 

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF
THE ELIMINATION OF SELF-DEFEATING BEHAVIOR
WORKSHOPS: A GROUP TREATMENT FOR SPECIFIC

COLLEGE STUDENT PROBLEMS

BY

Thomas Lewis Fiester

The main purpose of the study was to assess the
nature and extent of the effects of the Elimination of
Self-Defeating Behavior Workshop on specific emotional
problems of college students. The Workshops were a
group treatment combining three phases; 1) Phase 1—-
large group instruction through lectures, charts,
diagrams, handouts, journals, and limited discussion;

2) Phase II--the use of fantasy in overcoming behavioral
obstacles; and 3) Phase III--small group counseling.

One sub-purpose of this study was to assess the contri-

bution of each of the three workshop phases to the

total treatment effect; another sub-purpose was to test

the sensitivity of the method to variability in Workshop
leader experience.

Sixty-one university students who had requested
admission to the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior

Workshop were assigned a full or partial model workshOp

Thomas Lewis Fiester

or a no-treatment control group on the basis of their
availability for meeting times. Subjects who were avail~
able for the full model were randomly assigned to one of
two Workshops using this form of the method. One of
these Workshops had more experienced leaders (a total of
25 years versus 10) than the other. The three phases of
the full model Workshops were conducted over a five week
period while the partial model subjects were only admin-
istered Phase I over the same five week period. A
delayed treatment control group experienced only pre—
and post-testing. Each treatment level consisted of
either 15 or 16 subjects and, in the experimental treat-
ments, two Workshop leaders. All subjects completed
pre- and post-testing which included: six scales from
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (D, Pt,
Si, A, R, Es), Rotters' Internal-External Locus of Con-
trol Scale, and a Workshop Questionnaire. A Leader
Rating of Member Behavior Change form was completed at
the post-test for the full and partial models. In addi-
tion, the leader rating and Workshop Questionnaire were
used as repeated measures after Phase I and Phase II in
the full model Workshops. In this manner assessment of
the effect of each Workshop phase was enabled.
Multivariate analysis of variance of pre- to
post-test difference scores was the principal statistical

method used to analyze the data. Randomly derived

Thomas Lewis Fiester

groups of four subjects, four of which were in each work-
shop and the control group, were the experimental units
in the study.

Subjects in the full and partial model Workshops
experienced significantly greater improvement on all
measures combined than the control subjects. There was
no significant difference between the effects of the full
and partial model although the partial model subjects
indicated significantly greater improvement as a result
of Phase I. This result implies that the extended time
period (5 weeks versus 3 weeks) increases the effective-
ness of Phase I. Experience level of the Workshop
leaders was not found to be a significant factor in the
effectiveness of the method. In evaluating the relative
effectiveness of each phase it was found that Phase I
accounted for the majority of change that took place and
that Phases II and III had significant effects only on
the ease with which self-defeating behavior was elimi-
nated. Phase I appears to have effected the quantity of
behavior while Phase II and Phase II had impact on the
quality of behavior.

The results of this study were interpreted as
lending support to the use of Elimination of Self-
Defeating Behavior Workshops as an economical and effec—
tive method of altering the self—defeating behavior of

college students.

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF
THE ELIMINATION OF SELF-DEFEATING BEHAVIOR
WORKSHOPS: A GROUP TREATMENT FOR SPECIFIC

COLLEGE STUDENT PROBLEMS

BY

Thomas Lewis Fiester

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

The completion of this dissertation and my other
degree requirements has not been attained without cost.
Unfortunately, that cost has been extracted from others
as well as myself. My wife Suzy has endured and under-
stood beyond my eXpectations. Her emotional and
financial support made my success in the program pos-
sible. I am proud to be a partner in a marriage that
not only survived a doctoral program but flourished in
depth and intensity as a result.

Bill Farquhar has been extremely generous and
thoughtful in his guidance of my program. His attention
to me as first a human being and second a graduate stu-
dent lended support when it was needed and anxiety when
it was useful.

Jim Lowe, Milt Cudney, Greg Boothroyd, and Moyra
Ebling acted as the workshOp leaders in my study and the
quality of their work is evidenced by the results. Jim
Lowe in particular has encouraged my development both
academically and personally and helped me believe in
my ability. Geoffry Yager unselfishly contributed many

hours in helping me analyze my data.

ii

There are other people, institutions, experiences
and parts of me which seem to have contributed to my
completion of this program and deserve some measure

of gratitude but thanking them here seems inadequate.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . .

Need 0 I O O O O O O O O O O

Hypotheses . . . . . . . .

Overview of the Study . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .

III.

An Experimentally Controlled Investiga-
tion of the Effects of Group Therapy.

The Effects of Altering the Source of
Structure Between Group Leader and
Group Member. . . . . . . . .

The Effects of Cognitive Structuring on
the Outcomes of Group Counseling . .

Group Treatment of a General Personality

Construct as a Means of Effecting
Underachievement . . . . . .
Application of Fixed— Role and Rational
Emotive Group Therapies to the
Problem of Public Speaking Anxiety .
Group Application of Systematic
Desensitization. . . . .
Group Application of Behavior Rehearsal
and Social Learning . . . . . .
Cognitive—Behavioral Group Treatment of

Speech Anxiety . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN . . . . . . .
Description of the Method . . . . .
Workshop Leaders . . . . . . .
Workshop Setting . . . . . . .
Population . . . . . . . . .

Unit of Analysis . . . . . . .
Assignment to Groups . . . . . .
Design . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
ii

vii

OkOH

ll

12

15

18

21

25
29
33

38
42

48

48
55
55
55
56
57
57

Chapter
Measurement. . . . . . . . . .
Analysis Procedures . . . . . . .
IV. ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. . . .
Question I: Were the Workshops More
Effective than No-Treatment. . . .
Question II: Were the Two Workshop
Models Differentially Effective . .
Question III: Are the Three Workshop
Phases Differentially Effective . .
Question IV: How Sensitive is the
Method to Variability in Workshop
Leader Experience . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
V. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS . . . . . .
Research Question I: Were the Work-
shops More Effective than
No-Treatment. . . . . . . . .
Research Question II: Were the Two
Workshop Models Differentially
Effective. . . . . . . . . .
Research Question III: Are the Three
Workshop Phases Differentially
Effective. . . . . . . . . .
Research Question IV: How Sensitive is
the Method to Variability in Workshop
Leader Experience . . . . . . .
Summary . . .
Implications of this Study for Future
Research . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: Procedure . . . . .

APPENDIX B: Handouts Distributed at the

Orientation to the Workshops Meet-
ing for the Elimination of Self—
Defeating Behavior . . . . . .

APPENDIX C: Handouts Describing the Concepts

Presented in Phase I of the
Elimination of Self-Defeating
Behavior Workshops . . . .

Appendix D: Edited Excerpts of Audio Tapes

Recorded During the Workshops Con-
ducted for the Study . . . . .

V

Page

58
73

76

76
76

80

86

90

92

92

99

102

104

105

107

109

114

115

120

127

150

Chapter Page

APPENDIX E: The Workshop Questionnaire . . . 177
APPENDIX F: Workshop Leader Rating of Member
Behavior Change . . . . . . . 180

APPENDIX G: Pre-Test Raw Score Means for Ex-

perimental and Control Groups on

Six MMPI Scales, Rotter's I-E

Scale, and the Workshop Question-

naire . . . . . . . . . . 182
APPENDIX H: Analysis of Variance of the Pre-

Test Raw Scores for all Groups

in the Elimination of Self-

Defeating Behavior Workshops (Full

Model-Experienced Leaders, Full

Model-Inexperienced Leaders, and

Partial Model) and the Control

Group . . . . . . . . . . 184
APPENDIX I: Pre- and Post-Test Comparisons for

Each Treatment Level on Six MMPI

Scales . . . . . . . . . . 186

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Summary of Eight Studies of Group Treatment
of Specific College Student Problems . . . 45

Summary of Basic Design of the Experiment. . 58

Measures Administered for the Three Workshop
Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Internal Consistency Coefficients for the
Instruments Employed in the Study . . . . 74

Post—Test Minus Pre-Test Difference Scores

for the Full and Partial Model Elimination

of Self—Defeating Behavior Workshops and

the Control Group. . . . . . . . . . 78

Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the

Difference Scores of Treatment Versus No-

Treatment (F&P vs. C) and Full Model Versus

Partial Model (F vs. P) of the Elimination

of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops . . . 79

Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the

Difference Scores of Partial Versus Full

Model in Phase I of the Elimination of
Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops as

Measured by the Workshop Questionnaire. . . 82

Difference Score Means for the Full and

Partial Model Elimination of Self—Defeating
Behavior Workshops Resulting from Pre—Test

and End-of-Phase I Administration of the

Workshop Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 83

Means of Leader Ratings of Member Behavior

Change for each of the Three Phases of the
Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior

Workshop. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

vii

Table

Page

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance

Depicting the Additive Changes for the Full

Models of the Elimination of Self-Defeating
Behavior Workshops Associated with Phase I,

Phase II, and Phase III as Measured by the

Workshop Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 85

Difference Score Means for All Measures
Administered to Full Model Elimination of
Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops (Full-
Experienced Leaders, Full-Inexperienced

Leaders). . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the
Difference Scores of the Full Model-
Experienced Leaders (F) versus the Full

'Model-Inexperienced Leaders (F'). . . . . 89

Pre- to Post-Test Difference Scores on the

Workshop Questionnaire for each Phase and

Leader Experience Level for the Elimination

of Self-Defeating Workshops . . . . . . 90

Pre-Test Raw Score Means and Differences for

the Elimination of Self—Defeating Behavior
Workshops (Treatment) and the Control Group
(No-Treatment). . . . . . . . . . . 94

Number of Subjects, Mean Change, Mean and

Direction of Change in Each of Four Scoring
Quadrants of the I-E Scale for each Level

of Treatment in the Elimination of Self-

Defeating Behavior Workshops and Control

Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Pre—Test Raw Score Means and Difference

Scores for the Full and Partial Model Elimi-
nation of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops . lOl

viii

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this study is to examine the
effectiveness of an innovative method of eliminating the
self—defeating behavior of college students. The method
is a group treatment and combines 1) large group instruc-
tion through lectures, charts, diagrams, handouts,
journals, and discussion; 2) the use of fantasy in over-
coming behavioral obstacles; and 3) small group counseling.
The elements are presented in a workshop format with a

specified duration and content.

222291.

Development of an economical yet effective method
of treating the emotional and developmental problems of
college students becomes a more urgent issue as the demand
for services increases. The method under investigation in
this study (Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Work-
shops) was developed to meet this demand for services while
taking into account the budgetary and staff limitations

now being imposed on university counseling centers.

Cudney and Lowe* created the workshops on the basis of
their clinical experience with college students in a
counseling center setting. Some of the factors they
considered were 1) the limited time college students are
available for treatment; 2) the therapuetically disruptive
effect of holiday and semester breaks; 3) the college
students' above average verbal and intellectual abilities;
and 4) the developmental nature of college students'
problems. College students are a fairly homogeneous

group of "normals" having particular environmental pres—

sures in common. Theory and technique which is useful

in the treatment of "normals" is sorely lacking and this
inequity leads to the frequent misapplication of pathologi-

cal models of therapy. The Elimination of Self-Defeating

Behavior Workshops were designed to be an educational tool
which aids in the resolution of developmental concerns of
"normals" in a manner fitting the nature of the concerns.
Three goals were identified as being sought
through use of the technique. The primary goal was the
elimination of psychological distress in a rapid and
efficient fashion. Secondarily, a need was perceived for
a method of effecting behavior change which would 1)
relieve presenting symptomology and 2) teach the indi-

vidual how to live productively in the future. Finally,

 

*Dr. Milton Cudney and Dr. James Lowe are presently
employed as counseling psychologists in the Western
Michigan University Counseling Center, Kalamazoo, Michigan.

the workshops were designed to be a well-defined treatment
that could be effectively used by a variety of counselors

with different training and experience backgrounds.

Development of Self—Defeating Behavior

The theoretical basis in the creation of self-
defeating behaviors as posited by Cudney and Lowe rest
upon three components of human development: the helpless
and dependent state of the child, the destructive elements
of an individuals' environment, and the individuals'
desire to reach a homeostatic condition through the
acquisition of coping behaviors.

Cudney and Lowe assume an individual begins his

existance with a psychological tabula rosa upon which his

 

experiences are built. These experiences are certainly
limited but he is open to his environment, seeks stimula-
tion, and new information upon which to base future
behavior. If all an individuals' inputs were facilitative
he would develop as a healthy and creative person. However,
the limited coping abilities of children combined with
dependence on parents for physical and psychological
sustenance creates a learning situation which has the
potential of being destructive to ultimate psychological
integrity.

When the child becomes aware of expectations or
situations which obviate his lack of coping ability he
becomes intensely anxious. In the process of seeking

relief from anxiety he searches sources outside himself

for a way to cope. Some of the information provided by
these external sources is helpful and some is destructive.
The helpful information aids in the development of effec-
tive coping behaviors. The destructive information
encourages the development of self-defeating behavior.

Examples of destructive knowledge as quoted from
former workshOp members are:

1. "Because my parents didn't act toward me
like other parents acted toward their kids I assumed
that I was inferior and had to find ways to please
them."

2. "My parents wanted a boy instead of a girl.
As I grew up I kept getting this message."

3. "The interests I had never seemed to be the
right interests according to the school I went to. I
liked cars and wanted to work on them but school caused
me to feel this was wrong."

4. "In our family we were taught that it was
wrong to show feelings."

5. "In church and school I was taught to trust
sources outside myself. I came to mistrust myself
through experience."

Once the personal inadequacy is felt the self“
defeating behavior is selected to put into motion as a way to

c0pe with anxiety. The particular self—defeating behavior
which becomes manifest may be indigenous to the destruc-

tive message (as creation of inferiority feelings is

indigenous to being unfavorably compared to others) or it
may be selected from the environment on the basis of a
multiplicity of factors (temporality, contiguity, chance).

Because self-defeating behavior is not a product
of personal experience and history it requires constant
maintenance in ways also foreign to one's experience.

For example, if a child becomes aware that he is not loved
by his parents he must create an alternative to that
awareness because, to a young child, not being loved is
intolerable. That alternative (self-defeating behavior)
may take many forms: schizophrenia, autism, and hysteri-
cal conversions, but a less severe and more common one

is inferiority feelings. By creating feelings of infer-
iority the child gives himself the hope that, if he can

do what pleases the parents, he will be loved. His reason
for not being loved as others are is not because his
parents are unloving, but rather that he is unworthy of

a full measure of caring. Because humans are not
basically "inferior" the child must constantly create
inferiority with a variety of techniques. The child's
nature is not to relish failure but he creates failure

to maintain the illusion of being loved.

Self deception is necessary to maintain masochistic
behavior. The deception takes the form of disowning the
fact that one is choosing to do the self-defeating
behavior. In the situation described above, the reality

is that unless an alternative to unloving parents is found

some form of physical or psychological death will result.

As the individual matures, his coping abilities increase

and other sources of caring become available. Unfortunately
the fear that he will not have the possibility of being
loved overrides the use of coping behaviors and necessi-
tates denial of the fact that he chooses to create
inferiority. Denial is accomplished through disowning
statements and thoughts:

1. "That's just the way I am."

2. "Something won't let me do what I want to do."

3. "I can't control how I feel."

4. "My self-defeating behavior is an automatic
reflex, it's part of me."

The entire self-defeating behavior sequence, a)
creation of the behavior, b) maintaining the behavior, and
c) disowning the fact that a choice is made to maintain
the behavior, is an attempt to avoid the anxiety of facing
a Specific fear. The child who first learns and later
creates inferiority feelings fears that he is unloveable.
Because the fear is repeatedly avoided, anxiety which is
bound by association to the fear begins to increase in
intensity even beyond its potent beginnings. By the time
the child faces a new moment of living, senses the anxiety
of facing the old fear, and puts the self-defeating
behavior into motion to avoid the anxiety, the fear becomes

ominous. Because avoidance of the fear increases its

potency and because of ever increasing c0ping ability,
it isn't too long before the fear is largely mythical.

The treatment of self-defeating behavior as pre-
scribed in the worksh0ps is based on the understanding of
how peeple learn to defeat themselves. The etiology of self~
defeating behavior is most often found in the child's for—
mative years; however, an adult may be susceptible at any
time to the development of such behavior. Such latter
behavior formations are generated by realistic or perceived
inability to trust one's own c0ping or evaluative abili-
ties, usually occurring as a result of extreme stress.

The assumptions about self and others which
develop from conditions like those mentioned above are
destructive because they require the sacrificing of
personal development in order to gain some degree of caring
and emotional security. Regardless of the detrimental
effects, an individual will incorporate those values which
provide him with stability and a way to cope with anxiety.
The Elimination of Self-

DEfeatingiBehavior

The elimination of self-defeating behavior is
closely tied to the theoretical explanation of how they
developed. To eliminate the behavior an individual must:

1. Clearly identify the self-defeating behavior.
Such identification brings focus to the problem and is
much less threatening than admitting to being mixed up,

neurotic, sick or disordered.

2. Intellectually and emotionally accept that he
is the solejperpetuator of his behavior. Psychological
ownership of the behavior is vital because it gives the
individual power to control the behavior. That is, if
the individual perceives the behavior as being caused by
something other than himself he feels powerless to change
it. One of the major tasks of the workshop leader is to
cut off all avenues of escape from acceptance of responsi-
bility for maintaining the behavior.

3. Identify and fully admit the negative effects

of using the behavior. Before an individual will drop his

 

self-defeating behavior he must be motivated by the pain
resulting from keeping it.

4. Identify and take responsibility for the pri-
mary and secondary choices that permit the individual to
activate the behavior. Secondary choices are obvious and
are subject to "will power" while primary choices are less
conscious and are basic decisions about how one chooses to
live his life. For example, a woman may make the primary
choice nOt to test her sexual adequacy. This choice may
manifest itself overtly in being overweight to avoid being
sexually appealing. An endless battle of dieting and
overeating will be fought as long as the primary decision
is one of not testing sexual adequacy.

5. Identify and accept the responsibility for the
techniques used to implement the self-defeating behavior.

Examples of techniques are: distorting praise to keep a

negative self-concept, procrastinating to maintain under-
achievement and "making a mountain out of a molehill" in
order to maintain excessive worry.

6. Identify and confront the fear which is
avoided by keeping the self-defeating behavior. To stop
using the behavior the individual must discover for
himself if living in the immediate present without the
self-defeating behavior results in the same intolerable
pain he-experienced when the behavior was conceived.

The degree to which these six conditions are met
determines the degree to which the self-defeating behavior
will be lessened in intensity and frequency. "This, of
course, does not insure success in life for anyone because
life can hand people situations in which they can do very
little but, at best, accept defeat with dignity. Never-
theless, if this theory is applied it does insure that
the person will not defeat himself, and without defeating

oneself man's natural creativity has an opportunity to

manifest itself."1

Hypotheses

 

The following hypotheses were tested in this study:

1. Subjects in the workshops will exhibit
greater positive change in the reduction
of self-defeating behavior than will the
subjects in the control groups.

 

1M. Cudney, Elimination of Self—Defeating Behavior
(Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University Coun-
seling Center), p. 10.

10

2. Subjects in the full model workshops will
exhibit greater positive change in the
reduction of self-defeating behavior than
subjects in the partial model.

3. Subjects in the full model workshop with
experienced leaders will exhibit greater
positive change in the reduction of self-
defeating behavior than subjects in the
full model workshop with inexperienced
leaders.

4. There will be no difference among the
effects of the three workshop phases
on the subjects in the full model work-
shops.

Overview of the Study
The study is organized so that a review of the
research relevant to the elimination of.self-defeating
behavior of college students through group treatment is
presented in the following chapter. In Chapter III the
design and methodology of the study will be described.
The results of the analysis are reported in Chapter IV.

Chapter V will include the summary, conclusions, discus-

sion and recommendations.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This review of research is intended to serve the
function of providing a comparison of techniques, effec-
tiveness, and economy between the Elimination of Self-
Defeating Behavior Workshops and other forms of group
treatment. Only those studies were included in the
review which: 1) provided an assessment of group treat-
ment of college students on selected personality or
behavioral outcome variables; 2) provided a clear des-
cription of the independent variable; and 3) were compar-
able in purpose (i.e., problem resolution) and setting to
the workshops.

The majority of studies with college students as
subjects, and group therapy or counseling as the indepen-
dent variable, used grade point average (G.P.A.) as the
dependent variable. The workshops, and those methods
with which it is comparable were attempts at assisting a
student in overcoming problem behaviors and, thereby,
improving the quality of his experience of living. For

example, for some individuals an increase in G.P.A. may

11

12

be an indicator of a productive life style, while for
others (i.e., extremely compulsive individuals) it may
signify the presence of self-defeating behavior. For
these reasons, the studies using G.P.A. as the sole
dependent variable were excluded from the review.

In the following review those studies which met
the above mentioned criteria and provided a basis of com—
parison for the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior
Workshops are thoroughly assessed on the following com-
ponents: purpose, setting, treatment description,
therapists, time expenditure, and outcome.

An Experimentally Controlled Investigation
of the Effects of Group Therapy

 

One of the first studies completed in the assess-
ment of methods similar to that of the workshops was an
outcome study conducted by Clampittl in which sixty-nine
female freshman college students volunteered for groups
devoted to discussing "interpersonal relationships and
adjustment to college life." These groups were advertised
through a counseling center and the subjects enrolled in
the groups at the center. Following an introductory meet-
ing the subjects were sociometrically (within dormitories)

and socio-economically matched into twenty-three triads.

 

1Richard R. Clampitt, "An Experimentally Controlled
Investigation of the Effect of Group Therapy" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1955).

13

The triads were randomly assigned to one of three
conditions. Eight experimental units (triads) were
assigned to conditions I and II (the treatment conditions)
and seven were assigned to condition III (a no-treatment
control). Four experienced clinical psychologists each
led one group of six (two triads) in both condition I and
II. There were eight weekly, one hour meetings for each
group. One therapist for six group members, meeting for
this many contact hours produces a therapist expenditure
of 1.3 hours per client for the total treatment. The
group meeting times were arranged according to agreements
in group members' schedules once they were randomly
assigned to groups.

In Condition I the Counselors encouraged the

 

expression of attitudes and feelings, and provided clari-
fication and interpretation and emotional support. While
the leader was fairly directive and active he encouraged
interaction among the group members. Both intra- and
interpersonal issues were topics of concern. The coun-

selors in Condition II limited the amount of group inter-

 

action by presenting didactic material on specified topics
pertaining to adjustment. In contrast to Condition I the
content of the sessions was pre-planned and was primarily
between the group leader and a member. Discussion of
feelings and attitudes of the group members was purposely
avoided. The material that was generated in group discus-

sion was handled in an intellectual and matter of fact

14

manner. Condition III was a no treatment control in which

 

the subjects experienced only pre- and post-testing. They
received counseling at the conclusion of the study.

Measurement of treatment effects was accomplished
through pre- and post—test administration of the California
Psychological Inventory and Personal Adjustment Ratings
which were completed by the subjects' dormitory advisor.

In addition, a sociometric ranking by peers was completed
at both testing periods.

Generally, results of the study indicated that
significant pre- to post-test changes did occur in the
treatment groups (Conditions I and II) but that these
differences were not significantly different from those
experienced by the control subjects. A four week follow-up
demonstrated no significant difference between the three
conditions on any measure. So absolute changes resulted

from the treatments but relative ones did not.

Comment

The lack of significant findings in this study are
easily understood when the treatment is carefully scru-
tinized. Clampitt attempted to change a general behavior
which he never really clearly defines (adjustment and
interpersonal relationships) and he attempted to change
it in a vague manner.

The primary difference between this treatment and
the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops is

that in the workshops the cognitive and affective

15

components are combined in one treatment. The similarity
of treatment method lies in Condition II of this study
where didacicity and discouragement of member-member
interactions were employed in much the same manner as they
are in the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior work-
shops.

The Effects of Altering the Source of

Structure Between Group Leader
and Grogp Member

 

In a study seeking to ascertain the differential
effects of group-structured versus leader-structured group
counseling, Gilbreath2 assessed pre- and post-test differ-
ences using the Stern Activities Index, the MMPI, and
G.P.A. as dependent variables. Ninety-six out of 683
students classified as underachievers responded to letters
and were arranged into twelve, eight-member groups accord-
ing to their availability of time for meetings. Random
assignment of these twelve groups to no-treatment control,
group-structured counseling, or leader-structured coun-
seling, was then completed. Group-structured treatment
was non-directive, and dealt exclusively with topics that
were spontaneously generated by the group members. Total
direction of the group was determined by the members, and
study habits, work schedules, concentration problems,

vocational concerns, and feelings about inability to

 

28. H. Gilbreath, "Group Counseling with Male
Underachieving College Volunteers," Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 45 (1967), 469-476.

16

achieve academically were the major topics of discussion.
The leader was active in the discussion but did not
control the content or the direction. In contrast, the
leader-structured groups were directive and "placed
emphasis on topics that relate to the underlying emotional
patterns in the underachiever . . ." (i.e., a strong need
for dependent relationships, a concept of self that is
inadequate and inadequate and inferior; a high degree of
anxiety and depression, overall weakness in ego strength).
At each session the counselor presented one of the dyna-
mics of underachievement and the group then discussed

the topic in terms of their feelings and experiences.

The counselor actively related personality patterns to
academic achievement so as to increase awareness and
accelerate group progress. The topics presented were:
academic underachievement, goals and purposes, dependence-
independence, self-feelings, expression of anger and
hostility, impulses and controls. Both experimental groups
met for l%-2 hours eight times during the semester pro-
ducing an economical 1.5-2.0 hours of counselor time
equivalents per subject.

A post-test only design was used because the
groups were randomly assigned to treatment or control.
Results of a one-way analysis of variance testing for a
difference in means between the two experimental and
control groups on dependency, anxiety, depression, abase-

ment, and aggression were nonsignificant at the .05

17

level of confidence. An additional one-way analysis of
variance produced a significant F-ratio at the .05 level
of confidence indicating a significant difference in the
means of the three groups on the Stern Activities Index
Diffidence-Egoism Scores. Duncan's New Multiple Range
Test3 was employed on the same data and revealed signifi-
cantly greater ego strength for the subjects in the leader
structured group when compared to that of the subjects in
the control group. A two-by-two analysis of variance,
however, did not reveal whether the difference in ego
strength was due to experimental treatment, counselor,
or counselor treatment interaction. It should be mentioned
that the Stern provides twelve scores and that signifi—
cance in only one could be considered a chance occurrence.
Additional findings of the study were that when
compared to the no treatment control group, group counsel-
ing (undifferentiated in structure) enabled underachievers
to more overtly express their hostile feelings as indicated
by their responses on the Sterns Activity Inventory's
activity score. G.P.A. was significantly and positively

affected by the leader-structured treatment.

