I 'II'IIIIIIIIIII I IIII

IIIIIIIIIII'I ' ‘I ‘

’IIn

IIIII II III
III IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII L
I, III III.“ III IIIIII IIII III."
.IIII'II'III III II
'IIIIII‘ I II
III IIIII 'II‘1IIIII II
II” IIIII 'I IIIIII

'I‘.:*.::."."- III IIII‘IIIIIIIIIII III. IIII
'.'_° III I II III I'I .IIIII III

. IIII' IIIIIIIIIIII I III III III

III II’ III

I I III IIIII

"IE": |I}III.III I‘M". II” III'I'lI ’I" II
.I I "I _'III "III: I I'IIII

III
III
I
III I I:
”I
III

III».

IIIHI
JII'III'IJ'I
I“. iII‘III‘I IIIIIII

I
I

III

III I
II IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII I III

. II !' IE. 1 .III '...I I'I.III " III'
II I I III III
.I.

III " IIIII IIIIl g ' III
I ' . II I‘l II-III I . I
II I" III II ' II I I

II”:
I'I

ant.-

-9:
I."

II
III
I

-j_‘_

-_.\

IIIII I'IIIII

‘—

R...-
W.;:

M

II III
IIIIII
II

. IIIIIIII IIII
IIIIIIIIII III II
IIIIII'IIII I
I. ’IIIIIIIII III
I' III IIII
IIIIIIIIIII I III
I . IIIIIII ..
' III IIIIIIIIIIII
II IIIIIII III/III II' I. ‘I
II III II

'I II , , . I ".I‘ II
I III' “I. I I I‘I'III III/III
I . .I III II II." II III :I'IIIIII

II
III
I

I
II
I
I
II
"I

IIII I H. . m . I‘ '..‘
I I. (I . :‘I’Il '. I I II I
I) ' ,1 [I ' I “I' I .

I
"I. I
' I
I .
.. I
I I I
III‘ I I
III‘ I l I I I
I
I '. .
I I ‘
. I:

I‘I‘HHH II I‘III . I I . _ ll.."l
\ JvIIfIII". . .IIII” I" . .. .I . I" I 1-. :I'II"
| , ‘ . .' . . . j

I .

I"! I
I
I

II” II'II III

II . ,

, .3. _ ..
I ‘ ' hull..." “"I.
It “I ‘. 'I-I.‘ Inn:
II. '5 i 0' I. ' I
. "1's“ III? II:
“III”: 'III‘IIIII.“ II II III
I I ‘I 1'?“ may" ,II‘N'I‘
' "uh ..' ,‘fI‘I'I'u 4'.
II I I,' "WI “6.3. II
I .I I “qu “I."
IIIII I “
-' .I.I'II.‘ Ii ;. .I'I.
' I ... III....' . .
\I .I I I IIIIIII :J‘I
Irv" I'I‘l
II II "I' .I "
I III:

I

‘
w..—

II
I"
I] I?

III

I
I

N—

1

I

_.c
b‘

I
I

I

:1

II
II
II I!

u

— v—
a

' — _

III ULIII.
III" I VIII. IIIn III'W’I

I. l IIIIII'I .IIIIIIIII III.

‘ . . “I" III’I'IIIIIIIIII'IIIIII 1'
I

IIIIIIII II'IIII

III” III

‘II
III1
I III IIIIII‘UIIIe

III II
' I III I III III. “III
' ‘I I "II IIIIIIIIIII III.”

' ' IIIIIIIII.

IIIIII'I'II

 

I'II'III'I'I III“ III. III.

I U ' I I I T.
, , .I '.' I' -. ..'I VIKIIIIIIIIIILIE
I ”I I.I.': I.'- “I?”

 
   

Illllllllll \\\\\|\\\|\\\|\l|\\\ UM W “l

3 1293 10063 9628

  

L IR R A 32 Y
M“. g3“ Stat:
U nit/“51W

     
 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

"A Pilot Study of the Effect of Training in
Interpersonal Process Recall on the Affective
Sensitivity and Empathy of Hearing Parents of Deaf
Children"

presented by

Robert A. Anthony

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in W

Major professor

Date AW

0-7639

A PILOT STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF TRAINING
IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL ON THE AFFECTIVE
SENSITIVITY AND EMPATHY OF HEARING PARENTS
OF DEAF CHILDREN

BY

Robert A. Anthony

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Education

1980

ABSTRACT
A PILOT STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF TRAINING
IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL ON THE AFFECTIVE

SENSITIVITY AND EMPATHY OF HEARING PARENTS
OF DEAF CHILDREN

BY

Robert A. Anthony

The effect of a training program in communication and
interpersonal relations on the affective sensitivity of hear-
ing parents of deaf children was studied. The intent of the
research was to evaluate a set of procedures by which parents
could improve their sensitivity, empathy, and ability to com-
municate effectively with their deaf children.

Deaf children are recognized as having unique problems
in developing interpersonal relationships. These problems
are caused by the fact that deafness prohibits the development
of language and Speech through the usual auditory channel.

These difficulties in communication have a profound ef-
fect on the relationship between parents and their deaf chil-
dren. Often the relationship is confused, strained, or tenu-
ous. Because the parent-child relationship is the model for
the child's future relationships, its importance is basic.

Efforts to resolve the communication problems between
hearing parents and deaf children usually identify modality

as the cause of the problem. Such research frequently

Robert A. Anthony
evaluates whether Speech and lipreading or sign language is
the best method for communicating with deaf children.

There are, however, two other important factors in com-
munication that are not usually considered. These factors
are the meaning and process of communication. This research
analyzed a method of training parents how to be more sensitive
to the covert and overt meaning in communication by instruc-
ting them in the process of communication.

The training program used was composed of ten training
sessions. The training sessions involved didactic presenta-
tions, role playing, paired interactions, and video-taped
recall of the paired interactions. The training program used
was Interpersonal Process Recall (hereinafter referred to as
IPR) develOped by Norman Kagan.

The independent variable was affective sensitivity train-
ing. This variable had two levels which were dichotomous.
The levels were 1) training in IPR and 2) no training in IPR.
The dependent variable was the effect of training in IPR on
the affective sensitivity of subjects who were trained. The
effect of training was determined by analyzing the scores of
subjects on the Filmed Measure of Affective Sensitivity Scale
D (FMAS Scale D) (Kagan and Schneider, 1975) and the Carkhuff
Index of Empathy Discrimination (CIED) (Carkhuff, 1969).

A pretest posttest control group design without random-
ization was used to study the independent variable. The
experimental and control groups were composed of hearing
parents of deaf children. Subjects in the experimental group

participated in training in IPR. Subjects in the control

Robert A. Anthony
group did not participate in IPR training. Both the experi-
mental and control group were tested immediately prior to
the beginning of training and immediately after training was
completed. The time lapse between the pretest and the post—
test was the same for both the experimental and control group.

The data for each hypothesis was analyzed using a Mann-
Whitney U test statistic. This program was used because of
the small number of subjects (N=13) and the need to maximize
statistical power. The Mann-Whitney U is recognized as a
powerful alternative to the parametric t-test (POpham and
Sirotnik, 1973).

It was found that subjects trained in IPR were signifi—
cantly more sensitive to client (helpee) communication than
the control group after training was completed. In the other
three areas of sensitivity that were measured no significant
difference between the experimental and the control group was
found. This indicated that training in IPR did not signifi-
cantly affect the experimental group's general level of
affective sensitivity, sensitivity to nonverbal communication,
nor level of empathy, but did affect sensitivity to client
(helpee) communication.

A word of caution is necessary here, particularly direct-
ed to those professionals who continue to search for ways to
serve parents of deaf children. The results of this study
are dependent on a very limited N, of widely divergent
personal skills, education, and experiential background.

Because random selection and assignment was not possible,

Robert A. Anthony
generalizations to the pOpulation of interest (hearing par-

ents of deaf children) is discouraged.

To my parents Joseph A. Anthony
and Edwina H. Anthony for their

support, encouragement, and love.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to my committee chairperson Vivian Stevenson for
support, counsel, and friendship. Also thanks for keeping
doctoral studies open to deaf peOple. Thanks to my disser—
tation chairperson,Norman Kagan, for his patience, flexibil-
ity and assistance in providing clarity and quality to this
study. Thanks to Eugene Pernell for his counsel, listening
time, and writing suggestions. Thanks to James Engelkes
for his research and writing advice.

This degree was helped in no small measure by the support
and flexibility of my wife and friend Pat and my children

Hilary and Jessica.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
CHAPTER
I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . 10

Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO
Parent-Child Relations . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Parents and Deaf Children. . . . . . . . . . 20
Communication Training . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Research Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Test Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Results of Analysis and Tables of Data . . . 57
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Non-Hypothesized Observations. . . . . . . . 70
Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

ii

Page
APPENDIX

A. Letter to Directors of Programs for Hearing
Impaired Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

iii

Table

 

LIST OF TABLES

Sex and Age of Subjects (Hearing Parents
Of Deaf Children) 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0

Educational Level of Subjects (Hearing
Parents of Deaf Children). . . . . . . .

Age of Deaf Children of Subjects (Hearing

Parents of Deaf Children). . . . . . . .

Raw and T Scores of Subjects on the Total

Score on the Filmed Measure of Affective
Sensitivity Scale D. . . . . . . . . . .

Raw and T Scores of Subjects on the Client
Subtest Filmed Measure of Affective Sensi-

tiVity scale D O O O O C O O O O I O I 0
Raw and T Scores of Subjects on the

Observational Subtest Filmed Measure of
Affective Sensitivity Scale D. . . . . .

Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination
Mean (X) Difference Scores . . . . . . .

iv

Page

39

4O

40

58

61

64

66

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

This is a study of the effect of a training program in
communication and interpersonal relations on the behavior of
hearing parents toward their deaf children. Its intent is
to develop a set of procedures by which parents can improve
their sensitivity, empathy, and ability to communicate effec-
tively with their deaf children.

A consideration of the significant attributes of deaf-
ness must include the following information: (1) the kind of
impairment--conductive or sensory neural; (2) degree of
impairment--volume and frequency levels at which sound is
perceived; (3) age at onset--the age at which the impairment
occurred; and (4) the cause--genetic, disease, accident.
These factors describe important physical features of hearing
deficits. These features reveal, however, nothing of how
hearing impairment affects the person.

The physical characteristics of deafness are not its
most salient feature. The develOpmental ramifications are by
far the most complicating and significant features of deaf—
ness (Furth, 1973). The fact that deafness prohibits the
develOpment of language and speech through the usual auditory
channel relegates the deaf individual to a world of depri-
vation in human interaction. The primary handicap of deafness,

l

2
then, is the severely reduced ability to form interpersonal
relationships because of the communication barriers.
This study is an attempt to investigate one aSpect of
the communication barrier which handicaps deaf individuals.
The aspect studied is the vitally important one of early

and effective communication between parent and child.

The Problem

 

Communication has a profound effect on human development.
It is used to satisfy physical, social and psychic needs.

Communication is a critical factor in all areas of
human development: physical, psychic and social. Develop-
mental use of communication proceeds from satisfaction of
physical needs, e.g., a baby cries when it is hungry, to more
complex psychological and social needs.

As the child develOps and physical needs diminish in
urgency, communication becomes a tool with which the growing
child can gain knowledge, formulate ideas, and express
thoughts and feelings more intelligibly. In other words,
communication is a tool of learning and a source of feedback
for a more perfect understanding of the physical, psychic,
and social world.

There are at least two ways in which peOple learn or
acquire knowledge. Part of learning may be accomplished
through direct experience. Much of learning must be done,
however, by observation of the activity of others, discussion
of the past and present, and predictions for the future. It

is this kind of learning, through communication, that

3

separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is
communication with others that permits peOple to move beyond
merely reacting to events. The ability develOps to under—
stand, anticipate, and plan for events that have not yet
occurred. Clearly, communication is important to human
development. Problems in communication result in problems
in physical, social, and psychic development.

Communication is instrumental to and defined by inter-

personal relations. In their book, Monologue to Dialogue,

 

An Exploration of Interpersonal Communication, Brown and

 

Keller (1973) stated "Communication between peOple involves
in its essence, two things--re1ationships and information;
the former determines the latter" (p. 1).

