lg SELF-DISCLOSURE IN COUNSELING GROUPS AS INFLUENCED BY STRUCTURED CONFRONTATION _ AND INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SHIRLEY JEAN HURL‘EY 19.57 I II III IIZIILIIIIII II II II I II III I [III I _i___ THESIS ”Til—is ‘1”. t6 certi “a, that the thesis entitled SELF-DISCLOSURE IN COUNSELING GROUPS AS INFLUENCED BY STRUCTURED CONFRONTATION AND INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL ., 1‘ ' presented by Shirley Jean Hurley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Dme June 5, 1967 0-169 LIBRARY MlClllstu. J ed. University I i _ ‘r_ ,_.,._.____,_ I '3" ~ ABSTRACT SELF-DISCLOSURE IN COUNSELING GROUPS AS INFLUENCED BY STRUCTURED CONFRONTATION AND INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL by Shirley Jean Hurley This is a controlled study of self-disclosure (SD) in counseling groups. Three specific relationships studied were: (a) the effectiveness of the techniques of Structured Confrontation and the IPR method of video recall in enhancing SD; (b) the relationship between successful group inter- action and SD; and (c) the relationship of positive regard by others to SD. SD is defined as the ability to express feelings or anger, affection, fear, or any emotions experienced in past or present interpersonal interaction rather than denying of distorting the feelings as in self-concealment. Most psycho— therapeutic endeavors have considered SD an agent for discovery of the source of personal conflicts, but there is increasing interest in SD as a crucial element in mental health. Prominent among theorists who emphasize the realis- tic and justified fear of the consequence of being "really known" by others in society are Jourard and Mowrer. They emphasize the necessity for greater openness to prevent. mental illness. Their theories would suggest that the degree of openness that members experience with one another is a critical element in successful group counseling. Shirley Jean Hurley From a pOpulation of graduate students, mostly majors in counseling and guidance, enrolled in different sections of a group counseling procedures course given in two com- munities, a sample of 50 subjects was selected. The sub- jects were randomly assigned to groups and these groups were randomly assigned to treatments. Three different treatments were applied to three groups in each community by two experienced group leaders. All groups received the tra- ditional treatment which consisted of all the leadership methods, instructions, and readings normally employed by the two leaders without introducing special techniques. Two groups received only traditional treatment (TR). In addition to the traditional treatment, two groups received the Struc- tured Confrontation treatment (SC) which employed a specific method of having all group members discuss their perceptions of each other. Two groups received the IPR method of video recall (VR) which, in addition to Traditional and Structured Confrontation treatments, involved these groups in observa- tion of the video playback of their confrontation in the presence of trained IPR "interrogators" who stimulated further exploration of feelings. All groups had ten three hour weekly sessions plus a five hour experimental treatment. Measurement instruments used were a slightly modified version of the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (JSD), the Hurley Self-Disclosure Ratings (HSDR) an instrument designed for the study, and ratings of SD by group members of each Shirley Jean Hurley other on a Final Questionnaire (DDR). The Final Question- naire also elicited several perceptions related to positive and negative regard of members within groups. If the accelerating methods of VR and SC had proved successful in enhancing SD in these groups over TR groups, they would have been ranked as Best, Middle, and Worst, respectively. However, the randomization of group member— ship assignments resulted in dissimilar initial groupings, and these between—group differences exercised a pronounced influence throughout the experimental period. These between— group differences, the failure of the measurement devices to discriminate effectively between groups, and the limited time exposure to the technique of IPR, made it necessary to con- clude the accelerating techniques were not adequately tested in this research. It_was both leaders' subjective impres- sions, however, that the special techniques effectively pro— moted within-group progress. When the data was analysed according to leaders' rankings of Worst, Middle, and Best groups, there was modest statistical evidence that these rankings were related to SD. Strong statistical support was found for the relationship between SD and positive regard by others. Jourard's Self-Disclosure Questionnaire correlated negatively with all other measures of SD used in the study, and its validity must be questioned. The findings, neverthe- less, offer support for Jourard's theoretical formulations regarding SD as a powerful variable in interpersonal relation- ships. SELFnDISCLOSURE IN COUNSELING GROUPS AS INFLUENCED BY STRUCTURED CONFRONTATION AND INTERPERSONAL PROCESS RECALL By Shirley Jean Hurley A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology College of Education 1967 it“. J‘I 1 i 9P '3 \a r; “in I. '. 7.? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to my committee members for their gift of time and sincere involvement during my entire doctoral program. Each one has contributed uniquely. Professor Jay Artis stimulated a very rewarding interest in socio- logical theory by his advice and also by his own enthusiasm. Professor George Barnett stimulated my interest in completely new areas and aroused an intellectual curiosity that I hope will never be satisfied. Professor Lorraine Shepard not only provided invaluable academic advice but gave emotional support at points of crisis along the way that were more helpful than she may fully appreciate. My major professor, Norman Kagan, provided excellent supervision and inspired genuine enthusiasm about group counseling. He also gave far more time and involvement than his academic role required by his active participation in this research. The group members of this study were involved in an emotional encounter that the word subjects cannot encompass. The detachment often conveyed by the descriptions of group members in the research does not express the deeper personal feelings experienced by the group leaders. My children, Jean, Janet, and Jay, have survived their mother's academic involvement. My husband, John, not only endured, but gave more help, encouragement, and emotional support than I have words to describe. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . ., . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . V LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii Chapter I. GENERAL STATEMENT . . . . . . ._ . 1 Specific Problems . . . . . . . . . 2 Definition of Terms . . . . . . 3 Delimitations of the Study . . . . 5 Basic Assumptions . . .- . . . . . . 7 Basic Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Need for the Study . . . . . . . . 9 II. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . ., 11 Literature Related to Self-Disclosure . . . ll Literature Related to Structured Con- frontation O O O I O O I O O O 0 17 Literature Related to the Use of Video Techniques . . . . . . . . . .- . 19 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . 22 Subjects . . . . . . . . .4 . . 22 Design . . .- . . . . . 23 Description of Leader Qualifications . . . 27 Description of Experimental Treatments . . 27 Measurement . . . ., . 32 Relationship of Measures to Hypotheses . . 36 IV. Results 0 u o ' o o o o o o o o o 0 38 Results Concerning Hypothesis I . . . . . Al Results Concerning Hypothesis II . . . 48 Results Concerning Hypothesis III . . 55 Results Concerning Hypothesis IV. . . . 56 iii Chapter Page V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Discussion of_Hypothesis I . . . . . . 57 Discussion of Hypothesis II . . . . . . 63 Discussion of Hypotheses III and IV . . . 67 Implications for Further Research . . . . 69 VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7U APPENDICES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 78 ' iv Table U‘I-twm 10. ll. l2. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Analysis of variance of age differences in groups . . .. . . Age of subjects by groups . Experimental design Research schedule . . Product-moment correlations between all self-disclosure measures . . ., . . Average reliability of HSDR ratings using Hoyt's analysis of variance . . ._ .- Reliability of the HSDR average ratings using Hoyt‘s analysis of variance . Analysis of covariance of total JSD scores Group means and standard deviations of JSD total scores . . . ., . . . JSD target category group scores Analysis of covariance by treatments of HSDR group ratings . . . . . . .‘ . Means and standard deviations of HSDR group ratings . . . . . . . Analysis of covariance by treatments of HSDR self-ratings . . . . ., Group means of HSDR self ratings . . Analysis of variance by treatments of DDR . Means and standard deviations of DDR . . Page 23 23 2A 26 38 40 NO 41 AZ ‘43 AN 45 A5 A6 A6 47 Table Page 17. Mean ratings of group experience items . . . . A7 18. Analysis of covariance by W.M.B. of JSD total scores . . . . . . . . . . A8 19. Means and standard deviations of JSD total scores . . . . . . . . . . . . A9 20. JSD target category group scores . . . . . . A9 21. Analysis of covariance by W.M.B. of HSDR group ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . SO 22. Means and standard deviations of HSDR group ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 23. Analysis of covariance of HSDR discrepancy between self and group perception . . . . . 51 24. Means of HSDR Discrepancy between self and group perception . . .- . . . . 52 25. Analysis of covariance by W.M.B. of HSDR self ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 26. Analysis of variance by W.M.B. of group experience items . . . . . . .1 . 53 27. Group mean ratings on group experience items . . 53 28. Analysis of variance by W.M.B. of DDR . . . . SA 29. Means and standard deviations on DDR . . . . SA vi LIST OF APPENDICES AppEl’ldiX Page A. Instructions for Group Procedure . . . . . 79 B. Class Materials 0 o o ‘ o o : o I o o o o ' 8)" C. Jourard Self—Disclosure Questionnaire (JSD) . . 89 D. Hurley Self~Disclosure Ratings (HSDR) . . . .. 95 E. Final Questionnaire and Direct Openness Ratings (DDR) . . . . . . . . . . .-103 F. Illustrative Comments of Group Members . . . 108 G. Illustrations of Typical Group Leader Interventions . . . . . . . . . 113 H. Thesis Raw Data . . .‘ . . . . . .. . . 116 I. Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 vii CHAPTER I GENERAL STATEMENT This investigation is concerned with the relationship of self-disclosure to progress in counseling and attempts to ascertain if the techniques of structured confrontation (SC) and the Interpersonal Process Recall method of video recall (VR) can be effectively used to increase self- disclosure (SD), or being more honest and open, in small group interaction in a pOpulation of graduate students major- ing in counseling. The freeing of inhibitions about expos- ing feelings such as hostility, affection and insecurity or the augmentation of self-disclosure (SD) in counseling relationships is believed to enhance general competence in interpersonal relationships. The need for students in counseling, psychology, social work, and psychiatry to become aware of their own problems, especially those interfering adversely with inter- personal communication, seems imperative if they are to function optimally as helping persons. Some educational and psychological training institutions are presently attempting to expedite the growth.of student's self— awareness by small group interaction-methods. Such an effort is being made at Michigan State University in IX) Education 8160, Group Procedures in Guidance, a course primarily intended to provide counseling students with an opportunity for self—discovery and growth. The subjects used in this research were a sample of this population. Specific Problems Three specific relationships are studied in this research. They are described as follows: 1. This study is concerned with the relationship of group counseling techniques to the enhancement of self— disclosure in counseling groups. Various techniques can be used by leaders to provide a maximum inducement to free uninhibited discussion. In addition to all the usual or traditional techniques that would normally be provided by group leaders this study employs two specific techniques, Structured Confrontation (SC) and the IPR method of Video Recall (VR). On the basis of theory, prior research, and a pilot study, these techniques are expected to accelerate group movement by providing greater stimuli for openness or self-disclosure (SD). 2. The present study investigates the relationship between self—disclosure and meaningful group interaction. Groups which have the most members actively engaging in self-discovery and in understanding and honestly inter- acting with other members are expected to have a more intense or more meaningful emotional experience than those who inter- act at a more superficial conventional level. 3. The relationship of individual openness to popu- larity within the group will also be investigated. Prior research suggests that within counseling groups a relation- ship should exist between positive regard by other group members with openness and negative regard by other group members with self-concealment. Definition of Terms The definitions and abbreviations of the special terms used in this study are given as follows: Self-disclosure (SD) refers to the ability to express or describe to others feelings of anger, affection, fear, doubts, or any emotions being experienced in interpersonal interactions. Verbalizing insights concerning the relation- ship of past experiences to present behavior could be regarded as self—disclosing. However, the motivation in expressing such insights should be taken into consideration. Counseling students may be more able to discuss personal problems in terms of personality theories than to admit emotional reactions being currently experienced in a group interaction. In this case, describing insights would be a defense and not constitute self-disclosure. Although expla- nations of the learned origins of behavior are not essential for self-disclosure, it does depend on the ability to be aware of emotional reactions. Many people are well defended against experiencing feelings and reactions and such persons find it difficult to be self—disclosing even to themselves. Openness is used in this research to have the same meaning as self-disclosing and the terms should be regarded as virtually synonymous. Self-Concealment is regarded as the opposite of self- disclosure. A person who is self-concealing is defended against recognition of his own feelings and motivations. His behavior seems directed toward acting in accord with some desired life-role to the extent he deceives himself and others as to his real feelings and reactions. Conventional as used in this research refers to be- havior which seems oriented to conform to a social code which restricts interpersonal communication largely to acceptable verbal eXpressions rather than direct or honest statements of feelings. The inhibitions of expressions of anger, sexual feelings, or anxiety about discussing personal inadequacy, often restrict social communication to a very impersonal level. In this research conventional refers to personal interactions which are limited to this rather impersonal, safe way of relating to others. Structured Confrontation (SC) refers to a specific method of having all group members discuss their percep- tions of each other. It is one of the acceleration tech— niques employed in this study and will be more fully described in Chapter III. Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) refers to a method used to accelerate counseling progress in which counselees View video-tape play-backs of their interview. Interrogators stimulate the reliving of the experience by encouraging the clients to recall their feelings and try to express these more fully. This method will be more fully described in Chapter II. Video Recall (VR) refers to the specific method in which the IPR approach was adapted to the group process for this research. It was one of the acceleration techniques employed in this study and will be more fully described in Chapter III. Traditional Treatment (TR) refers to the group leader- ship methods normally used by the personnel involved in this study. It will be more fully described in Chapter III. Delimitation of the Study This research is concerned with a sample of graduate students majoring in counseling and guidance who were enrolled in a course, 8160, Group Procedures in Counseling, through Michigan State University. Certain unique factors about the population sampled need to be taken into account in any attempts to generalize from this study. All subjects. had four years of college as a minimum. Most were working toward a M.A. degree with two exceptions in which students were working toward the Ph.D. degree. The amount of prior knowledge about personality theory and the counseling process varied considerably as many of the subjects had not yet taken any theory courses in their programs while others possessed considerable s0phistication. However, in general O\ the sample must be regarded as differing from the general pOpulation. The subjects of this research may also differ from other group members on the dimension of involvement in the group process, as in addition to experiencing it, they were learning methods to use as future counselors. Their motivation to do well in a course that was an inte- gral part of their graduate program also may have intro- duced a Special effect that would not be typical of other samples. Although the subjects were graded on the basis of written assigned topics rather than on the group inter- action, the concern for academic achievement may have had an impact on group process. Ability to generalize from this sample may also be limited by the geographical area. The majority of the subjects had been reared in the midwest, and few of them were from large urban areas. These two factors may have accounted for a frequent emphasis on religious values, rather conforming social values, and even conservative political views. A sample drawn from a different pOpula- tion of graduate students might vary considerably from the sample in this research. The amount of time involved for this study posed other limitations. The length of the academic term limited the group counseling process to ten weeks. Two problems due to this restriction seem apparent. (1) Having only ten group sessions made it difficult to adequately test the eXperi- mental variables. The IPR and SC techniques may need considerable more exposure time in order to have maximum impact. (2) Time-limited counseling procedures cannot be readily generalized to less structured counseling pro- cedures as the time limit itself may have an important effect on group interaction. Another important delimitation of this research is that it is concerned with only two methods of accelerating the counseling process. A survey of the research literature concerned with psychotherapeutic techniques suggests that a wide range of methods have been employed in various attempts to accelerate group movement. These include such methods as psychodrama, hypnosis, marathons, use of drugs, etc. This study makes no attempt to compare effectiveness of the IPR or SC method with other methods but is only con- cerned with the attempt to ascertain if the two specific techniques can be demonstrated to be effective. Basic Assumptions Basic assumptions which underly all research investi- gations into human behavior are equally relevant to this research. These include such assumptions: that behavior can be measured and that behavior can be experimentally manipulated. In addition, this research assumes that it is theoretically possible to meaningfully assess variables such as group movement and quality of group interaction. Specific assumptions made in this research include the following: (1) It is important that students majoring in CO counseling become aware of their own styles of interpersonal communication in order to become effective counselors. This research is in no way concerned with documenting or disput- ing this assumption, but accepts that it may have validity. Therefore, methods which will more effectively increase skill in interpersonal communications should be useful to the field of counseling education. (2) It is further assumed that there is value in the ability to be self-disclosing in terms of improving interpersonal communication: The general philos0phy underlying all methods used with the groups in this research was oriented toward increasing self—disclosure. Further elaboration of this assumption will be made in Chapter II. (3) Another basic assumption to this study is that such group counseling process can be accelerated. In spite of previous research, the validity of these Specific assumptions may be open to question. However, it is beyond the magnitude of this study to attempt to defend or offer additional support for them. Basic Hypotheses Hypothesis I The techniques of SC and VR will provide greater opportunity for openness or self-disclosure of SC and VR groups over TR groups which are given no Special treatment beyond traditional methods. Hypothesis II A positive relationship exists between amount of self-disclosure or openness and progress of~a group to a more intense or meaningful group interaction, and regard- less of the success of the experimental treatments, groups having the higher proportion of open people will be viewed by themselves and the group leader as having the most successful group experience. If the techniques of SC and VR prove effective as predicted, Hypothesis I and Hypothesis II would be the same. Hypothesis III There will be a positive correlation between group perception of members as most popular or valuable and open- ness or SD. Hypothesis IV There will be a positive correlation between group perception of members as least popular or least valuable and self-concealment. The Need for the Study Group approaches to personal adjustment counseling offer the professional counselor the opportunity to enhance the interpersonal competence of far more persons than does the traditional individualized method. The presently wide- spread recognition of the potential benefits of effective group counseling procedure is apparent throughout the entire lO spectrum of counseling and psychotherapeutic professions. Somewhat like the situation with individualized counseling, however, current group treatment practices lack a solid research foundation. Self-disclosure is prominent among the variables relating to the effectiveness of counseling or psycho— therapeutic endeavors, as indicated by the writings of Fromm, Jourard, and Bach, among others. The present re- search design related to the overall needs of the field of counseling by both investigating the relevancy of this important variable to group counseling and by ascertaining if two more recently identifiable techniques for accelerat— ing the counseling process, IPR Video Recall and Structured Confrontation, can be confirmed as valuable methods to use in rather short-term counseling groups. Thus, this inves- tigation-promises to further our understanding of the impor- tant group counseling situation by providing evidence con~ cerning the relevance of a salient interpersonal variable, self-disclosure, to this process and to also supply evidence of the efficiency or limitations of two important recent innovations aimed at accelerating the counseling process. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE Three areas of theory and research related to the Specific Problems of this investigation will be reviewed. They are as follow: (1) Theory and research relating to self-disclosure as an important_dimension in interpersonal communication is considered since it has relevance to the question of relationship between SD and group progress. (2) Theory and research which relate to the use of Struc- tured Confrontation as an accelerating technique in group counseling will be considered. (3) Theory and research which relate to the use-of video as a technique of acceler- ating counseling progress will be considered. Literature Related to Self-Disclosure Historically most psychotherapeutic endeavors have been concerned with eliminating personality disorders and improving interpersonal relationships by efforts to help clients verbalize their conflicts and anxieties. Many methods attempting to discover the origins of psychological problems have been utilized such as free association, free imagery, hypnosis, and psychodrama, among others (Wolberg, 1954). While it seems evident that all these techniques do rely mainly on verbalization, this self—disclosure has been 11 12 primarily regarded as the only available agent which could be employed to eventually arrive at the origin of the prob- lem. Once the source of conflict had become discovered the insight alone, according to Freudian (Freud, 1964) and neo- Freudian theories, or the subsequent relearning possible according to theories such as Dollard and Miller's (Dollard and Miller, 1950), were considered the primary factors in affecting change. Recognition of the importance of self- disclosure alone as constituting a crucial variable in meaningful interpersonal relationships was not fully appre- ciated by traditional theories of psychotherapy. The major impetus for interest in the concept of self-disclosure has been contributed by Jourard and his col— leagues. In The Trangparent Self (Jourard, 196A) he notes that psychologists have generally failed to question the conventional mode of interpersonal relationships which encourages people to conceal their real beings rather than reveal themselves to others. Indeed, self-concealment is regarded as the most natural state for grown men. People who reveal themselves in simple honesty are sometimes seen as childish, crazy, or naive, as for example in Dostoyevsky's novel, The Idiot, or Melville's Billy Budd (Jourard, 196H, p. iii). Riesman and Fromm are prominent among writers con- cerned with the problems of alienation in society. Social systems are dependent on a great deal of structure, and there seems general agreement that social disorganization. results if the members of society do not play the necessary l3 roles involved in these structures. However, this role playing may also contribute to alienation. Riesman (1950) speaks in terms of the lonely crowd and Fromm (1955) is concerned about the senseless conformity in modern society that leads to man's alienation from himself. In Goffman's analysis of social functioning (1959) he uses the analogue of the theatrical performance, pointing out that social roles can be likened to performances before an audience. All of these theories suggest that people may learn to relate to each other in terms of roles to such a degree that it is difficult to know the individuals playing the roles. This seems true not only of vocational roles but of social, marital, and family roles also.) Jourard's thesis is that people can only become less alienated by disclosing themselves to each other. According to his theory one may exchange one's mask for authentic being by becoming self-disclosing to significant others. Self-concealment is viewed by Jourard as both a symptom and a cause of unhealthy personality adjustment. The greater the necessity for self-concealment the greater must be the struggle to avoid becoming known by others. This alienation from one's real self which results from self-concealment not only arrests one's growth as a person but makes a farce out of relationships with others, and Jourard thinks this has rather direct implications for society as-a whole. Jourard has undertaken a research approach to self- disclosure (SD) by employing a questionnaire measure which 14 is part of the present study. This measure, The Self— Disclosure Questionnaire (JSD) has been employed in many published investigations by Jourard (1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963) and others (Melikian, 1962, and Fitzgerald, 1963). These studies deal with SD as-a dependent variable as it relates to sex, age, race, religion, culture, marital status, degree of intimacy, etc. Some of the findings of this questionnaire approach indicated that white subjects were.higher in SD than negroes, females were higher in SD than males in most samples, and married subjects revealed more to spouse and less to other target persons than unmarried subjects. American subjects scored higher on SD than subjects from Puerto Rico and England, and Jewish males were higher in SD than male sub- jects of other religious denominations. The research findings of Jourard and his colleagues reinforced their belief that their interest in SD waS* warranted. Jourard makes the following statement. I have little doubt that self-disclosure is a crucial variable in the broad field of inter- personal relationships, which all of us are seeking the better to understand. In the history of our discipline, there has been only incidental attention paid to self-disclosure, with no direct study of this behavior as a research variable in its own right. Mowrer strongly supports Jourard's view of SD as a crucial variable. Mowrer relates Jourard's ideas to a critique of Wolpe, Dollard and Miller, and Freud (Mowrer, 196“). According to this critique, Freud and his followers 15 held the theory that psychopathology was due to fear of an eruption of repressed instinctual forces whereas Jourard emphasizes the fear of one's deviant secrets becoming known to others. Jourard is thus emphasizing the social cause of problems rather than an instinctual cause. Also, according to Mowrer's critique, Wolpe and other behaviorists are interested only in symptoms and their removal by condition- ing principles. They feel that verbalization and confession of problems are irrelevant, and they have seemingly little concern for the social origins of problems. Dollard and Miller also emphasize that neurosis is learned and that it can be unlearned by the same principles by which it was taught. They would feel that verbalization was a necessary part of the re-learning process, however. Mowrer states that there would be agreement by Jourard with both Wolpe and Dollard and Miller about the importance of learning. However, their theories differ as to what constitutes neurosis which leads to divergent notions as to what should be unlearned. Jourard insists that neurotic suffering is , not just dread of the unleashing of repressed material but based on a realistic and justied fear of the consequences of being really known by others. Mowrer, like Jourard, believes the crucial element in mental health to be the degree of Openness and communion that a person has with his fellow men. The organization of a variety of special groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Synanon, and Recovery, Inc. among others, is viewed by l6 Mowrer as resulting from the felt need for openness and com- munion. Self-disclosure to others is thus viewed by Mowrer as having considerable therapeutic value. Prior studies of the role of SD in small groups have been conducted by Yalom (1966) and Query (1964). Yalom has investigated innovations in group psychotherapy concerned with enhancing the self-awareness of psychiatric residents at Stanford University (Yalom, 1965). Inra more recent study, Yalom (1966), using Jourard's instrument, found that SD was positively correlated with the popularity of group members. Query's interest in SD in groups was consideration of it as an independent variable. He predicted a relation- ship between the candid disclosure of personal problems and feelings and attraction to a group (Query, 1964). The out— come of his experiment partially supported his assumption. High self-disclosers liked their groups better than members who were low self-disclosers. This study suggests support for the same underlying assumption of this research. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the increase of self-disclosure has positive value. For example, Peres (1947) found that successfully treated group psycho- therapy patients had made almost twice as many personal references during treatment as did the non-benefitted patients. Braaten (1958) found that more successful individ— ual therapy cases showed a greater increase in self- references, especially in terms of references to the private self. Truax, Tomlinson and van der Veen (1961) presented findings indicating that successful patients manifested more self-exploration and more SD during psychotherapy than did less successful patients. Similar results were obtained by Truax and Carkhuff (1965) in a study concerned with the degree of self-eXploration and transparency during group psychotherapy. Thus, there is some research evidence that the group process may be more beneficial to members when SD is in— creased. There is also evidence in the literature of a growing concern with SD as an independent variable affect- ing counseling progress. Literature Related to Structured Conf?ontation Interest in the use of the experimental procedure called structured confrontation (SC) derives from Marathon Psychotherapy as conducted by Bach. An important part of the typical Marathon experience is a terminal phase "feed- back" period (Bach, 1966, p. 1000). This is a method of having all group members discuss their perceptions of each other in a prescribed manner. Bach believes that utilizing this procedure in more conventional groups early in the group process seems to reduce resistance to expressingw feelings. Bach suggests that several factors seem to be operating to explain why the structured confrontation technique leads from a more superficial to a deeper level of interaction. First of all, the members become aware of their visibility 18 and begin to appreciate that others have far more awareness of their defensive manners than they had previously sus- pected. Secondly, they have the opportunity to seeing how this behavior influences others. Thirdly, in addition to the feedback each member gets about himself, the forced confrontation makes observations possible about the con- fronters. The member who can only respond to others in highly stereotyped, conventional ways is exposed if he gives all members a similar message. Also exposed are consistent negative defenses as well as any defenses Operating so rigidly that they interfere with the perception of others. Bach also states that considerable anxiety seems to be aroused by this technique. However, it may be less intense when all members go through the same process than when the decision to receive feedback from others is made a matter of choice. The volunteer approach often results in only a couple of people requesting feedback from others. If the other group members then fail to volunteer as they become uncertain about the process, the original volunteers have no basis for comparison of their feedback and may feel very exposed and angry. The group's knowledge that they are all going through the experience together seems to reduce this hurt and destructive anxiety and create feelings of rapport and group intimacy which seems to be the factor in acceler- ating the group movement. 