_ n p-“ IHES!B This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Evaluation of Teen-Age Sensitivity Training presented by JOE '1' . WATERSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Education _ degree in __ UM 4W Major professor Date WM 0-169 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF A THO-DAY SENSITIVITY TRAINING LABORATORY FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS by Joe Thomas Haterson Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to measure the impact. if any. of a two-day leadership learning laboratory on high school sophomores and Juniors. The laboratory was designed to appeal to high school students and offered a maximum amount of actual involvement on the part of the students. The study compared the test scores of the laboratory participants on a personality orientation test with an equal number of students who did not participate in the learning laboratory. Design of the Study 81: high schools from Greater Lansing and six high schools from Greater Huskegon were selected for the study. Three schools from each geographic area were randomly selected for the experimental group and the other three schools in each locality constituted the control group. School administrators selected students who were perceived as either exhibiting leadership or having leadership potential. A total of eight students from each school were involved in the study. Forty-eight of these students participated in the two-day leadership learning laboratory, and the other forty-eight students were in the control group. Five months after the laboratory. students from both groups completed the Personal Orientation Inventory. This instrument was a 150 item. two-choice test designed to compare values and behavior Judgments. The items were scored twice. first for two basic scales of personal orientation: inner-directed support and time competence. The second scoring involved ten sub-scales which measured conceptually important elements of self-actualization. Major Finding of the Study The test results of the two groups were analyzed using a five-way analysis of variance. The five variables were: 1. Experimental and control 2. Geographic area 3. Twelve different sub-scores with the POI 4. Schools 5. Individual students While the analysis did not identify any statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups on the POI. some trends did appear. The experimental group scored somewhat higher in their responsiveness to their own needs and feelings and in their ability to express feeling in spontaneous action situations. The experimental group also scored higher in existentiality. This sub-score measures one's ability to be flexible in applying one's value system. In some of the other sub-scores. the control group was slightly higher than the experimental group. In several instances both groups scored somewhat higher than #12 students reported on by the author of the POI. However, in no case were there any statistically significant differ- ences between the scores of the control and experimental groups or between either of these groups and base high school group reported by the author of the POI. AN EVALUATION OF A TWO-DAY SENSITIVITY TRAINING LABORATORY FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS BY Joe Thomas Waterson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is deeply grateful to the Chairman of his Guidance Committee. Dr. Charles A. Blackman. for his counsel and encouragement during the graduate program. Special appreciation is extended to the members of the Guidance Committee including Doctors Dale Alam, Sheldon Lowry, Mason Miller and John Sehr. The author is extremely grateful to Dr. Andrew Porter for assistance in developing the research design and statistical analysis. The author is indebted to Dr. Donald Stormer without whose initial encouragement the program would not have been undertaken. and to Dr. Russell Mawby and Dr. Gordon Beckstrand for their continuing support and encouragement. An additional thanks goes to friend and colleague. Arthur Howson; the twelve cooperating schools and the staff of the laboratory week-end who volunteered their time and talents. A special acknowledgment goes to the author's family for their forbearance. encouragement and sacrifice during the course of the doctoral program. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS AcmowLEmnENTS O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O a O 0 O 1 1 LIST OF TABLES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction Purpose of the Study Clarification of Terms Relationship between Self-Actualization and the Objectives of the Leadership Learning Laboratory Problem to be Investigated Study Design Setting Limitations Assumptions Summary II. RELEVANT LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Introduction Assumptions about Sensitivity Training Research Problems in Sensitivity Training Research in Sensitivity Training with High School-Age Participants Research in Sensitivity Training with Inter-generational Populations Research in Sensitivity Training in the Classroom as Compared with Seminars in the Classroom Research in Sensitivity Training with Adult Participants Transfer of Learning Summary Assessment of Review of Literature in Light of This Study 111 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . Introduction Selection of the Research Design The Sample: Experimental and Control Pre-Laboratory Orientation Learning Laboratory Staff Description of the Leadership Learning Laboratory Selection of Instrument Collection and Coding of the Data Statistical Treatment Hypotheses Summary IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . Introduction A Brief Review of the Design Review of Hypotheses Summary V. SUMMARY. IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary of Study Implications Critique of the Study Recommendations for Further Research Reflections Summary BIBLIOGRAPHY C O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX A -- LABORATORY PARTICIPANT LETTER . . . -- LABORATORY STAFF LETTER . . . . . . -- LABORATORY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . -- LABORATORY ANNOUNCEMENT LETTER . . . -- JOHARI'S WINDOW . . . . . . . . . . -- CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF FEEDBACK . . . . -- HAVE YOU TRIED LISTENING? . . . . CHOWNUOW -- PERSONAL ORIENTATION INVENTORY . . . iv 45 73 86 99 104 105 106 107 109 110 112 114 Table A. LIST OF TABLES Mean Sub-Score Tests by Geographic Area, Experimental and Control . . Total Mean Score by Schools Comparison of Total Mean Sub-Scores by Geographic Area Among Experimental and Control Groups . . . . . . . A Comparison of Mean Sub-Scores Among Experimental Group, Control Group and 412 0 Students Reported in the P.O.I. Handbook . FiveAWay Analysis of Variance Page 80 81 82 83 84 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In an age of unprecedented change. schools. churches. and parents are searching desperately for new ways of relating effectively to young people. The youth of today are demanding education which is relevant to the times. The lack of relevance manifests itself in many ways. The crime rate is on the rise. The use of drugs is no longer confined to the ghetto. It has invaded the college campus. the high school. and has even put in an appearance at the Junior high and grade school level.1 Such deviancy points to an effort on the part of youth to go outside formal education seeking relevance and meaning for life. Today's youth are being forced to postpone independent adulthood. Educational expectations keep them from becoming economically independent until well into the third decade of their lives. The young people are maturing physiologically. physically. and sexually from one to two years sooner than their counterparts of a century ago.2 1William Gleason and Peter McDowell. MA Proposal for a Community Approach to the Teenque Drug Problem," Dittoed Document. (Madison. Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin. 1969). 2James 8. Coleman. The Adolescent Societ (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. 9 9 . pp. - . 2 Child labor laws. which were designed to protect the young. have in some ways prevented youth from participating in earning and learning experiences. All of these factors result in a kind of containment of youth. which they often find highly frustrating. . The high school student is experiencing difficulty in attaining self-identity. He can no longer learn the skill of his father's.trade or business.3 In most cases. teen- agers have no conception of what their fathers or mothers do outside the home during working hours--and. so. lack these models of maleness and femaleness. with so many conveniences. there is less need for teens to help around the home. And~ so again they have less contact with parents. and consequently. less drive to learn to be adults. As a result of all of these pressures and frustrations. youth seem to behave in ways different from youth of the past. Young people are more willing to question. to protest. and to rebel. For many students. the new way of learning includes confrontation. questioning. testing. exploring. expressing. and observing. Students now are interested in being listened 22 as well as having to listen. They are demanding a voice in their education. They want the right to vote. They want the right to drink. They want to drive. They are seeking an identity. They seem to be searching for adult-status activities. They want to discover who they are. 31b1d.. p. 35. 3 Since human relations training. sensitivity training. or laboratory learning is claimed to help participants look at themselves. seek their identity. and improve their inter- personal relationships. among other things. laboratory learning has become increasingly popular in schools. churches. and various informal youth learning groups such as YMCA. Campfire. h-R. and other similar organizations. For many youth. this way of learning seems to hold great promise. For some. it has had less relevance. There are immediate gains as manifested by comments from high school student participants. their peers. their parents. and their teachers. Sensitivity training provides an opportunity for students to look at. talk about. and deal with their feelings. values. attitudes. fears. hopes. Joys. and expectations in life. Learning in this setting comes from actual experiences in a group where the concern focuses on the "here and now.*u The group acts as a mirror. thereby enabling the individual to see himself. Words like "leadership“ become real as individuals engage in actual power struggles within the group. Sensitivity training can help students become more open and willing to share and trust. Frequently students gather the courage to share concerns and fears which they may have long felt were peculiar only to themselves. “John R. Fisher. Sensitivit Trainin for TeenqA e Youth (New York: NationaI BanH of tRe YigA. I5575. p. 3. I4. Knowing that others have such feelings can release tension.5 In fact. merely sharing in itself can release tension within an individual. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to measure the impact. if any. of a two-day sensitivity training laboratory on high school sophomores and Juniors. The laboratory was identified as a Leadership Learning Laboratory. It was designed to appeal to high school students and offered a maximum amount of actual involvement on the part of the students. Short-term experiences like this one for high school students are becoming more popular. It is paramount that a methodical evaluation be made to test the impact upon the youth who attend. Clarification of Terms Terms in the physical sciences are complete and exacting. words are less likely to mean the same thing to different people in the social sciences. A case in point is the description of a group experience known as sensitivity training. It is also known as T-group. human relations training. encounter groups. and laboratory learning. among other things. Within the context of this paper the terms "sensitivity training" and "laboratory learning" will be used interchangeably. 5Ibid.. p. 5. 5 The T-group (training group) is actually an experience in a relatively unstructured group in which individuals participate as learners. The data for learning are from the "here and nowfl within the group rather than from outside the group.6 The data are the interactions among group members, their own behavior within the group as they struggle with the task of creating a productive and viable society in miniature. The group is assisted by one or two trainers who do not perform the customary role of group leader or teacher but rather assist the group from time to time by helping the group examine what is transpiring within the group. Sensitivity training often employs the use of the T-group but also has other components such as theory input. skill practice exercises. non-verbal exercises. helping pairs and trios. plus a variety of other inputs. Sensitivity training is sometimes referred to as human relations training. However. human relations training in the minds of many people implies specific emphasis upon personal growth via intro— spection and enhancement of interpersonal skills such as communications. listening. confrontation. and observation. Another name for sensitivity training is laboratory training or laboratory learning. Bradford? identifies the term "laboratory training" as: ...a community committed to the stimulation and support of experimental learning and change. 6Leland Bradford. Jack Gibb. and Kenneth Benne. T-Group Theory and Laborator Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons. I963). p. 7. 71b1d.. p. 36. 6 It is a setting where new patterns of behavior are invented and tested in a climate of supportive change and protected from the full practical consequences of innovative action in the on-going back-home associations. And help is provided in planning change efforts in associational life outside the laboratory. Relationship between Self-Actualizatiqn and the ‘ijectives of the Leadership Learning Laboratory One of the objectives of the Leadership Learning Laboratory provided for the students in the experimental group was to help them become more fully functioning or more self-actualizing. Maslow8 describes a self-actualizing person as one who lives a more enriched life. Maslow9 further explains that such a person makes the most if his unique capabilities without the shackles of inhibitions and emotional stress experienced by those less self-actualized. Gibb10 describes the experience as "learning to be one's own person." It involves being real or authentic. It means being free enough to be one's self. A self-actualizing person is free to do what makes sense to him rather than trying to live Just to please others.ll aAbraham Maslow. Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper. 1954). p. 89. 9Abraham Maslow. Toward a Ps cholo of Rain (New York: Van Nostrand. I952}. p. 30. loJack Gibb. Closing statement at the Twelfth Hi-Y Assembly. St. Olaf College. Minnesota. July. 1968. Mimeo- graphed document transcribed from a tape. p. 3. 11Carl Rogers. On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton- Mifflin. 1961). p. 157: 6 It is a setting where new patterns of behavior are invented and tested in a climate of supportive change and protected from the full practical consequences of innovative action in the on-going back-home associations. And help is provided in planning change efforts in associational life outside the laboratory. Relationship between Self-Actualization and the ‘ijectives of the Leadership Learning Laboratory One of the objectives of the Leadership Learning Laboratory provided for the students in the experimental group was to help them become more fully functioning or .more self-actualizing. Maslow8 describes a self-actualizing person as one who lives a more enriched life. Maslow9 further explains that such a person makes the most if his unique capabilities without the shackles of inhibitions and emotional stress experienced by those less self-actualized. Gibb10 describes the experience as "learning to be one's own person." It involves being real or authentic. It means being free enough to be one's self. A self-actualizing person is free to do what makes sense to him rather than trying to live Just to please others.11 BAbraham Maslow. Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper. 1954). p. 89. 9Abraham Maslow. Toward a Ps cholo of Bein (New York: Van Nostrand. I9625. p. 50. 10Jack Gibb. Closing statement at the Twelfth Hi-Y .Aasembly. St. Olaf College. Minnesota. July. 1968. Mimeo- graphed document transcribed from a tape. p. 3. 11Carl Rogers. On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton- le‘flin. 1961). p. 15 . 7 Self-actualized persons live in the present. One of the emphases in the T-group is concentrating on the "here and now: Shostrom12 described the self-actualizing person as: ...tending to lie between that of the extreme other-directed person and the extreme inner- directed person. He tends to be less dependency- or deficiency-oriented than either the extreme inner- or extreme other-directed person. He can be characterized as having more of an autonomous self- supportive or being-orientation. Whereas he is other- directed in that he must. to a degree. be sensitive to people's approval. affection. and good will. the source of his actions is essentially inner-directed. He is free. but his freedom is not gained by being a rebel or pushing against others and fighting them. He transcends complete inner-directedness by critical assimilation and creative expansion of his earlier principles of living. He discovers a mode of living which gives him confidence. Personal growth toward self-actualization involves a combination of living in the present and relying on one's own self-support and self-expressiveness. A self-actualizing person freely experiences life and himself when he lives in the here-and-now. Maslow13 describes this as "the contrast between living fully and preparing to live fully: between growing up and being grown." 1“ states that the person who lives in the Shostrom future depends upon anticipated events for motivation. Perls15 suggests that ideals or goals are a means whereby 12Everett Shostrom. MA Test for the Measurement of Selquctualization." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 24 (1965). pp. 207-218. 13Abraham Maslow. Toward a Ps cholo of Being. (New York: Van Nostrand. I9325. p. 5T. 14Shostrom. op. cit.. p. 215. l51"‘rank Perls. E o H er and gression. (London: George Allen and Unwin. Ltd.. 15E7S. p. 73. 8 the need for affection. appreciation and admiration is being gratified. The person gratifies his vanity by perceiving himself in terms of his goals. These invented goals are developed because such a person is incapable of accepting himself as he is in the here-and-now. according to Shostrom.16 Shostrom17 goes on to say: Such an individual begins to invent means for life to Justify his existence because he has lost the awareness of his biological being in the here-and- now. By striving for the goals of future perfection, the individual turns his life into a living hell. With this idealistic attitude. this individual achieves the opposite of his intentions. Actually he arrests his own natural development and promotes inferiority feelings within himself. In a similar vein. the individual who lives in the past relies on blaming others as a substitute for self-support. 18 places much more emphasis upon the future. She Buhler claims that self-actualization requires that the individual must arrive at a desirable hierarchical order of goals to pursue in the future. While values need not always be actual goals. they always represent potential goals. As potential goals. values may present a problem to an individual. A person may ask himself whether a given value is worth attaining. worth striving for. or even worth considering. Buhler19 suggests that it is doubtful that anyone would be 16Shostrom. op. cit.. pp. 207-218. 17Ibid.. p. 221. 18Charlotte Buhler. Values in P3 chothera (New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 196 . p. 2 . 19Ibid.. p. 126. 9 satisfied with Just "functioning" or coping with difficulties that occur. People cannot be content without goals or with- out hope. They need a future to look forward to. to believe in. to build on. Fenichel20 suggests that the solution to the future. past. or present dilemma rests in helping people integrate their past or future into the reality of the present. In brief. the individual must utilize past memories to serve as significant learning experience in the present. Future goals must be tied to here-and-now activity. To summarize. the healthy individual lives primarily in the present. According to Shostrom.21 ... living fully in the present does not require concern for support or sustenance. To say. "I am adequate now." rather than "I was adequate once." or "I will be adequate again." is self-validating and self-Justifying. Being in the present. being in active process. may be said to be an end in itself. It is self-validating and self-Justifying. Being has its own reward -- a feeling of self-support. Self-actualizing people tend to be more flexible in applying values or principles to life. They use good Judgment in applying general principles. They are not so attached to their values that they become compulsive or dogmatic.22 The self-actualizing person is sensitive to 200. Fenichel. The c cle Anal tic Theor of Neurosis (New York: Norton. 1955). p. 37I. 21Everett Shostrom. personal orientation Inventor Manual (San Diego: Educational and IndustriaI Testing Service. 1968). p. 19. 