PERSONAL CHANGES ATTRIBUTED T0 HUMAN RELATIONS TRAINLNG BY PARTICIPANTS, INTIMATES AND JOB COLLEAGUES Thesis for the Degree Df’KPh; D MICHLGAN'STATEDUNIVERSLTY- _': ELIZABETH J. FORCE. A A 1969 megs 0-169 Date , This is to certify that the . 1: thesis entitled PERSONAL CHANGES AT’I‘RIBUTED T0 HUMAN RELATIONS TRAINING BY PARTICIPANTS, INTIMATES AND JOB COLLEAGUES - presented by “Elfiabeth .3. Force has been accepted. towards fulfillment f the requirements for fidegree 111/ Ycz/ / 9/ 7/wé/ //I /€é/ \ '0“. Michigan Stat? Univerx‘ity #_ A ww—nw- w—v 3; BINDING BY HOAE & SDNS' 800K BIND!" IND. IIIIARY BINDERS IWJ- Awf‘f‘fi‘ffif ‘21 “i -» -.~ I .. ”Irv-“3"?" ABSTRACT PERSONAL CHANGES ATTRIBUTED TO HUMAN RELATIONS TRAINING BY PARTICIPANTS, INTIMATES AND JOB COLLEAGUES BY Elizabeth J. Force Participants (35) in an eight day human relations training lab, designed to enhance interpersonal competence, generated data permitting the comparison of perceived changes in ES' subsequent behaviors, study of T-group pro- cess, and the exploration of new techniques for assessing these phenomena. "Significant others," consisting of one intimate (i) and one job colleague (g) were nominated by each of the fifty gs. Five weeks pre-lab, data were pro- vided by forty-eight gs, forty—eight is, and forty—six 95; five months post-lab, similar data were assembled from forty-eight gs, forty-one Is, and thirty-eight gs. Addi- tional data were gathered from all Es in their individual T-groups on lab days 2 and 7. It was hypothesized that the personal encounter and feedback processes so central to human relations training labs would stimulate gains by gs in the areas of communicative skills, interpersonal relation— ships and job effectiveness. Elizabeth J. Force The lab apparently provided a "shake-up" or "culture- shock" experience. Es' within-lab self-perceptions were sharply below their pre-lab self reports, with statistically significant decreases registering on many measures. Between days 2 and 7, however, their fellow T-groups members gener- ally described Es as gaining substantially on these same variables. Five months post-lab, Es reported gains above their pre-lab level in all three areas (communicative skills, interpersonal relationships, job effectiveness), increasing significantly on seven of ten variables. is generally con— firmed these gains, sometimes in lesser degrees, except for viewing Es as decreasing on friendliness and self confidence. These discrepancies were interpreted as reflecting Es' ambiv- alence about Es' involvement in the lab and their subsequent changes, such as becoming more expressive, assertive, dom- inant, etc. 95 rated Es much more favorable pre-lab, but as shifting more negatively post-lab, than either Es or is. A "regres- sion towards the mean" interpretation was offered for this shift. Because many gs were fellow educators and rated Es pre-lab in mid-summer, their initially high, seemingly in- flated, ratings were thought attributable to the combination of reduced personal contact and a desire to help Es "get in" the lab, while their post-lab ratings were made near the middle of the school year, at a time of increased contact, perhaps facilitating greater realism. Elizabeth J. Force All three (P, I, and C) data sources agreed that Es increased significantly on Data Seeking (seeking to obtain authentic reactions and information about how others expe- rience E) and Data Giving (giving authentic reactions and information to others about how E experiences them). Sup- plementary descriptions of changes, collected both pre- and post-lab were eSpecially positive post-lab from all three sources, adding rich, descriptive information to the quan- titative data. Lab participation seemingly increased the interpersonal competence of most Es, as perceived by both self and others, and was experienced as personally rewarding. Proving useful were both established measured (La Forge-Leary Interpersonal Checklist and Harrison's Person Description Instrument X) and several newly develOped scales of Openness, Data Seeking, Data Giving, positive and neg— ative orientation to self and others, Feedback Seeking, Self Disclosure, and interpersonal change. Intercorrelations among these variables generally clustered meaningfully. Although Feedback Seeking and Self Disclosure seemed partic- ularly potent variables in the group process, differences in trainer style and participant characteristics, also were important. Amount of positive change varied considerably by T— groups and appeared highly associated with Es' views of trainer effectiveness. Inviting further study are the rela- tionships between positive change and such variables as Elizabeth J. Force group composition, trainer attributes, and specific trainer- participant interactions. It would also be interesting to explore the possibility of gathering data from observers not chosen by Es. For viewing laboratory training experiences in apprOpriate perspective, the present findings underscore the value of research designs which include multiple mea- sures, multiple observers, and a longitudinal orientation toward change. . _. V ' ("Till“) “I 4-:er _._d _>- _‘.. -_§ ,g A’.‘ q '1'. i PEASONAL CHANG BY PART IC 1“ pa: PERSONAL CHANGES ATTRIBUTED TO hUMAN RELATIONS TRAINING BY PARTICIPANTS, INTIMATES AND JOB COLLEAGUES BY Elizabeth JJ Force A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PhILOSOPhY Department of Psychology 1969 For showing it possible for r a psychotherapist A) ‘0' {L Q‘\ To Chris For showing me the meaning of caring, and thus making it possible for me to take the first steps towards becoming a psychotherapist. ii I would li chairmn, Dr. i-la éziffith Freed f :mittee. I am :slp and support as a friend and and continuous a search. To Mary to: her warm con I am grate 9, “ 53;]. AC RNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. John Hurley, committee chairman, Dr. Mary Leichty, Dr. Dozier Thornton, and Dr. Griffith Freed for serving as members of my dissertation committee. I am very grateful to John Hurley, for all the help and support he has given me throughout graduate school as a friend and teacher, and for his valuable suggestions and continuous availability for consultation on this re- search. To Mary Leichty, I wish to extend a special thanks for her warm contributions to my growth as a person. I am grateful to my roommate, Bonnie, for her help in typing the original manuscript and her understanding support. Also, I wish to thank Jill Brunett for her long hours of assistance with computer analysis. Very important in terms of completing this research, and the graduate program in general, was being able to share my ideas, feelings and anxieties with others, thus, I wish to acknowledge my friends in the graduate program and at Beth Moser Mental Health Clinic for their support and caring. Finally, I would like to thank the staff and partici— pants of the 1968 summer State of Michigan Training Labs, and those who served as outside respondents whose cooperation was essential for the study. iii ACESOMEDGI-ENT 8 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ISTRCDUCTION . The T Grou g Goals . _ ' Comparison w: History . , . Functions of T Group Proce 532m OF THE Ly Process in t2 IndiVidual '5. Relationship The InteIact GrOup_ GrOuP. Impact of th ChangeS O OUtCOme S TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . O O C O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Vi i LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 ix INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The T Group Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Comparison with Therapy Groups. . . . . . . 5 History . O O O O C O C O O O O O O O O O O 6 Functions of the Trainer. . . . . . . . . . 9 T Group Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Process in the T Group. . . . . . . . . . . 14 Individual Behavior in the T Group. . . . . 16 Relationship Patterns in the T Group. . . . 17 The Interaction of the Trainer in the T Group. C O O O O C O O I O O C O O O O 20 Factors Contributing to Change in the T Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Impact of the T Group . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Changes Observed During the Lab. . . . . 28 Outcome Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Research Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 iv IRSIRiinbNTS . . . Okay-Not Okay I General Behavis Self Disclosure Feedback Scale liking (L) and Interpersonal Personal Descr Descriptive Ch Direct Ratings Scoring the In subl'iécts 3€Sign Sata InventOry 33537333 . GwenJiew . iesting the Me Stability Interrelat ‘ll-Q h5~a81 drement 0 Day 2 VS 1: Shanges Ac “Ongitudir Lorlipari‘son Be Page INSTRUMENTS O O O C O O O O O O O I O O O I O O 4 3 Okay-Not Okay Scales (OKS, OKO). . . . . . . 43 General Behavior Ratings (0, DS, DG) . . . . 44 Self Disclosure Scale (SD) . . . . . . . . . 45 Feedback Scale (FB). . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Liking (L) and Time Spent (T). . . . . . . . 49 Interpersonal Check List (ICL) . . . . . . 49 Personal Description Instrument x (PDIX) . . 51 Descriptive Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Direct Ratings of Change . . . . . . . . . . 52 Scoring the Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . 53 HYPOTHESES. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 55 METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Data Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Testing the Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 stability 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 67 Interrelationships Among Measures . . . . 67 Measurement of Change. . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Day 2 vs Day 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Changes After the Lab . . . . . . . . . . 82 Longitudinal Change Picture . . . . . . . 94 Comparison Between T Groups. . . . . . . . . 97 Stability of the Measures . . . . . . . . 97 Intercorrelations Among Measures. . . . . 98 Measurement of Change . . . . . . . . . . 101 Comparison of Ratings by Different Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Negative Impact and Missing Data Cases . . . 116 Hypothesis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 l :4 w-v-w‘w.vr vurG-m'a—h' ’ m’ ‘ ' L... """" C510w u-DXVUU It 0 5361:4123: o o o amusement EEPENDICES A. Instrument B. Data Inven Page DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 APPENDICES Appendix A. Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 B. Data Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 vi ’ .A . ‘:. I m‘ w.‘ ”*1 " 1w - b a —- “uh—— 0—“ " V [1“ “Us A I .u. , ' L PIOdUCt-MOI‘. Ratings. Collecti Self-Report Time Po; Before-Lab PrOdUCt -:‘.101: and Befc correlatIOr) Before Lab f0: REPC Correlatior Items T-TeSt ValL On All I Percentage Within‘: T‘TESt Val; After t: Percent age Afte r t Proportion change Table 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Page Product-Moment Correlations of Self Reported Ratings on Scales Used at the Four Data Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Self-Reported Means on Six Measures at Four Time Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Before-Lab Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Product—Moment Correlations for Within-Lab and Before vs After Lab Scales. . . . . . 68 Correlation Among Measures Used During the Lab Based on All Five Groups. . . . . . . 69 Before Lab Intercorrelations Among Measures for Reports by Ps, Is, and Cs . . . . . . 7O Correlations Among the Three Change Scale Items 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 73 T-Test Values on Within-Lab Measures Based on All PS 0 O O O O I O O O O I O O O O I 78 Percentage of Ps Changing on Each Scale Within-Lab. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 81 T—Test Values on Measures Used Before and After the Lab 0 O I D O I O O I O O I O I 8 3 Percentage of Ps Changing on Each Scale After the Lab 0 O O I O O O O O I O O O I 85 Proportions Checking Each Point on the Change Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 vii - s ,I‘r. '. e 4 l o“. 71 M. B. N. Proportion Change Icngitudin Product-MC Group R Percentage Each T Prediction sures i T-Test Val GRS for T‘Test Va} SR8 f0] PS. Patte: Group ' Correlati Within Rating T TESt v‘ RePOr T Test V RePOr Data Inx Data Iru COrrela- Correla Correla Correla Table 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Proportion of Descriptive Changes in Each Change Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . Longitudinal Change Picture. . . . . . . . . Product-Moment Correlations by T Groups-- Group Report Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Significant Correlations in Each T Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prediction of Day 7 Measured by Day 2 Mea- sures in Each Group . . . . . . . . . . . T-Test Values on Within-Lab Measures Based on GRS for EaCh T Group C O I O O O O O O O I T-Test Values on Within-Lab Measures Based on SRs for Each T Group. . . . . . . . . . . Ps' Patterns Across Scales Within Bach T Group by SRs and CBS. . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Self and Group Ratings Within-Lab. o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o 0 Before vs After Lab Correlations Among the Ratings of Ps, Is, Cs . . . . . . . . . . T Test Values Comparing Self and Group Reports Within-Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . T Test Values Comparing Self and Observer Reports Before and After the Lab. . . . . Data Inventory--Within Lab . . . . . . . . . Data Inventory--Pre and Post Lab . . . . . . Correlation Among Lab Measures for Group 1 . Correlation Among Lab Measures for Group 2 . Correlation Among Lab Measures for Group 3 . Correlation Among Lab Measures for Group 4 . Correlation Among Lab Measures for Group 5 . viii Page 91 96 97 99 100 102 104 106 108 109 112 114 175 179 183 184 185 186 187 - wa-iri figure L L Tally of Percentag‘ Measur‘ Clusterin C1115 ter A ComPariso. Pre— a. LIST OF FIGURES Tally of Instrument Administration . . . Percentages of Respondents Completing Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clustering of Variables Before the Lab . Cluster Analysis of Group Based Measures Comparison of Written Change Reports Pre- and Post-Lab . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 60 61 66 73 90 -..__;'~‘ . V. :u.'1x1"~"'-?"“'“" "J . '1”— This stud; Laterpersonal rm man relations sere the comunj citers, patterns 2555. A proqre' lecting data be £519“ Of th i S 9239? will be e COVER as labor {Iain' “‘9' The INTRODUCT I ON This study was interested in exploring changes in interpersonal relationships as the result of an eight day human relations training laboratory. The areas investigated were the communicative process, feelings towards self and others, patterns of relating to others, and job effective- ness. A proqressive picture of change was sought by col- lecting data before, during and after the lab. Before the design of this study is presented, the concept of the T group will be explored, and recent research reviewed. The T GroupDefined The T group is an integral part of the larger entity known as laboratory, sensitivity, or human relations training. The lab can be described as a temporary residen- tial community for approximately 30 to 150 people for one to three weeks. The participants may be complete strangers, slight acquaintances, or members of the same institution. The setting is geared to provide an intensive learning ex- perience for its members. The T groups are usually composed of ten to fifteen people, and provide the core learning ex- periences. However, most labs also provide a wide range of additional activities, such as lectures, demonstrations, consultation on back home problems, and planned exercises to l on“ I J - .‘w 'JJm~.-'#. 313218an and SL1] gozmnity has ‘ couraged to te :ezselvesp in :nMy unstruc DEMenmmbers :aterial diSCL become anxious :ehavior patte tanto hear :euers, and degendent upo l“sisal safet Slt‘iation, ar LEE f€euback ii‘c‘lings' am as b 5:; ES; and augment and support the learning in the T group. The lab community has a permissive atmosphere, and members are en— couraged to test out new patterns of behavior. The T groups themselves, in contrast to the other activities, are rela— tively unstructured. In the T groups, the behavior emitted by the members in the group (here and now data) is the material discussed. It is assumed that when group members become anxious in the unstructured situation, their usual behavior patterns will be shaken up, and this will enable them to hear feedback about their behavior from other group members, and institute new behaviors. This, of course, is dependent upon an atmOSphere of permissiveness and psycho— logical safety. As members struggle to define the ambiguous situation, and begin to interact with one another, through the feedback process each learns about his own motives, feelings, and patterns of dealing with others; his impact on others; and the effectiveness of his interactions with indi— viduals and groups. The modes of interacting are both verbal and non verbal. The lab philOSOphy assumes that psycholog- ical safety can be achieved quickly, anxiety facilitates new learning, behavior emitted in the group is similar to behavior emitted outside the group, and transfer of learning takes place to the back home setting. The learning process may be aided by a group leader or trainer, or by various instruments. The trainer usually provides neither structure, nor direct leadership. he serves as a :.::.estly, prov; 11'; non defens. 2.: expression Thus, in Learning eXper Sate together Lie focus of l izzes among la 3 on Personal 355 or functi .. :ationale or a 35:30!) Can bEC ‘ F.‘ he serves as a model, expressing his own feelings openly and honestly, providing constructive feedback, absorbing hostil- ity non defensively, and supporting more Open communication and expression of feelings in others. Thus, in summary, a T group is part of a larger learning experience. It is composed of members who partic— ipate together with the goal of faciliting learning. What the focus of learning is provides the basis for the differ— ences among lab situations--i.e., the focus of learning may be on personal growth, interpersonal relations, group pro- cess or functioning, or organizational improvement. The rationale or assumption is that in an ambiguous situation, a person can become more aware of himself and how he functions through the feedback provided by others. Thus, he can learn to relate more authentically and effectively in the groups, and can transfer this to his back home environment, and con- tinue to grow and function more adequately. Goals The goals or objectives of a T group and of the whole lab experience can be conceptualized under two headings-— those of individual personal growth, and those of facili- tating change in the larger social environment. The follow- ing goals are sought for the individual: increased insight and understanding concerning one's own motives and behavior; increased understanding of one's impact on others; improved “an ‘M‘. :“r‘L - “M ex" sensitivity to: empathy): a Vi" facilitate or i. mastic skills is acre flexibilitJ effective probl. gerceive and leg Ei'jing attentioz from Others; gr: :iveness and Sal ships. These 9‘ an the general ' There are goals. The mai are difficult t item the indiv 3351 ‘ i bLPPOItat'n sensitivity to, and understanding of, the feelings of others _(empathy); a wider grasp of the kinds of behaviors that facilitate or inhibit group functioning; heightened diag- nostic skills in interpersonal, social, and group situations; more flexibility and variety in social action patterns; more effective problem solving approaches; a greater ability to perceive and learn from the consequences of one's actions by paying attention to one‘s feelings, and seeking feedback from others; greater ability to give help; and greater effec- tiveness and satisfaction in one's interpersonal relation- ships. These goals are differentially emphasized depending on the general orientation of the lab. There are, of course, obstacles to achieving the above goals. The main one is that long standing habit patterns are difficult to change in a short time, especially when often the individual goes back to his old, and frequently non supportative, environment with no further exposure to such experiences. Often, the transfer to the back home sit- uation is not facilitated by enough practice and reinforce- ment. T groups have also been limited in helping severely neurotic or psychotic individuals. However, it will be seen that as human relations training has evolved over the years, p0pulations served, and objectives have become broader, and in many cases there is little differentiation from therapy groups in terms of goals, process and members. ¢"-' _ . _-£ ' R’s-‘3 ’37:"0 Initially :elpers who had supervisors, ma: tional members'm gepulations, an»; initially struct graups in terms lfiils (improveme zezs' perceptior at improving the Thai returned achieving change attitudes (to p6 silent such as Sentration on 1 :niearning as id‘s Versus an Comparison With Therapy Groups Initially, T groups served pOpulations of professional helpers who had educative and consultative responsibilities; supervisors, managers and administrators; total organiza- tional memberships; and youth groups. However, now client populations, and more laymen are included. T groups were initially structured to be quite different from therapy groups in terms of membership (normal versus abnormal); goals (improvement in the accuracy and sensitivity of mem— bers' perceptions of themselves and others with the objective of improving the functioning of the group to which the indi- vidual returned versus relieving patients' distress and achieving changes in individual patients); modification of attitudes (to people in general versus peOple close to the patient such as family); concentration on learning (more con— centration on learning new patterns versus equal emphasis on unlearning as new learning); time period (three days to three weeks versus an indefinite period often); climate and struc- ture (less gap between leader and members, and a supportative climate with less anxiety and content limitations, versus a gap between patients and therapists, a more threatening and anxiety provoking atmOSphere with no limit to content). However, as the T group concept expanded and changed, dis- tinctions between the two approaches have tended to diminish in many groups. This will be evident from the next section. : ‘1 AMT According stat of the gene L from the sc1enC» :andle such chai effective local Lie lab experie: Ccnnecticut in 1] he members bec ( reactions was a They found that with uata about zernefensive pa 1515, led to me responses to ti JOE) tflis work. I‘ ' 94 t‘al me in the SI “'33P (EST) Wa m ConcePts ’ history According to Bradford (1967), laboratory training grew out of the general feeling that the pressure to change coming from the sciences left individuals and groups unprepared to handle such changes effectively. The actual forerunner of the lab experience was a workshop designed to develOp more effective local leaders under the Interracial Commission in Connecticut in the summer of 1946. During this workshOp, the members became aware that discussion of feelings and reactions was a powerful medium in the process of re-education. They found that an objective confrontation of group members with data about their behavior and its effects, along with nondefensive participation by members in discussion of this data, led to meaningful learnings about themselves, others' responses to them, and group behavior. Some of the staff from this workshop started the first three week lab at Bethel, Maine in the summer of 1947. here a Basic Skills Training Group (BST) was the vehicle for learning change agent skills and concepts, as well as understanding group growth and deve10pment, and was a central part of the larger lab curric- ulum. The training staff included peOple from social psy- chology, adult education, sociology, philOSOphy of education, and researchers from clinical psychology and anthrOpology. Following this first lab at Bethel, the history of the T group can be divided into two periods according to Bradford (1967): (1) 1949-55 concerned with separation of extraneous training functions from the T groups; and (2) 1956 on, concerned with the reintegration of the T group into the larger lab design. During the first period, staffs became more clinically oriented, interpersonal events were stressed more, and psy- choanalytic and Rogerian theories supplemented Lewinian and sociological theories. Less emphasis was placed on learning specific skills and concepts. To facilitate transfer to the back home setting, consulting groups of like individuals with similar problems were formed with limited success. The BST groups were renamed T groups. There was concern that the T groups were becoming too clinical and too analogous to therapy groups, so action groups and later, skill groups were added with more of a sociological focus. Research was incor- porated into the T groups and often the data was shared as feedback. The process of giving feedback was changed from having an assistant trainer give the feedback in a rather structured way, to having group members give it spontane- ously. The trainers' role changed to being more active and involved. During the second period, labs were developed for various occupational groups; regional labs sprange up; and alumni programs were instituted. Clearer guidelines were developed for the training of trainers. Theory presenta— tions (individual and small group) were better interwoven into the lab. Skill exercises were included in the T groups, and the content limits were expanded beyond "here and now" data. The current period of T group history includes the blurring of lines between many T groups and many therapy groups and marathons. Bethel and other regional labs still retain labs that are primarily aimed at improving the indi- vidual's functioning in industry or education, and are thus focused on increased effectiveness in groups. However, there has, in addition, been a merger of the T group concept with the more clinical group therapy movement resulting in what are popularly called encounter groups. This branch focuses almost entirely on individual experiences and growth. Rogers (Hall, 1967) states that peOple are attracted to these groups out of loneliness and alienation. They are seeking new experiences and closeness with others. This is in sharp contrast to the earlier T groups where individuals came to learn better managerial or consultative skills. Rogers sees the encounter groups as making the individual more open to his inner experiences, more expressive of his feelings, more spontaneous in his reactions, more flexible, more vulnerable and more genuine and intimate in his interpersonal relation- ships. The clinical and experiential emphasis, in contrast to the educative emphasis, is apparent from this description. Included in this encounter group offshoot of the original laboratory training movement are the many groups at Esalen (Murphy, 1967). These groups are by and large experiential ‘ I .4 ,. ‘J‘_‘_ZV4. 7:”... Srcups' and ent avarenesses and :nes. The emp‘hl' rather than cog describing this he leaders are Participants be the emphasis on becoming more n is: necessarily Initially iifferent from :‘gcn less invol his interventic tzan specific 1' as follows - groups, and entirely aim at broadening the individual's awarenesses and experiences, particularly his non verbal ones. The emphasis is on complete openness, and emotional rather than cognitive experiences. Argyris (1967), in describing this new trend, points out that in these labs, the leaders are more active and directive, and thus the participants become more dependent and learn less. With the emphasis on experiencing feelings, he sees the individual becoming more narcissistic, and having experiences that are not necessarily useful outside the lab. Functions of the Trainer Initially, the trainer's function was to be very different from that of the group therapist in terms of being much less involved as a leader and more as a member; and his interventions were to deal with group process rather than specific individuals. His purpose was conceptualized as follows: to help form a group that would be more sensi- tive and effective in social situation; to help remove blocks to learning about oneself, others and groups; to help the group discover and utilize action, observation, feedback, analysis, and experimentation; to help develop a group cli- mate conducive to learning; and to help groups learn to gen- eralize and apply their learnings to other situations (Brad- ford, 1967). Fiebert (1968) views the trainer as being in- volved initially as a "catalyst" by stimulating the group 10 to share feelings, take risks and communicate openly and honestly. Then, he becomes an "orchestrator,' meaning that he is less active and guides the group in further interper— sonal exploration. During this phase, other group members become more active in trainer-like roles. Finally, the trainer can choose to be a participant himself, or fade into the background. In some of the more recent labs, the trainer has be- come more involved in a way similar to an active partici- pating therapist. T Group Process Bennis (Bradford, 1967) viewed T group process in the following way. The first phase is one of dependence with three subphases of dependence-flight, counterdependence- fight, and resolution-catharsis. The dependency phase evolves in response to the unstructured, ambiguous situa- tion with a perceived, but not actual, authority figure. The group tries to get the trainer to give them direction. When this fails, some group members unsuccessfully try to assume leadership, and others behave in ways that have gained them approval from authority figures in the past. Two sub- groups begin to emerge--one attempts to get some structure by appointing a leader and deciding on an agenda; the other Opposes this. Both, however, are dissatisfied with the trainer, and thus eventually he is confronted and challenged. 11 Those who have not identified with either subgroup by this time (independents) now take a dominant role and initiate discussion of the authority problem. This ends the depen- dency phase. Phase two is labelled interdependence, with subphases of enchantment-flight, disenchantment-fight, and consensual validation. Having dealt with the leader, the members now begin to deal with each other. Initially, pos- itive feelings are the only ones recognized because of the need to preserve group harmony. Nevertheless, there is underlying hostility, and again two subgroups emerge-—the overpersonals who want the positive feelings to remain un- conditionally, and hence who want no confrontations; and the counterpersonals, who want to avoid any real intimacy. As the group nears termination, role evaluation forces con- frontation and resolution. Again, the independents are instrumental by usually asking for feedback first, and lowering the anxiety about confrontations. Fiebert (1968) characterized the group as initially having high hOpes and expectations, mixed with doubts and fears. Gradually, a disillusionment and frustration grows, and is verbalized. This corresponds to Bennis' first phase, as the interaction, real or fantasied, centers largely between participant and trainer. Fiebert then describes the develOpment and working through of interpersonal involvements, climaxing in deep love feelings. This corresponds to Bennis' second phase. Lastly, Fiebert describes spontaneous free behavior and separation. “III-PE I5 b.9313 . 2Em .. n'. 12 Glueck (1968) described four phases: individual cen- tered, frustration and conflict over stereotypes, attempted group consolidation, and individual self asSessment. Thelen and Dickerman (1949) described four phases: leadership struggle, frustration and conflict, cohesion and friendliness, purpose and urgency. Gottschalk (1966) described the psy- choanalytic process of transference that evolves in a T group. Several studies (Campbell and Dunnett, 1968) showed that individuals experience a high level of anxiety initially and in the middle of the T group, corresponding to the anx- ieties over dealing with the leaderless situation and with each other. This diminishes as the group nears termination. Klein (1968), in a poem, described vividly the various feelings an individual experiences as the T group begins (anxiety, insecurity, anger, impatience, need for structure, envy, hesitancy, risks, etc.). Bass (1962) did a mood check at various points during a lab, and found that anxiety and skepticism decreased as the group progressed. Thus, T group process seems to follow a fairly pre— dictable course of dealing first with the trainer and the general authority problem, followed by dealing with each other, at first unrealistically and cautiously, and then, more realistically. The group process is at first accom- panied by anxiety, but this diminishes as resolutions of the problems are reached. 