19 Literature Related to the Use of Video Techniques ’ The use of video recall as a means of accelerating the counseling process has been given much attention at Michigan State University. At present there is much on going research with a specific video method termed the Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) technique. Some evidence exists for the effec- tiveness of the technique in accelerating progress in indi- vidual counseling. (Kagan, 1964, and Kagan, Krathwahl and Miller, 1963). The technique in stimulated recall methodology pro- vides participatns in a diadic encounter with maximum cues for reliving the experience through the video-tape playback. The participants are encouraged by interrogators at signifi- cant point to recall their feelings in regard to the behavior being observed. There is considerable evidence that this procedure can lead to a more complete expression of emotions and reactions and be a valuable stimulus to the counseling process. Using this technique with a group in a pilot study (see Appendix I) seemed to not only enhance the free expres- sion by each individual but to affect the atmosphere and total emotional involvement of the group interaction. As well as eXperiencing their own feelings and reactions more deeply, group members seem to-increase their understanding and empathy of others as they observe them in the IPR situation (Kagan, 1967). 20 Stoller and Bach have used video feedback with groups (Each, 1966). Stoller (1966) has employed a number of methods of utilizing television in combination with group therapy including the use of video tape with groups for "focused feedback" of significant aspects of their manner of interacting. Robinson (1966) used Stoller's method of "focused feedback," which encompasses the therapist's directed comments and interpretations to patients of their behavioral patterns as they watch themselves, with groups at Camarillo State Hospital. Preliminary results, which were not well described, supposedly indicated that "focused feedback" accelerated behavioral and attitude change and seemed to intensify group interaction. The "focused feedback".used by Stoller and Robinson differs from the IPR technique used for the video recall in that direct interpretations are infrequently made by the IPR interrogators. Instead the individuals are directed to try to recall feelings other than those previously expressed as they observe the recall. The burden of self discovery, and honest exploration and discussion of feelings is more on the group member than the interrogator. The IPR technique is thus used much more as a stimulus for self evaluation than a diagnostic evaluation by the group leader. It should be noted also that the interrogator is specially trained for his role, and he comes into a video-recall situation as an. outside expert. The possibility of the IPR technique having a different impact than the "focused feedback" technique seems high. Summary Literature related to the specific problems indi- cates evidence of growing interest in consideration of SD as an independent variable, but no previous attempts have been made to specifically relate group movement to amount of SD. Although Each has used the SD technique extensively, its effectiveness has not been adequately demonstrated in controlled research. The specific IPR method has not pre- viously been used in controlled research in group counseling. Thus, the specific problems posed for this investigation seem to be unanswered in the literature. CHAPTER III EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES Subjects Four groups each having eight members and two groups. having nine members constituted the sample.' Three groups were selected randomly from the total number of students enrolling for Education 816C, Group Procedures in Guidance, and three groups were randomly composed from those enroll- ing for the same course given at an off campus setting in Jackson, Michigan. There were three females in each of the campus groups to five or six males, three females to five males in one Jackson group, and four females and four males in the remaining two Jackson groups. In the campus groups the ratio of married members to unmarried was either three to eight or four to nine while in the Jackson popula- tion all subjects were married with one exception. An analysis of variance indicated that the age differ- ence between the two sampels was significant but that there was no significant age difference between groups within samples (see Table 1). The age distribution of the members of the various groups is given in Table 2. 22 23 TABLE 1.--Ana1ysis of variance of age difference in groups. Source SS df MS F Samples 799.38 1 699.38 6.55* Treatments 27.15 2 13.58 .13 Interaction 154.66 2 17.33 .72 Error 4701.31 44 106.85 TOTAL 5582.5 49 *p.<.05 TABLE 2.—-Age of subjects by groups. Range Mean Age Median Age Campus: 1 22-31 25.13 23.5 2 22-46 27.89 25.0 3 20-46 25.78 23.0 Jackson: _ 1 25-56 37.50 32.0 2 22-49 35.11 33.5 3 24-71 34.88 29.0 Two groups were given what is termed the traditional treatment (referred to also as TR groups); two groups were given the traditional treatment plus the structured con- frontation technique (referred to also as SC groups); and 24 two groups received the traditional plus structured con— frontation plus the IPR video recall (referred to also as VR groups). The Jackson groups were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments as well as the campus groups at the end of the fifth session. Leader A was involved with all three experimental conditions with the off campus groups, and Leader B, the experimentor, was involved with all three experimental conditions on campus (Table 3). TABLE 3.——Experimenta1 design. Leader A Leader B (Jackson) (MSU) TR groups (traditional treatment) * * SC groups (traditional plus structured confrontation treatment) * * VR groups (traditional plus structured confrontation plus video-recall treatment) * * *N = 8 or 9 in each group; Total N = 50 All groups received identical instructions concerning course goals, academic reading assignments, assigned papers, and measurement instruments (see Appendices A, B, and C). After the initial class session the groups were conducted as actual counseling groups with no lecturing or academic discussions. Group members were asked to discuss any ques- tions or issues regarding the academic assignments 25 independently of the group meetings. The university required academic grades were assigned solely on the basis of a mid- term and final paper and not on the group interaction. All groups met for the same total amount of contact time. Each group met for three hours weekly for a period of ten weeks plus one extended five hour treatment in the middle of the academic quarter. The leaders met with the groups approximately half of the time during each week, but were present for the entire extended sessions. The research schedule appears in Table 4. All six groups had a great deal in common in terms of general philosophy of the leaders as to the goals for the groups, the academic assignments, time, and the traditional group orientation which was common to all groups (see TR treatment). The physical environments of the group meetings were different for the two samples. The campus sample met at the group leader's home where the atmosphere was quite informal. It was not possible to find a similar situation for the Jackson groups, and they met in separate class rooms of the Jackson Community College. However, all groups were exposed to the same physical environment for the extended experimental treatment sessions as these were all held in Erickson Hall one weekend. In order to eliminate any effects due to the unusual situation of being exposed to video treat— ment with the necessary lights, cameras, etc., all groups were told that video tapes were being made, and all groups Spent some of the extended session time in the video room. 26 TABLE 4.--Research schedule. Session Groups Time 1 Same for all groups. Instructions and organization. All groups administered Jourard's Questionnaire (JSD). 3 hrs. 2 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. 3 hrs. 3 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. 3 hrs. 4 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. 3 hrs. 5 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. Administration of the Hurley Self—Disclosure Ratings (HSDR) last part of session. Groups assigned to treatment. 3 hrs. Extended TR groups: Traditional Group Interaction; Session SC groups: SC Treatment; VR groups: VR Treatment 5 hrs. 6 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. 3 hrs. 7 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. 3 hrs. 8 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. 3 hrs. 9 Same for all groups. Traditional group interaction. Administration of post (HSDR) 3 hrs. 10 Same for all groups. Review of group experience. Administration of post (JSD) and Final Questionnaire. Discussion of Research. 3 hrs. m \1 Description of Leader Qualifications Leader A, a male, has a Ph.D. in counseling education and has a broad background of experience in individual and group counseling. He is currently a professor at Michigan State University in the area of counseling and guidance. Leader B, a female, has a M.A. degree in psychiatric social work and has nearly completed a Ph.D. in counseling educa- tion. She has had a broad background in individual counsel- ing and has more recently gained intensive experience in group counseling. Description of Experimental Treatments This investigation attempted to assess the usefulness of the special techniques of SC and VR, separately and when used in combination, to enhance the traditional group counseling method. The treatments TR, SC, and VR are de- scribed more fully as follows: Traditional Group Treatment (TR) Two groups of the six included in the design were ran— domly designated to receive the TR treatment only. Tradi- tional treatment means employing the leadership techniques and group method that would normally be used for the 816C groups by the particular leaders involved in this research without the introduction of any special techniques. This method can be generally described as an active directive attempt by the leader to help group members diagnose their problems in interpersonal relationships, to become aware of 28 the motivations of their behavior, be able to more freely experience their emotions and feelings, and to find new, more constructive ways of handling these (see Appendix A). These two groups were given the same instructions as to the purpose of the group to help them become more self-disclosing, honest, and transparent in interpersonal communication (see Appendix A) and the same academic assign— ments, etc. (see Appendix B) as the special treatment groups. The amount of time that TR groups spent together was also the same as the other groups in the design as the TR groups met together for an extended period to match the SC and VR treatments. The group leaders were involved in the same efforts to direct the TR group interaction toward a deeper level of personal involvement as the others. There are a number of similarities in the two leader- ship styles and also certain differences. The difference in sex and experience may be sufficient to result in signifi— cant leader by group interaction effects. However, these differences may be partially offset by the fact that one leader has been supervised by the other and both acknowledge general agreement as to philosophy and method. Both approach group counseling with a conviction of having special knowl- edge and skills to contribute to improving interpersonal relationships and are initially very active and direct (see Appendix G) in imparting these to the group. As the group members learn to use effective techniques with each other they are given more responsibility and the leaders become 29 increasingly passive. Both leaders tend to work toward a focus of the here and now interaction among group members and stress their becoming increasingly aware of their inner feelings. One leader probably spends considerably more time on "out of the group" problems than the other, but since this material is usually related to behavior in the group whenever possible, the end results should be very similar. Thus, it was expected that all six groups would have rather similar experiences in terms of leadership and direction except for the additional treatments given to the SC and VR groups. Structured Confrontation Group Treatment (SC) In addition to the traditional group treatment, structured confrontation (SC) was.employed with four groups. As used in this research this technique refers to a method of facilitating "feedback" to each other. Each group mem- ber in turn is asked to become the focus as the other mem— bers and the leader, one by one, address to him their negative and positive feelings or impressions. As each person receives the feedback by the various members in turn, he is asked to be temporarily rather passive and not to respond verbally except for clarification of some point. He is asked to hold his feeling and responses for the later group discussion. Thus, all members in turn become the focus of the group until each member has had the opportunity of receiving feedback by all other members. Group members 30 are asked to share their perceptions and feelings of each other without concern for apparent rationality. Although some members may protest that they have only positive or negative feelings in regard to other members and having to state both seems forced and "phony," they are asked to express both. The purpose of this insistence on both positive and negative feedback for all members is crucially related to the intention of accelerating the interaction among group members. They are pushed in effect to communi- cate with each other in an unconventional mode. It was planned for this confrontation to occur in a single extended session as this seems to highlight or point up the procedure as a unique part of the total group exper- ience. For this research it was necessary to limit the time for each person to give his feedback to the individual who was the focus of attention to two minutes. This was done somewhat arbitrarily to match SC groups with the VR groups as the VR groups were involved with the structured confron- tation on video recall and the time limit was essential in that treatment.* All extended sessions lasted five hours. Since the SC group would not need the entire period for that procedure *Although this time limit may tend to inhibit spon- taneity and a fuller expression of feelings, it also forces individuals to "select" what they want to say and in effect highlights their styles of communication. 