Comment
Gilbreath asks a concise and vital question and

seeks an answer in a rigorous manner. The major weaknesses

 

3C. Y. Kramer, "Extension of Multiple Range Tests
to Group Means with Unequal Numbers of Replications,"
Biometrics (September, 1956), 307-310.

 

18

of the study is a product of what Kiesler4 terms the
"therapist uniformity;myth." If counselor effectiveness
variance had been accounted for through use of counselor
experience as a blocking variable, the ego strength find-
ings would have much more meaning. As it stands, thera-
pist effectiveness is a confounding variable which
obscures the meaning of the data. However, these findings
do provide some indication of the effect of leader struc-
tured groups and this has relevance to the manner in
which the Workshops are conducted. It is a previous
indication of the effectiveness of a similar technique.

The Effects of Cognitive Structuring on
the Outcomes of Group CounselIng

 

 

One of the unique qualities of the Elimination of
Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops is the didactic presen-
tation of material. The group leaders may cognitively
structure the way in which the behavior is to be eliminated.
In a study attempting to assess the effects of cognitive
structuring on group therapy, Bauer5 compared the outcomes
of a cognitive structuring treatment group, a placebo
treatment group, and a no treatment group.

Subjects were thirty-four undergraduate dormitory

resident assistants who had volunteered for group

 

4D. J. Kiesler, "Some Myths of Psychotherapy
Research and the Search for a Paradigm, Psychological
Bulletin, 6 (1966), 110-136.

 

5Roger Bauer, "The Effects of Cognitive Structuring
on the Outcomes of Group Counseling" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969).

19

counseling or sensitivity training. They were randomly
assigned to one of four six-member treatment groups (two
groups each in cognitive structuring and placebo treat-
ments). The treatment groups were co-lead by graduate
students and each male-female pair led a group in both
treatments. The no treatment control took part only in
the pre- and.post-testing. All treatment groups met for
nine, two hour weekly sessions producing a 6 to l thera-
pist to client hour ratio.

The cognitive structuring treatment consisted of
the presentation of a paper and a one hour structuring
discussion for the first two hour session and eight
remaining group therapy sessions conducted without the
structuring paper or discussion.

The paper which constituted the cognitive
structuring treatment was an attempt to
describe the roles and responsibilities

of the group members and the leaders,
typical interactions among participants,

the importance of feelings and the neces-
sity of sharing them with the group
(especially those involving the group),

and some general principals of interpersonal
interactions.

The placebo treatment groups received counseling
identical to the structured treatment with the exception
of the cognitive structuring paper. They instead
received a theoretically oriented paper unhelpful in

terms of cognitive structuring. The only description of

the counseling common to both types of treatment was that

 

6Ibid., p. 53.

20

provided in the cognitive structuring paper. The paper
stated that it is the task of the therapist to clarify,
interprete, encourage, support, confront, and redirect.
Theoretically the method seems to lie somewhere between
the passivity of ROgers and the aggressivity generally

associated with Ellis.

Measurement was provided by: A Resident Advisor
Evaluation to be completed by the R.A.'s suitemate and
immediate supervisor, The Tennessee Self Concept Scale,
The State Anxiety Inventory, and the Relationship Ques-
tionnaire which was deve10ped for the study. All instru-
ments were administered at the end of session number one
and again at the conclusion of the ninth session.

The results of t-tests on the State Anxiety
Inventory pre-test scores (administered at the end of
session two) revealed that the cognitive structuring
groups had significantly lower anxiety than the placebo
groups indicating an inverse relationship between cogni-
tive structuring and anxiety. Those groups led by one
therapist pair were significantly different on the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale regardless of treatment. All
other pre-test to post-test differences existed only
between the two treatment groups and not between either
treatment group and the control group. The conclusion
drawn by Bauer was that the cognitive structuring had a

"facilitating effect" on group counseling but that this

21

effect was not observable in the real-life behavior of

the subjects.

Comment

The basic question of Bauer's study (cognitive
structuring effects) bears a direct relationship to the
Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops. One element of the
workshops whose effect is to be evaluated in the present
study is didactic treatment of material. If the workshops
are found to be effective, the contributory effect of this
phase poses an interesting issue and the indication of
Bauer's study may shed some light on the meaning of that
eventuality. It is unfortunate, however, that the
individual was used as the unit of analysis in this study
as the contamination of treatment effects was probably
already great with the S's being personally close and
more than likely, discussing the variations in the
treatment they were receiving. The former of these condi-
tions is logically argumentative, the latter is an unfor-
tunate design flaw introducing a confounding variable.
The implication of this research is that Phase I of the
workshop should have a significant contributory effect to
the total effect of the workshops.

Group Treatment of General Personalipy

Construct as a Means of Effecting
Underachievement

 

 

In an attempt to answer the question of whether

or not group discussions would result in greater gains

22

than would a traditional study methods course, Lieb and
Snyder7 identified self-actualization as a variable which
was directly related to underachievement. Subjects were
drawn from a required reading and study methods course

on the basis of the discrepancy between G.P.A. as pre-
dicted by a testing program (American College Testing
Program) and attained G.P.A., as well as normal or below
normal Self-Actualization scores on the support ratio of
Shostroms' Personal Orientation Inventory (P.O.I.). The
P.O.I. was also administered as a post-test. Twenty-eight
students were identified and became subjects in the study.
Prior to random assignment to groups, the twenty-eight
subjects were matched into two groups of fourteen on the
basis of their scores on the Inner Support Scale of the
P.O.I.

Each group of fourteen subjects was subdivided
into one group of four and two groups of five experimental
subjects. Each subgroup met with a counselor for one hour
twice a week for a total of eighteen group meetings and
3.6-4.5 hours of counselor time equivalent per subject.
The group leader guided discussion on the general topics
of motivation, the negative effects of underachieving,
the positive effects of achieving, the merits of self-

direction, efficient use of time, specific study problems,

 

7J. W. Lieb and W. Snyder, "Effects of Group Dis-
cussions on Underachievement and Self-Actualization,"
Journal of Counseling Psychology,l4 (1967), 282a285.

23

difficulties with parental communication, and the resolu-
tion cf common problems and conflicts. The leader assumed
a democratic role and used re-direction of questions,
clarification of statements and issues, and focusing as
his primary techniques. Major responsibility for discus-
sion and decision making was placed on the members although
discussion which was deemed to be irrelevant by the leader
was interrupted by him. Each session was begun by a
restatement of discussion up to that point and clarifica-
tion of the issue to be dealt with next. Grading was

done on an attendance basis only and the members were so
informed.

A second group of fourteen subjects was presented
the material typically covered in the study methods
course. All members in this group met at the same time
for lectures with specific questions and answers. In
essence, this was a control group.

A queStionnaire filled out by the subjects of both
groups and audio tape recordings were used to verify that
the pre-established procedural guidelines had been
followed.

An analysis of variance revealed that both groups
significantly (.05 level of confidence) increased on the
post-test measure (P.O.I.) but that no significant dif-
ference existed between the experimental and control
groups. A check of academic records revealed similar

results.' To account for this finding Lieb and Snyder

24

hypothesize that the "special" nature of both groups in
relation to the usual study methods course created a
Hawthorne effect sufficient to significantly increase

self-actualization scores and G.P.A.

Comment

Lieb and Snyder pose a vital question regarding
the relationship of a general personality construct (self-
actualization) to a specific behavior (under-achievement).
In route to answering the question, however, several
mistakes were made obscuring the meaning of the data.

No information pertaining to the group leaders was pro-
vided, thereby leaving open the possibility that the
significant increase in self-actualization was due not to
the treatment or the Hawthorne effect but to the facilita-
tive skills of the group leaders. In addition, no real
comparison between the study skills course and the group
treatment can be made without the use of a control group
which only experiences the traditional course.

The use of discussion of specific topics relevant
to motivation is similar to the approach used in the
Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops where
discussion of topics relevant to self—defeating behavior

is a major technique.

25

Application of Fixed-Role and Rational
Emotive Group Therapies to the Problem
of Public Speaking Anxiety

 

Albert Ellis' rational-emotive therapy (RET) and
George Kellys' fixed-role therapy (FRT) share the common
goal of attempting to change an individuals' behavior
through an alteration of his general strategy or approach
to situations. Karst and Trexler8 investigated the
effects of these treatments applied in group form to
college students who expressed anxiety in public speaking
situations.

Fifteen female and seven male students were
selected from a pool of volunteers on the basis of
schedule availability and a "more-than-minimal level of
anxiety" as indicated on a preliminary information form.
Eight subjects were assigned to fixed role therapy, eight
to rational emotive therapy, and six to no treatment con-
trol. For the actual therapy sessions subjects in each
treatment were divided into two groups. No treatment
control subjects experienced only the pre- and post-testing.
Three, one-hour sessions for each treatment group resulted
in a counselor time expenditure for each subject of 1.5
hours. Both therapists in the study were minimally des-

cribed with only the information that one was trained by

 

8T. O. Karst and L. D. Trexler, "Initial Study
Using Fixed-Role and Rational-Emotive Therapy in Treating
Public Speaking Anxiety," Jpprnal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychologx, 34 (1970), 360-366.

26

Albert Ellis and the other by George Kelly. The therapists
served as co-therapists for all sessions.

The two methods of treatment were used as des-
cribed by Ellis9 and Kelly.10 The fixed-role therapy
began with a clarification of the role each group member
adapted when speaking in public. This was followed by a
discussion of possible alternative roles and a homework
assignment including the tasks of observing other peoples'
responses to public-speaking situations and inferring the
role this person was adopting including the underlying
thoughts and feelings. The second session began with a
discussion of homework which was followed by the presenta-
tion of hypothetical situations calling for assertive
public speaking behavior. Group members were asked to
write down how they would ordinarily respond in those
situations and then a discussion concerning how alterna-
tive roles might help reduce anxiety was conducted. The
homework assignment was to construct an appropriate alter-
native public-speaking role and to use it as much as
possible. In the third and final session, the new roles
created by each group member were discussed and practiced

before the group. This was followed by a summary statement

by the therapists.

 

9A. Ellis, "Rational Psychotherapy," Journal of
Psychology, 59 (1958), 35-49.

10G. A. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs
(New York: Norton, 1955).

27

The first rational-emotive therapy session began

 

with an introduction to the principals of rational-emotive
therapy followed by a discussion of the anxiety group-
members experienced during speaking situations. The
"basic irrational ideas" underlying the anxiety were
noted, discussed, challenged by the therapists, and more
rational counterparts were suggested. A homework assign-
ment consisted of reading a paper discussing public
speaking anxiety from a rational-emotive point of view

and examination of each subjects' internalized anxiety-
creating sentences. Sessions two and three consisted of

a beginning discussion of homework followed by a challeng-
ing of irrational thought recommendations for alternative
behavior being carried out by the co-therapists.

Also included in the study was a no—treatment
control group whose members were randomly assigned, as
were the other treatment groups, and informed that the
delayed treatment was due to a shortage of staff.

Prior to group assignment all subjects gave an
impromptu four minute speech on a general topic (selected
by the experimenters) to an audience of ten people. Prior
to giving his speech each subject was given an outline
appropriate to his topic (a movie, sports event, "how I ‘
spent last summer," etc.), was randomly assigned an order
of speaking, and given ten minutes to make notes for
reference while speaking. The speeches were given without

notes and the subjects stood in front of a floor microphone.

 

28

Immediately preceding the actual speech each subject com-
pleted a single item, ten point anxiety scale. The Temple
University Fear Survey Scale and the Personal Report of
Confidence as a Speaker were mailed to subjects before

the pre-therapy speech and were returned at that time.

Two behavioral measures of speech anxiety were used in F1
the pre-therapy speech session but were not used in the
final analysis because of low rater reliability. ’

In the statistical analysis Kruskal-Wallis analyses

 

 

of variance were calculated for each dependent variable

on pre- to post-test differences. Group differences were
tested with the Mann-Whitney U. The fixed role therapy
and rational-emotive therapy groups were significantly
(.05) less anxious and fearful than the control group
according to most of the dependent variables. All pre-

to post-test raw score differences were in the expected
direction and, although the difference was non-significant,

favored fixed role therapy over rational-emotive therapy.

Comment

The conclusions one can draw from this study are
severely limited by the selection of instruments which
have little bearing on non-public speaking situations.
While it is true that reduction of anxiety in formal
speaking situations was the major goal of the study fur-
ther generalization would have greatly enhanced the meaning

of the research. In addition, the self-report nature of

29

all of the dependent variables which indicated significance
were not confirmed by any other form of assessment.

The usefulness of the study lies in its successful
application of the fixed role and rational emotive thera-
pies to treat a specific behavior rather than the more
general developmental goal usually sought by such therapies.
This indicates that broader application of the techniques
may be warranted.

Group Application of
Systematic Desensitization

 

 

Paul and Shannon11 conducted a study with selected
college males experiencing high levels of anxiety. The
treatment of choice was a variant of Wolpe's12 systematic
desensitization with the technique being presented in
small groups of students. The authors cite numerous
indications of the negative effect of anxiety on academic
performance, and assume the task of reducing performance
and interpersonal anxiety, expecting such a reduction to
significantly affect grades.

Subjects were selected from 710 undergraduate males
who completed a pretest battery at the beginning of a
required public speaking course. From these students

fifty with the highest motivation for treatment, the

 

11G. L. Paul and D. T. Shannon, "Treatment of

Anxiety through Systematic Desensitization in Therapy
Groups," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71 (1966),
125-130.

12J. Wolpe, "The Systematic Desensitization Treat-
ment of Neurosis," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders,
132 (1961), 189-203.

30

highest scores on performance anxiety scales, and a low
score on the MMPI L Scale were selected for participation
in the study. Five groups of ten subjects each were
formed on the basis of performance anxiety scale scores
generated from the pre-test battery. In the first phase
of the study, three of the five groups began treatment

for five one hour meetings over a six week period. These
three treatments were: 1) individually administered
systematic desensitization; 2) individual insight-oriented
psychotherapy; and 3) attention-placebo. The desensitiza-
tion closely adhered to Wolpe's specifications with the
hierarchies being constructed to public speaking situations.
Insight-oriented treatment had anxiety reduction through
insight and self-understanding of "the historical and
current bases and interrelationships of problems" as its
goal. The attention placebo treatment included use of a
non-active "tranquilizer" to reduce anxiety over performance
in identifying noises from a tape recorder. The experi—
mental treatment served as an "own-control" group for the
first six weeks (first phase) of the study, and began
group desensitization following a second testing (second
phase) of all groups except the "uncontacted" group. This
"uncontacted" group was not pre- and post-tested but
served as a control group for G.P.A. comparisons. During
the first six weeks all subjects concurrently attended the
required public speaking class. Only those subjects from

the 20 students comprising the "no-contact" and experimental

31

group who maintained their high level of anxiety (chronicity)
throughout the first phase were selected as experimental
students in the second phase of the study. Following the
second testing only the experimental group was actively
involved in the study. They met for weekly one hour
sessions for nine weeks in two groups of five for 1.8
counselor time equivalents per subject. Following treat-
ment, the experimental group was tested for a third time

to assess treatment effect following the own-control

period and second testing.

Measurement was accomplished through the use of
the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire, Pittsburg Social
Extroversion-Introversion and Emotionality Scales includ-
ing the MMPI L-Scale, Interpersonal Anxiety Scales of
the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness, and a self-administered
report of speaking confidence. Grade point average
(G.P.A.) change was assessed by reference to school
records. Therapists were experienced clinical psycholo-
gists who were regarded as being proficient in the type
of treatment they administered and were confident that
they could successfully reduce performance anxiety. All
sessions were recorded enabling verification of adherence
to preset treatment guidelines. These checks revealed
that the therapists were performing as prescribed.

Results of the study were derived through the two—
way analysis of variance. Only one of eight general and

specific anxiety scales produced a significant (.01) main

32

effect for the two therapists who conducted the group
desensitization. Also the therapist by testing (Prel-

Pre -Post) interaction failed to show significance (.10)

2
indicating that the changes effected by the two group
desensitization therapists are comparable over time. A
further comparison of scores of the students receiving
group desensitization with the scores they obtained

during the "wait" or "own-control" period produced a
significant (.05) linear component for all specific
anxiety scales (Personal Report of Confidence as a
Speaker, SR-Exam, SR-Interview, SR—Contest). A comparison
of means for all dependent variable scales indicates a
reduction in anxiety occurring in the treatment phase of
the study for those subjects involved. Because of the
difference in contact hours between group desensitization
(9 hours) and the other forms of treatment (5 hours) no
direct comparison with the experimental treatment can be
made. A comparison of individual desensitization with
these other treatments, however, indicates significant

reduction in anxiety.

Comment

The Paul and Shannon study represents an extension
of an already successful method of treatment. Group
application of systematic desensitization provides the
same type of economical and effective group treatment as
is intended by the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior

Workshops. By the very nature of the treatment, however,

33

systematic desensitization requires that all the subjects
in the group have the same source of anxiety because the
same hierarchy is shared by all the group members. It
may be impossible, for example, to treat anxiety which
was bound to studying and interpersonal relationships
simultaneously.
Group Application of Behavior Rehearsal
and Social Learning
Another study using a behaviorally oriented method
of group treatment of college students was completed by

13 They sought to reduce social

Hedquist and Weinhold.
anxiety and unassertive behavior in college students who
were enrolled in their first teacher education course.
Anxiety and unassertiveness were determined by high scores
on the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness and the A-S scale of
the Guilford—Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Once forty of
290 subjects were selected because of their high anxiety
they were matched into pairs on the basis of similar
scores on the pre-test, sex, and type of most distressing
situation. Following the matching procedure one subject
was randomly assigned to a control group and the other to
one of the two treatment groups.

Assessment of changes in assertive responses made

outside the therapy situation was accomplished through

 

13F. J. Hedquist and B. K. Weinhold, "Behavioral
Group Counseling with Socially Anxious and Unassertive
College Students," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17
(1970), 237-242.

34

the keeping of an "interpersonal diary" by each subject.
Those incidents which were to have been recorded by the
subjects were those which were indicated by the subjects
prior to treatment as being most distressing. A record
[of date, day, time, place, and person was to be kept in
relation to the subject emitting the target behavior. The in
control subjects kept diaries recording identical infor- 3
mation. Six weekly checks and recordings of assertive (

responses from the diaries were made for all subjects.

 

In addition, a two-week follow up was completed. Verifi-
cation of the diary responses was carried out by investi-
gators who conferred with the individuals with whom the
subjects had indicated they had exhibited assertive
responses. Twelve of these checks were made and no false
reports were uncovered.

Two forms of experimental treatment were admin-
istered by Hedquist and Weinhold to twenty subjects. A

behavior rehearsal gropp (n=10) used role playing of pre-

 

viously identified critical situations as its primary
technique. "Practicing difficult behaviors with repeated
trials or 'rehearsals' allowed other subjects to suggest
alternate verbal situations so that new responses could

14

be shaped by successive approximations." The following

format was established for the proceedings of each session:

 

14Ibid.

35

1. Specification was made of a problem situation
(selected from one of the fourteen situations listed on
the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness).

2. Verbal and non-verbal behaviors related to
the situation were clarified enabling ineffective responses
to be replaced by effective ones.

3. Feedback and evaluation of each subject's
role play of his specific situation was provided by the
group.

4. Rehearsal of the situation incorporating new
responses and additional feedback was provided.

5. Practice of the new responses and verbal
progress reports back to the group constitute the final
phase of treatment.

The second form of experimental treatment was a
social learning group (n=10) which operated from a base
of four group rules: honesty, responsibility, helpfulness,
and action. The co-counselors (male and female) in each
group used the verbal contract with each subject as a tool
to keep the members committed to a program of social
behavior change. The counselors used four rules of their
own to insure continuity and successful treatment:

1. Notation of violation of group rules including
citation of how and when the rule was violated.

2. Notation of any discrepancy between a subject's

stated value position and his behavior.

36

3. Disallowal of discussion of own or others
motivation for behavior. A strict focus on behavior was
to be maintained.

4. Resolution of problems by formulating a plan
of action before moving on to other material.

For all subjects, their time spent in the study was
explained as being part of the laboratory section of the
teacher education class. The control group met the same

number and amount of time as the experimental groups in

 

teacher-led small group discussions about general topics
in the area of teaching and interpersonal process.

The same pair of counselors led both treatment
groups and were trained via video and audio tape methods
for one academic quarter prior to the study. Both coun—
selors were advanced doctoral students.

A two-factor mixed design with repeated measures
on one factor (the diary entries) was the model used to
generate significance tests. The results indicate approxi-
mately equal reporting of assertive responses for all
three groups for the first four weeks. This finding is
explained by the fact that the experimental groups were
not asked to practice outside treatment until that time.
By the fifth week, however, the experimental subjects were
reporting four more assertive responses per week than the
control subjects. Because of final examinations and a
shortened week, this rate of responding decreased in the

sixth and final week of the study and the behavior rehearsal

37

subjects responded less than they had in the fourth week.
An analysis of variance on the same data revealed signi-
ficant main effects for treatments and for treatments
interacting with the rate of verbal assertive response
change over the six week period. Also, both treatments
effected the frequency of verbally assertive responses
significantly more than did the control condition. How-
ever, the two experimental conditions were not signifi-
cantly different in their effect. A follow up six weeks
after the completion of treatment revealed no significant
differences and all groups had returned to their second
and third week performance levels. The social learning
treatment was least negatively affected by this time

interval.

Comment

Hedquist and Weinhold suggest that since both
experimental treatments were initially effective, some
compromise of the two techniques be made. The chief
criticism to be leveled at the treatment techniques is
the rapid "tapering" of positive effects once the treatment
was completed. Failure of the treatments to aid the sub—
jects in the internalization of a system of problem solu-
tion could account for failure of the treatments to
generate lasting effects. The two treatments, in effect,
attack the problem of socially unassertive behavior on two
levels. The behavior rehearsal group attempted to effect

the behavior on a situational or observable behavior basis

 

 

38

while the social learning group attempted to alter the
premises upon which the unassertive behavior was based.
By way of comparison, the Elimination of Self-Defeating
Behavior Workshops approached problems on both levels.
The methods are similar in their economy as both treat-
ments in this study require only 1.2 hours of counselor

time per subject.

Cognitive-Behavioral GroupiTreatment
of Speech Anxiety

 

Having noted the previous indications of effec-
tiveness of the group application of systematic desensi-
tization in the treatment of speech anxiety, Meichenbaum,

15 conducted a study comparing

Gilmore and Fedoravicius
this treatment with a group application of rational

emotive therapy. In the study they sought to ascertain

the differential effects of attending, to the clients'

overt maladaptive behavior versus treatment of his self-
verbalizations.

Most of the subjects in the study were fifty—three
university students (five were non-students) who volunteered
in response to an advertisement in the university newspaper
for treatment of speech anxiety. Two groups of subjects

‘were randomly assigned to each of five treatment groups

(desensitization, insight, desensitization plus insight,

 

15D. H. Meichenbaum, J. B. Gilmore, and A. Fedora-
‘vicius, "Group Insight Versus Group DesensitizatiOn in
'Preating Speech Anxiety," Journal of Consulting and
(:1inical Psychology, 30, (1971), 410-421.

 

39

 

speech discussion, waiting list). The two therapists were
assigned to one group in each therapy treatment and were
described as being clinical psychologists with three and
five years of clinical experience. Both were basically

behavioral in theoretical orientation although one affili-

ated strongly with Kelly and Ellis while the other drew
heavily from the works of Freud and Dollard.
Each therapist led one of the treatments for eight

weekly one hour sessions and because there were five or

 

p;

six subjects in each group, the therapists spent an
economical 1.3 to 1.6 hours per subject. The group

desensitization treatment was modeled after that mentioned

 

in the study by Paul and Shannon16 which used a sixteen
item hierarchy containing items related to public speaking
situations. This hierarchy was shared by the group which
employed the standard muscle relaxation techniques outlined
by Wolpe. Use of the relaxation techniques once they were
mastered, was encouraged in public-speaking situations.
The insight-oriented therapy groups focused on the self-
verbalizations and internal sentences which create anxiety
in public speaking situations and generally followed the
theoretical guidelines outlined by Ellis. Once the per-
sonalized anxiety creating thoughts were identified,
incompatible behavior was identified and.practiced. A
combined insight and desensitization group treatment used

the group desensitization format for the first four sessions

 

16Paul and Shannon, op. cit., pp. 124-135.

40

and the insight oriented and desensitization treatments
equally split the hour of the last four sessions. A
speech discussion placebo group discussed innocuous
material with the rational that just talking in front of
others would help individuals to be more comfortable in
similar situations outside of the group. All emotionally {a
laden content was redirected by the group leader. A ’

waiting list control group only attended pre- and post- g

 

testing sessions.

 

“:— " ' a

Two behavioral speech-anxiety measures were used
to rate a four minute speech by each subject on "What I
expect to get out of college life." Previous to the
speech the subjects had been identified as high or low
anxiety based on several self report measures (Personal
Report of Confidence as a Speaker Scale, Social Avoidance
and Distress Scale, and the Fear of Negative Evaluation
Scale). Just prior to the speech each subject completed
an anxiety differential. Following the treatment condi-
tions the same type of speech situation was created with
some attempts being made to increase the anxiety potential
by, for example, increasing the size of the audience.

An analysis of variance was performed on observed
manifestations of anxiety, the self-report of anxiety, and
a cognitive measure of anxiety. The results of the analysis
indicate significant (.05) treatment effects for all
dependent measures. The placebo control and combined

insight and desensitization groups showed significantly

41

 

greater improvement than the waiting list control but were
not significantly different from each other. The desensi-
tization and insight groups improved significantly over

the control, placebo and combined groups but when compared
with each other were not significantly different. A mean-
ingful result of the analysis was that subjects for whom E3
speech anxiety was a generalized response style signifi- L

cantly benefitted from the insight and combined desensiti-

 

zation and insight treatments, whereas subjects for whom
speech anxiety was a circumscribed problem benefitted

mainly from the group desensitization treatment.

