THE, COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF mmmcmt BELIEFAND ENTOLERANCE ON THE RESPONSES or HRST-YEAR. _ SEMINARY moms m A quzxss-smamw ’ ' snumsm: wer PAR'ISHm-NERS Thesis for thg Degree of Ph. D. MLCHIGAN STATE {ENWERSITY ’ GEORGE- ‘Esswem, JR. 19:87 THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Comparative Effect of Theological Belief and Intolerance on the Responses of First-Year Seminary Students in a Quasi-Interview Situation with Parishioners presented by George Ensworth, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Counseling degree in 7/Maw a 7%“ 5.4;: Major professor Date r/A/AV / / / 0-169 Ilia‘ it..u.a.. q 5-1? 574521 ABSTRACT THE CONTARATIVN mar or mmLocICAI. mm AND INTOLERANCE ON THE RESPONSES or FIRST-YEAR 8m smms IN A QUASI-INTERVIEW SITUATION WITH PARISHIONERS by George Ensworth, Jr. THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of religious beliefs and level of intolerance of Protestant first-year seminary students with their pastoral responses to a set of sixteen selected parishioner problem statements. This study attempted to dis- cover whether the religious belief of the pastoral counselor or his intolerance toward people was more predictive of his preferences in counseling responses. The following null hypotheses were tested: 1. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements: a. In their preference for affective or cognitive responses. b. In their preference for following the general content of the parishioner statements. c. In their preference for expansive or restrictive responses. George Ensworth, Jr. d. In their preference for present or past/future responses. e. In their preference for references to the parishioner or other responses. f. In their preference for religious or non-religious responses. 2. There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. This hypothesis was tested over the same six sub-hypotheses as indicated in Null Hypothesis 1. 3. There will be no difference in the relation of the responses of first-year seminary students to their opinionation and to their theological belief system. This hypothesis was tested over the same sub-hypothesis as in Null Hypothesis 1. THE METHODOLOGY A smmple of first-year seminary students was drawn from four Protestant theological seminaries considered to be representative of the theological continuum in the United States. Fifty-three percent of the total possible sample participated in a controlled group testing situation. One hundred and forty-four students were administered a prelhminary data sheet, the Religious Belief Inventory, the Opinionation Scale, and the taped Interview Sets. The responses to the Interview -2- George Ensworth, Jr. Sets were evaluated by three judges according to a modification of the Counselor Response System. On the basis of the data obtained, the respondents were classified into mean-split and extreme liberal] conservative belief groups and into mean-split and extreme tolerant] intolerant groups. The first two hypotheses were tested by means of the Chi Square test for two independent samples. The third hypothesis was tested by the £_test for the difference between correlations in correlated samples. The .05 level of significance was considered appropriate for rejecting the null hypotheses. THE RESULTS Null Hypothesis 1 a. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students preferred cognitive responses. b. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students preferred content following responses. c. Rejected at .001 level for the mean-split group and the .01 level for the extreme group. Conservative students preferred restrictive responses, whereas liberal students chose more expansive responses. d. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students preferred references to the present situation. a. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students preferred references to the parishioner. -3- George Ensworth, Jr. f. Rejected at the .001 level for the mean-split and .05 for the extreme group. Although both liberal and conservative students preferred non~religious responses, conservative students chose more religious responses than liberal students. gu11 Hypothesis 2 None of the subéhypotheses were rejected in relation to opinion— ation. Both tolerant and intolerant students preferred cognitive, content following, expansive, present, parishioner, non-religious re sponses. Null Hypothesis 3 Two of the sub-hypotheses were rejected at the .001 level: Sub-hypothesis (c). Belief correlated more than opinion- ation with controlling responses. Sub-hypothesis (f). Belief correlated more than opinion- ation with religious responses. THE COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF THEOLOGICAL BELIEF AND INTOLERANCE ON THE RESPONSES OF FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR! STUDENTS IN A QUASI-INTEHVIEW SITUATION WITH 2111113anan by George Ensworth, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology Copyright by GEORGE ENSWORTH, JR. 1967 (with the exception of previously copyrighted materials) 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible were it not for the guidance, encouragement, and assistance of a number of people. My deep appreciation and heartfelt thanks are extended to the following persons: To Dr. William.A. Mann, the Chairman of the doctoral committee, whose initial expression of confidence in me as a potential doctoral candidate and continued guidance and support have enabled me to bring this study to fruition. To Drs. Norman Abeles, Edward B. Blackman, and Jehn E. Jordan,. members of the doctoral committee, who always responded with genuine interest and helpful insight in spite of their many other demanding responsibilities. To Marcia Erb, Joseph Gordon, and Anita Olsson, for their many hours of patient and thoughtful rating. To Melvin Olman, who saved me many hours by generously taking time from.his own research to program.my statistical analysis. To my children, who patiently endured a father's neglect so "Daddy could finish his thesis." Finally, to my wife, without whose unselfish support, encourage- ment and hours of typing and retyping, this work would never have been completed. iii George Ensworth, Jr. Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Final Examination: July 21, 1967, College of Education Thesis: The Comparative Effect of Theological Belief and Intolerance on the Responses of First-Year Seminary Students in a Quasi- Interview Situation with Parishioners Outline of Studies: Major Subject: Counseling Minor Subject: Education Cognate Subject: Psychology Biographical Items: Born: September 28, 1922, Pontiac, Michigan Undergraduate Studies: Michigan State university 1944- 1948, Bachelor of Arts, June, 1948 Graduate Studies: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1948-1952, Bachelor of Divinity, May, 1952; Michigan State Uni- versity 1963-1964, Master of Arts, June, 1964; Michigan State university 1964-1967, Doctor of Philosophy, August, 1967. ' Experience: Staff member and Regional Director, Inter-Varsity Christian PellowShip, 1953-1963; Lecturer, Westminster Theological Semdnary, 1965-1966; Assistant Instructor, Michigan State University, 1966-1967; Instructor, Spring Arbor College, 1966-1967. Professional Memberships: American Psychological Association American Personnel and Guidance Association Christian Association for Psychological Studies National Council on Family Relations Minister at Large, Lownes Free Church iv Dedicated to my wife, Kathi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I 0 m Pmnm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . 1 Importance . . . . . . . 2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Definition of Terms . 4 Theory . . . . . . . 5 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 7 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Limitations . . . . . . . . . 8 Organization of the Thesis . . . 9 II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 10 Pastoral Counseling in Relation to Other Counseling . 10 Philosophical Orientations in Relation to Counseling 12 Personality-in Relation to Religious Beliefs . . . l9 Attitudes in Relation to Counseling . . . 23 Religious Beliefs in Relation to Pastoral Counseling . 27 Summary of Review of Literature . . . . . . . . 29 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Protestant Theological Seminaries . . . . . . 31 Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Dimensions of the Sample . . . . . . . . . 34 Liberal and Conservative Subjects . . . . . . . 35 The Instruments of Measurement . . . . . . . . 36 V1 Chapter Page The Religious Belief Inventory . . . . . . . 36 Religious Belief Sample Classification . . . . . 38 The Opinionation Scale . . . . . . . . 39 Opinionation Sample Classification . . . . . . 41 The Interview Sets . . . . . . . 42 Analysis of Interview Set Responses . . . . . . 43 Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . . . 46 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Counseling Training and Response Preferences . . . 53 Hypotheses Tested and Results . . . . . . . . 55 Null Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Null Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Null Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 V. SUMMARI AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Implications for Research . . . . . . . . . 71 Implications for Training . . . . . . . . . 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 A. Thbles of Informative Data . . . . . . . 85 B. Graphs of Data . . . . . . . . . . 88 C. Introductory Letter and Student Notice . . . . 95 D. The Questionnaires . . 98 E. The Transcript of the Sixteen Parishioner Problem Statements . . . 111 F. Definitions and Descriptions of the Dimensions of the Modified Counselor Response System . . 115 vii 4:2 4:4 LIST OF TABLES Seminaries Included in Sample Interjudge Reliability for Three Judges over Dimensions of Counselor Response System A Summary of Chi Square Analysis of Counseling Courses and No Counseling Courses in Relation to the Six Dimensions of Counseling Response System . . . . . . . Summary of Chi Square Values for Mean-Split and Extreme Belief Groups in Relation to the Dimensions of the Counselor Response System . . Summary of Chi Square Values for Mean-Split and Extreme Opinionation Groups in Relation to the Dimensions of the Counselor Response System . The £_Values for the Difference Between the Correlations of the Religious Belief Inventory Scores with the Counselor Response System Dimensions and the Opinionation Scale Scores with the Counselor Response System.Dimensions A Summary of Hypotheses Tested Frequency of Response Preferences for Liberal and Conservative FirstdYear Seminary Students According to Rater Average Frequency of Response Preferences for Tolerant and Intolerant First-Year Seminary Students According to Rater Average . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 33 45 54 55 59 63 64 86 87 Graph B:1 B:2 B:3 B:5 B:7 B:8 B39 B:10 LIST OF GRAPES Page Total Percentage of Affective and Cognitive Responses of Liberal and Conservative First- Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . 89 Total Percentage of Content Follow and Shift Responses of Liberal and Conservative First- Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . 89 Total Percentage of Expansive and Restrictive Responses of Liberal and Conservative First- Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . 90 Total Percentage of Present and Past-Future Responses of Liberal and Conservative FirstAYear Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Total Percentage of Parishioner and Other Responses of Liberal and Conservative First-Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Total Percentage of Religious and Non-Religious Responses of Liberal and Conservative FirstAYear Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Total Percentage of Affective and Cognitive Responses of Tolerant and Intolerant First-Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Total Percentage of Content Follow and Shift Responses of Tolerant and Intolerant First-Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Total Percentage of Expansive and Restrictive Responses of Tolerant and Intolerant FirstéYear Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Total Percentage of Present and Past-Future Responses of Tolerant and Intolerant First-Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 ix Graph Page B:11 Total Percentage of Parishioner and Other Responses of Tolerant and Intolerant First-Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . 94 B:12 Total Percentage of Religious and Non-Religious Responses of Tolerant and Intolerant First-Year Seminary Students . . . . . . . . . . . 94 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Pastoral counseling is rapidly increasing in importance in the United States, its importance being reflected in the increasing number of courses being offered and in the special departments of pastoral counseling being established in many seminaries. This growing impor- tance is further reflected in the special training programs being offered in many medical and psychiatric institutions as well as in some secular universities. The January, 1967 issue of the Pastoral Psychology journal lists 288 opportunities for training. Parallel to this growing emphasis on pastoral counseling is a growing body of research concerning the pastor and his varied duties (Menges and Dittes, 1965). However, a survey of the two most signifi- cant journals of pastoral counseling, the Journal 2£_Pastoral £252 and Pastoral Psychology, indicates a scarcity of research concerning the nature of the pastoral counseling relationship as it is effected by religious belief. Background Considerable research on the effect of counselor theory and values as they relate to counseling can be found in the psychological and psychiatric literature (Fiedler, 1950; Catch, 1963; Gump, 1944; -2- Jones, 1962; Landfield and Nawas, 1963; Strupp, 1960; Wrenn, 1960), which seems to indicate that values and theory do influence therapeu- tic outcomes. However, this research also indicates that the relation- ship established is a product of something other than theory alone, since experts in differing theoretical schools tend to be more like one another in the counseling relationship they establish than like those less skilled in their own schools. Pastoral counseling literature also stresses the therapeutic relationship necessary for effective pastoral counseling (Clinebell, 1966, p. 59; Faber and van der Schoot, 1965, p. 65), but little re- search exploring this relationship in the light of the unique elements of pastoral counseling is reported. Mannoia (1962) and.Miller (1963) found that more liberal ministers and seminary students chose non- directive responses to certain parishioner statements than did con- servative ministers and seminary students. However, Miller found that both liberal and conservative students preferred non-directive responses. Several studies have found a positive correlation between dogmatism.and religious conservatiam (Rania, 1965; Ranter, 1964; Rokeach, 1956; Stanley, 1963). Importance Because of the range of difference between liberal and conser- vative belief systems within Protestant Christianity and because of the stress on the relationship necessary for effective pastoral coun- seling, it would be valuable for selection and training purposes to -3- know whether the pastoral counseling relationship is more closely associated with the belief system held by the counselor or with the intensity of feeling he has toward those who may agree or differ with hum. Such a study would also add to the general understanding of pastoral counseling as it is particularly related to beliefs and values. Finally, it is hoped that this study will suggest avenues of further research in the pastoral counseling relationship. Purpose It is the purpose of this study to explore the relationship of the religious belief systems and level of opinionation toward people with the responses of first-year seminary students to selected parish— ioner problem.statements in a quasi-interview situation. First-year seminary students from randomly selected seminaries in the North Central united States, who have been administered the Religious Belief Inven- tory (Toch and Anderson, 1960) and the Opinionation Scale (Rokeach, 1960), are asked to respond to sixteen parishioner problem statements. These responses are evaluated in terms of the Counselor Response System (Rank and De R00, 1965). The investigator attempts to discover through this study whether the types of pastoral counselor responses as determined on the Counselor Response System.are related more to the religious beliefs of seminary students or to their level of opiniona- tion toward others. The religious beliefs are also measured on a 4» Likert type intensity scale to ascertain whether such a scale is a better predictor of religious belief. Definition of Terms It will help in understanding the discussion if certain terms important to the study are defined. 1. Liberal first-year seminary students are defined by those responses on Toch's Religious Belief Inventory which have been validated as reflecting a naturo-rationalistic1 approach to the Christian religion. Liberal first-year seminary students are also defined by their self-designation as liberal in theologi- cal beliefs on the preliminary questionnaire. The correlation between these two definitions is so high that they can be taken as meaning the same thing throughout this study. 2. Conservative first-year seminary students are defined by those responses on Toch's Religious Belief Inventory which have been validated as expressing a supernaturalistic2 view of the Christian religion. Like the liberal student, the conservative student is also defined by his own self-evaluation as being conservative on the preliminary questionnaire. Again, since 2. The source and goal of faith is man himself. There are many valid avenues of religious experience. The source and goal of faith is God alone as revealed in Jesus Christa -5- the correlation is so high between these two indices, they can be considered as including the same phenomena in this study. 3. Opinionated first-year seminary students are defined by their high scores on Rokeach's Opinionation Scale. Such students are those who accept or reject certain ideas flfifififliifii accept or reject people, depending on whether these people agree or disagree with those ideas. 4. A belief is an "existential proposition held by individual human beings regarding the structure and operation of the social and physical universe and one's place in it" (Thomas, 1966). It focuses primarily on "the probability dimension of a concept" (Fishbein, 1963). 5. An attitude is "the evaluative dimension of a concept" (Fishbein, 1963). 6. Pastoral responses are those written responses given by the first-year seminary students to sixteen selected parishioner problem statements. The dimensions used to evaluate their re- sponses will be defined in the discussion of Rank and De Roo's Counselor Response System.in Chapter III. Theory This study draws upon three general areas of research in attempt- ing to explore the pastoral counseling relationship. There has been -5- considerable research recently in counseling that seems to support the suggestion that although counselor experience and methods are impor- tant factors in the counseling process, there is a central core of factors related to counselor personality and attitudes which is cru- cial to the kind of counseling relationship established (Berenson, Carkhuff and Myrus, 1966; Rogers, 1959; Strupp, 1958b). Humane, permissive, empathetic counselors seem.to relate quite differently to clients than do more directive, moralistic, "objective" counselors. Another line of research focusing particularly on pastoral counseling suggests that the beliefs of the counselor effect the kinds of counseling responses he prefers (Mannoia, 1962; Miller, 1963). A third area of research suggests that there are significant correlations between certain personality dimensions and religious be- lief (Adorno, 1964; Rokeach, 1960; Withrow, 1960). These three lines of research raise the question as to which is more influential in pastoral counseling behavior: the pastoral counselor’s beliefs or other personality factors. Ranck (1961) found a substantial relationship between religious ideology and author- itarianism. However, the lack of a one-to-one relationship suggested considerable variability among conservatives. Adorno (1964, p. 730) suggests that religious rigidity and intolerance often reflect a superficial belief, and Rania (1965) found that high §;scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) may indicate sta- bility of belief rather than defensiveness. -7- Relating the above findings suggests the hypothesis that al- though religious belief is related to the counseling activity of the pastoral counselor, some measure of his attitude in relation to others may be a better predictor of his counseling activity. Opinionation or intolerance is closely related to dogmatism.and authoritarianism in much of the research (Adorno, 1964; Rokeach, 1960). Since this attitude by definition reflects the acceptance or rejection of others (depending on whether they agree or disagree with one's ideas), opinion- ation seems most appropriate to explore as a predictor of counselor behavior. Hypotheses The research hypotheses of this study will focus on the compara- tive effect of theological belief and opinionation on the responses of first-year seminary students in a quasi-pastoral counseling situa- tion. 1. There will be a difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. 