rm; 7 . -..-- --....-- ....v..... . THE. EFFECT or PERSONALITY TYPE on SYSTEMATIC ‘ DESENSITTZATTON AND STRUCTURE!) GROUP TNTERACTION‘ m REDUCING EXAMINATION ANXIETY Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHTGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRANCINE TODER WETNSTETN 1968 THESlS This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY TYPE ON SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION AND STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION IN REDUCING EXAMINATION ANXIETY presented by Francine Toder Weinstein has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Major professor Da‘e June 15. 1968 O~169 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY TYPE ON SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION AND STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION IN REDUCING EXAMINATION ANXIETY By Francine Toder Weinstein This study investigated the effect of certain personality types, i.e., introverts and extraverts, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, on the outcome of two counseling techniques termed group systematic desensitization and structured group interaction, in reducing test-taking anxiety among college students. Outcome measures included: Test Anxiety Rating Scale, Test Anxiety Inventory, S-R Inventory of Anxiousness and Thayer Activation—Deactivation Adjective Check List. It was hypothesized that: I. Introverts treated by group systematic desensitization will demonstrate significantly less test anxiety than extraverts. II° Extraverts treated by structured group interaction will demonstrate significantly less test anxiety than introverts. III. All subjects treated by either group systematic desensiti- zation or structured group interaction will demonstrate signifi- cantly less test anxiety than no-treatment control subjects. IV. All subjects treated by either group systematic desensiti- zation or structured group interaction will demonstrate signifi- cantly less test anxiety than no-contact control subjects. V. There will be no significant difference between the anxiety level of test anxious college students assigned to the no—treatment control group and those assigned to the no-contact control group. Francine Toder Weinstein Fifty—six volunteer subjects, rated high on test—taking anxiety, were selected from an introductory psychology class with an enrollment of 550 students. Subjects were selected according to classification on the Eysenck Personality Inventory and scores on the Test Anxiety Inventory and the S—R Inventory of Anxiousness. Subjects were stratified and randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1. systematic desensitization; 2. structured group interaction; 3. no-treatment control; and A. no—contact control. Subjects received five one-hour sessions in groups of four. Group systematic desensitization treatment was based on principles presented by Wolpe (1958). Structured group interaction treatment was specifically developed by the author for extraverted subjects. According to the theoretical rationale suggested by Pavlov (1957) and expanded by Eysenck (1965) and others, this treatment was verbal in nature, emphasizing planned small group discussion and several activi— ties such as practice in taking examinations, role-playing and self— control exercises. Subjects in the no-treatment control group (wait control) received attention in the form of telephone contact and two interviews. No—contact control subjects provided baseline data. These subjects had no knowledge of their direct participation in the study. Both groups were tested along with all students, before treatment,during class time in their psychology course. After the five-week treatment period, anxiety instruments were administered. Treated subjects took the Test Anxiety Rating Scale (8 point scale) and the Thayer Activation—Deactivation Adjective Check List into their final examination, completing them immediately after taking the examination. The Test Anxiety Inventory and the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness were completed by all groups following treatment. Francine Toder Weinstein A 2X3 and a 2XA analysis of variance with planned comparisons was computed. Results supported Hypotheses III, IV and V. Those receiving both treatments were found to have a lower post-treatment anxiety level than no-treatment controls and no-contact controls. The two control groups did not produce significantly different post- experiment levels of anxiety. Hypotheses I and II were generally not supported. The structured group interaction treatment was some- what more effective with extraverts than introverts. However, group systematic desensitization was clearly not more effective for intro- verts than extraverts. The possible detrimental effect of using a group procedure with introverts was discussed along with possible inadequacies of asseSSing introversion-extraversion. Additional studies exploring the interaction effects of subject characteristics and treatment types were suggested. Physiological and observer indices of test anxiety were recommended along with self-report measures. THE EFFECT OF PERSONALITY TYPE ON SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION AND STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION IN REDUCING EXAMINATION ANXIETY By Francine Toder Weinstein A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1968 -. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. Carl E. Thoresen for serving as chairman of the dissertation committee. His encouragement, suggestions, criticisms and sense of humor helped to make this not only a learning experience but also a most enjoyable endeavor. His concern helped to melt the many miles between Knoxville and Stanford. Thanks are also extended to the other committee members, Drs. Norm Kagan, Norm Stewart and Dozier Thornton for their help with this project. Appreciation is expressed to the two treatment counselors, Roger Bauer and Al DiLoreto, who did more than just participate in this study. To Dr. Paul Bakan goes a special thank-you for making his classes available as the subject population for this study. Grati— tude is felt toward the students who served as subjects for this experiment. Finally, the author wishes to thank the person who has had the greatest impact on her career and without whom graduate schooling and this study would have remained a dream, her husband, Ira. His unyielding faith and ready support were never lacking. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Test-Taking Anxiety . A Personality Type . . 6 Relationship of Personality Type to Psychopathology . . . 10 Independence of Personality Type and Neuroticism . . 11 Relationship of Personality Type to Conditiona- bility and Learning . . . . . . . . 12 Social and Behavioral Studies of Personality Type . 13 The Relationship of Introversion—Extraversion to Normal Behavior . . . . . lA Applied Experimental Studies of Personality Type . . 15 Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Systematic Desensitization . . . . . . . . . . 17 Experimental Studies of Systematic Desensitization . . . . . . . 19 Relationship of Systematic Desensitization to Personality Type . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Group Systematic Desensitization . . . . 2A Procedural and Innovative Studies of Systematic Desensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Structured Group Interaction . . . . . . 28 Relationship of Structured Group Interaction to Personality Type . . . . . . . . . . 28 Development of a Treatment Program for Extraverts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 II. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A Pre-Treatment Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A Followup Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Treatment Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Counselor Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Systematic Desensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Session One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 Session Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA Session Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AS Session Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AS Session Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6 iii Chapter Structured Group Interaction . Session One Session Two . Session Three Session Four Session Five No-Treatment Control . No—Contact Control . Procedure Summary . III. RESULTS Introduction Group Assignment Counselors . . . . . Effectiveness of Treatment Hypothesis One . Hypothesis Two . . Hypothesis Three . Hypothesis Four Hypothesis Five Supplementary Findings Treatment Comparison . . . Therapist Rating of Client Anxiety . Personality Main Effect . . . Summary . . . . IV. DISCUSSION . Introduction The Treatment -Control Hypotheses Interaction . . Systematic Desensitization Treatment Structured Group Interaction Treatment Suggested Modification of the Structured Group Interaction Treatment Supplementary Findings Treatment Main Effect Systematic Desensitization Structured Group Interaction Personality Main Effect . The Eysenck Personality Inventory . The Dependent Variables . . . . S— R Inventory of Anxiousness Thayer Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List . Test Anxiety Inventory . Test Anxiety Rating Sheet . . Summary and Implications for Future Research iv Page Chapter Page SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOS APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll Table 1.22.. LIST OF TABLES Therapist orientation sheet-—therapists' responses Therapist orientation sheet—-frequency of use of specific techniques by each therapist Personality X treatment interaction 2X2X2 analysis of variance Personality by treatment by counselor . Personality X treatment interaction 2X3 analysis of variance Introvert-extravert X systematic desensiti- zation-structured group interaction—no treatment control Mean scores and t test for 1ntroverts and extraverts receiving systematic desensitization treatment Mean scores and t test for introverts and extraverts receiving structured group interaction treatment Treatment-no-treatment control Orthogonal comparison and mean scores (2X3 analysis of variance) Persona- lity by treatment Treatment-no contact control Orthogonal comparison (2XA analysis of variance) Personality type by syste— matic desensitization-structured group interaction- no contact control Both treatment—both control Orthogonal comparison (2XA analysis of variance) Personality by treatment No-treatment control—nc—contact control Orthogonal comparison and mean scores (2XA analysis of variance) Personality by Treatment Systematic desensitization-structured group interaction Orthogonal comparison (2X3 analysis of variance) Introvert-extravert X systematic desensitization- structured group interaction—no-treatment control Personality main effect 2X2X2 analysis of variance Counselor by personality by treatment vi Page 38 A0 62 63 6A 65 66 68 69 69 71 73 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. Pavlov's physiological typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Experimental design and procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. Subject assignment to experimental conditions . . . . . . . 5A A. Therapist rating of client anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 vii Appendix A. Instruments LIST OF APPENDICES Page 112 Eysenck Personality Inventory S-R Inventory of Anxiousness Test Anxiety Inventory Thayer Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List Test Anxiety Rating Sheet Therapist Rating of Client Anxiety Systematic Desensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Standard Hierarchy Modified Group Hierarchies Structured Group Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Session Outlines Post—Experiment Letter to No-Contact Control Subjects . . 1A9 Analysis of Variance and Mean Score Tables . . . . . . . . lSl Tables l—lO 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance Tables Tables Tables Tables 11-20 21—31 32-39 uo_u7 Mean Scores 2X2X2 Analysis of Variance 2X3 Analysis of Variance 2XA Analysis of Variance 2X3 Analysis of Variance-—Pre-Test Scores viii Chapter I INTRODUCTION In the field of counseling the practitioner's goal is to pro- vide help to his client enabling him to function more effectively regarding interactions with the physical and interpersonal environ- ments. One hopes that the client is less troubled at the termina- tion of his interaction with the helping person than he was when he first sought professional help. The particular approach utilized to help a client as well as the ultimate goals set for him has, in the past, been a function of the counselor's philosophy, academic orientation and training and oftentimes his personality. Allegiance to a specific counseling theory, s ch as Rogerian, psychoanalytic or behavioral, was based on the above determinants and led to the assumption that the chosen approach was the best, most comprehensive, most scientifically based and most comfcrtable to use. The result was that neither individual differences between clients, nor differences in presenting problems, were considered as variables relevant to treatment” The significant factor in choice of treatment remained the counselor and his theoretical bias. The :fact that no one method has ever demonstrated its superiority in izreating all kinds of clients with all kinds of problems (Truax and Clarkhuff, 1967; Kiesler, I966) had not been withstanding. If the fields of counseling and psychotherapy wish to become rumors scientific, more rigorous and controlled, experimentation is needed. Recently, the literature in counseling and psychotherapy has jLIndicated the necessity for examining the major variables that affect l 2 counseling outcome. The "uniformity myth" assumption has been attacked by Kiesler (1966) who feels that we have no basis for assuming that clients at the start of treatment are more alike than they are dif- ferent. In fact, Kiesler feels the reverse to be true, that a remarkable range of initial client differences exists and has been ignored. He adds, "If psychotherapy is differentially effective depending on initial patient differences, as the evidence strongly suggests, then it seems clear that research should take these differences into account. This would imply the use of a design with at least two experimental groups, dichotomizing patients by one or more patient variables shown to relate to subsequent out- come. . . ." (P. 115) By dispelling the patient uniformity myth the basic research question can be more adequately specified and studied. We will no longer ask, "Does counseling do any good?" but, "Is counseling more effective with one type of individual than another?" A major task of this research is to differentiate clients seeking counseling on the continuum of personality type. If a client could be dichotomized on a particular dimension, e.g., personality type--introvert or extravert, it could possibly lead to more defini- tive statements about counseling effectiveness. However, in spite of the possible benefit of learning that Cine type of counselee benefits more than another from counseling, 1:11e problem of specifying what is meant by "counseling" or which "<2c>unseling technique" to use remains to be dealt with. Not one of the most widely used theoretical formulations, 63 ° éE;., Rogers, Freud or behavior therapy, has been found to maximally benefit all patients. Yet this is not surprising when we understand £1 :IJDLzajor source of difference between these schools that has often k) EEP'EE’WJEU overlooked. The founders of these different schools based 3 their initial observations on very different types of patients. If the different theoretical formulations were derived from experience with different classes of patients, why then should the choice of a particular counseling technique not be specific to the client domain (Paul, 1967), for example, distressing behavior and/or relatively stable personal-social characteristics (introversion-extraversion)? Perhaps the relevant research questions can be further specified to read, "Which counseling treatment will be most effective with which type of client?" Another major task of this research is to determine which counseling technique will provide maximal benefit to each type of client. A review of the theory of personality type and its relation- ship to counseling or psychotherapy treatment led to this investiga- tion. The choice of a particular counseling technique depends on not only the "stable personal-social characteristics" of the indivi— dual (personality type-—introvert, extravert) but on the "distressing behavior" which the client wishes to reduce (Paul, 1967, p. 110). For this reason it becomes crucial to select a treatment which most effectively eliminates or reduces the distressing behavior. In this .research the central problem for which the clients are seeking help :is test-taking anxiety. Selection of the best treatment will be Cietermined by experimental evidence. In summing the intent of this research two factors emerge as C36311tral and an experimental manipulation of these may lead to an answer to the question, "What treatment . . . is most effective for .EEJEE;§E;§ individual with that specific problem. . . ?" (Paul, 1967, I) ‘ .111.) The first crucial variable is the counseling treatment, 51 . . ‘t:;iechn1que which has been shown to be effective with test-taking h anxiety, and in addition, a technique which, according to theoretical rationale, would seem to favor each personality type. The second variable to be investigated is personality type. The rationale for employing one technique with introverts and a different technique for extraverts will be presented. Test—Taking Anxiety In the present research the target behavior, at which treatment is aimed, is test—taking anxiety. This problem was experienced by otherwise normal college students who function satisfactorially in non-testing situations. However, the effect of test anxiety on these individuals is debilitating and, in this respect, because it is illogical, resembles the effect of more widespread neurotic anxiety reactions. The fact that the college student who experiences test anxiety must continue to take examinations, compounded by the knowledge that his status in college may depend on his examination performance, does little to dispel his fears and very possibly reinforces them. In trying to help the test anxious individual in the college setting the counselor should seek a method which is short term and £3pecific to the target problem. These conditions are feasible and I’ealistic in a psychiatrically normal or non-psychopathological ;I><2pulation. But choosing the best technique for reducing anxiety -il£3 not a simple matter since this goal is implicitly or explicitly E3‘134Eated in every psychotherapy approach and is central in most current theories. The guidelines, "short term," "specific to target problem," and research findings in anxiety and test anxiety studies help to LL . ijLLJCIJLit the ch01ce of a counseling technique. Since neither Freudian 5 nor Rogerian approaches tend to be "short term" or "specific to the target problem" we turn to examine the learning theory, behavior therapy, approach. The development and endurance of the anxiety response has been explained in terms of learning by Wolpe (1966), a major con- tributor to the behavior therapy approach. Eysenck (1955, p. 30) discusses anxiety as an unadaptive response and shows how it leads a neurotic behavior which he defines as ". . a persistent habit of unadaptive behavior acquired by learning." Anxiety is a central concept in maladaptive learning and neurosis, and reduction in anxiety responses is a major goal of behavior therapy. Wolpe (1966, p. 180) defines anxiety as ". . . a sympathetic dominated pattern of antonomic response." Reducing anxiety and eliminating neurotic behavior is seen as a matter of unlearning. If we accept the concept of learning as central in the develop— ment and maintenance of anxiety, and therefore test—anxiety, we must turn to the question of possible differences between test anxious individuals in their ability to learn and in the speed with which they learn. We cannot assume that, if anxiety and its reduction involves learning, relearning or unlearning, then all test-anxious individuals will respond similarly. This would be the "patient uniformity myth." Initial client differences should not be disregarded in the choice of a test—anxiety reduction technique. The most immediate concern, then, is to identify those individual differences which may influence improvement since it is possible that the thera— peutic technique which will benefit one type of individual may 6 not benefit, or in fact may have a deleterious effect, on another type of person. Personality Type The concept of personality does not readily lend itself to one substantive definition. Personality is defined in as many ways as there are theories of personality. Hall and Lindzey (1957, p. 9) H 3 suggest that . personality consists of what . . . is most typical and deeply characteristic of the person." Pavlov's physiological theory of types is a theory of persona- lity which stresses the influence of innate neural patterns on subsequent behavior. Personality type is one dimension along which individuals have been found to vary. A number of theories as well as research findings suggest that differences in this characteristic affect a person's speed of learning, depth of learning, responsiveness to his environment, activity level, etc. The initial research and theoretical formulation leading to the recognition of personality type differences was not based on observation of humans, but was based on animals. Pavlov's physio- logical experimentation with dogs led him to the realization that not all his dogs responded in the same way in the laboratory even under the same conditions. He found that some dogs were calm and responsive, learned to follow directions