I FR“? I I .. H .‘II ’ ”If: .:I. :' k‘t‘v I :.l‘.‘-‘II.‘ II 'P I ' 2am!“ .Irt‘ I . I?“ -.-I ‘ I I {334;} “j'yfi‘IvfIL. INK) I “gig-‘4‘? '. II. ”II III I "2"; ‘ “PI" \ .I'. I'I'."L’ ". .I ”III I" '.I.. II' .‘II1EI:11|I| I I 'I: . :‘:,'.' é’"i‘>l 5 I“.\ l»‘ I'M fix...“ ‘I‘ I I'I gr 'lJ" - “I‘m“- fléfli? I’ ’ (our); I 'H .. I ’“. ~:II.I.I .,-.._II~ LII" I I. ‘.h:|lll’l..‘:"l.'.'d‘b;.1".‘I'II“':' l.’ I,“ kw :_"I‘.\ II ’EIU'I'III -'.III’>I I J‘”' Iafl9(Iqu~“W“d%Ii I ‘lr‘ll [W'V‘IIfiI« «III :H‘II-III.‘_ - I . \} \U|" ' E“l"I"I'/'§I .‘..I ‘l'ut'I‘ III'. I‘Iv" I u. 'I ‘ ‘9‘. '. ‘fl|:“..l n““hNJflfi mIg~a ‘ll‘Ililli Iy‘IIII- I \k I‘ ' I ' I U .‘l q‘.‘ I.‘ 3‘ W. I. . - \I I .W_ .. I . '.' .‘ I x I .I . ‘r: 1 "I; I I III 'I o ‘ I”! 1:. I . .‘4. I I I .I 3.}. . t i. I’ILL'I " (LI ' ...I :3“)- Av»; III'VHII .3“? i“, . ”112136 ”"u‘l‘ )"I :u' «warm. “1' :‘l"ir"' wIIIL "’:'¢'$' . :"Ix "u'Iu' ’L'I JII‘ :II.| I'I‘QLII'IIIEI {a v‘L v: nt‘ vi +t'lL . '1‘! :Cr 3 I {15.1“ ‘ ":‘II‘A {11.7}? C! .I "1' I '1‘ - I - SI ”If”! “3:“? ‘3 “'1' a I'- II'T II¢§'*“II11"TII III: 9"“ {it} It. ’.I no. P; - 7,}: Hi»? ' 34’ J I “I. .I.I.I'.IJ' In I.IIIII ”1' ' 'III III“ .::_:I I . I I . ‘ I.‘ ‘: II'I'1.;‘ "JV-III II '_I‘ III 5...: . . ‘. I» -' IVI‘}. I . I I ‘. . “fly“ "I" II, {I ”-1!- IQLZ'EIa I. ‘ I f...“ ‘1':‘I[I‘lh'u/I'I‘LUI'ILII” ”"1“ L" I I“"' . "'1‘ 1“ 'I‘l‘i'I' 3 ”It ‘i‘ ('II'IIJ ' III'IJ: '. 'I'I .‘I 'IVI'I1¢PIIII ?.It II II I _ I II ."I‘ ‘I." I "'III' ‘1 IIIIIIII . :‘l'lll ”I.” III. ' . I11 I‘.‘ ”I. I 3!. III I I. I. I: ”If: .41le "I ' I‘.| H“ I 1::I -| 3).? " V 3:. "'w ‘ " .IT".. ”I. ;; °I:I- |' I;|,.|'. . k. ‘ Il‘l H :‘llIHIII " .“ IIH‘." . IIII . I' H H ' ,1 "I IIII' II I I I ‘I‘ I! ' I. ILA- I II'IIII I I IIrItI 'Ih'ln‘ii‘ I1:!" l|.'I‘.J\".' 'I'IuI.Ib.II. "Ur.“rl ‘ .A.-T.:f -_ -‘ :2 - llllll I.“ in!”li’lll‘ll .., ”'7"? 569 3042 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE IMPACT OF TRAINING UPON THE LEVEL OF AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY (EMPATHY) IN FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE CHILDREN presented by RONALD LEE MILLER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degreein EDUQATION Major professor ii Date October 13, 1980 07639 " mall): LIBRA R. Y Michigan Sure University OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: ”ace in book return to remove rge from circulation records © Copyright by RONALD LEE MILLER 1980 THE IMPACT OF TRAINING UPON THE LEVEL OF AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY (EMPATHY) IN FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE CHILDREN By Ronald Lee Miller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1980 é/Aééo 23’ ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF TRAINING UPON THE LEVEL OF AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY (EMPATHY) IN FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE CHILDREN By Ronald Lee Miller The research explored the effects of training on the level of affective sensitivity (empathy) of fifth and sixth grade students. Also, the impact of this training on the attitudes of general education students toward their main- streamed special education peers was explored. Associated with the primary focus of the research was an exploration concerning the effects of teacher empathy on these students. The methods employed included the identification of three experimental and three control intact groups that were matched in important characteristics such as socio-economic level, achievement and experience with mainstreamed special education students. After random assignment to either treat- ment or control the subjects completed a sociometric inven- tory and a standardized empathy test. Treatment was conducted by the investigator in order to control for teacher style and presentation. The content of the treatment consisted of role-playing/reversal and class meeting exercises. Intervention included four forty-five Ronald Lee Miller minute lessons held during each class' regular social studies period, once each week, for four consecutive weeks. All subjects were posttested approximately one week after the conclusion of the exercises using the same instru- ments listed above. Analysis of Covariance and student's t test of signi- ficance resulted in a retention of the null hypothesis that, "No difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment levels of individual students as measured by test performance." Analysis of the sociometric instrument using the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test also resulted in a retention of the null hypothesis that, "No difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment attitude of general education students toward their mainstreamed special education classmates." A significant interaction effect between teacher and student empathy was determined. This led to a rejection of the third null hypothesis that, "No difference will be found between teacher empathy level and average pre-treatment stu- dent empathy level." A Multiple Regression Analysis was per- formed on the data to reach this conclusion. The results illustrate the importance of the class- room teacher in influencing empathic student behavior. The Ronald Lee Miller data also provide some support that empathy is age and sex related. Treatment was an insufficient influence to show significant student growth. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As a social studies educator I have long taught about the importance of the concept interdependance. How- ever, until now it has never had such a high level of per- sonal significance. This dissertation is the product of many empathetic individuals, all of whom own a part. To my parents, Ruth and Robert, I am grateful for the opportunities they freely gave so that I might pursue a career as an educator. Furthermore, through their love and affection I gained an understanding of and a concern for empathy as the strong force that enables individuals to exercise prosocial behavior. I dedicate this work to my wife, Beverly and to Robert, Kathy and Kate whose patience and understanding during the long years leading to this accomplishment often surpassed their own needs and desires. Those long and lonely nights and weekends are at an end and we can resume the joys and triumphs of our family again. I am indebted to Pete Cooper who often served as a second father nurturing and encouraging me when I was ready to give up. Ted Ward's perceptive judgement and careful thesis guidance have helped me avoid many of the ii roadblocks to success in the endeavor. The technical expertise and sephisticated advice of Mary Lou Glass, Bill Vietch, Guy Blackburn and Mike LaBay have enabled me to produce the volume herein. To my colleagues and friends at Oakland Schools, Michigan State University, Oakland University and Birming- ham Public Schools, I express my appreciation and heartfelt thanks. To the teachers and students who opened their hearts and minds in the pursuit of knowledge about empathy, I salute you! Finally, my appreciation is extended to Gertrude Broido Green whose model of empathy inspired this research. iii LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III - CHAPTER IV TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM Need . Generalizability . Research Hypotheses Support for Primary Hypothesis Support for Secondary Hypothesis Support for Related Hypothesis Limitations . . Definition of Important Terms Theoretical Assumptions REVIEW OF LITERATURE Definition and Measure of Empathy Empathy as a Focus of Instruction Interpersonal Relations in Learning Contexts Mainstreaming . . Summary of Previous Research RESEARCH DESIGN . General Methodology Selection of Subjects Instrumentation . . Field Procedures and Data Collection . . Affective Sensitivity - Focus of Lessons Statistical Analyses . Limitations and Weaknesses Summary . FINDINGS General Descriptive Findings Findings for Hypothesis 1 Findings for Hypothesis 2 Findings for Hypothesis 3 Summary . . iv PAGE vi PAGE 1 \OCDCDVO‘U‘IH 10 13 PAGE 15 16 26 3O 32 35 PAGE 36 36 38 41 46 CHAPTER V - APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . PAGE 79 Conclusions and Implications . . 80 Conclusions Regarding Hypothesis l 81 Conclusions Regarding Hypothesis 2 87 Conclusions Regarding Hypothesis 3 9O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Who Do You Like Sociometric Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Affective Sensitivity Scale Form D-A-Z . . 129 Affective Sensitivity Scale Form E -A- 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Sample Intervention Activities PAGE 162 TABLE .p H .p Dbl-‘99 bwww OJ-‘LJON b-L‘bb .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 LIST OF TABLES Results of Stratified Classroom Sampling Sample Group Characteristics Data Log . Research Design Frequency Distribution of Experimental Group Frequency Distribution of Control Group Empathy Pretest Means and Standard Deviations . . . . . . . Empathy Posttest Means and Standard Deviations . . . . . . . Attitude Pretest Means and Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . Attitude Posttest Means and Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . Differences in Empathy Means by Student Groups . . . . Comparison of Empathy Scores by Sex Empathy Means by Group and Sex . t Test for Empathy Means by Grade A Comparison of Empathy Means by Grade and Group . . . . . . Mean and Standard Deviation Empathy Scores by Educational Program . Pre and Post Attitude Scores for LRC . Multiple Regression Analysis Nested Analysis of Covariance Pearson Correlation Coefficients Experimental and Control Posttest Empathy Comparison vi PAGE 40 41 47 52 54 55 57 58 6O 61 63 64 65 66 67 69 71 74 76 77 78 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which a set of empathy training experiences could enhance the level of affective sensitivity (empathy) of general edu- cation fifth and sixth grade students toward his/her special education classmate. The training experiences designed/ selected were role-reversal and class meeting. The research was based upon the hypothesis that empathy levels could be raised by classroom instruction through the use of easily constructed and readily available teaching tools. The research was undertaken to illustrate what can be accom- plished in the classroom setting toward improving human rela- tionships. Empathy training was explored as a basic educa- tional goal important in much the same way as math and reading skills. Empathy was defined as the extent to which one could identify the affective state of another. Need The construct, empathy, has become a focus for con- siderable research during the past fifteen to twenty years 1 2 for a variety of reasons. The psychology of Rogers (1975), highly respected in the fields of counseling and education, emphasizes the importance of an empathetic teacher or coun- selor in promoting pro-social behavior and academic excel- lence. The rise of moral education relies heavily upon the development of the empathetic individual for higher level moral behavior (Doll, 1977). The cognitive developmental school of psychology has studied empathy as a developmental sequence similar to Piaget's cognitive development theory (Mussen, 1977). The conclusion one reaches upon review of the litera- ture is that even though empathy is an elusive quality it is nevertheless an important factor for effective interpersonal communication, social relationships and academic achievement. The development of empathy has also become an impor- tant concern of educators due to changes in social and edu- cational climate. Throughout both social and educational history, time and distance have been our allies. When con- flict, misunderstanding and change have occurred we have had gym; for reflection/avoidance and for change/status quo. We have had distance in that events in one sector of world society would often not affect another sector. Individuals of varying backgrounds rarely came into contact with each other due to the vast physical and cultural distances between them. On the other hand, the current social climate is 3 characterized by a cOmpression of time and distance. Social and educational group complexions include a mosaic of cul- tural and educational differences--a compression of distance. Confounding this situation is the fact that the time available for develoPing positive relationships among these varying in- dividuals is also compressed. An example of the compression of time and distance is the current practice of "mainstreaming" special education stu- dents. The practice means that many special education students who have been heretofore isolated from general education stu- dents now spend all or part of the typical school day inte- grated into regular general education classrooms. This new practice has precipitated problems for both the special education and the general education student. The former have expressed the pains of rejection, isolation and self-concept damage that has often occurred when one is a visi- ble minority (Semmel, 1979). The general education student has been equally impaired in that he or she has not developed an ability to relate to nor understand minorities. Further- more, the tense social climate in these classrooms has required greater teacher attention to "non-academic" behavior resulting in less time devoted to on-task academic pursuits (McKalip, 1979). The mainstreaming practice has seriously divided edu- cators into two divergent factions. There are those who seek to reverse this process and return special education students 4 to segregated groupings. These individuals cite research to support the hypothesis that special education students per- form better and are less damaged by an environment more at- tuned to their special needs. On the other hand, this crisis has prompted some educators to explore means by which special education students can benefit from attendance in "real-world" general education classroom settings. Empathy training has been cited as one technique offering promise (Cleary, 1976). As McKalip states, Empathy for the handicapped is the first prerequisite to their true integration with the school pOpulation (1979, p. 294). To summarize, the development of affective sensiti- vity or empathy was an important study in that it is consi- dered to be the foundation for effective interpersonal rela- tionships (Kravas, 1974). Secondly, it was important in this researcher's Specific educational environment in that it may have assisted in solving an important problem vis-a-vis the relationship between general education and special education students. An examination of empathy could also have been of assistance to those interested in improving teacher/counse- lor effectiveness and to those interested in empathy as a developmental skill important in human relations training. The research was important in terms of both the group under consideration and the setting in which it was studied. For example, a review of the literature will indicate few em- pathy studies relating to children in social situations such 5 as the school classroom. Also, there are few studies which have explored empathy training with individuals younger than 13 years. Finally, the research was important in that empathy was studied from the perspective of the classroom setting rather than the clinic or counseling setting commonly used. Generalizability The population from which the research sampled was composed of fifth and sixth grade students in an upper middle class suburban public school district. Thus, the findings can not be considered applicable to the general school popu- lation within this district and certainly not throughout the entire school population. The treatment (empathy training exercises) was drawn from a collection of interventions commonly used to improve empathy levels (Kagan, 1978; Staub, 1971; Mussen, 1977). Therefore, a measure of generalizability may be predicted across the general pOpulation of fifth and sixth grade students similar to those in the sampled group. In general, however, the research should be considered a lighthouse for additional studies in that the context and content are an emerging interest among educators. The findings are suggestive of what may be found elsewhere but will more likely point out needed additional research. Research Hypotheses The purpose of the research was to examine the im- pact of empathy training upon fifth and sixth grade general education students and their attitudes toward mainstreamed special education students present in the same classroom. The following hypotheses were formulated: Primary Hypothesis--Fifth and sixth grade general education students in a suburban public school district who have par— ticipated in selected empathy training exercises will exhibit a higher level of empathy after intervention as measured by the "Affective Sensitivity Scale" (Kagan, 1965) than those students in the control group. Secondary Hypothesis--Fifth and sixth grade general education students in a suburban public school district who have par- ticipated in selected empathy training exercises will exhibit more positive attitudes toward their mainstreamed special education classmates after intervention as measured by the "Who Do You Like" sociometric inventory (Larson, 1978) com- pared with those students in the control group. Related Hypothesis--The average empathy level of each class- room (control and experimental) will be positively correlated with the empathy level of the classroom teacher as measured by the "Affective Sensitivity Scale" (Kagan, 1965). 7 Support for Primary Hypothesis There is both research support and empirical logic for the presentation of the primary hypothesis listed above. The vast majority of empathy researchers support the thesis that empathy is a human trait that not only exists in vari- ability but can be developed through training. Aspy, Katz, Rogers, Kagan, Carkhuff, Truax, Feshbach and Iannotti are a few cited here to be presented in Chapter II of this inves- tigation. Foremost among the group is Carkhuff and his Helping and Human Relations Training Model (1967). While this and other training models have been designed for adult audiences (particularly counselors), it is a logical con- jecture that children will exhibit similar positive response in terms of improved empathy levels. The hypothesis is logical also in terms of the nature of the intervention to be employed. Dymond (1948) and Speroff (1956) show support for role-reversal exercises. Stewart (1956) and Buchheimer (1963) illustrate the importance of class meeting or inter— active exercises to enhance empathy. Staub in discussing his research provides a clear direction for this investigation when he states, The finding suggests that specific training pro- cedures, particularly role playing of specific situations, may enhance the subsequent probability of prosocial behavior (1971, p. 815). 