22Ibid.. p. 20 10 his own needs and feelings. He has the ability to express feeling in spontaneous action rather than being fearful of expressing feelings behaviorally.23 One of the aims of the Leadership Learning Laboratory was to help students be more open. honest. and spontaneous in expressing feelings. Shostromzu identifies the self-actualizer as having the ability to like himself because of his own strength as a person. The self-actualizing person can also accept himself in spite of his weaknesses. The kinds of experiences at the Leadership Learning Laboratory were designed to help students become more confident and self-accepting. Another objective of the Leadership Learning Laboratory was to increase the students' abilities to relate intensely with other human beings either aggressively or tenderly. Shostrom25 identifies this as follows: It can be said that the climate to establish good contact is best when the individual does not over- respond to nor does he utilize interpersonal demand expectations and obligations. Other measured dimensions which facilitate contact are the ability to: I. express vs. impress 2. being vs. pleasing 3. relating intensely to another person either aggressively or tenderly. 23Everett Shostrom. Personal Orientation Inventor Manual (San Diego: Educational and IndustriaI TesEing Service. 1968). p. 20. 2“mm. . p. 21. 251bid.. p. 22. 11 A close relationship exists between the behavioral change objectives for the students in the Leadership Learning Laboratory and the types of behaviors characterized by those which Shostrom26 identifies as self-actualizing. Therefore. the use of Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory for measuring self-actualization is appropriate for measuring the outcomes of the Leadership Learning Laboratory for high school students. Impact of Sensitivity Training Group dynamics is often studied from a book. When can students learn better about groups than when they are actually a part of that group? The whole subject of group dynamics. group roles. group functions. leadership techniques becomes alive. real. and contemporary in such a setting. Even if these things are true. what changes in thinking. feeling. and behaving come about in participants as a result of sensitivity training? what are the short-term effects? what are the long-term effects? What is actually known about sensitivity training with high school students? Problem to be Investigated In a search for new and more effective ways of relating to teen—agers. sensitivity training is being increasingly 26Everett Shostrom. Personal Orientation Inventory Manual (San Diego: Educational and Industrial Service. 1968), 3713'? 12 employed. The purpose of this study is to measure changes. if any. in students five months after they have participated in a two-day learning laboratory. Such effects can be historically documented by case studies among teens. Most of these studies are based on self-perceived changes. Some are based on individual behavioral changes as perceived by others. To date. no statistical study has been undertaken to measure changes in attitudes. feelings. and values of high school students participating in a learning laboratory. The instrument to be used to explore these variables is the Personal Orientation Inventory (Shostrom) which measures a student's tendency toward self-actualization. The Laboratory design is based on premises regarding learning processes which are quite different from the theories of learning upon which most high school classes or informal agency programs for this age group are based. To the author's knowledge. no laboratory training research design with high school students has been developed to measure changes in self-actualization that involves the use of random selection of an experimental and control group. Study Desigg A two-day learning laboratory centered on leadership. learning about self. communications. and interpersonal relations was held in January. 1969. for 57 high school students. This constituted the experimental group. (Nine , students were randomly excluded from the final study in an 13 effort to have equal numbers in the control and experimental group. The students were primarily sophomores and Juniors. Half of the laboratory participants were from three randomly selected schools in the Muskegon area. The other half were from three randomly selected schools in the Lansing area. Students in both control and experimental groups were told that the program was a part of a research design conducted by two doctoral candidates at Michigan State University. They were also told that they would be expected to complete some questionnaires about four months and twelve. months after the laboratory experience. Limitations 1. The measurements of the effectiveness of laboratory learning can only reflect the items actually measured. There may well be many other effects of laboratory learning which are not measured in this study. 2. The opportunity for replication of this study will be limited by the extent to which the Learning Laboratory can be duplicated for another group of high school students. 3. Findings of this study must be limited to outstanding students in each high school rather than another segment of the high school population or an entire cross-section of a high school population since students from various high schools were selected 14 by teachers. administrators and counselors on the basis of the leadership or potential leadership ability. Assumptions The assumption is made that any significant differences in the scores between the control group and the experimental group are the result of the Learning Laboratory experiences and the two following sessions which were attended by the experimental group and not by the control group. A second assumption is that a two-day laboratory experience can be of sufficient impact as to be measurable by a psychological instrument five months afterward. Summary This chapter has attempted to lay the foundation for the subsequent portions of the study. Along with the next two chapters. this chapter should help to make the data presentation. analysis. and recommendations more meaningful to the reader. Chapter II will explore the recent literature on sensitivity training as it relates to behavioral changes. Chapter III will focus on the research procedures utilized in the study. The presentation and analysis of the data gathered in the study will appear in Chapter IV. Finally. Chapter V will contain the summary. conclusions. and recommendations based upon the preceding material. CHAPTER II RELEVANT LITERATURE Introduction Throughout the process of laboratory training develop- ment. the practitioners have had a strong commitment to research.1 This research has included studies of interaction analysis. group composition. trainer style. group and individual behavior. interpersonal perceptions. and impact on both immediate and long-range learning and change.2 The number of studies attempting to make long-range assess- ment is small due to limitations of adequate research designs. relevant instrumentation. adequate control groups. finances. and the geographical scattering of participants. The literature to be reviewed in this chapter will include assumptions about sensitivity training. research problems. research on high school-age participants. inter- generational laboratory populations. sensitivity training in the classroom. research in sensitivity with adult participants. transfer of learning. and a summary. 1Edgar R. Schein and warren G. Bennis. Personal and Ors:nizationa1 Chan;e Throu; Grouo Methods: TRe Laborator: 'e o- New ‘or : o . “ ey ano ‘ons. nc.. °o . p. 3. 2Dorothy Stock. "A Survey of Research on T-Groups. n in T-Grou Theor and Laborator Method: Innovation in Re-educaEIon. 33. By IeIand Bradford. JacE H. OISE. and Kenneth D. Benne (New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 1964). P. 399. 15 16 Assumptions About Sensitivity Trainigg3 Since sensitivity training means many different things to many different people. clarification by way of stating some assumptions about sensitivity training seems important. Distinguishing sensitivity training from more conventional models of learning involves a set of assumptions dealing with the nature of learning. 1. Learning responsibility rests with the individual. Each participant's learning depends upon his own particular style. and the relationships he develops with other participants. 2. The role of the staff person is to facilitate the examination and understanding of the experiences which take place in sensitivity training. The staff person helps participants to focus on the way the group is functioning. the style of each individual's participation. as well as the issues that are facing the group. 3. Learning and authentic relationships are important. An individual is free to learn when he establishes authentic relationships with other participants. Such relationships enhance his self-esteem and , reduce his defensiveness. In authentic 3Chris A. Seashore. "what Is Sensitivity?'. News and Re orts. N.T.L. Institute. Vol. 2. No. 2. April. 1968. p. 3. (This document forms a basis for the assumptions on sensitivity training.) 17 relationships people can be honest. open. and direct with one another so that they can communicate feelings rather than gigs feelings. Usually learning is a combination of experience and conceptualization. One of the prime objectives of sensitivity training is to provide a setting in which participants are encouraged to examine their experiences together in sufficient detail so that valid generalizations can be drawn. The development of new interpersonal skill is maximized as an individual examines the basic values behind his behavior. These interpersonal skills sharpen as a person: (a) acquires appropriate concepts and theory (b) practices new behavior. and (c) obtains feedback on the degree to which his behavior produces the intended impact. Goals and outcomes of sensitivity training can be‘ divided in terms of potential learning about individuals. groups. and organizations. 1. Individuals. Individuals most often identify the T-Group as the source of their greatest learning. Here the participant gains a picture of the impact that he makes on other group members. A participant can determine the extent to which that impact corresponds with or deviates from his conscious intentions. He also becomes aware of the range of 2. 18 perceptions which can result from a given act. Each person tends to view a given behavior differently. It may be seen as antagonistic. supportive. hostile. relevant. irrelevant. ambiguous. or clear. Very seldom can a group of people agree on even the same general perceptions of a specific individual or a given event. The T-Group can be a setting for an individual to experiment with his own.behavior and thus gain greater awareness of his own potential and competence. This can provide an incentive for further experimentation with behavior. Groups. What can be learned about groups in sensitivity training? The T-Group in particular can focus on forces which affect the characteristics of the group. such as the level of commitment and follow-through resulting from different methods of making decisions. the norms controlling the amount of conflict and disagreement that is permitted. and the kinds of data that are collected. Power, group maturity. cohesion. and other concepts such as climate and structure can be examined using the experiences in the group to better understand how these forces operate in the back-home situation. l9 3. Organizations. What can be learned about organizations in sensitivity training? Status. power. influence. division of labor. and styles of managing conflict are some of the organizational concepts that may be highlighted by analyzing the events that occur in small groups. Sub-groups which form can be likened to units within an organization. This makes it possible to examine the phenomena that occur between groups. such as competition. cooperation. communications. trust. mistrust. and understanding. Sensitivity training can also provide opportunities for a participant to explore the kinds of assumptions and values which underlie the behavior of people as they attempt to manage the work of the group. Research Problems in Sensitivity Training Those who have done evaluative research in the area of sensitivity training are in complete agreement about the tremendous difficulty of designing and carrying out the evaluative research on any activity where the over-all objectives is that of producing change in people. Miles“ succinctly summarizes these difficulties as follows: Research on any form of treatment is classically difficult. unrewarding. and infrequent. When the product of a process is change in persons. the criterion problem is ordinarily a major one. whether the treatment “M. B. Miles. ”Changes During and Following Laboratory Training: A Clinical-Experimental Study". Journal of A lied Behavioral Science. January. February. MarcH. I963. I (I; pe - e 20 occupies the domain of education. mental health. or social functioning. Goals are vaguely stated (partly because of ignorance and partly. it has been suggested. to protect the practitioner against charges of malpractice). Often. it is claimed that "real" change may not be accessible until long after the treatment has occurred. Even if goals are precisely and operationally defined. treatment programs themselves are usually difficult to describe accurately enough for later replication. Furthermore. tests-treatment interaction is quite likely: subjects are easily sensitized by pre- measures. Even more crudely. it is frequently difficult to locate anything like a meaningful control group. let alone establish its equivalence. Finally. numbers are usually small and the treatment population is often biased through self-selection. Thus. it is not surprising that perhaps 95 per cent of all treatment efforts go unstudied and that even the five per cent typically show serious defects in design. measurement. or data analysis stemming from insufficient attention to the problems alluded to above: and methodological problems aside. most treatment studies have a central substantive weakness: being rather non- theoreticaly. they lead to no coherent additions to either science or practice. The variables presumed to explain the amount of change in subjects are rarely specified. and change processes during treatment are hardly ever studied. Laboratory learning is a recipient of all the difficulties involved in evaluating any program designed to produce change in people. but these difficulties are compounded by the fact that laboratory training is evaluated in terms of not only whether it produces change in individuals but also whether or not it produces change in organizations. Therefore. it is not surprising that a large body of valid research has not been accumulated on laboratory learning. Schein and Benniss make this statement regarding the difficulties of research on sensitivity training: 5Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis. op. cit.. pp. 148-199. 21 We can say at the outset that the evidence is meager largely because of the fantastic difficulties of doing valid evaluation research. Particularly lacking are systematic studies of organizational change programs. Thse multiply the already considerable difficulties of research on individual delegates. The meagerness of evidence does not reflect lack of concern on the part of the practi- tioner of laboratory learning. but the actual difficulties of gathering data which have empirical validity. Two very general problems can be identified: (1) difficulties of achieving rigor or research design in a setting devoted to achieving practical change in learning goals: and (2) diffi- culties of gathering data in which we have confidence as to their reliability and validity. Where human and organizational change is involved. it is difficult to determine what kinds of data we should gather that would reliably and validly reflect the changes and learnings. In fact. one of the problems of doing research in sensitivity training is communications. Argyris expressed the problem of relating the T-group experience to others as being a function of: 1. wide individual and group variations of meaning- fulness and learning from the experience. and 2. the same words have different meanings to different people. Explanations of real feelings such as "trust." "loge." and "acceptance" are. difficult to relate. Argyris continues with his general version of T-group aims: Basically. it is a group experience designed to provide maximum possible opportunity for the individuals to expose their behavior. give and receive feed-back. experiment with new behavior. and develop everlasting awareness and acceptance of self and others. 6c, Argyris. "T-Groups for Organizational Effectiveness." Harvard Business Review. XLII. March. April. l96h. p. 74. 71bid.. p. 63. 22 In addition. Argyris mentions the learning of the nature of effective group functioning and the development of a group to achieve specific goals with the least possible human losses as being important aims.8 Research in Sensitivity Training With ‘Hng SchooI-Age Participants Examining research in sensitivity training with high school-age participants should provide a helpful backdrop for this study. Unfortunately. scientific studies with teen-age laboratory learning are most difficult to find. The YMCA has done the most work in teen-age sensitivity training but the evaluations have been rather perfunctory. A sampling of these findings follows: A study of a six-day laboratory with teen-agers held at Estes Park. Colorado. in June. 1966. indicated forty-five thought the sensitivity training was excellent: eleven rated it good: one. fair: and no one rated it poor.9 Eighteen of twenty-one participants in a six-day laboratory in the Pacific Northwest rated their experiences as most positive.10 Three indicated that the experience had. 8C. Argyris. "Explorations of Interpersonal Competence. 116; Journal of A lied Behavioral Science. April. May. June. 19 C De e 9Western Regional Hi-Y Leadership Training Conference. Estes Park, Colorado. June. 1966. ”West Texas Bus Evaluation" and "Evaluation of West Central Area Delegates." undated mimeographed documents. 10Pacific Northwest Area Council of YMCA's. "Evaluation of High School Human Relations Laboratory. Pacific University. July. 1966." Mimeographed. October. 1966. 23 been too emotionally upsetting. In a teen-age laboratory held in Illinois in 1966. teen-agers were asked the most important thing that had happened to them. Thirty indicated they had learned about themselves: twenty-two understood others better. and seventeen said they felt closer to the rest of the group and also experienced a feeling of greater openness. trust. and honesty.11 In an evaluation of the Dallas YMCA laboratory in 1963, participants were asked in the final session to rank their group as they were then and as they had been at the start of the laboratory. Two clear and consistent trends emerged: 1. individuals perceived substantial change in themselves but not in others. 2. the difference between self as perceived by self and self as perceived by others was greater at the end of the laboratory than it had been at the beginning.12 Investigators suggested that one explanation of these findings might be that the delegates realized at the end of the laboratory experience how much they had learned about their old patterns of behavior. and had glimpsed many new possible patterns. They had not yet. however. been able 11"Summary of Responses by Delegates to a Questionnaire Following an Illinois-Area YMCA Personal Development Conference" Undated. typewritten document. 1ZSanford M. Reece. ”A Partial Evaluation Report: Dallas Hi-Y Laboratory." Undated dittoed document. 24 to successfully convert these new insights into new behavior which could be observed by others. This explanation would be consistent with the views of Harrison and Gold.13 who suggest that one of the most important but least documented areas of interpersonal research is change in people's beliefs about what is possible in interpersonal relationships even though this increased level of aspiration may not yet have been translated into observable changes in behavior. In response to questionnaires returned from parents of participants five months after the Dallas laboratory. 72 per cent of the parents had observed changes in attitudes and behavior of their offspring since their return from the laboratory experience.lu Three-fourths of these parents indicated that the changein attitude or behavior had continued over the five month period. The rest of the parents were not sure whether or not the change had persisted. During the summer of 1966. #31 teen-agers participated in a week-long laboratory at Camp Horseshoe. West Virginia.15 .Approximately twenty-five hours were spent in sensitivity 13Roger Harrison and Jerome Gold. "Goal Setting and Evaluation for College Leadership Workshops." Human Relations NewsI Summer. 1969. 1“"Parent Evaluation: Dallas Hi-Y Training Laboratory." Dittoed document. June. 196A. 15"Results of Questionnaire Sent to Parents of Teen- Agers Attending West Virginia Camp Horseshoe Training in 1966." Typewritten document. May. 1967. 