quickly and generally were good subjects in his experiments. Other dogs seemed to be more active and lively with a shorter attention span and greater distractability. Both of these types, however, were found to function adequately in the 7 experimental situation and were described as "balanced" or "equili- brated" types. Two additional types generally performed poorly as subjects. These dogs were described as "unequilibrated" or "unbal— anced," the first being weak and nervous and the second strong, but obstinate or unruly. These observations led him to the formulation of a "physiolo- gical" theory of personality which stressed the importance of physio- logical predisposition underlying behavior. Two processes which are basic to the theory of types are excitation and inhibition. Excitation is conceived to be an active process, involving expenditure of energy, and is responsible for the formation of positive or "excitatory" reflexes. It refers to the arousal of the cortex and the general facilitation of the pro— cesses of learning, remembering and performing. Inhibition, on the other hand, is basically a conservative process in that it prevents an excitation type of response from occurring. It is a process in the central nervous system which interferes with the ongoing per- ceptual, cognitive and motor activities of the organism. It is involved in such phenomena as the formation of inhibitory reflexes and experimental extinction. Based on his laboratory observations and his knowledge of physiology, Pavlov attempted to "type" his dogs. He first identi- :fied two groups, strong and weak, based on the strength of the eexcitatory process, i.e., according to the working capacity of the czerebral cells. The strong group was subdivided into equilibrated ('balanced, i.e., a state of equilibrium) and unequilibrated (unbal- Etnced) depending upon the relative intensity of the excitatory and idnhibitory processes. The mobility (the dimension of lability- 8 inertness) of the process further divided the strong equilibrated dogs into quiet and lively ones. Thus, four basic types emerged which paralleled the classic Greek temperaments (see Figure l): equilibrated unequilibrated strong - quiet = phlegmatic strong = choleric strong - lively = sanguine weak = melancholic Pavlov observed that his unequilibrated dogs were subject to nervous system problems analogous to human neurosis. He further noted differences between the quiet and lively equilibrated dogs in terms of their behavior in experimental situations. These differences were felt to be related to innate physiological pre- dispositions. The strong—quiet dog seemed to have greater excita- tory potential and the strong-lively dog, greater inhibitory potential. While it is important to keep in mind that the above charac- terizations were formulated on subhumans, Peters (1966, p. 236), a follower of Pavlov, points out that . the canine typology has its greatest value as a paradigm which can enrich our understanding of human behavior." Pavlov (1957) suggested that his four types correspond to human types and that while this is the only reaction system avail- able to animals, humans have developed a second signaling system through the use of language and speech. The first and second signaling system have provided another basis for dividing humans into artistic, thinking and intermediate types. The last category is formed by an equal contribution from both signaling systems. Pavlov's main contribution with respect to types seems to have been in offering an explanation for individual predispositions. The implications of excitatory vs. inhibitory potential and their Strength of Excitatory Process Weak Strong Melancholic Unequilibrated Choleric X (quiet- _ Equilibrated Phlegmatic) Figure l. Pavlov's physiological typology X (lively- Sanguine) lO effect on conditionability and learning in humans was.subsequently investigated by psychologists with the hope of relating personality types to physiological types. Eysenck (1965) cited the results of experimental studies of introversion-extraversion. Eysenck (19A?) indicated the commonality of the introversion-extraversion theories of Jung, Bingham and Pavlov. There was agreement on the following points: 1) the I shows a higher degree of cerebral activity; 2) the E shows a higher degree of behavioral activity; 3) the I shows a tendency to self control; A) the E shows a tendency to lack self control; 5) the I has a more subjective outlook; 6) the E has a more objective outlook. The E's attention is controlled by objective conditions more than sub- jective, internal conditions. Relationship of Personality_Type to Psychopathology Introvert and extravert personality types have been differ- entiated along many psychological subdimensions including types of behavior exhibited and types of psychopathology manifested. Eysenck, who has been interested in psychopathology, attempted to relate variations in cortical activity to forms of human neurosis. His view of neurosis was in terms of the over-excitability of the auto- nomic nervous system, the sympathetic branch, i.e., that part of the nervous system concerned with involuntary processes which are acti- vated to deal with stress. The predominance of cortical excitation or inhibition in a person became a basis for classification along two dimensions: 10 Normal-neuroticism 2. Introversion-extraversion He made certain deductions from Pavlovian theory which he combined with Hullian theory. Hullian theory of conditioning- ll extinction states the following: (a) drive reduction serves as a reinforcement; (b) reinforcement leads to an increment in excitatory tendency to repeat the reinforced R; (c) excitatory tendency is greater than the inhibitory tendency for learning to occur. Eysenck then hypothesized from Pavlovian-Hullian theory that with individuals in whom the excitatory-inhibitory balance is tilted in the direction of strong excitation and weak inhibition, conditioned responses should be formed quickly and easily and should be difficult to extinguish. In individuals where there is weak excitation and strong inhibition, conditioned responses should be formed slowly and with difficulty and should be easy to extinguish. The notion of conditionability is central to the speed and firmness of learning and unlearning (or relearning), central to the classifi- cation of individuals as introverts and extraverts and consequently, of key importance to this study. The nervous system then, according to Eysenck, predisposes man to a response tendency emphasizing exceptionally strong excita- tory potential, exceptionally strong inhibitory potential, or, more usually, an intermediate position between these extremes. Independence of Personality Type and Neuroticism In the realm of conditioning and learning innumerable studies have been conducted comparing introverts and extraverts. Although much of Eysenck's work has concentrated on the psychopathological conditions related to neurosis and either strong excitation (Type: Introvert; Neurotic condition: neurasthenia) or strong inhibition (Type: Extravert; Neurotic condition: hysteria), the present study is concerned with non-neurotic introverts and extraverts. The 12 question of independence of neuroticism from introversion-extraversion has been raised in the literature. If the two concepts are not inde- pendent then extrapolation of the introvert-extravert concept to "normal" individuals is unwarranted. Cyril Franks (1952) performed a classical conditioning experi- ment (eye-blink reflex) to teat the hypothesis, "If conditionability is related to I-E then within the normal group there should be no correlation between conditioning and a test of neuroticism but a significant negative correlation between conditioning and a test of extraversion." His findings, that extraverts tended to condition much less well than introverts, and that conditionability is related to introversion-extraversion and not to neuroticism, supported his hypothesis. Relationship of Personality Type to Conditionability and Learning Irene Martin (1963) studied the relationship between galvanic skin response and conditionability. She noted a relationship between "reflex sensitivity" and ease of conditioning, and decondi- ". draw attention to the tioning, in her subjects. Her results fact that there may be general characteristics of an 'individual's' responsiveness to conditioning stimuli which affect the course of conditioning" (p. 189). In a Pavlovian framework these "general characteristics" would seem to be personality type-introvert/ extravert. Additional support can be found for the personality type- conditionability relationship in the verbal conditioning experiments of Holmes (1967) and Costello (1967). Holmes found a significant relationship between rapid pupillary constriction, superior performance 13 in verbal conditioning and introverted personality traits measured by peer rating and self report. Costello (1967) studied the relation- ship between the personality variables, introversion-extraversion and neuroticism, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, and the conditioning of the connotative meaning of words. His results indicated a significant difference between introverts (N=lO) and extraverts (N=lO) in the ease with which the connotative meaning of words will be conditioned. He did not find that condi- tionability was related to neuroticism. Introverts and extraverts appear to differ along the dimension of physiological sensitivity, conditionability and psychopathological conditions. The following studies offer an extension of the introversion- extraversion dichotomy in social and behavioral terms. Social and Behavioral Studies of Personality Type Mowrer's (1966) concept of socialization facilitates the understanding of the relationship between nervous system functioning and the development of introvert-extravert types. Since sociali- zation is seen to depend on conditioning, individuals with strong excitatory and weak inhibitory potential, who would be expected to form strong and stable conditioned responses, would also tend to be strongly socialized. Those in whom inhibitory potential is strong and excitatory potential weak would be expected to form weak and unstable conditioned responses and also be weakly socialized. According to Eysenck, "The former group would thus tend to develop introverted behavior traits (persistence, high level of aspiration, reliability) while the latter group would tend to develop extraverted behavior traits" (Eysenck, 1961, p. 27). 1A Eysenck suggests outcome of behavior in the following formula where: Outcome = f (predisposition x stress). The reactions or responses of an individual are affected by innate individual dif- ferences, conditionability, and environmental happenings, experience. Wolpe (1966) found, on the basis of experimental evidence, that the nature and degree of stress needed to evoke a significantly high degree of anxiety varied according to pre-existent factors in the individual; similar to the findings in experiments with animals. While he did not define the nature of the pre-exissent factors, it would seem that Eysenck's adaptation of Pavlovian—Hullian theory offers an adequate explanation. Much of the research and study of introversion and extraversion has focused on neurotic behavior as related to psychological type. But the study of types as it relates to normal behavior has been a much neglected area. Yet the independence of introversion-extraversion from neuroticism may have already been established. The Relationship of Introversion-Extraversion to Normal Behavior Cyril Franks (1961, p. A6) feels that ". . . an excitation- inhibition poetulate should be tenable in accounting for many of the behavior differences observed in normal introverts and extraverts." The normal introvert tends to possess the excitatory phenomena of hesitancy, conscientiousness, sensitivity and responsiveness to his environment while the normal extravert, high inhibition, is characterized by impulsiveness, less degree of conscientiousness and lack of sensitivity to his environment. Eysenck (1965, p. 19) characterizes the social behavior of the introvert and extravert as following: "The typical extravert is 15 sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to and does not like reading or studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances . . . acts on the spur of the moment and is generally an impulsive individual. . . . He prefers to keep moving and doing things." The introvert is seen as serious, reserved, introspective, orderly, reliable, thoughtful and quiet. The picture Eysenck presents seems to emphasize the outer— directedness of the extravert and the inner-direcoedness of the introvert. In this respect it closely resembles Jung's (1923, p. 27) ". . . [when] the most frequent and conception. Jung states that essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values, but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. . . . [For the introverts] the subjective determinants are the decisive ones." J. A. Gray (1967), a British psychologist studying the research being carried on by Pavlov;s followers in the U.S.S.R., links the Pavlovian concept of excitation with the Western concept of arousal. The introvert, posseSSing a predominance of cortical exc1tation, is in a state of heightened arousal as determined by low auditory and pain thresholds. The arousal state of the extravert is low. In behavioral terms this would seem to imply that the intro— vert has greater sensivitity to stimuli and that the extravert is inattentive to subtle stimuli. For the introvert little outside stimulation is necessary while the extravert requires external environmental stimulation for optimal functioning. Applied Experimental Studies of Personality Type Applied research based on the work and study behavior of introverts l6 and extraverts add additional support to the qualities discussed by Eysenck, Jung, and Gray. Robert Cooper {l967) studied the relationship between persona- lity type, work behavior, absenteeism and tolerance for monotonous tasks in an industrial plant in Great Britain. He found that extraversion as measured by the Eysenck Personality inventory correlated positively p<.05, with work absences and negatively With length of service. Using the Eysenck Personality inventory he predicted that at the end of a twelve month period the employee turnover would refle I J ('1 p) 'U *‘S (D I ponderence of extraverted indIViduals. His results indicated a significant difference (p<.Ol) between those employees who remained, introverts, and those who left, extraverts. He explained these findings in terms of indiVidual differences in arousal affecting the degree of Stimulation needed from the environment. Extraverts, because of their low arousal level, required more stimulation than would be obtainable on a routine or monotonous factory ob. U Cooper's findings, based on differences between the functioning U” of introverts and extraverts, were supported y Estabrook‘s {l9663 research in an entirely different context. She was concerned with the difference between the Study habits of infrorerts and extra— verts. Using the Maudsley Personality Inventory and a twelve item study habits questionnaire with one hundred thirty under— graduates, she sought to determine whether personality factors influence the choice of a place to study. Her resilts do indicate significant differences in study style and preferences between extraverts and introverts. ome examples follow: Extraverts wanted to spend study breaks with other people significantly more than introverts. They preferred to study in large study halls since they i? needed the visual presence of other people. These individuals seemed to need some form of auditory and visual stimulation to keep from losing interest and alertness. The similarity of this finding to the other studies of arousal is strixing and it becomes quite clear that to help a college populat°on with test anxiety perhaps more than one technique is necessary. In further support of this notion could one summarize the preceding paragraphs by stating that both physiological and behavioral differences between personality types, introvert and extravert, do exist. It has been suggested in the literature that different forms of psychotherapy might benefit different individuals. If there were a way of classifying individuals and empirically evaluating such a classification, one could aSSign counselees to that treatment which would provide maximum improvement for them. With such a system the number of successful terminations might be significantly higher than presently exists. (See Eysenck, 1952, 1961.) Treatment §ystematic Desensitization It was mentioned earlier that a learning theory approach would seem to be appropriate in reducing anxiety, i.e., maladaptive, learned responses, since it is considered to be "short term" and "specific to the target problem,’ criteria which are very important in the college counseling setting. Students of behavior therapy, be they supporters or critics, are aware that it is not a homogenous technique but a variety of methods based on several related theories of learning. One parti- cular technique, systematic desensitization, appears to be an 18 appropriate means for reducing test anxiety. Wolpe, its originator, and many others, e.g., Paul (l966); Lang (1965); Lazarus (1963); Katahn (1966); have demonstrated its success with high anxious individuals. Wolpe's technique is specifically concerned with eliminating maladaptive responses such as phobic and anxiety responses. In cases where high anxiety is a central concern, the desensitization method would be employed to bring about the gradual deconditioning of anxiety responses. Wolpe (1958, p. 71) explains the underlying principle as follows: "If a response antagonistic to anxiety can be made to occur in the presence of anxiety-evoking stimuli so that it is accompanied by a complete or partial suppression of the anxiety responses, the bond between the stimulus and the anxiety responses will be weakened." Wolpe's notions are based on experimental laboratory findings and linked to the concept of reciprocal inhibition first observed in animals and later in humans. It was found that a feeding response was incompatible with anxiety responses. That is, it tended to decrease anxiety responses when presented to a high anxious subject. Generally, with human SUbJECt, feeding is not practical nor useful. Therefore, relaxation came to be substituted for food as an inhibitor of anxiety. In the process of systematic desensitization the subject is often taught to relax according to Jacobson's technique of relaxation therapy. Jacobson (1938) trained his clinical patients in a technique of progressive relaxation which involved the training of the body musculature to relax, to oversome both physical and psychic tension. Wolpe felt that ". . . deep muscle relaxation 19 has autonomic effects antagonistic to those of anxiety" (Wolpe, 1958. p» 35). To briefly explain how he utilized the relaxation one can examine the systematic desensitization procedure: teaching relaxa- tion, having the patient imagine anxiety producing situations according to an individually constructed hierarchy of anxiety laden thoughts ranging from weak to intense. Each anxiety-laden item on the hierarchy is said to be desensitized when imagining it no longer evokes an anxiety response, i.e., the patient continues to report that he feels relaxed while imagining the previously anxious thought. Experimental studies of systematic desensitization. Much of the early research in systematic desensitization was in the form of case studies and concentrated on phobic disorders (Wolpe, 1958, 1961; Rachman, 1959). These studies lacked controls, lacked explicit criteria and focused on neurotic patients. Their relevance is therefore limited except that they paved the way toward experimental designs, using non-clinical populations and broadened the range of target behaviors treated to include a number of specific fears including test anxiety (Paul, 1966; Paul and Shannon, 1966; Katahn, 1966). Lang and Lazovik (1963) were the first to bring the technique of systematic desensitization to the campus for use with snake phobic undergraduates. Their second study was very similar to, but improved upon the first by providing criterion measures of success of treat- ment using the Fear Survey Schedule and the Fear Thermometer, both self report inventories. In 1965 Lang, Lazovik and Reynolds added a "no—treatment" con- trol and pseudotherapy group to their systematic desensitization 2O snake phobic treatment group. The purpose of these additions was to ascertain whether improvement resulting from treatment could be attributed to desensitization proper, which assumes that the response to the imaginal situation resembles that of the real situation, to relaxation alone, or simply to suggestion to change. The pseudo- therapy group (N=lO) consisted of relaxation training but no desen- sitization to snakes. The no treatment controls, consisting of 11 snake phobic normal college students, received no treatment at all. Muscular relaxation and hierarchy building, without desensitization proper (pseudotherapy), did not result in a reduction in fear behavior while the systematic desensitization techni ue (N=hh) pro- duced a significant decrease in phobic behavior. One additional finding seems to be pertinent to our study. The authors found that some individuals improved no more than did the controls in the systematic desensitization treatment. They suggested that all the subjects might have improved if there had been more sessions. They alluded to the relationship between personality and conditionability when they said, ". . . it is also possible that there are personality differences between those who ‘profit and those who do not" (p. hOl). This possible relationship coffers a rationale for a major hypothesis in the present study; that qH Hmm0H>mnwm hpmflxa< pmma Apum>wnpxm .phm>opchv Goflpow AdemV n0flpom pmmnm weapom lumpoH @3090 mmmnmoowxd< mo Ismch moose HnH mum omuopoohpm .m Apam>dypxm .pam>opanv pmflq xomco coapmu paws hoopcm>qH ooflpwa cowpm>fipo< m>fip Ifipfimnmmmm upmmnp can adamOMQ hpwawnomhmm Ifipfimoommn mmezH Bzmzemq hpmfixc< coflmmmmupmom 73 Personality Main Effect It was anticipated that personality type, introvert—extravert, independent of treatment would not be responSible for a significant difference in the anxiety level of §§_following treatment. Results of the "personality type main effect" based on the 2X2X2 analysis of variance (Tables 1—10) indicated no significant difference between systematic desensitization and structured group interaction groups on the "personality main effect" source of variance. The F ratios and mean scores are presented in Table 12, below. TABLE 12 PERSONALITY MAIN EFFECT 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE COUNSELOR BY PERSONALITY BY TREATMENT Instrument F Means I E TAI 1.08 113.63 108.19 SR—factor 1 3.96 216.69 188.31 factor 2 1.33 92.50 101.9h factor 3 b.25 50.00 £2.00 factor A 2.27 163. l lhh.00 factor 5 013 101.06 98.68 factor 6 .145 9h .88 9o 88 Thayer-HA h.07 10.13 7.63 GD .02 18.75 18.56 TAR .28 13.31 12.63 Summary Three of the five hypotheses of this study were supported statistically and therefore accepted. These were concerned with the effectiveness of treatment as compared to the no-treatment control, Hypothesis III; effectiveness of treatment as compared to the no—contact 74 control, Hypothesis IV and comparison of the "attention" control group (no-treatment control) and the "baseline" control group (no- contact control), Hypothesis V. Hypotheses I and II, predicting a treatment-personality type interaction, received little support. Hypothesis I focused on the systematic desensitization treatment and suggested that introverts would show less anXiety at the end of treatment than extraverts. One finds that this did not receive much statistical support. 