The earliest and most important relationship a child
has is with his/her parents. Parents satisfy most of the
needs of the child through the provision of food, clothing,
and shelter. They are also the first experience a child
has in communication and establishing relationships. The
importance of these relationships is further magnified be-
cause they establish a pattern and hence a foundation for
future relationships. It is crucial, then, that it be enjoy-
able, need-satisfying, informative, and structurally sound.

The structural soundness of communication may be deter-
mined by analyzing the components of communication, which
are modality, meaning, and process (Schneider, 1973).

An analysis of modality indicates whether the sender
and receiver understand the message through the channel used.

Examples of this are: If you write a message the receiver

4
must be able to read, or if you speak about something the
receiver must be able to hear and understand your language.

The meaning in a message is more complex than is usually
assumed. There are really two levels of meaning in any
message. The most obvious is the content level or lexical
message. This is the part of the message that has the
greatest incidence of corresponding meaning between the
sender and the receiver. It is often termed the information
in a message.

The other level of meaning is the affective level. This
is the level that has the least mutual understanding. The
affective meaning of a message is determined by judgment of
intent, situational clues, and inferences drawn. Since
individuals have different feelings associated with the words
and content of a message, they often differ on their under-
standing of the affective meaning in a message. This is a
subjective part of communication and requires conscious ef-
fort to achieve a mutual understanding.

The process of communication is the cognitive behavior
of sending or receiving messages. One process is encoding
a message, i.e., what will I say and how will I say it to
make my meaning intelligible to you. The receiver decodes
the message. He tries to understand the content of the
message by using the words and the affective level by making
judgments, drawing inferences, and using situational clues.
These levels are then synthesized to form a message with

lexical and affective meaning.

5

Communication may be instrumental to improved inter—
personal relationships, or it may be a source of problems in
relationships with others. Therefore, one approach to solv-
ing interpersonal problems is to analyze the communication
between peOple. Problems may be due to misunderstandings
caused by unintelligibility of the channel used (modality),
not understanding the content in a message, misinterpretation
of affect, or lack of cognitive effort to understand the

intended meaning in a message.

The Need

The deaf child's inability or limited ability to commu-
nicate, especially with his/her parents, has a profound
effect on his/her social and psychic development. Often the
deaf child does not achieve his/her potential level of per-
formance, because the learning process is limited by lack of
receptive and expressive aspects of communication. Often the
deaf child's relationship with others is confusing, strained,
or nonexistent.

Past and current research on deafness has and is seeking
remedies for this problem. Most of this research, however,
explores and evaluates the modality of communication as the
source of interpersonal problems. This particular facet of
the problem of communication appears to be moving toward a
solution.

What has not been considered is the importance of the
affective and process features of communication, especially

as these features apply to parents of deaf children.

6
The Opportunity for misunderstanding between parents
and their deaf children is an acute problem. Sven Wahlroos
wrote about one source of misunderstanding in his book,

Family Communication:

 

The message may be intended or unintended,
but if it is perceived, it has in fact been
communicated. The perception of the mes--
sage may be conscious or unconscious, dis—
torted or undistorted but as soon as the
message gets through on any level, we have
communication (1974, p. 4).

In his analysis, Dr. Wahlroos has addressed the problem
inherent in communication between parents and deaf children:
There may be a difference between what the sender (parent)
meant to convey and what the receiver (deaf child) perceived
and understood. The problem is compounded because it may
be happening at the unconscious level of awareness; i.e.,
the parent and child are not conscious of a recurring problem.

The difficulty of mutual understanding is exacerbated
for most parents of deaf children because they are not deaf.
The veracity of this statement is corroborated by Schein and
Delk (1974) in The Deaf POpulation of the United States:
"That 9 our of 10 deaf persons have parents lacking personal
experience with deafness means the majority of parents are
unprepared for the diagnosis of deafness in their children"
(p. 36). Mindel and Vernon (1971) believed "successful
family adaptations to childhood deafness are rare today..."
(p. 36). Obviously, the effort to deal only with modality

has not been successful in develOping gratifying relation-

ships between hearing parents and deaf children.

7

A review of Wahlroos' analysis of communication indi-
cates that it is essential for the sender and receiver to
have a shared understanding of the intended meaning of a
message. This is difficult for a hearing parent and deaf
child to achieve because their perceptions and understandings
of events, thoughts, and feelings may be very different.

This can best be illustrated by describing the differ-
ence between hearing parents of deaf children and deaf
parents of deaf children.

Deaf parents are more successful at communicating with
their deaf children for several reasons. The most obvious
is that they are more familiar with the modes and resources
used in communication between and with hearing impaired
individuals. Another reason is that the deaf parent can
more readily enter the milieu of the deaf child. Finally,
the deaf parent understands the context of more events in
the deaf child's life as the child might be seeing them,
solely because of his/her deafness. This enables the deaf
parent to understand more completely the deaf child's mes-
sage as it has meaning to the child, and not only the
parent's attributed meaning.

In contrast, the hearing parent does not share the
commonality of perception with the deaf child that the deaf
parent does. It is, therefore, crucial to the clarity of
the communication between hearing parents and deaf children
that the parent consciously attempt to understand the deaf
child's messages as they have meaning for the child, and not

only as they have meaning for the hearing parent.

8
Parents are the necessary link between the deaf child
and society. It is important for the parent to accurately
understand the psychological needs and cognitive under-
standings of the deaf child, so that the child can be assist-
ed to participate in and understand the larger society. The
importance of this is verified by Edna Levine (1960) in her

book, Psychology of Deafness:

 

Whether he becomes a part of the community

or not depends largely upon the interpreter

[the person who conveys information to the

deaf individual that he may or will ordi-

narily miss]. All else being equal, it is

the wisdom of this person that keeps the

child from slipping away into the apathy

of indifference or the hostility of frus—

tration... (p. 44).
This ”interpreter" role is initially handled by the parents.
It is apparent that the parent is an especially important
person for the deaf child.

The desire to help their deaf child is present in most
hearing parents. The unique skills and understanding required
do, however, rarely develOp. Past efforts to assist the
deaf child and his/her parents have focused on the modality
of communication. What needs to be done is to provide hear-
ing parents with a training proqram that emphasizes the
process of communication. Such a training prOgram could
assist them in understanding their deaf child's thoughts and
feelings. Increased understanding, achieved through improve-
ment in the process of communication, will enable them to

communicate with greater sensitivity to their child's social

and psychic needs.

9

The Purpose

 

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate that a
specific communication training prOgram can improve the
communication between hearing parents and their deaf children.

As first noted, much current research about deafness
centers on the mode of communication. Investigation concern-
ing the communication effectiveness of hearing parents of
deaf children in the parameters described does not exist.
Fortunately, this kind of research has been done in the
pOpulation at large. It is this research, and the training
programs subsequently developed, that has provided the Oppor-
tunity to investigate and determine its applicability to
hearing parents of deaf children.

One such program referred to is Interpersonal Process
Recall (IPR), developed by Norman Kagan. The program in-
volves an orderly and hierachical presentation of experiences.

Through a systematic didactic presentation of communi-
cation concepts, simulation exercises, study of self, study
of others, and mutual recall, participating individuals can
study the complex dynamics which occur in communication re-
lationships with others (Kagan, 1975). Kagan's work with
both general and selected pOpulations has yielded results
which offer exciting promise of successful application to
the pOpulation of interest here--hearing parents of deaf

children.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

The literature related to process and problems of commu-
nication between hearing parents and deaf children is reviewed
in this chapter. The areas reviewed are communication, par-
ent-child interaction, communication between hearing parents

and deaf children, and communication training programs.

Communication

 

A concise orientation to what communication is and how
it can be improved is presented by Robert Schneider (1973) in
his paper, "Human Communication". Dr. Schneider discussed
three principles of communication.

The first principle is "One cannot not communicate."
Unfortunately, communication is often equated with the speech
act. It is true that Speaking is an act or form of communi-
cation. It is equally true that not Speaking is an act or
form of communication. An example of this occurs when the
sender of a message is waiting for some behavior indicating
agreement with the message sent. The receiver may communicate
disagreement simply by saying nothing. Or the disagreement
may be expressed by other nonverbal communication such as
looking in another direction, frowning, etc. The receiver
could respond affirmatively though nonverbally. Examples of

10

11
this are smiling and Shaking of the head up and down to
indicate "yes". There are innumerable ways to communicate.
Communication may be verbal or nonverbal, intended or un-
intended, conscious or unconscious, but it will occur when
two or more peOple are toqether because "one cannot BEE
communicate".

The second principle of human communication is "Message
sent is not necessarily message received." This principle
is more subtle than it appears. An expansion of the principle
denotes more variables than are presented. A message sent
does not insure that it has been received nor that the
receiver has correctly interpreted the intended meaning.

Schneider pointed out that the words in a message have
two levels of meaning; one is cognitive and the other is
affective. The cognitive level is the one which we Share
with others. How we internalize the cognitive level, the
information quality of a message, is significantly affected
by how one feels about it, the affective level. Someone may
tell you about "Beautiful Tahquamenon Falls." You may share
a knowledge of its geography, topography, and flora and fauna
but at the affective level your relationship is not one of
beauty. You affectively relate to it as a wet, rainy, dreary
place. Therefore, while one understands the physical place
(cognitive level) the feelings associated with it (affective
level) connote a Slightly different meaning.

The third and final principle that Schneider listed is
"Communication is a complex phenomenon which involves trans-

mission of messages at the content level and the process

12
level simultaneously" (p. 3). It is further stated that these
messages at content and process level "are transmitted in
many ways, including (1) the words of the communication. . .
the verbal behaviors, (2) the nonverbal behaviors. . . (3)
the situation itself or the context in which the communication
occurs" (Schneider, p. 3).

This may seem somewhat of a novel idea, but all people
use these factors when communicating. Consider the communi-
cation message, "Don't do that!" which parents frequently
send to their children. At the content level it says "STOP!"
Meaning, however, may be modified at the process level so
that the message will be interpreted as "Be careful." The
process cues may have been a lack of command in the voice or
a smiling face; these indicate that the words are not to be
lexically interpreted. There are innumerable ways to vary
the meaning of a message by manipulation of both what is said
and how it is said.

Productive and mutually satisfying communication must
have no diSparity of message between the content and process
components. Sven Walhroos (1974) noted the occurrence of

this problem in his book Family Communication. He wrote,

 

"When a person's actions communicate the same message as his
words there is no problem (unless the message is deliberately
destructive). But when the messages are contradictory the
result is almost always a multitude of problems" (Walhroos,
p. 7). This was written under the heading "Actions Speak
Louder Than WOrds." Wahlroos was writing of the conflict in

messages at the content and process levels. If what you say

13

(content), e.g., "I like you," does not agree with how you
say it (process), e.g., mocking tone of voice, the receiver
must choose the meaning of your utterance. Because the
process provides clues to the speaker's intended meaning, the
listener will invariably choose that as the intended meaning--
actions speak louder than words.

It can be seen from the preceding discussion that the
receiver's (listener's) role is not as passive as it is often
portrayed. Albert Ellis (1973) described three stages in a

person's response to a message. His model is presented below.

A B C
Stimulus What we say to ourselves Response
about ourselves and the

Situation

Frequently communication is fallaciously analyzed as if
stimulus A is the cause and the response C is the result.
Ellis' model Shows that the response C is not solely a
reaction to the stimulus A. Instead it represents the
listener's interpretation of the stimulus as it relates to
the listener and to the situation in which communication
occurs. The listener's covert mental behaviors are quite
important.

Brown and Keller (1973) believed that listening precedes
Speaking. To speak effectively one must be a skillful and
attentive listener. They elaborate in their book Monologue

to Dialogue,

 

. . .Listening is not recording. Listening is
the Speech excited by the recording. [The au-
thors are here using the term Speech to denote
the thoughts and self-dialogue one may use when
thinking.] Therefore, while the fundamental
requisites are hearing and memory, it does not

l4

follow that if a person can hear and remember
he will listen (Brown and Keller, p. 15).

In condensed form, "Listening is the reSponse to reception"
(Brown and Keller, p. 16).

The authors saw a relationship between listening, self-
understanding, and understanding of others. "In truth, 'Self-
understanding' depends upon develOping the power to explore
the meaning of our own Speech. . .of course, there is no
good self-listening which does not also involve good listen-
ing of others" (Brown and Keller, p. 18). It was noted that
good listening is characterized by a mixture of "what does
it mean to me." If only the self is attended to, i.e., what
do his and my comments mean to me, then the dialoque with the
self will become egocentric. This egocentrism may result in
withdrawal from social interaction, narcissism, or hostility.