31 the rest of the session was planned to be spent on group discussion of the new material that had been presented. Thus the term, structured confrontation, when used in this research, refers to a highly specific activity which was Similarly introduced at the same point of time into four groups. For the two SC groups, this procedure con— stituted the experimental treatment. The other two had VR added to this procedure. Video Recall Group Treatment (VR) In addition to the traditional group treatment and structured confrontation two groups had video recall of the confrontation-session added. The technique involved of Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) was used by trained interrogators (see Chapter II). Immediately following one member giving feedback to another member, the entire group observed the video playback. The playback was interrupted at various points by the one who received the feedback or by the interrogator in an attempt to explore at a deeper level the feelings being experienced. Two interrogators were used, but they matched the time and sequence for both groups so that both VR groups received identical treatment by the interrogators. This technique was intended to provide the members of the VR groups not only with confrontation by receiving other member's perception, but also visual confrontation with themselves as they reacted to other members. The 32 entire five hour extended session was scheduled for this technique. Measurement Three measurement techniques were used for this study. These are described as follows: Jourard's Self Disclosure Question— naire (JSD) (See Appendix C) The JSD has been used in numerous published studies including one group study, and it is currently being adapted and utilized in other on-going research with groups. Jourard reports, "Satisfactory internal reliability has been demonstrated and that odd-even coefficients for larger sub- totals run in the 80's and 90's" (Jourard, 1964, p. 176). He also states that the method has some validity but is sub— ject to the usual problems of personality measures based on self—report. For this research, the questionnaire was used without major change except for the target—persons categories. Target person refers to the one receiving the self—disclosure. One category, Parent, was used instead of the two of Father and Mother since there was no plan to investigate male female differences within groups or toward target categories. For the same reason the two categories of Male friend and Female friend were merged into one category of Best friend. The target category of group was added. There is a precedent for this latter innovation in the work being done by Yalom 33 at Stanford with this scale in groups (Yalom, personal com— munication, 1966). Query (1964, p. 109) used a Shortened form of Jourard's scale in a study of SD as an independent variable in group psychotherapy. He reported a correlation of ratings made of each subject after each session by group leaders with the scores made on the JSD of .59. Hurley Self-Disclosure Ratings (HSDR) This new measure appears to have stimulus value for group discussion and seems to have concurrent validity in terms of accurately describing behavior in the group along the dimensions from self—concealment to self-disclosure. Just prior to this research it was given to several groups in an effort to establish its validity and reliability. The HSDR is illustrated in Appendix D. Each group member was requested to make a decision regarding which be- havior out of eight descriptive categories most approximated the within group behavior of each other group member. Four of the categories are in the direction of self-concealment from passive to active and four are in the direction of self-revealment from passive to active. For the situations in which these ratings are intended to be used the assumption of a continuum from least valuable on the active self- concealing end to most valuable on the active self-disclosing end seems justified. Each individual's HSDR score was the mean of the group ratings.* It was expected that accelerated treatment techniques would affect a significant change in terms of the number of group members receiving higher ratings. It was also expected that there would be a correlation between the self— disclosure ratings by others and the JSD but little or a negative correlation between pretreatment JSD scores and the self-ratings. Preliminary unpublished evidence based on administering the HSDR to several small counseling groups suggests that individuals tend to rate themselves rather high on this scale, and there is a negative correlation be- tween self-ratings and group ratings when the group rating is in the direction of self-concealment. Final Questionnaire At the end of the experimental period all groups were given a Questionnaire (see Appendix E) which covers a vari- ety of information. It also provides another measure of how group members rate each other on openness and this feature of the final Questionnaire is referred to as the Direct Disclosure Ratings (DDR). *This instrument was given to all groups after the first four sessions when the group members had had an oppor- tunity to observe styles of communication and motivation toward openness or movement away from it in each other. It was decided not to discuss these results with the groups. The discussion does seem to provide a stimulus for increased openness which would be valuable but might obscure other variables with which this study is concerned. The instrument was given again to all groups at the end of the experimental session. LU \JI For the DDR each group member was requested to rate each other group participant, excluding leaders, along a five position scale of openness, as illustrated by Item 1, Appendix E. These direct disclosure ratings thus provided an index operationally independent of the JSD and HSDR. Each participant's DDR was determined by simply totalling the DDR placements given to him by all other group partici- pants. Two other questionnaire items called for each person to identify the "most open" (Item 10, Appendix C) and "most closed" (Item 9, Appendix C) members of their own group. These extreme nominations were converted to per- centages of the total such nominations within each group, omitting leaders, and the per cent scores were assigned each individual. For convenience, the labels MON ("most open" nominations) and MCN ("most closed" nominations) are used for these measures. In addition, groups' members were asked to identify the most liked, least liked,.most helpful, least helpful, most inhibiting and least inhibiting with the intention of ascertaining the correlations between most open and most valuable and most closed and least valuable. These were also converted to percentages as described above. This final Questionnaire was given to the pilot study group and a high positive correlation between group positive citations and Openness and negative citations and self-concealment were established. Hypothesis I 3.6 Relationship of Measures to Hypotheses The accelerating experimental treatments of SC and VR will manifest enhancement of SD as follows: A. VR groups will manifest enhancement of SD over the SC and TR groups in the following ways: 1. VR group means will be significantly higher in the SD direction as measured by the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (JSD) than SC and TR groups. VR groups will have more members rated in the SD direction as measured by the Hurley Self-Disclosure Ratings (HSDR) than SC and TR groups. VR groups will have the most members rated higher on the Direct Disclosure Ratings (DDR) on the Final Questionnaire than SC and TR groups. VR groups will rate their group eXperience as more meaningful on the Final Questionnaire than SC and TR groups. SC groups will manifest greater SD enhancement than the TR groups in each of the four specific ways identified under A above. Hypothesis II Groups rated by the leaders as the better groups regardless of the effectiveness of the accelerating tech- niques will manifest greater SD as follows: A. Best groups will manifest enhancement of SD over Middle and Worst groups in a similar way as in 1 through 4 in Hypothesis 1. B. Middle groups will manifest greater SD enhancement than Worst groups in a similar way as in 1 through 4 in Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis III There will be a positive correlation between positive citations on the Final Questionnaire and a high SD score on the JSD, HSDR, and DDR. Hypothesis IV There will be a positive correlation between negative citations on the Final Questionnaire and a low SD score on the JSD, HSDR, and DDR. CHAPTER IV RESULTS All product-moment correlations among the five SD measures (includes "most Open" nomination and "most closed" nomination) are given in Table 5. TABLE 5.-—Product-moment correlations among all self- disclosure measures (all N's = 50). Pre— Post- Treatment Treatment JSDl HSDR JSD2 HSDR2 DDR MON MCN+ JSDl —.17 .63*** -.12 -.10 -.09 .30* HSDRl -.22 .45** .45** .29* -.20* JSD2 -.23 -.20 -.ll .24 HSDR2 .84*** .66*** -.59*** DDR ,75*** -.63*** MON -.36* MCN *** p_ <.001 using two-tailed test ** p <.01 using two—tailed test. * p <.05 using two—tailed test. + JSD = Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire; HSDR = Hurley Self—Disclosure Ratings; DDR = Direct Disclo- sure Ratings from the Final Questionnaire; MON = "Most Open Nomination" from the Final Questionnaire; MCN = "Most Closed Nomination" from the Final Questionnaire. 38 39 Positive intercorrelations among all measures except the "most closed" nomination (MCN) were anticipated because the other four variables are all direct measures of self- disclosure. Examination of these data discloses serious causes for doubting the validity of the JSD despite affirma- tive evidence in previous research. Except for the perplex— ingly significant positive correlation between JSD and "most closed" nominations, the JSD correlates positively only with itself. It correlates only negatively, albeit non- significantly, with all three other openness measures (HSDR, DDR, and MON), both before and after the treatments. This complete reversal of expected relationships between the JSD and four operationally independent group-derived ratings of self-disclosure plainly raises questions about the validity of the JSD (see also Pilot Study). The HSDR, on the other hand, correlates positively with both the other two (DDR and MON) group-based "openness" ratings and negatively with the "most closed" nominations index. Thus, it shows evidence of concurrent validity with every measure used except for the JSD index. The large cor— relation between HSDR and DDR (3;.84) is surprising and sug- gests that the two may be regarded as nearly equivalent measures in view of the .45 stability coefficient of the HSDR. Especially impressive was the unexpected evidence of the predictive validity of the HSDR, as illustrated by the statistically significant correlations between pre-treatment HSDR and post-treatment scores on the DDR, MON, and MCN. 40 Computations of the reliability of the HSDR, using Hoyt's analysis of variance, yielded the results in Tables 6 and 7. TABLE 6.--Average reliability of HSDR ratings using Hoyt's analysis of variance. Groups* Pre-Treatment Post—Treatment TR: C 42 72 J .24 70 SC: C .44 .49 J .14 .60 VR: C .51 52 J .48 59 *C = Campus J = Jackson TABLE 7.—~Reliabi1ity of the HSDR average ratings of persons using Hoyt's analysis Of variance. Groups Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment TR: C .92 .96 J .74 .95 SC: C .88 090 J .59 .93 VR: C .91 .91 J .89 .93 41 Table 6 reflects the amount of agreement with which all members rated all other group members and indicates there was considerable error variance. This would be expected within a group since there is considerable emotional involvement and interaction affecting the Objectivity of the ratings. Group members were not raters or judges in the expert sense where greater agreement would be expected. Table 7 indicates there was considerable agreement on how each individual member was perceived by the entire group, however. Results Concerninngypothesis I Hypothesis I, predicting enhancement of SD by the SC and VR treatments, was not supported by any of the SD measures, either by overall covariance analyses or by more detailed pftests of mean differences. An analysis of co— variance on the total scores Obtained on the JSD pre- and post-tests revealed no treatment effects (see Table 8). TABLE 8.--Analysis of covariance of total JSD scores. Source SS df MS F Samples 4064.90 1 4064.90 1.73 Treatments 7598.49 2 3799.25 1.71 Interaction 1109.43 2 554.22 0.24 Error 96614.10 41 2356.40 42 The group means and standard deviations on pre- and post-JSD measures are given in Table 9. Although the mean scores between the two samples differed significantly, this difference is attributable to the larger number of married subjects in the Jackson sample. Covariance analysis (Table 8) of the corrected scores (see Appendix H) dis- closed no significant sample effect. TABLE 9.-—Group means and standard deviations of JSD total scores. TR SC VR Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post c £5208.44 £2196.441 25263.5 2&274.38 §s199.ll iél9s.ll s= 57.13 s= 95.22 s= 71.93 s= 57.21 s= 46.38 s= 53.95 p = -1.39 g = 0.68 p_= —0.35 J £5304.50 £5317.50 RS277.63 £5312.50 £5256.38 £5257.88 s= 64.22 s= 49.57 s= 37.91 S: 46.47 s= 53.43 s= 73.56 p = .55 *t = 2.06 t = 0.08 * p <.05 In only one group, the Jackson SC group, was there a significant change of the group mean score from pre— to post—test. Since it has already been pointed out that the JSD scores correlated negatively with all other measures of openness, it is interesting to note that the leader viewed 143 this group as the most difficult and closed Of the Jackson groups. The standard deviations are large in all groups and tend to increase in four Of the six groups on the post- test since 24 of the 50 subjects decreased their scores while 26 increased their scores. The mean of the entire Campus group tended to decrease slightly while the Jackson sample mean tended to increase somewhat although the changes were nonsignificant. The scores obtained on the target category of group were not analyzed by an analysis of covariance since there was no evidence of any relationships. The group means and 2 tests of difference between pre- and post-test means within groups are illustrated in Table 10. TABLE 10.--JSD target category group scores. TR SC VR Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 0 £243.56 {£41.89 £254.50 £262.25 £236.44. I=27.4u g = —.36 p = 1.05 p = —1.75 J £260.80 £273.38 1&46.88 §s48.00 £540.63 I=51.13 *3 = 2.34 p = .14 t = 1.01 * p <.05 .1: J- The TR and VR group means from the two samples move in different directions. The variance of the difference scores and thus the standard errors of the difference between means between pre- and post-tests were large. Only in the case of the Jackson TR group was the change significant. The findings from the HSDR measure also failed to sup- port Hypothesis 1. The analysis of covariance of pre- to post-test change in the mean ratings given by the group mem- bers to each other excluding self ratings is given in Table 11. The groups did not differ by treatment significantly from each other. The group mean rating based on each indi- vidual's mean rating by other members but excluding self- ratings are given in Table 12. TABLE ll.--Analysis of covariance by treatments Of HSDR group ratings. Source SS df MS F Treatments 4.25 2 2.13 1.16 Samples 0.59 l 0.59 0.32 Interaction 0.94 2 0.47 0.26 Error 74.86 41 1.83 TABLE 12.--Means and standard deviations of HSDR group 45 ratings. TR SC VR Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 0 £25.20 255.64 £54.67 £24.86 £35.38 £25.24 s=l.34 s=l.58 s=l.36 s=l.18 s=l.16 s=l.13 J £24.81 £25.42 §s4.86 £24.83 £25.47 £55.83 s=0.92 s=1.40 s=0.28 s=1.63 s=l.14 s=l.02 The analysis Of covariance of change in self ratings from pre- to post-test is given in Table 13. Only the inter- action is significant, meaning only that treatment groups differed between samples. The mean self-ratings are given in Table 14. Thus, none Of the analyses Of the data from the HSDR support Hypothesis I in any respect. NO trends are apparent either. TABLE l3.—-Analysis of covariance by treatments of HSDR self-ratings. Source SS df MS F Treatments 0.82 2 0.41 0.33 Samples 3.28 l 3.28 2.66 Interaction 12.83 2 6.42 5.20* Error 50.63 41 1.23 *p <.05 46 TABLE l4.-—Group means Of HSDR self-ratings. TR SC VR Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 0 5.44 6.11 5.75 4.88 6.00 6.00 J 6.00 6.25 5.13 6.75 5.38 5.50 The findings from the DDR on the Final Questionnaire also failed to support Hypothesis I. An analysis Of variance revealed no significant treatment, pOpulation, or inter- action effects (see Table 15). The group means and standard deviations are given in Table 16. TABLE 15.--Analysis Of variance by treatments of DDR. Source SS df MS F Samples 20.48 1 20.48 0.59 Treatments 78.62 2 39.31 1.13 Interaction 60.68 2 30.34 0.88 Error 1524.22 44 34.64 TOTAL 1684.00 49 47 TABLE l6.--Means and standard deviations Of DDR. TR SC VR C Y = 17.22 i = 12.75 Y = 13.11 s = 6.70 s = 4.71 s = 4.87 J 56 = 15.88 E = 14.13 35 = 17.00 s = 6.24 s = 5.16 s = 6.46 Hypothesis I also predicted that the groups would vary by treatments in their ratings on the group experience items. For both Items 17 and 18 from the final Questionnaire (Appendix E), the individual responses were arbitrarily scored on a five point scale. Zero points were given for "negative" reactions, one point for "indifferent" reactions, two points for "middle" reactions, three points for "mean- ingful" reactions, and four points for "very meaningful" endorsements. The mean ratings on these combined items are given in Table 17. The groups did not differ significantly by treatment in their ratings of these items. TABLE l7.—-Mean ratings of group eXperience items. TR SC ‘ VR C 3.61 3.19 2.56 J 3.31 3.00 3.31 48 Results Concerning Hypothesis II Hypothesis II predicted that groups assessed by the leaders as Best would manifest greater enhancement Of SD than those assessed as Middle or Worst. If the findings had supported Hypothesis I, no additional data analysis would have been necessary for Hypothesis II. This was not the case, however, It seemed clear to the two group leaders that their appraisal Of the groups was inconsistent with the predicted effectiveness Of the treatments, and they ranked the groups according to Worst, Middle, and Best. Their basis for decision will be elaborated in Chapter VII. HypotheSis II was not supported by the now questionable JSD measure but was supported either by trends or significance level by the other measures. An analysis of covariance source table of the JSD total scores is given in Table 18. Table 19 gives the JSD total score means, standard deviations, and Ertests of the difference between pre— and post-tests. TABLE l8.