Comment

The Meichenbaum, Gilmore, and Fedoravicius study
has particular relevance to the evaluation of the Self-
Defeating Behavior Workshops. The authors have clearly
and precisely approached the treatment of anxiety creation
in speaking situations on both internal and external
behavioral dimensions. In this regard the combined
desensitization—insight treatment employed in the study
is similar to the Workshops. One goal of future research
on the Workshops would be to deal with the issue of match-
ing the client and the treatment which was raised in the
study by the interactions of anxiety generalization and
treatment effectiveness. This study then does provide a
precedent for the inclusion of both cognitive and affective

domains in a highly structured treatment.

42

 

It should be noted that a single defeating behavior
(speech anxiety) was treated for the purpose of clearly
defining the variables in the study. As group treatments,
none of the therapies utilized in the study are capable
of dealing with a variety of behaviors as are the Work-
shops. Both the group shared hierarchy in the desensitiza—

tion treatment and the self-verbalization emphasis in the

 

rational-emotive treatment are limiting factors. That is, *

 

the shared hierarchy demands a common symptom for its
construction and the self verbalization is only one of
several classes of techniques used to activate self-defeat-

ing behaviors.

Summary

The review focused on comparing the Self—Defeating
Behavior Workshops with those group treatments currently
being employed in university mental health settings. The
three dimensions critically examined within each study
were: treatment, purpose, and effectiveness.

From the studies on the outcomes of group treatment
of college students only those which met certain criteria
were selected for inclusion in the review. The criteria
were: personality or behavioral outcome measures, a clear
description of the independent variable, selection of sub—
jects in a manner common to university counseling center
practices, and a treatment whose purpose was problem

resolution.

43

Treatment

 

Seven distinctly different treatment methods were
employed in the reviewed studies:

1) Unstructured Insight

2) Structured Insight

3) Didactic

4) Behavior Rehearsal

5) Social Learning

6) Systematic Desensitization

7) Rational Emotive
No studies meeting the criteria employed the physical
contact or empathy training techniques common to many
counseling centers. The trend in the literature is away
from affectively oriented unstructured non—cognitive
treatments toward affectively oriented structured cognitive

treatments.

Purpose

The target behaviors in the related studies were:
academic underachievement, academic and interpersonal
anxiety, unassertive interpersonal behavior, self actuali—
zing, public speaking anxiety, improving self concept,
interpersonal relationships, and adjustment to college

life.

As anticipated, the goals of the behaviorally
oriented treatments were more clearly specified and more
effectively attained than those of the affectively oriented

treatments. Only the manifestations of emotional conflict

44

were clearly defined in the studies. The elements in con-
flict and the manner in which individuals generate conflict

remained only vaguely stated if stated at all.

Effectiveness

 

The studies that demonstrated significant results
characteristically had either a specific and limited
behavior as a goal or used self reports as a means of
measurement. Group systematic desensitization most
clearly demonstrated its effectiveness in comparison to
other treatments. The success of the treatment in reduc-
ing anxiety was reported by observed behavior ratings as
well as self report and standardized instruments. Desensi-
tization was one of the most economical treatments requiring
only 1.5 to 1.8 hours of therapist time per group member.

The positive effects of using structure was
demonstrated in a number of studies. However, a signifi-
cant difference was found only between treatment and
control and not between various types of structured treat-
ments.

The treatments which were least effective and
economical employed an affective mode of treatment.
Structure was provided by the spontaneous interactions of
group members and leaders with globally defined goals,
self-actualization, or improved self-concept.

The studies are summarized in Table 2.1.

45

.mmsoum uchummuu anon
CH mmwcmno quHOmnm cam
UCMUAMAcmHm mum3 mumcu

 

Houucoo pcm HousmEHummxw ucmEm>chom UAuUMpﬂo Anmmav
:mm3umn mmocmuwmwﬂp .<.m.o .>H0ucm>cH numpcs pcm .pcmﬂmcH mumpxcm
o: mnm3 mumnu cmsonuad m.v|o.m coﬂumucwﬂuo HMCOmumm muﬂnw: hpsum pmusuosnum a maﬁa
.mmsouo pmusuosuumcs scan
xuwﬂxcm uwzoa >Hucm0ﬁm unopcmc
Iﬂcmﬂm pm: mmsouo pmusu muﬂmccoﬂumwso Qanmcoﬂumamm m>Huﬂcmoo
nosuum .musmme was :0 .coﬂumsam>m nomﬂ>p< xn pousuoduum
popuoomu wuw3 Houucoo pcm ucmpﬂmmm .mamom unwocou ucmﬂmcH
ucmEummuu cmmzumn mmocm Imamm mommmccme one .>H0u unmocoo .ucmﬂmcH Ammmav
nummwap ucmoﬂmacmﬁm oz o.m Icm>cH >umﬂxc¢ ouwum one wamm .xumﬂxca pounuosuumca Humsmm
Houucoo
Cu pmummeoo c023 .<.m.o
can mmuoom xuﬂ>ﬂuom
.H.<.m umummum xaucmoﬂwwc ucmﬂmcH
Imam couscoum mucmEumwuu acme pousuosuum
:uom .Qsoum pwusuosuum uo>oﬂcomumpcs umpqu
“momma now numcmuum .<.a.o .Hazz no mmmsmo .unmﬂmcH lemmac
0mm umummum >Hucm0ﬁmwcmﬁm o.mum.a .xwch mmﬁuﬂ>ﬂuo< cumum accoﬂuoem pousuosuumc: mcumounaﬂo
mmmcmco ammulumom ou mum
unmoawﬂcmam pmosnonm
wucmEummuu cuon Houu mmmaaou on name
Icoo mzu Eouw acmummwﬂp mmcﬂuwm DCOEumsnp< unmanpd pcm oﬂuompao
>Hucmoﬂwﬁcoﬁm mmz ucmE accomumm .xuouco>cH mdwcmcoﬂumamm .unmﬂmcH Ammmav
Iwmmuu nonuﬂwc nmsocua< v.m HMUHmoHozozmm masseuﬂﬂmu HMCOmHmQHmDCH pwusuosuumcs muumemHU
measmwm uomﬂnsm mmusmmmz uoﬁ>msmm accuse ucmEumth Hosusc
you muco:
umwmmumch

 

.mEmHnoum ucmpsum

mmmaaoo onHoQO mo ucwEummuB Qsouo mo mmﬂpsum ucmﬂm wo >umEE:muu.a.N mqmde

‘46

poﬁumm Houucoo

.4.m.o
.oocmpﬂwcou mcwxmmam mo
phonon pwhwumﬂcﬁEGMImem
.mmmcmdoﬂxcm mo >noa
Icm>cH mum may mo mwamow
xumﬂxcd HMGOmeQkucH
.mamomuq Has: .mmamom

oncomam
.unmﬂmcﬂ Hmsuﬂ>
laps“ Amsoum

 

G30 cm on cmummeoo auﬂamcowuoem paw conHm> a Hasnw>
mm mumﬂxcm oﬂwwowmm IouucHlsonHm>ouuxm lapsﬁv sown Ammmav
pmospwu.>aucmoewﬂcmﬂm Andoom musnmuuﬂm muwﬂxc< ImNHuHmcmmmo mcoccmnm
coﬂumuwuﬂmcwmmc msouu m.H .mamom xumﬁxcm BamH HmcomuwmnmucH oeumEmumxm a Hamm
.mucmEummuu cmmzumn mmocm
nummwﬁp ucmowwﬂcmwm 0c maﬁcnqu
.Houucoo can mummEummuu How>mcmm Haﬁoom Aonmav
com3umn mmwsm>ﬂuummmm CH Auuomwn mammv m>HuHmmmmc3 can .Hmmmmmcmm vcaoccamz
mmocwumMMAp ucmoﬂwwcmﬁm N.H human HmGOmummuwucH xuwﬂxsd Hmﬂoom How>mcmm a umﬂsqcmm
.mucmaummuu
cmm3umn mocmumw
Iwwc o: .Houucoo mcu C“ wamem m mm
cmnu mmsoum Housmeﬁuwmxm mocwpﬂmcoo we uuommm m>ﬂuOEm Acumav
cw ummm cam xumwxcd HmCOmumm .wawom >m>usm mumﬁxcd lamcoﬂumm mumaxwua
mmma aaucmoﬂuﬂcmwm m.H “mom xuﬂmum>ﬂsp madame mcﬂxmmmm OHHnsm .maom pmxﬁm a umumx
muasmmm uuwﬂndm mmHSmmmz H0ﬂ>mnmm ummume ucmEummua Honusd
Hmm muoom
umwmmuoca

 

.cmscwucooll.a.m mqmda

47

 

.omaumma .Aoomsc as .mmoaoaosmm Hassocna mo Hmcnson =.mm:ouu
wetness ca coﬂumuwuwmcmmmo owumewumwm cmsouca wuwﬁxcm mo ucmEummue: .coccmnm .B .Q can Home .A .w

m

 

.Hmvloav .Aawmav om .Nmoaocowmm Hmoﬁcﬁao can mcﬂuasmcoo mo HMGHDOS =.>umwx:< commmm msﬂummua
aw coﬂumNHuHmcwmmo macaw msmuw> uanmcH gnome: .msﬂoﬂ>muocmm

.4 new muoEHAo .m .n .esmncmnosmz .m .oh

 

.mmmummm .lsmmac vs .smoHonoxwm mcﬂammcsoo no ﬁnances
=.coﬂumNHHmsuo<lmamm pcm pcme>mﬁcomumpca co coﬂmmsomﬂa macho Mo wuommmm= .Hmpxcm .3 paw awed .3 .n

w

 

.wmmlomm .Aonmav wm .NmoHocQNmm HMUACHHU paw maﬁuasmcou mo HMCHDOh =.%umﬂxs¢ mcﬂxmomm oaansm
mcﬂummue ca >mmumce m>HuOEmIHmcoﬂumm pcm «Homlcmxﬁm mean: wpsum amauﬁcH= .umaxwua .Q .A new umumx .o .9

m>ﬂuummmmc3 new msoﬂxc¢ zaamﬂoom sues mcﬂawmcsou msouu Hmuoﬁ>mzmm: .paoncwmz .x .m cam umwsqpmm .h .m

 

mocmpwsu paw amusemnmm

=>dmumne msouw mo nowwmm msu mo COAummHumm>cH pmHHouucoo >HHMpcmEﬂummxm s<= .uuﬁmSmHu .m pumnoﬁm

m

 

.mvmlnmm .Aonmav ha .wmoHocommmxmcﬂammcsou mo Hmcusoo =.mucmpsum mmmaaou

v
.mhvlmmv .Awwmav mv .HMGHDOh
m

=.mummucsHo> mcﬂ>mﬂno<|umpca mam: :uﬂ3 oceammcsou macuu: .cummunaﬂo .m .m

.Ammma .mBoH mo wuﬁmum>ﬂca wumum .c0wumuuwmmﬂp .Q.£m pwnmﬂansmcsv

 

 

N
.Ammma .muﬂmuw>ﬂcp mumum Gamecoﬂz .coﬁumunmmmﬂp
.Q.nm pwcmﬂandmcsv =mcﬂammcsoo moosu mo mmEoouso ecu co mcﬂusuosuum m>HuHcmoo we muomwwm was: .Hmsmm HmwomH
.umnuo comm Scum ucmumm
uwﬂp xaucmoﬂmwcoam uoc
muwz awn» ugh pmcﬂneoo
paw .onmomHQ .Houucoo uoﬂ>mcmn oo>ummno Qsoum
cmcu quEw>oumEﬂ kummum .mamom Hmﬂucmuww oncomam .cowumN
mauchAMAcmﬂm cozocm Iwﬁp >umﬂxcm .mamom coﬂu Iﬂuﬁmcmmoo paw
ucmﬂmcw cam coﬁuMquHm Innam>m m>wummmc mo Home unoﬂmcH pwcﬂn
Icmmmo .mmsoum Houucoo .mamom mmwuumﬁc cam IEoo .w>HuoEm Adhmav
Mow cmcu Hmucmeﬂummxm mocmpﬂo>m Hmﬁoom .mamom accoﬂumm hmsﬂoﬁ>muopmm
Ham HOw ucmEm>oumEﬁ umxmmam m mm oocwpﬂucou .coﬂumuﬂu w mHOEHﬂo
kummum >Hucmoﬂwﬂcmﬂm w.H|m.H mo uuommm HmCOmumm wumﬂxc< nommmm Iﬂmcmmmo msouu .Edmncmnoﬂwz
muasmom uommnsm mwusmmmz H0ﬂ>mcmm ummume unmapmmnﬁ uonus<
Hod muso:
umﬂmmumcb

 

.umscﬂucoouu.a.m mamas

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

This study was designed to compare the effects of

the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops with

a partial treatment model and also with a no-treatment

control group.

Description of the Method

 

The Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Work-
shop is initiated with a one hour group meeting of all
students who have come to the Counseling Center requesting
admission to an Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior
Workshop. The first workshops were advertised through
distribution of printed material and notices in the school
paper, but those subjects who have sought admission to
more recent workshops either heard about them from their
friends or were referred by counselors. This first meet-
ing was used to clarify the goal of the workshop (i.e.,
to eliminate self—defeating behavior), to briefly describe
the nature of the workshops (i.e., not group therapy,
psychoanalysis, sensitivity training, but an intensive
short—term program to eliminate self-defeating behavior)

and to form a verbal "contract" between the leaders and

48

49

members. This contract is a specification of what is
expected of the members and what the members can expect
of the leaders. The expectations of the members are:

l. Full attendance at all sessions.

2. Completion of all forms, journals and tests
connected with the workshop.

3. Active involvement in the process of the
workshop.

4. Dedication to changing the behavior(s) they
select.

The responsibilities of the leaders are:

1. Assuming the task of helping each member to
eliminate a specified self-defeating behavior(s).

2. Concern only with the "what and how" of each
member's behavior, regarding the "why" as non-productive.

3. Insurance that no member defeats the workshop
with his own self-defeating behavior.

A list of self-defeating behaviors (Appendix B)
was used to help each member specify a behavior. Members
are asked to check each behavior that seems relevant, to
examine those relevant behaviors, and circle the one of
greatest concern. The workshop leaders circulate in the
room assisting in this process, and collect the forms when

they are completed.

50

Phase I

In the week following the testing and introductory
meeting, the first of six 55—minute lecture and discussion
sessions was conducted. In the full models these sessions
were held twice a week for three consicutive weeks and
once a week for five weeks for the partial models. Each of
the six periods (with the exception of session six, which
is an integrative session and was excluded from the par—
tial models) include: 1) a 15—minute discussion of how
the members were integrating the previous material; 2) a
5-10 minute presentation of one of the workshop's five
theoretical principles; and, 3) a clarification period to
assist the group members in comprehending and personaliz-
ing the principle currently under discussion.

A Behavior Change Facilitator Form (see Appendix F)
was given to the workshop members during the first session
of Phase I and they were instructed to work on answering
the questions on the form in three weeks before the begin-
ning of Phase II. When the form was handed in, it was
checked by the workshop leaders so that they could assess
the degree to which each member had understood and person-
alized the five concepts presented in Phase I. A Journal
was also assigned at the first session of Phase I and was
explained as being an instrument to aid the workshop member
in clarifying his thought about his self—defeating behavior.
It was intended as a personal record of the struggle to
accept responsibility for the self-defeating behavior to
recognize its costs and gains, and to identify the technique

being used to maintain the behavior.

l
t

51

The five principles presented in Phase I and upon
which the workshop is based are:

1. To the extent that a person does not see him-
self as being the initiator of his behavior he will continue
in Self-Defeating Behavior (SDB). An individual must assume
full responsibility for his external and internal behavior,
and, in short, come to understand the meaning of psychologiw
cal ownership.

2. The cost of maintaining self-defeating behaviors
is high both in negative results actually experienced (i.e.,
depression; loss of money, promotion, opportunities;
inability to be happy; early death, poor health; impaired
relationships) and lost positive results (i.e., inner
peace, meaning of life, positive influence on others,
eagerness to experience every day).

3. Man is a decision making being in that he makes
primary and secondary choices to maintain defeating behavior:
To change, a person must not only recognize the secondary
choices (like over-eating) which are easy to detect, and
also primary choices (like not testing adequacy as a woman)
which are usually more difficult to detect.

4. At the time the self-defeating behavior was
created by the individual it was perceived as an adjustive-
adaptive response. The fact that self-defeating behaviors
are attempts at c0ping eXplains why people cling so

tenaciously to behaviors that are obviously, to self and

52

others, destructive. In order for a behavior to continue
when its effects are destructive, certain techniques and
skills must be used to deny and distort the reality of
the behavior's effects. These skills and techniques must
be identified in order for behavior to change. Examples
of the techniques are: avoiding emotionally laden subjects,
avoiding risk, giving other people responsibility for one's
life, hallucinating, keeping so busy that there is little
time or energy to deal with deeper issues concerning one-
self, and feigning stupidity as a way of not processing
potentially anxiety-provoking information.

5. An individual who maintains a self-defeating
behavior does so because he is afraid to face life without
it. The potential onset of anxiety which is generated from

fear of some occurrence is avoided by the use of the

self-defeating behavior. Because the situation which
generated the fear occurred at a time when the ability
for coping was reduced from what it is now, the fear is
a mythical one and without foundation in the present.

The six sessions of Phase I were devoted to the
understanding and personalization of these five principles.
The sessions were characterized by the instructional
quality one would expect to find in a university seminar
with the exception that communication between members was
prohibited (see transcript in Appendix D). The counselors

posed questions to members concerning their progress in

53

achieving a full understanding and utilization of the
concepts, and the members responded directly to the
leaders. During these interchanges the workshop leaders
aided each other in helping the members achieve under—
standing and behavior change. They also were on constant
alert for any attempt by the members to defeat the work-
shOp through the exercise of self-defeating behavior
during its course. In the final session of Phase I an
attempt was made to complete the personalization of the
five concepts in preparation for Phase II. Because of the
interesting treatment possibilities of the didactic con—
tent in Phase I, a partial model workshop utilizing only
the six concepts presented in weekly one hour sessions was

incorporated in the design of the study.

Phase II

In the fourth week of the workshop the full and
partial model members met in groups of four with one leader
for a single two hour session. The purpose of this ses~
sion was to help the members overcome difficulty they were
having in living without the self-defeating behavior. The
difficulty was experienced by them as a barrier between
themselves as persons they are with and without the des—
tructive behavior. They were instructed to fantasize that
barrier into a picture, and then were assisted in over-
coming the barrier and exploring the "other side." The

workshop leader assisted each member with the construction

54

and use of the fantasy. The barrier was often pictured as
a wall, a deep gorge, a sheet of plastic, a bubble, a fire,
or a door. Use in imagining any tool necessary to bypass
the barrier was encouraged. Once the barrier was bypassed
the feelings experienced by the individual provided a
realization of life without self-defeating behaviors,

and this provided motivation.

Phase III

 

This stage of the workshop consisted of the four
member groups meeting with a leader three times; once
during the fourth week, and twice during the fifth and
final week of the workshop. During these sessions the
leaders verbally assisted each member in the personaliza-
tion of the mythical fear concept and also emphasized the

specific techniques being used by the workshop members to

maintain the self-defeating behavior. The techniques of
maintenance can be identified as belonging to one of
four categories (internal sentences, imagery, physical
posture and expression, and emotion). Again in this
phase no member-member interactions were allowed.

During the final session of Phase III any members
who had not completely eliminated their self—defeating
behavior were referred to their journal entries, the
workshop handouts, and their own knowledge about their
self-defeating behavior. They were again reminded that

the workshop was time limited and that the leaders would

 

55

be unable to meet with them beyond the length of the

workshop.

Workshop Leaders

 

The workshop leaders were assigned in experience
based pairs. One pair, Cudney and Lowe, the workshop
creators, are counseling psychologists, and have a total
of 25 years of counseling experience between them. Two
other leaders, a male and a female, with less than 10
years of experience between them form the other pair.

The less experienced leaders have been trained by Cudney
and Lowe in workshop leadership and technique for one year.
Practical experience in leading groups and informal semi—

nars were the training methods used.

Workshop Setting

 

All three phases of the workshops were held in the
Western Michigan University counseling Center. Seating
arrangement was in a circle with the two leaders sitting
opposite each other in Phase I and in a semi-circle with

the leader sitting in the center and facing the group in

Phases II and III.

Population

 

The students who became subjects in the study were
students from Western Michigan University who volunteered

for a workshop at the beginning of fall term of 1971.

56

Unit of Analysis

 

The unit of analysis used in this study was a four
member group, four of which comprised each experimental
and control condition. This unit was selected because it
provided the best compromise between the individual sub-
ject and the entire group. Use of the subject as the
experimental unit does not account for the possibility that
the effects of treatments given in group form may not be
independent for each subject. Use of the entire group
level as the unit of analysis leaves no degree of freedom
for the error term to permit meaningful analysis of vari-
ance computations to be performed. Groups of four seemed
particularly appropriate since the latter stages of treat—
ment had been administered to groups of that size in pre-
vious workshops.

The integrity of the four member groups was main-
tained by having those groups seated together in the same
order for all workshop meetings.

The four member unit of analysis allowed the
economical quality of the method to be maintained while
still satisfying the requirement of independence for the
usage of analysis of variance which was the statistical

technique used in the study.

57

Assignment to Groups

Students were assigned to workshops on the basis of
time groupings that their class schedules would allow.
Once they were assigned to full model, partial model, or
control the subjects were randomly assigned to one of the
four four-member groups that comprised each workshop and
control group. Since both full model workshops met at the
same time, subjects who were available for this treatment

were randomly assigned to one of the two full models.

Design

The basic design of the study is a pre-test post—
test control group model using repeated measures on some
dependent variables. Campbell and Stanley1 mention in their
discussion of this model that it controls for all the
sources of internal invalidity and for one of the three
sources of external invalidity. The design is summarized
in Table 3.1.

Treatment time for all groups was six weeks. The
full model workshops met twice a week and the partial model
once a week. Subjects in the partial model workshop com—
pleted a full workshop following the post-test. Students

in the control group were assigned to a workshop following

 

‘ 1D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and
Qpasi-Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand
McNally & Company, 1969), p. 8.‘

58

TABLE 3.1.--Summary of Basic Design of the Experiment.

 

 

Full Model Partial Model Control
Leaders A & B 4 groups 4 groups
(Experienced)
Leaders C & D 4 groups
(Inexperienced)
4 groups

Total N=16

 

the completion of this study. Staff and time limitation was

cited as the reason for the delayed admission to a workshop.

Measurement

 

The measures selected for use in this study were
chosen on the basis of their relevance to those behaviors
which would most likely be affected by the Self-Defeating
Behavior Workshops. The highest priority was placed upon
describing the effects of the treatment as broadly as
possible. By using a variety of measures to fully describe
the treatment effects, the chances of a Type II error were
increased. That is, clinical knowledge and experience
would suggest that some dependent variables would have a
deleterious effect on the total change indicated by all
the measures combined. The more variables entering in
the multivariate decision of significant difference, the

greater the chances of negative results. However, in the

59

interest of replication, the reporting of only true dif-
ferences, and use of the experiment to alter the course
of future workshops; this course was chosen over one which
would have enhanced the chances of significant findings.

A group of dependent variables measuring person-
ality and behavioral change from pre- to post-treatment
were selected to allow comparisons between the full and
partial model workshops and the delayed treatment control.
The Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (I-E Scale),
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the
Worksh0p Questionnaire, and Workshop Leader Rating of
Member Behavior Change are intended to provide data for
making the above mentioned comparisons. The final two
instruments mentioned above were administered at the end
of Phase I for the full and partial models, and at the
end of Phase II for the full models. This additional
testing was included in the design so that the effect of
the various workshop phases could be assessed and compared.
A graphic representation of when each instrument was
administered is presented in Table 3.2.

Each of the measures employed in the study is
described below.

Internal-External Locus of
Control Scale

In the process of eliminating a self-defeating

behavior Cudney and Lowe hypothesized that an individual

would be made more aware of his responsibility for the

 

 

60

TABLE 3.2.--Measures Administered for the Three Workshop

 

 

Phases.

Pre-Testa Phase I Phase II Phase III (Post-Test)
D D
Pt Pt
Si Si
Es A
A R
R Es
I-E I-E
WQl WQl WQl W01
W02 W02 WQ2 WQ2
WQ3 WQ3 WQ3 WQ3
WQ4 WQ4 WQ4 WQ4

LR LR LR

 

aD=Depression Scale of the MMPI; Pt=Psychesthenia
Scale of the MMPI; Si=Social Introversion Scale of the
MMPI; Es=Ego Strength Scale of the MMPI; A=Anxiety Scale
of the MMPI; R=Repression Scale of the MMPI; I-E=Interna1-
External Locus of Control Scale; WQl=Frequency of Behavior
item of the Workshop Questionnaire; WQ2=Intensity of
Behavioral Experience item of the Workshop Questionnaire;
WQ3=Ease of Change item of the Workshop Questionnaire;
WQ4=Success of Behavior Change item of the Workshop Ques-
tionnaire; LR=Leader Rating of Member Behavior Change.

creation and maintenance of his self-defeating behavior.
Rotter's2 formulations of social learning include the
explanation of how a reinforcement acts to strengthen an
expectancy that a particular behavior or event will be
followed by that reinforcement in the future. As a child
matures he learns to differentiate those events which

have causative relationship to preceeding events and those

which have not. "It follows as a general hypothesis that

 

2J. B. Rotter, Social Learning and Clinical Psy-
chology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HaIl, 1954).

 

61
when the reinforcement is seen as not contingent upon the
subject's own behavior that its occurrence will not
increase an expectancy as much as when it is seen as
contingent."3 In its simplest form the notion of
expectancy and its relationship to behavior can be stated
thusly: if an individual perceives a reinforcement as
being contingent on his behavior, then the occurrence of
either a positive or negative reinforcer will strengthen
or weaken potential for that behavior to occur in the
future.