"Exploring the meaning of our own speech" implies think-
ing about the "what" (content) and "why" (roots/motivation)
of our thoughts, occurring while we listen. But how does
one approach understanding the other person's meaning? This
is achieved through empathy.

"Empathy is the act of imagining the universe of thoughts
and feeling out of which a statement emerges. In Short, it
is the ability to perceive from the standpoint of the Speaker,
and it is probably the most soPhisticated and the most imag-
inative Skill a person performs" (Brown and Keller, p. 23).

Brown and Keller (1973) suggested that the success of
communication is not determined by the Speaker. What they

postulated was that listening is integral to the ability to

15
Speak effectively. Listening is itself based on the skills
of exploring the meaning of one's thoughts while listening
and empathizing with the Speaker. If the goal is mutually
intelligible and rewarding communication, then greater
emphasis must be placed upon listening skills.

Communication theory is an important component of devel-
Opmental psycholoqy. It is through communication experiences
that the growing child gradually develOpS a sense of "self".
The preceding information is, therefore, very germane to
parent-child relationships or any adult-child relationship.

Clifford Swensen (1973), in his book, Introduction to

 

Interpersonal Relations, reviewed the thinking of George

 

Herbert Mead. Mead believed that the individual carries a
"me" that is defined by others and a sense of "I" or self-
evaluation. The individual then goes through life reacting
to the inner dialogue between the "me“ of others and the "I",
the individual's perception of himself. The self, then, does
not develop in isolation from others.

Conjoint consideration of Mead's theory and the previous
presentation on communication leads to the conclusion that
the parent-child relationship is integral to the child's
development of a self-concept. The parent is the first per,
son to establish the rudiments of communication with the
child. It is from this early beginning that the child begins
the process of the "me"-"I" dialogue. It is therefore impor-
tant for the parent to be sensitive to the child. This
sensitivity or empathy is what enables the parent to nuture

the child's self-concept through the "me"-"I" dialogue.

16
Harry Stack Sullivan lucidly described the task con—
fronting parents in their relationship with their children
in his book, The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science
(1964).
When one has regard for the multiple me-you
patterns that complicate relations, for the
possible differences in individual compre-
hension of events, and for the peculiarities
of language behavior which characterize each
of us. . .the practical impossibility of one-
to-one correSpondence of mental states of the
observer and the observed person Should be
evident. We never know all about another,
we are fortunate when we achieve an approxi-
mate consensus and can carry on meaning-
ful communication about relatively Simple
contexts of experience (H.S. Sullivan, 1964,
p. 55).
Sullivan's writing was succinct in summarizing the

awesome importance of parent-child communication.

Parent-Child Relations

There are many contributions to the literature of
psychology and parent-child relations. There has, however,
been little exploration of parent-child communication. The
major and professionally reSpected contributors in parent-
child communication are Haim G. Ginott and Thomas Gordon.

Ginott's work with parents and his suggested strategies
for parents to relate effectively to their children are

presented in his book, Between Parent and Child (1965). He

 

discussed the relevance of his process to education and the

involvement of parents in Teacher and Child, A Book for Par-

 

ents and Teachers (1972). Ginott's strategies were directed

 

towards how parents could respond apprOpriately to their

l7
child's psychological needs and difficulties. He gave
attention to thought processes that a parent goes through to
arrive at an appropriate response. Since Ginott's primary
professional experience was working with parents, his in-
sights and suggested procedures deserve attention.

Ginott (1972) stated that there are two requirements
in communication between parents and children: That messages
perserve the self-respect of both parent and child, and that
statements of understanding precede statements of advice or-
instruction. Expanding on the latter requirement, Ginott
stated that when a child is experiencing feelings of anger
or frustration, he does not want nor will he accept advice
or criticism. What the children want iS for parents to under-
stand them, to understand how their feelings are affecting
their lives, what these feelings mean to them, not what they
Should do or what the parents think they should do or think
or feel.

Ginott emphasized that the parent Should avoid inter-
rogating the child. Communication Should be addressed to the
underlying relationships, to the feelings involved, to the
generalized experience of thoughts and feelings. This
approach to communication opens avenues to the child for
understanding feelings and the circumstances that precipitated
them. Parents who respond in this manner to their children's
anxieties are facilitating and communicating unconditional
positive regard and empathetic understanding.

Carl Rogers (1951) claimed these factors as necessary

for any helping relationship. He presented these attributes

18

of a successful helper—helpee relationship under the heading,
"Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Therapeutic Inter—
action." The Significant feature of Rogers' model was that
it is necessary for the helper to communicate these features
to the helpee. By contrast, the psychoanalytic approach
characterized by Freud depicted the helper's success as solely
dependent upon the helper's insightfulness and analysis of
data. This model does not sufficiently include the analyst
as a variable that affects the helping processes. Rogers
recognized that one cannot not communicate, and because of
this, the helper must communicate the positive attributes of
unconditional positive regard and empathetic understanding.

Thomas Gordon's program for helping parents was described

in P.E.T.: Parent Effectiveness Training (1970). His goal

 

was Similar to Ginott's but his structure was different.
Gordon's prOgram for training used a high leadership figure
and information is sequentially presented. Gordon was an
associate of Carl Rogers, and his program reflects Rogers'
theory of helper-helpee interaction. P.E.T. also differs
from Ginott in that it used group participation as the
Situation in which individuals were trained.

Gordon placed certain restrictions on the use of commui—
cation as a tool in helping children. He labeled the mental,
nonverbal, and verbal behaviors a parent uses to communicate
unconditional positive regard and empathetic understanding
as Active Listening. Gordon stated that for the "realness"
of the listener to be communicated, and for the parent to

convey unconditional positive regard and empathetic

l9
understanding, they do not use Active Listening when they
are: too angry, too threatened by what they hear, or too
strong in own beliefs and values. If the parent has any of
these feelings, then the prime concern will not be to under—
stand the child, but to assuage the parent's own emotions.
This is often done through accusations, attacks on the child's
personality or character, and threats. Such responses are
not an avenue to better understanding, and if they are
attempted under the guise of active listening, the success
of future listening will be adversely affected.

Ginott and Gordon agreed that communication is a Skill
as well as a c0gnitive/affective behavior. If parents
desired to improve communication with their children, they
must learn new verbal behaviors, unlearn old verbal behaviors,
and practice using this new skill as a very conscious act.
Initially, feelings of using a "technique" were experienced.
But after learning alternative ways of responding and
practice in using them have been accomplished, communication
proceeded in a mutually gratifying atmosphere.

Haim Ginott and Thomas Gordon have made significant
contributions to understanding the problems confronting par-
ents in relating to their children. Their advice and tech-
niques demonstrate that parent-child communication at both
the content and process levels is integral to solving
problems and establishing deeper, more meaningful relation—
ships. Gordon's process is the most systematic and therefore
the easiest to replicate. Review of their books provides

insights into what Should be done and the need for variation.

20
This project's goals were Similar to Ginott's and Gordon's
goals. The project was, however, different because it focused
only on communication and has more advanced techniques for
delayed and immediate feedback. Further explanation appears

later under Design and Methodology.

Parents and Deaf Children

 

The importance of develOping better relationships be-
tween deaf children and hearing parents has been attested to

by David Denton in Psycholinggistics and Total Communication

 

(O'Rourke, 1972). Dr. Denton stated that many deaf children
never have a meaningful relationship with a hearing adult.
Therefore, many deaf children do not have a meaningful re—
lationship with their parents because 91.7 percent of all
deaf children have hearing parents (Schein and Delk, 1974).

Schein and Delk in The Deaf POpulation of the United

 

States (1974) also reported the situation as critical. They
stated: "What the statistics on parental hearing status point
out is the pervasive likelihood of maladjustment and the
importance of vigorous educational programs which assist
parents to adjust to their children's deafness". Because
deafness does not permit the normal develOpment of oral
communication, one of the most vigorous educational programs
to help parents adjust should be in communication.

This reasoning has been validated by the research

reported in They Grow in Silence (Mindel and Vernon, 1971).

 

The authors characterized communication between parents and

deaf children as being exceptionally poor. They reported

21

that parents used very little explanation with their deaf
child, and parents seldom listened to the child. This
Situation had a Significant effect on affective development
of the deaf child. The authors noted that in infancy a
smile was sufficient for communicating feelings. As the
child developed the interchange between the parent and the
child dealt with an increasingly complex array of feelings.
Parents of deaf children, because of their lack of listening
time, do not usually understand or deal with the feelings of
a deaf child.

The importance of parents listening to their deaf
children was amplified by Schlesinger and Meadow in their

book, Sound and Sign (1972). These authors noted that a deaf

 

child needs "to feel worthy of enrichment for his own sake,
and not for the sake of becoming like others who are hearing."
In other words, it is important for parents to listen and be
sensitive to their deaf children as they are not focus
exclusively on directing the child to be like a hearing per-
son. This point seems pertinent to the idea of Carl Rogers
(1951) that the helper (the parent) must have unconditional
positive regard for the helpee (the deaf child).

Schlesinger and Meadow (1972) also noted that hearing
parents who were able to provide an environment which nurtured
the deaf child's self-image were also more capable of over-
coming the negative effects of social stigma. This is very
important because the effect of social stigma damages the

self-image of the deaf child.

22

The information reviewed in this section seems to
indicate two things. First, hearing parents of deaf children
can be effective in helping the deaf child develop a positive
self-image. Second, hearing parents do need training in
nuturing mutual understanding between themselves and their
deaf children. Usually this training has been in the areas
of speech, lipreading, and/or Sign language. The fact that
the literature continues to report deficiencies in hearing
parents-deaf child relationships seemed to indicate that
training parents only in the mode of communication--speech
or Sign language--has not enabled parents of deaf children
to develop satisfactory relationships with their deaf
children. It is for this reason that this pilot study has
investigated the effectiveness of training parents in the

content and process Skill of communication.

Communication Training

 

It was recognized by Carl Rogers (1951) that affective
sensitivity and communication skills were important to inter-
personal relationships. AS a result of this awareness pro-
grams were developed to train people to become more sensitive
and affective in their communication.

One program was developed by Robert R. Carkhuff. The
Carkhuff program was designed to train counselors to discrim-
inate between different levels of empathy. It also trained
them to be more effective in their communication. Training
experiences included didactic sessions in which key concepts

and strategies were presented. The didactic sessions were

23
followed by role playing sessions during which trainees
experimented with the new concepts and strategies. An
important component of all training sessions was the leader
of training modeled appropriate behavior.

Carkhuff reported significant results in using this pro-
gram to train counselors, psychotherapists, and lay helpers
(Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff and Bierman, 1970). Carkhuff did
not report the components of the program with sufficient
specificity to permit others to replicate it. It, therefore,
could not be considered for the purpose of this research
study.

George M. Gazda in his book, Human Relations Deve10p-

 

ment, a Manual for Educators (1973), stated that effective

 

interpersonal relations were based upon accurately perceiving
the behavior of others. He elaborated that if a person's
understanding is based on a misperception then communication
between people will be confused and ineffective. This con-
fusion and ineffectiveness is due to no mutual understanding.

Gazda developed a training program to enable people to
perceive the feelings of others more accurately i.e., to be
more sensitive and responsive to the affective level of
communication. Gazda's program used three training experi-
ences to increase sensitivity to the feelings and messages
of others.

The first Step in training was for the trainer to pro-
vide a stimulus statement (printed, audio, or visual).
Trainees were then instructed to write a response that labeled

the feelings in the stimulus statement. These written

24
responses were then collected and read to the trainees as
a group. The group then rated the accuracy and sensitivity
of each written response. This series of experiences was
followed by another in which a trainee provided a stimulus
statement that was read by the trainee. The other trainees
listened and in writing labeled the content and affect of
the stimulus statement. The responses were collected and
read to the group. Each response was judged by the trainees
for its accuracy.

There is no research reported to substantiate the effec-
tiveness of Gazda's proqram. One possible weakness it has
is that people do not have as much time in verbal communica-
tion as compared to the written responses used in this
training. Another weakness may be that communication does
not usually occur with one statement followed by a pause for
the listener to respond. So the training program does not
realistically represent the usual communication experience.

