews.

After the first interview is completed (discussion
on all three tOpics has occurred), the therapist inserts
the cassette into the envelope marked for that cassette,
and delivers it to the area which will be designated.

Before the last interview, the therapist must pick up
this cassette from the designated area and use this
cassette (the unused side) for the final or tenth interview.

The following procedure should be used for the
cassettes which will record interviews two through'nine.

Record the second interview on the cassette side
marked for the second interview. At the end of the
second interview (subject has left), depress the fast-
forward mechanism on the recorder and advance the tape
all the way to the end. This should take about 30 seconds
to do. After the tape is advanced all the way to the end,
flip the cassette over to the side for the third
interview. After the third interview is completed, remove
the cassette, place it in the envelOpe marked for this
cassette, and take the cassette (in the envelope) to the
designated area. Repeat this procedure for the remaining

156

cassettes and interviews. The critical procedure is to
advance the cassette tape all the way to the end before
using the second side Of the cassette. If this is not
done there may not be sufficient tape on the second side
to completely record the interview.

After the Subject Enters the Room

 

1. After the subject enters the room, check the
3 x 5 card (each subject will have one) to make sure
that the subject is in the right room at the right time.
Check to make sure that the code on the subject's card is
identical to the code on the cassette tape which will
record the interview.

2. After the above has been completed, and you
and the subject are seated, engage the recording mechanism
on the recorder, and start the recorder. ALLOW A 10
SECOND PAUSE.

3. After the 10 second pause, begin with the
following instructions.

WE ARE GOING TO SPEND ABOUT 15 MINUTES TOGETHER.
DURING THIS TIME I WILL GIVE YOU THREE TOPICS, ONE AT A
TIME, AND I WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOURSELF ON THESE
TOPICS. I WANT YOU TO DO MOST OF THE TALKING, BUT I WILL
HELP OUT WHEN I THINK I CAN. WE WILL SPEND ABOUT 5
MINUTES ON EACH TOPIC, AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN THE
5 MINUTES IS UP. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL
INTERVIEW, SO I WANT YOU TO FEEL FREE TO SAY WHATEVER
YOU LIKE.

BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU
ARE CLEAR ON WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO.

Give limited, additional clarification if needed,
holding to the substance of the above instructions. DO
not introduce any new information into your instructions.

When the subject is ready, present the following
instruction.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOURSELF ON THE
TOPIC OF ANGER.

4. The subject is free, of course, to use all or
none of the time alloted for the tOpic. However, after
4 minutes has passed, the therapist should terminate the
interview at the next apprOpriate time.

157

SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

RATING LEVEL

 

 

Absence ofjpersonal involvement. The tOpic

has Been explored in an impersonal manner.

The subject made Observations about others 1
rather than himself. The—fOcus'is on other

peOple, Objects, events. Self-references are

lacking or very few in number.

 

 

The subject has placed himself within the

context of the tOpic, but talked predominantly

about his ideas rather than his personal

experiences. Self-references enhanced the 2
picture of the subject, but there was little
Exploration of elaboration of personal thoughts
feelings, behaviors. The subject talked about

possible feelings, thoughts, behaviors, but

did not attach personal meaning to the tOpic

except in a general way.

 

 

 

The subject dealt with the topic predominantly

on a personal level. He elaborated on his

thoughts and feelings, giving some idea of how 3
external events affect his thoughts and feelings,

and how his thoughts and feelings affect his

behavior.

 

 

The subject focused entirely or almost entirely

on himself. He talked about his thoughts and feel-

ings and how these affect his behavior. He used
self-references entirely or almost entirely, and
evaluated his thoughts, feelings, behaviors in 4
terms Of his like or dislike Of them. He discussed

the personal impact Of feedback from others on

his thoughts, feelings, behaviors. He provided an

idea of how he regards himself.

 

158

 

Therapist___’ (Therapist's Name) Room2__
TIME SUBJECT CODE
8:30 004

9:00 010

9:30 024

10:00 027

10:30 036

11:00 045

11:30 055

12:00 058

12:30 066

1:00 074

159

5. At the end of the first topic, stop the
recorder, and say to the subject:

I AM GOING TO LEAVE THE ROOM FOR ABOUT A MINUTE.
OUR NEXT TOPIC WILL BE EMBARASSMENT. WHILE I'M GONE,
I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT YOURSELF ON THAT TOPIC.

6. Leave the room, go to the designated, and
complete the rating scale score sheet. Make sure that
the code on the rating scale score sheet corresponds to
the code Of the subject being rated.

From the time you leave the subject to the time
you return, no more than one minute should elapse. This
means you have about 35-40 seconds to make the rating.

7. When you return to the room, activate the
recording mechanism, and start the recorder. Pause for
10 seconds, and say to the subject:

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOURSELF ON THE
TOPIC OF EMBARASSMENT.

8. When 4 minutes have passed, terminate the
interview at the next appropriate time.

9. At the end of the second tOpic, stop the
recorder, and say to the subject:

I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE ROOM AGAIN FOR ABOUT A
MINUTE. WHILE I'M GONE I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT
YOURSELF ON OUR NEXT TOPIC, HURT.

10. Leave the room, go to the designated area,
complete the rating scale score sheet. From the time you
leave the room to the time you return, no more than one
minute should elapse.

11. When you return to the room, activate the
recording mechanism, and start the recorder. Pause for
10 seconds, and say to the subject:

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT YOURSELF ON THE
TOPIC OF HURT.

12. When four minutes have passed, terminate the
interview at the next appropriate time. Thank the
subject for participating. Direct the subject tO Room A,
saying that there is one, final, brief part to the study.

160

13. Go to the designated area and complete the
final rating on the rating scale score sheet.

14. Prepare the recorder for the next subject in
the following way:

If this was the first interview, place the tape
as is in the correct envelOpe and take it to the
designated area. Insert the next cassette.

If this was the first side used on this cassette
(excluding the first interview cassette), advance the
tape forward all the way to the end, and flip it over
to the unused side.

If this was the second side of the cassette, that
is, both sides now have recordings, place the cassette in
the apprOpriate envelope, and take it to the designated
area. Insert the next cassette.

If, during the interview, or afterwards, you receive
"how am I doing?" type inquiries, let the subject know
that one Of the constraints put on you is that you are
not allowed to evaluate the subject's performance, only
to facilitate their participation.

