THE EXPRESSION OF EMPATHY. GENUINENESS}
WARMTH, AND OPENNESS IN THE
ACQUAINTANCE PROCESS

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEIRDRE F. CONWAY
1968

< 15“:

 
     
   

L 18 R A R Y “5.
Michigan State:
University

  

THESIS

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE EXPRESSION OF EMPATHY, GENUINENESS,
WARMTH, AND OPENNESS IN THE
ACQUAINTANCE PROCESS

by Deirdre F. Conway

In this study, four aspects of the acquaintance process were
examined: 1) the effect of Dogmatism, as measured by the Rokeach
DOgmatism Scale, on the expression of empathy, genuineness, warmth,
and Openness, during single encounters, and over time 2) the changes
over time in amount of empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness
displayed by people originally showing relatively high and rela-
tively low amounts of these variables 3) the interrelationships
among a person's empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness and 4)
the relationship between one person's expression of empathy, genu-
ineness, and warmth, and another's expression of empathy, genuineness,
warmth and openness.

To study these aspects of the acquaintance process, thirty-two
college students were matched on the basis of scores on the Rokeach
DOgmatism Scale, so that sixteen male-female couples were formed.

Of these, four couples were formed in which both persons scored high,
and four couples were formed in which both persons scored low on

Dogmatism. There were four couples in which the male was a high,

and the woman a low Dogmatic, and four couples in which the woman was

a high DOgmatic, while the male was a low DOgmatic. Each couple met

Deirdre F. Conway

for a fifty minute session each week for five weeks. Tapes were made
of the sessions, and the tapes from the first and fifth sessions were
rated by trained undergraduate raters, for amount of empathy, genuine-
ness, warmth, and openness displayed by each S. The scales develOped
by Truax for the rating of empathy, genuineness, and warmth, were used
in the rating of these variables. Openness was rated according to an

Openness scale develOped for this project.
Results

Though couples expressed significantly more empathy, genuineness,
and warmth on the 5th session, as compared to the first, the interaction
of male and female Dogmatism did not affect the amount of empathy, warmth,
and genuineness shown by couples. Though male and female Dogmatism failed
to interact significantly, it was found that couples in which the male
was a high Dogmatic displayed more warmth on both sessions, than couples
in which the male was a low Dogmatic. Couples in which the woman was a
high Dogmatic increased significantly in empathy displayed from the 1st
to the 5th session, unlike couples in which the woman was a low Dogmatic.

When individuals (rather than couples) were considered, according
to whether or not they were high or low on genuineness, warmth and open-
ness in the 1st session, it was found that §s beginning low increased
significantly. Se beginning high on genuineness and warmth maintained
their 1st session level during the 5th session. §s beginning high on
Openness decreased significantly from the 1st to the 5th session. Dur-
ing the 5th session, §s originally low on genuineness surpassed origi-
nally high gs, while for warmth and Openness there were no significant

differences between §s originally high and low.

Deirdre F. Conway

The hypothesized intercorrelations between a §fs empathy, genu-
ineness, and warmth, were substantially confirmed for genuineness, but
only partially confirmed for empathy and warmth. The hypothesis that
aԤ's high empathy, genuineness, and warmth would correlate with his
sum and/or prOportion of Openness about self related topics was con-
firmed only for genuineness.

Correlations between self scores on empathy, genuineness, and
warmth, with each of partner's scores for empathy, genuineness, and
warmth showed that the greatest number of expected correlations were
those between self and partner scores on the same variable.

Finally, the correlations between a §fs empathy, genuineness, and
warmth scores, and his partner's openness scores, showed that aԤ's
genuineness was the variable most related to his partner's Openness.

Altogether, results tended to support Newcomb's theory that
partners in the acquaintance process strive to achieve balance or
symmetry. The results also supported the findings of Truax and Cark-
huff, that genuineness is the most basic of the empathy, warmth, and
genuineness triad. Further implications of the results for the ac-
quaintance process were discussed, and the reasons for results which

were unpredicted, or contrary to the hypotheses, were explored.
,r-r '_ _

. ,__ ‘—.._ /.‘
, .

\ . .' t' -
s , - ‘S " '-
_ - '47. ”fies—t . «a
. ‘ I f“ .. - —-"’l 1‘ " ' " ; l-{VL
, ’ I

Approved:

 

Date: ; /;

THE EXPRESSION OF EHPATHY, GENUIHENESS,
WARHTH, AKD OPERNESS IN THE
ACQUAINTANCE PROCESS

By

Deirdre F: Conway

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

MASTER OF‘ARTS

Department of Psychology

1968

To
Dennis wynne
and to my sister

Bethany

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Gary Stollak for helping
me to get involved in my own research, for helping me to implement
my ideas, and for his confidence in me.

To Dr. Lawrence Hesse I wish to express special thanks, for
the many hours of patient and willing help he gave me with the
statistics, and with the actual writing of this thesis.

I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Dozier Thornton whose
empathy and genuineness I hOpe to emulate as a therapist, and who
gave such subtle but important moral support.

I would like to thank Dr. Joel Aronoff for being one of the
best advisers I have ever had.

To Dennis Skinner I would like to express my deepest appreciation,
for his help in conceiving the ideas for this thesis, and for sticking
with me through the thick and thin of collecting and analyzing the
data. ‘Without him, this thesis could not have been written.

I would like to thank my raters harie Smith, Bill Kohen, Mary
Ellen King, and Ellen Passman for their patient and conscientious
rating of the acquaintance process tapes.

Finally, I would like to thank Kathy Yamanaka for preparing and

punching the data for the computer.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACIiNOIILEDGI'IENTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o 0 iii
HST OF TABLE 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 v
LIST OF APPEIQDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O Vii
I}; TRODU CTI OI‘J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
Chapter
I. HEOTE‘IFSES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5
II C I’ETHOWLO GY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7
Analyses of variance for Dependent variables
Classified by Male DOgmatism, Female Dog—
matism, and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Analyses of variance for Genuineness, warmth,
and Openness Classified by Sex, First
Session.Amount of Dependent variable,
and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Correlations Among Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Correlations of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and Warmth with Self Scores
for Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O
Correlations Between Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth with Partner's
Scores for Empathy, Genuineness, and warmth. . 54
Correlations of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth with Partner's
Scores for Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
IV. COI‘ICLUSONS ABID SPECULATION'S o o o o o o o o o o O 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 72

iv

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Mean DOgmatism Scale Scores of Subjects
by Groups of Couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Empathy Scores of Couples Classified by
Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism of Female,
and by SGSSion O O O O I 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of Analysis of variance for Empathy,
Classified by Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism of
Female, and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Genuineness Scores Classified by Dogmatism
of Male, Dogmatism of Female, and by Session . . . .

Summary of.Analysis of variance for Genuineness,
Classified by Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism of
Female, and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean warmth Scores Classified by Dogmatism of
Male, Dogmatism of Female, and by Session . . . . .

Summary of Analysis of variance for Warmth,
Classified by DOgmatism of Male, Dogmatism of
Female, and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Openness Scores for Pairs, Classified by
Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism of Female,
and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Analysis of variance for Openness,
Classified by Dogmatism of Male, DOgmatism of
Female, and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Genuineness Scores Classified by Sex, First
Session.Amount of Genuineness, and by Session . . .

Summary of Analysis of variance for Genuineness,
Classified by Sex,.Amount of Genuineness During
1st Session, and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean warmth Scores Classified by Sex, First
Session Amount of warmth, and by Session . . . . . .

Summary of Analysis of variance for'warmth, Classified
by Sex, 1st Session Amount of warmth, and
by seSSion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

15

17

18

20

21

23

24

29

32

34

37

39

Table
14.

15.

18.

19.

Mean Openness Scores Classified by Sex, First
Session Amount of Openness, and by Session . . . .

Summary of Analysis of variance for Openness
Classified by Sex, 1st Session Amount of Openness,
and by Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation Coefficients of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation Coefficients of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth with Self Scores for
Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation Coefficients of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth with Partner's Scores
for Empathy, Genuineness, and warmth . . . . . . .

Correlation Coefficients of Self Scores for Empathy,

Genuineness, and Warmth with Partner's Scores
for Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

41

43

1+7

51

55

59

LIST OF‘APPENDICES

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . . .

Truax Scales to Measure Accurate
Empathy, Nonpossessive warmth,
and Genuineness . . . . . . . .

Shortened, Summarized version of
the Truax Scales to Measure
Empathy, warmth, and Genuineness

Openness Scale . . . . . . . . . .

Page

73

77

83
87

INTRODUCTION

Therapists are often confronted with the problem of how to
help clients develOp more satisfying relationships with peOple
outside the therapeutic setting. How this problem is dealt with
must depend in part not only on the therapist's conception of what
constitutes a satisfying relationship, but on his understanding of
the means by which such a relationship is achieved. Thus one of
the goals of acquaintance process research should be to discover
the step-by-step activities between peOple as they get to know
and like each other. But definitive studies of his process have
yet to be done. The few existing studies of the acquaintance pro-
cess to date have focused on interpersonal attraction and on outcome,
that is, on predicting whether or not two people will like each other.
The work and theories of Kewcomb (1961), Winch (1958), Izard (1960),
and of Thibaut and Kelley (1959), have all been along this line.

According to Newcomb (1961), the greater the agreement on
attitudes of mutual importance, the greater will be the attraction
between two peOple. The variables of attraction, orientation or
attitudes, and perception of the other's orientation, are at the
same time determinants and consequences of one another. Inter-
personal relationships are characterized by a striving for symmetry
or balance. Balance is achieved when two peOple are attracted to
each other, and have similar attitudes about things of importance

to both of them. 'When imbalance occurs, one of the above mentioned

variables must be changed to achieve balance again. Newcomb's theory
and research, however, do not describe the step-by-step processes by
which peOple communicate their attraction for each other.

‘Winch (1958) has put forth a theory of complementary needs, accord-
ing to which people with different but complementary needs are attracted
to one another. Another component of his theory is that peOple are at-
tracted to other peOple who possess qualities they wish they had.

The theory of Thibaut and Kelley (1959) is expressed in terms of
reward, cost, outcome, and comparison level. Attraction presumably
occurs when the awards in an acquaintanceship are greater than the costs,
yielding a positive outcome which is greater than that which would have
been expected from the comparison level.

Izard (1960) postulates the importance of affective needs in the
forming of friendships. Unlike Newcomb, Winch, Thibaut and Kelley,
however, she emphasizes the importance for attraction of’ggyg of express-
ing and receiving positive affect expression, which she defines in terms
of self-involving interest, acceptance, and esteem.

The work of Carl ROgers, and its application by Truax, Carkhuff,
and others, suggests one way in which the acquaintance process fig pro-
cess is carried forward.

In exploring the process by which successful therapy progresses,
Rogers (1961) hypothesized that nonpossessive warmth, accurate empathy,
and genuineness are the three crucial therapist personality variables
operative in determining therapeutic outcome. Truax and Carkhuff (1967)
further state that these three characteristics form a common element
which is found in many divergent theories of psychotherapy. They cite

numerous studies in which these three variables were found to go together.

Truax has develOped a scale in which he (Truax and Carkhuff (1967))
delineates fairly distinct levels within wa mth, empatly and genuine-
ness. In studies supporting Rogers' hypotheses it was found that in
using these scales high interjudge reliability could be achieved in
the rating of therapy tapes for varying degrees to which a therapist
gave evidence of these qualities.

According to Rogers (1966), high degrees of therapist warmth,
empathy and genuineness evoke changes in the client in six areas,
which are changes in (1) relationship to feelings, (2) in interpersonal
relationships, (3) in communication of self, (4) in manner of experienc-
ing, (5) in personal constructs, (6) and in relationship to problems.
Most relevant for this project are the changes toward acceptance and
expression of feelings, toward relating in an Open, undefensive manner
to others, and changes toward more direct communication of self. These
hree areas, of the six areas of change outlined by Rogers, are encom-
passed in this study by use of a scale for Openness about feelings.

Since psychotherapy is a special case of the acquaintance process,
it seemed reasonable that Variables similar to those Rogers found to
be Operative in therapy might also be important in the process of
acquaintance. In fact, this is suggested by Truax and Carkhuff (1967).
Thus it was decided, for the purposes of this study, to approach the
acquaintance process from a Rogerian frame of reference, and to see
to what extent the process is carried forward by the interaction of
the variables of warmth, empathy, genuineness, and Openness.

In an effort to match couples in such a way as to maximize dif-

ferences on these variables, it was decided to use the Rokeach DOgmatism

Scale. Rokeach (1960) found that differences between low and high

Dogmatics (or Open and closed minded peOple), as measured by his scale,
are apparent and consistent in many different areas of attitude and ,/
behavior. Low Dogmatism is associated with viewing the world as a
basically friendly place, with judging "truth" by objective rather
than authority dependent criteria, and with the ability to integrate
beliefs into a new system contradictory to one's everyday system. Simi-
larly, Plant, Telford, and Thomas (1965) conducted a study in which they
compared the scores of high and low Dogmatics on three tests (the Cal-
ifornia Psychological Inventory, the Allport, vernon, and Lindzey values
Scale, and the School and College Ability Test). They found that unlike
low Dogmatics, high Dogmatics tended to be immature, impulsive, defensive,
conventional and stereotyped in their thinking. Rogers (1966), and Truax
and Carkhuff (1967) have indicated that these characteristics, apparently
found in high but not in low Dogmatics, are conducive to a lack of empathy,
genuineness, warmth and Openness. They have further indicated that the
characteristics found in low Dogmatics, of trust, maturity, undefensive—
ness, and flexible thinking are prerequisites for empathy, genuineness,
warmth and Openness.

The problem being explored in this thesis, then, is how the inter-
action of personality variables such as high and low DOgmatism, warmth,
empathy, genuineness, and amount of Openness interact in the process

of vauaintance between two peOple.

