A STUDY OF SOME FFECTS OF THE
THERAPIST'S PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR
AND OF THE CLIEN'YS‘ REACUONS
£N PSYCHO?HERAPY

Thus for Hm Degree a; DB. D.
MICHEGAN STATE UNWERSITY
Hannah Lerman
1963

THESIS

INQIHIUHIIQILIUILIIIIN!IIIIIIIIIHHHIIIIII ;

12 0528 1921

O

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF SOME EFFECTS OF
THE THERAPISTS' PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR
AND OF THE CLIENTS' REACTIONS
IN PSYCHOTHERAPY

presented by
Ha nnah Le rma n

has been accepted townrds fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in PSZChOIogy

£42

‘1

 

Date Auqust I. I963

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF SOME EFFECTS OF THE THERAPISTS PERSONALITY AND
BEHAVIOR AND OF THE CLIENTS' REACTIONS IN PSYCHOTHERAPY

by Hannah Lerman

The attempt was made to study whether the therapist's
behavior and his personality as they are observed outside
of the therapy situation could predict his reactions in
therapy to his presentation by the client of certain specific
content areas, those dealing with dependency, hostility and
sex. Whether the therapist behavior and personality as this
is perceived by the client has an impact upon the client°s
subsequent behavior was also studied.

The hypotheses tested were that the greater therapist
anxieties were in the areas of dependency, hostility and
sexuality, the less likely they were to approach expression
in these areas by the clients. A relationship between
greater affectivity in the therapist and increasing likeli-
hood of his approaching dependency expressed by the client
was also postulated. It was also hypothesized that greater

therapist anxieties about the three content areas studied

Hannah Lerman

would cause clients to be less likely to continue to express
content dealing with these areas.

Seventeen advanced graduate students who worked in
the Counseling Center at Michigan State University were
the therapists studied. They were rated on eleven five-
point scales by three senior staff members who knew them
well.

The content of therapy interviews early in the thera-
peutic series conducted by these therapists, a total of
thirty-eight interviews, was studied and analyzed according
to a system adapted slightly from that used by Bandura t l.

(1960) and Winder e; _l. (1962).

The hypotheses relating the therapist's dependency
anxiety to his behavior and to the behavior of his clients
were partially confirmed. The therapist's rating on the
dependency inhibition scale was related both to his behavior
in relationship to his clients' expression of dependency.
especially when he was not its object, and to his clients'
reaction to his behavior.

A nonlinear relationship between sexual anxiety and
therapist approval to sex was suggested. This was discussed

in terms of the probability that extreme overt interest in

sex might represent another kind of anxiety about sex than

Hannah Lerman

extreme inhibition of overt sexual interest and not repre-
sent sexual ease at all.

The hypotheses concerning hostility and the affectivity
level of the therapist were not confirmed. The relationship
between the therapist's approach to sexuality expressed by
his clients and his ratings on the scales dealing with his
sexual expression proved to be significant in the opposite
direction from that predicted. The clients were more likely
to continue to express sexual material after the therapist
approached sex if he was rated as being less overtly inter-
ested in sexual matters. This finding was discussed in
terms of the meaning it might have for clients to perceive
their therapist as being interested in sex when this was
expressed early in the therapeutic series.

Support was reported for the differential effects
upon the client of the therapist's approaching and avoiding
hostility and dependency content expressed by the client.
as found previously by Bandura eg 1. (1960) and Winder

._t._l. (1962). A similar result was also found for the
difference in the client's continuation of expression of
sexual material after approach and avoidance by the

therapist.

Differences in therapist behavior toward males and

Hannah Lerman

females was found for the areas of dependency and hostility,
but not for sexual material. This was discussed in terms
of its possible relevance for the areas which were probably
most problematic for males and females in the population
studied.

Differences were also found between therapist behavior
in first and second interviews and fifth interviews in the
extent to which they approached dependency. This was dis-
cussed in terms of its implications for changes in thera-
pist behavior being related to different requirements of
different phases of therapy.

Implications were stated as to the possible relation—
ship of the therapist's experience and training in therapy
to his behavior and the possible action of this variable in
masking or obscuring the relationship of his behavior to
personality variables.

Some implications of the present study for further

research were also discussed.

A STUDY OF SOME EFFECTS OF THE
THERAPIST'S PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR
AND OF THE CLIENTS' REACTIONS

IN PSYCHOTHERAPY

BY

Hannah Lerman

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1963

Dedicated with love

to those who have helped me grow

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my thanks to many people
for help, given in the forms both of assistance with the
theoretical, technical and mechanical aspects of this
study and as moral and emotional support to its author.

Thanks are acknowledged to Dr. William E. Mueller
and Philip F. Caracena for making available the tape record-
ings upon which the study is based, to the therapists who
cooperated by providing the tape recordings originally and
to their clients too, to Drs. Bill L. Kell, Harry Grater
and Joseph Morse who acted as raters of the therapists
studied, and to Edward J. Barnes who collaborated with the
author in the coding of the tape recordings.

Acknowledgement is gratefully given also to Drs.
Bill L. Kell, Charles Hanley and Josephine Morse who,
at different times and in his or her own different ways,
shocked the writer into stopping, taking a long intensive
look and thinking through a portion of the problem. Special
thanks are given to Dr. Morse who seemed to know what the
author meant more clearly than she'd been able to say and

helped her to be able to spell it out. Acknowledgement is

iii

given too for help from Leonard Handler and Dr. Mary
Leichty in deciphering the meaning of a portion of the results.
Gratitude cannot be contained and.must be expressed
to Drs. Bill L. Kell and Josephine Morse for their support
and encouragement when things looked bleak and for their

unfailing trust throughout it all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

The Participants' Contribution to the
Therapeutic Process
Statement of the Problem

II. FORMMLATION OF HYPOTHESES

The History of Research Interest in the
Therapist

Content-Analysis as a Means of Studying
Process

The Hypotheses of this Study

III. METHOD . . . . . . . .

The Subjects
Procedures

Collecting the Tape Recordings
Content-analyzing the Tape Recordings
Rating the Therapists' Personality

IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hostility
Dependency

Sex

V. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DATA

Discussion

Conclusions
VI. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

l3

13

16
19

24

24
25

25
26
32
4O
4O
46
55
61

61
72

78

82

Table

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Inter-judge reliability in coding the
approach and continuance ratios .

Inter-judge reliability in rating personality
variables

Intra-judge consistency

Correlations between the therapist rating
scales and the approach and continuance
ratios for hostility

Comparison of the hostility ratios in the
early and later tapes .

Correlations between the therapist rating
scales and the approach and
continuance ratios for dependency

Correlation of approval seeking with the
other dependency and hostility rating
scales . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the dependency ratios in the
early and later tapes . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations between therapist approach to
dependency and his ratings on the sex
scales for males and females . .

Correlations between the therapist rating
scales and the approach and continuance

ratios for sexual content . . . .

Comparisons of the sex ratios in the early
and later tapes . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

33

36

38

41

44

47

50

51

54

56

59

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Coding Manual for Tape Recordings . . . . . 87
B. Materials for the Rating of the
Therapists' Personality . . . . . . . . 100

vii

I . INTRODUCTION

The Participants' Contribution to the
Therapeutic Process

Transference is the focal concept in the psycho-
analytic theory of psychotherapy. It is classically defined
as that special emotional attachment which a patient develops
toward his analyst (Freud, 1922). It is the occurrence
of the transference that is said to make the analysis
possible. The emotional involvement of the patient with
his analyst arises out of the unconscious tendencies and
fantasies which the analytic process activates and brings
into consciousness. The impulses thus aroused come to be
directed to the person of the analyst rather than toward
some persons, usually his parents, who were important in
the patient's earlier life (Freud, 1905).

The psychoanalytic treatment process revolves
around the resolution of this artificially acquired trans-
ference neurosis (Freud, 1924). The patient's reactions to
the analyst are continually interpreted to him as a re-
experience of emotions which originated in his earliest
object-attachments during childhood (Freud, 1925). The

l

transference phenomenon itself, however, was considered by
Freud to be universal. He saw it not only as occurring in
the patient with regard to the analyst but as playing some
part in all other human relationships as well (Freud, 1915).
In all cases, what is said to be involved, however, is the
compulsion to repeat in the present the unconscious irrational
infantile instinctual strivings from the past (Freud, 1920).
Neo-Freudians and other later theorists outside the
orthodox psychoanalytic camp now ignore, where they do not
overtly reject, the Freudian energistic concept of libido.
Other Freudian concepts such as transference have often been
retained although they have been divorced from their relation-
ship to libidinal energy. Transference, even where it has
not remained central in later theoretical discussions, has
usually been retained as important even where greatly modi-
fied in form and meaning. Orr (1954) points out that the
basic premise that something is transferred to the person
of the analyst or lived through in the course of psychotherapy“
has generally been accepted. The modifications which have
taken place in the classical Freudian view of transference
revolve around the issue of what it is that is transferred
to the therapist and what mechanism is involved in accomp-

lishing this transfer.

Theorists now commonly see the development of
personality as related to the interplay of interpersonal
relationships rather than to the vicissitudes of libidinal
energy. They prefer also to think of What is transferred
not as infantile instinctual derivatives but as the general-
ization of behavior learned in the context of previous
relationships. Statements to this effect may be found in
the works of the learning theory therapists (Dollard & Miller,
1950) and in the theories of the Neo-Freudians. Karen
Horney (1939), for example, states her position thusly:

Neuroses are ultimately the expression of
disturbances in human relationships: the analytical
relationship is one special form of human relation-
ships and existing disturbances are bound to appear
here as they appear elsewhere; the particular
conditions under which an analysis is conducted
render it possible to study these disturbances here
more accurately than elsewhere and to convince the
patient of their existence and of the role they
play. If the concept of tranSference is thus dis-
entangled from the theoretical bias of the repetition
compulsion, it will in time yield the results which
it is intrinsically capable of producing.

Wolstein (1954) goes even further in stating his
position. In his View:

The repetition compulsion. in Freud's con-
ceptual system, denies the fact of emergence,
novelty and reconstructability, since its mech-
anistic formulation located the possibilities for
change in the initial events of a developmental
series. It was construed as being solely a property
of a traumatic event or set of events located

at single points in time in a particular era of
personality development - the oedipal phase or
earlier. This deterministic View makes the very
possibility of psychoanalytic therapy theoretically
dubious: it seems, moreover, to reverse the
actualities of the case, since the compulsion to
repeat, as we know today, evolves very gradually

and continually undergoes some modicum of change,

if only the slightest, in each of the multiple
situations in which it occurs. The compulsion to
repeat need no longer be analyzed as a mechanical
repetition. It may be conceived as a habitual
interpersonal pattern whose future is open-ended, as
a dynamic mode of reaction which has evolved, perhaps
lost its original reason for being, and emerged with
new and different functions requiring independent
examination. For the emergence of a repetition,
being woven into a variety of dissimilar situations
over widely distributed periods of time, acquires
new features which must also be treated in their

own terms.

Wolstein's statement that each situation produces
a reaction that is somehow new despite its similarity to
past reactions leads us to another aspect of the classical
Freudian concept of transference besides its ehergistic base
and mechanistic form that is also not very well accepted
currently, the idea that the emotional reactions of the
patient to his analyst are totally irrational and completely
based in his, the patient's, past history (Freud, 1915). A
more currently acceptable View is that the obvious real
sociocultural and personal characteristics of the analyst

which are apparent to the patient serve as stimuli and are

the springboards for the patient's reactions and fantasies

(Wolstein, 1960). That is, the transference phenomena are
seen not as a result solely of the patient's psychodynamics:
rather they are regarded as being a result of a very complex
interplay between the patient's dymanic personality structure
and the therapist's overt and subtle cultural and personality
characteristics. 'Each patient is assumed to be likely to
exhibit somewhat different transference behaviors with
different therapists, the differences, of course, being the
result of variables associated with the therapist while the
similarities would be more revealing of the patient's
psychological life.

When we begin to consider those variables which are
associated with the therapist rather than the patient, we
-are moving into the less clearly charted area of counter-
transference. Although transference has been a key concept
of psychoanalytic theory, counter-transference has been a
peripheral concept until quite recently. Freud's original
statements about counter-transference were quite ambiguous
(Wolstein, 1959). He projected an image of the analyst as
an undistorted reflecting surface on the one hand (Freud,
1912). This implied that the analyst ideally experienced
no feelings or, if he did, was able to keep them from being

seen by the patient or from affecting his behavior toward

the patient (Freud, 1915). On the other hand, Freud pictures
the resolution of the transference as a struggle by the
analyst with the patient in which he was active in over-
coming resistance and guiding the direction of the analysis
(Freud, 1915). At another time, he indicated that the

analyst was to be a modelaand a teacher (Freud, 1937).

These images presuppose involvements with the patients that
seem to contrast sharply with the cool detachment of a surgeon
or the unchanged reflections of a mirror.

Orr (1954) notes that a distinction between two
aspects or components of counter—transference was implicit
even in the work of the earliest writers on this subject
who followed Freud. A differentiation was made even then
between the analyst's reaction to the patient's transference
and the analyst's own transference to the patient arising
from his own unresolved neurotic difficulties. Whether
both aspects are included within the framework of the concept
of counter-transference is still very much a matter of dispute.

Definitions of counter-transference abound. They
range all the way from considering it to include all the
emotional reactions which a therapist has toward his patients,
both conscious and unconscious (Sharpe, 1947), to definitions

restricting it to the effects of the therapist's unconscious

needs and conflicts upon his understanding and his technique
(A. Reich, 1951). This last definition is perhaps the most
well accepted of those which are available.

From Freud onward, there have been many statements
about the therapist's need to be completely non-neurotic
(i.e., fully analyzed) and to completely eliminate any
vestiges of unconscious distortions and manifestations of
neurotic needs from his behavior. While there is little
question that this ideal is desirable, the frequency with
which it has been set forth as a perscription for a long
time prevented anyone from looking at what kinds of
effects residual distortions and even fully blown neurotic
manifestations by the therapist actually had upon the
process of therapy.