0n the basis of results for eleven t tests, only one t value reached the p< 05 level of significance, indicating a signi- ficant difference in the direction predicted (Table 5, page 6h). There was an overall similarity of mean scores for introverts and extraverts exposed to systematic desensitization treatment. Although Hypothesis II, suggesting the greater effectiveness of the structured group interaction treatment with extraverts, was not supported statistically for all inventories, examination of the mean scores (Table 6, page 65) reveals a trend in this direction. In all eleven analyses the mean for extraverts was lower than that for introverts exposed to the structured group interaction treatment. The results of eleven t tests (Table 6) revealed three t values which were significant at p<.05 and one t value at p<.005. In all four cases the mean extravert score was Significantly lower than the mean introvert score, findings which support the prediction in Hypothesis II. Although a "treatment main effect" was not hypothesized, the systematic desensitization treatment produced lower anxiety levels ‘than the structured group interaction treatment on all eleven measures and significantly lower scores on six of the eleven measures. Table 11 summarizes the systematic desensitization— 75 structured group interaction treatment (orthogonal) comparison. The greater overall effectiveness of the systematic desensi— tization treatment was also indicated by the Therapist Rating of Client Anxiety data (Figure A). Chapter IV DISCUSSION Introduction The present investigation studied the effects of personality type on two methods of treatment for reducing test-taking anxiety in college undergraduates. Systematic desensitization was chosen as one treatment since it has been found to be successful in reducing interpersonal anxiety (Paul, I966; Paul and Shannon, 1966) and test-taking anxiety (Katahn, Strenger and Cherry, 1966) in college students. In addition, syste- matic desensitization had the advantage of being relatively short term and easily taught to treatment counselors because of its specificity and preciseness. The alternate method of treatment, structured group interaction, was designed to have the same positive features. The rationale for the use of two modes of treatment rested on the presupposition that these treatments would be differentially effec- tive as a function of subject personality type. The direct compari- son of the two treatment groups was not felt to be a major goal of this study. It was anticipated that each treatment would help to reduce test anxiety and that both treatments would be successful when compared to control procedures. These expectations incorporated into Hypotheses III and IV were upheld by the results in this study. The Treatment—-Control Hypotheses Comparisons of the two treatment groups with the two control groups (no-treatment control and no-contact control) gave a clear indication, on seven of eight measures, of the effectiveness of the two treatment procedures. 76 7T The treatment—control comparison was further contrasted by the introduction of the no—treatment control group to rule out the non-treatment—specific elements of contact and attention. When both treatments were compared to this control group, ample support was found for the efficacy of both treatments. It appeared that both systematic desensitization and structured group interaction provided something more than that which was effected by motivation to change and promises of help. Thus, Hypothesis III that systematic desensitization and struc— tured group interaction treatment groups will show significantly less text anxiety than will be found in the no-treatment control group was supported. The second treatment-control comparison was designed to test Hypothesis IV that systematic desensitization and structured group interaction treatment groups will show significantly less test anxiety than will be found in the no-contact control group. The results provided support for Hypothesis IV. The expectation that attention, promise of help and face—to— face contact would not be enough in itself to bring about a lowered level of test anxiety was tested in Hypothesis V: Hypothesis V stated that there will be no significant difference between the anxiety level of test anxious college students assigned to the no-treatment control goup and those assigned to the no—contact control group. As predicted, no significant differences were found on five of six measures. The one measure on which the groups were significantly different was Situation 1 of the S—R Inventory of Anxiousness. This particular measure is specifically concerned with the test L78 anxiety situation and the §:§_mode of response when exposed to it. It is this measure which was probably the most relevant of the ten anxiety producing situations of the S—R Inventory of Anxiousness. It might have been anticipated that this significant difference would favor the no-treatment control group because of greater aware- ness of available help at a future time. However, comparison of the group means indicated a lower anxiety level for the no-contact control group. One possible explanation for this finding is that the no— treatment controls were more sensitized to their test-taking anxiety as a function of the interviews, phone calls, and finally the disap- pointment of not receiving help. This awareness of the need for help may have been more pronounced on the surface than it was for the no-contact ccntrol group who continued to focus on and cope with their test anxiety as they had previously done, unaware of any involvement in a program of help for test-taking anxiety. Interaction Systematic DesenSitization Treatment The primary concern of this study was with the relative effects of treatment. Hypothesis I stated that introverts, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, will show Significantly less test anxiety than extraverts following treatment with the systematic desensitization method. This hypothesis was not supported by the results. Introverts and extraverts were found to derive approxi- mately the same amount of benefit from the systematic desensitization method. The theory upon which Hypothesis I is based suggested that 79 introverts learn more rapidly and enduringly than extraverts because of a higher level of cortical excitation, or as Gray (l967) suggests, a higher level of arousal. Gray operationally defined this as "lower ' A positive relationship between auditory and pain thresholds.‘ heightened arousal and sensitivity to sound and pain was suggested. Supporting evidence was reported by Gray (1967) for a connection between a lowered sensory threshold and heightened arousal, the highly aroused individual being very attentive to stimuli. The introvert, then, would be expected to be more alert and sensitive to the envir nment than the extravert. Furthermore, as emphasized in Chapter I, the introvert would not need to depend on the external stimulation which extraverts require and would find the systematic desensitization treatment sufficiently stimulating. The extraverts, on the other hand, would find systematic desensitization repetitive and non-stimulating because of the lack of peer verbal contact and interaction, as well as the repetitive features of relaxation training and hierarchy construction. ystematic desensitization treatment is U» It may be that when carried out individually on a one—to-one baSlS, the above rationale holds. However, the present study applied the systematic desensiti- zation treatment to small groups, not single individuals, a factor which was not considered when Hypothesis I was proposed. It is suggested that this group procedure converted the syste— matic desensitization treatment into one which would favor extraverts more than introverts. By placing the introverted individual in a group situation, his highly aroused state, which normally serves to facilitate learning, passes the optimal level. This might result, not in maximal readiness for treatment and concentration, but in 80 distraction caused by the competing stimuli of the task and the pre- sence of other individuals. Gray (1967) provided support for this notion. He found that introverts perform on a vigilance task more efficiently in isolation, while extraverts performed better in a group. He attributed this to the fact that the initial anxiety level of int overts is characteristically higher than extraverts. Although systematic desensitization in groups may be thought of as a number of independent treatments in a group setting, this is not entirely true. Leon (1967, p. 73) characterizes group desensitization in the following way: "A close look at the actual treatment reveals that relaxation training and hierarchy building are group procedures; desensitization is still essentially an indivi- dual procedure carried out in a group setting." If the introvert performs best (Gray, 1967) and studies most effectively alone and away from others (Estabrook, 1966), it is not surprising that he will derive less than maximal benefit from a group treatment procedure. The extraverts, on the other hand, had the advantage of the presence of others. Though little actual verbal or physical contact among group members and counselor took place, eye contact and extraneous sounds such as breathing and body movement made the presence of others felt. It provided the additional stimulation necessary for the optimal functioning of the extravert at the expense of over- stimulation and, consequently, distraction of the introverts. In a recent article, Davison (1968) discussed some practical limitations of the systematic desensitization treatment. One such limitation possibly affecting the outcome of this treatment with introverts was the level of relaxation reached by subjects. It is very likely that functioning in a group exerted an inhibitory 8; influence on the introverts, preventing them from achieVing a level of deep muscular relaxation. This might cause even a low item on the anxiety hierarchy to be met with an anxiety response since the relaxation level was not sufficient to match the intensity of the felt anxiety- Wolpe (1958) suggested that successful treatment would result from an inhibition in avoidance behavior. Therefore, the level of aVOidance must be reduced by relaxation before approach, or coping with an anxiety stimulus, can take place. In light of the above discussion it is not surprising that most of the mean scores for introverts and extraverts were not significantly different. One significant difference (S-R Inventory of Anxiousness, Factor 2, Inanimate Personal Danger), however, favored the introverts as predicted. A second difference reached the .10 level of significance. This difference also favored the introverts. "Distress, disruption and avoidance associated with physiological components' was significantly greater for extraverts than introverts. Structured Group Interaction Treatment Hypothesis II stated that extraverts, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, will show significantly less test anxiety than introverts following treatment with the structured group interaction method. This hypotheSis was partially supported by the results. Extraverts were found to have a Significantly lower anxiety level than introverts on several measures, factor 3 and h of the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness and the High Activation factor of the Thayer at p<.OS and factor 5 of the S-R Inventory of Anxious— ness at p<.OOS. An additional measure, factor 6 of the S—R Inventory of Anxiousness was significant at p<.lO. 82 Although several differences did not reach the required level of statistical significance, it is nevertheless important to note that on all eleven measures the mean score for extraverts was lower than the mean score for introverts. This pointed to a definite trend favoring extraverts exposed to structured group interaction. The above data are peeitive indications of the effectiveness of the structured group interaction treatment with extraverts, but they are by no means concluSive. An examination of the nature of the structured group interaction treatment, its rationale and procedure, sheds some light on this problem. It will be recalled that the structured group interaction treatment was specifically designed for use with extraverts based on theory and previous research. The elements which seemed to be essential were: l-) group as opposed to individual treatment; 2.) verbal interaction; and 3.) actiVities deSigned to arouse the extraverts' interest and motivation. ether these elements were maximized and translated fully into the actual treatment is difficult to ascertain. Since this was a new treatment it had obvious imper- fections which need to be identified and eliminated. As with any technique, replication and continued use is an aid in reducing flaws and increasing effectiveness. The problem can be seen as one of undetermined reliability and validity of the treatmert. Suggested modification of the structured group interaction treatment. One way in which the structured group interaction treat- ment may be altered is by varying the number, type, or order of presentation of the actiVities. For example, the simulated test- taking activity might have been more effective during the final session or in an actual examination room setting. Perhaps the 83 nature of the activites could be based on the specific needs of the particular group. Future studies employing this treatment might attempt to vary the amount of verbal interaction prov1ding more or less freedom of peer verbal exchange and greater or lesser counselor participation and direction. An alternate explanation for the less than optimal success of structured group interaction with extraverts is found in the Pavlovian H I concept of cortical inhibition,’ which suggests that extraverts learn slowly and arduously. Perhaps a five week treatment period in which only four hours were devoted to treatment was not long enough; Extraverts tend to be a gregarious lot and may require additional time before they can settle down to something as "unex— citing" as learning how to better cope with their test—taking anxiety. The five week treatment period was chosen so that duration of exposure to treatment would be a constant factor in both treat- ments, systematic desensitization and structured group interaction. The activities chosen to be an integral part of the above treatment were: simulated test-taking, role-taking and study skills. Each required one session. In retrospect it is unlikely that "role- ' a central notion in George Kelly's (1955) theory of taking,’ personal constructs, could be communicated and provide maximal benefit to extraverts in one hour. Since the extravert is charac- terized as being less senSitive to his internal functioning and less prone to subjective evaluation than introverts, creating a new role might be a more lengthy or difficult procedure for extraverts than introverts. Also, study skills, emphasized in Session h, would probably 8‘4 be learned more rapidly by introverts. Therefore, only one hour devoted to study skills might be disadvantageous to extraverts. All of the above discussion demonstrates the need for a longer structured group interaction treatment period which might result in greater reductions in test anxiety for extraverts. Supplementary Findings Treatment Main Effect A comparison of the effectiveness of systematic desensiti- zation and structured group interaction was made across personality type- It was not expected that one treatment would demonstrate its superiority as a means of reducing test anxiety. However, on all eleven measures systematic desenSitization produced lower anxiety scores, and six of the eleven scores were significantly lower at or beyond the .05 level. There are a number of reasons why these results may have been found. One factor has already been discussed above and pertains to the arbitrary limit of five weeks set on the structured group inter— action treatment. This type of treatment resembles traditional group counseling in a number of ways: verbal interaction and discuSSion, group support and sanction and a trained counselor to guide the group's progress. However, group counseling usually does not have a time limit placed on it, and in those cases which are exceptions, the number of sessions is usually greater than five. Structured group interaction might profitably use group counseling as a guide— line in respect to length of treatment, since the two approaches do have a number of other common elements. 85 Systematic desensitization. Systematic desensitization has proven itself to be a rapid and efficient means of eliminating or reducing a specific maladaptive response. The results of many experimental studies focusing on speCific disorders, including phobias (e.g , Lazarus, l96l; Lang and LaZOVl , 1963; Rachman, 1966) and interpersonal anxiety {e.g., Paul, 1966, 1967; Paul and Shannon, 1966), demonstrated its potential usefulness. The method has been refined, more precisely operationalized, and even dichotomized and studied in its component parts {Lomont, l967; Davison, 1968; Rachman, l965). The effectiveness of the systematic desenSitization treatment in the present study owed itself partially to the efforts of past researchers. However, the results of this study did not offer complete sup- port for the greater effectiveness of the systematic desensitization treatment over the structured group interaction treatment. Both treatments resulted in significant decreases in anxiety level when compared to controls, thus indicating the possible unrefined use— fulness of structured group interaction. Gordon Paul (l968, p. 7), in a discussion of this study at the 1968 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, suggested that the target problem, e.g., test anXiety, and not personal characteristics of the subject, e.g., personality type, dictate the choice of treatment. This pOint appeared contradictory to the need for speCifying the client domain presented by Paul in an earlier paper (l967, p. llO). In the 1968 talk he went on to say that "if a conditioned anXiety reaction to an identifiable stimulus C C) mplex is the target, then current research evidence would support systematic desenSitization as the indicated treatment procedure regardless of other personal characteristics of clients. 86 Structured roup interaction. If the clear superiority of systematic desensitization as a means to treat test anxiety is not indicated (as was the case in this study), then structured group interaction may be viewed as a useful, if less effective, alternate approach. Gordon Paul (l968, p. 9) further suggested that the c desensitization may have been ". . . under- H . effectiveness of systemat ly other group procedure which has, historically, O U estimated since the resulted in improved academic performance and lowering of anxiety has been 'study skills' instruction." The learning of study skills was only one element in the structured group interaction treatment. Other adaptive responses and positive learning experiences were provided through activities such as role-taking and simulated test- taking. While systematic desensitization stresses anxiety reduction, structured group interaction goes one step further by suggesting a more suitable response to replace the previous anxiety response. ". . . the reduction of anxiety makes the client 'teachable'; the modification of other attitudes, behaviors and skills may still require specific learning experiences” (Paul, 1966, p. 93). Practice test-taking, role-taking and study skills, elements in the structured group interaction treatment, appear to meet this criterion. Personality Main Effect Although it was not hypothesized, it was nevertheless expected, that reduction of test anxiety would not be attributed to a subject's personality type, regardless of treatment. No significant differences were found between the performance of extraverts and introverts on any of lO measures supporting the above expectation of no differences. 