8 Support for Secondary Hypothesis--Larson presents the most inclusive summary of the effects of mainstreaming special education students into the regular classroom when he con- cludes, it appears that exceptional children, par- ticularly those with less obvious kinds of dis- abilities such as the educable retarded and the emotionally disturbed, have greater problems in gaining acceptance from their regular class peers (1978, p. 17). As will be defined later in this chapter, the special education students included in the research are precisely those "less obvious" children to which Larson alludes. Furthermore, he emphasizes that many studies were conducted REESE to the passage of Public Law 94-142 which mandates mainstreaming practices throughout the nation. Coupled with the problem created by mainstreaming we can no longer ignore the need to develop positive relationships between these students because they are in many classrooms, not just isolated cases in a few classrooms. Support for Related Hypothesis The precedent literature for the related hypothesis comes from those individuals interested in improving the ef- fectiveness of the "helping professions" such as therapists and counselors. Much of the research in this area supports the relationship between counselor/therapist effectiveness and their level of empathy. Furthermore, some studies in- dicate that client empathy levels are enhanced when a 9 high-empathy model conducts the counseling or therapy (Truax, 1967; Kagan, 1975; Rogers, 1958). Conversely, those clients whose "helper" scores low on empathy measures, are more likely to also exhibit lower empathy levels. The research included a series of statistical analyses to confirm or question this phenomenon in the classroom setting. Limitations Several factors constrain this research, Obviously, sample size and characteristics limit the generalizability of findings. Second, the research was based upon a specific de- finition of affective sensitivity or empathy, as it is gener- ally conceived. The literature, as will be seen in Chapter II, contains a variety of definitions of empathy depending upon the social-psychological foundations of the researcher. Third, the research instrumentation, as presented in Chapter III, reflected the specific definition of empathy selected. While content and construct validity and reli- ability have been supported by independent research, there is no claim that the instruments measured "true" empathy. That remains a function of the definition of empathy to which one is oriented. Fourth, the research did not explore attitude change over the long term as is promoted by many researchers. To them, a longitudinal study is mandatory in order to test any lO hypotheses related to attitude changes. The research was undertaken to explore whether empathy levels can be improved at all, thus precluding a need to explore lasting change. In addition to the question of long-term attitude change, the research had some limitations because assessment of attitude change is very difficult. Many social scientists question the validity of utilizing a paper and pencil assess- ment as employed in the research. While there are some con- straints placed upon conclusions to be drawn from this pro- cess, a sociometric instrument represents a realistic and efficient device for the research as outlined. Finally, in the interest of controlling one important variable; namely, the classroom teacher, the researcher pre- sented and directed all intervention activities with the experimental groups. The research is limited by this decision. Further discussion of limitations is presented in Chapter III. Definition of Important Terms The following are brief definitions of important terms and concepts used in the research. Empathy is "The ability to detect and identify the immediate affective state of another." The definition is Operationali- zed in the research by the use of Kagan's (1977, p. 5) "affec- tive sensitivity" terminology. As will be outlined in Chapter II, empathy has both a ll cognitive and an affective facet. That is, one can "under- stand" as well as "feel" the affective state of another. However, the distinction is more likely made for academic convenience or it may also provide an avenue for experimental simplicity and control. The reason for this statement is that empathy is inherently affective. One can explore, dis- cuss and analyze empathy; however, there exists no separate and distinct cognitive empathy. There are only cognitions about the affect, empathy. Special Education includes children commonly categorized as Learning Disabled, Emotionally Impaired, Physically or Other- wise Health Impaired and Mildly Mentally Impaired as specified by the State of Michigan Special Education Act of 1969. The school district utilized for the research refers to these children as Learning Resource Center students (LRC). This means they are special education students who attend the LRC for part of their daily instruction. Mainstreamed children are special education (LRC) students considered able to spend at least 50 per cent of the school day in regular (general) education classes. These students attend a Special classroom for interventions specific to their identified disability. Role-reversal is one type of empathy training exercise (McGonigal, 1971; Staub, 1971) selected for inclusion in the research. The most straight-forward definition is that offered by Ward. 12 A learning experience based upon roles assigned to or voluntarily taken by the participants in order to set in motion some particular social dynamics (1978, p. 1). Role-reversal generally has four major purposes. To help peOple see themselves (particularly their tendencies) more clearly; To provide practice in specified interpersonal skills; To enable the 'discovery' of the dynamics in par- ticular roles and relationships; To provide concrete illustrations of abstract transactions (Ward, 1978a, p. 1). The research focuses upon the second purpose; that is, providing practice for interpersonal skills. Class Meeting is a term first coined by Glasser (1965) in his book on reality therapy in the classroom. The techni- que involves conducting a class discussion usually centered around a single tOpic in which students are encouraged by the teacher to discuss all aspects of the tOpic in order to gain perspectives not normally seen through the egocentric eyes of most youngsters. The activity involves input, self- awareness and sharing. Hoffman (1963) and Staub refer to this process as "induction." The process, . enlists the child's natural proclivities for empathy" (1971, p. 812). Positive Student Attitude is defined, for purposes of the research, as the extent to which one is nominated or selec- ted by one's classmates to be a member of a work group, social function and/or group of friends. The more often one is selected the more positive the attitudes are toward that 13 person. The definition is implicit in the instrument selected for the research. Theoretical Assumptions The vast literature on empathy attests not only to its importance in the realm of human interaction but also in- dicates the complexity of the construct. While studied originally in terms of the arts, 1. e., ”empathizing with a Rembrandt" the term has of late permeated a number of scho- larly fields of endeavor. Noteworthy among them has been the field of psychology, specifically in the area of thera- peutic counseling. Rogers (1969) elevated empathy to a high degree of importance when he concluded that it was one of the three most important characteristics of effective clini- cians or for that matter, any other professional who assumes the "helper" role. During the period following Rogers' statement, em- pathy has been of intense interest to theoreticians in the areas of psychology, sociology, industry and counseling. There have been educators, of late, who have attempted to gain insight into the role empathy plays in the school set- ting. It is interesting to note, however, that the construct remains basically undefined in a manner acceptable to the general academic p0pulation. The result of this phenomenon has been vast disagreement over measurement, whether empathy actually differs from other closely similar terms such as "insight", "accuracy of social perception", "sympathy" and 14 whether empathy is a single human variable or a combination of primal characteristics. The research assumed some important theoretical principles. In order to avoid misinterpretation the fol- lowing assumptions are presented: 1. The true empathic occurance is essentially affective although it must be based upon an understanding in order to distinguish it from sympathy. The empathizer must not only "feel" the state of the "other" but must also under- stand the affect. The affective component, however, does not require the empathizer to actually experience the psychological state of the "other." Empathy and empathic responses are not unitary factors (Heilman, 1974). Empathy is a necessary but not sufficient con- dition for effective prosocial behavior (Kagan, 1977). Empathy is not a fixed trait. It is as variable a human trait as other psychological constructs such as intelligence (Truax, 1967). Empathy can be taught (Kagan, 1977; Carkhuff, 1967). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of the research was to explore the im- pact of training on the level of affective sensitivity (empathy) of fifth and sixth grade general education students. Mainstreamed special education students were selected as the focus of the training exercises. Because of the nature of the variable, empathy, and due to the dual focus of the re- search i.e., empathy and mainstreamed students, the review of literature will be divided into several subsections. These foci are the following: Definition and measurement of empathy Empathy as a focus of instruction Interpersonal relations in learning contexts Mainstreaming special education students The review will not be extensive; rather, it will contain precedent literature selected to provide background and a frame of reference for the hypotheses tested in the research. Following each subsection will be a summary and discussion intended to more closely tie the literature to the purposes of the research. Chapter II is then summarized in its en- tirety in terms of implications for the research. 15 16 Definition and Measurement of Empathy Upon review of the literature on empathy, one is im- pressed with a number of conclusions. The first of these is that the study of empathy is a recent deveIOpment when com- pared with studies of other psychoeducational characteristics such as intelligence and motivation. A simple review of the c0pyright dates of publications on empathy attest to the fact that it has been primarily during the last ten to fifteen years that researchers have concentrated on this construct. Secondly, one is impressed with the variety of definitions and subsequent measurements of this concept. Strunk (1957) in his review supports this observation. Thirdly, as reported by Feshbach, . . empirical research on empathy does not parallel its theoretical salience" (1978, p. 2). In the interest of providing a structure to this often contradictory area of interest, various conceptualizations of empathy have been categorized. The groupings are not mutu- ally exclusive; rather, they are intended to be used to sort out definitions in order to be easily understood. Further, each category represents a theoretical refinement of the previous. Classical-~The German psychologist, Lipps, (Buchheimer, 1963) is generally credited with the classical definition of empathy steming from Titchener's terminology, "einfuhlung"--which Lipps translated into, "a feeling of oneness" or "in-feeling". 17 The definition emphasized the affective component in con- trast to more recent definitions which are dual in nature-- affective and cognitive. The classical definitions were primarily in refer- rence to "aesthetic oneness" or interaction with objects such as a work of art or music. Attempts to measure empathy focused upon whether or not "einfuhlung" was occuring. De- finitions in this category often emphasized the more primitive, undifferentiated aspects of the construct. It was thought that empathy was basically an unlearned, automatic response. Due to the nature of the definition no attempts were made to measure accuracy (Gribble, 1973). Freud (Feshbach, 1978) identified empathy as an impor- tant psychological function that enables a person to under- stand those qualities that are outside the parameters of the ego. He further refined this theory and it was his refine- ment that served as a bridge from classical to contemporary thought. Freud saw empathy as related to the process of iden- tification. This refinement served to add the cognitive dimension missing from previous definitions. While the em- pathic response remained essentially emotional, it required the cognitive act of identification of "self and other" along with the perception of the emotional state of the other. Contemporary--Deutsch (1975) traces the rediments of contem- porary definitions of empathy again to Lipps but some fifteen years after his original work. By this time Lipps had l8 altered his conceptualization to include the beginnings of an interpersonal definition. However, his definition relied heavily upon imitation and projection rather than "accurate understanding" as Carkhuff (1967) later hypothesized. Mead (1934) is representative of these interpersonal definitions. He asserted that empathy was dual in nature (affective and cognitive). He observed the role-playing of children and saw the "as-if" behavior as a process of vicari- ously experiencing the world of another person. Mead hypo- thesized that empathy was a quality learned through experi- ences such as these. Further, the greater the Opportunities for role-playing the better able one would be to socially in- teract with others. As the number of interpersonal definitions gradually increased, measurement became a problem. Smither's analysis is illustrative of the "extensive disagreement . . . over the criteria for an empathetic response” (1977, p. 254). Not only was there disagreement about constitutive elements of empathy there were a variety of evidentiary criteria utilized to measure the construct. Dymond is representative of the empathy-as-role- playing criteria. Basing her definition upon Mead's work, Dymond viewed empathy as, the imaginative trans- posing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so structuring the world as he does" (1949, p. 129). Speroff (1953) refined the role-playing definition to 19 include role-reversal, i.e., "What would you do if you were him?" In this definition empathy and role-reversal are mutually complimentary. Buchheimer (1963) sought to further refine these de- finitions by emphasizing the importance of detachment and objectivity. Rogers is representative of this group when he states that empathy involves perceiving, the internal frame of reference of another without losing the 'as if' quality" (1975, p. 3). To Rogers eliminating the detach- ment factor endangers a definition of empathy. The element of objectivity (cognition) distinguishes empathy from sym— pathy or identification. It is interesting to note that most psychoanalytic definitions now fall in this category. Finally, one discovers a series of definitions of em- pathy as interaction. Murray (1938) referred to empathy as "recipathy." Stuart (1956) refers to empathy as "mutual transference." Buchheimer (1963) refers to empathy as "con- fluence." All of these definitions emphasize the importance of interpretation and reacting to another's emotional state without an inactment of this state. As explorations of the construct continued it became more evident that empathy was not only dual in nature (affec- tive and cognitive) but was hierarchical. The duality was used to distinguish empathy from sympathy-~sympathy being essentially an emotional response and projection which can be seen as egocentric sympathy. The stage theory was promoted 20 to emphasize that empathy was indeed a skill subject to deve10pment. Feshbach's (1975) three component structure exem- plifies this trend. In her conceptualization the individual first discriminates perspective and labels the affective state of another (cognition). This is followed by the higher order cognitive process of assuming the role of the other which leads to the affective quality of responding emotionally. Woodbury attempted to further refine Feshbach's ideas and relate them to Kohlberg's and Piaget's develOpmental stages of morality and intellect. Woodbury defines empathy as a hierarchical construct composed of six stages organized into three levels. Level one is termed Identification and includes stage one--"exterior imitation" which means imita- ting with the person or object present. Stage two is called "interiorized imitation" and refers to a verbalized report of the state of another. Level two, Woodbury defines as Differentiation. This includes stage three, which is called "resistance." This means the uncomfortable recognition of differences from "the other." In stage four--”reidentifica- tion" the individual sees relationships of likenesses and differences with others. Level three is termed Empathy and includes stage five--"creative empathy problem solving." At this stage the individual is concerned with improving good will relationships through the problem solving process. 21 Stage six is the highest level and is defined as "altruistic empathy." At this stage the individual understands both him- self and others and often puts his own welfare below that of the relationship (1976, p. 4-6). The research conducted by Woodbury confirms the hier- archical nature of her definition but she was unable to find evidence to provide a clear discrimination between levels. This lack of discrimination was partly due to methodological problems and partly due to imprecise definitions. Shantz (1975) and Mood (1973) were involved in ex- plorations of a similar nature to Woodbury and Feshbach. Shantz concluded that the child grows in a develOpmental sense, moving from self jpdgements (i.e., assuming others feel the same way he/she would feel in the same situation) to normative judgements (i.e., how "most" or the "average" per- son would feel) to differential judgements in which the in- dividual responds to both the situation and the feelings in- volved in the situation (1975, p. 5-7). It is interesting to note that all of these researchers arrived at similar conclusions regarding the importance of role-taking and role-reversal in deve10ping empathic skills. Mussen states it quite emphatic when he says, Role-taking enhances the individual's ability to empathize with others and to perceive things from others' points of view . . (and) is considered the most influential experiential factor in moral development (1977, p. 117). 22 As empathy research increased in concert with the training of therapists and counselors, the complexities of the construct became more apparent. Scholarly disagreements arose regarding the basic nature of empathy. Is it a trait (Hogan, 1975) or a state (Truax, 1967)? Is it biologically based (Katz, 1963) or essentially a sociological phenomenon (Borke, 1973)? Is empathy a process or a product? Research findings lacked comparability for three probable reasons according to Hobart (1965). Psychologists and social psycho- logists were exploring different aspects of behavior in their studies of empathy. Often the research designs were highly variant and measurement included a wide variety of "crudely refined empathy scores." Although attempts to measure empathy continue to parallel develOpments in defining the construct and the ans- wers selected for the questions above became determinants of the instruments designed to measure empathy, Carkhuff and his Scale for "Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes" (1967) and Truax with the "Accurate Empathy Scale" and "Relationship Questionnaire" (1967) attempted to develop and standardize empathy scales. They were constructed for use in determining whether training programs in counselor em- pathy were effective. The tests are based upon the premise that empathy involves both a cognitive and an affective com- ponent, that not only does one need to be able to, " recognize, sense and to understand the feelings that another person . . (has) . . (but) to accurately communicate this 23 understanding to him" (Avery, 1976, p. 181). The scales are also based upon the assumption that empathy is hier- archical. Nine stages of empathy are consolidated into five levels. The scales continue in popularity primarily because of their association with the Carkhuff Human Relations Training Program. This is in spite of questions of test con- struct validity and reliability and difficulties inherent in administering and scoring of the scale (Truax's own research (1966) for example, concluded that the "Relationship Question- naire" was not reliable). The remaining measurements were either attempts to improve the reliability and validity of the EU and AES such as Hogan's test of empathy (1975) or were tests deve10ped in connection with research on empathy. Buros Mental Measure- ments Yearbook (editions 6, 7 and 8) contain few listings of empathy scales. Of those listed and reviewed, none were found to be adequate enough to receive a recommendation for usage (again a testimony of the state of the art). A review of empathy research yields two general types of tests. Predictive tests are similar to those developed by Speroff, "The Empathy Test," Kerr, "Primary Empathic Abilities Test," and Norman and Ainsworth, "Diplo— macy Test of Empathy," (Duetsch, 1975, pp. 271-273). Some predictive measures are sensitive to a generalized "other" (i.e., How the average person feels) such as "The Diplomacy Test." However, validity and reliability are highly question- able and they are not applicable to interpersonal situations. 24 Other predictive tests are sensitive to specific persons (i.e., how similar is a subjects response to that already given by another person). These tests, however, have been severly criticized as only testing projection or, at best, how well a person conforms to social or cultural norms (Lingren, 1953). It is interesting to note that no new pre- dictive tests have been deve10ped since 1958 when the criti- cisms were most prevalent. The other group of empathy measures are situational tests. These tend to approximate "real-life" situations in that actual responses are audio recorded and judged using the "blue-ribbon" panel technique. Some situational tests in- volving both audio and visual recording have been reported such as the one developed by Buchheimer. A variety of prob- lems have been associated with these tests, however. For example, audio-only tests are subject to low interrater re- liability scores. They also fail to provide the subject with total situation characteristics to react to such as gestures and facial expressions. ‘With one known exception, namely, " the audio-visual tests Kagan's "Affective Sensitivity Scale, tend to be deficient because they ask the subject to evaluate the response of the "actor" rather than identifying and re- acting to the feeling expressed by the "actor." They are also criticized because they are contrived situations--not actual vignettes. Summary--The complicated and often contradictory literature 25 on the definition and measurement of empathy may be summa- rized by listing below a number of statements about empathy followed with qualifiers attesting to each statements' con- sensus level: 10. 11. 12. Empathy is a multi-faceted construct--agreed. Empathy (feeling with) differs from sympathy (feeling for) in significant ways--agreed. Empathy exists in variable "quantities" through the p0pulation--agreed. Empathy can only be measured in terms of the total setting in which it occurs--agreed. Empathy is teachable--some consensus. Empathy contains both a cognitive and an affec- tive condition--tentative. Empathy is a necessary ingredient for pro-social behavior--tentative. Empathy deve10ps through a series of definable stages--tentative. There is a two-way relationship between empathy and role-playing/reversal--tentative. Intelligence and maturity are positively correla- ted with empathic ability--tentative. Empathy is a basic character trait--no consensus. Empathy is measureable--no consensus. 