Snyder (1961), reacting to the implications of the
perpetual statement of the ideal, has this to say:

It seems to us that available research results

are tending to indicate that therapists are people.
rather than minor gods of some sort, and consequently
that their behavior is subject to the same laws of
learning as the rest of mankind. Actually it should
not be necessary to make such a statement, and yet
the theoretical implications of several schools of
therapy are such that they would seem to make almost
superhuman requirements of the therapist. For
example, we do not feel that it is reasonable to
expect the therapist to have no adjustment problems
at all, to maintain therapeutic distance by

admitting to very few positive feelings toward
his clients, or to have nothing but positive

feelings toward them, to make g9 evaluations of
his clients, or to be able to play all roles with
equal facility.

If therapists are people, as Snyder suggests (and
even the psychoanalysts have dropped hints that they agree),
they are never fully non—neurotic or free of residues, at the
very least, of former irrational needs. On the other hand,
recalling Orr's distinction (Orr, 1954) between analyst
reactions to patients' transference and the analyst's own
transference to the patient, it is easy to see that the
neurotic and non-neurotic elements of the therapist's
emotional reactions would not be simple to differentiate
from one another if we hypothesize, as we must, a state of
near-normality at least in the therapist rather than one
of extreme aberration.

A large part of the importance of the counter—
transference lies in its relationship to the transference
of the patient. Alice and Michael Balint (1939) point out
that because the analyst is a human being, it is absolutely
impossible for him to keep himself out of sight or notjto
exist as a stimulus for his patients. He has a name, a
sex, an age, an office, a certain physical appearance, a
particular taste in clothes and distinct personal mannerisms

in his walk, his stance, his facial expressions, his voice

and his choice of language, among other things. In the
broadest sense in which the concept can be used, all of these
aspects of the analyst's personality and behavior are seen
by them as being transferred onto his patients and then re-
transferred back to the analyst, i.e., seen as stimuli for
the patients for whatever purposes they consciously and
unconsciously choose to use them. The stimuli the patients
are presented with are seen as integral factors in forming
the transference reactions of the patients. If a patient
chooses (consciously or unconsciously) to be covertly
hostile, his way of doing this will vary depending both
upon what stimuli he is presented with as well as upon the
meaning these stimuli have for him (i.e., his emotional
reactions to them).

In addition to the therapist's stimulus value-peg fie.
we have already noted the importance of the therapist's
reactions to the behavior and stimulus value of his patients.
In their more abstract form, these are apparent in the
therapist's adaptations of technique and behavior to various
kinds of patients (e.g., children and psychotics) and in the
individuation which is said to occur with each patient in
response to his particular needs. At the more individual and

.7

personal level, the therapist's reactions are affected by his

lO

transference to the patient——his counter-transference.
Here the term . is used in its broadest sense and is meant
to refer to all the personal behavioral reactivity of the
therapist.

It would include such behavioral reactions as his
habitual, or at least frequently used, ways of responding to
various ways patients may initially greet him, the fact that
he may encourage silent patients to speak or that he usually
does not, a discernable rhythm or pattern in what he chooses
to respond to among the possibilities presented and parti-
cular phrasings of his reactions to certain areas of behavior
in his patients as well as behavior which is more clearly and
closely related to his own anxieties and conflicts and arises
as these are triggered by particular behaviors by his patients.
Like the continuing and relatively static stimulus value he
presents, the therapist's continual reactivity to the patient
is also seen as providing the patient with stimuli which
play their parts in determining the nature of his trans-

ference reactions.

Statement of the Problem

There is a large volume of literature which deals

theoretically with the effect of the therapist upon the

1.11

patient or client and some which discusses the reciprocal
effects of the client upon the therapist. As will be il-
lustrated in the following chapter, however, there is only
a very small amount of research literature which explores
these ideas empirically. The purpose of the present study
is to contribute to the empirical investigation of the
relationship between the therapist and his client.

The general question under study is whether the
therapist's behavior toward his patients or clients possesses
a generality which somehow expresses something about himself
as well as expressing something about each of his clients.

In addition, how the impact of the therapist's behavior and
personality causes the client to react will also be studied.

More specifically, can the therapist's personality and
behavior as they are observed outside of therapy predict his
reactions in therapy to the stimuli presented by the client?
Aspects of his personality connected with his methods of
dealing with dependency, hostility, and sexuality outside
the therapy situation will be looked at as will aspects
of his level of comfort in dealing with feelings. How.his
reactions in therapy to client expression of content dealing
with dependency, hostility and sex relates to his personality

will be studied.

12

Secondly, does the therapist's behavior and his
personality as this is perceived by the client affect what
the client will do subsequently? The client's behavior
with regard to the expression of need or anxiety about the
areas of dependency, hostility and sexuality after certain
kinds of therapist reaction to these areas will be looked
at in conjunction with several aSpects of the therapist's
personality.

Although the theoretical basis for the present
study lies in the Freudian concepts of transference and
counter—transference and the subsequent modifications these
concepts have undergone, these terms themselves will seldom
be mentioned beyond this point. They are being defined here
in terms of stimulus and reaction and it is these terms
which will be used instead. It is recognized, however,
that this investigation will be dealing with somewhat
limited aspects of the very complex phenomena of transference

and counter-transference.

II. FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESES

The History of Research Interest in the Therapist

The literature dealing with the therapist has prolifer-
ated greatly since 1950. A wide variety of therapist variables
have been singled out either for study or for theoretical
comment. Many of the variables whose effects have been in—
vestigated can be classified as readily observable. These
include the study of the professional affiliation of the
therapist (Hiler, 1958: Korman, 1960; Strupp, 1955b, 1960),
his professed theoretical orientation (Fey, 1958: Fiedler,
1950, 1953; Strupp, 1955a; Sundland & Barker, 1962), and
. his degree of experience (Abeles, 1962; Chance, 1959:

Fey, 1958: Fiedler, 1953; Strupp, 1955a, 1955b, 1960).
Attempts have also been made. however, to study less tangible
and less easily quantified contributions of the therapist

.to the therapeutic interaction such as: his level of
competence (Bandura, 1956; Fiedler, 1951, 1953; Hiler, 1958;
Holt &-Luborsky, 1958; Kelly & Fiske, 1951; Peterson e§._l.,
1958), his sensitivity (Abeles, 1961: Holt & Luborsky, 19587
Rosenberg, 1962). and various aspects of himself even more

closely associated with his personality (Bandura, 1956;

13

l4

Bandura e; _1., 1960; Cutler, 1958; Holt & Luborsky, 1958;
Kelly & Goldberg, 1959; Rosenberg, 1962; Strupp, 1960).
Surprisingly, the highly visible variable of sex of the
therapist has been virtually ignored until recently (Hiler,
1958; Ivey, 1960).

These varied explorations of the therapist clearly
indicate that his identity and personal characteristics do
matter. To put it another way, who and what he is do seem
to affect the client and the course of therapy. This seems
to hold whatever dimension you choose to define the "who."
Psychiatrists and psychologists differ (Strupp, 1960).
Psychologists differ among themselves according to the
orientation they profess to hold (Sundland & Barker, 1962),
despite the findings of the earlier well—known but less
well controlled study by Fiedler (1953). Amount of exper-
ience changes how therapists view prognosis and influences
their diagnostic formulations (Chance, 1959; Strupp, 1960)
but seemingly is one factor among many in its relationship
to the therapist's judged sensitivity (Rosenberg, 1962) and
level of anxiety (Russell, 1961: Bandura, 1956). Therapists
who are judged to be less competent are more conflicted
(Cutler, 1958) and more anxious (Bandura, 1956).

The availability of any research material at all

15

dealing with phenomena in and around the psychotherapy
situation goes back only a very few years. While Freud

early recognized the need for research (1919), he thought
mainly in terms of the use of the analytic observation as a
means to further knowledge about psychopathological function—
ing rather than as being useful in the study of psychotherapy
as a process unto itself (Freud, 1912).

The study of this latter initially neglected area
began with attempts to preserve the ephemeral events of
psychotherapy by the use of electrical recording equipment
(Frank, 1961). The political scientist and psychoanalyst
Harold Lasswell (1929) and the psychologist Bernard Covner
(1942) were the pioneers in this endeavor.

Covner's work was done within the framework of the
client-centered school of psychotherapy which, from its
inception, has been deeply committed to research activity
(Rogers, 1942). Until quite recently, the major portion
of the psychological research literature dealing with psycho-
therapy has originated within this group (see Cartwright,
1957). Their important early work, however, as typified
and exemplified in the Rogers and Dymond (1954) volume,
focused primarily upon the investigation of the outcome of

psychotherapy and only secondarily and tangentially upon

16

the actual process of therapy. Where the study of process
was attempted through the analysis of interview content
and its categorization (Raimy, 1948; Seeman, 1949; Snyder,
1945), the primary focus was upon client variables and change
in these over time. These attempts were among the earliest
content systems developed, having been preceded only by
Lasswell's (1938) outside the client-centered school.

It was only later that general recognition began to
be given, both by the client-centered group (Rogers, 1961)
and increasingly by others (e.g., Grinker e£;§1., 1961), to
those factors apart from technique peg ge which the therapist

carried with him, consciously and/or unconsciously. into

his behavioral interactions with persons seeking his help.

Content-Analysis as a Means of Studying Process

With the advent of recording techniques and their
application to therapy, as mentioned above, one of the major
difficulties in the way of process research was greatly
alleviated. A great many systems were devised by which the
content of therapeutic hours could be analyzed. The aim of
the earliest systems was mainly to objectify the data of
psychotherapy. They succeeded in objectifying but also

succeeded in losing the "full height and depth of the

l7

material, its full meaning (Dittes, 1959)." Later systems

are more closely related to a theroretical position and
contain a great deal more of what their particular theory
considers meaningful material. They, too, however, may be
criticized for what they omit. Auld and Murray (1955),

in their review of the content-analysis literature discuss
this criticism and present what may be taken.to be an apologia
for the methods of science in dealing with complex phenomena
such as are present in psychotherapy:

The practicing clinician often feels that the
measured part of the therapeutic transaction is
pitifully small alongside the complex of stimuli that
he senses as a participant observer. Yet it seems
unfair to expect any single content-analysis system
to describe all of this complex situation. We would
probably make a fairer appraisal of content systems
if we expected each system to deal with only a part
of this complexity. An adequate descriptive and
causal analysis of psychotherapy will most likely
require a large number of measures, each of them
shown to be reliable and valid for its limited
purpose. Measures pf the content of clients' and
therapists' utterances will undoubtedly be supple—
mented by measures of other, nonverbal responses
of client and therapist. By the combination of a
variety of measures, each useful in its own domain,
we may in time construct an adequate study of
psychotherapy.

The content-analysis system chosen for use in the

present study is essentially that used by Winder e; a1.

(1962). It is a modification of a system originally developed

by E. J. Murray (1956), later modified by Bandura EE 1.

18

(1960). Murray, influenced by both psychoanalytic theory
and learning theory, devised a system that was designed to
be objective and non-inferential in its rules for scoring.
Client statements were designated as expressing a need.
expressing anxiety about a need or frustration of a need.
Therapist statements were also categorized.

Bandura's revision of Murray's system essentially
retains his method of categorizing client statements (elim-
inating only the categorizations for need frustration) but
categorizes therapist statements differently, as approach
and avoidance of the need expressed by the client. Approach
includes any therapist statements which seem designed to
elicit further expression of feelings, attitudes and behavior
from the client. It encompasses such behaviors as
approval, reflection, support, exploration and interpretation.
Avoidance covers statements which seem designed to inhibit.
discourage or divert further expressions of feelings.
attitudes and actions and includes such therapist behaviors
as disapproval, topical transition, ignoring and mislabeling.

Bandura's major contribution, however, is his con-
ception of the interaction unit. Each unit has three parts:
a client statement, a therapist response, and the client's

subsequent statement, each of which are scored separately.

19

The final client statement of one unit is also the initial

one of the succeeding unit. It is, therefore, possible, using
such a form, to discuss client behavior and therapist behavior
individually, as has been done heretofore, but also to dis-
cuss the effect the behavior of each exerts upon the behavior
of the other.

Besides the system for analyzing the content of
therapy hours, several of the specific hypotheses which will
be tested in this study also arise out of the work of Bandura
.2£.§l- (1960) and Winder e; g1. (1962). Hypothesis one is
a replication of Bandura. The other hypotheses have not
been tested previously although several of the relation-
ships involved were suggested in the work of Winder t l.

(1962) and Bandura et a1. (1960).

The Hypotheses of this Study

Research such as that of Cutler (1958) and Bandura
e£__l, (1960) provide support for the assumption that a
therapist's anxieties about particular areas of experience
will affect his responsiveness to client expressions which
deal with these areas. Bandura's work dealt specifically

with anxiety about hostility and a need for approval in the

therapist. He found some support for his hypothesis that

20

therapists with anxiety about hostility were less likely to
respond with approach behavior to patient expressions of
hostility. We shall attempt to replicate this finding and
also learn whether therapist anxiety about other areas of
experience will yield similar findings. The following
hypotheses about therapist anxiety will be tested:

1. The higher the level of therapists' anxiety
about hostility, the less likely they are to respond
with approach reactions to client hostility expres-
sion and expressions of anxiety about hostility.

2. The higher the therapists' anxiety about dependency.
the less likely they are to respond with approach /
reactions to client expression of dependency and
dependency anxiety.

3. The higher the therapists' anxiety about sexuality.
the less likely they are to respond with approach
to client expressions of sex and sex anxiety.
Besides therapist anxieties about particular content

areas, there are other aspects of himself that could also be
suggested as factors which influence his behavior toward his
clients. The other aspect of therapist personality which
will be considered is the habitual cognitive-affective

level at which the therapist operates in interpersonal
relationships outside the therapy situation. As envisioned
here, this concept is composed of three aspects, one of

which is the affectivity of his responsiveness to others.

another his degree of revelation of his own feelings and

21

third, his ability to understand or feel with the feelings
of others. What relationship would these factors have to
the behavior of the therapist in therapy?

Winder t al. (1962) have suggested that patients

tend to remain (in therapy) if the treatment re-

lationship provides gratification.of dependency need,

but tend to avoid treatment which involves relatively

much frustration. Further, if psychotherapy involves

distress and discomfort, e.g., through arousal of

personal feelings and thoughts which are anxiety and

guilt provoking, gratifications in the treatment would

be necessary to permit the patient to remain.