2. There will be a difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. 3. The responses of first-year seminary students to selected parishioner problem statements will relate more to their -3- opinionation than to their belief system.3 Assumptions This study is based on the following assumptions. 1. Seminary students will be involved as pastors in counseling parishioners. 2. The way a student responds to those who come to hbm'with expressed need has significance. 3. The student's written response to recorded statements of parishioner problems is an adequate criterion for this study of how he will respond in a real situation. Limitations 1. It is not possible to control for all the variables that may influence the data collected, but the sample size and geo- graphical and environmental differences of the respondents should repress any systematic influence. 2. It would be desirable to sample experienced pastoral counse- lors, but the problem of controlling for possible contamination by other variables, such as training, was considered too great for this study. 3. These hypotheses are restated with sub-hypotheses in Chapter III. -9- 3. The validity of written responses as representative of counseling responses can be questioned, but the introduction of this artificiality seems warranted in view of the improve- ment of experimental control and the reduction of expenditures. 4. The Opinionation Scale is limited in its having certain dated items; however, it was found in a pilot study to have a reliability consistent with previous studies reported. 5. This study is limited to first-year seminary students study- ing for the Protestant ministry. Organization of the Thesis In Chapter II the literature pertinent to this dissertation is reviewed. In Chapter III the method and procedure of the study are described. Chapter IV is devoted to the analysis of the data and statistical results. Chapter V contains the summary and conclusions. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The theoretical bases of this study grow out of three foci of literature and research on the counseling process: (1) the theoreti- cal or philosophical orientation of the counselor in relation to counseling technique and process; (2) the relationship of personality to religious beliefs; and (3) the effect of counselor personality and attitudes on the counseling relationship. Special attention will be given to the two studies which bear directly on this dissertation. Since research is reviewed which relates to other forms of counsel- ing, as well as to pastoral counseling, a preliminary consideration will be given to literature in which pastoral counseling is compared with other counseling. Pastoral Counseling in Relation to Other Counseling Carkhuff (1966), in reviewing the literature on counseling research, theory, and practice for 1965, concludes that "there are two phases to all counseling processes: the downward or inward phase, during which the counselor focuses upon the therapeutic relationship in providing high levels of understanding and other facilitating con- ditions so that the client will experience the rapport and freedom necessary for the self-exploration of his problem areas, and (2) the upward or outward phase, or the period of emergent directionality, -10... -11- where the counselor does whatever is necessary to enable the client to achieve his goals." He suggests that there is a core of facili- tating dimensions shared by all counseling and therapeutic processes, which is then complimented by the methods or "preferred modes of treatment" of the particular counselor. That pastoral counseling can be included in Carkhuff's conclu- sion is supported by Christensen (1966) when he suggests that "pastoral counseling should be recognized for what it is -- psychotherapy done by a minister using psychological methods, within the framework of a religious orientation." He seems to suggest that the techniques and methods are similar, as well as the core relationship. Moynihan (Durnall, Moynihan and Wrenn, 1958) takes the position that the pastoral counselor has a spiritual function quite different than other counselors, and, therefore, will use different means, such as preaching, religious instruction, administering sacraments, and praying. Thus, his counseling will reflect these other means and will be more a logotherapy rather than a psychotherapy. However, Becker (1958) found a high similarity between pastoral counseling and psychotherapy in the nature of the ideal relationship. Faber and van der Schoot (1966), drawing heavily on Rogerian theory, distinguish two phases or dhmensions of pastoral counseling. The first, or horizontal phase, is the meeting of persons facilitated by the pastor’s communication of empathetic understanding and love, and the second, or vertical phase, is the communication with God -12- that results from the pastor’s appropriately timed "witness" to the spiritual dimension. Clinebell (1966) proposes several methods and techniques in pastoral counseling growing out of much current research in psycho- therapy, but he warns that counseling procedures are only helpful ‘within the context of a therapeutic, facilitating, or reconciling relationship that has been established. He stresses the uniqueness of pastoral counseling in that its context and goals are religious. In general, the literature indicates a communality between pastoral counseling and other forms of counseling in the basic thera— peutic relationship that must be established. The uniqueness of pastoral counseling lies in the goals and certain methods which spring out of the theological context and orientation of the pastoral coun- seling. Philosophical Orientation in Relation to Counseling Moynihan (1957), reviewing the literature on the "Philosophical Aspects of Guidance" from 1952 to 1957, and Wilkins and Perlmutter (1960), doing a review from.l957 to 1959, found a paucity of articles and books dealing directly with the philosophical foundations of guidance. That counselors do operate from.a philosophical position was indicated more implicitly than explicitly. Moynihan cited such factors as concept of man, philosophical positions of other related fields, and related fields of psychology as influencing one's ~13— philosophy of counseling. Stroup (1957) suggested five categories into which efforts of theorizing may be placed: looking to the commu- nity, ontological theory, mystic theory, anthropological theory, and historical theories. Much of the literature dwells on the problems and needs of a philosophical position rather than stating one or relating it to the counseling situation. Walker and Peiffer (1957) discussed the prob- lems of goals in counseling that have been suggested. They found adjustment in self-terms, happiness, and psychological autonomy as unsatisfactory, because there must be some social relationship. They also found problems with adjustment in social terms, values of the counselor, and general or combined goals. They raised many questions, but offered no solutions nor even any direction for solutions. Arbuckle (1958) raised five issues in the form of questions that need to be explored in counselor training: (1) the counselor's self-concept as it influences his counseling, (2) the influence of the counselor’s religious orientation or lack of it, (3) the counse- lor's view of the nature of man, (4) the nature of the counselor's responsibility, (5) the nature of the counselor's education. Wrenn (1959), writing for the Fifty-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, reviewed five philosophies that may be the basis of personnel services: Rationalism, Idealism, Realism, Experimentalism, and Existentialism. Then after reviewing the theories of personality found in Hall and Lindzey (1957), he attempted a syn- thesis of psychology and philosophy for personnel work. In psychology -14- he proposed an eclecticism strongly influenced by Murphy's biosocial theory, while in philosophy he indicated experimentalism to be the only satisfying approach today. It is regrettable that Wrenn gives little support for his choices either in theory or research. He simply finds them satisfying. One counselor who attempted a systematic statement of the principles underlying her counseling left much wanting (Tyler, 1958). Her "theorizing" about counseling lacked in being genuine theory in the form of testable hypotheses. Froehlich (1957) attempts to indicate how he carries his view of man into the counseling relationship, although he seems to be stressing technique more than a philosophical view. Several articles advocate that the Freudian view of sickness does not do justice to what is going on in terms of values in neuro- sis (Lowe, 1964; Mowrer, 1960; Smith, 1961). Mowrer sees the client not so much anxious, as guilty (1957, 1964). walters (1958, p. 244) indicates that the transition from pure to applied science involves value judgments, and in "psychotherapy, psychology as a science thus becomes the servant of ethical judgments and, in some measure, the value system of the therapist." Generally, the research centers around the means theories of the counselors, comparing various schools of counseling or psychotherapy in terms of the process of effects on the client in the interview. One exception found was a study (Gatch, 1963) of "The Effect of a Philosophic -15- Commitment to Psychic Determinism.on the Behavior of the Psychothera- pist." In this study, one tape of a therapeutic interview was obtained from.each of ten psychoanalytic and ten existential therapists. Every verbal statement of each therapist was analyzed by Strupp's Multidi- mensional System (Strupp, 1957). The results indicated no significant difference between orthodox and existential analysts in the number of verbal statements referring to the past nor in the number of inter- pretations hypothesized as referring to causal mechanisms. However, existentialists had significantly more verbalizations related to choice, decision, and responsibility. A study by Fiedler (1950) suggests that experience is more important in establishing an ideal therapeutic relationship than is theoretical orientation. He obtained one interview each between the sixth and tenth sessions from ten psychotherapists: four psycho- analytically oriented, four non-directive, and two Adlerian therapists. The therapists were selected to provide novices and experts from each school. After listening to each interview, the judges sorted 75 statements about the therapeutic relationship into seven categories, ranging from.most characteristic of the session to least character- istic. The results showed that: (l) experts of any of the three schools created a more ideal relationship than did non-experts, (2) experts of one school created a relationship more simdlar to that created by experts of other schools than to the relationship created by non-experts of their own school, and (3) the most important differ- entiating dimension between experts and non-experts was the ability to understand, communicate, and maintain rapport. -15- Fiedler’s study does not evaluate effectiveness, only the thera- peutic relationship. Nothing is done to account for the difference in responses which may be due to the kind of client. Nor does this study indicate how the different schools may act in the relationship established. Considerable research has been done by Strupp in attempting to compare therapists’ activities. In comparing eight Rogerian psy- chologists with seven who were psychoanalytically oriented, Strupp (1955a) presented 27 short patient statements to them. The therapists' responses were analyzed by Bale's System of Interaction Process Analy- sis. The results showed that Rogerians preferred reflective responses, while the psychoanalytically oriented therapists were more distributed over the response categories with a preference for exploratory re- sponses. One wonders whether the artificiality of the test-like situation may have influenced the therapists to be on guard to respond as their school ought to respond. This may account in part for the difference from Fiedler's study. Strupp modified Bale's System to make it more effective for studying counseling interviews (1957b), then reported its application to a case history by Wolberg, a psychoanalyist, and Rogers, a client- centered therapist (1957a). The results showed each therapist's activities to be in keeping with his theoretical position. Strupp's study does not indicate the results of these differences, however. Many problems, such as defining agreed upon and testable goals of therapy and controlling for differences in clients, must be -17- surmounted before reaching that level of research. In a rather extensive research project by Strupp (1958b; 1959; 1960a; 1960b), 235 psychotherapists from hospitals, training centers, and therapeutic institutes in washington, Baltimore, New York, Perry Point, and Chicago, were shown a film of an initial interview of a middle—aged patient and asked to record their response at 28 points throughout the fiLm. Thirty seconds were allowed for their responses. The psychotherapists also completed a comprehensive questionnaire dis- cussing diagnosis, prognosis, and related matters. In a partial report of this study (1958a), 64 psychoanalytically oriented psychologists were compared with 14 Rogerian psychologists on their responses and evaluations. 'Analysis of the responses was according to Strupp's Multidimensional System. There was no significant difference in diagnosis, but the Rogerians judged the prognosis to be more favorable at a significant level and indicated a more positive attitude toward the client. The Rogerians also were more reluctant to set up goals and differed significantly on expected problems and planned approach in therapy. The Rogerians’ communications to the client were 67 per cent reflective-of-feeling, whereas the analytic group preferred ex- ploratory questions (40 per cent). It is regrettable that there was such a marked difference in sample sizes. In fact, the method of sampling for the whole study is not clear. There seems to be a marked homogeneity in the Rogerian group (eight were from the University of Chicago Counseling Center) in contrast to a more diverse analytic group. -13- An interesting result of the whole study of 237 therapists seemed to be the division of the therapists into two groups (Strupp, 1958b). Group I therapists appeared to be more humane, more per- missive, and more therapeutic. They had a positive attitude toward the client, showed a favorable prognosis, and preferred hysteria as a diagnosis. They were generally low in experience. Group II thera- pists were more directive, disciplinarian, moralistic, and harsh. They showed a negative attitude, poor prognosis, and preferred such cate- gories as paranoid or character disorder as the diagnosis. Group II was relatively high in experience. Strupp concluded, "we may wonder whether inexperienced therapists are more accepting of the patient because of youthful enthusiasm, or whether the more experienced prac- titioners are more disillusioned, more discouraged, or simply more realistic" (p. 66). The study points up a significant relationship between prognosis and how one feels about the client. The question then is to what degree does the therapist's expectations in therapy actually bring the results sought? Another study by wrenn (1960), to discover whether counselors from different theoretical orientations would respond differently to specific situations selected to maximize differences, was not conclusive. Thirteen excerpts were selected from counseling inter- views and administered to 32 counselors. These counselors were selected on the basis of following a particular theory, having ten or more years' experience, and possessing a Ph.D. degree. These 32 were also asked to distribute the foam to colleagues whom they thought -19- were oriented toward particular schools of thought. This last step must certainly have weakened the control on the sample! The responses of the 54 returned forms were evaluated on Bale's Interaction Pro- cess Analysis, Degree of Lead (Robinson, 1950), Response to Core of Client Remark (Robinson), Assignment of Responsibility (Robinson), and Response to Content of Feeling Aspects (Robinson). The results showed that only one of the five dhmensions gave a significant differ- ence: Category 6 (reflection) of Bale's categories at the .01 level. In other words, the experts all seemed to be quite similar in spite of the attempt to select them from differing schools and give them situations chosen to point up their differences. This study might have been more discerning had the respondents been given a time limit as on Strupp's study (1958b) and had the sample been better con- trolled. In summary, the literature and research is inconclusive as to the relationship of theory and actual counseling activities. Perhaps Strupp's extensive study might have shown different results had differ- ent or more clients been filmed. It could be said that the research generally shows a similarity among experts in the E$E§.