Measurement of the internal-external control
phenomena was begun by Phares4 with the development of a
26-item Likert-type scale which was equally split between
internal and external attitude expression. James5 revised
Phares scale still using the Likert format items which were
the best discriminators, plus some items of his own crea-
tion and some filler items. In an effort to increase the
generality of measurement Liverant, Rotter, and Crowne
attempted to increase the usefulness of the notion by
creating a sixty-item scale including subscales. These

subscales were found to be deficient in their ability to

 

3J. B. Rotter, "Generalized Expentancies for
Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement,"
ngchological Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1966),
Whole No. 609.

4E. J. Phares, "Expectancy Changes in Skill and
Chance Situations," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 54 (1957), 339-342.

5W. H. James, "Internal Versus External Control of
Reinforcement as a Basic Variable in Learning Theory
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University,
1957). ~

 

 

62

discriminate specific areas of the I-E dimension. Through
elimination of those items which had a high correlation
with Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (chosen more
than 85% of the time) or were nonsignificant in their
correlation with validation criteria,6 the scale was reduced
to 29 forced choice items including six filler items to
disguise the purpose of the test. This final version is
known as the Internal-External Control Scale and is
referred to throughout this study as the I-E Scale.
Internal consistency correlations of the I-E Scale
as estimated in studies carried out by Rotter7 range from
.65 to .76. Internal consistency estimates for the sub-
jects in the present study are presented in Table 3.3.
For the I-E Scale these estimates ranged from ”96 on the
pre-test to .63 on the post-test. In addition, test
re-test reliability coefficients of .60, .83, .72 were
obtained at a one month interval.8 Significant curvilinear
relationships exist between the I-E Scale and the Rotter

Incomplete Sentences Blank9 although their meaning is

 

6J. B. Rotter, S. Liverant, and D. P. Crowne, "The
Growth and Extinction of Expectancies in Chance Controlled
and Skilled Tests," Journal of Psychology, 52 (1961),
161-177.

 

7Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for . . .,"
81bid., p. 13.
9

J. B. Rotter and J. E. Rafferty, The Rotter
Incomplete Sentences Blank Manual: College Form (New
York: Psychological Corporation, 1950).

 

 

 

63

unclear. Watsonlo reported a significant correlation
between the scale and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety scale.
Correlations of the I-E Scale with intellectual measures
range from .22 to .03.

Internal external control was found by James11 to
correlate significantly with the personal judgment score
of the Incomplete Sentences Blank. The relationship was
curvilinear with extreme internal or external scores
indicating less adjustment. In the same View, Cromwell,
Rosenthal, Shakow and Kahn12 found schizophrenics to be
significantly higher in externality than normals. Odelll3
reported a significant relationship between high external-
ity and the tendency to conform. In a study in which sub-

jects were required to bet on the outcome of dice throwing,

Liverant and Scodel14 found that internals had a greater

 

10D. Watson, "Relationship Between Locus of Control
and Anxiety," Journal of Personalipy and Social Psychology,
6 (1967), 91-92.

 

ll .
James, op. c1t.

12R. Cromwell, D. Rosenthal, D. Shakow, and T.
Kahn, "Reaction Time, Locus of Control, Choice Behavior
and Descriptions of Parental Behavior in Schizophrenic
and Normal Subjects," Journal of Personalipy, 29 (1961),
363-380.

13M. Odell, "Personality Correlates of Independence
and Conformity" (unpublished Masters Thesis, Ohio State
University, 1955).

145. Liverant and A. Scodel, "Internal and
External Control as Determinants of Decision Making under
Conditions of Risk," Psychological Reports, 7 (1960),
59-67.

 

 

64

tendency to be objective and realistic in their risk taking
than externals.

15

In two studies (Biather, Crandall, Katkovsky,

and Prestonl6) intelligence was found to be positively
related to perceived internal control. Butterfieldl7
reported a significant correlation between facilitating
anxiety and internality. It is obvious from these studies
that locus of control of reinforcement is a general per-
sonality factor operating over a broad range of situations
and is related to widely recognized indications of adjust-
ment and coping ability. Manipulation of this variable
through behavior change techniques can be deemed vital
and as an indication of the techniques effectiveness.

The following scales were selected from the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for their
ability to measure personality variables which should

occur in conjunction with the elimination of self-defeating

behavior.

 

15I. Bialer, "Conceptualization of Success and
Failure in Mentally Retarded and Normal Children," Journal
of Personality, 29 (1961), 303-320.

16V. J. Crandell, W. Kratkovsky, and A. Preston,
"Motivational and Ability Determinants of Young Children's
Intellectual Achievement Behaviors," Child Development, 33
(1962), 643-661.

17E. C. Butterfield, "Locus of Control, Test
Anxiety, Reactions to Frustration, and Achievement
Attitudes," Journal of Personality, 32 (1964), 298-311.

 

 

 

The Depression Scale of
the MMPI (D)

 

 

The D Scale is a measure of poor emotional morale
and inability to assume an optomistic outlook toward the
future. The items consist of those relating to lack of
interest, apathy, rejection of base impulses, denial of
happiness or personal worth, work inhibitions and inability
to control thoughts.

The scale was formed through selection of those
items on the MMPI which discriminated between a psychiatric
group diagnosed as depressed and a normal group.18

Dooleys19 validated the ability of the scale to
discriminate clinically diagnosed depression among a
carefully selected and matched group of depressive and
nondepressive psychotics.

Test re-test correlation with a three month interval
using college students was .66, also .71 with a two week
interval, and .60 with a delay of from 3 to 178 days. In
the present study Hoyt's analysis of variance was employed
to derive an internal consistency coefficient of .85 on
the pre—test and .86 on the post-test.

Creating depression is one of the most prevalent

techniques used to maintain self-defeating behavior,

 

188. R. Hathaway and J. C. McKinley, "Scale D
(Depression)," in Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology
and Medicine, ed. by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956), p. 85.

19E. J. Dooleys, "The Validity of the Depression
Scale of the MMPI" (unpublished Masters Thesis, DePaul
University, 1954).

 

66

therefore, its reduction should accompany the elimination

of such behaviors.

The Psychesthenia Scale
Of the MMPI (Pt)

 

The Pt scale measures on individuals' tendency to
practice obsessive rumination, compulsive behavioral
rituals, unreasonable fears, excessive worry, anxiety,
inability to concentrate, lack of confidence, guilt feel-
ings and unreasonably high standards of morality or
intellectual performance. The items which make up the
scale relate to anxiety and dread, low self-confidence,
doubts about adequacy, undue sensitivity and moodiness.

Scale content was determined by a two stage pro-
cess. First, a small number of items which discriminated
between a criterion group possessing those qualities
clinically judged to be indicative of what is known as
psychesthenia and a group of normals was identified. Those
items were then correlated with the remaining items on
the full MMPI and those that exceeded a correlational
cut-off. McKinley and Hathaway20 used a heterogeneous
group of psychiatric cases with the common characteristic
that they were designated to have some symptomatic evidence
of the two primary qualities of psychesthemia (i.e.,

obsessions and compulsions). The trend toward high scores

 

208. R. Hathaway and J. D. McKinley, "Scale L
(Psychesthemia)," in Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psy-
chology and Medicine, ed. by G. 8. Welsh and W. G.
Dahlstrom (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1956), P. 85.

 

 

67

for those people in the study evidencing those qualities
was clearly significant.

Test re-test correlations of .53, .60, and .75
with college students and intervals of 90, 3-178, 7-14
days have been established in studies by Blanton and

21 An interval

Londsman; and Cefer, Chonce and Judson.
consistence coefficient of .93 on the pre-test and .92
on the post-test was derived for the present study.

The scale is included in this study because it
may provide an assessment of presence of a variety of
self-defeating behaviors and behavior maintenance tech-
niques.

The Social Introversion Scale
of the MMPI (Si)

 

 

The Si scale is an assessment of the tendency to
withdraw from social contact. Items comprising the scale
refer to uneasiness in social situations, sensitivities,
insecurities and worries, and denial of impulses. Higher
scores on the scale, in contrast to the direction of
scoring on the other scales, is indicative of greater
"pathology."

Items comprising the scale are those from the full
MMPI which differentiated between high and low scorers on

the Minnesota T-S-E Inventory when scored for social

 

21C. N. Cofer, J. E. Chonce and A. J. Judson. "A

Study of Malingering on the MMPI," Journal of Psychology,
27 (1949), 491-499.

 

 

68

22 A later administration of

introversion extroversion.
the T-S-E and Si scale produced correlations (which were
negative because the two instruments are scored in

opposite directions) of —.72 for females and -.71 for

males. Drake and Thiede23 also found the scale to be
successful in differentiating when they used it to dis-
tinguish between active and non-active high school students.
Test-retest correlation with college students using a

3-178 day interval was .78. Internal consistency for the
sample used in the present study ranged from .92 to .91.

Any self-defeating behavior or technique requiring
social withdrawal should, when eliminated, be detected by
the Si scale and, for that reason, the scale is included
in the study. Two types of withdrawal, social and intra-
personal, are utilized by individuals to avoid the mythical
fear. The intrapersonal withdrawal will be assessed by
the Repression (R) scale which will be discussed later.

The Ego Strength Scale
of the MMPI (Es)

 

 

The Es scale was developed to predict success in
psychotherapy and its items were selected on their ability

to successfully discriminate between a group of individuals

 

22W. G. Dahlstrom and G. S. Welsh, An MMPI Hand-

book: A Guide to Use in Clinical Practice and Research
(Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1960),
p. 77.

 

 

23L. E. Drake, "Scale O (Social Introversion),' in
Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine, ed.
by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom (Minneapolis: The
University of Minnesota Press, 1960), p. 181.

 

69

who were rated to have succeeded in psychotherapy and a
group who had not. Besides serving the predictive func-
tion the scale appears to be an excellent measure of
intellectual and emotional control.

Item content of the scale includes good physical
health, a strong sense of reality, feelings of personal
adequacy and vitality, a permissive morality, lack of

ethnic prejudice, emotional outgoingness and spontaneity,

1L _

and intelligence.

 

Validation of the scale is difficult because of
the extremely wide range of characteristics associated
with the term "ego strength." Two of those characteristics
however, have been found to experimentally relate to the
scale. Barron24 reports that even though he used the
highly restricted range of intelligence of a group of
graduate students the Es scale correlated .39 with the
Miller Analogy Test and .52 with the intellectual effi-
ciency scale of the California Personality Inventory for
that sample. In addition, Barron found a negative corre—
lation between the scale and ethnocentrism and prejudice.

In reference to the latter, it seems reasonable that

individuals with effective ego functioning rely on more
inclusive reasoning than that required to make judgments

concerning whether or not something is "good or bad."

 

24F. Barron, "An Ego Strength Scale which Predicts

Response to Psychotherapy," in Basic Readings on the MMPI
in Psychology and Medicine, ed. by G. S. Welsh and W. G.
Dahlstrom (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1956): P. 230.

 

70

Hunter and Goodstein25 reported that subjects
with high Es scores were judged to exhibit significantly
greater frequency of coping responses and significantly
fewer defensive responses than subjects with low Es
scores. Barron reports that test re-test reliability
estimates of the Es scale range from .72 to .76.26
In the present study internal consistence of the Es
Scale ranged from .71 to .75.

The Es scale is used in this study to measure the
expected increases in functioning ability which should

begin to accrue once an individual reduces the degree

to which he defeats himself.

Scales A and R of the MMPI

The A and R scales were derived from use of an
internal consistency method wherein two groups of subjects
scoring at opposite extremes on an experimental "general
maladjustment" (Gm)27 scale are identified by score and
used to carry out an item analysis on the full MMPI. The

analysis resulted in a selection of items which indicate

 

25C. G. Hunter and L. D. Goodstein, "Ego Strength
and Types of Defensive and Coping Behavior," Journal of
Consulting_Psychology, 31 (1967), 432.

 

 

26 .
Barron, op. c1t.

27G. S. Welsh, "Factor Dimensions A and R," in
Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine,
ed. by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1956): PP. 264-281.

 

71

the maximum difference in frequency of response of the two
opposed groups. On the sample used to develop the scales,
Welsh required that the items show at least 75 per cent
separation.28 Two general factors or scales resulted:

Scale A is a measure of those expressions of per-
sonality generally characteristic of anxiety. The items
in the scale refer to thought processes, negative emotional
tone, lack of energy, and pessimism and personal sensitivity.
Indications that the scale does measure that dimension
termed anxiety are provided in a limited number of studies.
Autrey29 was able to successfully predict communicative
efficiency in college undergraduates who scored either as
anxious or non—anxious on the A Scale. Evidence of score
change on that scale due to therapy was reported by Welsh
and Roseman30 who found a decrease in scores occurring
concomitantly with judged improvement following therapy.
Reliability coefficients for the A scale range from .70 to
.88. Internal consistence for the subjects in the present
study ranged from .95 to .93.

The R Scale score makes inferences about the extent
to which an individual uses repression and denial in his

functioning. If an individual scores high on this scale

 

28Ibia.

 

29O. R. Autrey, "A Study of the Effects of Anxiety
and of Situational Stress" (unpublished M.A. Thesis,
University of North Carolina, 1954).

30G. S. Welsh and M. Roseman, "A Graphic Method
for Showing Therapeutic Change by the use of MMPI Factor
Sclaes," a paper presented at meetings of S.E.P.A., May,
1955.

 

72

he will not have much insight into his feelings or motiva-
tions. The items relate to violence and activity, social
dominance, emotionality, health and physical symptoms,
reactions to others, and personal and vocational interests.

As would be expected according to the intent of
the scale, it correlates .40 with the social introversion
scale (Si) and -.40 with the hypomania (Ma) scale of the
MMPI. Reliability estimates for the scale range from .48
to .74. Internal consistency for the subjects in the
current study range from .59 to .68.

Both scales can be used to assess changes in
anxiety and repression as a result of the workshops. An
individual who practices fewer self—defeating behaviors
can be expected to be less anxious and to feel less need
to deny or repress those thoughts related to the "mythical
fears" which the self-defeating behavior has allowed the

individual to avoid in the past.

Workshop_Questionnaire

The Workshop Questionnaire is a nine item self-
report instrument developed by Cudney and Lowe (Appendix
E). The purpose of the instrument is to ask each workshop
member how he perceives the effects of the workshop on his
self-defeating behavior. Four of the nine workshop items
were deemed relevant to this study and these items measure:
frequency of the behavior, the emotional intensity with
which the behavior is experienced, the ease of changing

the behavior, and the success the individual is having in

73

eliminating the behavior. \Each item is a question followed
by five forced choiCe answers. The complete questionnaire
was administered at the pre-test and at the end of each of
the three workshop phases for the full and partial model
workshops. The control group completed this instrument at

the pre- and post-test.

Leader Rating of Member Behavior Change

 

To provide a therapist rating of success of the
treatment this item was developed for the study (Appendix
F). It is a simple rating scale on which each of the
workshop leaders rated the subjects in his workshop as:
no behavior change, partial behavior change, or complete
behavior change. This instrument was administered at the

end of each phase for the full and partial model workshops.

Analysis Procedures

Hypotheses one and two were tested by use of a
one way multivariate analysis of variance of difference
scores. With this analysis the effect of the workshop
models (both full and partial) was compared with the
control groups through the expression of change scores
resulting from pre- and post-test administration of all
eleven dependent variables.

Hypothesis three compared the difference scores
generated by the full model workshop led by experienced
leaders with the scores resulting from the full model
workshop with inexperienced leaders. A one way multivariate

analysis of variance was the statistical method employed.

.
I

 

.coﬂuoaﬂumo muﬁHHnoﬁHon
ou oanocoao uoc Oman mo3 pououocom we meme on» owsooon copsaocﬂ omconu Hoﬂ>ocom HoQEoS
mo mcwumm Hopooq one mo3 Honuﬂoz .mEouw ova mo nooo mo ousuoc uoonomﬂc opp mo omsooon

mouoeﬂumo monoumﬂmcoo Hocuouce one ca pocsaocﬁ no: mmB oneoccoﬂumoso monmxuoz ones

 

74

 

 

 

 

 

me.m em.m em.e om.e oe.me mm.me me. as. we
om.~ OH.~ He.e mm.e es.ee mo.ea am. mm. m
sm.~ em.~ se.m ss.oﬂ eH.mH ms.es mm. ma. «
os.m mm.m om.~s me.~a as.mm ee.mm as. me. He
me.~ He.m ea.a ~H.oe ms.om em.ms mm. mm. he
so.m Hm.e om.ma oe.~a mo.em Ne.mm em. mm. a
moHoom Hmzz
no.H om.m mm. mm. oHoom mIH
m.Hmuu0m
umom one umom one uwom ohm umom ohm moapmwuo>
ucmsmusmmwz eo‘ coeume>me ‘qmwzu.w;: Lemmeeemmou:
nouum pumccmuw pamcaouw onoom 38m muﬂawnmaaom

 

.wpsum on» cw comoamem mucoawuumsHaonu.uou.oucoaoawwoou honoumamsou.Hmcuoucle.m.m wands

75

Hypothesis four was tested by use of a one-way
multivariate analysis of variance on the difference
scores generated from pre-test and end-of—Phase I admin-
istration of the Workshop Questionnaire. This analysis
compares the effect of Phase I on full and partial models.

The fifth hypothesis was tested by a one-way
multivariate analysis of variance on repeated measures.
Comparisons were made of the scores which were obtained
on each individual item of the Workshop Questionnaire at
each of the four testing periods (Pre-test, Phase I,

Phase II and Phase III).

76

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

An analysis of the data obtained in the experiment
is presented in the first part of the chapter. The organi-
zation of this section is as follows: a general research
question is stated, the hypothesis formulated to answer
that question is also stated, the treatment levels are
presented, the statistical procedure is stated, and
finally, the results of the analysis and the significance
level are reported. A summary of the findings comprises
the second part of the chapter.

Question I: Were the Workshops More
Effective than No-Treatment?

Question II: Were the Two Workshop Models
Differentially Effective?

The first two hypotheses tested in this study
pertain to the basic question of whether or not the
Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops demon-
strated any effects significantly different from those
of the control groups. Answering that question is the

primary purpose of the study.

77

Hypothesis One: Those workshop groups which

have received the full or partial model will

show significantly greater positiVe difference

scores than those groups in the no treatment

control.

Hypothesis Two: Those workshop groups which

have participated in the full model will show

significantly greater positive gains than

those groups in the partial model.

In order to test these hypotheses, difference scores
were computed for each subject for each of the eleven
dependent variables in the three treatment levels (Full
Model, Partial Model, and Control). The pre—test means
were then subtracted from the post-test scores to generate
the difference scores which were used in the analysis.

The cell means are presented in Table 4.1. Because the
pre-test means were subtracted from the post-test means a
negative difference score indicates a decrease in the
magnitude of the score. For all measures with the excep-
tion of Ego Strength (Es) a negative difference score
indicates improvement from pre- to post-test on each
variable.

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance was
performed on the difference scores. In order to provide
tests of both hypotheses in the same analysis, planned
comparisons were made between the full and partial models
versus the control (F&P vs. C), and between the full
model and partial model (F vs. P). The results of this
analysis as presented in Table 4.2 indicate that a rejection

of the null hypothesis of no differences between treatment

and no treatment is appropriate. The F ratio of 8}16 with

78

TABLE 4.1.--Post-Test Minus Pre-Test Difference Scores
for the Full and Partial Model Elimination
of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops and
the Control Group.

 

 

Variable Full Model Partial Model Control
WQla -2.36b - .16 - .06
WQZ -l.59 -l.50 - .09
WQ3 -1.07 -l.31 - .25
WQ4 -1.83 -l.69 - .13
I-E -3.07 -3.56 -l.l9
D -3.71 -4.89 —2.42
Pt -l.87 -3.75 .17
Si -5.22 -5.00 -2.19
A -4.64 -6.75 .31
R - .81 -4.63 -l.09
Es 3.56 2.44 .61

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item on Frequency;
WQ2=Workshop Questionnaire item on Intensity; WQ3=
Workshop Questionnaire item on Ease of Change; WQ4=
Workshop Questionnaire item on Success in Changing
behavior.

I-E=Internal-Externa1 Locus of Control Scale

D=Depression Scale of the MMPI; Pt=Psychesthenia
Scale of the MMPI; Si=Social Introversion Scale of the
MMPI; A=Anxiety or Factor I Scale of the MMPI; R=Repression

or Factor II Scale of the MMPI; Es=Ego Strength Scale of
the MMPI.

11 and 3 degrees of freedom is significant at the .055
level. In addition, the comparison between the full and
partial models produced an F ratio of 1.42 (p=.431). The
null hypotheses of no difference between the two models

was accepted.

79

TABLE 4.2.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the
Difference Scores of Treatment Versus No-
Treatment (F&P vs. C) and Full Model Versus
Partial Model (F vs. P) of the Elimination
of Self—Defeating Behavior Workshops.

 

 

 

 

Univariate Multivariate
Results Results

Comparison Variable F P F P
F&P vs. C a 8.16 .055

WQl 44.33 .0001

WQZ 11.34 .005

WQ3 8.72 .011

WQ4 53.81 .0001

I-E 2.66 .127

D 1.54 .236

Pt 2.35 .150

Si 1.30 .275

A 4.99 .044

R .25 .627

Es 4.55 .053
F vs. P 1.42 .431

WQl 5.00 .044

WQ2 .04 .844

WQ3 .55 .472

WQ4 .37 .553

I-E .13 .720

D .66 .431

Pt 1.03 .328

Si .01 .938

A .61 .448

R 3.21 .097

Es .77 .397

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item on Frequency;

WQ2=Workshop Questionnaire item on Intensity; WQ3=Workshop
Questionnaire item on Ease of Change; WQ4=Workshop Ques-
tionnaire item on Success of Change; I-E=Rotter's Internal-
External Locus of Control Scale; D=Depression Scale of the
MMPI; Pt=Psychesthenia Scale of the MMPI; Si=Social Intro-
version Scale of the MMPI; A=Factor I or Anxiety Scale of
the MMPI; R=Factor II or Repression Scale of the MMPI;
Es=Ego Strength Scale of the MMPI.

80

Examination of the eleven univariate F statistics
for Hypothesis One provides an indication of which of the
individual measures contributed the most to the multi-
variate effect. Six of the eleven measures were essenti-
ally responsible for the significant multivariate effect.
Three of the six were primary factors: Workshop Question-
naire items 1, 2 and 4. Three measures were secondary
factors: MMPI scales A and Es and Workshop Questionnaire
item 3.

Two conclusions can be drawn from the analysis.

One, both the full and partial treatments had a positive
effect on subjects in the study when compared to the \A//
control group. Two, a multivariate consideration of the k
differences between full and partial model treatments
indicated no overall significant difference. The remain—

ing hypotheses tested in this chapter are attempts to

identify the components which contributed to the differ-
ences.

Question III: Are the Three Workshop
Phases Differentially Effective?

 

 

Hypotheses one and two concern pre— to post-test
differences between the treatment levels. Hypotheses
three and four are statements concerning comparisons of
the effect of each of the three Workshop Phases. For
these comparisons the Workshop Questionnaire and Leader
Rating of Member Behavior Change were administered at the

end of each phase. Length of test administration

81

prohibited completion of the MMPI and I-E Scale at the
end of Phase I and II.

Because the multivariate analysis indicated no
significant pre- to post-test differences between the
full and partial models the value of Phase II and III
became questionable. If there were a significant dif-
ference at the end of Phase I and that difference
favored the partial model then Phases II and III were
positive in their effect in that they helped the full
model groups to "catch up" with the partial model groups.
The fact that the partial model workshop received the
first phase in six weeks while the full model workshops
received the same material in only three weeks must be
considered in any interpretation of the differences
between these two forms of treatment. The implication
being that the extended time for learning favored the
Phase I effects of the partial model over those of the
full model.

Hypothesis Three (Null): There is no differ-

ence at the end of Phase I between the groups

receiving the full model treatment and the
groups receiving the partial model treatment.

 

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance of the
difference scores was the model used for the analysis
which tested this hypothesis. The results of the analysis
are presented in Table 4.3 and indicate that a rejection
of the null hypothesis is appropriate. The F ratio was
4.36 with 4 and 7 degrees of freedom which was significant

at the .044 level.

 

82

TABLE 4.3.--Multivariate Analysis of Variance of the
Difference Scores of Partial Versus Full
Model in Phase I of the Elimination of
Self—Defeating Behavior Workshops as
Measured by the Workshop Questionnaire.

 

 

 

 

Univariate Multivariate
Variable F P F P
WQla 10.68 .009 4.36 .044
WQZ 6.87 .026
WQ3 9.14 .013
WQ4 17.98 .002

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item 1 (Frequency);
WQZ=Workshop Questionnaire item 2 (Intensity of the
Behavior); WQ3=Workshop Questionnaire item 3 (Ease of
Change); WQ4=Workshop Questionnaire item 4 (Success).

Inspection of the univariate F ratios indicates
that all four of the items were significant contributers
to the effect and that 1 (Frequency) and 4 (Success)
were primarily responsible for the significant finding.
The difference scores presented in Table 4.4 show the
differences favoring the partial model over the full
model.

The directional hypothesis which was accepted
after the null was rejected is:

Hypothesis Three (Directional): The workshop

groups which received the partial model show

greater positive difference than the full
model groups as a result of Phase I.

 

Additional data relevant to this hypothesis was
provided by the Leader Rating of Member Behavior Change.

Because of the uncertain objectivity of counselor ratings

 

83

TABLE 4.4.--Difference Score Means for the Full and Partial

Model Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior

Workshops Resulting from Pre- -Test and End-of-
Phase I Administration of the Workshop

Questionnaire.

 

 

 

Model
Variable Partial Full
a
WQl -l.63 -l.01
WQ2 —1.50 - .51
WQ3 -l.31 - .25
WQ4 -l.69 - .99

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item 1 (Frequency);
WQ2=Workshop Questionnaire item 2 (Intensity of the
Behavior); WQ3=Workshop Questionnaire item 3 (Ease of
Change); WQ4=Workshop Questionnaire item 4 (Success).

this data was not tested against a statistical model but

rather is presented in the form of means in Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5.--Means of Leader Ratings of Member Behavior
Change for each of the Three Phases of the

Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior

 

 

 

Workshop.
Phase

Model I II III
Full-Experienced

Leaders 1.94 1.94 1.71
Full-Inexperienced

Leaders 1.90 2.02 2.33
Full Model Means 1.92 1.98 2.02
Partial Model 1.94 --- ---
Overall Means 1.93 1.98 2.02

 

aThe ratings were:

and 3=Complete Change.