Another program used with parents was Parent Effective-
ness Training (P.E.T.). The originator of this program,
Thomas Gordon, reported its content and results in his book,

P.E.T. In Action (Gordon, 1976). Parent Effectiveness Train-

 

ing used two learning experiences. The first was didactic
sessions in which parents learned the concepts of P.E.T.
Didactic sessions were followed by group practice sessions
using the concepts and techniques described in the didactic
presentation.

Roger Rinn and Allan Markle reviewed Parent Effective-

ness Training to determine if the training was successful

25
(Rinn and Markle, 1977). Their report noted a number of
important deficiencies in the research done with P.E.T.
Rinn and Markle stated that the research suffers from a lack
of randomness, inadequate research design, weak statistical
procedures, and a lack of objective measurement of trainee
behavior. They felt the evidence does not support the claim
that P.E.T. was effective.

Another weakness of P.E.T. could have been the lack of
feedback to trainees during training. It would seem difficult
for trainees to determine the accuracy of their perceptions
and sensitivity without the use of feedback. For these
reasons and those cited by Rinn and Markle Parent Effective-
ness Training was not selected as a training program to help
hearing parents become more sensitive to their deaf children.

Each of the programs reviewed so far would have been
difficult to replicate because their procedures were not
standardized. One sensitivity program that did have more
standardized procedures was Interpersonal Process Recall
developed by Norman Kagan.

The Interpersonal Process Recall training program used
didactic sessions, simulation exercises, and videotaped
recall of paired interactions. The didactic sessions and
stimulus vignettes were presented on film. This eliminates
the modeling of the trainer as a variable. The videotaped
replay of paired interaction seems to permit trainees to
evaluate realistic interpersonal experiences and to receive

feedback from the trainee they were paired with.

26

The original purpose of developing the Interpersonal
Process Recall (IPR) training program was to increase the
reliability of training counselors and psychotherapists in
interpersonal interviewing Skills. After more than a decade
of experimentation and research, Kagan (1973) reported that
the original goal appears to have been achieved. Research
with IPR has identified the most facilitative aspects of
training and which areas need further development or adap—
tation.

Danish and Brodsky (1970) used the stimulus films in
IPR to train policemen in emotional control and awareness.
The stimulus films dealt with feelings of rejection and in-
timacy. The purpose of the films was to "sensitize police-
men to their aggressive feelings and self-control problems"
(Danish and Brodsky, 1970, p. 368).

It was reported that future training of this population-
policemen-would be enchanced if the stimulus vignettes were
specific to police work. It was also felt that this training
technique avoided a passive impersonal approach which usually
develOped when training relied on lectures, notetaking and
reading (Danish and Brodsky, 1970).

The use of IPR to teach interpersonal relationship skills
to undergraduate college students was investigated by Archer
and Kagan (1973). They found that the IPR model "appears to
be more effective than a less structured encounter- develop-
mental group training model" (Archer and Kagan, 1973, p. 539)
when used by undergraduates to teach undergraduates inter-

personal communication skills.

27

The research reported herein indicates two things.
First, IPR is facilitative if the stimulus vignettes deal
with feelings and situations that are experienced by trainees.
Second, structured learning experiences are more facilitative
than encounter-developmental type experiences. This seems
to indicate that parents would benefit most from training
which included stimulus vignettes of feelings and situations
they encounter. The research also suggest that the training
Should be structured i.e., a predetermined content and se-
quence of experiences, to increase interpersonal communica-
tion Skills.

A research study by Singleton reported success in using
IPR with a non college, non academic population. The
trainees were incarcerated felons. The study reported sig-
nificant increases in empathy discrimination by subjects who
participated in training as compared to subjects from the
same pOpulation who did not participate in training. This
seems to indicate that IPR may be used with both professional
and lay populations. There has not been any research done
on the use of IPR training with deaf people or their parents.

This research study is therefore, a pilot study.

Summary

The literature related to process and problems of commu—
nication between hearing parents and deaf children was
reviewed in this chapter. The literature reviewed on com-
munication indicated that the content and process of commu-

nication has a profound effect on the child's developing

28
self-concept. The literature reviewed on parent-child
communication listed a number of important features. Two
features which were mentioned as particularly important were
the clarity of communication the listening skills of the
parents.

The section reviewing literature on deaf child-hearing
parent relationships discussed the difficulties which hearing
parents share communicating with their deaf children. The
literature indicated that it was more than just a problem of
modality i.e., whether to use Sign language of speech. The
literature indicated that the fundamental problem was a
lack of mutual understanding between hearing parents and
deaf children.

The last section of this chapter reviewed sensitivity
training programs that were being used. During the review
of this literature it was explained why the program Inter-
personal Process Recall was selected.

The next chapter presents the design, methodology, and

content of the training program used in this research.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the design, instrumentation, sam-
pling, and treatment procedures used in this study. The
section on sampling is further subdivided into the process
of sampling and demographic characteristics of the sites and
subjects in the sample. The section on treatment explains
the Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) training procedures

and sequence used with these subjects.

Design

The independent variable in this study was affective
sensitivity training. This variable had two levels that were
dichotomous. The levels were 1) training in IPR and 2) no
training in IPR. The dependent variable was the effect of
training in IPR on the affective sensitivity of subjects who
were trained. This variable was analyzed by using the sub-
ject's scores on the Filmed Measure of Affective Sensitivity
(Kagan and Schneider, 1975) and the Carkhuff Index of Empathy
Discrimination (Carkhuff, 1969).

A pretest—posttest control group design without random-
ization was used to study the independent variable. The
comparison groups were the experimental group and the control
group. The experimental group was composed of those subjects

29

30

who received training in IPR. The control group was composed
of those subjects who did not receive training in IPR. All
subjects were hearing parents of deaf children. In accord
with the design each group was measured with the same instru-
ments, over the same elapsed time, and on the same dates for
both the pretest and the posttest.

The design controlled for a number of potentially con-
founding variables. Effects due to history were controlled
because historical effects would be as likely to be manifested
in the experimental group as they would in the control group.
Effects due to maturation were controlled for because the
experimental and control groups were measured over the same
elapsed time and on the same dates. Effects due to testing
were controlled for because each group had the same number

and type of opportunities to learn from test taking.

Instrumentation

 

The Filmed Measure of Affective Sensitivity (Kagan and
Schneider, 1975) (hereinafter FMAS) and the Carkhuff Index
of Empathy Discrimination (Carkhuff, 1969) (hereinafter CIED)
were the instruments used to measure the dependent variable-
the effect of training in IPR on the affective sensitivity
of hearing parents of deaf children. The FMAS and the CIED
were chosen for the following reasons: to provide multiple
assessment of the dependent variable, ease of administration,
and availability.

The FMAS is presented on videotape of 16mm film. The

instrument consists of vignettes of two or more people

31

interacting. After each vignette the respondent is instructed
to read the questions for the vignettes and select what they
feel are the most appropriate answers. These questions
require the respondent to make inferences about the cause as
well as the content of the affect involved. The instrument
measures sensitivity to the helper and helpee roles.

There are several forms of the FMAS. The one used was
Form D. Form D has internal consistency in the low r=.70'S
and item intercorrelation around r=.l3. In a paper presented
to a meeting of the American Psychological Association, 1977,
Kagan, Werner, and Schneider reported that they analyzed
validity by comparing supervisor ratings of a subject's
empathy with the subject's FMAS Form D scores. The comparison
indicated that the content validity of this instrument was
very good.

The CIED consisted of sixteen excerpts of different
people expressing a problem or dilemma that they were facing.
Each excerpt was followed by four helper responses. The
respondent's task, after reading each excerpt, was to rate
the facilitative quality of each response. This was done by
using a Likert type scale of 1.0-5.0. The rating of 5.0
represented the most facilitative response possible and the
rating of 1.0 was the least facilitative.

The CIED can be presented either in printed form or on
audio tape. The printed form was used in this study. The
CIED has been used by others (Singleton, 1975; Bedell, 1976)
to assess the effect of training in IPR; These studies

reported that the instrument correlated sufficiently with

32

other measures to regard it as valid. In other words, the
test measured what it purports to measure.

Carkhuff in his book, Helping and Human Relations, (1969)

 

stated that the results of studies that have used this in-
strument demonstrated construct validity. Carkhuff reported
that scores on the CIED correlated well with field ratings
of the testee's empathy. This means testees were observed
interacting with helpees and judged by experts in terms of

the testee's empathy in an actual helping relationship.

The Sample

 

The sample for this study was determined by several
factors. These factors included: 1) the willingness of
school systems to provide facilities for the training of
subjects; 2) the school system transmitting information to
parents on the availability of training; 3) training Sites
located within a one hundred mile radius of Lansing, Michigan;
and 4) the willingness of hearing parents of deaf children
to participate.

Once the target population (hearing parents of deaf
children) was determined, the most significant factor effect-
ing the sampling procedures was the voluntary participation
of parents in those school systems.

There were Six steps in the sampling process. The steps
and their order of occurrence were: 1) an introductory letter
to the director of the program for hearing impaired students
in the districts contacted; 2) those districts that did not

respond were sent another letter and telephoned to encourage

33

a response; 3) a meeting with the director of the hearing
impaired program in each responding district to explain the
program; 4) an introductory presentation to parents of deaf
children in each responding district; 5) interested parents
registered their names, addresses, and telephone numbers with
the project investigator; 6) program directors contacted by
phone those parents who were unable to attend the presentation
and those parents who registered their names to determine
whether there was new or continued interest by parents in

that district. This sampling procedure resulted in IPR train—
ing being offered to hearing parents of deaf children in

three school districts.

The voluntary status of participants and the small
population of eligible candidates in any one school system
necessitated sampling from as many programs for hearing
impaired children as possible. To achieve as large a sample
as possible the programs for hearing impaired students in
the following school districts were contacted: The Michigan
School for the Deaf, Flint, Michigan; The Saginaw County
Intermediate School District (SISD); The Wayne County ISD
Alternate Hearing Impaired Program (WISD-a); The Washtenaw
County ISD (WISD); Lansing Public Schools; Shawnee Park Oral
Deaf Program, Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Muskegon Public
Schools.

Step 1. An introductory letter explaining the program
being offered, the population of interest, and its importance
to parent-deaf child relationships was sent to the director

of the program for hearing impaired students in each of the

34

named districts. The letter described the facilities which
the school system needed to supply and indicated that this
training entailed no financial investment by either the

school system or the hearing parents of deaf children who
chose to participate. A copy of this letter is in Appendix A.

Step 2. If no response was received by the requested
date, another letter was sent. This was followed by a tele-
phone call to encourage a response from the school district
personnel. This method was successful with all but two
programs. The Michigan School for the Deaf and the Shawnee
Park Oral Deaf Program did not progress beyond this stage of
contact and were eliminated from sampling procedures.

Step 3. All other programs indicated interest in the
training program. A meeting was then scheduled and held with
the director of the hearing impaired program in each respond-
ing district. The content of the program, schedules, goals,
purpose, and implementation procedures for the IPR training
program were discussed. The design and measurement instru-
ments of the research project were also presented. During
this meeting the director could determine whether he wished
to inform parents of deaf children about this training
program opportunity.

Step 4. An introductory presentation explaining the
content, process, and purpose of training in IPR was given to
parents of deaf children in Washtenaw County ISD, Wayne
County ISD, Lansing Public Schools, and Muskegon Public
Schools. Saginaw ISD had scheduled a presentation but prior

to its delivery the director determined that there were only

35

two parents interested. This was an insufficient number to
make it productive to offer the program at that site for the
purpose of the study, and Saginaw ISD was eliminated.

Step 5. Immediately after the introductory presentation
in each school district, those parents interested in partic-
ipating in IPR training were asked to register their names,
addresses, and phone numbers with the project investigator.
This served as an initial survey of parent interest.

Step 6. School district directors then contacted by
phone those parents who were unable to attend the presenta-
tion. Those parents who had registered after the presentation
were contacted again to determine their continued interest.
This process produced a list of parents who were interested
in participating. This information was communicated to the
project director.

Of those districts participating in this sampling process
only Muskegon Public Schools, The Alternate Hearing Impaired
Program in Wayne County ISD, and Lansing Public Schools had
a sufficient number of hearing parents of deaf children (a

minimum of five per Site) committed to participating.