°f relationship they establish but some difference in the way they work‘i§_that re- lationship, depending on their orientation. Personality in Relation to Religious Beliefs Several studies have attempted to explore the relationship between religious beliefs and certain personality variables. Kanter -20- (1955), using the California §_Sca1e, content analysis of sermons, and an open-mindedness questionnaire, distinguished humanist from authoritarian clergyman. He concluded that the humanist clergyman is concerned with people, while the authoritarian clergyman "is con- cerned only with getting people right with God." Withrow (1960) found liberal and conservative students as distinguished on Cloyd C. Gustafson's Scale of Religious Belief to be significantly different on several dimensions of Edward’s Personal Preference Scale. Conser- vatives were higher on order, deference, and abasement, while liberals were higher on heterosexuality and intraception. In a study of various religious groups in relation to general intolerance and authoritarianism, Rokeach (1960) sampled students at Michigan State University and in certain New York City colleges. He found in a Sample of 202 psychology students at Michigan State University that the Catholics scored significantly higher than Pro- testants and non-believers on the Opinionation Scale, Dogmatism Scale, §_Scale, and Ethnocentrism Scale. In the sample of 207 New York City psychology students, although the differences are not sig- nificant, the non-believers scored higher than Catholics and Protes- tants on the Opinionation Scale but lower than Catholics and Protes- tants on the §_Scale and Ethnocentrism Scale. This relates to other results in Rokeach's study of the Open and Closed Mind that indicate his scales pick up both left and right dogmatism or opinionation, whereas the §_and Ethnocentrism Scales are more biased toward right authoritarianism. -21- Kania (1965), in a study of defensiveness in Protestant theo- logical seminary students, found a positive correlation between dog- matism (high) and anxiety and between dogmatism.and conservatism. Most unusual was the indication that high §_scores on the MMPI indicate less dogmatic, more open and flexible subjects among Protestant theo- logical students. French (1947) found subjects with highly organized religious attitudes to be persons "who consciously recognize and accept both strengths and weaknesses as part of their selves." On the other hand, those with less highly organized attitudes are persons who accept only what is good as part of their selves and repress or supress the bad. The latter may be similar to the kind of people Adorno (1964, p. 729) describes as divorced from the roots of a serious belief and, therefore, express certain formal properties of religion in an expression of rigidity and intolerance. Adorno also found through the F Scale a "rigid" low scorer who has to be regarded as "accidental in terms of personality" (p. 772). This person seems to be really disposed toward totalitarianism but accidentally gets tied to progressive movements. Such a person is likely to use cliches as much as the highly prejudiced, according to Adorno, and is often found among progressive young people whose maturity has not kept pace with their indoctrination. Saunders (1957) used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study the personality profiles of 108 seminary students from Yale Divinity School and 177 seminary students from Southern Baptist Theological -22- Seminary. He found little difference in overall profiles of the two groups on three of the indicators. Generally, both groups tended to be "extroverted" rather than "introverted," "feeling" rather than "thinking" oriented in relation to decision making, and "intuition" rather than "sensation" orientated in responses to simuli. On the fourth scale, the more theologically liberal Yale students were found to be less judgmental and more openaminded in contrast to the more conservative Southern Baptist students who tended to be quick in judgments. In a study of religious conservatism and liberalism in rela- tion to various personality variables, Ranck (1961) administered to 800 Protestant male theological students an anonymous questionnaire and personality tests, including the MMPI, Bernreuter, Authoritarian- ism, Wallen Food Aversion, Levinson-Lichenberg and McLean Scales of Religious Attitude and Belief. The students represented 28 theo- logical schools on a continuum from extreme liberalism to extreme conservatism. The results indicated that conservatism substantially correlated with authoritarianism, and correlated somewhat less, but significantly, with submissiveness. Liberalism showed significant but small correlations with overproductivity, impulsiveness, and feminine interests. A lack of a one-to-one relationship over the subjects between religious ideology and authoritarianism suggests considerable variability among conservatives in this regard, accord- ing to Ranck: In part this variability might be explaned by previous studies which suggest that tolerance is associated with -23- stability of religious convictions, self-acceptance rather than coerced conformity, and depth rather than superficial commitment, relatively independent of whether the nature of the religious ideology is con- servative or liberal (p. 35). The study results also indicate that among the conservatives may be many who are such because of psychological immaturity. It seems from these studies that religious conservatives tend to be more dogmatic, authoritarian and submissive, whereas liberals are less dogmatic, less judgmental, and more impulsive. There is some indication that an authoritarian type personality may be drawn to conservative Christianity, which may account for at least some of the differences found between liberals and conservatives. Attitudes in Relation to Counseling Several studies indicate the positive influence of personality variables on the counseling relationship (Strupp, 1959, 1960b; Truax and Carkhuff, 1965; Waskow, 1963). Waskow’s study, "Counselor Attitudes and Client Behavior," found an unexpected positive rela- tionship between the judgmentalness of the counselor and discussion of feelings on the part of the client. Waskow suggests that this may be accounted for by the confidence and assurance of the counselor. It seems likely that the definition chosen for judgmentalness as evaluative and advice giving may account in part for the positive relationship, since judgmentalness is more often taken to mean a feeling that the client is wrong, is inferior, or ought to know -24- better. It may be that the clients "discussed" feelings without "expressing" feelings with the judgmental counselor. Since the sam- ples were taken from cases lasting more than 20 interviews, perhaps they represent unsuccessful cases caught at the level of cognitive discussion with an authority figure without too much feeling being expressed. In an attempt to clarify the relationships of counselor domi- nance, experience, and client type with counselor directiveness, Bohn (1965) studied 60 male "experienced" and "inexperienced" counselors who were matched on their California Psychological Inventory dominance scores. These counselors were divided into high and low dominance groups. No significant difference in directiveness related to domi- nance was found, but there was significant difference in directiveness related to experience. The experienced counselors used less directive responses. The submissive client elicited more directiveness. Classifying 1962-63 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) Counseling and Guidance Institute students at Purdue University by grade and supervisor ranking, Millikan (1965) found that those classi- fied as effective counselors were less prejudiced as measured on the Bogardus Ethnic Distance Scale. Considerable research seems to have been done on counselor authoritarianism and dogmatism in relation to counseling. Jones (1962) hypothesized that authoritarian, untrained as therapists, psychology students would evidence rejection of individuals seeking life adjustment, -25- and that they would assume directive judgmental roles as therapists. Jones divided 60 undergraduate psychology students into 20 high, 20 middle, and 20 low scorers on the California 2 Scale. After viewing four films of initial psychiatric interviews, the students completed three questionnaires related to the patients. High §_scorers consistently demonstrated a more rejective attitude. They also were more directive and structured more. Differences were attenuated, however, by the inability of the §_Scale to discriminate between tolerant and intolerant liberals. In a rather unsophisticated study, Kemp (1962) divided 50 graduate students into a control and an experimental group. The groups were given the Dogmatism Scale and Porter's Test of Counselor Atti- tudes at the beginning and end of the college quarter. The experi- mental group had a counseling practicum, while the control group did not. There were no significant changes in the control group’s re- sponses, but in the experimental group there was significant change toward permissiveness and openness on all five Porter categories, for both the high dogmatism and low dogmatism.groups. The high dogmatism group, however, changed significantly from the hypothetical test situation to the actual counseling situation. In the actual situation, which did not permit studied responses acceptable to the classroom theory, the dogmatic counselors tended to fall back on earlier patterns of response. Kemp's study calls in question the assumption that ques- tionnaires with multiple choice counselor response foils are a valid measure of counselor behavior in actual counseling. -26- In an attempt to determine the relationship between the ability to acquire skill in interviewing, authoritarian attitudes, and level of anxiety, no correlation was found between Porter's Counseling Interview Test, the §.Sca1e, and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Dispenzieri, Angelo and Balkinsky, 1963). The authors suggest that a failure to show any relationship may have been due to "a lack of congruence between the phenomena of anxiety and authoritarianism and how the tests purport to measure these concepts" (p. 42). Cahoon studied 25 graduate students in a counseling psychology practicum at Ohio State university for attitudes and characteris- tics related to the counseling relationship (1963). Each counselor was seeing two undergraduate students. After the fifth interview, each client was asked to rate his counselor on the level of regard, congruence, empathetic understanding, and unconditional positive regard. The counselors were also scored on the Dogmatism Scale, Experiencing Scale, and Therapist's Orientation Questionnaire. Cahoon found that the counselor's experiencing level and degree of open- mindedness were significantly related to the counseling relationship as measured. The higher the experiencing level and the lower the dogmatism, the more favorable the relationship indicated. The coun- selor's stated attitudes, however, were not in general significantly related to the counseling relationship. These studies bear out the influence of counselor attitudes on the counseling relationship established. Generally, they indicate that more open, less prejudiced, less dogmatic counselors are less -27- directive, more permissive, and show more empathetic understanding and positive regard. Religious Beliefs in Relation to Pastoral Counseling There were only two studies found in the literature which focused directly on religious beliefs in relation to pastoral coun- seling. These two studies are also particularly relevant to this dissertation. Mannoia (1962) compared 210 ministers related to the National Counsel of Churches (NCC) and 173 ministers related to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in Michigan, to explore conserva- tive and liberal beliefs in relation to directive or non-directive counseling response preferences. A general background questionnaire, Toch and Anderson's Religious Beliefs Inventory, and Mannoia's Inter- view Sets with directive and non-directive response foils were mailed to these 383 ministers in Michigan. There were 241 questionnaires returned: 124 from the NCC ministers and 115 from the NAB ministers. Mannoia found that: (1) liberal ministers preferred more non- directive responses than directive in both mean split and extreme groups; (2) conservative ministers preferred more directive responses than non-directive in the extreme group, but the mean split group was not significant; (3) significantly more liberal ministers chose non-directive responses than did conservatives, and significantly more conservatives chose directive responses; and (4) significantly ‘more liberal ministers than conservative ministers chose non-directive -23- responses for each of the problem areas (emotional, spiritual, ethical, marriage). It is possible that the differences in part may reflect the greater exposure of the liberal group to training and principles in counseling in their seminary experience. It was mainly for this reason that Miller chose to sample first-year seminary students in a similar study(l963). ‘Miller mailed a religious belief questionnaire, Toch and Anderson's Religious Belief Inventory, and Mannoia's Inter- view Sets to 489 first-year seminary students in 14 seminaries. Of the 489 questionnaires sent out, 391 were returned over a five week period. Miller found that: (1) both liberal and conservative first- year seminary students preferred non-directive responses; (2) sig- nificantly more liberal students chose non-directive responses; (3) the liberals chose more non-directive responses in religious and marital problem areas; and (4) there was no significant difference in pre- ferences for non-directive responses in ethical and emotional problem area 8 o It seems that both Mannoia’s study and Miller's study may be questioned on their validity in the light of Kemp's finding (1962), that more dogmatic counselors change from more permissive responses to more directive responses when moving from a hypothetical test situation to the actual counseling situation. The question also arises as to the reliability of questionnaires filled out at the leisure of -29- the students in an uncontrolled situation. How long did they take? How much collaboration may there have been? Summary of the Review of Literature First, in this chapter a number of studies have been reviewed which suggest a basic similarity between pastoral counseling and other forms of counseling in the therapeutic relationship that is established, but a uniqueness in certain goals and methods of pastoral counseling due to its religious context. Second, literature and research bearing on theory and philosophical orientation in relation to counseling was reviewed. Generally, the material reviewed shows a sbmilarity among experts in the kind of relationship established in counseling but some difference in the methods or skills employed in that relationship, depending on their orientation. Third, studies of the relationship between religious belief and certain personality variables were explored. Religious conservatives were generally found to be more dogmatic, authoritarian and somewhat more submissive than liberals, who appeared to be less dogmatic, less judgmental, and more impulsive. Fourth, a number of studies exploring counselor attitudes in relation to counseling were reviewed, which generally indicate that more open, less prejudiced, less dogmatic counselors are less directive and show more empathetic understanding and positive regard. Finally, two studies of religious belief in relation to pastoral counseling were reviewed which bear directly on this disserta- tion. Both studies indicate that more conservative Protestant pastoral -30- counselors prefer more directive counseling responses than do liberal pastoral counselors. A theoretical consideration of this review of literature suggests that the untrained conservative seminary student with a greater con- cern for communicating a message because of his theological orientation toward a supernatural view, will tend to be more directive in the counseling relationship. In contrast, because of having a more naturalistic orientation toward man, the liberal, with no Gospel to communicate, will tend to be more permissive and person-centered in his counseling relationship. Furthermore, the more intolerant student will tend also to be more directive and content-centered than the less tolerant student. However, Ranck's study (1961) and French's research (1947) suggest that a measure of intolerance relating to persons who agree or disagree with one's opinions may be a better predictor of counseling behavior than a scale of religious beliefs, since it will more likely distinguish the authoritarian personality, whereas a religious belief scale will not distinguish the healthy commitment from the neurotic commitment of the conservative, nor catch the possible intolerant liberal. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE The design of this study is based on the findings and impli- cations referred to in the research studies reported in Chapter II. The design of the present research includes a description of the sample selected, the instruments used in measurement, and the pro- cedures of analysis. The Protestant Theological Seminaries The population with which the present study is concerned is that of Protestant theological seminary students who are presently involved in their first year of theological study in some graduate school of theology accredited by the American Association of Theo- logical Schools (AATS). The seminaries from which the sample was drawn were selected in order to assure a representation along a continuum from liberal to conservative theological belief. Evidence from other studies and geographical representations listed in catalogs indicated that with little exception at least half of the students in any seminary came from a state other than that in which the seminary was located. The geographical diversity of students seemed to justify drawing the sample from.achools selected from the North Central states as -31- -32- representative of the United States, as long as the theological beliefs were divergent. Sample Selection The first step in selecting the sample was to compile a list of all the theological seminaries in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This list was drawn from the directory of the American Association of Theological Schools. The schools were then classified as either liberal or conservative on the basis of their theological position as determined by the statements in their catalogs, their relationships to known conservative or liberal associations, and the writings of the faculties. Four seminaries from each classification were selected, the first two from each being used as the sample. The remaining two seminaries in each classification were held as alternates in the event that one of the first two seminaries of either theological persuasion did not agree to participate. The Presidents and/or Deans of the four initial sample schools were contacted by letter, (see sample in the Appendix) followed by a phone call approximately six days later. One school from the con- servative sample agreed to cooperate as did the first alternate. Neither of the initial sample of the liberal schools could cooperate due to problems of scheduling, and only one of the alternates could participate. This necessitated drawing a second random sample of schools from the remaining liberal list. One school of this second sample agreed to participate. The theological schools composing this sample, together with their denominational affiliation and theological -33- position assigned, are shown in Table 3:1. Table 3:1 Seminaries Included in Sample Seminary Denominational Theological Position Affiliation Assigned Concordia Theological The Lutheran Church, Conservative Seminary Missouri Synod Lutheran School of The Lutheran Church Liberal Theology, Rock in America Island Campus Methodist Theological Methodist Liberal School in Ohio Trinity Evangelical Evangelical Free Church Conservative Divinity School of America The second step in selecting the sample was to limit it to male, first-year seminary students enrolled in the program leading to a Bachelor of Divinity degree. Only male students were used because there is a known variance between female and male norms, and the separate data and analysis necessary were not suited to the purposes of the present study. First-year seminary students were chosen because they are likely to be more heterogeneous at the beginning of their training and because this would tend to limit the influence of extra- neous variables, such as curriculum, clinical training, or pastoral experience, due to the nature of the particular seminary training. -34- The third step was to arrange testing times at which the writer personally administered a general questionnaire, the taped Interview Set, the Religious Belief Inventory, and the Opinionation Scale in a group setting. This procedure was considered most appropriate to standardize the testing situation and to control variability that might occur due to collaboration or to the amount of time taken with tests administered by mail. Dimensions of the Sample There was a total of 271 male students enrolled in the first- year Bachelor of Divinity degree programs in the four schools of this study. Of this number, 144 students participated in the study. This represents 53% of the total available sample selected. It is regretta- ble that a more complete sample was not obtained, but the size was considered acceptable in view of the increased validity of the testing procedure as representative of the pastoral counseling situation.1 With the exception of one seminary, the testing sessions were voluntary, and discussions with representatives from the faculty and students of the four seminaries involved indicated that there seemed to be no systematic selectivity related to the sample size. The academic level of the students was considered consistant, because the AATS requires four years of college as a prerequisite for 1. Although a larger sample might have been obtained through a mailed questionnaire, such a procedure was considered to be less valid for the purposes of this study. The effect of a smaller proportion of the total possible sample on the reliability and validity of the study was considered less serious than the effects related to a mailed questionnaire. -35- for admission to a member seminary. The age range was from 20 to 47, the mean being 25.4. However, 87% of the sample fell between ages 20 and 30 which suggests that there was insignificant variance due to age. The marital status of the sample was not considered an influ- ential factor. There were 78 married students in the sample and 62 single students. Since counseling experience was considered an important possible influence on the study, the students were asked to indicate the number of counseling courses they had taken. In the sample, 33 students had had one course of more. A test of significance was run to ascertain whether there was any variance associated with this training. The analysis of the test is reported in Chapter IV. Liberal and Conservative Subjects The selection was made for this study with the intention of obtaining a sample having a continuum of theological belief. Although the seminary a student chooses usually gives some indication of his theological belief, a more accurate empirical criteria is desirable. It is possible, for example, that a student of a conservative persua- sion may be studying at a liberal seminary. In order to obtain a more reliable measure of the subject’s theological position, each student was administered a Belief Inventory and also was asked to indicate on a prelbminary information sheet what