25 training groups. Some groups had trainers. and some groups did not. Their parents received questionnaires four months after the delegates returned home. Only 106 parents returned the questionnaires. Responses of one hundred parents indicated that the teens had had a positive reaction to the experience upon returning home and that the feeling persisted. When asked if any changes in attitudes or values had been noted in their teens since the sensitivity experience. thirty-six noticed no change. sixty-nine noted a positive change. while one noted a negative change. One hundred three of the parents indicated they would like to have their teens return to Camp Horseshoe the following summer for a similar experience. Three parents preferred not to send their teens again. While the responses were very positive. it must be remembered that only one-fourth of the parents returned the questionnaire. The feelings of those parents who failed to return the questionnaire are not known. A study of a national Hi-Y sensitivity laboratory for high school students in 1965 dealt with various kinds of group leaders ranging from professionally trained men. professionally trained women. adults who were not profession- ally trained. to youth-led groups to leaderless groups.l6 Using a group description instrument at the third and eleventh 16Richard Batschelder and James Hardy. Usi Sensitivit Trainin and the Laborato Method (New York: Association Press. 9 . p. . 26 sessions in each group. it was found that changes in terms of leadership showed no statistically significant differences among the types of leadership--adult. youth-adult. youth with no stated leader--and the amount of positive change occurring within that group between the third and eleventh sessions. Within the adult-led groups. however. it was found that both the amount of experience of the adult trainer and sex of the adult trainer produced statistically significant differences in the amount of changes as measured by the group description instrument administered at the third to the seventh sessions. To measure changes in individual participants' self- perception. a previously validated instrument--Relationship Analysis Questionnaire--was administered to participants at the beginning of the laboratory and again by mail eight months later.17 Where scores associated with the awareness p: and pggll‘;p interpersonal relations. the participants showing greatest gain had been in groups with no stated leader. Participants in adult-led groups showed gain. Participants in youth-led groups showed losses. The difference between each of these leadership categories was significant at the .05 level. Within the adult-led groups. positive change in participants' scores showed a significant positive correlation to the previous experience level of the trainer with sensitivity training groups. 17Barry Oshry. Relationship Analysis Questionnaire. 1961. 27 Several forty-eight hour teen-age laboratories have been held in Michigan during the last eighteen months. Teen participants of these short-term laboratories18 have expressed a new sense of awareness of self. new insights in group leadership. improved listening skills. and greater sensitivity toward others. Perhaps these young people were only repeating phrases they had heard during the laboratory as a way of pleasing the adult staff. The author has had considerable experience in sensitivity training of high school-age boys and girls. Data have been collected from individual participants at the close of these short-term learning laboratories indicating very positive feelings about their experiences. After a forty-eight hour laboratory for eighty teen leaders representing fifty-seven different youth organizations and two high schools in Alpena. there were reports of much more civic interest of youth generally in the community.19 Previous to the laboratory. the local police chief was very critical of teens and vice versa. After the laboratory. dialogue began to take place between the teen council and the police chief.20 It was believed that the interpersonal skills learned by the laboratory participants enhanced this dialogue. 18Gerald Robbins. "Evaluation of Saginaw Neighborhood Youth Corps Laboratory.“ Dittoed document. 196?. 19J. T. Waterson. “Evaluation of Alpena Laboratory." Dittoed. document. 196?. 201bid. 9 28 Research in Sensitivity Training With Inter-generationalJ ngulations While this study is dealing with teens. adults are continually interacting with teens. Therefore. this section should offer some insight on the effects of sensitivity training with high school students. Hurley21 conducted research on an inter-generational laboratory. He administered the Attribute Preference Inventory before and after a 3 5-day sensitivity laboratory participation to twenty-five adults. mostly teachers. and twenty-five teen-agers. The test requires an individual to rank-order ten pre-selected behavioral qualities of sixteen year olds. T-group trainers showed a stronger pre-laboratory preference for “expressive person" versus "good slave" attributes than did the participants. During the laboratory. teenagers markedly increased their preference for "assertive and self-reliant". (These findings are similar to empirical data gathered after the Alpena Laboratory mentioned in the previous section of this chapter.) Adults significantly lowered their preferences for "respectful toward adults” and "responsible and trustworthy". All differences among staff. adults. and teen-agers generally decreased during the 3 5-day laboratory experience with "expressive person" attributes gaining in preference. These 21John R. Hurley. "Impact of Inter-generational Sensitivity Training on Preferred Teen-agar Qualities." Undated mimeographed document. 29 shifts were consistent with the basic goals of laboratory education and toward the preferences of behavior scientists. The above data seem to substantiate Argyris'22 definition of laboratory education as being characterized by: 1. participants being responsible for their own re-education . use of here-and-now data giving the receiving feedback . the transferability of learnings. C’WN Research in Sgnsitivit Training in the Classroom as Compared wIth SemInars in the Classroom Since this entire study deals with leadership learning for youth. it is appropriate to look briefly at classroom learning and small group learning and compare them with learning in a sensitivity training setting. Studies of classroom interaction. effective teaching behavior. and small group leadership frequently disagree regarding specific kinds of desirable behaviors due to different goals in terms of student learning. However. as the literature since the studies by Lewin. pp 21..23 will reveal. there are certain personal perspectives and small group leadership behaviors which seem to be most effective in the attainment of small group learning goals as described by Howard.24 22Chris ArSYris. "On the Future of Laboratory Education," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. July. August. September, 9 epe - . 23Kurt Lewin. and Ronald Lippitt. “An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and Democracy: A Preliminary Note." Sociometry. I (1938). p. 653-657. zuEugene R. Howard. "Possibilities for Team-Teaching in the Senior High School." Team Teachingiq Bold New Venture. ed. David W. Beggs. III (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 196A). 30 Seminars should help students to: 1. build concepts and opinions on the basis of knowledge 2. use the seminar group as a critical audience upon which to try out various personal ideas 3. use the seminar as a forum for an exchange of experience a. use the seminar for the purpose of relating ideas acquired through independent study. large group lectures. or learning laboratories 5. discuss controversial issues Sensitivity training can cause more discomfort than seminars. Sensitivity training with its stress upon process rather than content. upon the trainee rather than the trainer. and upon emotional rather than cognitive learning is a protest against inert ideas.25 Any productive learning session is a rejection of ideas which exist for their own sake only and involves exploration for new meanings. Learning involves the alteration of perceptions and attitudes. For these changes to be of consequence. it is necessary for behavioral change to result. 25 25Henry Clay Smith. Sensitivit to Pegple (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. I566). 26Ronald Lippitt. "The Use of Social Research to Improve Social Practice." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. XXIV (July. 1965). 31 To the degree that the needs of the individual in each group are met. to that degree is the individual personally committed to the functions and goals of the group.27 In consequence, his learning will be comparable.28 High I.Q. students have been shown to produce far better in groups in which they are personally compatible with their group members in contrast to groups in which they were less compatible. The same tended to be true of lower I.Q. students. but of a lesser magnitude.29 A group climate which reduces individual defensiveness and anxiety about exposure of one's inadequacy and gives acceptance and emotional support to all students will do a great deal to prevent or repair feelings of rejection. of inadequate self-image, of failure. Such a climate is paramount in creating readiness for learning. and in being able to face and solve difficulties inhibiting individual and group growth and development. Trust and security. mutual confidence and respect. a genuine desire to understand the views of others and to respect their right to have these views are among basic 27C. Gratton Kemp. Pers ectives on the Small Grou Process. (Boston: Houghton-MiffIin Company. I965}. 28David Jenkins. "Interdependence in the Classroom." Unpublished paper presented at a symposium sponsored by the Educational Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. September 7. 1950. 29A1bert J. Lott and Bernice s. Lott. "Group Cohesiveness and Individual Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology. L. 1966. p. 71-73. 3°C. Kemp. op. cit. 32 characteristics of a constructive group learning climate.31 A realization by group members that motivation and significant learnings are personal. and that all genuine growth stems from the creative power of the individual are integral requirements.32 As these conditions for learning in groups are examined, some similarities between sensitivity training and classroom seminars begin to emerge: l. Defensiveness impedes individual learning 2. Motivation is personal 3. Learning and growth stem from individual creativity. Bunker33 identifies some of the unique aims of laboratory learning as compared with most other educational endeavors. He spells out expectations above and beyond the understanding of subject matter and attitude changes: More than in most educational enterprises, in laboratory training increased intellectual under- standing of the subject matter and altered attitudes are not enough. The aim. whether an individual or an intact organizational group. is to enable participants to make adaptive changes in their perceptions and behavior in their "back-home" 31Carl R. Rogers. On Becomin A Person (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin CompanY. 9 . Also Nat niel Cantor. "A(Way of Thinking About Learning." Adult Leadership. I 1953). 33Arthur Combs and Donald Snygg. Individual Behavior: A Perce tual A roach to Behavior (New York: Harper and ro hers. 9 . 33Douglas R. Bunker. "The Effect of Laboratory Training upon Individual Behavior." Proceedings of the Sixteen Annual Megting. Industrial Relations Research Association. December. 19 3. 33 organizational setting. From the theoretical perspective underlying this type of training. adaptive changes are likely to be those which improve self-understanding and the capacity for open. meaningful working relationships with others--relationships in which both collaboration and conflict can be rendered productive. Such "meaningful working relationships with others" are basic to effective leadership in seminars and in influencing the perceptions and behavior of co-workers. Research in Sensitivity Training_with AduIt PartICipants Durham and Gibb3n have published an annotated biblio- graphy of nearly fifty research studies between 1947 and 1960 in the area of sensitivity training. Eric Knowles35 cites some seventy-six studies on human relations training between 1960 and 1967. Since the bulk of research on the impact of sensitivity training has been with adult participants. it is appropriate that this research be examined for possible corollaries which might be applicable to high school students. Schein and Bennis36 make it clear that much more research will have to be conducted in the future before it 3‘*L. E. Durham and J. R. Gibb. "A Bibliography of Research. 1947-1960." E lorations Human Relations Training and Research. (Washington. D. C.: N.T.L. InstItute for AppIied BeHEvioral Science. 1967). 35E. S. Knowles. "A Bibliography of Research. 1960- 1967." Eyplorations Human Relations Trainin and Research. (Washington. D. C.: N.T.L. Institute for AppIied Behavioral Science. 1967). 36E. Schein and W. G. Bennis. Personal Opganizational Chan e Throu h Grou Methods: The Laborator Approach (New York: JoHn'WiIey and Sons. I965). 34 can be stated firmly that the laboratory method actually has been proven to be an effective method of personal learning and organizational change. They emphasize that studies to date have been extremely encouraging. On the whole. the results are positive and warrant optimism for the future of laboratory learning. In reviewing research on the effectiveness of sensitivity training. Campbell and Dunnette37 indicated that in most studies where post-laboratory behavioral changes of participants are reported by organizational colleagues. the following findings are reported: 1. Between two and three times as many behavioral changes are reported from the experimental groups as for the control groups. 2. About one-third of the laboratory participants (experimental group) were reported as having exhibited some type of perceptible change. 3. The types of perceived changes most discernible between the experimental and control groups were: (a) increased sensitivity (b) more open communication (c) increased flexibility in role behavior. In further review of research. Campbell and Dunnette38 drew these further conclusions: 1. Though evidence is limited. T-Group Training does induce behavioral changes in the back-home setting. 37J. P. Campbell. M. D. Dunnette. «Effectiveness of T-Group Experiences in Managerial Training and Development." Psychological Bulletin. August. 1968. Vol. 70. No. 2. p. 92-93. 381b1de. pe 98-99e 35 2. Many researchers identify the T-Group experience as unique and insist that each participant's pattern of change on various behavioral dimensions is unique because of individual-difference variables interacting with training-program variables. If this be the case. the success or failure of each laboratory must be judged by each participant in terms of his own personal goals. 3. However. in spite of a strong focus on uniqueness. group differences have been obtained which seem to be compatible with some of the major objectives of laboratory training. 4. Perceived-change measures have not usually related observed changes to actual job effectiveness. 5. Laboratory training seems to produce more actual changes than the simple passage of time. the relative proportion of changes detrimental to performance is also higher for the laboratory method. 6. Evidence that sensitivity training results in changes in self-pgrception remains unequivocal. Schutz and Allen studies with the FIRO-B are suggestive of positive effects of changes in attitudes and skills. Other data are either mixed or negative. 7. The assumption that sensitivity training has positive utility for organizations has been neither confirmed nor refuted.- However. utility for the organization is not necessarily the same as utility for the individual. 8. Objectives of the sensitivity training are considerably more far-reaching than objectives of other group techniques. The types of desired behavior changes are much more difficult to observe and measure. What are some of the actual changes that might be expected in personal attitudes. values and insights? 39v. C. Schutz and v. L. Allen. "The Effects of a T-Group Laboratory on Interpersonal Behavior." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. January. February. Marcfi. 9 O 9 Op. " e 36 40 has summarized the impact of laboratory training Argyris in terms of individual learning: "The values underlying laboratory education are to help the individuals become more aware of and willing to accept their own feelings. values. and ideas: to experiment and take risks with new feelings. values. and ideas: to increase their individuality. non- conformity. self-responsibility. and internal commitment." In separate studies Bunker.“l Miles.“2 and Valiquet.“3 using somewhat similar designs which compared changes in laboratory participants with changes in a control group. found that laboratory participants showed significantly greater increases in sensitivity to others in equalitarian attitudes. in awareness of their own behavior. and an insight into self-role. Other studies by Burke and Bennis.n4 and Schutz and Allen45 corroborate the increase in self- awareness by laboratory participants. There is evidence “0C. Argyris. "Explorations in Interpersonal Competence. 1%." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1967. 3. pp. 153- 1 2. “1D. R. Bunker. "Individual Applications of Laboratory Training." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1967. 2. pp 0 50 5-521.“ “2M. B. Miles. "Changes During and Following Laboratory Training: A Clinical-Experimental Study." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1965. 1. pp. 215- . “31. M. Valiquet. "Contributions to the Evaluation of a Management Development Program." Unpublished master's thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1964. “4Burke and Bennis. op. cit. “5Schutz and Allen. op. cit. 37 that the content of feelings. values. risks. and self- awareness vary with the individual. so that the laboratory does not mold individuals into a pattern of conformity. Bunker“6 cites the following example: A close look at some of the original data indicates that some subjects are perceived by their describers as having changed adaptively in the direction of an increase in assertive behavior and more willingness to take a stand. Other subjects are approvingly described as having decreased their aggressive behavior and have become more sensitive to other's feelings. These findings indicate that in the training program studied there is no standard learning outcome and no stereotyped ideal toward which conformity is induced. Schutz and Allen1+7 as well as Boyd and Ellissl’8 produced further evidence that laboratory training changes people selectively. depending upon their original personality. There is evidence that changes do occur in participant behavior and that insights are translated into observable changes. However. there is a time lag which is involved while the participant transfers his new insights and aspirations into actual new behavior patterns. Miles“9 documented significant improvements in the skills of communications. leadership. and group task and 46Bunker. op. cit. l”Schutz and Allen. op. cit. “BJ. B. Boyd. and J. D. Elliss. Findings of Research Into Senior Mana ement Seminars. Internal document. PersonneI Researcfi Department. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. Toronto. 1962. 49M. B. Miles. "Human Relations Training: Processes and Outcomes." Journal of A plied Behavioral Science. 1966. 7. (4). pp. 310-316. 38 maintenance skills. Bunker5O found significant differences between lab participants and those in the control group in receiving communications from others. in relating to others. in self-control. and increased interdependence. Both Bunker51 and V’aliquet52 indicated increases in self-confidence as well as increases in willingness to take risks. functional flexibility. and reduction in dogmatism. An increase in flexibility. honesty. confidence. and an acceptance of laboratory participants' relationships with other people was found by Schutz and Allen.53 Gassner. Gold and shadowski5” studied the changes in the phenomenal field as a result of human relations training of a three-day duration. They studied changes in the phenomenal self. including ideal and actual self. and in the phenomenal field. Using a modified Bills' Index of Adjustment and Values to assess increases in similarity between ideal and actual self-perceptions. they found both 50D. R. Bunker. "The Effects of Laboratory Education upon Individual Behavior." Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meetin . Industrial Relations Research AssocIEtlon. DecemBer. 1963. 51Bunker. Ibid. 52Valiquet. op. cit. 538chutz and Allen. op. cit. 548. M. Gassner. J. Gold and A. M. Snadowsky. "Changes in the Phenomenal Field as a Result of Human Relations Training." Journal of Psychology. 1964. 58. pp. 33-41. 39 the control and the treatment group showed significant increases from pre-to-post tests and that the increases were not significantly different. Using the Burke and Bennis graphic rating scale series before and after the sessions. they found no significant increase in the similarity between actual self and ideal self for either treatment or control groups. However. both experimental and treatment in control groups increase significantly in the similarity between actual self and average-other ratings. This experiment has import for the Burke and Bennis study which did not use a control group. The third portion of their study consisted of pre-and post-tests of a "democratic leadership-aptitude scale." Both the control and the treatment groups scored initially the same on the pre-test. but the treatment group scored significantly higher in their understandings of democratic leadership concepts than did the control group on the post- test. Gassner. Gold. and Snadowski55 conclude that training is more likely to change a participant's perception of the phenomenal field rather than the phenomenal self. Transfer of Learnipg This section may provide some clues as to how high school students might transfer the learnings from the 55Cassner. Gold. and Snadowski. Ibid. 4O weekend laboratory to every day life back home. Obstacles to the transfer of learning from the laboratory situation to the back-home environment have been probed by Blake. 