APPENDIX L

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS

Code

APPENDIX L

 

Directions

 

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS

Check the item which best describes your

feelihgs toward the interviewing therapist.

1.

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

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

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

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

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

161

APPENDIX M

A FINAL NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS

APPENDIX M

A FINAL NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS

After you have completed the questionnaire, and
handed it in along with your card which you received at
the beginning Of the study, your participation in this
study is ended.

I would like to thank you for your willingness to
be a part of this study. I sincerely wish that I could
thank you individually, and I hOpe you understand this is
not possible. Nevertheless, I am most appreciative
of your OOOperation.

As I mentioned before, I will be happy to provide
you with a summary of the results of this study. The
analysis and interpretation of the data will take some
time. I am confident that I will be able to provide you
with the results around the beginning Of the Winter term.
Consequently if, in January (1974), you send me a written
request for the results of this study, along with your
address, I will send you a report Of the findings.

Thank you again, and I wish you a successful
year at Michigan State University.

Sincerely,

Ted Stachowiak
230 Cedar Apt. 7
East Lansing, MI 48823

162

APPENDIX N

RATING SCALE SCORE SHEET

APPENDIX N

Code

 

RATING SCALE SCORE SHEET

Directions Using the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale,
circle the number which corresponds to your evaluation
of the subject's treatment of the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

ANGER
RATING LEVEL: 1 2 3 4
EMBARASSMENT
RATING LEVEL: 1 2 3 4
HURT
RATING LEVEL: 1 2 3 4

 

163

APPENDIX 0

GUIDELINES FOR TRAINING THERAPISTS

APPENDIX 0

GUIDELINES FOR TRAINING THERAPISTS

In this study, the therapist has two main functions:
1) to interview the subject; and 2) to evaluate the subject

by using the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale.

Therapist as Interviewer

 

As the interviewer, the primary task of the
therapist is to facilitate the subject's participation in
the interview. The interview is not intended to be a
form of therapy for the subject.

Ideally, the subject would do all of the talking,
and the therapist would serve as an attentive recipient
Of the subject's communications. As a facilitator, the
therapist helps the subject to focus on whatever content
the subject chooses. The therapist facilitates only
when facilitation is necessary. The therapist may
respond to the subject's request for help in making a
point, or convey to the subject that the therapist
understands what is being said.

In responding to the subject, the therapist must
adhere to the following restrictions.

1) The therapist must not, in any way, self-
disclose to the subject. The therapist may not Offer
personal thoughts, feelings, behaviors, events related to
the topics of the interview.

2) The therapist must not Offer interpretations to
the subject. The therapist may verbally reflect on the
ideas, feelings, behaviors, events which the subject
discloses, but the therapist may not give meaning to
these beyond the meaning attributed by the subject.

3) The therapist must not provide leading responses,

that is, responses which are intended to lead the subject
into areas which the subject has not initiated. The

164

165

therapist must not introduce new content to the interview.

u) The therapist must not lead the subject into a
response which would result in a change of the subject's
immediate degree of self-disclosure. If the subject is
self-disclosing at level 2, the therapist may not entice
the subject to self-disclose at level 3.

As a facilitator, the therapist's task is to help
the subject, when necessary, to focus on the content the
subject chooses.

Suggestions for Assisting the Subject

If the subject has difficulty beginning, the
therapist should say something similar to the following:

"What comes to mind when you think about ?"

"Sometimes it's difficult to get started. Don't
worry about being precise. Tell me whatever comes

to mind when you think about , and I think
you will find it will become ea31er as you begin
to talk."

"Sometimes it's best to begin by just saying
whatever comes to mind about . Even though
you may feel that your words aren't on target at
first, I think you'll find that things will come to
you once you begin."

Brief Disclosures

 

If the subject indicates that he is finished with
the tOpic before the time is up, then consider that the
interview on that particular topic is concluded.

Non-Disclosing Subjects

It may happen that some subjects will choose not
to talk on one or any of the topics. If, after trying to
help the subject begin, it is clear that the subject
chooses not to talk on the topic, move on to the next
topic. If the subject again is reluctant to talk on the
topic, move on to the third topic. Each subject must have
an Opportunity to talk on all three tOpics.

Overly Anxious Subjects

If the process of self-disclosing generates an
inordinate amount of anxiety in the subject which requires

166

immediate and continued attention to the subject, notify
the experimenter. Assistance will be available to
subjects who require it.

Therapist as Rater

 

As the rater, the task Of the therapist is to
evaluate the extent to which the subject self-discloses
on each tOpic. The subject's range of disclosure may
vary from an impersonal approach to an entirely personal
approach. To assist the therapist in discriminating the
meanings Of impersonal and personal, these two concepts
are defined as they relate to this study.

Definition of Impersonal

 

"...without copnection or reference to any
particular person..." In this study, impersonal content
is content which has no connection or reference to the
subject providing the content. The subject's responses
may pertain to other people, but they do not pertain to
himself as an individual.

Examples: "Most people don't like to feel guilty."
"It's nice to get a pat on the shoulder."
"There's a lot of weird notions about sex
and marriage.
"Some people get depressed over nothing."

Definition of Personal

 

"...Of or peculiar to a certain person; private;
individual...having to do with the character, personality,
intimate affairs, conduct, etc. of a certain person..."

In this study, the "certain person" is the subject in the
interview. The subject's responses refer to himself
individually.

Examples: "I don't like to feel guilty."
"I like to get a pat on the shoulder."
"Sex and marriage really confuse me."
"That makes me feel depressed."

 

1Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition
(New York: World’PubliSHing Co., 1965), p. 729.

2Ibid., p. 1092.

167

Ratings

In the role as rater, the therapist must base the
rating only on what the subject says. The therapist
should avoid basing ratings on latent content, or basing
ratings on assumptions Of what the subject may have
intended to say. Ratings should be based only on what the
subject communicates verbally to the therapist.

The therapist must base the rating on the subject's
entire treatment Of the topic, not on segments Of the
interview. Individual expressions of impersonal or
personal content should not be singled out and used as a
basis to represent the entire treatment of the tOpic..

The quantity of words used or the amount of time
used should not bias the rating. The therapist should be
concerned only with the content Of the subject's remarks
on the topic.