he considered his theological position to be. It was possible by -35- these means to make a highly accurate assignment of persons to either the liberal or conservative category on a rather sound empirical basis. The Instruments of Measurement Three instruments were used to measure the variables being considered in the present study. These instruments and the resultant sample classification are discussed in the following paragraphs. The Religious Belief Inventory Toch and Anderson (1964) developed the Religious Belief Inven- tory (RBI) to explore the nature and content of religious beliefs in relation to denominational affiliation. It is possible to distinguish four major religious classifications by means of the inventory: (1) the fundamental conservative, (2) the orthodox conservative, (3) the secu- lar liberal, and (4) the religious liberal. Since the present study was concerned only with a conservative/liberal classification, the instrument was scored to yield a continuum instead of a category. The RBI was originally constructed from statements of belief about such subjects as God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, the church, Epistomology and Metaphysics. Twenty-one ministers were asked to evaluate each of 146 statements covering the above subjects and indi- cate whether the statements reflected a liberal or a conservative belief. The seventeen ministers who responded in the initial evalua- tion were unanimous in classifying 101 items as to either liberal or conservative. To check the reliability of the inventory, an -37- independent sample of ministers in Jackson, Michigan were asked to classify the same 101 items. The Michigan ministers yielded a similar classification. The final instrument as used in the present study was a shortened form of 60 items, consisting of 30 conservative and 30 liberal statements (see Appendix D). The reliability of the RBI was obtained by the Spearman-Brown method of split-half reliability. The coefficient yielded was .94. In order to validate the instrument for purposes of this study, correlation coefficients were obtained comparing the subject's self- rating of conservative/liberal with the estimate of his beliefs as measured by the RBI. When treating the Belief Inventory as a continu- ous variable and the self-analysis as a dichotomous variable, a point biserial reliability coefficient of .76 was yielded. Treating both variables as dichotomous, a phi coefficient of .80 was obtained. In the light of the correlations obtained between the RBI and the self- analysis, the Religious Belief Inventory can be considered a valid instrument to use as a measure of the subject's theological position. In order to make the RBI response form similar to the Opiniona- tion Scale and to intensify the possibility of a correlation between the two instruments, a seven place Likert-type response set was used. However, the center response was eliminated, as in the Opinionation Scale, leaving three degrees of agree and three degrees of disagree from which to choose. The Belief Inventory was then scored in the same manner as the Opinionation Scale by adding four to each item response to yield a positive score. Such a method of scoring made it -33- possible to obtain a total for the conservative items and a total for the liberal items. Also, by reversing the values for the liberal items, it was possible to obtain a total score which reflected a liberal/ conservative continuum: the lower the score, the more liberal the subject; the higher the score, the more conservative the subject. .§£l$310“3 Belief Sample Classification When examining the 144 questionnaires, four were eliminated being incomplete. The remaining 140 were analyzed to classify the subjects as liberal or conservative according to the Religious Belief Inventory. The mean of the conservative responses was 139.607; the standard deviation was 28.608. The mean of the liberal responses was 65.086; the standard deviation was 23.631. The sample was dichotomized on the basis of the means and standard deviation. Mean-Split Group. To designate the liberals and the conserva- tives, those subjects who scored above the liberal mean and below the conservative mean were classified as liberal, and those subjects who scored below the liberal mean and above the conservative mean were classified as conservative. By this method of mean-split division, there were 41 (29%) liberals and 69 (49%) conservatives. The remaining 30 (21%) fell in neither classification. Extreme Group. In order to intensify the dichotomy of theologi- cal belief, those subjects scoring one standard deviation above the mean in one category and below the mean in the other were selected. -39- There were 24 (17%) liberals and 19 (14%) conservatives in the extreme group. The Opinionation Scale Rokeach (1960, p.20) designed the Opinionation Scale "to measure individual differences in the extent to which we accept and reject others depending on whether they agree or disagree with us." After several revisions, the final instrument consisted of 40 two-part state- ments on a variety of topics, such as God, capitalism, communism, socialized medicine, etc. One part of each statement reflected a be- lief about the topic, while the other part expressed an acceptance or rejection of people agreeing or disagreeing with the belief. In order to have a measure of general intolerance, it was necessary to avoid specific ideological content by constructing a balanced scale. Thus, half of the items indicated left opinionation and half expressed right opinionation. To further balance the scale, each half was divided equally between opinionated acceptance and opinionated rejection. Agreement or disagreement was allowed on a seven-place scale from +3 to -3. The 0 point was excluded in order to force responses toward agreement or disagreement. For purposes of scoring, the scale was converted to a one to seven scale by adding a constant of four to each item score. The total opinionation score was the sum of the score obtained on all items on the test, or right opinionation plus left opinionation. Rokeach's Opinionation Scale was selected because of its attempt to catch intolerance toward others, rather than just the intensity of -4o- belief about ideas. Also, the scale was so constructed as to measure both right and left opinionation, whereas other scales, such as the Ethnocentrism Scale, not only seem.to be limited to racial or ethnic intolerance, but according to Rokeach's research, tend to measure primarily right intolerance and are rather insensitive to left intoler- ance (1960, p.125). In attempting to validate the Opinionation Scale, Rokeach in- vited graduate faculty of the College of Arts and Letters of Michigan State university to select graduate students whom they considered high or low in dogmatism. The 13 high subjects and 16 low subjects obtained did not differ on the Opinionation Scale. However, neither did they differ on the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960), the California F Scale, nor the Ethnocentrism Scale (Adorno, et al., 1950). In a second study, psychology graduate students were asked to select high and low dogmatic persons from among their friends. The 10 high and 10 low subjects obtained differed very significantly when administered the Opinionation Scale. Further validation was sought by administering the Scale to college students in mid-western, New York, and English universities. The scores on the Opinionation Scale, when compared with the religious and political position of these students and with their scores on the Dogmatism Scale, F Scale, and Ethnocentrism Scale, indicated that those expected to score high on the Opinionation Scale, in fact, did so. Furthermore, the way the Opinionation scores related to the F and Ethnocentrism scores indicated that the Opinionation Scale was a better measure of general intolerance. -41- The reliability of the Opinionation Scale in the present study was tested by means of the Spearman-Brown method of split-half corre- lation. The total scores for the odd items were correlated with the total scores for the even items. The resultant correlation, when corrected for a test twice as long, was .79. This seems quite satis- factory for the purposes of this study, in view of the similar corre- 1ations obtained in Rokeach's study. Opinionation Sample Classification The 140 questionnaires in the sample were analyzed to classify the subjects as tolerant or intolerant according to the Opinionation Scale. The mean of the scores on the Opinionation Scale was 139.107, and the standard deviation was 19.257. The sample was dichotomized on the basis of the mean and the standard deviation. The Mean-Split Groups. Those subjects scoring above the mean were considered intolerant for the purposes of this study, and those scoring below the mean were considered tolerant. On this basis, 80 (58%) of the subjects were classified as intolerant and 60 (42%) as tolerant. The Extreme Groups. Those subjects scoring one standard devia- tion above the mean and one standard deviation below the mean were classified respectively as extreme in intolerance and tolerance. According to this classification, there were 18 (13%) tolerant and 19 (14%) intolerant subjects in the extreme groups. -42- The Interview Sets The Interview Sets were developed by Mannoia for his doctoral dissertation (1962). They consist of 16 selected parishioner problem statements in four major areas: religious, emotional, marital, and ethical. Mannoia designed the sets to differentiate preferences for directive or non-directive responses. On the basis of the evaluation of eight expert judges in the field of counseling, Mannoia developed a directive and a non-directive foil for each problem statement. The validity of such forced choice responses as a measure of counseling behavior may be questioned in view of the findings in Kemp's study (1962).2 Furthermore, the practice of sending out a questionnaire by mail to which the subject may respond in an uncontrolled situation, is also questionable as a valid reflection of his counseling behavior. For these reasons, it was decided in the present study that the 16 problem statements should be put on tape to simulate more closely the parishioner in a counseling relationship, and also to let the subjects give a free written response in a controlled situation. Therefore, the 16 parishioner statements were recorded on tape by one man and one ‘woman, to simulate the expression of male and female parishioners, and also to eliminate the variability that might result from a differ- ent person for each statement. A 40 second interval was inserted between each statement to allow sufficient time for the subjects to 2. Kemp found that dogmatic students chose responses reflecting course theory in a multiple choice test, but tended to revert to old behavior in the actual counseling situation. -43- respond, but also to simulate the extemporaneity of the counseling situation. Analysis of Interview Set Responses Several possible methods of evaluating the pastoral counseling responses to the Interview Sets were considered, such as Porter's categories of counselor activity (1949) or Strupp's adaptation of Bale's System of Interaction process analysis (1957b). However, methods such as Porter's and Strupp's were better suited to evaluating the pro- cess of interaction between one client and therapist, whereas the pre- sent study was designed to focus on the pattern of the relationship established over several different presenting problem statements. The methods reviewed also seemed too sophisticated for the level of func- tioning to be expected from first-year seminary students. Therefore, it was decided to modify Rank and De Roo's Counselor Response System as a guide for evaluating the pastoral counseling responses (1965).3 The resulting system consisted of five of Rank and De Roo's original categories: (1) the affective/cognitive content dimension, (2) the content follow/shift dimension, (3) the control dimension (restrictive/ expansive), (4) the temporal dimension (present vs. past and future), and (5) the client/other referent dimension. The affective/cognitive change dimension was not included be- cause the counselor responses were not on tape, and it would be difficult for the judges to pick up changes in feeling level in relation to the 3. See Appendix:F for definitions and descriptions of the dimensions which were provided the judges. -44- taped parishioner statements. Another consideration which led to dropping the affective/cognitive change dimension was the fact that the parishioner problem statements were arranged so that all but four were affective statements.. The affective/cognitive arrangement was based on the evaluation of five independent judges, so that in each problem area there were three affective statements and one cognitive statement.4 The four cognitive statements were left in to provide a means of checking the validity of the affective responses to the parishioner statements. Thus, the one affective/cognitive content dimension was deemed sufficient to evaluate the degree to which the respondents followed the affective content of the parishioner problem statement 8 . A religious/non-religious dimension was added for the purposes of the present study to indicate any difference in preferences for religious responses. Three judges were given three training sessions and were asked to evaluate two sets of pastoral responses from students other than the sample included in the study.5 When the interjudge reliabilities were satisfactory on the trial evaluations, the judges were given the Interview Sets from the sample to evaluate on the six dimensions. 4. The typescript of the 16 parishioner problem statements in Appendix E indicates the sex of the parishioner and the affect expressed for each statement. 5. Two judges were women: one a graduate student with a Master's degree in counseling, one a housewife who had participated in group counseling. The third judge was a man with a B.A. in psychology, and who was currently conducting industrial leadership training groups. -45- The interjudge reliabilities of the average ratings were esti- mated for the sample using Hoyt's Analysis of Variance (Guilford, 1954, p.395). Table 3:2 shows the reliability coefficients obtained for the average ratings of each dimension of the Counselor Response System. The reliabilities were considered adequate for this study. Table 3:2 Interjudge Reliability for Three Judges Over Dimensions of Counselor Response System Dimension Reliability Coefficient Affective/Cognitive content .78 General content follow/shift .69 Control (Restrictive/expansive) .77 Temporal (Present-past/future) .67 Referent (Parishioner/other) .77 Religious/Non—religious .96 The average score for the three judges across the 16 items of the Interview Set was calculated for each dimension on the Counselor Response System as modified for this study. The subjects were then classified in the two categories for each of the six dimensions. Those subjects with an average of 9.66 responses or more classified in either category were regarded as "significant;" those with an average classi- fication of 9.33 to 6.66 in either category were considered "inconsistent;" —46- and those with five or more omissions were considered "omissions." Of the "omissions," any with two-thirds or more responses classified in either category were considered "significant." Hypotheses to be Tested The instruments discussed in the preceding section of this chapter were used to test the three hypotheses of the present study. Null Hypothesis 1 There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. The sub-hypotheses in relation to this hypothesis are as follows: a. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for affective or cognitive responses to selected parishioner problem statements. b. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in following the general content of selected parishioner problem statements. c. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for expan- sive or restrictive responses to selected parishioner problem statement 8 . d. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their temporal reference f. -47- in response to selected parishioner problem statements. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for refer- ences to the parishioner or other in responses to selected parishioner problem statements. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for religious or non-religious responses to selected parishioner problem statements . Null Hypothesis 2 There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. The sub-hypotheses are as follows: b. C. There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for affec- tive or cognitive responses to selected parishioner problem statements 0 There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in following the general content of selected parishioner problem statements. There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for expan- sive or restrictive responses to selected parishioner problem statements a d. f. -43- There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their temporal reference in response to selected parishioner problem statements. There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for refer- ences to the parishioner or other in responses to selected parishioner problem statements. There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for religious or non-religious responses to selected parishioner problem statements . Null Hypothesis 3 There will be no difference in the relation of the responses of first year seminary students to their opinionation and to their theo- logical belief system. The sub-hypotheses are: The preference for affective or cognitive responses to selected parishioner prdblem.statements will be related no more to the level of intolerance than to the theological belief system of first-year seminary students. The preference for following the general content or shifting in responses to selected parishioner problem statements will be related no more to the level of intolerance than to the theological belief system of first-year seminary students. The preference for expansive or restrictive responses to selected parishioner problem statements will be related no -49- more to the level of intolerance than to the theological belief system of first-year seminary students. The preference to respond to the present situation of the parishioner or to the past and future in response to selected parishioner problem statements will be related no more to the level of intolerance than to the theological belief system of first-year seminary students. The preference to refer to the parishioner or other in response to selected parishioner problem statements will be related no more to the level of intolerance than to the theological belief system of first-year seminary students. The preference for religious or other responses to selected parishioner problem.statements will be related no more to the level of intolerance than to the theological belief system of first-year seminary students. Analysis of Data The first two major hypotheses focus on the data in terms of categories. The Chi Square test for two independent samples was best suited for testing the dichotomous data generated. Because of the lower reliability of some of the instruments and the variability due to the differences in human personality, the .05 level of signi- ficance seemed appropriate for accepting or rejecting the null hypo- Since N was expected to be greater than 20 and the frequencies in each cell greater than 5, X2 - N (IAD - BCI - €62 with one degree (A+B)(c+n) (A+c) (3+n) of freedom was the model used. following dichotomies: l. Mean-split group on the Average interjudge dimension. Average interjudge dimension. Average interjudge Average interjudge . Average interjudge Average interjudge dimension. -50- X2 values were determined for the Religious Belief Inventory and: score on the Affective/Cognitive score score score score score on on on on on the the the the the 2. Extreme group split on the Religious f. Average interjudge score on the dimension. Average interjudge dimension. Average interjudge Average interjudge Average interjudge Average interjudge dimension . 3. Mean-split group on the b. Average interjudge dimension. Average interjudge dimension. . Average interjudge . Average interjudge Average interjudge score score score score score on on on on on the the the the the Opinionation score on the score on the score on the score on the score on the Content Follow/Shift Control dimension. Temporal dimension. Referent dimension. Religious/Non-religious Belief Inventory and: Affective/Cognitive Content Follow/Shift Control dimension. Temporal dimension. Referent dimension. Religious/Non-religious Scale and: Affective/Cognitive Content Follow/Shift Control dimension. Temporal dbmension. Referent dimension. -51- f. Average interjudge score on the Religious/Non-religious dimension. 