56 These obstacles apply to Mouton. Barnes. and Greiner. the management-labor organizational situation. but are applicable to educational organizations as well. Obstacles to learning transfer cited include: 1. Need to buck a complacent or skeptical management. A frequent reaction is to retaliate by over- selling or withdrawing. 2. "Those who need it most" are too frequently selected by upper management to attend. 3. Participants may be forced back to the old role if they lack a supportive climate or organizational influence. 4. If a total department is involved. there may be high morale within the group. but may be resented by other groups and so result in more friction. 5. Too often only lower level managers are sent. These usually wish their bosses would be there but return and often conform to bosses' expectations. The human organism. says Festinger.57 tries to establish internal harmony among its opinions. attitudes. knowledge and values. Dissonance exists if there is lack of consistency. so the organism drives toward dissonance reduction. Resultant pressures are proportional to the dissonance. 56Robert R. Blake. Jane S. Mouton. Louis B. Barnes. and Larry E. Greiner. "Breakthrough in Organization Development." Harvard Business Review. XLII (November- December. 1964). 57Leon Festinger. A Theory of ngpitive Dissonance (Evanston. Illinois: Row Peterson and Company. 19577. 41 This theory supports the reasons given by Blake. pp_§1.58 for loss of transfer due to the organizational situation. Further. the theory of dissonance reduction speaks to the need for Clarification especially where some- thing new is being presented. It also underscores the need for setting a learning climate that accommodates feedback. testing of ideas. and exploring alternative ramifications. Sensitivity training does provide this opportunity. Festinger59 proposes three methods of dissonance alteration. These are to: (1) change the dissonance relationships. (2) add new cognitive elements consistent with existing understandings. or (3) decrease the importance of the dissonance producing element. Festinger's methods of dissonance alteration high- lighted for this author the importance of design and flexibility within the design when conducting sensitivity training. Training must be tailored to fit the situation and the participants. Trainers must also be ready to modify the design of the learning experience at times in an effort to produce the optimal level of dissonance. 58R. R. Blake and J. S. Mouton. "Improving Organizational Problem Solving Through Increasing the Flow and Utilization of New Ideas." Training Directors Journal. 1963. 17 (9). pp. 48-57. 59Festinger. op: cit. 42 Summary Campbell and Dunnette60 draw the following conclusions from their review of the research on sensitivity training: 1. There is reasonably convincing evidence that T-group training does induce behavioral changes in the "back-home" situation. 2. Results of studies measuring internal criteria such as interpersonal skills. self-understanding. and greater confidence are plentiful but much less conclusive. 3. The objectives of the T-group method are much more far reaching than other techniques and the types of behavior changes desired. by their very nature. more difficult to observe and measure. Sensitivity training research has been plentiful but much of it has not been systematic. There is a great need for more research comparing sensitivity training methods with other methods. Research can be more meaningful when laboratory objectives can be spelled out more specifically. The problems of identifying what needs to be measured and then designing instruments to do the measuring accurately is an extremely challenging one. If sensitivity training is more helpful to some people. it is paramount that means be developed for identifying these people who would benefit most. Conversely. those for whom a sensitivity training experience might be harmful must also be identified. Much more research must be done to assess the impact of sensitivity training on high school students. 60Campbell and Dunnette. op. cit. 43 Assessment of Review of Literature in Light of This Study Evaluating the impact of sensitivity training is difficult because of the following factors: a. lack of common agreement of the meaning of such words as "trust." "love." and "acceptance." b. variety of backgrounds of individual participants. c. multiciplicity of variables d. lack of adequate research design and instrumentation. Individuals perceived more change in themselves than others see. It is suggested that participants by the end of the laboratory are aware of the old behavior patterns but have not had time to convert new insights into behavioral change. This speaks to the need for at least a brief time lag between the end of a laboratory experience and the administering of an instrument for data gathering. Sensitivity training tends to help teen-agers become more assertive and self-reliant. Adults who attended an inter-generational laboratory decreased their desires to have youth be respectful toward adults and to have youth be trustworthy and responsible. This might mean that adults who did not attend sensitivity training laboratories would be inclined to view teen participant assertiveness 44 and self-reliance as showing disrespect toward adults. Consequently. participants who exhibit this behavior may get either no reinforcement or even negative reinforcement from adults. Behavioral change in experimental groups is often two to three times as frequent as in control groups. Changes most discernible between the two groups are increased sensitivity. more open communication. and increased flexibility in role behavior. These changes should be reflected in responses to the P01. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The purpose of this study was to measure the impact. if any. of a two-day sensitivity training laboratory on high school sophomores and Juniors. This chapter will cover the total research design. It will include the selection of the sample. pro-laboratory orientation. the Leadership Learning Laboratory staff. and a detailed description of the Leadership Learning Laboratory. This will be followed by the selection of the instrument. a description of the Personal Or;pntation Inventory. the collection and coding of data. the statistical treatment. and the hypotheses. Selection of the Research Desigp The selection of a research design was given long and careful consideration. From the outset. a control and experimental group design was anticipated. Later the method of random selection was chosen. Under this design. the need for pre-tests was eliminated. Without the pro-tests the danger of pre-test contamination was also eliminated. 45 46 The Sample: Experimental and Control Students from two geographic areas. Lansing and Muskegon. were involved. These two sites were chosen because of their proximity to the homes of the author and his collaborator. Six high schools were selected from the greater Lansing area and six high schools from greater Muskegon. Three of the six high schools were randomly selected from each geographic area for the experimental group. The other three high schools in each area served as the control group. School administrators were asked to select a total of ten students from their 1968-69 sophomore and junior classes whom they and their counseling staffs perceived as either exhibiting leadership within the school or appearing to have the potential for leadership within the school. It was stressed that academic attainment should not be used as a criterion for selection. In most cases, the final selection of students was left up to the counseling staff. As a result. a few students who were about to drop out of school were included in the selection on the basis that a weekend experience might help them begin to understand themselves and provide them with new motivation and direction. When students were selected for the control group counselors and administrators were apprised of the experimental group selections and were asked to select students using the same criteria. One decision had to be made early in the selection process. The author was faced with the possibility of asking 47 each school to select students on the basis that all these students would actually attend the Leadership Learning Laboratory. This meant that all students in the control group would be disappointed. Instead. schools in the experimental group were asked to choose students who would actually be invited to Leadership Learning Laboratory. The other six schools were identified as the control group. Students in both the control and the experimental groups were told that the program was a part of a research design conducted by two doctoral candidates at Michigan State University. Pre-Laboratory Orientation The students planning to participate in the Leadership Learning Laboratory were told that the weekend would be a new experience in learning with emphasis upon learning by doing. They were told that part of the time would be spent in small groups--groups in which they would begin to learn more about themselves and how they related to other people. Parents were informed by mimeographed letter about the weekend. All participants were required to have parental permission to attend. Parents were also invited to call the author or his colleague in Muskegon for further explanation of the weekend and the accompanying research plans. In one instance. a parents' meeting was held at the school to answer questions about the Leadership Learning Laboratory. Students selected for the control group were asked if they thought they would like to attend a Leadership Learning 48 Laboratory if the opportunity were available. They were also asked if they thought their parents would approve of such an experience. In all cases. the answer was affirmative. Such methodology could be questioned. However. it seemed less than human to invite all of the students to participate in the laboratory knowing that only half of the students would actually be placed in the experimental group and thus have the Leadership Learning Laboratory experience. Learning Laboratory Staff The staff of the Leadership Learning Laboratory consisted of Michigan State University staff and graduate students who had had experience in such programs previously. In addition. three interested teachers plus two social workers with a keen insight into student needs and interests and considerable interest in laboratory learning rounded out the staff. The staff was assigned to T-groups in pairs with at least one. and in most cases both. staff members having had at least three previous experiences with two-day learning laboratories with young people. Description of the Leadership Learning Laboratory To begin the weekend. the laboratory staff was introduced. the housekeeping details such as meal schedule. camp rules. etc.. were covered. and the participants were admonished to prepare themselves for a different kind of educational experience where they would learn about themselves. 49 about leadership. and about interpersonal relationships through observing and experiencing rather than by listening to lectures. They were encouraged to be willing to try new activities which they would probably be experiencing for the first time in their lives. They were told that the objectives of the laboratory were to help them get some new insights into leadership. small group life. interpersonal relations. more effective communications. and a better understanding of themselves. Micro-laboratoyy.--A micro-laboratory is designed to help the group experience. in miniature. many of the different components of the subsequent laboratory. The micro-laboratory began with some non-verbal exercises aimed at helping participants become more aware of themselves: 1. Each person was asked to tap his head as a means of beginning to experience his head by touch. Then they were asked to feel of and tap their own arms. heads. necks. trunks. legs and feet as a means of creating body awareness. 2. Each one chose a partner and alternated patting each other's back. The purpose of this was to begin to relax the participants and break down some barriers to physical contact. 3. Students were asked to get into groups of five with people they did not know well and sit on the floor and explore each other with their eyes for three or 50 four minutes without talking. Each person was then asked to express a feeling they had for each of the other members of their quintet. Participants were then asked to close their eyes and begin to mill toward the center of the room. They were to find a back with their back and get to know that back. They were to have a quarrel with that back and then make up with that back. Afterwards. they turned around and slowly opened their eyes and visited briefly with their partner about the experience. Again with eyes closed but with hands out in front of themselves. they found a pair of hands. got to know that pair of hands. felt the texture and the strength of those hands. Then they opened their eyes and discussed who was controlling the movement of the hands. Seven people who were acquainted were asked to. form a group in the center of the room. Each was asked to choose another person whom they did not know. Then each pair was asked to choose a third person. etc.. until all of the participants were members of one of the seven groups. After the T-groups were formed. they met for about one-half hour to merely get acquainted and establish a meeting place for future T-group meetings. 51 After a brief break for refreshments. the entire group re-assembled for the evening closing reflective exercise. With the aid of soft music. lowered lights. and some narration. each person was asked to look at himself on the outside as well as the inside in order to take a personal inventory of his strengths. concerns. potential. and present productivity. They were then asked to face the outside of the hugh circle and begin to look at their relationships with their family. their peer group. younger students. and a few adults who have been particularly significant in the life of the participant. After looking at self and one's relationships with others. each participant was asked to consider one thing he would like to change either about himself or the relationship with one of the groups mentioned above. After they had this change in mind. students were asked to share this change non-verbally with a pre-designated partner. After each had shared non-verbally. they were encouraged to check out their non-verbal communications in a low whisper and begin to talk to each other about their plans for change. Some of the pairs spent a half hour quietly visiting about their proposed behavioral changes. Others were finished in five or ten minutes. 52 Saturday Morning 1. The entire laboratory population met together for the first few minutes of the morning doing some. stretchers. non-verbals. and active exercises designed to get people more aware of their body movement and ready to be more willing to express verbally or non-verbally how they felt. 2. The next hour and a half was spent in T-groups with most groups struggling to find what should happen in such groups. 3. After a break. a brief lecture was given on "Johari's window.-1 a model of T-group learning as shown below: Known To Unknown To Self Self //’/C}*‘ Known to Others Blind iOpen /. Secret. Unknown to Others Hidden. Dark Masked l As participants become more frank. they move some of their own feelings from the hidden area toward the open area. .As group members become more frank. they share feelings and observations about others 1Joseph Luft. Grou Processes: .An Introduction to Grou ics. (Palo ZIto. California: Th he Nationaleress. 1953;. p. 53. 5. 53 in the group which these other group members may have failed to recognize before. This is information going from the blind area to the open or free area. The dark area represents information about a person which is as yet unknown to himself or to other people. As people become more open and honest with each other. their Johari's Window looks more like this: Known To Others //r0p:;/l . Blind 0/2 Unknown To Others Hidden Dark This is merely a model for looking at interpersonal relationships. In actual life situations. the panes of people's Johari's Windows are certainly not as rectangular as shown in the above diagrams. The participants returned to T-groups armed with some new concepts on interpersonal relationships as a result of looking at Johari's Window. Often this will help participants begin to open up and share more about themselves. In this way. the group gathers more data which can help in getting to know each other. ‘After lunch. the participants had free time until 3:00 p.m.. but the staff met to plan the remainder of the laboratory based on what had happened so far. 6. 54 At 3:00 p.m.. Tower Building was followed by T-groups' discussions about the leadership patterns. and group cohesion. or lack of it. during the tower building exercise. Saturday Evenipg 1. 4. A brief total-group session on helpful ways of giving and receiving feedback was presented. The six points stressed were as follows: Feedback is useful to a person when: f. It describes what he is doing rather than placing a value on it. Example: MWhen you yell at me. it makes me feel like not talking to you any more." Rather than: "It's awful of you to yell at me." It is specific rather than general. It is directed toward behavior which the receiver can do something about. It is well timed. It is asked for. rather than imposed. It is checked to ensure clear communication. (For further detail see Appendix F.)' After the 15-minute lecture. the group was divided into pairs from within T-groups to practice giving and receiving feedback. T-groups met from 7:30 to 9:15 p.m. A partywas held from 9:15 to 11:00 p.m. 55 5. Finally. each T-group presented a brief non-verbal skit depicting some of the history of their particular group to date. Again. this provided for some sharing between groups and also set up a specific task for each group which meant additional opportunity for decision making. leadership. and group involvement. Sunday 1. A worship service was held for those who wished to participate. . 2. Everyone participated in a Listening Exercise. This input was designed to increase individual listening skills. After reading the Menlo paper (See Appendix G) students were asked to name five things they ordinarily did to block or inhibit effective communications with other people. Each person in groups of six had to repeat what the last person had said before he could start mentioning his own communication blocks. After the exercise was completed. they discussed in their small groups how it felt to have to listen to the previous speaker before they spoke. While the exercise was rather frustrating. they indicated that it made them much more aware of the need to develop their listening Skills. 56 In the final T-group sessions each group went about its work independently. In most cases. the trainers attempted to bring about some closure to their groups. Bridging to the back-home situation. This final total community session was devoted to helping participants reflect on what happened during the weekend to themselves. their groups. and to the total laboratory community. They began to plan how they would relate their weekend experiences to their friends. parents. and to school personnel. It was suggested that they identify one thing they had learned and use that as a description of the weekend rather than the usual laboratory participant's comment. "It was so different that I really can't describe it to you. You would actually have to experience it to understand." Also included in the final meeting of the entire laboratory community were two brief role-play situations. The first was a post-laboratory meeting of an adult male trainer and a teen female partici- pant. As they approached each other they shared a warm embrace. Two people then gave their versions of what happened. One person saw two friends who thoroughly enjoyed a brief reunion with a warm embrace. The other person saw a lecherous adult male getting far too intimate with a young female. 57 In the second role play. two adult males greeted each other after the laboratory weekend. Again they shared a warm embrace as though they were extremely happy to see each other again. The first observer saw homosexual implications from the greeting. The second observer merely saw two friends happy to see each other again. The purpose of this particular role play was to help participants become aware of the kinds of warmth and openness and display of feelings which often result from a close working relationship such as a weekend laboratory experience. They also became aware that back-home was.a somewhat different situation from the laboratory setting. This meant that for those not present at the laboratory certain kinds of behavior such as showing of feelings or displays of certain kinds of intimacy might easily be misunderstood in a back-home situation. This particular laboratory design was a culmination of several experiences with two-day laboratories for high school students. It was designed through the Joint efforts of five professional youth workers interested in helping youth grow toward greater self-awareness. more effective inter-personal skills. and more meaningful concepts regarding group relation- ships and leadership. 