87 Extraverts did not show a lower level of anxiety following treatment than introverts. This finding added support to the finding that neurot‘c‘sm and introversion may be independent concepts. (See Chapter I, p. ll ) If, as has been postulated, introverts are more " isturbed" as a group than extraverts, then one might expect intro- verts not to respond as rapidly as extraverts to any treatment. Therefore, post—experiment measures of anxiety level might be expected to indicate lower scores for extraverts than introverts regardless of the specific treatment method. This was not found, Furthermore, if anxiety is more characteristic of introverts than extraverts, then it is difficult to explain the fact that in the introductory psychology class, from which all subjects were selected for partici- pation in this study, there were a greater number of students requesting and needing help who had extraverted scores on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. The Eysenck Personality Inventory. In the present study the classification of introverts and extraverts was not arbitrarily set by finding the median score and calling those below it "introvert" and those above it "extravert." An individual had to have scored 0, l, or 2 on the instrument to be classified as introvert and h, 5, or 6 to be classified as extravert. To separate these groups more clearly, those with the middle score of 3 were not included in the study. Thus, the often-made criticism, that an extravert in one sample might be an introvert in another group, was minimized in the present study. The Eysenck Personality Inventory has been widely used in research, particularly in behavior therapy studies and With college 88 students. It has been found to yield scores which were stable, i.e., no change in E score after treatment (Rachman, l9653 and valid (Vingoe, 1966). Vingoe asked 58 college students to rate themselves on a seven point introversion-extraversion scale. They also completed the Eysenck Personalit Inventory. Introvert and extravert criterion groups, based on self ratings, were found to be significantly dif- ferent from each other. The self ratings were in agreement with classification on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. The short form of the Eysenck Personality Inventory was chosen for this Study since it required little time to administer. Eysenck and Eysenck (196A) reported that it correlated .79 (N) and .71 (E) with the longer form of the inventory. The above qualifications were necessary since a number of key hypotheses in this research rested on a valid definition of intro- version and extraversion. The Dependent Variables The usefulness of a number of the instruments employed in this study must be examined. The interpretation of the results has been made extremely arduous by the fact that from eight to eleven analyses representing four instruments were necessary to test each hypothesis. For example, eleven tests were required to compare the means of introverts and extraverts exposed to the structured group interaction treatment. With this large number of measures it was most difficult to obtain unequivocal support for any hypothesis. The value of the various criterion measures employed and their relevancy to this Study are emplored in the following section. 89 The S—R Inventory of AnXiousness The S-R Inventory of Anxiousness was designed for use With a college student population. It attempts to measure anxiety reaction to eleven situations, social and nonsocial, which are familiar to most freshmen and sophomores. The fourteen modes of response to each situation are representative of positive and negative excitement or drive. Research (Endler, et al., l962) With the S-R has provided estimates of reliability uSing the split half method, yielding a total score coefficient of .95 and a range of .62- 90 for the eleven situations; .6u-.93 for the IA modes of response. Validity was established by comparing the S-R to the Mandler-Sarason Test Anxiety Questionnaire (+.66) and Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (+.h6). Factor analytic studies yielded six factors, three summarizing the eleven situations and three summarizing the IA modes of response. Some of these factors appeared less directly relevant to the present study than others. A number of points should be kept in mind about the present study. It was an attempt to treat test—taking anxiety. No predic- tions were made about resulting reductions in generalized anXiety nor was it expected that non-anxious responses would be transferred to non-teSt situations. Only one of the eleven situations pertains directly to test-taking. It is included in Factor I, a synthesis of V elements "threatening interpersonal status.’ If one views "entering a final exam" as a situation in which one will be evaluated and possibly fail, the similarity to other items compriSing Factor l (e.g., being interviewed for an important job, entering a competitive 90 contest before spectators, getting up to give a speech, etc.) can be seen. The individual whose fear of ”test evaluative" situations is reduced might also respond with less anxiety in similar evaluative situations. Therefore, Situation 1 and Factor l appear to be rele- vant to the present study. " appears to be a too Factor 2, "inanimate personal danger, distant extrapolation from test—taking anxiety and one which probably would not differentiate treated and untreated individuals, nor discriminate between treatment. The results supported this View. Factor 2 dod not yield one statistically significant difference on any of the three analyses of variance. " had the lowest factor loading and least Factor 3, "ambiguous, clear meaning of the situational factors. However, it did offer statistical support to the hypotheses in this research. Although it looks like there is no commonality between "starting off on a long "going into a psychological experiment," the automobile trip" and latter might represent an evaluative situation. This factor, then, also appeared to have some relevancy to the present research, but its value would probably be increased if a Situation score rather than a factor score were computed. Factors u and 5 included most of the variance for the mode of response dimension. "Autonomic reaztions" (Factor A) included such items as heart beats faster, perspire, mouth gets dry, experience nausea, etc. These are feelings which very aptly describe the test- anxious individual before, during and posSibly after an examination. These are reactions which treatment attempted to replace with more adaptive, calm responses. "Distress, disruption and avoidance With associated physiological 9i components," Factor 5, seemed to describe the reactions which cause the test—anxious individual to seek help. The items representing this factor are: emotions disrupt action, want to avoid situation, ' The results based become immobilized and get an "uneasy feeling.’ on this factor were found to be statistically significant in the direction predi'ted. Factor 6, "exhilaration, enjoyment and approach," appeared to have some relevancy. If a decrease in avoidance precedes an increase in approach it might be anticipated that at the end of a treatment period those receiving help would tend to approach the test situation mor positively than untreated §E: However, it would not be expected that a significantly greater approach response would be associated with a particular treatment, at least not after only five weeks. This is perhaps a long enough period in which to reduce avoidance but it would seem that "enjoy the challenge" or ' would take a longer time to cultivate. "seek experiences like this' The results of the analyses of variance supported the above explana- tion. The only significant differences were found between treated and untreated individuals. The Thayer Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List The Thayer provides a unique approach to the measurement of anxiety. It is a self-report paper and pencil test which has been found to correlate with a number of physiological measures. Since physiological measures were not directly available for determining the subJects' anxiety level immediately folloWing a final examination, it was felt that this instrument would be the best alternative. It is also an instrument developed specifically for the test—taking 92 situation and in which setting,reliability and validity coefficients were obtained (Thayer, l967). The result” of factor analytic studies yielded four scores, two of which were applicable to this study. High Activation (HA) included the following adjectives: clutched up, jittery, stirred up, fearful and intense. General Deactivation (GD) included: at rest, still, leisurely, quiescent, quiet, calm and placid. The results of the present study showed that HA was effective in demonstrating a significantly lower level of activation for treated individuals than untreated individuals but it could not dis- criminate between the two treatments. GD was not found to be a useful measure in the present study. In interpreting the partial effective- ness of HA and the ineffectiveness of GD, the previous discussion of the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness mode of response factors applies. HA closely resembles the "distress, disruption and avoidance" factor of the S-R. Both seem to represent negative exc1tement or drive. Both provided Similar results. The GD factor appears to have something in common with the S-R exhilaration factor. Although the former refers to a calm, placid state and the latter a positive excitement state, both represent the opposite of a tense, anxious condition, i.e., negative excitement state. In terms of the avoidance-approach model previously discussed, both represent the latter phase which would not likely be real- ized in a short time period. Perhaps a followup several months after treatment, at which time the instruments were readministered, would provide data based on Thayer GD and S—R Factor 6 supporting the hypotheses of this study. 93 Test Anxiety Inventory This instrument resembles the Fear Survey Schedule (Lang and Lazovik, l963) in terms of goal and format. However, the Fear Survey Schedule was developed to measure the intensity and range of responses to phobic stimuli while the Test Anxiety Inventory was designed to assess the intensity and range of responses to test anxiety stimuli. In both, a subject responds to anxiety producing stimuli items on a one-to—five scale reflecting level of disturbance. Both tests have been employed in and modified through research, mainly in behavior therapy studies (Emery, 1966; Leon, 1967; Neuman, 1968). The Tes: Anxiety Inventory proved to be a useful index of test-taking anx1ety in the present study. It provided results that were in agreement with the measures which were shown to be most relevant to the present study: S—R Situation 1, Factor 1, h, and S and Thayer HA. Test Anxiety Rating Sheet The Test Anxiety Rating Sheet (TAR) is an eight point scale measuring intensity of anxiety felt before, at the beginning, in the middle, near the end and after the exam. Subjects were asked to fill out the form immediately following the exam. It discrimi- nated between treatment and control group subjects at p<.OOS. The lack of significant results in support of the interactive Hypotheses I and II may be explained in a variety of ways, e.g., insensitive or invalid instruments, ineffective treatments or erroneous hypotheses. The TAR did not support Hypotheses I and II. An explanation for this finding seems to rest on a recent observation 9h by Davison (l968). He suggests that anxiety measurements, to be accurate reflections of the fear which inhibits behavior, must be taken before or during the behavior. The TAR, administered following the examination, may actually reflect relief or exhaustion, more than 'ikely the S's condition at that moment. It is doubtful that the (‘9 §_Was able 0 accurately assess the way he was feeling at very specific points during the exam, in retrospect. So fine a dis- crimination of time and feelings was unlikely, especially since the individual was presumably attending to something else. Summary and Implications for Future Research The results of the present study demonstrate that group syste— matic desensitization and structured group interaction are feasible procedures for treating test-taking anxiety. All of the instruments employed to measure anxiety gave complete or partial support to the hypotheses comparing treated and untreated indiViduals. However, in respect to the interaction hypotheses and the two treatment com- parisons, either the instrument did not effectively discriminate or the treatments were not differentially effective. Fewer signi- ‘icant differences were found than were predicted. Poseible explana- tions for these results were discussed in terms of two factors: weak instruments and/or imprecise treatments. Hypothesis I, predicting the greater effectiveness of systematic desensitization with introverts than extraverts, did not receive support, partially as a function of the poSSible negative effect of a group procedure for introverted individuals. Hypothesis II, predicting the greater effectiveness of struc- tured group interaction With extraverts than introverts, was not 95 fully supported by the data. One factor discussed in connection with this finding was the negative influence of a time—limited treatment period of five weeks. Extraverts, who are characterized as slower learners than introverts, may require additional treatment time. Five sessions have been found to be adequate in systematic desensitization studies. However, there is no rationale based on past research for applying a five hour limit to structured group interaction. The four instruments, representing eleven measures of anxiety level, were discussed in terms of their reliability, validity, appropriateness and specific value to this study. The purpose of the four tests and the therapist rating of client anxiety was to provide a measure of relative improvement as determined by lowered levels of test-taking anxiety. Three possible ways of assessing improvement have been identi- fied (Davison, 1968): cognitive, physiological and observable. Those self—report tests which asked §§_to indicate how they felt about various anxiety-producing stimuli while in a non-anxiety- producing situation might be viewed as cognitive. Such instruments are the Test Anxiety Inventory, S-R Inventory of Anxiousness and Test Anxiety Rating Sheet. The Thayer Activation—Deactivation Adjective Check List is also a self-report test, but unlike the others, it has been found to correlate with physiological indices (skin conductance and heart rate). It might be considered a quasi- physiologic measure. The Therapist Rating of Client Anxiety provided measurement of subjects' anxiety level through observation. The present study attempted to measure post-treatment level 96 of test anxiety in as comprehensive a manner as possible by recognizing the necessity of sampling behavior in the three available ways out- lined by Davison. However, direct physiological and observational measures were not taken in the anxiety-producing situation. It is suggested. that subsequent examination of this study's hypotheses incorporate direct observation of subjects and actual physiological measurement into the design. Throughout the discussion, various ways of improving upon the treatment have been suggested. Future research might consider some of these alternative approaches as independent variables. For example, the effect of personality type on systematic desensi- tization might be investigated using both individual and group systematic desensitization procedures. Another recommendation for future study is to determine the effectiveness of structured group interaction with introverts and extraverts when length of treatment is manipulated, e.g., five weeks, ten weeks, unlimited number of sessions. It is also proposed that varying the activities and extent of interactions within the structured group interaction treatment might produce a more effective approach to treating test- taking anxiety in a college student population. An additional possi- bility to explore is the extention of structured group interaction activities, such as simulated test-taking, into the actual test- taking situation. In the present research the independent variable, personality type, was defined by the Eysenck Personality Inventory. This instru- ment provided only one operational definition of introvert and extravert. However, other ways of assessing introvert and extravert more directly might be sought. One way to dichotomize introverts 97 extraverts might be in terms of the actual behaviors which have been found to characterize these personality types. For example, observing the way individuals respond to a given situation(s) might provide a more accurate or valid approach to measuring the concept of introversion-extraversion than may have been possible with the paper and pencil test used in this study. A suggestion for future study is the utilization of an instru- ment other than the Eysenck Personality Inventory for the assessment of introversion and extraversion. Two such instruments, the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs and Meyers, 1962) and the Contact Personality Factor Test (Cattell, King and Schuettler, l95h) provide operational definitions of introversion-extraversion which differ from those employed by Eysenck. The Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator is based upon the Jungian theory of types. Introversion-extraversion is one of four dicho- tomous dimensions measured by this self-report inventory. In terms of Jungian theory, extraversion would be defined by an orientation toward the outer world of people and things. Introversion would be defined by an orientation to the inner world of concepts and ideas. Another definition of the concept of introversion—extraversion is provided by the Contact Personality Factor Test. This instrument attempts to measure peoples' needs for contact with other people in their work. It is primarily designed for use in Job selection and placement. The Eysenck Personality Inventory used in the present study provides a measure of social introversion or social mixing. The three instruments above provide different ways of describing introverted and extraverted behavior. The way in which the concept 98 of introversion—extraversion is defined, e.g., orientation toward people or ideas, social mixing or need for contact with peOple on the Job, may affect the classification of a person as introverted or extraverted. For example, an individual might function quite well independently on the Job (introvert) but require a great deal of interaction and stimulation from other people in a social situa- tion (extravert). If the interaction hypotheses failed to be validated because of an inadequate definition of introversion-extraversion, the above suggested modification in operationally defining these personality types might tend to substantiate the personality-treatment relation- ship. The rationale for the present study was based on Pavlov's theory of cortical excitation and inhibition. It was also based on the notion of specificity of treatment with respect to the counseling problem, e.g., examination anxiety. Introverted and extraverted personality types, based on the principle of cortical excitation, in interaction with counseling treatment was not supported by the results of this study. However, one should not conclude that the hypothesized relationship does not exist. There is a need for further investigation of various factors which may have been responsible for the study's failure to produce the desired results. One factor that might be studied is the experience level of the treatment counselors. In the present study both counse— lors were inexperienced with both methods. Thus, while level of experience was comparable for the two counselors, it may have been insufficient for producing the anticipated results. What would be 99 the effect of using counselors experienced with both treatments as opposed to counselors lacking experience with either treatment? One implication for future research, then, is the experimental manipu- lation of counselor experience level to determine its effect on the personality type by treatment interaction. Another suggestion for future study is an examination of the effect of counselor personality type on the interaction: client personality type X treatment. In the present study the counselors' personality type was unknown. For example, would introverted counse- lors produce a lower level of test anxiety for introverted subjects exposed to systematic desensitization than for extraverted subjects exposed to systematic desensitization? Would introverted counselors produce a lower level of test anxiety for introverted subjects than they would for extraverted subjects across both treatments? Another research question might focus on the set or expectancy of-subjects participating in the study toward the counselor's experience or personality type. For example, subjects might be told certain information about the counselor's training and personality or behavior before the first session. How would this information and the resultant "set" affect the outcome of a personality type— treatment study? Exploration of counselor preference for one particular treat- ment method such as systematic desensitization as opposed to struc- tured group interaction might be fruitful. Similarly, a study of counselor preference for counseling one personality type, e.g., extraverts as opposed to introverts, might be undertaken. Information on counselor preferences was not obtained in this study. It might be that counselors who prefer to work with extraverts would be more 100 effective in counseling these individuals than they would be in counseling introverts, regardless of the treatment employed. Although the present study did not offer much support for the hypothesized interaction between personality type and treatment, it has generated a number of research questions which may ultimately demonstrate this personality-treatment relationship. SUMMARY In the field of counseling a variety of techniques have been employed to treat clients' problems. 