K :1... . .rz 1.3.3. ‘ sx1¢ixv It 1:31; s .1117 . urn-H.605. 5...... . 1.1:: r. 51:1»: ”I...,Z‘ v. t. . 3:31:25. :4. ...I1:?cvtlt,... 2:3...‘3 .. i _.. 5161.27! flit... !.v L . . . 33+} find. . a... . 2D! .5 a”; 9.. bk: 3? 9?!» .r u... .‘£ u"..“ '2- stirs} .. :5 v! ,N 5.1.1.}: n)‘.‘ 2 ,flr. of. 2 nuu§ {:3}. r vi)§v)§l.l‘..l:¢’ 3’1 .5. uta . :ftbt all 3! I 3 . . I. u"... Ir.;..;..§|s 03...,14}... 5:... a. ‘tp—fl! etc-L‘sritlfn. r r. .. I ‘0; . .0: .nrf. til 5‘ .y; )4; ‘i n Y: no.9...tfa I. ‘ 71%!!! : yiil..))\t:..| .. .. i .rvr:\.xu Hair! 5:: “a... II . L . 59...; 1- 3‘... L. .Fiateiw flfifi‘ . .I. «1‘ o| 2 a . "3.439%: .5. .- -. 221.94 . 4 r .5st III». evils.» is... ’f.‘¢¢x. ’f\,p-'4 {0“ «Jun... .5 gnfivpfitfifi .. ... v!!! .. . v.1 . -( :ffrvr .v...» (L In... . . 706-1.“:1ti r. r . ;\.ir, a. . . “Whig; £9)? 3. x. L r! . . . L... . (at. 5).)..5‘. r5; 2:! .. 7.. .1 it . r? x! .9 er! 3.3;... .5! 9...} 1.1.3.3.! vhf!!! [I I}... (1,..I.I!f’ KI: ‘53P. .‘VXFI; D... .Lblt.:‘|.. 5: uh}: .Iborfvlifillrl {5.1.1. .‘A... It}; .5frti...»n...:. . . .AA . . 7. kn. :Kb’fi incl...) ; n)! .I'!’ vi v r s. I?! ‘ FY... 2 v.) {viii}; 1:3} 111.5). 19.2.1.2; Airy...» .rv.o.1ro.r. Fizz. it?!) 1.1" .56 :2... 7.... C.) . 1.;r..\.XL all}. (P??- If!!! .uvriitb is. r). ...vvt.vplt..x I!3V..V.l.v. (17").‘3 . r .c ri’ . . v v.03? ‘6. 3! 9r]... - .2. . Mr»... E. i. (v l-IT ‘3‘:_ '7» Q‘ .1 Iclngan St Lilefsity This is to certify that the thesis entitled Undergraduate Psychology Instruction: A Procedure for Improving the Ability to Understand Pe0p1e presented by John T. Bourpos has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. . degree 1n Psychology recorder 33% M 'or profcs r & Date April 27, 1977 0-7639 ABSTRACT UNDERGRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY INSTRUCTION: A PROCEDURE FOR IMPROVING THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE BY John Theodore Bourpos Traditionally, undergraduate psychology instruction has stressed the cognitive mastery of the vocabulary, facts, and principles of psychology. Few courses have been concerned with non-cognitive changes related to student development. The primary purpose of the present research was to evaluate the efficacy of an instructional model designed to improve the ability of students to predict the feelings, thoughts, and behavior of other people while concurrently achieving traditional academic objectives. The study also evaluated the impact of the model upon the student's self-concept, his ability to cope with personal problems and his satisfaction with the course. Two studies were conducted to develop and evaluate the experimental instructional procedure. Each study consisted of 11 (1 1/2) hour in class sessions in a pretest—posttest design with interpolated training. Study One was an explo- ratory investigation designed to develop and refine the training techniques employed in the program. Study Two implemented a training procedure to: improve idiographic and nomethetic predictive ability, induce posi- tive self-concept changes, and increase the student's John T. Bourpos competency in the management of personal problems. The con— tents of the training sessions consisted of the following factors established in the literature as affecting predic- tive accuracy: practice, feedback, and discussion of pre— dictions; awareness of perceiver bias; assumed similarity, stereotypes, and implicit personality theories; and the learning of an explicit personality theory. Other compo- nents of training consisted of projects emphasizing personal problem management, structured group discussions, and role playing. These instructional units were designed to en- courage participants to theorize about their own experi— ences and the experiences of others. The instructional model was primarily concerned with the integration of cogni- tive material as presented in the text with the training procedures designed to accomplish non-cognitive changes. The effectiveness of the model was determined by per— forming analysis of covariance procedures on the data. Re— sults of the main study demonstrated significant increases in predictive accuracy on both the idiographic and nomethetic criterion measures for the experimental group. Differences in academic performance favoring the experimental course were also noted. Although the analysis did not reveal improve— ments in self-concept and problem coping, self report data indicated that trainees perceived an improved status with respect to the management of their personal problems. In addition, post hoc explorations of the data were conducted, but analysis failed to disclose any major findings. John T. Bourpos Implications of the study, limitations of the experi— mental design and the criterion instruments were discussed. Suggestions for revised training procedures were offered for future research. UNDERGRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY INSTRUCTION: A PROCEDURE FOR IMPROVING THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE BY John Theodore Bourpos A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1977 To Helen And in memory of Paul ACKNOWLE DGMEN TS Profound appreciation is extended to Drs. Charles Johnson, Gershian Kaufman and Neal Schmitt for their im- mensely helpful suggestions and guidance in completing this thesis. They demonstrated their capacities not only as exceptional professionals, but also as exemplary people. Special recognition is accorded to Dr. Henry Clay Smith for his most valuable assistance, guidance and sup- port throughout the various phases of the present research. More importantly, is my appreciation of having worked with a man who, by his example, illustrated the integration of professional competency and interpersonal sensitivity. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traditional Undergraduate Psychology Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research on Nonintellective Factors in Psychology Courses . . . . . . . . . Encounter Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Training in the Ability to Understand People . . . . . . . . . . Problem . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER II - STUDY ONE . . . . . . . . General Design . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . General Procedure . . . . . . . . Training Procedures . . . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . Implications for Revisions in the Training Program . . . . . . . CHAPTER III - STUDY TWO . . . . . . . Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Design . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . General Procedure . . . . . . . . Training Procedures . . . . . . . Method of Analysis . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explorations of the Data . . . . Summary of Responses on the Final Report and Course Evaluations . CHAPTER IV - DISCUSSION . . . . . . . CHAPTER V - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . iv 0 Page ll l9 l9 l9 19 23 25 33 35 39 39 39 4O 41 47 48 54 55 62 64 67 82 TABLE OF CONTENTS--CONTINUED Page BIBLIOGRAPHY C 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O 85 APPENDIX A: STUDY ONE CRITERION MEASURES AND TRAINING MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 APPENDIX B: STUDY TWO CRITERION MEASURES AND TRAINING MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Table 10 ll 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Summary of training activities and criterion instruments in Study One . . . . . . . . . . Means and standard deviations for the Personality Achievement Test . . . . . . . . Percentage rating of course evaluation . . . . Summary of characteristics for subjects participating in Study Two . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations and reliabilities for criterion instruments used in Study Two Correlation matrix of criterion instruments used in Study Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of training activities and criterion instruments in Study Two . . . . . . . . . . Means and standard deviations for experimental and control groups on Instructor and Typical Psychologist tests of the pretest posttest and adjusted posttest means . . . . . . Analysis of covariance summary table for Instructor and Typical Psychologist posttest scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and standard deviations for experimental and control groups on Personality Achieve- ment test and adjusted posttest means . . . Analysis of covariance summary table for Personality Achievement posttest scores . . Multiple analysis of covariance summary table for self concept . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple analysis of covariance for problem coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 25 34 42 41 42 42 49 56 57 58 59 60 61 Table 14 15 16 17 18 19 LIST OF TABLES--CONTINUED Page Means and standard deviations for experimental and control groups in course satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Analysis of covariance summary table for course satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Percentage of change for the criterion variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Percentage rating on status of problems . . . . 65 Summary of course evaluation ratings for winter and spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary of the hypotheses and results of Study Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION While traditional undergraduate psychology instruction has emphasized improving the student's comprehension of the vocabulary, facts and principles of psychology, the research to date indicates that it does not enhance their ability to predict the feelings, thoughts, or behavior of others. The primary purpose of the present research was to assess the efficacy of a new instructional model in improving predic— tive ability while concomitantly achieving traditional aca- demic objectives. The study also had the secondary purpose of evaluating the impact of the model upon the student's self—concept, his ability to cope with personal problems, and his satisfaction with the course. HISTORY The following discussion considers research on tra- ditional academic achievement goals, affective changes in undergraduate psychology classes, encounter groups and training in the ability to understand people. Traditional Undergraduate Psychology Classes Traditionally, psychology instruction has emphasized the comprehension of experimental methodology and the basic conceptual orientations employed to evaluate behavior. Most psychology courses are designed for graduate school preparation (APA Monitor, March, 1971). Consequently, un— dergraduate classes stress the development of the students' academic performance or cognitive mastery of the vocabulary, facts and principles of psychology. Relatively few courses focus directly on noncognitive or affective components of student development. In terms of the present research, the development of affective factors refers to increased under- standing of others, changes in self—concept and competency in the management of personal problem solving. The major research efforts of instructional psychology has focused its attention on variables affecting academic achievement. Numerous studies have compared innovative in- structional models with the more conventional lecture pro- cedure. Scores on course quizzes and final examinations are the criterion measures typically employed to evaluate the success of these various methods. Siegel and Siegel (1967) reviewed research evidence comparing the effective- ness of the traditional face—to—face lecture, televised and programmed instructional paradigms. The authors comment that a sizeable proportion of the research has, for the most part, demonstrated insignificant differences in aca— demic performance between experimental and control groups. Several years later, McKeachie (1974) reviewed the relevant research on the following instructional factors: the learner, the teacher, teacher style, teaching methods, technological devices, and characteristics of the class. The investigator concluded that much of the research on the principles of learning and instruction are equivocal and that the traditional principles of cognitive learning apply only under limited conditions. McKeachie's review implied that meaningful learning is an enormously complex process and attempts to prescribe educational methods to enhance academic performance is an exceedingly frustrating task. The consequence and relevance of the above suggests that, overall, students emerge from undergraduate psychology courses with an improved comprehension of psychological principles and concepts when exposed to either an innova- tive or traditional instructional procedure. Although much of the research in instructional psycho- logy appears equivocal, McKeachie suggests that some tradi- tional principles hold up fairly well and tend to positively affect academic performance. For example: (a) active par— ticipation is better than passive learning if active means something more than writing out an answer one already knows; (b) meaningful learning is better than rote learning (p. 187). In the present research these two factors were de- veloped and incorporated into an instructional model which attempted to induce affective changes while concomitantly maintaining traditional academic objectives. Research on Nonintellective Factors in Psychology Courses Although psychology instruction is preponderately con- cerned with traditional academic goals, MacLeod (1971) states: that any psychology worth teaching is a psychology centered on problems that have persisted since the beginning of recorded history, problems connected with man's conception of himself and of his relation to the world about him. . . . MacLeod's statement implies that the prevalent concerns of psychology courses should be expanded to include nonintel- lective components of student development. The development of the ability to understand other people would appear to be compatible with MacLeod's posi- tion and a desirable pursuit for an undergraduate course in psychology. A priori experience may suggest that people exposed to numerous courses in psychology would produce more accurate behavioral predictions than people with rela- tively little exposure to such courses. However, litera- ture reviews (Grossman, 1963; Smith, 1966; 1973; Taft, 1955; Trumbo, 1955) have not found significant relationshps be- tween the number of psychology courses and improvement in understanding or sensitivity. Grossman (1963) correlated the accuracy scores of 130 undergraduates with the number of psychology credits each subject had accumulated. The re- sults did not evince any significant correlations between the amount of course work and sensitivity scores. Overall, the findings demonstrated that traditional psychology classes do not improve the student's ability to understand others. The relative impact of psychology instruction on other noncognitive factors has apparently been a minor research concern. Siegel and Siegel (1967) emphasized the above by frequent comments on the dearth and neglect of research par— adigms evaluating the affective domain of various instruc- tional models. Generally the reported evidence on affective outcomes are incidental to the assessment of academic per- formance. Although McKeachie (1974) indicates that students in some undergraduate courses emerge with more favorable attitudes toward psychology and in some instances an in— creased motivation to learn more about psychology, relevant variables were not manipulated to produce nonintellective changes. Encounter Groups During the latter half of the 1960's, an increasing number of colleges and universities were offering courses designed to produce affective changes. Many of these courses were directed by psychology and education depart— ments (Campbell and Dunnette, 1968). The classes were fashioned after the encounter group training model. The basic idea is to have participants discuss themselves and their perceptions of others in a small, unstructured, face— to—face group. The model emphasizes "emotional learning" rather than intellectual learning. Its primary focus is on immediate experiences. One of the disadvantages of the par- adigm is its exclusion of traditional academic achievement objectives. Although the essential model has been labeled by a variety of names, sensitivity, T—group, laboratory training, etc. Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1973) conclude that the overall goal involves affective changes, "some type of personal change -- change of behavior, of attitudes, of values, of life style" (p. 4). One of the major goals of sensitivity training is to develop the participant's ability to more accurately under- stand people. A review of the relevant literature suggests that the encounter group training method does not appear to increase the ability of trainees to more accurately predict the behavior of their leaders, individual members of the group, and the group as a whole (Benis et_al., 1957; Campbell and Dunnette, 1968; Gage and Exline, 1953; Lohman, Zenger, and Weschler, 1959). Although participants emerge from training with a larg- er interpersonal vocabulary in describing others, Campbell and Dunnette concluded that: the studies incorporating a measure of how well an individual can predict the atti— tudes and values of others before and after T-group training have yielded largely neg— ative results. (p. 91) In a literature review on sensitivity training by Smith (1975), the author contends that research demonstrating improved interpersonal understanding as a function of the T—group procedure is "surprisingly sparse." Advocates of encounter groups have also viewed the movement as a method for attaining awareness about the self, the social environment, and personal growth. Systematic ex- perimental information supporting the claims have been scan- ty (Campbell and Dunnette, 1968). Recently, however, the efforts of Lieberman et al. have provided some empirical evidence on the effects of the encounter group experience. Although encounter groups typically stress emotional learn- ing, the findings of Lieberman suggest that some methods can be developed which could be integrated into a viable psychology course structure and maintain traditional intel- lectual standards while simultaneously attempting to faci— litate affective changes. To facilitate an understanding of the framework used in developing some of the methods used in the present study, it would be fruitful to briefly discuss some of the results of the Lieberman et_al. encoun— ter group investigation. The experimenters conducted a study of 210 undergradu- ates at Stanford University. The subjects were assigned to different forms of encounter groups run by experienced lead— ers. Numerous objective measures were administered to as- sess the impact of the encounter group experience on parti— cipants. The amount of change was evaluated by a variety of pretest-posttest instruments completed by each member in the experimental and control groups. The measures were or- ganized to assess a wide range of variables: (1) self-con- cept —— components of self-concept, overall level of self- esteem, congruency of self—ideal image; (2) interpersonal perception -- how one perceives significant others, the level of cognitive complexity employed to describe one's interpersonal sphere; (3) attitudes and values -- concerning the participants' personal life and the encounter group ex— perience; (4) behavioral issues -- represented by personal problem solving, interpersonal style in dealing with oth— ers; and (5) interpersonal relationships -— effectiveness of personal relationshps both within and outside the group. The impact of the experience was also evaluated by measures completed at various intervals during the experi- ment by coparticipants, group leaders and friends or rela- tives. A composite index of change was derived from all the criterion instruments and comparisons were made between the experimental and control groups. Participants were classi- fied as: "high learner", "positive changer", "nonchanger", "negative changer", or "casuality". If a person showed im— provement on virtually all of the measures and indicated no significant declines, he was classified as a "high learner". A person who did not demonstrate any significant changes was labeled as a "nonchanger". Finally, a "casuality" was defined as a person who appeared to experience enduring psychological harm attributable to group factors. The indices used to assess change in the participants revealed that one-third of the participants improved, one- third remained unchanged, and the remainder demonstrated sme form of negative effect. The experimenters concluded that, overall, the group experience resulted in a modest positive outcome. A finding which has particular relevance to the pres- ent study was the important role cognitive factors played in learning for individuals in the group. Lieberman and his co-workers also investigated the processes implicated in personal learning and change in encounter groups. At the conclusion of each group session, members were requested to write a short paragraph in response to the following questions: "What was the most important event (for you, personally) in the group today? Why was it important?" Raters coded each response into a variety of categories in order to analyze the learning processes involved. In addi- tion, a questionnaire was completed by subjects at the ter- mination phase of the experiment. The inclusion of items on the questionnaire was predicated upon their establish- ment in the encounter group literature. Respondents rated, on a four point scale, the relative importance of fourteen processes of the group experience that they perceived as affecting their personal learning. The major distinguishing feature between those who changed versus those unchanged was the emphasis and value placed on insight by the improvers. They were people who obtained insight into the causes or sources of their "hang— ups." They could also understand that some of their behav— ior was related to earlier periods in their life, for exam- ple, childhood, etc. Essentially, they were people who thought about their experiences. Those who thought the most about their experiences improved the most. Further- more, group leaders who provided a "conceptual framework" for their participants' experiences were the most success- ful leaders. Secondarily, not only did improvers think or theorize more about their own experiences, but also paid 10 more attention to and thought about the experiences of others. Lieberman et al. note: Perhaps a major distinction between those who learned and those who did not is that the learners appeared to be people who could take the role of others, who could step into another person's shoes and feel with him, as well as get some perspective for themselves through this process and make some useful analogies to their own cases. It might be speculated that in the encounter group context, where time per person is scarce, learners are people who, more than those who reap ill effects, can maximize their time by rendering more from processes in which they are only indirectly, vicariously, or empathetically involved (p. 376). Finally, improvers employed experimentation and active insight as a learning process. They were people who prac- ticed some kind of behavior change. Lieberman suggests: Perhaps the main implication of this study is that the chances are that one will not naturally maintain what was gained from an encounter group experience. A participant needs to take action, to try out new ways of being, to think about the consequences of his new behavior, and so forth (p. 406). In sum, people who seemed to benefit the most from their encounter group experience (I) thought or theorized about their own experiences, (2) paid attention to the ex- periences of others, and (3) practiced some form of behavior change. These three factors were integrated into a psycho- logy course of instruction for the present study and, as will be seen in Chapters II and III, methods were developed to facilitate nonintellective changes and to maintain tra- ditional academic goals. " 11 Training in the Ability To Understand People Generally, training methods employed by psychologists to improve sensitivity fall into one of three categories —- psychology course instruction, T-group participation, and clinical training. Evidence demonstrating the ineffective- ness of the first two training procedures has been presented elsewhere. The typical paradigm employed to assess the ability to understand others is to have a Judge (J) predict how an— other person (0) will respond. Frequently two people will complete a personality inventory. The J is given some in- formation about the O and is then requested to estimate the way O responded to the personality measure. The accuracy of prediction is the extent to which the estimate agrees with the O's actual responses. The Judge's accuracy score has been interpreted as a measure of social perception, empathy, interpersonal sensitivity, and sensitivity. Although psychology courses and encounter groups do not appear to be effective methods of enhancing sensitivity, one would anticipate that clinical training and experience may be a more efficacious technique. Several studies lend support to the proposition that people who were trained in clinical psychology did not evidence significantly more accurate estimates of others than those not so clinically trained (Goldberg, 1968; Levy and Ulman, 1967; Oskamp, 1962; 1965; Smith, 1973; Weiss, 1963). Weiss compared the accuracy scores of 60 clinical psychologists with Ph.D 12 degrees and 60 physical scientists with Ph.D degrees in either physics, chemistry or engineering. The results dem— onstrated that psychologists were better predictors of the behavior of college students when minimal information (age, sex, education, and occupation) about 0 was made available. When more information (the above and a typescript of a half-hour structured interview covering family background, educational and occupational experience, etc.) about 0 was presented, the physical scientists were more accurate in their behavioral predictions than