26 Discussion--Based upon inconclusive literature and repre— senting a specific point of view, the research was built around Kagan's (1977, p. 5) Affective Sensitivity definition of empathy: "The ability to accurately detect and identify the immediate affective state of another." The definition was selected because it is direct, concise and is a psychological trait which is measurable, that individuals have this trait in varying degrees, and that this degree is subject to change through training procedures (Campbell, 1971, p. 408). As Kravas (1974, p. 76) reports, the affective sen- sitivity definition and measurement is not an all-inclusive concept of "generalized" empathy. However, it does appear to be the "principal ingredient of empathy." Further, the defi- nition was selected, as will be seen in Chapter III, because it is accompanied by valid and reliable (Deutsch, 1975) measurement instrumentation with data approaching standard- ization. Finally, the scale is not only readily available it is relatively easy to administer to large groups in educa- tional settings. Empathy as a Focus of Instruction There is a great deal of evidence found in the liter- ature to support the premise that empathy (or affective sen- sitivity) can be taught. Furthermore, much of this research also supports the notion that role—playing and role-reversal are viable methods for enhancing level of empathy. 27 Woodbury in her search for an operational definition of empathy states, If the sequence of development suggested in the present study is affirmed in subsequent studies, teachers will have the rationale for building on whatever developmental stage of empathy the child manifests in order to encourage further develop- ment at the next stage (1976, p. 19). Aspy's (1975, p. 13) rather impatient statement, "Empathy: Let's Get the Hell on with it," is further testi- mony. He is angered that educators have been too slow to respond to considerable evidence that empathy can be taught. Further, he cites The Magic Circle Prpgram and Carkhuff's Human Relations Training Model as two examples of effective programs that currently exist (One could also add Parent Effectiveness Training, Transactional Analysis and Glasser techniques to the list). Finally, he chastizes therapists and counselors for promoting "a feeling that empathy is the special province of some groups of peOple who have great powers of insight, thus precluding any Opportunity for "common folk" to gain in empathy skills. He forecasts "further human catastrOphies" if this condition remains un- changed. In response to Greenson's (1960) position that empathy is a function of early "mother-child nonverbal communication" " is not some- and thus cannot be taught, Rogers asserts, thing one is 'born with', but can be learned most rapidly in an empathic climate," (1975, p. 6). 28 Kravas (1974) in her research on improving teacher affective sensitivity points to "role-playing and role- reversal exercises" as a key element in empathy training de- signs. Hoffman (1975, p. 8) in exploring the concept of altruistic motivation states that "role-taking training appears to contribute to altruism" when directed toward the "subjects attention to the feelings of others." Smither (1977) promotes the use of role-taking to enhance empathy for two reasons. The method provides Opportunities for children to experience "what it is like" to feel the way another feels thus avoiding projecting his own feeling. Secondly, there are some situations so complex that it is only through role-playing experiences that the situation can be under- stood. Hogan (1975, p. 17) distinguishes between "trait em- pathy" and "state empathy." He asserts that trait empathy probably can not be taught. However, . state empathy should be relatively easy to model and/or train." McGonigal cites "role-playing studies by Janis, Mann and Elms . . (as showing) that the public act of temporarily reversing roles can be a powerful modifier of attitudes" (1971, p. 88). In Smith's classic, Sensitivipy to PeOple, he responds to the question of whether feedback alone is enough to insure accurate perception and higher level empathic responses. His answer is further evidence of the central importance of role-taking in deveIOping empathy. "Practice in playing the role of the person might be of considerable help. . , 29 (1966, p. 111). Cognitive deveIOpmentalists such as Piaget, Kohlberg, Feffer and Flavell are further testimony to the efficacy of teaching empathy. As seen by these theorists, the child, as he/she matures, passes through a sequence of development from an immature and egocentric beginning to maturity and a state in which the child is able to assume the perspective of others. Piaget's concept of decentering is crucial to this process. Role-taking, in turn, is a crucial prerequisite to decentering. Research is beginning to illustrate how sen- sitive the child is to instruction in role-playing behavior (Chandler, 1974; Feshbach, 1978). To summarize, Feshbach's research on empathy in children forecasts a training program for children. There are two principal approaches we plan to pursue in training children to be empathic. One promising method is the use of role-playing techniques A second approach to the enhancement of empathy sug— gested by several studies is to maximize perceived similarity between the observer and the stimulus person (1975, pp. 28, 29). Mussen and Eisenberg-Berg's recent survey of research on de- veloping prosocial behavior in children clearly state the case for role-reversal when they say, Creative educators can devise role-playing empathy- promoting class exercises that are exciting to children and, at the same time, increase their pro- social orientations (1977, p. 160). 30 Interpersonal Relations in Learning Contexts It is a well established fact that the total instruc- tional environment from heat and lights to interpersonal re- lationships affect both affective and cognitive learning of students. Included within the realm of interpersonal rela- tions are precisely two types of relationships, that of student and teacher and that of student to student. Both types of relationships were explored in the research. Carkhuff is most widely known for his work with teachers in improving their relationships with students. Building upon the work of Rogers, Carkhuff has designed and implemented an entire program to achieve this goal. The im- portance of his work is demonstrated by the results of a large scale study entitled the "National Consortium for Human- izing Education." The study involved 450 teachers and 10,000 students and concludes that the findings, . . supported the positive and significant relation- ship between teachers' levels of empathy in the class- room and student outcomes . . . (such as) attendance, self-concept and achievement gains (Shultz, 1975, p. 182). In her extensive efforts to improve teacher empathy levels Kravas cites evidence from a variety of sources including Coleman's Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966) to ASCD's Perceiving, Behavingi_Becoming: A New Focus for Education (1962). She concludes with the statement that, 31 All of these investigations suggest that the teacher who is able to understand student feelings and come municate this understanding to students (empathy) is more likely to be effective in his interpersonal re- lationships with students and in the fostering of student learning (1974, p. 8). Aspy (1975b) cites his own work to illustrate exam- ples of specific academic growth attributable to student- teacher relations. He found that students of primary teachers who were rated high in empathy scored significantly higher in tests of paragraph meaning, word meaning and word study skills. In the area of student interpersonal relations we find the same kind of effect. Students can be as much an in- fluence on each others' achievement level as the teacher. Often, however, it is the teacher's behavior that sets the tone for student behavior. For example, Semmel reports that, As teachers increased their positive social behavior toward isolate children, there was a corresponding change among members of the class toward the rejected child (1979, p. 67). Summary--The case for the relationship between interpersonal behaviors among teachers and students and the learning that takes place within that environment is clear. The extent to which there are strong empathic relationships determines the quality of a number of educational outcomes including achieve- ment. The relationship among students in the research has a special focus; namely, the relationship between mainstreamed special education and general education students. Current 32 theory on this facet of the problem is presented in the next section of this chapter. Mainstreaming The practice of mainstreaming is a massive attempt to alter the traditional model of special education. The classic service mode for special education has been one of isolation. Separate classes and often entire school facilities have been devoted to providing educational services to these students. The mainstreaming concept stems from Public Law 94-142 which mandates not only a committment to the education of all handi- capped children but also a requirement that this service be provided in the "least restrictive" environment (1. e., main- streaming). The law has its roots in both social changes and re- search deve10pments. By social change one refers to the civil and human rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's. By research developments one speaks of evidence that the more one is removed from the "real world" environment of typical classrooms the less able one is to function within society upon graduation. Thus, for the vast majority of special education students, "separate is not equal." Implied in this concept is the practice of removing the child from the normal classroom only for that portion of the typical day (usually less than 50 per cent) needed by the child for specialized instruction. 33 This major innovation has taken place in only five to eight years. The results, however, point out that placement in regular classrooms alone does not insure higher quality of education and may be substandard to past segregation prac- tices (Larson, 1978). Semmel and Cheney present a variety of studies attesting to the belief that, "these pupils in regu— lar classrooms were socially rejected by their normal class- mates in regular classrooms" (1979, p. 65). Not only are general education students ill-prepared to understand and accept these differences, regular classroom teachers are often seen feeding into this rejection process because of their own deficiencies in preparation. Semmel continues by relating that this problem has resulted in a significant backlash by prOponents of a return to traditional groupings. Studies such as those by Smith (1979) indicate quite clearly that the low self-concept suffered by mainstreamed special education students relates to their low achievement. Approaching the issue from a more positive stance, Thurman and Lewis assert that we have only begun to explore the bene- fits of mainstreaming to special and general education stu- dents. They state, Only further research will permit conclusions about the deve10pment of prejudice and how interaction can lead to the creation of educational settings that are maximally beneficial for handicapped as well as non- handicapped children, both separately and together (1979, p. 469). Research by McKalip (1979) and Larson (1978) provide 34 clues as to the direction one might take in solving main- streaming problems and realizing the potential some say it Offers. Cleary's project in Massachusetts involves deveIOping learning experiences for both teachers and students to help them, "develop a sensitive understanding of those with special needs" (1976, p. 8). Included in the training pack- age are role-plays designed to simulate the perspective of the handicapped student. McKalip, in his position as a school counselor, bases his work on the premise that, "the deve10pment of empathy is related to the ability to accept and prOperly respond to in- dividuals" (1979, p. 294). He prOposes a three stage para- digm which includes empathy training, examination of atti- tudes and experiences with the handicapped. Finally, Larson was unable to substantiate that main- streaming, by itself, could account for differences in atti- tude toward school and acceptance by regular class children between two fourth grade groups differing in mainstreaming experience. In short, something more is needed. Discussion--The literature on mainstreaming has been said to have created more heat than light. However, there seems to be general agreement that if the practice is to continue, something more than simple placement is needed in order to deal with its problems and realize its potential (McKalip, 1979). There is some evidence to support the deve10pment of empathy through role-playing as a viable alternative. 35 Summary of Previous Research The research and theoretical literature on empathy is Often speculative and frequently contradictory. As Clark aptly states, In short, the available literature does neglect a clear definition and comprehensive theoretical approach to this important phenomenon (1980, p. 187). Clark's conclusion, however, is somewhat overstated. While there continues to be a variety of definitions we are beginning to identify many commonalities between them. Also, there is beginning support for the notion that empathy is subject to instructional intervention no matter what defini- tion one supports. Furthermore, role-playing has emerged as one possible effective tool in improving empathic behavior. Along with the use of instruction there is support for the notion that nuturing empathy requires an environment con— taining models of apprOpriate high-level empathic behavior. Finally, to relate empathy to the problem of mainstreaming, there is considerable evidence that mere placement in regu- lar classes alone does not insure a successful experience for either special or general education students. What is needed is some type of instructional intervention to create greater student sensitivity to each other's affective states. These admittedly tentative conclusions serve as the basis for the hypotheses to be presented in Chapter III of the research. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN The primary purpose of the research was to examine the impact of empathy training upon fifth and sixth grade students. Mainstreamed special education students were selected as the focus of the empathy training exercises. Finally, a secondary purpose was to explore the relationship between teacher and student empathy levels. The following chapter contains an outline of the plan to be followed in arriving at probability statements about the nature of the variables mentioned above. Included is a clear statement of the variables and research hypo- theses, instrumentation procedures to be used for data collection and statistical analyses. These sub-sections will be followed by a summary table providing a general over- view of the entire design. General Methodology The design selected for the research was a classic pre-post test control group "Analysis of Covariance." In addition, the "Student's t" test of significance was employed. Included in this experimental design was measurement of pre- treatment empathy levels Of the students in three control and three experimental fifth and sixth grade classrooms 36 37 using Kagan's "Affective Sensitivity Scale" (1965). In order to explore the relationship between post-treatment empathy levels and student attitudes toward mainstreamed special edu- cation students, Larson's (1978) "Who Do You Like" socio- metric inventory was administered. The relationship between pre-treatment empathy levels of students and their classroom teacher was explored through correlational analysis of teacher level of empathy and mean classroom scores. In addition, a "Multiple Regression Analysis" and the "Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test" were employed as supportive tools. It was hypothesized that fifth and sixth grade stu- dents' general empathy levels could be raised through role- reversal training exercises and class meeting activities. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that student attitudes to- ward their mainstreamed special education classmates, would also improve if the empathy training includes exercises de- signed to improve sensitivity toward the status of these mainstreamed students. Finally, it was hypothesized that in- itial pre-treatment classroom empathy levels would be posi- tively correlated with the classroom teacher's empathy score. The research hypotheses are stated below. Research Hypothesis l--A positive difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment empathy levels of individual students 38 as measured by test performance. Research Hypothesis 2--A positive difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment attitudes of general education students toward their mainstreamed special education class- mates as measured by test performance. Research Hypothesis 3--A positive relationship will be found between teacher empathy level and average pre-treatment student empathy level. Treatment--Following pre-testing of experimental and control groups a series of four 45-minute empathy lessons over a four week time-span was presented to the experimental groups. One week following the empathy training, post-testing took place. Additionally, in order to control for varibilities in teaching style, the researcher presented all empathy lessons to all children in the study. Selection of Subjects In an effort to provide substantial controls and a greater measure of manageability a number of decisions re- garding the selection of subjects were made. The general p0pulation of the suburban school district selected for this investigation is highly varied in the important factors of academic achievement, socioeconomic status, cultural experi- ences and experiences with mainstreamed special education students. 39 In order to control for these variables, three schools similar in all of the above characteristics were selected. Average academic achievement as measured by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program and The Metropolitan Achievement Battery among the three schools differs only 10 percentile points which is not a significant difference. A common socioeconomic level is shared among the three schools in that they have been designated as E.S.E.A. Title I schools. The Title I designation is based upon income levels in the particular school attendance areas. Finally, the three schools selected have an average of five years experience with mainstreamed special education students. Among all schools in the district, the range is from no experience to seven years, with an average of four years. Additionally, all fifth and sixth grade classrooms within the three schools have mainstreamed special education students enrolled. This is not true across the district. In addition to selecting schools on the basis of matched characteristics, the number of schools matched (3) provided a manageable task for research purposes. Sample--A stratified sampling by school procedure was followed in selecting classrooms and students. The following table summarizes the results of this procedure. 40 Table 3.1 Results of Stratified Classroom Sampling School A School B School C Classroom #1 Control Experimental Experimental Classroom #2 Experimental Control Not Used Classroom #3 NO Classroom Not Used Control Classroom #4 NO Classroom No Classroom Not Used Total/Possible 2/2 2/3 2/4 A person not involved in this study was asked to list the room numbers of each classroom in each school in any order. Each school list was then used to select experimental and control groups through the use of a table of random num- bers. The first 1, 2, 3 or 4 occuring in the random number assigned to each room was designated experimental. The second 1, 2, 3 or 4 was designated as control. The number of students identified by this procedure was 155. Of this, 77 were in experimental groups and 78 in control. Seventeen of the 155 students were categorized by the school district as mainstreamed special education students. Six were present in experimental groups and 11 were found within the control groups. In terms of grade/age level, 52 control children were fifth graders and 26 were sixth. In 41 The experimental group 38 were fifth and 39 were sixth. The age range was from 9 years 4 months to 11 years 2 months. Table 3.2 summarizes characteristics of the sample. Table 3.2 Sample Group Characteristics School A EXperimental Students Fifth Grade 14 Sixth Grade 10 Fifth Special Education 1 Sixth Special Education 1 Male 10 Female 16 Total Experimental Students Control Students Fifth Grade Sixth Grade Fifth Special Education Sixth Special Education Male Female Total Control Students Grand Student Total UlCDOU'IO 23 49 School B School C Instrumentation Empathy is Operationalized in the test selected for the research; namely, the "Affective Sensitivity Scale" Forms D-A-2 and E-A-2 deveIOped by Dr. Norman Kagan at Michigan State University in 1962 and subsequently field tested and revised over the past eighteen years. The objective scale 42 consists of a series of filmed human interaction sequences about which the subject responds through the use of multiple choice questions. The test is built on the assumption that if the test-taker "post-hoe," can cognitively select the most accurate statement of the affect expressed in the film, the more empathy that person will exhibit in real-life situations. Results are reported in three categories. They are Total Empathy, Empathy Sub-Scales (which report how well the subject empathesizes with selected groups such as females, adults, children, etc.) and Emotional Accuracy Scales (which report how accurately the subject can identify certain emo- tions such as anger, guilt, trust, etc.) Only Total Empathy scores were utilized for the research. Future investigators could focus upon the other scores. As has been reported in Chapter II of the research, scientific investigation of the empathy construct has been impeded due to poorly conceived instrumentation. The "Affec- tive Sensitivity Scale" is one exception to this condition. The test has been subjected to rigorous validity and reli- ability testing (Kagan, et. a1. 