As the subject talks during the interview, the
therapist has the difficult task of serving as a
facilitator for the subject, and serving as a rater for
the experimenter. During the interview, the therapist
must make a continual effort to be aware Of the extent
to which the subject is providing impersonal and personal
content. For this reason, it is imperative that each
therapist have a clear understanding of the various levels
of the rating scale. If the therapist can accurately
conceptualize the degree of self-disclosure on each level
of the rating scale, the therapist's rating task will be
simplified, and the decision Of self-disclosure level will
flow smoothly from the subject's treatment of the topic.

168

SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

The Self-Disclosure Rating Scale is a modification
of the 7-point Disclosure Rating Scale. The four levels
of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale range from an impersonal
to an entirely or almost entirely personal treatment of
the tOpic.

Level 1 Absence of personal involvement. The topic has
Been explored in an impersonal manner. The subject made
Observations about others rather than himself. The focus
is on other peOpIE, Objects, events. Self-references are
lacking or very few in number.

 

 

Level 2 The subject has placed himself within the
context Of the tOpic, but talked predominantlyxabout his
ideas rather than his personal experiences. Self-references
enhanced the picture of the subject, but there was little
exploration or elaboration of personal thoughts, feelings,
béhaviors. The subject talked about possible feelings,
thoughts, behaviors, but did not attach personal meaning

to the tOpic except in a general way.

 

 

Level 3 The subject dealt with the tOpic predominantly
on a personal level. He elaborated on his thoughts and
feelings, giving some idea of how external events affect
his thoughts and feelings, and how his thoughts and
feelings affectihis behavior.

 

 

Level 4 The subject focused entirely or almost entirely
on himself. He talked about his thoughts and feelings,

and how these affect his behavior. He used self-references
entirely or almost entirely, and evaluated his thoughts,
feelings, behaviors in terms of his like or dislike of
them. He discussed the personal impact of feedback from
others on his thoughts, feelings, behaviors. He provided
an idea of how he regards himself.

 

In L-l, the subject talks about the concept. He
describes it, maintaining a general and broad treatment.
The subject may not specifically claim that he is describing
pig concept, but only the concept in general. He detaches

 

1Joseph A. Doster & Ann McAllister, "Effect of Modeling
and Model Status on Verbal Behavior in an interview,”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 40,
No. 2} 249-243.

169

himself from the tOpic, leaving the listener without
specifically knowing how the tOpic applies to the
subject.

In L-2, the subject is claiming his own ideas
about the tOpic, but the content of the subject's
responses rarely, if ever, touch on personal experiences.
The listener may have an idea of the subject's concepts
of the tOpic, but the subject does not disclose the
experiences that led to the formation of the concept, or
personal experiences that elaborate on his ideas. In
L—l, the subject is saying, "This is the concept of
shame." In L-2, the subject is saying, "This is my
concept of shame."

 

In L—3, the subject talks about personal experiences
related to the topic. He talks about ideas, feelings,
behaviors, events which the listener would have no
knowledge of without the subject's disclosures. The
subject makes ties between his feelings and his
behaviors. In L-3, there is a shift in emphasis to the
self as Opposed to the conce t. The subject is talking
Ehout himself, and the tOpic provides a convenient focal
point.

In L—4, there is even a greater self emphasis than
in L-3, and in addition, the subject makes some judgments
about his thoughts, feelings, behaviors. The listener
has an idea Of how the subject regards himself in relation
to the tOpic, whether the subject likes or dislikes his
thoughts, feelings, behaviors, is confused by them, would
like to change them, sees them as functional or non-
functional.

170

SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

Directions Circle the number which corresponds to
your evaluation of the subject's treatment of the topic.

 

RATING

Absence of personal involvement. The
tOpic has been explored in an impersonal
manner. The subject made Observations about 1
others rather than himself. The focus is on
other peOple, objects, events. Self-references
are lacking or very few in number.

The subject has placed himself within the
context of the topic, but talked predominantly
about his ideas rather than his personal exper-
iences. Self-references enhanced the picture Of
the subject, but there was little exploration or 2
elaboration Of personal thoughts, feelings,
behaviors. The subject talked about possible
feelings, thoughts, behaviors, but did not attach
personal meaning to the tOpic except in a general

u-

 

The subject dealt with the tOpic redomi-
nantly on a personal level. He elaborated on his
thoughts and feelings, giving some idea Of how 3
external events affect his thoughts and feelimgs,
and how his thoughts and feelings affect his
behavior.

The subject focpsed entirely or almost
entirely on himself. He talked about his
thoughts and feelings, and how these affect his
behavior. He used self-references entirely or
almost entirely, and evaluatedlhis thoughts,
feelings, behaviors in terms of his like or 4
dislike of them. He discussed the personal
impact of feedback from others on his t oughts,
feelings, behaviors. He provided an idea Of how
he regards himself.

 

 

 

 

171

 

 

 

 

Code

ANGER
RATING: 2
Code

EMBARASSMENT

RATING: 2
Code

HURT
RATING: 2

 

- ___-——-J'\-

172

EXCERPS* FOR RATER TRAINING

Disclosure Rating Scale

Interview TOpic: Shame and Guilt. Ah...shame I think...
shame is something which you feel...when...ah...somebody
...when you...when you...ah...kind of reSpect for not
making...not resPect but...ah...fear, a fear or respect for
somebody who ah...shows his disapproval Of something you do
and then you...then you feel a shame and guilt. The only
time...the only times are when they...are when they...

make you feel this way is when you've done something wrong
...ah...maybe you've hurt somebody...ah...intentionally you
hurt someone and...and ah...then some mood...you get in a
mood that's shame and guilt. But I don't think...ah...you
know...ah...actually the only basis that there should be...
shame, guilt...is if you know...if you hurt yourself.
That's something that should make you ashamed...when you
haven't done the best you could. But...but you...if you're
not bothered, then you shouldn't...I don't think you should

feel guilty Of your conduct.

Interview TOpic: Sexual Relations. Well...I approve of
sexual relations. Ah...I kinda wish sometimes our society
didn't have a...the type restrictions it has on sexual

relations. Ah...maybe there should be...I ah...tend to

 

*Taken from the Disclosure Rating Scale, Doster, 1973.

173

favor more freedom to do what...to do what your body tells
you to do, than ah...go along with what somebod...some
authority says is right for you to do like premarital sex.
And ah...I sorta think now that...that maybe I kinda have
inhibitions about having ah...sexual relations with somebody
I really don't care anything about. Maybe this is because
of my background, but ah...we were taught that ah...sex
with somebody...before marriage was wrong. If...there were
someone...someone...a girl I cared a lot about...and she
wanted it too...then ah...then I think then things would

be different.