psychologists. In general, the literature on the effectiveness of training programs for improving sensitivity appears rather dismal. Most of the above studies mentioned did not employ formal training programs delineating procedures or content. For the most part, they have relied primarily on unsystem- atic methods, like amount of psychology course work, clin- ical training and T-groups. However, some researchers who have carefully specified the procedures and materials used in training, have traversed beyond the aforementioned tra— ditional training methods. As a result, a few effective factors have emerged from the research literature which appear to facilitate an improvement in sensitivity. Practice and knowledge of results (feedback) have been amply documented as factors improving interpersonal sensi- tivity (Dailey, 1966; Smith, 1973). Dailey developed a programmed case method designed to provide a trainee with immediate and precise feedback on the accuracy of his 13 predictions. The programmed cases were developed from published biographies of individuals in a variety of pro- fessions. Each case contained fifteen chronological epi- sodes or critical events embracing an individual's life history. Given only the occupation of the individual, the trainees were instructed to select the correct episode among three response options. After the completion of each episode, the experimenter disclosed the correct answer and instructed the trainee to predict the outcome of the subse— quent episode. In an experimental study evaluating the effectiveness of a training procedure on improving clinical prediction, Dailey administered twelve programmed cases to 100 under- graduate students and compared the accuracy scores at vari— ous periodic points in the training program. The analysis indicated that the mean predictive accuracy score of all the cases was 40% for the first third, 54% for the middle third, and 61% for the final third. Although feedback may be a necessary variable for learning, Goldberg (1965, 1968) concluded that it is not a sufficient condition for the enhancement of predictive accuracy. Goldberg designed a nine—week training program to help clinicians, psychology graduate students, and non— psychologists to discriminate between neurotic and psycho- tic MMPI profiles. During the training session, Js received 'practice and immediate feedback on their predictions on over 4,000 test profiles. Experimental findings revealed 14 that all the judges displayed some learning. However, relatively little improvement occurred after training be— tween clinicians and psychology graduate students. An increase in accuracy which was shown only by the group of nonpsychologists, was well below the initial accuracy level of the other two groups. In addition to practice and feedback, a few researchers have included a discussion factor in their respective train— ing procedures (Jecker, Maccoby, Breitrose, 1965; Kepes, 1965; and Spier, 1969). Jecker et al. in an attempt to im— prove teachers' perception of pupils' comprehension of sub- ject matter, utilized a practice, feedback and discussion framework. The experimental group received training in ob- serving and identifying nonverbal cues of comprehension. Judges were exposed to film clips of individual students in a classroom setting endeavoring to master a quantity of ma- terial. The task of the Js was to predict whether the stu— dent responded correctly or incorrectly to questions asked of the learning material. After their predictions, Js dis— cussed the appropriate scoring, interpretation and meaning of the nonverbal cues. The final procedure in training consisted of feedback on the accuracy of predictions. The results of the investigation showed a significantly greater gain in mean accuracy scores for the experimental condi— tion. Spier (1969) also included a practice, feedback and discussion procedure in a pretest—posttest training model 15 to improve stereotypic accuracy. Training occurred in four successive sessions as part of a regular class meeting in a psychology of personality course. The training sessions were designed to provide subjects with stereotypic informa- tion about psychologists, and of happily married, unhappily married, divorced women and men. For example, during the discussion sequence of training, subjects were informed that as a group, divorced women were bolder and more artis- tic in their behavior than other women. Unhappily married women tended to exhibit more emotional and impulsive char— acteristics, and that women who were happily married tended to be more conservative, religious and conforming. The re- sults of the investigation demonstrated the effectiveness of training. Significant gains in accuracy occurred with female stereotypes and the finding was generalized to male groups. In addition, a similar finding was observed for improved stereotype accuracy of the typical psychologist. Another salient factor affecting the improvement of predictive accuracy is assumed similarity or empathy. Vernon (1964) points out that judges in interpersonal per- ception tasks tend to assume others are like them. Hastorf and Bender (1952) also demonstrated that part of an indi- vidual's accuracy score may result from assumed similarity. Empathy is defined by Smith (1973) as the degree of simi- larity that one person assumes between himself and another person. Consequently, assumed similarity is a perceptual process which may decrease as well as increase predictive 16 accuracy. Therefore, a training program designed to im- prove accuracy should instruct Js of the crucial role as— sumed similarity plays in predicting Os feelings, thoughts or behavior. Finally, there exists in the person perception litera- ture ample evidence suggesting the influence of implicit personality theories in the judgement process (Cronbach, 1955; Hastorf, Schneider and Polefka, 1970; Passini and Norman, 1966; Smith, 1966; 1973; Wiggins, Hoffman and Taber, 1969). The work of Smith (1966) points out that people employ theories in attempting to understand others. "We invent concepts, assume relationships between them, and make predictions from our assumptions" (p. 38). The author concludes that implicit personality theories appear to dictate impressions and judgements about others. Further— more, it is suggested that people are only slightly cogni— zant of their respective theories. Consequently, he pro- posed that trainees learn an explicit empirical personality theory which would serve as a conceptual framework to alter theories and improve sensitivity. PROBLEM The primary purpose of the current study was to de— velop and evaluate an instructional model which would im— prove predictive ability, maintain traditional cognitive learning objectives, and foster positive affective changes. For the last several years, encounter groups have been utilized, within classroom environments, to induce affective 17 changes in students. However, this approach has been at the sacrifice of cognitive academic goals. On the other hand, traditional emphasis on academic achievement has also been criticized for excluding affective areas of student devel— opment. The importance of including both of these factors in an instructional program is implied by MacDanield's (1974) investigation. Prior to the development of an in— novative social science course, he surveyed a variety of students and teachers about the kind of curriculum that would be needed to prepare students for the future. The most frequent responses indicated curriculum which helped people to: cope with their society, understand themselves, others, and changing events in their environments. Study One was purely exploratory. It was designed to: (1) develop and evaluate an instructional model which was based upon principles suggested in the research literature; (2) incorporate both cognitive and affective learning; and (3) refine the application of the training procedures in the study. Study Two was an extension and revision of the model based upon the experimenter's observations and expe- riences of the pilot research. There was not a control group utilized in the pilot study for an appropriate and rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructional model. However, cer— tain expectations of the data were entertained as follows: 1. Participants in the experimental training program will produce improvements in 18 idiographic sensitivity. 2. Subjects in the experimental course will develop a more positive self—concept. CHAPTER II Study One General Design A pilot study was conduct during the winter of 1975 to help formalize and develop the concepts discussed in Chapter I. The study utilized a pretest-posttest design without a control group. Interpolated training consisted of 11 (1 1/2 hour) class sessions. Subjects Twenty—two subjects, enrolled in an honors Psychology 225 personality course at Michigan State University, parti- cipated in the pilot study. There were roughly an equal number of females and males. Training occurred as part of the regular classwork. Class meetings were held on a twice- weekly basis with a duration of 1 1/2 hours each. Atten- dance was mandatory and encouraged by extra credit points. Measures Protebob Personality Test. The purpose of this in- strument was to provide subjects with experience in uti— lizing the explicit, empirical personality theory discussed in the text by Smith (1974). It was assumed that practice in applying the trait theory would encourage the use of a personality framework to theorize or think about personal 19 20 experiences and to facilitate an understanding of people. Each of the trainees completed this inventory and in the subsequent session received a graphic profile of their respective scores. The Protebob Personality Inventory (see Appendix A) was developed by Grossman (1967) and is composed of 200 items, with 40 items measuring each of five basic traits. The five traits are as follows: cautious-bold, unemotional- emotional, present-minded-future-minded, artistic-practical, and religious-scientific. Internal consistencies for the five scales are .88, .88, .80, .90, and .90, respectively. The development, correlates and interpretation of the trait theory are more thoroughly discussed elsewhere (Smith, 1974). Attitudes Toward Leadership Scale. Participants in the experimental condition were assigned to three homogeneous groups based upon their scores on the Attitudes Toward Lead— ership Scale. The measure was developed by Dore (1960) and modified by Smith (1973). The rationale for formulating homogeneous groupings was predicated upon the implications of Byrne's (1971) attraction research. According to Byrne, homogeneity of attitudes increases attraction or liking for a similar other. It was reasoned that homogeneous groups would reduce discordance among members and increase the probability of cooperative efforts of participants with re- spect to the various training tasks. The Attitudes Toward Leadership Scale consists of 32 items designed to measure leadership style preferences of 21 consideration and responsibility. Consideration is defined as the tendency to know and respect the rights and feelings of others. Responsibility is the tendency for a person to feel and act as if he were holding himself accountable for what happens in a situation or to a person (Smith, 1974). The former position indicates that a leader is more con- cerned about the members of a group than the task to be completed. The latter position implies that a leader plays a differentiated role from the members and spends most of his time involved in setting goals, organizing activities and clarifying tasks for the group. The first 16 items of the scale measure consideration and the final 16 items measure responsibility. Internal consistencies for both scales are above .80. The mean for both scales is about nine. Members of each group selected their respective lead- ers by secret ballot. The manner of choosing leaders was based on the evidence suggesting that in many instances, members of a group produce better selections for leadership positions than superiors (Amir, Kovarsky and Sharon, 1970; Hollander, 1954; Mayfield, 1970). Idiographic Sensitivity. This test was the criterion employed to detect changes in sensitivity from the pretest to the posttest conditions (see Appendix A). Idiographic sensitivity is the ability of a J, with increasing exposure and.information, to improve his predictive accuracy of an- other person. The measure was an adapation and modification 22 of the film test originally developed by Cline (1955, 1964) and later revised by Grossman (1963) and Shears (1967). The original test consisted of filmed interviews with three men and three women. Each person was asked the same questions concerning their hobbies, personality strengths and weaknesses, values, religious beliefs and their reac— tions to being interviewed. For the present study, a type- script of the filmed interview for the three men was admin- istered to all trainees. After reading the typescript, subjects were requested to answer a series of questions which required them to predict: (1) which one of the three men responded in a particular manner to a statement, (2) how he described himself, and (3) how friends described him. Although Grossman and Shears attempted to refine the ori— ginal instrument by reducing the influence of nomethetic factors, the internal consistency was only .57. Tennessee Self Concept Scale. This instrument has been employed in numerous research studies and was developed by Fitts (1965). The scale consists of 100 self-descrip- tive statements. The items are designed to assess the man- ner in which a person views himself. Each item is arranged on a five-point scale ranging from "completely false" to "completely true." Half of the items are phrased positively and half negatively to help control for the influence of acquiescence response set. Fitts states that the single most important score on the form is the Total P Score. It reflects the overall 23 level of self-esteem. People with high scores tend to like themselves, feel that they are people of value and worth, have confidence in themselves, and act accordingly. People with low scores are doubtful about their own worth, see themselves as undesirable, often feel anxious, depressed, and unhappy, and have little faith or confidence in them- selves (p. 2). The Total P score is comprised of eight nonorthogonal subscales. The test manual discusses the development and definitions of the various scales, but it does not report the internal consistencies. However, test-retest reliabil— ity data is reported and for the Total P it is .92. Course Evaluations. All subjects at the completion of the course were administered an inventory (see Appendix A) designed to provide the experimenter with feedback con- cerning the student's evaluation of the experimental course. The information also served as a guideline to implement alterations in course content and training procedures. Personality Achievement Test. Three objective tests, consisting of 45 items each, were administered to all train— ees during the quarter as indicated on the course outline (see Appendix A). The tests were designed to assess know- ledge of personality theory as presented in the text (Smith, 1974). Reliabilities for the three tests were above .80. General Procedure The specific aim of the training sessions and projects were designed to: (1) develop the ability of participants 24 to understand others, (2) implement the three factors of affective changes implied by the research of Liberman et al. and (3) maintain traditional academic objectives. The basic training principles used to improve sensiti- vity consisted of those factors discussed in the preceding chapter. The training procedures used in Study I involved practice at making judgements, feedback about accuracy of judgements, discussion of predictions, knowledge of perceiv- er bias and the use of an explicit personality theory. Group and individual projects were assigned which were intended to facilitate the mastering of theories presented in the course text and to encourage participants to think or theorize about their experiences, pay attention to the experiences of others, and practice techniques of behavior change. The first class session consisted of a lecture discuss- ing the purpose of the experimental course and its activi- ties. Students received a course outline (see Appendix A) explaining the activities planned for the quarter and their responsibilities. After the lecture, the Protebob Person- ality Inventory and the Attitudes Toward Leadership Scale were administered to all subjects. As previously indicated, the scores on the leadership scale were used to form three separate groups. In a subsequent session, all subjects com— pleted the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the Idiographic Sensitivity premeasures. 25 Training Procedures The contents of each training session are described below. The training materials employed in each session are located in Appendix A. A summary of the pre and post cri— terion instruments and training activities is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of training activities and criterion instruments in Study One. Pre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Post Protebob Personality Test Attitudes Toward Leadership Idiographic Sensitivity Tennessee Self Concept Course Evaluation Good Learner Scale X Trait Profiles X X Self-Other Differentiation X Happiness in Marriage Test X Problem Case Report X X X Role Dilemma Report X X X ><><><>< ><><><><>< Training Session 1. The main purpose of this exercise was to provide trainees with practice and feedback in learn- ing about people. A second purpose was to acquaint subjects with some of the characteristics empirically demonstrated (Smith, 1973) to be associated with improved predictive ac- curacy. In evaluating previous sensitivity training programs Smith developed The Good-Learner Scale (see Appendix A). Items for the scale were adopted from the five—trait person— ality inventory. The basis of selection for the final items were those which discriminated the improvers from the 26 nonimprovers on measures of general sensitivity. The instructions for the test were: In the first column on the left, circle the answers as you would answer them for yourself. In the middle column, answer them as you think the typical high learner did. After a 15-min— ute group discussion, answer them all again, changing any answers that you now feel are more likely to be right. Finally, the instructor will read the correct answers. "X" the correct answers in each column. Then add up the total "X"s inside of the circles, i.e., the number of times that your answers agreed with the actual answers of the high learners. A short lecture was presented after the task was completed interpreting the test scores and their relationship to pre— dictive accuracy. Training Session 2. All subjects in the experimental class were required to plot graphic profiles (see Appendix A) of their personality trait inventory scores. Trainees were instructed to complete the relevant reading assignments as indicated on the course outline. A short lecture was also presented elaborating the material in the text. After the lecture, the experimenter collected the profiles and randomly selected an individual to be interviewed by the class. Each class member was allowed one question. At the conclusion of the interview, subjects attempted to predict the interviewee's trait percentile rank. At the completion of the task, the experimenter revealed the correct answers to provide subjects with immediate feedback. Training Session 3. Prior to the training session, trainees were placed in three separate groups based upon 27 their similar scores on the Attitutes Toward Leadership Scale. Members were informed that a sizeable amount of their course activities would occur in these group settings. After the groups had convened, three individuals, one from each group, were selected to be interviewed. Each of the selected people, rotated between the three respective groups and were interviewed by the members for five minutes. At the end of the interview, group members were instructed to predict the interviewees' personality traits. A five—minute period was allowed for members to discuss the rationale for their estimates. At the end of the discussion period, trainees produced a second set of predictions. The correct answers were indicated on the blackboard. A before, after, and gain score was calculated for each group. This data was also placed upon the board so that participants would again receive immediate feedback. Training Session 4. The purpose of this session was to inform subjects about how their empathic tendencies or biases influenced their judgements of others. Empathy is the process of assuming that another person is similar to us. A lecture was presented emphasizing that extremely empathic and unempathic people make errors in judging others. Furthermore, the experimenter discussed research indicating that frequently one assumes either too much or too little similarity between themselves and others. All trainees were provided with a printed handout con— structed to assess self-other differentiation (see Appendix 28 A). The handout described the purposes of the exercise and the procedures for learning about their self—other differ— entiation tendencies. The test was developed by Smith (1973). The trainees were informed that high and low dif- ferentiators responded in opposite ways to the fifteen per— sonality items presented on the handout. Prior to the group discussion procedure, subjects completed the items as they applied to themselves. Then they were instructed to respond as they thought the low differentiator would answer. The low differentiator was defined as one who assumes similarity between others and himself. After a short group discussion of their respective estimates, trainees again predicted the responses of the low self differentiator as indicated by the directions. The correct responses were recorded on the blackboard. A gain score was calculated for each group (number after discussion minus number before discussion). The experimenter then interpreted the scores to the class, informing subjects of their general tendency to assume too much or too little similarity in their judgements of others. At the conclusion of Training Session 4, members of the three groups were instructed to indicate on a 3X5 card their choice for group leader. The cards were turned in and the selections were announced at the beginning of Training Session 5. Training Session 5. The materials employed in this ses- sion were designed to provide subjects with practice in pre- dicting group norms -— nomothetic sensitivity. Furthermore, 29 the exercise enabled trainees to practice shifting from a subjective orientation to people to a more objective one and from an emphasis upon what we feel about people to an emphasis upon what people feel and say about themselves. Trainees received a typescript (see Appendix A) which required them to utilize the trait theory in differentiating between the typical happily married, unhappily married, and divorced husband and wife. The instrument was based upon a study conducted by Johnson and Terman (1935) and revised by Spier (1969). Johnson and Terman investigated the similari- ties of partners in the above mentioned three groups. One hundred couples in each group were interviewed and then com- pleted personality and interest inventories. The results did not reveal a significant correlation between similarity and marital happiness. However, many items were correlated with group membership and consequently provided a basis for discrimination. The test is composed of two parts, one for men and one for women, thus controlling for sex. Subjects were instruct- ed to read the directions for Part I (Men) and predict the correct response for the happily married, unhappily married, and divorced man. Then a 15-minute group discussion period was held for subjects to examine the rationale for their re— spective predictions. At the conclusion of the discussion, subjects produced a second set of predictions. When train— ees completed this section of the exercise, they were pro- vided immediate feedback on the correct responses. The 30 same procedure was repeated for Part II (Women). Training Session 6. Earlier in the quarter, subjects were informed that they could earn extra credit points by doing a number of various projects and reports. For this training sequence, subjects were requested to complete a "problem case report" on either an autistic, impulse—ridden, or opportunistic person. The definitions and development of the above concepts are presented in the text. Trainees received a typescript handout describing in some detail the contents and organization of the reports (see Appendix A). The instructions requested subjects to identify a person that they have known well, describe his symptoms, indicate the problem he presented, how the prob- lem was approached and how the problem was resolved. For this session an anonymous autistic case report was selected, reproduced and distributed to each class member along with a printed handout (see Appendix A) indicating the procedure to be follOWed in discussing the case. After a thirty min— ute discussion period, each group leader summarized their respective group's recommendations to the whole class. Then another discussion period involving all three groups was held to assess the merits of each group's proposed solutions. At the conclusion of the discussion period, the actual solution to the problem was disclosed. Training Session 7. The procedures in this session were the same as employed in Session 6 except that an anon— ymous impulse-ridden case report was discussed. 