CHAPTER I

HYPOTHESES

1) It was hypothesized that couples in which both §s scored
low on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale would both begin and end rela-
tionships expressing higher amounts of empathy, genuineness, warmth,
and Openness, than any of the other groups of couples. As compared
to couples in which both gs scored low on Dogmatism, couples in
which both §s scored high on Dogmatism were expected to begin and
end relationships expressing lower amounts of empathy, genuineness,
warmth, and Openness. Those couples in which one S scored high,
and the other low on Dogmatism, were expected to show, both at the
beginning and at the end of the relationship, the least warmth,
empathy, genuineness, and Openness of the four groups of couples.

2) Though expected to begin and end expressing differing
amounts of the dependent variables, as outlined above, all couples
were expected to increase in empathy, genuineness, warmth, and
Openness once the acquaintance process was underway.

3) Whether or not Dogmatism proved to be a significant factor,
it was hypothesized that all gs, whether beginning high or low on
empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness, would increase on these
variables.

4) It was hypothesized that after the acquaintance process was

underway there would be less of a difference between §s who were

originally high, and §s who were originally low on each of the depen-
dent variables. Thus it was expected that the effects of Dogmatism
would be ameliorated by interaction over time, such that any differ-
ences in empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness would tend to
decrease. This was hypothesized because of Newcomb’s theory that
people strive to achieve balance in interpersonal relationships. For
hypotheses three and four, no sex differences were expected.

5) It was hypothesized that in a given session, a §'s amounts of
empathy, genuineness, and warmth would show significant intercorrela-
tions.

6) §s displaying high amounts of empathy, genuineness, and warmth
were expected to show a high amount of Openness in expressing feelings
about controversial and "self" related topics. What Openness was dis-
played by §s low on empathy, genuineness and warmth was expected to be
openness about "nonself" and noncontroversial tOpics.

7) The more empathic, genuine and warm a §_was in a particular
meeting, the more empathic, genuine, and warm his partner was expected
to be.

8) Finally, high amounts of empathy, genuineness, and warmth
displayed by a §_were expected to correlate with his partner's amount
of Openness about controversial and "self" related tOpics. Similarly,
low amounts of empathy, genuineness, and warmth were expected to cor-
relate with partner's Openness about noncontroversial and "nonself"

related tOpics.

CHAPTER II
HETHODOLOGY

The subjects for this project were unmarried college students,
between nineteen and twenty-three years of age, at Michigan State
University. They were recruited through a newspaper advertise-
ment, bulletin board notices and announcements in selected classes.

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and a brief version of the Allport-
Lindzey values Scale (see appendix) develOped by Newcomb (1960) were
administered to prospective subjects. From seventy prospective gs,
thirtyatwo gs were chosen: The eight men and eight women scoring
lowest on Dogmatism and the eight women and eight men scoring highest
on DOgmatism. Sixteen male-female couples were then formed so that
four couples were composed of low Dogmatic gs, four were composed of
high Dogmatic SS, four were made up of low Dogmatic women and high
Dogmatic men, and four were made up of high Dogmatic women and low
Dogmatic men. Table 1 presents the mean Dogmatism scores fOr SS in
each of these groups. To control for differing values as a possible
confounding variable, the brief version of the Allport-Lindzey values
Scale was used to form couples such that partner's had like values.
§s were matched for the values they rated first, second, and sixth.

Each couple met once a week, five times, for a fifty minute
session. Tapes were made of the sessions. The tapes from the 1st

and 5th sessions were rated by trained under-graduate raters who had

 

 

 

 

m.mm n x proe m.mm n M Hmpoe mr.mw x pr09 mr.mor n M pr08
l I l mmhoom
flame $23 was mew 8.8 3.32 OTS £69 3899 same.
onSem oamfi meEmm mama mamsmm mafia mamsmm mam:
.mom 30a .mom 30A .mon mmww .moo 30A .mom 30A .mom swag .mom swam .mon swam

 

 

 

 

 

mpoowpsm mo

moamsoo Mo mmsowo an
whoom ofimom amapmsmom cwozuu.w magma

no knowledge of the subjects or of the hypotheses. Raters were trained
to criterion by the experimenter. Acceptable reliability was defined
as a correlation coefficient of .8 or above. Tapes from a pilot study
were used to train the raters. A modified form of the scales developed
by Truax (1967) for accurate empathy, genuineness, and nonpossessive
warmth, was used to rate S5 for amounts of these variables displayed
during a given session (see appendix). Each S|was also rated during a
given session for amount of Openness, according to an Openness scale
develOped for this project (see appendix). The complete tapes of the
1st and 5th sessions were scored at fifteen second intervals, for each

of the four variables.

Scoring,Procedures

The following sections explain the determination of a S's scores
on the four dependent variables (empathy, genuineness, warmth, and
Openness).

Empathy.-qA,§'was given an empathy rating each time his partner
expressed an unqualified feeling. If the §.was unaware of, or ignored
his partner's expression of feeling, he was given a "1" or a "2" for
empathy (see appendix for further description of these and other numer-
ical ratings). An accurate response to the feeling, however, was rated
"3", "4", or "5", depending on the §}s apparent understanding of his
partner's additional, unexpressed feelings.

In this study, then, a S's low empathy score for a whole session
was defined as the sum of his "1" and "2" empathy scores for the given
session. The greater the sum of "1" and "2" empathy ratings, the less
the empathy. A §fs amount offihigh empathy was defined as the sum of

his "3" and up empathy ratings.

10

In the analysis of variance for empathy classified by Dogmatism
of male, Dogmatism of female, and by session (see Chapter III) a §fs
sum of "3" and up empathy was added to his partner's sum of "3" and
up empathy, yielding an empathy score for that couple on a given
session.

Genuineness.-~A genuineness rating was given to al§ for each
15 second interval during which he was talking. Ratings of "1", "2",
and "3" represent a lack of genuineness, but from greater to lesser
defensiveness. Genuineness ratings of "4" and "5" indicate that aԤ
was being genuine, or very genuine, respectively.

A §fs low genuineness score for a whole session was the sum of
his "1", "2", and "3" genuineness ratings for the given session. His
high genuineness score was the sum of his "4" and "5" genuineness
ratings.

In the analysis of variance for genuineness classified by Dogmatism
of male, Dogmatism of female, and by session (see Chapter III) a §fs
sum of "4" and "5" genuineness ratings was added to his partner's sum
of "4" and "5" genuineness, yielding a genuineness score for that couple
on a given session.

warmth.-qA'§'s score for low warmth on a session was the sum of
his "1" and "2" warmth ratings for that session. The sum of his "3",
"4", and "5" warmth ratings constituted his score for high warmth.

In the analysis of variance for warmth classified by Dogmatism
of male, Dogmatism of female, and by session (see Chapter III), a,§'s
sum of "3", "4", and "5" warmth ratings was added to his partner's

sum of such warmth score for that couple on a given session.

11

Openness.--A S'was rated for Openness during each 15 second inter-

 

val that he expressed a feeling directly. Ratings were along a continuum
of openness about feelings about "self", "partner", "controversial issues,"
"significant others", and "miscellaneous, noncontroversial tOpics."

Unlike the rating of warmth, empathy, and genuineness, rating for Open-
ness consisted in simply checking the apprOpriate type of Openness, during
the 15 second interval in which it occurred.

Amount of Openness for a given session was construed in several ways,
depending on the hypothesis being tested. Openness about miscellaneous,
noncontroversial tOpics was the number of ratings for this type of Open-
ness. A S's Openness score at the "self" end of the continuum was the
number of openness ratings under "self", "partner", and "controversial
issues." Unless otherwise Specified, in the sections that follow, "Openness"
refers to Openness at the "self" and of the continuum, and "high Openness"
refers to high amounts of this type of Openness. To test certain of the
hypotheses, in some cases the prOportion of "miscellaneous" Openness
ratings to total Openness ratings was also used, as was the number of
"self", "partner", and "issues" ratings proportionate to the total number
of Openness ratings.

In the analysis of variance for Openness classified by Dogmatism
of male, Dogmatism of female, and by session (see Chapter III.), a‘§‘s
number of Openness ratings at the "self" end of the continuum were added
to his partner's number of ratings for such openness, giving an Openness
score for that couple on a given session.

The data were analyzed in the following ways. (a) An analysis
of variance was done for each of the four dependent variables classified

by male Dogmatism, female Dogmatism, and by session. (b) For genuineness,

12

warmth, and Openness, an analysis of variance was done for each variable
classified by sex, amount of that variable shown on the 1st session, and
by session. Such an analysis of variance was not done for empathy be-
cause all §s were so low on empathy during the first session that it
was not possible to divide them into high and low groups.

(c) In addition, correlational analyses were done. Broadly clas-
sified, these correlations fall into two groups. In the first group
are those correlations dealing with the interrelationships of a §'s
empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness. In the second group are
those correlations dealing with the relationship between a §fis scores
on empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness, and his partner's scores

on these variables.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND PRELIHIHARY DISCUSSION

Analyses of variance for Dependent variables
Classified by Kale Dogmatism, Female
Dogmatism, and by Session

In this section Hypotheses One and Two from the first chapter
(p. 5), will be discussed in light of the results obtained. To do
so, this chapter has been divided into (a) a discussion of the first
hypothesis for all the dependent variables, (b) a discussion of the
second hypothesis for each of the dependent variables, and (c) a
discussion of unpredicted main effects of male Dogmatism and of
female Dogmatism.

The first hypothesis was that male and female Dogmatism would
interact in such a way that (a) couples composed ofl§s scoring low
on Dogmatism would rank highest on each of the dependent variables,
(b) couples in which both gs scored high on Dogmatism would be less
high, and (0) couples in which one s scored high, and the other low
on Dogmatism would both begin and end relationships expressing lesser
amounts of empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness than either of
the groups Of couples matched for like Dogmatism.

Hypothesis Two was that all couples were expected to increase
on each of the dependent variables from the 1st to the 5th session.

The data were subjected to analyses of variance, summarized for

empathy, genuineness, warmth, and openness on Tables 3, 5, 7, and 9

13

14

respectively. Cell means for empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Open-
ness are presented in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 respectively. Presented
below are these results discussed in terms of the hypotheses, and in
terms of unpredicted findings.

hypothesis One

(Interaction of levels o§;Doqmatism)

It was expected that male and female Dogmatism would interact in
such a way that couples in which both gs scored low on Dogmatism would
score highest on each of the dependent variables; couples in which both
'§s scored high on Dogmatism would be less high; and couples matched
for Opposing Dogmatism scores would be lowest of all. This hypothesis
was not confirmed.

There are at least two reasons why similarities and differences
in the personality variable of Dogmatism did not interact in the ex-
pected way. One explanation is that the SS in this sample, despite
the wide range of their Dogmatism scores, tended to be low Dogmatics,
as compared with the general pOpulation. Therefore, among the §s in
this study, the differences in Dogmatism might not have been sufficient
to produce the expected interaction of male and female Dogmatism. The
other explanation is that in fact, similarities and differences in
Dogmatism, as measured by Rokeach's Scale, do not affect the exchange
of empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness in the acquaintance pro-
cess.

However, trust in others, an alternate personality variable, but
somewhat related to DOgmatism, might be important in producing inter-
actions in which differences in empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Open-

ness are maximized. Low Dogmatism was supposed to be associated with

15

Table 2.--Mean Empathy Scores for Pairs, Classified by
Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism
of Female, and by Session

Overall classification.--For sessions 1 and 5, mean pair scores

of couples in which (1) the male was a high Dogmatic and the fe-
male was a high Dogmatic (2) the male was a high Dogmatic and
the female was a low Dogmatic (3) the male was a low Dogmatic
and the female was a high Dogmatic (4) the male was a low Dog-
matic and the female was a low DOgmatic.