'The results of research have demonstrated that certain treatments, specific to a particular type of problem, are more effective than others. It has been suggested that Other variables, such as stable counselee characteristics, may also be considered as important factors in the choice of a counseling treatment. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of specific personality types, introverts and extraverts, on the outcome of two counseling techniques, systematic desensitization and structured group interaction, in reducing test-taking anxiety among college students. On the basis of Pavlov's theory of cortical excitation and inhibition and research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of behavioral techniques with anxiety-type problems, it was hypothesized that: I. Introverts, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, will show significantly less test anxiety than extraverts following treatment with the systematic desensitization method. II. Extraverts, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, will show significantly less test anxiety than introverts following treatment with the structured group interaction method. Fifty—six subjects, rated high on test-taking anxiety and volunteering for treatment, were selected from an introductory psychology class with an enrollment of 550 students. The students were selected according to classification on a personality inventory lOl 102 and two measures of test—taking anxiety. They were randomly assigned to one of four groups, of which two were treatment groups, syste- matic desensitization and structured group interaction. Two other groups, no-treatment control and no—contact control, received no treatment. Each group was subdivided according to the student's personality type, introvert or extravert. Those subjects assigned to one of the treatments received five one-hour sessions in groups of four. The systematic desensiti- zation treatment was based on Wolpe's (1958) principles adapted for group use by Lazarus (1961). The structured group interaction treatment was developed as an alternate to systematic desensitization for providing the greatest possible benefit to the extraverted individual. According to theoretical rationale, this treatment needed to be verbal in nature (requiring discussion), necessitating interaction (small groups) and activity (e.g., examination-taking practice, creating and rehearsing new roles). Weekly session out- lines were designed to provide needed structure. The no-treatment control group received attention in the form of telephone contact, interviews and the anticipation of treatment. The no-contact control group served as a baseline measure since its subjects had no knowledge of their participation in the study. Both groups were tested pre- and post-treatment. Three additional hypotheses were designed to investigate the specific effects of treatment as opposed to those produced by atten- tion or simply the passage of time. III. Systematic desensitization and structured group inter- action treatment groups will show less test anxiety than will be found in the no-treatment control group. 103 IV. Systematic desensitization and structured group inter- action treatment groups will show less test anxiety than will be found in the no—contact control group. V. There will be no significant difference between the anxiety level of test-anxious college students assigned to the no- treatment control group and those assigned to the no—contact control group. At the end of a five week treatment period, a battery of anxiety instruments were administered to determine the comparative successfulness of the two treatments, as these were affected by personality type, in reducing test—taking anxiety. Analyses of variance by planned comparisons and appropriate t tests were used to test the five hypotheses. The results supported Hypotheses III, IV and V. Those receiving both treatments were found to have a lower post—treatment anxiety level than no-treatment controls and no-contact controls. The two control groups did not produce significantly different post—experiment levels of anxiety. The above findings were discussed in terms of the ineffectiveness of the attention factor in reducing the level of test-taking anxiety. The interactive hypotheses, I and II, received little support. The problem of interpreting results based on eleven measures of anxiety was discussed. Some of these indices were found to have greater relevancy to the present study than others. The greater effectiveness of structured group interaction with extraverts than introverts was indicated but not totally supported. It was suggested that the treatment's effectiveness might be increased th by extending the treatment period, varying the order and intensity of the activities and re-examining the interactive process. Introverts did not seem to derive more benefit from syste- matic desensitization than extraverts. This finding was explained in terms of the possible detrimental effect of group procedures with introverts. It was suggested that future research focusing on the influence of personality type on systematic desensitization might compare individual systematic desensitization with group procedures. In conclusion, the present study seems to indicate the feasibility of employing systematic desensitization and structured group interaction treatments for reducing test-taking anxiety among college students. Although the effect of personality type or mode of treatment was not clearly demonstrated, future research incorporating some of the suggestions discussed might provide more definitive results. REFERENCES 105 References Briggs, K. and Myers, I. Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (Published test), Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J., 1962. Cattell, R., King, J. and Shuettler, A. Contact Personality Factor Test (Published test), Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Illinois, l95h. Cautela, J. A behavior therapy approach to pervasive anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, h, 99-109. Cooke, G. The efficacy of two desensitization procedures: An analogue study. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, h, 17-2h. Cooper, R. Extraversion and some aspects of work behavior. Personnel Psychology, 1967, 20 (l), h5—57. Costello, C. Control of visual imagery in mental disorder. Journal of Mental Science, 1957, 103, BAD-8&9. Costello, C. Extraversion, neuroticism and the classical conditioning of word meaning. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 8 (8), 307-8. Davison, G. The influence of systematic desensitization and graded exposure to imaginal stimuli in the modification of phobic behavior. Dissertations Abstract, 1966, 26 (10), 6165. Davison, G. Systematic desensitization as a counterconditioning process. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73 (2), 91-100. Emery, J. Using Desensitization to Reduce Undue Test Anxiety in College Freshmen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford, California, Stanford University, 1966. Emery, J. and Krumboltz, J. Standard vs. individualized hierarchies in desensitization to reduce test anxiety. Journal of Counsel- ing Psychology, 1967, 1A, 20h-209. Endler, N. McV., Hunt, J. and Rosenstein, A. An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness. Psychological Monograph, 1962, 536, #17. Estabrook, M. and Sommer, R. Study habits and introversion-extraversion. Phychological Reports, 1966, 19 (3), 750. Eysenck, H. Dimensions of Personality. Kegan, Paul, et al., London, 19h7. Eysenck, H. The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting_Psychology, 1952, 16, 319-32h. 106 107 Eysenck, H. The dynamic theory of anxiety and hysteria. Journal of Mental Science, 1955, 101, 28-h9. Eysenck, H. Learning theory and behavior therapy. ournal of Mental Science, 1959, 105, 61-75. Eysenck, H. The Structure of Human Personality, N. Y., Wiley, 1960. Eysenck, H. (Ed.), Handbook of Abnormal Psychology, Basic Books, N.Y., 1961. Eysenck, H. and Eysenck, S. An improved short questionnaire for the measurement of extraversion and neuroticism. Life Sciences, 196A, 3 (1), 1103—1109. Eysenck, H. and Rachman, S. Causes and Cures of Neuroses, San Diego, Knapp, 1965~ Franks, C. Conditioning and personality: A study of normal and neurotic subjects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 53, 1&3-50. Franks, C. Conditioning and abnormal behavior, in Eysenck (Ed.) Handbook of Abnormal Psychology, Basic Books, N.Y., 1961. Gelder, M. and Wolff, H. Desensitization and psychotherapy in the treatment of phobic states: A controlled inquiry. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1967, 113, 53—73. Gray, J. Strength of the nervous system, introversion-extraversion, conditionability and arousal. Behavior Research and Therapy, Hain, J., Butcher, R. and Stevenson, I. Systematic desensitization therapy: An analysis of results in 27 patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1966, 112, 295-307. Hall, C. and Lindzey, G. Theories of Personality, N.Y., Wiley and Sons, 1957. Hays, W. Statistics for Psychologists, N.Y., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965. Hilgard, E. and Marquis. Conditioning and Learning, Appleton, Century, Crofts, N.Y., 1961. Holmes, D. Pupillary responses, conditioning and personality. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 1967, 5 (1), 98-103. Jacobson, E. Progressive Relaxation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1938. Jung, C. Psychological Types, Harcourt, Brace, N.Y , 1923. v . Kandas, 0. Reduction of examination anxiety and stage fright by group desensitization and relaxation. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967. 5. 275-281. 108 Katahn, M., Strenger, S. and Cherry, N. Group counseling and behavior therapy with test anxious college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 30 (5), hh-h9. Kelly, G. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, N.Y., 1955. Kiesler, D. Some myths of psychotherapy research and the search for a paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 65 (2), 110-136. Lang, P. and Lazovik, A. The experimental desensitization of a phobia. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 519-525- Lang, P., Lazovik, A. and Reynolds, D. Desensitization; suggestibility and pseudo-therapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70. 395-h02. Lazarus, A. Group therapy of phobic disorders by systematic desensi- tization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 639 sou-510. Lazarus, A. The treatment of chronic frigidity by systematic densensitiza- tion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1963, 136, 272- 278. Lazarus, A. Behavior therapy incomplete treatment and symptom substitution. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1965, inc (1), 80-86. Leon, H. Reciprocal Inhibition: An Evaluation of Group Procedures with "Normal" Snake Phobic Subjects. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Knoxville, Tennessee, University of Tennessee, 1967. Lomont, J. Reciprocal inhibition or extinction. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1965, 3 (A), 209-219. Lomont, J. and Edwards, J. The role of relaxation in systematic conditioned responses. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967, 5 (1), 11—26. Martin, I. A Note on reflex sensitivity and formation of conditioned responses. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1963, 1, 185-190. McLaughlin, R. and Eysenck, H. Visual masking as a function of personality. British Journal of Psychology, 1966, 57 (3-h), 393-396. Migler, B. and Wolpe J. Automatic self—desensitization: A case report. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967, 5 (2), 133—135. Mowrer, O. Abnormal reactions or actions? (An autobiographical answer). Introduction to General Psychology: A Self Selection Textbook, William Brown Co., Inc., Dubuque, Iowa, 1966. 109 Neuman, D. Professional and Subprofessional Counselors Using Group Desensitization and Insight Procedures to Reduce Examination Anxiety. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, E. Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State UniveISity, 1968. Paul, G. Insight vs. Desensitization in Psychotherapy. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1966. Paul, G. and Shannon, D. Treatment of anxiety through systematic desensitization in therapy groups. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71 (2), l2h-135. Paul, G. Strategy of outcome research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consultipg Psychology, 1967, 31 (2), 109-118. Paul, G. Two year followup of systematic desensitization in therapy groups. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73 (2), 119-130. Paul, G. Systematic desensitization in groups: Reducing examination anxiety. Discussant paper presented at symposium: Systematic Desensitization in Groups: Reducing Examination Anxiety, American Educational Research AssoCiation, Chicago, 1968. Pavlov. Experimental Psychology and Other Essays, Philosophical Library, N.Y., 1957. Peters, J. Typology of dogs by the conditional reflex method: A selec- tive review of Russian research. Conditioned Reflex. A Pavlovian Journal of Research and Therapy, 1966, l (A), 235-250. Rachman, S. Treatment of anxiety and phobic reactions by systematic desensitization psychotherapy. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 259-263. Rachman, S. Studies in desensitization I: The separate effects of relaxation and desensitization. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1965, 3, ens—252. Rachman, S. Systematic desensitization III: The speed of generali- zation. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, A, 7-16. Rachman, S- Systematic desensitization. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 67. 93-103. Thayer, R. Development and Validation of a Self-Report Adjective Check List to Measure Activation-Deactivation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Rochester, N Y., University of Rochester, 1963. Thayer, R. Measurement of activation through self-report. Psychological Reports (Monograph Supplement 1-V20), 1967, 20, 663-678. Thoresen, C. Unpublished Test, Department of Counseling, Personnel Ser- vices and Educational Psychology, Michigan State University, 1966. Truax, C. and Carkhuff, R. Toward Effective Counselingyand Psycho- thera , Adline Publishing Co., Chicago, 1967. 110 Vingoe, F. Validity of the Eysenck E scale as determined by self ratings in normals. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1966, 5 (2), 89-91. Weinberg, N. and Zaslove, M. Resistance to systematic desensitization of phobias. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1963, 19, 179-181. Wolpe, J. Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1958. Wolpe, J. The systematic desensitization treatment of neurosis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1961, 132 (3), 189-203. Wolpe, J. The conditioning and deconditioning of neurotic anxiety, in C. Spielberger (Ed.) Anxiety and Behavior, Academic Press, N.Y., 1966. Wolpin, M. and Raines, J. Visual Imagery, expected roles and extinc- tion as possible factors in reducing fear and avoidance behavior. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1966, A, 25-37. Zeisset, R. Desensitization and relaxation in the modification of psychiatric patient's interview behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73 (1), 18-2h. APPENDICES 111 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTS: EYSENCK PERSONALITY INVENTORY S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS TEST ANXIETY INVENTORY THAYER ACTIVATION-DEACTIVATION ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST TEST ANXIETY RATING SHEET THERAPIST RATING OF CLIENT ANXIETY 112 Name 113 EYSENCK PERSONALITY INVENTORY Student Number There are no correct or incorrect answers. true for you, put an X in the Yes column. ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE put an X in the No column. 10. 11. 12. rear Introversion-Extraversion Items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. Do you like plenty of excitement and bustle around you? Does your mood often go up and down? Are you rather lively? Do you ever feel "just miserable" for no good reason? Do you like mixing with peOple? When you get annoyed do you need someone friendly to talk to about it? Would you call yourself happy-go-lucky? Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself a lot at a gay party? Would you call yourself tense or "highly strung?" Do you like practical jokes? Do you suffer from sleeplessness? If you feel an item is If it is not true for you, YES NO An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness 114 "You are entering a final examination in an important course" PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. Heart beats faster 1 1. 2 3 4 5 Not at all ‘Much faster 2. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 None Very strongly 3. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very disruptive 4. Feel exhilarated and l. 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very;much Not at all 5. Went to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 L Not at all Very much 6. Perspire l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 7. Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 frequently Not at all Very frequently 8. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5' Enjoy much Not at all 9. Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry 3’ 10. Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely 11. Get full feeling in l 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 12. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Vegy’much Not at all 13. Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 None Very much 14. Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are going into an interview for a very important job" PLEASE DO NOT MARK.THIS BOOKLET 115 ‘Mark on the.ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 15. Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all 'Much faster 16. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 S . None Verygstrongly 17. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very disruptiv 18. Feel exhilarated and 1 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much Not at all 19. Want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much 20. Perspire 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 1 21. Need to urinate 1 2 3 4 5 freguently Not at all Very frequentl 22s Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Enjoy much Not at all 23. Mbuth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 ‘ Not at all Very_dry 24- Become immobilized 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely, 25. Get full feeling in l 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 26. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all 27. Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 None Very much 28. Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all ‘Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are alone in the woods at night" 6 ' ' 11 PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 29, Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all - Much faster 30. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 .2 3 4 S . None Very strongly 31. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very disruptive 32" Feel exhilarated and 1 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much Not at all 33. Want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much 34, Perspire 1 2 3 4 5' , Not at all Perspire much 35, Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 frequently Not at all Very frequently 36. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Emoy much Not at all 37. Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dryg 38. Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely_ 39.Get full feeling in 1 2 3' 4 5 stomach None Very full 40.. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 . Very much Not at all 41.Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 None Very much ‘42.Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET "43. 117 An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are entering a competitive contest before spectators" PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much faster 44. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 None Vbry strongly 45. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very disruptiv; 46. Feel exhilarated and l 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much Not at all 47. Want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 _rr Not at all Very much 48. Perspire 1 2 3 4 5 ' Not at all Perspire much 49. Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 frequently Not at all Very frequentl' 50. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 S Enjoyrmuch Not at all 51- Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry 52- Become immobilized 1 2 3 a 5 Not at all Completely 53- Get full feeling in 1 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 54. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all 55. Have loose bowels 1 2 3 4 5 None Very much 56. Experience nausea 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all 'Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness 118 "You are starting out in a sail boat onto a rough sea" PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 57. Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much faster 58. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 None very strongly 59. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Veryrdisruprive 60. Feel exhilarated and 1 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much r Not at all 61. Want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 7 Not at all Very much 62.. Perspire l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 63. Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 frequently Not at all Very frequently 64. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 ' a s Enjpy much Not at all 65. Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry 66. Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completelyr_ 67.Get full feeling in l 2 3 4 S stomach None Very full 68. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all 69. Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 None Very much 70. Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET , 119 An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are going to a counseling bureau to seek help in solving a personal problem" PLEASE DO NOT MARK.THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 71. Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 ' Not at all ‘Much faster' 72. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 None Very strongly 73. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 5 Not at all very disruprivf 74. Feel exhilarated and l 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much Not at all 75. wan: to avoid'situation l 2 3 4 5 ___ Not at all Very much 75- Perspire 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 77- Need to urinate l 2 3 4 S. frequently Not at all Very frequentl 7°. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Enjoy;muCh Not at all 79. Mbuth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry 83. Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely 81. Get full feeling in 1 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 82. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very’much Not at all 83. Have loose bowels ‘ 1 2 3 4 5 None Very much 84. Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all ‘Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET c t An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are getting up to give a speech before a large group" PLEASE DO NOT MAKR THIS BOOKLET — 120 Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for .each of the following 14 items. 85.Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much faster 86. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 . None Very strongly .87. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at aljl Very disruptive 88. Feel exhilarated and 1 2 3 4 S thrilled Very much Not at ally 89. Want to avoidsituation l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much 90. Perspire l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 91. Need to urinate l '2 3 4 5 3 frequently Not at all Very_frequently 92. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 S ignioy much Not at all 93. Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry .94, Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely 95. Get full feeling in 1 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 55. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all 97. Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 - None Very much :3, Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET ., f 121 An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are crawling along a ledge highon a mountain side" PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 99.Heart beats faster 1 2 . 3 4 5 Not at all 'Much faster 100,Get an"uneasy feeling" 1 2 3‘ 4 S . ‘ None Very strongly 1C1.Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Veryrdisrupgive 102.Peel exhilarated and 1 2 3 4 5 thrilled Verypmuch Not at all 103.Want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much lC4.Perspire l 2 3 4 '5 Not at all Perspire much 105.Need to urinate 1 2 3 4 5 _,frequently Not at all Very frequently 105.Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 S~ Enjoy much Not at all lO7.Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry 108.Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely; 109.Get full feeling in . l 2 3 4 5 stomach ' None Very full 110.Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all lll.Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 None Very_much 112,Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 __ Not at all Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET f" 122 An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are going into a psychological experiment" PLEASE DO NOT MARK.THIS BOOKLET Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees .of reactionor attitude for each of the following 14 items. 113.Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 4 5 Not at all ‘Much faster 114.Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 .5 - None Very strongly llS.Emotions disrupt action 1 2 '3 4 5 Not at all Very disruptive ll6,Feel exhilarated and l 2 3 4 5 __,thrilled Very_much Not at all 117.Want to avoid.situation l 2 3 4 - 5 « Not at all Very much 118.Perspire l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much ll9.Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 , frequently Not at all Very frequently 120,Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Enjoy much Not at all 121.Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very dry Izz‘Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely 123.Get full feeling in l 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 124.8eek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all 125.Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 None Very much 126.Experience nausea 1 2 3 4 5 ___ Not at all ‘Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET O I, i c . An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are going to meet a new date" PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET 123 ‘Mark on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees of reactions or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 1 127. Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all 'Much faster 123. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 . ‘ None Very strongly 129. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all VeryudisruptiVe 130. Feel exhilarated and l 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much Not at all 131. want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5. Not at all Veryumuch 132. Perspire 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 133. Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 freuuently Not at all Very_frequent1§ 134. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Enjoy;much Not at all 135. Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 NOt at all - Very dry 135. Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 . Not at all Completely 137. Get full feeling in l 2 3 4 5 stomach None Very full 138. Seek experience like this 1 2 3 4 5 11, Very much Not at all 139, Have loose bowels 1 2 3 4 5 None ' Very much 140. Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all ‘Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET H1. .1an .11.]. I. ll! 124 An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness "You are just starting off on a long automobile trip" PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS BOOKLET nmrk on the ANSWER SHEET one of the five alternative degrees ’of reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items. 141. Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much faster 142. Get an "uneasy feeling" 1 2 3 4 5 None Very strongly 143. Emotions disrupt action 1 2 3 4 s . Not at all Very disruptive 144. Peel exhilarated and l 2 3 4 5 thrilled Very much Not at all 145. want to avoid situation 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much 146. Perspire l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much 147. Need to urinate l 2 3 4 5 frequently Not at all Very frequently 143. Enjoy the challenge 1 2 3 4 5 Enjpy much Not at all 149, Mouth gets dry 1 2 3 4 5 .Not at all Very dry 150. Become immobilized l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Completely 151..Get full feeling in l 2 3 4 5 stomach None ' Very full 152. Seek experiences like this 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Not at all 153. Have loose bowels l 2 3 4 5 ' None Very_much 154. Experience nausea l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Much nausea PLEASE RECORD YOUR ANSWERS ON THE ANSWER SHEET 125 Name Date TEST ANXIETY INVENTORY This form is composed of statements regarding your feelings of tension and stress (anxiety) in taking an important test. After each question circle the letter which best describes your present feelings. Think back to your most recent important test on which you experienced tension and stress. Work quickly and don't spend much time on any one question. Your first impression of each question is most important. Now go ahead, work quickly, and remember to answer every question. ‘Mark your answers on the answer sheet as indicated below. Always or Rarely or Never Infrequently Occasionally Frequently Almost Always R=1 1:2 0.3 Fee A-s 1. While studying for a test I feel tense and nervous. R I O F A 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. I feel tense when I see the words "midtern" and "final" on a course outline when studying. R I O F A My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am taking R I O F .A a test. Right after taking a test I feel that I have had a pleasant R I O F A experience. I get anxious when I think about a test coming up. I have no fear of taking a test. Although I am nervous just before starting the test, I soon settle down after starting on the test and feel calm and comfortable. I look forward to taking a test. When the instructor announces a test in class I can feel myself getting tense. My hands tremble when I am taking a test. I feel relaxed while taking a test. I enjoy preparing for a test. I am in constant fear of forgetting what I have studied I get anxious if someone asks me something about course material that I do not know. I face the prospect of taking a test with confidence. I feel I am in complete possession of myself while taking a test. My mind is clear when taking a test. . R I O F A 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. I do not dread taking a test. I perspire just before starting a test. My heart beats very fast just as I start an important test. I experience considerable anxiety while sitting in the exam room just before the test has started. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while taking a test. Realizing that only a little time remains on a test makes me very tense and anxious. In taking a test I know I can control my feelings of tension and stress. ‘ I breathe faster just before starting a test. I feel comfortable and relaxed in the hour or so just before taking a test. I do poorer on exams because I am anxious. I feel anxious when the teacher announces the date of an exam. When I have trouble answering a question on a test, I find it hard to concentrate on the questions that follow. During an important examination I experience a feeling of helplessness building up inside me. I have trouble falling asleep the night before an impor- tant examination“ My heart beats very fast during an important test. I feel anxious while the test is being handed out. During a test I get so nervous I forget facts I really know. 126 127 Name Date and Time .- Course Title and Number Instructor PLEASE COMPLETE THIS IMMEDIATELY AFTER FINISHING THE EXAML Each of the words on the next sheet describes feelings or mood. Please use the list to describe your feelings at this moment. If the word definitely describes how you feel at the moment you read it, circle the double check (vv) to the right of the word. For example, if the word is, relaxed,eind you are definitely feeling relaxed at the moment, circle the double vv as follows: relaxed vv v 2 no. This means you definitely feel relaxed at the moment. If the word only slightly applies to your feelings at the moment, circle the single check as follows: relaxed vv ’v' ? no. This means you feel slightly relaxed at the moment. If the word is not clear to you - you cannot decide whether or not it applies to your feelings at the moment, circle the question mark as follows: relaxed vv v 2 no. This means you cannot decide uhether you are relaxed or 925, If you clearly decide the word does not apply to your feelings at the moment, circle the no as follows: relaxed vv v ? \no. This means you are definitely not relaxed at the rumour, Work rapidly. Your first reaction is best. Work down the first column, then go on to the next. Please mark all words. This should take only a few minutes. -Now please turn the page and begin working- 128 =§§ v ? no : definitely feel vv (2? ? no : feel slightly vv v {3} no : cannot decide vv v ? (fig; : definitely do not feel carefree vv v 7 no aroused vv v ? no serious vv v ? no fearful vv V ? no PePPY vv v ? no lively vv v no pleased vv v ? no still vv v no placid vv v 7 no self-centered vv v ? no leisurely vv v ? no wide-awake vv v ? no sleepy vv v ? no skeptical vv v 7 no jittery vv v ? no activated vv v ? no intense vv v ? no sad vv v no grouchy vv v ? no full-of-pep vv v ? no energetic vv v ? no affectionate vv v ? no egotistic vv v ?? no quiet vv v ? no calm vv v ? no concentrating vv v ? no suspicious vv v ? no sluggish vv v ? no tired vv v ? no overjoyed vv v ? no regretful vv v ? no quick vv v no stirred-up vv v ? no nonchalant vv v ? no warm-hearted vv v ? no quiescent vv v ? no vigorous vv v ? no clutched-up vv v ? no engaged-in-thought vv v ? no wakeful vv v ? no at rest vv v ? no rebellious vv v ? no elated vv v ? no active no drowsy vv v ? no blue vv v no witty vv v ? no defiant vv v ? no 129 Course Title and No. Name Date of Exam Phone No. RATING SHEET Please complete this immediately after taking the exam before you leave the exam room. Type of Exam: Multiple Choice Essay Multiple Choice and Essay Please indicate how you were feeling jlrsr pefore (within 10 minutes) the exam. (Circle one number). 1 2 3 4 5 Completely Calm and Mild Tension- Mild Anxiety - a Anxiety - Somewhat Relaxed Comfortable N91; Bothersome Little Bothersome Disturbing 6 7 8 Anxiety-Moderately Intense Anxiety Very Intense Anxiety- Disturbing Very Disturbing Extremely Disturbing Please indicate how you were feeling at the beginning (first 10 minutes of the exam. 1 2 3 4 5 Completely Calm and Mild Tension- Mild Anxiety -a Anxiety - Somewhat Relaxed Comfortable Not Bothersome Little Bothersome Disturbing 6 7 8 Anxiety-Moderately Intense Anxiety Very Intense Anxiety Disturbing Very Disturbing Extremely Disturbing Please indicate how you were feeling in the middle of the exam. l 2 3 4 5 Completely Calm and Mild Tension - Mild Anxiety -a Anxiety - Somewhat Relaxed Comfortable Not Bothersome Little Bothersome Disturbing 6 7 8 Anxiety-Moderately Intense Anxiety - Very Intense Anxiety- Disturbing Very Disturbing Extremely Disturbing Please indicate how you were feeling near the end (last 10 Minutes) of the exam. 1 _ 2 3 4 5 Completely Calm and Mild Tension- Mild Anxiety - a Anxiety - Somewhat Relaxed Comfortable Not Bothersome Little Bothersome Disturbing 6 7 8 Anxiety-Moderately Intense Anxiety - Very Intense Anxiety - Disturbing Very Disturbing Extremely Disturbing Now please indicate how you were feeling after you have completed the exam. 1 2 3 4 5 Completely Calm and Mild Tension- Mild Anxiety -a Anxiety -Somewhat Relaxed Comfortable Not B;othersome Little Bothersome Disturbing 6 7 8 Anxiety-Moderately Intense Anxiety - Very Intense Anxiety- Disturbing Very Disturbing Extremely Disturbing 130 Therapist Ratings of Client's Anxiety Please rate 85 on degree of behavioral and intra-psychic anxiety (fidgeting, tenseness, stammering, shaking, etc.). Therapist Group S.D. l S.D. 2 S.G.I. l S.G.I 2 Date (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Subjects: Anxiety- Anxiety- Anxiety- Anxiety— Anxiety- level level level level level 1. 1234512345123451234512345 2. l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 3. 123451234512345123451231.5 4. l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX B SYSTEMATIC DESENSITIZATION: STANDARD HIERARCHY MODIFIED GROUP HIERARCHIES 131 132 The teacher announces and discusses a course examination (to be held in three weeks) with the class. Studying for an important examination that is the next day. Leaving your room at your living quarters to go to an important exam. Taking an exam and working on a question to which you do not know the answer. Discussing an important exam with friends, the night before the exam is given. Studying for an important examination that is two weeks away. Taking a final exam and working on a question to which you know the answer. Going to sleep, the night before an important exam. Studying for an important examination that is two weeks away. Having thirty minutes left to complete an exam and an hour's worth of work to do. Entering the room where the exam is being given and sitting down. Studying for an important examination that is one week away. While trying to think of an answer to an exam question you notice everyone around you writing very rapidly. Reading over the instructions to a final exam and surveying the test. It is the day of the exam--one hour left until exam time. The exam is being handed out--you receive a c0py. 10. ll. l2. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 133 Modified Group Hierarchy Beginning of term, instructor hands out course outline. On glancing over outline you see the words "mid—term" and "final" and how much each is weighted in grading. The teacher announces and discusses a course examination (to be held in three weeks) with the class. Studying for an important examination that is two weeks away. Studying for an important examination that is one week away. You have finished going through your text book notes for the first time. The test is 2 days from now. You realize that the material is very difficult and hard to understand and start thinking about the test coming up. Studying for an important examination that is the next day. Discussing an important exam with friends, the night before the exam is given. Someone asks you a question and you do not know the answer. Going to sleep, the night before an important exam. Day of exam; you get up, wash, get dressed and eat. Leaving your room at your living quarters to go to an important exam, walking across campus. Entering the room where the exam is being given and sitting down. The exam is being handed out--you receive a copy. You read instructions at top; glance at first question. Reading over the instructions to an exam and surveying the test. Taking an exam and working on a question to which you do not know the answer. You begin reading, rereading but still do not understand it. You've completed l/2 of the first page. you get to a multiple choice item; can't decide between 2 alternates. While turning to the second page of exam, you happen to glance at clock and realize there is only a little time left, not enough for you to finish. As you try to answer more and more of the questions, you're becoming increasingly aware of the fact that you are not adequately prepared for many of these questions. You suddenly realize that this exam will make the difference between a C and a D in the course. 10. ll. l2. l3. 14. 134 Modified Group Hierarchy The teacher announces and discusses a course examination (to be held in three weeks) with the class. Studying for an important examination that is two weeks away. Studying for an important examination that is one week away. Studying for an important examination that is two days away. Discussing an important exam with friends, the night before the exam is given. Going to sleep, the night before an important exam. It is the day of the exam—-one hour left until exam time. Entering the room where the exam is being given and sitting down. The exam is being handed out--you receive a copy. You're reading over the exam before starting and realize some of the things you haven't studied are on it. Taking a final exam and working on a question to which you know the answer but can't remember it. You're working on an extra-long question and don't have time to do it. While trying to think of an answer to an exam question you notice everyone around you writing very rapidly. Everyone is leaving and you're only 1/2 through the exam. 10. ll. l3. 14. 15. 16. 135 Modified Group Hierarchy Syllabus is passed out at beginning of course. The teacher announces and discusses a course examination (to be held in three weeks) with the class. Studying for an important examination that is two weeks away. Studying for an important examination that is two days away. Studying for an important examination that is the next day. Discussing an important exam with friends, the night before the exam is given. Going to sleep, the night before an important exam. It is the day of the exam--one hour left until exam time. Leaving your room at your living quarters to go to an important exam. Entering the room where the exam is being given and sitting down. The exam is being handed out--you receive a copy. Reading over the instructions to a final exam and surveying the test. Taking an exam and working on a question to which you do not know the answer. While trying to think of an answer to an exam question you notice everyone around you writing very rapidly. Everyone is leaving and you're only 1/2 through the exam. You're taking a final and see that most of the material is unfamiliar. APPENDIX C STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION: SESSION OUTLINES 136 I37 PROCEDURES FOR FIRST STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION SESSION 1. Introduction of self. 2. Explanation of rationale and course of treatment--lO minutes approximately. 3. Introduction of group members and exploration of history and current status of the problem--20 minutes approximately. h. Have 83 help pull together and summarize extent of problem that group is to work with. Approximately 15 minutes. A. determine with group what previous attempts at self—help or professional help have been and their effectiveness. B. enlist possible "active" suggestions for working with this group. 