31 Training Session 8. The procedures of Session 6 were again repeated in Session 8. However, in this training period participants discussed an opportunistic case report. Training Session 9. Prior to this session, trainees were requested to complete another extra credit assignment. They were to apply the role theory, discussed in the text, to their own experiences describing a personal, serious and current role dilemma. A typescript instruction sheet (see Appendix A) was administered to subjects delineating the guidelines for writing the report. The term role was defined as the feel- ings, attitudes, and behavior that society expects from the holder of a position in some social structure. Dilemma was defined as a puzzling predicament that does not appear to offer a satisfactory resolution or a situation that requires one to chose between equally unpleasant alternatives. Sub- jects were informed that the purpose of the assignment was to help them apply the role theory to their own experiences, deal with the dilemma more successfully, and develop skills in helping others to more effectively cope with their own dilemmas. A report which was evaluated by the experimenter as among the best was selected and duplicated. All trainees received a copy of the anonymous role dilemma report. Par— ticipants received instructions (see Appendix A) on how to analyze the report and discuss recommendations for resolving the dilemma. After a 60—minute discussion period, each 32 group leader summarized the proposed resolutions to the other two groups. Then the experimenter invited partici— pants to comment on the pros and cons of the respective groups' propositions. Training Sessions 10 and 11. The same basic procedure as outlined in Session 9 was repeated for the two subsequent training periods. However, the time allotted for discussion was shortened so that participants could include two re- ports per session. The above mentioned training procedures have been de- signed to increase the ability of participants to understand others, theorize and think about their experiences, pay at- tention to the experiences of others, and facilitate the learning of material presented in the text by applying the concepts to more personally relevant situations. In addi- tion, two other developmental projects were assigned to im- plement the third factor implied for behavioral change by Lieberman's research. The first report required subjects to deal with a prob- lem they are confronted with and to develop a program de- signed to take constructive action to resolve the difficulty. Participants were required to spend approximately five hours over a period of time outside of the classroom environment working on the problem and then report on the progress they achieved. A guideline for the first report was prepared (see Appendix A) and administered to all subjects during the first week of class. 33 In the latter half of the course, a second developmental project was assigned. The purpose of this exercise was to help foster behavioral change through the use of models. All trainees received a procedural outline (see Appendix A) indicating the format and contents of the project. Subjects were instructed to identify and discuss an aspect of their behavior that they desired to change. The task for partici- pants was to identify and describe in detail a person who was less successful and equally successful at solving a similar problem. Finally, they were required to describe a person who was more successful at solving the problem and then to construct a scheme for playing the role of the successful model. Individual consultations periods were provided to assist each trainee in the development of the projects. Results and Discussion The results of the study failed to confirm the hypo- theses concerning the effects of training. Inspection of the pretest-posttest means did not demonstrate any signifi— cant improvements on the Idiographic Sensitivity criterion measure (Pretest X = 32.59, SD = 6.28; Posttest X = 32.95, SD = 6.28). The results of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale did not reveal any significant differences in the overall level of self esteem (Pretest X = 346.14, SD = 32.39; Post- test ? = 346.05, SD = 30.95). Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the three Personality Achievement Tests. Each test con— sisted of 45 items. The instructor for the honors section 34 of the personality course also taught an honors section in the Fall of 1974 using the same three tests. The Fall sec- tion of the course served as a comparison for academic achievement. Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the Personality Achievement Test. 1 2 3 Honors (Winter) X 32.50 32.72 33.59 SD 6.01 6.16 6.64 Honors (Fall) x 32.48 33.64 34.76 SD 5.90 5.58 4.55 Inspection of the data tend to suggest that the training pro— gram did not appear to markedly impair academic performance. Results of the course evaluations are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Percentage rating of course evaluation. Percent l. "uninteresting and unhelpful" 0% 2. "neutral or doubtful" 0% 3. "interesting and helpful" 50% 4. "very interesting and helpful" 40% 5. "extremely interesting and helpful" 10% The percentage ratings indicated that 50% of the participants at the very least perceived the course as interesting and helpful. The remaining 50% found the course as "very or 35 extremely interesting and helpful." In addition, comments and ratings by the students indicated the value and inter— est of specific training elements in the course as follows. Group meetings, discussion of the role dilemma reports, trait predictions, and problem cases were indicated as being most valuable and the two self development reports stress- ing techniques, the text and quizzes as least valuable. Implications for Revisions in the Training Program The major purpose of the pilot research was exploratory. It was aimed at evaluating the application of the training sessions in a classroom setting and refinement of the train— ing procedures. The evaluations and subjective reports from participants served as a guideline for revisions in the train— ing program. One of the problems encountered in the pilot study was the criterion instrument employed to assess predictive accu- racy. As in many areas of psychology, the area of sensiti- vity is embroiled in a generality—specificity controversy. Some research suggests that the ability is general (Cline, 1964; Cline and Richards, 1960) while other research con— tends that the ability is specific (Crow and Hammond, 1957; Mehryar, 1969; Spier, 1969). Cronbach (1955) contends that accuracy scores repre— sent a far more complex ability than previous research had indicated. Accuracy scores were interpreted as a global or general ability, but Cronbach, after a sophisticated math— ematical analysis of such scores, concluded: 36 Social perception research has been domi— nated by simple, operationally defined measures. Our analysis has shown that any such measure may combine and thereby con- ceal important variables, or may depend heavily on unwanted components. Only by careful subdivision of global measures can an investigator hope to know what he is dealing with. Cronbach's discussion was the first endeavor to conceptual- ize accuracy in terms of a component perspective rather than a global model. Smith suggests that if one is interested in training people to increase their sensitivity, then the component View is perhaps the most fruitful approach. He states: "viewing sensitivity as a general ability gives us no clues as to where to begin, what to train for, or how to train" (p. 23). Smith contends that sensitivity is comprised of four compo- nents: l. Observational Sensitivity: the ability to look and listen to another person and re- member what he looked like and said. 2. Theoretical Sensitivity: the ability to select and use theories to make more accu— rate predictions about others. 3. Nomethetic Sensitivity: the ability to learn about the typical member of the group and to use this knowledge in making more accurate predictions about individuals in that group. 4. Idiographic Sensitivity: the ability to use increasing exposure to and information about a person in making increasingly accu— rate predictions about him. The component view suggests that sensitivity is a spe- cific ability, consequently criterion measures must be de- veloped with this consideration in mind. The instrument 37 employed in the present study was initially designed to assess sensitivity as a general ability. Shears (1967) re- fined the measure by eliminating the influence of observa- tional and nomethetic components. Although the attempt by Shears was compatible with the component perspective, a shortcoming of the test is that it does not provide a di— rect measure of a person's ability to increase his predic- tive accuracy with increased exposure and information about 0. The amount of information is constant for repeated test sessions. A criterion instrument is needed which mirrors more realistically the dynamics of producing judgements over a period of time. Few attempts have been made to assess predictive accuracy over a relatively enduring time sequence. The second study evaluated predictive accuracy over a ten week period. Feedback and evaluations from participants on other as- pects of the training sessions also served as a guideline for revisions in the program. The pilot research emphasized techniques of problem management, but actual problem coping was not stressed. It was reasoned that the program may ben- efit by an emphasis on the problems per se rather than a major focus on techniques. To think about problems, pay attention to the experi— ences of others, and to practice techniques of behavior change may have to be integrated into the fabric of the course in a more meaningful and applied manner than merely a technique approach. The emphasis in the pilot study may 38 have somewhat resembled the idea of mastering a theory of problem management or behavior change. This alone would unlikely change problem management ability or behavior. The overall results, observations and experiences of the pilot research served, in part, as a guide for a revised training program and emphasis for Study Two. Problem CHAPTER III Study Two The pilot research was an attempt to explore and de— velop the training procedures and materials for Study Two. The experimenter's observations and findings of Study One suggested the procedural revisions and hypotheses for the second study. The following hypotheses were derived for evaluation in the present study: Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis General Design l. 2. Participation in the training program will produce increased sensitivity. There will be significant differences in academic achievement favoring the experimental model. Participants in the experimental course will produce changes in self- concept. Individuals who complete the assigned projects, reports, and attend the group discussions will increase their coping effectiveness with personal problems. Satisfaction will be higher for indi- viduals in the experimental program than for individuals in the tradi- tional lecture program. Study Two employed essentially the same overall experi— mental procedure as the pilot study. Subjects in the 39 experimental group were exposed to a pretest—posttest format with interpolated training. As in the previous study, train— ing consisted of 11 (1 1/2 hour) sessions designed to en— hance predictive accuracy and induce affective changes while concomitantly maintaining traditional academic achievement objectives. Finally, the limitations imposed by an intact honors classroom setting necessitated the utilization of a multiple control group procedure for the various criterion comparisons. Subjects Twenty—two Michigan State University students, eleven males and eleven females, enrolled in a 225 Psychology of Personality course in the Spring of 1975, served as subjects for the experimental condition. As previously mentioned, a multiple control group format was employed for the present research. Subjects were randomly selected from two non—hon- ors 225 Psychology of Personality courses for the various criterion comparisons. The instructor of the current 225 honors section also taught a non-honors traditional lecture course in the Fall of 1974, utilizing the same text and personality achieve— ment tests for both classes. Twenty-two subjects were ran- domly selected and served as the control group to evaluate the academic achievement criterion. The second control group consisted of twenty-two randomly selected subjects from another traditional lecture 225 Personality course con— ducted during the Summer of 1975. The instructor of the 41 summer control group was an advanced graduate assistant completing his final academic year. The course was con- ducted in the typical manner of presenting lecture material with a brief question and answer period. Table 4 presents a summary of the characteristics for subjects participating in Study Two. Table 4. Summary of characteristics of subjects participating in Study Two. Course Year N M F Psychology of Personality(Honors) 1975 22 11 11 Psychology of Personality(Non Honors) 1975 22 9 13 Psychology of Personality(Non Honors) 1974 22 13 12 Measures The following instruments from the pilot study were employed for the current research: Protebob Personality Test, Personality Achievement Test, Attitudes Toward Leader- ship Scale, Tennessee Self Concept Scale, and Course Evalu— ations. Additional criterion measures are presented and discussed below. Table 5 presents the means, standard de— viations, and reliabilties of the criterion instruments and Table 6 presents a correlation matrix of the criterion in— struments used in Study Two. Instructor Inventory. This was one of two criterion instruments designed to assess changes in predictive accu— racy. The Instructor Inventory (see Appendix B) consisted of 40 items selected from the 200 items of the Protebob 42 Table 5. Means, standard deviations and reliabilities for criterion instruments used in Study Two. N = 44 X Instructor 24.02 Psychologist 42.36 Student Attitudes Liking 15.45 Classroom Conditions 13.86 Interest in Psychology 16.02 Student Role 15.05 Quiz 32.25 Total P 332.45 Problems Defensive 38.75 Constructive 49.80 2 SD KR#20 3 82 78 6 35 70 3.71 .70 4.43 95 3 84 .90 3.40 72 6.13 82 7.66 .92 7 36 57 6 29 .65 Table 6. Correlation matrix of the used in Study Two. criterion instruments l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l Instructor - -.22 -.21 —.06 -.09 .23 -.21 .20 —.08 2 Psychologist - -.13 .00 —.11 —.04 —.04 .24 -.10 Student Attitudes 3 Liking - —.20 -.13 -.13 —.22 —.04 .20 4 Working Condi— tions — 25 .05 —.24 .12 .16 5 Interest in Psychology - * 39 .21 .04 .01 6 Student Role — 21 —.23 .19 7 Total P - -.24 *.36 Problems 8 Defensive 9 Constructive *p .01 43 Personality Inventory. The internal consistency of the in- strument was .78. Subjects were requested to complete the inventory as they thought their instructor responded. The directions read: This exercise is designed to see how accu— rately you can predict the responses of another person. The instructor for this class has completed the following statements as they apply to him. Your task is to try to predict how he answered them. Mark "1" if you think he marked a statement as being true for him. Mark "2" if you think that he marked a statement as being false for him. The Typical Psychologist. This measure (see Appendix B) was developed by Silkner (1962) and contains 60 items. The test has a reported reliability of .70. Subjects were required to predict the different responses of psychologists and men in general to a variety of Strong Vocational Inter— est Blank items. The directions read: The replies of several hundred male psycho- logists and several thousand business and professional men to the Strong Vocational Interest Blank were analyzed. The results showed that the typical psychologist liked some of the occupations, amusements, activi— ties, and kinds of people listed in the test more than men in general. For example, while 41% of psychologists said they would like to be the "author of a novel" only 32% of men in general said they would. The results showed that the typical psychologist liked some of the items less. For example, only 29% of psychologists said they would like to be a "sales manager" while 37% of men in general said they would. Your task is to try to predict how the inter— ests of psychologists differ from those of other men. Mark "1" if you think a higher percentage of psychologists than men in gen- eral liked the interest. Mark "2" if you think a lower percentage of psychologists liked the interest. 44 In a subsequent class session, the scores for both the In— structor and Typical Psychologist measures were posted in order to provide all subjects with feedback on the accuracy of their predictions. Coping With Personal Problems. Lieberman, Yalom and Miles (1973) developed the Personal Dilemma Questionnaire to assess whether the encounter group experience influenced the manner in which participants coped with their personal dilemmas. Factor analysis of the questionnaire revealed two major component scores. The first factor was defined as an adequate active or constructive coping approach to personal problem solving; the second a defensive coping approach. A modified instrument (see Appendix B) consisting of five items from each of the factors was developed for the present research. Items with the highest scale loadings were included. Internal consistencies were .65 for the con- structive scale and .57 for the defensive items. Subjects were requested to rate to what extent they utilized each of the ten problem solving techniques for their respective personal problems. They rated from "1" (No extent) to "5" (Very great extent) statements like the following: Try to see the humorous aspects of the situ— ation. Become involved in other activities in order to keep your mind off the problem. Try to get some perspective by talking it over with a friend. Seek additional information by reading up on the situation. 45 It was assumed that the higher the ratings on constructive statements, the more effective the coping mechanisms of the participant. The directions read: Presented below are three examples of inci— dents that most people have experienced at one time or another. Please select an ag- tfial event in your personal experience which represents each of the three examples. I. Wanted to change something in your personal life. II. Had a problem with a close friend, but you weren't sure of what to do. III. Had a problem with school or work, but weren't sure of what to do. After you have examples in mind, identify your three situations by giving each a title. Then think about what you would do if you had to encounter each of these events again. Place a checkmark on each of the following scales which describes the extent to which you would respond to the methods mentioned for each of the three problems you have in mind. Student Attitude Survey. The major purpose of this in- strument (see Appendix B) was to assess participants inter— est and satisfaction with the experimental course. Various aspects of interest and satisfaction were measured by the concepts of integration and morale. Smith (1974) defines integration as an individual's degree of interest in and satisfaction with the theater in which he plays his roles and with the other role players (p. 507). Morale is an in— dividual's degree of interest in and satisfaction with the activities involved in a role he is playing (p. 508). Statements for the survey were selected from the Student Opinion questionnaire developed by Armour (1954). The in- ventory for the present study consists of four subscales. 46 Two subscales, satisfaction with class members and class- room working conditions, comprised the integrative measures. The morale factor consisted of the remaining two subscales -— interest and satisfaction in an individual's role as a student and psychology as a subject. Reliabilities of the four subscales were .70, .95, .90 and .72 respectively. There were four statements included in each subscale. The items were presented in a five—point scale format ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Agreement indi— cated satisfaction in about half of the statements and dissatisfaction in the other half. The instructions read: Below are a series of items concerning your evaluations of this psychology class. Please place a check mark under each statement in the appropriate space which comes closest to representing the amount of agreement you have with the statement. Personality Achievement Test. During the quarter, stu- dents in the experimental course were administered three objective tests consisting of 45 items each. The tests were constructed to evaluate academic achievement in the course. The same tests were also employed in the pilot study and in a 225 Pscyhology of Personality Course conducted in the Fall of 1974. The time schedules and quantity of material cov— ered in the text are presented in the course outline (see Appendix B). 47 General Procedure Overall, the same procedural format employed in the pilot study was adopted for the present research. However, there were several changes in the training model. These changes were based on the results, experiences and observa- tions of the pilot research. For the current study, the Instructor and Typical Psy- chologist measures replaced the Idiographic Test as sensi- tivity criterion instruments. The change was based upon the rationale proposed in the discussion section of the pilot study. The Instructor Inventory served as a criterion which would more realistically mirror the judging process and eva— luate predictive accuracy over an enduring time period. In addition, the Instructor Inventory was compatible with the principles and trait theory employed in the training program. A second criterion instrument was also introduced in Study Two to assess the component of nomothetic sensitivity. Nomothetic sensitivity is the ability to learn about the characteristics of a group and to utilize the knowledge in making more accurate predictions about group members. The Typical Psychologist Test was designed to measure stereo- type accuracy and required subjects to differentiate between the interests of psychologists and men in general. Another change implemented in the study was in terms of the training emphasis. In the pilot research, a variety of techniques for personal problem solving were presented. For example, if the problem was one of tension, a relaxation 48 technique could aid in reducing tension. The second study placed additional emphasis on problems per se. Emphasis on the problems consisted of more group discussion, individual— ized feedback on the problem reports in terms of written comments and suggestions designed to encourage participants to expand and develop their thinking about the problems. Trainees were also encouraged to continue discussing the same problems on subsequent reports or projects. Finally, there was an emphasis placed upon Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory. Subjects were presented with a lecture on the construct theory, completed the Role Construct Repertory Test, and then were requested to inter- pret and discuss in a written report format their basic con- structs and to participate in role playing exercises. Evi- dence reviewed by Bonarius (1965) suggested that the Reptest procedures would encourage individuals to learn about their implicit personality theories and constructs employed to un- derstand others and events in their environment. It was reasoned that the construct procedure combined with role playing exercises would provide individuals an opportunity to examine the theories they used to understand others and their personal problems. Training Procedures Table 7 summarizes the contents of the 11 training ses- sions and the pretest—posttest criterion instruments. The materials utilized in the subsequent training sessions are presented in Appendix B. The procedures for each training 49 session are discussed below. Table 7. Summary of Training Activities and Criterion Instruments in Study Two*. Pre Mid Post Test 1 2 3 4 5 Test 6 7 8 9 10 11 Test Protebob Personality X Attitudes Toward Leadership X Tennessee Self Concept X Course Evaluation Instructor Inventory Typical Psychologist Coping With Personal Problems X Student Attitude Good Learner X Trait Profiles X X Self-Other Differentiation X Happiness in Marriage X Rep Test X Role Playing Exercise X Problem Report X X Trait Report X Self Report X >< ><><><><>< >< ><>< *Note: The Personality Achievement Tests were administered according to the course outline schedule (see Appendix B). Training Sessions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The same proce- dures for Training Sessions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the pilot study were repeated for the second study. Training Session 6. A brief lecture was presented on Kelly's (1955) model of person perception. The discussion noted that according to the theory, individuals acquire a system of personal constructs for understanding and 50 predicting behavior. Research was also reivewed illustrat- ing the manner in which implicit personality theories af- fect the judging process. The purpose of this exercise was to acquaint subjects with the theories they employed to un- derstand other people and the events in their environment. All subjects in the experimental condition were admin- istered Kelly's Role Construct Repertory Test. Participants were presented the grid form of the Reptest (see Appendix B) consisting of 22 different roles, e.g., self, father, mother, friend, etc. They were required to select an ac- quaintance who best represented each role. Each construct dimension was comprised by a format which presented a triad of those people selected and then requested 85 to indicate how two people were similar to each other and different from the third. The following instructions were presented: Refer to the descriptions of 22 different persons, and select from among known indi— viduals the real person who best fits each description: write that person's name in the grid space above the column with the corresponding number. Now consider the first row only. Three persons (20, 21, 22) have circles under their names. How are two of them like each other and different from the third person? Keep thinking about them until you identify an important like- ness of two which distinguishes them from the third person. When you