 

wu—

 

High Female

49.251.221—

Iotal .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Male Dogmatism 3.75 20.75 24.50
Dogmatism Low Female
Dogmatism 2.25 5.25 7.50
High Female
Low Hale Dogmatism 3.00 17.75 20.75
Dogmatism Low Female
Dogmatism 3.75 7.00 10.75
Total 12.75 50.75 63.50
b. Mean pair scores for the four groups of couples.
High Female Dog. Low Female Dog. Total
High Hale
DOgmatism 24.50 7.50 32.00
LOW'Male
Dogmatism 20.75 10.75 31.50
Total 45.25, 18a25 63.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

Table 2--Continued

c. Mean pair scores for couples in which the male was a

high or a low Dogmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High Male
DOgmatism 6.00 26.00 32.00
Low Male
DOgmatism 6.75 24.75 31.50
Total 12.75 50.75 63.50

 

 

 

 

d. Mean pair scores for couples in which the female was a

high or a low Dogmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High Female
Dogmatism 6.75 .38.5O 45.25
Low Female
Dogmatism 6.00 12.25 18.25
Total 12.75 50.75 63.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

Table 3.--Summary of.Analysis of variance for Empathy
Classified by Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism
of Female, and by Session

 

 

 

Source of variation g; gs ‘3
Hale Dogmatism 1 62.12 .41
Female Dogmatism 1 364.50 3.82*
Male Dog. X Female DOg. 1 24.50 411
Error 12 95.4
Session 1 722.00 8.63**
Male Dog. X Session 1 5.00 451
Female Dog. X Session 1 325.12 3.89*
Sessions for high female dog. 1 2,016.13 24.10***
Sessions for low female dog. 1 78.12 41
Empathy for 1st session 1 1.24 A1
Empathy for 5th session 1 1,378.12 16.47***
this Dog. X Female DOg. 1 3.13 ‘41
X Session
Error 12 83.65
*p“.10
**p/..05

***pz.01

18

Table 4.--Hean Genuineness Scores for Pairs, Classified by

Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism of

Female, and by Session

a. Overall classification.--For sessions 1 and 5, mean pair scores
1) the male was a high Dogmatic and the fe-

of couples in which

male was a high Dogmatic (2) the male was a high Dogmatic and the
female was a low Dogmatic (3) the male was a low Dogmatic and the
female was a high Dogmatic (4) the male was a low Dogmatic and

the female was a low DOgmatic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High Female
High Male DOgmatism 52.25 245500 297.25 ,
DOgmatism ow Female
Dogmatism 140.25 149.25 289.50
High Female
Low Male Dogmatism 77.00 188.50 ,__255.50
Dogmatism Low Female
Dogmatism 88.00 254.50 342.50
Total 357.50 837.25 1184.75
b. Mean pair scores for the four groups of couples.
High Female Dog. Low Female Dog. Total
High Hale
DOgmatism 297.25 289.50 586.75
Low Kale
Dogmatism 265.50 342.50 608.00
Total 562.75 632.00 1194:75

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

Table 4.--Continued

0. Mean pair scores for couples in which the male was a
high or a low Dogmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

‘ Session 1 Session 5 Total_fi
High Male
Do E12“ tism 193:50 394. 25 586 . 75
Low I-‘Iale
Dogmatism 165.00 443.00 608.00
Total 357.50 837.25 1194.75

 

 

 

 

 

d. Mean pair scores for couples in which the female was a
high or a low Dogmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

Session 1 Sessiong5 Total
High Female
Dogmatism 129.25 433.50 562.75
Low Female
Dogmatism 228925 403.75 632.00

 

Total 357.50 837.25 1194.75

 

 

 

 

 

20

Table 5.--Summary of Analysis of variance for Genuineness

Classified by Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism

of Female, and by Session

 

 

Source of Variation 5L1; f__ E
Hale Dogmatism 1 225.78 41
Female Dogmatism 1 2,397.78 4:1
Male dog. X Female dog. 1 3,591.30 .41
Error 12 13,383.82

Session 1 115,080.03 8.64*
Male dog. X Session 1 2,907.04 <11
Female dog. X Session 1 8,288.29 221
Male dog. X Female dog. 1 28,500.75 2.14

K Session
Error 12 13,318.43

 

*p4-05

21

Table 6.--Hean warmth Scores for Pairs, Classified by
Dogmatism of Hale, Dogmatism
of Female, and by Session

a. Overall classification.--For sessions 1 and 5, mean pair scores
of couples in which (1) the male was a high Dogmatic and the
female was a high DOgmatic (2) the male was a high Dogmatic and
the female was a low Dogmatic (3) the male was a lOW’DOgmatiC
and the female was a high Dogmatic (4) the male was a lOW’Dog-
matic and the female was a low Dogmatic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High Female
High Hale Dogmatism 76.75 146250 .223.25
DOgmatism Low Female
DOgmatism 105.25 118.5 223.75
High Female
Low Male Do tism 49200 75.25 124.25
Dogmatism Low Female
Dogmatism 79.50 102.00 181.50
Total: 2310.50 442.25 752.752

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Mean pair scores for the four groups of couples.

 

 

 

 

 

high Female Dog. Low Female DOg. Total
High Hale
Dogmatism 223.25 223.75 457.00
LOW'Male
Dogmatism 124.25 181.50 305.75
Total 347.50 405.25 4752.75

 

 

 

 

Table 6.--Continued

c. Mean pair scores for couples in which the male was a

high or a low Dogmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Session 1 Session 5. Total
High Male
DOgmatism 182.00 265.00 447.00
Low Male
Dogmatism 128.50 177.25 305.75
Total 310.50 442.25 752.75

 

 

 

 

d. Mean pair scores for couples in which the female was a

high or a low Dogmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

‘ Session 1 Session 55 Total
High Female
Dogmatism 125.75 221.75 347.50
Low Female
DOgmatism 184.75 220.50 405.25
Total 310.50 442.25 752.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

Table 7.--Summary of Analysis of Variance for Warmth

Classified by Dogmatism of Male, Dogma-
tism of Female, and by Session

 

 

Source of Variation d: §_‘I_S E
I-‘fale dogmatism 1 9,975.78 6.20*
Female dogmatism 1 1,667.53 4 2
Kale dog. X Female dog. 1 1,610.29 4 2
Error 12 1,608.43 4 2
Session 11 8, 679.03 7.89*
Male dog. x Session 1 586.47 41
Female dog. X Session 1 1,815.04 .4 2
Male dOg. X Female dog. 1 1,391.26 42
X Session
Error 12 1,1099. 51

 

$1324.05

24

Table 8.--Hean Openness Scores for Pairs, Classified by
Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism
of Female, and by Session

a. Overall classification.--For sessions 1 and 5, mean pair scores
of couples in which 1) the male was a high DOgmatic and the
female was a high Dogmatic (2) the male was a high DOgmatic and
the female was a low Dogmatic (3) the male was a low Dogmatic
and the female was a high Dogmatic (4) the male was a low Dog-
matic and the female was a low Dogmatic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High Female
High Male 1 Dogmatism 6.25_ 8.00 14.25
Dogmatism Low Female
Dogmatism 18.25 6.00 24.25
High Female
Low Male Dogmatism 13.25 13.25 26.50
DOgmatism Low Female
Dogmatism 10.50 6.00 16.50
Total 48.25 33.25 81.50
b. Mean pair scores for the four groups of couples.
High Female Dog. Low Female Dog. Total
High E-Iale
DOgmatism 14.25 24.25 38.50
Low Hale
Dogmatism 26.50 16.50 43.00
Total 40.75 40.75 81.50

 

 

 

 

25

Table 8.--Continued

c. Mean pair scores for couples in which the male was a
high or a low DOgmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session_5, TOEEL,
High Male
DOgmatism 24.50 14.00 38.50
Low Male
Dogmatism 23.75 19.25 43.00
Total 48.25 33.25 81.50

 

 

 

 

 

d. Mean Pair scores for couples in which the female was a
high or a low DOgmatic, across sessions.

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High Female
DOgmatism 19.50 21.25 40.75
Low Female
Dogmatism 28.75 12.00 40.75

 

Total 48.25 33.25 81.50

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9.--Summary of Analysis of Variance for Openness
Classified by Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism

of Female, and by Session

 

 

Source of variation .5 d; MS E
Male dogmatism 1 10.13 41
Female dogmatism 1 0.00 0
Male dog. X Female dog. 1 200.00 2.01
Error 12 99.48

Session 1 112. 50 4 2
Male dog. X Session 1 18.00 211
Female dog. X Session 1 171.13 .42
Male dog. X Female dog. 1 45.14 411

X Session
Error 12 90.85

 

27

trust, but perhaps an independent measure of trust should have been
used. Trust was and is presumed to be important in the positive regard
and the unconditionality which marks high levels of warmth and empat y.
Similarly, an attitude of trust is necessary if a person is to be
undefensive, which is part of being highly genuine. Trust would also
seem to be a prerequisite for being open toward the "self" end of the
Openness continuum. Finally, as Truax and Carkhuff (1967) suggest,
genuine warmth and empathy displayed by one person tend to create an

attitude of trust in the other person.

Hypothesis Two

The hypothesized session effect was confirmed for empathy (F = 8.63,

_d_f_ -— 1,12; p4.05), genuineness (E = 8.64, _f = 1,12; 3:34.05), and warmth
(E = 7.89, g; = 1,12; p 4305), but not for Openness. For Openness, none

of the Es were significant. However, many of the‘Es for Openness of
individuals (rather than couples) classified by sex, first session amount
of Openness, and by session were significant (see the following section
99- 39-44 ).

In the case of empathy, the significant Female Dogmatism X Session
interaction (see Table 3, and discussion of unpredicted findings) indi-
cates that this increase was greatest for couples in which the woman
scored high on Dogmatism, regardless of whether her partner was high or
low. In fact, the 3 value of the simple effect for high female Dogmatism
across sessions was highly significant (F = 24.10, g; = 1,12; pfi4.01).
Given the analysis used it was not possible to tell if this increase
in empathy shown by couples in which the woman scored high on Dogmatism

.

was due to these women becoming more empathic, or due to their elicit-

ing more empathic responses from their male partners. Because of this,

28

at least two explanations of these results must be considered: (a) it
may have taken high Dogmatic women a full five sessions to achieve

their relatively high amounts of empathy. In this case, low Dogmatic
women may not have experienced this "warm up" effect. By being forced

to interact in an interpersonal situation, these women scoring high on
Dogmatism may have been exposed to an uniquely positive experience. If
this is the case, they may have been overcompensating in response to

such an experience, which would account for their very significant
increase in amount of empathy displayed from the 1st to the 5th session.
(b) Similarly, it may have taken high Dogmatic women a fUll five sessions
to elicit relatively high amounts of empathy from their partners. In this
case, low Dogmatic women were presumably eliciting relatively constant

empathic responses from their partners.

Discussion of Unpredicted Findinss

The main effects of Dogmatism of male and Dogmatism of female were
not expected to contribute significantly to differences in degree shown
of the dependent variables by couples on the 1st and 5th sessions. How-
ever, significant differences in amounts displayed of empathy and warmth
were found to be attributable to female and male Dogmatism scores reSpec-
tively.

For empathy there was a main effect of female Dogmatism which was
of borderline significance (5 = 3.82,‘g§ = 1,12; .05éfpg4.10). Horeover,
a Female Dogmatism X Session interaction was also of borderline signifi-
cance (g = 3.89, g; = 1,12; .05 424.10). An analysis of simple effects
revealed that differences attributable to female Dogmatism occurred in

the 5th session. During this session, couples in which the female was

a high Dogmatic displayed significantly more empathy than couples in

29

which the female was a low Dogmatic (3 = 16.47, g; = 1.12; 24.01).
However, during the 1st session this difference was negligible. As
suggested earlier (see pp. 28 ), the 5th session may represent a
"warm up" effect for either the man or the woman in couples in which
the woman was a high Dogmatic. Assuming that this very significant
increase in empathy was due to increased empathy displayed by high
Dogmatic women, this may reflect the fact that this study provided

a new and positive experience for them, to which they were overreact-
ing. Similar effects were not apparent for males scoring high on
Dogmatism. This is probably because it is more socially acceptable
for women to be emotionally responsive.

Another unpredicted result was the significant main effect attri-
butable to male Dogmatism when warmth was the dependent variable under
consideration (F = 6.20,I_f = 1,12;,264.O5). This indicated that couples
in which the male was a high Dogmatic showed more warmth, irrespective
of session and Dogmatism level of partner. Given the analysis used,
two explanations are possible, as noted above. High Dogmatic males
may have displayed more warmth, or they may have elicited more warmth
from their partners.

The latter alternative seems more likely. Since high Dogmatic
men are probably somewhat insecure, they might have been expected to
need more reassurance from their partner's, such as is afforded by
warmth. Thus their female partner's, in their cultural role as reas-
suring and nurturing, might have responded to this need by giving more
warmth. Also, it may be that women tend to give way readily in con-
versation with highly Dogmatic men, and find it easier to ask questions
and accept the man's Opinions (both aspects of higher levels of warmth)
than to negatively evaluate his Opinions (an aspect of low levels of

warmth) and have to defend such an evaluation.

30

Analyses Of variance for Genuineness,
warmth, and Openness Classified by
Sex, First Session Amount of Dep-
endent variable, and by Session

In this section Hypotheses Three and Four from Chapter I (pp.5-6)
will be discussed in light of the results obtained. TO do so, this
section has been divided into sections considering genuineness, warmth
and openness for differences attributable to 1st session amount of the
dependent variable, session effects, and sex differences.1

It was expected that there would be significant differences among
‘Ss in the 1st session, and that these differences would be smaller in
the 5th session. Thus on the basis of the data obtained, SS were
divided into high and low groups on each Of the dependent variables,
according to their scores on the 1st session. In this way, an analysis
Of differences in the 5th session could be obtained.

Therefore, Hypothesis Three stated that all gs, whether beginning
high or low on empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness, would increase
on these variables. However, it was expected that §s starting low on a
variable would increase on that variable at a greater rate than those
starting high. Thus Hypothesis Four was that §s originally high, and
gs originally low on each Of the dependent variables, (that is, in the
1st session) would show smaller differences in the 5th session. Though

no sex differences were anticipated, as a precaution, the data were also

classified by sex.

 

1 . - . . . . .

Empathy is not discussed because the Similarity Of most S's
empathy scores for the 1st session precluded the forming Ofl§s into
groups high and low on empathy.

31

The rationale behind these hypotheses was that in a 1st meeting,
peOple have few clues as to what the other person is like, and there-
fore bring a wide ranye Of individual differences in empathy, genuine-
ness, warmth, and openness into the acquaintance situation. With this
in mind, it was expected that there would be significant differences
among §S on the dependent variables during the 1st session. After
several sessions, however, peOple have presumably formed some idea Of
those feelings, attitudes and beliefs which they have in common with
the other. Presumably they are also aware Of those feelings, attitudes,
and beliefs which are threatened by, or are threatening to, the other.
Thus they have some idea where it is gratifying to be more empathic,
genuine, warm and Open, and feel freer to be so. The hypothesis that
all gs would increase on the dependent variables addressed itself to
this point. Originally low §S were expected to increase more than
originally high gs, because in five meetings there are probably general
upper limits in empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness, to which
originally high §s are fairly close at the beginning. Newcomb's
theory that peOple strive for balance in interpersonal relationships
accounts for the hypothesis that by the 5th session the differences

between originally high and low gs would be smaller.

Genuineness

Genuineness scores were classified by sex, first session amount
Of genuineness, and by session (cell means are presented in Table 10).
The data were subjected to an analysis Of variance, summarized in

Table 11. These results are discussed below in terms Of the hypotheses.