1977, Danish and Kagan, 1971, Campbell, et. al., 1971). With adult and pre-adult samples the scale has a Kuder-Richardson 20 reliability of .70 to .80 which is acceptable. Validity studies using the classic panel of judges procedure report an r'of .53 significant at the .01 level. Internal consistency reliability coefficients 43 are in the .70's. Test-retest correlation is .75 and there is some evidence (Kagan, 1977) to reject practice effective without treatment. Item intercorrelation is usually low (.13). Further testing of form D of the test yields a Cronbach's alpha of .75 with an N of 2000. Finally, a test-retest reli- ability coefficient of .63 with less than one week inter- vening without training is reported for nursing and medical students. To ascertain a measure of internal test consistency for the particular sample selected for this investigation a Split-Half Reliability Analysis was employed. The results yield a Cronbach's alpha of .70 which is respectable. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was the data processing program employed. Limitations--Although the "Affective Sensitivity Scale" developer, Kagan, has assured this researcher of the scale's usefulness for fifth and sixth grade children, some limita- tions were present. The first was the extent to which the subjects could identify with the setting, situation and characters portrayed in some of the sequences. Questions of relevance led to revisions of the scale; however, as re- ported by Feshbach (1975, p. 29) "To the extent that we per- ceive another human as like us, the greater is the empathy." The fact that the scale contains a variety of situations, settings and characters may lead one to suspect an external reliability problem for children of this age. However, it was precisely the ability to focus upon a variety of stimulus 44 situations, etc. that is an important factor involved in the empathy training exercises that this investigation is direc- ted toward. Empathizing with different individuals in new settings was one focus of the research. Furthermore, the test was utilized in the research to provide data relative to student ggipg rather than predicting high or low level of empathy. A controlled study with matched classrooms also minimize any concerns in this area. A second limitation, and possibly the most serious, was the reading level of the multiple choice test questions which followed each filmed encounter. Because the test is more often directed to adults and adolescents, the vocabu- lary is frequently difficult for the sample selected for this study. Pre-testing of the instrument, however, has shown that if the examiner reads the test questions and defines difficult words, the children tested will be able to answer the questions given. This is confirmed by both the test developer and professional reading consultants whose judge- ments were solicited. The instrument selected for determining the attitudes of general education students toward their mainstreamed spe- cial education classmates was the "Who Do You Like" socio- metric inventory developed by Larson (1978) and utilized in a number of California State Department of Education studies. The inventory is a questionnaire asking a student to choose and identify three of his/her classmates for (1) an academic 45 task, (2) a party, (3) a playground activity and (4) best friends. Data from the inventory yields a single score for each child in addition to scores for each category and ranking. All scores are simple frequency counts. The direct sociometric approach was selected in contrast to attitude- type measures for the assessment of feelings toward special education students due to a variety of problems associated with attitude questionnaires and related indirect devices. The foremost difficiency of attitude measures is that they ask the respondent to express his/her feelings about a genera- lized and often stereotypic group. For example, the subject is asked how he/she feels toward the "mentally retarded" or other labeled group. The effect of this approach is to re- ceive responses that are non-specific and can cause diffi- culty in the interpretation of results. Secondly, it was important that the general education students be unaware that the focus of the questions was upon their special education classmates. This avoided the ten- dency to respond to "what the teacher wants" or to respond according to global preconceptions. The sociometric format simply asked for specific choices thus avoiding the dangers inherent in attitude testing. Thirdly, there were no traditional tests of attitudes toward mainstreamed special education students available from either the literature or sources such as the State Department of Education, local and intermediate school districts and 46 colleges of education. The mainstreaming deve10pment is simply too recent. Coupled with the fact that sociometric procedures have had a long history of frequent usage and are more readily used for comparative studies, the "Who Do You Like" inventory was most adequate. Limitations--The advantages cited for inclusion of a socio- metric procedure also created some limitations. The fact that the respondant must list specific classmates is an ex- ample. Often the selection of another student is based upon a number Of conclusions one reaches about that student over a long period of contact. Thus, even with intervention, the Opinion of the respondant may have been so strong that he/she would continue to respond in the same manner after treatment. Furthermore, a sociometric inventory does not provide ade- quate sensitivity to subtile attitude shifts over short pe- riods of time. An additional limitation of note is that there is only beginning reliability information available for the particular test used in this study. In terms of vali- dity it appears that predictive validity has been identified. This is considered sufficient, however, for the research. Field Procedures and Data Collection The "Affective Sensitivity Scale" was administered by the researcher to each of the six groups of children and during a single sitting. The test required 60 - 70 minutes of time which included a break. A few days prior to the 47 testing, the sociometric instrument was administered by each classroom's regular teacher as a "routine" item to help him/ her set up future classroom activities. This procedure was established to help minimize any connection between the two instruments. The tests were scored and tabulated in a format consisting of students listed by student number and organized as the following table illustrates: Table 3.3 Data Log Student Code Sex E1 E2 A1 A2 TE Grade G.S. 1001 3010 2121 3126 E1 = Pre-test Empathy Score E2 = Post-test Empathy Score A1 = Pre-test Sociometric Score A2 = Post-test Sociometric Score TE = Teacher Empathy Score C) U) II General or Special Education Following pre-testing, a series of empathy training exercises consisting of four 45-minute lessons was presented during each experimental group's regular social studies lesson for a total instructional time of 180 minutes. The activities 48 selected came from the following sources: Katz (1963), Vogelsong (1978), Doll (1977), Feshbach (1975), Mussen and Eisenberg-Berg (1977), Staub (1971), Stanford's Human Inter- action in Education and Shaftel's Role Playing for Social Values. The following is a tOpical outline of the four les- sons that were presented. AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY Focus of Lessons* Meetingp#1 TOpic--Discrimination and labeling the Affective States of others. (Verbal and Non-Verbal) Focus of Activities --"Ice-breakers" and warm-up for students. --Class identification of various emotions. --C1ass role-play of various emotions. --Sympathy and Empathy--Concept and Process. --Ways of showing and recognizing emotions. Meetingp#2 Topic--Assuming the perSpective and role of another (Empathy). Focus of Activities --Class Meeting review of Meeting #1. --Public interview of a variety of common perspectives in students' world. (teacher, etc.) --Empathizing with strangers. 49 --Role play situations and identify affective state. --Reverse roles on above. --Create new reactions and discuss antecedents. Meeting #3 Topic--Emotional Responsiveness--Experiencing others' emotions. (Special Education emphasis) Focus of Activities --C1ass Meeting on Roadblocks to Accurate Responding. --Role play obvious disabilities such as blindness. --Role play less obvious such as motor problems. --Emphasize perceived similarities. Meetingj#4 TOpic--Practice in Responding--Helper and Helpee (Affective Sensitivity) Focus of Activities --C1ass Meeting on Reviews of #1--#3. --A11 role play/reversal of helper-helpee dyad. --Fi1m--"Trick or Treat" followed by role plays of solutions, role plays of reactions and reversals of role. --Helping in the classroom. --Special Education in regular classroom. *Sample exercises may be found in Appendix D. 50 Statistical Analyses Data were coded and punched on data processing cards for analysis using the StatiStical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Hypothesis #1 was tested using the Analysis of Covari- ance and the Student's t test of significance. Hypothesis #2 was tested using the Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs Signed-Ranks Test. Hypothesis #3 was tested using the Multiple Regression Analysis and supported by the Pearson Product Moment Corre- lation Test. Limitations and Weaknesses Although the Analysis of Covariance is one of the most powerful tools available for research in the social sciences, the research design is limited in a number of ways. Some of these weaknesses were experimentally controlled through procedures such as matching schools. Other weak- nesses were statistically controlled through procedures such as the Wilcoxon. Part of the limitation of the research was unavoid- able because of the educational setting in which it took place. Random assignment of individuals was not possible. This resulted in certain groups differing in important characteristics. Attempts to control for this were made in 51 the selection of schools for inclusion in the research; how- ever, certain students may have been assigned to particular classrooms on the basis of common characteristics such as level of independence in order to match with teacher style and characteristics. The small "n" of special education students was of minor concern although partially controlled by the Wilcoxon nonparametric procedure. The length of intervention was con- venient for research purposes but was insufficient to realize a true change. Attitude change is difficult to measure over a short term such as with the research. Furthermore, the measures were not administered to all subjects at the same time, thus intervening occurrences may have affected the data collected. The test instruments may have contributed to weak- nesses in the design. However, they were the best currently available. Summary The design selected for investigating the three hypo- theses stated in this chapter was a classic pre-post test control group Analysis of Covariance. The design can best be conceptualized by the following table: 52 Table 3.4 Research Design Cause-Effect Study Correlational Study Dependent Independent Hypothesis Variables Variables Hol : E1 - E2= 0 Post-treatment Pre-treatment student empathy student empathy Various t Tests Analysis of Covariance H02 : A1 - A2= 0 Post-treatment Pre-treatment Student attitude student attitude Wilcoxon Signed- Ranks Test H03 :rEt-7ES = 0 Variables = Teacher empathy level mean student pre- Multiple Regression treatment empathy Pearson Correlation level Meaningful findings were limited by difficiencies in instrumentation, length of intervention and nature of the in- dependent variables. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The research examined the impact of training on the level of affective sensitivity (empathy) of fifth and sixth grade children. In addition, research focused upon the ex- tent to which the training could also influence the attitudes of general education students toward their special education (LRC) classmates. Finally, the impact of teacher empathy on student empathy levels was explored. The following chapter contains general descriptive statistical findings regarding the sample under consideration. These are followed by a restatement and data analysis of the hypotheses selected for exploration. General Descriptive Findings In order to provide useful background data various descriptive findings are presented herein. The general data are also useful because there is not a great deal of infor- mation available in the literature regarding the sample group used in the research. They also provide a framework for accurate exploration of the research hypotheses. Table 4.0 and 4.1 contain a frequency distribution of empathy scores for both the experimental and control groups. 53 54 Table 4.0 Frequency Distribution of Experimental Group Empathy Pretest Empathy Posttest Score Absolute Relative Cum Score Absolute Relative Cum Freq Z Z Freq Z Z 7.3 1 1.3 1.3 24.1 3 3.9 3.9 17.6 1 1.3 2.6 25.9 4 5.2 9.1 19.7 2 2.6 5.2 27.7 3 3.9 13.0 21.8 3 3.9 9.1 29.5 5 6.5 19.5 23.1 1 1.3 10.4 31.4 12 15.6 35.1 25.9 5 6.5 19.5 35.0 9 11.7 54.5 28.0 4 5.2 24.7 36.0 1 1.3 55.8 30.1 5 6.5 31.2 36.8 6 7.8 63.6 32.1 10 13.0 44.2 38.6 4 5.2 68.8 34.2 7 9.1 53.2 40.5 3 3.9 72.7 34.6 1 1.3 54.5 42.3 8 10.4 83.1 36.3 8 10.4 64.9 44.1 3 3.9 87.0 38.3 7 9.1 74.0 45.0 1 1.3 88.3 40.4 4 5.2 79.2 45.9 2 2.6 90.9 42.5 1 1.3 80.5 47.8 2 2.6 93.5 44.6 3 3.9 84.4 49.6 2 2.6 96.1 46.6 5 6.5 90.9 51.4 1 1.3 97.4 48.7 4 5.2 96.1 53.2 2 2.6 100.0 54.9 2 2.6 98.7 57.0 1 1.3 100.0 Total 77 100.0 100.0 Total 77 100.0 100.0 A review of these pretest scores reveals a distribution that is negatively skewed. In other words, the sample group was not normally distributed. The median for the treatment group was 34.2 for the pretest and 35.0 for the posttest. Control group medians were 38.3 for the pretest and 35.0 for the posttest. The range for treatment pretests was 50 while posttest scores had a range of 29. Control group pretests had a range of 32 with posttest scores having a range of 40. 55 Table 4.1 Frequency Distribution of Control Group Score Absolute Relative Cum Score Absolute Relative Cum Freq Z Z Freq Z Z 17.6 1 1.3 1.3 18.6 2 2.6 2.6 19.7 1 1.3 2.6 19.3 1 1.3 3.8 21.8 3 3.8 6.4 20.4 1 1.3 5.1 23.9 3 3.8 10.3 22.2 2 2.6 7.7 25.9 4 5.1 15.4 25.9 2 2.6 10.3 26.3 1 1.3 16.7 27.7 7 9.0 19.2 28.0 1 1.3 17.9 29.5 5 6.4 25.6 29.5 1 1.3 19.2 31.4 7 9.0 34.6 30.1 4 5.1 24.4 31.5 1 1.3 35.9 32.1 5 6.4 30.8 33.2 8 10.3 46.2 34.2 6 7.7 38.5 33.6 1 1.3 47.4 36.3 4 5.1 43.6 35.0 13 16.7 64.1 38.3 11 14.1 57.7 36.8 3 3.8 67.9 40.3 1 1.3 59.0 37.3 1 1.3 69.2 40.4 7 9.0 67.9 38.6 6 7.7 76.9 42.5 11 14.1 82.1 40.5 7 9.0 85.9 44.6 6 7.7 89.7 41.5 1 1.3 87.2 46.5 5 6.4 96.2 42.3 1 1.3 88.5 48.7 2 2.6 98.7 44.1 2 2.6 91.0 50.8 1 1.3 100.0 45.6 1 1.3 92.3 45.9 2 2.6 94.9 49.6 1 1.3 96.2 51.4 1 1.3 97.4 53.2 1 1.3 98.7 58.7 1 1.3 100.0 Total 77 100.0 100.0 Total 78 100.0 100.0 Control group empathy pretest scores were bimodal (38.3, 42.5) resulting in a mode of 40.4 whereas posttest scores had a mode of 35.0. For the experimental group pretest scores a mode of 32.1 was present. The posttest mode for this group was 31.4. 56 Discussion--The fact that the sample groups were not dis- tributed normally may be due to either the instrument used or some sample characteristic. Based upon reliability and validity information for the instrument and the literature on deve10pment of empathy the more likely explanation may be found in the characteristics of the sample. This will be fully discussed in Chapter V. Although mean scores must be utilized to calculate inferential statistics the more accurate description Of the group when the distribution is skewed would be the median. If one combines this observation with the fact that "t" tests are based on the assumption that scores in the p0pu- lation are normally distributed, one might suspect the findings of this investigation. However, as reported by Borg and Gall (1963, page 305), It has been found empirically that even if the assumptions underlying the "t" test are violated, the "t" test will still provide an accurate esti- mate . . .(1963, p. 305). As a result of sampling procedures differences between groups existed prior to treatment. The range scores support this observation. Although the range score is a poor mea- sure of variability it does, in this instance, confirm one difficulty encountered in educational field research; namely, the necessity of relying upon intact groups rather than ran- dom assignment of individuals to groups. This observation is supported in the next section of this chapter. 57 Table 4.2 and 4.3 summarize empathy means and standard deviations for both pre and post tests. The scores are reported in a variety of source groupings. Table 4.2 Empathy Pretest Means and Standard Deviations Source n Mean Standard Deviation Total Sample 155 35.69 8.57 School A 49 35.49 8.57 School B 49 35.90 9.11 School C 57 35.69 8.24 Experimental Groups 77 34.79 9.25 Control Groups 78 36.59 7.80 Fifth Grade 90 34.61 8.74 Sixth Grade 65 37.19 8.17 Male 80 34.46 8.89 Female 75 37.00 8.07 LRC 17 33.79 8.46 Discussion--The first observation one can make from Table 4.2 concerns low mean T scores (column two). 68Z of all scores fell within the range of 27.12 and 44.26. A similar con— figuration is seen across all sources. Normally, one would expect means to approach 50.0 with 68Z of all scores between 40.0 and 60.0, if the sample was characteristic of the test norming p0pulation. However, as outlined in Chapters II and III, due to a lack of empathy instruments for the sample, it was necessary to rely upon a test that was the best available even after consideration of its inadequacies. As reported 58 Table 4.3 Empathy Posttest Means and Standard Deviations Source n Mean Standard Deviation Total Sample 155 35.45 7.40 School A 49 34.69 6.60 School B 49 35.86 6.90 School C 57 35.76 8.48 Experimental Groups 77 36.24 7.18 Control Groups 78 34.68 7.58 Fifth Grade 90 34.40 6.64 Sixth Grade 65 36.91 8.18 Male 80 34.98 7.00 Female 75 35.97 7.82 LRC 17 31.52 6.38 by the developers, the test had been utilized with some children of this age group and (as a part of this investi- gation) an internal consistency factor of r=.70 was estab- lished for the sample. Additional factors such as basic characteristics of the testing instrument and factors such as group characteristics may also have confounded the scores. This will be discussed further in Chapter V. In the final analysis however, the purpose of the research was served in that the sgmg test was utilized to determine student growth from pre to post testing. Of greater interest is the similarity of means across all sources. This Observation tends to support the litera- ture on empathy. If, in fact, empathy is a deve10pmental 59 quality and if one attaches credence to the Piaget model of child deve10pment, it can be hypothesized that scores for this sample will illustrate lower levels of empathy. This is accounted for in that children of the sampled age group are just beginning to progress from an egocentric to an allocentric level of functioning. Table 4.2 not only is illustrative of this fact it also shows how consistent this observation is across all sources. While not statistically significant, the higher mean empathy score for females supports not only the literature on empathy but the developmentalist's view of child growth and development. A similar observation may be made regarding the age factor. Sixth grade students, as a group, possessed a higher mean empathy score than the younger fifth graders. As reported earlier there is some consensus that the develop- ment of empathy is age related. The overall configuration of both Table 4.2 and 4.3 are similar. Both pre and post empathy scores for special education (LRC) students are consistently lower than all other groupings. This is in line with recent research by Elardo and Freund (1978) that "LD children are less empathe- tic than their normal peers." The final series of descriptive statistics is pre- sented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. The scores are means and standard deviations for the attitude pre and post tests administered in conjunction with Hypothesis 2. These data 60 are reported utilizing an identical source grouping format as was utilized for empathy scores. Table 4.4 Attitude Pretest Means and Standard Deviations Source n Mean Standard Deviation Total Sample 155 11.84 9.09 School A 49 11.80 9.10 School B 49 11.82 9.89 School C 57 11.90 8.52 Experimental Groups 77 11.83 7.93 Control Groups 78 11.85 10.17 Fifth Grade 90 11.60 9.60 Sixth Grade 65 12.17 8.40 Male 80 13.30 10.00 Female 75 10.28 7.77 LRC 17 5.88 6.31 Caution must be exercised in reading Tables 4.4 and 4.5. Serious theoretical problems in the utilization of the sociometric posttest were encountered that invalidate its usefulness for the research. The table is presented only in the interest of a complete accounting of all data analyses. A complete description of the problem encountered in post- testing is presented in this chapter under discussion of Hypothesis 2 (page 70) and also in Chapter V (pages 87-90). 