1=No Change; 2=Partial Change;

 

84

The results of the analysis indicated that Phases
II and III combined had positive contributions to the
total treatment effect. But were Phase II and III both
positive and equal in their effect? To answer the above
question the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis Four (Null): There will be no

significant differences between the effect

of each of three workshop phases as measured
by the workshop Questionnaire.

 

In order to test this hypothesis, difference
scores derived from pre-phase and post-phase administra-
tion of the Workshop Questionnaire were analyzed by a
repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance.
Three planned comparisons, the effects of Phase I minus
the pretest scores, the effects of Phase II minus the
effects of Phase I, and the effect of Phases II and III
combined minus the effect of Phase I which isolated the
effect of Phase III when compared to the previous con-
trast were made. Means; significance levels; and multi-
variate, univariate and step down F ratios were computed
with this analysis for each Workshop Questionnaire item.

Each Workshop Questionnaire item indicated an
overall significant effect for each of the three compari-
sons. Step down F ratios are useful in the description
of this analysis because they assess the statistical
significance of changes beyond that which occurred at the
last administration of the dependent variable. It can

be seen from inspection of these F ratios and P levels

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

vac. mom. mom. ooo.m Hoo. www.mm Hoo. omm.mm mmooosm
«w
ovo. mmm.m mmo. oav.m mac. mmo.aa woo. Hm>.ha omcono mo omom
me
mom. mm.a «ma. mvo.m moo. mom.ma NHo. Hmm.oa mpﬂmcoucH
me
mvm. moo. mom. mam. Hooo. emo.oom eooo. Hmm.am wocodqoum
H#
m m m m m m m m EouH
H ommcm H omocmlHH omocm umouonIH omocm
IHHH w HH omonm
muasmom £300 muaooom
moum ouoﬁuo>ﬂsa ouoﬁho>ﬂuasz
.oHHos

Lcoeumoso mocmxuoz one an ponsmmoz mo HHH omonm one .HH owocm .H omonm cuHB
eouoHUOmmd mmonmxuoz HOH>mcom mcHuoomoQIMHom mo cowpocHEHHm one mo maopoz HHSM
onu How momcmnu o>wuﬂppm ocu mcﬂuOHmoQ oocmwno> mo mammamc< mousmmoz pouoomom||.o.v mqmde

86

that the change that did occur took place primarily in
Phase I. Only item 3 (Ease of Change) recorded significant
additions to the difference scores resulting from pretest
and end of Phase I testing. The failure of Phases II and
III to produce changes on Workshop Questionnaire items

1, 2 and 4 was partially a function of the limited amount
of change which can be recorded by the Workshop Question-
naire. If the majority of the available change occurs in
Phase I the chances of any further change occurring in
Phases II and III is greatly reduced.

On the basis of data the null hypothesis of no
differences between Phases I, II, and III was rejected
and the following directional hypothesis was accepted:

Hypothesis Four (Directional): Phase I is

significantly more effective than Phase II

or III in reducing frequency and intensity

of self-defeating behavior and in increasing

the success of eliminating self-defeating
behavior.

 

Question IV: How Sensitive is the Method to
Variability in Workshop Leader Experience?

Hypotheses one, two, three and four were stated
and tested with the two full model workshops being combined
and considered as a single treatment level. For the fifth
hypothesis each full model workshop was treated as a level
of treatment thus enabling a comparison to be made between
experienced and inexperienced leaders.

Hypothesis Five: Those workshop groups which

have received the full model treatment from

experienced leaders will evidence significantly

greater positive change than those groups who

received the full model treatment from inexperi-
enced leaders.

 

87

Hypothesis five was tested by the use of a one-way

multivariate analysis of variance of the difference scores

representing each of the four treatment levels (Full Model-

Experienced Leaders, Full Model-Inexperienced Leaders,
Partial Model-Experienced Leaders, and Control). The
difference scores within each level of treatment for each
variable are presented in Table 4.7.

The results of the analysis presented in Table 4.8
indicate acceptance of the null hypothesis of no differ-
ences between the full models with experienced and
inexperienced leaders. Inspection of the univariate F
ratios reveals that only Workshop Questionnaire item 4
(Success) produced a significant effect (p = .009)
favoring the experienced leaders.

A phase-by-phase comparison of experienced and
inexperienced workshop leaders can be made by inspecting
the difference scores on the Workshop Questionnaire as
depicted in Table 4.9.

These data are presented only in mean change score

form as they are not amenable to proper analysis due to the

limited degrees of freedom (3, .5) which they allow.

As is evident from inspection of the table, the
changes produced by the two sets of leaders in Phase I
are comparable with only a slight edge in degree of change
favoring the experienced leaders. In Phase II the inex—
perienced leaders are clearly superior in the degree of

change they were able to effect as measured by the four

'—T."_"' ‘
‘tﬂ

V

f—W—m
l.

88

TABLE 4.7.--Difference Score Means for All Measures
Administered to Full Model Elimination of
Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops (Full-
Experienced Leaders, Full-Inexperienced
Leaders).

 

Full Model Experienced Full Model Inexperienced

 

Variable Leaders Leaders
w01a -2.42 -2.30
WQ2 -1.92 -l.27
WQ3 -1.25 - .90
WQ4 -2.l7 -l.50
I-E -3.65 -2.50
D -2.44 -4.98
Pt - .06 -3.69
Si -5.65 -4.80
R - .31 -l.31
Es 4.67 2.46

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item on Frequency;
WQ2=Workshop Questionnaire item on Intensity; WQ3=
Workshop Questionnaire item on Ease of Change; WQ4=
Workshop Questionnaire item on Success in Changing
behavior.

I-E=Internal-External Locus of Control Scale

D=Depression Scale of the MMPI; Pt=Psychesthenia
Scale of the MMPI; Si=Social Introversion Scale of the
MMPI; A=Anxiety or Factor I Scale of the MMPI; R=Repression
or Factor II Scale of the MMPI; Es=Ego Strength Scale of
the MMPI.

89

TABLE 4.8.—-Mu1tivariate Analysis of Variance of the
Difference Scores of the Full Model-Experi-
enced Leaders (F) versus the Full Model-
Inexperienced Leaders (F').

 

 

 

 

Univariate Multivariate
Results Results
Comparison Variable F P F P
F vs F' 1.704 .427
w01a .102 .755
W02 -l.483 .247
WQ3 .892 .364
WQ4 9.668 .009
D 2.647 .130
Pt 3.429 .089
Si .067 .800
A .132 .723
R .155 .701
Es 2.476 .142

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item on Frequency;
WQ2=Worksh0p Questionnaire item on Intensity; WQ3=
Workshop Questionnaire on Ease of Change; WQ4=
Workshop Questionnaire item on Success in Changing
behavior.

I-E=Interna1-External Locus of Control Scale

D=Depression Scale of the MMPI; Pt=Psychesthenia
Scale of the MMPI; Si=Social Introversion Scale of the
MMPI; A=Anxiety or Factor I Scale of the MMPI; R:Repression
or Factor II Scale of the MMPI; Es=Ego Strength Scale of
the MMPI.

90

TABLE 4.9.--Pre- to Post—Test Difference Scores on the
Workshop Questionnaire for each Phase and
Leader Experience Level for the Elimination
of Self-Defeating Workshops.

 

 

Workshop
Questionnaire a
Model Item Phase I Phase II Phase III
Full- #1 1.06 .80 .34
Experienced #2 .47 .53 .33
Leaders #3 .13 .53 .27
#4 .70 .54 .40
Full- #1 .07 1.86 .34
Inexperienced #2 .00 1.00 .20
Leaders #3 .40 .94 .20
#4 1.37 .46 .40

 

aThe difference scores for each phase were derived
by subtracting the post-phase score of the previous testing
period from the post-phase score of the phase in question.

Workshop Questionnaire items. No clear advantage was
gained in the comparison by either set of leaders in
Phase III. The decreasing magnitude of the difference

scores reflects the additive nature of the changes.

Summapy

Five hypotheses pertaining to the outcome and
nature of effects of the Elimination of Self-Defeating
Behavior Workshops were tested. Multivariate analysis of
variance was employed to assess the differences between
the four treatment levels and a repeated measures multi—
variate analysis of variance was performed to describe

the differential effects of each workshop component.

91

The analyses revealed differences favoring the
treatment over the no-treatment groups. Planned comparisons
led to the conclusion that no differences existed between
either full and partial model workshops or between the
experienced and inexperienced group leaders. Also Phase
I of the full model workshops was shown to be more effec-
tive than either Phase II or Phase III.

In Chapter V, the data presented above will be
interpreted and discussed and implications for further

research will be considered.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

In this chapter answers are offered for the four
basic research questions posed in Chapter IV. In addition,
the implications of the results of the study for subsequent
workshops and future research are presented. The measure—
ment, statistical findings, and implications of both are
the focal point of discussion within each research
question.

Research Question I: Were the Workshops
More Effective than No—Treatment?

 

 

Although the arguments questioning efficacy of
psychotherapy presented initially by Eysenckl have been
soundly refuted (Kiesler,2 and Bergin3), very few studies

have demonstrated psychotherapuetic effectiveness. The

 

1H. J. Eysenck, "The Effects of Psychotherapy: An
Evaluation," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (1952),
319-324.

2D. J. Kiesler, "Some Myths of Psychotherapy
Research and the Search for a Paradigm," Psychological
Bulletin, 6 (1966), 110-136.

3A. E. Bergin, "The Effects of Psychotherapy:
Negative Results Revisited," Journal of Counseling
Psypholqur 10 (1963), 244-250.

 

 

 

92

93
analysis of the data supports the basic assumption that
the Elimination of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops did
produce meaningful changes along several dimensions.
Specifically, the subjects who experienced either the full
or partial model workshop evidenced the following relative
advantages over the subjects in the control group: 1) a
greater reduction in the frequency of self-defeating
behavior; 2) a greater reduction in the emotional intensity
of the self-defeating behavior; 3) more ease in changing
the self-defeating behavior; 4) greater success in eliminat—
ing the self-defeating behavior; 5) less anxiety; and 6)
greater ego strength.

Only one of the eleven dependent variables used in
the study (R) failed to record pre— to post—test difference
scores favoring the experimental treatment groups. However,
as can be seen in Table 4.2, I-E, D, Pt, Si, and R did not
produce significant F ratios. Because of the variety of
measures employed in the study it was expected that some
would not record significant differences.

An inspection of pre-test scores presented in
Table 5.1 will reveal that, for those measures which were
non-significant in the treatment versus no-treatment com-
parison (with the exception of the I-E Scale), the pre«test
scores for the control group were consistently larger than
those for the full and partial models combined.

The obvious implication of the above finding is
that the control group had greater potential for change as

a function of statistical regression. Because the

 

94

TABLE 5.l.—-Pre-Test Raw Score Means and Differences for the
Elimination of Self—Defeating Behavior Workshops
(Treatment) and the Control Group (No-Treatment).

 

 

Treatment No-Treatment Differences
Variable (F&P) (C) (F&P minus C)a
w01b 4.11 3.73 + .38
WQZ* 3.50 3.53 .03
WQ3* 2.84 3.00 - .16
WQ4* 3.99 4.07 - .18
I-E 9.61 8.27 +1.34
D 24.66 29.33 -4.67
Pt 32.63 34.40 'l.77
Si 32.26 37.27 “5.01
A* 19.04 18.80 + .24
R 15.92 19.33 -3.41
ES* 45.07 43.53 +1.54

 

aF=Full Models (undifferentiated as to therapist
experience); P=Partial Model; C=Control Group.

b* denotes variables whose pre— to post-test

difference scores produced a significant univariate F
ratio in the analysis presented in Table 4.2.

no-treatment group had more freedom to vary on these
variables (D, Pt, Si, R), the size of their pre- to post-
test difference scores were likely to be larger than those
of the treatment group, thereby, reducing the likelihood

of significant differences existing between the two treat-
ment conditions. In Table 5.1 it can be noted that some of
the measures which did have a positive effect on the multi—
variate F ratio in Table 4.2 also show higher scores for
the control at the pre-test. The differences on these

variables are much smaller, however, (—.03, —.16, -.18)

95

than those for the variables which did not have a positive
influence on the multivariate analysis (-l.77, -3.41, -4.67,
-5.01).

Lack of complete random assignment of subjects to
full, partial, or control conditions is the most severe
limitation of this study and probably accounts for the
substantial inequality of pre-test scores on D, Si, and R.
An analysis of variance of pre-test scores, as presented in
Appendix H, reveals no significant differences between any
experimental treatment and the control group. However,
differences of the magnitude evident on D, Si, and R seem
to indicate the presence of selection bias.

The failure of Rotter's Internal-External Locus
of Control Scale to register significant change was par-
ticularly puzzling in light of the measures' apparent
relevance to the nature of change sought by the workshops.
A possible explanation for this finding is that subjects
with extreme scores had reduced the amount of pre- to
post-test decrease in external responses as a function of
their regressing toward the mean regardless of the degree
of success they experienced in eliminating their self-
defeating behavior. For example, a subject who scored on
the extreme internal end of the scoring range at the pre-
test may have become more aware of those external factors
which do influence his behavior and, consequently, may
score in a more external direction at the post-test. To
investigate this possibility, the treatment and no—treatment

groups were compared on the number of subjects in each of

96

four scoring quadrants at both the pre- and post-test. The
quadrants were constructed by dividing the total scoring
range of the I-E Scale (0 to 23) into four equal sections.
The results of this tabulation and the means and change
scores are presented in Table 5.2.

All changes as depicted in Table 5.2 are from the
more external quadrants to the more internal indicating
that no regression from the internal quadrants occurred.
Inspection of the treatment mean change and the no-treatment
mean change shows that little difference exists between the
two. Closer inspection, however, reveals that the subjects
in the partial model workshop changed from external to
internal quadrants with substantially greater frequency
than the control subjects. Comparison of subject by
quadrant change in the three levels (in the analysis rele~
vant to this research question the levels were combined)
shows that both full model workshops' subjects changed
less than the partial model and, in effect, neutralized
the contribution of the partial model to the total treatment
effect. The order in terms of subject by quadrant change
from greatest amount of change to least was: Partial Model-
Experienced Leaders, Full Model-Experienced Leaders, the
Full Model-Inexperienced Leaders and Control group had an
equal amount of subject by quadrant change.

Having eliminated the regression hypothesis as a
reason for non-significant findings on the I-E Scale, fur-

ther statistical investigation seemed inappropriate due to the

97

 

 

 

oo.o oo.mu oo.o oo.m mmcmno M

unoEuoonB oz

mm.HI no.al oo.o oo.m omnono M

unoEumoHB

o\o H\m m\m m\m Aoo Honueoo

oo.o\mm.a no.a\mm.m oo.n\oo.h no.o\no.m Am a .m .mv

M unoEumoHB

o\m N\N «\e oe\m msmemmq emocmesmexm

Ame Hmensme

o\H m\m m\m m\m muoeooq poonoﬂmomxonH

A.mv .Hasm

o\H H\m m\o m\m mnopooq poonoeuomxm

Ame Haze

mmlma monoom malma mouoom Halo monoom mlo mouoom Ho>oq unoEumoHB

e unmnooso m pcoueoso m unonpmso a unouposo

 

umoelumom\umoaloum

 

.QSOHU Houunou one mmonmxuoz H0H>onom mnﬂuoowoolmaom mo deﬂuonﬂeﬂam
one nH ucoEpooHB mo Ho>oq nooo new oaoom MIH on» we mnnmuposo mnHHoom
Hsom mo noom nH omnono mo noeuooneo one coo: .oononu nmoz .mpoohnsm mo HonEDZI|.N.m mqm<e

98

insignificant univariate F ratio generated by the scale in
the analysis which individually tested the effects of
treatment versus no-treatment across all of the measures.
However, a study by Schnieder and Parsons4 in which they
refute the notion of Internality-Externality as being
unidimensional may provide an explanation. They generated
five categories within the scale and successfully discrim-
inated between Danish and American students with these
categories. It may be possible that changes in one cate-
gory were nullified by changes in the opposite direction
in another category. If this multidimensional assumption
is valid it explains the drastic reduction in internal
consistency coefficients from pre-test (.96) to post-test
(.63) that was cited in Table 3.3. One reason for the
occurrance of dispersion of this magnitude is multidimen-
sional change.

1 /

\y In summary, the treatment versus no—treatment com—
parison favored the treatment group allowing an affirmative
answer to Research Question One. All four Workshop Ques-
tionnaire items and two Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
scales (A and Es) contributed in varying degrees to the
significant (p = .055) multivariate effect. Those dependent

variables that detracted from the treatment effect (I—E,

D, Pt, Si, R) either had low reliability (I-E) or were

 

4J. M. Schneider and O. A. Parsons, "Categories
on the Locus of Control Scale and Cross-Cultural Compari-
sons in Denmark and the United States," Qournal of Cross—
Cultural Psychology, 1 (1970), 131—138.

99

substantially higher on the prehtest for no-treatment than
for treatment thereby introducing the possibility that
between group differences were reduced primarily as a
function of statistical regression.

Research Question II: Were the Two Workshop
Models Differentially Effective?

 

 

The Elimination of Self—Defeating Behavior Work-
shops' three phases each were designed to provide a
specific contribution to the total treatment effect. The
individual phases and their intended function were:

Phase I, awareness and personalization of the components
of self-defeating behavior; Phase II, identifying, experi-
encing, and "working through" the fear that the self“
defeating behavior allowed the individual to avoid, and
Phase III, further integration of didactic material and
fantasy experience, and followup. Theoretically each
phase should have had its own specific contribution. The
comparison of full and partial model was an attempt to
assess the effects of each phase through isolation of the
contributions of Phase II and III.

In the process of deciding how to construct the
partial model it was decided to equalize the time span
between the two models by having the partial subjects meet
once a week for six weeks rather than meeting twice a
week for three weeks as is the case in the full model.
This procedure was followed because the possibility that

a didactic treatment (Phase I) could effect changes

100

commensurate with those of a more complex treatment seemed
worth exploring and equalization of the time element was
necessary to the validity of that comparison.

The results of the multivariate analysis in Table
4.2 show that the effects of the full and partial model
are not significantly (iifferent. (p = .431). An inspec—
tion of the univariate F ratios and probability levels
reveahsthat only Workshop Questionnaire item 1 (Frequency),
with an F ratio of 5.00 significant at the .044 level,
indicated a clear advantage for the full model workshops.
Caution must be exercised in drawing any conclusions from
this result because it is the only indication of a differ-
ence.

The effect of non-random assignment of subjects
to treatment groups in this case is less clear than in
Research Question I because no substantial pre-test dif—
ferences existed in this comparison. Pre-test mean scores
are presented in Table 5.3.

Because the full and partial models were not sub“
stantially different at the pre~test, further explanation
was sought to account for the significant difference at the
end of Phase I. The explanation which strays the least
from the statistical evidence is that workshop Phases II
and III had no effects on the measures beyond those of
Phase I. This possibility will be more fully explored in
the discussion of Research Question III. A second explana-

tion may be that one of the full model workshops was

101

TABLE 5.3.--Pre-Test Raw Score Means and Difference Scores
for the Full and Partial Model Elimination of
Self—Defeating Behavior Workshops.

 

 

 

Model
Full Partial Difference Score
Variable (F) (P) (F—P)
a

WQl 4.17 4.00 .17
WQ2 3.50 3.50

WQ3 2.73 3.06 - .33
WQ4 3.97 4.06 .09
I-E 10.10 9.13 .97
D 24.94 24.88 .06
Pt 31.70 33.56 -l.86
Si 32.30 32.19 .11
A 19.03 19.06 - .03
R 16.40 15.44 - .96
Es 44.15 46.75 -2.60

 

aWQl=Workshop Questionnaire item on Frequency;
WQ2=Workshop Questionnaire item on Intensity; WQ3=Workshop
Questionnaire item on Ease of Change; WQ4=Workshop Ques-
tionnaire item on Success in changing behavior.
I-E=Internal=External Locus of Control Scale
D=Depression Scale of MMPI; Pt=Psychesthenia
Scale of MMPI; Si=Social Introversion Scale of MMPI;

A=Anxiety or Factor I Scale of MMPI; R=Repression or
Factor II Scale of MMPI; Es=Ego Strength Scale of MMPI.

effective and one was not, thereby, nullifying the total
effect of the full model treatment. The purpose of the
discussion of Research Question IV will be to consider

this possibility. For the present, however, no conclusions
other than a lack of difference between the two models is

warranted.

102

Research Question III: Are the Three Workshop
Phases Differentially Effective?

The possibility that Phases II and 111 had no signi-
ficant effect beyond Phase I was tested in Hypotheses Three.
The results of the analysis testing this hypothesis
(Table 4.1) revealed a significant change score advantage
of the partial model over the full at the end of Phase I.
This result combined with the lack of pre- to post-test
differences between the two models clarified the contri?
bution of Phases II and III by demonstrating that they
allowed the full model workshop subjects to overcome an
end of Phase I deficit by the end of Phase III (post-test).
At the end of Phase I, subjects in the partial model
reported the following relative advantages over the full
model: less frequent use of self—defeating behavior, less
intense experiencing of the behavior, more ease in chang—
ing the behavior, and more success in changing the
behavior. By the end of Phase III, however, these advan-
tages were equalized (Table 4.1). The extended presenta-
tion time of the partial model (six weeks versus three for
the full model) is the apparent reason for the partial
groups' changing more than the full.

The lack of differences between the effects of
Phase I as presented in the partial model and all three
Phases suggests that economy of leader time can be increased
by presenting Phase I in six weekly sessions without a loss

in effectiveness given the measures employed in this study.

103

The results of the analysis testing Hypothesis
Four more fully explain the effects of each of the phases.
It was seen in this analysis (Table 4.6) that, except for
Workshop Questionnaire item 3, Phase II and III had no
effects beyond those of Phase 1.

If the four Workshop Questionnaire items are con-
sidered to represent both qualitative and quantitative
behavior change the data suggests that the quantitative
aspects of behavior (Frequency and Success) were most
effectively altered by Phase I and that Phases II and
III affected the qualitative aspects (Intensity and Ease
of Change) of self-defeating behavior. Intensity, however,
was not significantly affected. Apparently, the didactic
portion of the workshops (Phase I), whose emphasis was an
overt behavior, affected how often subjects did their
self-defeating behavior. Conversely, the qualitative
changes were likely encouraged by the fantasy usage in
Phase II and the personalization of concepts in Phase III.
This result lends support to the often posited view that
behavioral emphases in psychotherapy most effectively
alter symptomology of behavior and that affective emphases
encourage changes in the manner in which individuals
experience behavior. The goal of affecting both realms
which was set when the workshops were formulated was
supported by these data.

The information provided by the analysis which

tested Hypotheses Three and Four indicates that:

104

1. Phase I is most effective when it is
conducted in weekly sessions rather than
bi-weekly.

2. Phase II and III add nothing quantitatively
significant to the effect of Phase I but
significant qualitative changes result from
Phases II and III beyond those of Phase I.

The implications of these findings for subsequent
workshops depends on whether the choice is made between
effectiveness or economy of treatment. If the emphasis
is placed on economy, the data suggests that the most
efficient course would be to extend Phase I over the six
week period as in the Partial model workshop. The results
indicate that Phase II and III do have a qualitative effect
on behavior change so that maximum effectiveness would be
achieved by using these phases to assist those workshop
members who have not completed their behavior change by
the end of the six week application of Phase I. The work—
shops as they are currently run provide a compromise
between the extremes of economy and effectiveness.

Research Question IV: How Sensitive is the

Method to Variability in Workshop
Leader Experience?

 

 

 

It was intended that one by-product of the highly
structured nature of the workshops would be a minimal
sensitivity to experience level of the group leader. This
is not to say that the method was seen as a way to neutral-

ize incompetence on the part of the leader but that well

105

trained professionals could use the structure provided by
the treatment to bolster their skills.

The two Full model workshops provided a test of
this question with the result that no multivariate differ-
ence was found (Table 4.8). Only Workshop Questionnaire
item 4 (Success) was found to show a significant advantage
to the experienced leaders. Because the treatment as a
whole was effective, indications were that inexperienced
group leaders may perform at the level of experienced
leaders with the aid of the workshops' structure.

No clear indication of increased effectiveness on
the part of the experienced leaders was revealed in the

analysis involved in answering Research Question IV.

Summary
The results of this study lead to the following

six conclusions:

1. Full and Partial Model Workshops are more
effective than a no-treatment control condi-
tion in decreasing frequency and intensity
of self-defeating behavior as well as anxiety.
The Full and Partial Models are also more
effective in increasing ease and success of
behavior change and ego strength.

2. Phases II and III have a qualitative effect
on self-defeating behavior but do not quanti-

tatively add to the effects of Phase I.

106

Phase I, when presented in six weekly sessions,
is more effective in reducing frequency and
intensity and in increasing ease of change and
success of change of self-defeating behavior
than when presented in bi-weekly sessions.

The Full Model Workshops do not generally

have more impact on self-defeating behavior
than the Partial Model although they are more
effective in reducing the frequency of self-
defeating behavior.

Workshop leader experience level was not

shown to be a factor influencing the effec-
tiveness of the Elimination of Self-Defeating
Behavior Workshops.

The Full and Partial Model Workshops are both
economical and effective as the Full Model
WorkshOp leaders invested 1.6 hours per sub—
ject and the Partial Model leaders spent only
.62 hours per subject which compares favorably
with the forms of group treatment reviewed

in Chapter II. Those methods consumed from
1.2 to 6.0 hours of group leader time per

subject.

107

Implications of this Study for
Future Research

 

Beyond its implications for subsequent Elimination
of Self-Defeating Behavior Workshops the primary contri-
bution of this study is the indication it provides of the
successful use of a didactic behavior change model. The
possibility of helping large groups of people live more
productively without the necessity of discussing "sensitive"
personal concerns suggests that a classroom treatment of
self-defeating behavior is a possibility. A study inves-
tigating the effectiveness of this classroom format would
provide the impetus for a more broad range of activity for
university counseling psychologists.