58 Selection of Instrument Early in the study it was decided that already established instruments would be used in measuring the effects of the Leadership Learning Laboratory on high school students. In searching for instruments. it became necessary to identify some of the expected outcomes from the laboratory experience. Some of these anticipated outcomes are: 1. Increase in self-awareness 2. Greater openness in dealing with others. especially adults . More empathy for others . Less tendency toward authoritarianism 3 z. 5. Greater skills in listening to others 6. Greater tendency toward being oneself 7. Increase in creative risk taking 8 . Increase in ability to communicate effectively with others 9. A movement toward the middle on an extrovert- introvert continuum 10. Development of greater leadership skills in a group setting 11. Development of greater membership skills in a group setting Finding instruments to measure so many different variables became an impossibility. Even though instruments could be found for measuring several of the above mentioned anticipated outcomes. they involved far too many questions for students to answer. Searching for an over-all instrument 59 that was reasonable in length and yet broad enough to measure several anticipated variables led to the selection of Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory.‘ This is an inventory for the measurement of self-actualization. According to Maslowz. a self-actualized person is one who is more fully functioning and lives a more enriched life than the average person. Such a person is continually developing and utilizing all of his unique capabilities or potentialities. He is more free from inhibitions and emotional turmoil than those with less self- actualized experience. The POI consists of 150 two-choice comparative value and behavior Judgments. The items are scored twice. The first scoring was for two basic scales of personal orientation: inner-directed support (127 items) and time competence (23 items). The second scoring covered ten individual sub- scales. Each of these sub-scales measures a conceptually important element of self-actualization: 1. Time Ratio.--(Time incompetence/time competence) This measures the degree to which a person is oriented to the present as opposed to the past or future. "The POI was tested for discrimination validity by. comparison of a group clinically identified as relativeIVself- actualizing and another group identified as non self- actualizing. The POI showed significant difference at the .01 level in thirteen of the fourteen scales. Test-retest reliability co-efficients on the fourteen scales averaged .75 with a high of .84 and a low of .55. ZAbraham Maslow. Toward a P3 cholo of Being (New York: Van Nostrand. 1962). p. 50. 6O Shostrom believes that people who live for the future never catch up with the events for which they have prepared and thus fail to reap the harvest of the plantings. With emphasis in the Leadership Learning Laboratory on the "here and now." this measure of one's willingness to deal primarily with the present rather than the past or future seemed to be an appropriate dimension to measure. 2. Support Ratio.--(Inner-directedness/other-directedness) This measures the extent to which one functions on the basis of what he thinks is appropriate (inner- directedness) as compared with always conforming his behavior to please others. One of the functions of the laboratory was to help participants become more willing- to be themselves rather than trying so hard to please others. Shostrom3 indicates that the self-actualized person tends to lie between that of the extreme inner-directed person and the extreme other-directed individual. He is free. but his freedom is not gained by rebelling or pushing against others or fighting them. He discovers a mode of living which gives him confidence. He is typically self-supportive but some of the time he is other-oriented. Self-actualized people appear to have liberated themselves from rigid adherence to the social procedures and social expectations to which non- self-actualized people conform. 3Everett L. Shostrom. personal Orientation Invento Manual (San Diego. California: EducationaI and Industrial Testing Service. 1966). p. 15. 61 An inter-relationship exists between the Time Ratio and the Support Ratio. Shostrom reports a moderate correlation (.49) in a college sample between Time Competence and Inner- Directedness. He offers the explanation that the self- actualizing person. who lives in the present. depends more on his own self-support and his own self-expressiveness than the person who lives in the past or the future. Maslowu described this kind of person as "living fully rather than preparing to live fully." Shostrom summarizes the inter-relationship between the Time and Support ratios as follows: ...we return to the idea that the (healthy individual is one who lives primarily in the present. The reason for this idea is that living fully in the moment. or the present. does not require concern for support or sustenance. To say. "I am adequate nowfi,rather than "I was adequate once". or "I will be adequate again" is self-validating and self-justifying. Being in the moment. being an active process. may be said to be an end in itself. It is self-validating and self-justifying. Beigg has its own rewards--a feeling of self-support. 3. Self-Actualizing Value.--This sub-scale measures the extent to which an individual's values and style of living correspond to the values and style of living of self-actualizing people. The scale is derived from Maslow's concept of self- actualizing people. Items in this scale cut across many “Maslow. op. cit.. p. 46. 5Shostrom. op. cit.. p. 19. 62 characteristics. Here is a representative SAV item. "I live in terms of my wants. likes. dislikes. and values." This value was dealt with during the laboratory indirectly at best. No effort was made to prescribe self-actualization to the laboratory participants. Efforts were made to help participants become more aware of their own wants. likes. dislikes. values. and feelings. To the extent that these values corresponded to the values of self-actualizing people. self-actualization was taught in the laboratory. 4. Existentiality.--This sub-scale measures the ability to situationally or existentially react without rigid adherence to principles. The T-group often provides an opportunity for a participant to examine the rigidity or flexibility with which he adheres to his principles. Some of the non-verbal exercises helped participants to become less rigid. While the previous scale measures values. the Existentiality scale reflects an individual's flexibility in applying these values to his life. It measures a person's ability to employ good judgment in applying his hierarchy of values. Low scores indicate a tendency toward rigidity or even compulsive dogmatism. The combination of the Self-Actualizing Values Scale and the Existentiality Scales represents the area of valuing as reflected in theory (value hierarchy) and practice (values application). 63 5. Feeling Reactivity.--This sub-scale measures sensitivity of one's responsiveness to his own needs and feelings. A high score is indicative of sensitivity to one's own needs and feelings. A low score shows insensitivity to one's own needs and feelings. During the laboratory. emphasis was placed on becoming responsive to one's feelings and needs. 6. Spontaneity.--This sub-scale measures an individual's freedom to express feelings spontaneously and to be oneself. A high score represents the ability to express feelings in spontaneous action. A low score indicates that one is fearful of expressing feelings behaviorally. The Feeling Reactivity Scale and the Spontaneity Scale together represent the area of feelings. They measure an individualis sensitivity toward his own feelings and needs and his willingness to express these feelings behaviorally. A variety of opportunities were provided to encourage spont- aneity during the week-end laboratory experiences. Students were encouraged to act out the feelings both verbally and non-verbally. 7. Self-Regard.--This sub-scale measures an individual's ability to like himself because of his worth or strengths. A high score indicates the ability to like oneself because of one's strength as a person. A low score indicates low self-worth. 64 Self-Acceptance.--This sub-scale measures an individual's ability to accept himself in spite of weaknesses or deficiencies. A high score shows self-acceptance in spite of one's weaknesses or deficiencies. A low score indicates 'inability to accept one's weaknesses. During the reflective experience on the second night of the laboratory. a concerted effort was made to help students examine and capitalize on their strengths. Students were also asked to examine their own weaknesses as they saw them. with the notion that they were individuals of significant worth in spite of their short-comings. The Self-Regard Scale and the Self-Acceptance Scale together represent the area of self-perception. 9. Nature of Man.--This sub-scale measures the degree to which an individual can resolve the dichotomies in man's nature and see man as essentially good. A high score indicates that one can resolve the goodness-evil. masculine-feminine. selfishness- unselfishness. and the spirituality-sensuality dichotomies in the nature of man. A high score. therefore. indicates the self-actualizing ability to be synergistic in understanding human nature. A low score indicates that one sees man as essentially evil or bad and is not synergistic. At best. the 65 laboratory experience dealt only indirectly with dichotomies of man's nature. The trust exercises spoke obliquely to this point. 10. Synergy.--This sub-scale measures one's ability to see that cooperative relationships (synergistic relationships) between opposites in life are actually meaningfully related. When one is syner- gistic. one sees that work and play are not different. that lust and love. selfishness and selflessness. and other dichotomies are not really opposites at all. Synergy may have been covered in some T-groups but it was not one of the pglp themes of the laboratory. A high score is a measure of the ability to see opposites in-life as meaningfully related. A low score means that one sees opposites of life as antagonistic. Scale 9 measures the good-bad dichotomy in man and Scale 10 indicates ability to relate all objects of life meaningfully. They may thereby be considered to be complementary scales reflecting the general area of awareness. ll. Acceptance of Aggyession.--This sub-scale measures an individual's ability to accept his own natural aggressiveness as opposed to defensiveness. denial. and repression of aggression. Acceptance of 12. 66 aggression was one of the main issues of the weekend experience. This was reflected in the non-verbal exercises. role plays. and in the T-groups. It not only dealt with self-aggression but also the aggressions of others. A high score indicates a person can accept his anger or aggression as natural. Low scores indicate that one is denying his anger or aggression. Capacity for Intimate Contact.--This final sub-scale measures one's ability to develop contactful relationships with other human beings. Tactile contact was stressed several times during the laboratory. Students were encouraged to communicate through touching during the total group meetings and in most T-groups. A high score indicates one's ability to freely develop meaningful relationships with others. A low score means thatanindividual has difficulty in establishing warm interpersonal relationships. Shostrom clarifies this area of intimate contact: Making contact may be defined as the ability to develop and maintain an "I-Thou" relationship in the here-and-now and the ability to meaning- fully touch another human being. We know that intimate contact seems to be encumbered by expectations and obligations. Thus. it can be said that the climate to establish good contact (‘1- rope ( 67 is best when the individual does not over- respond to, nor does he utilize. inter- personal demand expectations and obligations. Other measured dimensions which facilitate contact are the ability to express vs. impress. being vs. pleasing. and the ability to relate intensely toéanother person either aggressively or tenderly. The sub-scales on.Acceptance of Aggression and Capacity for Intimate Contact represent interpersonal sensitivity. It is possible to be warm and loving or assertive and aggressive in contacts with other human beings. Both are expressions of effective interpersonal contacts and reflect the general area of interpersonal sensitivity. Collection and Codipg of Data The POI test utilized special answer sheets which were machine scored. The identification number on the answer sheet was an eight-digit number which employed the following legend: lst digit ..... experimental or control 2nd digit ..... geographical area 3rd digit ..... high school 4th digit ..... sex 5th digit ..... age at the time of the laboratory 6th digit ..... identification number of individual within the school group 7th digit ..... T-group number for those in the experimental group 8th digit ..... number of sessions attended by members of experimental group 6Shostrom. op. cit.. p. 21. 68 Master sheets utilized an identifying number for each individual taking the test and showing their twelve individual sub-scores. This information was then transferred to key punched data cards. Due to the inability of the author to get a few of the tests returned. the sub-grouping of experi- mental and control groups were rounded off at six sub-groups of eight each in the experimental and the control groups. Those schools with more than eight respondents were reduced to eight by means of random withdrawal. This resulted in forty-eight students in the control group and forty-eight in the experimental group. Statistical Tppatment Since the objective of the study was to measure any statistically significant differences between the test scores of the experimental and the control group. the analysis of variance was selected. This is a well-established statistical procedure having a number of advantages over other statistical methods. Kerlinger.7 Edwards.8 and other writers in the field of statistics explain this statistical method. 7Fred N. Kerlinger. Foundations of Behavioral Research. (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1964). pp. 187-209. 8Allen L. Edwards. E erimental Desi in P3 chological Research. (New York: Holt. Rine rt an Winston. 960). pp. 1I7-l32. 69 Hypotheses Based upon a description of the instrument. a review of relevant literature. and the experience of designing and conducting the Leadership Learning Laboratory. the following hypotheses are formulated around the P01 concepts: Hypothesis No. 1: Students in both the control and experimental groups will have similar scores in the time ratio indicating that there is no statistically signifi- cant difference in the tendency to live in the present as compared with the past or the future. The emphasis in the Laboratory did not stress the time orientation component except in the T-Group. Mention was made there of the term "here and now." Since the laboratory was not designed to make a difference in this area. no difference could be expected. Hypothesis No. 2: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will score more toward self-actualized ratio (on the inner-directed/other-directed support ratio than those students in the control group. One of the objectives of the Leadership Learning Laboratory was to help participants become more honest and open. They were encouraged to be more inner-directed and yet be aware of and more sensitive to others. This emphasis should help the laboratory participants to score closer to the self-actualized ratio in the area of inner-directed/other-directed support. 70 Hypothesis No.p3: Students in the experimental and the control groups will score the same on their tendency toward espousing values of self-actualizing persons. Since values were not dealt with directly at the laboratory. it is unlikely that the experimental and control groups will differ on this sub-score. Hypothesis No. 4: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will show greater flexibility in applying their own value system or principles than those students in the control group. The very nature of the laboratory was built on flexibility. Students should begin to transfer this flexibility into the application of their own value systems. Hypothesis No. 5: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will show a greater awareness of their own personal needs than those students in the control group. The stress on the laboratory of becoming more aware of one's own needs should cause a difference in scores. Hypothesis No. 6: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will show greater willingness to express feelings in spontaneous action than those students in the control group. This was dealt with in some of the T-Groups and to an extent in some of the total laboratory community 6181‘01808 e 71 Hypothesis No. 7: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will show greater ability to like themselves (self- worth) than those students in the control group. Some of the T-Groups dwelt upon self-enhancement. The reflective the first night of the laboratory spoke to positive feelings toward self. Hypothesis No. 8: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will score higher in acceptance of themselves than those in the control group. Again. the first night reflective covered acceptance of self. Some T-Groups worked on acceptance of self. Hypothesis No. 9: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will not show differences from those students in the control group in their tendency to see man as essentially good. This was not covered at the weekend laboratory. Hypothesis No. 10: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will show greater ability to accept anger or aggression within themselves as natural than those students in the control group. The stress at the laboratory on honesty. openness and expression of feelings should make some difference between the control and experimental groups. Hypothesis No. 11: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will show greater ability to develop meaningful. 72 contactual relationships with other human beings than those students in the control group. The first micro-laboratory experience plus other non-verbal exercises during the weekend should enhance the experimental groups' skills in contactual relationships. Hypothesis No. 12: Students who participated in the learning laboratory will not show differences from those students in the control group in their ability to see opposites of life as meaningfully related. This was not covered at all during the weekend. Summary This chapter has presented the processes and procedures involved in the study. It also has provided detailed account of the Leadership Learning Laboratory and the Personal Orientation Inventoyy. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction Chapter IV contains a presentation and analysis of the data collected for this study. The chapter is organized around the research hypotheses found in Chapter III and will deal with the hypotheses in the same order. A Brief Review of the Dppygp This study involved sophomore and Junior students from six high schools in the Greater Lansing area and six high schools from the Greater Muskegon area. Three schools from each area were randomly selected to serve in the experimental groups while the remaining three schools in each area were placed in the control group. School administrators were asked to identify students in the sophomore and junior classes who were showing leadership within the school or showed potential for providing leadership within the school. Administrators were asked not to use academic achievement as a criterion. Over fifty students in the experimental group were asked to participate in a Leadership Learning Laboratory which was held at Camp.Kett at Tustin. Michigan. on the weekend of January 10. 1969. The objectives were to help students get 73 74 some new insights into leadership. small group life. inter- personal relations. more effective communications. and a better understanding of themselves. The students were encouraged to try experiences which they would probably be participating in for the first time in their lives. Five months after the laboratory experience. students in the control group and the experimental group completed the Personality Orientation Inventory developed by Shostrom to measure self-actualization. A five-way analysis of variance was used in analyzing the data. The five variables included: 1. Experimental and control 2. Geographic area 3. Twelve different sub-scores within the POI 4. Schools 5. Individual students The purpose of this study was to measure the impact. if any. of short-term sensitivity training for high school boys and girls. Twelve hypotheses were formulated regarding comparative scores and sub-scores of the control group and the experimental group on various parts of the Personality Orientation Inventory. The discussion of these hypotheses in light of the statistical analysis follows: Hypothesis No. 1 Time Ratio It was predicted that the control and experimental groups would have similar scores on the Time Ratio indicating that there would be no statistically 75 significant difference. This hypothesis was supported. A five-way analysis of variance test indicated no significant differences between the experimental and control groups on the orientation toward living primarily in the present rather than in the past or future. Hypothesis No. 2 Support Ratio It was predicted that those students in the experimental group would score more toward the ratio for a self-actualized person on the inner-directed/ other-directed Support Ratio than those students in the control group. This hypothesis was not supported. Utilizing a five-way analysis of variance. there appeared no statistically significant difference between the score of the experimental group and the score of the control group on the inner-directed/ other-directed Support Ratio. Hypothesis No. 3 Self-Actualigyngpvalue It was predicted that students in both the control and experimental groups would score the same on the tendency toward espousing the values of self-actualizing persons. This hypothesis was supported. A five-way analysis of variance test indicated no significant difference between the experimental and control group on their tendency toward espousing the values of self-actualizing persons. 