13 With this overview of what its goals are, how it functions, and the history of its develOpment, the next section summarizes the research trends on human relations training labs from 1947 to the present. #3:“ i E The SCZZimJEE chfnan, iere est Barron a sistance acceptan itctive REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Process in the T Group The research in this area suggests that as the T group continues to meet, structure emerges from an initially undif- ferentiated state. Bennis, Burke, Cutter, Harringtion, and Hoffman, (1957) found that norms about members' behavior were established early in the group, and tended to persist. Barron and Krulee (1948) found a movement from initial re- sistance to accepting responsibility, through a gradual acceptance of a method of Operation, to organized and pro- ductive meetings. Cartwright (Bradford, 1957) found a positive relationship between group productivity and cohe— siveness after three weeks; less distractibility from the task; and an increase in awareness of group structure. Nor- fleet (1948) found that reciprocal friendship choices in- creased as the group progressed over time. Lakin and Carson (1964) found no standard experience of group development. These studies deal with the develOpment of the group over time. Studies of group process follow. Stock and Ben-Zeev (1958) found that as the group progressed, the amount of expressed emotion remained con- stant, while the average work level increased. Four phases were identified: (1) exploratory attempts to establish 14 .9 3 - “mwM-AM grocedt ex:itec vitn li :tssior tennis ‘ll gene] 15 procedures and identify goals accompanied by either flat or excited affect; (2) carrying through and elaboration of plans with little affect; (3) intense feelings and creative dis— cussion; (4) a high work level with less affect involved. Bennis (1956) identified two phases in the group: first, a general concern with authority problems, followed by a general concern with intimacy problems. These were not found to be distinct phases, but were both evident through— out the group. Thelen and Dickerman (1949) found that ini- tially members attempted to establish customary places in a leadership hierarchy, followed by frustration and conflict as the leader rejected an authoritarian structure. Then, came a group cohesiveness, with a complacent mood. Lastly, there was a phase of continued group centeredness and sen— sitivity, but with a sense of purpose that made the group, at least potentially, an effective action group. In summary, the research seems to bear out the theo- retical formulations about group process. The groups seem to develop through stages of resistance, defensiveness, and finally constructive work. This is in conjunction with group processes which involve initial struggles with authority problems, then struggles with interpersonal intimacy prob- lems, followed by constructive working together as a group. i l I i Th have i ascenden a. vtI‘ 4 h Lay“ ““ V1.4. ‘Hl in ‘1 ‘ Q5 .L.’ “Lng 16 Individual Behavior in the T Group This section deals with how individuals generally behave in a T group. Blake and Mouton (1956) found that ascendent group members clashed more, participated more, and competed more with other group members, while submissive individuals avoided conflict, and emphasized group over per- sonal goals. Bennis et_al. (1957) found that persons scoring high in need abasement led least in the group; individuals who described themselves as high on pairing were seen as most friendly by others; and those scoring high on inclusion needs were seen as low participators. Ascendent individuals were found to be more aggressive towards the trainer, while submissive individuals sought direction and support from the trainer. (Blake and Mouton, 1956). Benne and Sheats (1948) identified different functional roles for members. Watson (1953) identified persons with common personality characteristics who expressed them in certain identifiable behavior patterns. She found that individuals with direct, oral-sadistic hostility were crit- ical and aggressive, and individuals with high anxiety were uncomfortable in the unstructured group situation. Foster (1958) found that an individual's professional value system affected how he viewed group leadership. Grace (1952) found little evidence that others see people acting in accordance with what they report are their major values. ‘3 . l 4 : 1 V . . ‘qI-‘u— ‘Ar-wv I .Wa "!}-' “(P-MI Gag ms were 10 have ' grcup me scares , szail g: maivici "’17" , :fivbr . ~fi..1 ‘ v“ LU“C b‘ 17 Gage and Exline (1953) found that members whose opin- ions were most similar to the group consensus, were judged to have the highest sensitivity to the feelings of fellow group members. Bass (1962) derived reliable sensitivity scores, and found that they correlated with influence in small group discussions, but'bore little relation to the individual's orientation (self, interaction, task) in the group. Argyris (1965) found that individuals and groups could be scaled on interpersonal competence, and this cor- related with competence as perceived by group members, staff, and observers. This section points out that it is possible to iden- tify personality characteristics or types in the group, and from this make some predictions about how individuals will behave in their T group. Characteristics such as dominance and submission, needs such as belonging, and position in the group are important in determining an individual's contri- butions in a group. It should also be noted that just relying on self report may not be the best method of assessing behavior, because individuals may not behave in ways which correspond to what they say their values, characteristics, needs, etc. are. Relationship Patterns in the T Group This area deals with group members' perceptions of one another and their choices of one another. It is usually WA. 18 studied through the use of some sociometric instrument. Browne and Crowe (1953) demonstrated that people spent more time with those who had similar philOSOphies of social change. They also found that rigid, tense members tended to choose one another in interactions; self sufficient mem- berms choose one another or rigid members; overtly hostile members choose one another and inhibited hostiles; dependent members choose inhibited hostiles and reverse. This was interpreted as members choosing to interact with persons like themselves, or persons who had traits that they would like to have. Bennis and Peabody (1959) found that member orientation towards authority and intimacy contributed to subgroup formation. Lieberman (1958) studied the relation- ship between personality and sociometric choice by having one group where members were paired on certain characteris— tics, and another group where there were no such pairings. Early in the group, subtypes tended to make choices as a unit, but as the group progressed, choices became more dif- fuse, and were influenced by more factors than similarity. Rosenberg (1951) found that rejected members tended to be more compulsive, competitive, and energetic, and less friendly than the accepted members. Also, they showed less capacity for personal relations. Monk (1950) found that persons with high acquaintance scores were rejected by and rejected their groups, while those with high visibility scores were more accepting and accepted. Smith, Jaffe, and Livings it way but ver fund 5 z'ic‘ual' firing 31931 54 3.5.5.- Pe P5313163 19 Livingston, (1955) found that the members most in tune with the way the group perceived its members were seen as most effective by outside observers, and most powerful by members, but were not necessarily seen as most valuable. Rubin (1967) found substantial support for the hypothesis that an indi- vidual's level of anomy and his changes in self acceptance during the lab would lead to individuals with low anomy and high self-acceptance being more accepting of others. Bennis and Peabody (1962) found that members chose sociometrically people who were similar in their orientation to the group. Ben-Zeev (1958) found that members who participated with those they liked, showed a tendency on a projective test to express warmth and friendliness, and inhibit expressions of hostility and anger._ Those who did not participate with those they liked, behaved in the reverse of the above group. Horowitz, Lyons, and Perlmutter, (1951) found that members who liked a particular group member tended to react posi- tively to the contributions he made, while members who dis- liked him reacted negatively to the same ideas. In summary, it is possible to identify patterns of friendship and interaction among members of a T group. These choices are based primarily on liking the individual; per- ceiving him as similar in some way, or admiring something in him. These choices remain fairly stable, and the choices have important implications for the develOpment of the group, mainly in the possible subgroups that are formed, and how the contributions of individual members are evaluated. It.“ :ics c 20 The Interaction of the Trainer in the T Group This section reviews the functions and characteris- tics of the trainer in the T group. Back (1948) found that the leader was important in the dynamics of the group growth and development, and had an effect on the distribution of participation, types of contributions emphasized, and the types of topics. Culbert (in press) studied trainer self-disclosure. Where trainers were seen as more self-disclosing, members more often entered into 'perceived therapeutic relation- ship' with each other rather than with the trainers. Also, self-awareness was evident more quickly when the trainer was more self-disclosing. Powers (1965) found that particular homogeneous groupings matched with particular trainers in orientation and behavior styles, were more effective for learning than others. Psathas and Hardert (1966) looked at trainer intervention, and normative T group patterns, and found that differences observed between T groups may result from differences in the trainer's ideology and style, or from differences in the group's development and concern. Smith (1966) found a significant relationship between iden- tification with the trainer and change. This section clearly points out the importance of the trainer in the development of the group, and the changes that are made by the group members. There is a suggestion that certain pairings of trainers and groups are more 21 effective than others, but more research needs to be done to identify these. This conclusion parallels the psycho- therapy research, where it is clear that the therapist as a person, as well as his interaction with particular clients, is an important variable to consider when predicting and understanding change. Factors Contributing to Change in the T Group This section examines the evidence of factors that lead to change in general, as well as which factors lead to specific changes over the course of the T group. We have already seen that the trainer is an important variable con— tributing to change. The factors of response set, as well as motivation to change have been hypothesized to be impor- tant also. Watson (Bradford, 1957) identified a response set. People who expected to change and to use the lab con- structively, did so, while thoserxfl:expecting to gain from the lab, did not. Disenstadt (1967) found that readiness to change was important, and that this readiness was a function Of personality factors, as well as back home factors. Miles (1960) found that desire to change, alone, was not a suffi- cient condition for change. Another factor thought to be important for change is group composition. The assumptions initially concerning this variable were that heterogeneity would multiply the learning opportunities, while homogeneity would facilitate smunf m ‘ ‘ :.JGl€( affect. 22 communication and transfer of learning. Lieberman (1958) studied the importance of group composition on changes in affective approach, and found that heterogeneous group com- position was conducive to change. Those who did not change in affective approach were found to have personal character- istics so similar to the group atmosphere that there was no pressure nor opportunity to experiment with new behaviors. Stock and Hill (1958) looked at the subgroups of two T groups, and concluded that groups with a lot of diversity in their members, but with a common way of perceiving member participation, progressed the most. Harrison and Lubin (1965) studied differences in interpersonal behavior and learning in highly person—oriented Versus work—oriented groups. .It was found that homogeneous groups did not pro— vide the confrontation needed for Optimal learning. Person— oriented members learned less because of the comfort and lack of challenge. Lieberman (1958) looked at groups formed with the full range of emotional modalities in comparison with those having a truncated range. The groups were found to differ in emotional cultures, and showed differential personality change. Pollack (1968) found that heterogeneous groups were more conducive to change. Greening and Coffey (1966) studied a homogeneous group of people who related in an impersonal manner. Significant learning seemed to be the result of sharing feelings about their problems in relating personally to others. "‘1 .'.' AL?‘."~..'." V‘ riding ozrno: i heti 23 The issue of heterogeneity versus homogeneity is not an either/or one. The composition of the group should apparently be thought of in terms of the goals of the group. It seems that homogeneous groups have an advantage in pro-l viding more opportunity for talking about problems that are common to the group, and might get passed over quickly in a heterogeneous group. However, the disadvantage to homo— geneous groups is that.thereis usually less confrontation, and hence, less motivation for change. Although heteroge- neous groups provide an impetus for change, there needs to be some common way of perceiving the group, goals, etc. Next, the factors in the members or in the group that contribute to change are examined. Mathis (1955) developed an index to predict an individual's potential for learning and change. He hypothesized that internal conflict would facilitate change by stimulating the individual to search for solutions through group interaction. Interpersonal conflict, plus pairing and fight tendencies, made up his trainability index. It was found that high scorers on the three showed positive changes. Winter, Griffith, and Kolb, (1967) found that awareness of cognitive dissonance between personal goals and current behavior was positively related to successful, self-directed personal change. Gordon (1950) found that tolerance for interpersonal difficulties was associated with changes in self acceptance and understanding. Stock (1958) found that members who changed the most were mi 1*. (a.v; . esperie less Si change were i vidual led to desire :ehavi recept variai were 24 experiencing conflict over their self-concepts--they were less sure of the kinds of peOple they were than those who changed the least. Miles (1960) found that certain personality variables were important in facilitating change, but that the indi- vidual's actual interaction process with the group was what led to change. This interaction should include an initial desire for change, a process of unfreezing of one's old behavior patterns, active involvement in the group, and reception and utilization of feedback. The personality variables of ego strength, flexibility, and need affiliation were found to mediate this interaction. He found changes in sensitivity and behavioral skill, but not in diagnostic skill. Steele (1968) found that preference for intuition as a per- ceptual mode was important in determining which individuals changed during a lab. He also identified a general factor which was positively associated with change, called labora- tory style of behavior. This factor was composed of high activity, individuality, and collaboration; and a preference for helping, experimenting, dealing with feelings, becoming involved, and understanding process. Lieberman (1958) found that counterdependents changed most in a group with a warm atmosphere and an easy relationship with the trainer, while dependent and pairing members changed most in a group that had an atmosphere of struggle for leadership. {'N 1.1.1. J", Aléamm. .a. , w~_ ijv mg "U onesel iniivi 5:0 le the id listen 3n the rille S 25 Glueck (1968) identified the ability to be open about oneself, and having a job that required interpersonal ex- pertise as conducive to change. Harrison and Oshry (1965) looked at relationships between personal characteristics of individuals and the way they responded to T groups. People who learned most and changed most were described as open to the ideas of others, tolerant and accepting of others, good listeners, and not likely to blame organizational problems on the organization or the inadequacies of individuals. Miles (1965) identified organizational factors such as security, autonomy, power, and problem solving adequacy as important mediators to learning during the lab. Sherwood (1965) found that the way an individual changed during the lab in self identity was dependent on the differential importance of the various group members giving him certain ratings, the individual's involvement in the group, and the extent of feedback received. There is some evidence that longer labs produce more change (Johnson, 1967; Miles, 1960; Bunker and Knowles, 1967). Gibb (1952) studied the effect of role playing with and without feedback on self insight, the capacity to con- ceptualize a new role, and role flexibility. Role playing was found to be an important part of training in terms of producing changes in these variables. Rosenberg (1952) found that members participating in role playing had both J ‘IOHG a. J. ‘ sale P Ac #7 35.311 tutors Lie e: , "4‘ “all C ~32 ‘*fib\y f- t O“: l", V viz 26 strong positive and strong negative feelings about it. Role playing did provide individuals with a way to make changes in their behavior. Feedback is seen as one of the most important contri— butors to change in the T group. Lippitt (1959) studied the effects of feedback on changes in individual behavior. He studied pairs of individuals who were similar in the way they were described by others, and in the extent and direc- tion others would like to see them change. One member in each pair was aware of his ratings, and how his fellow group members wanted him to change. Thirteen of the fourteen individuals who had received the feedback changed in the direction the group wanted, while only eight of the fourteen who received no feedback showed such changes. Gibb, Smith, and Roberts, (1955) found that groups that received feedback differed from those who did not in that the members felt more favorable towards the group, displayed a higher level of aspiration for their group, and expressed more negative feelings. It was also found that feeling oriented positive feedback resulted in the greatest efficiency, least defen- siveness, and greatest participation. Miles (1958) was interested in what factors influenced the effectiveness of feedback. He found that strong negative feedback was most effective in inducing change. Behavior involving warm inter- ‘ personal relationships was more responsive to feedback than behavior related to task definition and accomplishment. 27 French et 31. (1966) studied changes in self identity as related to amount of feedback received. They found that the greater the amount of feedback, the greater the change in self indentity; and that the lower a person's self eval- uation on a dimension, the greater the change in self iden- tity along that dimension. Dolb, Winter, and Berlow (in press) looked at self directed change, and found that feed- back and committment to change combined to produce the greatest percentage of change. They found that feedback was more effective coming late in the lab. Gibb and Platts (1950) found that groups receiving neither special training (role playing) nor feedback, showed no change in self in- sight. Groups receiving both showed the most change, while groups receiving one or the other showed some change. Myers et 31. (1969) found that reception of feedback was positively related to sensitivity to interpersonal relations and social interaction. More changes were evident if the individual both provided and received feedback, rather than just provided it. Thus, feedback is seen to be probably the most impor- tant single component contributing to change effected through the lab. It is important in getting the individual to change his behavior especially if it is timed to come late in the experience, is accompanied by a committment to change, is positive and feeling oriented, or strongly negative in the context of a relationship, and is used in conjunction with something like role playing. 28 In summary, then, the main factors which are iden- tified as contributing to change are as follows: a progres- sion through unfreezing of old behaviors, involvement in the group, and reception of feedback; existence of conflict, internally, and interpersonally; tendencies towards pairing and fight behavior; an unstable self concept; characteris- tics of Openness, tolerance, acceptance, and listening abil- ity; role playing or some form of practice; and certain personality characteristics such as ego strength, flexibil- ity, and need affiliation to mediate the change. The trainer and composition of the group are important, but not enough research has been done to clearly spell out their importance. Impact of the T Group The most important section of the research on T groups, and the one most related to this study, deals with the impact of the lab experience on the individua1--i.e., what the changes made are. First, we will look at changes that are found during the lab, and then at changes that are found to persist after the lab. Changes Observed During the Lab Burke and Bennis (1961) found that perceived actual self, and perceived ideal self were much more congruent at the end of the lab then at the beginning, mainly due to changes in perceived actual self. Also, a member's self perception and the perception of him by other members of «Inn-J ’i 1 Are—‘9 *"..~ (I? (D 29 his T group were more similar at the end of training than at the beginning. As the T group progressed, members tended to agree more with one another about the amount of participation and activity of individuals in the group, but not in terms of friendliness or dominance of individuals. Members tended to change more in ways they perceived other group members, than group members saw themselves as changing. Clark and Culbert (1965) found some support for their theory that T group members became more self aware as a result of participating in mutually therapeutic relationships where feelings were expressed. Lundgren (1969) found that an individual's estimation of how others view him became more similar to how he viewed others at the end of the lab. Also, an individual's View of himself changed towards the estimated View of how others View him. Lastly, self- perceptions changed towards being more similar to perceptions of others at the end of the lab. Gassner gt El° (1964) found that training was more likely to change an individ- ual's perception of the phenomenal field than the phenomenal self. Thus, during the T group experience, individuals' per- ceptions of others change more than their self perceptions; an individual's perception of himself becomes more con- gruent with how others view him and how he views others; and individuals have less incongruity between their actual and self percepts at the end of a lab. r n.‘ '{AL‘HAO-n mun-g...- w 9—- . 3': H. A" I um- Ll m f' 4m 17pm :on ( later; A tr. ~Mt 30 Baumgartel and Goldstein (1967) predicted that in an interacting group, members would become more like the highly valued members over the course of the lab. This was gen- erally found to be true. Also, members increased in their 'wanted control' scores, and decreased in their 'wanted affection' scores. Kassarjian (1965) studied the effect of a lab on innter-outer direction, and found no signifi- cant relationships. Miles gg g1. (1959) found consistant improvement on sensitivity to feelings. Massarik and Carl- son (1962) found few changes in the California Psychological Emu—A Inventory after forty-eight hours of training. Changes that were identified were in the direction of increased spontaneity, and lowered overall control. Bennis (1967) had subjects describe themselves in terms of thirty-four interpersonal roles at the beginning and end of the lab. The findings suggested that individuals have actually decreased their behavior in these areas, or have become more sensitive to their own role behavior. Glidewell (1956) studied whether changes occurred in the way in which participants analyzed work problems. Par- ticipants were measured on three variables at the beginning and end of the lab: (1) seeing organizational problems in terms of multiple rather than single causes; (2) awareness of one's own involvement in the multiple causation Of organi- zational problems; (3) definition of problems in terms of functions rather than adequacies or inadequacies of individuals. 31 Sixty percent of the lab participants changed constructively towards multi-causation, realistic self involvement, and functional problem definitions in solving problems. Outcome Studies The basic question in outcome studies involves trans- fer of training—-does what is learned in the lab transfer to the back home setting, and is it maintained after the lab? Studies reporting general changes will be reported first, followed by studies relating changes to on the job perfor- mance. Bunker (1965, 1967) studied the long range effects of participating in the 1960-1 summer labs at Bethel. Partici— pants were seen to have changed more than controls in com— municating more clearly, and effectively with co-workers; sharing and encouraging responsibility and participation among peers; understanding human behavior, understanding group process; sensitivity to the needs and feelings of others; and self awareness. Wedel (1957) studied several labs and found that, over time, participants changed their opinions about groups; increased in insight; and attributed many personal changes to the labs. Increased sensitivity to the feelings of others has been found in many studies (Massarik and CarlSon, 1962; Miles, 1964; Bass, 1962). Bowers and Soar (1961) found that teachers who had lab training made significant changes in their attitudes toward their pupils, and towards democratic leadership. 1R'I‘J_T7t” 7‘.“ j In t V (I) (HI .FTV‘ "nu“ I“? '-. vy*.: 32 Since a control group made similar changes, it was concluded that the same personality traits produced good teachers with or without training, but training increased the degree of difference between greater and lesser skill, and helped a teacher to realize more of his potential. Harrison (1966) found that lab participants increased significantly in the use of inferential expressive concepts after the lab in comparison to concrete instrumental ones. This change was more marked as time went on. Smith (1964) found that members of training groups showed a convergence towards median scores on scales measuring their attitudes towards power and close personal relationships. Harrison (1962) found that lab participants tended to use more inter- personal descriptions of others, but usually only of indi- viduals who had also been in the T group. Stock (1964) found increased interpersonal awareness and skill, and greater involvement of participants in groups and activities after the lab. Lohman (Bradford, 1967) found no significant differ- ences in self-adequacy after the lab. Gold (1968) found no significant changes in overall self—disclosure on follow-up. Schutz and Allen (1966) did extensive follow-up and concluded that lab participants do change during the lab, and this continues after the lab. They found that overly dominant individuals became less dominant, while overly submissive individuals became more assertive. Kernan (1963) found ‘ A l ‘&-JI| “.3 I‘ir.‘ Hi PEI.»_...n~n.......i.....s. .fi. . Lb» N . h . 33 that Machiavellian scale scores increased after training. Rothaus gg g1. (1963) found participants to be less illness- centered, dependent, and preoccupied with self after the lab. A very important and controversial issue surrounding outcome studies of lab training has been the question of whether human relations training is valuable and effective, or disruptive for industrial settings (Campbell and Dunnett, 1968). Since substantial funds are currently being spent by industry on human relations training, and in many cases, attendance is mandatory, it also poses an ethical issue. Some of the changes instituted in labs, such as more con- sideration for subordinates, less dependence on others, less demand for subservience from others, lowering of de- fenses, and increased openness may be in opposition to re- quirements for effectiveness on the individual's job, and thus place him in a role conflict. This underlines the necessity for the goals and effects of labs to be clearly spelled out to industry. Following is a summary of studies concerned with job related changes. Campbell and Dunnett (1968), in reviewing external criterion studies, stated that significant changes have been found after the lab in increased interpersonal sensi- tivity, heightened equalitarian attitudes, greater commu- nication and leadership skills, increased consideration for others, and relaxed attitudes on the job. Stroud (1959) “”fll-r I'A 5" '7‘— ‘m— ~. w .. "1. W\ .1 34 found that lab participants became more peOple-oriented on the job, more analytic of their own roles, and more intro- spective when problems arose. Argyris (1965) found that board members who had attended a lab showed increased interpersonal competence in meetings subsequent to the lab. Buchanan and Brunstetter (1959) found more improvements on the job by workers who had attended a lab than those who had not. Oshry and Harrison (1966) found that after the lab the participants saw themselves as less impersonal; saw a clear connection between the meeting of interpersonal needs and getting jobs done; and saw themselves as the most sig— nificant part of their work problems. However, they had difficulty translating their new perceptions into action. harrison (1962) found that lab participants had difficulty perceiving and responding in new ways to co-workers who had not been to a lab. Argyris (1962) found increases in Open- ness, trust, confidence, and decreases in comformity, man- agement by detail, crisis, fear and conflict. However, the participants had difficulty putting these changes into effect. These studies points to a general difficulty in transferring changes to the back home setting. Friedlander (1967) found that work groups who par- ticipated in labs showed significant changes in group effec- tiveness, mutual influence, and personal involvement, but not in leader approachability, intragroup trust, nor .‘l-n gfln'au-nu- ‘l v 1‘9"“. eval: Ctii :cn t q ii E f\ C .iu t Co E a.» :u v . .3 .5 “in . a flu .l& v u Fl 5» «iv P. . n54 r. h. .\~ oH . u \u :u r all-mm .gufiisifl 35 evaluation of group meetings. Kernan (1963) found increases in the tendency to manipulate, and decreases in verbal re- activeness on the job, and the opposite off the job. Car- ron (1962) found that lab participants, after the lab, placed a higher value on consideration, and less value on structure in ideal leader behavior. Underwood (1961) found that supervisors showed decreased post-lab ness because they tended to vent their emotions on the job. Schein and Bennis (1965) reported more tension on the job after the lab because of clashes of values job effective- A I ‘i‘ in. :n r". J A‘ is between lab and non lab participants. buchanan (1964) described the con- flict engendered when a whole unit attended a lab, but on return was in Opposition to the prevailing tures in the larger organization. values and struc- There has been much criticism of human relations training for industry. Mc Nair (1957) stated that human relations training has been overemphasized. it makes peOple feel sorry for themselves, for them to avoid responsibility, provides failure, and encourages peOple to act like (1967) also questioned the wide acceptance he stated that makes it easier excuses for children. Taylor of the method, particularly emphasizing the artificial and isolated envi- ronment, and the lack of research demonstrating effective- ness. Greening (1964) defended lab training by stating that it does not make ineffective leaders, but rather can only open the individual to certain consequences of his *br' 1 mi. rag—v"- 36 leadership, and help him develOp additional leadership patterns, if he so wishes. Neither he, nor Rogers, (Hall, 1967) found in follow-up the negative consequences and damage alluded to by opponents of the method. Campbell and Dunnett (1968) concluded, after reviewing studies to ascer— tain the effectiveness of lab training for industry, that the utility of lab training experiences for the individual and the organization may not be the same. .The positive utility of human relations training for organizations rests on shaky grounds in their opinion. They concluded that the lab almost unanimously has positive value for the individual, but this may or may not profit the organization. House (1967) also expressed concern over the effect of lab training on management and organization. He stated that the anxiety generated, masks removed, increased consider- ation for subordinates, decreased dependence on others, etc. may be inapprOpriate on the job. He also stressed the role conflict often engendered, and the removal of behaviors and attitudes that are effective in industry (i.e., power, aggression, need for structure, dependence, low participation need, etc.). He recommended that industry carefully design labs to meet its needs, screen participants, make partici— pation voluntary, and explain the lab procedure to partici- pants ahead of time. All critics and supporters alike under- line the need for continued research. ‘- :,.