61 Table 4.5 Attitude Posttest Means and Standard Deviations Source n Mean Standard Deviation Total Sample 155 11.53 8.85 School A 49 11.61 8.51 School B 49 11.00 9.19 School C 57 11.91 8.96 Experimental Groups 77 11.95 7.87 Control Groups 78 11.12 9.75 Fifth Grade 90 11.69 9.48 Sixth Grade 65 11.31 7.96 LRC 17 5.41 5.73 Discussion--The most significant observation drawn from Table 4.4 is the low attitude mean for special education (LRC) students. This supports conclusions found in the growing body of research on mainstreaming that special edu- cation students are chosen more infrequently than their general education peers. Also, it is interesting to note the higher mean for males than females. The fact that males were chosen more often on the average than females is not related to the sc0pe of the research. However, dis- cussion of possible implications is presented in Chapter V. Inferential Statistical Findings The following section contains a presentation of the data regarding the three hypotheses selected for the 62 research. Further, statistical inferences and probabilities for the p0pulation are made from the descriptive statistics to be compared. Findings for Hypothesis 1 One purpose of the research was to test the hypo- thesis that post-treatment empathy levels will exceed pre- treatment levels. The Null Hypothesis along with its alter- nate is stated below: NULL HYPOTHESIS 1: No difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment empathy levels of individual students as measured by test performance. ['11 H I F! M II o S :‘J‘ m H m [11' H II Hol pre-treatment empathy level. :11 N I - post-treatment empathy level. Alternate Hypothesis 1: Individual post-treatment empathy levels will exceed pre-treatment. H01a :'E1#”E2 ; where 'El pre-treatment empathy level. E2 = post-treatment empathy level. Table 4.6 is a report of empathy scores by group using the two-tailed "t" test for correlation means. 63 Table 4.6 Differences in Empathy Means by Student Groups Experimental Control __—F__— Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Mean 34.79 36.24 36.59 34.68 S.D. 9.25 7.18 7.80 7.58 n 77 77 78 78 4.. .3— t 1.11 -1.90 p .272 .786 Discussion--The data as presented in Table 4.6 retain the null hypothesis. Although there was an increase in the post- test mean score for the experimental group while the control group mean regressed, the changes were not statistically significant. The substantial decrease in the experimental group standard deviation from pre to posttest indicates that teaching took place. However, the intervention was not sufficient to indicate a significant difference. Additional analyses by variables between and within groups was performed in order to present a clearer picture of the results of the research. Table 4.7 presents "t" test results by sex for the total sample pre to posttest. 64 Table 4.7 Comparison of Empathy Scores by Sex Eggpggp Posttest T—_— Males Females Males Females Mean 34.46 37.00 34.98 35.97 S.D. 8.90 8.07 7.00 7.82 n 80 75 80 75 t 1.86 0.83 p 0.065 0.407 Discussion--The intent of listing these data was to illus- trate significant changes in means between males and females. The results indicate no significant change. It can be seen however that for both pre and posttests females received a higher mean score. Table 4.8 further delineates the previous table by dividing the total sample into its corresponding experimental and control groups. Table 4.8 Empathy Means by Group and Sex Experimental 1151.12 male Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Mean 33.30 36.61 36.10 35.91 S.D. 9.45 7.67 8.98 6.79 n 36 36 41 41 t T73 -6733 p .083 .922 Malg_ Fgmale Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Mean 35.42 33.64 38.10 36.03 S.D. 8.40 6.18 6.78 9.01 n 44 44 34 34 t -l.43 -l.24 p .161 .224 66 Discussion--Table 4.8 presented information intended to ascertain whether or not there were significant differences within groups by sex. As the "t" values indicate, there were none. Female scores continued to average higher than males. Also, all posttest scores decreased with the excep- tion of experimental males. Analysis of means was also undertaken utilizing groupings according to grade placement. Table 4.9 presents the analysis by pretest and posttest. Table 4.10 contains the data with the added dimension of experimental or control group. Table 4.9 t Test for Empathy Means by Grade Pretest Posttest Fifth Sixth Fifth Sixth Mean 34.61 37.19 34.41 36.91 S.D. 8.74 8.17 6.64 8.18 n 90 65 90 65 __l__ _L t -l.87 -2.10 p 0.064 0.037 Table 4.9 indicates that older children performed at a higher level than younger regardless of the group. 67 0N mm mm Nm mH.m HN.N om.n mm.“ mm.©m om.mm mm.mm Hm.mm Sue fium fine . Sum flog Hwy Hoummmm mm mm mm mm a mm.m nn.m «o.m mn.m .a.m mm.nm «H.mm na.om nm.mm :moz sum sum cue sum IIILIIII. umouumom umoumnm Hmuamawuumxm QSOHU paw OOOHU an memo: asummam mo GOOHMOQEOU ¢ oa.q OHAOH 68 Discussion--The data indicate that older children performed significantly higher than younger regardless of the group. The conclusion is confirmed by the literature and will be discussed in Chapter V. The final breakdown of mean empathy scores is listed in Table 4.11 and is a report of scores by group (eXperi- mental or control) and educational program (special education or general education). 69 NH co NH co oa.n qm.n mm.n mm.n NH.Hm mm.mm mo.nm om.om 0mg Om COO UMH mm GOO g 3 Houuaou m an m mm a om.q mm.n mo.m oa.m .Q.m m¢.~m om.om No.mN oq.mm GOO: 0mg Om Goo oMA Om Gov 4mg ummumnm Housmawuumxm Emuwonm Hmcowumospm kn wouoom mnummam aowumaPOQ Oumwcmum paw coo: HH.¢ canoe 70 Discussion--An obvious observation between and within groups is the low empathy scores for LRC students. Most pronounced differences are seen within the experimental group pretest. Due to the small n of special education students, probabi- lity statements regarding significance for the p0pulation are not given. Suffice it to say that these results provide support for much of the mainstreaming literature that indi- cates lower initial empathy levels for special education students. Findings for Hypothesis 2 A second purpose of the research was to test the hypothesis that post-treatment attitudes of general educa- tion students viS-a-vis their Special education (LRC) class- mates would improve. The null hypothesis along with its alternate is stated below. NULL HYPOTHESIS 2: No difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment atti- tude of general education students toward their mainstreamed special education classmates as measured by test performance. H02 : A1—.A2 = 0; where A1 - pre-treatment attitudes; A post-treatment attitudes; 71 Alternate Hypothesis 2: Individual post-treatment attitudes will exceed pre-treatment. Ho2a : A1_.A2 ¥'0; where A1 pre-treatment attitudes; A2 = post-treatment attitudes; Table 4.12 presents data that compares pre and post attitude scores for LRC students. The task was undertaken to determine the amount of Shift in nominations of these special education students by their general education peers after treatment and compared with those in the control group. Due to the small number of LRC students the Wilcox- on Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was employed. The data gathered do not reject the null hypothesis selected for the research. Table 4.12 Pre and Post Attitude Scores for LRC Experimental 9235391 233 Egg; Egg Post Mean 6.2 6.4 5.75 5.0 S.D. 8.53 6.39 5.61 5.69 n 5 5 12 12 Wilcoxon z .03— 3.75 p 1 0 0.46 72 Discussion--The sociometric instrument utilized to gather data for this hypothesis was not apprOpriate. The test was not sensitive enough to subtile shifts in attitude. Further- more, due to the nature of the instrument a positive shift in nomination for student A created a corresponding nega- tive shift for student B. This accounts for the high corre- lation found between pre and post attitude scores reported in Table 4.14 under discussion of Hypothesis 3. The Wilcoxon nonparametric test was employed due to the small number of special education students. The test is of limited power and seldom used in behavioral research. Had the results led to a rejection of the null hypothesis a more complete description with limitations would have be- come neces sary . Finally, the rather stable high correlation between pre and post scores and the failure to reject the null hypo- thesis emphasize the difficulties involved in both measuring and changing in attitudes. As outlined in Chapter II, atti- tude formation, especially with regard to other peOple, tends to be very stable. This is particularly true considering the short time-span present in this investigation. Findings for Hypothesis 3 The third purpose of the research was to test the re- search hypothesis that level of teacher empathy would in- fluence the average pre-treatment level of student empathy. 73 The null hypothesis along with its alternate is stated below: NULL HYPOTHESIS 3: No difference will be found between teacher empathy level and average pre- treatment student empathy level. Ho3 : rE .*E = 0; where Et = the empathy level t S of the teacher; ES = the mean student empathy level. Alternate Hypothesis 3: The average pre-treatment student empathy level will correlate in a positive direction with the teacher level of empathy. H03 : rE . E >.0; where Et = the empathy level a t S of the teacher; ES the mean student The data concerning Hypothesis 3 were subjected to a multiple Regression Analysis. Furthermore, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated for the total sample. Table 4.13 and 4.14 present the findings for this hypothesis. 74 Table 4.13 Multiple Regression Analysis Variable Multiple R R Square RSQ Change Teacher Empathy Score 0.75053 0.56329 Grade Level 0.89696 0.80454 +0.24124 Sex 0.89894 0.80810 +0.00356 Student Empathy Pretest 0.90029 0.81053 +0.00243 Treatment Insufficient influence to calculate Discussion--The regression analysis defined those factors that accounted for the student scores reported in the re- search. As can be observed from Table 4.13, teacher empathy scores account for 56 per cent Of the variance in student empathy scores. The degree of relationship is .75. This is a significant result and leads to a rejection of Null Hypo- thesis 3. Further, if one includes the factor of age or grade level it is reasonable to account for 80 per cent of the variability in scores. The effect of treatment was an insufficient influence. And yet, teacher empathy accounted for 56 per cent of the variance in student scores. Considering these two obser- vations, a logical question would be to ask the extent to which individual teacher scores within groups influenced student growth. One can visualize that as the students entered their classrooms at the beginning of the year they began to be 75 influenced by the teacher's level of empathy. Later in the course of the year a pretest was given to determine empathy levels prior to treatment. This was followed by treatment and a posttest. Between groups there existed no significant difference pre to posttest. However, considering the subs- tantial teacher influence, were there differences within eXperimental and control groups? Furthermore, were the posttest scores the result of an interaction effect between individual teacher empathy and his/her Students? Put an- other way, were the students' scores a result of continued influence by the teacher regardless of intervention? To explore this question the best design would have been a Trend Analysis which requires a third data point; namely, a measurement of empathy prior to the start of school. This was not done. However, as a second Option a Nested Analysis of Co-Variance was calculated on the data to determine within groups differences between teachers that might have accounted for differences in student scores. Table 4.14 presents the data for this analysis. 76 Table 4.14 Nested Analysis of Covariance Source Of Variation 33 DF MS F Prob. Within Cells 7968.16 148 53.84 ---- ---- Teacher With Group 118.48 4 29.62 .550 .699 Within Groups Error 38.27 3 12.76 ---- ---- Between Groups 205.09 1 205.09 16.08 .028 Discussion--The data indicate there were no teacher differ- ences within groups that could account for student differ- ences on the posttest. However, this conclusion must be considered tentative. A more powerful design such as a Trend Analysis is needed to more precisely identify the effects of teacher empathy on his/her students. Table 4.15 lists correlation coefficients for the sample. The high correlation between attitude pre and post was mentioned under discussion of Hypothesis 2. The teacher empathy with pretest correlation of .135 is not high. How- ever, in comparison with the remaining correlations, it represents a substantial relationship. 77 Table 4.15 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Empathy Attitude Attitude Teacher Posttest Pretest Posttest Empathy Empathy Pretest .163 .036 .004 .135 Empathy Posttest --- .003 .016 .018 Attitude Pretest --- --- .896 .004 Attitude Posttest --- --- --- .059 Summary The tests of significance utilized in this investi- gation suggest that main effects Null Hypotheses 1 and 2 cannot be rejected. Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected, sug- gesting an interaction effect between teacher level of empathy and student empathy levels. Table 4.16 presents analysis of covariance data for the primary focus of the research. 78 Experimental and Control Posttest Empathy Comparison Source DF SS MS F Prob. Between Groups 1 3.88 3.88 .074 .79 Within Groups 148* 7761.68 52.44 --- --- Total 154 8439.20 54.80 --- --- Group n Mean S.D. Adj. Mean* Experimental 77 36.24 7.18 35.82 Control 78 34.68 7.58 35.09 Total 155 35.45 —--- ---- *These scores reflect adjustments for the five covariates of teacher empathy, sex, grade level, educational program (LRC and general education) and student empathy pretest score. A summary of conclusions and implications of the re- search is presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The research explored the effects of training on the level of affective sensitivity (empathy) of fifth and sixth grade students. Also, the impact of this training on the attitudes of general education students toward their main- streamed special education peers was explored. Associated with the primary focus of the research was an exploration concerning the effects of teacher empathy on these students. The methods employed included the identification of three experimental and three control intact groups that were ‘matched in important characteristics such as socio-economic level, achievement and experience with mainstreamed Special education students. After random assignment to either treat- ment or control the subjects completed a sociometric inven- tory and a standardized empathy test. Treatment was conducted by the investigator in order to control for teacher style and presentation. The content of the treatment consisted of role-playing/reversal and class meeting exercises. Intervention included four forty-five minute lessons held during each class' regular social studies period, once each week, for four conSecutive weeks. All subjects were posttested approximately one week after the conclusion of the exercises using the same instru- ments listed above. 79 80 Analysis of Covariance and t tests of significance resulted in a retention of the null hypothesis that no dif- ference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment levels of individual students as measured by test performance. Analysis of the sociometric instrument using the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test also resulted in a retention of the null hypothesis that no difference in main effects will be found between pre and post treatment attitude of general education students toward their mainstreamed Special education classmates. A significant interaction effect between teacher and student empathy was determined. This led to a rejection of the third null hypothesis that no difference will be found between teacher empathy level and average pre-treatment Stu- dent empathy level. A Multiple Regression Analysis was per- formed on the data to reach this conclusion. Conclusions and Implications The most straightforward conclusion is that the treatment employed did not raise empathy levels of the sub- jects investigated, as measured by the instrument used. Furthermore, attitudes of general education students vis-a- vis their Special education classmates, as measured by the sociometric instrument selected, failed to improve. Finally, it would seem that a relationship exists between a student's 81 level of affective sensitivity and that of his or her teacher. However, within all three conclusions are observa- tions and trends that are worthy of presentation and dis- cussion. These observations not only can serve as the focus for future research, original or replicative; they can pro- vide further knowledge, however indirect, that can lead to a greater understanding of the construct, empathy, and its dev- elopment in children. It is a common belief in many education circles that a person can be taught anything if the content is pr0perly presented and carefully measured. The statement often serves as a criticism directed toward curriculum innovators. If it is a valid observation, one must conclude that failure to achieve acceptance of two out of three Of the alternative re- search hypotheses represents either poor teaching or inade- quate measurement. Based upon the data and tempered by first-hand observation some tentative conclusions about the teaching of empathy may be presented for future researchers to quantify and explore. Conclusions Regarding HypOtheSis 1 Significant differences in means between the experi- mental and control groups were not found. Table 4.16 sum- marizes the data. The experimental group experienced a modest increase of 1.45 whereas the control group decreased by a factor of 1.91 (Table 4.6). Coupled with a two point 82 reduction in the posttest standard deviation it is clear that treatment resulted in some learning but not significant statistically. A further reading of the data concerning Hypothesis 1 reveals some interesting developments. Although the data are not statistically significant and must be approached with caution they do provide insight into empathy theory. In both the pretest and posttest (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) older children tended to score higher in empathy level. Further, this age difference was a significant (p = .037) factor on the posttest as seen in Table 4.9. This observation also holds true for sex variables in that females generally out scored males. The difference between the groups was Signi- ficant at the .065 level, approximating the .05 needed for rejection of the null hypothesis. These two observations are in keeping with both the literature on empathy and the developmental theories of Piaget and Kohlberg. If, indeed, the ability to empathize requires a measure of non-egocentric "decentering" thought processes, it can be expected that Older children would score higher. This is also a possible explanation for the differences in means between the fifth and sixth graders in the research. An accounting of the higher female means can be made in terms of the difference in initial maturation rates between females and males (females maturing initially at a faster rate). 83 The special education students in the research scored considerably lower as a group in both empathy and attitude. Again, this observation finds support in the literature dealing with mainstreaming. Not only are special education students the Object of poor empathic peer relations they are also more likely to exhibit lower empathy levels. Some theorists contend that the low empathy levels are due to the fact that these students are not only deve10pmentally behind their peers, they also tend to be more egocentric due to personal needs associated with their disabilities. These theories may account for the low scores recorded in the re- search. Treatment had a greater impact on LRC students as seen by the increase in means from 25.92 to 32.48. The im- pact of the training on males and fifth graders seemed greater as seen by Tables 4.8 and 4.9 mean scores went from 33.30 to 36.61. Discussion and Implications of Failure to Reject Null Hypo- thesis 1--Modern theorists subscribe to the notion that empathy has both an affective and a cognitive Side. One understands how another feels--one feels how another feels. While debate continues whether both qualities are necessary for the true empathic response, there is little doubt that interaction and possibly interference occurs between these two aspects. This may even occur in instances such as this investigation where only one facet of empathy, the cognitive, served as the sole focus. 