They implicitly define therapist gratification of

client needs as being manifest in his approach responses
to the dependency expressed by his clients. But, in order
to gratify client needs, the therapist must possess the
ability to perceive and to react to them. If we assume
that greater affective freedom in the therapist permits him
to perceive feelings in others to a greater extent and de—
fine this perception operationally in terms of his approach
to dependency, we can thus hypothesize that:

4. The more affective the therapists the more likely
they are to respond with approach behavior to client '
expressions of dependency need and anxiety.

Until now we have been talking about being able to

predict the stimulus value that the therapist has for the

client. The preceding discussion has implied client reactions

22

but we have not yet specified any particular client reactions.
Bandura 2; El. (1960) and Winder 2E.él- (1962),
investigating; specific client reactions, have found that
clients are likely to react differentially to verbal
approach and avoidance behavior of the therapist for the
areas of dependency and hostility. The behavior of the
therapist thus has been shown to influence the behavior of
the client. His personality manifests itself in his verbal
behavior, as Bandura e; El. (1960) has shown and as the
present study also hopes to demonstrate. Non-verbal cues
must also be available, however. If the client is able to
perceive something about the personality of his therapist.
this is likely to cause him to react in some fashion. If
the client perceives what he is talking about as causing the
therapist to become anxious, it seems likely that it will
cause him to become anxious also and to stop and begin to
talk about other topics instead. We will thus hypothesize
the existence of relationships between the nature and level
of a therapist's anxieties and the likelihood of the client
continuing to talk about a particular topic area. Specifi-

cally, the hypotheses testing these interactions are:

5. The higher the level of therapists' anxiety about
.hostility, the less likely his clients are to
continue to express hostility or anxiety about
hostility.

23

6. The higher the therapists' anxiety about dependency,
the less likely his clients are to continue to
express dependency and dependency anxiety.

7. The higher the therapists' anxiety about sex. .
the less likely his clients are to continue to /
express sexual content.

The relationship between the affective level of the
therapist and the client's continuation of discussion of

each of the three content areas combined will also be looked

at.

I
I

III. METHOD

The Subjects

The therapists who were studied were seventeen
advanced graduate students. At the time at which they had
recorded the interviews studied here, all seventeen were
employed as Assistant Instructors at the Counseling Center
at Michigan State University. These positions are half-time
staff positions and are reserved for advanced graudate students
who have already had practicum experience in psychotherapy
prior to their employment by the Center. The therapists were
all enrolled in either the clinical psychology program in
the department of psychology at Michigan State University
or in one of the various counseling and counseling psychology
programs administered by the College of Education of Michigan
State University. Seven of these students were clinical
psychology students and the remaining ten were students
of counseling and counseling psychology. Four of the group
were female.

The bulk of the clients who come to the Counseling
Center and enter into personal counseling or psychotherapy
come from the undergraduate student population at Michigan

24

25

State University. This is so also in the clients represented
among the tape recordings used here. In two cases, both

for the same therapist, the clients are graduate students.
Occasionally also, wives or husbands of students who are not
themselves students are seen at the Counseling Center. Three
of the clients recorded on the tapes used in this study fall
into this category. All other clients of whom recordings
were studied were enrolled as undergraduates at Michigan

State University at the time the interviews were recorded.

Procedures

 

Collecting the Tape Recordings

Two sources of tape recordings were used in the
present study. In both cases, this involved the use of
recorded material collected in connection with other ongoing
studies at the Counseling Center. One source was a col—
lection of tapes of interviews very early in the therapeutic
series, usually either the first or second interview and
occasionally the third. The other source was a collection
of tapes which were primarily of fifth interviews, including
also occasional tape recordings of sixth and seventh inter-
views as well. Not all the therapists studied were repre-

sented in both groups of tape recordings. Both groups were

26

used because this permitted study of the work of more thera-
pists than could be studied if either one of the two sources
of tape recordings had been used alone for this study.

A total of thirty-eight recordings were studied.
All but two of the therapists are represented in this total
by at least two tapes each. For two persons, only one tape
each was available. Most of the other therapists are repre-
sented by two tapes, although three tapes are included for
six persons. Where more than a single tape was available
for a therapist, an attempt was made to include recordings
of him with both male and female clients. This was possible
for all but four of the fifteen therapists for whom there
were more than one single case available. In two cases.
both clients in the available tapes were male while for the

other two, the two clients were female.

Content-Analyzing the Tape Recordings

As previously mentioned, the basis system used for
categorizing the interviews was that first used by Murray
(1956) and later modified both by Bandura _§._l. (1960) i
and Winder e§‘_l. (1962). A coding manual for this basic I

system. wlthough modified somewhat in line with the purposes

of the present study, may be found in Appendix A.

27

Client statements are scored as to whether they ex-
press need for or anxiety about expression of dependency,
hostility and sexuality. There is a miscellaneous category
for statements whose content does not fall into one of these
three areas. Multiple scoring is possible, i.e., a single
statement may be scored as containing content in more than
one area. Notation is also made as to whether the client
is oriented toward the therapist or toward another object
in his eneed for or anxiety about a scorable content area.

Each therapist statement is scored as to whether the
therapist approaches or avoids the expressed client needs
and anxieties immediately preceding it. Statements scored
as approach include those which seem to be designed to elicit
further expression of feelings, attitudes and behavior from
the client while statements scored as avoidance include
those seemingly designed to inhibit, discourage, or divert
further expressions of feelings, attitudes, or actions.
Although the scoring manual makes provision for categorizing
separate types of approach and avoidance behavior, separation
into subcategories was not attempted. Therapist statements
were categorized only as to whether they were approach or
avoidance without consideration of the type of approach or

avoidance manifested. Therapist silence was not scored as

28

avoidance but was included in the miscellaneous category
on the basis of the finding of Bandura _§ _1. (1960) that
it seemed sometimes to be responded to as approach and at
other times as if it were avoidance.

A related investigation was being conducted at the
same time as the present study which also involved the content-
analysis of many of the same tape recordings as were being
used here. The two investigators collaborated in the analysis
of the tapes. Both investigators were part of the sample
of therapists studied here. Since all of their interviews
were among the group which was coded by both investigators
independently, it was felt that the achievement of adequate
reliability between the two on the tapes coded by both
investigators would be sufficient to counteract the bias
introduced by tapes of their own interviews being included
among those coded.

Thirty-three tape recordings of the thirty-eight
used in this study were also used in the companion study.
However, a total of thirty-nine tapes were coded independently
by each of the two investigators and many of the reliability
coefficients which follow (see Table l) were computed for

this number. The six additional tapes are being used solely

in the other study and the results of the coding of these

29

do not enter into any other calculations in this study beyond
the reliability data. When both investigators coded the
tapes, it was the average of their judgments which was used
in testing the hypotheses. In five instances, the tapes

were coded by one investigator only and these judgments

alone were used in subsequent computations using these

tapes.

Before beginning to analyze the tapes used in the
two studies, the two investigators pracitced with tapes
that were not in either sample. Originally, they worked
together and later coded separately after it was felt that
they both were interpreting the instructions in the coding
manual in a common fashion. When adequate agreement on tapes
not in either sample was reached, independent coding of the
tapes in the overlapping tape pool was begun.

In the previous studies which used the same content-
analysis system, the fact that the coding could be performed
reliably by different individuals was reported in terms of
the percentages of agreement achieved among raters on the
clients and therapist categories. Because the present study
did not use the information about categories peg ge in its
raw form but used ratios derived from these, it was felt that

the reliability of scoring could better be demonstrated

30

through comparisons of the approach and continuance ratios
that would actually be used in testing the hypotheses. It
was the reliability coefficients for these which were computed.

The approach ratios represent the proportion of times
that a therapist responded with approach behavior to client
expression of need or anxiety about the expression of depen—
dency, hostility and sex. For example, the approach ratio
for dependency was computed as follows: first, those client
statements categorized as either expression of dependency
or dependency anxiety were counted. Next,1fluatherapist
response to each client statement categorized as dependency
was looked at. Those therapist responses classified as
approach and as avoidance were tallied. The approach pro-
portion used was: therapist approach to dependency divided
by therapist approach plus avoidance of dependency. Those
client statements for which the therapist response was
classified as silence, inaudible or irrelevant (see Coding
Manual in Appendix A) were not included in computing the
ratio. The total approach ratio represents the proportion
of times the therapist approached rather than avoided for
the three content areas combined.

The total continuance ratios and continuance ratios

for the therapist's approach and avoidance for each of the

31

three areas were also computed. The approach and avoidance
continuance ratios present the proportion of times that the
client continues to express material in the same area after
the therapist has responded with approach or avoidance to
the client's immediately prior statement dealing with this
content area. The total continuance ratio for each of the
three content areas presents the proportion of times the
client followed a statement scored for a content area with
another, regardless of the kind of response the therapist
made in the interim. Computation of the continuance ratios
contains an additional step beyond the approach ratio related
to it. For computing the continuance ratios for dependency,
for example, all client statements to which the therapist
had responded with either approach or avoidance to dependency
(all the therapist statements included in computing the
approach ratio) were looked at to see if the next client
statement also was categorized as dependency. Three ratios
were computed, one where the nature of the intervening
therapist response was ignored (therapist approach and
avoidance were included), one where only client statements
to which the therapist had approached were included and one
where only client statements which the therapist had avoided

were included.

32

In Table 1 below, the reliability of the individual
codings and of the reliability of the average of the two
codings are shown for the approach and for the continuance
ratios. These were computed in accord with the method
suggested by Ebel (1951). In general, the reliabilities
were judged to be adequate for the purposes of the present
study. The two investigators did not, however, agree very
well on the continuance ratios for hostility, particularly

that following after avoidance of this area by the therapist.

Rating the Therapists' Personality

Each of the seventeen therapists studied was rated I
on a number of five-point rating scales by the judges. Nine \
scales were used of which six were the same as those used by
Bandura et 31. (1960). A scale designed to measure the
habitual cognitive-affective level of the therapist was
substituted for the warmth scale used by Bandura _;;_;,

(1960). In addition, Bandura's sex inhibition scale was
subdivided into two scales, one measuring sexual anxiety
whenthe subject is not the referent (sexual inhibition:
general) and other measuring sexual anxiety when the subject's

own sexuality is involved (sexual inhibition: personal).

The six scales adopted unchanged were designed to provide

33

Table l. Inter-judge reliability in coding the approach
and continuance ratios.

 

 

 

Coefficient of Coefficient of
Correlation Average Correlation
Approach Ratios
Dependency .847 .917
Hostility .828 .906
Sex .745 .854
Total Approachl .829 .906
Continuance Ratios

Total1

Dependency .760 .864

Hostility .373 .543

Sex .791 .883
following Approach

Dependency .728 .840

Hostility .483 .651

Sex .732 .846
following,Avoidance

Dependency .572 .727

Hostility .316 .481

Sex .902 .949

 

1N = 33 for the Total Approach and Total Continuance
Ratios but N = 39 for all the other ratios tabled here.

34

measures for the therapists of direct hostility, help seeking.
indirect hostility, hostility inhibition, approval seeking

and dependency inhibition. Later, the raters were asked to
rerate each of the therapists on the help seeking and
dependency inhibition variables and to rate each of them on
three scales which were developed out of the original cognitive—
affective level scale--cognitive affective level, verbali-

. zation of feelings and empathic expression. This was done
because adequate agreement among judges was not attained on
the help seeking, dependency inhibition and the original
cognitive-affective level scales. For the rerating task,

the judges were provided with additional instructions on the
distinction to be made between the help seeking and dependency
inhibition scales.

The three raters were also asked to rank the seven-
teen therapists according to how well each of them felt he
knew each person. They also indicated in what sorts of
circumstances (i.e., therapy, supervision, social contact,
etc.). they had cometo know each person and which persons
and which scales had been especially difficult to rate.
Copies of all the rating scales and instructions to the
raters may be found in Appendix B. Three of the scales

appear there with different names than they are given in

35

this discussion. They were renamed after the judges
performed the second rating task., This was done so that the
titles would tell about the scales' directionality more
clearly. The renamed scales were originally called
inhibition of feeling expression, ease with sexual topics
and demonstration of sexual interest. They are being re-
ferred to now as verbalization of feelings, sex inhibition:
general and sex inhibition: personal.

I Three members of the senior full-time staff of the
Counseling Center served as raters for this portion of the
study. They were Dr. B. L. Kell, Assistant Director of the
Counseling Center for Training, Dr. H. Grater, Assistant
Director of the Counseling Center for Counseling Services.
and Dr. Josephine Morse. They were chosen because it
was felt that they had observed each of the seventeen
therapists studied in a variety of situations and had suf-
ficient knowledge of each of them to be able to perform
the rating task adequately. Dr. Morse and Dr. Grater indi-
cated, however, that they did not feel comfortable in rating
four and six of the seventeen persons respectively. Their
ratings for these persons were then omitted from consider-
ation and only their ratings of the other therapists were

used. The therapists omitted were different ones for Dr.

36

Morse and Dr. Grater except in one instance. Dr. Kell
indicated that he knew each of the seventeen sufficiently
well to feel comfortable in rating all of them and his

ratings of all seventeen persons were used. There was thus

at least two sets of ratings for all but one of the therapists
studied.

Table 2. Inter-judge reliability in rating therapist
personality variables.

 

 

 

Coefficient of Coefficient of
Correlation Average Correlation
Rating Scales

Direct Hostility .412 .627
Help Seeking .092 .196
Indirect Hostility .560 .753
Cognitive-Affective Level .647 .815
verbalization of Feelings .656 .821
Empathic Expression. .430 .644
Hostility Inhibition .485 .693
Approval Seeking .470 .680
Dependency Inhibition .445 .658
Sexual Inhibition:

General .590 .775
Sexual Inhibition:

Personal .732 .868

 

Table 2 contains the correlation coefficients for

the agreement among raters, both for the individual ratings

37

and for the average of their ratings. These were computed
according to the method given by Ebel (1951) for establishing
reliability of ratings where there are more than two judges
and there is incomplete data from some judges. The relia-
bility coefficients obtained are considered to be adequate
for the purposes of this study, except for the help seeking
scale upon which the judges did not agree in their ratings

of the therapist subjects even after rerating them. Pearson
correlation coefficients computed separately between pairs of
raters revealed zero-order correlations in all three instances.
The low overall correlation thus was not due to any one of

the three raters disagreeing with the other two but was an
instance of a general disagreement.