32

Table 10.--Mean Genuineness Scores Classified by
Sex, First Session Amount Of Gen—
uineness and by Session

a. Overall classification.--Mean genuineness (table 12, warmth;
table 14, OpenneSSS scores of males and females §s, divided
into groups for those who showed high and those who showed

low amounts of genuineness 4warmthT—epenne554-in the 1st

session, and the mean scores of those groups on the 5th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

session.

Session 1 Session 5 Total
High 1st 585. gen. 78.13 101.13 179.26

Hale
Low 1st ses. gen. 12.50 100.63 113.13
High 1st ses. gen. 77.13 578.59, 155.63
Female Low 1st sest_gen. 11.00 138.38 149.38
Total 178.76 418.64 597.40

 

b. Mean genuineness éwarmth-—epenness}-Of males and females,

divided into groups for those who showed high and those
who showed low amount Of genuineness ,
on the 1st session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High 1st ses.,gen. Low 1st ses;_gen. Total
Hale 179.25 113e13 292.38
Female 155.64 149. 38 j05.gg__
Total 334.89 §é§351 597.40

 

 

Table 10.--Continued

c. Mean genuineness GwaymthT—epennees) scores for males and

females on the 1st and 5th sessions.

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 :gessiong5, Total___'
Male 490.63, 201.75 222.38 _
Female 88.13 216.89 305.02
igtalg 178.76 418.64 597.40

 

 

 

 

 

d. Mean genuineness QuasmthT—epenne954-scores for the high and

low 1st session groups, for the 1st and 5th sessions.

 

 

figss’l on 1 fiession ‘1 Total
Hi 1st ses.
genuineness 155:25 .179.64 334.89
Lo 1st ses.
genuineness 23.51 2239.00 gfig;:fl__‘,
Total 178.76 418.64 597.40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

Table 11.--Summary of.Analysis of variance for Genuineness

Classified by Sex, Amount of Genuineness

During 1st Session, and by Session

 

 

 

Source of Variation 9}; LES _F_‘
Sex 1 159-39 ‘1
1st Session Amount of 1 5,238.14 £- 2
genuineness
Sex X 1st Ses. amount 1 3,585.02 4 2
of genuineness
Error 28 3,118.29
Session 1 57,440.00 5.25**
Sex X Session 1 310.60 <1
1st Session amount of 1 36,528.76 3.34*
genuineness X Session
Sessions for hi gen. 1 2,376.57 ¢£1
Sessions for low gen. 1 185,761.00 16.99***
Gen. for 1st session 1 69,431.25 22.27***
Gen. for 5th session 1 14,101.57 4.52**
Sex X 1st ses. genuineness 1 3,705.77 <11
X Session
Error 28 10,931.90
*p4.10
**pz,.05

***pz.01

35

Eirst session amount of genuineness.--The First session amount
of genuineness X Session interaction was of borderline significance
(E = 3.34, 31;; = 1,28; 354124.10). An analvsis of simple effects
indicated that, as expected, there was a significant difference

between §s high and low on genuineness during the 1st session (E = 22.27,

(L

__i; = 1,23; lat-.01). The results supported the hypothesis that on the

5th session there would be less difference between §s originallv high

and low on genuineness (E = 4.52, Q; = 1,28; pg4.05). The results
showed, however, that the relationship between the originally high and
low groups of S3 was reversed on the 5th session. That is, gs originally
low on genuineness increased more than expected, surpassing §S'Wh0 were
originally high. There are two possible and complementary explanations
for this result. The first is that gs originally low on genuineness

not only increased in genuineness by the 5th session, but also increased
in volume of talking; this would have contributed somewhat to their genu-
ineness scores, due to the way in which genuineness was rated (see Chapter II).
The second possible explanation is that gs originally low on genuineness
suffered from social discomfort which interfered with their interpersonal
functioning in the initial phase of the acquaintance process. By the 5th
session, when this initial effect wore off, their potential for highly
genuine behavior became apparent.

Session.--As hypothesized, there was a significant main effect due
to session (3 = 5.25, g; = 1,28; p4.05), with all gs increasi.g in
genuineness from the 1st to the 5th session. As mentioned above, there
was also a First session amount of genuineness X Session interaction.

An analysis of simple effects revealed that the increase in genuineness
n

for originally'low'gs was significant, as expected (E = 16.99, g; = 1.20;

34.01).

36

However, contrary to the hypothesis, §s originally high on genuine-
ness did not increase significantly in genuineness from the 1st to the
5th session. This may have been because the originally low SS may have
been talking much more in the 5th session, as suggested above; thus gs
originally high in genuineness may have been no less genuine, but were
simply spending more time listening.

§§3.--As expected, there were no significant differences in genu-

ineness among individuals attributable to sex differences.

 

warmth scores were classified by first session amount of warmth,
by session, and by sex (cell means are presented in Table 12). The
data were subjected to an analysis of variance, which is summarized in
Table 13. These results are discussed below in terms of the hypotheses.

First session amount of warmth.-—There was a significant main effect
due to first session amount of warmth (E = 9.47, g; = 1,28; pf4.01).
Moreover, as hypothesized, there was a significant First session amount
of warmth X Session interaction (E = 10.26, g; = 1,28; pf4.01). An
analysis of simple effects revealed that there was the expected signifi-
cant difference between the high and low groups formed from data for the
1st session; however, as expected, on the 5th session the differences
between Ss originally high and low had decreased such that there was no
longer a significant difference between them.

Session.--As expected, a significant main effect due to session
was found (§:= 10.67, g; = 1,28; pf¢.01). In addition there was the
expected First session amount of warmth X Session interaction, as men-
tioned above. The analysis of simple effects showed that the increase
in warmth for the originally low group was significant (F = 41.85,

df =1,28- 04.01),

a.

37

Table 12.--Mean Warmth Scores Classified by
Sex, First Session Amount of
warmth and by Session

Overall classification.--Mean_genuineness_Ltable_12+ warmth;

scores of male and female 55, divided
into groups for those who showed high and those who showed

low amounts of-genainenees—{warmth{—Openness}—in the 1st

session, and the mean scores of those groups on the 5th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

session.
Session 1 Session 5 Total
High 1st ses. warmth 64.125__ _53.259 117L375.
Male Low 1st ses. warmth 21.000 48.375 69.375
High 1st ses. warmth ,_54.500 66.000 120.500
Female Low 1st ses. pamth fi.625 53.500 69.125
Total 155.250 221.125 376.375
b. Mean geneineness—{warmth;—epenness) of males and females,
divided into groups for those who showed high and those
who showed low amounts of—genaineness—(warmth,
on the 1st session.
High 1st ses. warmth Low 1st sesa warmth Total___
Male 117.375 69.375 186.750
Female 120.500 69.1255 189l025__
Total 237.875 138.500 376.375

 

 

 

Table 12.--Continued

CI)

0. Mean genuineness—(warmthr—epenneee}—scores for males and

females on the 1st and 5th sessions.

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
Male 85.125 101.625 186.750
Female 70.125 119.500 189.625
Total 155. 25 221.125 576.575

 

 

 

 

d. Mean genaineness—{warmth,tepcnnessy scores for the high

and low 1st session groups, for the 1st and 5th sessions.

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 g§ession_5r Total___’
Hi 1st ses. warmth 118.625. 119.250 237.875
Lo 1st ses. warmth 536.625 101.875 4138.500
155.250 221.125, 376.375

 

Total

 

 

 

 

Table 13.--Summary of Analysis of variance for warmth

Classified by Sex, 1st Session Amount

of warmth, and by Session

 

 

Source of Variation g; ES F

Sex 1 8.27 4:1

1st Session amount of 1 9,875.08 9.47*
warmth

Sex X 1st session amount 1 11.70 4:1
of warmth

Error 28 1,042.19

Session 1 4,339.52 10.67*

Sex X Session 1 1,080.76 2.66

1st session amount of 1 4,176.70 10.26*
warmth X Session
Sessions for hi warmth 1 1.19 411
Sessions for 10 warmth 1 17,030.25 41.85*
warmth for 1st session 1 26,890.00 25.81*
warmth for 5th session 1 1,207.57 afi 2

Sex X 1st ses. amount of 1 140.71 <fi.1
warmth X Session

Error 18 406.96

 

*p‘iO1

40

but the increase for the Ss who were high originally was not. The
explanation of the originally high‘S's failure to increase signifi-
cantly in warmth is probably related to the failure of‘Ss originally
high on genuineness to increase. This is suggested by the fact that
the correlation between high amounts of warmth and high amounts of
genuineness was significant on the 1st session (r = .40). These Ss
were probably playing a more passive role in the 5th session; having
demonstrated their genuineness, and communicated their warmth in earlier
sessions, by the 5th session they may have been just sitting back and
listening, as suggested above.

‘S§§.-~As expected, no significant differences in warmth were

attributable to sex differences.

Openness

Openness scores were classified by first session amount of Open-
ness, by session, and by sex (cell means are presented in Table 14).
The data were subjected to an analysis of variance, which is summarized
on Table 15. These results are discussed below in terms of the hypo-
theses.

Fir§t se§sion amount of Openness.--There was a significant main
effect for degree of Openness on the 1st session {E = 22.39,‘§§ = 1,28;
pg4.01). Moreover, there was a significant First session amount of
openness X Session interaction, as expected (E = 11.93, g; = 1,28;
2f‘.01). The simple effects analysis showed that there was, as pre-
dicted, a very significant difference between‘Ss high and low on Open-
ness for the 1st session (E = 78.20, if = 1,28; £4.01). In addition,
as hypothesized, this difference between Ss was reduced such that there

was no longer any difference between them on the 5th session.

8..

41

Table 14.--Hean Openness Scores Classified by
Sex, First Session Amount of
Openness and by Session

Overall classification.--hean geaaineness—éteb%e—+27—wermth;

Openness scores of male and female 85, divided
into groups for those who showed high and those who showed
low amounts of genuineness—4warmth, Openness) in the 1st
session, and the mean scores of those groups on the 5th
session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total

High 1st ses. Open. ,g7.25 4.50 11.75
Hale

Low 1st ses. open. 1.12 1.38 2.50

High 1st ses. open. 13.38 4.61 17.99
Female

Low 1st ses. Open. 2.38 6.13 8.51
Total 24.14 16.62 40.75
b. Mean genuineness—éwarmthy Openness) of males and females,

divided into groups for those who showed high and those
who showed low amounts of genuineness—{warmthz Openness)
on the 1st session.

 

 

 

 

 

High 1st ses. Open. Low 1st ses. Open. Total
Hale 11.75 3'2.50 14:25__y
Female 18.00 8.50 26.50
Total 29.75 11.00 40.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14.--Continued

c. Hean genaineness—Qwermth, Openness) scores for males and

females on the 1st and 5th sessions.

 

 

 

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
Male 8.37 5. 88 14.g5___
Female 15575 10.75, 26.50
Total 24.12 16.63 40.75

 

 

 

 

 

d. Mean~genaineness—(warmth7 Openness)-scores for the high and

low 1st session groups, for the 1st and 5th sessions.

 

 

Session 1 Session 5 Total
Hi 1st ses.
Openness 20.63 9.12 22.25 _
LO 1st ses.
openness 3.50 7150 11.00
Total 24.13 16.6; 40.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

Table 15.--Summary of Analysis Of variance for Openness

Classified by Sex, 1st Session Amount of

Openness, and by Session

 

 

Source Of variation g; fig ‘3
Sex 1 150.07 10.03**
1st Session amount Of Openness 1 351.57 22.39**
Sex.X 1st ses. am't Of Openness 1 .05 ‘11
Error 28 15.03
Session 1 56.25 2.64
Sex X Session 1 6.25 .41
1st session amount of Openness 1 240.25 11.93**
X Session
Sessions for high Openness 1 592.00 26.27**
Sessions for low Openness 1 128.50 6.40*
Openness for 1st session 1 1,173.00 78.20**
Openness for 5th session 1 10.57 ‘51
Sex.X 1st session Openness 1 90.25 4.48*
X Session
Sex for hi 1st ses. Openness 1 150.07 10.00**
Sex for lo 1st ses. Openness 1 3,704.13 2.46
Sex for hi 1st ses. group in 1 1.08 4&1
5th session
Sex for 10 1st ses. group in 1 95.25 6.34*
5th session
Openness for males on 1st ses. 1 150.07 10.00**
Openness for fem. on 1st ses. 1 484.00 32.27**
Openness for males in 5th ses. 1 39.07 2.70
Openness for fem. in 5th ses. 1 10.57 4:1
Sessions for males high on 1 30.25 2
Openness in 1st session
Sessions for females high on 1 306.25 15.21**
Openness in 1st session
Sessions for males low on 1 .25 411
Openness in 1st session
Sessions for females low on 1 56.25 2.79
Openness in 1st session
Error 28 20.14

 

*pL.05
**p.{..01

21,4

There was also a significant sex X First session amount of Open-
ness X Session interaction (E = 4.48, d; = 1.28; 234.05). The analysis
of simple effects indicated that there was a significant difference
between men who were high and low on Openness during the first session
(_F_ = 10.00, if = 1,28; 1324.01). Similarly there was a significant dif-
ference between women who were high and low on Openness during this
session (F = 32.27, g; = 1,28; pzi.O1). Further discussion Of the Sex
X First session amount of Openness X Session interaction will be taken
up in the following paragraphs for Session and ng.

Session.--Contrary to expectation, the session effect was not un-
conditionally significant. However, as noted above, there was the
expected First session amount Of Openness X Session interaction. Analy-
sis of simple effects revealed that as hypothesized, Ss originally low
on Openness increased significantly from the 1st to the 5th session
(E = 6.40, d; = 1,28; 2 4.05). On the other hand, contrary to expecta-
tion,ISs originally high on Openness decreased significantly (E = 26.27,
Q§I= 1,28; pf‘.01). A simple effects analysis for the noted Sex.X First
session amount Of Openness X Session interaction further indicated that
the decrease in Openness by originally high S5 was attributable to the
significant decrease in Openness by originally high women (F = 15.21,

Q; = 1,28; pf<.O1). This may indicate that peOple high on openness
early in the acquaintance process run out Of things to be Open about
later. Since women originally high on Openness were significantly more
Open than men originally on Openness (see below), it makes sense that it
is the women who account for the decrease in Openness of the originally

high _Ss.