~ L‘. Uni ‘. (SEI- nq _ “I “La” u-“ ....‘ 37 Obviously, the question of how many individuals gain from a lab experience, and what they do learn is complex. There are numerous research problems to be described in the next section. Also, many individuals are already functioning effectively when they arrive at the lab. How- ever, in summary, the following have been shown to be in— fluenced by lab training: various self percepts, affective behavior, sensitivity to the behavior and feelings of others, sensitivity to group process, role flexibility, diagnostic ability, self confidence, problem solving approaches, com- munication processes, and leadership ability. Some of these changes are positive, and some are negative, depending upon the perspective from which they are viewed. Research Problems Campbell and Dunnett (1968) reviewed the research problems plaguing the research on lab training. One problem is that of measurement, since what is Often investigated are changes in feelings and attitudes, rather than behaviors. These are always difficult to describe, let alone to scale in some meaningful way. Often, it becomes unclear as to whether an actual change is measured, or just familiarity with the scale, or new vocabulary. Once measures are devel- Oped, there are problems with the respondents. Self reports are likely to be biased, as most peOple give positive re- sponses to a lab (Stroud, 1959). Observers, too, may be biased. f\ u II is .«d .1 Y. a u . . U. a i . r a .2 rt. C . u .1. .2 .4 l T... IQSIhE-EANQ‘ a... No. g» P‘ u a EU; 38 They are usually closely related to the subject, in fact in many cases, picked by the subject, and very much aware that the subject has attended a lab. Controls also present problems. Often, control groups are not included, nor is pre lab data sought so that the subjects may serve as their own controls. Control is rarely instituted over the numerous lab activities other than the T group, so one cannot really say that the changes were the result of what went on in the T group. Group data are almost exclusively used, and this obscures the possibility that certain individuals may gain and certain others may be harmed by the experience. Vari- ability in the training experience needs to be investigated more. Little research has been done on the trainer-participant interaction, and the trainer himself. Group composition has not been sufficiently explored. Thus, many of the problems facing psychotherapy re- search also face the research on human relations training. Because of the short history of the method, a lot of these problems remain unattacked and unsolved. THEORLT ICAL BACKGROUND In comparison with studies reviewed in the previous section, this study focused mainly on outcome. However, noting that few instruments have been established as useful in T group research, it also sought to test out some new instruments as well as a couple of established instruments. A third focus underlined by previous research was investi- gating the impact of the lab through the eyes of observers as well as the participants. The areas of group process, trainer variables and. individual. behavior in the groups were beyond the scope of this study, while change factors, outcome and relationship patterns were explored. The data were collected in a lab whose focus was on interpersonal and personal growth rather than organizational change. Thus, changes were explored primarily in individual and interpersonal growth, and secondarily in job effective- ness. The assumption is made that the changes predicted (i.e., more Openness, more seeking and using of feedback, more positive feelings about oneself and other, more asser- tiveness and more availability of anger) are desirable for good interpersonal relationships and individual functioning. The focus was on the individual's communicative process, relationship patterns, and overall job effectiveness, and 39 cu .— vum—us “7" V ‘ r' 2': mg“. it‘fi l1: ruin >4“. m- 40 how they changed as the lab progressed. In terms of com- munication, we were interested in the variables of openness, self disclosure, and more constructive use of feedback. The T group research has shown that these are central in the process of change in the lab situation, and that fairly consistently, the lab experience leads to increases on these variables. Thus, with some support from the lab training research, the process of sharing feelings and thoughts Openly with others, receiving their reactions, and providing feedback to them is seen to be an effective means of improving one's interpersonal relations, and in some cases, one's job effectiveness. Improving this process is seen by the author to be valued in its own right, as well as for the changes it allows one to make. It was thought that change in this process in the specified directions would lead to changes in the individual's feelings about himself and others, and his general style of relating in terms of activity versus passivity. Thus, the more the communicative process is enhanced and improved, the more likely an indi— vidual is to feel positively about himself and others, the more warm and accepting he is likely to be in his interper- sonal relationships, the more active and expressive he can be, the more realistic he will be in terms of his self per- ceptions and perceptions of others, and the more able he will be aware of and use anger more constructively. 33"..- I. -‘ r. .. a filling; #110,! . .. AU Lu hlfl 41 The T group was used as the vehicle for investigating these ideas because of its emphasis on the communicative process, especially involving openness and feedback, in making individual and interpersonal changes. The lab ex- perience has been shown to be one where individuals' per- ceptions of themselves and others go through a shake up process, and then gradually become more realistic. Also, individuals have been found to increase in their satisfaction with themselves, their acceptance of others and their gen— eral interpersonal and job effectiveness. These changes have been found to be related to the communicative process in the T group; namely, how Open an individual can be about himself, how constructively he can ask for and use feedback, and how involved he is in the group. Thus, instruments were tested out for their useful- ness in mapping the changes in the T group participants' communicative processes, interpersonal relationships and job effectiveness. Perceptions were also gotten from people in the back home setting, as it has been shown that partici- pants, in typically responding positively to a lab, are not perhaps the most accurate evaluators of a lab experience. No attempt was made to control the lab experiences outside the T group itself. In this particular lab, there were many exercises outside the T group especially as the lab prog- ressed. This design sought to maximize the individual's growth by expanding his changed patterns of relating beyond 1 ‘1 is-..“ 4 Hun—u. 42 his own T group. Thus, although other lab exercises and experiences were designed to enhance T group growth, what- ever change occurs must be tied to the whole lab experience. a“- find. .n- .gw— 2‘f‘fl' ‘vb 4 tl?e: A: Q Hi In“ _L t . v c I . - KL . a a S .Q at c i an» .. a h“ is a .. it C s AM. :k \ nu u. x a . rs IN STRUMLNTS The instruments used were chosen or constructed according to their predicted ability to reflect the objec- tives of this study--i.e., to reflect communicative and interpersonal changes as the lab progressed, and to reflect changes which transferred to the back home situation. They are all described here, and are found in complete form in Appendix A. Okay—Not Okay Scales (OKC, OROL These are two scales measuring one's general positive or negative perception of oneself and others. In their present form, they were designed by the author for this study, but have been used in groups in a slightly different form by Hurley (personal communication, 1968). They consist of two bipolar scales where subjects rate themselves (OKs) and others (OKO) on the dimensions of 'okay' and 'not okay.‘ A short paragraph precedes the scales describing what is meant by 'okay' and 'not okay.‘ Scores at the low end of the scale reflect negative perceptions, while high scores reflect positive perceptions (see Appendix A, p. 152). The scale was derived from the theory of Eric Berne (1966). Berne identified four position in reference to self and others. These are: 43 3. I am 4. I am Okay, you are okay, you are not okay, you not okay, you 44 okay. not okay. are okay. are not okay. Position (1) is seen as constructive; (2) as paranoid; (3) as depressive; these four attitudes. and (4) as scizoid. Action types accompany They are: 1. Getting better--the individual feels that rela— tionships with people and society are good. 2. In healthy persons, leads to such choices as ministry or law where the goals are to eliminate badness; in less healthy persons, the choice is to eliminate specific people to get rid of the badness they represent. 3. Sequestration--the individual separates himself from the okay peOple, usually in some institution. 4. Aesthetic or spiteful suicide. This instrument was used to detect the changes in one's perceptions of oneself and others. A positive move- ment was predicted; that is, towards attitude (1). General Behavior Ratings (0, DS, DG) This instrument consists of three scales--openness, data seeking, and data giving. The openness, and data seeking scales are new measures developed by Hurley (per— sonal communication, 1968) and revised somewhat for this 45 study by the author to include a measure of data giving. The instrument measures how Open the individual is in terms of here and now experiences in the group, how much data he seeks from other group members about their reactions to him, and how much data he gives to other group members about his reactions to them. The instrument was used before and after the lab as well as in the lab, and for this the in- structions were modified to be more general. The instrument consists of three nine point scales for openness, data seeking, and data giving, with low scores indicating low degrees of each variable, and high scores indicating high degrees of each variable (see Appendix A, pp. 153, 154). This measure was used to assist in investigating the communicative process (see also, the self disclosure, and feedback scales). They show how active the individual is in his group, and, in general, outside the lab in sharing himself with others, asking for data about his impact on others, and giving others data about their impact on him. This process was expected to increase during the lab and maintain itself after the lab. Self Disclosure Scale (SD) This scale was constructed by John and Shirley Hurley (1967) based on Jourard's treatment of self disclosure (Jourard, 1964). The emphasis is on "general behavior, affect, apparent degree of honesty, and sincerity rather than 7 I \s' Ii-lj3v;au...cunvn C0111 ".8 of i .L.e c. “hub-J “.n Awe» PU 46 number of self references, amount of verbalization, level of insight, or appropriateness of self concept." The scale also attempts to include motivation towards self disclosure. The scale involves rating all group members on a scale from one (self concealment) through eight (self disclosure). A description is provided for each point on the continuum, (see Appendix A, p. 156). Jourard's emphasis on self disclosure grew out of his conception of self disclosure as an indication of mental health and a means of achieving a healthy personality. In contrast, self concealment is related to self alienation. Jourard stated "no man can come to know himself except as an outcome of disclosing himself to another person" (Jourard, 1964, p. 5). He distinguished between real self and public self, and stated that when there is a gap between the two, self alienation occurs. Jourard sees a curvillinear relationship between self disclosure and mental health. Jourard developed the Jourard Self Disclosure Question— naire (JSDQ) consisting of sixty items which are responded to in terms of how fully one reports disclosing himself to mother, father, male friend, female friend, spouse (Jourard, 1964). His research with the scale has shown self disclosure to be a product of perceiving the other person as similar to oneself in some way. Hurley and Hurley (1969) compared the JSDQ with the scale used in this study, the Hurley Self 47 Disclosure Rating (hSDR), and the Direct Disclosure Rating (DDR) which reflects quantitative measures of self disclo- sure. Most Open (MO) and most closed (MC) member ratings were also used. The JSDQ was found to correlate negatively with the HSDR, DDR, and MO, but positively (p < .05) with the MC index. The JSDQ seemed to reflect defensiveness in terms of self report. The HSDR was found to have both predictive and consensual validation, and thus was chosen for this study. The SD scale measures roughly the same dimension as openness, but is more detailed and specifically related to the group interaction of the T group. Participants were expected to increase in self disclosure by the end of the lab as it became more comfortable and safe to Open up with one's fellow group members. Feedback Scale (FB) This scale relates to the data seeking measure de- scribed earlier, but also includes the dimension of how the feedback is used. This scale, like the HSDR, is worded for group use only. The scale looks in detail at the incoming aspect of feedback. It involves rating everyone in the _n- 'VI. 1 AAA '1‘ *‘T—‘PT— _— _‘I 1:141:11..- group on a scale from one (no reception of feedback) through eight (active use of feedback). A description of each point along the continuum is provided (see Appendix A, p. 157). 48 The scale was developed from the beginnings of a scale constructed by Harold Benner (indirect communication) for use in his dissertation. Feedback represents the other half of the communicative process from openness or self disclosure. Both learning to be open and communicate about oneself, and learning to ask for, listen to, and use feed- back constructively are involved in effective relationships. The assumption is that we need to become aware of our impact on others to operate effectively. In other words, we learn about ourselves by disclosing ourselves to others, and getting feedback from them about ourselves. Giving feed- back involves a degree of honesty and Openness that is Often missing from interpersonal relationships. There are two sides to feedback--giving it, and receiving it. The giving part we have measured by DG. Giving it involves taking a risk of possibly being perceived as critical or hostile. Using it involves initially an ability to listen, and then an ability to weigh it in terms of the sender's motivation and perceptions to decide whether to use or ignore it. Feedback seems most useful when it describes an individual's behavior without placing a value on it; is well timed and later in the lab experience; is specific; is requested rather than imposed; is clearly communicated and checked; and is directed towards behavior that can be changed. E‘s-5H -.' 3‘. : A . I: '5 9.; .IO'. “"1 9‘” .. .5. v ‘Va‘ “r.“ rel“ {See 49 Liking (L) and Time Spent (T) These two measures were included as a control, as it was thought that possibly ratings would be biased by whether the individual was well liked or not. Participants were asked to rank all their group members in terms of how well they liked them, and how much free time they spent with them during the lab. For convenience, the two scales were printed on the same sheet as the general behavior ratings (see Appendix A, p. 154). Interpersonal Check List (ICL) This inventory, based on Leary's theory, (LaForge, 1963) consists of sixteen basic variables with eight items for each variable. The items are marked 'true' or 'false' with respect to the person being rated, with only 'true' items being used in the scoring. The items under each variable have differing weights (one through four) in the scoring. The variables are as follows: managerial, nar— cississtic, competitive, sadistic, aggressive, rebellious, distrustful, self effacing, masochistic, docile, dependent, COOperative, over conventional, hypernormal, responsible, autocratic. The sixteen variables are subsumed under two main axes of dominance-submission, and love-hate (see Appen— dix A, p. 159). Numerous studies have used this instrument, but its usefulness for this study is its measurement of what are 50 considered to be two very important personality dimensions. Adams (1964) in an article defining mental illness as a phenomenon involving interpersonal behavior rather than a health or medical problem, cited the studies of interper— sonal behavior where a circumplex structure around the two orthogonal axes of dominance-submission, and affection- hostility was identified as a comprehensive framework for viewing interpersonal behavior. Consequently, this instru- ment was employed as a means of studying how people's gen- eral relation styles changed over the course of the lab. As peOple become more open in the lab, receive feedback about their behavior, and begin to feel free to be themselves in the permissive atmosphere, it was expected that they would become more assertive, and express anger more freely. Pre— liminary data collected by Hurley (personal communication, 1968) on marathon and long term groups showed that partici- pants saw themselves becoming more dominant and less loving after an intense group experience, while friends rating the participants tended to perceive the increase in hostility more than the increase in dominance. It is granted that those individuals who come to the lab and are already ex- tremely dominant and/or hostile, will not show these changes. However, when looking at group data it was expected that this latter group would be in a minority, and thus the trend would still be towards increased dominance and hostility. This conclusion is based on the assumption that, at least 51 for a self-selected lab such as the one studied, there would be more peOple coming who had problems with assertiveness and anger, than the reverse. Person Description Instrument X (PDIX) The Person Description Instrument X was developed by Harrison as a semantic differential tool to study interper- sonal perception. The scale reflects three major factors: interpersonal warmth and acceptance (I), power and effec- tiveness in work (II), and activity and expressiveness (III). Twenty-seven items make up these three scales. In Appendix A where the scale is given in full, (p. 160) a I: II: or III is marked beside each item to show which items are in which scales. Respondents rate themselves on a six point scale on each item, with one being low and six being high. Harrison described the instrument as being useful in studies of interpersonal perception in small groups or orga— nizations. In one study (Harrison, 1962) the PDIX was used with managers attending a sensitivity training lab. The results showed that the participants described themselves as more interpersonal and emotional after the lab. Another study (Harrison and Lubin, 1965) used the PDIX and found that work oriented and people oriented participants behaved quite differently. Harrison (1966) used the PDIX, and found that persons increased in the number of inferential- expressive concepts they used after a lab experience. 52 The PDIX can also be used to study interpersonal values, social distance, and interpersonal discrimination. This measure was expected to detect changes as the lab progressed, and also to check on whether these were maintained after the lab. Participants were expected to increase in their warmth and acceptance of others and their activity and expressiveness as an indication of better com— municative and relationship patterns. Increases in job effectiveness were also expected on the assumption that the kinds of changes made during the lab would be conducive to better job performance for these particular persons. Descriptive Change Included on the initial letter of instructions and on the follow-up letter (Appendix A, pp. 164, 167, 170) was a question about how the participant had changed in how he/she works with peOple. This question provided us with further unstructured information about job changes, as well as general changes. The question was taken from a study by Bunder and Knowles (1967), and the categories used for scoring this material are presented with the scale in Appendix A, pp. 173, 174). Direct Ratings of Change A change scale was completed after the lab. This scale develOped by Aldenbrand (1969), has three items which are scored on a one through nine basis. The three items :5" '2'. ' laid-I'- 1? 3‘5. 8.11.”? c.“ :easu tribu vsat comm inter £0110' 0, as ClVe l the c] Chang. Sures next a inter] 53 measure growth in interpersonal understanding, behavior change based on the above growth, and amount of such changes attributed to the lab. Scores were predicted to be on the high end of each scale (see Appendix A, p. 161). The scales described above were all expected to con- tribute information to the basic questions asked here of what happens during a lab experience to an individual's communicative process, self perception, perception of others, interpersonal style of relating, and job effectiveness. The following measures investigate the communicative process: 0, DS, DG, SD, and PB. OKs and OKo tap positive and nega— tive perceptions of self and others. I, III and ICL and the Change Scale investigate the interpersonal relationship changes. II and the descriptive change question give mea- sures of job effectiveness. The descriptive change instru— ment also gives general information about changes perceived-— interpersonal, communicative, attitudinal, global. Scoring the Instruments On OKs' 0K0, 0, DS, DG, SD, FB, L, T, and Direct Rating of Change the checks made on the various scales were directly translated into their numerical equivalent and recorded on a summary sheet (see scoring on instruments in Appendix A).' Decimals were used in scoring. The ICL data were scored conventionally (LaForge, 1963). The scores of the three PDIX scales were added separatedly and then 54 summarized under the three headings for each person and recorded. The descriptive change reports were categorized according to the scoring system presented in Appendix A, p. 173, 174. HYPOTHESES The following relationships were hypothesized: 1. It was hypothesized that the measures used (0, DS, DG, OKs, OKO, SD, FB, PDIX, ICL) would relate positively to one another. These measures were predicted to positively correlate because they were measuring parts of an inter-related change process. The two scales of the ICL (dominance- submission, and love-hate) were constructed to be independent, and hence were not expected to show substantial positive correlations. The same would hold for the three scales of the PDIX (interper— sonal warmth and acceptance, power and effective- ness in work, and activity and expressiveness). Increases in scores were predicted for eight mea— sures used during the lab (0, DS, DG, OKs, 0K0, SD, FE and PDIX). Both self reports and group reports were expected to reflect increases on these measures. Increases were predicted for the measures of 0, DS, DG, OKs, OKO, PDIX, and ICL dominance-submission (ICLg) after the lab. On the ICL love-hate (ICLi), 55 1'IIU..IIIIJ§!VU 1.3 . . r .A n ‘1. 56 a decrease was predicted. The same pattern was predicted for self reports, intimates' reports and colleagues' reports. The descriptive change reports were predicted to show substantially more positive than negative changes. It was hypothesized that more of these changes would be reported after the lab than before. Similar trends were predicted for self and observer reports. Scores were predicted to be at the upper end (five and above) for self and observer reports on the change scale. Self reports were predicted to correlate posi- tively with group reports and observer reports. The correlation between self and group reports at the end of the lab was predicted to be higher than at the beginning, as self and group reports have been shown to become more congruent at the end of training. Self reports were predicted to be higher than group and observer reports initially, but this discrepancy was predicted to lessen as self per- ceptions, especially, became more accurate at the end of training. METHOD Subjects Subjects for the study were all fifty participants in a training lab held at High SCOpe, Michigan, from August 17 through August 25, 1968. There were seventeen female, and thirty-three male participants. Their occupational break- down was: five priests or pastors; two professors; one curriculum consultant; fourteen teachers (high and junior high); four principals; two school superintendents; one art coordinator; four counselors; two caseworkers; one psychia— trist; eleven students in psychology or social work; two housewives; and one director of marketing. Also included in the study was a potential group of 100 observers. This group was picked by the participants to include one intimate (I) and one colleague (C) for each participant. This group of 'significant others' was chosen in such a way that whenever possible they had known the particular lab participant for whom they were serving as observer at least one year, and expected to be relating to them in the next year. The intimates were to be family or very close friends, and the colleagues were to be persons on the job who knew the participant well. For the most part, the intimate group was composed of spouses. The participants 57 58 were instructed on how to pick their observer in their initial letter of acceptance (refer to Appendix A, p. 162)- Design This study was designed to overcome some of the re- search problems already discussed. Observer and group re- ports were used rather than solely relying on self-report data. A control group was not used, but pre lab data was collected on the participants as a base line. The process of change was studied not only during the lab, but also at a five month follow-up. On July 15, 1968, about five weeks before the lab started, a letter (see Appendix A, p. l62)was sent to each lab participant notifying him of his acceptance in the lab, and requesting his participation in the study. He was in- structed in how to pick his two observers, and given three data packets--one for himself, and one for each of his Observers. The observer packets also contained letters ex- plaining the project (see Appendix A, p. 164) and giving instructions on completing the material. The data was to be returned as soon as possible. To ensure confidentiality, data packets from observers were returned directly to the researcher, and were not seen by the participants. Administered within the context of other within—lab research, the instruments were given on lab days two and seven with instructions to rate all members of their individual 59 T groups. There were five T groups composed of ten partic- ipants and two trainers each. The initial within lab data were collected about twenty-four hours into the lab after about 5—6 hours of T group participation and a variety of group and research experiences. Data packets were admin- istered on the afternoon of day two and collected that evening. Data were administered a second time during the afternoon of the seventh day and collected that evening. By this time participants had had considerable time together in their T groups and increasing amounts of time in groups with members of other T groups. Participants left the lab early the following afternoon. On 0, DS, DG, OKs' OKO, SD, FB each participant com- pleted the measure for himself and also rated the other nine members of his T group. He ranked the other nine members of his group on L and T. For the PDIX however, each member rated himself and only four members of his T group—-the two he liked best and the two he liked the least. This limitation was to cut down on the amount of data re- quired from each person and ensure more complete cooperation. The post lab data packets were sent out on January 13, 1969. Again, a letter was included to each participant (Appendix A, p. 170) requesting his COOperation. The two packets for his observers were included with his packet. Data were to be returned as soon as possible. Since data s . 9. . w a. . ll .5. [a D. “3'39... (,4... 0.1!»..37; F ...,.. a? 1.“ w 60 were a little slower coming in this time, reminder cards and phone calls followed up the original letter three weeks later. Before After Day 2 Day 7 L + + T + + O + + + + 05 + + + + D3 + + + + OK + + + + 5 UK + + + + O SD + + F3 + + PDIX + + + + ICL + + CHANGE SCALE + DESCRIPTIVE CHANGE + + Fig. l.—-Tally of instrument administration. Data Inventory The rate of returns was quite high. For the pre lab data, 48 lab participants (96%), 48 intimates (96%), and 46 colleagues (92%) responded. For the post lab data, 48 participants (96%), 41 intimates (82%), and 38 colleagues (76%) responded. All participants cooperated with the data collection within the lab, but due to misreading instructions, and missing scores on some group members when rated by others, there was less than complete data during the lab. Figure 2 61 describes the percent of lab participants (Es), intimates (Is) and colleagues (gs) who completed each measure at the four data collection periods. Before and After Lab Within Lab Before After 2nd Day 7th Day P I C P I C SR* GR* SR GR L 98 98 93 98 O 94 92 92 96 82 74 60 98 76 99 DS 94 92 92 96 82 74 66 95 80 99 DG 94 92 92 96 82 74 62 92 78 99 OKs 96 96 92 96 80 76 76 96 94 94 OKO 96 96 92 96 80 76 68 97 92 97 SD 100 98 98 99 PB 98 97 98 98 PDIX 76 96 92 96 80 76 100 99 98 97 ICL 96 96 92 96 82 76 CHANGE SCALE 94 80 62 DESCRIPTIVE CHANGE 80 82 56 64 52 *Note: SR = Self report; GR = Group report. Fig. 2.--Percentages of respondents completing mea- sures. fi.*fi..b. 5.... :v. i. F . .2 .. i RESULTS A complete inventory of all data collected before, during and after the lab from participants and observers is found in Appendix B, p. 175 through 182. The study is subdivided into three main areas of focus for presentation of the findings: testing of measures, investigation of changes and comparison of different respondents' perceptions. Overview Table 1 presents the stability correlations on the measures used at all four data collection periods. The OK scales are omitted because a nine point scale was used within the lab instead of the seven point scale used before and after the lab, thus invalidating a comparison across the four times. The measures were the least stable when the before lab data was compared with the within-lab data. The long term stability (before vs after), within-lab stability and within vs after stabilities were all good. When the before vs after correlations of OKS (.29), OKO (.11), ICL: (.83) and ICL; (.79) are added to this picture, it is apparent that the stability of the more complex and established measures (ICL, PDIX) exceeded the stability of the simpler rating 62 63 TABLE l.--Product-moment correlations of self reported ratings on scales used at the four data collections.a lBefore Before Before Day 2 Day 2 Day 7 vs Day 2 vs Day 7 vs After vs Day 7 Vs After vs After 0 17 59** 56** 09 24 58** DS 21 31 29* 31 38* 39* DG 07 12 28* 12 15 05 I 40** 34* 44** 42** 16 42** II 11 11 30* 46** 43** 62** III 37** 43** 70** 38** 43** 47** aDue to varying N's, correlations of the same magni— tude are not equivalent in statistical significance. **p < .01, 2-tailed *p < .05, 2—tailed scales at all times. This finding suggests that less con- sistancy can be expected from the simple rating scales. An overview of self—reported responses to the various measures over the course of the study is presented in Table 2. As expected from the stability correlations, O, DS and DG showed variable patterns. The more stable PDIX showed a clear trend for day two means to be lower than before lab means; day seven means increased to a level close to the before lab means; and after lab means increased beyond 64 TABLE 2.