4. Extreme group split on the Opinionation Scale and: a. Average interjudge score on the Affective/Cognitive dimension. b. Average interjudge score on the Content Follow/Shift dimension. c. Average interjudge score on the Control dimension. d. Average interjudge score on the Temporal dimension. e. Average interjudge score on the Referent dimension. f. Average interjudge score on the Religious/Non-religious dimension. Since the scoring of the three instruments yielded continuous measures, the product moment correlation coefficient was used as the basis for testing the third major hypothesis. Due to the fact that the samples are correlated, the appropriate model to test the differ- ence between correlations is: > /(N-3)(l+r) (r12 " r13 23 = m \/2(1 " r12 " ’13 " 1.23 + 2'12‘13’23) with N-3 degrees of freedom. It should be noted that generalization t from.this model can only be to a subpopulation of all possible samples for which X2 and X3 have exactly the same set of values as those in the observed.sample (Walker and Levi, 1953).6 Since this model was used to focus on the predictive value of the instruments rather than on the nature of the population, it is satisfactory. No assumptions 6. NOTE: In this study X. would refer to the Religious Belief Inventory scores and X3 to the Opinionation Scale scores. -52- were necessary as to the distribution of X2 and X3 in the population. The .05 level of significance was used as the best compromise between type I and type II errors. The correlations to be tested were those of the scores for each of the dimensions on the Counselor Response System with the Religious Belief Inventory scores and the Opinionation Scale scores respectively. Summary In this chapter the methods and procedures of the study were described. The sample of the study was drawn from four Protestant theological seminaries considered to be representative of the theo- logical continuum in the united States. The geographical and denomi- national factors were considered. The sample of 140 first-year seminary students was administered a preliminary data sheet, the Religious Belief Inventory, the Opinionation Scale, and the Interview Sets. The validity and reliability of the instruments were determined. The responses to the Interview Set were evaluated by three judges using a modified form of the Counselor Response System. The hypotheses were restated, and the models to be used in testing these hypotheses were indicated. The models were the Chi Square statistic and the.£ statistic based on the product moment correlation coefficient. The analysis of the data is presented in the following chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Three major hypotheses regarding the relationship of the theo- logical belief system and the level of intolerance of first-year seminary students with their response preferences to selected parish- ioner problem statements were examined in this study. The sample was classified into mean-split1 and extreme groups2 in respect to theological beliefs and level of intolerance. These classifications were than used in testing relevant sub-hypotheses by the statistical models described in Chapter III. Counseling Training and Response Preferences Since formal education in counseling was considered a possible influence on this study, the counselor responses were analyzed in terms 1. Those subjects who scored above the liberal mean and below the con- servative mean on the RBI were classified as liberal, and those scoring above the conservative mean and below the liberal mean were classified as conservative. Those scoring above the mean and those scoring below the mean on the Opinionation Scale were classified as intolerant and tolerant respectively. 2. Those subjects scoring one standard deviation above the mean in one category and below the mean in the other on the RBI were considered extreme in that category in which they scored one standard deviation above the mean. Those subjects scoring one standard deviation above the mean or one standard deviation below the mean on the Opinionation Scale were classified as extremely intolerant or extremely tolerant respectively. -53- -54- of counseling courses or no counseling courses. It was found that 33 students (or 24% of the sample) had one or more courses in counseling. Of the 41 liberals, five (or 12%) indicated formal counseling training. Of the 69 conservatives, eighteen (or 26%) indicated formal counseling courses . Chi Square values for formal counseling in relation to the six dimensions for measuring the student responses to selected parishioner problem.statements are summarized in Table 4:1 The results indicate that formal counseling training is not significantly related to the types of responses preferred. Table 4:1 A Summary of Chi Square Analysis of Counseling Courses and No Counseling Courses in Relation to the Six Measures of Student Responses to Selected Parishioner Problem.Statements Dimensions of * Level of Counselor Response System Chi Square Value Significance Affective/Cognitive .00 .99 not significant Content Follow/Shift .00 .99 not significant Control 2.96 .10 Temporal .00 .99 not significant Client/Other .24 .70 not significant Religious/Non-religious 1.58 .30 * Two tailed tests with one degree of freedom for all dflmensions -55- Hypotheses Tested and Results gull Hypothesis 1 There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. Table 4:2 contains a summary of the Chi Square values of the sub~hypotheses of Null Hypothesis 1 for the mean-split and extreme groups. Table 4:2 Summary of Chi Square Values for Mean-Split and Extreme Belief Groups in Relation to the Dimensions of the Counselor Response System Dimensions of ‘Mean-Split Groups Extreme Groups Counselor Response System. Chi Squares Chi Squares Affective/Cognitive 0.00 0.00 Content Follow/Shift 0.00 0.00 Control ** 20.03 * 10.79 * Temporal 0.00 0.00 Client/Other 0.08 0.00 Religious/Non-religious *** 11.55 * 4.32 * * Significant at .05 level for two tailed test with one degree of freedom Conservative subjects preferred restrictive responses; liberal subjects preferred expansive responses. *** Conservative subjects chose more religious responses. it 3. See Appendiwa for summary tables of the data. -55- SubAHypothesis (a). There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for effective or cognitive responses to selected parishioner problem state— ments. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. All but two of the students in the sample were classified as preferring cognitive responses. One conservative student and one extremely liberal student were classi- fied as showing no preference. Sub-Hypothesis (b). There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in following the general content of selected parishioner problem statements. The null hypothesis was not rejected. All the students in the sample were classified as preferring responses that followed the general content of the parishioner problem statements. Sub-Hypothesis (c). There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for expensive or restrictive responses to selected parishioner problem statements. The null hypothesis was rejected. The conservative students preferred significantly more restrictive responses than the liberal stu- dents, for both the mean-split and extreme groups. 0f the mean-split conservative group 12 preferred expansive responses, 29 preferred re- strictive responses and 28 showed no preference. 0f the mean-split liberal group 23 preferred expansive responses, 3 preferred restrictive -57- responses and 15 preferred neither. 0f the extremely conservative group 3 preferred expansive responses, 8 preferred restrictive responses and 8 showed no preference. 0f the extremely liberal group 16 preferred expansive responses, 1 preferred a restrictive response, and 7 showed no preference. Subdfiypoghesis Sd). There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their temporal reference in response to selected parishioner problem statements. The null~hypothesis was not rejected. Of the sample, 129 students were classified as preferring responses to the present situation of the client and 11 were classified as "inconsistent," or preferring neither present nor past-future references. Sub-Hypothesis (e). There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their preference for references to the parishioner or other in responses to selected parish- ioner problem statements. The null hypothesis was not rejected. In the sample, 128 students preferred references to the parishioner. One student was classified as preferring other references and 11 students preferred neither parish- ioner nor other references. Suhzflngthesis g 2. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first—year seminary students in their preference for religious or non-religious responses to selected parishioner problem statements. -53- This null hypothesis was rejected. In both the mean-split and extreme groups, although both conservative and liberal students pre- ferred non-religious responses, the conservative students chose signi- ficantly more religious responses than the liberal students. 0f the mean-split conservative group in the sample, 13 preferred religious responses, 27 preferred neither, and 29 preferred non-religious re- sponses. 0f the mean-split liberal group, none were classified as preferring religious responses, 37 preferred non-religious responses and 4 preferred neither. 0f the extremely conservative group, 4 pre- ferred religious responses, 11 preferred non-religious responses, and 4 showed no preference. 0f the extremely liberal group, none preferred religious responses, 23 preferred non-religious responses, and one showed no preference. 0n the basis of the sub-hypotheses, the major hypothesis that there will be no difference in liberal and conservative students was rejected. Conservative students prefer mmre restrictive responses and liberal students prefer more non-religious responses. Null-Hypothesis 2 There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements. Table 4:3 contains a summary of the Chi Square values of the sub- hypotheses of the second.hypothesis for the mean-split and extreme groups. -59- Table 4:3 Summary of Chi Square Values for Mean-Split and Extreme Opinionation Groups in Relation to the Dimensions of the Counselor Response System Dimensions of Mean-Split Groups * Extreme Groups * Counselor Response System Chi Squares Chi Squares Affective/Cognitive 0.00 0.00 Content Follow/Shift 0.00 0.00 Control 1.38 0.02 Temporal ' o .oo o . oo Client/Other 0.01 o .oo Religious/Non-religious 0.07 0.02 * Based on two tailed tests with one degree of freedom Since none of the sub-hypotheses could be rejected at the .05 level of significance, the second hypothesis, that tolerant and in- tolerant students would not differ in their responses, was not rejected. Sub-Hypothesis (a). There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for affective or cognative responses to selected parishioner prdblem statements. This hypothesis was not rejected. 0f the mean-split intolerant group, 78 preferred cognative responses, and two were "inconsistent." 0f the mean-split tolerant group, all were classified as preferring cognitive responses. -50- SubAHypothesis (b). There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in following the general content of selected parishioner problem.statements. The hypothesis was not rejected. All the students were classi- fied as preferring to follow the general content of the parishioner statements. SubéHprthesis (c). There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for expensive or restrictive responses to selected parishioner problem statements. This hypothesis was not rejected. 0f the meanpsplit tolerant group, 20 preferred expansive responses, 13 preferred restrictive re- sponses and 27 were classified as showing no preference. 0f the means split intolerant group, 21 preferred expansive responses, 26 preferred restrictive responses, and 33 showed no preference. 0f the extremely tolerant group, 8 preferred expansive responses, 7 preferred neither and 3 preferred restrictive responses. 0f the extremely intolerant group, 8 preferred expansive responses, 6 showed no preference, and 5 preferred restrictive responses. Sub-Hypothesis (d). There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their temporal reference to responses to selected parishioner problem.statements. This null hypothesis was not rejected. 0f the mean-split tolerant group, 56 preferred references to the present situation of the parishioner -51- 4 were classified as showing no preference, and none preferred responses to the past or future. Of the mean-split intolerant group, 73 pre- ferred responses referring to the present, 7 showed no preference and none preferred responses to the past or future. Of the extreme groups, all but one preferred responses to the present. One extremely intoler- ant student showed no preference. Sub-Hypothesis (e). There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preferences for references to the parishioner or other in responses to selected parish- ioner problem statements. This null hypothesis was not rejected. Of the mean-split toler- ant group, 57 preferred references to the parishioner, none preferred other references, and 3 showed no preference. Of the mean-split intolerant group, 71 preferred references to the parishioner, 1 pre- ferred references to other than the parishioner, and 8 showed no preference. Of the extreme groups, all but 5 preferred references to the parishioner; one extremely tolerant and 4 extremely intolerant students showed no preference. Sub—Hypothesis (5). There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first-year seminary students in their preference for religious or non-religious responses to selected parishioner problem atatment 8 a This null hypothesis was not rejected. Both the tolerant and intolerant groups preferred non-religious responses. Of the mean-split -52- tolerant group, 6 preferred religious responses, 33 preferred non- religious responses, and 2 showed no preference. Of the mean-split intolerant group, 9 preferred religious responses, 50 preferred non- religious responses, and 21 showed no preference. Of the extremely tolerant group, 1 preferred religious responses, 6 showed no preference, and 11 preferred non-religious responses. Of the extremely intolerant group, 3 preferred religious references, 2 showed no preferences, and 14 preferred non-religious responses. Null Hypothesis 3 There will be no difference in the relation of the responses of first-year seminary students to their opinionation and to their theo- logical belief system. Table 424 contains the E values for the sub-hypotheses of Null Hypothesis 3. The null hypothesis was rejected for two of the sub-hypotheses. The Religious Belief Inventory correlated mmre with the Control dimen- sion and the Religious dimension than did the Opinionation Scale. The RBI correlated positively with preferences for restrictive and reli- gious responses. It may be noted that the RBI tended to correlate more than the Opinionation Scale with the general Content dimension. This was sig- nificant at the .10 level of significance. subjects scoring higher on the RBI tended to choose more content shifting responses. -53- Table 4:4 The £_Values for the Difference Between the Correlations of the Religious Belief Inventory Scores With the Counselor Response System Dimensions and the Opinionation Scale Scores with the Counselor Response System Dimensions Dimensions of Correlations *** * Counselor Response System Belief Scale Opinionation Scale t value Affective/Cognitive -.16 .06 .899 Content Follow/Shift -.29 .08 1.921 Control Expansive/Restrictive -.45 -.08 3.576 ** Temporal Present/Past-Future -.13 -.08 .422 Client/Other -.18 -.25 .588 Religious/Non-religious .42 -.07 3.446 ** * Values are for a two tailed test with 137 degrees of freedom ** Significant at the .05 level *** Correlations are with first cell of each dimension. Signs would be reversed for other cell, but values would remain the same. Summary In this chapter the results of the analysis of the data and the testing of the hypotheses were reported. A.summary of the hypotheses tested by Chi Square and theug test for correlated samples is contained in Table 4:5. For the first major null hypothesis concerning theological belief and pastoral counseling responses, two sub-hypotheses were rejected. Conservative students preferred more restrictive responses than liberal students. Liberal students chose more non~religious responses that did conserva- tive students. .eaeonuoehn menu new museum ouow eouueouuweeeao on as: enema s wouoowou vouoonou no: wouoofiou uoo wouoonou vouooaou uoo wouoonou uoo vouoonou eon wouoonou uoo wouoonou uoo vouoonou uon mouoofiou uoo vouoonou uoo wouoonou vouoonou uoo vouoonou uoo vouoofiou mouoonou uoo wouooqou uoo Hoc. uauuaMaauau unmoumaemqe Hoo. endowmaowwm U06 UOH uOfl e unmoumweufim uoo unmoumaawam unanim«owfie unmoumflewaw unmouwuowam unmowmaowwm uneoamaewwm no. endowmaowwm unmoam«owae Ho. unmoaMHemHm unmowmaowqm UOQ U0“ “0a U0“ HOG 00d eon uoo “OH HO“ unmowm«ewau uomuwmwowwm admowmwoMAm endomeowam unmoamwowwm unmowMaowam Hoo. unmoamHomwm uoeowmwewum Hoo. uomowmwowwm unmowwwomwm uoo uoa you uoo you uoo uoo uoo HOG UOfl «soamaeue nuas_noauuaoasaeo use moaaom .m assumes: eyes aoauusoauaao ea. wooden .u Hence-me noes uoauueoasaeo use «segue .o Hosanna noes ecauusoaaaeo use wooden .o essence eu«s_eo«oueoauaeo use «vague .m 33.2 new: coup-downing was «033 .< flowUIHflHHOO MO QGOGUHOHHflG cm uaoauaeue use noauqsoauaeo .m ueouomuu one soda-doweqeo .M Heuoeaoa woe coaueoouoano .n Houuooo use oeuueeo«ofimo .u uaouooo woo downedowowmo .m uuomm< can scan-uoaaaeo .< oenoeeem use oouuaeowoweo .N woodmuaua one mowaom .h ueouomuu one Hudson .m Hence-Bu. one «oxen .n Houueoo use Waggon .u unouoou moo mowaom .n uoouM< was Meagan .4 uncommon wee mouaom .H oowmaoon maouu oamuuxu eoouu uwammlomoz fished outmoamwmuwm sequence»: nae «Haas woumoa mononuoehm mo humaasm d -65- Opinionation was not found to be significantly related to pastoral counseling responses for any of the sub-hypotheses. For the third null hypothesis concerning the predictive value of theological belief and opinionation for pastoral counseling responses, two of the sub-hypotheses were rejected. Theological belief is a better .predictor of controlling responses and religious responses than is opinionation, according to the present study. CEAPTBR. V SUMMAR! AND CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken to explore the relationship of the religious beliefs and the level of intolerance with pastoral responses of a population of Protestant first-year seminary students. Based on the body of research which suggests that counselor beliefs and attitudes are crucial to the counseling relationship established, the present study attempted to discover whether the religious beliefs of the pastoral counselor or his attitudes toward people were more predictive of the kinds of counseling responses he prefers. A sample of first-year seminary students was drawn from four Protestant theological seminaries considered to be representative of the theological continuum in the United States. Fifty-three percent of the total possible sample participated in a controlled testing situation. One hundred and forty-four students were administered a preliminary data sheet, the Religious Belief Inventory, the Opinionation Scale, and the taped Interview Sets. The responses to the Interview Sets were evaluated by three judges according to a modification of the Counselor Response System. On the basis of the resulting data, the respondents were classified into mean-split and extreme liberal/conserva- tive belief groups and.mean-split and extreme tolerant/intolerant groups. 'The first two hypotheses were tested by means of the Chi Square test for two independent samples. The third hypothesis was tested by the'£.test ~66- -57- for the difference between correlations in correlated samples. The .05 level of significance was used for rejecting the null hypotheses. Three major null hypotheses were tested in this study: 1. There will be no difference between liberal and conservative first-year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem.statements. b. C. d. In their preference for affective or cognitive responses. In their preference for following the general content of the parishioner statements. In their preference for expansive or restrictive responses. In their preference for present or past/future responses. In their preference for references to the parishioner or other in their responses. In their preference for religious or non-religious responses. 