45

§§§.--Contrary to expectation, there was a significant main
effect attributable to sex differences (2 = 10.03, g; = 1,28; 2‘4.01).
Moreover, there was, as mentioned above, a significant Sex X First
session amount of Openness X Session interaction (F = 4.48, g; = 1.28;
254.05). The analysis of simple effects revealed that during the 1st
session, females high on Openness were significantly more Open than
males who were high on openness (g = 10.00, g; = 1.28; 24.01). Dur-
ing the 5th session, there was a sex difference between §s who had
started low on Openness: ‘women were significantly more Open than men
(3 = 6.34, g =1,28; 2%.05).

Differences in Openness attributable to sex differences were not
predicted. Possibly these results reflect the fact that it is more
socially acceptable for women to Openly express feelings in our cul-
ture than it is for men. It is also possible that female college
students are more mature than college men, and are therefore more

ready to be Open.

46

Correlational Analyses

Correlations Between Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth

Hypothesis Five from Chapter I (p. 6) will be discussed in
this section, in light of the results obtained. To do so, this
section is divided into subsections for empathy and genuineness,
discussed in relation with themselves, with each other, and with
warmth (see Table 16).

According to Hypothesis Five, in a given session‘g‘s amounts
Of empathy, genuineness, and warmth, should show significant inter-
correlations. For example, a §.showing a high amount Of high empathy
was expected to display similarly high amounts of high genuineness
and warmth; §s displaying high amounts Of'lgg empathy were expected
to be similarly low on genuineness and warmth. It was expected that
a §fs amount of high empathy would correlate negatively with his
amount of low empathy, and so on for the other variables. The remain-
der of this section is a discussion of the results of the correla-
tional analyses performed to test this hypothesis.

Empathy Eith empathy.--During the 5th session, a §fs amount Of
high and low empathy were positively correlated (r = .77), contrary
to the hypothesis. This result may reflect the fact that a §fs
empathy scores were to some extent a function of the number of times
his partner was Open. This is so because a §_was rated for empathy
only when his partner had expressed a feeling: the more expression

of feelings, the more empathy ratings, irrespective of direction.

4?

.Hwnoflogflu mmz mammfiogs Eoflm .m 029m pmop v6.33. mnoo

.pqwoamacmam #0: ad. #33 coapmaohnoo m 38.26:...” on 933 35 psonmdopfi poms mum mommfinonmmm

.pcmofiwflamfl ems pcmwoflwmoo mafiamc was» 384.65 @360 hpgafiulépoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“2:; 3. 33 3. 3

Q. Ant; :4. 83 spam; 33

pen; .98 £me

non... 9%.- mm... we: .see :3

Nu. amid dew emam

Seesaw 33
343340343 3e E
33» mmoqmggmo mmmnocascoo lafl

30A swam 30A 304

 

£8.33 93 .mmmcmzfiscmo
.hfimaam .Hom monoom maom mo mpzmaofiwwmoo 5330200313 3me

43

Thus a person whose partner made many Open statements would tend to
have a greater number Of both high and low empathy ratings than a
person whose partner made few Open statements.

This explanation is supported by the fact that in the 5th session,
a‘fi's amount of high and low empathy both correlated positively with
partner's Openness at the "self" end of the continuum. However, since
this effect of a partner's Openness on a §fs empathy seemingly did not
hold for the 1st session, it can only be concluded that the relation-
ship between these variables is more complex than was previously sup-
posed, and thus warrants fhrther investigation.

Empathy with genuineness.--As hypothesized, a high degree of empathy
did correlate negatively with low genuineness for both sessions (session 1,
r = -.34; session 5, r = -.30). However, lack of’empathy'glgg corre-
lated negatively with low genuineness for both sessions (session 1,

r = -.42; session 5, r = -.39). This unexpected result may be explained
by the relationship between amount Of low empathy displayed and partner's
Openness, discussed above. This is suggested by the fact that low genu-
ineness also correlated negatively with partner's amount of Openness at
the "self" end Of the continuum for both sessions.

Empathy with warmth.--Contrary to the hypothesis, low empathy had
a positive correlation to high warmth on the 1st session (r = .41). As
before, this is presumed to be the result of empathy being in some way
an artifact of partner's Openness, since on the 1st session a §fs high
warmth correlated positively with partner's amount of Openness, as well
as with the st own low empathy score. Since on the 5th session, low
warmth correlated with partner's amount of Openness, the same reason-

ing probably accounts for the fact that both high and low degrees of

49

empathy correlated positively with al§'s amount of low warmth on
the 5th session (with low empathy, r = .54; with high empathy,
r = .53).

Genuineness with genuinenes§.—-As hypothesized, high and low
genuineness were negatively correlated for both sessions (session 1,

r = -.34; session 5, r = -.53).

Genuineness with warmth.--As expected, high genuineness and high
warmth were correlated for the 1st session (r = .40). This correla-
tion was not significant, but slightly negative for the 5th session.
This change from the 1st to the 5th session may indicate that in the
initial phase of the acquaintance process, people were more concerned
with communicating warmth to their partners, even at the expense Of
not being genuine. The lack of a significant correlation between
genuineness and warmth for the 5th session, however, may indicate
that by the 5th session gs were more genuine, and less concerned with
communicating what may have been a false warmth in the 1st session.

'Warmth with gagmth.--Contrary to expectation, high and low'warmth
were not negatively correlated for either session. In fact they did
not correlate at all. A possible explanation of this lack of correla-
tion is that §s were not necessarily consistent in degree of warmth

displayed.

50

Correlations of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth with Self
Scores for Openness
In this section Hypothesis Six from Chapter I (p. 6 ) will be
discussed in light of the results Obtained. To do so, this section
is divided into subsections for empathy, warmth, and genuineness.

In each subsection, the correlations between the variable under con-
sideration and the Openness variables (see Table 17), is discussed.
Hypothesis Six was that §s displaying high amounts of high

empathy, genuineness, and warmth, would also be high on sum and/or
prOportion of Openness at the "self" and of the continuum. Similarly,
low empathy, genuineness, and warmth were expected to correlate with
Openness at the "miscellaneous, noncontroversial tOpics" end of the
continuum. The remainder of this section is a discussion of the

results Of the correlational analyses performed to test this hypothesis.

Emoathg

High empathy did correlate as expected with sum of Openness at
the "self" end of the continuum during the 5th session (r = .31).

This correlation did not hold for the 1st session. This result may be
explained by the fact that most gs showed very little empathy, either
high or low, on the 1st session.

Contrary to the hypothesis, empathy did not correlate with any Of
the other Openness variables. This indicates that empathy is not re-
lated to Openness to the extent that was first supposed. The initial
reasoning behind this hypothesis was that while responding empathically

to his partner's Openness, a S would also respond by being more Open

51

.Hmcoppomwpv mm; mpmonpomhn Hmopum w oocpm pmmp poapmp Ocop
pamOHQHCmHm pom mp pmnp coppmHthoo m opmoppcw op opnmp mpnp pdonmsonsp pom: Ohm monoppconmmm

.pcmopmacmam mm: pcopopmmooo honppom pmnp mpmoppcp mHHOO hpdamuu.mpoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ano. v pdm.l Ame. v mm. M spspm3,gmam
mm. Roi mm. 80.; spans: :3
ANN.IV pm.| Amp. v mm. m:. mum. mmocwcpdcoo swam
mm. Dmmo amol Amwolv 0M... Aweolv mmemGHdGOO .309
ham. «at; snowmen swam
zgpmdsm 30g
ppm pmp ppm pmp ppm pup ppm pmp
. copmmom mopmmcm copmmom nopwmcm
mmocqmmo mmmccomo mmoccmdo mmmcccdo
__.om._.uE= .Ho =.omHE= 5pm FHHom: mo FHHmmz 55m
cowppomonm coppmmuoam

 

 

 

mmochmo wow mmhoom maom app:
gpspmz paw .mmchCp§COm .hmpmmam
no“ mogoom mamm MO mpcmpopwmmoo coppwaouhoouu.mp manna

52

about himself. In line with this reasoning, a S's openness at the
"self" end Of the continuum did correlate positively with partner's
openness at the "self" end of the continuum. However, since empathy
did not correlate with other Openness scores, the supposition of a

relationship between these variables must remain tentative.

Genuineness

As expected, high genuineness correlated with sum of Openness at
the "self" end Of the continuum for both sessions (session 1, r = .62;
session 5, r = .45). For the 1st, but not for the 5th session, high
genuineness correlated as well with prOportion Of Openness at the
"self" end Of the continuum (r = .53), and also correlated negatively
as expected, with prOportion Of Openness about miscellaneous tOpics
(r = -.51).

As hypothesized, low genuineness had a negative correlation with
sum Of Openness at the "self" end of the continuum for the 5th session
(r = -.36), and also with the prOportion of such Openness for that
session (r = -.39). These correlations were negative for the 1st ses-
sion also, but not significant.

For both sessions, low genuineness correlated as expected with sum
Of Openness about miscellaneous tOpics (session 1, r = .33: session 5,
r= .35).

In sum, this aspect Of the hypothesis was substantially confirmed.
This evidence that there is, in fact, a relationship between genuine-
ness and Openness indicates that trust in oneself, and in the other,
might be important determinants of these modes of relating. Having
this trust, a person is not unduly afraid Of rejection because he is

being himself, and is being Open about his more intimate feelings.

53

Lack Of such trust presupposes the fear that to be oneself, and to

disclose more intimate feelings, will result in rejection by others.

High warmth correlated positively, as expected, with prOportion
of Openness at the "self" end Of the continuum for the 1st session
(r = .37). Also as expected, during the 1st session high warmth showed
a negative correlation with prOportion of Openness about miscellaneous
tOpics (r = -.34). Neither of these correlations held true for the 5th
session. This may be due to the fact that there were no significant
differences in high warmth shown byԤs on the 5th session (as indicated
by the analysis of variance for warmth classified by sex, 1st session
amount of warmth, and by session).

Contrary to the hypothesis, low warmth correlated positively with
sum and prOportion of Openness at the "self" end of the continuum dur-
ing the 5th session (sum, r = .52; prOportion, r = .35). Since this
was true only in the 5th session, it may be that by the 5th session,
being Open about one's feelings was of more concern than communicating
warmth to one's partner. Communication of warmth is probably a way
of reassuring one's partner that one is not predisposed to be hostile
or antagonistic. By the 5th session, this basic reassurance had pro-
bably been accomplished. This explanation could also be applied to
the fact that a S's amount Of high warmth correlated with his Open-

ness at the "self" end Of the continuum only during the 1st session.

54

Correlations Between Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and'warmth with Partner's
Scores for Empathy, Genuineness,
and warmth

Hypothesis Seven from Chapter I (p. 63) will be discussed in
this section, in light Of the results obtained. To do so, this
section is divided into subsections for self scores on empathy,
genuineness, and warmth. In each subsection, the correlations of
the variable under consideration will be discussed in terms of it's
correlations with partner's scores on these variables (see Table 18).
To avoid duplication, after genuineness has been discussed in relation
to empathy in the empathy subsection, empathy will not be discussed in
the genuineness subsection, and so on.

According to Hypothesis Seven, in a given session a S's amounts
of empathy, genuineness, and warmth would all correlate with each Of
partner's scores for empathy, genuineness, and warmth, respectively.

The remainder Of this section is a discussion Of the results of the

correlational analyses performed to test this hypothesis.

Self Scores for Empathy

As expected, a st amount Of high empathy correlated with his
partner's amount of high empathy for the 5th session (r = .44).
This correlation was not significant for the 1st session, probably
indicating that it takes several sessions for peOple to attain the
symmetry hypothesized by Newcomb.

A §fs amount of high empathy correlated, as expected, with partner's

high genuineness on the 5th session (r = .48). This correlation was

not significant for the 1st session, probably due to the fact that on

55

.Ouoom pogpnmm a
mosooop choom mach opp paw .onoom mach m mmaoomn whoom nonpamm opp pmSp om oomno>on op awe

noppwaophoo pomo omdooop .oHpmp opp 2H Ohoszomao pepmopamso Ohm mqsdaoo omogp up mopnpco open

.pnmofimpmmpm po: mp sows: noppmaonnoo m oprHUQH op oapmp wasp poopmdonsp poms who womenpconwmm

.pcmOHMHQMHm was pcopopmwooo hosppoc pomp opmoponp mHHoo hpQEMII.opoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30. v mm. mm. A00. v 55.3» pm

hi. rd. mm. ow.lv SpEMNB CA

04 mm. mm. Bid 8. 8. mm: mq. we. 83 8. new; .ooo swam

mm. Sod mm... mm... .200 :09

we. at V i3. Gm; .osm swam

ow. flow. V .msm 304

4% p2 flw p2 fin p2 fie of HR p2 fin .43 /2olml

:opmmom nopmmom copmmom copmmmm copmmom copmmom

llfiflmflplll. £8.33 pmmmcozpdqow mmoqompdncw 43% nonpnmm

n ma zoo . swam :3 swam =3 /

 

spsuoz paw .mmomocpdcoo .thmasm how

monoom m_nocpaom apps Spanm3.ocm .mmoconpdnmo
.thmmsm now monoom mamm mo mpcopopmmooo coppwaopnOOIu.mp canoe

56

the 1st session all gs displayed about the same amount Of high
empathy, which is to say, they displayed very little.