have decided which two are alike, put an X in each of the two circles under their names. Now write on the first line under construct the word or phrase that tells how those two are alike. Under contrast write the opposite of this characteristic. Now consider each of the other persons who appear at the heads of the columns. In addition to the two persons you have already marked with an X, which of the others have this character- istic? Put a check mark under the name of 51 each additional person who has this char- acteristic. Repeat the procedure for every row on the form. At the conclusion of the exercise, a typescript and a brief discussion was presented on the interpretation of the results. The typescript read: After the form is completed, the material on the GRID can provide answers to a vari- ety of questions about your personal con— struct system. What is the nature of the constructs? For example, do they make dis— tinctions in terms of physical charateris— tics (tall—short) or interpersonal charac— teristics (friendly—mean)? How many differ— ent constructs are there? If the pattern of checks and voids for, say, the construct "intelligent versus unintelligent" corre— sponds exactly to that for the construct "likes me versus does not like me", there is reason to suspect that those constructs are not two but in fact one: "People who like me are intelligent and those who don't are unintelligent." Comparisons of the columns rather than the rows uncover sim— ilarities to you. Is the self column most like the mother, the father, the success- ful person, the other males (or females)? The end product is a picture of your own personality theory, i.e., the concepts you use and the relationships between these concepts that you assume. Furthermore, subjects were requested to submit in report form an interpretation and discussion of the results of their respective REP tests. In a subsequent session, par— ticipants received individualized written comments on the report. Training Session 7. The primary aim of this session was to provide subjects with practice in utilizing role playing exercises to facilitate their understanding of other people. A set of instructions, leadership attitude 52 and trait score profiles (see Appendix B) of class members was presented to trainees in a previous session. Each sub— ject selected and played the role of a person they liked and a person who was dissimilar to themselves. They were in- structed to rehearse the role prior to the session and to play it in a manner consistent with the respective trait profile scores. Class members interviewed the role player and then predicted the profile he was enacting. After the judgements, the player identified the role he was attempting to represent. Training Sessions 8 and 9. As indicated on the course outline (see Appendix B) subjects were offered a number of projects to earn extra credit points. The purpose of these projects was to assist trainees in applying the three fac— tors of behavioral change, discussed by Lieberman et al., to their personal problems. Earlier in the course, each subject received a type— script (see Appendix B) describing in detail the form and contents for each report. The task required subjects to write three different one page reports on their personal problems. A problem was defined as a dilemma which was not currently resolved or a situation that required people to choose between equally unpleasant options. The following information was included on the report: the nature of the problem, immediate and long range goals for coping with the problem, relevant facts, history, personal opinions, and feelings about the problem, the feelings of others who were 53 concerned and possible courses of action that the student thought of pursuing to deal with the difficulty. Subjects indicated whether or not they were willing to have their problem reports discussed in class. A type- script (see Appendix A) was presented to each subject de— tailing the procedure to be followed in discussing the prob- lem case. Five of the best reports were presented for eval- uation. Approximately 15 minutes of time was allowed for each report. After the discussion period, each group leader summarized the group's recommendations to the class. Par— ticipants in all groups were encouraged to debate the merits of each proposition. At the conclusion of the discussion period, the probable course of action taken by the author of the report was disclosed. Training Session 10. The purpose of the trait report was to help participants think about their problems in terms of the formalized trait theory presented in class and in the text. In a previous session, trainees received a typescript (see Appendix B) outlining the form and content of the pro- ject. They were instructed to select one of their preceding problem reports and present it in terms of the trait theory. Participants were informed that people frequently discuss themselves and their problems in emotionally laden terms. It was also noted how the process can interfere with think- ing effectively about problems. The goal of the exercise was to provide practice in using sets of words less emo— tional and more explicit. 54 Training Session 11. The training materials employed in Training Session 6 of the pilot study were utilized in the present session. Earlier in the quarter participants received a typescript (see Appendix A) and a general outline for a report applying the self theory (see Smith, 1974) to an authentic problem. The same discussion format used in previous sessions was repeated for the training procedure. In addition to the above training sessions, subjects were assigned a final report (see Appendix B). The purpose of the report was to summarize the current status of their respective problems, to indicate and analyze which tech- niques or class exercises were the most fruitful for coping with their problems, and to indicate plans for coping with their problems in the future. Method of Analysis Campbell and Stanley (1966) discuss the difficulties imposed by research which cannot adhere to randomization procedures for purposes of establishing group equivalence. This situation frequently occurs in educational research when the experimental and control groups are intact collec- tives. One of the most common of such experimental designs is the nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design. Campbell and Stanley (1966), Kerlinger (1964) and McNemar (1962) suggest that the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is an appropriate statistic for testing the effects of the ex— perimental treatment in the above research paradigm. 55 Essentially, ANCOVA, as employed in the present study, is a statistical technique which adjusts the covariate means in an attempt to statistically equalize the experimental and control groups. Where appropriate, the pretest scores for a criterion instrument were used as a covariate and the posttest served as a dependent variable. In addition to the major analysis, a post—hoc explora— tion of the data was performed. The three groups within the experimental condition were compared on the various criteri- on measures. A comparison of the means was examined by a Tukey test. The Tukey statistic is an a posteriori contrast test and is a procedure for comparing pairs of group means. Further assessment of the data consisted of determining to what extent participants in the training program demonstrat— ed change in a positive or negative manner. A critical ra— tio formula (McNemar, 1949) was computed on a number of cri— terion measures for purposes of exploring the impact of the training program on affective change. Results The results of the major analysis are presented in a format relevant to the evaluation of the respective hypo— theses. Hypothesis 1. Participation in the training pro- gram Will produce increased sensi— tivity. The means and standard deviations for the Instructor and Typical Psychologist Tests are shown in Table 8. The two measures of sensitivity were administered on three 56 Table 8. Means and standard deviations for experimental and control groups on Instructor and Typical Psychologist tests of the pretest, posttest and adjusted posttest means. Post Pretest Posttest Adjusted X SD X SD X Experimental Instructor Tl — T3 25.27 3.71 29.41 3.43 29.08 Tl — T2 25.27 3.71 29.00 3.72 28.61 T2 — T3 29.00 3.72 29.41 3.43 28.09 Control Instructor Tl — T3 22.77 3.60 23.23 2.76 23.56 Tl — T2 22.77 3.60 22.46 3.25 22.85 T2 — T3 22.46 3.25 23.23 2.76 24.55 Experimental 42.64 5.95 45.77 5.13 45.61 l 3 T1 — T2 42.64 5.95 45.68 4.47 45.55 T2 — T3 45.68 4.47 45.77 5.13 43.97 Control Typical Psychologist Tl — T3 42.09 6.86 41.50 6.58 41.67 Tl - T2 42.09 6.86 41.27 5.15 41.41 T — T 41.27 5.15 41.50 6.58 43.31 57 separate time periods (T) —- before training, during the fifth week of training, and at the end of training. Analysis of the data presented in Table 9 lends sup- port to the hypothesis. Table 9. Analysis of covariance summary table for Instructor and Typical Psychologist posttest scores. Source df MS F P Instructor T - T l 3 1/41 298.841 33.272 .001 T1 — T2 1/41 324.932 29.216 .001 T2 - T3 1/41 71.588 9.069 .005 Tl - T3 1/41 170.674 8.453 .01 T1 — T2 1/41 187.922 14.139 .001 T2 — T3 1/41 3.908 .199 .999 Overall T — T the ANCOVA demonstrated a significant main 1 3 effect for the Instructor Test (F = 33.272, df = 1/41, p S .001). Further inspection of Table 9 reveals that the dif- ferences in increased sensitivity were significant for the remaining two time period comparisons. Similarily, analysis of the Typical Psychologist scores for T1 - T3 indicate a significant main effect (F = 8.453, df = 1/41, p:§.01). However, comparisons of T2 — T3 did not reveal any signifi— cant differences (F = .199, df = 1/41, p§;.999). The 58 overall results indicate that improvements in sensitivity were greater for those subjects in the experimental condi- tion than for those in the control group. According to the above results, training appeared to have an impact on enhancing sensitivity. Hypothesis 2. There will be significant differences in academic achievement favoring the experimental model. Table 10 presents the means and standard deviations for the Personality Achievement Tests. Each test consisted of 45 items. Table 10. Means and standard deviations for experimental and control groups on Personality Achievement Test and adjusted posttest means. _ Pre _ Post Post Adjusted X SD X SD X Experimental Tl — T3 34.14 5.29 34.41 4.81 33.20 Control Tl — T3 30.36 6.44 28.91 6.27 30.12 The scores on the first test were treated as a covariate. The final examination served as the dependent measure. A summary of the ANCOVA performed on the data are pre- sented in Table 11. 59 Table 11. Analysis of covariance summary table for Personality Achievement posttest scores. Source df Ms F P 1/41 94.630 5.429 .023 The results revealed a significant main effect difference on the final examination between the two groups (F = 5.429, df = 1/41, p 3,023). Analysis of the data appeared to indi- cate that, under limited conditions, an instructional model which attempted to engender affective changes while concur- rently maintaining traditional cognitive learning could be developed without impairing academic achievement objectives. Hypothesis 3. Participants in the experimental course will produce changes in self—concept. In contrast to the previous univariate analysis per— formed on the data for the evaluation of hypotheses 1 and 2, a multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to test hypotheses 3 and 4. Multivariate procedures were not performed on all measures because of the limitations imposed by a small sample size and the diminished degrees of freedom. However, the rationale for the utilization of MANCOVA in this instance was predicated on avoiding the increased probabili- ty of obtaining statistical significance among correlated variables through the repeated application of a univariate test. On a theoretical basis one would reason that the 60 overall level of self-esteem (Total P) and coping style are related. Inspection of the correlation matrix of criterion measures (Table 6) lends some support to the proposed rela- tionship that the two variables are slightly and positively correlated. The pretest of the Total P score of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and the defensive and constructive pretest scales of the Problem Coping instrument served as covariates for each dependent measure. Table 12 summarizes the results of the MANCOVA performed on the Total P and the Problem Cop- ing scales. Table 12. Multiple analysis of covariance summary table for self-concept. Source df MS F P Total P 1/39 12.742 0.057 .999 The analysis clearly did not reveal any significant differ— ences between the experimental and control groups. Conse- quently, the proposition that self—concept changes would occur in the training program was not confirmed. Hypothesis 4. Individuals who complete the as— signed projects, reports and at- tend the group discussions will increase their coping effective- ness with personal problems. 61 Inspection of Table 13 also fails to support hypothesis 4. Participants in the experimental group did not demon— strate any significant increase in their coping effective- ness with personal problems in comparison with the control group. Table 13. Multiple analysis of covariance for Problem Coping. Source df MS F P Defensive 1/39 21.055 0.930 .999 Constructive 1/39 5.031 0.161 .999 Hypothesis 5. Satisfaction will be higher for individuals in the experimental program than for individuals in the traditional lecture course. Table 14 presents the means and standard deviations for course satisfaction. Since the course satisfaction instrument was used only as a posttest measure, the student's reported grade point average was selected to function as the covariate. The re- sults of the ANCOVA are shown in Table 15. Only one of the factors comprising the integration measure -— liking for class members -— reached statistical significance (F = 36.061, df = 1/41, p 3.001). However, the overall results do not confirm the above hypotheses. With the exception of liking for class members, participants in the experimental 62 condition did not demonstrate more satisfaction with the course than subjects in the traditional lecture class. Table 14. Means and standard deviations for experimental and control groups on course satisfaction. Experimental _ Adjusted Category X SD X A. Liking for class members 18.09 1.97 17.95 B. Classroom working conditions 14.91 4.89 14.78 C. Interest in Psychology 17.14 2.95 16.66 D. Student role 15.86 3.33 15.58 Control _ Adjusted Category X SD X A. Liking for class members 12.82 3.11 12.95 B. Classroom working conditions 12.82 3.74 12.94 C. Interest in Psychology 14.91 4.35 15.38 D. Student role 14.23 3.34 14.52 Table 15. Analysis of covariance summary table for course satisfaction. Source df MS F P A. Liking for class members 1/41 245.184 36.061 .001 B. Classroom working conditions 1/41 33.075 1.718 .194 C. Interest in Psychology 1/41 15.886 1.303 .259 D. Student role 1/41 10.982 1.030 .317 Exploration of the Data Post hoc explorations of the data were conducted by a Tukey test in order to compare the mean performance of the 63 three respective groups on the various criterion instruments The alpha level was set at .05. The results of the analysis failed to demonstrate any significant differences between the groups. Apparently leadership style was not a signifi— cant factor in assessing the differential impact of training. The critical ratio formula was computed on the differ— ence scores (posttest—pretest) to further explore the change that occurred on the various criterion measures. The cri— tical ratio was defined by McNemar (1949) as the ratio of the mean difference divided by the standard error of the mean difference. This ratio was computed for the various criterion variables. Difference scores which were above the critical ratio indicated a positive change; those below the minus level a negative change. Those scores that fell within the area of the 1 critical ratio indicated no change. Table 16 presents the percentage of change and the cri— tical ratios for the various measures. Only three of the critical ratio statistics reached significance. Fifty—nine percent of the participants in the experimental group dem- onstrated a significant improvement on the Instructor In- ventory. Forty—one percent demonstrated a significant im— provement on the Typical Psychologist measure. Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated a more scientific orientation on their trait scores. This latter finding would appear compatible with the instructional model which emphasized a scientific approach to the investigation of personality concepts and the understanding of others. 64 However, these results must be interpreted with extreme cau— tion. The critical ratio statistics are dependent tests, consequently the findings may be primarily a function of chance. Table 16. Percentage of change for the various criterion variables. - O + CR P Instructor Test 5 36 59 4.58 .001 Typical Psychologist 9 50 41 2.51 .050 Total P 27 5 68 1.81 - Problems Defensive 32 23 45 1.06 - Problems Constructive 45 O 55 .87 - Leadership Consideration 32 36 32 — .60 - Leadership Responsibility 55 4 41 — .47 — Traits Bold 27 32 41 1.23 - Traits Emotional 27 32 41 0 — Traits Future 45 0 55 1.03 — Traits Practical 59 9 32 —l.1l — Traits Scientific 0 14 86 5.57 .001 Summary of Responses on the Final Report and Course Evaluations The final report (see Appendix B) was utilized to fur- ther explore what effect the training program had on parti— cipants in dealing with their problems. Subjects were re— quested to rate the status of their three problem case re- ports on a five point scale ranging from 1 "much worse" to 5 "much better". Table 17 shows the percentage ratings. Nearly 75% of the respondents indicated that the status of their problems had improved. 65 Subjects were also asked to rate which of the theories emphasized in the program seemed most helpful to them in dealing with their problems. Fifty percent of the partici— pants indicated the trait theory; thirty percent personal construct; and twenty percent indicated the self theory. Table 17. Percentage rating on status of problems. Rating Percent 1 "now much worse" 1.8 2 "somewhat worse" 5.2 3 "no change" 18.9 4 "somewhat better" 43.1 5 "much better" 31.0 A summary of the course evaluation ratings is displayed in Table 18. Table 18. Summary of course evaluation ratings for winter and spring. Ratings Percent Winter Spring 1 "uninteresting and unhelpful" 0 0 2 "neutral or doubtful" 0 0 3 "interesting and helpful" 50 27 4 "very interesting and helpful" 40 32 5 "extremely interesting and helpful" 10 41 Of particular interest is the increase (31%) of respondents who rated the course as "extremely interesting and helpful" 66 in comparison with the percent rating of participants in the winter program. Overall, subjects in the spring pro— gram rated the course more favorably (73%) than those in the winter program (50%). CHAPTER IV Discussion Table 19 presents a summary of the hypotheses and their results. Table 19. Summary of the hypotheses and results of Study Two. Hypotheses Results Participation in the training program will produce increased sensitivity. *** There will be significant differences in academic achievement favoring the experimental model. 0 Participants in the experimental course will produce changes in self—concept. 0 Individuals who complete the assigned projects, reports, and attend the group discussions will increase their coping effectiveness with personal problems. 0 Satisfaction will be higher for indivi— duals in the experimental program than for individuals in the traditional lec- ture program. 0 *** = .001; 0 = rejected The results of the present investigation provided sup— port for the proposition that participation in the training program would engender improvements in sensitivity. 67 68 Subjects in the experimental condition produced significantly 3 higher mean accuracy scores than the control group on both of 1 the components assessing idiographic and nomothetic sensiti- vity. Whereas many previous programs demonstrated little ef- fectiveness enhancing predictive ability, the present train— ing procedures appeared to be somewhat successful. The inef— fective programs have relied primarily on unsystematic me— thods like psychology course instruction, clinical training and T—groups. However, those few investigators who employed systematic methods specifying the procedures and content of training were more successful in their attempts to improve sensitivity (Dailey, 1966; Grossman, 1967; Jecker et al., 1965; and Spier, 1969). The current study also utilized an extensive method which carefully delineated relevant training procedures and content. Several sessions emphasized a practice, feedback, discussion sequence. Thus participants could evaluate the effectiveness of their judgements through immediate feedback and discussions with others concerning the rationale for their respective predictions. Other training procedures stressed the influence of perceiver bias on understanding others. Trainees became more cognizant of how assumed simi— larity and implicit personality theories can facilitate or interfere with the judgement process. Subjects were afforded opportunities to recognize the affect of their respective biases on predictive accuracy and make appropriate correc- tive adjustments. Finally, as an alternative to extant 69 implicit personality theories, trainees learned an explicit personality theory which could function as a more objective 1 conceptual framework to process and integrate data from L others. I The goals of training were explicitly formulated, the ) training procedures were developed to assist participants in focusing attention on and learning more about the judging process and consequently enhance improvement. Although the present investigation employed an exten— sive systematic procedure to increase sensitivity, other factors may have affected the results. One of the factors may have been the apparent intellec- tual differences that marked the experimental and control groups. Reviews by Cook (1971) however, conclude that re- search studies do not convincingly demonstrate a significant relationship between intellectual ability and idiographic or stereotype accuracy. Tagiuri (1969) cites evidence indicat- ing that perhaps a minimum level of intelligence may be neces- sary, but that higher intellectual abilities may not increase performance. Another consideration is that subjects in the experimen— tal and control groups were required to produce predictions on two different instructors. The relative ease or difficulty of these judgements between the two instructors could have affected the results. However, both groups were administered the same stereotype criterion and significant differences did occur favoring the experimental group. Individual and 7O stereotype accuracy abilities have been empirically demon- strated to be largely independent factors (Mehryar, 1969). The smaller size of the experimental class setting also could have influenced the differences in performance on the Instructor Inventory. It could be argued that the experimen- tal condition was conducive for increased student-instructor interaction. However, the author occupied a significant pro- portion of the scheduled class time implementing the training sessions, thus sharply curtailing the amount of student-in- structor interaction. Improvement in predictive ability may also have been affected by an increased motivation in students to enhance their accuracy because of the expectations conveyed by the procedures of the instructional model. Although the above mentioned considerations cannot be completely ruled out as possible explanations for the results of the study, the findings are consistent with training pro- grams employing somewhat similar systematic training proce- dures to improve sensitivity (Grossman, 1967; Jecker et al., 1965; Kepes, 1965; Spier, 1969). Hypothesis 2 proposed that significant differences would occur between the experimental and control groups on academic performance. The findings supported the hypothesis. The mean academic performance score on the final examination was significantly higher for the experimental group. The results indicated some support for structuring an undergrad- uate personality course which attempts to induce affective 71 changes without sacrificing traditional academic objectives. One certainly cannot rule out the differing intellectu- al abilities and motivation favoring the honors students in accounting for the results. However, the findings are note- worthy when one considers that training occurred during the regularly scheduled class period and therefore, significantly reduced the amount of lecture time in comparison to the more traditional approach. Furthermore, participants in the ex- perimental class were required to assume responsibility for both cognitive material and participation in the training sessions. If it were possible to rule out the differential intel- lectual abilities, a probable explanation of the results could be attributed to the nature and content of the train- ing sessions. Material from the lectures and text were pre- sented with the purposes of integrating psychological theo— ries and concepts in a more personally relevant manner than the traditional lecture procedure. The course program was structured to provide subjects opportunities to meaningfully apply psychological principles to the understanding of other people and to learn about various strategies in coping with personal problems. Comprehension of the concepts and theo- ries was necessary to develop and discuss the assigned pro- jects and to participate in some of the training exercises designed to accomplish the above objectives. McKeachie (1974) noted that under some conditions meaningful learning and active participation may positively influence academic 72 performance. The instructional model developed in the cur- rent research appears, in many instances, compatible with McKeachie's contention. There was no support for