Correlation coefficients were also computed between
the first and second ratings on the three variables which
were rated twice. It is to be noted that the help seeking
and dependency inhibition scales remained unchanged for
both rating tasks but that the original cognitive-affective
level scale was subdivided into three separate scales at the
second rating. One of the three new affectivity scales still.
deals with the therapist's cognitive-affective level. It
is here compared with the original compositive cognitive-

affective level scale. Moreover, instructions for

38

differentiating the help seeking and dependency inhibition
scales were given for the second rating. Table 3 shows the

results of these computations of intra-judge consistency.

Table 3. Intra-judge consistency.

 

—'— l #1 ’
1 _:— ”r j

 

 

Grater Kell Morse
Rating Scales
Help Seeking .793 .683 .260
Dependency Inhibition .787 .798 .640
Cognitive-Affective
Levem» .540 .848 .820

 

The judges revealed themselves to be reasonably
consistent over time in their judgments with the exception
of Dr. Morse in her ratings on help seeking. Dr. Morse has
told the author that she felt her set for the task of rating
to have been different at the time the rerating was done
than it had been earlier.

In order to see if a difference in set was a factor
for all three judges, comparisons were made of the relation-
ship between the dependency inhibition and the help seeking
scales for the first rating and the relationship between
them on the second rating. It is to be remembered that the
judges did not agree on their ratings of dependency inhibition

the first time they rated it and that the instructions for

.39

the second rating task were designed to provide clearer
differentiation between help seeking and dependency inhibition.
For none of the three judges, however, was the difference
significant. The relationship between the two scales

for all the judges must be said then not to have been dif-
ferent at the time of each rating despite Dr. Morse's
comments about her perception of the task as different

at the two times.

IV. RESULTS

Hostility

 

Table 4 below shows the correlations which were
obtained between the approach and continuance ratios for
hostility content in their interviews and the ratings the
therapists received on the scales which deal with their
hostility and their affectivity.

No hypotheses were stated about the relationship
of the likelihood of the therapist's approaching client
hostility statements or of the client's continuing to express
hostility in his subsequent statements and the therapist's
ratings on the affectivity scales. Table 4 shows a signifi—
cant negative relationship to exist between the likelihood
of the client's continuing to express hostility after the
therapist has avoided it and the extent to which the therapist
talks about his own feelings. The less the therapist reveals i
his feelings, the more likely the client is to continue
hostility expression after the therapist has avoided it.
None of the other correlations between the affectivity
scales and the hostility ratios and the total approach ratio

are significant.

40

41

.Hw>ma mo. um UGMUHMAGmHme

 

mmN.I moa.l HMN.I QNH.I Nmo.l Hoo.l hmo.l

 

cofimmwumxm Ownummem
.mms.u mmo. oaa.- mac. ANN. who. mam. mmcHHmmm
MO GOHHMNH HMQH 0>
HmH.- «No. mmo.- 6mm. mmH. ova.- mom. Hm>wq
m>wuoomm¢.w>wuflcmoo
mmo.- omm. «mm. mmo. mmo. ems. smo.- mcnxmmm Hm>oumme
mmo.- mmm. mam. mvH.- .soo.- oma.u omo.- nonuannacH unassumom
HNN. mHH.- mmo. mod. mmo. moH.- «No.1 suflafiumom uuoHHccH
flea. 600.- moo.u HNH.- mma.- Hso.u mma.- sunaaumom pomuao
mmamum muflumm
.>¢ .nmm Hmuoe umnuo umnmmumee annoy
Hmumm succummd MMMHmm
OOGMSGHUGOU Hmuoa >uaawum0fl\somoummm

 

 

.muflaflumon mom mOHumu mosmscwucoo
cam nomoummm can can mmamom mcfiumu unflamnwnu we» smmspmn meowumamuuoo .v wanna

42

Hypotheses 1 and 5 which stated that there would be a
negative relationship between a therapist's ratings on
hostility anxiety and the likelihood of his responding with
approach to client content dealing with hostility and a
negative relationship to the likelihood of the client's
continuing to express content dealing with hostility are
not confirmed by the data. None of the hostility ratios
show any significant relationship to any of the three
hostility scales.

Bandura et._l. (1960) found a significant positive
relationship between therapists' ratings on the direct
hostility scale and the likelihood of their reSponding with
approach to hostility when the therapist was not the object
of the hostility expression. They also found a negative

relationship between the therapist's rating on the approval

seeking scale and his approach behavior to hostility. Neither

M
f q

of these finds was replicated here.

Also, no support was found for Bandura's finding that J
therapists were less likely to approach hostility when they
themselves were the objects than when they were not the
objects. This was not found to be true in the present study.
The result obtained in the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-

ranks test comparing the therapist's approach behavior toward

c 43

hostility when he was its object and when he was not was not
significantly different from one expected by chance. The
number of therapists used in this test was twelve rather
than seventeen because the recordings for five of the
therapists did not contain any content which was coded as
hostility expressed toward the therapist.

The tapes studied here, it is to be remembered,
come from two sources within the Counseling Center and repre-
sent two different time-segments of the therapy process.
One group is the first and second interviews and the other
is of the fifth through seventh interviews. The sample.of'
tapes used by Bandura gt _1. (1960) represented a random
selection from a pool which included tapes of the patients
over a series of time in therapy. The present sample dif-
fered in that all the tapes used here were from very early
in the therapy process. It was thought that this difference
in the sample of therapy which was available might have
contributed to the failure here to replicate Bandrua's
finding. The two groups of tapes (subsequently to be re-
ferred to as early and later tapes) were compared with
reference to the hostility approach and continuance ratios
by means of the Mann-Whitney test. The results are stated

in Table 5.

44

Table 5. Comparison of the hostility ratios in the early
and later tapes.

 

 

 

,2
Ratios
Approach/Hostility N.S.
Continuance
Approach/Hostility N.S.
Avoidance/Hostility N.S.
Total Hostility N.S.

 

There are, however, no significant differences between the
ratios in the two groups of tapes.

Bandura e_._l. (1960) had also found that the likeli-
hood of a client's continuing to express hostility was signifi-
cantly greater when the therapist had approached the prior
expression of hostility than when it had been avoided by
the therapist. The data were available in the present study
to test whether this was true also for the clients studied
here. The ratios for the clients' continuance of hostility
after it was approached by the therapist and after it was
avoided were compared for the 38 interviews studied by means

of the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. The results:

repeated those found by Bandura with p < .0001 (two—tailed I

45

test). The finding that the client's behavior is influenced;
by the therapist was replicated here. Bandura's population
of clients was made up of parents in a parent—child clinic.
The population here is made up of college students. The
finding thus is a replication but is also a new finding as
well since it was demonstrated for a different population

of clients.

In order to see if any difference in the therapist's
reaction to the verbal content presented by his clients could
be related to the stimulus presented by the sex of the
client, a comparison of the male therapists' approach ratios
for hostility for males and females was made. (A comparison
of male and female clients of female therapists was not
made because data from only four female therapists were
available.) The number of therapists available for this
comparison was eight. Besides the four female therapists
and one male therapist for whom only one client was avail-
able in the sample, four more therapists could not be in-
cluded because the two clients represented in the sample
for each of them were either both male or both female.

A Wilcoxon test was computed. The difference between the
approach ratios for hostility for male and female clients

failed to be significant at the .05 level. For seven of the

46

eight cases, the approach ratio was larger for males than
for females. In the one case which was a reversal, the
difference between the two ratios was the largest of all
eight cases. It is felt that, despite the test's failure
to reach statistical significance, a strong tendency seems
evident in the data for male therapists to be more likely
to approach hostility when it is expressed by males than
when it is expressed by female clients.

For the same data, a sign test was also computed.
The p value reached (two-tailed test) was .07, revealing the

same tendency as shown by the Wilcoxon test.

Dependency

 

Table 6 below shows the correlations which were found
between ratios related to dependency behavior and the ratings
of the therapists on the scales dealing with dependency and
affectivity.

Three hypotheses were stated about relationships
connected with dependency behavior. Hypothesis 2 posited ;

a negative relationship between a therapist's dependency I
anxiety and the likelihood of his responding with approach)
behavior toward clients' expressions of dependency. This K

v
I
‘.

hypothesis is partially confirmed by the data. Significanti

47

.Hw>ma Ho. um uchAMHsmHmss
.Hm>ma mo. um unmoHMHcmHms

 

 

mmH.- mom.- smm.- sma.- «0H,- mom. mmo.- coammmumxm oenummsm
was. moo.u mew. who. mma.l mmo. mma.| mmcflawmm
wo coflumuflamnum>
aha. OHO.I mna. mom. 0mm. nNH. mom. Hm>mq
m>fiuummm< m>HuHcmou
mom. mva. owe. 500.: ssmmm. mom. sswvo. COHDAQHSQH Scamccwmma
mmm. «ma. hmo. mmo. ago. emm. Hma. mcflxmmm Hm>oummd
ego. hmo.| mam. mma. 0mm. oma. smvm. mcHXmmm mamm
mmamum mcflumm
.>¢ .Qmé Hmuoe Hmnuo umflmmumse Hmuoa
umpmm sumoummé uomnno
mocmscflusoo Hmuoe wocmccmmmn\nomoumm¢

 

 

.wocwpcmmmc How moflumu mucmscflucoo
cam somoummm new new mmamom msflumu anemones» may cmm3umn mGOHumawHuoo .0 dance

48

positive correlations were found between the dependency total
approach ratio and both the help seeking and dependency in-
hibition scales. In addition, a relationship was found
between dependency inhibition and approach to dependency
when the therapist is not the object of the client's depen-
dency. High scores on both the help seeking and dependency.
inhibition scales go toward the direction of increased ease
in asking and accepting help from others and less anxiety
about this. Where the therapist is anxious about dependency.
he seems less likely to approach this kind of content when
it is expressed by his clients.

It is somewhat surprising that one of the significant
findings involved the help seeking scale. This was the one
scale upon which reliability of ratings among the judges
was not achieved. The meaning of its being significantly
related to the therapist's approach to dependency remains
unclear. It may be a chance occurrence.

Hypothesis 4, which suggested a relationship between S
greater therapist affectivity and the likelihood of his re—
sponding with approach to dependency is, however, not con-
firmed by the data in the present study. None of the
correlations between the affectivity scales and the ratios

for the therapist's likelihood of approaching dependency

49

suggest that any such relationship exists in the data of the
present study.

HYpothesis 7 suggested a relationship between the
therapist's anxiety about dependency and the client's
continuance of dependency expression after the therapist's
response. This hypothesis too is not supported by the data.i
None of the relevant correlations reach a significant level.
The correlation between the client's total continuance of
dependency, regardless of the intervening therapist response.
and the therapist's rating on dependency inhibition while not
significant is nevertheless high. It suggests that there
is some tendency for increased freedom of dependency expres—
sion in the therapist to correlate with the client's willing-
ness to continue to express or talk about dependency.

No significant relationship to any of the dependencyi
ratios was found for the approval seeking scale. An attempt
to understand this was made by looking at the relationship
of this scale to the other dependency rating scales. The
relationship of this scale to the hostility rating scales
was also studied. Bandura, it may be remembered, found a
relationship between approval seeking and therapist appraoch
to hostility (this was not substantiated here, however).

The intercorrelations of the approval seeking scale and the

50

other dependency and hostility scales are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Correlation of approval seeking with the other
dependency and hostility rating scales.

 

Help Seeking .445
Dependency Inhibition .364
Direct Hostility .508'
Indirect Hostility ' —.l43
Hostility Inhibition .551

 

While the differences between the relationships of
approval seeking to the other dependency scales and its
relationships to direct hostility and.hosti1ity inhibition
are probably not large enough to be significant, the cor—
relations with help seeking and dependency inhibition are
lower. This suggests that the approval seeking scale may
not be a measure of dependency behavior alone but may also
reflect some degree of hostility in the persons rated. Its
use in testing hypotheses about dependency may, therefore.
not be completely justified.

Winder 2E.2£~ (1962) found a positive relationship
between the client's continuance of content related to depen-

dency and approach to such content by the therapist. This

51

relationship was also tested in the present study. A Wilcoxon
test of the difference between continuance of dependency ex—
pression by the client after therapist approach and therapist;
avoidance yielded a result which was significant at less thani
p = .0001(two-tailed test). As with the similar result for
hostility, this finding of Winder's was replicated here with
a different client population.

The approach and continuance ratios for dependency
were compared for the early and later interview tapes by the
Mann-Whitney test. These results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Comparison of the dependency ratios in the early.
and later tapes.

 

 

 

B
Ratios
Approach/Dependency .02
Continuance
Approach/Dependency N.S.
Avoidance/Dependency N.S.
Total Dependency N.S.

 

.The two groups of tapes are different with regard to

the behavior of the therapist when the clients express

52

dependency. The therapists are more likely to approach de—E
pendency in the early interviews than they are in later I
interviews.

A comparison was made with the Wilcoxon test to see
if there were any differences in therapist behavior in re-
sponse to client expressions of dependency when the therapist
was the object of this expression and when he was not. There;
was a significantly greater likelihood of therapists' ap-
proaching dependency when he was the object of the clients'
expression than when the expression was not related to him
(p < .01).

As with the data related to hostility, a comparison
was made with the Wilcoxon test between therapist approach
ratios for dependency for male and female clients. As be-
fore, only data for male therapists for whom both male and
female clients were represented in the sample were used
(N = 8). The difference was significant with p = .05. Male
therapists were more likely to approach dependency in this
sample when it was expressed by male clients than when it waS-
expressed by females. The direction of this difference is

somewhat surprising. Presumably it is more acceptable in

our society for males to respond protectively and warmly to

53

females than to do this with males. As members of our society.
the male therapists should be expected to act similarly, but
they do not.

The sample used in this analysis was looked at to see
if the result could be an artifact related to the number of
early and later tapes included for the female and male
clients. There are more early tapes for the female clients
than there are for the males. Since more approach to de-
pendency by the therapist was found in the early tapes than
in later ones, the result here that male therapists approach
dependency more in male clients would not seem to be due to
the numbers of early and later interview tapes included in
the groups of male and female clients.