Interview Topic: Self-esteem and Self-degradation. Ah...
this is a topic I really don't think too much about...is
myself. I ah...I ah...well ah...sometimes I have feelings
Of ah...of degradation. I think I have ah...I would...I
would say...I have more feelings of...Of...self-degradation
than self-esteem. Now maybe it could be just because I...

I remember the feelings Of degradation more than I would
esteem. Ah...I think ah...ah...in the field Of achievements
is where I have these...ah...these feelings. Things that I
can do well...and I do do well...I ah...take them for
granted...It doesn't mean ah...that much to me. I may be
glad to be done but ah...I don't believe that I ah...I am...
ah...boastful...or ah...or ah...I don't feel a lot of self-

esteem about these things. I just do them...and ah...and if

174

I do them well I do them well but if I don't do them well

I have feelings of ah...self-degradation. I feel let down
because I put myself down. Ah...in my school work mainly
ah...is where I feel ah...these types Of feelings and

mainly self-degradation. Because I don't consider...I

don't think that I do as well as I should...in my school
work. And ah...I don't think I ah...I don't think I have

any real big accomplishments. The only time that I

believe I ever feel self-esteem is ah...is when ah...someone...
ah...gives me a compliment on my ah...on my...on what I've
done or...The only time I really feel...self—esteem is

when I catch a big fish I guess. And ah...which is not...

I don't...I don't believe that's anything to feel self-esteem
about. I believe I have more feelings of degradation than

esteem. I guess that's all.

Interview Topic: Anxiety and Fear. Well ah...I guess...me
...I ah...feel anxious in personal contacts with other
peOple. I find it extremely hard to make new acquaintances
...to Open myself up to people. I am not ah...exact1y
certain about why I'm this way. I have been trying to find
out...possibly to get some grasps of a fear I have...but ah
...so far it hasn't been any use. Seems like ah...whenever
there is a person that I would like to meet...or if I am

in a situation where I meet a person...I just clam...I

almost start to shake. Even ah...let's say I'm walking down

175

the street and I see someone...a stranger...walking toward
me...even at a distance it makes me feel anxious just
thinking about passing him...and ah...if I don't...what I do
is cross over to the other side just so I won't have to walk
past him. If I don't...I just become more tense and shaky
as ah...the closer we get and ah...then it bothers me that
ah...maybe he can tell if I'm ah...shaking. I find that

if I am in a situation where I meet peOple regularly...

that same person...then I get to know them fairly well...

I don't feel anxious...I can ah...enjoy myself and talk with
them. But like going out and trying to meet peOple...I
can't do that. Fears...1et's see...I guess you could say
again that I was probably afraid of peOple. Afraid that
they will hurt me, afraid that they won't reciprocate when

I like them. Ah...I find that in large groups instead Of
talking out...I just sit there and listen...whereas if I

am talking to one or maybe two peOple it is easier to talk
and express myself. In large groups ah...I can have things
on my mind to say...but ah...I can't seem to force myself

to say them...overcome my fears to interrupt and then it's
too 1ate...they're ah...off on another tOpic. Again I would
like to find why I would be afraid or uneasy with peOple.

I ah...am ah...seeing a counselor...but so far it hasn't
ah...belped...I haven't seen any difference. I don't want
to feel anxious around peOple and ah...not open up...but

right now that's the way it is.

176

Verbal Excerps

The second phase of rater training involves raters
listening to a verbal presentation of selected excerps,
and noting the rating on the Record of Practice Rating_.

Following the ratings, a thorough discussion of
each rating will take place. Confusion or misunderstanding
of the rationale Of the ratings should be dealt with
meticulously. Raters are exhorted to be candid about any
uncertainties regarding the ratings of these excerps.

Inter—Rater Reliability

The final phase of the training involves the
setting Of the inter-rater reliability. Briefly, the
inter-rater reliability provides a measure of the
extent to which raters consistently agree with each
other on the rating of content, using the rating scale
provided.

The raters will listen to recordings of various

levels of self-disclosures, and enter the ratings on
the Record of Practice Ratings.

Acceptable Reliability

The acceptable rater reliability for the Self-
Disclosure Rating Scale has been set at .90.

177

RECORD OF PRACTICE RATINGS

1°———- 11.____
2'——— 12.____
3°—— 13.____
4'——— 14.__
5'—-— 15.___
6'——— 16._____
7'——— 17.___
8°——— l8.____
9'—— 19.___
10.__ 20.

DO NOT ALTER RATINGS. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO
NOT CHANGE A RATING AFTER YOU HAVE ENTERED IT. THE REASON
THIS IS CRITICAL IS THAT THESE RATINGS PROVIDE THE
EXPERIMENTER WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE TRAINING, AND MAY
SUGGEST AREAS IN THE RATING SCALE OR THE TRAINING

PROCEDURE THAT NEED SPECIAL ATTENTION OR MODIFICATION.‘

178

CLARIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF EVALUATION

 

Evaluations within the context of the rating scale
are those considerations the subject gives in regard to his
self-system. Evaluations involve comparisons, impressions,
judgments about himself in relationship to some standard.
The standard may be an ideal self, how others are, or how
others want him to be. There is a "value" inherent in an
evaluation, and this "value" may be reflected by the degree
of satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction, comfort vs. discomfort,
acceptance vs. nonacceptance that the subject has for a
particular idea, belief, feeling, behavior that he has.

 

In reflecting on himself in an evaluative manner,
the subject may Offer a comparison Of himself with others,
give an impression of the difference between himself and
others, make a judgment about himself in relation to others,
or do any of the above against some standard, which may be
an ideal-self standard. The subject may, in some way,
express a desire to be like some other individual or group,
or to be something or have a characteristic, idea, feeling,
behavior different from what he perceives himself to have.
He may offer where he wants to be (He may or may not be
there). He may offer where he doesn't want to be (He may
or may not be there). He presents some type of evaluation
of himself. This may be in relation to his liking or not
liking of the self, in relation to its adjustiveness,
adequacy, feasibility, functionality, or the way he perceives
that others regard his self.

The subject may raise doubts about the self, or
raise a question about the self, and may attempt to provide
an answer.

The subject may explore some things he has done
in an attempt to understand himself or change himself.