A §'s score for low empathy also correlated on the 5th session
with partner's high genuineness (r = .60). The fact that self scores
for both high and low empathy correlated with partner's high genu-
ineness on the 5th session, is probably due to the fact that on that
session, self scores for high and low empathy were positively cor-

related.

Self Scores for Genuineness

As hypothesized, there was a correlation between a §}s amount
Of high genuineness and his partner's amount Of high genuineness for
both sessions (session 1, r = .66; session 5, r = .66). This supports
Newcomb's theory and findings that peOple strive for symmetry in inter-
personal relationships.

Also as expected, a S's amount of high genuineness correlated
negatively with his partner's amount Of low genuineness for both ses-
sions (session 1, r = -.38; session 5, r = -.75). Thus the less high
genuineness displayed by a S, the more low genuineness is displayed
by his partner, again supporting Newcomb's theory of balance.

While a S's high genuineness correlated, as hypothesized, with
his partner's high warmth on the 1st session (r = .38), on the 5th
session, a S's high genuineness correlated with his partner's lgg
warmth (r = .38). These results may be due to the fact that the §S
displaying the most high genuineness on the 5th session were those who
had originally shown relatively little high genuineness (as shown by

analysis of variance). The social discomfort presumably felt by these

57

§s who displayed little high genuineness in the 1st session may be
symptomatic of a personality to which partners did not respond warmly,
even when these §s became more genuine with time. This same explana-
tion could be applied to the fact that in the 5th session a §}s low

genuineness correlated positively with his partner's high warmth

(r = .37).

Self Scores for'warmth

Correlations between a S's warmth and his partner's empathy and
genuineness has already been discussed (note: each correlation between
a self score and a partner score can be reversed so that the partner
score becomes a self score, and the self score becomes a partner score).
In addition, a §fs low warmth correlated, as hypothesized, with his
partner's low warmth (session 1, r = .41; session 5, r = .47). Thus,
as with empathy and genuineness, Hewcomb's theory of balance was also

supported for warmth.

58

Correlations of Self Scores for Empathy,
Genuineness, and warmth with Partner's
Scores for Openness

In this section, Hypothesis Eight from Chapter I (p. 6) will
be discussed in light of the results obtained. To do so, this
section is divided into subsections for self scores on empathy, genu-
ineness, and warmth. In each subsection, the variable under consider-
ation will be discussed in terms of it's correlations with partner's
Openness scores, (see Table 19).

Hypothesis Eight was that a §'s amounts of high empathy, genuine-
ness, and warmth would correlate with his partner's sum and/or pro-
portion of openness at the "self" end of the continuum. Similarly,

a §fs amounts of low empathy, genuineness, and warmth were expected to

correlate with partner's sum and/or proportion of openness at the "mis-
cellaneous, noncontroversial tOpics" end of the continuum. The remain-
der of this section is a discussion of the results of the correlational

analyses performed to test this hypothesis.

Self Scores for Empathy

As expected, a §fs amount of high empathy correlated with his
partner's sum of Openness at the "self" end of the continuum during
the 5th session (r = .37), but not for the 1st session. This result
for the 1st session was probably due to the fact that there was little
difference in amount Of high empathy displayed byԤs during that session.
For the 5th session, a §'s amount of low empathy also correlated
positively with partner's sum of Openness at the "self" end of the

continuum. As explained earlier, these apparently contradictory

59

.Hmcowpomnfiv mws mfimospomhs HpOHhQ a woman pmmp voafimp Ono

n

.pcmoamaawfim no: ma pmsp qoapmamhhoo m meOHch op magma wasp psogwsohnp poms one mommnpqonmmm

.pcmOHmacmHm mus pcoaoammooo hmnpaon wasp opmoflpca mHHoo hpmsmun.Opoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.498.- cal w . at a an. fillies a .m

M$.I mo.|v pd. mo.uv Fm. Nwo.|v gpshmziaog

AmN.lv m3.l 93m. +3. Nd. m5. vuacmcrzzac Smflm

Amr.lm no.1 03.: ww.l mwmnmqadcow 30g

am. sol sfiseé has

so. V 8. es. ehmm. V assess 33

npm pm? nan pm? 3pm pmw 3pm w pm— mamm

scammom scammmm :ofimmom coammmm
mmmcnmmo mmoccomm mmwnzmmo .mmmwdomo
=.omfie_ mo =.omfis= sum =maow= mo =maom= adm umcphmm
:oapnomopm coapnomopm

 

 

 

 

 

mmmqqomo pom
monoom n.9029nmm spas gasps: use .mmmcmqfldqmo
.hgpmmsm mom mopoom “Hem mo meOHOfimmooo coapwamhuoonl.mF manwa

60

correlations Of empathy are probably due to empathy's being partly
an artifact of partner's Openness. Thus what these results really
seem to indicate is that during the 5th session a S's empathy was
not consistent, but was evenly distributed in response to partner's
Openness. This inconsistency may reflect the use Of empathy as a
"selective reward" in the acquaintance process.

A S's amount of low empathy did correlate, as hypothesized, with
sum of Openness about miscellaneous tOpics during the 1st session
(r = .46), but not during the 5th. This might indicate that during
the 5th session §s who displayed high Openness about miscellaneous,
noncontroversial tOpics were impervious to the lack of empathy with

which their partner's were responding.

Self Scores for Genuineness

A'§'s amount of high genuineness correlated, as expected, with
partner's sum of Openness at the "self" end of the continuum for both
sessions (session 1, r = .48; session 5, r = .42). 4A S's amount of
high genuineness also correlated, as expected, with prOportion of
partner's Openness at the "self" end of the continuum (session 1,

r = .44; session 5, r = .34).

A S's high genuineness also correlated negatively, as hypothesized,
with partner's prOportion Of Openness about miscellaneous tOpics during
the 1st session (r = -.43). Since this correlation was not significant
for the 5th session, it may be that during the 5th session, high genu-
ineness displayed by a §.encouraged all types Of partner's Openness.

As hypothesized, a §fs amount of low genuineness had a negative
correlation with partner's Openness at the "self" end of the continuum

for both sessions (session 1, r = -.38; session 5, r = -.40). However,

61

on the 1st session, low genuineness also correlated negatively with
partner's sum of Openness about miscellaneous tOpics, (r = -.53),
contrary to the hypothesis. Since a §fs amount of low genuineness
correlated negatively with partner's Openness of both types, presum-
ably low genuineness discouraged partner's Openness altogether in the
1st session. During the 5th session, low genuineness did not correlate
negatively with partner's sum of Openness about miscellaneous tOpics,
probably as a result of the fact that by the 5th session less low genu-

ineness was being shown.

Self Scores for warmth

As expected, aԤ's amount of high warmth correlated with partner's

sum and prOportion of openness at the "self" end of the continuum dur-
ing the 1st session (sum, r = .37; proportion, r = .38). Also during
the 1st session a‘fi's amount of high warmth showed a negative correla-
tion, as hypothesized, with partner's prOportion of Openness at the
"miscellaneous tOpics" end of the continuum (r = -.31). On the 5th
session, a S's high warmth did not correlate with either type of
partner's Openness. High warmth did not correlate with partner's
Openness on the 5th session probably because all §s were displaying
relatively high degrees of warmth: gs who originally showed little
high warmth attained the same level of warmth by the 5th session as
originally high §s (as revealed by analysis of variance).

Contrary to the hypothesis, a §fs amount of low warmth correlated
positively with partner's sum and prOportion of Openness at the "self"
end of the continuum, during the 5th session (sum, r = .61; prOportion,
r = .46). During the 5th session, low warmth also showed a negative

correlation to partner's proportion Of openness about miscellaneous

62

tOpics (r = -.43). It may be that after the initial acquaintance
procedures were over, gs felt freer to respond in an unwarm way to
personal and controversial things about which their partners were
being Open. The negative correlation on the 5th session between
a S's low warmth and his partner's Openness about miscellaneous,
noncontroversial tOpics may reflect the fact that gs found such
Openness less provocative.

In sum, the results of this study tended to support the hypo-
thesis that high amounts of empathy, genuineness, and warmth dis-
played by aԤ'would correlate with partner's Openness at the "self"
end of the continuum. Though empathy and warmth seem to bear a
more complex relation to other's Openness than was originally hypo-

thesized, the hypothesis was substantially confirmed for genuineness.

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND SPECULATIONS

In this chapter the results of this study will be summarized,
and their implications for the acquaintance process will be discussed.

In this study it was found that regardless of differences in Dog-
matism, as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism scale, couples increased
in empathy, genuineness, and warmth displayed from the 1st to the 5th
acquaintance session. Though male and female Dogmatism failed to
interact as hypothesized, couples in which the male was a high Dogmatic
displayed more warmth on both sessions than couples in which the male
was a low Dogmatic. Also, couples in which the woman was a high Dog-
matic displayed significantly more empathy on the 5th session than
couples in which the woman was a low Dogmatic.

When individual §s (rather than couples) were considered, accord-
ing to whether or not they were high or low on genuineness, warmth
and Openness in the 1st session, it was found that,§s'beginning low
increased significantly. §s beginning high on genuineness and warmth
maintained their 1st session level during the 5th session. §s begin-
ning high on Openness decreased significantly from the 1st to the 5th
session. During the 5th session, §s originally low on genuineness
surpassed originally high §s, while for warmth and Openness there
were no significant differences betweenl§s originally high and low.

The hypothesized intercorrelations among aԤ's empathy, genuine-

ness, and warmth, were substantially confirmed for genuineness, but

63

only partially confirmed for empathy and warmth. The hypothesis

that a S's high empathy, genuineness, and warmth would correlate with
his sum and/or proportion of Openness at the "self" end of the Openness
continuum was confirmed only for genuineness.

Correlations between self scores on empathy, genuineness, and warmth,
with each of partner's scores for empathy, genuineness, and warmth showed
that the greatest number of expected correlations were those between self
and partner scores on the same variable.

Finally, the correlations between a S's empathy, genuineness, and
warmth scores, and his partner's Openness scores, showed that a'S's genu-
ineness was the variable most related to his partner's Openness.

The results Of this study seem to support Newcomb's theory that
people strive for balance in interpersonal relationships: a'S's amounts
of empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness often correlate with amounts
of these variables displayed by his partner; and it was also found that
significant differences in amounts of warmth, Openness and genuineness
in the first session, disappeared in the 5th session for warmth and Open-
ness, and became less in that session for genuineness.

However, the question still remains as to what factors influence
whether the person lowest in empathy, genuineness, warmth, and Openness
will meet the higher person on the latters level, or vice versa, or
whether the lower person comes up and the higher comes down, achieving
a sort of average. Factors influencing which of these alternatives will
be the case probably include, among many, dominance, attraction, loneli-
ness, and common interests.

Since much of psychotherapy as usually practiced could be considered

a special case of the acquaintance process, the question must be asked

65

as to the place of the striving for balance in psychotherapy. Perhaps
one aspect of the process of successful psychotherapy is that in an
effort to achieve balance, clients attempt to match their therapists
at least in genuineness. Since displaying empathy and warmth toward
the therapist is not usually part of the clients role, the client may
attempt to balance high degrees of therapist empathy and warmth by
being more Open about his self related feelings. That the client is
more likely to match himself to (or model himself on) the therapist's
behavior than vice versa, may indicate that if one person in a dyad has
more "authority" than the other, it is his behavior that is more likely
to be used as the standard for the balance to be achieved.

It might also be asked whether or not the "honeymoon" period in
psychotherapy occurs as an expression of the client's effort to allay
anxiety by achieving an early balance, no matter how unstable. Similarly,
it would be interesting to know if the balance achieved by §s by the 5th
session of this study reflects a relatively permanent stabilization of
the relationship, or if it reflects a "honeymoon" effect, as found Often
in the initial stages Of psychotherapy. Insecure, and perhaps high Dog-
matic peOple, might have a greater need than more secure people to
establish some kind Of balance, even if it is premature and artificial.
According to this reasoning, older people who are presumably more settled
in life than the average college student, might be more reluctant to achieve
a hasty balance during the early phases of an acquaintanceship.

Returning, however, to some of the hypotheses tested in this study,
the failure of male and female Dogmatism to interact significantly must
be explored. The question must be raised as to an alternate personality

variable which would have produced maximal differences in the display Of

O'\
O\

empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness. "sasic trust" might be

such an alternative personality variable. Basic trust presumably makes
it easier for a person to be interested in, and to accept others whose
thoughts, feelings, and attitudes are different from his own. Thus
basic trust might be conducive to high degrees of warmth (interpersonal
attraction being equal--see below). To be empathic with another, it is
also necessary to trust oneself to the extent that it is not threatening
to reOOgnize another's feelings. In order to be receptive to another's
empathy, one must also be able to trust him enough to believe that his
empathy is genuine. Trust is necessary if a person is to be undefensive,
which is an essential aspect Of high genuineness. Similarly, the self-
disclosure involved in Openness at the "self" end of the continuum pre-
supposes that trust that one will not be rejected when one reveals one-
self as one is.

The fact that interpersonal attraction (though related to numerous
personality variables) may have an effect on acquaintance interactions
which is equal to that produced by any one personality variable, must
also be considered.

Thus when two people are attracted to each other, and both have an
adequate degree of basic trust, it might be expected that high degrees
of empathy, genuineness, warmth and Openness would be displayed by both
parties. Similarly, a person lacking in trust, but who feels attracted
toward another, would probably show less empathy, genuineness, warmth,
and Openness, and would probably express his attraction in other ways.
One also wonders if people strive for balance in their attraction for
one another, as well in their expressions of empathy, genuineness, warmth,

and Openness.

67

The importance of trust in interpersonal interactions is sup-
ported by the fact that couples originally low on empathy, and individuals
low on genuineness, warmth, and Openness during the 1st session all in-
creased significantly by the 5th session. Presumably with time, the
originally low §s experienced a "warm up" effect as they came to know
their partners better, and thus to feel more at ease: as the partner
becomes more predictable, one at least knows in what areas he is trust-
worthy.