Site Characteristics

 

The Alternate Hearing Impaired Program in Wayne County
ISD is located in Garden City, Michigan, a suburb of metro-
politan Detroit. This program served all of those parents
of deaf children who desired alternate services to the
traditional oral program for hearing impaired in Wayne County.

Wayne County has a total population of 2,666,751. The

36

alternative program had been operating for two years. The
number of hearing impaired students enrolled (sixteen) was
small, considering the school base population.

The Lansing Public School Program for Hearing Impaired
students serves Ingham, Clinton, and Eaton Counties. The
combined population of these counties was 379,823. Ingham
County had a population of 261,039 and was the largest of
the three. It was also the one from which the largest
number of hearing impaired students were enrolled. The City
of Lansing (population 131,546) accounted for approximately
one half of the p0pulation of Ingham County. The pOpulation
served by the hearing impaired program had an equal mixture
of rural and urban people. A total of sixty-seven hearing
impaired students were enrolled in Lansing Public School's
Program for Hearing Impaired Students.

The Muskegon Public School Program for Hearing Impaired
Students serves Muskegon, Oceana, and Newaygo Counties. The
combined population of these counties was 203,222. Muskegon
County with a population of 157,246 was by far the largest
of the three counties served. The City of Muskegon had a
population of 44,621 and was the largest city in the three
county region. It is the industrial center of the area.
Most of the population served by the Muskegon Public School
Program for Hearing Impaired Students is rural. There were
fifty hearing impaired students enrolled in Muskegon's
Program for Hearing Impaired Students.

The sites in this sample were representative of a broad

cross section of the population of Michigan. One site was

37
urban/suburban, another was urban/rural, and the third was
primarily rural.

A cross section of program development was represented
in this sample. The Garden City program was new and growing.
Muskegon's program was more developed and its enrollment
seemed to be stablizing. Lansing's program was one that had
been in existence longer and concentrated its efforts on
program refinement.

The small number of deaf students served at each sample
site belied the true number of deaf children and their par-
ents who need special services such as this training program.
Review of prevalence rates obtained from the census of the
deaf pOpulation (Schein and Delk, 1974) indicated a great
discrepancy between the number of deaf children being served
in programs for the hearing impaired and those identified by
the census as being deaf.

One of the major reasons for this disparity, and it has
historically been a problem, was locating and defining deaf

children.

Subjects

Identification. There is no legal universally accepted

 

definition of deafness. Review of the Michigan Law for
Special Education, Public Act 198 amended 1/4/77, provided
no definition of deafness or hearing impairment. It is
written:

R 340.1707. Hearing impaired, defined.

Rule 7. 'Hearing impaired' means a person
identified by an educational planning and

38

placement committee, based upon an eval—
uation by an audiologist and otolaryn-
gologist, and other pertinent information
as having a hearing impairment which
interferes with learning.

The law permits each district to determine who is deaf
or hearing impaired. It does not, however, designate any
measurable criteria and permits various individuals to set
scales of measurement. Since districts might differ in the
criteria used and the scales of measurement, local district
identification of deaf students was not used.

This necessitated the develOpment of a functional defi-
nition of deafness and procedures for determining which
children were deaf. This step was necessary to determine
which hearing parents had deaf children.

Several characteristics of deaf children were assessed
to determine whether the child being evaluated was deaf or
just in the large group termed "hearing impaired". The
factors considered were: 1) the child's hearing level;

2) the child's aural understanding of speech; and 3) the
quality of the child's Speech.

The first factor reviewed was the child's hearing level
as measured by a qualified audiologist. If the child's hear-
ing level was audiologically defined as a profound hearing
impairment the child was identified as being deaf. If a
child's hearing was measured as severely hearing impaired
further analysis was necessary. Children in this range were
evaluated on their ability to communicate receptively and

expressively using only an aural/oral mode. If the child

could not Speak intelligible complete sentences in response

39

to questions, then the child was identified as functionally
deaf.

This procedure determined those who were hearing parents
of deaf children. All parents who elected to participate
were hearing parents of deaf children.

Scheduling. All subjects in this study volunteered to

 

participate in IPR training. Assignment of subjects to the
treatment or control group was determined by scheduling.
Those subjects who volunteered but could not attend training
at the time it was offered were assigned to the no treatment
control group. Those subjects who volunteered and who could
attend training sessions at the time it was offered were
designated at the treatment group. The fact that random
assignment was not done means that the findings of this
research may be confounded and cannot be generalized to the
population of interest (hearing parents of deaf children).

The control group was measured with the same instruments
and at the same time as the treatment group.

Characteristics. The demographic information on the

 

experimental treatment group and the no treatment control

group is presented in the tables that follow:

TABLE 3.1

SEX AND AGE OF SUBJECTS
(HEARING PARENTS OF DEAF CHILDREN)

 

Subjects 52;» A e in Years
Male Female 20-23 30-39 40-49

 

Experimental 1 6 5 2

 

Control 1 6 2 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

TABLE 3.2

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF SUBJECTS
(HEARING PARENTS OF DEAF CHILDREN)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highest Level of Educational Training
Subjects Completed
Elementary High School Collgge
Experimental 1 5 1
Control 6 1
TABLE 3.3

AGE OF DEAF CHILDREN OF SUBJECTS
(HEARING PARENTS OF DEAF CHILDREN)

 

 

 

Subjects Age of Deaf Children of Subjects
IFS Years 6-11 Years 12—18 Years
Experimental 4 3
Control 2 5

 

 

 

 

The treatment group was composed of seven subjects. Six
subjects were females and one was a male. One subject finished
only elementary school; five subjects finished high school;
and one subject completed college. Two subjects were forty
years to fifty years of age and five were thirty to forty
years of age. The deaf children of subjects in this group
were various ages. There were four subjects in this group
with deaf children six to eleven years of age and three sub-
jects with deaf children twelve to eighteen years of age.

The older subjects had older deaf children. None of the deaf
children were first born, therefore, all parents in this

group had two or more children.

41

The control group used as a comparison group to the
treatment group also had seven members. Six subjects were
females and one was a male. Six subjects finished high school
and one subject finished college. Five subjects were thirty
to forty years of age and two were twenty to thirty years of
age. The deaf children of these parents were younger than
those of the treatment group. Two children were five years
of age or under. All other deaf children of these parents
were Six to eleven years of age. The youngest deaf child was
an only child. All other parents in this group had more than
one child and their deaf child was not the first born child.

Parents who participated in treatment tended to be older
and had older deaf children than did parents in the no treat-
ment control group. This may reflect an age-attitude trend
among hearing parents of deaf children. AS parents become
more familiar with their deaf children and continue to experi-
ence frustration in helping the child c0pe with deafness,
they are more apt to seek help and/or training.

The deaf childen of all subjects are prelingually deaf;
that is, age at onset of deafness was before the child was
four years of age. This feature reflects a national increase
in the percentage of deaf peOple who are prelingually deaf.
Since these children are all of school age they are the group
that has caused an increase in percentage figures for pre-
lingual deafness. Therefore, an even greater percentage of
school age deaf children are prelingually deaf. The sample is
representative of the deaf school age children of hearing

parents.

42

Treatment Procedures

 

The Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) training program
uses didactic sessions, paired interaction, and videotape
feedback of paired interactions to increase the affective
sensitivity of trainees. The standard sequence of training
for Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) was followed. This
was done to permit replication in future studies and to
determine which areas needed modification for the population
of interest, hearing parents of deaf children. Most of the
major components of the model were included even though some
components seemed less relevant to the population of interest
than others. Stimulus vignettes dealing with homosexuality
and rape did not seem pertinent to parent-child relationships.
By contrast, vignettes showing a mother and her children in
a divorce recovery session were very pertinent because they
depicted adult-child interaction.

Some modifications were made due to time constraints,
the small number of participants, and the need for added
explanation of theoretical constructs and descriptive termi—
nology. The elapsed time from beginning of training to date
of completion was three months. This necessitated additional
review time in training sessions.

A description of the sequence and content of training
experiences will be presented in the following pages. The
Interpersonal Process Recall training program will not be
completely described here. The reader who wishes to have

more information is referred to the training manual developed

43

by Kagan (1975) and used in this study, Interpersonal Process

 

Recall, A Method of Influencing Human Interaction.

 

44

BASIC TRAINING OUTLINE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SESSION CLASSROOM GROUP LAB
l The sequence and content of IPR none
was presented
Discussed the level and kind of
expectations subjects had of the
training
Elements of Effective Communi-
cation: IntroductIon to facili-
tating reSponse modes: Explor-
atory Response and Listening
Response.
Explain laboratory sessions
2 Review of previous session. Learn to
Outline of affective cognitive Operate VTR.
dimensions of effective communi- Interviewer
cation presented with handouts recalls
and overhead tranSparencies. outside
Discussion of terminology inquirer
3 Elements of Effective Communi- Interviewer
caEIOn: Affective/Cognitive recalls
Dimension, Honest Labeling. outside
inquirer
4 & Discussion of lab Interviewer
Affect Simulation, The Process recalls
Film #1 outside
Affect Simulation, Vignettes inquirer
Affect Simulation, The Process
Film #2
Affect Simulation, Vignettes
6 Inquirer Training: Inquirer Role Inquirer
and Function film. training
all members
participate
7 Discuss laboratory session. Inquirer
Complete Inquirer Training film. training

 

 

all members
participate

 

45

 

 

SESSION CLASSROOM GROUP LAB
8 Discuss lab and home experiences. Subjects
Individual Recall (Client) B inquirer
series film for helpee
recall
9 Discuss lab Subjects
Videotape of two deaf women in inquirer
individual counseling for helpee
recall
10 Discuss lab and previous week no lab
videotape
Videotape of hearing parents
(husband and wife) of two
deaf children during a
counseling session
Discussion of this session and
summarizing of IPR and parents'
future behaviors.

 

 

 

Session 1

 

The sequence and selected content of IPR training was
presented. It was explained that sessions would involve
didactic presentations, affect Simulation films, discussion
of new concepts and Skills, and laboratory sessions using
videotape recall techniques.

The subjects and instructor discussed the level and kind
of expectation each had of the training. The instructor
emphasized that the participants should ask questions,
challenge statements, and provide feedback for each other
and the instructor. It was explained that this was conducive
to mutually intelligible communication.

The film "Elements of Effective Communication" was used

to present the first two elements of effective communication,

46
the exploratory response and the listening response. The
importance of communicating to the Speaker that you were
listening was stressed.

The film explained exploratory and listening responses.
Short vignettes illustrated the difference between an explor-
atory and a non-exploratory and a listening and a non-listen-
ing reSponse. The instructor supplemented these vignettes
with descriptions of analogous situations occurring between
hearing parents and deaf children.

This part of the session terminated with the instructor
telling parents that they should begin to experiment with
these new communication techniques between themselves and
with their children at home. Parents were also requested to
come to the next session with some experience, thought, or
feeling they would be willing to Share with other parents in

the group during the laboratory session.

Session 2

 

This session began with a review of the exploratory and
listening reSponses presented during the preceding sessiOn.
Parents were encouraged to express any difficulties or in-
sights they had gained from using these techniques.

The affective/cognitive dimensions of effective communi-
cation were outlined and shown on an overhead projector.
Parents received handouts of this information at the end of
the session. The parents experienced difficulty understand—
ing this concept because of their lack of familiarity with

the terminology. This problem was resolved by using analogous

47

situations with their children as illustrative of the
difference between the affective and cognitive levels of a
message.

The instructional period was followed by the laboratory
session. The laboratory session consisted of parents being
paired so that one parent was the client/helpee and the other
parent was the interviewer/helper. The helpee was the person
who shared with the helper a thought, feeling, or experience.
The helper was the person who listened and tried to respond
in order to achieve a better understanding of what the helpee
was saying. This interaction was videotaped with all the
participants in pairs.

After all the parents had done both the helpee and helper
roles, the recall experience was begun. Each person went
through recall when the videotaped segment of them being the
helper was shown. The instructor served as the skilled
inquirer during each recall.

The videotaped recall was designed to give the partici-
pant the Opportunity to review the experience with a person
termed the inquirer. The inquirer enters the recall situa-
tion with no previous knowledge of what occurred between the
two participants (the helper and the helpee). The inquirer's
task was to watch a videotape replay of the interaction with
one of the participants and by using nonjudgmental questions
such as, "what thought were you having about the other person
at that time"? enabled the person in recall to explore and

gain insight into the cognitive and affective experience of

48

each participant and the dynamics of communication in a

relationship.