The subject may comment on his lack of understanding
of the self, of why he is the way he is. There is an
indication of a desire to change. The subject may have
undertaken steps to change.

There are numerous ways in which the subject can
evaluate himself. Evaluations can be stated in many
different ways, and the therapist must listen closely
for the presence of an evaluation. This is not to say
that the therapist should interpret, or assume what is
not said. Rather it means the therapist must listen

179

closely to the evaluations that are inherent in many
different kinds of statements.

In an evaluation, the subject is saying something
about the ualit . A statement of quality can be denoted,
that is, the shhject may address himself Specifically in
a qualifying manner. Denoted statements of quality are
usually easy to spot, "I like, dislike, am comfortable,
am uncomfortable, accept, don't accept, am pleased, am
not pleased," etc... However, statements can also
connote quality, or value, as "I resist, try to stay
away from, wish, wonder, am confused, don't understand,"
etc... None of the above illustrations are indications
ipso facto of evaluation, but evaluation ggm_be expressed
with such statements, depending upon the context in which
they occur.

 

Change, in and of itself, connotes quality,
a value judgment. It is a movement from one phase to
another phase, an exchange of one point for another,
a variation, a varying 22 something different.

Remember, however, that value judgments about
others are not a level 4 response. The evaluation must
always be about the self.

Statements of feeling may at times be confused
with statements of evaluation. Example: "I feel bad,"
or "I feel guilty," are a description of a feeling state.
They describe (not evaluate) some aSpect of the self. The
subject may evaluate this aspect of the self by: "I feel
bad more Often than I care to." "I wish I didn't feel
guilty." The first two statements are simply a labeling
of feelings. The latter two statements are statements
of feelings and statements which give the listener an
idea of how the subject regards those feelings. Both
of the latter statements are statements of dissatisfaction.

It may be that none of your subjects will denote,
that is, be explicit about, self evaluation. However,
statements which connote evaluation are a legitimate
method of evaluating the self.

The following are excerps which I have taken from
the topics we previously covered. Remember, it is possible
that in another context some of these statements would not
be considered statements of evaluation. They are presented
here as statements which could, given the prOper context,
be considered statements of evaluation.

180

"Now I try to resist being guided by guilt..." (change)
"I've really tried to overcome my inhibitions..." (change)

"I decided that I felt shy around girls long enough..."
(dissatisfaction)

"I was going to try and go out and meet some more..." (change)
"...made me wonder what I was turning into..." (adequacy)

"I'm not exactly certain why I'm this way. I've been
trying to find out..." (dissatisfaction)

"I would like to find out why...(I am this way...)"
(discomfort-about inadequate self-
knowledge)

We need tO discuss the concept of evaluation
further at our next meeting. In the meantime, it might
be helpful if you could muse over the considerations in
this handout, and formulate Specific questions for our
next meeting.

 

APPENDIX P

INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

OF THERAPISTS AND RATERS FOLLOWING TRAINING

ON THE SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

APPENDIX P

INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT*
OF THERAPISTS AND RATERS FOLLOWING TRAINING

ON THE SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

Therapists and Raters

NI

 

 

______Levels 1 .2. 2 3. 2. .6. 1 .8. K 2
l l 1 l l l 1 1 l 8 8
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 l 7 l4
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 7 21
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 32
Sum of squared ratings = 231
Sum Of products = 227
Product of Sum and Mean = 187.5
Sum of Squares
For Total 231-187.5 = 43.5
For Tapes 227-187.5 = 39.5
For Error 43.5-39.5 = 4
Mean Squares
For Tapes 39.5%3 = 13.1670
For Error 4 %26 = .1538
Average value of K = 7.4889
13.167 - .1538 13.0132
Reliability = =
13.167 + (7.4889)(.1538) 14.31879

.9088

 

*
Ebel, 1951.

181

APPENDIX Q

DATA AND COMPUTATION
OF INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

FOR ANGER

APPENDIX Q

DATA AND COMPUTATION
OF INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

FOR ANGER

Therapists Independent Rater A Independent Rater B

UNUNbwaUWthwhb-blu
NNNHwUWAUWWMWWofi-fiwt‘
MHNkuwwwwwNuuhe-ut—J

Sum of Squared Ratings = 473
Product of Sum and Mean= 433.4999

Sum of Squares

For Raters = 2.33343
For Subjects = 31.50010
For Total = 39.5
For Error = 5.6665
Mean Squares
For Subjects 31.5001 % 17 = 1.8529
For Error 5.6665 % 34 = .1666

182

183

ANOVA Table and Computation of
Reliability Coefficient for the
Self-Disclosure Rating Scale on Anger

 

 

 

Sources Sums of df Mean

Squares Squares
Raters 2.333 2 1.167
Tapes 31.500 17 1.853
Error 5.666 34 0.167
Total 39.500 53

 

n = 54 i 3 = 18

M; "' M
p = (Ebel, 1951)
M; + (K-l) M

 

M mean square for error
M; = mean square for tapes

K = therapist and two independent raters

1.853 - 0.167
reliability = = .771

 

APPENDIX R

DATA AND COMPUTATION

OF INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

FOR EMBARRASSMENT

APPENDIX R

DATA AND COMPUTATION
OF INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

FOR EMBARRASSMENT

Therapists Rater A Rater B

3 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
3 3 3
3 2 2
3 3 3
2 2 2
2 3 3
3 3 3
3 2 2
4 3 3
3 3 3
4 3 3
4 3 4
2 1 l
3 2 2
l 2 2
3 2 2

Sum of squared ratings = 422

Product of Sum and Mean = 394.74074

Sum of Squares
For Raters = 1.59259
For Subjects = 23.9293
For Total = 27.2593
For Error = 1.74041

Mean Squares
For Subjects 23.9263 % 17 = 1.407427
For Error 1.74041 + 34 = .0511885

184

187

ANOVA Table and Computation of
Reliability Coefficient for the
Self-Disclosure Rating Scale

 

 

 

on Hurt
Sources Sums of df Mean
Squares Squares
Raters 2.481 2 1.241
Tapes 21.481 17 1.264
Error 10.185 34 0.299
Total 34.148 53

 

1.264 - .299
Reliability = = .517
1.264 + (3-1).299

 

The computational formula for the Intraclass
Correlation Coefficient is discussed by Ebel (1951).

The formula also has been included in Appendix P.