-—Self-reported means on six measured at four time points.a 0 DS DG I II III After Lab 6.65 f 5.81 6.38 39.1 41.5 39.4 7th Day 5.11 4.77 5.56 38.0 39.5 35.3 2nd Day 5.50 5.45 6.03 36.9 38.5 34.8 Before Lab 5.74 5.06 5.53 38.3 39.7 36.4 aN's vary from 47 to 50 for I. II. and III and for 0, DS, DG before and after the lab. 3'5 for 0, DS, DG for days two and seven range from 30-39. before lab means. This trend, with the consequent within— lab decreases or no changes, in contrast to after lab in- creases, was important in interpreting the impact of the lab, and will be examined further in later sections. The comparison of the three different respondents' perceptions (P, I, C) turned out to be one of the most im— portant and interesting findings. Table 3 shows a comparison of the means for the three respondents on the pre lab mea- sures. Cs consistantly rated Ps higher than the Ps rated themselves on all measures except ICLfi, and OKO, and higher than Ps were rated by Is on all measures except I and ICLi. The tests of significance of these differences is presented later. The perceptions of Ps and Is were generally congruent, 65 TABLE 3.--Before lab means.a (DO-4 I" 0 DS DG OKS OKO I II III ICL ICL CS 6.24 6.13 6.09 5.41 4.88 39.6 43.6 40.0 8.33 2.21 Is 5.57 5.00 5.55 5.13 4.86 39.7 42.8 37.7 5.44 2.75 Ps 5.75 5.08 5.44 5.26 4.89 38.1 39.7 36.4 4.75 2.44 aN's were 46 (Cs), 48 (Is) and 48 (Ps). except that Ps rated themselves higher on PDIX. These ini- tial differences in perceptions had considerable bearing on the types of changes reported by the three sources after the lab. A cluster analysis (Mc Quitty, 1961), presented in Figure 3, makes the divergent perceptions more meaningful. For Ps, the main cluster of variables was an 'instrument- bound' cluster composed of 0, DS and DG. Since these vari— ables were printed on one instrument, clustering could be expected. Next, Ps described themselves as 'other—oriented' with I being the key variable. The third cluster, as seen by P5, was one of 'self-expressiveness' with ICL: being the key variable. The 'instrument—bound' cluster was also evident in the reports of Is and Cs, but less salient. The clustering shown by Is was more similar to that of P5 than was that shown by Cs. Is clustered less on 'other-oriented,’ but more on 'self—expressiveness' than did Ps. The clusters 66 tended to break apart somewhat with Cs. Cs showed the highest clustering on 'other-oriented,‘ and very low clus- tering on 'self-expressiveness.‘ Be 13 93 D.SN\ ICL1];’(—'II I A i o B $ \ox l/ I d 1. DG III OK? oxo .-ICLS;=EII r ..__. . d ICL§~ I OK ICLS c \ , \ S I x ' III \ ’ III ‘ \II/ \‘ C ' OK ‘ ' O \ B I _3 l B __A l ' .._.) 2. Ic—ICLh DG <——o \ n Gr—DS \ l A 131:": “ II . 1 _._~. I l 3. ICLh c—I (_OK L...—___. Note (Key) A a instrument-bound cluster, B = other- oriented cluster, C = self-expressiveness cluster. 1, 2, and 3 refer to primary, secondary and tertiary clustering respectively. + each variable highest with the other. + variable at tail highest with variable at head.-#H-negative bond. - - - - bond of nearly equal strength to strongest bond. Fig. 3.—-C1ustering of variables before the lab. 67 Testing the Measures Stability The previous section reported generally good, but differential, stability for the various scales. Table 4 summarizes the stability correlations with-lab and before vs after the lab. A11 measures showed good stability within the lab on group reports, and lesser stability on self reports, as would be expected in a comparison between group and individual data. As mentioned in the previous section, the ICL and PDIX data were more stable than the other scales over the six month period of the study. Thus, the long term stability of the measures tended to vary according to the complexity of the scales, being highest with the 134 item ICL, next highest on the 27 item PDIX, and lower on the average on the simpler indices. Interrelationships Among Measures Hypothesis 1 predicted positive relationships among all measures (except for the separate scales in ICL and PDIX). Table 5 gives the within lab correlations among the measures for all fifty Ps. Table 6 gives the pre lab cor- relations among the measures for the reports of Ps, Is, and Cs. Intercorrelations were not computed for self reports within the lab because it was expected that a similar, but less stable, pattern would emerge in comparison with the 68 3. v a u a mo. v a n o moo. v a u a Ammaamunac mooo. v Q n m umHo>oH oocmOAMHcon .h >mv u n am act n N “ouoz O I O O O O I O O O “mom mum own omm Omm won Mme 0mm omm bmv new 0mm U O O O O O O O O O O O “mom mum Mme ova Mam oam Uvm 0mm ohm Umm NH 0mm H H . . . . . . . . . . uwom mum was Mmm won oom nvv Ha 0mm 0mm 0mm Mom mm mm 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 N1 N Dom Mom mom nmm bmv omm cmm dom bmv was 0mm Mom mu m0 0 O O O O O O O I 0. N. N nmm gov nmv Dom Hm ma em NH oam mo mm mm m n o m GAUH HAUH HHH HH H mm om me Mo 00 mo 0 B A .meMUm QMH Hwflwm m> THOMTQ UCM QMHIQfiSUH?» HON mCOH#MHOHHOU #CTEOEIUUSUOHWII.¢ Mdmddw 6E) ow. . a u o mo. v a u o moo. . a u a nooo. v a u e "mao>oH cosmonacon HHH mom HH com ouo H ooh ooh moo mo coo «so one com com moo «No mom «on coo nzo moo moo moo «so «on m~o Io o~o ado u~m moo moo mom moo on no» mom woo woo coo mom mom «no on one moo can «on moo mom «on woo mom 0 «mm amo now now coo moo m~m mom mom mom 9 non moo woo woo woo «No moo nmo nae mom moo a “wumm com oo- oo. «o oo. odu oH- oo oo ooN oo- omN- HHH cam «on moo com 6mm ooN oom oflm com oH oo com com HH oo- own mom oo~ ov~ mg «a No- oo no. no ooN mo moo H ooo omm non non boo uo~ oom ago who now oom 0mm poo mom coo oh so can goo moo nmo omm oom goo nmo cow com goo com com moo com com ~o ohm n~o 6mm 6mm cum oo~ uom com oo oom nae oo eom oo aoo moo moo oH goo oo now woo. woo moo woo ohm oa com com oo- mom oH oom com non so com com so- com non was com mom «Hm nae own- oo «so «on omN moo «no mo oom on o- oo «a- omm oom as. 0mm 0mm nmo one moo- ~H mom omm oo mom woo ma- ma moo on o- oo oH- com own As. om~ non noo moo 0mm- oH who «no mo aoo moo oow oow- woo nos 0 no mo- own- so- oo~u com- 6mm- ooN ooa ma omm oa ooN AH mo- ma oH oom oH «so oo~ non a HH moo nae 6mm com com uam nod ovm Ha ohm aom no «on moo mom woo woo coo omm mo woo ban a HHH HH H at am oxo mmo on we O a q HHH HH H me am oxo mxo on mo 0 a a h >mo nufi3 ~ >mo m >mo .masouo o>fiw Ham co woman Qua ocu Defiant pom: mouamgmfi OCOEM ceaumaoHHOOuu.m mqm<8 1‘55 L! .iflbfial n 52.rn...-r....\v . u!- Ii§ l'. ..... . L5. wnfl '70 oH. v a n o mo. v m n o moo. v a u n HomHHmouHo mooo. v m u m "mHo>oH mocmonHcmHm a.HHOH goo- «Hsoomu mcan: NH- oo oo- om com nmo HHH oH- oo- oH mom om~ omm oH Houomm HH nHv «no «mo mo- oo no: mo- NH oo-oom com uom , H noo oH~ MH HH- oH mo- mo- oH 0mm AH on oo~ ohm woo «mo 020 mo oo oo nHo omm com mH 6mm oH «H oHN o~m oH com com oo mom oom mxo «H- «H MH mH oom «mm oom ooN «mo oH oH oo oo oH moo oo- ooIUoN oom omo moo no HH oo~ ooH oo oo 0mm oH oH oom oo on- mo on oHN oH MH- NH oo ohm oo NH «Hm ooN moo on so non omN oo oo woo oH woo «mo no mo- mo mo-o- oo com oH oo nos mH omm oom amm mom oom woo woo o O H a O H a o H a o H a o H a o H o o H a o H a o H a nHHOH moHOH HHH HH H oxo mxo on mo .mu tam mH .mm an muuomou Hem mousmmos mCOEm meowumHouuoououcH baa oHOMmmnu.o mqmde 71 group data. Post lab intercorrelations were also not com- puted because the high stability of the measures suggested that a pattern similar to the pre lab data would emerge. Examination of Table 5 shows that all measures inter- correlated at a higher level at day 7 than at day 2, showing more consistancy of ratings across measures at the end of the lab. On day 2, fifty (If the sixty-six correlations were positive and significant; eleven were positive, but non-significant; one was zero; one was negative and signif- icant; and three were negative and non—significant. The negative ones were between T and I, O and OKs, DS and OKO, OKS and III. Thus, at day 2, if Ps were seen positively on one variable, they were very likely to be seen positively on another. The exceptions were: Ps rated high on Open- ness were rated as having less positive feelings about themselves than those rated low on Openness. There was also a trend for time spent and interpersonal warmth and acceptance, data seeking and viewing others positively, and Viewing oneself positively and activity and expressiveness to be negatively related. All these negative trends dis- appeared by day 7 when all sixty-six correlations were POSitive and significant at the .05 level of significance and aixyve. Thus, hypothesis 1 was generally supported at day 2" and clearly supported at day 7. I?or the pre lab data (Table 6), sixty—eight of the 135 iIrtercorrelations were positive and significant at the 72 .10 level of significance and above (28/45 by Ps, 24/45 by Is, and 16/45 by Cs). Thus, Ps showed the most consistancy across ratings, followed closely by Is. Cs were quite in- consistent in their ratings. There were twenty-two negative correlations (five by Ps, six by Is, and eleven by Cs), but only three were significant. Two of these three were between the two ICL scales which were not expected to relate posi— tively, and the other was between DS and II by Is. Negative trends were found between I and III, and II and III, but I and II were positively related. The scales of the PDIX (I, II, III) were not expected to show positive correlations, however, in this study; I and II did not turn out to be independent scales on pre lab data. The scales measuring similar variables (I and ICLi; significantly related except for III and ICL: by Cs. III and ICLg) were Hypothesis 1 received some support on the pre lab data from P5 and Is, but little support from Cs. The correlations among the three items on the change scale were all highly significant, as would be expected from such related items, see Table 7. In the overview, it was seen that pre lab measures tended to form three clusters: an 'instrument-bound' clus- l ter (0, DS, DG); and 'other-oriented' cluster (I, ICLh, OKO and sometimes OKs); and a 'self-expressive' cluster (ICLg, III and sometimes II and DG). For within-lab data, the ICL 73 TABLE 7.-—Correlations among the three change scale items. Ps Is Cs Items 1 and 2 .68a .76a .78a Items 1 and 3 .70a .68a .47a Items 2 and 3 .83a .56a .44b Significance levels: a = p < .0005 b = p < 005 was not used, and the measures of L, T, SD, and FE were added. Thus, it was difficult to compare the clusters. Figure 4 shows the clustering of measures at days 2 and 7. Day 2 Day 7 ‘\L/ m 4L.__~ FB 0 ____,_DS 1. i:_s 035-770 so __._, FB 2 . OKé;::::ErII 3. Fig. 4.--Cluster analysis of group based measures used within-lab. 74 The clusters showed limited stability from day 2 to day 7, with the core variables tending to remain highly linked. On day 7, the primary and secondary clusters from day 2 had reversed positions. The day 7 secondary cluster was a variant of the primary day 2 cluster with OKS and II drOpping out to form a minOr third cluster. The 'instrument- bound' cluster appeared, linked with III as in pre lab data. The other variables tended to cluster around the strong SD-FB link which represented the key change process in the theoretical formulation. The correlations between the different measures (in contrast to between the same measures) is an indication of the predictability of the various measures (refer again to Table 5). Prediction correlations were computed only on within-lab data. Several variables were best self—predictors, including, L, 0, DG, OKS, I and II. Best predicted from other day 2 variables are day 7 scores on T (DG), DS (DG), OKO (OKs), SD (OKs), FB (SD), and 111 (DG). A systematic analysis of how the day 2 variables related to the day 7 variables based on summing the covariance of each day 2 variable for all day 7 variables, but omitting self- correlations, disclosed that the day 2 variables ranked in predicting power as follows: SD (1.43), OKs (1.32), FB (1.25), DG (1.09), OKO (1.08), L (1.05), II (1.04), DS (.88), O (.74), T (.40), I (.36), and III (.18). fill... an. Kilns” s with 2?. \lr tum-fl I. III}! sit-adfi I 75 Of the 144 correlations between day 2 and day 7 mea- sures, 94 were positive and significant; 24 were positive and non-significant; 18 were negative and non-significant; and 8 were negative and significant. Again, in general, hypothesis 1 was supported. Four of the eight exceptions reaching significance involved T. Thus, amount of time spent with an individual on day 2 related inversely to how an individual was rated on OKs' OKO, SD and I on day 7. O, DS, and DG at day 2 did not positively predict T at day 7, and III did not positively predict L at day 7. The non- significant exceptions involved III negatively predicting OKs, OKO, SD, I and II; I negatively predicting 0, DC and III; DG, DS and O negatively predicting OKO and I; and T negatively predicting PB and II. Another facet of the intercorrelations among measures involves the relationship of the measure of 'liking' to the other variables. On the day 2 intercorrelations, L was more highly related to the other measures than was T. On only OKS and II did L correlate the highest of all variables, while T did not correlate highest with any other measure. On day 7, both L and T related highly with all measures, but neither L nor T had the highest correlation with any other measure. L fell about in the middle in terms of its ability to predict day 7 measures from its day 2 rankings, while T was a poor predictor. Thus, according to these two 76 measures, both how much an individual is liked, and how much free time is spent with him were positively related to the ratings received on other measures. However, this was not likely to have distorted ratings greatly because L and T did not relate to the other scales significantly more than did the other measures. An additional analysis was done to explore further the question of the influence of 'liking' on ratings. The PDIX had not been filled out by Ps on all members of their T group; rather, it had been filled out only on the two individuals best and least liked by each P. Tetests were done between the scores of the most and least liked Ps on the three PDIX scales. All E—tests were highly significant (beyond the .0005 level of significance) indicating that Ps liked best received significantly higher scores on I, II and III than those who were liked least. This trend was evident at both days 2 and 7, and in fact was more marked at day 7 for II and III, and about the same for I. The E-values for day 2 were as follows: 11.7 (I), 9.2 (II), and 5.7 (III). For day 7, the Eévalues were: 10.7 (I), 11.5 (II), 7.2 (III). Thus, when the ratings of persons on the extremes of the liking continuum were com— pared, 'liking' importantly influenced ratings. WK...“ ». Lint]. .. ism...“ Z woollham I l 77 Measurement of Change According to the original hypotheses (hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 5), it was planned to examine changes within—lab by comparing day 2 and day 7 scores, and changes extending beyond the lab by comparing before and after lab data. Further comparisons made after inspection of the data revealed some interesting trends that did not show up on the two planned comparisons. The further analyses were between before and day 2 data, before and day 7 data, and day 7 data and post lab data. Day 2 vs Day 7 Table 8 shows the g-tests for the group ratings (GR) and self ratings (SR) on scales used within-lab. These were one—tailed Eftests as increases had been predicted on all scales from day 2 to day 7 (hypothesis 2). All group report values achieved significance at the p < .15 level and above for the total lab population, except on L. Ps, as a total group, were rated by their fellow T group members as significantly more open, more data seeking, more data giving, more positive in attitudes towards self and others, more self disclosing, receiving feedback more constructively, more warm and accepting, more powerful and effective in their work and more active and expressive on the seventh day of the lab in comparison with the second day. Also, Ps were seen by their group to have significantly 78 ma. v m u + 0H. v m u o mo. v m n o moo. v a u n mooo. v m u m umHo>oH oOcMOHmHGmHm mv. +ma.a too H Omo.a mm. mm mm Omm HI m>.| om.| mm HH.H omo.m Obo.~ who.v Mme.v bam.m +nm.a +NH.H Omo.a Omm.a Omv.a mm. mm o m HHH HH H mm mm M0 MO 00 ma 0 .H. A .mm Ham :0 comma moHSmmoE bmachnuHB so mosam> umouIBII.m mqmde 79 increased in the amount of time other group members spent with them, and non-significantly in how much they were liked by the other group members. Thus, for the total lab group, (all five T groups combined), hypothesis 2 was strongly supported. Examination of the self ratings in Table 8 yielded an expected more variable picture of changes than did the GRs. There was a problem with sample size with these data, as due to misread instructions or defensiveness about self- rating, numerous Ps neglected to rate themselves on many of the scales. In many instances, there were only four or five Ps from a given T group responding; thus, extreme scores would tend to greatly affect the means. Neverthe- less, except for three variables (0, DS, DG) the total group data for SRs generally supported hypothesis 2. Ps saw themselves as becoming significantly more constructive about using feedback, more warm and accepting and more powerful and effective in work. They reported a trend towards more positive feelings about themselves and others, more self disclosure and more activity and expressiveness. Contrary to predictions, they saw themselves as becoming significantly less likely to give data to others, and tending towards less openness and data seeking. Although individual T group data is presented in a later section, it can be said here that self reports, when 80 examined by groups did not support hypothesis 2 nearly as strongly as group reports. Self reports, in fact, were as likely to show decreases on scales as they were to show increases. There was apparently greater upheaval in self ratings than group ratings as the lab progressed. Group reports showed increases across all measures for the total group (ll/12 significant), and most measures (53/60; 16 significant) for the five T groups. For the self reports on the total group, 7/10 measures showed increases (3 sig- nificant), and 3/10 showed decreases (1 significant). In the five T groups, 29/50 self reports showed increases (4 significant), and 19/50 showed decreases (5 significant). Thus, a discrepancy existed between self and group reports in terms of assessing change. This raised the question of whether the Ps saw themselves as decreasing on the measures within-lab, or were merely readjusting their perceptions as the result of the impact of the lab. A different way of presenting this within-lab total group data is reported in Table 9. Here, the percentage of Ps that saw themselves (SR) and were seen by their group (GR) as increasing (+), decreasing (-) or remaining the same (=) on each scale is reported. Ps saw more instances of no movement on the scales than did the groups in their ratings. GRs showed more in- stances of decrease than expected from the g-tests, indi— cating that, although their overall ratings across measures 81 TABLE 9.--Percentage of Ps changing on each scale within- lab. L T 0 DS DG OKS OK SD FB I II III SR = 8 20 18 21 22 38 35 4 0 2 + 48 56 50 60 56 60 64 76 62 66 69 53 GR = 0 6 l l 4 2 4 0 8 0 0 0 came out positively, quite a few individuals were viewed as having changed negatively. What seemed to have happened was that on GRs, the positive changes were much larger than the negative changes per individual, while in the SRs, the amount of negative change ascribed per individual somewhat out-weighed the amount of positive change. Thus, for GRs, on all variables but one (L), more Ps were seen as changing positively on the variables, and the amount of positive change per individual was greater than the amount of nega— tive change per individual. In the SRs, more Ps were seen as changing positively on OKs' SD, FB, I, II, and III; the same amount were seen as changing positively and negatively 82 on OKO; and more Ps were seen as changing negatively on 0, DS, DG. Also in the SRs, considerable percentages of P5 saw themselves as not changing at all on DS, DG, OKs, OKO, SD and FE. Chagges After the Lab Changes reflected by the scales when before and after lab data were examined are reported in Table 10. A one- tailed test of significance was used, as the changes pre- dicted by hypothesis 3 were directional. Increases were predicted for all scales after the lab, except for ICLi where a decrease was predicted (hypothesis 3). Except on ICLfi, Ps reported increased on all scales. They saw themselves as having become significantly more Open, data seeking, data giving, warm and accepting, pow- erful and effective in work, active and expressive, and dominant (significant at P < .15 level and above). They reported a trend towards more positive views of self and others. Inconsistent with the prediction, they reported a small increase on ICLfi. Thus, hypothesis 3 was strongly supported for SRs after the lab. Some interesting contrasts occurred between the Observer reports and SRs. In contrast to the within lab reports where GRs were considerably more favorable than SRs, post-lab observer reports were less favorable than SRs. The perceptions of change recorded by P5 and observers were rather divergent post-lab, with P5 83 mH.vmn+ oH.vono mo. v m n o moo.vouo mooo. v m u m HmHo>OH OOCMOHHHcmHm mm.H 0mm.m| 0mm.Hn +oo.Hu em. on. +eH.HI OHn.H 0mm.H co. 0 mm.H| +mm.H mm. mo. Hm.| mm. om.| OMH.N Oom.H Oom.H H mo. Omv.H woo.o Omm.m Omm.H mm. om. omm.m bmo.m wom.m mm s m o m HHUH UHUH HHH HH H MO MO 00 m0 0 .QMH och Houmm can oHoHoo poms mOHSmmoE so moon> pmouIBII.OH mqmde 84 reporting more positive changes than either Is or Cs. Nevertheless, Is generally supported hypothesis 3 although less well than did Ps. Cs, however, were generally con- trary to hypothesis 3 except for DS and DG. Is supported hypothesis 3 by reporting that they saw the Ps as having become significantly more open, data seeking, data giving, dominant and less loving; and non— significantly more positive towards others, powerful and effective in work and active and expressive. They contra- dicted hypothesis 3 by reporting that they viewed Ps as having non-significantly decreased in positive feelings towards self, and in warmth and acceptance of others. Cs supported hypothesis 3 by viewing Ps as having become sig- nificantly more data seeking and data giving, and non- significantly more open, positive towards others and warm. They did not support hypothesis 3 in their view of P5 as having become significantly less positive about themselves, powerful and effective in work, active and expressive, dominant and more loving. In comparing these post—lab data with within-lab data, Ps have changes from reporting decreases to increases in the communicative process as measured by 0, DS and DG. Other change trends remained in the same direction for Ps. Observer reports paralleled the trends reported by GRs on 0, DS, DG OKO, but contradicted them on OKs, I, II, and III. 85 Table 11 extends the analysis of post—lab data by reporting the percentage of Ps that increased (+), decreased (-) or remained the same (=) on each scale in the pre-post comparison. TABLE ll.-—Percentage of Ps changing on each scale after the lab. ' 0 DS DG OK OK I II III ICLd ICLl s o s h + 57 60 61 43 43 57 66 74 61 47 SR = 26 20 22 21 17 3 2 3 3 2 - 17 20 17 36 40 40 32 23 36 51 + 46 46 51 26 42 46 59 51 62 62 I = 31 28 31 41 19 3 3 7 2 0 - 23 26 18 33 39 51 38 42 36 38 + 39 53 44 38 50 44 36 31 28 44 C = 33 19 33 24 18 3 ll 5 11 3 - 28 28 23 38 32 53 53 64 61 53 The trend for Ps to see the impact of the lab more positively than Observers is evident. Also, Is saw the impact as positive for more Ps than did Cs. In most cases, Is and Cs reported more cases of individuals being unaf— fected by the lab on particular variables. 86 The change scale (Appendix A, p. 161), completed after the lab, gave further information on changes due to the lab. Table 12 shows the proportion of Ps, Is and Cs who checked each point on the three items of the scale. Most agreed that Ps had grown in understanding interper- sonal behavior during and after the lab (item A); and a strong majority thought that Ps had subsequently changed their behavior based on this understanding (item B). This increased understanding was also widely regarded as linked to the lab experience (item C). Ps reported more growth in understanding interpersonal behavior at post test than immediately after the lab (3 = 4.25, p < .005). Hypothesis 5 was supported, as scores clearly fell above point five on the three scales for all three respondents. On item A, very few saw the Ps as having grown none, somewhat or com- pletely in their interpersonal understanding. The consen- sus was that they had increased their interpersonal under- standing more than expected. On item B, the majority re- ported that the Ps had changed their behavior a lot, but did some slipping back. More checked the extremes on this item than on A. The lab was almost never seen to be the whole impetus for change, but in a few (7% of Ps and 10% of Is and Cs) cases it was perceived as irrelevant (item C.) For the majority, the lab was seen as importantly responsible for the change in understanding interpersonal behavior. 87 TABLE 12.--PrOportions checking each point on the change scale. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ITEM A SRl .00 .06 .11 .09 .26 .09 .34 .04 .02 SR2 .00 .04 .02 .09 .13 .17 .28 .23 .04 I .00 .04 .04 .04 .21 .19 .28 .17 .02 C .00 .00 .04 .12 .19 .21 .30 .ll 02 ITEM B SR2 .05 .00 .13 .00 .21 .03 .49 .03 .08 I .11 .00 .11 .00 .13 .00 50 .03 13 C .05 .03 .16 00 .32 .03 .32 .00 08 ITEM C SR2 .07 .00 .10 .00 .47 .03 .33 .00 .00 I .10 .00 .13 .00 .27 .00 .57 03 00 C .10 .00 .10 .03 .63 00 .13 .00 00 Note: SRl refers to changes immediately following the lab. SR2 refers to changes at the post test period five months after the lab. 88 One last measure of change involved the written descriptions. Perhaps because these data relied upon the subjects' initiative, these were among the most incomplete data with forty Is, forty—one Cs giving pre—lab returns, but only thirty-two Is, and twenty-six Cs (plus twenty— eight Ps) reporting after the lab. Before the lab, 35% of the Is, and 59% of Cs wrote "no change"; 55% of Is and 34% of Cs described positive changes; and 13% of Is and 7% of Cs listed negative changes in describing changes Ps had made in the six months period preceding the lab. After the lab, no Ps, 3% of Is and 15% of Cs wrote "no change"; while 97% of Ps, 88% of Is and 77% of Cs described positive changes. Three percent of Ps, 13% of Is and 19% of Cs wrote negative changes in describing Ps since the lab. Clearly, the reports of change were overwhelmingly positive for those who completed these data. These data were examined for any indications that withholding of this information might have adverse impli- cations. No clear evidence was found. In only three cases where the descriptive change reports were missing were there decreases reported for the P5 across the majority of scales. In the other cases of missing data for written descriptions, many times the whole data packet had not been returned, but when it had, the other scales showed consis- tent increases or no clear-cut pattern. ...,D .I.,.I.or ml, ‘4 89 In summary, then, most changes written in response to the question of "how has P changed in his working with peOple" were positive. PeOple tended to report general changes not necessarily directly linked to this question. The "no change" category, used so abundantly before the lab, was infrequently used post-lab. Also, those who completed this information before and after the lab reported sub- stantially more positive changes post-than pre-lab. Figure 5 summarizes the data of those individuals who gave written responses on both occasions. It shows how their responses were categorized each time in terms of no change, positive or negative change. The 'more' and 'less' in Figure 5 refer not to the quality of the responses, but to the actual number of changes categorized as positive or nega- tive. The reports of P5 are not included because no pre- lab written data had been elicited from them. Only one of the twenty-eight Ps reporting post-lab recorded a negative change. The upper third of Figure 5 shows the numbers of P5 who received more positive descriptions post- than pre-lab (twenty as seen by Is; fifteen as seen by Cs). The middle third shows the number of Ps who received more negative descriptions post- than pre-lab (four as seen by Is; seven as seen by Cs). The lower third records the number of Ps who were not seen as changing in the written descriptions pre- to post-lab (seven as seen by Is; five as seen by Cs). 90 PRE POST I 9 no change positive change 11 11 negative change positive change 3 2 positive change more positive change 6 2 positive change less positive change 2 3 no change negative change 1 1 positive change negative change 1 2 positive change no change 0 1 no change no change 1 3 positive change positive change 5 1 negative change negative change 1 l Fig. 5.--Comparison of written change reports pre- and post-lab. These written changes were not limited to one per person. On the pre-lab data, 33 positive changes were re- ported by Is on 22 Ps; 23 positive changes were reported by Cs on 14 Ps; 9 negative changes were reported by Is on 5 Ps; and 3 negative changes were reported by Cs on 3 Ps. Post-lab, Is reported 64 positive changes on 28 Ps, and 6 negative ones on 4 Ps; Cs reported 34 positive changes on 20 Ps, and 7 negative ones on 5 Ps; and P3 reported 79 positive changes on 27 persons, but only one negative one. Thus, both the number of positive changes, and the number of Ps reported as showing positive changes increased post- lab. 91 Table 13 reports the proportions of positive changes falling into the various categories. These are the cate- gories reported by Bunker and Knowles (1967), and printed in Appendix A, p. 173, p. 174. TABLE l3.--Proportion of descriptive changes in each change category. Intimate Colleague Participant Categories PIE-‘_—1Tfifif Pfe—“‘Tfififif POSt A15 .12 .27 .22 .21 .20 Alr .00 .05 .04 .09 .05 Alu .00 .00 .04 .00 .01 A2 .00 .02 .13 .06 .04 A3 .06 .05 .00 .03 .09 A4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 A5 .03 .02 .00 .00 .00 A6 .00 .02 .09 .09 .03 A7 .03 .09 .00 .03 .03 B1 .12 .03 .04 .06 .01 B2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 B3 .21 .13 .04 .18 .09 B4 .03 .06 .09 .03 .06 B5 .00 .05 .00 .00 .03 B6 .09 .11 .09 .03 .09 B7 .03 .05 .04 .03 .04 B8 .09 .06 .17 .15 .19 C1 .09 .02 .00 .03 .01 Unidentified .03 .02 .00 .00 .00 After the lab, Ps, Is, and Cs all saw the most change coming in Als--the sending part of communication. Ps also rated insight into self and role (B8), sensitivity to others' feelings (B3), self confidence (B6), and risk I-.-_c 92 taking (A3) high. The other frequently used categories for Cs were B3, B8, self control (A6), and the listening aspect of communication (Alr); and for Is they were B3, B6, and warmth (A7). Thus, the main changes described fell into the descriptive categories of more Open and com— municative, more aware of self and one's role, and more sensitivity to others' feelings. Verbatim accounts of these written descriptions of change are not included in the data inventory as confiden- tiality of reports had been promised to both participants and observers. These data, however, included much richer descriptions of the changes observed than are portrayed by the category analysis. Many were moving accounts of impor- tant personal changes experienced by participants and ob- served by intimates or colleagues. These accounts cannot be presented in full, but selected examples of the kinds of changes frequently described follow. Examples of com- municative changes (Als, Alr) were: "more open and less reserved, verbalize feelings and share more openly, more open in expressing feelings about others, more open in saying what is on my mind, more direct and honest, a new freedom in expressing feelings, listen more attentively to what is being said, listen more intensely and empathically, more willing to listen to what others are saying." Changes in working and relating with others (A2) were described with such phrases as: "better able to relate to others, 93 relate to others more effectively, more willing to discuss disagreements." Risk taking (A3) was illustrated by: "much more prone to speak up in dissent, more honest with others even at the personal risk of being rejected or mis— understood, less fear of confronting others with negative data, less hesitiant to disagree." Changes in self control (A6) were typically expressed as: "better self control of emotions, not getting upset so quickly." "Experiences others more fully and accurately, more aware of other peOple and their feelings, more understanding, more sensitive to others' responses, understand and feel others' emotions much more" were all classified under sensitivity to others' feelings (BB). The self confidence category (B6) included descriptions of feelings of increased self-esteem and self worth as well as confidence in one's abilities and ideas. The category of comfort (B7) included increased comfort with intimacy, authority, and new peOple and situations. The category of insight into self and role (B8) covered the most diverse descriptions of change. Personal changes described under this category included "increased awareness of self, became acutely aware of my passivity, of the way people in groups perceived me and of my reliance on posi- tion; more sensitive and aware of her need for husband and marriage; understands self better and has set some specific goals, more aware of how he reacts to peOple and they to him." The job changes also covered under B8 included the . fl .0 liar-In... I»! Fin): 8an .3? un. 44. til. i.