--Ana1ysis of covariance by W.M.B. of JSD total scores. Source SS df MS F Samples 4064.90 1 4064.90 1.73 W.M.B. 5058.40 2 2529.20 1.07 Interaction 3096.60 2 1548.30 0.66 Error 96614.10 41 [{9 TABLE l9.-—Means and standard deviations of JSD total scores. Worst Middle Best Post Pre Post 71.9 s= 57.2 s= 57.1 s= 95.2 p = 0.68 p = —0.35 * p <.05 The mean scores on the JSD are Shown in Table 20. revealed by these scores. TABLE 20.—-JSD target catego target category group of the NO meaningful relationships are ry group scores. Worst Middle Best Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 0 1236.4 §%27.4 I554.5 f=62.3 §=43.6 £541 9 t — —1.75 t = 1 05 g — —0 36 J x=46 9 §é48 0 x=60 8 x=73 4 §é40 6 x=51 1 t = 0.14 t = 2.34* t = 1 01 * p <.05 using two-tail ed test. 50 The HSDR findings do not generally provide statistical evidence to support Hypothesis II. An analysis of covariance is given in Table 21. Table 22 gives the mean rating Of each group based upon member ratings of each other of that group. Although the between—group differences failed to attain significance, the two Best groups in Table 22 have the higher post-test means and the Middle and Best group means increase contrary to the decrease in the two Worst groups. This "trend" is consistent with Hypothesis 11. TABLE 21.--Ana1ysis of covariance by W.M.B. of HSDR group ratings. Source SS df MS F W.M.B. 3.33 2 1.66 0.91 Samples 0.59 1 0.59 0.32 Interaction 1.87 2 0.94 0.51 Error 74.86 41 1.83 51 TABLE 22.-—Means and standard deviations of HSDR group ratings. Worst Middle Best Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 0 f=5.38 {=5 24 36:46] 36:4.86 35:5.20 'x'=5.64 s=l.16 s=l 13 s=l.36 s=l.18 s=l.32 s=l.58 J £24.86 £24.83 £54.81 ’é5.42 £25.47 £25.83 s=0.28 s=1.63 s=0.92 x=l.40 s=l.14 s=1.02 The discrepancy between self-ratings and the mean group ratings of individuals differed significantly by Worst, Middle, and Best categories (see Table 23). TABLE 23.——Ana1ysis of covariance of HSDR discrepancy be- tween self and group perception. Source SS df MS F W.M.B. 17.19 2 . 8.59 3.45* Samples 2.11 1 2.11 0.85 Interaction 7.70 p 2 3.85 1.55 Error 101.91 41 3.49 *p <.05 The statistically significant analysis of covariance is due to the large increased discrepancy between self and group perceptions in the Worst groups contrasted with a decreased discrepancy in three of the four higher rated groups. When the discrepancy between self and group 52 perception of each group member is averaged, the means appear as shown in Table 24. TABLE 24.-—Means of HSDR discrepancy between self and group. Worst Middle Best Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post C -0.79 -0.96 —1.36 -0.43 -0.35 -0.66 J -0.21 -2.04 -l.15 -1.04 -0.27 0.00 The covariance analysis of HSDR self-ratings yielded no significant results (see Table 25). TABLE 25.-—Analysis of covariance by W.M.B. of HSDR self- ratings. Source SS df MS F W.M.B. 7.12 2 3.56 2.88 Samples 3.28 l 3.28 2.66 Interaction 6.52 2 3.26 2.64 Error 50.63 41 1.23 Hypothesis 11 predicted that the groups would vary according to Worst, Middle and Best in their rating of the group experience as meaningful. An analysis Of variance 53 based on group experience scores shows these relate signifi- cantly to leader's ranking Of their three groups (see Table 26). The group mean ratings of their group experience are given in Table 27. TABLE 26.--Ana1ysis of variance by W.M.B of group experience items. Source SS df MS F Samples 0.41 l 0.41 0.95 W.M.B. 4.06 2 2.03 4.71* Interaction 1.82 2 0.91 2.12 Error 19.02 44 0.43 TOTAL 25.31 49 *p <.05 TABLE 27.—-Group mean rating on group experience items. Worst Middle Best C 2.56 3.19 3.61 J 3.00 3.31 3.31 The Direct Disclosure Ratings do not prove to be sta- tistically significant in support of Hypothesis II. The results of an analysis of variance of the Direct Disclosure Ratings is given in Table 28. TABLE 28.--Analysis of variance by W.M.B. Of DDR. Source SS df MS F Samples 20.48 1 20.48 0.59 W.M.B. 115.73 2 57.87 1.67 Interaction 23.57 2 11.79 0.34 Error 1524.22 44 34.64 TOTAL 1684.00 49 The group means and standard deviations are given in Table 29. Although the differences are not significant, there is clearly a "trend" for the Best groups to score highest in DDR. TABLE 29.-~DDR means and standard deviations. Worst Middle Best 0 i = 13.11 I = 12.75 I = 17.22 s = 4.87 s = 4.71 s = 6.70 J I = 14.13 I = 15.88 3? = 17.00 s = 5.16 s 6.24 s 6.46 XII vl Results Concerning Hypothesis III Hypothesis III predicted a positive correlation between positive citations on the Final Questionnaire with a high SD score on the JSD, HSDR, and DDR. It was tested by determin- ing the product—moment correlations of a global "positive citation" index with the three self—disclosure measures, JSD, HSDR, and DDR. The "positive citations" index was de- rived from Final Questionnaire nominations of the group mem— bers of their fellow group member (excluding the leader) identified as "most open," "liked best," "most helpful," and person to whom "you feel you can disclose yourself most freely and comfortably" (Appendix C, Items 10, ll, 13, and 14). Citations Of individuals within each group on each of these items were converted to percentages of the total such citations per group and these four scores for each person were summed into the single global "positive citations" score. With post-treatment self-disclosure scores, this "positive citations" score correlated as follows: r = -.22, EJSDR = .67 (p <.001), EDDR = .70 (p <.001); the corresponding pre-treatment correlations were: ZJSD = —.01, EHSDR = .29 (p <.05). Thus, hypothesis III is strongly supported by both the HSDR and DDR data, but not supported by the JSD index. OK \-’ H Results Concerning Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV predicted a positive correlation between negative citations on the Final Questionnaire and a low SD score on the JSD, HSDR, and DDR. It was similarly tested by ascertaining product-moment correlations between a global "negative citations" index, derived from Final Questionnaire items requestion nominations of "most closed," "least help- ful," "most inhibiting," and "least liked" individuals within each group excluding leaders (see Appendix C, Items 9, 12, 15, and 16), with the JSD, HSDR, and DDR scores. Exactly the same quantitative operations used to determine the "positive citations" score were employed to derive the global "negative citations" index. "Negative citations" correlated as follows with these post—treatment measures: .11 = ...63 (p_ <.001), 30 = —.55 (p_ <.001); EJSD = ’ EHSDR DR its correlation with the pre-treatment indexes were: EJDS = .17, {HSDR = —.28 (p <.05). Again the HSDR and DDR data consistently support the hypothesis, while the JSD data just as consistently operates in the inverse direction. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Four hypotheses were postulated. Hypothesis I received no statistical support from the data. Hypothesis II received only some support, and Hypotheses III and IV were strongly supported. Each hypothesis will be reviewed and discussed separately as follows: Discussion of Hypothesis I Hypothesis I, that the techniques Of structured con— frontation (SC) and video recall (VR) would accelerate the . progress Of short term group counseling has not been sup- ported by this research. Three possible explanations for this failure should be considered. 1. The measurement techniques employed were incapable of adequately supporting or rejecting the hypothesis. Evi— dence for reason to seriously question the validity of the JSD measure in assessing the degree of openness has been reported. It correlated negatively with four other measures of SD. There seemed a definite trend for some who had become more insightful and honest in eXpression of feelings to reduce their JSD scores. This phenomenon had been ob— served in a pilot study group, and it was suggested by these group members that on the post—test they were much more 57 58 honest in responding to the questionnaire realizing that they had tried to appear open on the pre-test whether in fact they were or not. This is a common problem in measures based on self—report. The discrepancy between self—ratings and group-ratings on the HSDR illustrates the same phenom- enon, and both the HSDR self-ratings and JSD scores would suggest that people cannot be very honest in assessing their own honesty or openness. The other measures utilized seemed to have considerable more validity in measuring SD. Evi- dence for this is based on the high correlations between the four other independent indexes of openness--the HSDR, DDR, and the MON and MCN nominations——in addition to the concur- rent validity based on agreement of individual SD scores with their group behavior. However, even though the measures other than the JSD seemed to have a high degree of validity they were incapable of being sufficiently sensitive to dif- ferences between groups. Thus, they seemed to accurately rank individuals within groups according to self-concealment or self-disclosure but not rank across groups or differenti- ate to a sufficient degree the amount of openness in one group as compared to another. The small numbers contributed to a large standard error of the mean and also reduced the chance Of discriminating between groups. Thus, problems of measurement were operating in this research which give cause to suggest that even if the accel- erating techniques had been effective, this could not have been adequately demonstrated by the assessment techniques used. 2. In order to accurately assess the value of the accelerating techniques the groups must be at the same level of progress when the techniques are introduced. There seems ample evidence that this was not the case. The measures indicate that there was considerable variation between groups and between populations before the introduction of the experimental variables. Although statistical techniques such as the analysis of covariance serves to adjust the ini- tial differences in scores, these between group differences, nevertheless, had a complex effect on the progress of the groups. The two leaders had very definite impressions about the way in which the groups were progressing by the fifth session when the groups were assigned to treatment. These impressions Of worst, middle, and best groups were not altered by the end Of the experimental session except in two cases. Although the members were assigned to groups randomly and the groups to treatments randomly, this did not prevent the piling up of variables which strongly affected group interaction. Some examples of these are given in the following: One group had two members belonging to fundamental- istic religious sects, and they initially had a sizeable impact on their group. Prior to the introduction of the structured confrontation technique it was very difficult to keep this group focused on their feelings and interpersonal relationship problems as the group Spent a seemingly unnec- essary amount of time on controversies centering upon their 00 different philosophical views. It was the experimenter's impression that the SC technique was extremely effective in assisting this group to refocus upon its purpose of self- understanding. After the SC extended session religion was never effectively used again as a defense against exploring the group's personal interaction. However, this change could not be demonstrated by the measurement techniques used. The SC group at Jackson was a very difficult group from the beginning as there were two very overtly hostile people in that group. While the SC technique did not change this quite frustrating group into a fast moving group, by any means, it did enable the rest Of the members to more effectively handle the two resistive members and seemed to have some slight impact on keeping a poor group moving at some level. The experimenter's VR group seemed from the beginning to have a bigger share Of passive people than the other two groups and have more than a usual proportion of people who were unable to be direct or critical with each other. One member tended to largely dominate this group until the VR treatment which enabled the group to explore this phenomenon. For two sessions following the VR treatment the group seemed to get much more deeply involved in coping with their feel- ings but then tended to lapse back into the earlier passivity. This group more than the other campus groups tended to relate to the leader on an individual basis, and various attempts to change this and promote more group interaction proved (3 1 rather futile. These group members seemed unusually reluc- tant to share information about themselves with each other. The Jackson VR group was the Middle group in that pOpulation before the experimental treatment and then moved to Best group. This group had one vivacious, Open, direct person who in the beginning provided a model which others imitated. They sought information about continuing as a group beyond the term as they were reluctant to end their association and wanted further self-exploration. This would seem to validate the leader's assessment as Best Group. Both traditional treatment groups seemed to have by chance also been composed of people who became quite involved in the group and found it a meaningful eXperience. The Jack— son TR group was less enthusiastic than the VR, but consider- ably more so than the SC group. The campus TR group was the only group viewed inconsistently by the leader with respect to its effectiveness vis-a-vis the campus VR and SC groups. Until the experimental weekend, the leader judged this group as the most resistive and overtly hostile to the experience. At least two members Of this group had been overtly sarcastic to the leader and other members about the ridiculousness of the whole process, and considerable tension was evident in each session. The first hour of the five in the extended session was spent in the video recall room where the group thought they were being video taped, and they raised many questions and objections about the entire pro- cedure. After the group had moved to a more comfortable O\ I0 situation, there was some discussion of the prevailing mood Of this group, and the mood changed rather dramatically as members verbalized their frustrations. One member then confided a serious problem with which he was-coping, and this seemed to open the door to "secret sharing." By the end of the five hours the group seemed relaxed and expressed disappointment about the session's ending. From this point On the group seemed to have a rather deeply meaningful interaction and expressed reluctance to terminate at the end of the experimental session (see Appendix F). These examples illustrate the complex factors Operat- ing within these groups. Many other variables affected group interaction in addition to the experimental variables. Those groups which clearly seemed most constructive seemed rather loaded from the outset by being favored with fewer inhibited members by an accident Of selection. 3. A third explanation for the lack of support Of the major hypothesis that the techniques Of SC and VR are effective in accelerating progress in group counseling is that these techniques are not effective. However, the pre- vious points suggest that the groups differed originally on variables which more heavily influenced their progress than the experimental variables. The apparent invalidity Of the principal measuring device, the JSD measure, and the in- ability Of the auxiliary measures to effectively discriminate between groups, suggest that Hypothesis I was not adequately tested by the present research design. 63 Discussion of Hypothesis II Hypothesis 11 predicted that groups assessed by the leaders as Best would manifest greater enhancement Of SD than those assessed as Middle or Worst. The Best groups, Campus TR and Jackson VR, were those which seemed to be the most active, involved, and intense.v These groups were reluctant to end group meetings, overtly expressed positive feelings about the group experience, and were reluctant to terminate their group associations. Although many subjec- tive factors entered into the leader's assessments, both have had eXperience with many groups and were confident about their judgements. E had an Opportunity to confirm the Jackson group rankings while administering the post- tests to this population. The three groups Spontaneously formed at the end Of this session, and after a period Of interacting, departed in the order Of ranking. The Worst group members departed first, Middle group members stayed around considerably longer, while the Best group members stayed until it was necessary to vacate the room. The Worst groups, Campus VR and Jackson SC, had expressed more direct anger or frustration concerning the experience, had expressed more boredom or indifference, and were difficult to involve in meaningful group interaction. Both leaders had experienced considerable frustration in their efforts to move these groups. 