APPENDIX S

DATA AND COMPUTATION

OF INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT

FOR HURT

APPENDIX T

RESEARCH ASSISTANT INSTRUCTIONS

APPENDIX T

RESEARCH ASSISTANT INSTRUCTIONS

You will have large envelOpes, each marked
with a time for a specific group. Each envelOpe contains
the written materials you will need to hand out to each
group of subjects. The first envelope is marked for
8:30, the second for 9:00, etc...

Seating should be arranged so that it is not.
easy for one subject to have access to the materials
given to another subject. The instructions look identical
for the most part, so it is not necessary to have subjects
sitting at an Obvious distance from one another. However,
care should be taken to avoid a situation in which subjects
sit so close to one another that cross-reading of
instructions is very likely to occur, or even invited.
Ideally, subjects should not have access to the instructions
of another or suSpect that one set of instructions is
different from another.

Your verbal instructions related to the study
itself Should be kept to a minimum, and not deviate from
the substance of the instructions as given. There are
some verbal, procedural instructions which you will give,
but the treatment instructions will be accomplished
primarily through the written instructions which you will
give to each subject.

You may converse casually with subjects, if it
seems appropriate. It is not expected that you be stilted,
but you must avoid creating an overly casual atmosphere.
You, through your attitude, can set the tone for the
subjects. They can be set up to perceive this event as
something insignificant, "just another study," or the event
that determines whether or not they continue studies at
MSU. Ideally, your attitude will be a happy medium. If
you must err, err towards the serious side.

As the study continues, and you've done your
routine several times, you may need to make a conscious
effort to avoid communicating any boredom you might begin
to experience from repeating the same thing over and over.
Try to remember that each group of subjects is being
exposed to the "routine" for the first time. If you

188

189

communicate boredom, you will be adding a variable to
this study which may be stronger than any of the
treatment variables.

TREATMENT PROCEDURES FOR ALL SUBJECTS

1. When subjects enter the room, each Should
have a 3 x 5 card on which is the following information:
Time, Code, Room, C number. All subjects must have this
card. Check to make sure that the time listed on each
subject's card corresponds to the time of the treatment.

2. There may be up to 8 subjects for each treatment
session.

,3. As subjects come in, have them sit at the
table in such a way that subjects with C numbers 1, 2, 3,
or 4 have headsets which correSpond to the junction box
marked 1, 2, 3, 4. Subjects with C numbers 5, 6, 7, or 8
Should be seated at the headsets which lead to the junction
boxes marked 5, 6, 7, 8. THIS IS EXTREMELY CRITICAL.

4. After subjects are seated, Open the envelOpe
(marked for that session by time) and pass out the
"AGREEMENT" to the subjects. Ask the subjects to read
and sign the agreement. This should be done quickly,
about two minutes. After each subject has signed,
collect the "AGREEMENT"'S and set them aside.

5. Pull out the "INTRO"'S from the envelope, and
pass them out according to code numbers. The "INTRO"
given to a subject must have the same code number as the
subject's card.

6. Allow about two minutes for the "INTRO" to be
read. Instruct the subjects to put on the headsets. You
may need to assist. Make sure each subject has the right
headset.

7. Roll the tape (about 7 min. 45 sec. long).
As soon as the tape is over, turn off the recorder. Assist
subjects, if necessary, to take Off the headsets.

8. Collect the "INTRO"'s and pass out the
'INSTRUCTIONS"'S simultaneously, making sure that the
code number on the "INSTRUCTIONS" is identical to the code

190

number on the "INTRO"'s which you are collecting.

9. Allow about 30-45 seconds for reading.
Direct subjects to the apprOpriate rooms for the interviews.
Subjects Should leave the instructions on the table, or
you should collect them after they have read them.

APPENDIX U

RESEARCH ASSISTANT FOR COLLECTION OF DATA

APPENDIX U

RESEARCH ASSISTANT FOR COLLECTION OF DATA

Your task is twofold: l) to organize and receive
the Rating Scale Score Sheets which therapists will be
completing on each subject, 2) to administer the one-
item questionnaire to subjects, and serve as the final
station for the study.

In #1 as mentioned above, your task is to have
the Rating Scale Score Sheets available to therapists as
they come in to make their ratings, and to keep these
ratings organized according to treatment group times.

Rating Scale Score Sheets will be found in large
envelOpes marked on the outside for the apprOpriate time,
e.g., 8:30, 9:00, etc... Within each envelOpe, there will
be 8 Rating Scale Score Sheets. On each Rating Scale Score
Sheet, there will be a code number (the subject's), and a
T number (the therapist's). As each therapist is ready to
make a rating, you will have the Rating Scale Score Sheet
available for the therapist, making sure that each therapist
makes the Rating on the apprOpriate Score Sheet. After
all Ratings are completed, you will place these Ratings
in the same envelope in which you received them, e.g., all
Ratings from the 8:30 group are placed in the envelOpe
marked 8:30.

In #2 as mentioned above, your task is to
administer the Questionnaire to the subjects as they come
to you. At the end of the interview, subjects will be
instructed to go to your area. As subjects come in, you
give each one of them a Questionnaire, making sure that
the code number on the Questionnaire is identical to the
code number on the subject's 3 x 5 card. After the
subject completes the questionnaire, take the questionnaire
from the subject, and also take the subject's 3 x 5 card,
and give the subject a COpy of "A FINAL NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS,"
thanking the subject for participating, and indicating
that they are finished and may leave. You then place the
questionnaires in the appropriate envelOpe.

191

192

PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION OF DATA

Rating Scale Score Sheets

 

1. Remove the 8 Rating Scale Score Sheets from the
envelOpe marked for the appropriate time.

2. Present the appropriate R858 to the therapist.

3. Each therapist will make 3 ratings on each RSSS.
When all ratings for that particular group of subjects is
completed, put the 8 RSSSS into the envelope marked for
that time.

4. Place this envelOpe aside, and prepare for
the next group of ratings.

Questionnaire For Subjects

 

1. Remove the 8 Questionnaires from the envelOpe
marked for the apprOpriate time.

2. As subjects present themselves, give each
subject the Questionnaire that has the code number which
is identical to the code number on the subject's 3 x 5
card. Ask the subject to complete the questionnaire.