Research concerning the current workshop format
should focus on replication of the present study to help
substantiate its findings and on employing follow-up pro-
cedures to assess the long term effects of the workshops.
Such a study should strive for total random assignment of
subjects to groups although the large number of subjects
needed in each workshop to maintain the technique's
economy and the difficulty of having a large number of
college students agree on a common meeting time compli-
cates random assignment. Also further research should
employ more comprehensive measurement which would include
assessment of reSponse style so that a better idea may be
gained about which students are most appropriate for the
workshops. The repeated measures format also seems worth

pursuing because it provides a complete picture of the

108

effects of each phase. However, instruments used in
repeated measures testing must be of short duration and,
ideally, have some provision to assess "faking." Instru-
mentation for future study would do well to incorporate
the Myers—Briggs5 at the pre—test with Barron's Ego
Strength Scale, and the Workshop Questionnaire which
should be administered at the end of each phase as well
as at the pre-test. Also, direct behavioral observation
by intimates, peers or judges could augment the paper and
pencil measures without adding substantially to the com-
plexity of a study.

Random assignment and more comprehensive measure-
ment employed in the assessment of the effects of Phase I
versus all Phases combined would substantially add to the
available information about a new and promising method of

behavior change.

 

 

. 5I. B. Myers, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962).

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

109

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Autrey, O. R. "A Study of the Effects of Anxiety and of
Situational Stress. Unpublished M.A. Thesis,
University of North Carolina, 1954.

Bailer, I. "Conceptualization of Success and Failure in
' Mentally Retarded and Normal Children." Journal

of Personality. 29 (1961), 303-320.

 

Barron, F. "An Ego Strength Scale which Predicts Response
to Psychotherapy." In Basic Readings on the MMPI
in Psychology and Medicine. Edited by G. S. Welsh
and W. G. Dahlstrom. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1956, p. 230.

 

Bauer, Roger. "The Effects of Cognitive Structuring on

the Outcomes of Group Counseling." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1969.

Bergin, A. E. "The Effect of Psychotherapy: Negative
Results Revisited." Journal of Counseling Psychology.
10 (1963), 244-250.

Butterfield, E. C. "Locus of Control, Test Anxiety, Reac-
tions to Frustration, and Achievement Attitudes."
Journal of Personality, 32 (1964), 298-311.

 

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: 'Rand
McNally & Company, 1969.

 

Clampitt, Richard R. "An Experimentally Controlled Inves-
tigation of the Effect of Group Therapy." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa,
1955.

Cofer, C. N.; Chonce, J. E.; and Hudson, A. J. "A Study

of Malingering on the MMPI." Journal of Psychology,
27 (1949), 491-499.

110

lll

Crandell, F. J.; Kratkovsky, W.; and Preston, A. "Motiva-
tional and Ability Determinants of Young Children's
Intellectual Achievement Behaviors." Child
Development, 33 (1962), 643-661.

 

Cromwell, R.; Rosenthal, D.; Shakow, D.; and Kahn, T.
"Reaction Time, Locus of Control, Choice Behavior
and Descriptions of Parental Behavior in Schizo-
phrenic and Normal Subjects." Journal of Person-
ality, 29 (1961), 363-380.

Cudney, Milton. "A Manual for the Elimination of Self-
Defeating Behavior Workshops." Unpublished, 1972.
Western Michigan University Counseling Center,
Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Dahlstrom, W. G. and Welsh, G. S. An MMPI Handbook: A
Guide to Use in Clinical Practice and Research.
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press,
1960, p. 77.

Dooleys, E. J. "The Validity of the Depression Scale of
the M.M.P.I." Unpublished Masters Thesis, DePaul
University, 1954.

Drake, L. E. "Scale 0 (Social Introversion." In Basic
Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine.
Edited by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom.
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press,
1960, p. 181.

Ellis, Albert. "Rational Psychotherapy." Journal of
Psychology, 59 (1958), 35-49.

 

Eysenck, H. J. "The Effects of Psychotherapy: An evalua-
tion." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (1952),
319-324.

Gilbreath, S. H. "Group Counseling with Male Under-
Achieving Volunteers." Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 45 (1967), 469-476.

Hathaway, S. R. and McKinley, J. C. "Scale D (Depression)."
In Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and
Medicine. Edited by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956,

p. 85.

Hathaway, S. R. and McKinley, J. D. "Scale L (Psychesthemia)."
In Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and
Medicine. Edited by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956,

p. 85.

112

Hedquist, F. J. and Weinhold, B. K. "Behavioral Group
Counseling with Socially Anxious and Unassertive
College Students." Journal of Counseling
Psychology) 17 (1970T, 237-242.

 

 

Hunter, C. G. and Goodstein, L. D. "Ego Strength and Types
of Defensive and Coping Behavior." Journal of
Consulting Psyghology, 31 (1967), 432.

 

 

James, W. H. "Internal Versus External Control of Rein-
forcement as a Basic Variable in Learning Theory."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1957.

Karst, T. O. and Trexler, L. D. "Initial Study Using
Fixed-Role and Rational-Emotive Therapy in Treat-
ing Public Speaking Anxiety." Journal of Consult-
ing PsychologY. 34 (1970), 360-366.

 

 

Kelly, G. A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs.
New York: Norton, 1955.

 

Kiesler, D. J. "Some Myths of Psychotherapy Research and
the Search for a Paradigm." Psychological Bulletin,

 

6 (1966), 110-136.

Kramer, C. Y. "Extension of Multiple Range Tests to Group
Means with Unequal Numbers of Replications."
Biometrics, 9 (1956), 307-310.

 

Lieb, J. W. and Snyder, W. "Effects of Group Discussion on
Underachievement and Self-Actualization.“ Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 14 (1967), 282-285.

 

Liverant, S. and Scodel, A. "Internal and External Control
as Determinants of Decision Making under Conditions
of Risk." Psychological Reports, 7 (1960), 59-67.

 

Meichenbaum, D. H.; Gilmore, J. B.; and Fedoravicius, A.
"Group Insight Versus Group Desensitization in
Treating Speech Anxiety." Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 30—71971), 410-421.

 

 

Meyers, I. B. The Meyers—Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton,
New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

 

Odell, M. "Personality Correlates of Independence and
Conformity." Unpublished Masters Thesis, Ohio
State University, 1955.

Paul, G. L. and Shannon, D. T. "Treatment of Anxiety
through Systematic Desensitization in Therapy
Groups." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71
(1966), 125-130.

 

'L___-

113

Phares, E. J. "Expectancy Changes in Skill and Chance
Situations." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 54 71957), 339-342.

 

 

Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus
External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1966), No. 609.

 

 

Rotter, J. B. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1954.

 

Rotter, J. B.; Liverant, S.; and Crowne, D. P. "The
Growth and Extinction of Expectancies in Chance
Controlled and Skilled Tests." Journal of
Psychology, 52 (1961), 161-177.

 

 

Rotter, J. B. and Rafferty, J. E. The Rotter Incomplete
Sentences Blank Manual: College Form. New York:
Psychological Corporation, 1950.

 

 

Watson, D. "Relationship Between Locus of Control and
Anxiety." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 6 (1967), 91-92.

 

 

Welsh, G. S. "Factor Dimensions A and R." In Basic
Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine.
Edited by G. S. Welsh and W. G. Dahlstrom.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1956, pp. 264—281.

 

Welsh, G. S. and Roseman M. "A Graphic Method for Showing
Therapeutic Change by the Use of MMPI Factor
Scales." Paper presented at meetings of S.E.P.A.,
May, 1955.

Wolpe, J. "The Systematic Desensitization Treatment of
Neurosis." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders,
132 (1961), 189-203.

 

APPENDICES

114

APPENDIX A

PROCEDURE

115

116

Euom
Houmpﬂaaoom .omnonu
uoﬂ>mnom a Honusoo
.uoH>onon mnﬂumomop
IwHom mo memou

Such Monouﬂaeoom
omnmno uoﬂ>onom w
Hmnusoo .menmuon3o

HH n0mmoq

Em HINHIIm .uOO

 

HoowmoHonoxmm Euom Houmuﬂaﬂoom a n0mmoq 2m elm
omnmnu H0H>onom w
Honusoo .mﬂnmnonzo
HoOHmOHonommm a n0mmoq 2m Humallv .poo
mnooB o H ommnm
CH monmxuos o
semen Hens swan
.mwoum pouHEHH noemmom
on one umnn nmuﬂm mo oomam w meonmxuoz on
mnwaaon uouuoq = oEHu mnﬂaaou Honuoq unoenmﬂmmm om .umom
oaoom mIH
.ouwonnowumoso
= = eosmxsoz .Hesz ummsumse sieuza m
numm .nemm
uoEHom one
mamow mo noﬂuoo
IHMﬂuoHo coauoup 2m mum Inoa
= = umwmom mononuog noﬂpounoﬂuo Em Humanlma .umom
nonunoo Hoooz Hoeuuom Hopoz Hash noﬂuocom oEHB a ouoo

 

mmDQmUOmm

117

H0H>mnon onﬂumomoe
Imaom onenﬂou
Ines: mo mosqﬂnnooe

Euom Houmuﬂaﬂomm
omnmno Hoﬂ>mnom

w HonHDOb .ooﬂono
Honuouxm a HonuounH

Euom
Honouﬂaﬂoom omnono
H0H>onom w Honusoo
.H0H>onom mnwuoomoa

Imaom mo mumoo

.mpmoo
Inoo o>ew on» mo
noﬂuouwaonOmuom

same Havens»:
mo oonoeﬂo>¢

H0ﬂ>onom
meeummemoueemm
mnﬂnﬁounwoz

mo mosqﬂnnooa

Enom Monouﬂaﬂoom
omnono uoﬂ>onom
w HonHSOU
.oOHonU Honuouxm
w HocuounH

>H n0mmoq

ououmounH
w 3oH>om

HHH n0mmoq

> nOmmoq

>H common

HH COmmoq

HHH COmmoq

2m

2m

2m

2m

2m

Em

Em

HINHIION .MOO

elm

HINHIImH .uOO

HINHIIMH .uOO

HINHIIHH .UOO

 

Houueoo H6662 Hmeuume

Homo: Hasm

noﬂuonsm

oEHB e ouoo

 

118

.>oz ones

Inamon monmxuo3 CH
oonmuuno on MOHHQ
ouop mnwuwou

OI

.HOH>onon mcﬂuoomoe
umaom usonuﬂz
mnﬂ>ﬂa one Hoom
Hovenumz mo mnﬂoom

 

 

mcﬂonsonno Houpoq one nH oonoumﬂmm< HH mnﬂuooz Em HINHIIH .>oz
.oHHon
Inoeumoso monmxuoz
one mmnﬂuom Hoeooq
.moa>onon mnﬂuoomop
Imaom usonuHB
mnH>HH one Hoom
Hooenumz mo mneoow
one CH oonoumemmn H mnﬂuooz 2m Humanism .uoo
HHH omonm
pooh amoenuwz
mo oonopﬂo>< > COmmoq 2m eum
homunom
nmsounu Hoom pomnmuun
amoenuwz mo onﬂomm oEwBulmm .uoo
HH ommnm
nonunoo Hopoz Haﬁuuom Hopoz Haze coauonsm oEHB w ouoo

 

119

 

= = maeom one .Hesz
= .= oneom mnH .Hmzs

.ouﬂen

InOHumonO monmxnoz
one oneuem Hooeoq
.mumoonoo m one we
noeueueaenOmHom

.oueen

InOHumonO monmxnoz

one mmnﬂuem Hooeoq

.MOH>enon mnﬂueomoo

Imaom anonUHB

mnH>HH one Heom

Heoﬂnuwz mo mnﬂoem

onu nH ooneumﬂmm<

umOBlumom

ummﬁlﬂmom

HHH manuoos

2m mlmllo .>OZ

Em mlm

Sm vim

2m HINHIIM .>Oz

 

nonunou Hoooz Heﬁnnem Hoooz Hanm

nOAuonnm

oEHB a open

 

APPENDIX B

HANDOUTS DISTRIBUTED AT THE ORIENTATION TO THE
WORKSHOPS MEETING FOR THE ELIMINATION OF.

SELF-DEFEATING BEHAVIOR*

*All material in this section is copyrighted and is
included with the permission of Milton Cudney and
James Lowe.

120

HANDOUTS DISTRIBUTED AT THE ORIENTATION TO THE
WORKSHOPS MEETING FOR THE ELIMINATION OF

SELF-DEFEATING BEHAVIOR

Risking and Processing Feedback

 

Risking full expression of oneself is the most
daring of behaviors. Risking is also the most productive
way of living. To give all you have, to leave no room
for excuses, to fully test yourself is to let go of your
self-defeating behavior and to stand on the edge of your
personal unknown. The unknown is always somewhat frighten-
ing, but it is also the psychological space in which
creativity and increased productivity happen. Our goal
in the workshop is for you to drOp your self-defeating
behavior, to risk being your best, and to face the fact
that you cannot know for certain what the outcome will be.

When you are truly risking, you have just one more
responsibility to yourself--to process the results of your
risking. When you try out a new, risky behavior, you get
feedback of some kind, e.g., comments from friends, grades,
responsiveness of spouse. Some feedback will be negative
and some will be positive. If you exclude either the
negative or the positive, you are operating in a closed,
self-defeating manner; you are robbing yourself of valuable
information upon which you can build. To be open and self-
enhancing, you must consider all feedback, retaining for
new growth that which fits you and excluding that which
does not fit you. In other words, you must assume respon-
sibility for evaluating all feedback; only you can truly
judge whether feedback about you is accurate or inaccurate.

For example, a person gives up the self-defeating
behavior of always trying to please others and risks doing
what is right for himself. He may get feedback from
roommates that he is not as friendly as he was. He must
accept the responsibility of searching himself to test the
accuracy of that feedback. Has he really gone over-board
in not trying to please others and become somewhat unfriendly?

121

122

If so, he has a new learning with which he can further
enhance his way of living. If not, if he feels certain
that he really is friendly but simply not denying himself
to please others, he decides the feedback does not fit
him and rejects it as inaccurate.

To live fully and responsibly one must risk and

process feedback.

Examples of Behaviors the SDB Workshop is Designed
to Help_People Eliminate

 

 

Inferiority feelings

Negative self-concept

Fear of failure

Fear of groups

Difficulty in decision making

Underachievement

Racial prejudice

Perfectionism

Dependency

Lack of Motivation

Withdrawal

Excessive Overweight

Bi-sexuality

Homosexuality

Voyerism

Compulsive Behavior
compulsive lying
compulsive sexual behavior
compulsive eating
etc.

Boredom

Feelings of hatred

Unfulfilled sexual experience

Alcoholism

Excessive worry

Alienation of others

Feelings of meaninglessness

Inability to finish tasks

Psychosomatic illnesses

Depressions

Stuttering

Feelings of loneliness

Fear of Death

Fear of the unknown

Avoidance of responsibility

Fear of hurting others

Excessive attempts to please others

Drug abuse

Excessive day-dreaming

Inability to concentrate

123

Inability to give oneself in a loving relationship
Folding up under pressure or when challenged
Temper
Defensiveness
Fear of stating one's opinion
Negativism
Fear of expressing deep feelings
Inability to say no
Authority problems
Insomnia
To know what one wants to say but unable to get
the right words out
Disorganization
Never on time
Waste time
Poor planning
Can't find needed things
Forgetful .
Wait until the last minute to do things
Fear of being oneself
Always feeling pushed by something
Fear of God
Unrealistic expectations of self and others
Unhappiness created by oneself
Unrealistic mistrusting of others
Fear of commitment
Procrastination
Lack of confidence in oneself
Fear of rejection
Extreme nervousness
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Helpful Hints From Former
Workshop Participants

 

 

Former workshop participants were asked the follow-
ing questions: What could you say that would be helpful
to individuals who are beginning a workshop? The follow-
ing is what they said. It is given to you to help you
prepare yourself to make the most of this change program.

"Be convinced that you can change."

"Don't be afraid to take what feels like a risk--
you will survive! Be honest with yourself and work at
changing. If you fail, don't give up--put yourself back
together and try again."

"I would say look closely at yourself, closer than
you've ever looked before. All of your behavior serves a
purpose, even the most insignificant seeming acts have a

124

purpose. If you can discover what that purpose is and
what the overall purpose of your behavior is, you won't

be able to run away from yourself any longer. The work-
shop is serious work, treat it that way. Most of the

work is looking very carefully at yourself. Also, if you
are looking as carefully as you should be, you'll most
assuredly discover at least one or two ways you are trying
to defeat the workshop. Get these out in the open so
nobody will be able to use them."

"To be able to pinpoint his or her self-defeating
behavior in Specific terms. I didn't narrow mine down
until about mid-way through and as a result I was confused
for a while."

"Write down the concepts and examples as they are
given. The notes will be very helpful when the workshop
is over."

"Be honest. Quit lying to self and others. Admit
behavior that does bother."

"Come into it with a truly open mind and heart and
willingness to talk."

"First be able to accept the idea that they can
change the behavior. And be aware of the behavior they
want to change most. Pay close attention to the educa-
tional part of the workshop and try to apply what they
learn to themselves. Become aware of what they are
thinking! I think that is the most important thing.
Because most people can live their life and never really
know how they feel about themselves, other people, the
surroundings, etc. They just fall into a rut and waste
themselves."

"To realize that a change is possible and that it
requires intense effort."

"Trust the leaders. At times it may feel like they
are your enemy, but that's only because they are out to
have you let go of your defeating behavior. They are an
enemy to your defeating behavior. When you let the behavior
go only then will you fully realize they are on your side."

"Part way through the workshop I changed some and
because of this was going to drOp out. However, I stayed
with it and was glad, never realizing how much the latter
part of the workshop would help. Actually, I almost quit
because I was afraid of completely letting go of my behavior.
My advice is that if anyone starts the workshop they continue
right through to the end, and to become suspicious of them-
selves if they want to quit."

125

"Put all the time you can into practicing getting
to be yourself."

"I don't know if this would come at the beginning,
but participants should make sure they try out their new
behavior during the workshop."

"Be sincere to themselves and to those heading the
SDB workshop."

"Don't cop out with tricky techniques you can put
into operation. Stick it out. Keep your mind open, clear,
and working hard at getting to the deepest core of your
problem. It's tough, makes you struggle if you are working
hard at it, but if you can find it in the end, which you
can, it's a GREAT FEELING! (Ask yourself how bad you want
to get rid of the behavior. Be honest. Then try super
hard.)"

"To be able to write their feelings down towards
certain details of their behavior or to be able to retain
any knowledge they have experienced on paper so that after
the workshop they can look back and go over what they have
gone through."

"Tell them they will change if and when they want
to. I felt that change would be right away and it wasn't."

"Be patient, be truthful and be willing to change.
It's a hard job and a scary one facing something for the
first time and finding out what you really are, but it's
well worth it. It's best to know for sure, to live what
you really are than to hide all your life, not knowing
what you are and being afraid to find out."

"That they realize how important it is for them to
eliminate their self-defeating behaviors while in the
workshop."

"Open up, don't be afraid and let whatever is on
your mind come out."

"The concepts you will learn are vital to know, but
each time you become clear on something you can do to
change you must do it even if it is scary."

"Walk into it willing to give and listen! Be
desparate enough to give up the behavior."

126

Behaviors Change Facilitator Form

Concept 1.

A. List the techniques you use to maintain your self-
defeating behaviors. (Use the back of more space
is needed.)

B. List the ways you disown responsibility for your
self-defeating behaviors.

l.

£11:wa

Concept 2.
List the prices you pay for continuing your self-
defeating behaviors.
l.

U'IubLAJN

Concept 3.

What inner decision do you make to activate your
self-defeating behaviors?

Concept 4.

What is the mythical fear you would have to face if
you stopped your self-defeating behaviors?

APPENDIX C

HANDOUTS DESCRIBING THE CONCEPTS
PRESENTED IN PHASE I OF THE
ELIMINATION OF SELF-DEFEATING

BEHAVIOR WORKSHOPS*

*All material in this section is copyrighted and is
included with the permission of Milton Cudney and
James Lowe.

127

HANDOUTS DESCRIBING THE CONCEPTS PRESENTED
IN PHASE I OF THE ELIMINATION OF SELF-

DEFEATING BEHAVIOR WORKSHOPS

Lesson 1. Self-defeating behaviors: Something
the person does to himself but disowns
the fact that he does it.

 

 

 

Self-defeating behaviors are conceived to decrease
the anxiety experienced because the culture is not sensi-
tive to the way people (living things) creatively grow and
develop. In essence, SDB's are a human's way to cope with
the world when just reacting naturally as oneself doesn't
bring satisfactory results. People develop SDB's to cope
with rejection, loneliness, fear and hostility, as well as
the anxiety produced in being different or by being given
wrong information by the culture.

To change a SDB it is crucial to understand that
once a self-defeating behavior is established the person
must fully take over the responsibility of doing the
behaVior or it wouldn't continue. SDB's can never become
an 1ntegrated part of a person. They must be fed or nur-
tured and constantly used to keep them alive. As a person
goes from one moment of his life to another, self-defeating
behaviors do not automatically go with him. The person
does the SDB to himself, and to that extent is his own
worst enemy. People that change their behavior always come
to realize that nothing else or nobody else is responsible
for the behavior.

 

Some peeple will say, "I know I do the SDB but that
does not help." What they may be aware of is the outer
behavior (eating, withdrawing, putting someone else down,
not studying) but not realize that the inner feelings and
thoughts behind the behavior are something the person does
to himself too.

Self-defeating behaviors are not a condition people

have, a sickness plaguing them, nor an ingrained automatic
response. Self-defeating behaviors aren't even something

128

129

people have to get rid of. The truth of the matter is that
these behaviors are ways of responding that people have to
quit using. If a person would not respond in a self-
defeating way, there would be no self-defeating behavior.

If you want to quit using your SDB, begin by watch-
ing yourself do it and identify to yourself how expert ypp
are at it. If you don't identify all your ways of doing
this SDB, you will not really own up to the fact that ypp
are the doer of it. If you put the responsibility for
this behavior outside of yourself, you will be helpless to
change, because you will have the feeling it is being done
to you rather than you are doing it to yourself.

 

All people that do use SDB's have ways to disown
the fact they are doing it. In other words, a person does
the SDB entirely but tries to put the responsibility for
it any place but on his shoulders. Blaming is the most
common way to disown responsibility. One can blame others,
society, the past, and things. One can even blame himself
or a part of himself, and in so doing avoid the responsi-
bility for his SDB. When people blame something else they
usually do it in such a way so as to deceive even them-
selves. For instance, they will look at society and see
something wrong and tack on to that wrongness the
responsibility for what they do to themselves. Or, if they
blame their parents, or spouse, or children, they will
identify weaknesses in the others and use that as a way to
disown what they do. An example of that could be, "Well,
if my parents wouldn't keep harping at me, I'd be able to
relax and study more." What they fail to realize is that
their parents may harp at them, but it is what they do with
their parents responses to them that causes SDB troubles.

Following are some disowning statements that former
workshop participants have made, along with my comments in
parentheses. They are included to help you understand this
lesson and help you to identify the ways you disown.

1. He put me down and gave me an inferiority
complex. (It's his fault I feel inferior.)

2. My homosexuality is imbedded in me. (If it is
imbedded in me then I'm not responsible for
doing it.)

3. My SDB is an automatic reflex. (It just happens--
I can't help it.)

4. That's just the way I am. (A good excuse to
continue doing my SDB by making myself think
it is a part of my make-up.

130

5. I get relapses. (Instead of owning up to what
I do to make a relapse happen.)

6. In social situations I become tense. (To say
I become tense as though it just happened and
to blame the situation for my tenseness.)

7. I find myself depressed. (Without owning up
to what I do to get myself depressed.)

8. Something won't let me do what I want to do.
(I am helpless--something else is doing it to
me.)

9. My SDB has happened a few times. (Sort of say-
ing it just happened instead of admitting what
was done to bring it about.)

10. I can't control my feelings. (Therefore, I
can't be held responsible.)

11. Because of a headache I couldn't wait up for
my husband. (Put it on the headache.)

12. The devil made me do it. (It wasn't me that
caused the SDB.)

13. It's God's wish. (It wasn't me that wanted to
do it.)

14. If my parents wouldn't be like they are every-
thing would be O.K. (It's not me it's my
parents.)

15. I prayed that I would do the right thing. (Go
outside of oneself to ask for direction rather
than decide for oneself what is right and do
it.)

Life continues to offer people new moments of
living. These moments can be filled with self-defeating or
creative responses. If you desire the creative route, you
need to begin by fully taking the responsibility for your
own behavior. Begin by doing two things: (1) Watch your-
self do the SDB and become aware of how really expert you
are at accomplishing the behavior, and (2) Make a list of
the ways you disown and add to the list as you discover
new ways.

131

Lesson II. The prices paid for maintaining SDB's.

 

To fully appreciate this price concept one Would
have to understand on a deep psychic level the penality
living things pay for using behaviors that interfere with
their functioning. Humans are made to perform as a whole
system and when people utilize self-defeating behaviors to
cope with their world, they interfere with the harmonious
operation of their creative human system.

Not only is a person made to function best as a
whole, but so is the culture in which he lives, the world
that his culture is part of, and the universe from which
they all spring. Thus, when people use SDB's they pay a
very deep price within themselves; and in ways that are
not easily detected, so do immediate family, friends, city,
state, country, world, and the universe beyond. To clog
up any part of the creative works of something is to
interfere in some way with the whole system.

Using self-defeating behaviors is the same as main-
taining a death system within one's self. SDB's kill
energy, destroy joy, consume time, destroy spontaneity,
ruin relationships, contribute to poor health, cost money
to maintain, and interfere with growth.

People that keep using self-defeating behaviors
report some degree of unhappiness within themselves, an
awful feeling of not being in full control of their lives,
and a growing tiredness that piles up as the behavior is
continually used. Workshop participants that completely
drop their defeating behaviors report a joy and a delight
in being themselves, more meaning and peace within, an
ability to love more deeply, an eagerness for a new moment
of living to come along, and a sense of freedom and control
that comes from being at the helm of one's own life. In
essence what they are saying is this: When I used self-
defeating behaviors, I paid some very deep prices; it was
only after I let the behaviors go that life opened up for
me and I could then truly see what the behaviors cost me.

Most people, especially those that get involved in
a change program, have some understanding of the costs for
maintaining self-defeating behaviors. However, people have
their reasons for starting to use and continuing to use
these behaviors, and to let them go they need to deepen
their understanding of the prices paid as defeating
behaviors are used.

When peOple get to the point of letting the SDB go
and can't seem to make the change, it's often because they
have not fully owned up to this concept. This concept,

132

like the others, is easy to understand, but it must be
internalized until you not only understand the prices,
but feel them as well.