64 The Middle groups, Campus SC and Jackson TR, were so categorized simply because they were not placed at the extremes. These groups may have differed more from each other than the Best or Worst groups. The Jackson Middle group may have been closer to the Jackson Best group in terms of being generally active and involved. The Campus Middle group did not approach the Best group in terms Of intensity of involvement. However, considering the diffi- culty this group initially had in struggling with strongly expressed religious differences, their movement from the intellectual discussion level to a highly personal discus- sion level may have constituted a greater change than the rank Of Middle group implies. It should be clear that the rankings of Worst, Middle, and Best, were dependent on comparisons between groups and not on the degree Of change within groups. It was predicted that groups having the more Open mem- bers would be the better groups, and the leaders felt that this was definitely supported behaviorally if not statisti— cally. The null hypothesis could not be rejected, however, using the now suspect JSD measure. Although both the HSDR and DDR measures yielded trends in the predicted direction, the null hypothesis could not be clearly rejected in these cases. In the case of HSDR discrepancies between self—ratings and group mean ratings the null hypothesis was refuted. This discrepancy was significantly greater in the Worst groups than in the Middle and Best groups. Groups having more members who view themselves as Open when viewed by others as closed may have more difficulty in eXperiencing a meaningful group interaction. This was illustrated by E's Worst group in which various members discussed on more than one occasion how open they felt they could be if only the group's movement were not hampered by others less Open than they. By contrast, in E's Best group, three or four members acknowledged that although they felt motivated to be frank and honest with the group their own inhibitions caused them to fall short of this goal.' The Jackson Worst group had two members who rated themselves as very Open on the post-HSDR ratings but were perceived at the closed end of this continuum by most of their group members. In all groups people tended to perceive themselves as more Open than they were rated by others, but this varied signifi- cantly between Worst groups and the four better groups. The difference between Best and Middle groups was not signifi— cant. The prediction that those groups having the more Open members would be the better groups and would rate their experience as more meaningful was also supported statisti— cally. Those groups rated as Best by their leaders on the basis ofsa more intense emotional involvement, viewed the experience as more meaningful than the Middle and Worst groups. The Worst groups rated this eXperience as less meaningful than either of the other groups. Since group 66 leaders Often have to rely on their own assessment Of how meaningful a group experience was to the members, this type of validation.is gratifying. The hypothesis predicting a positive relationship between openness or SD to meaningful group interaction was thus supported at a statistically significant level by both the HSDR discrepancy scores and ratings Of the meaningful— ness of the group experience. In addition, supportive trends were apparent in the case Of HSDR and DDR measures, although these did not attain statistical significance. The failure Of the data to more completely sustain the pre- dictions has two explanations. 1. The measurement techniques utilized were not capable Of sufficient discrimination between groups. The measurement problems reviewed in the discussion Of Hypothesis I seem equally relevant to Hypothesis II. 2. The assumption Of a relationship between Openness and group movement is not justified. The data generally Oppose this conclusion since the HSDR and DDR trends were in the predicted directions, although failing to achieve statistical significance. The discrepancy between HSDR self and group mean ratings differed significantly between Worst and Best groups, and the prediction that Best groups would value their group experience over Middle and Worst groups was supported significantly. In VieW'Of this mixed assortment of positive and inconclusive findings, it appears 67 reasonable to conclude that the limitations Of instrumenta- tion and design did not permit a rigorous test Of Hypothesis II. Discussion Of Hypotheses III and IV Hypotheses III and IV concerning the correlations between positive citations and self-disclosure and negative citations and self-concealment were strongly supported by all measures except the questionable JSD. The group leaders personal impressions were also very consistent with these findings. Those members who were Open about themselves and their feelings toward others were the most valued or pOpu- lar in their groups. Even when there were disagreements the groups seemed to welcome the controversies. Group members expressed increasing frustration with the more closed members throughout the experimental session. In one group the members confronted an extremely defensive and self-righteous member with his dishonesty about his feelings which made relating to him very difficult. In another group one member confronted a silent, hostile member with his reaction that her silence terrified him to the extent he couldn't relate to her without feeling totally rejected. Many similar examples from the group interactions could be cited. Thus, the most Open and most closed group members had a definite impact on their groups. Reactions toward members who seemed between these extremes were less clear. Members who participated moderately in the group interaction but were neither particularly self-disclosing nor self- concealing Often received no nominations as most liked, most disliked, most helpful, etc. Their impact upon other group members seemed more vague. It is important to note that positive citations are not synonymous with being well liked but with popularity in a sense of being perceived as valuable or constructive. Thus, one person rated another as least liked, but most helpful, most Open, and least inhibiting. In-a note he stated that these perceptions were confusing but were simi- lar to how he felt about his dentist. In spite of his feelings Of discomfort, he had valued the relationship with this group member highly. Sheer amount Of verbalization was.not Observed to be related to self-disclosure in this study. Some members who anxiously talked extensively in an effort to keep the group discussion moving or to steer the conversation into safe channels were confronted with the meaning Of their defenses. Members who frequently expressed themselves in Opinionated defensive ways were also confronted by the groups. The present research Offers clear support for the predicted positive linkage between SD, in the sense Of being candidly expressive of feelings, and popularity, in the sense of being valued by others. by Implications for Further Research The techniques Of Structured Confrontation and Inter— personal Process Recall require further research assessment. Analysis of the change in group interaction based on audio tapes Of the pre- and post—experimental sessions may more adequately demonstrate the within-group effect Of the accelerating treatment. However, this analysis is beyond the scope of this study. The design Of this research posed several problems for adequate testing Of the effectiveness Of the experimental variables. The IPR technique particu- larly suffered from insufficient time exposure to adequately evaluate its effectiveness as an accelerator of group counseling. The group members had too little opportunity to Observe their recall with an interrogator for this method to have the impact which has~been demonstrated in individual counseling. The concern for equating the treatments time of all groups insured a controlled experimental design but apparently the time limitations precluded an adequate test of the IPR and SC treatments. The substantial between- group differences also made it difficult to assess IPR as a separate variable and problems Of measurement constituted another Obstacle to a valid assessment Of both SC and IPR treatments. However, in spite of the limitations and problems described, this research demonstrates the possibility of a controlled approach to the examination of the complex variables operating in group counseling that will hopefully 70 stimulate other efforts in this area. There is an unfor- tunate tendency to avoid group research because of its complexity. Many university and psychotherapeutic training centers Offer populations of training counselors involved in group interactions which are rarely subjected to con- trolled studies. At present there appears tO be no sound basis for assuming that effective group methods employed with these training populations cannot be generalized to other populations less accessible tO controlled research. The research design further points up the difficulties encountered by random assignment to group treatment. For adequate testing Of experimental variables with groups, some sort Of matching on crucial variables prior to group assign- ment seems imperative. JSD's apparent invalidity as a measure of self- disclosure was a disappointing but important finding. This measure must either be improved or discarded as lacking sufficient validity for research. The HSDR measure seems to have considerable validity and ability to discriminate within—groups but did not discriminate effectively between groups. This instrument seems worthy of further research utilization. An important area Of research into effective manipulations Of group composition is highly dependent on the deveIOpment of better predictors Of Openness than presently exist. Further research efforts are also needed to either support or dispel the prevalent myth that social roles or 71 masks are necessary for self—protection. This research provides some support for Openness as a positive factor in group counseling interpersonal relationships and self- concealment as a negative factor in-group counseling inter- personal interaction. Can this be generalized beyond counseling situations? Strong beliefs exist in our culture that one cannot be too transparent or honest in normal transactions without generating such negative repercussions as hostility, rejection, loss Of job, or security. There Seems accumulating evidence that an important ingredient Of counseling success is experiencing the freedom to be honest and transparent but considerable uncertainty as to how much Of this is appropriate to normal social roles. Can society function as well or better if people are real rather than actors on a stage Of life? Did the groups in this research reward Openness because it was meaningful, or because it was appropriate for the group counseling situation? Were they in effect merely rewarding those peOple who conformed to what were regarded as the goals of the group, and did they fail to reward those who did not conform? The finding that self-disclosure is positively regarded in group counseling cannot be generalized to other social situations without additional research. However, this study provided evidence that Openness and self—disclosure will not be rejected or condemned but may be rewarded in an appropriate environment. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS Despite the employment of a controlled research design, the present findings suggest that the hypothesized accelerational impact of Structured Confrontation and Interpersonal Process Recall upon progress within small, time—limited, counseling groups could not be adequately tested by the available instrumentation. Perhaps the time given to implementation of the SC and IPR treatments was insufficient to override other important variables affect- ing the group processes. Between-group differences exercised a dominant influence throughout the eXperimental period and the randomization of group membership assignments resulted in dissimilar initial groupings. The subjective impressions of the group leaders, however, were that these techniques were productive and that the IPR technique in particular deserves further assessment in group settings. The relationship of SD to progress in counseling groups was not rigorously supported statistically although sufficient positive evidence was found to suggest that SD is, indeed, an important variable in helping groups to interact more meaningfully. Only further research can pro- vide more conclusive evidence of the role of SD in group counseling situations. 72 SJ LA) The present study seems to represent the most exhaus- tive examination of the validity of Jourard's Self- Disclosure questionnaire available in the literature. The finding that this instrument correlates only negatively with a variety of other SD measures is important and should be seriously considered by others concerned with the measure- ment of self—disclosure. Despite the limitations Of his measure, the present findings Offer much support for Jourard's theoretical for- mulations regarding SD as a powerful variable in inter— personal relationships. In this study a strong association was Observed between positive regard by others and SD. BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY Each, 0. R. The marathon group: intensive practice Of intimate interaction. Epychological Reports, 1966, 18, 995-1002. A Bach, G. R. Personal communication, 1966. Braaten, L. J. The movement from non-self to self in client-centered psychotherapy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Chicago, 1958. Dollard, John and Miller, Neal E. Personality and psycho- therapy. New York: McGraw-HiIl, 1950. Fitzgerald, M. P.‘ Self- disclosure and expressed self-esteem, social distance and areas Of the self revealed. The Journal Of Psychology, 1963, 56, 405- 412. Freud, S. An outline Of_p§ychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Norton, 1949. Fromm, E. Escape from freedom. New York: Rinehart, 1955. Goffman, E. The presentation Of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday,I1959. Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1964. . Self-disclosure and other cathexis. Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 428—431. . Age and self— disclosure. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly Behavior Development, 1961 (a), 7, 191- 197. . Religious denomination and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 1961 (b), 8, 446. Self-disclosure patterns in British and American college females. Journal Of Social Ppychology, 1961 (c), 54, 315-320. . Self-disclosure and grades in nursing college. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 1962. 75 76 Jourard, S. M. and P. Lasakow. Some factors in self- disclosure. Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 91698. 7 Jourard, S. M. and Richman, P. Disclosure output and input in college students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Behavior Development, 1963, 9, 141—148. Jourard, S. M. and Landsman, M. J. Cognition, cathexis, and dyadic effect in men's self-disclosing behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Behavior Develppment, 1960. Jourard, S. M. Personal communication, 1966. Kagan, N., Krathwahl, D. R., and Miller, R. Stimulated recall in therapy using video tape-—a case study. Journal Of CounselingPsychOlogy, 1963, 10, NO. 3, 237-244. ' Kagan, N. Final report: interpersonal process recall technique. OE7-32-0410-216, NDEA Title VII, March, 1965. . Progress report: interpersonal progress recall teggnique. OE7-32-0410-270, NDEA Title VII, August, 19 . Melikian, L. Self—disclosure among university students in the Middle East. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962. 57. 259-263. Mourer, H. O. The new group thergpy. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1964. Peres, H. An investigation of nondirective group therapy. Journalof ConsultingPsychOlogy, 1947, 11, 159-172. Query, W. T.- Self-disclosure as a variable in group psycho- therapy. The International Journal Of Group Psycho— therapy, 1964, 14, 107-116. Riseman, D. The lonely crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Robinson, M. Feedback as a therapeutic tool. Quarterlypof Camarillo, 1966, 2, NO. 3, 14-23. Stoller, F. H. Group psychotherapy on television. Quarterly of Camarillo, 1966, 2, NO. 3, 3-14. 