3. As the questionnaires are completed, collect
the questionnaires from the subjects, and collect the
3 x 5 card.

4. Give each subject a OOpy of "A FINAL NOTE TO
PARTICIPANTS," thanking the subject for participating.

5. Place the completed questionnaires in the
envelOpe marked for the apprOpriate time.

6. Prepare for the next group of subjects.

APPENDIX V

TRANSCRIPTS OF LEVELS 2 AND 3

OF THE SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE

APPENDIX V

TRANSCRIPTS OF LEVELS 2 AND 3

OF THE SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE
Level 2

Uh...social gatherings ah...well...ah...I've, I've been to
some that were a lot of fun...ah...and I've been to others
that just...weren't worth going to, I'd been better Off
doing something else. Ah...people have to be in the mood...
for being sociable, for being around a lot of other people.
Otherwise social things can really be hard to get into...ah
...and...that kind of thing can really wind up with a dead
atmosphere. I suppose, it's a big help if you're the kind
of person ah...who likes being around a lot of people. Ah,
but not everybody's that way...ah, so I'd have to say that I
don't think social gatherings are good for everybody...ah...
even though I know there's a lot of peOple who would disagree
with me about that. There's some peOple who think there's
something wrong with you if, if you don't like, you know, to
go to big parties and...ah...to be in big social gatherings

all the time and, and if, you know, prefer ah...to be alone.

 

6This Appendix contains transcripts which represent Levels
2 and 3 of the Self-Disclosure Rating Scale. Appendices
A and B contain Levels 1 and 4, respectively.

193

194

Ah, I know some peOple ah...who don't think much about
privacy. Ah...and, and I know others who find it ah...
very difficult...to live in a Situation where, they can't
get away from people. Ah...they feel that ah...that they

just can't ah...keep being around peOple all the time.

I know some people, some friends of mine...ah...who, when

it comes to social gatherings, ah...they're really something.
They can walk right into a strange party, ah, you know, and
get right into it. They don't need anybody to break the

ice, and after a while...you'd never know that they met
those people...for the very first time. Now I don't think
that most peOple are like that...ah...but since I've been
with those people sometimes...ah, you know you find yourself
wishing sometimes that you could do that...ah...ah...
they're, they're either full of self-confidence, or...or
just not...uptight...about meeting strange peOple. I've
thought about that sometimes ah...about why I'm that way...
ah, I wonder, you know, if...ah...if the way a lot of us

are brought up has something to do with that. You know, how
you were taught, as a kid, to...stay away from strangers...
ah because something bad might happen...ah...you kinda grow
up with the feeling like ah...ah...you should never...ah...
do something...ah...to be...ah...ah...good friends or...ah...
to really get to know some stranger, which is really sort of

stupid...ah...when you stOp to think of it because how can,

195

you know, you ever ah...get to know more people unless you

...get to know strangers.

Sometimes if, you know, you take a close look at parties...
ah, or social gatherings or whatever, you see that there,
you know, there really isn't that much going on a lot of times.
Ah...maybe the band or the stereo is blasting so loud that
you can hardly hear yourself think and...that's no good if
you're trying to be sociable. Ah...you know, or, or you
look around and you see some guys trying to pick up some
girls, or you know you see girls trying to get picked up,
or...ah...somebody's trying to impress you about how
intelligent they are, or...or how great they are, and

so sometimes, you know, if you take a lot Of that stuff
seriously, you know you sort of wind up feeling like you
just don't quite make it. There's just a lot of phonniness
...ah, going on. But...ah, some peOple think that's the
way to have a really great time. But as far as I'm
concerned, if that sort of thing doesn't click with you,
or...if you go to something like that and you wind up

being depressed...ah, you'd be better off staying home,
being alone, or maybe just having, you know, one or two

peOple over...some people that you already know.

Big groups...are really hard. Ah, I think small groups

are better. There's a chance you can get to know somebody

196

...in a small group. You know you don't...you don't get

so lost...when there's just a few peOple around. Ah...and
from what I've seen ah...peOple...ah seem to enjoy themselves
...ah, much better in a small group. Ah...I guess the
advantage of a, a large social gathering is that...ah, you
can get lost if you want to be, you know you can, you can
say avoid somebody that you don't like or, or avoid meeting
somebody that you don't want to meet. Ah...but in a small
group, ah that's almost impossible. And a lot a times ah...
in, in social groups, you know you run into the social
swinger, and ah...you know I've been to enough...parties to,
you know, to be able to say that, for some reason or
another it seems like every party has one or two...socia1
swingers...ah...who, who want to control somebody else's
good time. They, they can't stand it...when somebody is

just being quiet, and ah...not mixing like they are.

197

Level 3

Ah...social gatherings...ah...as far as social gatherings
are concerned, ah...I guess...when I think about myself in
ah...relationship to...a lot of peOple I know, I guess I
have to say that ah...I don't feel that ah...I'm a very
sociable person. Now, I enjoy being around peOple, ah
...but at certain times...ah...because I also enjoy my privacy.
Ah...I don't...ah feel...ah...a need to have to be around
peOple all the time. Ah so I'm not one that goes out...ah...
to a lot of parties or...ah...gatherings or that sort of
thing. It...it's hard for me...if it's a social gathering
ah...you know where there's a lot of people ah that I don't
know. Ah...where, you know peOple are carrying on and that
sort of thing. I find it really hard to...to get into the
thing...ah to get...to get with what's going on, to...to
join in the discussions or...anything that might be going

on. And I've I've noticed this about myself that it's even
worse...ah you know if it's a large party...ah, you know
like a...a place where...ah...the band's blasting, you know,
so loud for instance that a...you can hardly hear yourself
think. Ah...in a situation like that, you know I, I can...
ah...I really get lost...ah, I can just sort of feel myself
fade...But ah...well, you know once somebody will break the

ice with me or...or once say I finally...work up enough

198

nerve to break the ice myself, I can usually have a pretty

good time...and ah...things go pretty well.

I can remember a few parties I've gone to...where...I just
never really got that far into it...ah I sort Of...Just...
you know...sat outside of things so to Speak...ah...and...I
just really wasn't a part...of what everyone else was doing.
I just...I just wasn't a part of, of anything that was going
on. And ah...now that was a pretty miserable feeling...ah...
sort of depressing...ah...and I can remember times when...ah
even though maybe I didn't want to admit it at the time, I
was depressed. Ah...and, and in situations like that
sometimes I'll...ah...try to force myself to socialize, ah
depending on my mood, but then again sometimes I just, I

leave, and I go home.