The following scale is useful in understanding this
concept and the importance of it. As long as people use
their SDB, they are saying they are better off with the
behavior than without it. Honestly facing the many prices
will help tip the scale.

 

prices paid--
Reasons to let
to SDB

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
   

Reasons
to keep
the SDB

 

The prices for using self-defeating behaviors fall
into two categories. The first category consists of the
actual results that come about from using the behavior and
the other category consists of those positive experiences
missed as the behavior is used.

Category 1--Actua1 results

Inability to be fully happy with self

Depression

Impaired relationships

Living with fear

Poor health and early death

Unnecessary expenditure of money

A giving-up-kind-of-tiredness from carrying

around a SDB

Contributing to hurt in others and getting

in the way of their growth

9. Death of energy, time, and spontaneity

10. Shame with self as the behavior is used

11. Negative contributions (if only in very tiny
ways) to all of the systems one is part of:
family, church, school, city, country, world,
universe

12. Loss of full control over one's life

\lmU'lubUJNI-J
o o oo o o o

(D
o

133

13. An inability to fully know oneself as a person
14. Etc.

Category II--What is missed

1. Increased time and energy to do important things
2. An ability to accept self as a person and being
happy with just that
3. More meaning and peace within
4. A deeper ability to love
5. Eagerness for a new day to dawn and looking
forward to new unknown moments of living
6. An ability to live in the now, fully, without
holding back
7. A sense of freedom by being at the helm of
one's own life
8. Increased production at work, home and at play
9. Openness to growth
10. An ability to experience in a life-giving
manner the full range of emotions from joy
to grief
11. A positive impact on the lives of others

To help yourself change you should identify the
prices you pay for maintaining your SDB and add to your
list as you become aware of new prices.

134

Lesson III. Internal and external choice

 

A self-defeating behavior does not happen on its
own. Each time a SDB is used a choice is required to
activate it, and repetitive choices are needed to keep it
going. The following diagram will help you to understand
this.

 

  
 
 

The person goes along
responding to life and
is confronted with a
situation such as
asking for a CHOICE?
date, studying

for a test, making a
report, giving a talk,
interacting with a
friend, and so on.

 

   

mUJIIIZZFI'U

In the above diagram the person decided to use his SDB when
he was confronted with his situation. At any moment after

the SDB was activated he could decide not to use it, but

he continues choosing to respond in the SDB pattern moment

after moment.

135

It is important to distinguish between two areas of
choice. The inner choice is made when people are confronted
with a situation that demands a response. The choice there
is always, "Will I respond asyjust me without any defeating
behaviors or will I undermine myself by not responding as
my best and most complete self?" This inner choice is
connected to daring to be completely one's best in a moment
of living. For instance: Do I dare test out my intelli-
gence? Do I dare see just how adequate I am as a male or
female? Do I dare put my ability as a writer, painter,
student, parent, or worker on the line? Do I dare test
myself out as a lone person?

 

 

 

Once the inner choice is made the stage is set for
outer choices which are needed to carry out the inner deci-
sion. If it is that the person won't test his intelligence
then he needs to make decisions to put tasks off, not finish
assignments, and only do a partial job in situations that
test his ability. If his inner decision is that he will
not trust his own judgment on something, outer choices are
required to manipulate other people to decide for him. If
an inner choice is, "I'll not be as attractive a woman as I
can be," then outer choices are needed to take on excessive
weight, maintain hostility, misinterpret how other people
respond, and so on.

The inner choice is recognizable from its outer
manifestations. If a person continually defeats himself
in areas that require him to use his intelligence, his
inner choice is to avoid seeing how intelligent he is.
By alienating members of the opposite sex one can avoid
testing his sexual adequacy. Using behaviors to withdraw
and avoid other people keeps one from seeing how acceptable
he is to others. By being dependent on the ideas of others
a person chooses not to find out how good or bad his ideas
are.

Trying to change a SDB in the outer choice area is
not the way to go about it. Many people will make an
inner choice to respond in a SDB way, and once this is in
gear try to change it at the outer choice level. Will
power attempts, New Year's resolutions, telling oneself
something else, all fall into this category. One must
become aware that he makes a decision not to confront a
situation as his integrated self, but to use a SDB, and at
the moment the choice is made, realize he has power over
the choice. A sense of helplessness comes from making SDB
choices and not realizing one does this. A sense of con-
trol over one's own life comes from the knowledge that the
person himself has power over choosing to go the SDB or
creative response route. When a person clearly sees that
he can choose the SDB or NON-SDB Route, he stands at the
moment of behavior change.

136

Reasons that people do not control their own choices.

 

Apparently assuming full responsibility for personal
choice is frightening to people, because people have many
ways of disowning their choices or even that they do choose.
In our culture people are often taught (and then they take
over and keep the erroneous idea alive) that it is best not
to trust their own judgment. Too often people are led to
believe that trusting in sources outside themselves (books,
teachers, parents, God, rules) is better than trusting
themselves.

Another reason people fail to recognize their inner
choices is because in our culture we are taught to focus on
and live in the outer area of doing, performing, and acting,
rather than spending time probing the inner world of think-
ing and feeling. Thus, we can make lots of inner choices
and because we are largely unfamiliar with our world within,
not recognize that we are choosing. If one always focuses
on happenings outside his mind he will not be in touch with
what happens within.

The fact that choices are made in a fraction of a
second can make it difficult to catch oneself doing it too.
Thus, a choice can be made so fast that a person can believe
it just happened.

If a person does a SDB for a good many years, he may
come to believe that the behavior is just part of him and
not something he does. By maintaining this perception he
would not recognize the choices he makes that activate and
keep the SDB alive.

To have full power over eliminating a SDB one needs
to fully control choices. The following steps can be
followed to help you grasp this power.

1. Recognize that you make inner and outer choices
to do your SDB.

2. Catch yourself making the SDB inner choice and
be aware of its alternative.

3. Come to a new moment of living where a SDB
would historically have been used. Before
responding be aware of the choice options
you have. (1) SDB choice (2) non-SDB choice.

4. Make a non-SDB choice in situations where a
SDB choice was previously made.

137

People have used SDB's to cope with life often
become scared being without it. Therefore,
after they respond with a non-SDB choice they
revert back and make a SDB choice. You must
catch yourself doing this and be aware of what
you have done.

Face the fears experienced when a non-SDB
choice is made in situations where a SDB
choice was made before.

138

Lesson IV. Techniques Used to Keep_Self-
Defeating Behaviors

 

 

Self-defeating behaviors are created at a time when
people are anxious and are built on top of anxiety in such
a way that convinces them that they cannot c0pe without the
SDB. At the time the behavior was initiated it may have
been that the only way known to cope was to use behaviors
that later became self—defeating, but they are kept because
people are afraid to face life withOut them.

Earlier, mention was made of the fact that SDB's
are poor fittings people carry with them and cannot be
integrated. That which cannot be successfully integrated
within the human must be carried from one moment to the
next by people themselves. The way they are carried forward
moment by moment is by people making choices to use SDB's
and then to use techniques to carry out these choices.
Techniques are to a SDB what fuel is to a fire. Without
something to burn, the fire would die out. Without techni-
ques to keep a SDB going it would cease to exist.

People will often say, "But I don't know the
techniques that I use to keep my self-defeating behavior."
It is impossible to become an expert at doing dependency,
doin inferiority, doing failure, doing alcoholism, and
d01ng all the other self-defeating behaviors, without know-
ing how they are being done. If you find yourself at the
point where you believe you do not know your techniques for
keeping your SDB, and if you are serious about wanting to
change, look for how you keep yourself from being fully
aware of something you are expert at. What you can do is
to use a technique on your techniques. The technique
would be used to keep you from knowing your techniques.

Something closely connected to the above is to use
a technique, and by not taking full responsibility for the
doingness of it, believe it happened automatically. This
denies the fact that choices to use techniques, and, hence
to keep the behavior, were even made. The feeling is, "I
didn't do it, it happened automatically."

Most people usually have four or five techniques
that they rely on most frequently. By isolating these
favorites the task is reduced to manageable proportions.

The fear of being without techniques is often
frightening enough that people will create new ones if
their old standbys are no longer usable. People display
an ingenious amount of cunning in creating new techniques
once their old ones do not work. When people are pinned
down and their techniques exposed they can create new ones
such as: suddenly forgetting'everything, developing a lump
on the side of their neck, feel like they are going to pass

139

out or actually do it, create a vomiting feeling so they
have to leave, and to bring back a terrible incident in
their life that was frightening so they could scare them-
selves in the present.

These fears of being without ways to keep the SDB
alive feel very real, even though being without the SDB
would be life-giving. Do not minimize your fears of being
without your SDB, but at the same time know that if you
want to change you will have to let the behavior go and
face the fears.

Too often people treat techniques superficially.
In some circles it seems to be a game to identify the
techniques people use, and in so doing entirely miss the
very real human fears behind why the techniques are used.
Treating techniques superficially is in itself a technique
not to have to face what one is doing.

Some techniques are blatant while others are more
subtle. However, they all serve the purpose of helping
people keep SDB's. A blatant technique could be one a
child could use such as saying, "The devil made me do it."
This same technique can be used in a more subtle way by
blaming a spouse for one's own behavior. Some of the most
subtle techniques are used to people that consider them-
selves enlightened. For instance, some people under the
guise of wanting to change will involve themselves in all
kinds of change programs. They might, for example, be
those that hop around from one weekend to another attending
groups, but using techniques of conforming to group standards
as a way not to change, or to reinforce other people in
their techniques as a way of then being able to use the
techniques themselves. A professional was in a group where
psuedo-openness was the symbol of success and he found when
he displayed anger (a technique on his part so he wouldn't
have to change) he got all kinds of reinforcement for being
"open" with his feelings. His anger was anything but open-
ness, but members of the group felt they needed to have
ways not to get to the real change issues, and reinforcing
a technique was their way of accomplishing this.

Subtle techniques are those that can become institu-
tionalized in such a way that the technique itself appears
as a virtue. The emphasis on gumchewing in schools is a
technique the staff uses to waste time because they are
afraid to put themselves to the real test to see if they
can really do the job with kids. Yet, not allowing kids to
chew gum is too often seen as a virtue by school people.

In the church there are lots of techniques used to have
people mistrust themselves and rely on a supreme being,
and this dependency is seen as a virtue.

140

The cleverest church-connected technique uncovered
so far was by a gal that made her techniques coincide with
her religious values. Each time the counselor hit one of
her techniques she took it as a direct insult to one of her
religious values and then had what she hoped was an air-
tight case as to why she did not have to change.

When one can understand the great lengths people go
to use techniques to keep SDB's one can begin to appreciate
the fear people have of letting the behaviors go.

It is possible for you, the reader, to technique
this handout in such a way that it will make no impact on
you at all. You could search the paper, not find the
techniques you use, and conclude you don't have any. Or,
you can say I use that one and that one and that one, and
keep right on using them. You could quickly read the hand-
out and conclude you know this material in depth, and then
not have to understand it more deeply. Or, if you use
blanking your mind out as a technique not to face deeper
issues in yourself, you might do it with the material in
this paper. If you procrastinate a lot you could read this
and put off doing anything about applying the ideas to
changing your particular behavior.

This paper by no means has an all-inclusive list of
techniques. The examples given are numerous enough, though,
and you should be able to find some techniques you use. If
you do not find your techniques in this handout, by studying
the examples in it, you will have leads in finding yours.

Remember! In order to maintain a SDB you must have
techniques you use. If you identify the techniques and
quit using them you will stand face to face with the deep
feelings the techniques have let you run from. The oppor-
tunity will then be there for you to face these feelings
and free yourself of your defeating behaviors.

A partial listing of techniques:

1. To respond to life in a feelingness manner and
to avoid emotionally laden subjects. This
serves the purpose of setting a part of oneself
off and not having to face this part of self.

2. To avoid risk and to hang onto old familiar
ways of responding because it seems safer.

3. To take a test such as an interest or personality
test and give the test decision power over
oneself.

10.

11.

12.

13.

141

To label oneself an alcoholic and by so doing
view self as having a condition and use this

as a subtle means for shifting the responsibility
for what is done onto that condition.

To do homosexuality but to consider oneself as
just being a homosexual and there is no sense
trying to fight a condition.

To institutionalize homosexual behavior by
developing views that society is an ogre for
not accepting this behavior as normal, but
developing the gay liberation movement, and
by surrounding oneself with people that
reinforce the behavior.

To misuse drugs, but to become an expert at
identifying society's faults (which are
plentiful) as a means of not seeing one's own
irresponsibility.

To hold onto a poor concept by comparing self
to others and coming off second best all of
the time.

To build a deceptive wall around oneself so no
one can get near, and to refer to this defen-
siveness as depth and try to convice oneself
and others this so-called 'depth' is a mark of
distinction. People often elicit praise for
this 'depth.‘

To maintain irresponsibility by a person
separating, in his thinking, a part of himself
from himself and giving this part control over
him. Examples of this come from people who
say, "I couldn't help it," or "my mind just

blanked out." Another example is drawn from a
man who was in the audience at a presentation
by the author. He said that as the SDB talk

was given he sincerely decided to give up
smoking, but as time went on his fingers began
to want a cigarette so bad he had to light up.
He didn't have to blame the devil for making
him do it, he could blame his fingers.

To keep from venturing ahead into the unknown
by bringing back previous defeats.

To have unrealistic expectations of oneself.
To break up relationships as a way of not having

to build close relationships but to make it
appear that the other people are at fault.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

142

To begin tasks and not finish them so adequacy
does not have to be checked out.

To blank one's mind when getting close to
important data.

To imagine what other people are thinking and
feeling rather than to check out reality. To
project one's own meaning onto another's
intentions.

To lump all men or all women into a category.

To know something important is going on in
oneself but to keep it vague.

Avoiding eye contact and developing various
looks that communicate to other people how
shy one is so they will stay away.

To be argumentative as a way of not getting
into deeper areas.

To turn caring on and off depending how close
someone gets to covered data.

To take something that was not really a prob-
lem in the past--such as being an adopted
child--and make it a problem to cover up
facing something in the present--such as
loneliness.

Lying.

In interactions with other people only give
them partial data about oneself so they
cannot really know who you are.

To keep so busy there is little time or energy
left to think about oneself or face deeper
issues.

To use denseness or stupidity as a way of not
understanding information and concepts that
might lead one into anxiety.

To agree with people even when one does not.

To blame one's past for the self-defeating
behavior one does to himself today.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

143

To pick out something someone else does that
really is a mistake, and then to add to this
mistake, but to put the total responsibility
onto the other person.

To cry as a way not to have to face deeper
issues.

To hold back crying as a means of not expres-
sing feelings.

To minimize the good aspects of life and to
overexaggerate mistakes and bad points.

To make a mountain out of a molehill.

To distort praise and minimize other people's
feedback.

To take direction for what one ought to do in
life's many situations from sources outside
oneself; other people (especially experts),
books, religious doctrine, magic.

To have a real and strong feeling but to keep
it longer than is necessary.

To take something that is valid like tiredness
or a real limitation, and magnify it in such
a way so as to incapacitate self.

When faced with a real conflict, to build
added tension and involve self with the
tension and avoid the real conflict.

To rationalize that someone won't like me as
a means of not checking the reality of that
out.

To maintain the idea that it is weak and wrong
to ask for help, and to believe that one

ought to be able to work out his difficulties
on his own even when his reality says differently.

To maintain guilt about water over the dam that
one cannot do anything about.

To take a reality such as a husband's sex
interest and to perceive it as something dirty,
as gluttonous, as an excessive demand.

To know how to respond to a situation but to
convince oneself otherwise.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

144

To have the attitude that life is a game with
all of the rules of a game. By so doing one
never has to respond honestly.

Not to like the way another person responds as
a way for not doing anything to change.

When someone touches a reality about you,
especially if it is unpleasant, to deny that
it hit home.

To take on a lot of little responsibilities to
the point of immobilizing one by not choosing
what is important and unimportant in one's
life. Never saying no to others helps to
accomplish this one.

To believe the problem is outside when, in
fact, it is inside.

To see the problem inside when, in fact, it is
outside.

To develop friends that will reinforce one in
SDB ways.

To make peOple as objects in one's mind and
then manipulate them, as needed, to stay
stagnant.

To romanticize and build certain people up
that expound ideas and stand for beliefs that
reinforce avoiding patterns.

To see the SDB manifested in only one situation,
i.e., with one's girlfriend, and not to recog—
nize its emergence in other situations.

To Openly admit using one or more techniques

to maintain a SDB, but do it is such a way

that if one admits it he doesn't have to change
it.

To create an outer restrictive box, to see the
box (now with people in it such as a boss or a
spouse or parents) as not allowing one to move
very much.

To avoid risking into the unknown by not speak—
ing unless one is sure ahead of time on what he
is going to say.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

145

To make other people's reactions so important
it overrides one's own beliefs.

Not to demand certain things one has a right
to demand.

To tell oneself he has nothing in common with
anyone else and, therefore, nothing to talk
about.

To put on an air of hostility and then with a
scowl on the face and a chip on the shoulder
other people will stay away.

To cut oneself down before others do.

To distract oneself (when doing an important
task like studying) by baking, doing dishes,
thinking, listening to music, cleaning, calling
people on the phone, taking the first invitation
to do something else, and so on.

To computerize responses rather than give fresh
responses to fresh situations.

Silence.

To predict what situations will be like, to
get ready for the predictions, and never take
life as it comes.

To avoid taking care of my appearance or body
or room as a way of convincing myself I need
to be taken care of.

To take people's reactions and distort them by
putting another meaning into them.

To go into a classroom situation with the
attitude that the total responsibility for
one getting anything out of the class is all
on the instructor's shoulders.

To know what one must do in a given situation,
but not to trust one's knowledge and to ask
another person for advice. This can be seen
most clearly by the people that write in to an
advice column. They want someone else to do
their thinking for them and then they do not
need the responsibility for a mistake on their
shoulder. It also shows up in a client's
relationship with a counselor or a doctor or a

70.

146

lawyer. In these situations a person can
legitimately ask for advice from the pro-
fessional because the professional knows
some things he does not, but too often the
client gives some of his responsibility over
to the professional when it should be kept
back home.

To have a variety of voices designed to
manipulate others and keep a SDB. The

voices can be used to communicate dependency,
helplessness, harshness, patheticness, and so
on, and can vary from a whine to an ultra-
power sound.

147

Lesson V. Avoidance of a Mythical Fear

 

Each person that uses a self-defeating behavior has
a fear of meeting his world without it. The fear began at
the time the behavior was conceived; a time when the person
felt that just being himself was not sufficient to cope with
the world as he was experiencing it. As an example: (1)
if just being one's self didn't seem to please parents,
conforming behaviors could be developed that pleased the
parents, but didn't fit the person, (2) Through no fault of
his own, a child can experience deep leneliness. He might
develop behaviors that may not fit him, but which help him
decrease the loneliness, (3) A child may be physically or
culturally different than the majority of children he grows
up with. This difference can cause him discomfort and he
may develop behaviors to ease this feeling, (4) Or, a child
can face this large world, experiencing no particular trauma
other than the universal feeling of needing a means with
which to cope. He may be taught behaviors that have many
self-defeating components (values, attitudes, perceptions)
to them. His inward feeling is, "I needed a way to handle
this world; thank goodness I now have one even if it isn't
the greatest."

Self-defeating behaviors, at their conception,
reduced anxiety for the owner; the person didn't feel so
lonely, or afraid, or rejected, or helpless. Thereafter,
as the person approaches new moments of living, he uses the
SDB because he believes that it is the best way to live.

He is afraid that without the SDB he will re-experience those
feelings he had when he first started the behavior.

148

A mythical fear increases each time a person comes
to a new moment of living and rather than let the SDB go
and check out the fear, he avoids it. By avoiding the
mythical fear it often times takes on monstrous overtones.
In addition, going down the SDB route a person splits
himself apart. One part of himself works against the
other and out of this split springs neurotic ideas and
feelings. The person becomes frightened of who he is
inside because rather than realizing that these neurotic
phenomenon come out of the split, he believes they come out
of who he is deep inside. Nothing can be further from the
truth, but the person doesn't know it until he moves beyond
his mythical fears.

Mythical fears fall into two categories: (1) A
fear that if the behaviors are not used, what the person
will find out about himself, and (2) a fear of what will
happen to the person. Typical fears of what people will
find out about themselves include such things as:

I'll be dumb and imcompetent.

My feelings will take over.

I'll be helpless and weak.

I won't like who I'll find.

I'll be mistrustful.

I won't be good at anything.

I'll be evil or crazy.

I'll be all alone.

I' 11 find a nothing person.

10. I' 11 find a person that is vulnerable to hurt.
11. I won't know wrong from right.

12. I' ll be undesirable even to myself.

13. I'll be rudderless; unable to decide what to do.
14. I'll be unhappy.

15. I'll be hideous.

16. I'll be mentally ill.

17. I‘ll be frigid.

18. Etc.

\DQOU'IQWNf-J
O O

Fears of what will happen that seem impossible to cope with
include:

Others will hurt me.

I'll be rejected.

No one will like or want me.

I'll be forever lost.

People will laugh and ridicule me.

I'll die a horrible death.

Others will take advantage of me; I'll be a
vessel for their pleasure.

. I'll go over the brink.

I'll be shut away in an institution.

\lmmanI—I
O 0 .0

\OG)
O

149

10. I don't know what will happen, but I know it
will be bad.
11. Etc.

Life is never worse by letting go of the SDB and
facing oneself at deep levels. However, to intellectually
understand this is not very helpful. People need to
actually go down the mythical fear road and behaviorally
find out that beyond the mythical fear is the route of
creativity, of meaning, of joy, of competency, and where
one finds the wheel by which he can steer his own life.

APPENDIX D

EDITED EXCERPTS OF AUDIO TAPES RECORDED DURING

THE WORKSHOPS CONDUCTED FOR THE STUDY

150

EDITED EXCERPTS OF AUDIO TAPES RECORDED DURING

THE WORKSHOPS CONDUCTED FOR THE STUDY

Full Model Workshop--Experienced Leaders
Phase I, Lesson 1 (Psychological Ownership)

 

Workshop Leader #1

 

There have been three handouts so far. One is the
Behavior Change Facilitator Form, one is the Workshop
Leaders Rating Form, and one is the handout of the material
we will be teaching today. Each time a concept is pre-
sented you will get a handout on it, and it will keep you
from having to take too many notes and that kind of thing.
We are going to tape our sessions and it's mainly for our
own learning so we're going to listen to them and keep
trying to change the workshop to make it better each time;
that plus the data that we're going to gather we hope will
make a difference the next time around.

I'd like to make some quick general remarks. One
is you need to follow what you actually need to do. We'd
like to make a contract with you, and that contract will
go something like this. We'll work our tail off to get
you to change. I don't think we're like a lot of counselors.

We keep changing the programs as we see things that need to

151

152

be changed, we'll work hard, we'll study, we'll take what
you give us and put it together and come back and try to
give you everything that we know will help you change and
that sort of thing, but at the same time this isn't like
we're-going-to-do-it-to—you—kind-of-thing, because there's
no electric shocks, there's no pills, there's nothing, it
can't be done pg you. But you can use this program to
change. The contract is we'll do our job if you'll do
yours. That means you've got to be here, if you miss a
couple of times I'll probably tell you you missed too
much, you better drop out and try it again. So you need
to be here, you need to do what we ask you to do. We're
going to ask you to do some home work, and keep track on
the behavior change forms, and write some things in there,
to apply the concept. You need to do that or you won't
make it. We won't see you afterwards. You either do it
here or you don't do it with us. You might want to try

to change with someone else. Now that may sound kind of
funny to you, but many people are so afraid to change that
they say to themselves, "well, I'll just go 50 miles an
hour here instead of 100, then maybe I'll do it later on."
Well, if you do it later on, it won't be with one of us.

I hope that will push you to say to yourself "look, I'm
going to do it here." If you don't make a commitment you
won't make the change. At least that's what we've seen in
the past. Be clear on what to do. You won't be lost.

You'll know what to do. We believe, for instance, that

153

behavior change often doesn't come about because peOple
with honest motivation don't know what to do. You know,
it's too vague. So we'll tell specifically what you need
to do. You need to understand this concept that you need
to apply in different kinds of ways. We know that you
want to change your behavior, but also that you will do
all kinds of things to hang on to it. I don't think we've
ever had anyone go through the workshops that hasn't
worked against himself. That's no crime. You won't get
your head cut off for it or anything like that. It just
means, though, that you need to watch yourself doing it
because, you can't expect to go ahead while you're working
against yourself. If we can get out in the open the kind
of things you're doing to defeat yourself, then we can work
on them and move on. Usually the defeating of yourself
will be attempted by practicing the behavior that you're
here to change. For instance, procrastinating. If you
put off doing the things we need you to do in a workshop,
you won't make it, and you will have defeated yourself in
trying to change procrastination. Could someone give me

a reading on how you’re defeating the workshop so far?

Workshop Member #1

 

I wondered what you were going to say next. I

guess that might be associated with apprehension.

154

Workshop Leader #1

 

It could be, and also if I understand you right,
by wondering what's going to be said next, you might be
missing what's being said now. I would think most people
use that as a way to defeat themselves. That is, they
really don't believe they can be without it (the behavior)

or maybe they might come in and say, "convince me,"

you
know, kind of a challenge. To let go of that sort of
thing and open enough space in your life to say, "maybe

it's possible,’ is necessary to change. You need to watch
for those things and you need to get them out in the open.
If you don't you'll not change, because you'll be working

against yourself.

Workshop Leader #2

 

This first session is different. The rest of them
will be run in the following manner. When you come in,
we will want to start right on time and about the first 10
minutes we want to check around as quickly as we can and
find out how you did with the concept we taught the last
time as you tried to apply it to your personal life? How
did you do? About 10 minutes on that, then we will teach
another lesson. That will take about 15 minutes. As soon
as we teach that lesson we will want to make sure that
you're clear about it, and will break into small groups
and will ask you to start personalizing the new_1esson,
and at the very end before we leave for the hour we will

give you some homework for the next time.