84 The phenomenon was observed frequently during both pre and posttesting. The testing scenario can be visualized from the following field notes: A filmed sequence Opens with the characters present. Prior to any substantive interaction between the characters in the sequence many of the subjects immediately exhibit affective responses. Facial expressions, body movement and positioning, and frequent noninterruptive verbal responses are observed. Similar observations were often made regardless of the group being tested. It was as though the initial affec- tive response served to influence the cognitive tested res- ponse the subjects selected at the end of the filmed sequence. Conversely, there was a tendency for the subjects to seek cognitions (choices on the test) that would confirm their in- itial affective empathic reSponse. Thus, "accurate respon— ding" as Carkhuff would call it, was impeded. The nega- tively skewed T score distribution (Tables 4.0 and 4.1) may have resulted from this interaction. The interaction phenomenon occurred early enough to be included as a class meeting tOpic in one of the lessons presented to the experimental group. However, the power of the affect may have been too great to overcome considering the length of treatment for it occurred again during post- testing. More time is needed for student practice in 85 understanding the nature of empathy. Future investigators may wish to focus upon this Observation. Their findings may lead to improvement of the measurement. Equally important conclusions regarding the interaction of the two components of empathy may also result from these investigations. A second observation regarding measurement of empathy was aluded to in Chapter III under limitations of the in- strument (page 44). Often it was noted how seemingly more intense the subjects were when the scenes dealt with or in- cluded children and/or teachers. Conversely, the subjects were more likely to drift in attention when the characters in the sequences were older adults such as members of a health care team or other individuals unlike the students. Again, the low T scores for the subjects in the research may have occurred as a result of this phenomenon. Feshbach posed a similar hypothesis in her work when She concluded that level of empathy may correlate positively with the degree of similarity between empathizer and empa- thee. She suggested that treatment focus on increasing the "level of perceived similarity," (1975, p. 29) between two people in order to improve their empathy. This area is wide Open for fascinating future research. The particular instrument used in this research reports scores by categories such as empathy toward children, empathy toward adults, etc. Analysis of these subscores would provide interesting 86 discussion. Future research should be undertaken to con- firm Feshbach's observations. Measurement can be a problem in any field of study. It was particularly present in this empathy research. Fac- tors such as the background of the student, the age of the subjects and the nature of the test are other areas to be investigated in addition to the two detailed in this section. Continuing with the assumption that anything can be learned if taught prOperly and measured accurately, problems associated with the treatment used in the research are now explored. Of all the elements involved in the act of teach- ing this study illustrates the power of the teacher and the importance of input. The preceding statement may account for failure to reject the null hypothesis for empathy training as illustrated in the following paragraph. Although the investigator taught all lessons, the data indicate that the subjects may not have perceived him as the "teacher." Table 4.13 (Multiple Regression Analysis) reports that treatment was an insufficient influence to calculate. 0n the other hand, the child's regular teacher had a signi- ficant influence on the child's empathy score as reported in the same table. Thus, it is conceivable that had the sub- jects' regular teachers been trained in presenting the em- pathy exercises significant differences in means may have occurred. Future investigators would have to control for differences among the teachers; however, this area could 87 result in significant findings. Another facet of the treatment deals with the element of input; more specifically, duration of input. Role play- ing is by nature a time consuming enterprise. The method requires sufficient time for introduction, practice and de- briefing. The four forty-five minute lessons designed for the research were certainly manageable from a practical standpoint. However, the length of treatment was not suffi- cient especially for the particular subjects included in the study. The training model utilized was based upon training models for adults, as found in the literature. It may be asserted that input for adults can be of shorter duration than that for children. Conclusions Regarding Hypothesis 2 The Wilcoxon analysis calculated to determine the significance of any shifts in nomination of LRC students re- sulted in a retention of Null Hypothesis 2. Means for males tended to be higher than females although again not signi- ficantly. LRC student means were significantly lower (5.41) compared to the total sample (11.53). This result certainly is testimony in favor of dealing with the attitude problems of mainstreamed special education students. Discussion and Implications of Failure to Reject Null Hypo- thesis 2--Along with problems associated with the measure- ment of empathy were difficulties with the instrument 88 selected for assessing attitudes of subjects. Part of the difficulty encountered is due to the nature of attitudes and will be discussed later in this section. The focus here is upon two aspects of the sociometric that may have accounted for failure to reject the null hypothesis dealing with atti- tudes. Rather than repeat the reasons why a sociometric procedure was selected the reader may wish to refer back to pages 44-46 for the justification given for its use. A major error in the apprOpriateness of the socio- metric procedure was not discovered until after the data was analyzed. Consistently, it was found that attitudes held firm, pre to posttesting. The Pearson Correlation between pre and post attitudes was .896 (Table 4.15) which is signi- ficantly positive. The obvious eXplanation is that atti- tudes tend to remain stable. Whereas there is considerable research to support this statement, a further analysis of the test instrument used in this study revealed that the nature of the test itself results in a highly positive pre/ post correlation. By nature a sociometric procedure has a closed set of responses that are neither right nor wrong. Thus, with a class of twenty-five students there is an absolute cap on the number of nominations. In this case it would be twenty- four per child times twenty-five children or six hundred total. However, if a child at posttesting nominates a new 89 student it simultaneously results in another child losing a nomination. The effect would be a shift in individual means. However, the total group effect would be so small as to in- dicate a high correlation of means between groups. Statis- tically, this results in no significant change. The second inadequacy of the sociometric procedure is its insensitivity to subtile changes in attitude. It was possible for a child to nominate only three children at a time. Had the choices been greater, say six or more, or had there been unlimited selection, the probabilities of deter- mining subtile shifts would have been greater. In summary, the advantages gained through the use of the sociometric procedure may have been outweighed by the in- adequacies inherent in the instrument. Along with attitude instrumentation problems were predictable difficulties involved in effecting a change in attitude as hypothesized. Attitudes are both intricate and steadfast. Often, as experienced with this research, one must deal with inter- relationships that have developed over a long period of time. Often one encounters the "irrationality" of some attitudes. Certainly these two factors alone suggest a time-consuming intervention similar to scaling a hill of sand. 90 Conclusions Regarding HypOthesis 3 Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected. There seems to be a relationship between level of teacher empathy and the scores received by the students who work with that teacher. The data for this conclusion are presented in Table 4.13 with supportive information in Table 4.15. This is a powerful finding if upheld in future studies. The results support the importance of teacher influences in general learning contexts. Further, a great deal may be con- cluded about the nature and format of future interventions designed to improve the prosocial behavior of students. Certainly the format must include the teacher who is most responsible for the students in the classroom. This may be especially true if role-playing exercises are included. A high level of trust is required for effective role-plays. This most likely occurs when "strangers" are not present in the classroom environment. It was Rogers (1975) who first supported the belief that empathy is nurtured within environments composed of highly empathic models. The rejection of Hypothesis 3 suggests that the nature of future empathy training include this component. Not only should high empathic teachers be present, the activities, whether role-playing or not, should involve apprOpriate models of high-level empathic be- havior. 91 Recommendations--It can be said that there are two ways of shaping/controlling human behavior: conformity and attitude change. Attitude change is the more desirable route for those who believe education is a process of liberation. One method of changing attitudes may involve developing higher order levels of empathy in children. Considering an ever- shrinking world of interdependent people who possess high degrees of cultural and psychological variability, the need is great. This dissertation began with the prediction that the findings would more likely point out areas of needed addi- tional research. The prediction was correct. Although re- sults for two of the three hypotheses were not significant, the findings can be used to provide additional insight into the construct, empathy. Furthermore, some findings have been observed that may provide educators with clues to assist them in developing needed prosocial behavior by means other than conformity and with groups other than adults. It is recommended that additional research regarding empathy training using role-playing be conducted. Further, the research should account for the problems associated with this investigation in order to produce significant findings. Empathy will continue to be an elusive quality. However, the fact that it can be influenced by a "significant other" such as a classroom teacher is testimony that it can be taught as a part of an organized curriculum. 92 Future research should also focus on the concept of "perceived similarity" as outlined on page 29 of the disser- tation. Use of the "Affective Sensitivity Scale" subtests will be invaluable. Finally, a Trend Analysis Study should be designed in order to more precisely identify the effect of teacher empathy on individual classrooms of students. The success of future studies, however, rests more with the methodology used than the probabilities that empathy can be taught. APPENDICES APPENDIX A WHO DO YOU LIKE SOCIOMETRIC INVENTORY 93 INSTRUCTIONS FOR GROUP LEARNING SURVEY Teacher, Write on the blackboard the first names of the students in the class. If two children have the same first name, in- clude the initial of the last name. Explain that this is a "routine" activity that will help you in setting up future classroom activities. Assure students that each name will be confidential and will be used only to help you do a better job. Please read the following paragraph to your students after you distribute each sheet individually. In other words you will be reading the following paragraph four times. READ: I'd like each of you to select students in the class for this activity. Use the names with last initials on the board. Do this on your own. When you are finished, put your answer sheets in this folder. 94 ITEM 1 If you were going to do a claSs project in groups of four what other three persons in this class would you choose to be in your group? 95 ITEM 2 If you were going to have a party and could invite three peOple in your class, which three peOple would you choose? 96 ITEM 3 If you were going to choose a team to play a game and were to pick your team from others in this class, which three would you pick first? 97 ITEM 4 Who are your three best friends in this class? APPENDIX B AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM D—A-2 PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: 98-159 Uni ' l Micr. lms 300 N. ZEEB RD., ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 (313) 761-4700 98 AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM D-A-Z Experimental Format (E) Copyright, l977. Norman I. Kagan and John Schneider All rights reserved. April, l978 SCENE A 99 THE: 49 seconds FORMER TEACHER AND 4TH GRADE STUDENT Setting: Item Item Woman and 9-year-old girl sitting in chairs. Opening Statement (Teacher): "T heand you.mndc a moucc about gout ciaeaaoom." . a Closing Statement (Student): "I did 1.: Tuesday." What is the little girl feeling at this point? a. I'm proud of what I did. b. I feel excited whenever I talk about that film we nude. c. I'm a little scared right now. Hhat is the teacher feeling at this point? a. I'm curious - I really want to know more about that film. b. This is really going the way I want. I'm comfortable. c. I feel stiff and uncomfortable. 100 SCENE 8 TIME: 43 seconds TEACHER-STUDENT (Cont'd) Opening Statement (Teacher): "How did you. (ed about Lt?" Closing Statement (Teacher): "You. waltz am you. wouldn't be accepted." Item 3: What is the little girl feeling at this point? a. I was afraid then but it feels okay now. b. It's hard for me to talk about this. I feel embarrassed. c. Accepted? I'm confused. Item 4: What is the teacher feeling at this point? a. I'm still apprehensive. I want her to know I'm listening. b. I'm more relaxed. now. I like what's happening. c. I'm really embarrassed. "Accepted“ is an adult way of saying it. SCENE C 10 1 TIME: 35 seconds TEACHER-STUDENT (Cont‘ d) Item 5: Item 6: Opening Statement (Teacher): "You. any out, people. maize the. dissonance?" Closing Statement: "Let’a «talk (our. 06 4.2.2. how «the. cues/wan 4.6 aofim. " Hhat is the little girl feeling at this point? a. I'm lost. Something she said made me feel real sad. b. Different? I want to talk about how neat it is this yeart c. I'm confused about the differences between this year's class and last year‘s. What is the teacher feeling at this point? a. I'm getting a little irritated. She's not as much with it as I thought. b. Whoops: She‘s not responding. I feel uptight. I've got to rescue her. c. I'm inpatient. She can‘t handle that. Maybe she can respond to ”is. scene a 102 TIME: 25 seconds ‘ COUNSELOR- V ICTIN Setting: Item 7: Item 8: Male counselor talking with woman — victim. Opening Statement (Client): "I (ind him a diaguating putoon." Closing Statement (Counselor): "um about w W owes you?" What do you think the client is feeling at this point? a. I'm frustrated - no one believes me. b. Scared? I'm repulsed by that filthy characteritl c. I do feel insecure. vulnerable. It could happen again. what do you think the counselor is feeling at this point? a. Frankly, I'm bored. Maybe I can get her to deal with what's really bothering her. ' D. I'm curious - I'd like to hear more of the detailst c. I'm confused. I don't understand the core of her concerns. SCENE E . . ' 103 TIME: 30 seconds glam couusaoa - I“ (Cont'd) Opening.Statement (Client): "Eveayzhing abaur.thc incidentrwao o0 toxnzzy unpmodéczabzz to me." Closing Statement (Counselor): ”who: me. you mighmwtu?" Item 9: What do you think the client is feeling? a. My feelings of terror are so strong they might overwhelm me. b. I feel helpless. It could happen again and there's no way I could stop it. c. I am scared of my anger. I could kill him - I feel so out of controll Item 10: What is the client feeling about the counselor? a. I'm annoyed with you - I want direction and reassurance and you keep pushing me deeper. b. You're listening to me - and even that's a little scareyi c. I'm angry. I told you what my nightmare is: Do you think I dreamed the whole thing up? SCENE F 104 TIME: l min.. 39 sec. TERMINALLY ILL MAN - INTERVIEWS}! Item ll: Opening Statement (Man): "Thhzzenpeopte in max. gltoup died the MIC m 0 . Closing Statement (Man): "i: we had gamma/l. €1.er . . . ah . . . C O O a” What is the terminally ill man feeling? a. I'm confused. I've forgotten what point I was trying to make. D. I'm feeling a great sense of loss. I'm struggling not to cry. c. I'm feeling sad and a little tense. but I'm not overwhelmed. Give II! a moment to clear my throat and we'll go on. SCENE G 105 TIME: l min., 3 sec. TERMINALLY ILL MAN - INTERVIEWER (Cont'd) Opening Statement (Terminally ill man): "Bung occupied Ml. use 41.: a my to maize file o’em 05 death 90 away." Closing Statement (Man): "You.aea££y chenioh those times.” (Ill man): "Yeah." Item l2: What is the man feeling about the interviewer? a. I feel warmth and affection for you. b. I'm a little irritated. You make it sould superficial and phony. c. You don't want to talk about death. You're scared too. Item l3: What is the" interviewer feeling about the terminally ill man? a. I'm not sure how to get into this. The whole subject scares me. -b. I admire your strength and courage - and your perspective. c. I'm playing along, but I'm bored. This isn't what you're really feeling. -7- SCENE H 106 TIME: 37 seconds FEMALE PATIENT - MALE SURGEON Setting: Item l4: Item l5: Post-operative interview (one month). Opening Statement (Surgeon): "You had youa.openozion 504 petezanzZo?" Closing Statement (Surgeon): "You. don't memembe/t too men about ow" (Patient): "No." What is the patient feeling about the surgeon at this point? a. I feel flirtatious. I want you to like me. b. I'm emarrassed - you remember something about me that I don't. c. I'm uneasy - did I do something that you're going to hit me with now? What is the surgeon feeling about the patient at this point? a. I feel sad for her. She's been through so much. b. I like you and I want you to like me. c. I'm a little wary of you. You sometimes overwhelm me. SCENE I 107 TIME: l min., 30 sec. PATIENT - SURGEON (Cont‘d) Item 16: Item l7: Item l8: Opening Statement (Surgeon): "'00 you. Well. how deopomte you. me . seeLLng?" Closing Statement (Patient): "It's embttug just. to lenow I can snide, Wen What is the patient feeling? a. Actually. I'm afraid of the future. I). I feel optimistic. The future is so bright for me. now. ' c. It's a fantastic relief - I'm so grateful to be well again. I never thought I would be. What is the patient feeling about the surgeon? a. I'm so grateful to you. You saved me and I want you to know it. b. I'm confused. It's so hard to know what you feel. c. I'm annoyed. It's so hard to get you to realize how important your role was. ' What is the surgeon feeling about the patient? a. It feels good to see you smiling and optimistic. b. This is a disgusting exhibition. Get it over with. c. I'm getting embarrassed and a little bored. SCENE J 108 TIME: 58 seconds DOCTOR - PATIENT Item l9: Item 20: Opening Statement (Doctor): "And do. MW, pltegnmzey." Closing Statenent (Patient): "No one even did explain to me." What is the patient feeling about the other doctor who treated her? a. I still can't accept it. They should have explained it to me. b. I feel disappointment - let down - even rejected. c. I'm curious - did he do the right thing? He probably did. but I wonder . . . What is the doctor feeling at this point? ' a. Disgusti ng'. Such incometency in u profession. b. I'm getting a little uptight. Is she telling me this to check me out? c. I'm irritated. Do I have to now explain everything to you? -l0- scans K 109 ' TIME: so seconds oocmn - pmm (Cont'd) Opening Statement (Patient): "Like (an anothee baby. . . to have candle/t. " Closing Statement (Doctor): "So theme one sevenaz cheeks and balances." Item 21: What is the patient feeling? a. I'm determined this time to get some answers. D. I'm afraid. What can happen? c. I'm resigned, really. It's really up to you doctors. Item 22: What is the patient feeling about this doctor? a. Thank you for trying to reassure me. That helps. b. You're talking down to me - I don't like that. c. I wonder if you know what you're doing. I'm not sure I can trust you. Item 23: What is the doctor feeling about the patient at this point? ' a. Your questions are taking more time than I've got. Frankly. I'm getti ng i mati ent. b. I'm not feeling much. You're worried and I have information to give you which will probably reassure you. c. I like you. I like your attitude. I find you attractive. -ll- SCENE