5. Discuss the nature of anxiety hierarchy and pass out hierarch sheet (ditto), get S reaction to list, modifications, suggestions, etc. Approximately 15 minutes. 6. Remind group of time of next session and necessity of coming without fail. Stress! Session 1 RATIONALE AND COURSE OF TREATMENT--STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION The emotional reactions which you experience as a result of your previous experience with test situations often leads to feelings of anxiety or tenseness that are really inappropriate. As long as you can recall how you've felt in these situations, it is possible to work with your reactions right here in this room by having you imagine yourself in these situations as vividly as possible. You might say we are going to re-live the tense, nervous feelings in the things we do in here so that when we actually do face examinations, the stress won't seem as great as it previously did. We are going to continue to meet in a small group because we have something to offer each other. We all know what that tense, anxious feeling is like. So we're going to share the feeling and benefit from the others' experience with it. The technique that will be used here is called Structured group Interaction and each word is a clue to how the sessions will proceed. Our feeling is that the benefit of this program of help will be greatest for those who really become involved, "active," and con- tribute to, as well as use, the other group members. 138 We are going to do a number of things the purpose of which is to create a lot of the feelings you have had when taking exams and then to learn to react differently by controlling these feelings so they don't control you. This will mean creating the same situa- tions through practice test-taking, role-playing (explain--e.g., re-enacting the most anxiety producing situation for each group member), focusing on what tenseness feels like to us all. Are there any questions? ELABORATE AS YOU SEE FIT 139 Overview of and session of Structured Group Interaction To reduce anxiety: 1. Change in test-taking behavior a. learning specific, better, more adaptive habits and skills. b. Reduce physiological and muscular tensions through practice relaxing posture, breathing exercises, etc. c. more positive attitudes—-"I won't know it all but much of it and the rest I can guess on." Therefore, not knowing one answer won't cause panic. 2. Provide verbal reinforcement for positive steps toward changing behavior. 3. Encourage use of self-reward and punishment re: satis- factory and unsatisfactory performance on tests. Session 2 STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION Sometimes it is difficult to focus on what about tests really gets us tense and nervous. This is especially true when we Just talk about it from memory, so we are going to create the very same situation and conditions by taking an exam here today. We must try to make it as close to the real testing situation as possible. O.K. We have a chalk board and I'll write the minutes left on it as the time passes. What other kinds of things would make this situation real for you? (Get suggestions and act upon them if possible, e.g., use writing boards on laps, IBM answer sheets and scoring pencils or blue book for essay questions.) Now that the setting seems right, the important thing is the way you view the situation. So let's set some guidelines. The test is in a course that is important to you. It's the last exam and therefore your performance will be very crucial to your final grade. You've studied for this test about as much as you usually do. You have the same kinds of feelings about this test as you usually have about others you have taken like it. Do you see what we're trying to do? The goal is to experience the same kinds of feelings and reactions here where we can later focus on them while they're still vivid and real. The more you can make this situation like an actual test-taking situation the more you will be able to focus on your usual test-taking behavior and the more you can learn how to deal with it or change it. You will have 20 minutes for the test. (Give out test and answer sheets, pencils.) Introduction (10 minutes) Before test begins distribute large, blank index cards and ask 85 to write down anything bothering them or interfering with lhO taking exam or distracting them (mentally or physically) from test-- anything at all, cue words, free associations, etc. Test (20 minutes) During test counselor will observe behavior—~make notes on characteristic modes for each S (i.e., crossing and uncrossing legs, biting nails, squirming, biting pencil, rigid or awkward posture, perspiring, trembling, pained facial expression, closed eyes or blank stare or other indications of inefficient behavior). At the end of 20 minutes stop the test. Begin discussion: (I) What kinds of reactions do you have to test? What did Ss feel? How well aware are they of inefficient behavior? Point out how one or two responded (behaviorally) to get the ball rolling, e.g., "Dave, how did you feel about the test?" Let him explain. He probably won't be aware of his extraneous but interfering behavior. Tell him how you perceived his testTtaking behavior, nervously biting pencil, then staring blankly as if frozen. (2) Go around pointing out maladaptive behavior and encourage interaction by getting members to offer suggestions for how they would like to behave--e.g., sit relaxed, not tense, breathe normally, get non-test thoughts out of mind. (3) Focus on index cards. What things, feelings, ideas intruded and interfered. Let's name things--not Just let it go as vague, diffuse panic or disinterest! If X, Y, and Z things interfered, let's learn to get rid of them. Be ready to offer concrete, precise suggestions for dealing with them. (Some of these will follow.) (h) What are the problems encountered? a. I look at the first question and can't answer it so I panic. b. The test is long and this scares me. c. Each question has four or five choices--I can't figure out which one is right. d. I watch the time tick away and this immobilizes me. The above items refer to test situation as the stimulus for anxiety Rs. Assuming the Ss know the materials, the goal which seems to be blocked is demonstrating the knowledge. Some specific suggestions re above problems to help counteract them. a. "Admit to yourself that you will not know all_the answers. Instead of saying over and over, I'm afraid I won't know it, say, some of it I won't know and some of it I will." Thus when you read the first question and don't know the answer, you will respond by saying, "That's 9ng_I don't know." b. Figure out a time schedule. Don't let length scare you. Do something constructive about it. Figure amount of lhl time per question and stick to it--leave a few minutes at the end to review or complete test. c. Go through exam and answer all those items which are easiest and which you are sure of. Then tackle less sure ones. For each question look at choices. Cross out those which are obviously wrong. If left with two choices make an educated guess. Translate items into own words and see if that is what it really says-— don't read into item. Accept each at face value. d. Realize that time will go by anyway--u§g_it to your advantage to measure progress——X minutes for each item. e. Suppose all the choices seem true? Perhaps they all are but pick the one_that answers the question. Factors or problems not related to actual test: A. Reducing physiological or muscular tension. Get back to behavioral observations. Encourage 85 to tell about where or how they felt tension. May have to get them started by referring to observations made when 85 were taking test. I. to reduce muscle tension——practice relaxation. Counselor demonstrate--tensing muscles, relaxing; individualize. 2. to regulate breathing; to calm down—-practice inhaling deeply and exhaling. 3. for rigid or awkward postures, practice composed, comfortable posture. INDIVIDUALIZE--allow and encourage each S to practice his own anxiety-combating Rs. B. Getting rid of extraneous, unwanted or persistent non-test ideas and thoughts. I. interfering thoughts to serve as cue for action--penalty for thinking these is loss of time and points on test. Count each distracting thought as one minute lost. 2. Decide on punishments for non-test related thoughts, e.g., no date Saturday, deny self new shirt or record. Reward self for calm, non-anxious and clear-headed performance-- e.g., take Saturday afternoon off for fun. HOMEWORK--Practice responding to any tests between 2nd and 3rd session in the above way. Have 88 keep record of this to focus on in the third session. lh2 Session 3 STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION A. Review of Session 2 (see guide for Session 2)--lO minutes 1. Test-taking techniques practiced: a. doing easy items first, b. focus on test, not clock, etc. Relaxation Rs-—usefulness and attempts at self-induced relaxation. Ridding mind of non-test—taking thoughts. Usefulness of index card method for noting "disturbances." Reaction to last week's test and the use to which techniques were put outside during the week (generalization). Effectiveness of index cards used while studying or taking "real" exams. Counselor reinforcement or statements pertaining to attempts by Cl. to work on problem outside. B. Content of third session 1. Get group to discuss ways in which they either did use, or could use, the three kinds of techniques: a. test-taking skills and hints, b. relaxation and other physical measures (breathing, assuming and practicing a comfortable posture), c. Getting nagging thoughts out of mind (writing down on cards, self-reward and punishment). Discuss content of 88 index cards which were accumulated over week. What specifically prevents John from performing opti- mally? Focus on each 8 and try to bring about suggestions from group members to help John change his maladaptive Rs. E.g., What can John dg_to change? What behaviors that are different from his present ones (heart beating, looking around aimlessly in test room at others, verbalizing fear to peers) could John engage in? (E.g., breathe deeply, either don't talk about fear of test to others or play a confident role, be a model of composure.) Importance of creating a new role or self-image as a test-taker. What kind of a role does John want? Just what does he want to do that is different--what behaviors does he want to change. a. discuss in general the characteristics of a less defeating role, b. emphasize importance of individuality since role has to fit or at least feel comfortable—-so it will be lh3 practiced, which is a crucial element. Point to any common elements which 88 may identify. "Not all of you want to change the same things or behave the same way on tests but there may be some common denominator." Creation of a new role of test-taker. Just what does it mean (based on foregoing idea of maladaptive behavior, need to change, characteristics of more adaptive behavior). Based on theory of personal constructs and fixed role therapy. After Ss understand and have a feel for changing their test- taking role, encourage discussion about construction of a new role (what elements to emphasize, how to write the "part," how the skills learned in last session fit in). Make role very specific and detailed and applicable to all possible test situations (the ideal test-taking self). Keep in mind that drastic changes are often easisier to bring about than slight changes. Also, the S must really be willing to give a role a try in the real world--modifi— cations may be necessary later on. Allow time for construction of new role. 83 will write the new role in counseling room (provide paper). 15 minutes. Reading roles, sharing, reacting to one another's role and discussing ways in which they can be enacted, practiced. Emphasize seriousness of task--try to dispel frivolity re role-playing. Focus on any tests which 85 anticipate in coming week. How will they put new role to work? What to do specifically?—-bg_the new role, study it, memorize it and, like a part in a play, live it! Must live it and experience the feelings and reaction to it in real life. Before ending, ask group to talk about the part which studying and present study methods play in creating test- anxiety (difficulties might pertain to self-distraction, room-mate or physical environment distractors). Establish need for a session devoted to study habits. Have 88 make note throughout the week of such distractors——they might continue to use the index card system of noting distractions. Tell them to bring the cards next week—-this should reduce the effect of confounded memory traces. lhh Session A STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION Review of Session 3. Implementation of the role is seen as a key to change in test- taking behavior. Spend the first 15 minutes exploring what 85 did to try it out--in test situations, studying, or as extended to total functioning. 1. Explore usefulness or limitations of test-taking role. This assumes that the 83 have tried the role out and on this basis have comments. 2. Explore with those who had the opportunity to play the role outside but did not, why they didn't. 3. Reinforce positive comments re role playing which was successfully carried out. Stress-—in order for you to be what you feel is the "ideal test-taker" you must be willing to take a chance, practice and the are practice still more until this role is as natural as one of test-anxiousness which you have perfected and still playing. B. Emphasis of the hth Session: Preparing (studying) for Exams 1. Relevant questions to focus on: 8.. 9.0 2. A few Where does "preparing for the exam" fit into test— anxiety (central, peripheral, not a factor at all)? The responses generated by this question will determine the direction of the session. If preparation plays a part in examination-anxiety, continue by exploring subsequent "thought” questions. If group does not see preparation as a factor in their test-taking fears, try to identify, through discussion, the antecedent conditions responsible, e.g., inadequate studying, too little time to prepare, simple avoidance or denial of responsibility. What does "preparation" mean? Seems to imply more than studying, more inclusive, other non—study types of activity and behavior. Is there one best way to prepare? Should one prepare differentially depending on the course? Does preparation for the exam depend on the type of exam, i.e., essay vs. objective type? points to keep in mind: While all the Ss identify themselves as test anxious, preparation for examinations may be as varied as the number of Ss. There's no one_way to prepare nor would this approach fit everyone. Talking about and ventilating the problem is one thing but putting a new plan into action is another. The th latter needs emphasis because unless the effort is made outside of the session no benefit is likely to result. Let the group members do the work—-it will be more meaningful that way. Your role here is to: pull in the members, keep discussion close to the topic of preparation for exams (try not to let it wander to studying in general), offer concrete suggestions when members do not, or seem to be incorrect in their advice. In line with the notion of the importance of activity and involvement, the Ss will be asked to think about, recall and write down a list of factors related to preparation which leads to examination fear and tension. This list should be arranged in a hierarchy of least to most significant problems (noise in room, can't get organized, don't have enough time to review). The goal here is to bring specific problems to light for each individual and identify remedies which can be tried out outside of the session and be adapted or adopted to replace maladaptive methods. After writing these, the individuals will take turns pre- senting their lists and receiving suggestions for improving the conditions. Group should be made aware that it can really help each member by coming up with suggestions that they may have tried and found useful. The leader is only one person--the group can offer 3 times as much help! Here are some specific problems and possible remedies: a. physical distractors (more often excuses!)--remove any articles from desk which cause your mind to wander. Find a time to study when it is most quiet, e.g., when your roommate is asleep or when S is most relaxed and alert, or remove self to a quiet place, e.g., stacks in library or other secluded spot like rear of science library (3rd floor). b. the best way to prepare?--this is the most comfortable way. May start with overview of material or review of specifics--whichever serves to get S started. c. difficulty in focusing attention or holding attention—- review should be active, not passive. Not Just reading and re—reading notes but giving out information, as S will have to on the exam, by reciting it to self, answering own questions. d. learning which doesn't follow logical rules--"memory crutch" to learn a series of unrelated items: form a word with the first letter of each item. Another similar device is to repeat two ideas until they become associated--then the first will elicit the second. e. The most effective method of learning: SQhR 1. Survey A. Recite 2. Question 5. "Rite" 3. Read 6. Review At this point in the term we are only concerned about the last point. It would be almost effortless if the 1146 five others were carried out already. In any case, the whole process implies preparation which is active. The method can even be useful in this respect a few days before exams. Motto: Don't be a sponge and expect to learn! Suggestions are to be tried out during week. Ss should come to 5th session ready to discuss what happened in carrying these out. Arrange for change in last session time for those groups meeting on Memorial Day. lb? Session 5 STRUCTURED GROUP INTERACTION Specific test-taking techniques of Session 2 (see handout). Identify any new problems encountered by 85 since second session. Try to bring group up to date with respect to test-taking skills, i.e., get them to bring up and work out any still remaining or recurrent maladaptive, self—defeating, behaviors. Reivew roles of relaxation which can be fostered by: a. muscular relaxation (review exercises as needed by individuals in the groups); b. confidence as a test-taker and concentration on exam--not on non-test factors. Reinforce the benefits which role-playing the "good test taker" will bring. Encourage sharing of experiences in which role was tried out. As was stressed elsewhere before, to the extent that the role was played by someone in the group and its benefit discussed, the others will be encouraged to do the same. Help to re-work roles that were found to be ineffective, e.g., those that were unrealistic or impossible for S to play. The goal is to create a more comfortable, confident and less tense test-taker but if the role is too difficult to enact, these goals will not be realized. Review and assessment of studying for exams. While this serves as a review of Session A, it is intended to focus on the week of studying between Session A and this one. It is particularly relevant because of its temporal proximity to finals. Did 85 make any observations of their characteristic mode of studying or any new techniques which have implications for test- taking anxiety? What kinds of changes have they made? Have they resisted doing anything other than coming to weekly sessions? Re-emphasize importance of practice--that we can not offer magical solutions nor do the work for them. Deal with persistent poor study methods. What can be done between now and the final exam to correct these? Concentrate on doable factors such as simply making up a study schedule and sticking to it, going to sleep early before each exam, or not studying immediately before an exam. What are the present concerns about the approach of examination time? The greater portion of this session should enable 83 to express and deal with current fears and hopes. Being the last week of classes and a week before finals, feelings should probably be running high. The goal is not to bring out new, previously unexplored prob— lems but to consolidate the five sessions, encourage Ss to apply what they learned, to help 83 face their finals more confidently and better prepared to deal with them--to think clearly and to respond adaptively. The counselors' role here is to help every group member to realize the above goal in his own way. You should have the \ ..;:v k; Fifi. .1). up! u ; 1&8 feeling that all of the individuals in your groups are "holding together" alright. Work with those who still seem particularly anxious or unsure of taking exams to overcome this in the time that still remains. About five minutes before the end of the hour, formally bring the session to a close and explain that "we are asking you to fill out some forms to help us look at the 'test-taking anxiety' program from beginning to end. Some of these questionnaires you will recognize because you filled them out before the program began. These you will fill out here in a few seconds. The other three forms which are stapled together will be filled out immediately after your final exam in Psychology 151 on Friday, June 9. Complete them immediately after you finish the exam (not before). Then bring the materials to the front of the examination room where there will be a container to put them in. If you have any ques- tions at that time or if you forget the forms I will be there with additional ones." APPENDIX D POST—EXPERIMENT LETTER TO NO—CONTACT CONTROL SUBJECTS 1&9 150 May 26, 1967 Dear Your cooperation is greatly needed by a research group in the College of Education. This research is being supervised by Professor Carl Thoresen. They are concerned about the range of responses which these two inventories will yield. To get an accurate and reliable picture of the way students actually feel about these items some students have been randomly selected from my Psychology 151 course to fill out these inventories. Your efforts will make an important contribution to a research pro- gram which, it is hoped, will have important beneficial effects to students. Instructions for completing and returning the enclosed forms: 1. The S-R Inventory has ll pages, each of which describes a different situation. For example, "You are going into an interview for a very important Job." Mark all your responses directly on the inventory itself. 