155

Think for a moment about yourself as a small child
growing up in this culture and having an environment around
you made up of parents, and school, and neighbors, and
relatives and your total environment. Know and think
about it just a moment and know that you get lots of good
stuff, lots of things that don't fit in--thoughts, beliefs,
feelings, ideas that do not fit inside of a human being. 1
They make us hurt instead of healthy. These are self-
defeating behaviors, these things you are taught. You
cannot, as far as I know, grow up in this culture, this
environment without learning some of these self-defeating
behaviors. And the important thing that we want you to
understand is that you go learn them. They are not part
of your chromosomes, they're not an embedded part of your
personality, it's not something that you can't change, it's
something that you learned; and because you learned it,
you can also unlearn it, and, fortunately, you can unlearn
it much faster than you can learn it.

Now what we're going to do in here is to provide
you a road map method with which you can unlearn this
behavior. We're going to tell you how to get from San
Francisco to Boston, step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4. If
you take an attitude toward this thing like, "OK back
there my environment did the job on me, I learned this
self-defeating behavior along with all the rest of my
fellow humans, but now I'm going to forget about that part

of the past and unlearn the behavior." Starting with that

156

kind of attitude will let you start fresh right this
minute to unlearn self-defeating behavior.

The first concept is, even though you learned all
this in the past and the culture has put it on you, you
now do the behavior all by yourself. That doesn't mean
you don't still get help from the outside, but you're the
one who is doing it all by yourself. You create this
behavior. It may seem very simple at first but you need
to know how you do the behavior. See, you're going to
unlearn it, so you have to know how you do it so you know
what learning to undo, we're not going to teach you how
to stop the behavior or to quit it. We want you to unlearn
it, so when you get up in the morning you don't recreate
it each day. Then you don't have to worry about stopping
it. I want you to unlearn it all the way back. This is
the first thing that you do. It is step 1 in getting down
to the end where your self-defeating behavior is. Step 1
is knowing that you do the behavior, but in some way
disown the fact that you do it. You in some way do not
let yourself know that you really are the doer, the
creator, that you, for example, really create those feel-
ings of inferiority. In order to get that self—defeating
behavior going you have to do certain things and then
disown them. For example, let's say you're here to change
poor study habits. You can't study--you can't concentrate.
You can't concentrate because you get bored. You sit down

to study and the course is boring, the book is boring, what

157

you need to understand is that you create that boredom in
order to end with poor study habits. Then once you do the
boredom, you disown it by blaming it on the book or the
professor. So, first you do the behavior and then disown
the fact that you've done it. You can also create physical
behaviors in order to end up with your self-defeating
behavior. To explain what I mean let's go back to study-
ing. Many people have poor study habits because when they
sit down to study they get tired. Just terribly, terribly
tired, they yawn, their eyes drop and they want to sleep.
There is also such a thing as genuine tiredness, but also
there is such a thing as creating tiredness. Creating it
so you can't study very well.

Now on the handout lesson 1 are listed about twenty
different ways that people disown. This first concept is
really one idea but it has two parts. One, you need to
start to identify step by step how you do the behavior
and also how you disown doing those steps. Step 1,
always in a general way, is that you disown the doing.

You have to fill in the details of your own ways of dis-
owning, so we want you right now to start thinking about
what kinds of feelings you create that bring about that
self-defeating behavior? What kind of thoughts do you
think that bring about this self-defeating behavior?

What do you do to yourself physically to bring about self-
defeating behavior? Is it clear what I'm talking about?
All we're asking is "are you clear about what we are after

in concept 1?

158

Partial Model Workshop
Phase I, Lesson II (Prices)

 

 

Leader: The first twenty minutes of each time we meet Will
be spent talking about how you did. How did you
do on the concept that you were working on the
last time? Were you able to apply it? Were you
able to catch yourself disowning? Were you able
to do something when you caught yourself disowning?
Did you catch yourself in some way defeating what
you've been trying to change? I'd like to have
you share it with us. Can we just start? We'd
like not to have to call on you--just speak out.

Student: I don't think I was able to apply the disowning
business to myself. I couldn't see it. I wrote
some things down but I'm not sure of it.

Leader: There are two possibilities. One is that maybe
I didn't make it clear enough, the other one is
you may have done something to make it confusing.
Do you have any feel for either of these?

Student: I think what I did was I tried to concentrate so
hard on what you were saying that I was listening
to words, not really thoughts, and I think I
missed an awful lot by doing that.

Leader: That makes a lot of sense. Can you change that
today?

Student: I'm going to try awfully hard.

Leader:

159

That's a good way to defeat yourself, just by
overdoing in such a way that you don't get the
job done. There seems to be a lack of clarity,
so we'll go over that to make sure that it's
clear. One, you have a Behavior Change Form,
and then we would like you to bring it to each
session so that beforehand and maybe afterward
we can go over it with you to make sure you're
on the right track and give you some kind of
help.

A second thing is the journals. And that's
where we would like you to talk about your
struggles to apply the concept, your successes,
your failures, ways in which you might be
treating yourself in trying to change, asking
questions, in other words using that journal
in any way you can use it to get help from us,
because we really spend time on those, we go
over them, and it just will help. Again, it's
always possible that we didn't make it clear_
enough. It's always possible that somehow you
confused the issue because if you confused this
homework and don't know what to expect, and if
it's not clear, you cut yourself off from a lot
of help and you make it more difficult to change

and easier to hang on to your behavior.

160

Partial Model
Phase I, Lesson IV (Techniques)

 

 

This concept has to do with techniques, and it
really goes back to the first lesson. In fact, for the
next workshop I put lesson I and IV together. You do the
behavior and this is how you do it, with techniques. You've
got a method. You practice this thing, you become an
expert at it, because you've done it a lot, and you do it
better than anybody in the world, because you do it in
your own way. Nobody else does it exactly like that. But
also another way to look at this is that we make the self-
defeating behavior akin to a fire. The techniques are the
logs you throw into the fire to feed it. If you didn't
feed this behavior, if you didn't use this technique,
you'd have no way to pull it off. That's how you pull
off the defeating behavior, by the techniques you use.
Like, you compare yourself to other people, you make
other people too important to you, you see other people as
expecting certain things out of you, you have things in
the back of your mind that you have to live up to. Well,
we've got 70 some listed here so you'll be able to identify
the ones you use. Now some people will say I know I do
my behavior--like that eating one. I know I'm the one
that eats, no one puts that food in my mouth. But most
peOple don't know that they create the feelings, the
cravings, all that stuff that feels like it's beyond your

control. You do all that stuff to set the stage for you

161

to feel like you have to eat. That feeling that you must
have a full stomach or you don't feel well. You create
that also, that's something you do. Now one of the things
I try to do, at least this is a hint we give a lot of
people in this lesson. Get it down to manageable propor-
tions, like start with four or five techniques you do most
often. I hope you do go through the list to start checking
the ones you do. But don't start with 40. Start with
maybe 3 or 4 you use most. And if you identify yourself
using them, stOp. That will push you back closer to the
inner choice. You may get scared. For instance, let's
say you're well aware of four techniques you use to do
the behavior. Like one guy got a lump in the side of his
throat and then he went over to the infirmary and thought
he had cancer. That was a new technique. A girl passed
out. In effect she was saying, "I can't use the behavior
techniques I usually use, now I'm helpless. What the hell
am I going to do? I'm going to pass out. That's a new
one." Now, I'm not trying to scare you or anything I am
just saying you may find yourself creating new techniques.
And just start dealing with those like you did the other
ones. Your attitude should be: "How am I pulling that
one off? Let me see how expert am I in doing that?"

One other thing you're going to realize is, how
fearful it is for us to be without our techniques. To be
without the behavior. You watch how cunning, how clever,

how creative, that's not really being creative, but how

162

cunning you are at doing techniques and creating new ones.
You start getting a little bit of a sense for "I must
really be frightened to be without this behavior or I
wouldn't spend half of my life creating these things or
setting them up."

Now, some techniques are really blatant. Like,
kids say "the devil made me do it" or "you made me mad."
That's really easy to identify those--they're really
blatant, they're easy to see. You can identify them right
away. The ones you need to understand are the more
subtle ones--like for instance, some people will set
specific conditions so that they can do their behavior.
Once they set the conditions, they find out that people
respond to them in certain ways, then they do the behavior.
But all they look at is what the people did or said. They

don't look at the conditions they set.

163

Full Model Experienced Leaders
Phase II

 

Ok, I want to lay out first of all the purpose
of today's meeting, and it has a very definite purpose and
that is to help you face the mythical fears that you have
of letting the behavior go. Not one of us would keep the
defeating behavior unless we were afraid of letting it go.
The only reason we do that is because of those mythical
fears if we let them go. If you check that out, then
when you get up to the crossroad you can choose the non-
self-defeating behavior. Now if you have dropped the
behavior that you came in here to change, then your
purpose is not to drop that behavior. Your purpose is
then to tackle and drop all defeating behaviors. You can
do that in here. So if you have dropped the defeating
behavior, then your job is to go and drop all defeating
behaviors and identify the fears associated with each
one.

Ok, now before we go into that, I need to know if
you're doing anything to defeat yourself right now. I
just want to take a minute or two to get that in the open.
There's no way you're going to get anything if you're
defeating yourself. So is there anybody that is defeating
himself?

Student: I started doing the same thing before I came in
here, and that was I felt as though I understand

all the concepts, but I am worried about forgetting

Counselor:

 

Student:

Counselor:

 

164

them in here, so I wrote a couple of things
down on a piece of paper. Is that self-
defeating?

I'd even like you to forget those couple of
things you might want to look at and just sort
of be here. Just follow those things that it
is easy for you to follow, and let the others
go. Anything else?

The same thing . . . I felt I had to understand
all the concepts before I could get anything
out of this lesson today.

Ok, let that go, will you? You've done every-
thing you can to understand the concepts so
just be here. One other thing, unless you do
something you won't drop your behaviors. I'm
going to give you just the best I can. I'm
well prepared, have done a lot of thinking and
preparing and am going to give you the opportun-
ity to be aware of your behaviors. But you need
to take advantage of it. I can't do it to you.
So it's very easy to do it. I'll give you a
chance to do something--if you don't do it, I'm
helpless to help you drop the behaviors. So
when I give you a chance to do something you
need to take action. Like if I said the way

to understand purpose is to go from the known

to the unknown. We want to go with you and the

Student:

Counselor:

 

165

defeating behaviors, either the one you came to
change, or if you drop that, any others. We
want to go from there, and we want to go where
you are completely without the behaviors, and
then we can check out all the mythical fears.
Then you won't have to wonder when you come up
to the crossroad of self-defeating and non-self—
defeating behavior. Now I just want to see if
it's clear what we're going to do (questioned
each student).
We're going into something that we don't know
anything about.
You know all about it. It's unknown in the
sense that you know it and don't know it. You'll
know it as soon as you drop the behavior, you'll
know these things. Now don't make it scary.
See, I say unknown because you're not without
the behaviors. So it's the kind of unknown.
It's not scary, now if you make it scary,
you're defeating yourself.

Now I want to get started here, and I need
for you to get a hold of this feeling. It's
the feeling of having the behavior and wanting
to be without it. It's the feeling of wanting
to drop the behavior but being unable to do it.
It's the feeling of trying to let go of that

thing but something's holding you back. The

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

166

feeling of trying to go down the path of non-
self-defeating behavior, and you run into a
wall or a blockage or something. It's trying
to think about what reason do I still have
this thing? It's being unable to let that
thing go, or a can'tness, or something like
that. I need to know if you can identify with
that feeling. Like, what is it, what is your
own word?

Fear of rejection because I don't understand
it.

So, for you it's sort of like, "I could let it
go if I didn't have the fear. But the fear is
in the way." I want to identify with this
feeling. . . . So the feeling could be kind of
a tenseness. That's what gets in the way. Ok,
now I want you to just privately now just stay
with yourself, don't worry about anybody else.
Just stay with yourself. I want you to take
that feeling. It could be something like this
between here and here (writes on blackboard),
in your mind get a picture. Just go inside of
yourself and see that as a picture, and I want
you to give me the picture becuase I'm going
to help you work with that. I'm going to take

this picture and get on the outside what it

Student #2:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #2:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #2:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #3:

 

167

feels like on the inside where I can help you
to check out these mythical fears. As you get
this--and if you don't get it right away,
don't worry about, would you give me the
picture?

I'm drowning.

Now I want to have that, and I need to write f
this down so that I can work with you on it.
And the rest of you keep working on your own. “
It's like I'm in the middle of a huge body of
water, and I'm going down and I want to stay
up but I can't, and nobody's around.

Anything like that's important to me--like for
instance, nobody's around. Is the water deep?
Is it shallow?

It's deep and I can't see any shore.

Ok. Anything else? Well, you keep working
with that. And if anything comes up . . .
Now, you see the purpose of this is I can get
on the outside what's happening on the inside,
and you and I can work with it. And then if
anything happens, come back to me with it.

The first feeling that I had is that of con-
flict and the picture that popped in is that I
was standing between two horses that were
going in opposite directions and I'm being

pulled both ways at the same time.

Counselor:

 

Student #3:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #4:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #4:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #4:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #5:

 

168

Ok. Anything like--are the horses normal size?
Are you normal size? Look at the picture--
don't surmise what it is.

I'm looking at the picture, I'm standing hold-
ing on to a rope or tether of the horse.

Ok, You're normal size? Anything else--look at
the picture and tell me anything. How about
the surroundings? You have to pick up what's
significant there. Anybody else?

The feeling is ambivalent--it's fear and anger.
How is it pictured?

It's like I'm standing at the door and I don't
want to open it because I'm angry that I can't,
but I'm fearful that if I do I won't be able

to handle it.

Ok, look at that door, and again, it's impor-
tant that you look at the picture in mind.
That's very important. Anything--is there a
handle on the door, is there a window in the
door, is it a metal door, anything like that?
Yea, it's a wood door and I'm just trying to
keep it from opening.

Oh, in other words, you're holding it back.

It wants to open? (Yes)

I'm in a helic0pter or a plane; and I'm kind

of tangled up kind of like with seaweed, not

a rope, seaweed. And I know if I fall I don't

Counselor:

 

Student #5:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #3:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #3:

 

Counselor:

 

169

know what I'll be falling into, but I'll be
falling away from myself--so high up that I
can't see anything.

That's important, high up. Anything else in
the picture? Like are there other people in
there? Just you and the plane?

The plane isn't a nice plane--it's a dirty old

plane, you know kind of jagged metal sticking

 

out all over the place, dirty. _

Ok, you work with that on your own--just
follow that through. Anyone else?

I have more of a pleasant feeling--like a
feeling of resolution.

Anything in terms of the horses or anything?
No, they've gone, I'm just with myself and just
a pleasant feeling.

Now this picture, is an accurate description
of what it feels like on the inside. You'll
be in full control and when you manipulate
that picture you're going to go over the know-
ledge in your head that you already know, but
you don't operate on. Now the next thing I
want you to do is to find a way to handle that
obstacle and everybody will be different. To
pick yours you need a way to handle, like for
instance, you've already got one--there's a

door there and you need to let that door swing

 

Student #4:

 

Counselor:

——

 

Student #5:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #5:

 

Counselor:

 

170

open. Student #5 has a way, he is in a sea-
weed tangle, and he needs a means for getting
out of that seaweed. Now you can do anything
with the picture that you want--it's your
picture. You can create things, you could
create a spring that would swing that door
open and you need to see it in your mind or it
won't work--like you can create a knife to cut
those ropes. You get the idea--you need a way,
a vehicle to handle the obstacle. Now try to
understand that so I can work with you on it
and then tell me what you come up with.

Well, the door is open and I have some things
to put in the room. They look like rocks.

(to hold it open?) No, that's what's in the
room—-I have to put those in order.

Ok, you go ahead and work on that. You go
through that door and put those things in
order.

It's getting all tangled up now with seaweed.
I've got to twist it up and roll handles of
pruning shears around it and pull hard and

rip it off.

Ok, go ahead and follow that.

The plane is still going high.

Ok, I think you need to get hold of the con-

trols of that plane. That's just a suggestion,

 

 

Student #4:

 

Counselor:

 

171

or you need to talk to the pilot. This might
be what you have to do. Anybody else? I
need you to have a way to be able to cope

with this impasse. You get the idea--anybody

 

have one now? Think very clearly what you

need to do. You need to take advantage of

that way through, over, around, that impasse.
Go ahead, and when you use that vehicle, you're

going to open up the knowledge you've always

 

had about yourself. Like, what am I without
nervousness? What is it really like to be
naked? What is it like to walk into that
room. Now, if it's too scary for you, then
find a way to look into that room, or to be
on the ground. Find a way to do that so you
can, in a way, be there before you actually go.
So . . . I got to get out of this room because
that's just another way of not resolving things.
I must go on in there and help put things in
order. I get a feeling of having to get out of
the room-~if I can swing the door I'll be much
freer.
Ok, you do have to trust yourself and follow
any lead that you get there--so go ahead and

just follow that up.

Counselor:

 

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

172

Full Mode1——Experienced Leaders
Phase III, Sessionyl

 

 

Ok so far, each time that we've met, we've

had specific kinds of input to give you. Now
this time on Wednesday--we'1l meet downstairs.
So today, the input has to come from you. We
have nothing more that's structured to give

out to tell you or that we have planned. And
the particular thing that these sessions are for
is to focus on how are you doing, what kinds of
mistakes are you making, trying to finish up
wherever you're at, what are the rough spots,
that kind of thing. You should really have
this pretty well together for yourself. I
don't have any objection about your making a
contribution to someone else at this point.

But if you don't really have it together for
yourself, then I'd rather than you wouldn't

try to help someone else--it would just confuse
them.

I feel I have myself together, but still doesn't
prevent me from doing what I'm not supposed to
be doing. I still get angry.

Are you able to catch yourself the second you
start the angry feelings? (No) I think by
knowing how you get it going you could stop

doing the anger.

 

173

Student #1: I don't do it--it just happens.

 

Counselor: Yes, I understand it seems that way--it seems

 

automatic, but that really isn't the way it
is.

Student #1: Well, I could just avoid people, then I

 

probably wouldn't get angry. That's the only
way I can figure out because when I do interact
socially it's just like having my manhood
tested in front of other people.

Counselor: Now is that one of the things you do to get the

 

anger going? To assume that somehow you're
being put to the test, or that your manhood
is being put to the test.

Student #1: I don't know if I really get it started.

 

Counselor: But you're saying that's the way it ends up--

 

that's the way it really is. People are test-
ing your manhood. I want you to start thinking
that isn't the way it really is--actually you
set it up for yourself. You‘re always testing
something, aren't you?

Student #1: Well, I wasn't only testing. I mean I was . . .

 

Now I think it just happened to me a few times.

Counselor: It doesn't happen 39 you. You set it up that

 

way. If you really want to change, you should
start thinking that you set it up that way.
You set up the arguments, you set up the

situations. I don't mean that there aren't

 

 

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

174

conflicts and so forth in life. But you
capitalize on them, you jump on them, you
make them into double conflicts.

Now, you're saying I should just avoid people?

 

I'm not telling you how to behave.

You mean I should just not do anything about
it. What you're saying right now is it's 'm
something . . .

I'm not telling you how to act--I'm saying, '5
look at what you do to create the constant
conflict and the resultant alienation. You
set up every kind of confrontation with a
person as a test of you, of your weakness,

of your strength.

I don't understand.

The answer is that you set it up as a test.
I'm not going to say I set it up. But I say
to myself, either I'm going to leave or I'm
going to just acquiese. You know, I mean I
agree . . .

If you acquiese, then you come off as some
kind of weak ass, right? You ought to look

at it instead of going on and on and on. If
you really want to do something about it you
ought to look at how you set a situation up to

be a test.

Student #1:

 

Counselor:

 

Student #2:

 

Counselor:

 

175

Ok, then, how do I?

I think by imagining somehow you are constantly
being tested. I'd like to stop there because
I want to make sure everyone gets a chance
here. If you really want to do something about
it I think you've got to look at that.

I try to overcome feelings of inferiority and
fear of being involved in things, and I've
gotten over a lot of individual things as
opposed to over-coming the inferiority. . . .
Maybe that's not a way of overcoming it, but

I feel a great change in me. I'm much more
calm, much more influential now. I don't

feel like I'm inferior to someone else.

I want to see how it got that way. You did
something about the inferiority by pushing
yourself to get involved, and you say now you
don't feel the inferiority. Ok, now all I'd
like you to do is look at the fact that you
did more than that. What I'm after is to make
sure you have some sense of the fact that you
did more than that. Because otherwise it's
going to feel to you like the only way that
you cannot feel inferior is to throw yourself

into things.

Student #2:

 

Counselor:

 

176

Yes, I had become aware of what I was doing--
particularly the little things. I was with-
drawing and I would structure a situation
before it happened.

Ok, now you're not doing that. All I want
you to know is that. Just know that you

did some other things in there besides being
involved, really did them to yourself in order
not to have those inferiority feelings. The
more you know about how you did it, the more
control you have over being satisfied with

your life.

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

THE WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE*

*The Workshop Questionnaire is copyrighted and appears
here with the permission of Milton Cudney and James Lowe.

177

THE WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE

Name

 

Workshop Questionnaire

 

Please answer each question. Where it is appropriate simply
make one check, but one check only.

1. What is the specific self-defeating behavior you wish
to change in the workshop? Please be very specific.

 

2. How often do you engage in this behavior? Use the past
ten days as an example.

Rarely

Twice a week

Once a day

Several times a day
Constantly

 

 

 

 

 

3. With what intensity do you experience the behavior?
Again use the past ten days.

I feel compelled and driven by the behavior
I am bothered intensely by the behavior

I am bothered a great deal by the behavior
I

T

am bothered some by the behavior
he behavior doesn't bother me much

MUOUJII’

4. How easy is it for you to change the behavior?

A. I can change quite readily with just a
little work

. I can change, but will have to work at it

It is difficult to change

It is extremely difficult to change

Frankly, I don't really believe I can change

[TJUOIIJ

NH!

178

179

Are you succeeding in changing your behavior?

[11000335

No

Little

Noticeably
Considerably
Almost completely

 

 

 

 

 

Do persons who are close to you notice a change in you?

NO

 

Little
Noticeably
Considerably
A great deal

 

 

 

 

Are you functioning differently at school?

NO

 

Little

Noticeably
Considerably
Almost completely

 

 

 

 

Please describe the behavior changes you have made.
It will be most helpful if you are quite specific.

What difficulties do you continue to experience as a
result of this behavior? Again, be specific.

APPENDIX F

WORKSHOP LEADER RATING OF MEMBER

BEHAVIOR CHANGE

180

WORKSHOP LEADER RATING OF MEMBER

BEHAVIOR CHANGE

Complete Partial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181

No-Change

 

 

APPENDIX G

PRE-TEST RAW SCORE MEANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND
CONTROL GROUPS ON SIX MMPI SCALES, ROTTER'S

I-E SCALE, AND THE WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE

182

183

 

 

50.0 00.0 me.m 0m.0 0e mmmoosm
00.0 e0.m mm.m mm.m me manage no mmmm
mm.m 00.m 0m.m 00.m me mnemaoucn
me.m 00.0 mm.m 04.0 H# scamsamnn
ouﬂennoﬂpmono monmnnoz

em.e me.0 me.0 s0.0e manom mun
mm.m0 me.e0 e0.m0 0m.m0 mm nnmamnum 00m
mm.0n 00.mn e0.0e ma.0e m coammmnemm
0m.0e 00.0H me.0e mm.me a eueaxaa
0N.mm 0H.Nm 0N.mm 00.nm Hm conmnm>osnae Hmaoom
00.0m em.mm mm.mm s0.0m he annmeumeaosma
mm.0m 00.0w 00.0w am.mm a aonmmmnama
Houunou Hoooz muooeoq muooeoq monomeoz

Heﬂunem ooonoenodxonH ooonoﬂnoexm
H0062 ease Home: Haze

 

mmH<ZZOHBmMDO mommmmoz mIE Q24 .MQ¢Um HIH m.mMBBom
.mWQ<Um HQZE XHm ZO mmbomw QOMBZOU 02¢ AﬁBZMEHmmmxm mom m2¢m2 mmOUm de Bmme mmm

APPENDIX H

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE PRE-TEST RAW SCORES
FOR ALL GROUPS IN THE ELIMINATION OF SELF-
DEFEATING BEHAVIOR WORKSHOPS (FULL MODEL-
EXPERIENCED LEADERS, FULL MODEL-
INEXPERIENCED LEADERS, AND
PARTIAL MODEL) AND THE

CONTROL GROUP

184

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE PRE-TEST RAW SCORES
FOR ALL GROUPS IN THE ELIMINATION OF SELF-
DEFEATING BEHAVIOR WORKSHOPS (FULL MODEL-
EXPERIENCED LEADERS, FULL MODEL-
INEXPERIENCED LEADERS, AND
PARTIAL MODEL) AND THE

CONTROL GROUP

 

 

 

 

Univariate Results ‘ Multivariate Results
Variable F P F P
1.128 .288
w01a .990b .404
WQ2 1.157 .334
WQ3 1.035 .384
WQ4 1.341 .270
I-E .599 .618
D 1.562 .209
Pt .824 .486
Si .639 .593
A .045 .987
R 2.422 .075
Es .848 .474

 

a(note all variables as in previous tables)

bAll figures are rounded to the nearest .001.

185

APPENDIX I

PRE- AND POST-TEST T-SCORE COMPARISONS FOR

EACH TREATMENT LEVEL ON SIX MMPI SCALES

186

PRE- AND POST-TEST T-SCORE COMPARISONS FOR

EACH TREATMENT LEVEL ON SIX MMPI SCALES

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

T Full Model Full Model
Score Experienced Leaders Inexperienced Leaders
70 n" 7*

65 -— 4

60 __ __

55 .1. -_

50 -_ -L

45 _, —)—

40 4~ 4*

35 —- j-

30 % l .1 i l 4 J. .1 e g 4 .L
D Pt Si A R Es D Pt Si A R ES

Full Model
Experienced Leaders Control Group

70 or Th

65 ‘r ‘—

60 ig~ —r

55 q,- -1

50 .1 __

45 -- .1.

40 __ -1

35 __ n-

30 + i % I; : .L l : 1 + .1 J.—
D Pt Si A R Es D Pt Si A R Es

——— Pre-Test Score — - - Post-Test Score

M'TITIWQIHILMILNWﬂiﬂtﬂfﬂ'ﬂjﬂﬂﬂﬂﬂjﬂﬁmﬂ“