L 110 TIME: 59 seconds HEALTH CARE TEAM Setting: Item 24: Item 25: Item 26: Physician (male). Nurse (female). Social Worker (female). Physician (male) Opening Statement (Dr. on right): "About a week au’m die baby was boan . . ." Closing Statement (Dr. on left): "I . . . I . . . don'tiaemembea exactly." What is the doctor on the left (Dan) feeling at this point? (1 f‘ a. What is this? I'm really Aymat he put me on the spot. b. I'm not feeling much of anything. You just can't be expected to know about every disease. c. I feel embarrassed. He caught me ”napping”. / What is the doctor on the right feeling? a. I'm irritated and impatient. b. Oh, oh: I put Dan on the spot. He'll get me for that. c. Poor Dani I feel sorry for him. I thought he knewi What was the social worker feeling when she asked what the Stevens- Johnson Syndrome was? a. I'm confused and a little amused at what's happening between them. b. I feel cut off, left out and confused. c. I'm getting scared. The games here are out of my league. -12- lll SCENE M TIME: 8 seconds NOTE** This scene is unusually brief (eight seconds) and the sound is not as _clear as in the other scenes. What follows is a typescript of what is said by the participants. Please read it before watching the scene. Man: "Whatido you.wunz to talk about?" Women: "You. leave out up to me." Man: "Yeah, youdon’taaedlaz. . .wluttdoeo diet. . .ga know. . .mundapwmondleamatamebu." Gt" 3 ‘ Item 27: What is the man feeling? a. Oh, oh. I'm wary and apprehensive. What'll she do next? b. I'm angry. Why is she putting me on the spot? c. Strange. I feel on the spot - but at the same time all choked up - I could almost cry. Item 28: What is the woman feeling about the man at this point? a. This is great: I'm enjoying seeing you squirm for a change. b. I'm not really angry. I'm determined not to be caught "rescuing” you again. c. You look like you could almost cry. I'm sorry. -13- SCENE N "FRIENDS“ Item 29: Item 30: 112 TIME: 25 seconds Opening Statement (Woman): "Say, I don't know . . . when I ammo . . ." Closing Statement (Man): "No." What is the woman feeling about the man? a. I want to trust you and yet at times I get suspicious. I want you to reassure me. I feel insecure. b. It feels wonderful to be able to share such personal feelings with you. c. I'm apprehensive. You closed your eyes when you said "no“. Are you putting me on? What is the man feeling about the woman? a. I'm frustrated. How can I convince you my feelings are genuine? b. I feel caught. guilty. Maybe you're right: c. I'm curious and a bit uneasy. I wonder where you're going with this line of thought. -14- SCENE O 113 TIME: 40 secznds "FRIENDS” (Cont'd) Item 3l: Item 32: Opening Statement (Woman): "Know you’ae going to hean. me." Closing Statement (Woman): "Exactly." What is the woman feeling? a. I feel fantasticl We really understand each other. What a beautiful feelingi b. I'm confused. We keep agreeing, but I'm not sure I know what we' re agreeing about. c. Exactlyl I'm embarrassed by how far from the truth that isl What is the man feeling? a. I feel warmth and closeness. We really understand each other. b. I'm irritated. She's putting me on with that big smile. c. I'm confused. We keep agreeing, but I'm not sure I know what we're agreeing about. SCENE P 114 TIME: 55 seconds CLASSROOM - COUNSELOR Item 33: Item 34: Item 35: Opening Statement (Teacher/counselor): "Last time when.we baited about eaaeen.edueaiion . . ." Closing Statement (Teacher): "0. K., you». beat Wend’ a dead. What is Linda (the student) feeling? a. I'm happy to have a chance to talk about by career choice. b. I feel sad when I think about my friend - I want to help others who are like her. c. I was scared. speaking in class like this . . . but I feel good now. What is Linda feeling about the teacher? a. She scares me. I'm afraid of her anger. b. She seems to really like what I said. That makes me feel good. c. I'm puzzled - what did she mean by "great“? Does she think it's great that my friend's deaf? What is the teacher feeling? a. I'm surprised — I never expected to hear anything that sophisticated from her. b. I'm bored. None of this means much to me. Let's get on with it. c. I feel foolish. I didn' t mean for that to come out sounding as it did. ' -l6- SCENE Q CLASSROOM Item 36: Item 37: 115 TIME: 23 seconds Opening Statemnt (Teacher): "Can you tell. us anything about how you em to out Wit?" Closing Statement (Sherry): "Became . . .- because, we . . . " What is Jill (first girl to speak) feeling about the teacher? a. I want you to believe me - what I said is really true. b. I need you to like me. and I'm pretty sure you do. c. I wonder if you do like me. I'm too scared to find out. What is Sherry (last girt to speak) feeling? a. I feel like crying. It's hard even to talk right now. b. Jill stole my idea. I'm frustrated and angry. c. I'm so embarrassed - I keep stumbling over my words. -17- SCENE R 116 TIME: 45 seconds CLASSROOM (Cont'd) Item 38: Item 39: Opening Statement (Teacher): "Ia «time unybody hue who hum' t thoughtivemy much.abau£ . . . Closing Statement (Teacher): "Ia out what you'ee edging?" (Carri ck): "Yeah. " (Teacher) : "0.1:." What is Garrick feeling? a. Whew! I got that out. I was really sweating it out! b. She understands what I said. That feels good. c. I'm disappointed. I feel misunderstood - alone. What is the teacher feeling about Garrick? a. I'm delighted that you spoke up. I want to encourage you to do that more often. b. I may be smiling. but really I'm disappointed. That was a pretty superficial response, Garrick. c. I'm surprised that you have thought about your future. That really pleases me. -18- SCENE S 117 TIME: 28 seconds PRINCIPAL - JR. HIGH SCHOOL It!!! 40: Item 4l: Item 42: Item 43: Opening Statement (Principal): "You weee sent Ln heme agaLn.£aduy." Closing Statement (Student): "Reghz." What is the student feeling? a. I feel cautious. wary. Here we go again! D. I'm bored. I could care less. c. This is great! I really enjoy this! What is the student feeling about the principal? a. Okay. okay. hurry up. Lay it on me and let's get it over with. b.’ Big deal. You think you're so smart. c. You scare me when you get like this. What're you gonna do this time? What is the principal feeling? a. I'm a little angry, but I feel I'm right. b. I'm disgusted. I hate this part of my job. c. I feel cautious. wary. Here we go again. What is the principal feeling about the student? a. I feel frustrated. You have a way of making me feel helpless. b. I'm confused. puzzled. What really makes this kid "tick“? What's going on in his head? c. I'm disgusted with this punk. I'm going to enjoy seeing you squirm this time. -19.. SCENE T 118 TIME: 43 seconds. PRINCIPAL - STUDENT Item 44: Item 45: Item 46: Opening Statement (Student): "Like Ln.eueeee ed., I honeetty ‘ M O O O " Closing Statement (Principal): "Idea, you don't have to . . . " What is the student feeling? a. I'm being pressured into a career choice by the teacher and 'I don't like it at all. b. If I don't keep defending myself. they'll get me. c. Who cares? I'm bored. What is the student feeling about the principal? a. I've got him on the defensive now. I've won this one. b. He doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. I can't get through to him. c. I'm scared. It sounds like he is getting ready to explode. What is the principal feeling? a. I've got to choke down my anger. I'm so med I might lose control. b. I'm beginning to understand the problem - I feel more in control now. c. I feel threatened. defensive. This kid has the ability to get me confused. , -20- SCENE U 119 TIME: 1 min.. 12 sec. COUNSELOR - JR. HIGH STUDENT Item 47: Item 48: Opening Statement (Counselor): "You kinda mode/t 426 you'lte gonna get «the suspension." Closing Statement (Counselor): "You sound Like you'ne a. We bet. coneuned." What is the student feeling about the counselor? a. I'm so relieved! He knows! I can trust him. b. I'm miserable. I hope he can help an. c. I feel cautious. apprehensive. I'm not sure I can trust him. What is the counselor feeling about the student? a. I know he's worried and I'm trying hard to convince him he can trust me. b. I'm amused. You're sneaky, but I know your game. c. I'm curious to know if there's nmre to his question than meets the eye. SCENE V 120 TIME: 40 seconds THERAPIST - CLIENT Item 49: Item 50: Opening Statement (Client): ”But we‘d: me, she has condemned me." Closing Statement (Client): "She hue to condemn evengdténg I do." What is the client feeling? a. I'm really irritated. Why should my brother get all her attention? It's not fair. - b. I'm enraged. I hate her so much sometimes I think I could kill her. c. I resent my brother. He plays it for all it's worth. too. What is the client feeling about the therapist? a. I trust him. He cares. b. I wonder if you know what I'm trying to say about my anther? c. Don't you try and tell me it's all in my head. buster, or I'll walk right out of here! -22- SCENE W 121 TIME: 40 seconds THERAPIST - CLIENT (Cont'd) Item 51 : Item 52: Item 53: Opening Statement (Therapist): "You seem to fleet sod cot 1:th - pow?" Closing Statement (Therapist): "What one you deinbéng?" What is the client feeling? a. I'm not sad. I'm depressed. overwhelmed. b. I'm confused. puzzled, tense. It's hard to breathe. c. I feel bored. We're not getting anywhere. What is the client feeling about the therapist? a. He's right. but I can't admit it. b. I like him. He accepts me. c. He doesn't understand. What is the therapist feeling about the client? a. I've lost you. We've got to establish trust again. b. Great! He feels strong enough to disagree. But now what? c. I feel soft, gentle - in a way close to you. You are sad - even if you can't admit it. -23.. SCENE X 122 ' TIME: 55 seconds THERAPIST - CLIENT (Cont'd) Item 54: Item 55: Item 56: Opening Statement (Therapist): "Thane was a tone when she pnobabzg had a majon desponsibeuty. " Closing Statement (Client): "WM, I can't get to aw: answer. yet, but I'm «nearly on It." What is the client feeling? a. I feel cautious. This is dangerous ground and I don't want to say too much. b. I'm proud of how much I now know about myself. I can handle myself. c. That cement really stung. I feel hurt. angry. What is the client feeling about the therapist? a. I'm annoyed. Why does he ask such tough questions? b. I trust him. He's really listening. c. Back off. mister. You're pushing too hard. What is the therapist feeling about the client? a. I'm frustrated. He is hard to work with. He takes away every- thing I give him. b. Good! I can push him now, without losing his confidence. c. I don't belive you. I see no evidence that you are working on it. SCENE Y 123 TIME: 30 seconds THERAPIST - CLIENT (Cont'd) Item 57: Item 58: Opening Statement (Client): "PeopCe one supposed to have value Icelatéonshdps with aw. mothens." Closing Statement (Client): "Maybe I Maude/(stood something." What is the client feeling? a. I'm confused. I don't know what he wants from me. b. I'm relieved. Maybe I can live a healthy life despite my relation- ship with my mother. c. I'm ubarrassed. I feel foolish. He may be right. What is the therapist feeling? a. I'm anxious. I embarrassed him. What'll he do now? b. I'm really enjoying this. I like this kind of confrontation c. I feel confident. ' Here, I know exactly what I'm doing. -25- 124 SCENE Z TIME: 55 seconds THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT Opening Statement (Therapist): "Sounding tiu's time enabied you to do, somedeing that's hand to do." Closing Statement (Therapist): "I don’t we «hat I have had to see to become smongen." Item 59: What is the client feeling? a. I'm tired, but I'm determined. It's been hard to do - but I'm not stopping now. b. I'm uncertain. I maddust to the adult world. but I'm not sure I want to. c. I'm bitter. The things I've had to see are so horrible, so ugly. Item 60: What-is the client feeling about the therapist? a. I'm angry at you for making an face it. You could have been gentler with me. b. I feel close to you. You've helped me to some hard discoveries. c. I wonder if he thinks I've ”arrived"? That I've finally grown up? -93- SCENE AA 125 TIME: l min., 20 sec. THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT Item 6l: Item 62: Item 63: Opening Statement (Client): "She went to school. and she saluted aging." Closing Statement (Client): "They'ae neatly m." What is the client feeling? a. I feel sad. guilty. worn down. But at least she has boots. b. I'm so revolted by the whole thing I feel nauseous. c. It hurts so much. I feel helpless and humiliated. What is the therapist feeling? dlé m“. a. angry. Her husband is a I'm b. I'm really choked up myself. I feel helpless. c. I'm not feeling much. It's best for me not to get emotionally involved - or else I won't be able to help. What is the therapistfeeling about the client? a. It takes courage to say what you've said. I admire you for it. b. I want her not to hurt so much, but it's going to take time. c. I'm getting irritated with her. Always feeling sorry for herself. -27- SCENE BB 126 TIME: 20 seconds THERAPIST - WOMAN CLIENT (Cont'd) Item 64: Item 65: Opening Statement (Client): "I don't hnnw why I heap thin’aéng that sometime.. . . " ~ Closing Statement (Client): "I guess I've hoped can my ease." What is the client feeling? a. I feel confused. helpless. If you don't have hope, what's left? b. I feel down on myself. I don't know why I'm so gullible. You'd think I'd learn. c. I can't help but feel some hope. Why do you want to convince me otherwise? What is the therapist feeling about the client? a. I'm frightened. If you give up hoping. will you give up on living? b. I'm disappointed. You still can't make sense of all this. You still look confused. c. You're getting there. It's hard. I'm with you. SCENE CC FAMILY Setting: Item 66: Item 67: / Item 68: 127 TIME: 1 min.. 40 sec. Therapist - Older son - Younger son - Mother. Opening Statement (Son): "idea, I was and at you." Closing Statement (Mother): "120 you see the same thing?" What is the older son (boy seated next to the therapist) feeling? a. I'm scared to tell Mom what I really feel. b. I hate what happened. There's no way she's going to convince me. 'it was for the best“. c. I don't care anymre why they got a divorce. All I know is I am so sad and alone. What is the mother feeling? a. I'm confident that I did the right thing and in tin: the boys will understand. b. I'm afraid to tell them the truth. I know I'm not telling them the whole story - I Just can't. c. Please - somebody agree! I feel all alone - like no one's on my side. What is the anther feeling about the boys a. They're sad now. but I'm confident they'll get over it. and then they'll understand and accept it. b. I don't want to feel guilty - but I do. They are hurting a lot. c. 1I don't want them to blame me for everything. I want them to ove me. ~29- 128 SCENE DO TIME: 50 seconds FAMILY (Cont'd) Opening Statement (Therapist): "Want to out about tints . . . " (Moves chair) Closing Statement (Older son): "standpa and Gnandma aways fight, too." Item 69: What is the older son feeling about his mother? a. I'm bitter. You did it for yourself. You never even thought about us. ' b. I'm sad. This has been hard for all of us. c. I'm disgusted. I don't accept your reasons for the divorce. Item 70: What is the younger, son feeling about his mother? a. I hate you. You're wrong. It isyour fault. b. I'm scared. Will you divorce us if we fight with you? c. I'm angry at both of them. but mostly I feel hurt and empty. Item 71: What is the mother feeling? a. I understand. I'd be angry and scared too. This is painful for me, but it's necessary. b. I'm so unsure right now. Maybe they're right. It hurts to think about it. c. I'm glad they're letting me have it. I deserve it. .30- APPENDIX C AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM E-A-2 AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM E—A-Z DEVELOPMENTAL FORMAT III (c) Copyright. 1977. Noman I. Kagan and John Schneider All rights reserved. October 3l, 1977 129 AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE Forms 0 z. E Instructions You will be viewing short scenes of actual encounters between two or more individuals. You are to identify what feelings the people have about their concerns or toward the person they are working with. Al though in any one scene the persons may exhibit a variety of feel ings, for the purpose of this instrument you are to concentrate on identifying their last feelings in the scene. After you view each scene ask yourself: If the people involved were to view this same scene. and if they were completely open and honest with thenselves. (i.e., if they could identify their real feelings) how would they describe their feelings? After you decide which response comes closest to what the peeple are feeling whether about their concerns or the other they are with, fill in the space provided on your answer sheet. . Please do not mark in this'booklet. , 130 Scene I - I FORMER TEACHER - 4TH GRADE STUDENT SETTING: INFORMAL ENCOUNTER, DISCUSSING AN EARLIER INTERVIEW. Opening Statement (Teacher): "When we m. we naturally touah each othe/t. Closing Statement (Teacher): "You said) someditng that . made no deal good. and I uanted to you." Time: so seconds , U84 1. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELIM AT THAT POINT? a. I'm sorta uncomfortable and uptight. I'm embarrassed. b. I'm feeling comfortable now. c. I'm not feeling much of anything. ITEM 2. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELING ASOUT THE TEACHER AT THAT POINT? a. I'm afraid. What are you going to do next? b. I feel good about you. I'd like to hug you. too. c. I'm really scared. I don't want to betouched right now. 131 uni n-— _- ‘ Ia -3- Scene I - 2 FORMER TEACHER - 4TH GRADE STUDENT SETTING: INFORMAL ENCOUNTER. DISCUSSING AN EARLIER INTERVIEW. Opening Statement (Teacher): ”Did you seat it uas Mtge/Lent?" Closing Statement (Teacher): "We didn't sit on pillows this time, did we?" Betsy (Student) : "No . " Time: 25 seconds ITEM 3. ITEM 4. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm a little happier now. but not much. - b. I wish we had brought some pillows. I would have liked that. c. I'm really uncomfortable. but I'm scared to show it. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELING ABOUT THE TEACHER AT THIS POINT? a. I'm still not really relaxed. I still don't trust you. b. I'm relieved. She didn't change the subject. c. I feel more comfortable now. Still a little embarrassed. tho. 132 .4- Scene 2 - l FIRST YEAR MEDICAL STUDENT (FB'IALE) - COUNSELOR SETTING: DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST TERM OF MEDICAL SCHOOL Opening Statement (Student): "I've. been cm to mature and expo/Lance... Closing Statenent (Student): "‘I 1'qu can't a: wee.“ om beyond zoo gems." Time: 1 min.. 10 seconds U84 5. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEEING AT THIS POINT? a. It's all so depressing. Why bother to look at the future? b. I'm scared and angry with myself. c. I feel relieved. It feels good to get this out. ITEH 6. HHAT IS THE MEDICAL STUDENT FEELING ABOUT THE COJNSELDR AT THIS POINT? a. You're not much help. I'm really frustrated by you: b. Please tell me I'm okay - that I'm not crazy. c. I'm slightly annoyed - we don't seem to be clicking right now. 133 -5- Scene 2 - 2 FIRST YEAR MEDICAL STUDENT (FEMALE) - COUNSELOR SETTING: DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST TERM OF MEDICAL SCHOOL. Opening Statement (Counselor): "The wand ow. comes the doses: 1.: «the. ' tummy." Closing Statenent (Counselor): "And 5“ng out 066 in dust." Time: 50 seconds ( ITEM 7. WHAT IS THE MEDICAL STUDENT FEELING ABOUT THE COUNSELOR? a. It feels like we're both groping and neither one of us has really caught it. b. You're right on. but I don't want to hear it. It scares me: c. That's not what I feel but I don't want to admit to you my real concerns. ITEM 8. HHAT IS THE COUNSELOR FEELING ABOUT THE MEDICAL STUDENT? a. She doesn't trust me. She's not going to give me anything without a battle. b. Now we're getting somewhere: we're finally on the same track. c. I'm still searching. What is it she's afraid to admit? 134 fl -0- Scene 3 - l COUNSELOR (FEMALE) - DEATH EDUCATOR (MALE) SETTING: DISCUSSION ABOUT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MAN'S GROUP Opening Statement (Male): "I can member. may avidly the seeungs." Closing Statement (Male): "I: «as may liaise/Lent dun any ozhm time we acid good-bye." Time: 53 seconds ITB‘I 9. THAT IS THE MAN FEELING ABOUT HIS CONCERN? a. I'm feeling really sad - a lot more than I'm showing. b. I'm really very scared of death now. I guess I'm scared of my own death. c. I'm really feeling guilty. I should have known she was dying. 135 Scene 4 - l HUSBAND - WIFE SETTING: Opening Statement (Man): Eugen: the fleeung in {we whoze deg ox. ‘0 Closing Statanent (Woman): ". . . wee outme bids 6M. We." (Man): ~. . . m m...- Time: 40 seconds ITEM )0. WHAT IS HE FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I may be smiling but I'm absolutely furious. b. I feel cut off and angry when you close me out, too. c. I can accept that, really. I understand that you Just have to do that. ITB‘I H . WHAT IS HE FEELING AmUT HER AT THAT POINT? a. Sometimes I get angry at you for shutting me out, but I'm glad we're talking about it. now. b. That's good to know. Now I don't have to worry about you getting time alone. c. I feel sad that I really don't understand you. You're so different from me. 136 Scene 4 - 2 HUSBAND - WIFE SETTING: Opening Statement (Woman): "W mg 5.614: (mung 41: the: I'm not mmwng up." Closing Statement (Man): ”Thumb.