76 Hypothesis No. 4 Existentiality It was hypothesized that students in the experimental group would show greater flexibility in actually applying their own value system or principles existentially than those students in the control group. Again. a five-way analysis of variance indicated no significant difference in the scores of the two groups. The mean score of the experimental group was 19.7. and the mean score of the control group was 18.4. Yet 1 reported 412 high school students scoring a Shostrom mean of 16.7 on Existentiality (applying their own principles and value systems.) There was no indication when and where these students took the test. No mention was made about what grade they were in in school. See Table D. Hypothesis No. 5 Feeling Reactivity It was predicted that students who were in the experimental group would show a greater awareness of their own personal needs as reflected in their higher score on the Feeling Reactivity Sub-scale than those students in the control group. This hypothesis was not supported. While the mean score of the experimental group was 15.1 compared with 14.4 for the control group. 1Everett L. Shostrom. Personal Orientation Inventor Manual. (San Diego. California: EducatioHEI and Industrial Testing Service. 1966). p. 14. 77 a five-way analysis of variance indicated the difference was not statistically significant. The mean score of 412 students reported by Shostrom2 was 13.4. See Table D. Hypothesis No. 6 Spontaneppy It was predicted that experimental students would show greater willingness to express feelings in spontaneous action than students in the control group. This hypothesis was not supported. The experimental group mean score on Spontaneity was 11.9 compared with 10.9 for the control group. The mean average of the 412 students reported by Shostrom3 was 10.2. See Table D. Hypothesis No. 7 Self-Regard It was predicted that students who participated in the laboratory (experimental group) would show greater ability to like themselves (perception of self-worth) than students in the control group. This hypothesis was not supported. A five-way analysis of variance indicated no significant differences in the scores of the two groups on the Self-Regard scale. The experimental group had a mean score of 10.6. the control group had a mean score of 11.1. and the mean score of the 412 students reported by Shostrom“ was 10.9. See Table D. 2Shostrom. op. cit.. p. 14. 3Ib1de . pa 1“. “Ibid.. p. 14. 78 gypothesis No. 8 Self-Acceptance It was predicted that students in the experimental group would score higher on the Self-Acceptance scale than those students in the control group. This hypothesis was not supported. A five-way analysis of variance indicated no significant difference between the groups in the area of self-acceptance. In fact. the experimental group had the same mean score. 14.0. as Shostrom's 412 high school students. The control group had a mean score of 14.9. See Table D. gypothesis No. 9 Nature of Man It was predicted that both the experimental and the control groups would score about the same on the Nature of Man sub-scale which measures one's ability to see man as essentially good. This hypothesis was supported. Again. a five-way analysis of variance indicated no significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups. On this particular sub-scale both groups matched almost identically with Shostrom's group. The scores were as follows: Experimental group. 11.3: Control group. 11.3: and Shostrom's students. 11.4. See Table D. Hypothesis No. 10 Synergy It was predicted that there would be no significant differences in the scores of the experimental and control groups with regard to their ability to see 79 opposites of life as meaningfully related. This hypothesis was supported. A five-way analysis of variance indicated no significant difference existed between the two groups on this scale. known as the Synergy Scale. The mean scores were as follows: Experimental group 6.4 Control group 6. 5 Shostrom's group 6.0 gypothesis No. 11 Acceptance of éggression It was predicted that students in the experimental group would show a greater ability to accept anger or aggression within themselves as natural than would the students in the control group. However. this hypothesis was not supported. A five-way analysis of variance indicated no significant differences between the control and experimental groups on this sub-scale. Both groups did score above Shostrom's group. The experimental group scored 16.1. The control mean score was 16.0. and Shostrom's group of 412 high school students had a mean score of 15.0. See Table D. Hypgthesis No. 12 Capacity for Intimate Contact It was hypothesized that students in the experi- mental group would show a greater capacity for intimate contact than those students in the control group. This hypothesis was not supported. While the mean score of 80 the experimental group was 16.8 as compared with 16.4 for the control group. a five-way analysis of variance indicated the difference was not statistically signifi- cant. Again. the 412 students reported by Shostrom had a mean score of only 15.0. See Table D. TABLE A MEAN SUB-SCORE TESTS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA EXPERIMENTAL.AND CONTROL LANSING NUSKEGON POI SCALE EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL Time Ratio Support Ratio Self—Actualizing Value Existentiality Feeling Reactivity Spontaneity Self-Regard Self-Acceptance Nature of Man Synergy Acceptance of Aggression Capacity for Intimate Contact L6 1. H HHHHHH O O O O O O O O ...: O\ MGHWOH¢WO on O OFHU-F’QChU‘ 0‘0) ...a H HN V HHHHHH m mommwtuw um l-' O\ mmH-fiHF-‘U‘Q \O p.» H10 0 O ‘1 ...: U't O-FlrmCDI-‘Vm l-“O HHHHHH V vmwtommw w ...a ...a N e e \n ...a HHHHHH 0 O O O O O O ..a a) upkdrocacmhoa ~Jo\ Ut MOHMHOUV VP ..a In reviewing the mean sub-scores in Table A. it is evident that the Muskegon experimental group scored higher than the Lansing experimental group. Conversely. the Lansing control group scored generally higher than did the Muskegon control group. 81 TABLE B TOTAL MEAN SCORE BY SCHOOLS Lansing Area Muskegon Area Experimental School No. 1 11.0 11.6 Experimental School No. 2 12.3 11.9 Experimental School No. 3 12.0 13.8 Control School No. 1 12.1 10.5 Control School No. 2 12.5 11.8 Control School No. 3 12.1 12.4 It is interesting to note that there was quite a bit of variation between schools on the total mean scores. Muskegon experimental school No. 3 had a mean score of 13.8. This figure represents the mean score for all of the twelve sub- test scores for all students from a given school. This school is in a predominately blue-collar area. Experimental school No. 1 would be most representative of middle-and upper-middle class. Huskegon control schools No. 1 and No. 2 are very similar to each other and very similar to Muskegon experi- mental school No. 3. yet the mean scores differed markedly. Muskegon control school No. 1 did happen to have primarily sophomores while all the other schools had about an even split between sophomores and Juniors. Students representing Lansing experimental school No. 1 mainly come from blue-collar. conservative. suburban families. Lansing experimental schools No. 2 and No. 3 are made up of predominately middle-class families. Both of these schools 82 are known for their creativity and innovation in education. Lansing control school No. 1 is mostly blue-collar rural while No. 2 and No. 3 are about average suburban socio- economically. TABLE C COMPARISON OF TOTAL MEAN SUB-SCORES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA AMONG EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS Total Mean of Sub-Scores Control .11.9 Experimental 12.1 Lansing Area 12.010 Muskegon Area 12.006 Lansing Control 12.12 Lansing Experimental 11.79 Muskegon Control 11.79 Huskegon Experimental 12.45 The total mean scores for each of the two geographic areas are almost identical. While the total mean score of the experimental group is slightly higher than the total mean score of the control group. it is not statistically significant. A COMPARISON OF MEAN SUB-SCORE TESTS AMONG EXPERIMENTAL 83 TABLE D GROUP. CONTROL GROUP. AND 412 STUDENTS REPORTED IN THE P.O.I. HANDBOOK P.0.I. Scale Time Ratio Support Ratio Self-Actualizing Value Existentiality Feeling Reactivity Spontaneity Self-Regard Selqucceptance Nature of Man Synergy Acceptance of Aggression Capacity for Intimate Contact 2.? 1.9 18.3 19.7 15.1 11.9 10.6 14.0 11.3 6.4 16.3 16.8 2.6 1.7 18.5 18.4 14.1» Experimental Control 412 Students 18.2 16.7 13.4 10.2 10.9 14.0 11.4 6.0 15.0 15.0 84 TABLE E ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sources of Degrees of Variation Freedom Mean Squares P Value T 1 14.47 .115 A 1 0.01 .001 R 11 3239.33 810.271 TA 1 126.34 1.856 SzTA 8 68.08 2.212 I:STA 84 30.78 None TR 11 7.98 22.165 AB 11 3.95 .637 TAR 11 5.70 .919 RS:TA 88 6.20 1.240 RIzSTA 924 5.00 None Legend Experimental Group Geographic Area 12 Sub-Scores School Individual Student Hmw>a llllilII 85 A five-way analysis of variance was calculated with treatment by main effect and treatment by repeated measures inter-action. There were no significant differences across all tests combined or on any specific sub-test scores. A non-significant treatment main effect indicated no differences across tests between experimental and control groups. Further. a non-significant treatment by tests interaction indicates that there is no reason to believe that the experimental group differed from the control group on any one of the twelve tests used. None of the F values exceeded their respective critical values and.therefore. none of the effects were statistically significant. In other words. the control group was not significantly different from the experimental group in any of the twelve sub-scores on the Personality Orientation Inventory Test. Summary This chapter has covered the presentation and analysis of the data collected. The PersonalityOrientation Inventory was administered to both the experimental and control groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the comparison of mean scores between the two groups on any of the twelve sub-scales with the POI. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This final chapter contains a summary of the study along with implications based upon the data obtained in the study. Some recommendations for further research also will be presented. Summapy of Study The purpose of this study was to measure the impact. if any. of a two-day sensitivity training laboratory on high school sophomores and Juniors. The laboratory was identified as a Leadership Learning Laboratory. It was held the second weekend in January. 1969. The laboratory was staffed by Michigan State University staff members. graduate students. teachers. and social workers. It was designed to appeal to high school students and featured a maximum amount of personal involvement on the part of students. The sample consisted of eight students from each of six schools in the Greater Lansing area and eight students from each of six schools in the Greater Muskegon area. Three schools from each of the two geographic areas were randomly selected to become the experimental group. These students were invited to participate in the Leadership Learning 86 87 Laboratory. Students in the other three schools within each area became the control group. In all of the twelve schools. administrators were asked to select students whom they felt were either exhibiting leadership within the school or had potential for leadership in the school setting. It was stressed that academic achievement should not be used as a criterion for selection. The laboratory consisted of a two-day experience aimed at helping students look at themselves. their relationships with others. their ability to communicate. and their skills in listening and in handling feedback. Leadership was included in an indirect. experiential manner. In T-groups students were encouraged to look at leadership patterns evolving within the group and within the total laboratory community. In addition. some group tasks such as tower building provided an opportunity for various kinds of leader- ship skills to emerge. Five months after the completion of the Leadership Learning Laboratory. students in both the experimental and control groups completed the Personality Orientation Inventory. This test is designed to measure self-actualiza- tion. It is a 150-item. two-choice test which involves twelve sub-scales: Time Ratio Support Ratio Self-Actualizing Value 88 Existentiality Feeling Reactivity Spontaneity Self-Regard Self-Acceptance Nature of Man Synergy Acceptance of Aggression Capacity for Intimate Contact On several of the sub-scales all of the students scored higher than the 412 high school students reported by the author of the POI. However. there were no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the students in the control group and those students in the experimental. This was true of the over-all test scores as well as the sub- scale test scores. The data were subjected to a five-way analysis of variance. Implications The two-day Leadership Learning Laboratory produced no statistically significant differences in the Personality Orientation Inventory scores between those who participated in the laboratory experience and those students in the control group. This lack of significant differences between the experimental and control groups provides the basis for a series of implications and suggestions for further research which will be dealt with in the following paragraphs. 89 1. Sensitivity Training can produce no changes in high school students. The results of this study provide some substantial basis for this implication. 0n the other hand. the study provides some alternate implications which must be examined. 2. The laboratory was too short to produce any changes. This certainly is a possibility to consider. Studies show that short-term sensitivity laboratories with adults have not produced measurable changes in adult participants.l One person with considerable experience in the field warned the author that the laboratory exposure was insufficient in length to produce any measurable change in students. This was the first time a short-term laboratory for high school students has been studied. It may be worth knowing what is not possible as well as what is possible. 3. The time betggen the laboratoryand the Personality Orientation Inventory was too lopg. The five months between the end of the laboratory and the time of the test may have been long enough to dissipate any behavioral change resulting from the laboratory experience. It is known that the effects of a laboratory experience tend to fade over a period of time. The learnings that provided the basis for behavioral change may have been of insufficient 1John Kernan. FLaboratory Human Relations--Its Effect on the 'Personality' of Supervisory Engineers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. New York University. 1963). Eric Knowles. compiler. An Annotated Biblio ra h of Research Since 1960: National Training LaSSratories. I987. 90 impact to result in any permanent change. It may be that when the student returns to his back-home situation without some continual reinforcement. behavioral change becomes less possible as the memories of the laboratory experience begin to fade with the passage of time. 4. Back-home reinforcement is necessary. The lack of back-home reinforcement may have been the reason for those in the experimental group not showing any significant differences on the tests as compared with the control group. It has been proven that a team. rather than an individual. can be more effective in bringing about change in themselves and also in their back-home organization.2 The significant factor here is the opportunity to relate with one or more fellow laboratory participants on strategy for either personal or organizational change. ' In every case. experimental schools had at least eight students participating in the laboratory. This would seem to provide some back-home reinforcement. In the case of Lansing area experimental school No. 2. the students met for an hour each week informally with a teacher who had served as a co- trainer during the Leadership Learning Laboratory. Unfortun- ately. the mean score for this school was 12.3 as compared with a range of mean scores among experimental schools of from 11.0 to 13.8. Perhaps it would have been helpful if each 2Dorothy Stock. FA Survey of Research on T-Groups." eds. Leland Bradford. Jack Gibb. and Kenneth Benne. T-Group Theo and Laborator Method: Innovation in Re-education (New York: John Riley and Sons. 19655. pp. 420-428. 91 participant had been asked to actually write down some of his own personal behavioral change objectives so that those around him in his back-home situation (such as family. friends. and teachers) could have been more supportive in assisting and reinforcing such changes. 5. Need for more refresher sessions. Significant differences between the control and experimental groups may have resulted if greater efforts had been made to provide follow-up or refresher experiences for the experimental group. This could have been done as a total laboratory community on a geographic basis. Two efforts in this direction were actually made but the attendance was about fifty per cent. On Saturday. February 15. a bus was provided to take the Lansing area laboratory participants to Muskegon for a one-day reunion and follow-up experience. About fifteen students from Lansing and twenty from Muskegon participated. An overnight reunion was held a month later in Lansing with about ten students from Muskegon and fifteen students from Lansing in attendance. In both reunions further experiences similar to the original laboratory were provided. One of the regrettable aspects was that in neither of these reunions did all members of any T-group attend. The follow-up factor was not programmed into the statistical analysis of the data because the information did not seem to fit into the analysis design.3 A cursory 3Conversation with Dr. Andrew Porter on the possibility of including the follow-up factor in the analysis. 92 comparison of scores of those who did and those who did not attend the follow-up sessions lead the author to ignore this issue and continue with the original plans for statistical treatment of the data. 6. Chang; in the laboratory design. Another implication which might be drawn for this study is the need for changing the laboratory design. With some alterations in the design of the laboratory. it might have been possible to bring about some significant differences between the experimental and control groups. If the laboratory had focused more upon the whole area of self- actualization. it might have been beneficial. Such tactics could be justly criticized as teaching for the examination rather than meeting the felt and expressed needs of the students. 7. The research design should be altered. This implication is especially important in the field of social science research. It is doubly important in research on behavioral change and particularly in assessing the impact of sensitivity training. Again the author was warned that any paper-and-pencil objective type test would be of no use in measuring the impact of a short-term laboratory experience or. for that matter. for a laboratory experience of any length.. This prediction appears to have validity at this point in the study. On the other hand. it has been helpful to establish one more objective test instrument which tends to produce no significant differences between control and experimental groups. 93 Critique of the Study This study had limitations and weaknesses. While the instrument used was perhaps as good as any paper-and-pencil instrument available. it did not measure some of the inputs of the week-end laboratory. It also measured some things which were not a part of\the laboratory. Specifically. Hypotheses 3. 9 and 12 covered areas which were only indirectly covered in the laboratory experience. The four and one-half month time lag from treatment until testing may have resulted in missing some immediate effects of the experience which were not measurable after that length of time. The use of the pre-and post-tests may well have provided more strength to the study. The danger of contamin- ation from pre-tests seems much less important at this point in time. An additional follow-up with observations from significant peers. parents and teachers would also add strength to the study. The follow-up sessions with the experimental group were attended by less than half the students participating in the week-end laboratory. Some students attended the first one- day follow-up while other students attended the second follow- up session which included an evening through the following afternoon. 