It would be interesting to know if psychotherapy clients who are
originally quite low in empathy, genuineness, warmth and openness in their
private lives, increase on these variables as a function Of time, as well
as of psychotherapy itself. By the same token, a client's progress in
therapy with a therapist originally low on empathy, genuineness, and
warmth, may reflect a "warm up" effect on the therapist as he gets to
know his client.

In fostering trust, time is apparently a factor in affecting the
increase of empathy, warmth, genuineness and Openness for people origi-
nally low on these variables. But one must also ask which one of these
variables themselves is most efficacious in creating trust, whether or
not the time factor is Operative. This study indicates that genuine-
ness is the variable most related both to a person's empathy, warmth,
and Openness, and to his partner's empathy, genuineness, warmth and
openness. Thus the results of this study support the findings of Truax
and Carkhuff (1967) that in therapy, a therapist's genuineness is pre-
requisite for the effectiveness of his warmth and empathy. In other
words, empathy and warmth are not simply therapist techniques tO be learned,

nor in the acquaintance process will they always be effective if used

68

expediently and instrumentally rather than genuinely. They must be
to some extent genuine expressions of regard, interest, and understand-
ing.

In considering why one person's genuineness might cause another
person to trust him, both in the acquaintance process, and in therapy,
it would seem that one's genuineness is a promise that one's use of
warmth and empathy will at least be lawful. Thus in therapy, the ef-
ficacy Of genuineness is probably due in part to the security it gives.

Genuineness might further encourage trust because high genuineness
(as defined in the Truax scales) cannot be used defensively, as can
warmth and empathy to some extent. In fact, high genuineness is marked
by undefensiveness, and self-congruence. Thus genuineness is more self
disclosing than warmth and empathy by themselves. For the latter are
primarily other directed, and thus can be used to avoid discussing one's
own feelings by focusing on those of the other.

In View of the self disclosing nature of genuineness, it is not
surprising that in this study, gs displaying a lot of high genuineness
also displayed high Openness about self related tOpics, on both the 1st
and the 5th sessions. For both high genuineness, and Openness about
self related topics, presuppose a degree of trust that one will not be
rejected if one is known as one is. Thus as with genuineness, Openness
may also engender trust. This might indicate that in therapy, it is
important for the therapist to be open about his feelings, just as it
is important for him to be genuine.

Though basic trust is not an easily measurable variable, trust has
nonetheless been Offered as an alternative, though not unrelated, variable

to Dogmatism. However, while the interaction of male and female Dogmatism

69

in this study was not significant, by themselves DOgmatism Of the male,
and Dogmatism Of the female did have a significant effect on the increase
in amount Of high warmth and empathy displayed, respectively. As sug-
gested in Chapter III, it may be that highly Dogmatic men elicited more
warmth from their partners than did low Dogmatic men. High Dogmatic
men are presumed tO be less secure than low Dogmatic men, and may have
needed more reassurance from their partner's, such as might be provided
by the other's warmth. The female partner's Of these high Dogmatic men
probably responded tO this need by being warmer than usual. Since high
Dogmatic women did not have this effect Of eliciting more warmth from
their partner's, probably it is because the situation with a high Dogmatic
male plays into the cultural roles Of male dominance and female nurturance.

The fact that the expected correlations between warmth and other
self and partner variables were found largely on the 1st session might
support such a theory Of the reassurance function Of warmth in the ac-
quaintance process. When peOple first meet in a "forced" situation such
as an experimental setting, it is essential that they demonstrate their
goodwill toward one another. PeOple who meet freely, outside of an ex-
perimental situation, probably go through such a reassurance procedure
only when they are really interested in making each other's acquaintance.

Given the design, the unexpected increase in empathy for couples in
which the woman scored high on DOgmatism could have been due tO the fact
that either high Dogmatic women or their partner's were giving more
empathic responses. The former is presumed to be the case: this study
may have been a new and positive experience for these high Dogmatic women,
a positive experience tO which they were overreacting.

It is also possible, however, that either the high Dogmatic women

or their partner's were using empathy as a defense, that is, to keep the

7O

conversation focused on the other person. Presumably high DOgmatic
women would be afraid to Open up tOO much themselves, and thus to keep
the conversation from dwelling tOO much on them, they might have used
empathy to keep the other person talking about himself. In this case,
empathy would be expected tO be accompanied by low genuineness, since
overt or implied defensiveness are what distinguish low genuineness.
It would probably also be accompanied by a lack Of Openness about self
related tOpics.

The contradictory results Of the correlational analyses for empathy
certainly tend to support the idea that empathy may be the expression of
genuine understanding, or it may be used defensively, or it may be used
as a selective reward or punishment. In combination with genuineness,
warmth, and Openness the ability tO be consistently empathic is pro-
bably a decisive factor in determining with whom one becomes really close
friends. In situations such as this study, however, where people are
placed together and expected tO get acquainted, empathy may be used with
more expediency than consistency and genuineness. That is, it might be
used defensively, as suggested; or it might even be used to selectively
turn Off or reinforce certain tOpics Of conversation. Certainly in therapy,
therapist empathy is a factor in keeping the focus on the client's feelings,
particularly his deeper feelings. In the acquaintance process however,
particularly among peers, it would probably be indicative Of an unhealthy
relationship if one person did all the empathising, without disclosing
much Of himself.

While this study did not assess the degree to which partner's liked
one another, an important question still to be researched is whether warmth,

empathy, genuineness, and Openness are in fact characteristics of what

71

most psychologist's could agree is a healthy relationship. If dis-
turbed relationships are distinguished by a lack Of empathy, genuine-
ness, warmth, and Openness, then clients must be helped to overcome this
lack. In helping them tO dO so, modelling themselves in these respects
on the example Of the therapist might be Of crucial importance.
Obviously there is a great deal Of fruitful research yet to be
conducted on the acquaintance process. It is hOped that this thesis

will suggest ideas for such research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashby, J., Ford, D., Guerney, B. Jr., Guerney, L., and Snyder, W.
"Effects Of Reflective and Leading Psychotherapy."
Psychotherapy Research. Edited by Gary Stollak, Bernard
Guerney, Jr., and Meyer Rothberg. Chicago: Rand Mohally
and CO., 1966.

Izard, Carrol. "Personality similarity and friendship."

Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960. Vol. 61,
pp. 47-51.

Newcomb, Theodore. The Acguaintance Process. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

Plant, W. T., Telford, C. W., and Thomas, J. A. "Some personality
differences between dogmatic and nondogmatic groups."

Journal of Social PsychOlOgy. 1965. V01. 67, pp. 67-75.

Rogers, Carl. "A tentative Scale for the Measurement Of Process

in Psychotherapy." Research in Psychotherapy. Edited by
Eli Rubenstein and Morris Parloff. VOl. I. washington, D.C.:

A.P.A. Inc., 1959.

Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic

Books Inc., 1900.

Secord, Paul, and Backman, Carl. Social Psychology. New York:
McGraw-hill Book CO., 1964.

Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. The Social Psychology Of Groupp.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959.

Truax, Charles, and Carkhuff, Robert. Towards Effective Counseling
and Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing CO., 1907.

'Ninch, R. F. Mate Selection: A Study Of Complementary Needs.

New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1958.

72

APPENDIX A

The ROkeach DOgmatism Scale

D-Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Age Date Q. -

Major Telephone NO.

Student Number Address ___
Instructions

 

The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels
about a number of important social and personal questions. The best answer
to each statement below is your personal Opinion. We have tried to cover
many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing
strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others,
and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any
statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do.

Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree
or disagree with it. Please mark every one.

Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case.

+1: I AGREE A LITTLE -l: I DISAGREE A LITTLE

+2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE

+3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH
Score

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.

2. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form
of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.

3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal,
it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain
political groups.

4. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance
with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes.

 

5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.
6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place.
7. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

8. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve
my personal problems.

GES:ceb 12/20/67

Score

9.
10.
ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.
There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in.
Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop.

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several
«times to make sure I am being understood.

In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am
going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying.

It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition
is to become a great man, like Einstein, orBeethoven, or Shakespeare.

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something
important.

If given the chance I would do something of great benefit to the
world.

In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful of
really great thinkers.

There are a number of people I have come to hate because of the
things they stand for.

A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that
life becomes meaningful.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is
probably only one which is correct.

A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a
pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it
usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we must be care-
ful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the
way we do.

In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers
primarily his own happiness.

The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the
people who believe in the same thing he does.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard
against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp than
by those in the opposing camp.

A group which tolerates too much differences of opinion among its
own members cannot exist for long.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the
truth and those who are against the truth.
My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's
wrong.

A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath
contempt.

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper
they are printed on.

In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's
going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.‘

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's gobng on
until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects.

In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates
whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness.
future that counts.

It is only the
If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes
necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all."

Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have discussed important
social and moral problems don't really understand what's going on.

Most people just don't know what's good for them.

ceb 1/2/68

APPENDIX B

Truax Scales to Measure Accurate Empathy,
Nonpossessive warmth, and Genuineness

‘ If"! lll.l||.| ‘ll’

SCALES TO MEASURE ACCURATE EMPATHY, NONPOSSESSIVE WARMTH AND CENUINENESS SCALES,
derived from Charles B. Truax and Robert R. Carkhuff. Toward effective counsel- '
ing an dpsychotherapy, Aldine Publishing Co. 1967,Pg. 46-72.

The measurement of accurate empathy ‘

Aggggage empathy involves more than just the ability of ap S (therapist,
teacher, parent, student, trainee, etc.), to sense the other' 3 (client, child,
supervisor, pupil, etc.) "private world” as if it were his own. It also involves
more than just his ability to know what the other means. Accurate empathy in-'
volves both the 8's sensitivity_to current feglingg and his verbal facility to.
communicate this understanding in a language attuned to the other's current feelings

It is not necessary for the S to 22252 the other's feelings in any sense"
that would require him to feel the same emotions. It is instead an apprecia-
tion and a sensitive awareness of those feelings. At deeper levels of empathy,
it also involves enough understanding of patterns of human feelings and experience
to sense feelings that the other only partially reveals. With such experience
and knowledge, the S can communicate what the other clearly knows as well as
meanings in the other's experience of which he is scarcely aware. A ,

At a high level of accurate empathy the message ”I am with you” is unmis--
takably c1ear--the S's remarks fit perfectly with the other‘s mood and content.
His responses not only indicate his sensitive understanding of the obvious feel-
ings, but also serve to clarify and expand the other's awareness of his own
feelings or experiences. Such empathy is communicated by both the language used
and all the voice qualities, which unerringly reflect the 5's seriousness and
depth of feeling. The S's intent concentration upon the other keeps him con-
tinuously aware of the other's shifting emotional content so that he can shift
his own responses to correct for language or content errors when he temporarily
loses touch and is not "with" the other. I

At a 122 level of accurate empathy the 8 may go off on a tangent of his
own or may misinterpret what the other is feeling. At a very low level he may
be.3° preoccupied and interested in his own intellectual interpretations that his

is scarcely aware of the otherw8 'being'. The S at this low level

-27
of accurate empathy may even be uninterested in the other, or may be concentrating

on the intellectual content of what the other says rather than what he ”is” at the
moment, and so may ignore or misunderstand the other’s current feelings and experiences
{At this low level of empathy the S is doing something other than "listening”,‘hnder-
Estanding”, or “being sensitive": he may be evaluating the other, giving advice or
g

lsermonizing.

Levels of Accurate Empathy

 

Level 1:

The S seems completely unaware of even the most conspicuous of the other's
feelings; his responses are not apprOpriate to the mood and content of the other's
statements. There is no determinable quality of empathy, and hence no accuracy
whatsoever. The S may be bored and disinterested or cffering advice without com-
municating an awareness of the other's current feelings.

Level 2:

The S shows an almost negligible degree of accuracy in his responses,
and that only toward the other's most obvious feelings. Any emotions which are not
charly defined he tends to ignore altogether. He may be correctly sensitive to
obvious feelings and yet misunderstand much of what the other is really trying to
say. By his response he may block off or may misdirect the patient. Leve1J4.is
distinguishable from Level 3 in what the S ignores feelings rather than displaying
an inability to understand them.

Level 3:

The S often responds accurately to the others more eXposed feelings.

He also displays concern for the deeper, more hidden feelings, which he seems to
sense must be present, though he does not understand their nature or sense their

meaning to the other.

v!‘I— ———_ a

___ —— .‘_—._- _,———— ——-a————._—~.-—-_ _—_—_

Level 4:

The 8 usually responds accurately.to the other's more obvious feelings and
occasionally recognizes some that are less apparent. In the process of this ten-
tative probing, however, he may misinterpret some present feelings and anticipate
some which are not current. Sensitivity and awareness do exist in the S, but
he is not entirely "with" the other in the current situation or experience.

The desire and effort to understand are both present, but his accuracy is low.

This level is distinguishable from level 3 in that the S does occasionally recognize
less apparent feelings. He may also seem to know how or why the other feels a parti—
cular way, but he is definitely not with" the other.

Level 5: ‘ . i

The S accurately responds to all of the S's more readily discernible
feelings. He also shows awareness of many less evident feelings and experiences,
but he tends to be somewhat inaccurate in his understanding of these. However,
when he does not understand completely, this lack of complete understanding is com-
municated without an anticipatory or jarring note. His misunderstandings are
not disruptive by their tentative nature. Sometimes in Level 5 the S simply com-
municates his awareness of the problem of understanding another person's inner
world. This level is the midpoint of the continuum of accurate empathy.