- 94 assuming of more responsibility in jobs, adjusting better to job demands, functioning more effectively on the job, receiving promotions and coping with new demands and new roles. The global judgments of change (Cl) included such changes as divorce, going into therapy as the result of a change process stated at the lab, specific personality changes that could not be subsumed under the other cate- gories (i.e., "has gone from a dependent to a more inde- pendent type"), weight loss and "new person" descriptions. In summary, with respect to the descriptive change reports, it can be said that hypothesis 4 was strongly supported as predominantly positive changes were described and more such changes were described after the lab than before. The three sources tended to agree on their per- ception of these changes, although both intimates and col- leagues reported more negative changes than did partici- pants. Longitudinal Change Picture The shifts in how Ps perceived change from within—lab to post-lab, along with the unexpected decreases in SRs within-lab led to further data analysis. Pre-lab and day 2 data, pre—lab and day 7 data and day 7 and post-lab data were compared to get a longitudinal picture of change. Two- tailed tests of significance were used because a prior pre- dictions had not been made. Table 14 shows these 95 three analyses. Examination of Tables 8, 10 and 12 shows the emergence of a pattern. The first time data was col— lected after the pre-lab base line measures was on day 2 of the lab. Scales tend to record decreases from pre-lab to day 2, indicating that Ps saw their behavior more nega- tively at the beginning of the lab than one month previously. Group reports at day 2 were also lower than observer reports before the lab. Moving to the seventh day of the lab, it has already been shown that in comparison with day 2, GRs showed increases, and SRs tended to show decreases (Table 8). However, when day 7 and pre—lab data were compared, clear-cut decreases across all scales were reported. It appears that both Ps and their observers were rating quite high before the lab, but that the Ps had begun to lower their self perceptions by day 2. The decreases in SRs when day 2 and day 7 data were compared could be showing this continuous reevaluating of self perceptions within the lab. GRs in contrast were possibly able to record increases within-lab because their perceptions were more stable (based on more data), and not biased by initially high ratings. Increases across all scales were found in the day 7 with post-lab comparison, indicating that the change process continued beyond the lab. 96 COmHHmmEoo QMHlumom m> 5 web mumOHocH OmHm comHHmmEoo n Hop HoemH: oumoHocH COmHHmmEoo m OH. mo. moo. mooo. VVVV 04040404 III!" (030'!) HmHo>OH MOCMOHHHcmHm .an on» Houmm moHoom Hoann oumoHUsH obu co mosHm> o>HuHmom m> mum on» no mosHm> o>Hummoz moo m> one map so mosHm> umouiu o>Hummozll.ouoz .de och ouowon moHoom HosmHn .QMH osu oHoHon monoom nom.o coo.m em.o noo.o- coo.~- mm.H- who.o- mmo.m- ooo.H- HHH nHo.m moo.m oHH.m omo.m- nmo.m- oo.- omo.ou oom.m- oo.H- HH oom.m omo.~ ooo.H ohm.m- omo.m- oH.u mmo.m- moo.o- omo.H- H nom.o 0Hm.m omo.H on.m- om.H- HH.- OHomo. ooH.m- mm.H on noo.m NN.H coo.m oom.mu om.- oo.- nos.o- om.H- on. ma noo.m oHo.H noo.o coo.m- om.H- oo.H- nmo.ou ooo.m- Ho.H- o oimo H-mo mm mo-o mouH mm mouo mosH mm umom m> n mom 5 won m> mum N moo m> mum .OHSHOHQ omcmno HOQHOSHHOGOHII.VH HHmda 97 Comparison Between T Groups Stability of the Measures The stability correlations for the five T groups are presented in Table 15. PDIX was omitted from these calcu- lations of stability and intercorrelations for the five T groups because of the special sample used (two "most liked" and two "least liked" T group members) for that instrument. TABLE 15.-~Product-moment correlations by T groups--group report data. Groups L T 0 DS DG OKS oKO so FB 1 .56C -.09 .46d .26 .51d .79 .36 .17 .07 2 62C .19 .09 -.32 .12 67C .51d .29 .10 3 .35 -.35 .25 .53C .38 .77 .04 .40 .45d 4 .36 .70b .52C .61C .50d .32 .28 .40 .51d 5 .54c .32 .640 .55C .75a 36 .19 .680 .55C Significance levels: a = p < .0005 b = p < .005 c = p < .05 d = p < .10 The five groups showed considerable respect to the stability of the measures. showed the most stability in group 5, followed by groups 4, l, 2 and 3. variation with The measures L, 0, DS, DG, OKs and PB were fairly stable 5'». .4733 "T“‘-—"‘H-_——-Tn.- ~ 98 across groups, while T, OKO, and SD were quite unstable across groups. Stability correlations were not computed for self reports in the five T groups because of the small sample size in most instances. Intercorrelations Among Measures The correlation matrices for the five T groups are presented in Appendix B, p. 183 to 187. For all five groups, more intercorrelations were significant at day 7 than day 2, 5 indicating greater consistency in rating as people became more acquainted. Table 16 shows a comparison between the t intercorrelation matrices of the five T groups. Group 5 clearly showed higher intercorrelations among the measures, followed by groups 4, and 1, 2, then 3. The numerous negative and non-significant correlations on day 2 tended to diminish by day 7 in all groups. Negative cor- relations in the five groups at both days 2 and 7 mainly involved T, but a few also involved DS, DG, OKSand OKO. Considerable variation existed across the five groups in how each measure was best predicted at day 7. Table 17 shows these patterns of prediction. Scanning across the rows for each group shows which measures were the best pre- dictors. 99 luvllltlll" (Fill... ... oH o o oo ooH on mmsouo HHa m 0 HH mm OOH mo m n o 0 we mm mm v H o m OH mo mm m o o m Hm mo om m H o m oH om Hm H nxm woo h hmo N woo hxm woo n moo N moo mmsouo mCOHumHoHHOO o>Hummoz HCMOHHHcmHm mcoHpmHoHHOO o>HuHmom HCMOHHHcmHm .msoum B comm CH mcoHHMHOHHoo HCMOHchmHm Ho ommucoouomil.OH mHmoH OOCOOHchmHm sumo MGOHOHHHOOGH u x OH. OH.I Oh. mm.H OOO.H mO. x Om.I mm. ON. ON. HN. O HO. NO. nH.H HO.H oOO.N HoOOH Om. om. +H>.H hm. ON.I Om. v Hm. OHn.H OH.H bom.m ohm.m om. mN.H mm. mm. Hm. HO.H OH. m NO UOO H MH H OOO N OOO H OOO H oOm m mm mm on. the H em N Nm ONO H NN H OmO H ON H OmO N OHO HI mm Oh Hm we I NO I H HHH HH H mm 0m 0&0 mmo we mo 0 B H mmsouw .mooum 9 some HOH mmw co Comma mOHSmmoE QmHICHnuHB so mosHm> “mouIBII.mH HHmda 103 Table 19 shows the Eftest values for the self reports on within-lab measures for the five groups. The self re— ports of the five T groups show more of a negative trend than the total group SR data. 0 showed decreases in three groups, DS in three, DG in four, OKs in one, OKO in two, SD in one, I in one and III in three. Only PB and II shOwed no decreases. The SRs from group 2 showed increases on nine scales and decreases on one. Groups 3 and 5 showed increases on 6 and 5 scales respectively, but decreases on 4 and 3 scales respectively. Groups 1 and 4 showed increases on 4 and 5 scales, respectively, but decreases on 6 and 5 scales, respectively. The most positive change was shown on feedback, power and effectiveness in work and interper- sonal warmth and acceptance. There were tendencies towards positive change in positive feelings towards self and others and activity and expressiveness. Data seeking, data giving and openness rather consistently showed negative change. Thus, in summary, the five groups showed variability in assessing within-lab change. GRs tended to support hypothesis 2 across all five groups, while SRs tended to negate hypothesis 2 across the five groups. From the data presented on the five groups, it is apparent that these groups varied considerably despite the fairly consistent trends for the total lab population. Group 5 showed more agreement on the ratings followed by groups 4, 1, 2, and 3. Group 2 reported the most positive ' .. ‘.' ~ -"I. 2‘"_Il‘.x:‘am 104 l OH. v d u w MOoVnqu moo. v d u n mooo. v m u m “mHm>mH mocmoHMHcmHm mo.u ma. om. mm. Hm.H mm. mm. mm.. mH.Hu co. m mm.u mo. ow. ao.H mm. ono.m- mm. 04.: ohm.mn om.n v mH. om. Hm.H no.H om.- pH.u OH.H mn.u mo.H mv.u m mo.H mm em I mm no omm H mo H omo N mm H HUoo m N mo . HUomH Hm H 00 mm . He H mo . Ova H- mm mom H- H O m HHH HH H mm am so so on mm o mmsouo .mdoum B comm How mmm no comma monommoa amalcflzufl3 so mmsHm> pmmulall.ma mqm<9 105 changes within-lab on group reports, followed in order by groups 1, 3, 4 and 5. Group 2 also showed the most in- creases on self reports within-lab, followed by groups 3, 5, l and 4. In terms of change data, group 2 appeared to have been the most effective group, and group 4 the least effective. The inter—group variation was examined further by recording from the complete data inventory which Ps showed increases or decreases across the majority of scales, and which had no clear-cut pattern. Increases were defined as the number of scales showing gains being at least two more than those showing losses. Decreases refered to the number of scales showing losses being at least two more than those showing gains. Table 20 shows the number of P5 per T group classified as increasing, decreasing or balancing gains and losses across the within-lab measures. Group 2, again, showed the greatest gains. The post-lab data were examined for Ps who showed clear-cut increases or decreases across the majority of measures. It was not possible to separate most Ps into either category, because the trend was for Ps to show in- creases on some scales, decreases on others and remain the same on still others. However, twenty-four Ps were iden- tified as reporting that the lab had a decidedly positive impact on them (the number of scales showing gains was at least three more than those showing losses). Twelve of 106 TABLE 20.--Ps patterns across scales within each T group by SRs and GRs. l 2 3 4 5 SR GR SR GR SR GR SR GR SR GR Gained 3 4 6 7 3 7 4 4 3 4 Lost 2 4 l 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 Balanced Losses and Gains 5 2 3 O 3 O 2 3 3 3 these 24 Ps were in groups 5 and 3 (6 each) and 4 came from each of groups 1, 2 and 4. Is identified 15 Ps that they saw as clearly benefitting from the lab. Of these 15, 7 came from group 2, with 2 each from the remaining 4 groups. Cs identified only 8 Ps as clearly benefitting from the lab. Three came from group 1; 2 each from groups 2 and 5; and 1 from group 3. In terms of a majority negative impact, only 3 Ps fell into this category on SRs. Two were from group 1, and one from group 2. Three Ps were identified by Is as decreasing across most scales. One came from group 1, and 2 from group 3. Cs identified 6 Ps as having decreased on the majority of scales. Three were from group 4, and one each from groups 1, 2 and 5. Thus, differential change data by groups was still evident after the lab. 107 The comparison among T groups was tied in with some research conducted on the lab by Hurley (personal communi- cation, 1969). He measured Ps' perceptions of the effec- tiveness of the trainers in their groups. He found that the overall effectiveness ratings that the groups gave their trainers were: 14.5 for group 5, 14.1 for group 2, 13.9 for group 3, 12.8 for group 1 and 12.3 for group 4. His complete findings are found in Appendix B, p. 188. Thus, groups 5 and 2 rated their trainers as most effective, followed by groups 3, l and 4. These results closely parallel the re- sults found in this study showing group 2 to be the most effective group overall, and group 4 the least effective. Obviously, the perceived effectiveness of trainers is an important variable in determining change in the groups. Comparison of Ratings by Different Sources It was hypothesized that self and group ratings would be positively correlated (hypothesis 6). Table 21 shows that all SR-GR correlations were positive, and all were significant except OKO, I and II on day 2, and SD on day 7. Thus, in general, hypothesis 6 was supported, and it was shown that there was considerable relationship between the way an individual rated himself and others in his T group rated him. This relationship was stronger at day 7 than at day 2 on all measures except SD. 108 TABLE 21.--Correlations between self and group ratings within-lab. 0 DS DG OKs 0K0 SD FB I II III SRZGRZ .57a .41C .45b .42b .22 .35b .39b .21 .19 .48b SR7GR7 .76a .53a .73a .43b .32b .17 .47a .42b .27C .74a Note: SR GR day 2 comparison 2 2 SR7GR7 = day 7 comparison Significance levels: a = p < .0005 b = p < .005 c = p < .05 d = p < .10 Positive correlations were also predicted between self and observer ratings, and between the ratings of ob— servers (hypothesis 6). Table 22 shows these correlations. Seven of these sixty correlations were negative, but only one achieved the .05 level of significance. This involved the ratings of Ps and Cs on DG after the lab. More agree- ment was found among the three sources in their ratings before the lab than after. On the twelve scales, P5 and Is had five significant correlations before the lab, and three after; Ps and Cs had seven before and four after; and Is and Cs had seven before and two after. This lessening of agreement after the lab was reflected in the different perceptions of change reported by the three sources. 109 oH. v m u o mo. v m u o moo. v m u a mooo. v m u m umHm>mH mocmoHMHcmHm .wumc QMHIumom ou muwmmu m umHnomndm “camp QMHImHm ou mummmu H umHHomnsm "muoz om. om. mo. oo. om. oo. mm. om. oH.- mo.- NomH b p Q . mom. oom. oom. oo. NH. oo. MH. m~.- oo. oo.. «comm O O O O O O O O O O N N Mmm won ohm Hm mo 00 «H NH no NH H mm om. oo. mm. mm. mo. mm. oH.- mm. NH. om. HoHH m n h n h o I O O O O I O O O O H H nmv gmv Qmm 0mm omm mo om «o Hv MH 0 mm C O O O O O I O O O H H Mum moo wow oH ohm OH vv no I mo I MH H Mm m mHoH oHoH HHH HH H oxo so on mo 0 .mO .mH .mm mo mmcHumu on» macaw mcoHHMHmHHOU an Hmumm m> muommmll.mm mqmde 110 There was considerable divergence between Cs and the other two sources, as has been previously noted. As on the scales in Table 22, there was some disagree- ment among the three sources in their perceptions on the change scale. Ps and Is agreed significantly on all three b 0 items (item 1, .50 ; item 2, .36 ; and item 3, .58a ). Ps and Cs agreed significantly on item 3 (.35b), and item 2 (.27d). They disagreed non-significantly on item 1 (-.l3). Is and Cs showed little relationship in their ratings (item 1, -.O9; item 2, .00; and item 3, .06). Thus, when the ratings of Ps, Is and Cs were compared across all the scales, it appeared that they did not agree as well as predicted in hypothesis 6. Cs, eSpecially, tended to give ratings that were unrelated to either P8 or Is. The incongruity was greatest between the ratings of Cs and Is. These incongruities in ratings signaled different perceptions of change. Referring back to Table 10, it is apparent that the impact of the lab was seen differently by the three sources. Ps reported significant increases on O, DS, DG, I, II, III, and ICLi, and non-significant, but supportative trends on OKS and OKO. Is concurred with P5 on more of these changes than did Cs. Is also saw posi- tive change on O, DS, DG and ICLZ, and to a lesser degree on OKO, II and III. However, they disagreed with P3 on OKS and I by reporting decreases, and on ICLl h by reporting 111 a decrease. Is seem to be describing a distance in inter- personal relationships, and self dissatisfaction with which Ps disagreed. Cs, in turn, picked up a different focus. In contrast to both Ps and Is, they saw Ps as decreasing on ICLg, III, and II. They agreed with Is, but not with P5 in reporting a decrease on OKs. They agreed with Ps, but not with Is on reporting slight increases on I and ICLfi. They supported the positive trend reported by both P5 and Is by reporting significant increases on DS and DG, and slight increases on O and OKO. Pulling this all together, the three sources perceived similar increases in the communi- cative process as measured by 0, DS, and DG. Is and P3 perceived increases in assertiveness and job effectiveness, while Cs perceived decreases (II, III, ICLg). Ps and Cs saw more self-acceptance and warmer relationships, while 1 h! Thus, Ps reported more changes after the lab than were Is contradicted this (I, ICL OKs' OKO). reported by Is and Cs. In general, Is tended to view the lab as having a positive impact for Ps, while Cs tended to report a negative impact. It had been hypothesized (hypothesis 7) that SRs would be higher (but not necessarily significantly so) than the ratings of others, but that these discrepancies would decrease both within the lab, and after. Table 23 presents a comparison of SRs with GRs within-lab. For the total group, SRs were higher than GRs on all measures on day 2 TABLE 23.--T-test values comparing self and group 1J12 reports within-lab. 0 as DC oxs 0x0 so PB 1 11 111 Group 1 d c c c 582882 1.84 .03 2.02 .48 1.10 1.96 2.34 5R7GR7 -2.94C -2.48C 1.24 1.10 2.00c .37 .89 Group 2 . 532632 .95 .41 1.23 .10 -.43 2.30C 2.50c SR7GR7 .34 -2.88C .58 .25 1.11 2.23c .68 Group 3 332882 .75 .55 1.44d 2.11c 1.43d 2.21c 2.32c SR7GR7 -.89 .58 -.11 4.12b 1.51d -.72 .48 Group 4 532532 1.45 3.04c 1.28 2.71c 2.49c 1.73d 2.42° sg7ca7 .24 -1.78d -.15 2.61c -.57 -.04 4.98b Group 5 582882 .40 1.33 .39 1.49 1.50d 1.28 2.41c SR7GR7 2.80c .13 .45 x 1.80d 2.40c 2.18C Total Group 582882 2.38C 1.81c 2.89° 2.87c 2.00c 4.35a 5.436 3.51b 3.17b 2.41C SR7GR7 -.97 -2.33c .53 2.75c 2.15c 1.41d 3.00b 2.08c 1.03 1.84C Note: Positive t values indicate SR higher: negatives ones indicate GR higher. Subscript: 2 and 7 refer to days 2 and 7 of the lab. Significance levels: AAAA .0005 .005 .05 .10 x - insufficient data. _n“—~.~‘4.?:—-;-" A“ Y“ 113 of the lab. This discrepancy generally lessened by day 7 (O, DG, SD, FB, OKs, I, II, III), aside from minor incon— sistencies (OKO, DS). These data confirm the earlier observation that self scores tended to drop by day 7, while group scores tended to increase. Again, there was less uniformity among the five groups. Generally, the trend was for SRs to be higher on a day 2 and to decrease by day 7. The exceptions were: 0 - for group 5; OKS for groups 1, 2 and 3; OKO for groups 2, 3 and 5; SD for group 5; and PB for group 4. The lowering ‘a‘ . of SRs was not consistently reflected in the five groups, as would be expected from the earlier findings about dif- ferentiation in the five groups. Hypothesis 7 stands sup- ported for the total lab population, but not for the five individual T groups. Hypothesis 7 had also predicted that SRs would be higher than observer reports, but had made no prediction about whether Is or Cs would rate higher. We have already seen in the overview comparison of pre-lab means that this hypothesis was not supported. Table 24 reports the test of significance of the differences noted in the overview, as well as post-lab differences. A two—tailed test of significance was used in comparing Is and Cs, and a one— tailed test for the P-I, and P-C comparisons. 114 ii'i.li"uu'!c§lw '1’ . 0H. mo. moo. mooo. VVVV 040.4040.- .umcch U .mmco mdem> u m>HuHmom .COmHummEoo UIH 0:» CH U 0 Q m "mHm>mH OUCMOHwHQmHm m>Humwmc com .Hmann H mumoHch .mGOmHHMQEoo 01mm mam .H-mm wnp CH umcmHn 0 com H mumoHch mmsHm> u m>Hummmc cam .mm mpmoHch mmsz> u m>HuHmom umpoz NN.H- mo.- Nm. mo.- om. mH.- mo.- oH.- onm.N- mo.- NoNH . O O O . O . O C O H H o0 - ooo N- on N- oo - No Hm No - omm H- URN m- omo H- o H mo.H- No.- om. UmNN- oN.- oo.- mo.- omo.H- omo.N- HN.- Nonm 0 O O O . O O . . O H H NH ooo N- woo m- mNN m- oom H- NH - oN - omo H- moH o- on H- o mm oo.H oN. oo. UHH.N- mo. Hm.- on.H mo.- NN. NN.H- NHNmm om.- oo.- omo.H- nNo.N- 0mo.N- mH.- om. oo.- oo. MN.- HHHmm a m o HHoH oHoH HHH HH H so so on mo 0 .QmH wan Hmuwm Ucm mnowmn muuommu Hm>ummno 6cm MHmm mcHHmmEoo mdem> anon-BI-.vm mqmds ‘IIE’,"?I 30‘ linll.\d!v‘nluu.flb m”.,l|'! u‘ 4" V 115 On no pre—lab measure were SRs significantly higher than those of Is or Cs. Is and Cs clearly tended to give higher ratings than Ps before the lab, especially Cs. This trend was significant for Is on I, II, III, and non— significant on 0, DG, OKO, ICL. Only on DS and OKS did the ratings of Ps marginally exceed those of Is before the lab. Cs rated significantly higher than Ps on O, DS, DG, I, II, III and ICLg, and non-significantly higher on OKS and OKO. Only on ICL; was trifling. Post-lab, the discrepancies between SRs and did Ps rate higher than Cs, but the difference observer reports tended to diminish. However, the over- all picture was still one of both observers rating higher than Ps. Cs tended to rate higher than Is at both times. Hypothesis 7 was only partially supported in relation to the reports of Ps and observers. It was not supported in that SRs were not higher than observer reports. It was generally supported in that the discrepancies between P5 and observers, and between the two observers tended to diminish after the lab. Hypothesis 7 was more supported on the change scale data. On this scale, the reports of P5 exceeded those of Is (E = 2.67, E < .05), and Cs (E = 2.42, p < .05) on item 1. Ps rated higher than Is (E = .98, non-significant), and Cs (E = 1.80 , E < .10) on item 2. Ps also rated higher than Is (5 = 3.31, p < .01), and Cs (3 = 4.89, p < .001) 116 on item 3. Is rated higher than Cs on all three items (on item 1, E = 2.06, p < .05; on item 2, E = 1.36, non- significant; and on item 3, E = 2.82, p < .01). Thus, Ps saw the most change, followed by Is, then Cs. This trend was consistent across all measures. On the descriptive change reports, there was general agreement both on the categories used, and amount of change reported. There was also agreement on seeing most of the change as positive. Is and Cs saw more instances of 'no change' than did Ps. Is and Ps reported more positive changes than did Cs, as well as more changes per person. The descriptive change reports showed the most congruity among the three sources. Negative Impact and Missing Data Cases The data for those few Ps for whom the lab apparently had a negative impact were given special attention (three as described by Ps, three by Is and six by Cs). Nothing particularly outstanding was found in the available data about these Ps. There was no significant trend for them to view themselves, or for their T group to view them, as decreasing across the majority of scales within the lab. however, the pre-lab data showed tendencies for more scales to be rated low than high, especially on the ICL and OK scales. Whether this trend statistically separated these negative impact cases from the other P5 was beyond the scope of this study. 117 A similar pattern was found when the data was examined for those Ps on whom there was missing data post-lab. Where the missing post—lab data corresponded to missing pre-lab data, not much could be deduced except uncooperative P5 or observers. For cases where data was missing only after the lab, some were easily explained by death, moving away or entering therapy. For the remainder, there was no dis- cernible trend for the Ps to have had clearly positive or negative experiences within-lab. However, on pre—lab data, a number of low scores across measures, the ICL and OK scales in particular, was noted. Hypothesis Summary Hypothesis 1. Supported. Hypothesis 2. Supported for GRs for the total group, and the five T groups. Not supported for SRs in the five T groups, and partially supported for SRs in the total group. Hypothesis 3. Generally supported for Ps, but less so for Is and Cs. Hypothesis 4. Clearly sustained. Hypothesis 5. Clearly sustained. Hypothesis 6. Supported for self and group reports. Only partially supported for self and observer report. 118 Hypothesis 7. Supported for total group data within— lab, and less so for the five groups. Not supported for self and observer reports, except in a lessening of discrep- ancies. DISCUSSION The results demonstrate that the lab participants generally made gains in their communicative processes, interpersonal relationships, and job effectiveness which seem attributable to the intensive eight day human rela- tions training lab. Many of these changes were maintained for as long as five months after the lab. The evidence of change was somewhat more complex, however, than had been anticipated. The revealed changes proved highly contingent upon both the source of data and the specific variables and measures utilized. No simple summary of the findings will suffice. All hypotheses were not substantially supported, and some interesting additional findings emerged. Many of the findings were congruent with the findings of other studies. Self reports were found to be more con- gruent with group reports at the end than beginning of the lab, and group ratings revealed more change in the partici- pants than did self reports (Burke and Bennis, 1961). The lab was found to have an almost uniformly positive valence for the lab participants after the lab (Campbell and Dun- nett, 1968; Stroud, 1959). Outcome studies with training labs have most consistently shown changes in communication, 119 120 understanding human behavior, sensitivity to others, self awareness, and job effectiveness (Bunker, 1965, 1967; Camp— bell and Dunnett, 1968). This study concurred with these findings by reporting positive changes in communication, relational facility, self and interpersonal awareness, interpersonal sensitivity and job effectiveness as measured by the change scale, the descriptive change reports and the scales. Most within-lab studies have found the main changes in the communicative process; namely, feedback and openness or self disclosure (Miles, 1958; Lippitt, 1959; Gibbs and Platts, 1950). This study found the most change in feed— back, with self disclosure also showing considerable change. Bennis (1967) found that participants recorded decreases in describing interpersonal behavior during a lab, and offered the explanation of increased sensitivity to one's roles, rather than actual behavioral decreases. A similar expla— nation will be offered for the decreases in self reports found within-lab in this study. One goal of this study was to investigate the utility of several measures for human relations training research. The various measurement scales used in the study appear to have functioned satisfactorily in terms of achieving good within-lab reliability, as well as over the six months period of the study. Also, scales measuring similar vari- 1. h! generally intercorrelated highly, yielding evidence of ables (O and SD; FE and DS, DG; I and ICL III and ICLg) 121 construct validity. Although the measures were generally found to intercorrelate positively, they showed differ- ential ability to predict day 7 scores from day 2 ratings. The more complex measures (ICL, PDIX) were seen to be more stable and predictable than the simpler rating scales con- structed for the study. Although O and SD, and PB and DS, DG correlated highly and were supposedly measuring similar variables, they behaved differently. SD and FE tended to be more stable, probably because of the more complex struc- ture of the scales such that each point on the scales was precisely defined. The 0, DS and DG scales gave the respon- dent more freedom in interpreting the points on the scales, and hence likely produced more variability. These three scales (O, DS, DG) seemed to reflect best the direction of the change process. They showed clear decreases within— lab reflecting the shake-up process, and clear increases post-lab reflecting positive change. It was anticipated that possibly the OK scales would not discriminate well (i.e., everyone might rate on the upper end of the scale). Surprisingly, this proved untrue, as the measure was able to detect change, and worked rather well. A possible question concerning the measures and the change process involves the issue of whether the changes reflected by the measures were the result of the partici- pants learning the terminology of the measures and becoming aware of what changes were desired in the course of the lab. 122 This question also would extend to whether the observers were describing desired rather than actual changes since they were aware of the participants' involvement in the lab, and would likely be familiar with the changes asso- ciated with human relations training by reading the popu- lar literature. There are several contraindications in the data to such an explanation of the findings. Participants described changes within the lab which are not in accordance with desired change (i.e., less Openness, data seeking, data giving, and minimal changes on positive feelings about self MTVVRW'IW ”W' and others, self disclosure and activity and expressiveness). Post-lab, changes across measures were not all uniform, suggesting that people were not responding in accordance with some preconceived model of desired change. Also, changes such as decreases in positive feelings towards self, love, dominance and activity, and minimal changes on several other variables are not what would be expected if the re- spondents were rating to approximate a desirable picture of change. Lastly, the written descriptions of change had a feeling of emotional involvement and honesty that precludes an explanation of the findings that suggests changes were the result of some form of positive response bias. 'Liking' was not found to contaminate the measures when it was averaged across groups. However, it was found to greatly affect the ratings on the extremes of the liking continuum. With middle rankings omitted, individuals 123 liked best clearly received notably higher PDIX scores than those liked least. This finding stood out more as the lab progressed, and friendship bonds between individuals strengthened. It remains unclear whether individuals are rated high because they are liked, or are liked because they rate highly on the variable or whether these are interacting processes. The influence of liking on ratings should be investigated in further research. A second area investigated vans the change perceived in the lab participants within and after the lab. When the results relevant to the hypotheses of change were examined, it seemed that two different processes were being measured. One was the process we had hoped to measure, namely, the increases on the variables investigated. The other was a re—evaluation and adjustment of perceptions based on seeing one's impact on others. The two processes seemed to inter— act in such a way that data often appeared inconsistent and difficult to integrate. Looking first at the within- lab data, we saw that the group reports uniformly supported the hypothesis of positive change. Examination of self reports and a longitudinal look at the data underlined the need for assessing change at several different points, and having more than one data source. The within-lab self re- port data were quite inconsistent. Some scales showed in- creases, while others showed decreases, with the overall trend being towards decreases. Scales which correlated )1“ L _' “-iav 124 positively sometimes registered opposite changes. Decreases were most evident on the least stable measures (O, DS, DG). However, the decreases cannot be attributed to instrument problems alone, because they occurred across all scales. An eXplanation of the within-lab decreases on self reports seems to lie in relating the within-lab data back to the pre-lab data. Self reports were quite high before the lab, , possibly because individuals wanted to appear favorably to the lab staff, or possibly because individuals generally err positively on self ratings. The trend was for the self ratings to decrease once the individual got to the lab, so that scores on all scales were lower on the second and seventh days of the lab in comparison with pre-lab. One of the re- sults of a T group is that individuals learn to describe themselves in a way more similar to the descriptions of others in their group. We saw this in the increase in self- group correlations at the end of the lab. This change seems to involve a lowering of self perceptions from perhaps an unrealistic high before the lab's impact. The lowering of self perceptions probably also reflects the changes produced by adjusting to a new reference group-—one that is striving to belxnuxflzand authentic in their perceptions of self and others. The fact that the greatest within—lab changes occurred on the feedback scale suggests that receiving data about one— self from others was a central happening in the groups. 