Hypothesis 3 which proposed that the training program would produce changes in self—con- cept. The training procedures of Study One and Study Two apparently did not have a sufficient enough impact on parti— cipants to alter self—concept. This finding is inconsistent with the self-concept changes reported in the Lieberman ep_al. study. One possible explanation for the results may be found by comparing the pretest mean scores of the TSCS with the norma— tive data presented by Fitts (1965). A comparison of the overall level of self—esteem (Total P score) does not appear to indicate significant differences between the experimental and normative group. This suggests that participants in the training program were operating at a relatively adequate lev— el of self—esteem. The level of these pretest scores may have precluded significant gains, since it would be diffi- cult to induce changes in subjects who already demonstrated a favorable self-image. The sensitivity of the measure to detect self-concept changes may also be suspect. Smith (1975) reviewed a number of outcome studies of sensitivity training employing the TSCS. He concluded that few TSCS studies demonstrated sig- nificant results in comparison to research employing semantic differentials and rating scales. The author suggested the 73 possibility that the TCSC may not be a sensitive enough mea- sure to detect the changed feelings found in rating studies. The implication for future research would be to utilize a combination of self-concept measures including more subjects with differing levels of self-esteem. Analysis of the problem coping data failed to confirm Hypothesis 4. Subjects in the experimental group did not increase their coping effectiveness with respect to their personal problems. One possible explanation of the results may be explored by inspection of the constructive and defen- sive coping scale means. Subjects within the experimental group produced higher means (Pre X = 50.32, SD = 6.43; Post X = 51.36, SD = 7.87) for the constructive scale than the defensive scale (Pre X = 38.23, SD = 7.43; Post X = 39.32, SD = 7.74). The means for the control group were distributed in a similar manner. The results could imply that subjects already tended to employ a more constructive style than a defensive strategy. However, it is more likely that the ef- fectiveness of the instrument is suspect. The internal consistencies for the two scales are rather low, the variety of strategies are limited, and the measure does not control for the effects of social desirability. Future research would benefit from the development of scales consisting of a wider range of strategies and controls for social desirability. Although the results of the problem coping instrument did not reveal any significant changes, data from the 74 responses on the final report, administered only to the experimental group, were suggestive of some positive bene- fits. Seventy-five percent of the respondents indicated an improved status of their problems since they first began writing the reports. Eighty percent listed the trait the- ory and personal construct theory as being most helpful to them in theorizing or thinking about their problems. Many people also indicated the value of paying attention to the experiences of others and relating them to one's own prob- lems. The respondents' comments were characterized by the following: "Observing bolder people was helpful" . . . "My thought processes while looking into their problems." The most frequently referred to technique for dealing with personal problems was some form of verbal expression -- for example, "Verbalizing my theories in discussion with my girl friend", "Being more open in my speech with members of the household", and "Process of writing reports". Several picked role playing and mentioned using it outside of class. Finally, trainees were requested to indicate their plans for dealing with their problems in the future. The majority of responses were characterized by the following: "My prob- lems have been brought to the surface. Now I'll take action." Some respondents stated, "I plan to make more plans", "I want to commit myself to some action". Others expressed certain principles they perceived as valuable and wished to apply: "I want to keep on wanting to understand others", and "I want to do something in a more systematic way". Several 75 indicated that they already were or were planning to con- tinue with a psychologist. Others stated they had started a plan of action during the training program and were con- tinuing to implement their course of action. The above summary of responses on the final report are suggestive of the fruitfulness of pursuing the development of the current training paradigm. Although the data from the final report are in the form of subjective responses from the subjects in the experimental group, they do suggest that the instructional model may have had a positive impact on some participants. Only one of the subscales of the satisfaction measure designed to assess Hypothesis 5 reached significance. Over- all, the proposition that satisfaction would be higher for those individuals in the experimental group than in the con- trol group, was not supported. Subjects did not significant- ly differ in their interest in psychology, satisfaction with their role as a student and classroom working conditions. However, they did differ with respect to their liking for classmates. A reasonable explanation can be attributed to increased interpersonal interaction and homogeneous grouping of students based upon similarity of interpersonal leader- ship styles. The research of Byrne (1971) on the effect of similarity of attitudes on liking or attraction lends sup- port to the above considerations. In addition, the small size of the groups and the nature of the personal interac- tion of the group members was probably a more conducive 76 atmosphere for people to become better acquainted and form closer realtionships with the environs provided by a trad- itional lecture class. Limitations of the Present Research Although randomization and true experimentation are ideal goals in research, they cannot always be attained. The present research did not comply with the requirements of a true experiment. The failure to randomize was a func- tion of the pragmatic constraints imposed on research con- ducted in an applied and natural setting and unavailable control over educational resources. Campbell (1968) advo— cates the utilization of quasi-experimental designs when randomization procedures cannot be realized. According to Campbell and Stanley (1966) the current study is character— ized as a nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest quasi- experimental design and is one of the most commonly used de- signs in evaluation research. A shortcoming of the design, however, is its failure to control for the plausible rival hypotheses of the interactions of selection with maturation and selection with testing. The selection maturation inter- action does not control for the hypotheses that the effects may be due to an interaction between the selection factors differentiating the experimental and control groups and dif- ferences in maturation rate characteristic of the respective groups. Covariance analysis was used in an attempt to sta- tistically control for the differences between comparison 77 groups. Although this statistical technique is useful, one cannot be assured that biases differentiating the respective groups have been completely controlled for or eliminated. Any significant differences reported must be interpreted with the above limitations in mind. It is suggested that future studies employ randomization techniques, larger sam- ple sizes and multivariate data analysis procedures in order to mitigate the above contraints. Suggestion for a Revised Training Program The results of the study indicated the fruitfulness of developing an instructional paradigm which attempts to pro- duce affective changes while maintaining traditional academic goals. Furthermore, students seem to be highly enthusiastic about such a course procedure. The following considerations are offered for a revised training program. It is suggested that the practice, feed- back and discussion components be maintained for future re- finements of the model. They are established principles supported by the research literature. Future models may benefit from research assessing the relative contribution of the various components of training. The development of an additional technique may prove fruitful. During the training session, subjects interviewed several Os and predicted their trait profiles. The inter- view sequence could be more formalized by the development of an information processing strategy patterned after the 78 hypotheses testing procedure. Subjects could learn a set appropriate questions to be asked of data or information, generate hypotheses, test and revise these hypotheses in accordance with accumulating knowledge. The sensitivity criterion instruments used in the pre— sent research are limited in terms of generalizability, A desirable revision for sensitivity criterion instruments should include a more comprehensive range of judgements. For example, in addition to personality trait ratings, trainees could make predictions on actual behavioral out- comes about 0, or interpersonal interactions. Films, de— picting how a variety of people respond behaviorally to stimulus situations, could be devised as a criterion. Sub- jects would View an interview session and be required to predict how 0 actually behaved in a particular circumstance (e.g. frustration, competition). Furthermore, future research may profit from requiring Js to produce judgements over a variety of people within a rank order format. This procedure has the advantage of eliminating some of the response set artifacts which can affect accuracy scores. Responses from the final report suggest that perhaps tjie training procedure may benefit from an increased empha- si.s on the role playing technique and the personal construct theeory. Relatively little time was devoted to these two prr>cedures of the program. However, as indicated, nearly 30% of the participants perceived the personal construct 79 theory as dominantly helpful to them in thinking about their problems. In addition, several respondents stated that they employed role playing as a technique in dealing with their dilemmas. Both of these procedures could serve to facilitate un— derstanding of others and to elaborate some of the sugges- tive principles in the Lieberman et_al. (1973) study. The REP test is one method of assisting people to learn about their implicit personality theories. It also can function as a method of abetting people to think or theorize about themselves, the events in their environment and other individuals. Role playing is a technique which focuses attention on the experiences of other people. Perceiver attention is an important factor affecting increased sensi- tivity. The versatility of the role playing procedure can also be employed to assist the student's comprehension of some psychological concepts and theories, develop skills in coping with personal dilemmas and practice techniques of behavorial change. Finally, the emphasis on effective management of per- sonal problems should be continued. The problem coping in— strument did not suggest any significant changes in defen— sive or constructive coping styles. Yet, subjective reports indicated that many people experienced an improved status with respect to their problems. More cogent data is needed. The development of a more efficient criterion is necessary —- perhaps one which lists a set of problem situations with 80 more numerous possible response modes than the instrument employed in the present study. Training could emphasize role playing various problem situations, conflicts and in- terpersonal interactions with feedback provided as to the most productive course of action. The role playing could be accomplished in a report form outside of class and dis- cussed as part of the in—class training session. Implications Although the generalizability of the findings for the present research are limited, the implications are somewhat promising. Undergraduate psychology instruction has tradi— tionally provided a conducive atmosphere for enhancing the students' cognitive mastery of the vocabulary, facts and principles of psychology. Students have received relatively little direct practice in applying the knowledge to their understanding of others and to the management of their per— sonal problems. Evidence has been cited which demonstrates that traditional psychology courses alone do not increase predictive accuracy. However, the present research does suggest that methods can be developed to provide students with practice at applying certain aspects of the established knowledge in psychology to the understanding of others and to the management of personal problems. The results of the present research also imply that the traditional emphasis on cognitive material need not be adversely affected by the de- velopment of an instructional paradigm which is designed to 81 induce affective changes. The value of incorporating sensitivity and interper- sonal problem management as educational goals has been stated or implied by a number of instructors and students. More research is required to develop and refine suitable criterion instruments and instructional procedures. The present study was an exploratory attempt to evaluate the efficacy and viability of a promising possibility. CHAPTER V Summary and Conclusions Traditionally, undergraduate psychology instruction has stressed the cognitive mastery of the vocabulary, facts. and principles of psychology. Few courses have been concerned with non-cognitive changes related to student development. The primary purpose of the present research was to evaluate the efficacy of an instructional model designed to improve the ability of students to predict the feelings, thoughts, and behavior of other people while concurrently achieving traditional academic objectives. The study also evaluated the impact of the model upon the student's self—concept, his ability to cope with personal problems and his satisfaction with the course. Two studies were conducted to develop and evaluate the experimental instructional procedure. Each study consisted of 11 (1 1/2) hour in class sessions in a pretest-posttest design with interpolated training. Study One was an explo- ratory investigation designed to develop and refine the train— ing techniques employed in the program. Study Two implemented a training procedure to: improve idiographic and nomethetic predictive ability, induce posi- tive self-concept changes, and increase the student's compe- tency in the management of personal problems. The contents 82 83 of the training sessions consisted of the following factors established in the literature as affecting affective accu- racy: practice, feedback, and discussion of predictions; awareness of perceiver bias; assumed similarity, stereo- types, and implicit personality theories; and the learning of an explicit personality theory. Other components of training consisted of projects emphasizing personal problem management, structured group discussions, and role playing. These instructional units were designed to encourage parti- cipants to theorize about their own experiences and the ex- periences of others. The instructional model was primarily concerned with the integration of cognitive material as presented in the text with the training procedures designed to accomplish non-cognitive changes. The effectiveness of the model was determined by per- forming analysis of covariance procedures on the data. Re- sults of the main study demonstrated significant increases in predictive accuracy on both the idiographic and nomethetic criterion measures for the experimental group. Differences in academic performance favoring the experimental course were also noted. Although the analysis did not reveal improve- ments in self-concept and problem coping, self report data indicated that trainees perceived an improved status with respect to the management of their personal problems. In addition, post hoc explorations of the data were conducted, but analysis failed to disclose any major findings. 84 Implications of the study, limitations of the experi— mental design and the criterion instruments were discussed. Suggestions for revised training procedures were offered for future research. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Amir, Y., Kovarsky, Y., and Sharan, S. Peer nominations as a predictor of multistage promotions in a ramified organization. J. Appl. Psychol., 1970, 54, 464-469. Armour, J. B. Student attitudes in relation to classroom achievement. Unpublished Master's thesis, MiChigan State University, 1954. Bennis, W., Burke, R., Cutter, H., Harrington, H., and Hoffman, J. A note on some problems of measure- ment and prediction in a training group. Group Psychother., 1957, 10, 326-341. Bonarius, J. C. J. Research in the personal construct the— ory of George A. Kelly: role construct repertory test and basic theory. In Brendan A. Maher (ed.), Experimental personality research Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York, 1965. Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Campbell, D. T. Reforms as experiments. American Psychol., 1969, 24, 409-429. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Campbell, J. P. and Dunnette, M. D. Effectiveness of T— Group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychol. Bull., 1968, 70, 73—102. Cline, V. B. Ability to judge personality assessed with a stress interview and sound film technique. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1955, 50, 183-187. Cline, V. B. Interpersonal Perception. In B. A. Maher (ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1964. 85 86 Cline, V. B. and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interpersonal perception -- a general trait? J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 1-7. Close, P. A test of stereotype accuracy in judging dif— ferences in marital couples. Unpublished manu- script, 1963. Cochran, W. G. Analysis of Covariance: Its nature and uses. Biometrics, 1957, 13, 261-281. Cook, M. Interpersonal perception. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971. Cronbach, L. J. Processes affecting scores on "understand- ing of others" and "assumed similarity". Psychol. Bull., 1955, 52, 177-193. Crow, W. J. and Hammond, K. R. The generality of accuracy and response sets in interpersonal perception. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 384-390. Dailey, C. A. The experimental study of clinical guessing. J. Individ. Psychol., May 1966, 22, 65-79. Dore, R. The development and validation of forced-choice scales measuring attitudes toward leadership methods. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1960. Fitts, W. H. Manual for the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 1965, Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Gage, N. L. and Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodolog- ical problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 411-422. Gage, N. L. and Exline, R. V. Social perception and effectiveness in discussion groups. Human Goldberg, L. R. Diagnosticians versus diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of psychosis versus neurosis from the MMPI. Psychol. Mono., 1965, 79 (9, Whole No. 602). Goldberg, L. R. Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgements. Am. Psychol., 1968, 23, 483—496. Grossman, B. A. The measurement and determinants of inter— personal sensitivity. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. 87 Grossman, B. A. Evaluation of a training program to im- prove the ability to differentiate between people. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Hastorf, A. H. and Bender, I. E. A caution respecting the measurement of empathic ability. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 574-576. Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., and Polefka, J. Person Perception, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1970. Hollander, E. P. Buddy ratings: military research and in- dustrial implications. Personnel Psychol., 1954, 7, 385-393. Jecker, J. D., Maccoby, N., and Breitrose, H. 8. Improving accuracy in interpreting non-verbal cues of com— prehension. Psychol. in the Schools, 1965, 2(3) 239-244. Johnson, W. B. and Terman, L. M. Personality characteris- tics of happily married, unhappily married and divorced persons. Charact. Pers., 1935, 3, 290— 311. Kelly, G. A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955. Kepes, S. Y. Experimental evaluation of sensitivity train— ing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, 1965. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1964. Levy, B. I. and Ulman, E. Judging psychopathology from paintings. J. Abnorm. Psychol., 1967, 72(2), 182-187. Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I. D., and Miles, M. B. Encounter Groups: First Facts. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Lohmann, K., Zenger, J. H., and Weschler, I. R. Some per— ceptual changes during sensitivity training. J. Educ. ReSo, 1959’ 53’ 28_3lo MacLeod, R. B. The teaching of psychology. Am. Psychol., 1971, 26, 245-249. Mayfield, E. C. Management selection: buddy nomination. Personnel Psychol., 1970, 23, 377-391. 88 McDanield, M. A. Tomorrow's Curriculum Today, in Learning for Tomorrow, Alvin Toffler (ed.), 1974. McKeachie, W. J. Instructional Psychology. Annual Rev. of Psychol., 1974, 25, 161-193. McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1949. McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1962. Mehryar, A. H. Generality of social perception: some nega— tive results. J. Soc. Psychol., 1969, 78, 91-98. Oskamp, S. W. The relationship of clinical experience and training methods to several criteria of clinical prediction. Psychol. Mon., 1962, 76, (28, Whole No. 547). Oskamp, S. W. Overconfidence in case-study judgements. g. Consult. Psychol., 1965, 29, 261-265. Passini, F. T. and Norman, W. T. A universal conception of personality structure? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 1966, 4, 44-49. Shears, A. D. The development and analysis of a criterion of the ability to understand people. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Siegel, L. and Siegel, L. C. A multivariate paradigm for educational research. Psychol. Bull., 1967, 68(5), 306-326. Silkiner, D. S. A cross-cultural study of the measurement, determinants, and effects of stereotype accuracy. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State Univer— sity, 1962. Smith, H. C. Sensitivity to People. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Smith, H. C. Sensitivity Training: The Scientific Under- standing of Individuals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Smith, H. C. Personality DevelOpment. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1974. Smith, P. E. Controlled studies of the outcome of sensiti- vity training. Psychol. Bull., 1975, 82(4), 597- 622. 89 Spier, M. The improvement of stereotype accuracy. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1969. Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull., 1955, 52, 1—23. Taguiri, R. Person perception. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 3, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Trumbo, D. A. The development and analysis of a test of the ability to predict behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1955. Vernon, P. E. Personality Assessment. Methuen, 1964. Weiss, J. H. ,Effect of professional training and amount and accuracy of information on behavioral predic- tions. J. Consult. Psychol., 1963, 27, 257—262. Wiggins, N., Hoffman, P., and Taber, T. Types of judges and cue utilization in judgements of intelligence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1969, 12, 52—59. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STUDY ONE CRITERION MEASURES AND TRAINING MATERIALS Class Schedule Protebob Personality Test Attitude Toward Leadership Scale Idiographic Sensitivity Scale Course Evaluations Good Learner Scale Personality Trait Graphic Profiles Self-Other Differentiation Marriage Test Problem Case Report Role Dilemma Report First Developmental Report Second Developmental Report 90 Psychology 225, 91 PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY H1 TuTh 1:20-2:40 210 Olds Hall Assistant: Course Outline Instructor: Henry Clay Smith Office: 312 Olds Hall Text: Personality John Bourpos Development (2nd edition) SESSION CLASS ACTIVITIES ASSIGNMENTS January 7 January 9 January January January 2 January 2 January 2 January 3 February February February February February February February February March 4 March 6 14 16 1 3 8 O 4 ll 13 18 20 25 27 ORIENTATION: Scale; PRETEST: Test (1) GROUP (2) GROUP Trait (3) GROUP Trait Review of Group Preference Trait Inventory Self—concept; Sensitivity MEETING Good Learners MEETING Interviews and Prediction MEETING Interviews and Prediction Text (20 minutes) FIRST QUIZ (Ch. 1-8; 45 items) (4) GROUP MEETING The empathetic Problem Case personality Report (5) GROUP MEETING Interviews and Trait Differentiation (6) GROUP MEETING Married Couples First Devel- opmental Report (7) GROUP MEETING Impulse—ridden (8) GROUP MEETING Opportunistic Review of text SECOND QUIZ (Ch. 9-12; 45 items) (9) GROUP MEETING The Autistic Role Dilemma Report (10) GROUP MEETING First Dilemma (11) GROUP MEETING Second Dilemma (12) GROUP MEETING Third Dilemma POSTTEST: Self Concept: Test of Second De- Sensitivity velopmental Report Review and evaluation FINAL: Friday, March 14, 3:00-5:00; Chapters 13—18, 45 items GRADE POLICY: Performance on the three objective quizzes will set the grading curve. The average base grade will be 2.0. The final grade will be determined by scores on the quizzes plus ex- tra points referred to the base curve. 92 For example: If 90 is the average on the quizzes and you get 80 but earn no extra points you will get a 2.0. Possible Extra Points: Maximum Points: Two developmental reports 12 (6 each) Case report 3 Dilemma report 3 Attendance 3 Group participation _3f TOTAL: g4 *For each member, to be divided as group decides, i.e., equally, all to most valuable member, etc.) Directions: Correct 1 l. l 2. 