It was thought that perhaps the male therapists'
greater hesitancy to approach dependency with females than
with males might be related to the level of their anxiety
about sex. This possibility was tested by computing Pearson—
ian correlations between the approach ratios for dependency
for all tapes of female clients of male therapists and the
ratings which the therapists of these clients had received
on the sex inhibition: general and sex inhibition: personal
scales. These relationships were tested separately for male

clients. Not all therapists were represented in the two

54

groups of tapes. In addition, some therapists were repre—
sented in one of the groups by more than one tape. In the
computation of the correlations then, the ratings of these
therapists would receive undue weight. Before computing the
correlations, therefore, it was first ascertained that the
therapists whose clients were represented in the groups of
male and female clients were not significantly different in
their ratings on the sex inhibition: general and sex inhi-
bition: personal scales. The correlations for the re-
lationships between the sex scales and approach to dependency
for male and female clients separately appear below in

Table 9.

Table 9. Correlations between therapist approach to de—

pendency and his ratings on the sex scales for
males and for females.

 

 

Sex Inhibition:

 

General Personal

Approach/Dependency
Males .192 .233
Females -.128 —.122

 

None of the correlations indicate that there are any

significant relationships present in the data for either male

55

or female clients. It is unlikely that the relationships here

differ for males and females.

Sex

The remaining hypotheses deal with the likelihood of
relationships existing between sex anxiety in the therapist
and his approach to sexual material and the likelihood of
his client's continuing to express sexual material after the
therapist's response. Table 10 below contains the correl-:.
ations relevant to hypotheses 3 and 7 as well as correlations
relating the affectivity scales to the approach and con-
tinuance ratios for sexuality.

There is no support in the data for hypothesis 3.
Significant linear relationships were not found between the
therapist's approach to sexual content and the level of his
sexual anxiety. It was not possible to test this relationship
separately for those instances when the therapist is the
object and those when he was not. In only one case in the
sample used was sexual content scored with the therapist as
object. In addition, only one of the coders scored T as ob-
ject in that instance.

For the same data, however, correlation ratios were

computed for the relationships of the ratings on sex anxiety

56

Table 10. Correlations between the therapist rating scales
and the approach and continuance ratios for sexual

 

 

 

 

content.
Total Total Continuance after
Approach/ Approach Total App. Av.
Sex
Rating Scales,
Sex - Inhibition: .
General —.134 —.033 -.218 .443 -.076
Sex - Inhibition:
Personal —.074 -.009 -.l72 .492* .057
Cognitive -
Affective Level .185 .296 .150 -.354 .092
verbalization of
Feelings —.200 .075 —.089 -.455** .238
Empathic
Expression .417 -.126 .116 -.766** .228
*

significant at .05 level

**
significant at .01 level

and the approach ratio to sexual content. For sex inhibition:
general, the eta coefficients were .16 and .55, for sex inhi-
bition: personal, the eta coefficients were .18 and .51. In
both cases, the higher correlation ratios represent the re-
gression curves of the ratings to the approach ratios. F

tests for the difference of each of the two higher correlation

57

ratios from zero did not reveal that either of these was
significant. That the correlation ratios are so much larger
than the Pearson rs computed previously strongly suggests,
however, the possibility that the ratings on sex anxiety do
not bear a linear relationship to approach to sex, as had
been hypothesized, but may instead be in some kind of non-
linear relationship to the therapist's response to sexual
expression by his clients.

Hypothesis 7 posited that a negative relationship
would exist between therapist sexual anxiety and the likeli- Q
hood of his client's continuing to express sexual material
after the therapist's response. No relationship is found in
the data for this relationship for either the client's con- i
tinuance of sexual material regardless of the nature of the
intervening response by the therapist or his continuance in
this area after the therapist had avoided it. A significant
relationship was found, however, for the client's continuance
of Sexual material after it has been approached by the thera-
pist and the therapist's rating on the sexual inhibition:
personal scale. In addition, a correlation was found be-
tween continuance after approach and the sex inhibition:
general scale which, while it does not reach a significant

level, is high enough to suggest a relationship. Both of

~—--—,. fl. _-.‘

58

these correlations, however, have a positive sign and suggest
relationships which go in the opposite direction to those
hypothesized. The data here suggests that the likelihood of
the client's continuing to express sexuality increases the
more sexual inhibition or sexual anxiety his therapist
manifests.

Whether these correlations between the sex anxiety
rating scales and continuance by the client after approach
to sex by the therapist might also suggest nonlinear' re-
lationships was also investigated. The Pearson r coefficients
shown in Table 10 were higher in value than the eta coef—
ficients computed for the same data. The possibility of a
nonlinear relationship here must, therefore, be rejected.

A significant negative relationship was also found
between the likelihood of the client's continuing with sexual
material after it has been approached by the therapist and
the therapist's level of empathic expression. The likeli-
-hood of the client's continuing to express sexuality in-
creases the lower the therapist is rated on empathic ex-
pression.

Negative correlations with continuance after approach
which are high but not significant were found for the ratings

of the therapist on the cognitive-affective level and

59

verbalization of feelings scales. The likelihood of the
client's continuing to express sexuality seems to increase

the more cognitive and the less verbal about his own feelings
the therapist is rated as being.

The same comparisons were made for the sexual area as
had been made for the other two content areas. A Wilcoxon
test between the continuance of sexual material after
approach and after avoidance revealed a significant difference
(p < .005), with approach behavior by the therapist to
sexual content resulting in an increased likelihood of the-
client's continuing in this area.

Comparison of the early and later tapes revealed
no significant differences with regard to sexual content
but did suggest some tendencies. These data are reported
in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Comparison of the sex ratios in the early and
.later tapes.

 

 

 

.E
Ratios
Approach/Sex >.10
Continuance
Approach/Sex >.10
Avoidance/Sex. N.S.

Total Sex A N.S.

 

60

There is some tendency suggested for the therapist
to be more likely to respond with approach to sexual content
in the later tapes. There is, however, a suggestion that
the client is more likely to continue to express sexual
material after the therapist has approached it in the early
interviews than he is to continue this content in the later
series of interviews.

When the male and female clients of male therapists
were compared as to the likelihood of the therapist's
approaching sexual material for the two groups, the differences
were not significant. Male therapists in this sample
did not differ in the extent to which they responded with

approach to sexual material with male and female clients.

below.

V. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DATA

Discussion

The hypotheses tested in this study are stated again
They are:

The higher the therapists' anxiety about hostility,
the less likely they are to respond with approach
reactions to client hostility expression and
expressions of anxiety about hostility.

The higher the therapists' anxiety about dependency.
the less likely they are to respond with approach
reactions to client expression of dependency and
dependency anxiety.

The higher the therapists' anxiety about sexuality.
the less likely they are to respond with approach
to client expressions of sex and sexual anxiety.

The more affective the therapists, the more likely
they are to respond with approach behavior to client
expressions of dependency and dependency anxiety.

The higher the therapists' anxiety about hostility.
the less likely his clients are to continue to ex-
press hostility or anxiety about hostility.

The higher the therapists' anxiety about dependency,
the less likely his clients are to continue to
express dependency or dependency anxiety.

The higher the therapists' anxiety about sex, the
less likely his clients are to continue to express
sexual content.

Hypotheses l and 5 were not confirmed in this study.

NOne of the correlations between the hostility scales and the

61

62

hostility ratios were significant. As has been previously
noted, Bandura gt _1. (1960) had found a relationship between
the therapist's approach to hostility when he was not the
object of the hostility and the direct hostility scale.
Therapists' approach to hostility was also found by Bandura
to be related to the approval seeking scale. Neither of these
findings were confirmed here. While the therapists in
Bandura's study were student therapists, as were the thera-
pists in this study, the population of clients was quite
different. More importantly, however, the time sample of
the therapy process differed. Bandura did not specify pre-
cisely from where in the course of therapy the tapes were
selected. The implication, however, was that interviews
were randomly selected from tapes available over a long

time series. The sample of interviews in the present

study was restricted essentially to first, second and

fifth interviews. It was not found that the early and later
interviews in this sample differed either in the extent to
which the therapist approached hostility or in the extent
the client continued expressing hostility after the
therapist's response to his previous statement. 'The ther-
apist's behavior with respect to hostility is not different

in the early and later interviews. Possibly, fifth interviews

63

are too early still in the series to show a difference.

In contrast, there is support for the idea that
therapists tend to approach dependency more in early inter—
views than in later ones. Winder gt _1. (1962) have sug—
gested gratifications of some sort (approach to dependency)
are necessary so that the client will remain despite the
arousal of anxiety provoking feelings. Thus, there might
be motive behind the therapist's approach to dependency in
early interviews, especially when it was directed at him
as object. In addition, however, the expnassion by the
client of need for him, the therapist, is also gratifying
to the therapist. He seemingly attempts to induce the client
to express need for help from him. This serves to begin to
bring about an emotional tie between the client and his
therapist, gratifying both of them. It would seem, however.
that more would be necessary from the therapist's view to
cause the client to be firmly committed to participation in
the therapeutic process. If he responds initially to the
hostility expressed by the client, before the client is
committed to therapy, he runs the risk of causing the client
to leave therapy precipitiously. Just as approach by the
therapist to hostility expressed by the client is probably

not gratifying to the client, it is not gratifying either

64

to the therapist, especially early in therapy.

All the therapists studied here, in relative uniformity.
did not reach much with approach behavior to the hostility
of their clients in these early therapy interviews. Their
behavior toward hostility contrasts greatly with their re-
actions to dependency expression. This fact of a uniform
low level of approach to hostility makes it difficult to
relate approach to hostility to variables other than the
stage of therapy in which it occurs and possibly explains
the failure here to replicate Bandura's finding. He was
studying time segments of therapy in which the structure of
the situation perhaps permits more choice (conscious or un—
conscious) by the therapist and thereby could demonstrate
a relationship which would not be seen, given the limits
of the present sample.

The possibility exists that there is also a dif—
ference in the sample of therapists which might be related
to the difference in the findings of this study's and of
Bandura's. It is unlikely that the focus of the training
which the two groups of therapists have received would have
been the same. Speculation as to just how.their training
was different is difficult, partly because Bandura's

study of therapist behavior was limited to hostility and

65

contrasts of the two populations on dependency and sexuality
thus cannot be made. With regard to hostility, however,

the present sample of student therapists seemingly does not
tend to avoid hostility expression when they are the objects
of it any more than they do when they are not its objects.
This may be a result of their training or it may not be.

No relationship was found either in the data of the
present study to support Bandura's finding that therapists'
approach reactions to hostility were related to their ratings
on the approval seeking scale. In testing the hypotheses
of this study, the approval seeking scale was first regarded
here as a dependency scale. No relationship was found,
however, between approval seeking and any of the ratios
related to dependency behavior, although relationships were
found for other dependency scales. That approval seeking
behavior might bear some relationship to hostility and ways
of expressing it as well as or even instead of relating to
dependency behavior was a possible explanation for the
lack of relationship. This is implied, although not fully
confirmed by the data. The theoretical basis for such an
assumption lies in the possibility that overanxiety to
please someone may be rooted in fear of that person and
that extreme fear of someone's disapproval may represent a

projection of one's own hostile feelings toward that person.

66

The raters, it must be remembered, stand in positions of
authority in relation to the student therapists. Eagerness
to please them may well be less threatening than other forms
of hostility which would be more manifest and therefore more
likely to invite retaliation. The person who seeks to
please has learned that this behavior has an incapacitating
effect upon the other; it prevents him from perceiving the
hostility clearly and reacting in terms of this. The
association of approval seeking with hostility may be illus-
trated, in its most extreme forms,in the classic sycophant
and flatterer and modern—day "yes men."

Hypotheses 2 and 6 were partially confirmed. Both
the help seeking and dependency inhibition scales were
significantly related to the likelihood of the therapist's
approaching dependency expression by the client for the
total approach to dependency. Dependency inhibition was
also significantly related to therapist approach to dependency
when he was not the object. It was also shown by the data
that the therapists were more likely to approach dependency
when they were its object. This has been touched upon above
as being part of the therapists' attempts to induce commit-
ment to therapy in their clients. However, if all the

therapists or most of them approach dependency expressed by

67

their clients when they are the objects, there is little
variance left which can be related to their personality
structures. On the other hand, it is not clear what contri-
butions to therapy is made by approaching dependency
when the therapist is not the object. Those therapists who
are more at ease with their own dependency needs will seeming—
ly, in addition to responding with approach to dependency
when directed toward them, be more likely to respond also
to other-directed dependency expression by their clients.

There is some suggestion too that clients are likely
to continue to express dependency when the therapist is more
at ease with his own needs in this area. The tendency did
not appear in the continuance ratios for either therapist
approach or avoidance separately but appeared with the total
continuance ratio. Seemingly, then, the clients did not
perceive greater freedom or permission to talk about
dependency in the specific immediate approach or avoidance
verbal reactions of the therapists. Perhaps then, non-
verbal behavior by the therapist, such as might be apparent
say in a physical attitude suggesting ease, might be suggested
as contributing to this result.

Hypothesis 4 was not confirmed by the data. No

relationship was found between any of the affectivity scales

68

and the therapists' approach ratios for dependency.

Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed by the data.

No linear relationship was found between either of the sex
scales and the therapists' approach ratios for sex. There
were suggestions, however, of the possibility of a nonlinear
relationship between the therapist's sex anxiety and his
willingness to approach sexual expression in the client.

The difficulty may, however, lie in the scales. If high
ratings are indicative of sexual inhibition, low ratings

may not necessarily indicate ease regarding sexuality. The
way the points on the scales are determined, low ratings
describe persons who have a high overt and socially apparent
interest in sexual matters. Perhaps this is not ease with
sexuality but is another kind of manifestation of anxiety
about it.

Hypothesis 7, also related to sex, was not only not
confirmed by the data of this study but a significant relation—
ship in the opposite direction from.that predicted was found.
Clients seem likely to continue to express sexual content
after it is approached by the therapists when the therapists
are rated as having greater sexual inhibition. This is a
strange finding. Perhaps it means that a client will try

to be helpful when he perceives that the therapist is

69

struggling, i.e., when he attempts to approach their expres-
sion of sexuality although he is feeling uncomfortable about
doing this and somehow manages to communicate this along
with his overt verbal approach response. The clients here
were college students, for many of whom sexuality presented
some sort of problem. Perhaps they were either made anxious
or angry if they perceived the therapist as highly interested
in sexual material. Perhaps to them this implied the existence
of pathology in the therapist. Whether fearful of the thera-
pist or angry at the intrusiveness of his interest in sex
material (remember, the interviews studied were all quite
early in therapy), in either case, this perception would

have been likely to cause them not to continue in the same
vein as before.