2. There will be no difference between tolerant and intolerant first—year seminary students in their responses to selected parishioner problem statements: b. d. In their preference for affective or cognitive responses. In their preference for following the general content of the parishioner statements. In their preference for expensive or restrictive responses. In their preference for present or past/future responses. In their preference for references to the parishioner or other in their responses. -68- f. In their preference for religious or non-religious responses. 3. There will be no difference in the relation of the responses of first-year seminary students to their opinionation and to their theological belief system: a. For effective or cognitive responses. b. For responses to the general content of the parishioner statements. c. For expansive or restrictive responses. d. For present or past/future responses. e. For responses referring to the parishioner or other. f. For religious or non-religious responses. Findings The following findings resulted from the test of the null hypotheses. Null Hypothesis 1: Belief and Response a. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students preferred cognitivfi responses. This was true for both mean-split and extreme groups. b. Not rejected. Both mean-split and extreme liberal and conservative students preferred content following responses. c. Rejected at .001 level for mean-split group and .01 level for extreme group. Conservative students preferred restrictive -59- responses, whereas liberal students chose more expansive responses. d. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students in the mean-split and extreme groups preferred references to the pre- sent situation. e. Not rejected. Both liberal and conservative students in the meanesplit and extreme groups preferred references to the parishioner. f. Rejected at the .001 level for the mean-split group and at the .05 level for the extreme group. Although both liberal and conservative students preferred non-religious responses, conservative students chose more religious responses than did the liberal students. Null Hypothesis 2: Opinionation and Response None of the sub-hypotheses were rejected in relation to opinionation. Both tolerant and intolerant students in the mean-split and extreme groups preferred cognitive, content following, expansive, present, parishioner, nonereligious responses. 'lull Hypothesis 3: Differences of Correlations Two of the subéhypotheses were rejected at the .001 level: sub- hypothesis (c) - the Religious Belief Inventory correlated more than the Opinionation Scale‘with controlling responses; sub-hypothesis (f) - the Religious Belief Inventory correlated more than the Opinionation Scale with Religious/Non-religious responses. -70- Conclusions 1. Because of the lack of any significant difference between tolerant and intolerant students in their pastoral responses, this study fails to confirm the theory that the measurement of such an atti- tude is a possible predictor of pastoral counseling behavior. The failure to show a difference raises the question as to whether the role concept of the seminary student as a future pastor may override his intolerance when he perceives himself as functioning in the pastoral counseling role. 2. Although this was not a primary focus of the present study, the indication that both liberal and conservative as wall as tolerant and intolerant students preferred cognative,content following responses referring to the parishioner in the present, may reflect the lack of counseling experience of the students. The students may have found it easiest to respond to the immediate verbal content of the sixteen different statements presented. 3. In contrast to the lack of difference between tolerant and intolerant students, the greater preference of conservative students for restrictive and religious responses as compared to liberal students suggests that both liberal and conservative students may perceive their pastoral role as person-oriented, but that the conservative student has a greater sense of mission and thus may tend to focus his responses on the message or ideas he wishes to communicate. The con- servative student may not be more intolerant of people than the liberal student, but more insensitive to people in his concern to comunicate hia message. -71- 4. Although the pastoral responses were not judged in terms of a directive/non-directive dimension, the pattern of the responses as judged on the Counselor Response System seems to confirm.Kemp's (1962) conclusion that more dogmatic counselors tended to fall back on earlier patterns of behavior in a free response situation. This would account for the preference of both liberal and conservative students for non- directive responses in Mannoia's study (1963) and the preference of conservative students for restrictive responses in the present study. Implications for Research The present study does not answer the question of why there was no significant difference in the responses of tolerant and intolerant students to parishioner problem statements. The possibility of greater homogeneity in seminary students seems unlikely,since the standard deviation and the mean of the Opinionation Scale for the sample of this study is quite similar to those reported in Rokeach's Study (1960). Another possible reason for no differences could be the method of ad- ministering the Opinionation Scale. In the present study the Scale was administered as a distinct part of the battery of three tests. Unlike Rokeach's method of burying the Scale among questions from other Scales, the method of the present study may have allowed the students to "see through" the test and respond differently. Thus, lowbscoring students might be expressing intolerance to the wording of the ques- tions rather than tolerance to people who differ with them. A third possible reason for finding no difference between tolerant and intolerant students is that the students were unfamiliar -72- with many of the concepts expressed in the Opinionation Scale and, thus, did not express strong opinions about them. In this case a greater homogeneity in scores might be expected, but this does not seem to be the case in view of the similarity of the mean and standard deviation with Rokeach's results. It may be that it is not possible to isolate a subject's general intolerance toward people from beliefs or ideas that he holds. The Opinionation Scale was scored to get a total of left and right opinion- ation with the assumption that this isolates intolerance from.helief. It may be that intolerance is meaningless apart from.belief and that the Religious Belief Scale, scored to measure a continuum.of belief, is a better predictor for the very reason that it is scored in terms of belief. Perhaps closed-mindedness or dogmatism.may be better con- cepts for continued research unless a better means of isolating general intolerance can be developed. The similarity of response over all the seminary students in the sample on all but two of the Counselor Response System.dimensions suggests several possibilities for research. Is this similarity due to the homogeneity of the beliefs of the students in contrast to other counselors? Or is this similarity rather to be associated with the nature of the test situation in which the students are asked to respond to several different problem situations and thus are unable to get involved in more than a superficial level with each statement? It should be possible to develop a simulated counseling inter- view’with one parishioner in which pastoral counselors are asked to -73. indicate their response at critical points throughout the interview. Such a procedure would provide a better model of a real counseling re- lationship and might tap more significantly the differences in behavior due to attitudes or beliefs. The fact that there was considerable heterogeneity in the sample in respect to religious belief and opinionation suggests that an analysis of the data by Hierarchical Linkage Analysis (MbQuitty, 1960) could be productive to discover more specific types of pastoral counse- lors and their typical behavior in the counseling relationship. A.valuable study would be a retest of this sample at the con- clusion of formal seminary training to discover the influence of that training in relation to pastoral counseling. Do the liberal and con- servative students differ more at the end of training as measured by the Counselor Response System, or do they become more homogeneous in their beliefs and level of intolerance? If there are changes, how does the individual student change? Implications for Training The results of this study indicate that seminary students tend to be cognitively oriented and may miss the affect communicated by their parishioners. This result would suggest the need for the pastoral counseling educator to concentrate on experience-oriented training, in which greater sensitivity might be developed for responding to the total communication of the parishioner. The study supports the need for such experiences as role-playing, sensitivity groups, supervised practicums, -74- and internships where students may learn to relate more effectively to people, as well as learning to express ideas. The greater preference of conservative students for restrictive and religious responses indicates an even greater need for training which would balance their apparent concentration on the message to be communicated with an understanding of the person to whom the message is being communicated. This greater restrictiveness of conservative students also may be related to the authoritarian or closeddminded . personality, which would suggest the need for testing to reveal such students who would be poor candidates for specialisation in pastoral counseling. The evidence of some relationship between the beliefs held and counseling behavior, in contrast to the lack of evidence for any rela- tionship between opinionation and counseling behavior, implies the need for theological training which, in developing beliefs, will stress personal sensitivity as well as religious acuity. BIBLIOGRAPHY -75- BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T. W., Frankel-Brunswick, Else, Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: John Wiley G Sons, 1964. Alexander, R. The dynamics of psychotherapy in the light of learning theory. Amer.‘g} Psychia§., 1963, 120, 440-448. Arbuckle, D. 8. Five philosophical issues in counseling. g} counsel. Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Press, 1950. Becker, R. The function of relationship in pastoral counseling. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1958. Berenson, B. G., Carkhuff, R. R., and Myrna, Pamela. The interpersonal functioning and training of college students. g; counsel. Psychgl., 1966, 13, 441-446. Bohn, M. J. Jr. Counselor behavior as a function of counselor domi- nance, counselor experience and client type. .g, counsel. Ps chol., 1965, 12, 4, 346-352. cahoon, R. A. Some counselor attitudes and characteristics related to the counseling relationship. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Ohio State University, 1962. Campbell, R. R. Counselor personality and background and his interview subrole behavior. g; cgunsel. Psychol., 1962, 9, 329-334. Canon, H. J. Personality variables and counselor-client affect. .g. counsel. Psychol., 1964, 11, 35-46. Carkhuff, R. R. Counseling research, theory & practice — 1965. .g. counsel. Ps chol., 1966, 13, 467-480. (a) Carkhuff, R. R. Training in the counseling and therapeutic practices: requiem.or reveille? .g. counsel. Psychol., 1966, 13, 360-367. (b) Christensen, C. W. The Minister - a psychotherapist? Pastoral Psychol., 1966, 17 (10), 31-39. -77- Clinebell, H. J. Jr. Basic types 2; pastoral counselipg. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966. Clinebell, H. J. Jr. The future of the specialty of pastoral counsel- ing. Pastoral Psych., 1965, 16 (11), 18-26. Cook, T. E. The influence of client-counselor value similarity on change of meaning during brief counseling. ,1. counsel. Psychol., 1966, 13, 77-81. Dispenzieri, A. & Balinsky, B. The relationship between the ability to acquire interviewing skills and authoritarianism and manifest anxiety. Personnel é Guid. g., 1963, 42, 40-42. Durnall, E. J. Jr., Moynihan, J. F., 6. Wrenn, C. G. Symposium: the counselor and his religion. Personnel é Guid. g., 1958, 36, 326-334. Edwards, A. L. Statistical methods for the behayioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart 6': Winston, 1964. Ehrlich, D. 6. Wiener, D. N. Measurement of values in psychotherapeutic settings. :1. gen. Psychol., 1961, 64, 359-372. Faber, H. 6: van der Schoot, E. The art o_f_ pastoral cmersapion. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965. Ferguson, G. A. Statistical apalysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1966. Fiedler, F. E. A comparison of therapeutic relationships in psycho- analytic, non-directive, and adlerian therapy. ,1. consult. Ps chol., 1950, 14, 436-445. Fishbein, M. An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 233-239. Fishbein, M. & Raven, B. H. The AB scales an operational definition of belief and attitude. Human Relations, 1962, 15, 35-44. Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research. Int. ,1. opin. _6_. attitude Research, 1950, 4, 192-208. Fogel, J. Reliability of judgmental measures in psychotherapy. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1957. Frank, G. H. On the history of the objective investigation of the process of psychotherapy. _._I_. Ps chol., 1961, 51, 89-95. ...7 8... Frank, G. H. & Sweetland, A. A study of the process of psychotherapy: the verbal interaction. ,1. consult. Ps chol., 1962, 26, 135-138. French, Vera V. The structure of sentiments. I. A restatement of the theory of sentiments. J. Pers., 1947, 15, 247-282; II. A preliminary study of sentiments, _._I_. Pers., 1947, 16, 78-108; III. A study of philosophies - religious sentiments, ,_J_. Pers., 1947, 16, 208-244. Froehlich, C. P. Stars, persons & clients. Personnel g Guid. ,1” 1957, 36, 10-16. Catch, Vera Mildred. The effect of a philosophical comitment to psychic determinism on the behavior of the psychotherapist. Un- published doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1963. Gendlin, E. T. Client-centered developments and work with schizo- phrenics. ._J_. counsel. P_sychol., 1962, 9, 205-212. Ginsberg, S. W. & Herma, J. L. Values and their relationship to psychiatric principles. Amer. J. Psychother., 1953, 7, 546-573. Gonyea, G. C. The ’ideal therapeutic relationship' and counseling outcome. ,1. clin. Ps chol., 1963, 19, 481-487. Green, A. W. Social values and psychotherapy. ,_I_. Pers., 1946, 14, 199-228. Green, B. F. Attitude measurement. In I. 0. Lindsay (Ed.), Handbook 2f social psychology, Vol. _I, theory and method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1954. Guilford, J. P. Ppychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Gump, P. V. A statistical investigation of one psychoanalytic approach and a comparison of it with non-directive therapy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University, 1944. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1947, 7, 247-279. Guttman, 1.. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Pub. Qpin. Quart., 19.54, 18, 395—404. Guttman, 1.. 6. Suchnn, E. A. Intensity and a zero-point for attitude analysis. Amer. soc. MN 1947, 12, 57-67. Hall, C. S. 6. Lindsay, G. Theories 33 personality. New York: John Wiley 6. Sons, Inc., 1957. Jensen, A. R. Authoritarian attitudes and personality maladjustment. _._)‘_. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 303-311. -79- Johnson, P. E. Clinical pastoral training at the crossroads. 'J. pastoral Care, 1962, 16, 70-75. Jones, W. S. Some correlates of the authoritarian personality in a quasi-therapeutic situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1961. Kania, W. An investigation of the K scale of the MMPI as a measure of defensiveness in protestant theological seminary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Kanter, Louise M. Modes of orientation among protestant clergyman: authoritarianism and humanism” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1955. Katz, D. & Stotland, E. A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: 2; study 23 _a_ science, 291. ;, Formulations p_f_ £113: person _a_r_:_¢_l_ _thg social context. New'York: McGrawbEill, 1959. Kemp, C. G. Influence of dogmatism.on counseling. Personnel‘QLGuid. is, 1961, 39, 662~6650 Kemp, C. G. Influence of dogmatism on the training of counselors. .J. counsel. Psychol., 1962, 9, 155-157. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations p£_behaviora1 research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1964. Koepp, E. F. Authoritarianimm and social workers: a psychological study. Soc. 35,, 1963, 8(1), 37-43. Korn, H. A. & Gidden, N. S. Scoring methods and construct validity of the dogmatism scale. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1964, 24, 867-874. Landfield, A. W. G Nawas, M. M. Improvement in psychotherapy and adoption of the therapist's meaning system. Psychol. Reports, 1963, 13, 97-98 a Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol., 22(140), 1932. Lovejoy, C. E. Love1oy's college gpid . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1966. Lowe, M. C. Values versus sickness in the mental health field. :1. indiv. Psychol., 1964, 20, 196-201. McNeill, J. T. A histogy _o_f_ the cure pf souls. New York: Harper and Bros., 1951. -80... McQuitty, L. L. Hierarchical linkage analysis for the isolation of types. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1960, 20, 55-67. Mannoia, V. J. A pilot analysis of the preferences of liberal and conservative ministers toward directive and non-directive re- sponses in the pastor parishioner counseling relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Martin, J. C., Carkhuff, R. R., 6. Berenson, B. G. Process variables in counseling and psychotherapy: a study of counseling and friendship. _J. counsel. Psychol., 1966, 13, 356-359. Martin, J. C. & Westie, F. R. The tolerant personality. Amer. soc. Mo, 1959, 24, 521-528. Mayfield, P. N. The weltanschauung of psychotherapists and selected correlates in a quasi-therapy situation. Unpublist doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1962. Manges, R. J. & Dittes, J. E. Psycholpgical studies pf clergyLep. New York: Thomas Nelson 6: Sons, 1965. Miller, R. An exploratory analysis of the preferences of first-year theological students designated as liberal and conservative toward directive and non-directive responses in the pastor-parish- ioner counseling relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Millikan, R. L. Prejudice and counseling effectiveness. Persogel g Guid. _J_., 1965, 43, 710-712. Mosteller, F., Rourke, R. E. K. and Thomas, G. B. Jr. Probability with statistical applications. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1961. Mowrer, 0. H. Some philosophical problems in psychological counseling. ,1. cpunsel. Psychol., 1957, 4, 103-111. Mowrer, 0. H. ’Sin,’ the lesser of WO evils. Amer. Psychologist, 1960, 15, 301-304. Mowrer, 0. H. Science, sex, and values. Personnel 5 Guid. _J., 1964, 42, 746-753. Moynihan, J. F. The philosophical aspects of guidance. L‘l- educa- tional 353., 1957, 27, 186-191. Oden, T. C. A theologian's view of the process of psychotherapy. la 1Ed1'e P. 61101., 1964, 20’ 69-780 -81.. Parloff, M. R. Communication of values and therapeutic change. Paper read at Symposium on Evaluation of Process and Results of Therapies: I. General Problems of Methods and Theory, American Psychological Association, New York, New York, August 31, 1957. Patterson, C. H. The place of values in counseling and psychotherapy. g; cpunsel. Ps chol., 1958, 5, 216-223. Peabody, D. No components in bipolar scales: direction and extreme- ness. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 65-73. Porter, E. H. A simple measure of counselor attitudes. In Williamson, E. G. (Ed.) Trends igStudent Personnel Work. Minn.: Univ. of Minn. Press., 1949. Porter, E. H. The development and evaluation of a measure of counseling interview procedures. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1942, 3, 105-106. Powell, F. A. Open and closed mindedness and the ability to differ- entiate source and message. ,1. abpom. pic; Psychol., 1962, 65, 61-64. Ranck, J. G. Some personality correlates of religious attitude and belief. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, Teadhers College, 1955. Ranck, J. G. Religious conservatism - liberalism and mental health. Pastoral Psychol., 1961, 12(3), 34-40. Rank, R. C. 6 De Roo, W. M. Counselor response system of the behavior interaction description system. Unpublished ditto, Michigan State University, 1965. Robinson, F. P. Principles 52;! procedures 12 spudent counseling. New York: Harpers, 1950. Rogers, C. R. A note on the nature of man. _J. counsel. Psychpl., 1957, 4, 199-203. Rogers, C. R. The characteristics of a helping relationship. Personnel éGUid. is, 1959, 37’ 6"16e Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism: an alternative to the authoritarian personality. Psychol. Monogg., 1956, 70, No. 18 (Whole No. 425). Rokeach, M. The open at; clpsed mind. New York: Iasic Books, 1960. Rokeach, M. a Fruchter, I. A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts. ,1. abmrm. soc. Ps ch 1., 1956, 53, 356-360. -32- Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. g. abnprm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 367-382. Rosenberg, M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Publ. 911:2. Qu_e_rt., 1960, 24, 319-340. Bosenthal, 11 Changes in some moral values following psychotherapy. _J. consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 431-437. Saunders, D. R. Evidence bearing on use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator to select persons for advanced religious training: a preliminary report. Research Bulletin, Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1957. Seigel, S. Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1956. Shaw, M. E. 6: Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement giat itudes. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1967. Smith, M. B. ’Mental health' reconsidered: a special case of the problem of values in psychology. Amer. Psycholpgist, 1961, 16, 299-306. Snyder, W. V. An investigation of the nature of non-directive psychology. g. gen. Psychol., 1945, 33, 193-223. Stanley, 0. Personality and attitude characteristics of fundamentalist theological students. Australian g. 9; Ps chol., 1963, 15, 121-123. Stroup, H. H. Theoretical constructs in student personnel work. 5. Strupp, H. H. An objective comparison of rogerian and psychoanalytic techniques. _J. consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 1-7. (a) Strupp, H. H. Psychotherapeutic technique, professional affiliation, and experience level. g. consulp. Psychol., 1955, 19, 97-102. (b) Strupp, H. H. A multidimensional comparison of therapist activity in analytic and client-centered therapy. g. consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 301-308. (a) Strupp, H. H. A multidimensional system for analyzing psychotherapeutic techniques. Psychiatry, 1957, 20, 293-312. (b) Strupp, H. H. The performance of psychoanalytic and client-centered therapists in an initial interview. g. consult. Psyghplu 1958, Strupp, H. H. The psychotherapist’s contribution to the treatment process. hmiopal Sci., 1958, 3, 34-67. (b) -83- Strupp, H. H. Toward an analysis of the therapist’s contribution to the treatment process. Psychiatry, 1959, 22, 349-362. Strupp, H. H. Psychotherapists ip action. New York: Greene 5 Stratton, 1960. (a) Strupp, H. H. The nature of the psychotherapist's contribution to the treatment process. Arch. gen. Psychiat., 1960, 3, 219-231. (b) Strupp, H. H. Some recent research on the psychotherapist's contribu- tion to the therapeutic process. Proceedings of the HIV Int. Congress of Appl. Psychol., G. Nielson (Ed.), Clinical ppychology. Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard, Vol. 4, 1962. Strupp, H. H. 6 Williams, J. V. Some determinants of clinical evaluations of different psychiatrists. AmM.A. Arch. gen. Ps chiat., 1960, 2, 434-440. Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer, et al. Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Thomas, W. L. Class lecture, Spring Arbor College, October 11, 1966. Toch, H. & Anderson, R" Religious belief and denominational affilia- tion. Religious Educ., 1960, 55, 193-200. Truax, C. B. & Carkhuff, R. R. Client and therapist transparency in the psychotherapeutic encounter. ‘g, counsel. Ps chol., 1965, 12, 3.9. Tyler, Leona E. Theoretical principles underlying the counseling process. 'J. counsel. Psychol., 1958, 5, 3-8. Walker, D. E. & Peiffer, H. C. Jr. The goals of counseling. .g. counsel. Psychol., 1957, 4, 204-210. ‘Walker, H. M; & Lev, J. Statistical inference. New”York: Holt, Rinehart 5 Winston, Inc., 1953. welters, 0. S. Metaphysics, religion, and psychotherapy. .g. counsel. Psychol., 1958, 5, 243-252. Whekow, Irene E. Counselor attitudes and client behavior. 'J. consult. Psychpl., 1963, 27, 405-412. Wilkins, W. D. 5 Perlmutter, Barbara J. The philosophical foundations of guidance and personnel work. Rev. educ. Res., 1960, 30, 97-104. Williamson, E. G. Value orientation in counseling. PerspppelI§_Guid. leg 1958’ 36, 520-528. -34- Williamson, E. G. Value options and the counseling relationship. Personnel é Guid. g.” 1966, 44, 617-623. Withrow, Q. A study of the possible correlation between theological orientations and certain variables of personality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1960. Wblff, W. Contemporagy pgychotherapists examine themselves. Spring- field, Illinois: 0. C. Thomas, 1956. Wrenn, C. G. Philosophical and psychological bases of personnel services in education. Personnel Services ip,Education. Fifty- eighth Yearbook, Part II, National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959, Chapter 3, 41-81. Wrenn. R“ L. Counselor orientation: theoretical or situational. g} counsel. Psychol., 1960, 7, 40-45. Zilboorg, G. Clinical variants of moral values. Amer. Psychiat., 1950, 106, 744-747. APPENDIX A -86- cocoonueeuem onu ea voueouvnu on snow townhounH any :4 mouunooo anowaafiao monsoon I Hones use on acumen-av noee you eHHoo can can a ohNH hmm nmn whoa con newa mmoa onHH wwa nNou Nana Hen efihuv o¢- NeH mma on #NN eh @NN has MMH an Hum chm we tA¢v «on ohm ham HmN New mmN #om nan wm¢ hoH cam now ema eaaav eoHH meu nae HHH Hem oNH Nmm new Ham we owe own on «Amy one saw cNH mu on om ham HmH NmN am «on hem wk taav «mm nme MNN m¢H non hmH Ho¢ hfiN god mm mac mam mNH «va one coaueoum«eeeau uncommon Heuoa mnonu oluuuum nacho awaemlneez munuvnum o>aue>uoenou nunevnum oueuuvoz macaw olouuxm enouo uaanmlnnez oununnum anaemia «.2 Hum fie sum mum 3m 3e E a Sam «8 «2 z enoumfiauu unouowum Heuommma Houunoo unuueoo uoummmd nowueoumameeau magnum Heueuoeosaa oweuo>< wound on unamuoou< eunounum hkeeqaem HeoNWunuqh ohaueehoenoo mac HequHA mom mooaouomoum consumed mo homunvoum and OHAJH -37- .moeenuneuem emu nu veueoannw me ouem heatheunH one 3 vouunooo 28.23an condo!— H Hence mod on news noes how 310 25 2“ a. 1‘ «emu mum “mm enou com menu moou «emu emu emou mumu ooe ufinwv oeaa noun-ouuuuu-uu unmanned aeuoH emu nNu mm mum mm «mm emu mou om umu emu me «Any «on ensue usuuuun «Ne men «an cum «um «em men new as oeuu muou oea emuuv omwu ensue uuuumlauen mueemnum uaeuosounH meu muu um mmN um mum «Nu Neu «N Neu «mm em «ANV new ensue usuuuum uon «an nou one «nu no» nee eon an one man oeu *Anv cam ensue uuuemneuez mueuunum uneueHoH _uuz Hum hue uuu Mum mum use new new Hon moo uu< z nouuuuuuuuunuo snouuuuuu uuouauum uuumumma uouuaso unauaoo moowuu< noun-uouuueo omenofi. nomad ou union—95¢ munuvnum bade-om HeoHlumuah uneuoHounH was uamuoaom. Rom moonouomoum canon—mum no hog—Venn Ned man—en. APPENDIX B -39- mnnmu chauehuoenoo eauuuxu uaammlneez 3.25 .622. sure :3 Hon Sex °°~ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ L. O O‘ mm L \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I ma ounevaum hueefiaum neowwumuwh ohauobhomnou nee Heuonwn mo condemned ununm and aoaaoh unounoo mo «unannouom Heuoa a" u ensue rcH rcN .o¢ .on Joe .ch .9» :om OOH _H— Eur—3 fiuuufiqnmwmfiouud guuuflMmHNmuuua a \\ \ \ \\ v \\\ N N \ 2 cu \ 2 8 cu \ \ .9. \ \ \ x .8 \ \ .. \ \ x x -. \ x .2 N 8 \\ 8 .8 munumnum huedaeom ueoNWHouwh opauebhemnou one acumen; mo ooenomueu ehauwnnou one ohauoomm< mo oweumeouem Heuoa Hun ensue -90- munomoum huenuaum umoNIumuem o>aum>uoecoo was Housman mo condemned ounuamuuuem wee unoeoum mo omeuaoouom HeuoH e-n ensue EN- 22.5.3 \\\u-MI.W\\m-._:u NH- mm? ,M- a a \ \ \ 3 “““V H““H - on n \\ .H _U 132:.- oeuuuxu .owuueum .nemxu u-uemlaun: .ouuuoum .nemnu \ we mm s. \\\\\\\\\\\ w \ \ w \. e um . CH - ON T on . cw . on . co . an . on . cm munovnum huendaum ueowwuouuh e>aue>uoenoo use HeHoAuA mo commence: obauoquueeu can obaeeenuu mo omeunoouom Hench mun ensue ocH \\\ 023E025"- \.u..-Sz \\.ufiu~ \\.-..uoz \ .9:ou o u \ \ x g \ \ \ \ x x \ \ g x e a x x . ,3 _ \ k x e m \ e.- \ 3 ,8 monounum knee-aom ucow1umuwh o>wue>homnoo use HequHA mo noncommum mnonaHumlnoz nee enouuuamu mo omeucoouom Houoa 2 m ensue _H— ecu-33 aluuuuu uuaemlniez noeuo .uem quuo .uem \\ x ma a \\\\\\ A“W NN \\\\\\\\\\\\‘ .\\\\\\\\\\\\\ In N x? IN :OH .oN 19¢ .on .ch om Hm ,om Ix- munoueum huenaamm ueowwumuwh epauebuoenoo wee Heuunwd mo condemned undue one unnouneuuem mo oweunoouem aloha n- m segue OOH Q‘h usuoaounH D uneuofiou. ole-Sum examinees Sauna-nu mammal-30: mafia , u BoHHoF e5“. ”50b Demon-om: 25a anew ohmuooE QM. \\ _\\\_ \\ . \\ \\ \\ \\\ u m \ m m \ J S \ \ \ \\ \ \ . 8 \ \ 2 \ 3. S \ \ \ a \ \ \ 43 \ \ m 9.- \ \ \ nae \ \ .. Om \ \ J v \ r 8 \ \ \ K .2 x \ \ \ \ \\ . 8 me x \\ a :- 8 , . i no\ «m Na Na cm as canon-sum bunnies-m knowlumuah unwuuHBnH ounce-5m human-Um unowlueuah unenoaounH vac meek-Ho..- mo condo-noun mud-Hm use can uneuoaon. mo moo-Smog 923.2300 Bozom unounoo mo oweunoouom Hen-on. wee main-cow: mo oweudoouom Hen—on. mu m nacho h” m Ameuu § h:m uneuoaounu uu-emuusux .ooum e -93- MN \ e \x '5 \\ \\\\\\\\\\‘ e \ §\\\\\\\ x _ nu #N ounovnum huunfiaum ueowlumuah unouuaounH one uneuoaoa mo momnoemuu unpopulumem use unoeoum mo omeunuouom HeuoH ou-u ensue . ON ,.ON 1 on : ow - on r on . om OCH D uleuuuu .owuuoeu uniueHoH as uuuemuasez .oauueeu .muu 3\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ x \\ sL\\\ he \\\\\\\\\\ . OH . ON . on - on h in \ . ow - om . om mucounum hucnaeum neoMWueuam ueiuoaounH nee uaeuoaoa mo condense: ebauoauueem use phenomena mo oneunoouum Heuou eum ensue coN \\\. uneuoaounH B uneuoaoa -94- oflouuflu unanimous elm-Hula examined: .enz . an :72 . ”on c usflo .uem use-o .uem o \ \ x \ x x n \ V \ \ \ K \\ \ \ \ \ é \ \ \ \ - 2 \\\ . oN \\\ ma .\\\ \\\\ \\\\ . 0N x \ \ \ \ \ \\ S \ \ \ \ K e on mu \ on \ . on \ \\ \ \\ 3 \ \ Y 3 \ N.- 3 \ 3 3 \ \ - on . on NN «N . om nlllu. an , om Nm . om . cm 2: 03 eueovsum human-Um unowlumuum unouoaoudH muaovoum henna-3m unowluouah uneuoaounu. wee uneuoaon. mo mom-39mg mnoawqauulaoz use uneuoaoa mo cameo-ween non—Ho use onofiwwauu mo omeunoouom Hench and uonownoquem mo omeunoouom aauoa Na" m neouo .3 u m emcee mmxx c -95- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansig College of Education Under the auspices of the Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology Department at Michigan State University, I am.undertaking a study of the responses of first-year seminary students to selected parishioner problem statements in a pastoral counseling situation. This study will attempt to determine whether the types of responses in pastoral counseling are related more to the theological beliefs of seminary students or to the intensity with which those beliefs are held. It is hoped that this research may be of help in the selection and training of seminary students for more effective counseling in the pastorate. Your seminary has been selected as one of the samples for this study, and we would like to enlist your cooperation. If your seminary is willing to participate, I would like to arrange a time when I can administer a set of three questionnaires to the first-year students in your seminary. To assure a complete sample for better reliability, it would.be best to have an hour when all the first-year students can be together in a group. The seminaries cooperating in a pilot study found it most convenient to invite me into a class period in which the first-year students were enrolled. One professor than used this as a learning situation by discussing the experience in a subsequent period. We will be happy to supply your seminary with a report of the results of the research upon completion. I will phone you within the next few days to learn your response and to answer any questions you may have about this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, George Ensworth GE:ke -97- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing Department of Personnel, Counseling, and Educational Psychology Dear Junior Students: As one of a number of studies now being conducted to better understand and help the minister in his many responsibilities as a pastor, we are surveying Junior seminary students in a number of strategic seminaries. We hope to learn more about how you feel about helping parishioners in counseling. Your seminary has agreed to cooperate in this study. We believe you would like to take part to express your thoughts and feelings and contribute to our understanding of the pastor's counsel- ing ministry. Therefore, we have arranged with your seminary to meet with you as a group at (time) on (day) , (date) in (Room.and Buildipglr . You will be given opportunity to respond to three questionnaires which will take about 40 minutes all to- gether. You need only bring a pencil or pen. We will send you a report of this study so that you may see how you compare with other seminarians. Please make every effort to be there. It is most important to the ‘validity and reliability of this study that we haVe as many of your total class as possible participating. Sincerely yours, George Ensworth GExke mmrx D -99- The experiment in which you are about to participate is for a research study being carried on at Michigan State University, Department of Counseling, Personnel and Educational Psychology. Your faculty has graciously agreed to make your seminary a part of this study. The broad aim.of the study is to obtain objective data on the pastoral responses of first year seminary students. This is not a "test" in any sense of the word. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. You are not required to sign your name to the questionnaire or answer forms. You will be most helpful if you respond to every item as clearly and accurately as possible, in relation to your own thinking or feeling. Your participation is sincerely appreciated. Ybur seminary will receive a report of the results of this study. ********************** PRELIMINARY DATA YOUR.NAME IS NOT NECESSARY FOR.THIS STUDY Age Denominational Affiliation Seminary Married 7 Have you had any courses in pastoral counseling? If so, how many? What would you consider your own theological leaning to be: (check one) Very liberal Moderately liberal Moderately conservative Very conservative -100- PART I PASTORAL RESPONSES (Please read this introduction as you listen to the tape.) You will hear on tape, excerpts from sixteen different counseling interviews between minister and parishioner. Assume that you are the pastor in his study. The parishioner enters and after a few opening remarks, he presents his problem. After hearing each different parish- ioner statement, write the response you think you would give in that situation. Do not write what you think ought to be done, nor outline the course or goals of your counseling. Simply reply to the statement as you would reply were you counseling the parishioner. Each parishioner statement will be identified by a number. You are to write your answer after the corresponding number on your answer sheet. For example, for item "X", the parishioner may say, "I've been having an awful lot of trouble, Pastor." Then on your paper after item "x", you might write the response: "Can you tell me more about it?" You will have 40 seconds for each response, which is ample time in a counseling interview. To show you how much time this will give you, here is a 40 second interval on this tape How the administrator will stop the tape to see if you have any questions before proceeding. 6. -101- 10. 11. 12. 13. ~102- 14. 15. 16. ~103- ~104- PARI II RELIGIOUS BELIEFS This section contains a list of religious beliefs. Please read all of them. The best answer is your persppal belief. Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please magkgeyery one. write +1, +2, +3 or -1, -2, -3, depending on what you believe in each case. ' +1: I AGREE A LITTLE -l: I DISAGREE A.LITTLE +2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3: I AGREE VEIU MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 1. My physical body will be resurrected in the after-life. 2. Things happen that can only be explained in supernatural terms. 3. Jesus died on the cross for my sins and the redemption of Mankind. 4. The mind and the soul are just expressions of the body. 5. Jesus is the Son of God conceived by the Holy Spirit. 6. ' There is not evidence for me to be able to say "there is a God" or "there is no God." 7. It is possible that a new religion may arise that will be superior to any present religion. 8. we should concentrate on saving individuals. When enough individuals are sevad, society as a whole will be saved. 9. God created the universe in six days and rested the seventh. 10. As the world becomes smaller and smaller, Christianity'will be forced to compromise with other religions of the world on matters of belief and practice. 11. All information about history, nature and science is already contained in the Bible - ready to be interpreted. 12. Jesus differs from.as only in the degree of perfection be attained. 13. Jesus never intended to found a church. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. —105- Everyone should interpret the Bible in his own way because the Bible says different things to different people. All men are sinners. People can be good Christians and never go to church. Our church is the one church founded by God himself. Belief in.mirac1es is not essential. God is a product of man’s wishful thinking. A church is a place for religion -— churches shouldn’t get involved in social and political issues. Man is essentially good. Jesus was a man like anyone else. There is no life after death. Experiences of conversion are superficial and have no lasting effects. Buddha and‘Mohammad were as much prophets of God for their cultures as Christ was for ours. Churches are a leftover from the Middle Ages and earlier superstitious times. The church enjoys special divine guidance. Each.man has a spark of the divine. Mun lives on only through his good works, through his children and in the memory of his dear ones. Every word in the Bible is divinely inspired. The scientific method is the only way to achieve knowledge. There is no salvation for one who has not accepted God. Although the Bible is inspired by God, some parts of it are no longer relevant to us today. Nathing can really be called "sin" unless it harem other people. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. III!!! II III I l I II III ~106- Man is essentially neither good nor evil. The church is the ultimate authority on religious knowledge. The minister or priest has powers that ordinary men do not have. One day Jesus Christ will return to earth in the flesh. Man is headed for destruction; only God’s miraculous inter- vention can save us. It doesn’t much matter what one believes, as long as one leads a good life. If faith conflicts with reason, we should be guided by faith. Jesus was able to raise the dead, change water into wine and perform other miracles. There is no such thing as a "miracle." The Church was created by man, not by God. The church sanctuary should be used only for worship services. There is only one true church. There is no need for miracles because natural law itself is the greatest miracle of all. The Church was created by God. All non-Christians will go to hell. fiery conversion is a miracle of God. Man is made up of a body and a soul. A person should know the day he has bacon converted or accepted by Christ. Unless missionaries are successful in converting people in non-Christian lands, these people will have no chance for salvation. To be a Christian, one must be converted or born again. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. ~107- The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is a truer version of the Bible than the King James Version. The church building has a special holiness that other buildings do not have. There is no soul, in any sense of the word. The real significance of Jesus Christ is that in his life and.message he left an example for later generations to follow. Everything that happens in the universe happens because of natural causes. The church should not take sides on legislative matters. -108- PART III PERSONAL OPINIONS The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. The best an- swer to each statement below is your personal 0212192. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do. Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write +1, +2, +3, or -l, ~2, ~3, depending on how you feel in each case. +1! I AGREE A LIME -1! I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE ON ms WHOLE ~28 I DISAGREE on m mom: +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3! I DISAGREE mm mm 1. Only a simple-minded fool would think that Senator McCarthy was a defender of American democracy. 2. It's already crystal-clear that the United Nations is a failure. 