2 3. 2 4. 1 5. l 6. 1 7. 2 8. 2 9. 1 10. 1 ll. 2 12. 2 13. 1 l4. 1 15. 2 l6. 1 17. l 18. 1 19. 93 THE PROTEBOB PERSONALITY INVENTORY There are no right or wrong answers to the following statements. They represent experi- ences, preferences, ways of doing things, or beliefs that are true of some people but are not true of others. Read each statement and decide whether or not it is true with respect to yourself. Indicate your answers on the separate answer sheet. Mark "1" if it is true or more true than false of yourself. Mark "2" if it is false or more false than true of yourself. I like to make a very careful plan before start- ing in to do anything. I am guided in all my conduct by firm principles. I find it rather hard to keep to a rigid routine. I like to be with people who don't take life too seriously. Whenever I have to undertake a job I make out a careful plan of procedure. I never lose my head. I set very difficult goals for myself. I am not particularly methodical in my daily life. I generally go from one thing to another in my daily life without a great deal of planning. I like to keep all my letters and other papers neatly arranged and filed. I always keep control of myself in an emergency situation. Most of my spare money is used for pleasure. I occasionally neglect serious things in order to have a good time. I am extremely systematic in caring for my per— sonal property. I always finish one task before taking on others. I find it difficult to keep my mind on one de- tail for very long. I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and without much change in plans. I can always do a good job even when I am very excited. I am extremely ambitious. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 94 I'm occasionally disorganized if I am called on suddenly to make a few remarks. I enjoy work more than play. I feel that friendship is more important in life than anything else. I really don't like to drink alcoholic beverages. I find that my minor likes and dislikes change rather frequently. I frequently obey whatever impulse is strongest. I am considered extremely "steady" by my friends. I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside for eating. I keep my work place very neat and orderly. I believe in getting as much fun as I can out of life. I believe that I have the disposition of a pleasure-seeker. I generally seek whatever makes me happy here and now. I would rather see a musical comedy than a docu— mentary film. I live more for the future than for the present. I believe that what a person does about a thing is more important than what he feels about it. I like to be with people who are not preoccupied with the future. I am greatly influenced in minor decisions by how I happen to be feeling at the moment. I am much more interested in activities which I can enjoy for their own sake than in activities which are of long range benefit. I spend a good deal of time thinking about my plans for the future. I accept my feelings as the best guide for my actions. I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one thing for a long time. I am more interested in what I see and hear than in abstract principles. I am temperamentally more a sceptic than a believer. I am more interested in general ideas than in specific facts. No individual, no matter what the circumstances, is justified in committing suicide. The idea of God must remain absolutely central to the whole plan of human purpose. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 95 It is possible that there is no such thing as divine inspiration. My faith in God is complete for "though he slay me, yet will I trust him." I believe that everybody would be happier if both men and women had more sexual freedom. I carry a very strict conscience about with me wherever I go. I consider the close observance of social cus- toms and manners as an essential aspect of life. I have occasionally doubted the reality of God. It is absolutely vital to assume that there is a God behind the Universe. A person should develop his greatest loyalty toward his religious faith. The world might benefit from having a new kind of religion. I think that it is much more important to learn to control sexual impulses than to express them. I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others. Some of my friends think my ideas are a bit wild and impractical. I control my sexual impusles by instituting pro— hibitions and restrictions. I have always been unalterably convinced of the reality of God. I would rather be a salesman than a scientific research worker. The thought of God gives me a complete sense of security. The European attitude toward mistresses is more sensible than ours. I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong. In matters of conduct I conform very closely to custom. I haven't yet reached any final opinion about the nature of God. It is as important for a person to be reverent as it is for him to be sympathetic. The idea of God means more to me than any other idea. I think that cremation is the best method of burial. In the long run, science provides the best hope for solving the world's problems. I like to read scientific articles in popular magazines. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 96 Radical agitators should be allowed to make public speeches. Women should have as much right to propose dates to men as men to women. I believe we should have less censorship of speech and press than we do now. I often act contrary to custom. Science should have as much to say about moral values as religion does. I would enjoy the kind of work that a scientific research worker does. I think that I have a more rigorous standard of right and wrong than most people. It is necessary to retain the belief that God exists as a personal being. Divine inspiration is an infallible source of truth. Compared to your own self—respect, the respect of others means little. I enjoy going to art galleries very much. I would like to hear a popular lecture on con— temporary painters. I can deal much better with actual situations than with ideas. I like to discuss abstract questions with my friends. If I had unlimited leisure and money, I would enjoy making a collection of fine sculptures or paintings. I have seldom really enjoyed an art course. I like to visit exhibits of famous paintings. Sports generally interest me somewhat more than very intellectual affairs. I am mainly interested in ideas that are very practical. I like abstact paintings. I am an extremely practical person. I like ballet performances. I somethimes think more about my ideas than about the routine demans of daily life. I only work for concerete and clearly-defined results. I would rather be a salesman than an artist. If I had the ability, I would enjoy teaching poetry at a university. Magazines such as Arts and Decorations bore me. I get an intense pleasure from just looking at a beautiful building. I like to read poetry. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 97 Artistic experiences are of great importance in my life. I would like to take a course in the modern novel. I would rather read "Business Week" than "At— lantic Monthly". I spend a lot of time philosophizing with myself. I tend to judge people in terms of their con- crete accomplishments. I tend to accept the world as it is and not worry about how it might be. I always keep my feet solidly on the ground. I think there are few more important things in life than money. I am really only interested in what is useful. I prefer friends who have well developed artis- tic tastes. In a discussion, I tend to lose interest if we talk about serious literature. I think I would like to decorate a room with flowers. I have never tried to collect pictures or paintings I like. I would rather see a movie than read a book. My head is always full of imaginative ideas. I believe that competitiveness is a necessary and desirable part of our economic life. I would rather read an article about a famous musician than a financier. I often think for a long time about an idea that has occurred to me. I would particularly enjoy meeting people who had made a success in business. I prefer the friends of my own sex to be very efficient, and of a practical turn of mind. Daydreams are an important part of my life. I am generally regarded by others as a leader. I am very self-confident. I like to have people around me practically all the time. I am generally active in my everyday life. I generally talk very quietly. Most of the time, I am extremely carefree and relaxed. I am quite often lacking in self—confidence. I am cautious about undertaking anything which may lead to humiliating experiences. +AKJH P‘ FJRJHFH N romJH N 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 98 I enjoy speaking in public. There are few things I enjoy more than being a leader of people. I have frequently assumed the leadership of groups. I am a rather carefree person. I feel somewhat inferior as a person to a few of my friends. I am frequently discouraged by my own inade- quacies. When I meet a stranger, I sometimes think he is a better person than I am. I am somewhat more shy than the average person. I generally feel self-conscious in the presence of important superiors. I always like to be with people rather than be alone. I am inclined to limit my friends to a few people. I spend myself freely as I have plenty of energy. I would rather listen to a story than tell one. I prefer quiet games to extremely active ones. I frequently become involved in too many acti- vities. Some people I know can look forward to a happier life than I can. I am very optimistic. I am a very adventurous person. I have quite a few fears about my future. I am at least as much of a pessimist as an opti- mist. I sometimes become melancholy without very good reasons. I have some feelings of inferiority. I am almost never embarrassed. I always prefer to work with others. I dislike it when I am with people constantly. I enjoy taking the full responsibility for in— troducing people at a party. I am always taking on added social responsibi- lity. I am generally leader of the people I know. I am seldom the center of attention in a group. I am often called upon to settle arguments be- tween people. I sometimes find it hard to lead people and main- tain them in order. I generally keep in the background at social functions. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 99 I am rather easily stirred up. I have never been sea sick, plane sick, or car sick. It takes a great deal to make me emotional. My emotional life is marked by great moderation. I believe I am less emotional than most people. I rather frequently find myself getting emo- tional about something. Sometimes I become so emotional that I find it a little hard to get to sleep. I become emotional fairly easily. I have sometimes actually screamed with joy. I am seldom disturbed about sexual matters. I usually prefer to keep my feelings to myself. I almost always do about as well as I expected in competitions. I suppress my emotions more often than I ex- press them. I am easily moved to laughter or tears. I am seldom disturbed about sexual matters. I consider most matters from every standpoint before I form an opinion. I have sometimes gotten so angry that I felt like throwing and breaking things. I am practically always tolerant even in deal- ing with people that I don't like. My feelings and emotions are very easily aroused. I almost never notice minor physical injuries. I am considered rather emotional by my friends. I find that my life moves along at an even tenor without many ups and downs. I have occasionally had to make an effort not to cry. I am a rather objective and matter—of—fact person. I like having someone with whom I can talk about my emotional problems. I am rather spontaneous in speech and action. I usually express myself objectively, with con— siderable caution and restraint. I am a fairly impulsive person. I never complain about my sufferings and hard- ships. I have sometimes corrected others, not because they were wrong, but only because they irritated me. '._l NNl-‘H l—‘N 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 100 I have occasional difficulty getting the tem- perature of my bath the way I like it. I have very strong likes and dislikes. Quite a few things make me emotional. I am moderate in my tastes and sentiments. I usually do things in a leisurely sort of way, seldom getting excited. I am almost never extremely excited or thrilled. I experience rather frequent pleasant and un- pleasant moods. I like to discuss my emotions with others. I sometimes speak on the spur of the moment without stopping to think. I can stand pain better than the average person. 101 ATTITUDES TOWARD LEADERSHIP DIRECTIONS: In each question are two statements of things that a leader can do. Choose the one you feel it is more important for him to do. If you feel that both alternatives are poor, choose the one you think is less poor. 1. 10. 11. (1) 12.). ( ) _— (2) (l) () () (2) To make decisions independently of the group. To really be a part of his work group. To let workers take time out from the monotony when they wish. To allow workers to make decisions only when given explicit authority by the leader. To take an interest in the worker as a person. To maintain definite standards of performance. To have his workers do their work the way they think is best. To rule with a firm hand. To decide in detail how the work shall be done by the workers. To let workers make decisions whenever they feel competent. To make it clear that he is the leader of the group. To have workers settle by themselves most of their job problems. To have the workers settle by themselves most prob- lems. To have scheduled rest periods. To have his workers do their work the way they think is best. To assign specific responsibilities and duties daily. To do the important jobs himself. To have workers take their rest periods when they wish. To feel he belongs in his group. To reward the good workers. To have his workers do the work the way they think is best. To have the worker depend upon him to make deci- sions. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ’NH [—1 V AA l—‘N VV 1 A [\J AA NH 102 To get the work done on time. To be friendly toward his workers. To act as he thinks best regardless of the views of his workers. To be proud of his work group. To give the workers the power to act independently of him. To assign workers to particular tasks. To do the important jobs himself. To let the workers decide how to do each task. To leave it up to each worker to get his share of the work done. To set up most projects himself. To call the group together to discuss the work. To work right alongside the workers. To pitch right in with the workers. To plan the work carefully. To explain carefully each worker's duties to him. To spend some time helping to get the work done. To work hard himself. To schedule the work of the men carefully. To be an authority in the type of work the group does. To tell poor workers when their work isn't mea- suring up to what it should be. To do the same work as his men whenever time allows. To plan how his men will do the job. To call the group together to discuss the work. To attempt to make his work not too different from the work of his men. To be respected as a man of high technical skill in his field. To spend over half his time in supervisory activi- ties such as planning and scheduling. To let his workers know how they are doing on their jobs. To spend some of his time helping to get the work done. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 103 To pass along to his workers information from higher management. To help get the work done. To be known as a man of great technical skill in the field. To schedule the work to be done. To meet with the workers to consider proposed changes. To pitch right in with the workers to help make changes. To explain the duties of each worker's job to him until he really understands them. To pitch right in with the workers. To perform the same work as the workers whenever possible. To plan his day's activities in considerable detail. To be known as a skillful trainer. To set an example by working hard himself. To work right alongside his workers. To try out new ideas on the work group. I lll-lvlu. 104 TEST OF IDIOGRAPHIC SENSITIVITY DIRECTIONS: This is a test of your ability to make accurate predictions about people. You will be given information about George, Walter and Allen. Your task is to use this information to make judgments about them. Correct answers have been obtained from attitude and personality scales filled out by each man, and from ratings and sketches made on each man by his friends and relatives. The test is divided into two sections: Section 1: Individuals Section 2: Comparisons *** SECTION 1: This part consists of brief interviews with three men followed by questions about their behavior. Follow the directions given at the beginning of each case. The interviews are given in the order: (1) George (2) Walter (3) Allen THE CASE OF GEORGE George is middle—aged, married and has one child. As part of a research project on understanding people, he was given a brief interview. A typescript is given below: Psychologist: "What sort of person are you?" George: "Just an average person. I like the normal things most people do. I like sports, I like to dance and play around that way. Of course, I don't run around, I'd say I was getting into a stable class. I'm over the younger fling." Psychologist: "What would you consider your greatest person— ality handicap?" George: "Well, maybe too reserved." Psychologist: "In what way?" George: "Well, especially in business. I think I take too much of what the boss says, and do it. And, though may— be I can do it better, I do it the way he says to avoid trouble. In other words, I try to get along with people, which is good. But maybe sometimes I should say more about it to maybe help me and the others." Psychologist: "Assert yourself a little more?" George: "Yes." Psychologist: "Do you ever lose your temper?" George: "Well, very seldom with a person. I may become up- set. I try my best not to let them know it." 105 Psychologist: What would you do if someone told a lie about ou?" George: "Well, what kind of lie——that I did something I didn't?" Psychologist: "Yes, a lie that perhaps would be damaging to your character." George: "Well, I don't know, but I imagine I'd try and find out why the person said it. Maybe, as far as he knew, he was telling the truth." Psychologist: "Would you go to him and talk to him about it?" George: "If it was of importance, otherwise I would forget it." ‘ Psychologist: "What sort of hobbies do you particularly enjoy?" George: "Well, I like to make things. Woodwork and hunt— ing are the main things.“ Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these times?" George: "I don't go in for religion too much. I believe that it is necessary for everybody to have a basic be— lief. As far as the religious part goes, in my own living I don't place that as a major issue. Psychologist: "Then religion is not too important to you personally?" George: "No." Psychologist: "But you do feel that people should have some sort of basic faith?" George: "Yes, they have to have a code to live by, and that's the best one I can think of." George checked one alternative on each of the statements be- low to describe himself. Check the alternative you think he checked. 1. When my conscience begins to bother me ... (1) I'm ashamed (2) I analyze myself (3) I try to do the right thing 2. I could hate a person who ... (l) is a hypocrite and two—faced (2) is cruel and ridicules others (3) ...I don't hate anybody 3. When they offered me help I ... (l) was somewhat embarrassed (2) thanked them but refused (3) accepted 4, I boiled up when ... (l) I was criticized unjustly (2) I saw people hurting others (3) I was cheated. 106 THE CASE OF WALTER Walter is a young married man with two children. A typescript of his interview follows. Psychologist: "What sort of a person are you?" Walter: "That's hard to determine. I'm one person to my- self and another type of person to society. I'd have to give two definitions to answer that correctly--how I am to myself, and how I am to people who know me." Psychologist: "What sort of person are you to yourself?" Walter: "Well, I think I'm a person of probably over-average intelligence, with ambitions to be able to better myself and my society." Psychologist: "What sort of person do you feel you are to other people?" Walter: "Well, I hope I'm pretty nearly the same kind of person to other people as I am to myself. I get along well with most people, I don't have a great many friends; I have a few intimate friends, and with these people I'm quite close. I get along well with these people. And, I can be pretty compatible with most people." Psychologist: "What do you feel is your greatest personal— ity handicap?" Walter: "The fact that I try too hard to do things, I be- lieve. This hinders me from being able to do things—- by being under certain tensions." Psychologist: "Do you ever lose your temper?" Walter: "Rarely." Psychologist: "What sort of thing would cause you to lose your temper?" Walter: "Well, never having lost my temper completely-~I've always been able to hold my emotions pretty well in check—-it would have to be a fairly devastating thing, I think, to make me lose it, or to become completely out of control of myself." Psychologist: "What sort of hobbies do you particularly enjoy?" Walter: "Golf, music, spectator sports—-I am not too ath- letic--tennis, things such as this." Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these times?" Walter: "That's a pretty deep subject. Not being a deeply religious man myself, it isn't too important to me. The moral teachings of religion help man to be able to live better with himself, and with other people in so— ciety. I think today it's quite important for most people--not for the supernatural aspects of it, but for the moral teachings." Egsychologist: "You don't feel that it's necessary for you?" Walter: "Not necessary, no." 107 Walter has checked one alternative on each of the statements below to describe himself. Check the alternative you think he checked. 5. I would go mad if ... (l) somebody nagged me all the time (2) I had nothing to do (3) I thought there were no purpose in life 6. At the party, I was ... (l) a little shy and reserved (2) the life of a party (3) quite smooth and polished 7. My philosophy of life is ... (1) "Whatever you do, do well." (2) "Enjoy today, think of tomorrow." (3) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 8. I enjoy ... (1) great music (2) being with people (3) sports 9. When I meet people, I generally feel ... (l) indifferent (2) uneasy and self-conscious (3) at ease and genial *** THE CASE OF ALLEN Allen is young and single. His interview follows: Psychologist: "Just what sort of a person are you?" Allen: "Well, I guess an easy—going one. I'm easy to get along with." Psychologist: "What else can you tell me about yourself?" Allen: "Well, I guess that's about all. I have some temper ——not much." Psyghologist: "What would you consider your greatest person- ality handicap?" Allen: "Well, I guess just paying attention when there are people talking to me. Just paying attention to them." Psychologist: "Do you have difficulty paying attention when people talk to you?" Allen: "No, no, I don't find no difficulty, it's just that whenever I walk into a place, I just don't speak, I'm quiet." Psycholggist: "Do you have difficulty making friends." Allen: "No, no I don't find no difficulty making friends." Psychologist: "After you once get to know them, then. But to begin with, you feel a little reserved, is that it? Allen: "Yuh." 108 Psychologist: "Well, do you ever lose your temper? What about?" Allen: "Once in a great while. It has to be something pretty mean, I guess, or something pretty big. One I guess is just-—I don't know--couldn't tell you that until I lost my temper. Well, for instance, my little brother taking off with my car." Psychologist: "That would make you unhappy?" Allen: "Yuh." Psychologigt: "What would you do if someone told a lie about you?" Allen: "I guess that would make me a little sore too, if it wasn't true." Psychologist: "What would you do, go to the person and talk to him about it?" Allen: "I wouldn't do nothing. Just sort of keep it to my- self." Psychologigt: "What sort of things do you do in your spare time?" Allen: "Oh, usually drive around; I like to drive around quite a bit." Psychologist: "Do you participate actively in sports, or are you a spectator?" Allen: "No, I participate in it. Basketball, for instance." Psychologist: "How important do you feel religion is to people in these times? How is it important to you?" Allen: "Yes, I really do think that religion is important. I don't know. I guess just being good, people go out, and that ain' t so bad, just going out and partying, but after that, the way they gather. . . Psychologist: "And you think that religion would affect that sort of thing?" Allen: "I think so, because of conscience——people have a conscience, and that would be on it. Psychologist: "In a what way is religion important to you?" Allen: "I don't know, well, sometimes when you go out party- ing, you feel like doing something else, and yet you don't." Psychologist: "Because of your religion, is that it?" Allen: "Uh-huh. Allen checked one alternative on each of the statements be- low to describe himself. Check the alternative you think he checked. 