94 Nineteen participants attended both follow-up sessions. Nine students attended only the first follow-up while seven students participated in only the second follow-up. As a result of the follow-ups. the original experimental group became three different experimental groups. After consulting with the statistician. it seemed prudent to treat the three gradations within the experimental group as though their treatments were equal. The decision was made to utilize the original five-way analysis of variance design. However. this meant a sacrifice in tightness of design to accommodate a statistical treatment. Recommendations for Further Research A. Pre-test/Post-test.--The use of random sampling was employed to eliminate the dangers of pre-test contamination. It might be helpful to try pre- testing in future research in this area. Kernanu administered several instruments before and after a three-day human relations training laboratory for supervisory engineers. None of the twelve hypotheses was supported and no significant differences were found in eleven other variables measured. It would be interesting to discover whether or not any type short-term learning experience can produce significant differences between experimental and control groups. “John Kernan. op. cit. 95 Use of different test instruments.--It could very well be that other instruments might do a more adequate job of assessing the impact of a short- term sensitivity experience with high school students. To date. there have been no widely- used instruments developed for measuring the impact of sensitivity training. Personality inventory instruments stand out as being widely accepted. The same could also be said about values scales. dogmatism tests scales. and other short answer objective tests. Report of observable changes in behavior.--It is very possible that changes took place in partici- pants after the laboratory experience which did not get reflected in their Personality Orientation Inventory scores. If the objective of the laboratory was to bring about behavioral changes in participants. then it seems logical to have observers look for behavioral changes. One of the problems of this technique is that "relevant others" such as peers. parents. teachers. and employers are inclined to find changes which do not actually occur. It would be incumbent upon the research to have the control group observed for behavioral change also and to alert their observers in such manner as to cause them to look for as much change as the experimental group observers are inclined to look for. 96 The follow-up study which is anticipated will include an open-ended questionnaire sent to peers. parents. and teachers of all students in the study inquiring if they have observed changes in the student.in question during the past year. It is intended that these reponses will be subjected to content analysis similar to the method used by Bunker.5 This study will also include a repeat of the Personality Orientation Inventory which will be compared with the first scores. D. Interviewing.--Another alternative for data gathering would be the use of interviewing. This could be done with students themselves and it could be done with "significant others" identified previously by each student. The interview route would be time consuming. but it would very likely produce data which other methods of data gathering do not. Reflections There are some sides of this study which are not reflected in a statistical table. a hypothesis. or in a description of the treatment group. It is these items which the author would like to reflect upon at this point. 5Douglas B. Bunker. "Individual Applications of Laboratory Training." Journal of A lied Behavioral Science. Vol. 1. No. 2. (April. May. june. 1985). pp. 131-148. 97 Two boys in the treatment group were Jon and Don. Jon had been a bright boy in school but somehow was struggling to find himself. When invited to attend the week-end laboratory. Jon's mother reluctantly granted permission only after checking carefully on the qualifications of the author. That weekend provided the setting for Jon to begin to find greater meaning and purpose to his life. His peers reported that he became much more concerned about others and started utilizing his time. talents. and energies more effectively. His mother observed a vast change in him. She is now very enthusiastic about teens participating in sensitivity training. Don came from a broken home. He tried very hard to be accepted by his peers. In his efforts to gain acceptance. he actually alienated people. Toward the end of the week-end experience he began to discover a way of openness. honesty. and self-acceptance. Unfortuantely. Don needed much more follow-through to make these new discoveries more lasting. A counselor at one of the treatment high schools reported a tremendous change in nearly all of the students who participated at the week-end laboratory. In another school. the students who attended the laboratory met for an hour each week for at least two months after the laboratory. In several cases casual conversations with teachers and parents indicated that laboratory participants appeared to be more sensitive and displayed more self-confidence after the week-end laboratory experience. While such data must be carefully screened. it cannot be ignored. 98 From visiting with some counselors. teachers. parents. and peers. it would appear that the laboratory experience has a positive effect on many students. no effect on some. and a negative effect on a very few students. This study had not caused the author to lose complete faith in short-term sensitivity training for teens. However. it has caused him to look at the process more critically and explore ways of altering the laboratory design to strengthen the impact of sensitivity training on teens. Summary This study has pointed up the need for further research in the area of short-term sensitivity training with young people. This study indicates no significant gains on the part of students who participated in the laboratory as measured by the POI. Either the instrument did not adequately measure the laboratory effects or no significant changes did OOOUI‘. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles and Periodicals Argyris. Chris. "Explorations of Interpersonal Competence. II.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1 (3) (April. May. June. 1965). p. 263 . "On the Future of Laboratory Education." Eournal of A lied Behavioral Science. (July. August. September. 9 7 . pp. 5 . 3. . "T-Groups for Organizational Effectiveness." Harvard Business Review. XLII. (March. April. 1964) PP- ’ Blake. Robert R.. and Mouton. Jane 8. ”Improving Organizational Problem Solving Through Increasing The Flow and Utilization of New Ideas." Trainin Directors Journal. 17 (9). 1963. pp. 48-5 . Blake. Robert R.z Mouton. Jane 8.: Barnes. Louis B.: and Greiner. Larry E. "Breakthrough in Organization Development." Harvard Business Review. XLII. (November. Decem er. . Bunker. Douglas R. "Individual Applications of Laboratory Training." Journal of A lied Behavioral Science. (January. FeBruary. MarcE. 1965). pp. 131-148. Bunker. Douglas R.. and Knowles. Eric. "Comparison of Behavioral Changes Resulting from Human Relations Training Laboratories of Different Lengths." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. V61. 1. No. 2. April. May. June. 9 9 PD. 0 -5 e Campbell. John P.. and Dunnette. Marvin D. "Effectiveness of T-Group Experiences in Managerial Training and Development." Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 70. No. 2. (August. 1968) . Gassner. S. M.; Gold. J.: and Snadowsky. A. M. "Changes in the Phenomenal Field as a Result of Human Relations Training.” Journal of Psychology. 58 (1964). pp. 33-41. 99 100 Harrison. Roger. and Gold. Jerome. "Goal Setting and Evaluation for College Leadership Workshops." Human Relations News. (Summer. 1964). Lewin. Kurt. and Lippitt. Ronald. "An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and Democracy: A Preliminary Note." Sociometry. I. (1938). pp. 653-657. Lippitt. Ronald. "The Use of Social Research to Improve Social Practice." American Journal of Orthqpsychiatry. XXXV. (July. 1965). Lott. Albert J.. and Lott. Bernice E. "Group Cohesiveness and Individual Learning.” Journal of Educational Psychology. L. (1966). pp. 71-73. Miles. Matthew B. "Changes During and Following Laboratory Training: A Clinical-Experimental Study." Journal of A lied Behavioral Science. I. (January. February. MarcH. 1965). pp. 215-216. . "Human Relations Training: Processes and Outcomes." Journal of A lied Behavioral Science. VII. (October. NovemBer. Decemger. 1966). pp. 310-316. Schutz. W. C.. and Allen. V. L. "The Effects of a T-Group Laboratory on Interpersonal Behavior." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1. (January. FeBruary. March. 9 9 PP- ' . Seashore. Charles A. "What Is Sensitivity?" News and Reports. N.T.L. Institute. Vol. 2. No. 2. (April. 1968). Shostrom. Everette. EA Test for the Measurement of Self- Actualization.” Educational and Ps chological Measurement. 24. (19555. PP. 207-221. 222.152 Batchelder. Richard. and Hardy. James. Usin Sensitivit Training and the Laboratory Method. New ork: Association Press. 1968. Bradford. Leland: Gibb. Jack: and Benne. Kenneth. T-Grou Theor and Laboratorngethod. New York: John WiIey and Sons. 1964. 101 Buhler. Charlotte. Values in Ps chotherapy. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 196 . Coleman. James S. The Adolescent Society. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 1961. Combs. Arthur. and Snygg. Donald. Individual Behavior: A Perce tual A roach to Behavior. New YSrk: Harper and Brotfiers. 1959. Durham. L. E.. and Gibb. J. R. "A Bibliography of Research. 1947-1960." E lorations Human Relations Trainin and Research. Hashington. D. C.. N.T.L. Institute for AppIied Behavioral Science. 1967. Edwards. Allen L. E erimental Desi in Ps cholo ical Research. New YorE: H015. RineRart and Winston. 1960. Fenichel. O. The C cle Anal tic Theor of Neurosis. New York: Norton and Company. 1945. Festinger. Leon. A Theo of Co itive Dissonance. Evanston. Illinois: How. PeEerson ang Company. I957. Fisher. John R. Sensitivit Traini for Teen- e Youth. New York: NatIonaI EgaFH of gge YMCA. 1987. Howard. Eugene H. "Possibilities for Team-Teaching in the Senior High School." Team Teachin : Bold New Venture. Edited by David W. Beggs. III. BloomIngton. Indiana: Indiana University Press. 1964. Kemp. C. Gratton. Pers ectives on the Small Grogp Process. Boston: Hougfiton—MifIIin Company. 1964. Kerlinger. Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt. RIBehart and Winston. 9 . Luft. Joseph. Grou Processes: An Introduction to Grou Dypgmics. Pa 0 to. i ornia: T e National Press. Maslow. Abraham. Motivation and Personalit . New York: Harper and Brotfiers. 1954. . Toward a P3 cholo of Being. New York: van Nostrand. 1962. Perls. Frank. E Hun er and ression. London: George Al1en and Uann. £53.. 1947. 102 Rogers. Carl. On Becoming A Person. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin. 1961. Schein. Edgar. and Bennis. Warren G. Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laborator Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 1965. Smith. Henry Clay. Sensitivit to Peo le. New York: McGraw-Hill BooE Company. I955. Stock. Dorothy. "A Survey of Research on T-Groups." in T-Group Theory and Laborator Method: Innovation in R's-education. ——H_B——Tz_Edite y Le anW—Bra o . Jack R'—. GI—ibb. and KenneEH D. Benne. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc.. 1964. Reports Boyd. J. B.. and Elliss. J. D. "Findings of Research into Senior Management Seminars." Internal Document. Personnel Research Department. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. Toronto. 1962. Bunker. Douglas R. "The Effect of Laboratory Training upon Individual Behavior." Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting. Industrial Relations Research Association. December. 1963. Unpublished Material "Evaluation of High School Human Relations Laboratory. Pacific University. July. 1966." Mimeographed Document. Pacific Northwest Area Council of YMCA's. October. 1966. Gibb. Jack. Closing statement at the Twelfth Hi-Y Assembly. St. Olaf College. Minnesota. 1968. Mimeographed Document transcribed from a tape. Gleason. William. and McDowell. Peter. RA Proposal for a Community Approach to the Teen-Age Drug Problem." Dittoed Document. Madison. Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin. 1969. Hurley. John R. I"Impact of Inter-generational Sensitivity Training on Preferred Teen-Ager Qualities." Undated mimeographed document. 103 Jenkins. David. "Interdependence in the Classroom." Unpublished paper presented at a symposium sponsored by the Educational Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. September 7. 1950. Kernan. John. "Laboratory Human Relations--Its Effect on the 'Personality' of Supervisory Engineers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. New York University. 1963. Eric Knowles. compiler. An Annotated Biblio ra h of Research Since 1260. Nationa1 Training LaBOratories. I957. "Parent Evaluation: Dallas Hi-Y Training Laboratory." Dittoed document. June. 1964. Reece. Sanford M. !A Partial Evaluation Report: Dallas Hi-Y Laboratory." Undated dittoed document. "Results of Questionnaire Sent to Parents of TeennAgers Attending Camp Horseshoe Training in 1966." West Virginia YMCA. Typewritten document. May. 1967. Robbins. Gerald. ”Evaluation of Saginaw Neighborhood Youth Corps Laboratory." Dittoed document. 196?. "Summary of Responses by Delegates to.a Questionnaire Following an Illinois Area YMCA Personal Development Conference.” Undated. typewritten document. Valiquet. I. M. "Contributions to the Evaluation of a Management Development Program." Unpublished Master's thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1964. Waterson. Joe T. "Evaluation of Alpena Laboratory." Dittoed document. 196?. "West Texas Bus Evaluation" and "Evaluation of West Central Area Delegates". Western Regional Hi-Y Leadership Training Conference. Estes Park. Colorado. June 6. 1966. Undated mimeographed documents. Miscellaneous Oshry. Barry. Relationship Analysis Questionnaire. 1961. Shostrom. Everett. Personal Orientation Inventor Manual. San Diego: EducatIOnaI and IndustrIaI Test1ng Service. 1968. APPENDIX A 104 January 6. 1969 Dear Leadership Learning Laboratory Participants: Here are the final details on the weekend -- January 10-12. Depart via bus: (Friday) Leave Okemos High School - 3:30 p.m. " East Lansing High School- 3:50 p.m. ! ' DeWitt High School - 4:15 p.m. i Return: Between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.. Sunday night Cost: $10 per person. to be paid upon arrival at Camp Kett Dress: Informal. but do dress warmly. Girls may wear slacks or shorts if they wish. What to bring: Toilet articles An old blanket or throw rug to sit on in case we abandon chairs and sit on the floor Pencil Place: Camp Kett. near Cadillac. Camp Kett is not at all rustic. Buildings are quite new. linen and bedding are furnished. In case of emergency. the telephone number is Area Code 616. 829-3421. Tustin. Michigan. Quota: Five boys and five girls from each school. Only sophomores and juniors considered. Luggage: Please take as little as you can in as small a suitcase as possible. Friday night meal: Please take a sack lunch. we'll have no time to stop enroute. You may eat it on the bus. Cordially. Joe Waterson JW:eg APPENDIX B 105 TO: Staff of January 10-12 Teen—Age Lab FROM: Joe Waterson DATE: January 7. 1969 Enclosed are details about lab and planning through Saturday noon. (Staff can complete the remainder of the lab at the Saturday afternoon staff meeting.) The staff roster as of this hour looks as follows: Lowell Anderson. Ph.D. candidate. MSU — (Education) David Beatty. Ph.D. candidate. MSU - (Communications) Dr. Gordon Beckstrand. Director. 4-H-Youth Programs Paige Birdwell. Associate Minister. (Youth Worker) Reginald Carter. Ph.D. candidate. MSU (Sociology) Emil Fimbinger. 4-H - Youth Agent. Oakland County Arthur Howson. Ph.D. candidate. MSU (Education) James Jarrett. Counselor. Okemos Middle School Jerry McIntosh. Ph.D. candidate. MSU (Education) Ray Gillespie. 4-H Program Leader (State Office) *Alan Snider. 4-H - Youth Agent (Kent County) Amalie Vasold. 4-H Program Leader (State Office) Joe Waterson. 4-H Program Leader: Ph.D. candidate. MSU. (Education) Karen Wright. East Lansing High School (Teacher) William Wright. Okemos High School (Teacher) *Ray and Lucy Hughs. 149 Pershing Avenue. N.E.. Grand Rapids Uniform of the day will be extremely casual. Bedding. linens. etc.. will be furnished. Please bring your own toothbrush -- unless you want to borrow mine! We would like to get the staff meeting underway at 7:00 p.m. if at all possible. We should be through by 2:00 p.m. on Sunday. Some want to leave by noon. This is possible. I will be contacting you regarding transportation. I suggest that the three Grand Rapids folks get together.* JW:eg-1/69-22 D APPENDIX C Friday 7:00 p.m. 8:30 8:45 10:15 11:00 Saturday 8:00 - 8:30 a.m. 9:00 10:30 11:00 11:15 12:00 12:30 p.m. 5:30 - 6:00 9:00 Sunday 8:00 - 8:30 aeme 12:30 p.m. 1:55 JW:1/69-80 106 Pro gram January 10-12. 1969 Camp Kett Staff meeting Intro-orientation Micro-lab T-Group Refreshments - Reflective - Closure Breakfast T-Group Break Jo-Hari Window T-Group Lunch Staff meeting Free time until 3:00 p.m. Balance of program to be determined later Dinner Party Breakfast Dinner Homeward Bound APPENDIX D 107 TO: Staff of January 10-12 Teen-Age Lab FROM: Art Howson DATE: January 2. 1969 Those of us who were able to get together met on December 27 to do some preliminary thinking and planning for the lab. We'd like to share some of those thoughts with you for your consideration. 1. It looks like we'll have from 60 to 70 high school sophomores and juniors. approximately half from the Muskegon area and half from the Lansing area and an equal number of boys and girls. 2. We're planning a staff meeting for 7:00 p.m.. Friday. with the program to begin around 8:30 p.m. 3. Following is some of the content which we'd like to include somewhere in the design: a. Task-Maintenance (Functions of Leadership) b. Listening Skills c. Jo-Hari Window d. Feedback e. Bridging - Re-entry f. Cooperation Puzzle 8. Tower Building h. Non-verbal Communication 1. Due Process (Unfolding) J. Micro-lab k. Reflective 1. Helping Relationship m. Drawing pictures of this group n. Picture - How you came? Now? 0. Data Collection p. Strength Bombardment q. What do you want? r. Fantasy 8. Role Play 4. Suggested schedule through Saturday noon is as follows: FRIDAY 7:00 Staff meeting (Joe a Art) Pairings 8:30 Intro-orientation (Art) (Emil) 8:45 10:15 11:00 SATURDAY 8:00 9:00 10:30 11:00 11:15 12:00 12:30 3:30 5:30 7:00 9:30 Thanks much! 108 Micro-Lab (Ray-Lucy-Art) T-Group Refreshments - Reflective - Closure (Pairs) (Joe) Breakfast T-Group Break Jo-Hari Window (Mollie) T-Group Lunch Staff Meeting (Joe-Art) Dinner Party (Joe) See you on the 10th! APPENDIX E 109 One model of T-Group learning is called the (immortalizing) (Joe Luft and Harry Ingham Jo-Hari Window of California) Known to Unknown to Self Self Known to Others ' Free. BIInd Open Unknown to Others Secret. Hidden. Dark Masked As we become more frank. we move some feelings from the hidden area toward the open. As our fellow group members become more frank. they reveal to us our own feelings which we have failed to recognize. AV:2/68-100 APPENDIX F CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF FEEDBACK All group members should read their program for five minutes. The next important goal for your group is to discover the use of constructive feedback in small group interaction. Feedback is reporting to an individual the kind of impressions He Is making on you or reporting your reactions to him. Constructive feedback is rarely effectively used in inter- personal communication. Our society puts a great deal of emphasis on the value of honesty. Children are taught in their homes and schools that it is bad to lie about their behavior. Stealing. lying. cheating. and other dishonest acts are denounced in every aspect of life. Yet all of us are guilty of a great deal of dishonesty in interpersonal relation- ships all of the time. (Since children are often very aware of this. it makes the learning of the value of honesty very complex.) We rarely express our honest feelings toward others in home or in school. Often this involves simply avoiding the expression of reactions which we feel would be detrimental to others or ourselves. Often it involves what we call "little white lies" when we tell people something positive or reassuring rather than be direct. honest. or critical. People often feel threatened by the introduction of feedback exercises. The notion that people will be hurt by criticism is very prevalent. Yet. think of how many people you know who have good intentions but irritate. embarras. or behave in ways which diminish their effectiveness. The range of operating efficiently and productively in many areas in life is seriously hampered if we never have a chance to become aware of our impact on others. Most of us- are quite capable of improving our styles of interpersonal communication and becoming much more effective as people---parents. teachers. whatever.