77 Truax, C. B., Tomlinson, T., and van der Veen, F. Symposium: a program in psychotherapy and psychotherapy research (Chairman C. R. Rogers), American Psychological Asso- ciation, September, 1961. , and Carkhuff, R. R. Client and therapist trans- parency in the psychotherapeutic encounter. Journal of CounselingPsychOlogy, 1965, 12, 1. Wolberg, L. R. The technique Of psychotherapy, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954TI Yalom, I. D., MOOS, R., Grosz, M. B., Clark, J. R., and Wright, C. S. Brief communications. International Journal Of Group Psychotherapy, 1965, IS, 242-250. Personal communication, 1966. APPENDICES 78 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS FOR GROUP PROCEDURE 79 Education 816 C Group Procedures in Guidance The purpose of this course is twofold. One goal is learning something about a technique that may be useful in your work. Another goal is increa- sing your self-knowledge which is very necessary if you are to be effective in working with peOple. Some of us have the conviction that the best way of increasing self-awareness is by interacting in a group which is willing to become intimately involved and concerned with the complex interactions which soon develop in any type group. In most groups these interactions are not analyzed, but when increased self-awareness is the goal, the group must start looking at these transactions and confront each other with the feel- ings and reactions that they experience. For some of you attempting to express yourself freely and honestly, or to attempt to become a self-disclosing person as Sidney Jourard would des- cribe it, may seem.awkward and anxiety producing. ”Our society does not, in general, foster or reward open honest communication in "public situations." In fact, there is such a need to be self-concealing in much of our inter- action in society that many of us learn early in life to play rob s or to react to others as we feel it is expected to a degree that we even begin to hide our real feelings from ourselves. The following is quoted from Sidney Jourard's Transparent Sglf: “A choice that confronts every one of us at every moment is this: Shall we permit our fellow men to know us as we now are, or shall we seek instead to remain an enigma, an uncertain quantity, wishing to be seen as sone thing we are not? This choice has always been available to us, but throughout his- tory we have chosen to conceal our authentic being behind various‘mssks. We usually assume that the other man is hiding or misrepresenting his real feelings, his intentions, or his past because we generally do so ourselves. We take it for granted that when a man speaks about himself, he is telling more or less than the unvarnished truth as he knows it. -2- We conceal and camouflage our true being before others to foster a sense of safety, to protect ourselves against unwanted but expected criticism, hurt, or rejection. This protection is purchased at a steep price. When we are not truly known by the other people in our lives, we are misunderstood. When we are not known, even by family and friends, we join the all too numerous "lonely crowd." 'Worse, when we succeed too well in hiding our being from others, we tend to lose touch with our real selves, and this loss of self contributes to ill- ness in its myriad forms. We are said to be a society dedicated, among other things, to the pursuit of truth. Yet, disclosure of the truth, the truth of one's being, is often penalized. Impossible concepts of how man ought to be -- which, sadly enough are often handed down from the pulpit -- make man so ashamed of his true being that he feels obliged to seem differ- ent, if for no other reason than to protect his job. Probably the "tyranny of the should" is a factor which keeps man from making him- self known as he is. Yet, when a man does not acknowledge to himself who, what, and how he is, he is out of touch with reality. And it seems to be another empirical fact that no man can come to know himself except as an outcome of disclosing himself to another person. This is the lesson we have learned in the field of psycho- therapy. When a person has been able to disclose himself utterly to another person, he learns how to increase his contact with his real self, and he may then be better able to direct his destiny on the basis of knowledge of his real self." Sexual inhibition was a real problem in Freud's era, but we have made some progress away from the extreme repressions and guilt. Later theorists have indicated that expression of aggression and hostility now pose a much greater problem in our society. While I would agree, it seems to me that expressions of anxiety are equally difficult for many people in our society to express openly and that most of us often pretend to ourselves and to others that we are "all right," unafraid, unworried, or unconcerned about many problems that we all experience but cannot share with one another. The prevalent need in our society to appear competent, independent and men- tally well and to keep our private troubles to ourselves has cost us a great deal in terms of honest real communication. The purpose of this research that is being conducted in connection with this course is to attempt to compare various techniques of helping a group become more self-disclosing on the assumption that this will improve one's communication skills in interpersonal relationships. {A schedule for the course is included and will be more fully explained. Various measurements devices will be employed and these will be explained as they are utilized. Information obtained either in groups or through measurement will be confi- dential. 2. 3. 5. Some tentative suggestions for the group interaction are as follows: The group members should always relate to the whole group and not sub- group. If you.meet outside the group situation try to make a contract to be able to bring back attitudes or feelings discussed to the whole group. Try to share your feelings of anxiety and hostility with the group. If you attempt to go through the experience with the need to be perceived as a "good person" or a polite person, you‘will only experience a con- ventional interaction and not a real confrontation. Try to discover the masks or roles you usually need to play and to attempt more direct expression of your real feelings. Try to avoid the set that you already know yourself very well. This defense will only operate to keep you from actively engaging in a mean- ingful search to understand yourself as you communicate with others. For the truly open person the process of self-discovery is probably unending. Try to avoid discussions of "your philosophy of life" or the game of intellectualizing about how most peeple feel. The focus should be on expressions of feelings about yourself and others. 6. Feel free to interact with the leader in terms of feelings about him or what is happening in the group. 7. All members of the group share in the leadership responsibility of moving the group toward ever greater self-disclosure and genuine con- frontation with each other. APPENDIX B CLASS MATERIALS 84 Academic Assignments for 816 C A very limited bibliography has been prepared. All books have been placed on reserve in either the Social Science or Science Sections of the main library. Some of the books which come in paper back editions are available at the book stores. I amninterested in your covering the entire list so it may be very necessary for you to do a lot of skimming the material except where spe- cific chapters have been designated. The emphasis in the bibliography is placed on increasing knowledge of various personality theories which are useful in group counseling. Students should concentrate on the areas in which they have the least background. If you have already read Freud and are well acquainted with his theories, put your emphasis on some other theorist, etc. Some students may wish to do reading in other aspects of group counseling such as the sensitivity training groups or T groups, special uses of group counseling techniques in your own area, marathon group therapy or research techniques in group counseling. I will be happy to discuss other sources with you. There will be a mid-term take-home examination and a final take-home examination. These exams are more in the nature of papers and the questions are available now. Mid-term exam paper due Final exam paper due There are four questions on each examination. An absolute maximum length for each question is three double spaced typewritten pages. Although I have no objection whatsoever to your discussing your answers with each other, there are no right or wrong answers so there is no point in trying to reach a concensus of Opinion. I am interested in your own creative anal- ysis. Any of these theories are Open to many criticisms and they have limi- tations of their usefulness but note that in all cases the questions have been nosed in terms of contributions- Call Numbep 616.8 81181 HM 291 .8394 RC 488 .343 BF 67 .06 RC 480.5 .E 423 BF 698 .J64 Bibliography for 816 C Author Bach, George Berne, Eric Berne, Eric Dolls rd, John and Miller, Neal E. Ellis, Albert Freud , Sigmund Freud, Sigmund Jourard, Sidney M. Mullin, Hugh and Rosenbaum, Max warters, Jane * Available in paperback Titlp Intensive Group Psychotherapy. New York: Ronald, 1954. New York: Grove Games People Play. Press, 1964. *Transactional Analysis is Ppychotherapy. New York: Grove, 1961. Particularly Chaps. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 15. *Personality and Psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Particularly Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 18. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart, 1962. Particu- larly Chapters 2, 4, and 17. *A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York: Washington Square, 1964. *An Outline of Psychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Nerton, 1949. This book is brief and gives an excellent overview. It would be well to read it first and follow it by some reading in the other references or almost anything written by Freud himsel *The Transparent Self. New York: Van Nostrand, 1964. This book is not required but the Preface and Chapters 1, 2, and 3 are thought provoking in regard to self- disclosure and communication. New York: MacMillan Particularly Chaps. l, 2, 4, and Group Psychothergpy. 1963. l0. Group Guidance, Principles and Practice. New York: McGrsw, 1960. All books are on reserve in the main library in Social Science or Science. II. III. Education 816 C ‘Mid-term Take-home Examination Briefly state the essence of Freud's theory. What important contri- butions can awareness of psychoanalytic theory make to group counseling? Briefly describe how Dollard and Miller restate or interpret Freud's theory in terms of learning theory. What contributions can knowledge of learning theory make to group counseling? Describe Eric Berne's theory of transactional analysis. What unique contributions can his theory and the ability to diagnose games make to group counseling? Describe your thinking at this point in the group as to what factors contribute and detract from your ability and other group members ability to be self-disclosing. You may answer in terms of personality theory, sociological theory, personal emotional reactions or whatever you desire. I. II. III. Education 816 C Final Examination Briefly describe the theory of Albert Ellis. What contributions could his rational-emotive theory make to group counseling? 0n the basis of Bach or Rosenbaum discuss some arguments concerning the following: (a) Should group be homogeneous or heterogeneous as to the problems of the members. (b) What size should the group be? (c) What are some of the responsibilities of the leader? (d) What advantages may a group, rather than individual counseling, sometimes offer for helping people with problems. On the basis of Warters, discuss some use of group counseling in a school system. Choose some particular area of interest that you have in group coun- seling for discussion. You may discuss any aspect of the authors included in the bibliography or choose some other tOpic. (As an example, if you are in vocational rehabilitation, you may be interested in group counseling with alcoholics.) Ir‘ukll / APPENDIX c 9 1 l JOURARD SELF—DISCLOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE (JSD) 89 INSTRUCTIONS Please read each item.on the questionnaire and indicate in each answer column how’much you have talked about that item.to the designated persons: a. Best friend - (Could be either male or female. Fiancee would be included). b. Parent - (Either or both). c. Spouse - d. Group - (At least three including yourself that doesn't overlap with other categories. Parents and self not a group). Answer each item on the basis of how’much you have made yourself known to the person (or group). Please put a "O", 1, 2, x in the appropriate space for each item and in each column. 0: I have told the other person nothing about this aspect of me. 1: I have talked in general terms about this item. The other person has only a general idea about this aspect of me. 2: I have talked in full and complete detail about this item to the other person. He knows me fully in this respect, and could describe accurately. X: I have lied or mdsrepresented myself to the other person so that he has a false picture of me. (This doesn't necessarily imply a deliberate or conscious act). EXAMPLE: If you have told in general terms the amount of your financial income to your best friend and to your parents, but mainly in.misrepresentative terms to a group (of at least three including yourself) and in great detail to your spouse, it would be marked in this manner: Best 1 Parent 1 Spouse 1 Group Friend 1 I 1 2 X As you answer these questions please think of how you would generally react and not in terms of some unique behavior. (Some people talk.more about theme selves under the influence of alcohol or drugs but that is not their normal or general behavior). Also, please respond to these as they represent your behavior of the last three years. If you had a "best friend" a couple of years ago who now lives elsewhere, respond as though that current. But if you haven't had a best friend in three years respond only on basis of last three years. The same is true for group and parent categories. Mbving away fromnhome, for example, would affect parent category - answer in terms of present. If the category doesn't seem.to apply to you in some way, please ask about it before you proceed. Best F Friend Parent Spouse Group ml .._._. -.. .. -- «van—1 o-MJ “J vhn‘l d 1. What I think and feel about religion; my personal religious views. 2. Iuy personal opinions and feelings about other religious groups than my own, e.g., Protestants, Catholics, Jews, atheists. 3. My views on Comunism. 4. My views on the present government -- the president, government, policies, etc. 5. My views on the question of racial integration in schools, transportation, etc. 6. My personal views on drinking. 7. my personal views on sexual morality ~- how I feel that I and others ought to behave in sexual matters. 8. My personal standards of beauty and attractiveness in women -- what I consider to be attractive in a woman. 9. The things that I regard as desirable for a man to be -- what I look for in.a man. 10. my feeling about how parents ought to deal with children. 11. my favorite beverages, and the ones I don't like. 12. my favorite foods, the way I like food prepared, and my food dislikes. 13. up likes and dislikes in music. 14. My favorite reading matter. 15. The kinds of movies that I like to see best; the TV shows that are my favorite. 16. My tastes in clothing. 17. The style of house, and the kinds of furnishings that I like best. 18. The kind of party, or social gathering that I like best, and the kind that would bore me, or that I wouldn't enjoy. Best Friend Parent Spouse Group ave-.4 19. My favorite ways of spending spare time, e.g., hunting, reading, cards, sports events, parties, dancing, etc. 20. What I would appreciate most for a present. 21. What I find to be the worst pressures and strains in my work. 22. What I find to be the most boring and unenjoyable aspects of my work. 23. What I enjoy most, and get the most satisfaction from in my present work. 24. What I feel are psthortcomings and handicaps that prevent me from working as I'd like to, or that prevent me from.get- ting further ahead in my work. 25. What I feel are my special strong points and qualifications for my work. 26. How I feel that my work is appreciated by others (e.g., boss, fellowdworkers, teacher, husband, etc.). 27. My ambitions and goals in my work. 28. My feelings about the salary or re- wards that I get for my work. 29. How I feel about the choice of career that I have made-~whether or not I'm sat- isfied with it. 30. How I really feel about the people that I work for, or work with. 31. How much money I make at my work, or get as an allowance. 32. Whether or not I owe money; if so, how web. 33. Whom.I owe money to at present; or 'whom.I have borrowed from in tha.past. 34. Whether or not I have savings, and the amount. 35. Whether or not other owe me money; the amount, and who owes it to me. Best Friepd Parent Spouse Group a. -_... ‘ ”-W‘H‘. 36. Whether or not I gamble; if so, the way I gamble, and the extent of it. 37. All of my present sources of income-- wages, fees, allowance, dividends, etc. 38. My total financial worth, including property, savings, bonds, insurance, etc. 39. My most pressing need for money right now, e.g., outstanding bills, some major purchase that is desired or needed. 40. How I budget my money-~the proportion that goes to necessities, luxuries, etc. 41. The aspects of my personality that I dislike, worry about, that I regard as a handicap to me. 42. What feelings, if any, that I have trouble expressing or controlling. 