125 This feedback process apparently allowed the individuals to align their self perceptions more with the group consen— sus. The negative and positive changes recorded by partic— ipants within-lab can be viewed as different degrees of readjustment of perceptions as a result of feedback, rather than behavioral changes per se. It seems to be evidence of the "unfreezing" process described by Miles (1958). Entering the lab and finding oneself among a completely different reference group is sometimes experienced as a variant of "cultural shock" by participants. They have no secure and comfortable relationships as they have back home, and are being asked to let down their defenses and drop whatever masks or facades are familiar to them; hence the "unfreezing" process where perceptions are altered and related to the new reference group. In summary, the impact during the lab experience for the individual was apparently one of receiving feedback about his behavior from his fellow T group members, and then readjusting his perceptions of himself to be more con- gruent with this feedback. As reported by the individual participants, this experience was something of a shake-up or unfreezing process, entailing both positive and negative shifts. As reported by average scores from the T groups, however, the overall influence of this experience resulted in general positive changes on all measures, although several individuals were seen as showing decreases. 126 The group reports catch less of the upheavel process than do the self reports. The hypotheses did not adequately take this unfreezing process into account in attempting to assess change. Moving to the post-lab data, again the two facets of change complicated the picture. Five months removed from the lab, the upheaval in self perceptions apparently had subsided, and the participants were looking back on the lab favorably, and reporting the kinds of changes hypothesized. Intimates tended to underline the changes reported by par- ticipants, while colleagues tended to negate them, except for gains in the communicative processes. Since partici- pants seemed to have nearly uniform positive reactions after a lab, an objective assessment of what changes have actually taken place must attend to both the highly posi- tive self reports, and the somewhat less positive observer reports. An important finding relevant to the change data was that averaging across measures and groups obscured some important individual data. For instance, although group reports showed positive change over all measures within- lab, several individuals were reported as showing decreases on the various measures. More such decreases were evident in the within-lab self reports. Although most participants reported that the lab had been a positive experience for them, examination of individual post-lab data showed that 79$ 3" £1"- 127 the typical participant gained, lost, or remained the same on approximately equal numbers of scales. Very few re- ported gains across the majority of the scales. Since the change data across variables resulted in generally positive movement, the gains made on the average were larger than the average losses. However, looking exclusively at that facet of these data obscures the fact that some losses did occur in individual participants. This study, although noting these casesvflunxaseveral losses occurred, was not able to find sufficient clues in the data to identify these individuals meaningfully pre-lab, or to ascertain what hap- pened differently to them within-lab. It was noted that individuals who showed several losses post-lab had tended to receive below average pre-lab scores, especially on the ICL. One can speculate that these individuals who made negative or minimal changes were so submissive or withdrawn that they did not become sufficiently involved in the group to change. (Sherwood, 1965, has noted that involvement is important if change is to occur.) Or, they may have interacted in a hostile manner and been rejected from the group, and hence, again not become sufficiently involved to change. More research is needed to identify these negative impact cases. Another interesting finding concerning the change data was that measurement scales and written descriptions yielded rather dissimilar pictures. The descriptive change reports were quite positive by all three sources, yet the colleagues 128 reported losses across several of the rating scales. Col- leagues reported communicative, interpersonal, and job improvements in their descriptive change reports, but only communicative changes showed significant gains on the ten scales. Possibly, people feel hesitant to write out nega- tive perceptions, whereas they will record them on a scale where it seems more impersonal. An alternative is that the scales were not sufficiently sensitive to reflect the kinds of changes which were expressed in written words. The findings that the five T groups behave differently and recorded different amounts of change points out the need for research on group composition that was not part of this study. Along with the variable of group composition, trainer variables, and trainer-participant interaction variables appear to affect the differential functioning of the groups. This study did find that the effectiveness of the groups, in terms of gains shown on the variables, was positively related to how effective the trainers were per- ceived by their group. We have also speculated that sub- missive and hostile members may not gain in the group. Future research should endeavor to highlight the factors of group composition and the kinds of inter—trainer and trainer—participant interactions which lead to successful group experiences. 129 The third area of investigation was the comparison between the self perceptions and the perceptions of others. The difference between self and group reports has been mentioned. The self reports appear to reflect a shake-up or unfreezing process that the individual undergoes in re- adjusting his high pre-lab perceptions to be more congruent with the feedback he receives from his new reference group. F The group sees the individual as making gains on the varia- bles studied through this shake-up and feedback process. Although the theoretical formulations emphasized the feed- back process and changes in self perceptions, its effect on the individual within-lab ratings was not fully anticipated. A very important finding was the lack of agreement between self and observer reports, especially, self and colleague reports. Considerable research involves only self report data, but the present findings underline the limitations of that approach. More convergence was found between ratings pre- than post-lab. It was noted that all three sources rated quite high pre-lab. If the partici- pants were rating high to appear favorably, it is likely that they chose observers who would also rate them favor— ably. If so, they apparently did a good job, because, con— trary to prediction, the observers, especially colleagues, rated even higher than participants. These observer ratings, especially colleagues, were so high pre-lab on many scales that little room was left for post-lab gains. Some differences 130 could be expected between intimates and colleagues because they have different types of relationships with the partic- ipants. It is likely that the participant-colleague rela- tionships would be more distant and casual than the participant— intimate relationships. However, quite distinct differences were found between the perceptions of intimates and colleagues. Participants and intimates essentially converged in their a pre—lab perceptions, and in their perceptions of post-lab 9 changes. Intimates diverged from participants in their i perceptions of post—lab changes in seeing the participants g ? as having become less warm and accepting, loving and less positive about themselves than reported by participants. These findings were hinted at by comparable pre-lab dis— crepancies. They could reflect negative or ambivalent feelings which intimates (mainly spouses) might have about the participants' involvement in the lab without them. Intimates may feel both left out and threatened by possible or fantasied changes or involvements that participants may have at the lab. Intimates"viewsnmy'also reflect ambiv- alencies about the reported changes by participants towards more assertiveness, dominance and expression of anger. The decrease in positive self feelings (OKs) reported by both intimates and colleagues may reflect a viewing of the par- ticipants as having more authentic self perceptions, and hence more openness to their negative attributes post-lab. This may have also resulted in more expression of 131 negative affect. The fact that the participants reported gains on this scale may reflect a different interpretation—— they may have been reporting positive feelings about them- selves (self satisfaction) because they had been able to make such changes. Colleagues, as mentioned, had widely divergent per— ceptions from both intimates and participants. Pre-lab, colleagues rated higher than the other two sources. They also presented a kind of "nice guy" image of the partici- pants, describing them as very "other-oriented,’ and not too dominant or assertive. There is a question of why colleagues would rate so differently from intimates. The intimates, having closer relationships to the participants, may have felt less obliged to rate the participants as "nice guys," especially considering their ambivalent feelings about the lab. The colleagues in this study, considering that most of the participants were involved in school- related jobs, were largely school personnel. Since the pre- lab data were collected during summer vacation, it is very possible that the colleagues were relatively out of touch with the participants. Hence, lacking immediate data, they may have rated the participants in a manner that they felt would help the participants out-—thus, the "nice guy" image. Post-lab data were collected about mid-year when the col— leagues would be having intensive contacts with the partici— pants. Thus, they may have been able to rate more 132 realistically, both because they had more data available, and because the lab was past. Colleagues' post-lab ratings, then, possibly represent an adjustment in ratings with the same effect (picture of decreases) shown when the partici- pants re—evaluated their perceptions within-lab. It is interesting to note that if the colleagues' post-lab findings are attended to without a comparison with their pre-lab ratings, or the ratings from other sources, a picture emerges similar to that cited by Opponents of lab training (Campbell and Dunnett, 1968; McNair, 1957). What emerges is the picture of lowered dominance, activity, assertiveness, aggressiveness, job effectiveness and in— creased self doubts. The fact that this picture can be somewhat invalidated by comparison with the reports of others, and other kinds of data from colleagues (change scale, and written descriptions) points out the need for multiple mea— sure and multiple observers. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the results are difficult to integrate and generalize. One reason seems to be that the hypotheses of change were too simple to account for the complex and intricate process of change generated by human relations training. It was speculated that the main impact of the lab would be in the communicative process; namely, individuals would learn to be more open and self disclosing, and would learn to ask for, listen to and use feedback constructively. Through this 133 process, the individual would be able to move towards better interpersonal relationships (more warmth, acceptance of others, activity and expressiveness, accessibility to feelings, and positive feelings towards self and others) and increased job effectiveness. It was assumed that these changes could be measured within the lab and after by in- \ ..__-' creases on the scales used. It had not been anticipated that the reports of self and others would differ substan- tially. The results suggest a more complex process. The VET. W; mmfiflm‘itwaig—Ifii ‘1 main contaminating factor was that people have different perceptions and these discrepancies were much larger than expected. One of the functions of the lab was to "shake- up or unfreeze" the individual's self perceptions. This also complicated the within-lab change findings. A third complicating factor was the high and often contradicting ratings of observers. This caused the post-lab change data to be non-uniform. Considering all factors, probably the reports of intimates best reflect what change took place. The findings plainly suggest that, by the measures used, most participants benefitted importantly from the lab. Also, lab participation provides considerable "shake- up" for the individual. Changes continued beyond the lab, and after returning home, most participants felt that the lab had been a positively meaningful experience. They felt more open and effective in their communicative process, more effective in their interpersonal relationships, more 134 positive about themselves and others, and more effective in their jobs. Both intimates and colleagues agreed with the communicative changes, and intimates tended to agree with the other changes. It was speculated that ambiva— lencies about the lab colored the intimates' assessment of interpersonal changes. Colleagues stood out as distinctly % V L 'u A 181‘ different in their perceptions. This was explained by an adjustment of ratings process similar to that undergone by L participants within the lab. Although the reports of observers are certainly important, their agreement or dis- agreement with the participants does not alter the impor- tance of the experience for the individual participants. Judgingihxnnthe character of the written reports, the lab stirred up numerous feelings in both participants and ob- servers, the majority of which were distinctly positive. The implications from this study for further research are many. The effect of 'liking' on the ratings received by participants should be explored further to ascertain just how much the ratings are influenced by this variable as well as whether it is the 'liking' or the favorable ratings which come first. The measures should be tested out in further studies to obtain additional data concerning their reliability and validity. The "shake-up" or "culture shock" process needs more careful consideration in eval— uating change. One of the most important findings involved the necessity of multiple observers and measurement of 135 change at several different points. Data from either a single source, or at only one point in time would have yielded highly inadequate and incomplete impressions. If possible, it might be useful to have reports from ob- servers not chosen by the subjects, as well as ones who were unaware that the subject had participated in a lab. This might add a different perspective to the data, although admittedly such observers would be difficult to obtain. Lastly, the results have pointed out that the need for further research into the effects of group composition, trainer variables and trainer-participant interaction variables on the effectiveness of individual T groups. Also, trainers and participants might be matched to achieve more specific changes, depending on which variables are identified as important. W75 if Hit-.‘JI-‘w‘en‘h ' ‘3 E .1 N1 9.!- HAW SUMMARY Fifty participants in an eight day, living-in, human relations training lab, held in the summer of 1968 were studied to explore the effects of laboratory training on communication, interpersonal relationships and job effec- tiveness. Ancillary data were collected from two outside observers (one intimate and one job colleague) for each participant. New measurement scales were tested out. To provide a base-line, data were collected one month prior to the lab from participants and observers. During the lab, somewhat overlapping sets of data were collected within T groups on the second and seventh days. Five months after the lab, data were again solicited from the participants and both observers to provide a follow—up perspective. The new scales used included simple ratings of open- ness, data seeking, data giving, positive and negative feelings about self and others, and more refined ratings of self disclosure and feedback. Harrison's PDIX was used to measure interpersonal warmth and acceptance, power and effectiveness in work and activity and expressiveness. The two principal factors of the Interpersonal Check List (dominance—submission, and love-hate) were also used. Direct ratings of increased interpersonal awareness and 136 . I my 137 resultant behavioral changes, along with subjective de- scriptions of change in interpersonal relationships com- pleted the instruments used in the study. The theoretical basis of the study was that the par— ticipants, during the lab, would change their behavior based on the feedback they received from their fellow T group members. It was thought that positive changes would occur in the communicative process, in interpersonal rela- tionships and in job effectiveness. Hypotheses were for- mulated predicting that the various measurement scales would positively correlate; participants would show gains on the various scales at the end of the lab and post—lab; reports of self and group, and self and observers would positively correlate. The results were divided into three main areas for reporting and discussing the findings: testing of the mea— sures, assessment of participant change, and comparison of change ratings across the different sources. Excellent data collection cooperation was gained as pre-lab data packets were received from 92—96% of the observers and from 96% of the participants. The corresponding post-lab data packet returns were 76-82% for observers and 96% for participants. The measures were found to be essentially reliable, posi- tively related and fairly sensitive to the changes inves- tigated. The more complex measures (ICL, PDIX) revealed greater stability than the rating scales constructed for 138 the study. Among the rating scales employed, the self disclosure and feedback measures proved especially useful. All measures yielded results which would encourage their utilization in similar research projects. The "change" process proved to be more complex than anticipated. Within the lab, a "shake-up or unfreezing" process, perhaps akin to "culture shock" complicated the i investigation of within-lab changes on self report data. Participants seemingly experienced an "unfreezing" process early in the lab, perhaps generated by the feedback from fellow T group members, with a resultant modification of self perceptions. Thus, both increases and decreases were recorded on self reports within-lab. The group reports, being averaged across nine fellow T group members for each participant, reflected less of the shake-up process, and showed increases on all scales within-lab. Increases were found for participants in liking by fellow T group members, time as a spare time companion, openness, self disclosure, data seeking, data giving, feedback, positive views towards self and others, interpersonal warmth and acceptance, power and effectiveness in work, and activity and expressiveness. The five T groups seemingly differed in both their internal processes and impact. It was possible to differ- entiate the groups on effectiveness and stability of ratings. The overall positive impact of the individual T group was 139 found to relate positively with the perceived overall effectiveness of the trainers. Five months after the lab, the participants almost uniformly reported positive benefits. Their reports con- curred with all the predicted gains (0, DS, DG OKs, OKO, I, II, III, ICLg, and change scale), and their descriptive change reports were all positive except one. The predicted % decrease on ICL; crease was found. Intimates agreed closely with the gains was not found; instead a very small in- I reported by participants, although the gains intimates re- i ported tended to be smaller. Intimates disagreed with lab participants in reporting decreases in interpersonal warmth and acceptance, love and positive self feelings. These findings were discussed in terms of the intimates' possible general resentment and ambivalence towards the lab based on feeling excluded, or by being threatened by the participants apparently increasing in expressiveness, with its elements of assertiveness, dominance and accessibility of angry feelings. The intimates' reports of lowered positive self- feelings among the participants was seen as possibly re- flecting the participants' becoming more aware and expres— sive of unpleasant affects. Participants, by contrast, showed that they felt positive about their enhanced ability to eXpress such affects. Colleagues' perceptions of change in the lab participants sharply differed from those of both the participants and their intimates. Although minimally 140 agreeing with the gains reported in communication, they reported losses in dominance, activity and expressiveness, job effectiveness and positive feelings towards self. The difference in changes reported by participants, intimates and colleagues was reflected in different patterns of rating both pre- and post-lab. The ratings of observers 3‘ and participants were found to agree less than expected and li_,: contrary to prediction, observers, especially the colleagues, 1 generally rated the participants more favorably pre-lab than S the participants had rated themselves. Participants and i intimates, having closer relationships, tended to concur more often than participants and colleagues, or intimates and colleagues. These highly favorable, but divergent, ratings by colleagues pre-lab were attributed to their having less data available than intimates, but wishing to be helpful to the participants. Hence, they tended to de- scribe the participants as "nice guys." Post-lab, colleagues were probably having more contact with the participants (in most cases participants and colleagues were both employed in the same school system, and the follow-up data were col— lected about mid-year while the pre-lab data had been col- lected during the previous summer break), and thus, rated more realistically. This change in rating procedures pro- duced losses on the scales. Thus, the post—lab reports of colleagues were regarded more as re-evaluations of pre—lab perceptions, and less as reports of actual changes in the participants. 141 The self and T group ratings were more convergent than were the self and observer ratings. Self and group ratings converged more toward the lab end as the self ratings, affected by the shake—up process, more closely approximated group reports. The findings suggest that the lab generally had a highly positive impact upon the participants. There were some instances of negative consequences, but these seemed minimal. Subjective reports, solicited at follow-up, were almost all clearly positive. Losses were confined to the scales. Tentative evidence suggests that the few negative impact cases involved individuals who were either too sub- missive, or too hostile to become actively committed to the T group "encounter" process. Trainer and group effec- tiveness ratings also had some relationship to the negative impact cases. The present findings suggest the desirability of research designs which employ multiple observers, multiple measures and a longitudinal data collection. Further re- search might fruitfully focus on such variables as the specific impact of the group leader(s), or trainer(s), trainer-participant interaction, and group composition on the effectiveness of the T group. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, B. 'Mental illness' or interpersonal behavior? Amer. Psychol., 1964, E2, 191-97. Argyris, C. Exploration in interpersonal competence——I, 3% J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1965, l, 58-83. Dru Argyris, C. Explorations in interpersonal competence--II, é J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1965, E (3), 255-69. ' Argyris, C. On the future of laboratory education, g;_ : Appl. Behav. Sci., 1967, 3 (2), 153-83. ‘ Back, K. W. Interpersonal relations in a discussion group, J. Soc. Issues, 1948, 3, (Bethel 1947), 61-65. Barron, M. E. and Krulee, G. K. Case study of a basic skill trainingwgrouprJ} Soc. Issues, 1948, 3, 10-30. Bass, B. M. Reactions to '12 angry men' as a measure of sensitivity training, J. Appl. Psychol., 1962, 46, 120—24. '— Bass, B. M. Mood changes during training lab, J. Appl. Psychol., 1962, fig (5), 361-64. Baumgartel, H. Report on research: human relations lab- oratory, session I, Bethel, Maine, summer 1960, unpublished manuscript. Washington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, 1961. Baumgartel, H. and Goldstein, J. W. Need and value shifts in college training groups, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1967, 3 (1), 87-101. Benne, K. D. and Sheats, P. Functional roles of group members, J. Soc. Issues, 1948, 1, 41-49. Bennis, W. The relationship between some personality dimensions and group development, unpublished mate— rial. Boston University Human Relations Center, 1956. 142 143 Bennis, W. G. and Peabody, D. The conceptualization of two personality dimensions and sociometric choice, Boston: Human Relations Center, Boston University, 1959. Unpublished typewritten manuscript. Bennis, W. R., Burke, H., Cutter, H., Harrington, and Hoffman, J. A note on some problems of measurement and prediction in a training group, Group Psychother., 1957, E9, 328-41. Ben Zeev, S. Sociometric choice and patterns of member participation, in Stock, D. and Thelen, H. A. (eds.), 55 Emotional dynamics and group culture, Washington D. C.: :4 National Training Laboratories, 1958, Ch. 4, 26-34. " (Bethel, 1951.) Berne, E. Principles of group treatment. New York Oxford : University Press, 1966. ‘9 Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., and Fruchter, B. A factor analysis of training group behavior, J. Soc. Psychol., 1962' gig, 121-30. Bowers, N. D., and Soar, R. S. Evaluation of laboratory human relations training for classroom teachers. Studies of human relations in the teaching-learning process: V. final report. U. S. Office of education contract No. 8143. Columbia University of S. Carolina. Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., Benne, K. D. (eds.). T group theory and laboratory method innovation in re-education. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1964. Buchanan, P. C. Evaluating the effectiveness of laboratory training in industry, Explorations in human relations training and research, report no. 1, 1965. Washington, D. C. National Training Laboratories. NEA. Bunker, D. R. and Knowles, E. S. Comparison of behavioral changes resulting from human relations laboratories of different lengths, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., in press. Bunker, D. R. Individual applications of laboratory training, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1965, E, (2), 131-48. Burke, R. L. and Bennis, W. G. Changes in perception of self and others during human relations training, Human Relat., 1961, E4, 165-82. 144 Campbell and Dunnette. Effectiveness of T. group experiences in mangerial training and develOpment, Psych. Bull., 1968, 19, 73-104. Clark, J. O. and Culbert, S. A. Mutually therapeutic per- ception and self awareness in a T group, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1965, l, (2), 180-94. Culbert, S. A. Trainer self disclosure and member growth in two T groups, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., in press. Eisenstadt, J. W. An investigation of factors which in- a fluence response to lab training, J. Appl. Behav. ‘i Sci., 1967, 3 (4), 575-78. Fiebert, M. Sensitivity training: an analysis of trainer intervention and group process, Psych. Reports, 1968, ~_( g; (pt. 1), 829-38. j 1!,- Foster, B. R. Some interrelationships between religious values, leadership concepts, and perception in group process of professional church workers, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, 1958, 123 pp. French, J. R. P., Jr., Sherwood, J. J. and Bradford, D. L. Change in self identity in a management training con— ference, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1966, g (2), 210-18. Friedlander, F. The impact of organizational training laboratories upon the effectiveness and interaction of ongoing work groups, Personnel Psych., 1967, 20 (3), 289-307. ”’ Gage, N. L. and Exline, R. V. Social perception and effec~ tiveness in discussion groups, Human Relat., 1953, E, Gassner, S. H., Gold, J. and Sradowsky, A. M. Changes in the phenomenal field as a result of human relations training, J. Psychol., 1964, EE, 33—41. Gibb, J. R. Effects of role playing upon (a) role flexi— bility and upon (b) ability to conceptualize a new role, Amer. Psyghol., 1952, 7:310. Gibb, J. R., Smith, E. E. and Roberts, A. H. Effects of positive and negative feedback upon defensive be— 3 havior in small problem-solving groups. Paper read at A. P. A. Meetings 1955. 145 Gibb, J. R. and Platts, G. N. Role flexibility in group interaction, Amer. Psychol., 1950, 5:491. Glidewell, J. C. Changes in approaches to work problems analysis during management training, Washington, D. C.: Second American National Red Cross School for Management Development, 1956, unpublished mimeographed manuscript, 22 pp. (Red Cross, 1956). Glueck, W. F. Reflections on a T—group experience, Per- sonnel, 1968, 41_(7), 500-04. Gold, J. An evaluation of a laboratory human relation training program for college undergraduates, Diss. 5E., 1968, fig (8-A), 3262-63. Gordon, T. What is gained by group participation? Edu- cational Leadership, 1950, 7, 220-26. (Bethel, 1949.) Gottschalk, L. A. Psychoanalytic notes on T groups at the human relation laboratory, Bethel, Maine, Comprehen- sive Psychiatrgy, 1966, l (6), 472-87. Grace, G. L. and Grace, H. A. The relationship between verbal and behavioral measures of value, J. Educ. ReSo’ 1952' 46’ 123—31.. Greening, T. C. Sensitivity training: cult or contri- bution, Personnel, 1964, 3; (3), 18-25. Greening, T. C., Coffey, H. S. Working with an impersonal T group, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1966, a (4), 401-11. hall,LL IL Carl Rogers speaks out on groups and the lacks of a human science, Psychology Today, Dec. 1967, V1 #7. Harrison, R. The Person Description Instrument X, unpublished manuscript. Harrison, R. Cognitive change and participation in a sensitivity training laboratory, J. Consult. Psych., 1966, 39 (6), 517-20. Harrison, R. and Lubin, B. Personal style, group composi— tion, and learning, part I, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1965, l, (3), 786-94. J A... _III 146 Harrison, R. and Oshry, B. Report to SAED of GESAED-BUHRC training study, unpublished manuscript prepared for the Small Aircraft Engine Department of General Electric by the Boston University Human Relations Center, 1965. Horwitz, M. and Cartwright, D. P. A projective method for the diagnosis of group prOperties, Hum. Relat., 1953, E, 397-410. Horowitz, M. W., Lyons, J., Perlmutter, H. V. Induction of forces in discussion groups, Human Relat., 1951, 3, 57-76 a House, R. T group education and leadership effectiveness: A review of the empirical literature and a critical evaluation, Personnel Psych., 1967, Vol. 20 #11, 1-30. Hurley, J. R. and Hurley, S. J. Towards authenticity in measuring self—disclosure, J. Counseling Psychology, 1969' V0]... 16' NO. 3’ 271-74- Hurley, 8. J. Self disclosure in counseling groups as influenced by structured confrontation and interper- sonal process recall, unpublished doctoral disser— tation, Michigan State University. Jenkins, D. H. Feedback and group self-evaluation, J. Soc. Jennings, E. E. Forces that transform a collection into a group, Personnel J., 1956, 3:, 126-30. Jennings, E. E. Today's group training problems: A review and summing up, Personnel J., 1957, 19, 86-9. Johnson, L. K. The effect of trainer interventions on changes in personal functioning through T group training, Diss. Ab., 1967, 31 (12-A), 4132. Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1964. Kassarjian, H. H. Social character and sensitivity training, J. gppi. Behav. Sci., 1965, g, (4), 411—40. Kernan, J. Laboratory human relations training—-its effects on the 'personality' of supervisory engineers, Doc- toral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, New York University, 1963. ‘ 1.. 147 Klein, D. 