Session 3

 

The preceding week's laboratory experience was discussed.
Particular attention was devoted to problems encountered by
the parents in the laboratory situation. The parents also
used this time to discuss unique situations they had experi-
enced with their deaf children.

The second section of the film "Elements of Effective
Communication" was shown. This presented the affective/
COgnitive elements of communication and added the technique
termed "Honest Labeling". The film contained stimulus
vignettes that provided hypothetical situations for the
parents to experiment with in developing facilitative
reSponses.

The instructor discussed vignettes that were particularly
relevent to communicating with deaf children. This was
followed by a discussion of how to explore affective relation-
ships within the limited concrete vocabulary of most deaf
children; that is, how to make something as abstract as
feelings become more concrete.

A laboratory session followed the period of.instruction.
The same format and organization was used as in the preceding

lab.

49

Session 4

 

The fourth session began with a discussion of the previ-
ous lab and any unique or enlightening experiences the parents
had during the week.

The instructional time consisted of Showing film number
one in the unit Affect Simulation, The Process. The purpose
of this unit was to help participants become more able to
label feelings in general, and to deal with behaviors that
may interfere with effective communication. The process was
facilitated by giving the parents a list of questions to ask
themselves, so that they could become attuned to their inner
feelings and reactions. The questions were: what did I feel;
what did I think; what were my bodily reactions; when else
in my life did I feel this way; what did I think the person
felt about me; and what would I do?

Participants shared their reactions to the vignettes.
Initially they would not risk revealing much of themselves
and focused more on the technique of this process. AS the
film prOgressed participants became more Spontaneous and
revealed more of their inner reactions. Parents were
encouraged to try to imagine how a deaf child reacts to or
experiences the elements of interpersonal dynamics that they
are sharing.

The lab session followed instruction. Parents were
asked to try and be attentive to the dynamics that were
presented in the film. The instructor served as the inquirer
and tried to assist the interviewer/helper in recall to label

more feelings generated by the interaction and explore any

50

analogous experiences that might have been models for the

present interaction.

Session 5

 

Film number two in the unit Affect Simulation, The
Process was shown. Participants were encouraged to criticize,
and develOp alternative responses to the ones presented in
the film. Both the communication of the helpee and the
helper were commented upon.

The lab session was the same as the previous week. The

interviewer recalled and the instructor served as the inquirer.

Session 6

 

The previous lab session was discussed and the partici-
pants were asked if they experienced any break-throughs or
new affective/cognitive awareness.

The film "Inquirer Role and Function" was shown. The
purpose of this unit was to instruct participants in the
inquirer role. Since recall is a significant part of IPR,
the participants' ability to listen nonjudgmentally is
instrumental to further learning and a useful cognitive/
affective skill. This was the first step in phasing the
instructor out of the lab sessions.

The most frequent difficulty parents had when this was
initially presented was fear about feelings of phoniness and
lack of caring behavior. They cognitively understood the

task but their emotional reaction made it difficult to perform.

51

The lab experience was conducted as a group. The par-
ticipants watched videotape replays of short interactions
and alternately served as inquirers. After each person
inquired there was a discussion of what might have been said,

and whether or not there seemed to be hidden scripts.

Session 7

 

The lab session was discussed and parents still exhibited
some resistance to the role of inquirer. Members of the
group helped each other by comparing or contrasting their
feelings with those of other parents. The instructor pointed
out that this apprehension about a disassociation between
cognition and affect was Similar to their initial reaction
to the helper role and that they may for awhile have feelings
about using this technique.

The second part of the film "Inquirer Role and Function"
was shown. The various Open ended questions used by inquir-
ers were discussed.

The lab session was organized like the previous lab
session. Group participation in discussing each inquirer-
interviewer recall was used to facilitate continued learning

and growth in maximum use of the inquirer role.

Session 8

 

Lab and home experiences of the past week were discussed.
More examples of how to make feelings more concrete for deaf

children were discussed.

52

The film "Individual Recall (Client)" B series was
shown. This film presents greater exploration of what the
helpee's cognitive and affective behaviors might be, such as:
hidden scripts, defense mechanisms, and anxiety about too
much self-revelation. Film content was discussed and parents
were encouraged to express any awareness they had of these
occurrences when they were interacting with another person.

The lab session followed with parents serving as in-

quirers for helpee recall.

Session 9

 

The previous lab was discussed and parents expressed
general satisfaction with the inquirer role. They said they
felt freer to concentrate on the deep structure of the inter-
action and communication.

A videotape of the instructor counseling two deaf women
was shown. One woman was congentially deaf, and the other
had become severely hard of hearing as an adult.

The congentially deaf woman discussed her feelings toward
her hearing parents and her concern for her deaf daughter.

The severely hard-of-hearing woman Spoke of the gradual
breakup of her marriage, and her decline in esteem in the eyes
of others because of her hearing loss.

The parents' reaction was one of enthusiasm and fear.
They discussed their own fears about what their deaf children
thought of them, and how aware they were of the devaluation
society put on deaf children. All parents commented on how

relevant this videotape was.

53

The lab session was organized like the previous week.

Parents were in all three roles: helpee; helper; and inquirer.

Session 10

 

Discussion of the previous lab and home experiences was
the beginning of the final session. Parents expressed a
heightened awareness and a greater commitment to attaining
more awareness of their deaf child's communication and
feelings.

A videotape of the instructor counseling a husband and
wife who had two deaf children was Shown. The parents
being counseled discussed the impact of deafness on their
marriage, the guilt feelings they had, the frustration with
professionals, and the need to be involved with other parents
of deaf children as a source of information and a support in
times of stress.

The participants' reaction to this tape was very similar
to the previous tape. They seemed to relish the importance
it had for them. Most of the discussion was about Similarities
in experience and how things might have been different if
they had talked more about their feelings and situations with
someone who could have helped them.

This session closed with discussion of the various
experiences participants had had in IPR training. Future
behaviors and continued use of the communication skills
acquired was also discussed. The instructor encouraged the

parents to continue to experiment, to develOp deeper

54

understanding of their deaf children, and to assist the
children in better understanding of them and the needs of
others.

The posttest was administered to both the treatment and
the control groups one week after treatment was completed.

Chapter IV will present the analysis of results. The
chapter will also contain the hypotheses tested, the measure-
ment data, test statistic, and decision on each hypothesis

tested.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The hypotheses, measurement data, test statistic and the
analysis of results are presented in this chapter. The anal-
ysis of the independent variable, affective sensitivity
training, was done by comparing the scores of subjects who
participated in Interpersonal Process Recall (hereinafter
referred to as the experimental group) with subjects who did
not receive training in IPR (hereinafter referred to as the
control group). Both the experimental and control groups
were measured immediately prior to the beginning of training
and immediately after training was completed. The time lapse

between pretest and posttest was the same for both groups.

Research Hypotheses

 

There were four hypotheses tested to determine the effect
of training in IPR on the affective sensitivity of hearing
parents who had deaf children. The hypotheses are reported
below:

Hypothesis 1: There is no Significant difference in the
affective sensitivity of the experimental group and the con-

trol group after training is completed.

55

56

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in the
sensitivity to the client (helpee) between the experimental
group and the control group after training is completed.

Hypothesis 3: There is no Significant difference in the
sensitivity to nonverbal communication by the experimental
group and control group after training is completed.

Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference in the
empathy of the experimental and control group after training

is completed.

Test Statistic

 

The data for each hypothesis was analyzed using a Mann-
Whitney U test statistic. This analysis was used because of
the small number of subjects (N=l3) and the need to maximize

statistical power. POpham and Sirotnik state in Educational

 

Statistics: Use and Interpretation (1973) that the Mann-

 

Whitney U test is a powerful alternative to the parametric
t-test. They said this was particularly SO when the differ-
ence between two independent groups needs to be assessed.

In analyzing the data the pretest was used to control
for differences in the level of entrance behavior of subjects
in the experimental and control group. Analysis of the post-
test scores of subjects was not, therefore, confounded by
ignoring the differences between subjects or groups prior to
the onset of training.

The design of this research satisfies all assumptions
of the Mann-Whitney U except that the subjects be a random

sample of the pOpulation of interest (see section (2) of

57
Chapter III). The lack of random sampling prohibits gener-

alizing the findings in this study to the pOpulation of
interest (hearing parents of deaf children).

One problem with small group studies is that there is a
tendency for ties. According to Jean Dickinson Gibbons in

her book Nonparametric Methods for Quantitative Analysis

 

(1976) the tendency for ties may be ignored because the effect
is typically small. The program for this study did correct
for ties. The interaction between subjects has, therefore,

been controlled as a factor in analysis.

Results of Analysis and Tables of Data

 

The data used to test Hypothesis 1 is presented in Table
4.1. The scores reported represent the general level of
affective sensitivity as measured by the total test score on
the Filmed Measure of Affective Sensitivity (FMAS) Scale D.
Both the raw scores and derived scores are reported. The
derived scores are McCall's T scores. The conversion to T
scores was necessary because the raw scores are not weighted
the same on each measure. The McCall's T scores make un-
equally weighted scores comparable. According to Marascuilo
and McSweeney in their book Nonparametric and Distribution-

Free Methods for the Social Sciences (1978) individuals who

 

wish to make comparisons between subtest scores that are
weighted differently should use the McCall's T scores and

not raw scores. Table 4.1 follows.

58
TABLE 4.1

RAW AND T SCORES OF SUBJECTS ON THE TOTAL SCORE ON THE
FILMED MEASURE OF AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE D

Subjects Pretest Posttest

Experimental Raw Score T Score Raw Score T Score
1 59 43.5 67 49.6

2 70 51.9 73 54.2

3 52 38.2 60 44.3

4 86 64.1 94 70.2

5 86 64.1 82 61.1

6 71 52.7 93 69.5

7 90 67.2 95 71.0

Mean 73.4 54.5 80.6 60.0
Variance 212.6 123.7 201.7 117.5

Control

8 61 45.0 62 45.8

9 87 64.9 98 73.3

10 70 51.9 64 47.3

11 70 51.9 75 55.7

12 73 54.2 83 61.8

13 73 54.2 71 52.7

Mean 72.3 53.7 75.5 56.1
Variance 71.1 41.6 179.5 104.7

The pretest scores for the experimental group ranged from
a low score of 56 to a high score of 90. The posttest scores
ranged from a low score of 60 to a high score of 94. The
range (R) remained relatively Stable from pretest (R=38) to
posttest (R:36). This lack of change in variability is also
reflected by comparing the pretest and posttest variance.

The pretest variance (82) was 82

=212.6. The posttest variance
was SZ=201.7. While there was a slight decrease in vari-
ability this does not mean that there was no change.

The mean score (Y) for the experimental group on the
pretest was 2573.4. The mean increased to i580.6 on the

posttest. This indicates that the Shape of the distribution

of scores remained relatively stable. It did, however, Shift

59

to the right as evidenced by the increase in the mean from
the pretest to the posttest.

Calculations for skewness reveal that the skewness
decreased from a pretest calculation for skewness of -.2 to
a posttest calculation for skewness of -.15. This means that
after training scores were more evenly distributed from the
lowest score to the highest score.

The pretest scores for the control group ranged from a
low score of 61 to a high score of 87. The posttest scores
ranged from a low score of 62 to a high score of 98. Thus,
the range of scores for the control group increased from a
pretest range of R=26 to a posttest range of R=36. The
variance increased from a pretest variance of 52:71.1 to a
posttest variance of Sz=l79.5.

The mean of the control group increased from a pretest
mean of $572.3 to a posttest mean of i575.5. Like the experi-
mental group the distribution of scores for the control group
moved to the right i.e., there was an increase in the general
level of affective sensitivity.

The variance of the experimental and control group were
Similar on the posttest. This was due to a large increase in
the variance of the control group. Calculations for skewness
of the control group indicate that it increased from a pre—
test calculation for skewness of +.48 to a posttest calcu-
lation for skewness of +.54. This is interpreted as indi—
cating that the increase in the mean and the variance is due
to an increase in the largest, tailed score of the control

group. Review of the range seems to substantiate this

60

observation. The low score for the range increased only one
point from a pretest low score of 61 to a posttest low score
of 62. In contrast, the pretest high score of 87 increased
to a posttest high score of 98. Because of the high degree
of skewness the control group's mean score of 75.5 on the
posttest is not as representative of group scores as the
posttest mean score of the experimental group of i280.6.