43. The facts of my present sex life-- including knowledge of how I get sexual gratification; any problems that I might have; with whom I have relations, if anyu body. 44. Whether or not I feel that I am attracé tive to the Opposite sex; my problems, if any, about getting favorable attention from the opposite sex. 45. Things in the past or present that I feel ashamed and guilty about. 46. The kinds of things that make me just furious. 47. What it takes to get me feeling real depressed or blue. 48. What it takes to get me real worried, anxious, and afraid. 49. What it takes to hurt my feelings deeply. 50. The kinds of things that make me es- pecially proud of myself, elated, full of self-esteem or self-respect. Best "-.derent Friend Spouse Group 51. My feelings about the appearance of my face--things I don't like, and things that I might like about my face and head-~nose, eyes, hair, teeth, etc. 52. How I wish I looked: my ideals for overall appearance. 53. lMy feelings about different parts of my body--legs, hips, waist, weight, chest, or bust, etc. 54. Any problems and worries that I had ‘with my appearance in the past. 55. Whether or not I now have any health problems--e.g., trouble with sleep, di- gestion, female complaints, heart condition, allergies, headaches, piles, etc. 56. Whether or not I have any long-range worries or concerns about my health, e.g., cancer, ulcers, heart trouble. 57. iMy past record of illness and treat- ments 0 58. Whether or not I now make special effort to keep fit, healthy, and attrac- tive, e.g., calisthenics, diet. 59. My present physical measurements, e.g., height, weight, waist, etc. 60. My feelings about my adequacy in sexual behavior-dwhether or not I feel able to perform.adequately in sex-relation- ships. APPENDIX D HURLEY SELF-DISCLOSURE RATINGS (HSDR) 95 96 Development of the Hurley Self-Disclosure Ratings The HSDR was developed while the pilot study was in progress. The only available measurement instrument con- cerned with SD was the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire which is based on self-report. It seemed critical to have some way of assessing SD that was based on observations and the perception of others. The descriptive categories on the scale have been revised several times. Earlier versions of the scale were given to individuals and groups, and the scale was modified on the basis of the difficulties encountered. The pilot group received the same form given in this study except that additional instructions were read to all groups in this research. These instructions represented further efforts to improve the descriptive categories which may be revised before the HSDR is published. The scoring of the HSDR is described in Measurement. Reading the scale itself will further clarify its purpose. ‘.|I|l'|. ‘ II I III I I. I III ll.‘ 97 Hurley Self-Disclosure Ratings Shirley J. Hurley and John R. Hurley Michigan State University The concept of Self-Disclosure with which this scale is con- cerned is described by Sidney Jourard in the Transparent Self. How self-disclosing a person should be rated depends more upon the direction of his perceived motivation and intent than it does upon the number of self—references, amount of verbalization, level of insight, or the appropriateness of the self-conception. The person's general behavior, affect, apparent degree of honesty, and sincerity must all be taken into account. For example, a person who constantly talks about himself in the group may not be a real self-discloser when carefully observed but may be wearing a mask of transparency or playing a "game" of "See how Open and honest I am." Glibness and pseudo self-revealing statements may be nearly as defensive or as self-concealing as complete refusal to talk about feel- ings. Psychology, social-work, and counseling students are very often found playing at this game of "dig my great insights." An individual may be generally quiet and say practically nothing about himself but make a single statement with great feelings, such as, "I realize how much I have always tried to please people by presenting-myself as Just being a nice person, but I'm really afreaid of people," or "I'm beginning to realize that I have never been close to anyone." Even if this is the only remark a person utters in an hour but it was very meaningful to him, the individual should be rated in the self—disclosing direction. Difficult to rate accurately is the individual who seems to think a lot about himself but who often arrives at very erroneous or naive conclusions about himself. Even if it is obvious that the individual is a long way from knowing or being completely honest with himself, but appears genuinely motivated to move toward further self-discovery, he should be rated in the self-disclosing direction. Obviously no individual is completely transparent and openly self-disclosing in all situations, but there are some who seem deeply motivated to move in this direction and are almost always willing to examine their thinking or behavior. An important feature of this rating scale is the attempt to assess motivation toward "openness" or movement away from it. 98 The intent of this scale is to differentiate peOple on their motivation and style of communication with others in the absence of any concern with their psychopathology or psychi— atric status. One puzzling aspect of working with people has been the small relationship of the extent of "sickness" or "wellness," or "life adjustment" to individuals' ability to communicate in psychotherapeutic situations. Some clients with histories of depression or neurotic behaviors may progress faster in group counseling than some so—called "normals." Psychiatric classifications may be less important with respect to the individual's growth potential than the organization of their self—system in terms of its-rigidity or fluidity which is manifested by their degree of self- disclosure in interpersonal communication. 99 Modified Instructions for Administration ' of the HSDR Give the scale while you are present. Give them a little time to read it. Tell them that these ratings will not be shared with anyone unless they wish to personally discuss a rating with an individual in the group at some later time. The ratings will not have any detrimental affect upon anyone so they need not be concerned with giving posi- tive ratings. Tell them about the tendency to rate people in the middle of scales and to try to avoid the usual sets etc. Be sure to emphasize that they are to concentrate on rating the behavior observed within the group. If they know the person outside the group try to think only about within group behavior. Tell them to look at the sheet. Read #1 as it appears. Then say "Many of you have probably encountered and may be encountering within the group individuals who talk and relate to you or others but seem to not hear you or others about arguments, opinions, feelings, or_whatever. These people react as though they have definite sets about their opinions, values, etc. which are hardly modified for appropriate situations. You can often predict what this type of individual will say on most occasions after getting acquainted with their set. This type is usually quite opinionated etc." Read #2. Then say "This type of individual is very similar to #l and the major difference is more of degree or sophistication. This type person often seems to hear others and seems more receptive to others views but over a period of time it becomes obvious that they have found new ways to present essentially the same themes either about others or themselves. A feeling of superi- ority, greater intelligence or self righteousness is sometimes apparent although partially concealed by a pleasant facade. Read #3 and #U. "These are more obvious categories as these people are very quiet and participate very little in the group interaction on a comparative basis. The main difference is in terms of observed feelings. #3 seems more sulky, bored, indifferent or angry. #U is the quiet person who rarely speaks but Judging from facial expressions seems interested and involved but hindered by anxiety or habit from fuller involvement." 100 Read #5. "This is often a pleasant congenial talkative group member who seems involved but avoids more personal or intimate expressions either of his own or in others. May respond to another's problems with sympathy but shifts the problem to make it lighter or ordinary or in some way less threatening to discuss." Read #6. "This individual is more interested in talking about personal feelings and problems than #5 but always about some one else's problems rather than his own." Read #7 and #8. "These categories seem fairly obvious. They are similar but vary in degree. #7 really shares feelings and problems with the group but doesn't seem as comfortable in doing this or does it much less than #8. Probably few people are like #8 much of the time." Now rate all members including yourself on the form. Rate by number. Feel free to ask questions. .mom was» 101 psonm mHomupomEooCS .Hmow.mHCp .moCoCmm mCmmoom Eooamm Cpfiz oHompComEoo .zsp 0p campmm IpaCCH pCmaoqm oCm MCHmoHoch IC: mammoom moEHp mCHmp no so :30: mHCu CH pCmmoCQ Inflow wCHon upwzop ImEom pan meono mCfizoCx: pOC mo ago mEmmm mmEHmeom ompm>fipoe >Hnwfic Cpfis omCmCm on Coo mCmeo Cow: mpmo zpfiafipmoc wCfima on on mEmow Compmo COan zpmmConthmm IHCCEEoo 0p wCHCmfiz nCwoC: C< .CoHp one =.pCmCmdmCmCu: . m onwao» cmpm> mo mozufipum Cm ImQfiOHpCmQ HmHOOm w>mzam poC Luzon» lfipoE szCHCme on mmm>Coo .Cmmm oCm uaoaam on monommo IH< .mafiCmCoHu . on mammm .oEHp mpmfime mo mCSmooxm mumammm .mCmCuo Imam; HmComLoameCH .0» mafia Eopm one meHmwm mmCommo spa: pCoEm>Ho>CH >CmE CH maCHHomm mCmeo ompooamm m mm mpH>Hmme meHmwm mmCmmmo CCm mpnmsocu Hams o» Ems» mHmo> mom: va coHpom m mm zpfi>awmmo MCHCmCm CH oo>Ho> Imp oCm meHHmmm IsmuCH Hwfioom EoCm mom: oCm Cofipom ICH >Hm>fiuom mH .m C30 Cufiz =pompCoo CamConH3 mammm .: qupCH Hmfioom Eosm ooom= CH mEomm .5 CBmCUCpfiz mEmmm .m oszoqomHolmqmm m m oquoo m H \ R V [b l. A / \ R m m qzoo om>qo>zH : m .ozH44mozoolmqmm wqemm>o . . .Cofim .oomu Imopaxo HmCoauoEm mac» mmNHEopHoo Cfi m>HmComwo can» .mCmeo :o>amoon Co :pCmHHo mzmHa= :omanHCCH= osoE .mmeH vmnfimmo m Cams: on pOC mammm Cw>o zaopmn nap mEmmm .mmCHHmmm mo pCoQQSm pmnpasm Comnom .mpmpumCoQ =C0HmmCsoo mmmHo= Cme ConwC memo“ CH CoHuHmoq o>am p.Cmmoo CoapmpCopm zapCmsooau ou maowpma Cofipmm . ICmmoo 3mC m moCmHH ICoo .onHC mCo> on: ComCoa one 1Co>Coo mpoHCpmmC Inwpmo maxofisd pan mEmmm mpsuozppm .meHHomm Hmcom scan: mcoo Hmfioom . .zaflpmuCoEoE mCmeo mpHHmCOmCmm upon C30 mamm>mp m on thECOMCoo =o>HoomC va CmoC: .mpCmEmpmum madame can mEmH ho CmpHEHH ma 0» msoom .mCo>:mCmE mam» m>HmCmmmU Inopa oCm maCHHmom pun mCHompso on m>HwCommo an Coap mxme Co mNHHmCoap .mpmnpo Lou oonmo mm: .mamm mem>oC ImpCOCMCoo mpmammm Imp mHHmCCfipCoo on. Icoo ch oo>Ho>CH mHoCmC pan ComCoQ .mHOC a wcfimmHQ on on mammm .mwmsfilmamm mamCHCme mEmmm zfiocmfinm zaam mEmom zaawCMme use Umpamoo mEom pomw UCm CofiuonCsEEoo uCOHpCo>COo m mo .mwmefilmaom oopfimmo m Iopq o» upommm mso- HmHQOm CH mmpmafio oHoC me mamam .m poonopa o» omoC mso IH>no Cm mmxmz .H IHpCma Cmpmo .o IH>no mmma m mam .m mq - 1 . 1 2 1 . 1 , - 1 - 3 1. A A Q Q 2 ' 2 1 s. 1 1 1 » a r .1 1 2 8 9 3 3 1 2 Q . 1 2 1 1. . 1 . 3 2 9 3. .. A A 1 O x 3 2 .- 1 1 1 2 1; r: 1 1 6 3 3 - 1 ; O 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 . o 1 o 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 Q 1 1 1,. 1 '- :1 2 c .- 1 A A - A 3 A 3. Q 1‘ 1‘ , 3 1.1 O 2 c A 9 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 . C.) - 11 - o L‘ 1 1 r 1 6 3 2 kit) A l g) L—1 P) :3 A: I L1) l g A A A 1 :13 0 U1 KA) C3 C164 1 C n ‘1 (:1 ‘1 . C‘ ") <—4’ H HP‘KA (— 1C h Wffij wit—J" r1 7‘ O C'I‘I‘LAJI—‘C‘C‘I‘W ECELILAJ r 1'1 06—! U) z N Lu ‘-.‘ r *7 n . H ::‘1<3 C) I 1‘ rJ rm r 1 5 -O;11 p—I l'\.1 5.311111); 1 r.— F‘ "1 ( r J LA. 1 (‘1 ' ; l k- 1.1 6—3 6- r-.;1 1—3 £- egg 1: P H0 .161 P13142111 C.) (.1 to V3 EELuD—J r , 0 Ln 7 Q ; 3 1 - tr 1 1 2 1 ‘3 1 A 1 1 1 A 6 3 2 - Q - . : 3 1 .1 3 ~ . ;. 1 - . 1 1 1 ~ 1 3 1 j 3 C) ' : 3 3 1 5 ’2 1% A -1 ' U - ” 5‘ C A 3 1 1" .7 O 1 1 1 1 g . 1 1‘ 1 1 11 3 1 1 5 c 3: 3 3 1 2 1 O 1 3 1 . 1, 6 1» 1 1 3 11 3 3 .1 2 A 3 2 1 1 1 3 Q 1 2 2 1 _ 3 . 1. 1.1 O 11 :2 1 A 1 o 1 1 1. 1 9 © 1 z 1 1' . . . A 11 11 31 3 2 1 1 :1 2 2' 1 O - 11 1 1 1 11 ' 1 1 11 3 1 x 2 1 ; 1 1 .: 1 Q ‘6 U n 1 2 . 3 - 1 . r . 2 'yr“‘."‘O O O' . p- .1 {L ,1 y.) r _\ 1 '1 P140 7 \ 5., ,_1 3 LA) ‘AJ LA.“ 1" NHL» A} I‘ '3 l\— \ I- .. 6.45—1;_ \A,L" '3:— _ .11 6—4 r—Qr-a >— 6—4 1-1 .. :©-~ ()61-a1w t 3_J 3 Fl F4 1“ ;_1 7‘. :_ 17 1 F A . £’ ' A J K. 5.4 .i‘ .4 P =; an f‘ 3 —J U LA) k1 LA. ‘2 . 1' . v—dtv 17,- 6 L1 ULI_L,u . . A .1 . . a A , g 1 . - (1 , j l e l 2 1 I L 1 - . - i» 1 A J 4 * J 3 ~ ~ ‘ j ' s 1% i A A 1 A . 7 , .1. 1 A. l l 1 - c l : . ‘9 - A J. j, j - 1 . .. . I 1 ~ Q 1 < , c . “ ~. A . I I ' ' 1 . . 1 , 1. 1 ‘ x 3‘ - u - ‘ 1 6. l ‘ ‘Q ~ \ . ‘ 1 1 ‘l‘ I“ {'1‘ ’ o A A 411/1 J'} 6 A k D . 'M11IL r‘ “ALAJ r‘_‘ C r 1‘0.) O . , 1 L. A.» ; '_A1 A Hc—F‘ L 5.11 ‘1 h-) 1'th .A $4 y..1A r _~‘—‘* 11 :LAJ'A (40kt) “Adjusted JCL scores “re derived by 811‘ in; to eaen n-M—.arried group member's score the mean marital score of the campus or Jackson gc;1-2tion. "The nominations do not always total the same as the grout number as in spite of directions members sometimes included the leader or thenslev s or left item blank. If two members were cited, each was given .5. NOTE: Audio tapes of some group sessions were made and could be reviewed if duplication of research ever intended. APPENDIX I PILOT STUDY 119 120 Pilot Study A pilot study was done prior to this research. Seven people were selected randomly from 816C students enrolling for the fall term. The purpose of this study was to try the technique of IPR with a group before using it in the research design. The pilot study treatment corresponded with the VR treatment in this research. All the measurement devices used in the research were used with the pilot group (see Measurement) except the pre—test of the HSDR which had not been developed at that time. An effort was made to get ratings on the HSDR scale by observers during the VR session, but this proved im— practical. It was decided to have the group members rate each other instead. This group seemed highly motivated toward becoming self—disclosing, but it seemed to the group leader that they were often frustrated by their interaction which appeared to be restrained prior to the experimental session. There seemed to be an obvious impact of the VR session even though the IPR method was ineXpertly managed by the group leader due to lack of experience with the technique. Following the introduction of the accelerating technique the group expressed a great deal of anxiety and hostility toward each other, as well as the leader, which ultimately appeared to enhance their intimate involvement with each other. 121 The results of the measurements could not be compared with other groups. Since they were given only the post- test of the HSDR, the only conclusion possible was that it seemed effective in discriminating openness within the group. The JSD pre-test was administered after the group had received the instructions and assignments which stressed Jourard's theory and importance of SD. When E. realized this mistake, it was assumed that it could have been respon— sible for the high JSD scores on the pre-test. The group mean decreased on the JSD post-test although the tftest was non—significant. An increase of SD had been predicted, and there seemed little doubt that the group had had a success— ful experience. There was support for this assumption in the group's decision to continue their group association beyond the quarter. The pilot study thus provided some evidence that the JSD measure might not be valid, but the evidence was not persuasive since the pre-test had been contaminated, and the number of subjects was so small. Although the same statistical procedure was not used with this data as with the research data, inspection of the scores on the various measures indicated positive cor— relations between high SD scores and group pOpularity and low SD scores and lack of group pOpularity. For example, the member receiving the highest SD scores on the HSDR and DDR received 50 per cent of "most liked" nominations and 90 per cent of the "most helpful" nominations. The member 122 who received the lowest SD scores on the HSDR and DDR received all the MCN nominations and "least liked" nomina- tions. The pilot study was useful in planning the design of this research and specifically useful in planning the method used for the VR treatment. As a result of the difficulties encountered by the group leader in shifting from that role to the role of interrogator, it was decided to use trained experienced IPR interrogators in the research design. The study also seemed to provide evidence that an experimental treatment technique could accelerate group process and increase SD, since it was the Judgment of the experimenter that VR treatment made a considerable change in the intensity of group interaction. "Ililifljlilllllllifli’1'“