10. When I make a mistake, I ... (1) don't give a damn (2) am embarrassed (3) laugh it off 11. I feel "down in the dumps" when ... (l) ...I don't (2) I say the wrong thing (3) I don' t succeed 109 12. When they told me what to do ... (l) I did just the opposite (2) I listened politely but did nothing (3) I did it l3. At the party, I was ... (l) a little shy and reserved (2) the life of the party (3) quite smooth and polished 14. Religion seems to me ... (l) unnecessary (2) a problem (3) necessary and important *** SECTION 2: The men in Section 1 filled out a series of attitude and personality scales. Their friends also rated them on a series of traits and gave sketches of them. The statements below are based on the answers that the men and their friends gave. If you think the answer to a particular question is: George mark "l" Walter mark "2" Allen mark "3" Go back and reread the interviews if you wish to; in any given subsection, an individual may be used more than once. Religious Beliefs (1) George, (2) Walter, and (3) Allen filled out a rating scale about their religious beliefs. Which one answered in the following manner? g_ 15. Agreed that "I am unable to accept the idea of 'life after death' at least not until we have some defi- nite evidence there is such a thing." 3 l6. Agreed that "God will punish those who disobey his commandments and reward those who obey Him (either in this life or a future life)." 2 l7. Disagreed that "There exists an evil intelligence personnage, or spirit in the universe often re— ferred to as Satan or the Devil." Adjective Check List The three men were each given pairs of adjectives and were asked to choose the one which they thought was a bet- ter description of themselves. In each of the pairs below, 110 only one of the men checked the adjective underlined. Mark "1" if you think it was George, "2" is you think it was Walter, or "3" if you think it was Allen. 2 l8. Arrogant —- empathic g 19. Progressive —- outgoing 3 20. Shy -— assertive I 21. Steady —— spunky l 22. Tolerant —— ingenious l 23. Stable -- robust 3 24. Contented -— quick l 25. W§£m_-— forceful l 26. Moderate —— artistic a 27. Restless -- unemotional 3 28. Sincere —— original I 29. Good-natured —- painstaking 3 30. Eing_—— insightful l 31. Changeable -- tense 3 32. Lgy§l_-- clever l 33. Foolish -- cynical Personality Inventory Items (1) George, (2) Walter, and (3) Allen were given a se- ries of true—false items. Which one of the three answered false to these items? 3 34. I like to be the center of attention. 3 35. It is easy for me to talk to strangers. 2 36. At times I think I am no good at all. Which one of the three answered true to these items? 37. I easily become impatient with people. 111 l 38. I take a pretty easy-going and lighthearted attitude toward life. 3 39. Policemen are usually honest. Thumbnail Sketches by Friends Friends of (1) George, (2) Walter, and (3) Allen also gave thumbnail descriptions of them. Which one was de- scribed as follows: 2 40. "Is in a state of rebellion against all religions." g 41. "Enjoys almost all good art and music." 3 42. "Does quite poorly in speaking to groups." 2 43. "Rather fussy about what he eats and how it is prepared." 3 44. "Is shy and reserved at parties." 3 45. "Prefers going steady with one person." I 46. "Is fairly easy-going with children." I 47. "Raises voice a little but maintains control in family arguments." 48. "Is about average in regards to ambition." g 49. "Somewhat insecure and high strung." 1 50. "Is easy to get along with." 3 51. "Is a rather quiet and humble person." 3 52. "Loyal, honest, and kind." g 53. "Tends to 'stew' about things, changes his mind back and forth before making final decisions." Ratings by Friends (1) George, (2) Walter, and (3) Allen were rated by their friends on a series of personality traits. Which one was rated as follows? IN 54. least affectionate I [\J 55. most rebellious lN IF‘ H” I00 | ||-‘ 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 112 least shy least egotistical most careful least ambitious most egotistical least careful 113 COURSE EVALUATION Student Number As you know, the aim of this experimental course has been to enhance your own self development. Its present form has been heavily influenced by the evaluations of students taking the course in the past. Its future form, in turn, will be influenced by your assessments of it. Your personal evaluations will be even more valuable if we can relate them to other criteria of success: the self concept scale, the sensitivity test, objective quizzes, etc. This is why we have asked you to include your student number. A. Place in the blank your evaluation of the course as a whole by indicating the number that corresponds most closely to your overall evaluation: (1) uninter- esting and unhelpful; (2) neutral or doubtful; (3) in- teresting and helpful; (4) very interesting and helpful; (5) extremely intesting and helpful. B. Some of the most potentially valuable information is re- lated to your evaluation of specific elements in the course. In the left hand column rank the value of each element, ranking "1" the element you feel most valuable to "8" least valuable. In the right hand column rank the element "1" you think more time and attention should have been given to "8" the one that should have received much less time and attention: Value Time 1. Interviews and trait profile predictions. 2. The discussion of problem cases (autistic, etc.) 3. Techniques of self development (first re- port) 4. Modeling as a self development method (second report) Hi I I ll 5. The discussion of role dilemmas 6. Group meetings in general. 7. Tests and quizzes. O Other. It may well be that you have some specific idea that would be more helpful than any of these evaluations. Suggestions: Specific or general comments about the group meetings: 114 THE GOOD LEARNERS The aims of this exercise are: (l) to give you ideas on how to benefit the most from the course; (2) to help you under- stand the kind of person who does benefit the most; and most important, (3) to give you practice and feedback in learning about people from other people. Three different groups like this one took a test of predic- tive accuracy and answered the 200 statements in the person- ality inventory as you have done. They also took the same predictive accuracy test at the end of the course as you will. The answers to each of the inventory statements of those who improved the most from the initial to the final test were compared with those who improved the least. The high learners in all three groups consistently answered each of the statements below differently from the low learners. DIRECTIONS: In the first column on the left, circle the answers as you would answer them for yourself. In the mid— dle column, answer them as you think the typical high learner did. After the group discussion, answer them all again, changing any answers that you now feel are more likely to be right. Finally, the instructor will read the correct answers. "X" the correct answers in each column. Then add up the total 'Xs" inside of the circles, i.e., the number of times that your answers agreed with the actual answers of the high learners. SELF HIGH LEARNERS Before After T F T F T F l. I am seldom the center of attention in a group. T F T F T F 2 I enjoy speaking in public. T F T F T F 3. I have frequently assumed the lead- ership of groups. T F T F T F 4. I am an extremely practical person. T F T F T F 5. I believe that what a person does about a thing is more important than what he feels about it. 'T F T F T F 6. I consider the close observance of social custom and manners as an essential aspect of life. II-EI I 8 I’ll I'IZI T F T F T F T F 115 7. I spend a lot of time philosophizing with myself. 8. The thought of God gives me a com- plete sence of security. 9. A person should develop his greatest loyalty toward his religious faith. 10. I like to be with people who are not preoccupied with the future. TOTALS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTUAL ANSWERS OF HIGH LEARNERS GAIN (After total minus Before total) 116 PROFILE OF SCORES ON THE SMITH PERSONALITY INVENTORY Norms for Men (N = 105) Basic Traits Percentiles 1 2 3 '01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 KO l. Cautious-Bold 3 9 15 16 18 20 23 . Unemotional- Emotional 3 9 10 13 15 l7 l9 3. Present-minded VS Future- minded (Impul- sive-Controlled) 3 9 12 15 l7 19 21 4. Artistic—Prac- tical (Intro- verted-Extro— verted) 2 8 10 12 l4 16 20 5. Religious vs Scientific (Rational-Em- pirical) 1 14 20 22 24 27 29 Lo Norms for Women (N = 112) l. Cautious Bold 4 8 10 12 15 18 20 2. Unemotional- Emotional 4 14 16 19 21 23 26 3. Present—minded vs Future- minded (Impul— sive-Controlled) 5 12 14 15 16 18 19 4. Artistic-Prac- tical (Intro- verted-Extro- verted) l 6 9 10 12 l4 l6 5. Religious vs Scientific (Rational-Em— pirical) O 13 l7 19 21 23 25 For Ratings: "l" — 0- 9th Percentile "2" lO—29th Percentile "3" 30-69th Percentile "4" 70-89th Percentile "5" 90-99th Percentile 117 SELF-OTHER DIFFERENTIATION To really understand another person, we need to be clear about how he is actually like us. Even harder, we need to be clear about how he is not like us. The ability to make these self-other differentIEtions accurately improves with age and, particularly, with self-development (see text, pages 160-162 and 199-216). Even as adults, however, some of us have a strong tendency to see others as too much like ourselves while some of us have an equally strong tendency to see them as more like ourselves than they actually are. This session aims: (l) to help you understand your own dif- ferentiation tendencies; (2) to understand the types of people who differentiate too little or too much; and (3) to give you practice in learning from others about people. Three different groups took the personality inventory that you did and also took tests (see page 206) to measure how often they would assume that another person would make the same responses that they would. The statements below are those that low and high differentiators answered in oppo- site ways in all three groups. BEFORE THE GROUP DISCUSSION: In the first column on the left, circle the answers you would make yourself. In the middle column, answer them as you think they were answered by the LOW self-other differentiator (by the person who assumed most often that other people would make the same answer that he did). AFTER THE GROUP DISCUSSION: In the right hand column, an- swer the statements as you know feel they would be answered by the LOW self-other differentiator. When the instructor reads the correct answer, put an "X" in all three columns. Add up all three columns, counting the number of times that the "X" appears in the circle. SELF LOW DIFFERENTIATOR Before After T F T F T F l. I like to have people around me prac- tically all of the time. T F T F T F 2. I always prefer to work with others. T F T F T F 3. I think much and speak little. T F T F T F 4. I am cautious about undertaking any- thing which may lead to humiliating experiences. T F T F T F 5 I am fairly easily move to laughter or tears. .,. ......E e+a “3 I6 “3 H Ie Iw IW Ififlfi Iw IW 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 118 I have sometimes corrected others, not because they were wrong, but only because they irritated me. I have strong likes and dislikes. It takes a great deal to make me emotional. I always keep control of myself in emergency situations. I am termperamentally more a sceptic than a believer. Some of my friends think my ideas are a bit wild and impractical. The thought of God gives me a com- plete sense of security. In matters of conduct I conform very closely to custom. I am mainly interested in ideas that are very practical. It is necessary to retain the belief that God exists as a personal being. TOTAL NUMBER IN AGREEMENT WITH ANSWERS OF LOW DIFFERENTIATOR GAIN (Number after discussion minus num- ber before discussion) 119 HAPPINESS IN MARRIAGE The specific aim of this exercise is to improve your under— standing of the typical happy, unhappy, and divorced man and woman. The general aim is to encourage you to shift from a subjective orientation to people to a more objective one, from a stress upon what we feel about people to a stress upon what people feel and say about themselves. The correct answers throughout are based on an analysis of the replies of the typical happy, unhappy, and divorced per- son to lengthy and completely annoymous questionnaires (Johnson and Terman, 1935). While the study is an old one, it established differences between these groups that appear to be enduring ones. Thus, a hundred happily married women were matched/with 100 unhappily married and 100 divorced wo- men who had completed the same questionnaire. For example, they all answered the question: "Do you prefer a play to a dance?" Results: 81% of the happily married women answered "yes". 58% of the unhappily married women answered "yes". 44% of the divorced women answered "yes". The correct answer, therefore, is "happily married women". One way of developing a more objective orientation is by com- paring and contrasting our impressions of a person or group with the impressions that other people have of the same per- son or group. First, circle what you think are the correct answers in the "before discussion" column. Second, discuss the reasons for your responses with the members of your group. Third, answer the statements in the "after discussion" column, changing those that, in the light of the discussion, you now think are correct. Fourth, as the instructor reads the correct answers, mark with an "X" those in both columns that you had cor- rect. Finally, determine your gain (or loss) as a result of the discussion by subtracting the "before" score from the "after" score. 120 The Happiness of Women Circle: (H) if you think the correct answer is "happily married women"; (U), "unhappily married women"; and (D) "divorced women". Before After Discussion Discussion H U D H U D 1. Most often troubled by feelings of inferiority. H U D H U D 2. Most apt to arrive late for work. H U_ D H U D 3. Most interested in avoiding technical responsibilities. H U E H U D 4. Most prefers work that makes heavy demands. H U_ D H U D 5. Least effective in emergencies. H U 9_ H U D 6. Most ambitious. H U D_ H U D 7. Most willing to be unconventional. H U g H U D 8. Most interested in being an in— ventor. H_ U D H U D 9. Most apt to like old people. H_ U D H U D 10. Most conversative in social and political opinions. H_ U D H U D 11. Most apt to like people who never drink. 12. Most apt to like religious people. (m c: o '.I.' C'. o GAIN PERCENTILES O 10 20 3O 50 70 80 9O 99 Before Discussion 3 6 7 8 10 ll 12 l3 14 After Discussion 5 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 The Happiness of Men Circle: (H) if you think the correct answer is "happily married men"; (U), "unhappily married men"; and (D)"di— vorced men." D H U D 1. Least often takes lead to en- liven a dull party. Most likely to enjoy taking risks. 3. Most likely to enjoy competition. 4. Most dislikes foreigners. 5. Slowest in making decisions. 6 7 [G H [U c: U N . Most dislikes modern languages. . Most often experiences feelings of loneliness. mmmmm :2: m clclclcc: c: [ocoolo mmmmm ccccc: ooooo 121 H g D H U D 8. Least interested in occupation of teacher. H g D H U D 9. Least interested in artistic activities. H U E H U D 10. Most apt to like the occupation of novelist. H U 2 H U D 11. Most prefers fashionably dressed people. H_ U D H U D 12. Most meticulous and methodical in work. H_ U D H U D 13. Most likely to stress quality in his work. H_ U D H U D 14. Most likely to organize a club or team. H_ U D H U D 15. Most apt to like religious people. H_ U D H U D 16. Most prefers to make plans with others. GAIN PERCENTILES 0 10 2O 30 50 70 80 9O 99 Before Discussion 3 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 12 After Discussion 4 7 8 8 9 10 ll 12 12 122 PROBLEM CASE AND SELF REPORT Autistic, impulse-ridden, and opportunistic people invari- ably present those around them with problems. This report asks you to identify one such person that you have known well, to describe his symptoms, to indicate the problem he presented you, and to tell what you did about it and how it worked. Before writing your problem, read the chapter on the Autistic to Impulse-Ridden and the Opportunist to the Conformist, paying particular attention to any cases and the symptoms. LENGTH OF THE REPORT. Ideally, the report should be on a single sheet single-spaced, since it will be reproduced from the original for distribution to the class. If you cannot have it typed, write it so it will be easy to read in re- production. Do ngE_inc1ude on this sheet what you did about the problem and how it worked. This should be reported on a separate sheet. Identify the first sheet with your stu- dent number; the second sheet, with your name and student number. If your problem is selected for group discussion, each member of each group will be given a copy, the groups will discuss your problem and propose their own solution, and, finally, the solutions of the three groups will be re— ported. At the end, if you are willing, you will be intro- duced to tell your own solution. Otherwise, we will report it from the second sheet. Of course, any report selected will get the maximum credit of 3 points and others may be. FORM OF THE REPORT. Your report should follow this general outline: Title: Sample: My Problem with Tom Jones, An Impulse- ridden High School Student, etc. Identification: Include age, sex, education, family background, the situation in which you have known him, etc. Problem: Indicate the problem you had with him, your seriousness of involvement, resources you had for pos- sible assistance, etc. Symptoms: Describe the symptoms that lead you to your diagnosis, and, above all, give as typical and as vivid incidents of his feelings and behavior as possible that illustrate the symptom. For example, if you describe an autistic person you would indicate incidents of his indifference to people, dreaming, hallucinations, fan- tasies, and projections; if impulse—ridden, incidents of his temper tantrums, impulsive aggressiveness, 123 negativism, etc. You may not know incidents that fit all of these, but give as many as you can. What you did and how it came out. As suggested above, put this on a separate sheet. OBJECTIVE. Like the trait interviews, the aim of the group discussions as well as the report is to give practice in applying the self theory to the actual experiences of mem— bers of the class. Your report, therefore, will not only help you to master the theory but be of help to others. Indicate on the second sheet one of the following answers: NO. Do 295 want to be identified in any way. AFTER. Willing to be identified afterward and to give your solution and to answer questions. DURING. Willing to participate in discussions about the case. ? Uncertain. Explain. 124 NOTES ON THE ROLE DILEMMA REPORT ASSIGNMENT: A "role" is the feelings, attitudes and behav- vior that society expects from the holder of a position in some social structure. A "dilemma" is a puzzling predica- ment that seems to offer no satisfactory solution or a situ- ation that requires us to choose between equally unpleasant alternatives. The assignment is to describe a student, man, woman, son, daughter, supervisor, employer, etc. AIMS: The aims of this assignment is to help you apply the role theory to your own experiences, deal with your dilemma more successfully, and become more skillful in helping others to resolve their dilemmas. FORM OF THE REPORT: Identification: Identify your report ONLY with your student number. DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON IT. The writer of the dilemma will remain anonymous throughout unless the writer chooses to reveal his name. It is hoped that this procedure will encourage people to deal with serious rather than superficial dilemmas. Title. Put a title on the report and use names and labels where appropriate. Examples: My Dilemma with my Individualistic Roommate, Mary; My Dilemma with My Authoritarian Father; My Dilemma with my too Permissive Friend, etc. Length. Type with single space and wide margins on a single page so that it can be reproduced for distribu- tion. Outline. The Dilemma: State the problem and the alternatives you see that you have. State your attitudes and feelings: What attitudes have you thought of using —- trying to see the humor of the situation, preparing yourself for the worse that could happen? What positive actions have you tried -- doing a lot of inner looking, talking with a friend, thinking about your past experiences in similar situations, etc.? State your objectives: What is the most concrete and immediate goal you would like to achieve in resolving the dilemma? What would be ideal? Be as factual as you can be. 125 THE FIRST DEVELOPMENTAL REPORT No matter what your position on any of the traits, your posi- tion creates potential problems. This project encourages you take some positive action to remedy one of these problems. Below are some common problems and tested techniques for dealing with them. Select a problem, develop a program, carry it out, and report on it. Whatever the problem or pro- gram, it is assumed that it will involve at least five hours of practice. 1. I would like to be more assertive. Read about the asser- tiveness training experiment on pages 79-81. You may wish to read the original article by McFall and Marstan. Here and in the other proposals you will need to use your imagination in adapting the main idea to your situation. 2. I like to be a better listener. A common weakness of the very bold is that they pay too little attention to the feelings and thoughts of others. Read about reevaluation counseling on pages 328-329. The main idea of this pro- gram is that two people can take turns listening and helping each other. Get the cooperation of some one in or out of class to alternate every half an hour so lis- tening and talking. The listener should be absolutely quiet during the listening period. He should also report what he thinks he has heard and have it checked by the talker. Here are some general rules: 1. Listen--don"t talk. 2. Give full interest and attention. 3. Never argue. 4. Do not listen exclusively to the manifest content of the expression. 5. As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subse- quent correction the pattern that is being set be- fore you. To test, summarize what he has said and present for comment. 3. I would like to be less afraid of. . . . Read about the reduction of fear through training, p. 107-108. Set up a similar kind of program for your fear and carry it through. 4. I would like to understand my feelings better. Read about the art teacher-counselor experiment on pages 158-160. Set up a program of picture painting like that used. Write an interpretation of the feelings in each. Include, if you can, comments of others about your picture and your interpretation. Include your pictures in your re- port but please make these 8 l/2xll. 5. 126 I would like to plan my study time better. Read about the study on p. 133. This is often a serious problem for the present-minded. Unfortunately, the present- minded dislike this kind of thing. If you are present- minded, grit your teeth and do it. I am too tense and ogganized. The future-minded often complain of being unnecessarily tense. There is no ref- erence in the text to relaxation training but studies show that almost any deliberately practiced program is very likely to be successful. Read Goldfriend and Trier (1974) Effectiveness of relaxation as an affective coping skill. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 348-355. Other. You may have a problem that is not touched upon here that you would like to work on. IF you have a con- crete program for going about this, it will be encour- aged. However, you should check with one of us for pos- sible guidance. 