'I group: opening moments, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., Kolb, D. A., Winter, S. K., and Berlew, D. E. Self directed change: two studies, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., in press. LaForge, R. Research use of the ICL. Oregon Research Institute Technical Report, Vol. 3, #4, Oct. 1963. Lakin, M. and Carson, R. C. Participant perception of group process in group sensitivity training, Int. J. Gr. Psychother., 1964, E3, 116-22. Lieberman, M. A. The influence of group composition on changes in affective approach, in Stock, D., and Thelen, H. A. (eds.) Emotional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. Chapter 15, 131-39. Lieberman, M. A. The relationship between the emotional cultures of groups and individual change, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1958. 200 pp. Lieberman, M. A. The relation of diagnosed behavioral ten- dencies U) member—perceptions Of self and Of the group, in Stock, D. and Thelen, H. A. (eds.) Emo- tional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. Chapter 5, 35-49. Lieberman, M. A. Sociometric approach related to affective approach, in Stock, D. and Thelen, H. A. (eds.) Emotional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. Chapter 8, 71-83. Lippitt, G. L. Effects of information about group desire for change on members of group, unpublished Doctoral Dis- sertation, American University, 1959, 165 pp. (Bethel, 1949.) Lubin, B. and Zuckerman, M. Affective and perceptual- cognitive patterns in sensitivity training troups, Psych. Reports, 1967, EL (2), 365-76. Lundgren, D. C. Interaction process and identity change in T groups, Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, £2 (3-A) 961- 62. 148 Marrow, A. J. Events leading to the establishment of the National Training Laboratories, J, Appl. Behav. Sci., V01. 3' #2, 1967' 144-500 Massarik, F. and Carlson, G. The California Psychology Inventory as an indicator of personality change in sensitivity training, Masters Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1960. Mathis, A. G. Development and validation of a trainability index for laboratory training groups, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1955, 82 pp. (Bethel, 1952.) McNair, M. P. What price human relations, Harvard Business McQuitty, L. L. Elementary factor analysis, Psych. Reports, 1961, 2' ‘71-'78. Miles, M. B. Human relations training: processess and out- comes, J. Counsel ngch., 1960, 1, 301-06. Miles, M. B. Changes during and following laboratory training: A clinical-experimental study, J. Appl. Behav. SCio' 1965’ 3.- (3), 215-420 Miles, M. B. Learning processess and outcomes in human relations training: A clinical-experimental study. In Schein, E. and Bennis, W. (eds.) Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York: Wiley, 1965, 244-54. Miles, M. H., Cohen, S. K. and Whitam, F. L. Changes in performance test scores after human relations training, New York: Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation, Teachers College Columbia University, 1959. Mimeographed manuscript, 35 pp. (Bethel, 1958, and other laboratories.) Monk, M. A. The effect of acquaintance and visibility on group behavior, Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dynamics, The University of Michigan, 1950. Unpub- lished dittoed manuscript, 13 pp. Murphy, M. Esalen--where it's at, Psyghology Today, Dec. 1967, V1, #7. —';,5_,S}' 7! I ‘ht—Ina _ 149 Myers, G., Myers, M., Goldberg, A. and Welch, C. Effect of feedback on interpersonal sensitivity in laboratory training groups, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1969, 5 (2), 175-85 - Norfleet, R. Interpersonal relations and group productivity, J. Soc. Issues, 1948, 1, 66-69. Oshry, B. I., Harrison, R. Transfer from here and now to there and then: changes in organizational problem diagnosis stemming from T-group training, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1966, a (2), 185-98. Peters, D. R. Identification and personal change in lab- oratory training group, unpublished Doctoral Disser- tation, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., 1966. Pollack, H. B. Change in homogeneous and heterogeneous sensitivity training groups, Diss. Ab., 1968, EE Powers, J. R. Trainer orientation and group composition in laboratory training, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Case Inst. of Tech, 1965. Psathas, G. and Hardert, R. Trainer interventions and nor- mative patterns in the T group, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., Rosenberg, M. J. A preliminary report on the relation of personality factors to sociometric position in Bethel groups V and VI, Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dynamics.fflu3University of Michigan, 1951. Unpublished dittoed manuscript. 7 pp. Rosenberg, P. P. An experimental analysis of psycho-drama, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 1952, 41 pp. (Bethel, 1950.) Rothaus, P., Morton, R. B., Johnson, D. L., Cleveland, S. E. and Lyle, F. A. Human relations training for psy- chiatric patients, Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, E (6), 572-81. Rubin, I. Increased self-acceptance: A means of reducing prejudice, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1967, 2, 233—38. im'- a .' I’m—in Mm inflflH-me l . . ’ .1 V ‘2‘ I w‘ 3. a 150 Schutz, W. C. and Allen, V. L. The effects of a T-group laboratory on interpersonal behavior, J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1966, g (3), 265-86. Shepard, H. A. and Bennis, W. G. A theory of training by group methods, Hum. Re1., 1956, 3, 403-14. Sherwood, J. J. Self identity and referent others, Sociometry, 1965, 3E, 66-81. Sikes, W. W. A study of some effects of a human relations training laboratory, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, 1964. Smith, A. J., Jaffe, J. and Livingston, D. G. Consonance of interpersonal perception and individual effective- ness, Human Relat., 1955, E, 185-97. Smith, P. B. Attitude changes associated with training in human relations, British J. Soc. Clin. Psych., 1964, 2' 104-120 Smith, P. B. T-group climate, trainer style, and some tests of learning, unpublished manuscript, School of Social Studies, University of Sussex, England, 1966. Steele, F. I. Personality and the 'laboratory style,‘ J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1968, 4 (1), 25-45. Stock, D. and Ben-Zeev, S. Changes in work and emotionality during group growth, in Stock, D. and Thelen, H. A. (eds.) Emotional dynamics and group culture. Wash- ington, D. C.: National Training Laboratories, 1958. Chapter 21, 192-206. Stroud, P. V. Evaluating a human relations training program, Personnel, 1959, EE (6), 52-60. Taylor, K. F. Some doubts about sensitivity training, Australian Psychologist, 1967, E (3), 171-79. Thelen, H. A. and Dickerman, W. Stereotypes and the growth of groups, Educational Leadership, 1949, E, 109-16. Watson, J. Preliminary report on blacky research, Bethel, 1950, Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dynamis, The University of Michigan, 1952. Unpublished. 1' ”A“. "W..'!I(a 'EL *' I“! .. ‘W,_ Watson, J. The application of psychoanalytic measures of personality to the study of social behavior, paper read at American Psychol. Ass. meetings, September 1953. Unpublished mimeographed manuscript, 6 pp. Watson, J. Some social psychological correlates of per- sonality: A study of the usefulness of psychoanalytic theory in predicting to social behavior, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1953. 238 pp. (’2‘ Watson, J. Personality determinants of behavior in small face-to—face groups, paper read at 36th annual Insti— tute of the Society for Social Research of the Uni- versity of Chicago, May 1959. Unpublished typewritten manuscript, 11 pp. Wedel, C. C. A study of measurement in group dynamics ’ laboratories, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The . = George Washington University, 1957. 149 pp. * Winter, 8. K., Griffith, J. C. and Kolb, D. A. for self direction, Working Paper 245-67, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., 1967. The capacity APPENDICES L3" APPENDIX A Instruments _.__~ '11:“ 1FEMJ3‘HWLW W... i 153 GENERAL BEHAVIOR RATINGS (Pre and Post Lab) Please read the following instructions carefully and rate yourself on the three variables. When making these ratings, try to not confine yourself to thinking only of close or intimate relationships, but also consider how you are in groups, with people at work, etc. OPENNESS: Focus on how much you share your reactions, thoughts, and feelings with other peOple. If you typically offer a very limited or disguised presentation of yourself to others, rate yourself low on openness. If you typically share your- self fully and authentically with others, rate yourself higher on openness. Place an X on the scale below at the point which best illustrates your Openness. OPENNESS: MINIMALLY AVERAGE MAXIMALLY 1000......200.00...03.00.00.004.0000000ISIOOOIOOCO6OIOO0.00-7.0.0.0...800000000.9 DATA SEEKING: Focus on how often you seek to obtain authentic reactions and information about how other people experience you. Consider whether you elicit and encourage the reactions of others to you. Often people block others from providing such feedback by being threatening, being too timid, keeping in the background, or disguising interpersonal difficulties. Place an X on the scale below at the point at which best illustrates your Data Seeking. DATA SEEKING: MINIMALLY AVERAGE MAXIMALLY l.III...002.00.00.0030000000004.0.00.00.50.0000000GIOIO...0.7.0.00000080000000009 DATA GIVING: Focus on how often you give authentic reations and information to others about how you experience them. Consider how often you give feedback to others about how you experience their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. Place an X on the scale below at the point which best illustrates your Data Giving. U DATA GIVING: MINIMALLY AVERAGE MAXIMALLY l.00.....02...0.000.300.00000040000000.05....00.0.6...0.00.07.00.00.008.000000009 .1 fl. 2 154 RATINGS OF BEHAVIORS (Within Lab) You are asked to rate all the members of your group, including yourself, on several different dimensions of behavior using the definitions given below. For some of these ratings, you will be asked to focus exclusively upon the specified behaviors of these persons within this group. In these instances, exclude your impressions of how these peOpIe act elsewhere, including all outside the group con- tacts, whether casual or intimate; also exclude your impressions of how they act "back home." It is essential that you use the full range of ranks permitted (1 through 9) in making each rating. First, think of the individuals who represent the most and least of the described behavior in your group, and assign the extreme numbers (9 and l) to them. Then work from each extreme towards the middle making sure that you assign each number to at least one person in your group, although the same rank may be assigned to more than one person. First of all, rank the members of your group from 1 through 9 according to how much you like them. Above the lines given below, write the initials or first names of all persons in your group, and below this line enter a number from 1 through 9, with 1 indicating the person you like most, and so on up to 9--which indicates the person you like least. Next, rank the members of your group from 1 through 9 according to how much time you have spent with them outside this group. Again, list the initials of all group members in the spaces providedubelow; also do the same for the three subsequent ratings. Then assign a number from 1 to 9 as you did before with 1 indicating the person you have spent the most time with outside the group, and so on up to 9-- which indicates the member you spent the least time with. OPENNESS: Focus on how fully each person has shared, within thisygroup, personal reactions, thoughts, and feelings with the other group members. The emphasis is on ”here and now” interaction, such as how one felt when confronted, challenged, or ignored by others in this group; "back home" experiences, or ”child- hood traumas" are largely irrelevant except when directly related to "here and now" interactions. Persons who have offered very limited or disguised presentations of themselves should be rated low. Those who have fully and authentically shared themselves, should be rated higher. Remember to use the full scale of 1 (minimally Open) to 9 (maximally open). Proceed as before in listing names and ranks, but using the scale illustrated below: OPENNESS MINIMAL . AVERAGE MAXIMAL 10.00.000.200000000.3.0.0....040000000005000IO....6...0.0.0.7..IIOOOOIBOOOQOOOIIQ ....... a 155 DATA SEEKING: Consider how fully each person in your group has sought to obtain authentic reactions and information about how the other group members have experienced them within thisAgroup. One of our goals has been to supply and process fresh information concerning Bow each individual relates to others. How fully has each person sought to elicit and encourage others to share their reactions and views of him? Persons may block others from providing data in many ways, including a threatening manner, being too timid, by keeping in the background, or even by dis- guising their interpersonal difficulties. Again, the focus is on the "here and now," so consider only how fully each person has sought to obtain a better grasp of how he or she relates to others within this group. Please utilize the full scale of 1 (minimal data seeking) to 9 (sought maximal data) as illustrated below: DATA SEEKING: MINIMAL AVERAGE MAXIMAL 1....I...02......0.030.000.0004.IOIOIOOOSOOOO0....6000...0.070.000.0008000010I009 DATA GIVING: Reflect on how fully each person has attempted to give authentic reactions and information to others about how he experiences them within this group. How fully has each person sought to give feedback to others about how they experience their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors? Again, the focus is on ”here and now," so consider only how fully each person has attempted to give others a better grasp of how they experience them in this group. Also remember that sometimes a lot of words tend to be confusing, so persons who are especially clear in their communication may give more data in a few words than others give in many words. Persons who tend to hold back such data should be rated below average. Please apply this measure as illustrated below: DATA GIVING: MINIMAL AVERAGE MAXIMAL 100......I20.I.O.I0.30.....0.04..IDIOOOOSOOOOOIOOOGIO0.00.0070000000008 ...... 0.09 156 SELF-DISCLOSURE RATING SCALE Shirley J. Hurley and John R. Hurley Michigan State University Last Lansing, Michigan The concept of Self—Disclosure with which this scale is concerned is described by Sidney Jourard in The Trans- parent Self (1964). How self-disclosing a person should be rated depends more upon the direction of his perceived motivation and intent than it does upon the number of self- references, amount of verbalization, level of insight, or the apprOpriateness of the self-conception. The person's general behavior, affect, apparent degree of honesty, and sincerity must all be taken into account. For example, a person who constantly talks about him- self in the group may not be a real self-discloser when carefully observed but may be wearing a mask of transparency or playing a "game" of "See how Open and honest I am." Glibness and pseudo self-revealing statements may be nearly as defensive or as self-concealing as complete refusal to talk about feelings. Psychology: social work, and counseling students are often found playing at this game of "dig my great insights." Difficult to rate accurately is the individual who seems to think a lot about his behavior but who Often arrives at very erroneous or naive conclusions about himself. Even if it is obvious that the individual is a long way from knowing or being completely honest with himself, but appears genuinely motivated to move toward further self-discovery, he should be rated in the self-disclosing direction. Obviously no individual is completely transparent and Openly self-disclosing in all situations, but there are some ‘who seem deeply motivated to move in this direction and are almost always willing to examine their thinking or behavior. .An important feature Of this rating scale is the attempt to assess motivation toward "Openness." Please list all the group members, including the .1eader(s) and yourself, in the indicated spaces on the fol- lowing page. Identify yourse1f(S) on the list. Read all 'the rating classifications carefully, noting the distinctions kxetween adjacent categories, before attempting to use them. 'Then place the apprOpriate rating number after each name. 'These ratings are only for descriptive purposes, so please 'try to avoid giving pre-dominantly positive ratings or over- tising the middle positions on the scales. .w.’ -'r;” -‘— u" 157 .Haoo munu nufiz manequN 1500c: museums 30p nHon use ocunoHoawp nudes Ogden pueaou poum>auoE magma: on ou meson canned ecu ucouaduseuu n>e3He uo: nonozu sad .ncowuueuoucw asoum an nuonuo use wave usone saga uHOOu use uuzmsozu weakens nu pc>ao> new >H0>Huue on .m - _dl IA. . W _ _unflrlliliuitEIIIIIDPMUBNW t mzo =Uauoe >~ocwscou «£00m .UEau ou oEwu scum aonu aamu> Ion use aucHHoou :30 sue: uoaucou .huu Ou pHeuwe mcaen mo uo 30: ocaaocx uoc uo use muonuo cuHa oueuHcsE nEOu ou meaucm3 we upsuauue no uoH>mn non Henum>ucoc umcuo no conneudxe an m>0>cou .uewu can auoaxce uo enamOQxe ecu uneaeme emceu sup n no >ua>ummed men: use coHuueumuCu msOum Eouu akeupnuHB @005 CH neuom .h oszoqomHo-aHum o ’P n AZOU QN>AO>ZH .maxu mfinu nouHEoqum wedHoc n»~ad uo>0 hawks: usn “dado: m>eum maucosvouu on: cOuuom ens .mocHHewu HeCOm mama C30 maem>0u >Hmueu usn need those can emcHHoUu laumzuo MON pecueu Icoo use po>~o>cu haoswscmm seven pee :oHuoeuou ncw msoum aw wound IHuHuuum couuo .o .connoudxw HecoHu nose cu 0>Hmcwwwp cezu poanHccH ouch msomm .uuHQOu mums nHuca no nmcHHeou cenu uozueu meadou muse use mmepa ou wawmuea coHuemuw>coo ocHuoHuumeu mpoo HMHUOm a ou quE uu0ucou an pouHEHH nu use HeHcmocoo use acaomuso on he: .uaou nano>ou >Houeu usn canned prcofluu maaacoHucu>cou a mo oHOu ecu axeam .m can ueusu mEomm .uoosm no mm0CHstm .Eonwuon mo mcon immunxo amnum>ncoc ms pe>m>coo :muuo mu museumumach so auwaaumoz .coHumd vaoauuem amauom uHUHHm Ou nuu0uum humanom .muwcuo nuuz ucoew>Ho> and unsaewu omcmu :00 e as auH>Humsd new: use coHuoe tumuca macho EOuu c3mupzua3 pcm uowsq mEmom .m WZHJ¢MUZOUImqmm rdhmm>ou .mmmEDZ mHH mm ULHB ho mMZ<2 0:? mka3 OH 304mm mmu0 .mcoHu uMNHHocoHumu umcuo Lqu :oHuHmom 0>Hm cewmn 30c e mmanH Ineumwneu >onHuw usn .>HHuMucmfioe mumnuo uo mcoHcHdo umwuom was news ou mcowm .mme new ucememad a he poaemucoo >HHnHu than ma mcHxSHCu do sanHon .H wahu cmzu macaboo mmea aw emMEchHom puuwmup e uuwnoum Ou uncuuw use .~ .muocuo mo mmCHHemm no memuH unwoom uo need Ou uoc maven comuom .pHmHu >ue> muwwm unduusuum >uHHm ucOmumd .mHam uuuHceud ceumo one cuHux mason -mumum oerumwep eme no .w~HHec nOHueu .mcoHcHao mmmuaxo hHaow ncHunou nu mEeww .eomEHnunn Umuam use «EOn uoenoud ou unemum moons Ibo cm moxmm .H 158 20 mZOHBHmom QADOHZ ax? NmDmu>O 802 OD 924 mUzHB<¢ m>H8HmOm >APZHU QHO>4 OH rmH .mmmEDfl . 440m chB mBH am DAHHKM & mzo :04” 08 ZUHmm¢ .Amvmaummuoa 02¢ mmuoHeoeu no con .coec ecoHcHdo m.uecuo emeudEH ecu eueeuo nueeu e>wueuec use .e>auueaee hacmwc ou Eu0ucoo Ou >ex .xueuueeu e>wuanom cuoc ou no noses e>uu uecuue .EmHoHuuuo e>Huemec eum>e Ou usaucoaeeu cw ease neaeu en xea eeecu uOu ocuxooH en ou muceu use xoenueew tuHOueou use demo cosocuae .msouu ecu needed we: .xoec e>HuHmod mxeem haesaueaeu useem cw ou0u>ecec 30: uueeu mcHEoocH uo .eoemmeE Heuu .nuecuo ou ocuuea ueeennxuenueeu use coHuesHe>e eHuuHH nceo ecu mchmHE sen cu xoenueeu muu ou uumfieuu< mexez .xoecueeu eHch mucHOQ nocHE uaOHQEe >He>uuueuum .uo«>ecen mac HHe Ou uesnue ou >Hco uso muueHem .quOum uecuusu HON auuuofl ou uH ens ou mudEeuue use .xuec use .xoenueeu xuenueeu wees use neuuu use xoecueeu -ueeu :H ueumeueucu ocHueec cu umeueu .usOnuxoecu .exeee ocuxeen Ou uses uue>o mseem .v Isa eHOm msocm .m aaaecoHuceucH .m uquEoe e esocm .n TIIII'II “i A Ai Al I V I V x .05 0000 .uo«>ecen uauedxe so» exHa .ueueuwo mac emcecu ou uw means >He>uuusuun scou no seduceu tau ecu msam m we eusuHuue e>uuamoa ecu m3ocm .coHue> nHuos use coHudeo them mo hoeusuoe e.ueH~dmsm ecu mo uxeucoo ecu cacuuz xuecueeu mueuamcou .eeouson necuo cud: mcHxHuu an suHeHH 10> nuw uso axoeco >He>uuue use xuec nueeu eeEooHez .o ..u« usone cuss ou ou e8 uoedxe u.cou usn ueeum ea xoecueeu: emem umeE ecu me>Hv ec .eusuHuue e>HuHm0d xaocHEeen e euHameo .>uH>Hudeueu uceued nae chu xn ueoce usaucwcs haevuea Seem uoH>ecec use ecoHueHeu Hecouuea uueucw mac .ue>e :30: .cofiueoeud -du nqu xuonnomu ou nuceuue .m uoc Be H .mCOuJ eun 90> :Heuueu fie H usn .30» umec H: ememmee ecu me>am ceuwo .muHHHumoc uo mxuefieu mcHues nauseu cqu ueHHd udsm xuenueeu ecu vauxueuue >Hcedo me mue>secee cosh an uHem muueuoum .uH wesae>eu uo .meuocma .meHceu >Haesms use .xoec nueem muse: .~ mam .xoenueew means use mcH>aeoeu cH umeueucH HesucHE naocm ..uecuo ecu uso use nee eco CH om: ou eseen uH .ua ueec ou eHnecs meeem ec .xuecueeu uHo>e no euocmH Ou umEeuue msoH>no ace unocuHa .H 159 INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate whether you view each of the qualities listed below as being either mostly true (T) or mostly false (F) as they apply to It is very important that you indicate either T or F for each item, even if you are some- what uncertain of your choice. Also, try to work quickly: most people can complete this information in less than 15 minutes. - 1 Able to give orders 51 Frequently angry 101 Self-respecting 2 Appreciative 52 Friendly all the time 102 Shy 3 Apologetic 53 Generous to a fault 103 Sincere & devoted to friends 4 Able to take care of self 54 Gives freely of self 104 Selfish 5 Accepts advice readily 55 Good leader 105 Skeptical 6 Able to doubt others 56 Grateful 106 Sociable and neighborly 7 Affectionate and under- 57 Hard—boiled when necessary 107 Slow to forgive a wrong standing 58 Helpful 108 Somewhat snobbish 8 Acts important 59 Hard-hearted 109 Spineless 9 Able to criticize self 60 Hard to convince 110 Stern but fair 10 Admires 5 imitates others 61 Hot-tempered 111 Spoils people with kindness ll Agrees with everyone 62 Hard to impress 112 Straightforward and direct 12 Always ashamed of self 63 Impatient with others' 113 Stubborn 13 Very anxious to be ap- mistakes 114 Suspicious proved of 64 Independent 115 Too easily influenced by 14 Always giving advice 65 Irritable friends 15 Bitter 66 Jealous 116 Thinks only of self 16 Bighearted and unselfish 67 Kind and reassuring 117 Tender and soft hearted l7 Boastful 68 Likes responsibility 118 Timid 18 Businesslike 69 Lacks self-confidence 119 Too lenient with others 19 Bossy 70 Likes to compete with 120 Touchy and easily hurt 20 Can be frank and honest others 121 Too willing to give to 21 Clinging vine 71 Lets others make others 22 Can be strict if decisions 122 Tries to be too successful necessary 72 Likes everybody 123 Trusting and eager to ‘ 23 Considerate 73 Likes to be taken care of please 1 24 Cold and unfeeling 74 Loves everyone 124 Tries to comfort everyone 25 Can complain if necessary 75 Makes a.good impression 125 Usually gives in 26 COOperative 76 Manages others 126 Very respectful to 27 Complaining 77 Meek authority 28 Can be indifferent to 78 Modest 127 Wants everyone's love others 79 Hardly ever talks back 128 Well thought of 29 Critical of others 80 Often admired 129 Wants to be led 30 Can be obedient 81 Obeys too willingly 130 Will confide in any one 31 Cruel and unkind 82 Often gloomy 131 Warm 32 Dependent 83 Outspoken 132 Wants everyone to like him 33 Dictatorial 84 Overprotective of others 133 Will believe anyone 34 Distrusts everybody 85 Often unfriendly 134 Well-behaved 35 Dominating 86 Oversympathetic 36 Easily embarrassed 87 Often helped by others 37 Eager to get along with 88 Passive and unaggressive others 89 Proud and self—satisfied 38 Easily fooled 90 Always pleasant 8 agree- 39 Egotistical & conceited able 40 Easily led 91 Resentful . 41 Encouraging others 92 Respected by others 42 Enjoys taking care of 93 Rebels against everything others 94 Resents being bossed 43 Expects everyone to 95 Self-reliant 5 assertive admire him 96 Sarcastic 44 Faithful follower 97 Self-punishing 45 Frequently disappointed 98 Self-confident 46 Firm but just 99 Self-seeking 47 Fond of everyone 100 Shrewd & calculating 48 Forceful 49 Friendly 50 Forgives anything '11.].1. ‘ ‘Ilillllll 160 THE PERSON DESCRIPTION INSTRUMENT The bipolar scales given below are to elicit your impressions of how has behaved in recent weeks. anircle the point on each scale which best represents your impression of 's behavior. (write in name) NONDEFENSIVE l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 DEFENSIVE I LOW ABILITY l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. . ..5. .....6 HIGH ABILITY II SHOWS FEELINGS l. ..2. ......3. ......4. ...... 5 ........ .6 HIDES FEELINGS III TACTLESS l. ..2. ......3. ......4. ..... .5. .. ...6 TACTFUL I INFORMED l. ..2. ......3. ......4. ......5. ......6 UNINFORMED II RESERVED l. ..2. .. ...3.. .... .4. ......5. ... ..6 CUTSPOKEN III SYMPATHETIC l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 UNSYMPATHETIC I INCOMPETENT 1. ..2. ......3.. .... .4. ......5. ......6 COMPETENT II ENTHUSIASTIC l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 UNENTHUSIASTIC III THREATENING 1. ..2. .... .3.. ......4. .....5. ......6 NONTHREATENING I LOW STATUS 1. ..2. .. ...3. ......4. ......5. ... ..6 HIGH STATUS II EMOTIONALLY EXPRESSIVE l. ..2. .... .3.. ......4. .... .5. ......6 UNEMOTIONAL III CONSIDERATE l. ..2. ......3. ......4. ... ..5. .. ...6 INCONSIDERATE I UNINFLUENTIAL l. ..2. ..... .3.. .... .4. .. ...5. ......6 INFLUENTIAL II QUIET l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 LOUD III ACCEPTS OTHERS l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 REJECTS OTHERS I LOW PRESTIGE 1. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. .. ...6 HIGH PRESTIGE II DEMONSTRATIVE l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. .. ...5. ......6 UNDEMONSTRATIVE III FLEXIBLE l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. .....5. ...... 6 INFLEXIBLE I IRRESPONSIBLE l. ..2. ......3.. .....4. .. .5. .... .6 RESPONSIBLE II ACTIVE l. ..2. ... ..3.. ......4. .... . ......6 PASSIVE III REJECTS ACCEPTS SUGGESTIONS l. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ...... . ......6 SUGGESTIONS I THOROUGH . ..2. ......3.. ......4. ...... . ......6 CARELESS II NONCOMMITTAL . ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 COMMITS SELF III ACCOMMODATING . ..2. ......3.. ......4. ...... . ......6 STUBBORN I LAZY . ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 HARDWORKING II PARTICIPATES PARTICIPATES MUCH I. ..2. ......3.. ......4. ......5. ......6 LITTLE III I61 DIRECT RATINGS OF CHANGE A. On the whole, describe how much you have grown in understanding inter- personal behavior during and since the lab. Put an "X" on the scale to desig- nate where you were at the end of the lab, and a "Y" to designate where you are now. I've grown somewhat, I understand more but I vaguely understand it than I expected to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No change I understand some my understanding significant new things has grown as fully as I could have expected B. Describe how much you have been able to change your behavior since the lab based on how much you have grown in your understanding of interpersonal be- havior. Put an "x" on the scale to designate where you are now. I have made and am comfortable with quite a Sporadic and uncon- few behavior changes, but I trolled behavior change slip back to my old patterns ever so often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 no behavior some behavior change I'm a change especially when I try new person C. How much of your increased interpersonal understanding was due to the experiences during the summer lab? Put an "X" on the scale to designate how much was due to the lab. helped very much in a helped a wide variety of areas or little but vaguely areas of central importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the lab helped pretty much by helped me so much was irrelevant Sparking some new awareness that I feel overwhelmed 162 July 15, 1968 Dear Summer Lab Participant: I am pleased to advise you of your acceptance to the summer 1968 SMTL Human Relations Laboratory. As you have heard, we have changed the lab site from the traditional location at Camp Kett to a more centrally accessible and rustic locale at High/Scepe. Complete information about this new location is enclosed. As part of a program aimed at more fully understanding the influence of SMTL sponsored labs upon "back home" rela- tionships, all participants in this summer's lab are asked to cooperate in a well-planned research study. We are seeking better information than is currently available con- cerning the impact of lab participation upon subsequent ex- periences with such "external observers" as intimates (family or close friends) and working colleagues (peers, supervisors, or subordinates). Thus, we seek data from yourself and two other persons who have such relationships with you. These research materials will not be examined before the lab; consequently they cannot influence your group assignments, nor will the training staff be aware of any such data about you. No research information about individuals will be released to anyone. This current data collection requires about one hour of your time and lesser amounts from the persons you nom— inate. All lab participants will be expected to complete some additional instruments during the lab. There will also be at least one post-lab data collection, perhaps about six months from now, which will require additional data from you and your nominees. The research design will be fully ex- plained during the lab; if you are curious about the data sought from your "observers" you may look in the enclosures which we request that you pass along to them as soon as#pos- sible. To give these "observers" maximal freedom in their responses, it seems reasonable that these data be returned directedly to us without any obligations to review them with you beforehand. In selecting your two "observers," it is important that you choose one "intimate" (spouse or close friend), and one working colleague. It is desirable to select individuals who have known you for at least a year and preferably longer. .Also, it is important that these persons be willing to COOp- erate with the research procedures, and be likely to maintain these relationships with you during the next few months. ”ETIV 163 Enclosed are three instrument packets--one, marked S, contains materials on which you are asked to describe facets of yourself; the other two packets, marked 0, are to be given to (1) an intimate acquaintance (family member or friend) and (2) to an "on the job" colleague (not partic- ipating in this Lab) who knows you well. Please pass these packets along as soon as possible and try to return them before August lst. All instruments have been numbered so they can readily be identified in following the instructions below: I. Encircle the point on each scale which best represents how you see yourself as behaving in the recent past and present. II, III, & IV. All necessary instructions are given on the instrument. Your cooperation is essential for the success of this study and is very much appreciated. Sincerely, John R. Hurley, Ph.D. Dean, 1968 Summer Lab .‘ .14"! l64 July 15, 1968 Dear "Observer": , by passing this packet to you, joins me in requesting that you provide impressionistic information about him or her to a research project related to his/her participation in the August, 1968 State of Michi- gan Training Laboratory (SMTL) in Human Relations Training. The SMTL staff are very interested in learning more about how lab participation influences the participant's inter- actions with other important persons in their lives both in the employment and personal sectors. The enclosed instruments have been designed or selected so that they will require less than an hour of your valuable time. The most time—consuming of these, a list of 134 phrases or words to be answered true or false, takes the average college student about 15 minutes to com— plete, and you should do it as quickly as you can. All information about individuals participating in this project, either as "observers" or lab participants is re- garded as entirely confidential by the research staff and will not be released to anyone. The findings will be de- scribed only in terms of "group trends." The staff of the summer lab will have no access to any of this information. A second phase will occur some months after the end of our summer lab, when you will again be requested to complete some similar instruments. This later phase is required to obtain information about "before" versus "after" impressions of the participant's behavior. The materials which we request your assistance with have been numbered to facilitate instructions. Please read these instructions carefully and return the completed packets not later than July 3lst. I. Encircle the point in each scale which best re— presents your impressions of the participant's behavior at present in the setting (job, home, friend) where you know liim/her best. II. The instructions are self-explanatory, but remem- loer to give your impressions of the lab participant, not yourself . - “it” Lunar-5" 5. 