3. It’s mostly those who are itching for a fight who want a uni- versal military training law. 4. Any person with even a brain in his head knows that it would be dangerous to let our country be run by men like General MacArthur. 5. Any intelligent person can plainly see that the real reason America is rearming is to stop aggression. 6. It’s perfectly clear that the decision to execute the Rosen- bergs did us more ham than good. 7. It is very foolish to advocate government support of religion. 8. Plain comon sense tells you that prejudice can be removed by education, not legislation. 9. A person must be pretty shortsighted if he believes that college professors should be forced to take special loyalty oaths. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. -109- A person must be pretty stupid if he still believes in differ- ences beWeen the races. It’s perfectly clear to all thinking persons that the way to solve our financial problem is by a soak-the-rich tax program. It's the people who believe everything they read in the papers who are convinced that Russia is pursuing a ruthless policy of imperialist aggression. Anyone who knows what’s going on will tell you that Alger Hiss was a traitor who betrayed his country. The American rearmsment program is clear and positive proof that we are willing to sacrifice to preserve our freedom. You just can't help but feel sorry for the person who be- lieves that the world could exist without a Creator. Anyone who's old enough to remember the Hoover days will tell you that it’s a lucky thing Hoover was never re-elected. History clearly shows that it is the private enterprise sy- stem which is at the root of depressions and wars. History will clearly show that Churchill's victory over the Labour Party in 1951 was a step forward for the british people. There are two kinds of people who fought Truman's Pair Deal program: the selfish and the stupid. Make no mistake about it! The best way to achieve security is for the government to guarantee Jobs for all. ban a person of average intelligence knows that to defend ourselves against aggression we should welcome all help -- including Franco’s Spain. It's mainly those who believe the propaganda put out by the real estate interests who are against a federal slum clear- ance program. The truth of the matter is this! It is big business which wants to continue the cold war. This much is certain! The only way to defeat tyranny in China is to support Chiang Kai-Shek. It's usually the trouble—makers who talk about government ownership of public utilities. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. ~110- It's mostly the noisy liberals who try to tell us that we will be better off under socialism. It's the radicals and labor racketeers who yell the loudest about labor's right to strike. It's the fellow travellers or Reds who keep yelling all the time about Civil Rights. A study of American history clearly shows that it is the Amer- can businessman who has contributed most to our society. A person must be pretty ignorant if he thinks that Eisenhower let the "big boys" run this country. It's perfectly clear to all decent Americans that Congres- sional Comittees which investigate cmuniem do more harm than good. Only a misguided idealist would believe that the United States is an imperialist warmonger. It's all too true that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It‘s simply incredible that anyone should believe that social- ized medicine will actually help solve our health problmu. Thoughtful persons know that the American Legion is not really interested in dmocracy. A person must be pretty gullible if he really believes that the Camnunists have actually infiltrated into government and education. Anyone who is really for democracy knows very well that the only way for America to head off revolution and civil war in backward countries is to send military aid. It is foolish to think that the Democratic Party is really the party of the cannon man. It’s just plain stupid to say that it was Franklin Roosevelt who got us into the war. It's the agitators and left—wingers who are trying to get Rad China into the United Nations. When you have completed these questionnaires, any em“ you wish to make about your feelings or reactions to any part of this study will be welcomed. mwgogroun W8 ggflgg‘ggmx. APPENDIX E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ~112- TRANSCRIPT OF THE SIXTEEN PARISHIONER PROBLEM STATEMENTS "I know I shouldn't think this way, but I can’t help it. I've done everything I know to associate with the girls, and be a part of them, but they Just don't accept me . . . at least that's the impression I get when I'm around them." (Female - cognitive) "I feel all alone. Nobody cares for me anymore. The folks don't come around like they used to, and my boy Tony is going to the State Normal . . . he never writes. I spent fifteen months in the senatorium . . . they said I needed the rest, but who could rest in that nut house. My husband’s left me . . . just like the others did. Bill was the fourth. (Pause) I know I should go to church . . . but they’re all hypocrites over there . . . I mean the church where the folks go. I used to go there, in fact, I grew up in that church. But they don't give a care for people like me, (short pause) they’ re just a bunch of hypocrites. (bitterly) I can get along with them." (Female ~ Affective!" bitter, lonely) "I need some advice. Do you think it would be wrong for me to marry a Roman Catholic? I don't see how I could ever give him up . . . but I know I can never believe the way his church does. What do you think I should do?" (Female ~ Cognitive) "My wife goes back South to see her people two or three times a year, and the last time she was down there, my buddy told me she was see- in' her old boyfriend. Now she don't know that I know this, but I been suspectin' it for a year and a half now . . . and now there's no question . . . I know for sure. (long pause) I never done nothin' to make her betray me like this . . . never thought it would come to the likes of this." (Male - Affective: anger) "Reverend, I've been coming to your church now for seven months or better , and I like your preaching. I think I understand everything you tell us, but last Sunday you said that a man can have definite 'assurance', (I think that's the word you used) that his sins are forgiven. I don't understand what you mean by this ’assurance' . Is this really something every man is supposed to experience or not? This is something new to me." (Male - Cognitive) 10. 11. ~113- "I get to feeling that life is so meaningless; my housework gets monotonous; the children get on my nerves, and I want to be alone all the time. When my husband talks to me, he’s only trying to help, but I break down and cry and want to be left alone. There's something wrong with me . . . I don’t know what it is." (Paule- Affective: crying, depression) "Every week when I do my wash and go out to hang my clothes . . . I can just feel my neighbors watching me. Just this morning I saw Helen . . . she’s my next door neighbor, when she walked past her window. She even waved at me, (momentary pause) but I know why she was there. They always talk about me." (Female - Affective: hostility, suspicion) "Sometimes I get the feeling that there’s nothing to religion . . . (brief pause) it’s just a big game. But I know that this isn't true. I get all kinds of doubts and then I feel guilty . . . Is a Christian supposed to have these kinds of feelings?" (Male - Affective : discouragement) "I've been a Christian all my life, but emetimes when I pray God seems so far away, and I feel so empty inside. (short pause) Is it because I've done something wrong, that I feel this way? (pause) Or, maybe I’m praying selfishly . . . sometimes I feel it's no use to even try praying." (Male - Affective: perplexity, lone- liness) "He won' t do anything; he won't go anyplace, all he wants to do is sit home and watch the television. He used to come to church with me occasionally, but now he won’t even do that. In fact, he tries to stop me from coming. He says he doesn’t love me anymore and wonders why he ever married me. We're living two separate lives all the time. I just can't go on like this." (Panels - Affective: frustration, anger) "You know that Tom has always been strong and healthy. He's hardly ever had a sick day since we’ve been married. Now the doctor says he has a bad cancer. (Pause . . . weeps) He's only 52 years old . . . seems so young yet . . . to have this horrible thing one on him. (Pause) The children know all about it, but they don't want me to tell him for fear it’ll just break his spirit and send him to the grave that much sooner. I wish I knew the right thing to do . . ." (Paula - Affective: dispair, grief) ~114- 12. "My wife told me last night she wishes I’d ask for a divorce. She said she’d be happier and she thinks I'd be happier, too. (long pause) I guess we just weren't meant for each other. Can’ t say we've ever really been happy in our married life . . . it’s been the same thing for four long years, now. (brief pause) I see our friends, and they seem so happy . . . why couldn't it be that way for us?" (Male - Affective: dispair) 13. "I feel as though I must tell you, pastor. Ann and I heve been married eight years, and we really love each other. She has been a wonderful Christian, and she’s worked hard in the church - yOu know that. She has prayed for me to go right ever since we first met. (short pause) Now that I decided to live for God and help in the church I . . . I don't know if I should tell her about (pause) (tearfully lowers head) . . . well, I never married this other girl, but I’m the father of a 13~year old boy. (profuse weeping)" (Male - Affective: guilt) 14. "We heard that our baby—sitter is undergoing psychiatric treatment . . . in fact, she attempted to take her own life last week. Ber doctor hasn't told her to give up baby-sitting, and she doesn't offer to quit . . . m‘ re afraid to leave Cindy with her anymore, yet, we‘re afraid that if we take the initiative, and make a change . . . it’ll just drive her to do something drastic. This would make us feel awful. What is the right thing to do?" (Female- Affective: fear) 15. "What'll I do . . . if I notify the police and tell them that I saw the men breaking into the warehouse, they'll ask me questions; and I'll have to tell the truth! I, personally, don’t care if I lose my job, but my foreman . . . well, I’m sure he’ll get fired, and I’ll be the cause of it." (Male - Cognitive) 16. "Pastor, when you preach about God’s forgiveness, you make it sound so simple and easy to have . . . (pause) but I wish I could know. I can pray and ask God for little things for myself and for others, but (Pensively) I only wish I could know that when I die I will go to heaven." (Male - Affective: uncertainty) . APPHTDIX F ~116- DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS of THE DIMENSIONS of THE MODIFIED COUNSELOR.RESPONSE SYSTEM 1. The Affective-Cognitive Content Dimension This dimension indicates whether or not client expression of affect or reference to effect is present in a counselor response. The presence of affective content is denoted by the "affective" category, and the absence of affective content is denoted by the "cognitive" category. The categories are more explicitly defined as follows: A. Affective Responses An effective response is one in which the counselor deals directly with expressed or apparent mood, feeling, or emotion by paraphrasing or reflecting client expressions of mood, feeling or emotion, or by calling attention to or remarking about mood, feeling, or emotion on the part of the client or anyone else. Note: Counselor expressions of his own mood, feeling, or emotion are considered to be effective responses, as are statements about mood, feeling or emotion on the part of any person as related by either the client or counselor. An affective response must refer to or incorporate an ex- pression of effect. It is the presence of affective content that is of importance and not the level of feeling evidenced by the response. ~117- Particular care should be used when judging responses con- taining the verb "to feel." Some counselors indiscriminantly use this word in reference to opinions rather than true feel- ing. Only when "feel" is used to refer to true feeling, mood, or emotion, should the responses be categorized as "affective." By "feeling" is meant strong feelings. Mere likes or dislikes are not strong feelings, and responses dealing with them are not considered affective. Examples: 1. "That seems to make you angry." 2. "You seem very happy today." 3. "How do you feel when they ignore you?" 4. "It annoys me when you arrive late for your appointment." 5. "Did that make your parents happy?" Cognitive Responses A cognitive response is any statement or question which does not refer to or incorporate expressions of feeling, mood, or emotion on the part of the client or anyone else. Cogni- tive responses often deal with cognitive material or content, but may be found to follow expressions of effect by the client i§.the counselor does not deal directly with such expressions of affect. Examples: 1. "How are you today?" (If intended in a general sense) 2. "What do you think about your grades in.Mathematics?" -118— 3. "You did quite well on the test!" 4. "So you feel you should look more seriously at teach- ing as a possible career." II. The Content-Follow~Shift Dimension This dimension deals with changes in the general topic of discussion between the client’s preceding statement and the counselor's response. More specifically, does the counselor follow the client's general topic of discussion or does he change or shift to a different topic? A. Topic Following Responses A topic following response is one in which the counselor deals with the same general topic as the client‘s previous statement . The counselor may choose to respond to a specific aspect of the general topic, but the response is considered to be "following" if he does not depart from the general topic. Examples: 1. C1: C0: 2. Cl: Co: "I always seem to do poorly on History tests." "What was your grade on the last one?" "My father says I should be an engineer." "How does it make you feel when he tries to tell you to do something you don’t want to do?" B. Topic Shifting Responses A topic shifting response is one in which the general topic of the counselor's response is different from.that of the pre- ceding client statement. Included in this category are ~119- counselor responses in which the tapic is the same as in the last previous counselor statement if the client has shifted to a different topic in the intervening statement. Examples: 1. Cl: "I've been getting low grades in Hath." Co: "How are your grades in English?" (Note: this . would be a "following" response if there had been a discussion of grades in general, but if the client's progress in Mathematics has been the general topic, this is a shifting response.) 2. Co: "So you think you might talk to her about your grades?" Cl: "Before I forget, I want to ask you if I could take one of those interest tests." Co: "You were saying you thought you might talk to Miss Jones about your History grades . . . ." III. The Control Dimension (Restrictive-Expansive) This dimension deals with the extent to which the counselor limdts or permits freedom of expression by the client. It should be noted that the counselor can focus on specifics and still permit the client to express himself freely. In determining whether a response should be judged as "restricting" or as "expanding" the client's freedom, the specific question should be asked: "Within the area focused upon by the counselor's response, does the response restrict or expand the client's freedom to express himself?" -120- Restricting Responses Restricting responses are those in which the range of possible client responses is narrowly limited or specified. A "pat answer" is often implied by such responses; little oppor- tunity is given the client to explore or expand, or to express himself freely. Examples : 1. "What is your average in English so far this year?" 2. "You really want to get good grades, don't you?" Expanding Responses Expanding responses are those in which the counselor gives the client a high degree of freedom to respond, even though he may focus on a specific topic. Such responses are often open ended and allow the client to explore his own feelings and to expand upon them. Sometimes these responses employ a tentative statement to which the client is free to agree or disagree, to develop further or not to develop further. Examples: 1. "You said you were having particular difficulty getting along with your younger brother. Could you tell me more about it?" 2. "Perhaps you went ahead and did that just to prove to yourself that you really could." 3. "And then how did you feel?" -121- IV. The Temporal Dhmension (Present vs. Past or Future) This dimension indicates the temporal reference of the counselor's response. Does the counselor refer to or focus upon, something in the past, the present, or the future? In order to maintain consistency with the other dimensions, two categories are formed by combining past and future into one category, present reference constituting the other category. If a response contains reference to past or future as well as to the present, the category assigned is that to which the most emphasis was given in the response. A. Past-Future Responses These are responses in which the primary emphasis is on a past or future event, condition, or feeling. Examples: 1. "How old were you when you moved to Detroit?" 2. "How did you feel about it at that time?" 3. "What do you think you will do after you graduate?” Present Responses These are responses in which the primary emphasis is placed on an event, condition, or feeling existing or occurring at the present tame. Examples: 1. "How do you feel about it now that you no longer live at home?" -122- 2. "You talked last time of going to college when you finish school; what are your plans?" (Note that although the counselor begins this response with reference to a past event, and then refers to a future event, he focuses on the present, i.e., the client's present plans.) V. The Client-Other Referent Dimension A response may deal directly with the client or with another person, it may refer to something said, done or thought by the client or by some other person. This dimension deals with whether or not the client is the primary referent of the response. A. B. Client-Referent Responses In this category are included responses referring to thoughts, feelings, activities, and self-references of the client, as well as responses which in any way focus upon the client rather than upon any other person. Examples: 1. "How do you feel about that?" 2. "How do you feel when your parents argue with each other?" 3. "It seems to bother you when your friends don't listen to you." Other-Referent Responses In this category are included responses dealing primarily -123- with actions, feelings, or statements of any person other than the client. If reference is made to other persons as well as to the client, the main emphasis of the statement determines the category. References to non-humans (e.g. places, things, ani- mals), are included in the other-referent category if such reference is primary. Examples: 1. "How does your sister feel about that?" 2. "How does your father feel about you?" 3. "I'm very glad you told me about that." (Counselor's feeling seems predominant here, although it is a bit difficult to judge out of context) 4. "And then what happened after your dog chased the neighbor's cat?" VI. Religious-Non-religious Dimension A response may refer to concepts or ideas peculiar to religion or it may be non-religious in content. If a response has religious as well as non-religious content, the category assigned is that to which the most emphasis is given in the response. A. A religious response is any response containing positive or negative reference to anything pertaining to worship, the super- natural, God, participants in religion, or religious concepts, such as faith, assurance. Concepts such as guilt or forgive- ness will be considered religious when qualified by other ~124- religious concepts in the response or when expressed in response to a religious statement without changing the subject. Examples: 1. "What do you think would be the Christian thing to do?" 2. "Have you thought of praying about it?" 3. "I'm not sure what you mean by heaven." 4. "Real assurance is only found within one's self." 5. In response to a feeling of guilt before God: "You are not sure you are forgiven yet?" B. Non-religious responses are those responses which contain neither negative nor positive references to religion as defined in A. Examples: 1. "You wish someone would tell you what to do?" 2. "Maybe you need to examine your own motives." 3. "You ought to ask her forgiveness."