127 OUTLINE FOR THE SECOND DEVELOPMENTAL REPORT: The Use of Models PROBLEM: Identify and describe some aspect of your self that you would like to change. You may chose to continue to deal with the same problem as in the first report, i.e., becoming more assertive, a better listener, etc. However, you may chose a more positive goal, i.e., some method, style, or trait you admire and would like to possess. In any case, chose a goal that is specific and concrete and possible of attainment in a very short time. A BAD MODEL: Identify and describe some person who has been even less successful than you in solving your problem, i.e., who is even more submissive than you, a poorer listener, more tense, etc. Identify him, your relationship to him, and inci- dents that reveal his unsuccessful solution. Indicate exactly what it is that you do not want to do, and what you will try not to do. '—__ A TWIN MODEL: In the same way identify and describe a person who has no better solution to your problem than you have. Offer some explanation of the sources of his problem. What would you propose to this person to help him solve the pro- blem? Is this advise that you are trying to take your self? A SUPERIOR MODEL: Identify some one who seems to have solved the problem that you have or who has reached the goal that you would like to attain. What things do you see that you want to and think you could imitate? Practice playing the role as he plays it. IMITATION OF MODEL: Set up a scheme for practicing playing the role as the person you have chosen as a model plays it. CONCLUSION: How did it come out? Evaluate the model tech- nique in general as you have seen it. Note: This report will be longer than the first, for the description of models is an essential part of it. Also, the deliberate selection and imitation of models is a relatively untried technique. We will be very interested in your expe- riences and your evaluation of them as well as thoughts on how the technique can be used most effectively. APPENDIX B STUDY TWO CRITERION MEASURES AND TRAINING MATERIALS Class Schedule Instructor Inventory Typical Psychologist Coping With Personal Problems Student Attitude Survey Role Construct Repertory Test Role Playing Problem Reports Trait Report Final Report 128 129 PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY Course Outline Pscyhology 225, H2 Instructor: Henry Clay Smith Spring, 1975 Office: 312 Olds Hall TuTh 1:20-2:40 Text: Personality C 216 Wells Hall Development (2nd edition) SESSION CLASS ACTIVITIES ASSIGNMENTS March 27 Orientation: Problem reports, interpersonal styles, traits April 1 Pretests (l) Integrative problem April 3 Good Learners April 8 Trait predictions (2) Morale problem and (3) Producti— vity problem April 10 Trait predictions April 15 Empathy April 17 First Quiz (Chapters 1-8; 45 objective items) April 22 Happiness in Marriage (4) Trait Report April 24 Rep Test April 29 Role Playing May 1 Problem Cases May 6 Problem Cases May 8 Second Quiz (Chapters 9-12, 45 objective items) May 13 Problem Cases' (5) Self Report May 15 Problem Cases May 20 Problem Cases May 22 Problem Cases May 27 Post tests May 29 Review and evaluation (6) Role Report FINAL EXAMINATION: Monday, June 2, 3:00-5:00 p.m. (Chapters 13—18, 45 items) GRADE POLICY: Performance on the three objective quizzes will set the grading curve. The average base grade will be 2.0. The final grade will be determined by scores on the quizzes plus extra points referred to the base curve. For example: If 90 is the average on the quizzes and you get 80 but earn no extra points you will get a 2.0. Possible Extra Points: Maximum Points: Problem reports 6 (2 each) Trait, Self, and Role Reports 12 (4 each) Group performance 4 Attendance _T 130 INSTRUCTOR INVENTORY Directions: This exercise is designed to see how accurately n-D-UJNH KoQOU'l O O 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. you can predict the responses of another per- son. The instructor for this class has com- pleted the following inventory items. Your task is to try to predict how he answered them. Mark "1" if you think he marked a statement as being true for him. Mark "2" if you think he marked a statement as being false for him. I am very self—confident. Most of the time, I am extremely carefree and relaxed. I am frequently discouraged by my own inadequacies. When I meet a stranger, I sometimes think he is a bet— ter person than I am. am somewhat more shy than the average person. spend myself freely as I have plenty of energy. generally keep in the background at social functions. am always taking on added social responsibility. am rather easily stirred up. think much and speak little. rather frequently find myself getting emotional about something. I am considered rather emotional by my friends. I am almost never extremely excited or thrilled. I believe I am less emotional than most people. I usually prefer to keep my feelings to myself. Quite a few things make me emotional. I generally go from one thing to another in my daily life without a great deal of planning. I set very difficult goals for myself. I believe I have the disposition of a pleasure—seeker. I generally seek whatever makes me happy here and now. I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one thing for a long time. I like to keep all my letters and other papers neatly arranged and filed. I am extremely ambitious. I live more for the future than for the present. I enjoy going to art galleries very much. I am mainly interested in ideas that are very practi- cal. I like to read poetry. I would rather be a salesman than an artist. Artistic experiences are of great importance in my life. I prefer the friends of my own sex to be very effi- cient and of a practical turn of mind. HHHHHHH 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 131 I would like to hear a popular lecture on contem- porary painters. I am an extremely practical person. The idea of God must remain absolutely central to the whole plan of human purpose. I think that cremation is the best method of burial. I consider the close observance of social customs and manners as an essential aspect of life. I believe that we should have less censorship of speech and press than we do now. I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong. I think that it is much more important to learn to con- trol sexual impulses than to express them. I am temperamentally more a sceptic than a believer. Science should have as much to say about moral values as religion does. Directions: Correct HtokdwropawramaHraFawrekawkengwtoNJN+AFJH 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 132 THE TYPICAL PSYCHOLOGIST The replies of several hundred male psycholo- gists and several thousand business and pro— fessional men to the Strong Vocational Inter- est Plan were analyzed. The results showed that the typical psychologist liked some of the occupations, amusements, activities, and kinds of people listed in the test more than men in general. For example, while 41% of psychologists said they would like to be the "author of a novel" only 32% of men in general said they would. The results showed that the typical psychologist liked some of the items less. For example only 29% of psychologists said they would like to be a "sales manager" while 37% of men in general said they would. Your task is to predict how the interest of psychologists differ from those of other men. Mark "1" if you think a higher percentage of psychologists than men in general liked the interest. Mark "2" if you think a lower percentage of psychologists liked the interest. Actor Artist Astronomer Corporation Lawyer Manufacturer Athletic director Chemist Cashier in bank Editor Foreign Correspondent Inventor Magazine writer Office manager Orchestra conductor Physician Poet Rancher Sculptor Statistician Surgeon Wholesaler Geometry Algebra Physical training Physiology Correct l-'I-‘NI—‘l—‘NNI—‘F-‘F-‘i-‘l-‘NNNNNNNMNI—‘l—‘Nl—‘l—‘NNl—‘l—‘NNI—‘NH 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 133 Literature Hunting Symphony concerts Sporting pages Golf Chess Solving mechanical puzzles Travel movies Fishing Making a speech Teaching adults Taking responsibility Doing research work Writing reports Regular hours of work Developing business systems Saving money Conservative people Energetic people People who are natural leaders People who make fortunes in business Thrifty people Religious people Socialists Independents in politics People who talk about themselves Carelessly dressed people Absent-minded people Outside work Physical activity Usually drive myself steadily Have more than my share of novel ideas My feelings are easily hurt My advice is sought by many Put drive into the organization. 134 COPING WITH PERSONAL PROBLEMS Student No. DIRECTIONS: Presented below are three examples of incidents that most people have experienced at 922 time or another. Please select an actual event in your personal experience which represents each of the three examples. Choose events which did not offer an immediate solution -- ones which you were not sure how to resolve and posed a personal problem for you. I. Wanted to change something in your per— sonal life. II. Had a problem with a close friend, but you weren't sure what to do. III. Had a problem with school or work, but weren't sure what to do. After you have examples in mind, identify your three situations by giving each a title. Then think about what you would do if you had to en- counter each of these events again. Place a check mark on each of the following scales which describes the extent to which you would respond to the methods mentioned for each of the three problems you have in mind. I. WANTED TO CHANGE SOMETHING IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE Title: I i I l . I I Very Great Some Little Very No Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent 1. Become involved in other activities in order to help keep your mind off the problem. 2. Draw upon your past experiences from a similar situ- ation. 135 l Very I l I Great Some Little Very No Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent 3. Understanding of the situation. 4. Try to put yourself in the other's shoes. . . . . . . 5. Be prepared to expect the worst. . . . . . u 6. Try to see the humorous aspects of the situation. . . . . . ' 7. Not worry about it, everything will probably work out fine. . u u . u v 8. Re-examine your own thoughts and feelings —— do a lot of inner looking. . t u u v . 9. Try to get some perspective by talking it over with a friend. . 1 . u . . 10 Get out of the situation. . u . . . . II. HAD A PROBLEM WITH A CLOSE FRIEND, BUT YOU WEREN'T SURE OF WHAT TO DO. Title: Understanding the situation. 136 I very Great Exten 2. I I I Great Some Little Very No Extent Extent Extent Little Extent t Extent Be prepared to expect the worst. 3. Not worry about it, everything will probably work out fine. I I I I I I 4. Try to get some perspective by talking it over with a friend. I I I I I I 5. Become involved in other activities in order to help keep your mind off the problem. I I I I I I 6. Re—examine your own thoughts and feelings -- do a lot of inner looking. I I I I I I 7. Get out of the situation. I I I I I I 8. Draw upon your past experiences from a similar situa- tion. I I I I I I 9. Try to put yourself in the other's shoes. I I I I I I 10. Try to see the humorous aspects of the situation. 137 I Very I I I I Great Some Little Very No Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent III. HAD A PROBLEM WITH SCHOOL OR WORK, BUT WEREN'T SURE OF WHAT TO DO. 1 Title: 1. Try to put yourself in the other's shoes. I I I ' I I I 2. Try to see the humorous aspects of the situation. I I I I I I 3. Become involved in other activities in order to help keep your mind off the problem. I I I I I I 4. Not worry about it, everything will probably work out fine. I I I I I I 5. Be prepared to expect the worst. I I I I I I 6. Understanding of the situation. I I I I I I 7. Try to get some perspective by talking it over with a friend. I I I I I I 8. Re-examine your own thoughts and feelings —- do a lot of inner looking. I I I I I I 9. Draw upon your past experiences from a similar situa— tion. I I I I I I 10. Get out of the situation. 138 STUDENT ATTITUDE SURVEY Directions: Below are a series of items concerning your evaluations of this psychology class. Please place a check mark under each statement in the appropriate space which comes closest to repre— senting the amount of agreement you have with the statement. I I I I I Strongly Slightly Undecided Slightly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1. The students in this class add to my enjoyment of the course. 2. I like this psychology class better than any of my other classes. . u . . v 3. I wouldn't want to take any more courses in psychology. . . u . u 4. I often wish I was not a college student. . n . . . 5. I don't think I would care to have these students as classmates again. . u u u . 6. I only occasionally feel satisfied with the meetings of this class. . u . . u 7. I once thought I was interested in psychology, but now I have changed my mind. . u u . . 8. The work of a student is eventually a great service to mankind. 139 I I I I I Strongly Slightly Undecided Slightly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 9. There were a few students that I have met in this course who I like being with. 10. I feel satisfied with the meetings of this class a good deal of the time. I I I I I 11. Psychology is one of the most interesting subjects that I have taken. I I I I I 12. Being a student is just about the most enjoyable thing I have ever done. I I I I I 13. There is something about the students in this class that I just don't care for. I I I I I 14. I am not enthusiastic about the way this psychology class is conducted. I I I I I 15. I'm sure that I would like to continue learning about psychology. I I I I I 16. I don't feel I've been able to gain much of consequence since I've been in college. 140 ROLE CONSTRUCT REPERTORY TEST (Kelly, 1955) INSTRUCTIONS: Refer to the descriptions of 22 different persons, and se- lect from among known individuals the real person who best fits each description: write that person's name in the grid space above the column with the corresponding number. Now consider the first row only. Three persons (20, 21, 22) have circles under their names. How are two of them like each other and different from the third person? Keep think- ing about them until you identify an important likeness of two which distinguishes them from the third person. When you have decided which two are alike, put an X in each of the two circles under their names. Now write on the first line under construct the word or phrase that tells how those two are alike. Under contrast write the opposite of this characteristic. Now consider each of the other persons who appear at the heads of the columns. In addition to the two persons you have already marked with an X, which of the others have this characteristic? Put a check mark under the name of each additional person who has this character- istic. Repeat the procedure for every row on the form. DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS: 1. Write you own name in the first blank. 2. Write you mother's first name. If you grew up with a stepmother, write her name instead. 3. Write your father' first name. If you grew up with a stepfather, write his name instead. 4. Write the name of your brother who is nearest to your own age. If you have no brother, write the name of a boy near your own age who was most like a brother to you during your early teens. 5. Write the name of your sister who is nearest your own age. If you have no sister, write the name of a girl near your own age who was most like a sister to you during your early teens. From this point on, do not repeat any names. If a person has already been listed, simply make a second choice. 6. Your wife (or husband) or, if you are not married, your closest present friend of the opposite sex. 7. Your closest friend of the opposite sex, immediately preceding the person listed above. 8. Your closest present friend of the same sex as yourself. 9. A person of the same sex as yourself who you once thought was a good friend but in whom you were badly disappointed later. 141 10. The minister, priest, or rabbi known to you personally with whom you would be most willing to talk over your personal feelings about religion. 11. Your physician. 12. The present neighbor whom you know best. 13. A person with whom you have been associated who, for some unexplained reason, appeared to dislike you. 14. The person whom you would most like to help or for whom you feel sorry. 15. The person with whom you feel most uncomfortable. 16. A person whom you have recently met and would like to know better. 17. The teacher who influenced you most when you were in your teens. 18. The teacher whose point of View you have found most objectionable. 19. An employer, supervisor, or officer under whom you served during a period of great stress. 20. The most successful person whom you know personally. 21. The happiest person whom you know personally. 22. The person known to you personally who appears to meet the highest ethical standards. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS After the form is completed, the material on the GRID can provide answers to a variety of questions about your personal construct system. What is the nature of the constructs? For example, do they make distinctions in terms of physical characteristics (tall-short) or interpersonal characteris- tics (friendly-mean)? How many different constructs are there? If the pattern of checks and voids for, say, the construct "intelligent versus unintelligent" corresponds exactly to that for the construct "likes me versus does not like me", there is reason to suspect that those constructs are not two but in fact one: "People who like me are in- telligent and those who don't are unintelligent." Compari— sons of the columns rather than the rows uncover similari- ties to you. Is the self column most like the mother, the father, the successful person, the other males (or females)? The end product is a picture of your own personality theory, i.e., the concepts you use and the relationships between these concepts that you assume. “~- 142 hhnfimkuanxw u... . w x]. O I rm .hUDdHhZOU u: v; r: «Y b- a: 01 ~63 «m "m cm o” m. “L w~ m" *» nu m~ a o m h m n v n 143 ROLE PLAYING INSTRUCTIONS ASSIGNMENT: Earlier, the class interviewed some of you in an effort to identify your trait profile. This time, the class or your group will interview you in an effort to identify the attitudes and trait profile you are pretending you have. Turn in the 3x5 card at the next meeting with your name, and the letter of your group, and the name of the person whose role you will try to play and his group. SELECTION OF THE ROLE YOU WILL PLAY: You Will be presented with the leadership attitude and trait scores of the members of the class, anyone of whom you may decide to play. Use these principles as guidelines in your selection: 1. Pick a person as different from yourself as possible. Most people find it easier to play a person that is the opposite of themselves rather than one who is only a little different from themselves. 2. Select a person you like. Most people play the role of a person they would feel comfortable in being with and would like to know better. PREPARATION FOR ROLE PLAYING: People will be asking you direct questions designed to elicit answers that will allow them to place you on the traits. You should, of course, know the "right" answers for your role. They may also ask you less direct questions so that you should master the role well enough to give appropriate ad lib answers. Beyond that, you should project nonverbal cues of your profile, i.e., if very cautious, speak quietly; if very bold, loudly, etc. It will be helpful to practice the role outside of class, ideally, with a "coach". PROCEDURE: The procedure will be the same as in the earlier exercise. That is, members will ask you questions. The in- terviewers will then predict the role played and the role player will then identify the role he was trying to play. The group may make suggestions about what threw them off, etc. RATIONALE: The basic goal of the course is to improve your ability to cope with your present and future problems. Di- rectly or indirectly, almost all of our problems involve other people. Consequently, much of the time in the course has been devoted to improving your scientific understanding of others, i.e, your ability to predict what they feel, think, and will say about themselves. Our success has been measured by the psychologists and instructor tests. In this case, it will be measured by your improvement in the ability to predict the attitudes of others in your group. The prac- tice is based on the idea that imitation leads to identifi- cation, i.e., that behaving like a person leads to under- standing that person. 144 FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROBLEM REPORTS Your Name . Are you willing to have this problem discussed in class? NO. Yes, but I do not want to be identified. Yes, and I am willing to be identified and to partici- pate in the discussion. Impgrtance of Problem Reports. It is a major aim of the course to help you understand and deal more effectively with your personal problems. The Trait Report will ask you to think about your problems from the point of View of the trait theory; the Self Report, from the point of view of the self theory, and the Role Report, from the point of view of the role theory. If you think it would be helpful, one of your problems may be discussed in class groups. Definitions of Problem Areas. A personal problem is a di- lemma a puzzling predicament that seems to offer no immedi- ate solution or a situation that requires us to choose be- tween equally unpleasant alternatives. The first report asks you to focus upon an integrative problem; the second, upon a morale problem; and the third, upon a productivity problem. Integration is "an individual's degree of satisfaction with the theater in which he plays his roles and with the other role players." Thus, we have an integrative problem when we don't like something about the people we are relating to or something about the situation in which we are relating to them. Morale is "an individual's degree of interest in and satisfaction with the activities involved in the role he is playing." We have a morale problem when we are bored by what we are doing or can't decide between the things we can do with what we would be most interested in doing. Productivity is "an individual's degree of interest in and satisfaction with the objective results he achieves by playing a particular role." We have a productivity prob— lem when we feel we are not achieving the changes or the results we would like to_55hieve. The most puzzling and difficult problems are those that in- volve a conflict between our integrative, morale, and pro- ductive needs: We love our parents but are bored doing things with them; we enjoy a class but don't feel we are getting anything lasting out of it; we do a job very well, but don't like doing it or the people we do it with, etc. Form. Each problem should be typed on the opposite side of this page with margins like those on this page. The report 145 should not be longer than one page. If typing is not pos- sible, write in ink and as neatly as possible. Turn in two copies of each problem. Outline. Use the major headings shown below. TITLE: Use a brief and descriptive title. Examples: My Integrative Problem with My Demanding Father, My Morale Problem with My Possessive Boyfriend, My Pro- ductive Problem in Study, etc. PROBLEM: What is the problem and why is it a problem to you? OBJECTIVES: What is your immediate goal in dealing with the the problem? What is your long range goal? FACTS: Give facts that are relevant. What is the history of the problem? What are your opinions and feelings about it? What are the feelings of others who are concerned? POSSIBLE ACTIONS: List actions that you have thought of taking and comment on each of them. 146 THE TRAIT REPORT Name ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE YOUR REPORT DISCUSSED IN CLASS? No Yes, but without being identified Yes and I would be willing to be identified and to participate. GENERAL NOTE: We have stressed that people who learn to deal most successfully with their problems are those who think about their problems. One major obstacle in thinking effectively about our problem is that we are locked into the "magic circle" of the emotionally loaded words we habitually and naturally use in talking and writing about ourselves and our problems. The way to get out of this circle is to use words that are less emotional, more explicit, and more helpful in thinking about our problems. The aim of this and the following reports is to give you practice in using sets of such words that have been developed and tested by psycholo- gists over decades. At first, like speaking French in- stead of English, these words will seem awkward and hard to use. The goal is to practice using them until you are thinking with them instead of parroting them. FORM OF THE REPORT: Not more or less than two pages that are singled spaced with wide margins and headings. DUplicate and staple the four pages together. Use this sheet as the back of the first page. Maximum credit: 4 points. SELECTION OF THE PROBLEM: Pick the one of your three prob- lems that you think can be most easily and meaning- fully translated into terms of the trait theory. OUTLINE OF THE REPORT: Use the following headings in your report. Title: Repeat the title from your original report and then translate it into trait terms. Examples: "My Problem with My Stubborn Father" might become "My Father versus Myself: A Conflict between two very bold people." "Boredom with school versus a medical career" might become: "Fun versus School: Is it better to be present-minded or future-minded?" "My Frustrating Roommate" might become: "A Conflict be- tween Personality Profiles." Objectives: Restate your immediate and long-range goals using the trait vocabulary in an appropriate way. This may involve the resolution of conflicts 147 between your traits, between your traits and what you want to accomplish, between your traits and those of others, or between your present and possible ways of expressing your traits. Facts: Give your trait scores. Contrast them with your estimates of others, where appropriate. Do your traits conflict with your self-image? Have your traits changed? Would you like to have different traits? How are your traits related to your problem? Possible Actions: Do you want to change your traits? Is it possible? Do you need more information and how will you get it? Can you think of concrete techniques that, with practice, might help solve the problem? Are you planning or have you decided to try any of these? Actions: Have you done anything differently since you wrote the problem originally? What is the outcome? 148 FINAL REPORT PURPOSE: To summarize the current status of your problems, FORM: to analyze what seemed to help and what seemed not to help, and to indicate your plans for dealing with prob- lems in the future. A single spaced page in duplicate can earn the maxi— mum credit. However, you are encouraged to write more. Follow the form of earlier reports. Specifically, use the headings below. Status of My Problems: List by title each of your problems and rate: (1) this problem is now much worse; (2) somewhat worse; (3) no change; (4) somewhat better; (5) much better. Write a sentence to explain each rating. Theories and My Problems: One of the three major prin- ciples applied during the course was theories about your problems. Pick one aspect of this principle that seemed most helpful to you -- personal constructs; trait, self, and role theories; class practice in ap- plying them, etc. Be as concrete and specific as pos- sible. Models and My Problems: A second principle applied was: Use the personalities and experiences of others as mo- dels to imitate or to avoid imitating. Pick one person in the class whose personality or experience seemed par- ticularly meaningful or useful to you and explain why. Techniques andyMy Problems: One of the findings in Lieberman et al's Encounter Groups; First Facts was that those students made the most progress who actively practiced to develop some technique for dealing with their problems. Role playing was one of these tech- niques that we have demonstrated in class. Many of you have used others. What technique have you used that seemed to be helpful, if any? Explain what it was and why you think it worked. My Future and My Problems: Realistically, one cannot expect to do much more than take a few constructive steps in the right direction in dealing with a serious personal problem in ten weeks. What steps do you plan to take in the immediate future? M'TITA'ITIQHLTIEMIfifljilflilfillflflgfllljifEs