The continuance ratio for the expression by the
client of sexual material following approach by the therapist
shows some interesting relationships to the affectivity
scales, although no hypotheses about such relationships
were stated. It is negatively related to all three, signifi-
cantly so with the empathic expression scale. That is, the
more cognitive the therapist, the less expressive of his own
feelings and the less empathic he is, the more likely the

client is to respond with more sex material after the

7O

therapist has approached sexuality. The first two of these
relationships go along with the findings for the sex scales.
If the therapist's attitude is more cognitive, he is less
emotionally involved with the sexual content expressed by
his clients and may seem to the client to be less interested
in the material although he has attempted overtly at least
to encourage its further expression. For the moment, let
us consider the verbalization of feelings scale as it may
be related to whether the therapist expresses himself
affectively about sexuality. If the therapist does not
verbalize his feelings about sexuality or express his own
sexuality in the presence of his client, the client will
not react with the anxiety or hostility postulated above.
The negative relationship of the approach continuance
ratio to the empathic expression scale allows for some in-
teresting speculations. The customary expectation would be
that understanding and empathy on.the part of the therapist
would serve to encourage expression of material in an area
which is likely to be problematical for many clients. The
reversal here may again be due to the fact that this study
used early interviews only. The manner of approach by the
more empathic therapists might be somewhat different from

the approach behavior of the others (this could not be

71

tested here because the subcategories of approach were not
scored separately). It might be that the more empathic
therapists are inclined to perceive and respond to the
material on a different level than the clients are willing
or able to deal with in the initial stages of therapy and
they react to this by changing the topic.

Another interesting finding peripheral to the hypo—
theses was that there are differences in the ways male
therapists act with male and female clients. This was found
for both the therapist approach ratios for dependency and
for hostility. In both cases, the therapist tended to ap-
proach these areas more with his male clients than with
females. It is possible that what is happening is that
Itherapists are more likely to approach in those areas in
which they perceive the clients to have problems. Female
clients are probably less likely to have problems with
dependency which would be apparent in their early inter-
actions with male therapists than male clients would in this
area. This would probably be true also for hostility. Male
college students as a group would seem to be very much
involved in problems arising out of their feelings about
dependency and also about impulse control. This possibility

of a difference in therapist behavior based upon differences

72

in the problem areas of male and female clients would seem
to be borne out by the fact that there was no difference

in the extent to which therapists approached sexual material
for males and females. It could safely be assumed that

this area is problematic for both male and female college
students, at least among those who have come to seek help

through counseling.

Conclusions

The general question which preceded the specific
hypotheses which were studied here was whether the therapist's
behavior toward his clients possessed some generality which
expressed something about him as well as something about his
clients. Insofar as the data reveal, the answer is a
qualified fyes." His own feelings about dependency influence
his reactions to dependency when this is expressed by his
clients. wa he feels about his own sexuality affects his
responsiveness to sexual expression by his clients. His
affectivity and his feelings about hostility seemingly do
not relate to his behavior. Bandura's finding about hostility
and the failure to replicate this here suggests the possibility
that those anxieties and other aspects of the therapist's

personality which influence what he does may change at

73

different points in the process of therapy. What would be
needed to learn if this were so would be studies which
analyzed the behavior of therapists over the entire course
of psychotherapy.

The only way the therapist's behavior was related
here to variables associated with the client was for the sex
of the client. This was found to have some influence upon
the behavior of the therapist, but it may not have been sex
per £3. The data suggest that the problem areas presented
by the clients might influence the therapist's behavior.
This is worth investigating further. It is in accord with
the theoretical formulations, such as that of the Balints
(1939) and many others, which speak of the individuation of
therapy in terms of the needs of the client or patient.

Now, as to whether the therapist's behavior and
personality has an impact upon the behavior of the client.
Here, the answer as suggested by the data of this study is
most clearly positive. First, there are the differences
between how the client acts in response to approach versus
avoidance for all three content areas studied. These
results replicated those of Bandura EE._l- (1960) and Winder
et al. (1962) and supported the conditioning paradigm sug—

gested by them. In addition, the anxiety of the therapist

74

with regard to dependency and his affectivity and sexual
anxiety were found to be related to the client's reactions
to him.

The data here seem to suggest yet another contri—
buting factor besides the therapist's reactions to his
clients being based in the stimulus value that the clients
present to him and in his own psychodynamic structure. It
seems that the fulfillment of certain goals, such as keeping
a client in therapy, means that certain behaviors are re;
quired of the therapist, i.e., he "ought" to approach
dependency especially if he is its object and to avoid
hostility initially. It is probably appropriate for him to
respond to those areas which he perceives as being problems
for his clients. There is evidence that the therapists in
this study did some of these things. This serves to mask or
obscure the influence of the therapist's personality upon
his behavior.

At any one time, therapists may be presented by their
clients with a choice of two, three or more possibilities
from which they then usually choose one or two to which to
react. It is likely (and this could be tested) that less
experienced therapists would be more likely to react in

terms of their own anxieties and personality idiosyncracies.

75

partly at least because they have not yet learned about other
alternatives. The more experienced the therapist, the
smaller would the variance be which could be related to his
personality.

If this is not so and it is not possible for thera-
pists to choose to behave in certain ways and, to some
extent at least, to be able to learn to choose to behave
in certain ways, there would seem to be little point in
providing neophyte psychotherapists with any training or
guidance from their more experienced elders and expecting
them to benefit from it.

The data of this study strongly suggest a good deal
about what the therapists studied here know about psychotherapy
and also something about what they do not know. They know,
it seems, how to begin therapy, iue., approach dependency
and avoid hostility. This has been mentioned above. The
fact that their behavioral reactions to their clients'
sexual expressions do not have the desired effects (if we
assume continuance by the client of expression in an area
to be desirable), suggests that they may be less certain
about how and when to deal with expression in this area
than in the other content areas studied.

Note must be made at this point that the therapy

76

tapes used were subject to the self-selection of the therapist.
He chose which interviews to tape, which tapes to give the
investigators, etc. The probable result of this is that the
available tapes were ones that the therapists were some-
what pleased about, tapes perhaps in which he did approach
dependency and avoid hostility rather than ones in which he
did not do what seemed to be required of him. The influence
of this selection upon the meaning of the results found is
interesting. If this study does not actually represent what
these therapists at this level of experience actually did
most of the time, it probably represents what they can do
and do do—-sometimes, the best they are capable of at this
point in their experience. This fact would not change the
implications suggested about what the therapist knows or
does not know.

This study has contributed in its small measure to
increasing attempts to illuminate theprocess of therapy.
It has served to suggest several directions which further
research into the therapeutic interaction might take.

Information on how the behavior of the therapist
(and also of the client) changes over theprocess of therapy
would be valuable in itself as well as in relationship to

client and therapist personality variables.

77

It has also been suggested that the relationship
between the experience level of the therapist and the influence
of his personality upon his behavior might bear investigat-
ing further.

How the problem areas presented by the client influence
how the therapist behaves and whether he indeed reacts
individualistically to each client would have significant
theoretical.implications.

A part of the present study dealt with client per-
ceptions of his therapist's personality. That he per—
ceived the therapist in the same manner as did the senior
staff members who rated him is unlikely. This inference
was, however, made in this study. The hypotheses about the
client's continuance behavior might better be tested with
more direct means of ascertaining the client's perceptions
of his therapist.

The present study may provide some comfort for super-
visors of therapists in that it implies that to some extent
at least therapists can be taught to modify their behavior.
Its only direct relevance for the training of therapists,
however, lies in the fact that any increased knowledge
of the psychotherapy process contributes to everybody's
comfort in dealing with the complicated intriguing unknown and

often anxiety provoking psychotherapy situation.

VI. SUMMARY

The attempt was made to study whether the therapist's
behavior and his personality as they are observed outside
of the therapy situation could predict his reactions in
therapy to his presentation by the client of certain specific
content areas, those dealing with dependency, hostility and
sex. Whether the therapist behavior and personality as this
is perceived by the client has an impact upon the client's
subsequent behavior was also studied.

The hypotheses tested were that the greater thera-
pist anxieties were in the areas of dependency, hostility and
sexuality, the less likely they were to approach expression
in these areas by the clients. A relationship between
greater affectivity in the therapist and increasing likeli-
hood of his approaching dependency expressed by the client
was also postulated. It was also hypothesized that greater
therapist anxieties about the three content areas studied
would cause clients to be less likely to continue to express
content dealing with these areas.

Seventeen advanced graduate students who worked in

the Counseling Center at Michigan State University were the

78

79

therapists studied. They were rated on eleven five-point
scales by three senior staff members who knew them well.

The content of therapy interviews early in the thera-
peutic series conducted by these therapists, a total of
thirty-eight interviews, was studied and analyzed according
to a system adapted slightly from that used by Bandura
.2£._$° (1960) and Winder gt _1. (1962).

The hypotheses relating the therapist's dependency
anxiety to his behavior and to the behavior of his clients
were partially confirmed. The therapist's rating on the
dependency inhibition scale was related both to his behavior
in relationship to his clients' expressions of dependency.
especially when he was not its object, and to his clients'
reaction to his behavior.

A nonlinear relationship between sexual anxiety and
therapist approach to sex was suggested. This was discussed
in terms of the probability that extreme overt interest in
sex might represent another kind of anxiety about sex than
extreme inhibitions of overt sexual interest and not repre-
sent sexual ease at all.

The hypotheses concerning hostility and the
affectivity level of the therapist were not confirmed.

The relationship between the therapist's approach to sexuality

80

expressed.by his clients and his ratings on the scales
dealing with his sexual expression proved to be significant
in the opposite direction from that predicted. The clients
were more likely to continue to express sexual material
after the therapist approached sex if he was rated as being
less overtly interested in sexual matters. This finding
was discussed in terms of the meaning it might have for
clients to perceive their therapists as being interested in
sex when this was expressed early in the therapeutic series.

Support was reported for the differential effects
upon the client of the therapist's approaching and avoiding
hostility and dependency content expressed by the client, as
found by Bandura et_§l. (1960), and Winder gt _1. (1962).

A similar result was also found for the difference in the
client's continuation of expression of sexual material
after approach and avoidance by the therapist.

Differences in therapist behavior toward males and
toward females was found for the areas of dependency and
hostility, but not for sexual material. This was discussed
in terms of its possible relevance for the areas which were
probably most problematic for males and females in the

population studied.

Differences were also found between therapist behavior

81

in first and second interviews and fifth interviews in the
extent to which they approached dependency. This was dis-
cussed in terms of its implications for changes in thera-
pist behavior being related to different requirements of
different phases of therapy.

Implications were stated as to the possible relation-
ship of the therapist's experience and training in therapy
to his behavior and the possible action of this variable in
masking or obscuring the relationship of his behavior to
personality variables.

Some implications of the present study for further

research were also discussed.

REFERENCES

Abeles, N. Therapeutic sensitivity and self consistency -
an exploratory study. Paper presented at Much.
Acad. of Sci. (Psychology Section). March, 1961.

Abeles, N. Awareness and responsiveness to affect as a
function of training and supervision. Paper presented
at Mich. Acad. of Sci. (Psychology Section). Ann
Arbor. Mich., March, 1962.

Auld, F., Jr., & Murray, E. J. Content - analysis studies
of psychotherapy. Psychol. Bull., 1955,Ԥ2, 377-395.

Balint, Alice, & Balint. M. On transference and counter-
transference. int. J. Peychoanal., 1939, 20, 223-230.

Bandura, A. Psychotherapist's anxiety level, self-insight.
and psychotherapeutic competence. J. abnorm. soc.
PSYChOIQI’11956I 2: 333-337.

Bandura, A., Lipsher, D. H., & Miller, Paula E. Psycho-
therapists' approach - avoidance reactions to patients'
expression of hostility. J. consult. Psychol.,

1960. 23. 1-8.

Cartwright, D. S. Annotated bibliography of research and
theory construction in client-centered therapy.
J. counsel. Psychol., 1957,.4. 82-100.

Chance, Erika. Families in treatment. New York: Basic
Bodks. 1959.

Covner, B. J. Studies in phonographic recordings of verbal
material: I the use of phonograph recordings in
counseling practice and research. J. consult.
Psychol., 1942, g, 105-113.

Cutler, R. L. Countertransference.effects in psychotherapy.
J. consglt. Psychol., 1958. £2. 349-356.

82

83

Dittes, J. E. Previous studies bearing on counterbanalysis
of psychotherapy. In J. Dollard & F. Auld, Jr..
Scoring human motives: a manual. New Haven: Yale
Univer. Press, 1959.

Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. Personality and_psychotherapy.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of reliability of ratings. Psycho-
metrika, 1951, 16, 507-524.

Fey. W. F. Doctrine and experience: their influence upon
the psychotherapist. “J. consult. Psychol., 1958.
g_2_, 403-409. ~ ”'7

Fiedler. F. E. The concept of an.ideal therapeutic relation-
ship. J. consult. Psychol., 1950. lg. 239-245.

Fiedler, F. E. A method of objective quantification of
certain counter—transference attitudes. J. clin.
PSXChOlo: 1951: ll 101’107.

Fiedler, F. E. Quantitative studies on the role of thera-
pists' feelings toward their patients. In 0. H.
Mowrer (Ed.), Psychotherapy: theory and research.
New York: Ronald Press, 1953.

Frank, G. H. Ontfluehistory of the objective investigation
of the process of psychotherapy. J. Psychol., 1961.
51. 89- 95.

Freud. S. Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria
(1905). In Collectedppapers, Vol. 3. New York:
Basic Books, 1959.

Freud. S. Recommendations for physicians on the psycho-
analytic method of treatment (1912). In Collected
papers, vol. 2. New Ybrk: Basic Books. 1959.

 

Freud, S. Further recommendations in the technique of
psychoanalysis: observations on transference -
love (1915). In Collected papers, Vol. 2. New
York: Basic Books, 1959.