Ah...one thing I sort of dread...a lot of times, is knowing
that I have a party...or something that I feel I have to go
to...You know, something that I have to get ready for and get
all dressed up and that sort of thing. Ah...you know, what
goes on inside of me is the feeling like...I'd really rather
avoid this whole thing. But...ah, you know like I said
sometimes I feel I have to go...ah because I think, you know,
I...I enjoy more intimate sorts of groups, where I can feel
like ah...I, I'm involved with the people who are there...

ah places where I don't get that...ah, you know...anonymous

199

sort of feeling...ah like I notice I get when I'm at a
party with ah...say, twenty or thirty peOple...ah...and
some of my friends, and ah...you know, some in particular,
ah...ah...I think that they think that I'm a real loner
...ah...ah...and, you know what they'll do is, is they'll try
to get me to go to parties or, or gatherings...ah...ah...
because like you know they have fun...ah...in those kinds
of things, and ah...you know I guess they want me to have
fun...ah, so they're, you know, always inviting me to
something like that...ah, because I guess they want me to
have the same kind of fun they're having...ah...sort of
like, you know, I kinda get the feeling like they want me
to be a social swinger, you know like some Of them are.

But I kinda resent that whole idea, ah...you know their
trying to force me into something. Ah...but it's hard...er
...Or at least it's not easy for me to...to say very much
about it because, ah...well, they're my friends, I enjoy
being with them, ah you know we have a lot Of good times
together. And ah...ah...I think that they think, you know,

that they're doing me a favor.

Ah...I guess, you know, there are times when I wish...you
know I could do something about myself in this regard.
Sometimes I wish it wasn't so doggone hard...eh for me to
meet strangers...ah, for me to go up to people that I don't

know or I've never met before. Ah...I, I feel like I

200

...I want to be...ah...more outgoing, and more outwards
towards peOple...ah, but you know it's not something that
ah...bothers me a whole lot, it does once in a while, but
nothing to any great extent. Sometimes I think it bothers
other peOple more...ah, when they see that ah...I feel I
don't need that kind of thing all the time. And, you know
like I'd almost rather do things on the spur of the

moment, when it comes to doing things with other peOple.
You know, like sometimes when you say to somebody ah...
"Let Let's do this," or "Let's do that", ah...and you don't
make a big production out of the whole thing. Ah, you know
because like I said I do enjoy being around other people,
but at certain times, ah...and then at other times, and...
and probably, I guess I'd have to say the majority of the
time, ah...I enjoy just being alone, or...with one, or

two, or perhaps three other peOple.

APPENDIX W

SCHEDULE OF RANDOMN ASSIGNMENT

OF SUBJECTS TO THERAPISTS

 

.maso mumnasc wooo an omwmaucuofi mums muomnnom .Hwnasc moon vomnnsm:
mHmEmmumn mamzuzu
.muwamflucmoflmsoo mo mmmomHsm ecu Oeuuflao msm3 moses pmwmmumna .umflmmnmmauas

 

 

 

 

 

who mho who mho who who omo mho ooua
moo who moo woo woo hoo Hho oho omnma
moo mmo woo woo mmo ooo Hoo hmo oouma
ovo omo wmo Hmo mmo mmo omo Nmo omuaa
mvo vvo Hvo moo moo Nvo ovo bvo oouHH
vmo hmo ovo mmo omo mmo mmo omo omuoH
oNo mmo Hmo omo hmo mmo mmo mmo oouoH
mwo omo hHo mHo vmo mao Hmo «No omuo
«Ho moo Hao NHo oHo mao oHo mHo ooum
moo moo moo moo woo woo Hoo :ooo omum
Ema lmlsm mos 2mm. INN “Mm lemmm Name as?

meHmdmmmB OB maombmom m0
Bzmzszmmd ZZOQZdM ho maoommum

3 KHQZHAfi‘

201

~APPENDIX X

RAW SCORES

3363 '11 t1! U 0 w 3’

H
II

(1)270 'U 0 23 I." XL!

*9

APPENDIX X

RAW SCORES

Code For Interpretation

Subject code number.

Level of model self-disclosure: l = high, 2 = low.

Status of the model: 1 a high, 2 = low.
Status Of the therapist: l = high, 2 = low.
Sex of the therapist: l = male, 2 = female.
Cell number Of the variable matrix.
Therapist number.

Therapist rating on Anger.

Therapist rating on Embarrassment.
Therapist rating on Hurt.

Independent Rater's rating on Anger.

Independent Rater's rating on Embarrassment.

Independent Rater's rating on Embarrassment.

Independent Rater's rating on Anger.

Independent Rater's rating on Embarrassment.

Independent Rater's rating on Hurt.
Subjects' responses to questionnaire.
Therapist's re-rating on Anger.
Therapist's re-rating on Embarrassment.

Therapist's re-rating on Hurt.

202

(Rater
(Rater
(Rater
(Rater
(Rater

(Rater

a)
A)
A)
s)
B)

B)

203

T.
S.
R.
Q.
P.
O.
N.
M.
L.
K.
J.

H.
G.
F.
E.
D.
C.
B.

33423 3 23334 3
33433 3 24334 3
24443 4 23334 3
5323554533523545335533335443444343544233545454.355
1342332 332 2 4
2343232 332 3 3
1344332 333 3 3
2342342 333 2 4.
234.3232 332 3 3
1344333 333 4 3

3432344313334323221332123233343344434234433334433
«1.343332344133334222332122233441333442133343343443
2444334.312423232221334131233341343442433334333443
5248613465635721818472563285471363825136147343561
1234567865514267884317625154236837241387726518234.
1121212221221211111221122111221222111122122222121
1212121221112221222111221112212211221121122112212
1.12211221111211222221211111212127.2121222211112122
11.112222222111222211...].2212121112212111122212212111

1.234567012789012356789012345678912901234789067890
0000000111111222222222333333333344455,555555666667
ooooooooooooooooo000000000000oooooooooooooooo0000

204

T.
S.
R.
n5
P.
O.
N.
M.
L.
K.
J.

H.
G.
F.
E.
D.
C.
B.

4 334
4 332
4 333
5553455
331332
3.4.1222
331212
331322
331222
331222
3432423
4442313
3342323
7515687
7148356
2111212
1122112
2122211
211211.22

235678
777777
000000

079

= 56

Total N

urmummm;wwwmmlmlwmlnuI