2. The Test Anxiety Inventory has 3h items. Please circle the most appropriate response for each item on the inventory itself. 3. Put both inventories, when completed, into the enclosed, addressed envelope and put it in the University Mail immediately. We would like to receive it no later than June I. It will take you only a few minutes to fill out the forms but you will be providing us with valuable and needed information. Please accept my thanks in advance. Yours truly, @dftfilv Dr. Paul Bakan ANALYSIS TABLES TABLES TABLES TABLES TABLES APPENDIX E OF VARIANCE AND MEAN SCORE TABLES: l-lO 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ll—2O 21-31 32—39 no-u7 MEAN SCORES, 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 2X3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 2Xh ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 2X3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-—PRE—TEST SCORES lSl TABLE 1 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST ANXIETY INVENTORY Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (l-E) 236.53 1 236.53 1.08 Treatment (SD—SGI) 1,069.53 1 1,069.53 n.88 <.05 Counselor 9h.53 1 9h.53 .h3 Personality X Treatment 15 .53 1 157.53 .72 Personality X Counselor 371.28 1 371.28 1.70 Treatment X Counselor 1,069.53 1 1,069.53 h.91 <.05 Total Interaction h7.53 1 h7.53 .22 Between Groups 3,096.A7 7 h35.21 Error 14,808.25 22 218.56 Total 7,85u.72 29 I = E = SD = Systematic Desensitization SGI Structured Group Interaction TABLE 2 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR l l'INTERPERSONAL'l Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (I-E) 6,hh1.13 1 6,hh1.13 3.96 Treatment (SD-SGI) 9,316.13 1 9,316.13 5.73 <.05 Counselor 276.13 1 276.13 .17 Personality X Treatment 1,058.00 1 1,058.00 .65 Personality X Counselor 200.00 1 200.00 .12 Treatment X Counselor 60.50 1 60.50 .0h Total Interaction 78.13 1 78.13 .05 Between Groups 17,h30.00 7 2,h90.00 Error 35,75h.00 22 1,625.18 Total 53,18h.00 29 153 TABLE 3 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-FACTOR 2 "INANIMATE PERSONAL DANGER" Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (I-E) 712.53 1 712.53 1.33 Treatment (SD—SGI) 790.03 1 790.03 1.h7 Counselor h2.78 1 A2 78 .08 Personality X Treatment 1,262.53 1 1,262.53 2.35 Personality X Counselor 3.78 1 3.78 .00 Treatment X Counselor 57.78 1 57.78 .1 Total Interaction 215.28 1 215.28 .AO Between Groups 3,08h.72 7 uh0.67 Error 11,78u.75 22 535.67 Total 114,869.11? 29 TABLE L! 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-FACTOR 3 "AMBIGUOUS" Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (I-E) 512.00 1 512.00 1.25 Treatment (SD-SGT) 9h6.l3 1 9h6.13 7.85 <.05 Counselor 36.13 1 36.13 .30 Personality X Treatment 153.13 1 153.13 1.27 Personality X Counselor 210.13 1 210.13 1.7M Treatment X Counselor 8.00 1 8.00 .07 Total Interaction h20.50 1 h20.50 3.50 Between Groups 2,286.00 7 326.57 Error 2,650.00 22 l20.h6 Total 11,936.00 29 15h TABLE 5 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS——FACTOR h "AVOIDANCE" Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (I—E) 2,983.78 1 2,983.78 2.27 Treatment (SD-SGI) 6,h69.53 1 6,h69.53 b.9l <.05 Counselor 1,237.53 1 1,237.53 .9h Personality X Treatment 1,339.03 1 1,339.03 1.02 Personality X Counselor h27.78 1 h27.78 .33 Treatment X Counselor 5.28 1 5.28 .00 Total Interaction 30.03 1 30.03 .02 Between Groups 12,h92.97 7 1,78h.71 Error 28.9u6.25 22 1,315.7u Total h1,h39.22 29 TABLE 6 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-FACTOR 5 "EXHILARATION" Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (I—E) h5.l3 1 h5.l3 .13 Treatment (SD-SGI) 3,960.50 1 3,960.50 11.6h <.oo5 Counselor 18.00 1 18.00 .05 Personality X Treatment 1,h31.13 l 1,h3l.13 A.20 Personality X Counselor .13 1 .13 .00 Treatment X Counselor 128.00 1 128.00 .38 Total Interaction 91.13 1 91.13 .27 Between Groups 5,67h.00 7 810.57 Error 7,h85.50 22 3h0.25 Total 13,159.50 29 .L TABLE 7 55 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 6 "ANTONOMIC" Source of Variance SS df MS F Personality Type (I-E) 128.00 1 128.00 .h5 Treatment (SD-SGI) 78.13 1 78.13 .28 Counselor h06.13 l h06.13 l.hh Personality X Treatment 91.13 1 91.13 .32 Personality X Counselor h06.l3 l h06.l3 1.hh Treatment X Counselor 72.00 1 72.00 .26 Total Interaction 1,012.50 1 1,012.50 3.59 Between Groups 2,19h.00 7 313.h3 Error 6,219.50 22 282.71 Total 8,hl3.50 29 TABLE 8 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE THAYER--"HIGH ACTIVATION" Source of Variance SS df MS F Personality Type (I-E) 50.00 1 50.00 h.07 Treatment (SD-SGI) 36.13 1 36.13 2.93 Counselor h.50 l h.50 .37 Personality X Treatment 28.13 1 28.13 2.29 Personality X Counselor h0.50 l L0.50 3.30 Treatment X Counselor 15.13 1 15.13 1.23 Total Interaction 28.13 1 28.13 2.29 Between Groups 202.50 7 28.93 Error 271.00 22 12.32 Total 573.50 29 156 TABLE 9 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE THAYER—-"GENERAL DEACTIVATION" Source of Variance SS df MS F P [ Personality Type (I—E) .28 1 .28 .02 Treatment (SD-SGI) 19.53 1 19.53 1.27 Counselor .03 1 .03 .00 Personality X Treatment 3.78 1 3.78 .25 Personality X Counselor 57.78 1 57.78 3.78 Treatment X Counselor 5.28 1 5.28 .35 Total Interaction lhO.28 1 1h0.28 9.17 <.01 Between Groups 226.97 7 32.h2 Error 336.25 22 15.28 Total 563.22 29 TABLE 10 2X2X2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST ANXIETY RATING SHEET Source of Variance SS df MS F P Personality Type (I-E) 3.78 1 3.78 .28 Treatment (SD-SCI) 5.28 1 5.28 .39 Counselor 3.78 1 3.78 .28 Personality X Treatment 2.53 1 2.53 .19 Personality X Counselor 16.53 1 16.53 1.20 Treatment X Counselor 75.03 1 75.03 5.5h <.05 Total Interaction 13.78 1 13.78 1.02 Between Groups 120.71 7 17.25 Error 298.25 22 13.56 Total hl8.97 29 Counselor Counselor TABLE 11 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV 157 TEST ANXIETY INVENTORY Treatment S.D. S.G.I. I I I l E I : E i I l I - . I , 01 93.5 101 8 123.5' 118.0 I I I l I I I I C2 117.8 {107.5 119.8I 105.0 | I I I TABLE 13 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV S—R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS FACTOR 2 Treatment S.D. S.G.I. I I I ' E I 7 E I I I I Cl 81.5 {108.0 106.5! 97.5 I I L ' I I I C2 81.0 l 98.5 101.0: 103.8 I I I I I I -1 onallty Personality Type Type Pers TABLE 12 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS FACTOR 1 Treatment S.D. S.G.I. I -——- I I E I : E I It; I I I I Cl 185.5 7176.8 237.0 |199.0 | I I L I I | I 02 202.3 :177.3 2h2.0 :200.3 I I I I TABLE 1A MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS FACTOR 3 Treatment S.D. S.G.I. I I __.. I I E I I B it‘ i I I O1 39.8 : 38.3 63.3 I 38.5 I I I I I I I | C2 h5.0 I 39.3 52.0 I 52.0 I l I I Counselor Counselor 158 TABLE 15 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS FACTOR 8 Treatment U] U S.G.I. tIJ 139.5 127.8 182.0 190.5 I I I 1h5.8 lluh.8 I I. I I I I I I I I I I I 186.0 :163.0 I L TABLE 17 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS FACTOR 6 Treatment S.D. S.G.I. ['11 I 87.5 I105.3 102.3 \0 O (I) 95.8 76.8 F — -— _-¢1I-—— 9u.0 90.8 _—-.—-47—— -—_D—- TABLE 16 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS FACTOR 5 Treatment <1) g; S.D. S.G.I. I I .._£1__.. I I» E I I E .H . '3 I ' 8 I I g 01 80.3 |9u.8 123.3 |10A.3 m I I I I I I I C2 86.3 I 93.8 11h.5 I102.0 I l I .1. TABLE 18 MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV THAYER--FACTOR HA m Treatment é; S.D. S.G.I. I -—£§——a» I I E I I E r3 *T ’3 a I I g I I a C 7.3 I 6.3 1h.5 I 6.0 m 1 O. I | I 4.2 g I , I C2 9.0 , 8.8 9.8 I 9.5 I I | 159 TABLE 20 TABLE 19 MEAN SCORES MEAN SCORES 2X2X2 AOV TEST ANXIETY RATING SHEET 2X2X2 AOV THAYER--FACTOR GD Treatment Treatment .HOmeGSOU 3 3 nu as 9. . 11 11 TI IIIIIIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIII nu . Q3 as so . . I 7 O I. 11 as no no 11 23 g 11 11 D,|I.III!IIIIIIIII. co ,9 RC T. 11 3. 11 11 I. 92 1 c . mmhe mfiflamoomamm O O an 22 x0 . a2 .1 I III [III 'Il_'llll'l'| nu . O 8 S 5 O I 6 7. I. 9. 8 5 on 7. RC .1 .1 D II! II IIII.TI.III..|I co RC :1 I 8 6 11 11 I. 9. C C 2X3 AOV TEST 160 TABLE 21 BY PLANNED COMPARISON ANXIETY INVENTORY Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 3,75h.65 5 Personality Main Effect 58.1h 1 58.1h .28 Treatments Main Effect 2,676.09 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 1,069.53 1 1,069.53 5.15 <.05 SD&SGI-NTC 1,606.56 1 1,606.56 7.7% <.01 Interaction l,020.h2 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 157.53 1 157.53 .76 Remaining Interaction 862.89 1 862.89 h.17 <.05 Error 6,630.12 32 207.23 Total 10,38h.77 37 SD = Systematic Desensitization SGI = Structured Group Interaction NTC = No—Treatment Control TABLE 22 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-SITUATION 1 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 1,156.13 5 Personality Main Effect .25 1 .25 .01 Treatments Main Effect 1,005.75 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 325.13 1 325.13 6.5h <.05 SD&SGI-NTC 680.63 1 680.63 1h.h0 <.005 Interaction 150.13 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 6.13 l 6.13 .12 Remaining Interaction 1hh.00 l 1hh.00 2.88 Error 1,593.25 32 h9.68 Total 2,7h9.38 37 161 TABLE 23 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 1 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 32,072.88 5 Personality Main Effect 1,76u.oo 1 1,76h.00 1.36 Treatments Main Effect 29,138.63 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 9,316.13 1 9,316.13 7.20 <.05 SD&SGI—NTC 1A,822.50 1 lh,822.50 ll.u6 <.005 Interaction 6,170.25 2 Comparisons: Personality-Treatments 1,058.00 1 1,058.00 .82 Remaining Interaction 5,112.25 1 5,112.25 3.9h Error u1,uu3.so 32 1,295.06 Total 73,516.38 37 TABLE 2h 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S—R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS--FACTOR 2 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 3,h92.00 5 Personality Main Effect 953.27 1 953.27 1.96 Treatments Main Effect 1,228.9h 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 790.03 1 790.03 1.63 SD&SGI—NTC 938.91 1 h38.91 .90 Interaction 1,309.80 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 1,262.53 1 1,262.53 2.60 Remaining Interaction h7.27 1 h7.27 .09 Error 15,55u.37 32 h86.06 Total 19,0u6.37 37 162 TABLE 25 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 3 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 2,2h9.28 5 Personality Main Effect 5A0.56 1 590.56 3.62 Treatments Main Effect 1,h79.03 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 986.13 1 986.13 6.30 <.05 SD&SGI-NTC 532.90 1 532.90 3.55 Interaction 229.69 2 Comparison: Personality—Treatments 153.13 1 153.13 1.02 Remaining Interaction 76.56 1 76.56 .51 Error A,800.50 32 1H9.9h Total 7,0h9.78 37 TABLE 26 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR A Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 17,255.98 5 Personality Main Effect 669.52 1 669.52 .53 Treatments Main Effect 12,607.5h 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 6,869.53 1 6,869.53 5.15 <.05 SD&SGI-NTC 6,138.01 1 6,138.01 u.86 <.05 Interaction 3,978.h2 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 1,339.03 1 1,339.03 1.06 Remaining Interaction 2,639.3 1 2,639.39 2.10 Error 90.307.63 32 1,259.60 Total 57,563.10 37 163 TABLE 27 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS-~FACTOR 5 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 8,750.15 5 Personality Main Effect 22.56 1 22.56 .07 Treatments Main Effect 7,093.80 2 Comparison: SID—SGI 3,960.50 1 3,960.50 12.28 < .005 SD&SGI—NTC 3,132.90 1 3,132.90 9.70 <.005 Interaction 1,638.19 2 Comparison: Personality—Treatments 1,831.13 1 1,831.13 8.85 <.05 Remaining Interaction 203.06 1 203.06 .63 Error 10,328.25 32 322.63 Total 19,078.80 37 TABLE 28 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-FACTOR 6 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 1,282.65 5 Personality Main Effect 90.25 1 90.25 .27 Treatments Main Effect 1,019.03 2 Comparison: SD—SGI 78.13 1 78.13 .23 SD&SGI-NTC 980.90 1 980.90 2.80 Interaction 133.38 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 91.13 1 91.13 .27 Remaining Interaction 82.25 1 82.25 .13 Error 10,775.75 32 336.78 Total 12,018.80 37 168 TABLE 29 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON THAYER ACTIVATION—DEACTIVATION ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST HIGH ACTIVATION FACTOR Source of Variation SS df MS F P Between Groups 363 78 5 Personality Main Effect 5.06 1 5.06 .80 Treatments Main Effect 180.53 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 36.13 1 36.13 2.83 SD&SGI-NTC 188.80 1 188.80 11.32 <.005 Interaction 178.19 2 Comparison: Personality—Treatments 28.13 1 28.13 2.20 Remaining Interaction 150.06 1 150.06 11.78 <.005 Error 808.00 32 12.75 Total 771.78 37 TABLE 30 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON THAYER ACTIVATION-DEACTIVATION ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST GENERAL DEACTIVATION FACTOR Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 188.65 Personality Main Effect 62.02 1 62.02 3.16 Treatments Main Effect 28.09 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 19.53 1 19.53 1.00 SD&SGI-NTC 8.56 1 8.56 .88 Interaction 58.55 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 3.78 1 3 78 .19 Remaining Interaction 50.77 1 50.77 2.59 Error 627.13 32 19.60 Total 771.78 37 165 TABLE 31 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON TEST ANXIETY RATING SHEET Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 568.90 5 Personality Main Effect 50.77 1 50.77 2.55 Treatments Main Effect 818.09 2 Comparisons: SD-SGI 5.28 1 5.28 .27 . SD&SGI-NTC 812.81 1 812.81 20.78 <.005 Interaction 100.05 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 2.53 1 2.53 .13 Remaining Interaction 288.06 1 288.06 8.97 <.01 Error 636.88 32 19.90 Total 1,205.78 37 TABLE 32 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON TEST ANXIETY INVENTORY Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 3,895.21 7 Personality Main Effect 5.79 l 5.79 .03 Treatments Main Effect 2,815.09 3 Comparison: NTC-NCC 850.19 1 850.19 2.27 SD&SGI-NCC 872.59 1 872.59 2.38 SD&SGI-NTC&NCC 1,620.00 1 1,620.00 8.15 <.Ol Interaction 1,078.38 3 Error 8,938.50 85 198.58 Total 12,829.71 52 SD = Systematic Desensitization Structured Group Interaction No-Treatment Control No-Contact Control SGI NTC NCC 166 TABLE 33 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS-—SITUATION l Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 1,305.88 7 Personality Main Effect 68.29 1 68.29 1.58 Treatments Main Effect 1,060.88 3 Comparison: NTC—NCC 196.02 1 196.02 8.68 <.05 SD&SGI—NCC 192.67 1 192.67 8.59 <.05 SD&SGI&NTC&NCC 678.61 1 678.61 16.20 <.005 Interaction 181.15 3 60.38 1.88 Error 1,886.13 85 81.91 Total 3,192.00 52 TABLE 38 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS——FACTOR 1 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 86,010.55 7 Personality Main Effect 6,975.85 1 6,975.85 8.91 <.05 Treatments Main Effect 38,770.05 3 Comparison: NTC-NCC 381.33 1 381.33 .28 SD&SGI-NCC 17,173.50 1 17,173.50 12.06 (.005 SD&SGI—NTC&NCC 28,921.80 1 28,921.80 17.51 <.005 Interaction 8,265.05 3 1,821.69 1.00 Error 68,089.00 85 1,823 30 Total 110,059.55 52 167 TABLE 35 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S—R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 2 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 3,968.68 7 Personality Main Effect 757.79 1 757.79 1.89 Treatments Main Effect 1,702.55 3 Comparison: NTC-NCC .19 1 .19 .00 SD&SGI-NCC 698.76 1 698.76 1.37 SD&SGI-NTC&NCC 858.05 1 858.05 1.69 Interaction 1,508.38 3 502.78 1.00 Error 22,908.75 85 508.99 Total 26,873.83 52 TABLE 36 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS--FACTOR 3 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 3,320.38 7 Personality Main Effect 1,037.16 1 1,037.16 7.36 <.05 Treatments Main Effect 2,109.09 3 Comparison: NTC—NCC .08 1 .08 .OO SD&SGI—NCC 912 67 1 912.67 6.88 <.05 SD&SGI—NTC&NCC 1,080.85 1 1,080.85 7.65 <.05 Interaction 178.09 3 58.03 .81 Error 6,338.50 85 180.86 Total 9,658.88 52 168 TABLE 37 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY 0F ANXIOUSNESS—-FACTOR 8 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 22,087.55 7 Personality Main Effect 1,921.18 1 1,921.18 1.86 Treatments Main Effect 17,133.37 3 Comparison: NTC—NCC 126.75 1 126.75 1.00 SD&SGI—NCC 7,262.76 1 7,262.76 5.58 <.05 SD&SGI—NTC&NCC 10,819.61 1 10,819.61 7.92 <.05 Interaction 3,033.05 3 1,011.02 .77 Error 59,072.38 85 1,312.68 Total 81,157.93 52 TABLE 38 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS——FACTOR 5 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 11,889.83 7 Personality Main Effect 175.02 1 175.02 .57 Treatments Main Effect 9,180.12 3 Comparison: NTC—NCC 93.52 1 93.52 .31 SD&SGI-NCC 3,832.08 1 3,832.08 11.25 <.005 SD&SGI—NTC&NCC 5,136.01 1 5,136.01 16.83 <.005 Interaction 2,098.30 3 698.10 2.28 Error 13,782.13 85 305.38 Total 25,191.55 52 TABLE 39 169 2X8 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 6 Source of Variance SS MS F Between Groups 3,668.71 7 Personality Main Effect 707.16 1 707.16 2.61 Treatments Main Effect 2,805.03 3 Comparison: NTC-NCC .19 l 9.19 .03 SD&SGI-NCC 1,926.08 1 1,926.08 7.11 SD&SGI-NTC&NCC 2,091.01 1 2,091.01 7.70 Interaction 556.53 3 185.51 .68 Error 12,217.13 85 271.89 Total 15,885.88 52 170 TABLE 80 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE-TEST SCORES TEST ANXIETY INVENTORY Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Groups 1,523.88 5 Personality Main Effect 588.06 1 588.06 2.81 Treatments Main Effect 830.63 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 528.13 1 528.13 2.52 SD&SGI-NTC 302.50 1 302.50 1.85 Interaction 105.19 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments .13 1 .13 00 Remaining Interaction 105.06 1 105.06 50 Error 7,117.50 38 209.38 Total 8,681.37 39 TABLE 81 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE-TEST SCORES S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-SITUATION 1 Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Groups 338.00 5 Personality Main Effect 76.56 1 76.56 1.59 Treatments Main Effect 205.75 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 190.13 1 190.13 3.95 SD&SGI-NTC 15.63 1 15.63 .32 Interaction 55.69 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 28.13 1 28.13 .58 Remaining Interaction 27.56 1 27.56 .57 Error 1,636.00 38 88.12 Total 1,978.00 39 TABLE 82 171 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE—TEST SCORES S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS—-FACTOR l Source of Variance SS df MS F P between Groups 7,876.97 5 Personality Main Effect 825.39 1 825.39 .36 Treatments Main Effect 8,852.08 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 2,985.28 1 2,985.28 2.52 SD&SGI—NTC 1,506.76 1 1,506.76 1.29 Interaction 2,599.55 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 11.28 1 11.2 .01 Remaining Interaction 2,588.27 1 2,588.27 2.22 Error 39,698.12 38 1,167.59 Total 87,175.10 39 TABLE 83 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE—TEST SCORES S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 2 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 2,603.13 5 Personality Main Effect 1,785.06 1 1,785.06 8.68 ..05 Treatments Main Effect 58.50 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 32.00 1 32.00 .08 SD&SGI-NTC 22.50 1 22.50 .06 Interaction 763.56 2 Comparison: Personality—Treatments 760.50 1 760.50 1.99 Remaining Interaction 3.06 1 3.06 .01 Error 12,978.25 38 381.71 Total 15,581.38 39 TABLE 88 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE-TEST SCORES S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTOR 3 Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Groups 937-25 5 Personality Main Effect 199.52 1 199.52 1.25 Treatments Main Effect 687.69 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 621 28 1 621.28 3.90 SD&SGI—NTC 26.81 1 26.81 .17 Interaction 90.05 2 Comparison: Personality—Treatments 52.53 1 52.53 .33 Remaining Interaction 37.52 1 37.52 .28 Error 5,813.12 38 159.21 Total 6,350.38 39 TABLE 85 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE-TEST SCORES S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-—FACTCR 8 Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Groups 5,169.90 5 Personality Main Effect 12.25 1 12.25 .01 Treatments Main Effect 3,208.90 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 3,200.00 1 3,200.00 2.65 SD&SGI-NTC 8.90 1 8.90 .03 Interaction 1,952.75 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 60.50 1 60.50 .05 Remaining Interaction 1,892.25 1 1,892.25 1.57 Error 81,082.50 38 1,208.31 Total 86,252.80 39 173 TABLE 86 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE-TEST SCORES S-R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS-~FACTOR 5 Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Groups 3,818.00 5 Personality Main Effect 385.18 1 385.18 1.21 Treatments Main Effect 2,613.88 2 Comparison: SD-SGI 2,032.03 1 2,032.03 6.39 .05 SD&SGI-NTC 581.81 1 581.81 1.83 Interaction 815.82 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 236.53 1 236.53 .78 Remaining Interaction 178.89 1 178.89 .56 Error 10,808.37 38 317.78 Total 18,218.38 39 TABLE 87 2X3 AOV BY PLANNED COMPARISON PRE-TEST SCORES S—R INVENTORY OF ANXIOUSNESS——FACTOR 6 Source of Variance SS df MS F Between Groups 988.10 5 Personality Main Effect 351.56 1 351.56 1.03 Treatments Main Effect 631.35 2 Comparison: SD-SGI. 253.13 1 253.13 .78 SD&SGI-NTC 378.22 1 378.22 1.11 Interaction 1.19 2 Comparison: Personality-Treatments 1.13 1 1.13 .00 Remaining Interaction .06 1 .06 .00 Error 11,621.50 38 381 81 Total 12,605.60 39 7771:“ 7777 293 0 3 ”4| U" E“ III. " H "I n.”