According to the findings in Table 4.1 the following is
concluded:

Hypothesis 1: As measured by the general affective
sensitivity score on the FMAS Scale D there was no significant
difference between the affective sensitivity of the experi-
mental and control group after training. Analysis of scores
using the Mann-Whitney U test statistic at the .05 alpha
level indicated that the null hypothesis, as stated, cannot
be rejected. This means that training in IPR did not Signi—
ficantly affect the general level of the affective sensitivity
of those subjects who participated in training (the experi-
mental group).

The measurement data used to test Hypothesis 2 is
presented in Table 4.2. The scores reported represent the
sensitivity of the respondent to the client (helpee) as
measured by the client subtest on the FMAS Scale D. AS in
Table 4.1 both the raw scores and derived scores are reported.

Table 4.2 follows.

61
TABLE 4.2

RAW AND T SCORES OF SUBJECTS ON THE CLIENT SUBTEST
FILMED MEASURE OF AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE D

Subjects Pretest Posttest

Experimental Raw Score T Score Raw Score T Score
1 30 50.8 33 55.4

2 25 43.0 37 61.6

3 26 44.6 28 47.7

4 40 66.2 46 75.5

5 37 61.6 33 55.4

6 31 52.3 43 70.9

7 38 63.1 40 66.2

Mean 32.4 54.5 37.1 61.8
Variance 35.6 85.0 39.8 95.1

Control

8 24 41.5 26 44.6

9 41 67.8 43 70.9

10 33 55.4 29 49.2

11 35 58.4 38 63.1

12 35 63.1 32 53.9

13 38 63.1 32 53.9

Mean 34.3 57.5 33.8 56.7
Variance 33.5 80.0 38.2 91.3

The pretest scores for the experimental group ranged
from a low score of 25 to a high score of 40. The scores
increased on the posttest so that the low score was 28 and
the high score was 46. There was a small increase in the
range of scores from a pretest range of R:15 to a posttest
range of R=18. This change in variability is also present
in the variance. There was a moderate change in the variance
from a pretest variance of Sz=35.6 to a posttest variance of
52:39.8.

The mean for the experimental group on the pretest was
2532.4. This increased to a posttest mean of i537.l. The

moderate change in the range and the variance indicate a

relatively stable shape for the distribution of scores on

62
the client subtest from pretest to posttest. The increase in
the mean does indicate that the distribution did shift to the
right i.e., there was a general increase in sensitivity to
the client (helpee).

Calculations for skewness substantiate the evidence
cited. The skewness of the pretest for the experimental group
scores was claculated as being +.02. The posttest calcu-
lation for skewness was also +.02. The smallness of this
figure, which indicates a more even distribution of scores,
and its stability from pretest to posttest seems to indicate
that the training in IPR had a relatively homogeneous effect
on subjects.

The pretest scores for the control group ranged from a
low score of 24 to a high score of 41. The posttest low
score was 26 and the high score was 43. The range of scores
for both the pretest and the posttest was R=l7. The variance
of scores for the control group on the pretest was SZ=33.5.
The variance increased to a posttest variance of Sz=38.2.

The mean for the control group decreased from a pretest
mean of RS34.3 to a posttest mean of i533.8. The increased
variation within the distribution while the mean remained
relatively stable suggests that the distribution of scores
changed.

Calculations for skewness provide evidence of this
change. The pretest calculation for skewness was -.63. This
changed to a posttest calculation of +.18. The smaller
number indicates a more even distribution of scores i.e.,

less skewness. This change differs from that reported for

63
the data in Table 4.1. The reason for the difference is
not clear.

Analysis of the data in Table 4.2 resulted in the follow-
ing conclusions:

Hypothesis 2: A significant difference did appear
between the sensitivity of the experimental and control group
to the client (helpee) as measured by the client subtest
score on the FMAS Scale D. The analysis using the Mann-
Whitney U test statistic at the .05 alpha level indicated
that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant dif-
ference between the experimental and control group, be
rejected. This means that after training in IPR the experi-
mental group was Significantly more sensitive to client
communication.

The data used to test Hypothesis 3 is presented in Table
4.3. The scores represent the sensitivity of the respondent
to nonverbal communication. This was measured by the obser—
vational subtest of the FMAS Scale D. The data is reported
in the same format as used in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The reader
is reminded that any comparisons of tabled scores must be
done with the derived scores (T Scores) and not raw scores.

Table 4.3 follows.

64
TABLE 4.3

RAW AND T SCORES OF SUBJECTS ON THE OBSERVATIONAL SUBTEST
FILMED MEASURE OF AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE D

Subjects Pretest Posttest
Experimental Raw Score T Score Raw Score T Score
1 33 49.4 31 46.8
2 36 53.3 37 54.6
3 28 42.9 23 36.4
4 51 72.8 49 70.2
5 45 65.0 36 53.3
6 35 52.0 52 74.1
7 43 62.4 50 71.5
Mean 38.7 56.8 39.7 58.1
Variance 62.9 106.3 119.9 202.6
Control
8 27 41.6 22 35.1
9 46 66.3 49 70.2
10 34 50.7 32 48.1
11 33 49.4 36 53.3
12 41 59.8 44 63.7
13 42 61.1 35 52.0
Mean 37.2 54.8 36.3 53.7
Variance 49.4 83.4 89.1 150.5

The range of raw scores for the experimental group
increased from the pretest to the posttest. The low score
on the pretest was 28 and the high score was 51. The low
score on the posttest was 23 and the high score was 52. This
increased variability is also present in the variance. The
variance changed from a pretest variance of SZ=62.9 to a
posttest variance of Sz=119.9.

The mean was relatively stable for the experimental
group. The pretest mean was i538.7. This increased slightly
to a posttest mean of 2339.7. While the mean increased there
was also an increase in variability around the mean.

Calculations for skewness indicate that the scores on

the posttest were more evenly distributed than on the pretest,

65

though in a different direction. The pretest calculation

for skewness was +.21. The posttest calculation for skewness
was -.l7. This means that skewness decreased from the pre-
test to the posttest and it changed in direction. Scores

on the pretest tended to be larger than the mean (negatively
skewed). This changed so that scores on the posttest tend

to be smaller than the mean.

The range of scores for the control group on the obser-
vational subtest of the FMAS Scale D also increased from the
pretest to the posttest. The lOw score on the pretest was 27
and the high score was 46. The posttest had a low score of
22 and a high score of 49. The pretest variance was Sz=49.4.
The variance increased to a posttest variance of 82:89.1.

The mean score for the control group actually decreased
from the pretest totjuaposttest. The pretest mean was 2537.2.
The posttest mean was i536.3. This seems to indicate a Slight
shift in the value of the mean to the left in the distribution
of scores. The skewness calculation for the pretest was -.16.
The skewness for the posttest was -.1. This means that the
scores tended to be slightly above the mean on both the pre-
test and the posttest. The fact that both the mean and
measure for skewness decreased in magnitude seems to indicate
a general decline in the control group's level of nonverbal
sensitivity.

This data, Table 4.3 was analyzed to determine whether
Hypothesis 3 can or cannot be rejected. The decision is

repOrted in the following:

66

Hypothesis 3: As measured by the observational subtest
score on the FMAS Scale D there was no Significant difference
between the nonverbal sensitivity of the experimental and
control group. Analysis of the scores using the Mann-Whitney
U test statistic at the .05 alpha level indicated that the
null hypothesis, as stated, cannot be rejected. This means
that training in IPR did not significantly affect the sensi-
tivity to nonverbal communication of those subjects who
participated in training (the experimental group).

The measurement data used to test Hypothesis 4 is pre-
sented in Table 4.4. The scores reported represent the level
of empathy of the reSpondent to the helpee as measured by the
Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination (CIED). The smaller
the mean difference (i Diff) the greater the level of empathy.
A mean difference of 1.0 indicates more empathy than a mean

difference of 1.1. Table 4.4 follows.

TABLE 4.4

CARKHUFF INDEX OF EMPATHY DISCRIMINATION
MEAN (X) DIFFERENCE SCORES

Pretest _ Posttest _
Total x Total X
Subjects Difference Diff Difference Diff
Experimental
1 100 1.5 70 1.0
2 66 1.0 60 0.9
3 70 1.0 54 0.8
4 110 1.7 62 0.9
5 44 0.6 58 0.9
6 36 0.5 46 0.7
7 44 0.6 34 0.5
Mean 67.1 1 0 54.6 0.8

Variance 827.8 ° 138.5

67
TABLE 4.4 cont'd

Pretest _ Posttest
Total x Total i
Subjects Difference Diff Difference Diff
Control

8 86 1.3 88 1.3

9 76 1.1 60 0.9

10 54 0.8 40 0.6

11 74 1.1 70 1.0

12 86 1.3 76 1.1

13 68 1.0 64 1.0

Mean 74 1.1 66.3 1 0
Variance 56.5 263.1

The range of total difference scores for the experimental
group decreased from the pretest to the posttest. The pre-
test had a low score of 36 and a high score of 100. The
posttest had a low score of 34 and a high score of 70.

The mean of the total difference for the experimental
group also decreased from a pretest mean of 3367.1 to a post-
test mean of i554.8. The fact that variability decreased
too, from pretest variance of Sz=827.8 to a posttest vari-
ance of Sz=138.5 indicates that there was a general increase
in empathy and that scores tended to be closer to the mean
on the posttest.

The range of total difference scores for the control
group increased from the pretest to the posttest. The low
score on the pretest was 54 and the high score was 86. The
posttest had a low score of 40 and a high score of 88.

The mean of the total difference increased from a pre-
test mean Of i274 to a posttest mean of i565.1. The smaller
mean on the posttest is, however, not as representative of

group scores as the mean on the pretest. This is due to a

68

large increase in the variance from a pretest variance of
Sz=56.5 to a posttest variance of 82=263.1.

The decision on Hypothesis 4 using the data in Table
4.4 is reported below.

Hypothesis 4: As measured by the CIED there was no
significant difference between the level of empathy of the
experimental and control group. Analysis of the scores using
the Mann-Whitney U test statistic at the .05 alpha level
indicated that the null hypothesis, as stated, cannot be
rejected. This means that training in IPR did not signifi-

cantly affect the level of empathy of those subjects who

participated in training (the experimental group).

Summary

The data used in analyzing Hypotheses one through four
were reported. The data was analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U
test statistic at the .05 alpha level.

It was found that subjects trained in IPR (the experi-
mental group) were Significantly more sensitive to client
(helpee) communication than the control group after training
was completed. In the three other areas of sensitivity that
were measured no Significant difference between the experi-
mental and control group was found. This indicates that
training in IPR did not Significantly affect the experimental
group's general level of affective sensitivity, sensitivity

to nonverbal communication, nor level of empathy.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The analysis of scores used to test the hypotheses indi-
cated that hearing parents of deaf children were significantly
more sensitive to communication from the client (helpee) after
participating in IPR training. In all other areas measured
they did not differ significantly from the no treatment con-
trol group.

The sensitivity of hearing parents of deaf children to
client (helpee) communication indicates an important develOp-
ment in the attitude of parents towards communication. It
implies that parents were able to learn that listening was
an important communication skill.

A review of the scores of subjects on the FMAS Scale D
revealed that subjects scored lowest on the subtest measuring
sensitivity to nonverbal communication. This is a particu-
larly important deficiency, because deaf children rely more
on nonverbal communication, due to their hearing impairment
and lack of oral communication Skills. Therefore, parent
sensitivity to verbal communication does not reduce the need
for sensitivity to the deaf child's nonverbal communication.

The comments from parents and the measurement data
suggested that parents would benefit from didactic sessions

that would provide them with more information about how to

69

7O

apply their sensitivity to deaf children. This could be
supplemented with vignettes of deaf children interacting with

parents and deaf peers.

Non-Hypothesized Observations

 

There were a number of non-hypothesized findings that
affected this research. While they were not tested and con—
trolled for, the reporting of their occurrence is deemed
important.