Level 6:

The S recognizes most of the other's present feelings, including those
which are not readily apparent. Although he understands their content, he some—
times tends to misjudge the intensity of these veiled feelings, so that his
responses are not always accurately sufled to the exact mood of the other. The S
does deal directly with feelings the other is currently experiencing although he
may misjudge the intensity of those less apparent. Although sensing the feelingS,

he often is unable to communicate-meaning to them. In contrast to Level 7, the

(over)

-4-
8'3 statements contain an almost static quality in the sense that he handhs those
feelings that the other offers but does not bring new elements to life. He is
”with" the other but doesn't encourage exploration. His manner of communicating

his understanding is such that he makes of it a finished thing.

Level 7:

The s responds accurately to most of the other's present feelings and shows
awareness of the precise intensity of most of the underlying emotions. However,
his responses move only slightly beyond the other's own awareness, so that feelings
may be present which neither the other nor the S recognizes. The S initiates moves
toward more emotionally laden material, and may communicate simply that he and the
other are moving towards more emotionally significant material. Level 7 is distin—
guishable from Level 6 in that often the S's response is a kind of precise pointing

of the finger toward emotionally significant material.

Level 8:

The S accurately interprets all the other's present, acknowledged feelings.
He also uncovers the most deeply shrouded of the other's feelings, voicing meanings
in the other's experience of which the other is scarcely aware. Since the S must
necessarily utilize a method of trial and error in the new uncharted area, there
are minor flaws in the accuracy of his understanding but these inaccuracies are
held tentatively. With sensitivity and accuracy he moves into feelings and experi-
ences that the other has only hinted at. The S offers specific explanations or
additions to the other's undersanding So that underlying emotions are both pointed
out and specifically talked about. The content that comes to life may be new but
it is not alien.

Although the S in Level 8 makes mistakes, these mistakes are not jarring,
because they are covered by the tentative character of the response. Also. this S
is sensitive to his mistakes and quickly changes his response in midstream, indi-

cating that he has recognized what is being talked about and what the other is

or

 

-5-
seeking in his own explorations. The 3 reflects a togetherness with the other in
tentative trial and error exploration. His voite tone reflects the seriousness

and depth of his empathic grasp.

Level 9:

The S in this stage unerringly responds to the other's full range of
feelings in their exact intensity. Without hesitation, he recognizes each emo—
tional nuance and communicates an understanding of every deepest feeling. He is
completely attuned to the other's shifting emotional content; he senses each of
the other's feelings and reflects them in his words and ygigg. With sensitive
accuracy, he expands the other's hints in a full scale (though tentative) elabor-
ation of feeling or eXperience. He shows precision both in understanding and in
communication of this understanding, and eXpresses and experiences them without

hesitancy.

The measurement of nonpossessive warmth

The dimension of nonpossessive warmth or unconditional positive regard,

 

ranges from a high level where the S warmly accepts the other's experience as part
of that person without imposing conditions; to a low level where the S.evaluates
the other or his feelings, expresses dislike or disapproval, or expresses warmth
in a selective and evaluative way.

Thus, a warm positive feeling toward the other may still rate quite low
in this scale if it is given conditionally. Nonpossessive warmth for the other
mean accepting him as a person with human potentialities. It involves a nonposses-
sive caring for him as a separate person and, thus, a willingness to share equally
his joys and aSpirations or his depressions and failures. It involves valuing the
other as a person, separate from any evaluation of his behavior or thoughts. Thus,
anS can evaluate the other's behavior or his thoughts-but still rate high on

warmth if it is quite clear that his valuing of the individual as a person is

(over)

~6—
uncontaminated and unconditional. At its highest level this unconditional warmth
involves a nonpossessive caring for the other as a separate person who is allowed
to have his own feelings and experiences: a prizing of the other for himself
regardless of his behavior. Nonpossessive warmth is present when the S appreciates
such feelings or behaviors and their meaning to the other, but shows a nonpossessive
caring for the person and not for his behavior. The S's response to the other's
thoughts or behaviors is a search for their meaning or value within the other.

rather than disapproval or approval.

Levels of nonpossessive warmth

 

Level 1: .
The S is actively offering advice or giving clear negative regard. He may

be telling the patient what would be “best for him” or in other ways actively

approving or disapproving of his behavior. The S's actions make himself the

locus of evaluation; he sees himself as ggsponsible for the other.

Level 2:

The S responds mechanically to the other, indicating little positive regard
and hence little nonpossessive warmth. He may ignore the other or his feelings or
display a lack of concern or interest. The S ignores the other at times when a
nonpossessively warm response would be eXpected: he shows a complete passivity that

communicates almost unconditional lack of regard.

Level 3: ‘ ' ’
The 8 indicates a positive caring for the other, but it is a semipossessive

caring in the sense that he communicates to the other that his behavior matters to I

him. That is, the S communicates such things as "It is not all right if you act

immorally," ”I want you to get along at work,” or ”It's important to me that you

get along with the ward staff." The S sees himself as Egspgggible fog the other.

Level 4:

The S clearly communicates a very deep interest and concern for the welfare
of the other, showing a nonevaluative and unconditional warmth in almost all areas
of his functioning. Although there remains some conditionality in the more
personal and private areas, the other is given freedom to be himself and to be
liked as himself. There is little evaluation of thoughts and.behaviors. In deeply
personal areas, however, the S may be cenditional and communicate the idea that
the other may act in any way he WiShGS‘fEEEEEE that it is important to the S that
he be more mature or not regreSs in therapy or accept and like the S. In all other
areas, however, nonpdssessive warmth is communicated, The S sees himself as

responsible to the other.

Level 5:

At Level 5, the S communicates warmth without restriction. There is a deep
respect for the other's worth as a person and his rights as a free individual. At
this level the other is free to be himself even if this means that he is regressing,
being defensive, or even disliking or rejecting the S himself. At this level the
S cares deeply for the other as a person, but it does not matter to him how the
other chooses to behave. He genuinely cares for and deeply proves the other for
his human potentials, apart from evaluations of his behavior or his thoughts. He
is willing to share equally the other's joys and aspirations or depressions and
failures. The only channelling by the S may be the request that the patient com-

municate personally relevant material.

I

~8-

The measurement of S's genuineness of self-congruence

This scab is an attempt to define five degrees of S genuineness, beginning
at a very low level where the S presents a facade or defends and denies feelings;
and continuing to a high level of self-congruence where the S is freely and deeply
himself. A high level of self—congruence does not mean that the S must overtly
express his feelings but only that he does not deny them. Thus, the 5 may be
actively reflecting, interpreting, or analyzing, but this functioning must be self—
congruent, so that he is being himself in the moment rather than paying a role.
Thus the S's response must be sincere rather than phony: it must express his real
feelings or being rather than defensiveness.

1

"Being himself” simply means that at the moment the S is really whatever
his response denotes. It does not mean that the S must disclose his total self
but only that whatever he does show is a real aspect of himself, not a response f

growing out of defensiveness or a merely "role" response that has been learned ‘

and repeated.

Levels of therapist genuineness

 

Level 1:

The S is clearly defensive in the interaction.'and there is explicit
evidence of a very considerable discrepancy between what he says and what he
experiences. There may be striking contradictions in the 5's statements, the
content of his verbalization may contradict the voice qualities or nonverbal cues
(i.e. the upset S stating in a strained voice that he is ”not bothered at all”

by the other's anger.)

Level 2:
The S responds apprOpriately but in an impersonal rather than a personal
manner, giving the impression that his responses are said because they sound good

from a distance but do not eXpress what he really feels or means. There is a some-

: what contrived or rehearsed quality or air of role playing" present.

m

p
Myer“

Level 3:

The S is implicitly either defensive or impersonal, although there is no

explicit.evidence.

Level 4:

There is neither implicit nor explicit evidence of defensiveness or the

presence of a facade. The S shows no self-incongruence.

Level 5:

The S is freely and deeply himself in the relationship. He is open to
experience and feelings of all types-both pleasant and hurtful-without traces
of defensiveness or retreat into impersonalism. Although there may be contradictory
feelings, these are accepted or recognized. The S is clearly being himself in all
of his reSponses, whether they are personglly_mg§gigg§plqu_§£igg. At Level 5
the S need not express personal feelings, but whether he is giving advice,

reflecting, interpreting or sharing experiences, it is clear that he is being very

much himself, so that his verbalizations match his inner experiences.

APPENDIX C

Shortened, Summarized version of the Truax Scales
to Measure Empathy, warmth, and Genuineness

Shortened, Summarized version of the
Truax Scales for Empathy, Genuineness,
and'Warmth

Empgthy.--response to a feeling expressed by the other, and degree
of understanding of other's feelings.
Level 1
A. Completely unaware of feeling expressed by other,

B. Response inappropriate to the mood and content
of what the other is saying.

C. Bored and/or disinterested.

D. Offering unsolicited advice.

Level 2

A. Ignores rather than misunderstands feelings
expressed by other.

B. Blocking further expression of feeling by
the other.
Level 3

A. Responds accurately to obvious feelings
expressed by other.

B. 'While responds accurately to obvious feelings,
displays an inability to understand deeper feelings.
Level 4

A. Sensitivity and awareness of deeper feelings,
as yet unexpressed by the other.

B. Despite increased sensitivity, is still not entirely
with the other in the current situation or experience.

Level 5

Responds accurately to readily discernable
feelings.

Deep interest in, and awareness of less evident
feelings and experiences.

Understanding may not be completely accurate,
but misunderstandings are not anticipatory
or jarring.

Communicates difficulty of understanding
another's inner world.

Genuineness.--defensiveness versus self-congruence

Level 1

A. Clearly defensive.

Level 2
A. Rehearsed quality.

B. Manner and tone of voice are impersonal
rather than personal.

Level 3

A. Implicitly either impersonal or defensive.

Level 4

A. No implicit or explicit evidence of
impersonality or defensiveness.

B. Shows no self-incongruence.

Level 5

A. Freely and deeply himself.

:Ja Mth o ""

Level 1
A.
B.

O.

Level 2
A.
B.
C.

D.

Level 3
A.

B.

Level 4.

A.

B.

Level 5

A.

B.

C.

Giving clear negative regard.
Actively giving unasked for advice.

Communicates approval or disapproval of
other's opinions or behavior.

Mechanically responding.
Lack of concern and/or interest in the other.
Neither positive nor negative regard; indifferent.

Passive.

Shows mild interest, but not deeper caring
for the other.

Curiosity about other.

Communicates that other's Opinions and behavior
matter to him, but with conditionality.

Conditional, but definitely positive regard.

Conditionality with respect to private and
personal matters discussed by the other.

makes little attempt to evaluate the other's
thoughts, Opinions, or behavior.

Feels responsible 32, rather than for, the other.

APPENDIX D

Openness Scale

Openness Scale

Openness is defined as direct and unqualified expression of

} present feelings. These feelings may be either positive or negative.

3
1

; Thus Openness indicates a §}iillingness "to expose himself to possibel
% criticism, to expose himself to the prospect of modifying his self con-
cept, without at the same time feeling the need to defend himself as
a he is"1 in his own, or in the other's eyes. One can expose oneself
to a possible "wet blanket" reaction from the other by expressing
one's positive feelings about oneself, about one's partner, about con-
troversial situations and issues, significant others, and about mis-
cellaneous noncontroversial topics. In frankly expressing negative
feelings, one may similarly be risking loss of the other's interest,

M
regard, or affection. Butfin being Open about one's feelings, one is

Mans-c.

also making intimacy a possibility. One is making it easier for the

other to be warm, empathic, and genuine, if the other is so inclined.

The Openness continuum: Openness about self, partner, controversial
issues, significant others, and miscellaneous, noncontroversial tOpics. 1

Openness about self refers to a §fs direct and unqualified ex-
pression of present feelings about himself.
Open statements about oneself would include statements like,

"Gee, that makes me feel great", or "I feel more sure of myself

these days", or "I feel kind of confused ri ht now", or "I'm
not much good at making conversation", or " wish I was like that".

 

1Ashby, Ford, Guerney, Guerney, and Snyder. "Effects of Reflective
and Leading Psychotherapy." Psychotherapy.Research. Edited by
G. Stollak, B. Guerney, and M; Rothberg.

Openness about the partner refers to statements expressing
direct and unqualified feelings about the partner.

Such Open statements might include: "YOu know, I really

dig you", or "I think you must be very understanding", or

"I think you're being obnoxious", or "I'm sorry you feel that

way" (said unapologetically), or "I feel like you don't under-

stand what I'm trying to communicate to you".

Openness about controversial situations and issues refers to
direct and unqualified feelings about a group of people (e.g.
minorities), the state of the world, politics, the meaning of life,
Opinions about education, child rearing, abortion, religion, etc.
This category is for Openness about tOpics which imply controversy or
potential controversy. It is concerned with attitudes and Opinions.

Such Open statements would be like: "We've got to stick

out the war in Viet Nam", "I think basically man is making

progress", or "I think abortion is really the only humane way

out sometimes", or "As far as I'm concerned, the world is going
to the dogs", or "I think birth control pills are just encourag-
ing promiscuousness".

Openness about significant others refers to statements express-
ing direct and unqualified feelings about an acquaintance (including
relatives) other than the partner.

Open statements in this category would be like: "She's really

a groovy girl", or "I feel like Dr. B is really interested in

students", or "My father means well", or "He strikes me as

being very sensitive, not in the sense of being easily hurt,

but in the sense of knowing what's going on inside others",

or "God, I can't stand Anderson". or "I don't like my mother very

well".

Openness about miscellaneous, noncontroversial tOpics refers to

direct and unqualified feelings about things like football, cars, cloths,

classes, a favorite book or movie. If relative merits of one type
of literature or art over another is being discussed, statements
should be scores as openness about controversial situations and
issues, since it suggests controversy.
Such open statements might include: "I love this necklace of
yours", "dig the gorgeous weather we're having", "I really like
rock and roll", "I think baseball's a great sport", "I hate big

cars", "I don't like spectator sports", "These mini skirts are
for the birds", "Mood music turns me Off".

m - 9395‘

 

"‘AlligllllllAllES