---when we really become aware of our impact on others. Before going on to an exercise designed to give and receive feedback to others in the group. it is useful to think about destructive versus constructive feedback. Feed- back is destructive when it is given only to hurt or to express hostility without any goal of improving the communica- tion between people. It may be also destructive when only derogatory or extremely critical statements are given without any balance of positive evaluation. 111 Feedback is useful to a person when: It describes what he is doing rather than placing a value on it. Example: "When you yell at me it makes me feel like It It do It It It not talking to you any more." Rather than ~- "It's awful of you to yell at me." is specific rather than general. is directed toward behavior which the receiver can something about. is well-timed. is asked for rather than imposed. is checked to insure clear communication. APPENDIX G HAVE YOU TRIED LISTENING? by Allen Menlo If you are someone who has the job of influencing others--and who doesn't--whether you're a boss. a teacher. a parent. or someone who lives and works with other people. then you must have asked yourself the question. "How can I do this job most effectively?" Perhaps you have experimented and tried several approaches. I wonder if you have tried listening? I have. and I am continually impressed by the profound effects it has upon my relationship with the person to whom I'm listening. We cease to be two individuals representing private worlds which can't quite get into a shared communication and that I am actually understanding what the other person is saying--not just his words. but the meaning and feeling behind his words. As a result of understanding the other person. I find myself appreciating him more as an individual and as someone of value. I begin to see him almost entirely as a different person than before. I find myself asking him questions to clarify things I am not sure about. and. in the process. helping him clarify some of his own thoughts. The other person seems to grow in security about what he is saying and he is no longer trying to convince me. He has no need to: he knows I am accepting and trying to understand him. In return. he seems to be much more desirous of hearing my views and much more receptive to ideas I may have. I have found that. in the long run. I have much greater influence on people when I spend more time listening and asking questions than telling and professing answers. Perhaps you have found the same thing. The reports of others also indicate that a person is decidedly more amenable to the acceptance of new and different ideas. attitudes. and ways of acting when he has had ample opportunity to first express his own feelings about the issue at hand and when his feelings are accepted as being just as reasonable and valid for him in his particular situation as are anyone else's feelings for them. It's almost as though two essential things have to happen before we can get other people to really change their ways: we have to help people feel free to voice their 112 113 opinions so that these opinions are released and don't stand in the way of taking in new ideas. and we have to help the person feel secure enough within himself so that he is willing to try something different. If you're a boss. parent. teacher. or anyone else who has the responsibility of influencing people and getting them to change in one way or another. why don't you try listening. I feel quite sure you will be successful. Perhaps the greatest value is that you. too. will have changed. 1. Think about five or six things you do to block or inhibit communication. 2. You must repeat ideas of the speaker ahead of you before you may speak. 3. After all have given ideas to the group. discuss your feelings. AV:eg 2/14/69-75 APPENDIX H DIRECTIONS This inventory consists of pairs of numbered statements. Read each statement and decide which of the two paired statements most consistently applies to you. You are to mark your answers on the answer sheet you have. Look at the example of the answer sheet shown at the right. If the first statement of the pair is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE as applied to you, blacken between the lines in the column headed "a". (See Example Item 1 at right.) Ifthe second statement of the pair is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE as applied to you, blacken be- tween the lines in the column headed "b". (See Example Item 2 at right.) If neither statement ap— plies to you, or if they refer to something you don't know about, make no answer on the answer sheet. Remember to give YOUR OWN opinion of yourself and do not leave any blank spaces if you can avoid it. In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Do not make any marks in this booklet. Remember, try to make some answer to every statement. Before you begin the inventory, be sure you put your name, your sex, your age, and the other information called for in the space provided on the answer sheet. NOW OPEN THE BOOKLET AND START WITH QUESTION 1. 10. 11. . I am bound by the principle of fairness. . I am not absolutely bound by the principle of fairness. . When a friend does me a favor, Ifeel thatI must return it. . When a friend does me a favor, I do not feel that I must return it. . I feel I must always tell the truth. . I do not always tell the truth. . No matter how hard I try, my feelings are often hurt. . If I manage the situation right, I can avoid being hurt. . I feel that I must strive for perfection in everything that I undertake. . I do not feel that I must strive for perfection in everything that I undertake. . I often make my decisions spontaneously. . I seldom make my decisions spontaneously. . I am afraid to be myself. . I am not afraid to be myself. . I feel obligated when a stranger does me a favor. . I do not feel obligated when a stranger does me a favor. . I feel that I have aright to expect others to do what I want of them. . Ido not feelthatlhave a right to expect others to do what I want of them. . I live by values which are in agreement with others. . Ilive by values which are primarily based on my own feelings . . I am concerned with self—improvement at all times. . I am not concerned with self—improvement at all times. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. . I feel guilty when I am selfish. . I don't feel guilty when I am selfish. . I have no objection to getting angry. . Anger is something I try to avoid. . For me, anything is possible if I believe in myself. . Ihave a lot of natural limitations even though I believe in myself. . I put others' interests before my own. . I do not put others' interests before my own. .I sometimes feel embarrassed by compliments. . I am not embarrassed by compliments. . I believe it is important to accept others as they are. . I believe it is important to understand why others are as they are. . Ican put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today . . I don't put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. . I can give without requiring the other person to appreciate what I give. . I have a right to expect the other person to appreciate what I give. . My moral values are dictated by society. . My moral values are self-determined. . I do what others expect of me. . Ifeelfree to not do what others expect of me. . I accept my weaknesses. . I don't accept my weaknesses. . In order to grow emotionally, it is necessary to know why I act as I do. . In order to grow emotionally, it is not neces- sary to know why I act as I do. . Sometimes I am cross when I am not feeling well. . I am hardly ever cross. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. . It is necessary that others approve of what I do. . It is not always necessary that others approve of what I do. . I am afraid of making mistakes. . I am not afraid of making mistakes. . I trust the decisions I make spontaneously. . I do not trust the decisions Imake spontaneously. . My feelings of self-worth depend on how much I accomplish. . My feelings of self-worth do not depend on how much I accomplish. I fear failure. . I don't fear failure. . My moral values are determined, for the most part, by the thoughts, feelings and de- cisions of others. . My moral values are not determined, for the most part, by the thoughts, feelings and de— cisions of others. . It is possible to live life in terms of whatI want to do. . It is not possible to live life in terms of what I want to do. . I can cope with the ups and downs of life. . I cannot cope with the ups and downs of life. . I believe in saying what I feel in dealing with others . . I do not believe in saying what I feel in deal- ing with others . . Children should realize that they do not have the same rights and privileges as adults. . It is not important to make an issue of rights and privileges . . Ican "stick my neck out" in my relations with others . . Iavoid "sticking my neck out" in my relations with others. . a. I believe the pursuit of self-interest is op— posed to interest in others. . I believe the pursuit of self—interest is not opposed to interest in others. . I find that I have rejected many of the moral values I was taught. . I have not rejected any of the moral values I was taught. . I live in terms of my wants, likes, dislikes and values. . Ido not live in terms of my wants, likes, dis— likes and values . . I trust my ability to size up a situation. . Ido not trust my ability to size up a situation. . I believe I have an innate capacity to cope with life. . I do not believe I have an innate capacity to cope with life . . Imust justify my actions in the pursuit of my own interests . . I need not justify my actions in the pursuit of my own interests . . I am bothered by fears of being inadequate. . I am not bothered by fears of being inadequate. . Ibelieve that man is essentially good and can be trusted . . Ibelieve that man is essentially evil and can— not be trusted . I live by the rules and standards of society. . I do not always need to live by the rules and standards of society. . I am bound by my duties and obligations to others. . I am not bound by my duties and obligations to others . . Reasons are needed to justify my feelings. . Reasons are not needed to justify my feelings. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 47. 48. 49. 51. 53. 54. U] in 56. 57. 58. a. . There are times when just being silent is the best way I can express my feelings. . I find it difficult to express my feelings by just being silent: . I often feel it necessary to defend my past actions. . I do not feel it necessary to defend my past actions . . I like everyone I know. . I do not like everyone I know. . Criticism threatens my self—esteem. . Criticism does not threaten my self—esteem. . Ibelieve thatknowledge of what is right makes people act right. . Ido not believe that knowledge of what is right necessarily makes people act right. . I am afraid to be angry at those I love. I feel free to be angry at those I love. . My basic responsibility is to be aware of my own needs. . My basic responsibility is to be aware of others' needs . Impressing others is most important. . Expressing myself is most important. . To feel right, I need always to please others. . Ican feelright withoutalways having to please others . . I will risk a friendship in order to say or do what I believe is right. . I will not risk a friendship just to say or do what is right. . I feel bound to keep the promises I make. . Idonotalways feelbound to keep the promises I make. I must avoid sorrow at all costs. . It is not necessary for me to avoid sorrow. 59. 60. 61. 63. 64. 66. 67. 68. . I strive always to predict what will happen in the future. . I do not feel it necessary always to predict what will happen in the future. . It is important that others accept my point of view. . It is not necessary for others to accept my point of view. . I only feel free to express warm feelings to my friends. . I feel free to express both warm and hostile feelings to my friends. . There are many times when it is more im- portant to express feelings than to carefully evaluate the situation. . There are very few times when it is more im- portant to express feelings than to carefully evaluate the situation. . I welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth. . I do not welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth. . Appearances are all-important. . Appearances are not terribly important. . I hardly ever gossip. . I gossip a little at times. Ifeel free to reveal my weaknesses among friends. . I do not feel free to reveal my weaknesses among friends. . I should always assume responsibility for other people's feelings. . I need not always assume responsibility for other people's feelings. .I feel free to be myself and bear the consequences. . I do not feel free to be myself and bear the COIISGQUGIICGS . GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. U‘ m . I already know all I need to know about my feelings . As life goes on, I continue to know more and more about my feelings. . I hesitate to show my weaknesses among strangers . . I do not hesitate to show my weaknesses among strangers . I will continue to grow only by setting my sights ona high—level, socially approved goal. . I will continue to grow best by being myself. . I accept inconsistencies within myself. . Icannot accept inconsistencies within myself. . Man is naturally cooperative. . Man is naturally antagonistic. . I don't mind laughing at a dirty joke. . I hardly ever laugh at a dirty joke. . Happiness is a by-product inhuman relationships. . Happiness is an end in human relationships. . I only feel free to show friendly feelings to strangers . . Ifeelfree to show both friendly and unfriendly feelings to strangers . . I try to be sincere but I sometimes fail. . I try to be sincere and I am sincere. Self-interest is natural. . Self-interest is unnatural. . A neutral party can measure a happy relation- ship by observation. . Aneutral party cannot measure a happy rela- tionship by observation . . For me, work and play are the same. . For me, work and play are opposites. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. . Two people will get along best if each con- centrates on pleasing the other. . Two people can get along best if each person feels free to express himself. . Ihave feelings of resentment about things that are past. . I do not have feelings of resentment about things that are past. . Ilike only masculine men and feminine women. . I like men and women who show masculinity as well as femininity. . I actively attempt to avoid embarrassment whenever I can . . I do not actively attempt to avoid embarrassment. . I blame my parents for a lot of my troubles. . I do not blame my parents for my troubles. . Ifeel that a person should be silly only at the right time and place. . I can be silly when I feel like it. . People should always repent their wrong- doings . . People need not always repent their wrong- doings . . I worry about the future. . I do not worry about the future. . Kindness and ruthlessness must be opposites. . Kindness and ruthlessness need not be opposites. . I prefer to save good things for future use. . I prefer to use good things now. . People should always control their anger. . People should express honestly-felt anger. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. . The trulyspiritualman is sometimes sensual. . The truly spiritual man is never sensual. . I am able to express my feelings even when they sometimes result in undesirable consequences. . 1am unable to eXpress my feelings if they are likely to result in undesirable consequences. . I am often ashamed of some of the emotions that I feel bubbling up within me. . I do not feel ashamed of my emotions. . Ihave had mysterious or ecstatic experiences . . I have never had mysterious or ecstatic experiences. . I am orthodoxly religious. . I am not orthodoxly religious. . I am completely free of guilt. . I am not free of guilt. . I have a problem in fusing sex and love. . I have no problem in fusing sex and love. . I enjoy detachment and privacy. . I do not enjoy detachment and privacy. . I feel dedicated to my work. . I do not feel dedicated to my work. . Ican express affection regardless of whether it is returned. . Icannot express affection unless I am sure it will be returned . . Living for the future is as important as living for the moment. . Only living for the moment is important. . It is better to be yourself. . It is better to be popular. . Wishing and imagining can be bad. . Wishing and imagining are always good. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. . I spend more time preparing to live. . I spend more time actually living. . I am loved because I give love. . I am loved because I am lovable. . When I really love myself, everybody will love me. . When I really love myself, there will still be those who won't love me. . I can let other people control me. . Ican let other people control me if I am sure they will not continue to control me. . As they are, people sometimes annoy me. . As they are, people do not annoy me. . Living for the future gives my life its primary meaning. . Only when living for the future ties into living for the present does my life have meaning. . I follow diligently the motto, "Don 't waste your time. " . Ido not feel bound by the motto, "Don't waste your time. " . What I have been in the past dictates the kind of person I will be. . What I have been in the past does not neces— sarily dictate the kind of person I will be. . Itis important to me how I live in the here and DOW. . It is of little importance to me how I live in the here and now. . I have had an experience where life seemed just perfect. . I have never had an experience where life seemed just perfect. . Evil is the result of frustration in trying to be good . . Evil is an intrinsic part of human nature which fights good . GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 123. 127. . A person can completely change his essential nature . .A person can never change his essential nature. . I am afraid to be tender. . I am not afraid to be tender. . I am assertive and affirming. . I am not assertive and affirming. . Women should be trusting and yielding. . Women should not be trusting and yielding. . I see myself as others see me. . I do not see myself as others see me. . It is a good idea to think about your greatest potential. . Aperson who thinks about his greatest poten— tial gets conceited. . Men should be assertive and affirming. . Men should not be assertive and affirming. . I am able to risk being myself. . I am not able to risk being myself. . I feel the need to be doing something signifi- cant all of the time. . I do not feel the need to be doing something significant all of the time. . I suffer from memories. . I do not suffer from memories. . Men and women must be both yielding and assertive. . Men and women must not be both yielding and assertive. . I like to participate actively in intense discussions. . I do not like to participate actively in intense discussions. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. . I am self—sufficient. . I am not self—sufficient. . I like to withdraw from others for extended periods of time. . I do not like to withdraw from others for ex— tended periods of time. . I always play fair. . Sometimes I cheat a little. . Sometimes I feel so angry I want to destroy or hurt others. . Inever feel so angry that I want to destroy or hurt others. . I feel certain and secure in my relationships with others. . I feel uncertain and insecure in my relation- ships with others. . I like to withdraw temporarily from others. . I do not like to withdraw temporarily from others . . I can accept my mistakes. . I cannot accept my mistakes. .I find some people who are stupid and uninteresting. . I never find any people who are stupid and uninteresting. . I regret my past. . I do not regret my past. . Being myself is helpful to others. . Just being myself is not helpful to others. . Ihave had moments of intense happiness when Ifeltlikel was experiencing a kind of ecstasy or bliss. . I have not had moments of intense happiness when I felt like Iwas experiencing a kind of bliss. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. . People have an instinct for evil. . People do not have an instinct for evil. . For me, the future usually seems hopeful. . For me, the future often seems hopeless. . People are both good and evil. . People are not both good and evil. . My past is a stepping stone for the future. . My past is a handicap to my future. . "Killing time" is a problem for me. . "Killing time" is not a problem for me. . For me, past, present and future is in mean- ingful continuity . . For me, the present is an island, unrelated to the past and future. . My hope for the future depends on having friends . . My hope for the future does not depend on having friends . 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. . I can like people without having to approve of them . . I cannot like people unless I also approve of them . . People are basically good. . People are not basically good. . Honesty is always the best policy. . There are times when honesty is not the best policy. . I can feelcomfortable with less than a perfect performance. . I feel uncomfortable with anything less than a perfect performance . . Ican overcome any obstacles as long as I be- lieve in myself. . I cannot overcome every obstacle even if I believe in myself. ‘ .0 I . I I t ’ 4 . \Iol'. I i \I‘ | I r A .l ‘ l A I I] ‘ I‘ In. I 1‘ {III}; ( u ‘1 I f . v .‘ . f .l . i i M'lll‘lljlrlfllllflljfllljllljlljlll“