165 III. The "SELF" scale should be rated according to how you think the participant views himself or herself; the "OTHERS" scale according to how you think he/she gen- erally perceives others. IV. Change the instructions so that you give your impressions of the lab participant, rather than yourself. Make sure you rate him/her according to how open he/she seems in relationships; or hownumflidata-giving or data—seeking you believe that he/she does. V. Please answer the questions on the following page. Sincerely, John R. Hurley, Ph.D. Dean, 1968 Summer Lab 166 A. Please make a brief statement which includes: (a) how long you have known the participant well, and (b) the con- text (job, friend, family) in which you have known him or her best: B. Over a period of time people sometimes change in the ways that they relate to others. If you believe that the participant has changed his/her behavior in working with peOple in any specific way as compared to six months ago, please give a short description of their changes: The realization of this research project would not be possible without your helpful cooperation. If you wish, I will be pleased to send you a summary of the findings when it is completed. My address is: John R. Hurley, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 --THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR HELP-- 167 January 13, 1969 Dear Observer: , by passing this packet to you, again joins me in requesting that you supply impressionistic in- formation about him or her. This is the final phase of the same research project you participated in during last July or August relevant to the 1968 SMTL Human Relations Labo- ratory. Since we are interested in learning how the partic- ipant's interactions with other important persons in their lives is influenced by the labs, this post-lab data is essential. Thus, we are asking for less than an hour of your time to provide the data for this all important phase of the research project. Again, all information given about each person is entirely confidential, and will not be released to anyone. Our findings will be described only in terms of "group trends." The materials with which we request your assistanCe have been numbered to facilitate instructions. Please read these instructions carefully, and return the completed packets before February 1. V. Encircle the point in each scale which best re- presents your impressions of the participant's behavior at present in the setting (job, home, friend) where you know him/her best. VI. The instructions suffice, but remember to give your impressions of the lab participant, not yourself. IVV. The 'self' scale should be rated according to how you think the participant views himself/herself; the 'others scale according to how you think the participant generally perceives others. VIII. Give your impressions of the lab participant rather than yourself. Make sure you rate him/her according to how open he/she seems in relationships; or how much data- giving, or data-seeking you believe he/she does. IX. Please answer the questions on the following page. :5! ‘H. III. ..-?xfifiaTn ’n' ."m '1' IT . _va 168 Your cooperation is greatly valued for the success of the study hinges on having complete returns to compare with the data collected earlier. Sincerely, John R. Hurley, Ph.D. Dean, 1968 Summer Lab l. (V.VI.I.I 'il.l'_ v A. 169 Over a period of time, peOple sometimes change in the ways that they relate to others. If you believe that the participant has changed his/her behavior in working with peOple in any specific way since the lab in August, please give a short description of their changes. 1. Do you think the participant has grown in under— standing interpersonal behavior during and since the lab? (a) none (b) somewhat, but vague (c) understands some new things (d) quite a bit (e) fully 2. Has the participant changed his/her behavior based on his/her growth in understanding interpersonal be— havior? (a) none (b) sporadic behavior changes (c) some, but noticeable effort involved (d) a lot with some slipping back '“” "W""‘\ (e) is a new person 3. In your Opinion, how much of the participants in- creased interpersonal understanding was due to the ex— periences during the summer lab? (a) lab was irrelevant (b) some help, but vague (c) helped pretty much as he/ she gained some new aware- ness (d) very much (e) completely 1 " ‘ i ' -’ . 1‘ ._..__ 4A 170 January 13, 1969 Dear Summer Lab Participant: I am requesting your help again in the research proj— ect dealing with the impact of our summer 1968 SMTL Human Relations Laboratory at High Scope upon subsequent behavior. Four and one-half months have now elapsed since the lab and it is time to collect the follow-up data. You will recall that we are seeking better information than is currently available about the impact of lab participation upon subse- quent experiences with intimates and working colleagues. Thus, again we need data from you, and from the same two "significant others" you chose for the pre-lab data collec- tion back in July or early August. Completing these data will probably require less than one hour of your time and, perhaps, even less from your "others." As before, if you are curious about the data sought from them, feel free to look in the enclosures, but pass them along as soon as possible, please. Also as before, to give these observers maximal freedom in their responses, we request that these data be returned directly to us with— out any obligation to review them with you beforehand. Enclosed are three instrument packets--one, marked S, contains materials on which you are asked to describe facets of yourself; the other two packets, marked 0, are each to be given to one of the two "others" chosen by you earlier. Please pass these packets on to them soon, and try to have them returned before February 1. All instruments have been numbered so they can be readily identified in following the instructions below. V. Encircle the point on each scale which best re— presents how you see yourself as behaving in the recent past (after the lab) and present. VI, VII, VIII, IX. All necessary instructions are given on the instruments. Please answer the question on the following page. fii!‘l..|'>'.t .y . >.I( I.,I (El. IQ . 171 Your assistance is crucial at this time, for the usefulness of the study hinges on having follow-up data to compare with that collected several months ago. Thus, complete returns are essential. Thanks again for your valuable help. Sincerely, John R. Hurley, Ph.D. Dean, 1968 Summer Lab 1 unsung! :h-iy —' 5 u I T'Lm ‘00 5.. \ I." (iii ll 172 Over a period of time, people sometimes change in ways that they relate to others. If you believe that you have changed your behavior in working with people in any specific way since the August lab, please give a short description of these changes: The realization of this research project would not be possible without your helpful COOperation. If you wish, I will be pleased to send you a summary of the findings when it is completed. It will take several months, however, to analyse and compare the data and to prepare an adequate summary. My address is: John R. Hurley, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 I .7. x: I" h. a I 13' (NF A. B. 173 Content Categories for Verbal Descriptions of'Change* OVERT OPERATIONAL CHANGES--DESCRIPTIVE 1. Communication S. Sending--Shares information, expresses feelings, puts ideas across, is more open. R. Receiving--More effort to understand, listens attentively, understands. U. Unspecified--Communicates better, communi- cation skills improved. 2. Relational Facility--Cooperative, tactful, less irritating, easier to deal with, able to negotiate. 3. Risk Takinge-Willing to take stand, less inhibited, experiments more. 4. Increased Interdependence--Encourages participation, involves others, greater leeway to subordinates, less dominating, lets other think. 5. Functional Flexibility--More flexible, takes group roles more easily, goes out of way, contributions more helpful, less rigid. 6. Self Control--More self discipline, less quick with judgment, checks temper. 7. Warmerl-More affectionate, more expressive of posi- tive feelings. INFERRED CHANGES IN INSIGHT AND ATTITUDES 1. Awareness of Human Behavior (intellectual compre— hension)-—More conscious of why people act, more analytic of others' actions, clear perceptions of people. 2. Sensitivity to Group Behavior-—More conscious of group process, aware of subcurrents in groups. 3. Sensitivity to Others' Feelings--More capacity for understanding feelings, more sensitive to needs of others. 174 4. Acceptance of Other People-—Able to tolerate short- comings, con§iderate offiindividual differences, patient. 5. Tolerance of New Information--Willing to accept suggestions, considers new points of View, less dogmatic, less arbitrary. 6. Self Confidence 7. Comfort--Relaxed, at east (specific as to setting or activity). 8. Insight into Self and Role--Understands job demands, more aware of own behavior, better adjusted to job, surer identity.l C. GLOBAL JUDGMENTS 1. Gross characterological inferences, noncomparable references to special applications of learning, references to consequences of change. D.l NONE 1Added by the author. *Bunker and Knowles, J. Appl. Beh. Sci., 1967, V 3, #2. . .lllllll'll. .1 In I.‘ lull! ll I'll“ .‘ul APPENDIX B Data Inventory W1 TABLE B-l.——Data inventory-within lab. Mean Group Report Self Report III II 0K SD FB DG 0K 05 III II SD PB OK DG OK 0 DS Code 34.4 6.1 4.4 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.1 5.0 5.0 39.3 40.5 5.9 5.8 6.9 7.2 7.6 6.4 6.7 4.0 4.0 3.7 47.0 44.0 50.0 36.0 39.0 01 3.6 4.8 4.4 5.9 3.8 3.2 4.6 5.2 4.1 6.6 5.1 5.4 5.7 4.1 3.6 4.4 28.5 39.5 41.0 02 36.5 38.7 40.5 40.6 44.2 3.9 6.9 5.3 6.1 6.8 5.8 6.0 5.1 5.9 8.3 7.7 3.8 42.0 5.0 51.0 2.1 34.0 34.0 03 45.4 37.4 43.3 7.6 8.8 48.0 48.0 33.5 37.6 39.0 38.2 35.4 4.3 4.9 5.4 4.7 4.2 3.6 5.9 6.4 3.9 4.9 3.8 4.7 4.9 . 18.5 28.0 42.5 04 34.9 5.6 5.3 35.7 36.3 32.7 34.7 7.3 6.9 7.1 5.9 5.1 7.3 5.1 5.0 4.2 4.0 6.2 6.3 5.4 3.7 5.3 45.0 46.0 05 34.0 36.2 39.9 5.1 4.0 5.1 37.0 46.0 40.0 6 25.7 5.7 3.6 4.0 4.8 6.8 5.2 4.7 3.8 33.3 36.7 1.3 2.7 6.2 2.2 31.6 33.0 14.1 5.0 5.8 40.9 38.1 06 175 3.6 5.0 20.8 6.6 1.9 44.6 33.7 23.9 31.9 29.3 34.5 36.5 2.8 2.6 2.0 4.4 5.3 4.0 2.8 6.1 6.4 6.4 4.6 5.4 5.4 4.9 6.7 30.0 39.5 07 35.9 6.2 3.9 32.8 5.8 36.6 43.0 27.3 32.3 34.8 38.6 38.3 5.3 6.2 4.3 4.6 4.7 5.3 6.7 6.7 5.1 5.2 7.0 7.0 6.2 7.2 6.3 37.5 30.5 4.9 3.1 4.0 38.5 08 35.7 39.6 42.2 34.5 33.7 35.7 42.5 5.8 5.4 4.8 5.2 4.1 5.6 4.8 4.0 4.0 36.0 4.0 4.7 36.5 30.5 09 4.9 5.0 6.1 37.2 39.9 4.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 6.2 6.0 4.2 2.9 5.3 2.8 4.1 6.1 6.4 26.0 23.1 32.9 39.4 10 21.9 35.1 39.2 5.8 5.8 3.9 5.7 3.8 25.0 33.8 41.1 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.9 5.8 5.8 41.1 41.6 2.8 5.2 5.1 3.4 42.0 31.0 37.0 34.0 11 35.3 5.0 41.6 42.6 4.7 5.1 4.6 33.0 5.3 5.3 34.0 35.9 29.3 36.9 30.1 45.4 3.0 4.2 4.3 6.1 6.6 6.7 4.2 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.0 5.3 42.5 30.7 23.5 12 40.6 5.1 6.2 43.5 4.2 5.4 48.5 30.5 37.6 5.0 6.7 4.4 7.3 7.0 5.7 4.8 4.1 29.6 38.1 7.1 6.6 6.4 4.1 5.8 4.9 31.0 28.0 13 38.4 33.0 39.3 5.1 5.7 5.0 6.0 29.0 38.0 35.0 25.0 22.8 33.5 5.6 5.3 5.9 5.1 4.1 3.8 . 3.7 6.3 5.2 5.9 5.0 36.8 33.5 5.9 4.7 5.4 29.6 14 6.2 5.2 5.3 35.6 38.6 29.5 29.1 37.6 40.2 39.5 41.6 4.6 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.4 5.4 6.3 4.3 3.8 4.8 3.8 37.0 29.0 42.0 15 29.0 4.9 5.0 3.4 3.6 43.6 30.7 45.4 III 33.8 43.1 26.6 22.8 35.5 45.4 35.3 33.1 II 24.7 30.4 20.7 35.3 46.7 31.6 38.0 35.2 30.2 40.6 35.7 .21.4 36.0 39.9 41.6 43.0 9 7 FB 2.3 5.3 5.7 1.7 1.3 4.4 5.3 5.4 5.3 4 7 SD 2.7 4.9 5.6 5.7 5.3 6.9 KO 5.0 6.7 5.1 6.3 5.0 6.0 5.4 4.9 5.3 ‘09 6.2 5.0 06 OK 3.1 2.4 5.9 5.7 5.7 Mean Group Report 6.1 OS 5.0 6.8 1.7 1.2 6.6 5.4 5.8 4.6 5.0 7.3 2.7 1.7 7.0 “7.5 5.7 5.7 6.0 4.7 6.0 4.4 3.4 6.3 7.3 7.0 6.0 4.4 6.1 6.4 4.8 4.7 4.7 6.6 III 30.8 26.6 37.5 26.5 39.9 36.1 II 45.6 40.5 41.3 43.1 28.0 30.5 37.3 I 37.5 25.0 32.9 28.3 38.5 46.0 34.7 32.7 3 6 176 22.7 38.7 33.8 4.2 1.2 1.3 1.0 4.4 5.2 3.1 1.8 4.2 1.6 1.9 1.2 . . 4.4 4.7 44.0 1. 5.1 46.0 31.0 4.0 46.0 44.0 1 7 SD FB 4 6 Self Report 0K0 OK 8 D6 17 18 19 20 21 TABLE B-l.-Con't. Code 0 DS 5 7 ; - .- 29.6 31.6 34.7 34.5 31.9 40.7 45.4 36.3 27.3 32.1 33.1 35.8 34.9 35.1 27.3 38.5 35.3 40.3 42.5 36.7 38.6 35.2 39.9 34.4 40.1 38.8 42.4 31.1 27.5 19.5 24.0 34.0 38.5 35.1 42.5 38.3 37.2 46.4 38.4 3.3 3.3 2.8 4.2 4.4 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.2 6.7 3.4 1.8 3.4 4.7 4.4 5.7 3.3 4.0 2.6 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.2 6.4 6.4 3.1 1.2 4.8 4.0 5.8 6.8 5.1 4.6 4.9 5.4 6.0 7.8 7.1 5.9 6.0 6.1 5.1 5.7 3.2 1.8 4.8 5.3 6.3 3.2 2.2 5.8 6.9 7.7 5.9 5.4 6.6 6.7 3.9 3.8 3.4 5.7 6.3 3.9 2.8 2.9 5.8 3.0 4.6 5.2 6.4 6.7 7.8 7.8 6.6 7.7 4.8 3.7 4.1 3.7 5.8 6.0 III? 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 4.8 6.7 5.0 6.0 7.1 4.3 7.0 5.2 2.7 4.7 2.8 7.3 2.1 3.9 5.3 6.9 3.2 5.2 4.8 4.6 6.8 6.4 6.3 6.1 7.3 4.0 2.1 4.3 3.9 4.2 3.6 7.1 5.2 5.8 6.1 6.3 5.7 3.8 3.9 4.3 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.8 6.6 2.7 3.9 3.4 5.3 5.4 7.9 5.7 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.9 4.8 5.3 3.0 4.6 6.7 7.8 2.0 3.7 3.8 3.9 35.5 21.5 40.9 36.7 30.5 36.7 41.6 42.1 40.5 48.0 45.5 41.0 30.0 38.0 28.0 41.0 28.4 35.1 44.0 43.0 44.3 46.5 49.4 38.0 42.0 28.0 35.0 43.0 26.6 24.5 39.0 41.4 44.0 38.5 32.5 44.0 33.0 43.0 44.0 24 TABLE B-l.--COn.t Mean Group Report Self Report II III FB SD DG OK DS I II III DG OK OK SD FB 8 O 0 US Code 3.8 5.3 7.2 3.8 3.0 2.9 5.4 6.3 4.9 2.6 3.0 3.6 5.4 6.2 5.1 6.1 5.0 3.4 39.3 43.2 38 31.6 40.8 37.4 40.8 29.2 38.3 40.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 4.1 4.6 5.9 4.3 4.0 3.4 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 37.5 33.6 38.6 39 3.9 3.3 5.1 33.6 34.6 25.9 21.9 35.6 2.4 6.3 5.1 5.1 4.6 3.4 8.1 4.1 2.4 7.1 7.8 7.7 6.6 5.9 4.8 5.9 3.4 31.5 40.5 37.5 41 38.2 35.9 42.5 5.0 35.9 35.4 36.3 33.2 35.8 4.3 7.0 5.8 5.7 5.0 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 4.7 4.9 4.4 4.3 6.1 5.2 7.9 41.2 43.6 34.0 42 31.3 3.7 24.9 33.2 28.0 39.7 45.3 3.7 6.6 4.6 5.0 3.2 5.2 6.1 6.1 4.7 5.6 6.9 7.2 6.8 6.1 6.7 4.6 4.3 43 37.3 39.0 43.2 39.0 32.0 4.8 40.0 1777 9. 29.0 4.3 4.0 4.1 5.4 6.3 5.1 4.6 40.5 38.8 4.0 3.9 4.6 5.4 4.7 5.6 4.6 38.7 38.6 6.4 4.8 5.2 O 5.7 36.0 34.0 44 30.5 36.0 39.3 3.1 4.8 5.7 1.7 1.8 2.8 5.6 5.4 4.7 2.8 4.1 6.2 6.3 4.9 4.7 4.6 3.4 43.5 29.5 33.5 6 45 25.6 43.1 43.9 2.4 26.7 44.7 39.8 25.6 30.5 32.6 3.4 4.8 7.6 4.0 4.0 3.2 6.3 5.3 3.3 7.8 6.2 5.6 4.2 26.5 29.5 0 39.5 46 7.0 5.9 6.6 3.2 40.5 42.5 33.0 4.7 4.0 3.3 6.9 6.4 2.8 4.4 3.8 22.7 41.8 7.8 6.6 36.0 45.7 6.7 4.1 44.0 48.0 40.0 47 40.6 5.9 6.3 7.1 4.0 49.0 37.0 29.7 27.0 28.7 24.9 22.2 5.4 3.8 3.7 3.0 5.8 3.3 2.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 7.4 7.0 9.0 46.8 42.6 33.6 48 17.4 1.1 21.2 27.2 4.2 3.7 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.3 5.1 5.6 4.7 3.7 4.6 4.9 5.7 4.8 4.8 5.7 39.0 37.5 42.0 49 27.1 30.8 34.8 35.0 5.1 38.6 31.1 33.6 30.2 27.3 3.8 5.3 5.8 6.7 4.8 5.8 4.6 2.2 4.1 4.4 5.3 5.2 39.0 43.0 33.2 36.5 31.8 50 29.0 3.6 3.9 5.1 5.1 3.2 5.7 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.6 5.6 5.8 5.3 6.0 6.1 7.7 7.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.8 36.5 3.7 4.3 4.9 40.5 34.5 51 43.8 46.0 31.2 37.2 39.7 33.9 42.7 4.1 6.6 5.4 7.1 5.8 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.3 4.7 4.4 3.6 4.6 44.0 34.3 34.6 34.6 53 36.3 5.1 6.0 4.6 44.8 I“... :l ! Infill-I “4“. TABLE B-1.-C0n't. Mean Group Report Self Report III II FB SD DG OK OK DS III II OK SD FB 5 0 08 DC OK Code 22.3 29.1 29.8 2.8 6.2 5.0 2.3 1.8 2.2 5.9 6.4 4.7 6.9 6.7 8.0 7.1 6.6 3.6 4.8 3.1 33.0 29.5 37.8 33.5 54 39.7 39.1 40.8 34.3 34.3 39.7 22.3 35.2 22.6 31.9 4.8 4.9 3.1 2.9 3.3 2.6 4.0 5.6 4.8 3.6 7.1 6.6 6.2 4.6 43.5 5.9 42.9 6.7 39.5 40.5 55 41.8 5.1 4.9 44.6 36.3 178 28.2 32.7 6.7 3.1 3.8 3.6 4.9 5.7 4.2 3.8 38.3 32.4 3.9 2.3 2.7 2.2 5.3 5.4 . 5.3 43.2 42.7 5.2 3.3 5. 37.0 40.5 0.3 44.0 44.5 56 7.3 2.4 4.2 2.7 5.2 5.7 4.2 4.1 33.7 31.9 32.4 6.4 4.9 5.8 5.6 6.6 6.8 6.2 43.2 38.9 4.0 6.2 6.0 39.0 36.4 40.5 37.0 57 41.5 37.9 41.8 5.2 4.4 5.0 8.1 7.6 4.0 3.1 4.7 6.0 4.8 4.1 3.8 5.6 4.2 36.5 29.5 35.5 58 16.0 33.5 30.6 5.9 1.7 3.0 27.7 23.3 35.0 37.2 41.5 41.2 40.5 45.8 4.8 7.1 7.2 7.6 6.7 6.8 5.9 6.3 6.8 7.3 7.6 6.6 6.8 6.4 36.0 2.8 38.0 4.7 39.0 44.0 XX 35.5 5.3 3.2 43.0 44.0 *Not computed because too much missing data. ‘- TABLE B-2.-Data 1nventory-Pre and Post Lab. Colleague Intimate Self Report d 1 s ICLh A B C OK I II III ICL 06 OK 05 d’ SICLhA III ICL II I 5 0K0 0 35 06 OK ‘1 8. III ICL I O S Code 0 DS 06 OK OK 5.8 7 3.0 2.0 48.0 41.0 44.0 11.2 8 6.0 6.0 42.0 48.0 45.0 10.2 6 -8.9 6 4.0 3.0 30.0 39.0 42.0 11.5 8 4 6 01 1.0 7 9 5 7 6 -4.5 7.8 6 36.5 46.5 43.0 16.9 5.5 5.4 7.0 5.0 47.0 43.0 48.0 13.6 3.4 9 6.3 5.3 39.8 42.5 45.0 17.4 5.2 9 36.0 49.0 13.6 15.2 9 9 7 6.0 7.0 53.0 8 7.0 6.0 43.0 40.0 44.0 8.2 13.8 8 7 02 8 7 6.0 5.0 46.0 49.0 48.0 10.2 13.4 7 7 7 4 6.3 6.1 45.9 38.9 42.8 16.8 14.8 7.4 6.6 7.4 5.0 4.0 30.0 40.0 41.0 9.4 -5.0 5.5 5.5 36.9 40.0 37.5 4 0 8.2 5 5.0 5.0 38.0 42.0 45.0 5 I1 -7 4 2.0 3.0 34.0 37.0 48.0 11.7 7 6.0 6.0 48.0 53.0 53.0 6 8 03 -1.6 7 7 5 8.0 7 4.5 5 7 5 5 2.5 2.4 37.3 43.2 40.3 11.9 m 7.8 8 1.7 9.1 6.0 6.0 48.0 51.0 46.0 11.9 1.7 6 6 9.9 7 6.4 6.3 48.6 47.6 43.2 9.9 7 8.0 6.0 5.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 3.8 9.2 7 6.0 4.0 33.0 43.0 43.0 04 5.0 8.8 7.0 7.0 45.0 49.0 47.0 7 4.7 8 7 6 7 6.2 6.0 35.9 40.8 41.3 16.3 3.6 6 2.1 -3.1 7 7 5 6.0 5.0 38.0 51.0 47.0 15.1 7 7 6.9 8.7 5.0 45.0 51.0 43.0 12.0 5.0 6.0 47.0 54.0 34.0 6.0 8 9 2 5.5 -4.4 6.1 6.0 6.0 46.0 49.0 49.0 11.6 4 6.0 6.0 44.0 44.0 37.0 q I 3 8 6.0 5.0 40.0 44.0 36.0 14.9 7 2.8 5 9 5 -7.9 3.9 .5 4.0 35.5 38.5 40.5 10.8 5.5 5.5 26.0 41.5 42.5 5 rs 8.5 6.5 9.5 37.5 40.5 33.5 5.4 5.5 41.5 41.5 35.5 7.7 8.1 39.7 29.8 5.3 5.4 32.4 41.0 31.3 .- 2 4.55.5 4.8 3 5 06 179 -3.4 5 5 5 8 3.7 9 7 7 5 5.8 -200 5.5 4.5 31.5 38.5 40.5 14.8 3.5 3.5 29.5 39.5 42.5 13.6 6 4.8 3 5.0 3.0 32.0 32.0 36.0 3 3 3.1 9.5 6 6.2 5.2 38.4 35.4 39.9 6 7 07 -7.8 3 5 5 -1.6 7 7 7 3 2.5 5.5 39.6 39.2 36.4 10.6 7.8 6.2 —.3 7.9 9.3 6 6.0 5.0 44.1 40.8 42.2 0.6 5.0 4.0 43.0 43.1 33.0 9.2 6 5.5 1.1 -9.4 4 4.5 5.5 42.5 39.5 22.5 5 4.8 4.7 31.6 32.4 32.2 6 4 4.8 4.8 -6.9 5.5 39.5 35.5 30.5 7 4.7 4.6 37.5 36.4 31.7 08 .8 1 1 1 3.5 7.7 4.1 3 5 we) QN 6. 10.2 49.0 46.0 1.1 0.7 4.6 5.4 45.5 44.5 23.5 5.0 5.0 43.0 44.0 24.0 5 5 3.4 _0.2 5 6.1 6.9 53.1 51.4 26.2 1 5.0 7.0 5 3.2 -5.7 13.7 7.1 5 5.9 42.8 39.1 32.6 3.1 42.0 37.2 30.6 5 6 6.1 5 5 6 10 13.3 5 3 3 8.1 9 7 5 3 1.3 "4 5.1 38.8 10.6 -4.4 4.5 -7.9 5 7 5 29.0 one -4.1 7 7 5 -3.1 8.1 .0 37.4 42.5 43.6 .0 44.0 37.0 42.0 10.5 04” Q0 -7.8 7 7 7 .0 33.0 52.0 42.0 17.0-10.2 36.0 48.0 43.0 12.2 7.6 7.1 0(1) 12 QO‘ mo r~v c>o C . hf‘ mo '7‘? OO 46 00 «5.5; ‘0-0 3.0 7 8 7 .5 33.5 43.5 38.5 15.9 -14.7 .5 39.5 46.5 38.5 11.6 -2.1 7 7 7 800.2346 9Dl 32. 46.5 N”) mm 0. V" Ash 0. mm nr~ mo 14 TABLE B—Z.-C0n't. _1.=,v_-_= .ml— W —:.r_.. m-l Colleague Intimate Self Report CLd ICL1 A B C s h 06 OK OK I II III 5 0 DS . d 1 4 .. 0 III ILLS ICLh A B L OK I II DG OK 05 1 ICLh A III ICLd 5 II OK OK I s 0 DC US Code 0 0.0 -5.9 2.5 4.5 34.5 39.5 38.5 2.3 3.2 30.5 39.5 34.5 7 7 3.4 2.8 5.5 4.5 47.0 42.6 38.5 5.4 5.5 5.5 45.5 47.5 41.5 7 7 6.0 4.0 40.0 39.0 31.0 -1.5 2.9 5.2 5.2 37.6 41.7 36.7 6 3.1 1 1 1 8.8 2.5 7.5 7 6.0 6.0 40.0 49.0 42.0 12.5 6.0 6.0 39.0 46.0 39.0 6 8 -7.4 4.0 5.0 28.6 39.6 41.5 12.8 4.0 5.0 34.0 41.0 36.0 14.0-16.4 3 7 1.8 1.8 5.0 4.0 43.0 48.0 45.0 10.2 5 8 5 7 ., I -0.6 5 13.6 7 5 5 6 6 6.8 7.6 6.5 7.8 .6 5.6 43.6 43.7 43.7 4.6 5.2 39.5 44.0 37.1 7.8 4.0 4.0 49.0 51.0 37.5 8 8 -7.6 -105 7.5 6.6 5.9 38.5 46.7 41.6 9.0 5 -1.6 -6.3 4.0 4.0 30.9 36.0 31.5 4.4 5 18 4.8 3 3 1 7.8 1 3 45.0 47.0 42.5 10.9 5.6 34.4 38.7 33.1 8.5 6.3 5.8 5.8 7 5.8 3.0 5.0 37.0 39.0 38.0-15.6 14.4 5.0 5.0 36.0 43.0 35.0-10.2 4 8 3.4 4.5 4.5 38.5 39.5 31.5-12.0 5 19 5 3 5.6 .1 .5 34.5-13.9 6.0 6.0 37.5 35 5 19.1 15.4 6.2 4.2 50.0 43.0 44.0 8.5 6.0 6.0 48.0 46.0 46.0 7 -5.5 21.1 -5.5 15.3 5.9 5.1 35.5 36.5 39.3 6.1 6.1 46.1 41.6 43.9 6 7 5.7 5.9 43.5 35.5 32.5 -2.0 20.2 5.9 5.3 39.7 44.7 44.2 7 6 20 7.4 5 7 7 7.1 7.8 2.8 180 6.5 4.6 46.5 41.0 45.5 7.8 7 -1.4 10.6 -5.2 2.3 4.8 37.5 37.9 42.7 2.7 3.5 36.5 41.5 38.5 3 6 -9.9 ~11.0 8.5 33.4 39.2 40.4 .5 5.5 5 21 5 5 6.2 3 40.5 11 10.6 6.0 6.0 38.0 44.6 39.4 6.6 6.2 43.9 47.6 37.7 7 8 7.4 8.8 9.6 5.0 5.0 40.5 45.5 13.0 6.2 7.0 40.0 43.2 16.0 5 9 1.4 7.1 3.8 7.9 51.0 47.0 32.0 7.0 7.0 5 5 22 12.3 1 1 1 11.9 6.0 6.0 43.0 46.0 36.0 5.0 5.5 4.5 34.0 41.1 44.4 6.0 5.0 36.5 42.7 36.8 4 7 1.1 1 1.1 7.2 6.0 4.0 38.0 44.0 38.0 6.0 6.0 44.0 44.0 41.0 8 5 31.1 30.4 39.7 8.0 -11.2 3.5 32.5 33.5 41.5 5.0 4.0 23 -4.0 7 7 5 6.8 7 7 .8 -5.3 1.3 3.5 7 4.0 7.0 6.0 51.0 51.0 37.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 53.0 35.0 5 4 4.7 10.9 5.8 6.5 6.3 39.0 45.5 36.5 5.6 5.8 44.0 46.0 44.0 5 7 3.8 6.5 43.5 35.5 5 5.6 5.6 48.5 39.8 45.3 .6 4.6 42. 5 6 3 -2.0 5 7 5 4.8 7 7 7.2 2.5 8.9 9.4 5.5 5.2 47.5 48.5 35.5 6.0 6.0 43.3 43.6 45.5 7 7 3‘8 -3I4 6.2 7.4 6.0 6.0 46.0 54.0 43.0 5.0 5.0 34.0 34.0 35.0 6 6 9.9 9.9 41.3 45.7 40.6 6.4 6.3 36.9 30.7 38.1 5 7 4.5 7 9.6 6.0 4.0 44.5 47.5 44.5 6.0 6.0 39.0 47.0 48.0 7 8 -1.3 -4.4 6.0 5.0 44.0 44.0 36.0 13.3 6.0 6.0 30.0 43.0 39.0 7 7.5 10.7 9.9 6.0 42.0 43.0 36.0 11.7 6.0 44.8 41.4 40.2 'V I 26 -3.4 7 7 5 5.4 3 3 9.2 7 3 3 7.3 6.4 6.7 .5 6 -16.0 .2 ‘1.8 2.0 3.0 28.0 43.0 45.0 2.3 5.0 29.5 36.5 41.5 7 7 2.2-10.6 6.0 3.0 29.0 39.0 43.0 6.0 3.0 38.0 40.0 38.0 8 8 4.1 -2.3 2.1 41.6 37.3 44.4 40.6 5.0 35.3 5.0 27 -5.0 5 7 5 —4.1 3 4.7 In 6.5 6 1.5 5 34. 11.1 5.6 4.5 39.5 36.5 40.5 9 -1.4 -2.2-25.4 -1.4 5.0 3.0 34.0 35.0 34.0 1.0 3.0 24.0 40.0 18.0 8 7 -4.1 -7.9 4.5 7.7 5.0 32.0 41.0 45.0 6.0 8 8.5 6.0 28 5 42.5 49.0 44.0 5.5 8 7.0 6.0 49.0 49.0 42.0 13.6 8 3 8.2 6.0 47.0 52.0 30.0 7.0 7.0 42.0 50.0 34.0 6.0 4.9 12.6 1.1 6.0 6.0 46.0 40.0 41.0 15.0 5.0 4.0 37.0 32.0 37.0 3 29 7 52.0 38.0 7.0 7.0 50.0 9 9.6 9 5 a Irma ,aflzuflg TABLE B-Z.-Con't. Colleague Intimate Self Report II III I ICL: A B C 0 05 DC OK OK III ICLd 5 OK I s o 0 05 DC OK HI: ICLd ICL 8 II III I 05 DC OK OK 0 Code 10.3 5.5 5.5 44.5 48.5 41.5 5.5 5.0 42.5 47.5 37.5 5.0 5.0 35.0 33.0 47.0 -4.1 —1.3 8 5 6.2 -16.8 -18.1 4.0 5.0 32.0 38.0 29.0 2.0 3.0 32.0 28.0 30.0 3 3 32 -3.8 5 5 4 9.2 8.9 -1.6 6.0 4.0 40.0 39.0 36.0 5.0 6.0 33.0 33.0 35.0 6 8 4.9 4 5.0 5.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 -3.7 2.5 16.1 -4.1 13.5 6.0 3.0 37.0 43.5 40.5 3.0 6.0 33.0 43.0 34.0 7 7 37 16.4 5 8.5 5.5 45.5 49.5 45.5 5.4 4.8 47.7 50.3 42.2 5 10.6 4.0 5.0 47.0 51.0 32.0 10.0 4 0 4.0 46.0 49.0 31.0 8 6 4.1 9.5 11.5 5.5 5.5 43.0 39.0 27.0 2.0 2.0 36.0 41.0 37.0 6 7 38 11.7 6 5 7 8.5 7 7 9.6 S 3 5 8.6 6 7 6.1 6.9 6 7.5 13.5 5.0 3.0 41.0 49.0 39.0 6.0 3.0 44.0 48.0 31.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 40.0 44.0 40.0 10.6 6.0 6.0 42.0 49.0 47.0 10.2 7 7 6.0 6.0 39.6 40.6 34.9 8.4 2.0 6.0 5.0 42.0 46.0 42.0 6 7 39 -3.0 5 7 5 9.4 6 .4 7 7 7 7.5 8.4 4.8 9.8 4.5 4.5 39.0 44.0 40.0 7.2 5.0 5.0 43.0 44.0 41.5 4 5 -4.5 7.0 7.0 34.0 48.0 45.0 10.1 6.0 6.0 48.0 49.0 45.0 11.3 4 7 6.8 4.5 4.5 34.5 39.5 35.5 10.0 5.4 3.5 35.6 38.9 36.0 5 6 41 5.2 7 5 5 7.2 7 2.1 9 9 9 5.2 8.2 _ 13.7 15.5 7.0 7.0 7.6 4 5.6 4.7 39.5 44.0 41.3 10.2 5.0 6.0 42.0 47.0 41.0 7 8.4 10.4 5.9 5.2 39.5 41.5 41.5 5.7 5.7 38.3 42.9 42.4 3 7 42 10.8 5 7 5 6.0 6.0 31.0 45.0 43.0 15.4 5 9.9 7 5 5 6 6.1 3 4.8 181 13.3 2.3 5.3 44.2 34.9 25.2 '11.3 -3.4 13.6 3 5.0 4.5 48.0 43.0 23.0 5.4 4.8 47.7 47.0 41.0 3 4 3.6 5.3 5.0 35.4 40.5 27.4 4.8 3.0 43 2.0 .1 5.0 5.0 38.3 40.6 33.7 4 11.7 7.9 6.5 7.5 6.5 5.4 5.4 43.6 44.8 39.7 1.0 3.0 4.0 39.0 42.0 37.0 2.4 6 6 0.0 4.0 4.4 6.0 6.0 30.0 39.0 36.0 6.0 6.0 42.1 40.7 38.4 6 6 44 5.5 5 5 5 6.0 6.0 43.0 44.0 41.0 6.9 8 3.0 3.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 6.9 7.1 /.b . -10.9 3.3 3.3 37.0 48.0 40.6 12.5 4 3.0 7.0 6.0 40.0 40.0 45.0 12.0 6 13.8 5.7 3.6 34.5 43.5 38.5 23 7 5.0 35.0 44.0 45.0 15.0 5.0 7.4 6.3 4.6 38.7 43.4 40.2 24.2 8 12.9 12.9 0.5 5.1 5.5 33.3 42.5 48.1 5.1 5.5 33.3 42.5 48.1 42.5 25.5 38.5 14.2 -1.0 4.9 5.5 24.0 41.9 48.6 12.7 5.8 46 0.5 8 -.1 3 1 3 6 9.4 5.5 2.6 41.4 42.2 42.5 7.2 O 5.5 4.5 30.0 45.8 32.0 15.6 -11.6 6.0 5.0 40.8 47.0 42.0 5 8 -l3.2 6.2 6Il 6.5 6.0 4.0 32.5 37.5 39.5 5.0 5.0 34.0 41.0 40.0 8.2-12.8 11.5-12.3 6.0 4.0 26.0 37.0 39.0 6.0 5.0 39.0 47.0 47.0 4 47 -4.7 11.5 6 7 ~19.1 7 7 5 7 m 8 14.9 6.3 5.1 34.5 35.5 37.8 2.3 2 -13.8 3.0 3.0 34.0 43.0 28.0 -.2 2 ~6.9 8.7 14.2 4.0 6.0 39.0 43.0 34.0 5.5 3.2 33.0 44.3 40.6 7 48 3.2 8 12.3 6.0 6.0 39.0 43.0 41.0 3.0 4.0 36.0 40.0 34.0 8 4 -2.7 2.8 2.7 26.8 37.8 24.5 .5 4 8.0 2.0 2.4 5.7 5.0 5.5 41.0 43.0 32.5 6.0 6.0 42.0 45.0 35.0 4.5 4.5 6 49 -2.9 3 1 7 8.7 8 16.8 3.0 5.0 42.0 39.0 37.0 -5.6 4 20.1 7 7.0 7.0 45.0 37.0 41.0 2.3 2.1 13.7 4.8 10.2 6.1 5.2 35.5 36.1 30.3 6.3 7.2 41.0 39.8 39.3 4 50 6 6.6 7 17.9 -10.9 -14.6 7.0 5.0 34.0 32.5 32.2 7.0 6.0 43.0 36.0 44.0 8 8 15.8 6.5 3.7 4.4 38.4 36.4 40.9 4.6 3.2 3.2 33.1 29.5 35.9 -7.1 9.3 5 5.0 3.0 41.6 37.1 41.3 5 7 21.0 7 7 3 -.5 _ fiT'. I '.6 .uuomwu 020m000ou uoc .uums0uc0 mu Mann 0003» Umua0w c00unuuu0ucoU0-ou oumqo .mHMUm mmcmzo an» :0 m .u .0 mfimu0 ou Haven 0 .n .4 "6004 182 _ o o . 9.00 N.vt o.mm 0.5m o.mv o.m o.m v o a an 0 0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0.00 0.00-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0.0- 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0.00-0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00-0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0.00-0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0- 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00- 0.- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 0 0.0 0 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 00 C O 0 M n < 0000 0000 000 00 0 x0 go on mo 0 o 0 < ”0u0 M000 000 00 0 000 000 on 00 o u m 4 M000 M000 000 00 0 000 010 00 00 o «000 050600000 wuau0ucH uuoamm u0om .u.cou-.0-m 00040 .183 00. v a n 0 mo.vmuo 000. v a n a mooo. v a n m "m00>ma mocm00w0cm0m mm 000 com 000 000 000 O00 000 000 00 “000 000 000 000 on U00 0000 000 00 000 00 000 o00 000 00 000 000 o 000 000 000 00 000 U00 U00 0 0.00 U00 000 000 U00 00 00 000 0 MINMm 00-000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 um 00 00 00 00 00 00 00- 00- 00 000 00 00 00 00 00- 00 000 00 00- 00 000 000 M00 000 000 000 000 00 00- 00 00- 000 00 00- 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 000 000 00 00- on 00 00 00 00- 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00- 000 00 00 00 00- 00- 000 00 000 00 00- 00 00 00- 00- 000 000 o 00 00- 000- 00- 00 00- 00 00- 00- 00- 00 00- U00- 00 00 00 e 00 00 00 00 00 00 00- 00 00 000 U00 00 00- 00 00 00 00 0 mm 00 000 000 on 00 o 0 0 00 am 000 000 on 00 o a 0 xma nu03 N woo N >00 .0 @5000 00w mmuSmmme Qua 00050 000000000000- .0-0 00000 1184 4! fl n . MWHH.1I4 ..... . r S. v a u n mo. v m u o moo. v a n n mooo. v a n a “mam>ma mocmoamficmflm mm Mam oom 6mm mwm mxo mhb nap nmh mo 0mm nan hm 0N0 00 ans ooh Umv vv mmm mo nan nNh Uoo mm ONm Mam 0 gas Mom own van omw 0mm owe a 9mm new mom uaw vH mN on com A h Nan oa mo vm Ho mm: NN- «on mo mN mm «a mN mv Hon NNI man won hm nee amp om . 0 mm 0mm cam Nm HA «0 00 0mm om 0N0 Mam mxo Umv Uhv on One ohv mo man hm om ma oN 0mm mo 0N Na HN 5N NH ma AH 00 no Use on hm MN on man ovu Nan HNI 0mm: Nmu no: 0mm: man 0mm No man mm: ow mo mo: man we can nova man mo on: mos 0mm om AH mNn ov 05m 0 ma- oo HNI vvn Na 0N ha ma mo: can ma Ha: 0N: man One: 5N: B Omv 0mm Owe hm mo mo mo vwv 0N0 0mm own 0mm 0mm 0N0 No HN man A o m o m mm om x0 x0 00 mo 0 .H. A .mrm Om x0 x0 on mo 0 B n was nuw3 N >00 N awn .N msouw new mmusmmme ama macaw codumamuuoo .vum mamme 185 nun ... {III-4; mnar=.: .. ..LLo oa. v a u 8 mo. v Q n U moo. v a u n mooo. v Q n m umHo>mH mucmoawacwam mm mam oom woo woo woo No poo moo xo moo moo poo moo on non moo ohm oao «do we now m~o omm now «am moo 0 on com «o com mN «a om a oom omv omm coo ma no so am A h was mm omv go do av No com on oo- oo- oo ov mm do so who om ha- om non om ma ma «o AH- m~u ma- mm- oo- om oo poo omo om on oao who on om ow woo mm No oo oo- mxo mo- mo HN- ~o on now can mas mm- so- no com- Ho on «o- ma Ho- ad on com ovm NH on- mo- oo noon on moo mo ma- oa- Hm- ma- ma mv mN omo- om- on do man om: nmo «mm 0 mm- om- ov- HN- om on mm mm- Ho- ma- HanoHo- ma: woo non who a coo mm oH Ho AM van on om- mm oao goo no No mN Hanomm ma 4 mm mm oxo mxo we ma 0 a A mm om oxo mxo no mm o e b >00 cua3 N ado N awn .m macho new mmunmmmE and ocean :oflumamHHOUuu.mum mqméa 186 l (113'? 0A. v a n 0 m0. v mm H U moo. v a u n mooo. v Q n m "mAm>mA wocmkoAcoAm mm UAo oom mA 0N x0 m UNm nae hm x0 owo avm mA nms 0Q amp ash mos nAh 0mm ma 0mm nmm cAI DAB nmh Mom 0 oo an new 0N mo mAI 0N: a flaw oo vow cm¢ vN 0N 0mm new A n Nun vAm UN¢ om: mA ohm nAn Nv mm: mAI mm 0mm ov MN: AA ANN 0mm mm ¢o mo ohm 00w Dow mm mNt on 2N5 0mm Nv com oNo 0mm 0mm mxo mm OAm owe Nm nmo mm mo NN NA 0mm 0mm oAm x0 nA mm UNmI AN com 0mm ohm 0mm: Av: mom vAm MN mA 0o mN Nm omen mo wmv 0A0 Umv 0mm: ova Mum ova oA NA mmm mo FA mm UAmn NA Um¢ 0mm UNm non: vmvn man 0mm mo mo Mom Mom 0 mo mAI Unv vA mA mAI 0N: non 0mm no «A new mv AA: «NI mm: B umm NA: mA mo: mN mo om: 0mm om Nm ©m¢ com now no: mo: mAI 2N5 A o m o m mm am &0 x0 on ma 0 a A mm om MO mo wo mo 0 B o and :33 N was one .v msouo How mmusmmme nmA macaw coAuMAmuuouul.onm mAmmA mucmoAMAcmAm mm woo oom Moo Moo mxo on mmo woo mo who moo «mo mAo mo mNo woo woo «No mmo mo moo mNo «Am woo woo nAo o mAm on mmo moo woo «no Moo a mom moo woo mAm «no moo coo coo A .MINmm omm on om who woo woo Nm com com mm mob com com 0mm 0mm one omm goo woo woo 0am oA NA mA NA mo- Non mo oN Av ohm oom xo on on mA mm oq om NA mA oA oA co Am- mxo goo omo Av oom «mo moo coo com com com com oAu DAN oo ooo com com «on 0mm 0mm 0mm oom coo Av nAN mN use Av ma 0mm 0mm com com ohm com com moo poo Aom AAN oAm oA oN no 0 AN AN oA no on on NN No «A on NN oo MA ov mNu oo 9 mm oN mm oA NA NA mN coo oom non com moo mN- No- oA mmo om A mm am 0&0 mxo on mo 0 a A mm om oxo mxo on mo 0 e N Ame AAA: N Ame N Nmo .m msouu new mmu3mmme AMA macaw coAumAmAAOUIn.num mAm!|ll.iuD- I.» IILB’ IJI'E I.‘ 188 n- w 4i!—....W . A. .m zmsounu A amsouu :A muocAmuu quadn ou co>Am mchumu nmoco>wuuwwum AAmum>o+ .m smacks» A museum :A uuucAmuu qucon 0» co>Am mchumu mmmco>Auomuum AAmum>o« .cmmAnqu .mmoom :mAx .nmA quESm Aezm momAm oo oo oo ooA oo ooA om oN ooA om ooA oo oN msouo-s No on m o m N A m A N N A .A0 o.m +o.N +N.m +o.m +m.m +o.m .m.N .o.N .A.N .m.N .m.m AAo N.N N.N N.N .N.N.N .N.A.A .N.N.N .N.N.N .N.N.N .N.N.N .N.N.N .N.N.N .N.N.N .N.A.N mcoAummao Nm N N m A o m m A N A N N m m A m A m m m A m o A m m o N o A "mmAzm>ANuAmmm v A A A A AmcoAmmAaoo N A n n A u u N - u u u N - - u u a n - u u u - - - - - u - a A - A>Aauummm 902 N NA NA n u - A N m A N I u N u a - A u A A A N N. A A A N A u A N N A>Aaommmm NAeummum maAoo Av mm on m A m N N A m m N m A N m N N m m N m m N v m m m A o N A A A>ANummmm Amm> o m A m m u m m w p m w m m u w m u u m < u m 4 .m.m A u m 4 u m 4 mozANNN oA o o N m m A N N A ANA mo A~AozA .coAumosu away no nocAmuu on» ocAumu mucmaAoAuumm mo Nunez: way an vaA>Ac mmz Amuou nosesn maAuAsmou on» “o an m>Aaommmm 902 was .A an u>ANummmm aAaummmm mero .N an A>Aeummmm Amm> "m3oAA0u um nounona ouo3 uchumu AA< .Au+m+o can A0 a .m .dv mcoAummsv xn >Amumummmm :uon cm>Am mA coAumENONCA awna .umocm>Au00uuo HocAmuu vw>Amouom mo mandamus m>AuuummEoo .AduOCAcme 0>Am ou owmA>oc mum: mmxoch mmmzm>Heummmm .couuona quNoo can .uzosm anon .mMOmo cmA .cAAmmox o>mo .amAus: >0AuAnm .xmAusx anon .uumnsmuu mAmo .cu0wnmum o>ao .>0AAam ouaum .umnm4 o>oum "ouoz wanna «An» ucAusuAumcou .0A+m can .m+v .m+m .N+N .o+A mAmst>AucA oumz mAAmm nocAuuu 029 .cm» caucus» xAm muonEd: vocoAmmm ouoa .muwcAmuuoos A0>Aw nmsounu mco mcoAumcmAmon uchmuu vmcmAmmm mum: mumum AMA qucoa .30Aon oAnuB on» CA .mocwucu o: m>mm mucmmAuAuumm nmA om mcu uo 0>Am .>uovmumu Ammmcm>Auomummv uc3oA 0:» :A voomAm ouo3 .moAuooo»ou m>Haummmm manna can m>Aeommmm >mm> ocu cwo3umn chAAuu amonu mm Loam .mchumu ocAAuonuom .muoE acoAuouuuoo .mcoAum>uomno A0>AumuAAmsvv cmuuAu3 :30 AAmcu can mocAumu mmocm>Auumuum 0>AumuAucmsU onu coozuon auAsuocoocw voouAcoE no moocuuncA :A .vcm ow30A>ou >AA9uoumu uuo3 mucmaAoAuuma mcu an wva mchumA AA< NAmzoA>Ach no no we ncmumumccs AuocAduu mAnu vAv hAm>Auoouuo 303v .U Nqu>mzwn >6 mocmno unvAE H noAnz :A m>m3 mo can nmauocmn Anneaumm he mo mum3u once «Eouwn ca 05 mAmn .uchmuu mAzu 0A6 >A0>Auomuwo zoxv .m N0>Au00uuo ouoe on ou maoumna osu voonn noAnz n>m3 GA uum AnocAmuu mAnu 6A0 none 30:. .c uncoAumuaw chcuoocoo voNAHcEEdu mA muocAnuu qunu uo mchuuu .mucmaAoAuumm Gnu Eouu mama w>AumuAucm=m mAnmAAm>m AA< huAmuo>Aca oumum cmmAzqu xmAusm .m anon 04940 m>HB