Fre

84

Freud, S. Turnings in the ways of psychoanalytic therapy
(191). In Collectedppapers, Vol. 2. New York:
Basic Books. 1959. '

Freud. S. Beyond theppleasure principle (1920). New York:
Bantam Books, 1959.

Freud, S. Two encyclopaedia articles: (A) psychoanalysis
(1922). In Collected papers. Vel. 5. New York:
Basic Books. 1959.

Freud, S. A general introduction of psychoanalysis (1924).
New Yerk: washington Sq. Press, 1960.

Freud, S. “Autobiography (1925). New York: W. W. Norton.
1935.

Freud, S. Analysis terminable and interminable (1937).
In Collecteg_papers, Vol. 5. New York: Basic
BOOkS: 1959 o

Grinker, R. R.. Sr.. MacGregor. Helen, Selan, Kate, Klein.
Annette, & Kohrman, Janet. Psychiatric social work:
a transactional case book. New York: Basic Books.
1961.

 

Hiler, E. W. An analysis of patient-therapist compatibility.
J. consult. Psychol., 1958. 22. 341-347.

Holt, R. R., & Luborsky, L. Personality patterns of
psychiatrists. New York: Basic Books. 1960.

 

Hbrney. Karen. New ways in psychoanalysis (1939). In
Collected works. V61. I. New York: W. W. Norton.
undated.

Ivey, Evelyn P. Significance of the sex of the psychiatrist.
A.M.A. Arch._gen. Psychiat.. 1960. a. 622-631.

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. The prediction ofpperformance
in clinicglcpgychology. Ann Arbor: Univer. of
Mich. Press. 1951.

Korman. M. Implicit personality theories of clinicians as
defined by semantic structures. J. consult. Psychol.,
1960. g2, 180-188.

85

Lasswell, H. D. The problem of adequate personality records:
a proposal. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1929, 85. 1057-1066.

Lasswell, H. D. A provisional classification of symbol
data. Psychiat.. 1938, 1. 197-204.

Murray. E. J. A content-analysis method for studying
psychotherapy. Psychol. Monogr., 1956. 19, No. 13
(Whole No. 420).

Orr. D. W. Transference and countertransference:. a historical
survey. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn. J., 1954, 2,
621-670.

Peterson. A. O. D., Snyder, W. U., Guthrie, G. M. & Ray,
W. S. Therapeutic factors: an exploratory investi-

gation of therapeutic biases. J. counsel. Psychol.,
l958..§. 169-173.

 

Raimy, V. C. Self-reference in counseling interviews. 1g.
consult. Psyghol., 1948. lg. 153-163.

Reich, Annie. On counter-transference. int. J. Psychoanal..
1947. 28. 1-6.

 

Rogers. C. R. The use of electrically recorded interviews
in improving psychotherapeutic techniques. Amer. J.
Orthopsychiat.. 1942, 1;. 429-434.

 

Rogers, C. R. & Dymond, Rosalind F. (Eds.). Psychotherapy
and personality change. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago
Press. 1954.

Rogers, C. R. On becoming apperson. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1961.

Rosenberg. E. H. Correlates of a concept of therapeutic
sensitivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mich.
State Univer., 1962.

Russell, P. D. Counselor anxiety in relation to clinical
experience and hostile or friendly clients. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Penn. State Univer..
1961.

86

Seeman. J. A study of the process of non-directive therapy.
J. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 157—168.

Sharpe, E. F. The psycho-analyst. int. J. Psychoanal..
1947: gél 1‘6.

Snyder, W. U. An investigation of the nature of non-
directive psychotherapy. J.pgen. Psychol., 1945,
.2}. 193-223.

Snyder, W. U. The psychotherapy relationship. New York:
Macmillan. 1961.

Strupp, H. H. An objective comparison of Rogerian and psycho-
analytic techniques. J. consult. Psychol., 1955a, 12,
1-7.

Strupp, H. H. Psychotherapeutic technique, professional
affiliation, and experience level. J. consult.
PSYChOl-I 1955b: l2} 97-102.

 

Strupp. H. H. Psychotherapists in action. New York: Grune
& Stratton, 1960.

Sundland, D. M. & Barker, E. N. The orientation of psycho—
therapists. J. consult. Psychol., 1962. gs, 201-212.

Winder, C. L., Ahmad, F. Z., Bandura, A. & Rau, Lucy C.
Dependency of patients, psychotherapists' responses.
and aspects of psychotherapy. J. consult. Psychol..
1962. 26, 129-134.

Wolstein, B. Transference. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1954.

Wolstein, B. Counter-transference. New York: Grune &
Stratton, 1959.

Wolstein, B. Transference: historical roots and current
concepts in psychoanalytic theory and practice.
PSYChiatol 19601 2;] 159-172.

APPENDIX A

CODING MANUAL FOR TAPE RECORDINGS

APPENDIX A

CODING MANUAL FOR TAPE RECORDINGS

General Scoring Instructions
1. The Scoring Unit

A unit consists of three parts: the client's
remarks, the therapist's total subsequent response, and the
next statement of the client (this last not only completes
the first interaction unit but also initiates the next).

C: I cannot understand how you can stand me
now when I smoke.

T: You seem to be very aware of my feelings.
C: I am always sensitive toward your feelings.

2. Interruptions

Statements of either the client or therapist which
are interrupted by the other will be coded as one response
if the continuity is not altered by the interruption.
"um hmm," etc. responses of the therapist even when closely
followed by topic changes by the client are not to be con-
sidered as breaking the continuity.

one response

C: I asked him to help me out and . . .

T: Why did you ask for help?
C: . . . he refused to do anything about it.

88

89

two responses

 

C: I don't understand why he does not help me . .
T: Did you ever ask him to help you?
C: Yes I did, but it did not work on him.
3. Scoring the Client's Initial Statement and Response
All client statements are scored both for the need or
behavior systems which are being expnassed (as defined below)
and for the objects (persons) toward whom the client is
oriented in his statement. The scorable objects are thera—
pist and other. For therapist to be scored object, the
reference has to be to him as a person rather than as a
representative of the Counseling Center.
Sometimes the client will finish a sentence for the
therapist. In those cases, the whole idea is scored as a

client statement:

T: . . . understanding it now
C: will make a change.

4. Scoring the Therapist's Response
For every therapist statement scored as approach or
avoidance (see below), the client need systems relevant to
the therapist statement are to be noted. A therapist response
may be a generalized approach:
T: Tell me more about your difficulties.

or be specific to a given need system. If the therapist

9O

explicitly approaches one client need system, he implicitly
avoids any other applicable needs and this is to be scored
wherever relevant. Approach - Misc. is scored when the
therapist approaches a need not here categorized.

"Um hmmm" statements by the therapist are to be
ignored completely in scoring unless they are followed by
further verbalizations or if their meaning is clearly "yes"

or no" in response to a question by the client.

Scoring of Client Statements

 

l. Hostility categories

a. Hostility

Includes description of and expression of unfavorable.

critical, sarcastic, depreciatory remarks, opposition, antagon—
ism, argument, expression of dislike, resistance, irritation.
annoyance, anger, expression of aggression and punitive
behavior; may be scored when the voice quality of the client
is indicative of irritation or anger, apart from the nature
of the content of his statement; includes the following kinds
of hostile statements:

Anger - indications that the client is angry.

I am just plain madl
I couldn't think - I was so angry.

O O
O. O.

91

Dislike - expressions of dislike or description of
actions which usually indicate dislike

C:

C:

Resentment

I just don't get interested in them. I
would always rather be somewhere else.
I've never ever felt that I liked them.
I expect I never will.

- expression or description of perSistent

negative attitude which does or might change to
anger on specific occasions.

Antagonism:
enmity.

Opposition

They are always so smug. Boyi
They don't do a thing for me so why should I
ever ask them over.

- expression or description of antipathy or
We always seem to be at odds. somehow.
There is always this feeling of being

enemies.

— expression or description of oppositional

feelings or behavior.

If he wants to do one thing, I want to do
the other. .It's lousyl

It always seems that she's against things.
even the things she wants.

Critical Attitudes - expression of negative evaluations
or description of actions which usually imply
negative evaluations.

Aggressive
person
cally.

If I don't think the actors are doing very
well, I just get up and walk out.

There is something to be critical about in
almost everything anyone says or does.

Actions - actions designed to hurt another
or persons. either physically or psychologi-

92

C: He deserves to suffer and I'm making it
that way every way I can.

b. Hostility Anxiety
Includes expression of fear, anxiety or guilt
about hostility and statements reflecting difficulty in
expressing hostility.
I just felt so sad about our argument.

I was afraid to hit her.
After I hit him, I felt sick.

COD

2. Dependency categories
a. Dependency

Includes description of and expression of
behavior seeking help, seeking approval, demanding
initiation of behavior by someone else, demanding company.
seeking information, describing support, as well as that
asserting agreement with others' (including the therapist's)
statements; includes the following kinds of dependent
statements:

Help-seeking - requests for help or description of
help-seeking behavior

C: I asked him to help me out when that came up.
C: I try to do it when he can see that.it's
too hard for me.

Approval-seeking - requests for approval or acceptance
or reports and descriptions of approval-seeking
behavior.

93

C: I hope you will tell me if that is what you
want.

C: When I had any homework, I'd do it so dad
would know I was studying like a good girl.

Company-seeking - expressibns of a wish to be with
others or descriptions of efforts to be with others.

I just want us to spend a whole day together.
I only joined so that I'd be in a group -
with other people.

0 O
O. 0'

Information-seeking - requests for information.
expressions of a desire for information from others
or descriptions of arrangements to be the recipient
of information primarily because of the relation-
ships involved.

C: Please explain something to me - anything!
Just tell me something.

Agreement with another - expression of or description
of very ready agreement.

C: Oh yesi YOu are absolutely correct about
that. (In response to tentative interpre-
tation by therapist).

C: Immediately I felt that he was right and
I'd never thought about it that way before.

Seeking Initiative from the Therapist - requests of
the therapist that he start the discussion, select
the topic or take responsibility upon himself.
C: Why don't you say what we should talk about
now? '
C: Whenever I start, I think you should tell me
what to talk about.
b. Dependency Anxiety

Includes expression of fear, anxiety and guilt

about dependency. including expression of fear of or unusual

94

sensitivity about disapproval or description of unusual
distress about an instance of disapproval and statements
reflecting difficulty in expressing dependency.
C: I just felt so bad after that (asking a
friend for help).
C: I just could not ask him to help me out with
my studies.
C: It seems like I always expect not to be
liked.
3. Sex categories
a. Sex
Includes description of and expression of behavior
concerned with seductiveness and its frustration and behavior
of a general sexual nature; includes all statements referring
to a positive or approach component of the sexual drive;
direct expression of sexual needs and wishes, description
of sexual attraction and arousal. sexual activity not mixed
with fear or guilt, planning for sexual satisfaction, court-
ship and dating among unmarried people where the erotic
element is present but institutionalized, description of
homosexual feelings and other perversions. descriptions of
masturbation, discussion of normal sex education.
C: My boyfriend and I kiss and pet very freely.
C: I talked over my affair with my father.
C: He wanted to have sexual relations with me.
C: I have dreams about having intercourse with
a faceless woman. '

C: I like to watch stripteasers.
C: I value sex highly.

95

b. Sewanxiety
Includes fear. anxiety and guilt about sex and
statements reflecting difficulty in expressing sexual feeling:
nervousness. irrational fears. phobias. compulsions, depres-
sion, hopelessness, confusion, helplessness, conflict.
tension, blocking, avoidance behavior, denial of a sex
drive, negative attitude toward sex. rationalizing one's
behavior, depreciating self: feelings of inadequacy. somatic
symptoms. impotence, frigidity.
C: I feel so guilty about going out with her.
C: I am always so afraid to even kiss her.
C: I'm frightened by my sexual feelings toward
you.
C: I was afraid someone would discover us.
C: My breasts didn't grow until after all my
girl friends had fully developed.
4. Other Client Responses
a. Silence
Includes client silences of more than 2 seconds
following a remark by the therapist.
b. Misc.
Includes statements which do not belong to any of
the above mentioned categories.
c. Generalized Anxiety

Includes all psychological and somatic expressions

of anxiety which are not related to a drive nor related to

96

any specific person or object; general "free floating"
anxiety and guilt.
d. Inaudible
Includes client statements that cannot be heard
clearly enough to be categorized with regard to content.
3. Irrelevant
Includes all general opening and closing remarks,
discussion of technical details as "Tuesday at 10" and other
irrelevant remarks: may be scored once for several interactions
at the beginning or end of the session where it is most

likely to be scored.

Scoring of Therapist Statements
1. Approach categories
Includes any statements by the therapist which
seem to be designed to elicit further expression of feelings,
attitudes and behavior from the client; includes the follow-
ing categories of responses:
Approval - the therapist's explicit approval of or'

agreement with the client's attitudes. feelings
or behavior.

May I just be quiet for a moment?
Certainly.

I-EIO

Reflection - the therapist's repetition and/or re-
statement of the client's expressed feelings,
attitudes and behavior.

97

C: I just want us to spend a whole day together.
T: Today, you feel, is the day for us to be
together.

C: I don't like that at all.
T: Your reaction is definite dislike.

Support - the therapist expresses sympathy with or
understanding of the client's feelings

C: I have covered about everything.
T: I think I know what you mean.

C: I hate to ask favors from people.
T: I can understand how difficult it would be
for you.

Exploration - therapist remarks and questions that
encourage the client to describeflor express his
feelings, attitudes or actions further. statements
that ask for further clarification, elaboration.
and descriptive information and which call for

details and examples.

C: Ybu ask me how I feel? I feel . . . idiotic.
T: Idiotic? Why?

C: Mostly. I cannot understand my behavior.
T: What is it about your behavior that you
cannot understand?

Instigation - therapist shifts of discussion to a need
topic or reintroduction of need topic expressed
earlier in the interview or in a previous interview.

Interpretation - pointing out of patterns or relation-
ships in the client's feelings. attitudes and behavior:
explaining the antecedents of feelings. attitudes
and behavior: pointing out of the similarity of
the client's reactions in diverse situations or at
separate~times.

Factual Information
Generalization - therapist points out to the client

that his feelings. attitudes and behavior are
common and natural.