During the course of IPR training it became apparent
that subjects who were better educated (some post high school
education) understood the concepts more readily than less
educated subjects. This may have been due to the level of
language and abstractness of this type of training. It would
be important that future researchers try to adapt the didactic
presentations for those trainees who do not have some post
high school education.

Another important factor seemed to be the support of
the spouse. Those subjects whose spouse was supportive re—
ported more effort at home in utilizing the Skill and knowl-
edge that was being learned. This would suggest that it
might be valuable in future research to have both parents
participate in training. This would be beneficial for both
the parents and the deaf child because the parents would be
more likely and able to function in a consistent and mutually

reinforcing manner.

71

Limitations

 

There were several problems confronted in this research
that needed to be resolved in future studies.

This research cannot be generalized to the population
of interest (hearing parents of deaf children). There are
two reasons for the inability to generalize. One is that
the sample was not randomly selected from the population of
hearing parents of deaf children. The second factor was that
random assignment to the experimental or control group was
not done. The findings of this study while encouraging
should be used with caution.

The most direct effect on this study was subject atten-
dance at all training sessions. Training was provided to all
subjects free of charge. This was done on the supposition
that it would encourage or permit more parents to participate.
It seemed, however, to have caused parents to feel they had
no investment in the training session. This in turn caused
erratic attendance. Future researchers perhaps Should pay
parents to participate in such a training program. This may
increase attendance and the number of parents who would be
interested in participating.

The problem of attendance was further complicated by
Severe weather conditions requiring postponement of scheduled
weekly sessions. This appeared to reduce the continuity of
learning. If conducted in such areas of the country where
winter may cause problems, it would seem wise in future
research to offer the IPR training program during the fall or

spring when weather conditions are more moderate.

72

Another difficulty encountered was the Size of the
training group. The largest group in this study evidenced
the greatest growth in affective sensitivity. The effect of
group size was not studied, but the inferential implication
is that larger groups (four or more members) are more growth
producing. Kagan commented on this as a factor (Kagan, 1975).
He stated that groups smaller than twelve are not stimulating
enough for the members. One difficulty is working with
hearing parents of deaf children is that there are not many
of them; it can be assumed that involving as many as twelve
parents at one site would be extremely difficult if not
impossible. But again, Kagan's advice does indicate that
larger groups are more desirable. This recommendation is
consistent with the findings of this research.

The smallest degree of difference appeared between the
empathy of the experimental and control group as measured by
the Carkhuff Index of Empathy Discrimination (CIED). This
test was presented in a printed form. Respondents had to
read excerpts of helpee communication and then judge the
facilitative quality of a number of helper responses. It
appears that testees' responses were affected by their
reading ability. There were several other factors that seemed
to effect the responses of testees. These factors were 1) the
lack of concrete clues such as voice inflection, facial
expression, and eye contact and 2) the apparent misunder-
standing by testees that the scale used in weighting a
particular response was from 0-5. No subjects ranked any

answer at five, not did they rank any at zero. This had the

73

effect of reducing the ability of the instrument to discrim-
inate the degree of empathy of the respondents. It is
suggested that future researchers seek another instrument to
measure affective sensitivity in groups where a wide range

of reading skills are expected.

Implications

 

Each subsection of this chapter has contained some
suggestions about the content of training, measurement tech-
niques, or subject participation. The next section makes a
few broader suggestions.

One important effort of future research should be to
include more parents of very young deaf children (children
younger than seven years of age). This might be important
for two reasons. First, the process of helping the child
might be much easier for parents while the child is young.
Second, it might enable parents to develop a meaningful
relationship with their deaf child before the child experi-
ences too much frustration, confusion, or anger.

It would be significant for future research to evaluate
which parts of IPR training are the most important to
increase parent sensitivity. One problem this research con-
fronted was that parents were unwilling to invest forty hours
of their time in the training program. So, it would seem
desirable to investigate the possibility of a shorter train-
ing program. Judging from the comments of parents this could

be done if there was more systematic use of the time parents

74

were at home and less time Spent on vignettes that were not

relevant to the needs of parents.

Conclusion

 

This research indicated that training hearing parents
to be more sensitive to their deaf children is an attainable
goal. The program used was successful in enabling parents
to become Significantly more sensitive to Specific measures
of verbal communication. Suggestions for future research
were made. The areas identified for further development were
sensitivity to nonverbal communication; larger group size;
better attendance by subjects participating in training;
more subjects with younger children; and participation by
both parents. Results are sufficiently encouraging to merit
further research with this pOpulation.

Interpersonal Process Recall offers a promising proce-
dure for bridging the chasm of Silence which separates hearing
parents and deaf children. Because IPR emphasizes reciprocal
communication the relationship between deaf children and their
parents may become one of meaningful and facilitative inter-

personal communication.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, James, Jr. and Kagan, Norman. "Teaching Interpersonal
Relationship Skills on Campus: A Pyramid Approach."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20 (1973): 535—540.

Bedell, William P. "A Comparison of Two Approaches to Peer
Supervision in the Training of Communication Skills
Using a Videotape Recall Model." Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1976.

Birch, Jack W. Hearing Impaired Children in the Mainstream.
Reston, Va.: The Council fOr Exceptional Children, 1975.

 

Brown, Charles T. and Keller, Paul W. Monologue to Dialogue,
An Exploration of Interpersonal Communication. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

 

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental Design for Research. Chicago, 11.:
Rand McNaIly College Publishing Co., 1963.

 

Carkhuff, Robert R. Helping and Human Relations: A Primer
for Lay and Professional Helpers, Vols I and II.
ChiEago, Il.: Holt, Rinehart, and WinSton, Inc., 1969.

 

Carkhuff, Robert R. and Bierman, Ralph. "Training as a
Preferred Mode of Treatment of Parents of Emotionally
Disturbed Children." Journal of Counseling Psychology,
17(2), (1970): 157-161.

 

Danish, S. J. and Brodsky, S. L. "Training of Policemen in
Emotional Control and Awareness." American Psychologist,
25 (1970): 368-369.

 

Danish, Steven J. and Kagan, Norman. "Measurement of Affec-
tive Sensitivity: Toward a Valid Measure of Interpersonal
Perception." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18(1)
(1971): 51-54.

 

Furth, Hans, G. Deafness and Learning, A Psychological
Approach. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc.

 

Gazda, George M. Human Relations Development, A Manual for
Educators. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1973.

 

 

75

76

Ginott, Haim G. Between Parent and Child. New York, N.Y.:
The Macmillan Co., 1965.

 

Ginott, Haim G. Teacher and Child, A Book for Parents and
Teachers. New York, N.Y.: The Macmillan Co.,il972.

 

Glass, Gene V. and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods
in Education and Psychology. EnglewoOHPCIiffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hail, Inc., 1970.

 

 

Gordon, Thomas. P.E.T. in Action, Wyden Books, 1976.

 

Kagan, Norman. "Can Technology Help Us Toward Reliability
in Influencing Human Interaction?" Educational Tech-
nology, 13 (1973): 44-51.

Kagan, Norman. Interpersonal Process Recall, A Method of
Influencipg Human Interaction, Michigan State University,
1975.

 

 

Kagan, Norman, Werner, Donald and Schneider, John. "The
Affective Sensitivity", paper presented at the American
Psychological Association meeting, August 1977 as part
of the symposium, "Measuring Individual Differences in
Emotional Recognition and Expression".

Katz, L., Mathis, Steve, L. and Merrill, Edward C., Jr. The
Deaf Child in the Public Schools, A Handbook for Paréfiis
of Deaf Children. Danville, Il.: The Interstate
Printers and Publishing, Inc., 1974.

 

 

Levine, Edna S. ngchology of Deafness. New York, N.Y.:
Columbia University Press, 1960.

 

Lieberman, Morton A., Yalom, I. D. and Miles, M. D. Encounter
Gropps: First Facts. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books, Inc.,
1973.

 

 

Mindel, Eugene S. and Vernon, McKay. They Grow in Silence,
The Deaf Child and His Family. Silver Spring, Md.: The
National AssociatiOn of the Deaf, 1971.

 

Poulos, Thomas H. "Attitudes Toward the Deaf: A Guttman
Facet Theory Analysis of Their Content, Structure, and
Determinants." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.

Rinn, Roger C. and Markle, Allan. "Parent Effectiveness
Training: A Review." Psychological Reports, 41(1)
(1977): 95-109.

Rogers, Carl. Client—Centered Therapy. Boston, Mass.:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 195i.

 

77

Schneider, Robert N. "Human Communication." Community
Psychological Consultants, St. Louis, Missouri, 1973.

Schein, Jerome and Delk, Marcus, Jr. The Deaf Population of
the United States. Silver Springs, Md.: The NationaI'
Association of the Deaf, 1974.

 

 

Schlesinger, Hilde S. and Meadow, Kathyrn P. Sound and Sign.
Berkley, Ca.: University of California Press, 1972.

 

Singleton, Nolan C. "Training Incarcerated Felons in
Communication Skills using an Integrated IPR (Inter-
personal Process Recall) Videotape Feedback/Affect
Simulation Training Model." Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1975.

Smith, Henry C. Sensitivity to People. New York, N.Y.:

 

Smith, Henry C. Sensitivity Training, The Scientific Under-
standing of Individuals. New York, N.Y.: McGrawéHill
Book Co., 1973.

 

 

Streng, Alice, Fitch, J., Hedgecock, L. D., Phillips, J. W.
and Carrell, J. A. Hearing Therapy for Children. New
York, N.Y.: Grune add Stratton, 1958.

 

Swensen, Clifford H., Jr. Introduction to Interpersonal
Relations. Glenview, 11.: Scott, Foresman and'Co., 1973.

 

 

Wahlroos, Sven. Family Communication, A Guide to Emotional
Health. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,
I974.

 

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO DIRECTORS OF PROGRAMS FOR HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS

In the last ten years this country has seen an increased
interest in deaf people and the problems deafness presents to
the deaf individual and those living in close proximity of
deaf children and youth (parents, teachers, audiolOgists).
This interest has clustered around the issue of what modality
to use in communication with deaf peOple i.e., oral-aural
communication versus oral-manual communication. What has not
been considered, however, is that understanding and being
understood, which is the purpose of communication, involves
much more than the channel through which information passes.
Communication involves: understanding one's self, awareness
of one's impact on other peOple, awareness of other peOple'S
impact on one's self. If one is not attuned to these features
then communication proceeds in a haphazard fashion. This is
a problem that has long pervaded the interaction between
parents and their deaf children.

The program that I am offering deals directly with this
problem. The training is directed to the parameters mentioned
earlier, i.e., understanding the dynamic on-going relation-
ships indigenous to interpersonal communication. This is
accomplished by using an approach that is found in theory and
well develOped in its practical application.

The theoretical background is behavioral. This may call
to mind rats and maizes but that is not the behavioral orien-
tation of this program. I use the word behavior in the sense
of doing. This training is directed to what is done while
the communication is being attempted. There are several
behaviors occurring Simultaneously. One behavior is trying
to understand another person's message in terms of what its
meaning is to the sender. Then one tries to apply that mean-
ing to one's own understanding of the thoughts and feelings
being communicated. This is an internal coqnitive behavior.
There is also an external behavior that relates to the in-
ternal behavior. The receiver needs to send listening
responses to add clarity to his/her understanding of what the
sender is trying to communicate. A listening response may
be one of several categories, e.g., "I am not sure I under-
stand what you mean. Please, explain it to me some more,"
(clarification) or "How does that make you feel" (Exploratory
affective).

78

79

That is a very general description of the process. If
you need more information please let me know. What I ask of
you is the Opportunity to present such a program to parents
of deaf children in your area. If you would inform your
parent group that such an Opportunity exists they could let
me know when I might present an introduction to it. This
would allow for the parents to have more information and
then decide if they want to participate.

The goal of this project is two fold: to provide an
experience for parents that will foster interpresonal re-
lationships with their children, to determine the efficacy
of this program for parents of deaf children and youth.

If you are interested in further exploration of the
Opportunity and/or desire more information please contact me:

Robert Anthony

Doctoral Candidate

Dept. of Elementary & Special Education
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I
will anxiously await your reply.

Respectfully,

Robert Anthony
Doctoral Candidate

HICHIGRN STATE UN V

I . LIBRARIES
l (I) (III Hi MllllHlHlllHlllllWl
3 9 628

 

12 3100639