98

2. Avoidance categories

Includes statements which seem designed to inhibit.
discourage. or divert further expressions of feelings. attitudes
and actions; includes the following kinds of responses:

Disapproval - critical, sarcastic or antagonistic
statements by the therapist to the client. ex-
pression of rejection of the client in some way

C: Why don't you make statements? Make a
statement; don't ask another question.
T: I'm not making any statements.

C: Well, I wonder what I do now.

T: What do you think are the possibilities?
You seem to have raised a number of
possibilities in ourciiscussions.

Topical Transition - changing of the subject by the
therapist

C: My father was a nice guy to other people. but
he never seemed interested in me.
T: And what about your mother?

Ignoring - response to part of a client statement but
ignoring the expressed affect

C: You've been through this with other people
so help me out; go ahead and help me out.
T: You are a little uneasy.

C: You can see I don't know what to do and I
want you to give me advice.

T: Just say whatever you think is important
about that

Mislabeling - incorrect naming of the client's feelings
by the therapist.

99

3. Other
a. Silence
No response by thetherapist for 6 or more seconds
after the client stops talking.
b. Retraction
When the therapist takes back his interpretation
after the client's negative or positive response to it.
c. Misc.
Statements by the therapist which do not fall
into any of the other categories.
d. Inaudible
Statements by the therapist which are not heard
clearly enough to be categorized.
e. Irrelevant

see client category

APPENDIX B

MATERIALS FOR THE RATING OF THE THERAPISTS' PERSONALITY

d

APPENDIX B
MATERIALS FOR THE RATING OF THE THERAPISTS' PERSONALITY

Task One

I am asking you to rate each of seventeen people on
nine 5-point scales. All of these people are now or have
recently been internes at the Counseling Center. The
persons to be rated are:

(LISTING or NAMES OF SEVENTEEN THERAPISTS)

Please use this group of people as your reference
group. Do not hesitate to give someone a rating of l or
5 because it is possible to think of someone outside the
group who is more extreme on a given variable in comparison
to the others, he is to be rated as extreme.

The rating sheet for each person includes space in
which to indicate whether rating a person was especially
difficult due to lack of knowledge of that person or for
other reasons. Please rate each person on each trait re-
gardless of the difficulty involved for an individual case.

Thank you for your cooperation.

101

102
RATING SCALES

Scale I: Direct Hostility

This scale is concerned with the degree to which the subject
expresses hostility openly and directly.

1. Practically never openly hostile, critical, argumenta-
tive. derogatory.

2. Will occasionally express open hostility. argue, criti-
cize, derogate.

3. Moderately hostile. critical, argumentative. derogatory.

4. Frequently openly hostile. critical. argumentative.
derogatory.

5. Very frequently openly hostile, critical, argumentative.
derogatory.

Scale II: Help-Seeking

This scale measures the extent to which the subject seeks
and asks for help, advice. suggestions, direction.

1. Practically never asks for help. advice, suggestions,
or direction.

2. Occasionally asks for help. advice, suggestions.
direction.

3. Mbderately often asks for help. advice. suggestions.
direction.

4. Frequently asks for help, advice. suggestions. direction.
5. Constantly asks for help, advice, suggestions, direction.

Scale III: Indirect Hostility

 

This scale deals with the extent to which the subject
expresses hostility indirectly in such forms as passive
resistance. ignoring of explicit assignments or responsi-
bilities, indirect criticism.

 

103

Practically never passively resistant, ignores explicit
responsibilities, or indirectly critical and oppositional.

Occasionally passively resistant. ignores explicit re-
sponsibilities, indirectly critical and oppositional.

Moderately passively resistant, ignores explicit
responsibilities, indirectly critical and oppositional.

Frequently passively resistant, ignores explicit
responsibilities, indirectly critical and oppositional.

Very frequently passively resistant, ignores explicit
responsibilities, indirectly critical and oppositional.

Scale IV: Cognitive-Affective Level

 

This scale is concerned with the degree to which the sub-
ject habitually responds to other people and talks about
himself in an affective manner.

1.

Practically never expresses sympathy or understanding
of the feelings of others. Very frequently responds

to the content of what is said rather than the feelings
of the person speaking. Practically never talks about
his own feelings.

Occasionally expresses sympathy or understanding of

the feelings of others. Frequently responds to the content
spoken rather than the feelings of the person speaking.
Occasionally talks about his own feelings.

Expresses sympathy or understanding of the feelings of
others. Only occasionally responds to the content
spoken rather than the feelings of the person speaking.
Often, his talk about himself concerns his feelings.

Frequently expresses sympathy or understanding of the
feelings of others. Often responds to the feelings of
the person speaking to him rather than to the content
of what is said. Frequently. his talk about himself
concerns his feelings.

104

5. Very frequently expresses sympathy or understanding of
the feelings of others. Usually responds to the feelings
of the person speaking to him rather than to the content
of what is said. Very frequently, his talk about him-
self concerns his feelings.

Scale V: Hostility Inhibition

 

This scale deals with the readiness with which the subject
gets irritated, annoyed, angered when frustrated. provoked
or thwarted. e.g., when delayed. inconvenienced, criticized.
opposed, etc. I

1. Very difficult to arouse to anger or irritate. Practi-
cally never expresses irritation. annoyance or anger when
strongly frustrated, provoked. or thwarted.

2. Difficult to arouse to anger or irritate. Expresses
irritation. annoyance, anger only when strongly frus-
trated. provoked, or thwarted.

3. Expresses irritation, annoyance, anger when moderately
frustrated. provoked, or thwarted.

4. Easily irritated and angered. Expresses irritation.
annoyance, anger even when mildly frustrated, provoked.
or thwarted.

5. Very easily irritated and angered. Expresses irritation.
annoyance. anger at the slightest frustration.

Scale VI: Approval-Seeking

This scale is concerned with the extent to which the subject
seeks approval. acceptance. and the expression of favorable
opinion and liking of him.

1. Practically never seeks approval, acceptance. Makes no
effort to please others. Unconcerned with what others
think of him.

2. Occasionally seeks approval and acceptance. Makes
occasional efforts to please others. For the most
part unconcerned what others think of him.

105

3. Mbderately eager for approval and acceptance. Tries to
please others. Generally wants to be liked.

4. Frequently seeks approval and acceptance. Tries hard
to pleas others, strongly desires to be liked.

5. Very frequently seeks approval and acceptance. Tries
very hard to please others. very strongly desires to be
liked.

Scale VII: Dependency Inhibition

This scale deals with the subject's readiness to ask for
help, assistance, advice. suggestions on how things should
be done, what decisions should be made, etc.

1. Finds it very difficult to ask for help and assistance.
Practically never seeks help or assistance even when
faced with obvious difficulties with a problem that he
is unable to handle on his own. Resists help when
offered.

2. Finds it difficult to ask for help and assistance. Does
not ask for help except when in obvious difficulties.
Will accept help only if he has to. wants to carry on
by himself as soon as possible.

3. Seeks help and assistance when the problems and decisions
are difficult for him. Usually tries to do it on his
own first. Accepts offered help without resistance.
readily carries on by himself when he is able to do so.

4. Seeks and accepts help readily. Seeks help and assistance
as soon as he encounters a difficulty even when he could
handle it on his own.

5. Seeks and accepts help readily. Seeks help and assist-
ance when he encounters the slightest difficulty even
when he is clearly able to do it on his own. Will
often let others do things for him.

Scale VIII: Ease with Sexual Topics

This scale is concerned with the ease with which the subject
discusses sexual matters.

106

1. Very open and matter-of-fact attitude. Talks about
sexual matters very readily without any uneasiness.

2. Open and matter-of-fact attitude. Discusses sexual
matters readily with only occasional uneasiness or

hesitancy.

3. Moderately uneasy and hesitant in talking about sexual
matters.

4. Finds it very difficult to talk about sexual matters.

5. Finds it extremely difficult to talk about sexual
matters.

Scale IX: Demonstration of Sexual Interests

This scale is concerned with the extent to which the subject
expresses personal sexual interests.

1. Very often shows sexual interests. Admits to having
sexual needs. Is an active participant when sexual
joking is going on in a group.

2. Often shows sexual interests. Somewhat reticent about
admitting sexual needs. Participates in group sexual
joking.

3. Only occasionally shows sexual interests. Occasionally

participates in sexual joking sessions.

4. Inhibited sexually. Practically never shows any sexual
interests.

5. Very inhibited sexually. Never shows any sexual interests.

Task Two

You have previously rated 17 internes on each of 9
personality scales. Now I would like you to indicate some-
thing about how difficult this task was, how well you feel
you know each of the persons you rated and the kinds of
situations through which you acquired your knowledge of them.

107

1. You obviously have different degrees of familiarity
with the different persons you rated. Below their names
are listed. Please rank the people in terms of your
familiarity with them, a rank of 1 being given to the
person of the group with whose personality and behavior
you feel you are most familiar and a rank of 17 being
given to the person whom you feel you know least well.

(LIST OF SEVENTEEN PEOPLE)

Where does the gap occur? That is, from which rank number
down do you consider your degree of familiarity with the
person really inadequate for the task of rating which you
did?

2. How did you come to know each of these people? Check
all the situations which you feel have contributed to
your knowledge of each of these persons. Add others
which you think were important also. ‘

 

therapy individual conferences social social
with you supervision or groups contact contact
on job apart
Subjects from job
A
B'
C
D
E
F
G

108

Q

ADDITIONAL: List the persons' names and the situations other
than those listed above if they apply.

3. Some of the scales must have been more difficult to use
than others. Please rank the scales with regard to the
difficulty that was involved in rating. Rank 1 should
be used for the scale that was the easiest for you to use
and rank 9 for the one that was the most difficult.

Direct Hostility

Help - Seeking

Indirect Hostility'
Cognitive - Affective Level
Hostility Inhibition
Approval - Seeking
Dependency Inhibition

Ease with Sexual Topics

Demonstration of Sexual Interests

109

4. Anything else you wish to say about the rating task?

Task Three —- Second Rating by the Judges

 

On the personality ratings that you previously did for
me, sufficient agreement among judges was reached on all but
three scales. These were: cognitive-affective level, help
seeking and dependency inhibition. Upon further study, it
was felt that agreement on the cognitive-affective dimension
could be improved if this single scale were broken down into
three separate scales, each measuring a different aspect of
what it is I am trying to get at. In addition, it was felt
that further instructions about what is involved in the
help seeking and dependency inhibition scales might be
helpful. This is included below and you are being asked to
re-rate the people you rated on these dimensions. after
studying the distinctions involved in the scales.

The Cognitive-Affective Level scale has been subdivided into a
Cognitive-Affective Level scale, a scale measuring Inhibition
of Feel Expression and a scale measuring Empathic Behavior.
Each of these is a five - point scale as the others have

been.

Cognitive-Affective Level

 

This scale is concerned with the degree to which the
subject habitually responds to other people in an affective
manner.

1. Very frequently responds to the content of what is said
rather than the feelings of the person speaking.

2. Frequently responds to the content spoken rather than
the feelings of the person speaking.

111 \

Only occasionally responds to the content spoken rather
than the feelings of the person speaking.

Often responds to the feelings of the person speaking to
him rather than to the content of what is said.

Usually responds to the feelings of the person speaking
to him rather than to the content of what is said.

Inhibition of Feeling Expression

This scale is concerned with the degree to which the

subject, when he is talking about himself, does so in an
affective manner.

1.

2.

Practically never talks about his own feelings.
Occasionally talks about his feelings.

Often, his talk about himself concerns his feelings.
Frequently, his talk about himself concerns his feelings.

Very frequently, his talk about himself concerns his
feelings.

Empathic Expression

 

This scale is concerned with the manner in which a subject

habitually responds to other people.

1.

Practically never expresses empathy or understanding of
the feelings of others.

Occasionally expresses empathy or understanding of the
feelings of others.

Expresses empathy or understanding of the feelings of
others moderately often.

Frequently expresses empathy or understanding of
the feelings of others.

Very frequently expresses empathy or understanding of
the feelings of others.

112

The two other scales which seemed problematical were
Help Seeking and Dependency Inhibition. As they are described.
the two are readily confusable. Perhaps the most valid dis-
tinction between the two is in terms of the degree of inference
which is to be involved in making the ratings of these
scales. Help Seeking deals with overt observable behavior.
Rating Dependency Inhibition involves some inferences from
behavior on the part of the person doing the rating. These
inferences have to do with the person's ease in asking for
help, his resistance to offered help and the relation to
help seeking and help accepting behavior of his perception
of the difficulties involved in given tasks. If these
comments do not help to clarify the distinctions between
the two scales, perhaps we can talk about some of the dif-
ficulties involved in making these ratings after you have
completed the re-rating task.

Help-Seeking

This scale measures the extent to which the subject
overtly seeks and asks for help, advice. suggestions,
direction.

1. Practically never asks for help, advice, suggestions, or
direction.

2. Occasionally asks for help, advice, suggestions.
direction.

3. Moderately often asks for help, advice, suggestions.
direction.

4. Frequently asks for help, advice, suggestions, direction.
5. Constantly asks for help. advice, suggestions, direction.
Dependency Inhibition

This scale deals with the subject's readiness to ask
for and to accept help, assistance. advice, suggestions on
how things should be done, what decisions should be made,

etc.

1. Finds it very difficult to ask for help and assistance.
Practically never seeks help or assistance even when

L/

113

faced with obvious difficulties with a problem that he
is unable to handle on his own. Resists help when
offered.

2. Finds it difficult to ask for help and assistance.
Does not ask for help except when in obvious difficulties.
Will accept help only if he has to, wants to carry on
by himself as soon as possible.

3. Seeks help and assistance when the problems and
decisions are difficult for him. Usually tries to do
it on his own first. Accepts offered help without re-
sistance, readily carries on by himself when he is able
to do so.

4. Seeks and accepts help readily. Seeks help and
assistance as soon as he encounters a difficulty even
when he could handle it on his own.

5. Seeks and accepts help readily. Seeks help and
assistance when he encounters the slightest difficulty
even when he is clearly able to do it on his own.

Will often let others do things for him.

NOTE

As before, please use the group of people that you are
rating as your reference group. Do not hesitate to give
someone a rating of 1 or 5 because it is possible to think
of someone outside the group who is more extreme with regard
to the characteristic in question. If the person is extreme
on a given variable in comparison to the others, he is to be
rated as extreme.

ICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
IIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIII
31293105281921