“ me. . . ah . . . anxious." Time: l min.. 3 seconds ITBi 12. .ITENIS. WMT IS HE FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm actually annoyed. She could do better if she tried. b. That makes me feel guilty. I really shouldn't be doing that. c. I feel caught. Am I really doing that? I went to believe I'm Mt, but 0 e e WHAT IS HE FEELING ABOUT HER AT THIS POINT? a. Anxious. I'm angry. Why did you wait until now to bring t up . . b. Jeez 7 that was a bomb: I wonder what else you're gonna lay on me. c. I really am anxious - but I want to keep talking this out with you. -9- Scene 5 - l DOCTOR - WOMAN PATIENT SETTING: DISCUSSION OF A SUCCESSFUL SURGERY A MONTH PREVIOUS. SHE HAS HAD MANY SURGERIES IN THE PAST. MOST HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. Opening Statement (Doctor): "One on’ «the disc ’W. Closing Statement (Patient): "You. inc/Le honest. I m dmz'a the biggest: Time: ITEH 15. ITB‘! 16. thing." l min.. 20 seconds ITEM l4. HiAT IS THE PATIENT FEEJNG ABOUT PER PAST MaICAL HISTORY? a. I feel bitter. the others didn't give a. b. I feel resigned. What's done is done. Let's move on from here. c. I still feel annoyed but I've grown beyond real bitterness. WHAT IS THE PATIENT FEELING ABGJT THIS DOCTOR AT THIS POINT? a. You'd better keep it up. too;Lo rel u 'll become Just like the rest of those-re Frans b. I want you to like me. c. I wish I was still sick so you could take care of me. WHAT IS THE DOCTOR FEEING ABOUT THE PATIENT? a. Okay. okay, I'm bored. I don't need a lecture about it. b. I'm really feeling tight. You could turn on me at any time. c. Thank you. I really appreciate your saying that. 138 -1 0- Scene 6 - l DOCTOR - WOMAN PATIENT SETTING: INITIAL INTERVIEW AND MEDICAL HISTORY Opening Statenent (Doctor): "When did you. have mono?" Closing Statement (Doctor): "Well" we'“. «take dim uond 5M It o’o/L now." Time: 53 seconds ITB‘I l7. ITE‘l 18. U84 19. um IS THE pmen FEELING ABOUT me am DOCTORS m-o TREATED HER? a. I'm annoyed with them. It's a bother to be told something I know is mng.‘ b. He was wron can accept that. We all make mistakes. c. I'm angry. I trust any doctor? WHAT IS THE PATIENT FEEING ABOUT THIS DOCTOR? a. I'm annoyed. Your condescending manner irritates me. b. You're pretty cold. You're more it in facts than me. c. I'm comfortable with you. Yo ‘ octor was wrong and in your way you're agreeing wit me. THAT IS THE DOCTOR FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm uncomfortable. I've got to be careful not to cricicize another doctor. b. Dam: The incompetents in this profession. Oh well, it doesn't help to dwell on it. c. That's funny. Somebody really blew it. It's fortunate it wasn't ser ous. 139 .11. Scene 6 - 2 DOCTOR - PATIENT SETTING: PATIENT IS DISCUSSING HER BROTHER‘S HEALTH. (INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE IN DECEMBER). Opening Statement (Patient): "And he 4'4 in way bad shape." Closing Statement (Patient): "I haven’t hewtd 64am he: now me. Coat Febmmy " ‘ Time: 55 seconds ITEM 20. ITEM 21. WHAT IS THE PATIENT FEELING ABOUT HER BROTHER? a. He nukes me angry and also helpless. It's easy to get discouraged. b. I'm a little concerned about my brother right now. c. I wish he would call . I really worry about his well-being. WHAT IS THE PATIENT FEELING ABOJT THE PHYSICIAN'S LAST QUESTION? a. You're really concerned. You really do care about my feelings. b. You turned me ”off. "You don't really care about my feelings. c. Why did you change the subject? I'm puzzled. That are you looking for? . 140 -12- Scene 5 - 3 DOCTOR - PATIENT SETTING: CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF HER BROTHER. Opening Statement (Patient): "He had a. netvous beedhdown . . ." Closing Statment (Physician): "Just the too o6 you in the sandy?" Time: ITEM 23 . m 2‘. 40 seconds ITEM 22. WHAT IS THE PATIENT FEELING ABOUT HER CONCERNS? a. I feel ashamed to have a brother like that. b. I really resent what my brother does to me. c. Basically I like him, even though there are times when he bugs me. mm IS THE mien FEELING ABOUT TlE pavszcmm a. There you go again: I'm really getting angry at you for not following what I'm saying. b. I respect you. Perhaps he'll come back to this. I'll go along with where you take it. c. You're genuinely concerned about my problems. You went to know all you can. WHAT IS THE PHYSICIAN FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm uncomfortable with this. There's nothing I can b. I'm concerned. Do you have anyone else to help take pressure? . c. I'm bored. Let's get on to something important. do lp. o tohe ffthe 141 -13- Scene 7 - I HEALTH CARE TEAM SETTING: THERE ARE FOUR PARTICIPANTS IN THIS SCENE. THE MAN WHO APPEARS FIRST IS A PEDIATRICIAN. THE WOMAN ON HIS RIGHT WHO SPEAKS TO HIM IS THE SOCIAL WRKER. THE OTHER MAN IS AN INT ERNIST AND THE SECOND WOMAN IS A NURSE PRACTITIONER. THEY ARE DISCUSSING TAKING ON THE CARE OF A FAMILY WITH A NEWBORN INFANT. Opening Statanent (Pediatrician): "I don't know uhe/Le hm husband's mowing cone." Closing Statement (Pediatrician): "So I don't think thete'a any mobfiem tho/Le." Time: l min.. 5 seconds ITB‘I 25. ITBi 26. WHAT IS THE PEDIATRICIAN FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I feel confident, in control - at least for the moment. b. I'm not feeling much of anything. I just want to make a point. c. I feel on the spot. She nuy try to nuke me look bad. RUIN-TE THE SOCIAL WORKER'S FEELING ABOUT THE PEDIATRICIAN AT THIS a. I respect and admire him. He really knows. b. I'm really hurt. I want to crawl away and hide. c. I feel put down by him. I resent him. 142 -14.. Scene 7 - 2 HEALTH CARE TEAM SETTING: THERE ARE FOUR PARTICIPANTS IN THIS SCENE. THE MAN WHO APPEARS FIRST IS A PEDIATRICIAN. THE WOMAN ON HIS RIGHT WHO SPEAKS TO HIM IS THE SOCIAL WORKER. THE OTHER MAN IS AN INT ERNIST AND THE SECOND WOMAN IS A NURSE PRACTITIONER. THEY ARE DISCUSSING TAKING ON THE CARE OF A FAMILY WITH A NENBORN INFANT. Opening Statement (Pediatrician): "ne'er. mute on comment o’on. the baby to come in (on. the one mom Closing Statalent (Pediatrician): " .weu, why do you went the Mote Time: ITB‘l 28. ITEM 29. (only to come by!" l.min.. 5 seconds ITS! 27. WHAT IS THE SOCIAL WRKER FEELIIG AmUT THE PEDIATRICIAN? a. I feel put down. shut out. discounted. It's exasperating to try to get through to him. b. I guess he does have a point there. I hadn't really thought about it that way. c. I want him to understand Just how involved and concerned I really am. WHAT IS THE NURSE PRACTITIONER FEELING ABOUT THE PEDIATRICIAN? a. I really admire him. b. I'm disgusted with this. He's trying to railroad this. He thinks he knows everything. c. I'm scared of his anger. I'll agree with everything he says. WHAT IS THE PEDIATRICIAN FEELII'S ABOUT THE SOCIAL WRKER? a. I'm annoyed with her. She doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about the family. b. She really irritates me. I feel defensive with her? c. Iimflib‘ patient with her. She really doesn't understand the s tnat on. ' 143 -15- Scene 8 - l DORM COUNSELORS SETTING: DISCUSSING CAREER GOALS. THEY HAVE NOT SEEN EACH OTHER VERY MUCH SINCE THE WOMAN WAS PROMOTED TO HEAD COUNSELOR. Opening Statement (Woman): "Seems Like that's Itemiiy Linu‘ting your: am." Closing Statement (Man): "I wua aim/thing yeatz/tddy, but I didn't «ant to bathe/L youwcthit." Time: 50 seconds IT84 30. \ ITBiSl. WHAT IS THE MAN FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I feel angry. When I needed you you weren't there for me. b. I feel resentful. They all take me for granted. I'm not appreciated. c. I'm annoyed at being stereotyped. I know they mean well but I wish they'd stop. WHAT IS THE MAN FEELING ABOUT THE WOMN? a. You say you care. but I really don't believe it. I don't trust you. , . b. You're important now. You wouldn't want to waste your time on me and I can accept that. c. I'm embarrassed to admit it. I was scared you might not want to see me. 144 -15- Scene 8 - 2 DORM CDUNSELORS SETTING: DISCUSSING CAREER GOALS. THEYHAVE NOT SEEN EACH OTHER VERY WCH SINCE THE WOMAN WAS PROMOTED TD HEAD COUNSELOR. Opening Statement (Man): 'Thx’a is may uncomfiom'nbie ion me." Closing Statement (Man): ”That's adding exam. puma/Le." Time: SO seconds ITBl 32. ITEM 33. WHAT IS THE MAN FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I fgel frustrated. I know what has to happen but I can't get t one. b. I feel tired. exhausted. I feel like giving up. c. I feel burdened and resentful. I feel tired. WHAT IS THE MAN FEELING ABOUT THE WOMAN HE'S TALKING TO? a. I feel warm toward you - you're listening and you understand. b. I'm unsure about you. I don't think you understand. c. I wish you could say something to take it all away. I really count on you. 145 -17- Scene 8 - 3 DORM COUNSELORS SETTING: DISCUSSING CAREER GOALS. THEY HAVE NOT SEEN EACH OTHER VERY MUCH SINCE THE WOMAN WAS PROMOTED TD HEAD COUNSELOR. Opening Statement (Women): "You deei you get a. chance to lean on anybody?" Closing Statement (Man): "Lust yeah. I used to teen on you quite osten." Time: 15 seconds ITEM 34. WHAT IS THE MAN FEELING ABOUT THE WOMAN HE'S TALKING WITH? a. I like you. maybe too much so. b. I feel somewhat abandoned by you and embarrassed about saying T I leaned on you. c. You're a real help to me. I can always count on you. 'gi—--.v 146 Scene 9 - l CLASSROOM SETTING: TEACHER LEADING A DISCUSSION ON VOCATIONAL CHOICES. Opening Statement (Teacher): "The/Le one too kind: 05 jobs. . ." Closing Statement (Teacher): "Jobs that have to do with M." Time: l5 seconds ITEM 35. WHATIS THE TEACHER FEEING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm actually quite pleased. b. I'm disappointed and a little tense. c. I'm beginning to get angry. Can't anybody get it right? my 36. WHAT IS SCOTT reams AT ms 9on a. Nuts: I'm ashanud that I didn't get the right answer. b. I'm confused. Why did she change what I said? c. I'm feeling okay. My answer was pretty good. 147 Scene 9 - 2 CLASSROOM SETTING: TEACHER LEADING A DISCUSSION ON VOCATIONAL CHOICES. Opening Statement (Sherry): "I don’t think money is what you needy aunt." Closing Statement (Sherry): "It's the one I Like beat." Time: l minute ITEM 37. WHAT IS SHERRY FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. Actually I feel good - I like attention. b. I'm real mad - she's Just out to get me. c. I feel alone. picked on, hurt. ITEM 38. WHAT IS THE TEACHER FEELING? a. I'm pleased that things have livened up and I'm also pleased that Sherry is being challenged. b. I'm feeling cautious here. This could become explosive. c. I'm not too involved in this. I'm a little bored. ITEM 39. WHAT IS JODY FEELING ABOUT SHERRY? a. Her goody-goody behavior really irritates me. I'd like to make a fool of her. ' b. I'm not feeling much of anything. I Just really don't agree . with her. c. She knows I'm really right - that makes me feel good. 148 -20- Scene lD - l PRINCIPAL - STUDENT SETTING: DISCUSSION BASED ON REPEATED DISCIPLINE PROBLBiS. . Opening Statement (Principal): "You Like this vonbui und menace. Dottie." Closing Statement (Principal): "I'm not going to do that." Time: 45 seconds ITB‘I 40. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm bored and irritated. I don't need this. b. I'm really enJoying this. This is my kind of game. c. I'm scared. but I'll never show it. ITEM 4T. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEEING TOWARD THE PRII'CIPAL AT THIS POINT? a. Oh. oh. What will he do next? I'm getting scared. b. I don't need this guy. I wish "he'd get off my back. c. I'm on guard - ready to defend. 149 Scene lO - 2 PRINCIPAL - STUDENT SETTING: DISCUSSION OF STUDENT'S REQUEST FOR HALF-DAY SCHEDULE. Opening Statement (Principal): "I think you want that had-day édtm O O 0" Closing Statement (Principal): "I had a Cock o6 nesponsibifity." Time: 40 seconds ITEM 42. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELING ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL AT THIS POINT? a. He's hassling me and I resent it. but I'm still in control - he -won't get me. b. I feel guilty. I shouldn't do the things I do. c. I'm confused. I don't know what he' s getting at but I don't want to hurt his feelings and ask him. 150 Scene ll - l CDUNSEOR - STUDENT SETTING: DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL RULES AND THE STUDENT 'S PROBLB‘lS WITH THE. Opening Statement (Counselor): "Anyuhene onound the building." Closing Statement (Student): "Now on school. scheduie." Time: 28 seconds nm 43. ITEM44. WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm not feeling much - I Just need to get some answers. b. I'm a little scared - I could be in real trouble. c. I'm real mad - somone nusta ratted on me: WHAT IS THE STUDENT FEEING ABOUT THE COUNSELOR? a. I feel tight. closed in. I don't want totell him the truth. b. I like him -.he's an okay guy. c. I'm not hiding anything. but he thinks I am. 151 -23- Scene l2 - l TEACHER - ADMINISTRATOR SETTING: DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES STOLEN DURING THE TEACHER'S ABSENCE. Opening Statement (Teacher): "And so I'm teat." Closing Statement (Administrator): "Do you.think I sonsook you?" (Teacher): "Kinda." Time: l min.. 2 seconds ITEM 45. WHAT IS THE TEACHER FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I feel furious and bitter. b. I feel annoyed and irritated. c. I feel betrayed and resentful. ITEM 46. WHAT IS THE TEACHER FEELING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATOR? a. Can't you understand I'm mad because my feelings were hurt. b. Forget the whole thing, u'll never get it straight. c. Forsook is too strong - I How you really tried. Don't feel hurt. ITEM 47. WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR FEELING? a. I feel guilty and defensive. b. I'm so furious - I want to make you feel it. c.. I feel relieved. I was afraid you were going to blame it Ell. on me. 152 -24- Scene 12 - 2 TEACHER - ADMINISTRATOR SETTING: DISCUSSION OF- SCHOOL SUPPLIES STOLEN DURING THE TEACHER'S ABSENCE. Opening Statement (Administrator): "O'.K., now I'm neaiiy seething." Closing Statement (Teacher): "That's my hung-up and not mean." Time: 35 seconds IT'Bi48. ITB‘I 49. WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR FEELIIE AT THIS POINT? a. I like her - she can admit it when she's wrong. b. I feel defensive. I wish I could get off the hook. c. I'm pleased. She's finally looking at her part in all this. WHAT IS THE TEACHER FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. That hurts. but actually I'm glad you said it. b. I'm amused and pleased with myself - I saw right through you on that one. c. I feel bitter and resentful. You're trying to mail me. 153 -25- Scene 12 - 3 TEACHER - ADMINISTRATOR SETTING: DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES STOLEN DURING THE TEACHER'S ABSENCE. Opening Statement (Teacher): "When I was out one day and came back." Closing Statement (Administrator): "I mought that seven none wouidn't bothen you." Time: 55 seconds ITEM 50. ITBi ST . WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR FEELING? a. I'm disappointed in her. I really thought she was more competent than I guess she really is. b. I'll get back at her for bringing this up. c. I feel relieved that I've been able to explain it to her. WHAT IS THE TEACHER EELING? Tvsr a. I'm that she thinks I'll buy that line. b. I'm really flattered. I really hadn't looked at it that way. c. I feel so guilty. I really misinterpreted her motives. She really was trying to help. 154 -25- Scene 13 - 1 PSYCHOTHERAPIST- CLIENT SETTING: A sassrou IN THE MIDST OF LONG-TERM TREATMENT. Opening Statement (Client): "Thene's been no detection at cit." Closing Statement (Client): "It's Like I'm stiii. that Littie Lost kid." .. I Time: 45 seconds . ITEM 52. WHAT IS THE CLIENT FEEDS AT THIS POINT? a. I'm searching - but for what? b. I feel helpless - and angry at myself for feeling so helpless. E c. I don't really feel all that bad. - ITB‘I 53. WHAT IS THE CLIENT FEELING ABOUT THE Tl-ERAPIST? a. You're confusing me more. What do you want me to say? b. Please protect me. Please take care of me. I _a_m helpless. c. Don't Just sit there. Please helps.“ "‘3... ini 155 -27- Scene l3 - 2 PSYCHOTHERAPIST - CLIENT SETTING: A SESSION IN THE MIDST OF LONG-TERM TREATMENT. Opening Statement (Therapist): "Mhzn.you.sdg a hid . . ." Closing Statement (Therapist): "Vou wane pomiua men, mum's: you?" Time: 42 seconds ITS! 54. ITEM 55. ITEM 56. HHAT IS THE CLIENT FEELING? a. I feel ashamed of how weak I am. b. I'm bitter about what they did to me as a kid. c. I feel numb, drained. WHAT IS THE CLIENT FEELING ABOUT THE THERAPIST? a. I feel weak and small with you too. b. I'm embarrassed by your questions. I wish you wouldn't ask them. c. I'm confused. what are you driving at? HHAT IS THE THERAPIST FEELING ABOUT THE CLIENT? a. But you aren't now. Grow up: b. I want you to hear this. See what's different. c. I know this is painful. I.wish there was another way to do . this. but there isn't. 156 -23- Scene 13 - 3 PSYCHOTHERAPIST - CLIENT SETTING: A SESSION IN THE HIDST OF LONG-TERM TREATMENT. Opening Statement (Therapist): "Who come to mind Mo's done «that to ' you. in «the. nut!" Closing Statmient (Client): "When I m gnawing up, I have: set: we nothing." Time: l min.. l5 seconds ITEM 57. UHAT IS THE CLIENT FEELING? a. I'm sad for all of us. I feel so helpless. b. I feel angry. confused and lost. c. I'm resigned. It's too late to change. ITBI SB. WHAT IS THE CLIENT FEELING ABOUT THE THERAPIST? a. Stop pushing me. please: I'm not ready to lool; at this. b. It's not all that bad. It's Just that I'm trying to give you what you want to hear. c. I feel safe with you. I can face the pain. ITEM 59. WHAT IS THE THERAPIST FEELING ABOUT THE CLIENT? a. Maybe I'm pushing too hard. Maybe she can't take it. b. Good: Now we're getting someplace. c. This is getting too deep. I'm going to have to pull her back. 157 -29- Scene T4 - T THERAPIST - FAMILY (WITHOUT FATHER) SETTING: THERAPIST - OLDER SON - YOUNGER SON - MOTHER (Scott) (Muggsy) Opening Statement (Younger Son): "an 1.5 we. mated to go math OM dad." Closing Statement (Mother): "Thai/L dad doze a. £01: 05 nan—t W ' ow; «them, too." Time: l min., 2 seconds ITBi 60. WHAT IS THE OLDER SON (SCOTT) FEELING? a. The hurt. is too ouch - I'm afraid to let go. b. I'm bored - I don't like being 'here. c. I'm mad - she (Mom) may be saying that now. but she sure sounds different when dad's around. ITEM 61. WHAT IS THE YOUNGER SON (WGGSY) FEELING? a. I'm real scared. What's going to happen now? b. I'm mad. I'd really rather live with my father. c. I'm mad that you got divorced. Saying nice things about dad doesn't change that. ITBJ 62. WHAT IS THE THERAPIST FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I feel their sadness. I really care. b. I feel helpless. There's really nothing I can do to help them. c. I'm annoyed. These kids are really caught between them despite what mother says. ITEM 63. WHAT IS THE MOTHER FEELING AT THIS POINT? a. I went so much for them to not blame me for the divorce. I feel so vulnerable. b. It hurts to hear how much they miss their dad. c. I may be saying that, but I don't believe it. .I'm still furious with him. 158 -30- Scene 14 - Z THERAPIST - FAMILY (WITHOUT FATHER) SETTING: THERAPIST - OLDER son - vouuoa sou - MOTHER (Scott) (Mqusy) Opening Statement (Younger Son): "I wee Add." Closing Statement (Older Son): "They didn't we we each ache/L did." ‘the: SO seconds ITEM 64. THAT IS THE mum son FEELING AT THIS POINT? ° ° a. I'm scared - what if Mom gets mad at me? be I fQQI Side and M”. c. I know everything will be okay. but I'm still a little sad. ITBi 55. WHAT IS THE OLDER SON FEEING AT THIS POINT? a. I'm furious. b. It's depressing - there's sure no fun in all this. c. I hurt so much. 159 APPENDIX D SAMPLE INTERVENTION ACTIVITIES Meeting_#l A. Meeting #2 A. Meeting_#3 A. Meeting #4 A. 160 SAMPLE INTERVENTION ACTIVITIES Teacher role-plays various easily identified emotions such as happy, sad, angry, hurt. Students practice expressions of common feelings. Discussion -- How do we "know" the feelings of others? List criteria. Individual role-plays: Situations include missing winning point in game, An obese person being called fat in front of class. Discussion -- Sympathy vs Empathy -- What determines how you respond? -- What determines how you react Role-plays for empathy: Class identifies conditions needed for accurate responding. Role-play obvious disabilities such as blindness and deafness. Discuss sympathy and empathy regarding the above, "What conditions are needed to sympathize, to empathize?" Reverse roles and practice responding. Teacher role-play less obvious disabilities such as learning disabled. Students practice empathic reSponding. Role-play and role-reversals -- use of non-domi— nant hand. 161 Practice in helper-helpee dyad. Discussion —- What conditions are needed for empathic responding? -- How can we become more so? -- How does perceived similarity help? Film -- "Trick or Treat" -- followed by role-plays/ reversals showing examples of helping behavior (empathy). BIBLIOGIAPHY 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Gerald, et al., Correlates of Empathy in Adolescence, 1979 Adolescence, Vol. 14, No. 56, 811-818. Aronfreed, J., The Socialization of Altruistic and Sympathe- 1970 tic Behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In J. R. Macauley & L. Berkowitz (Eds.). Altruism and Helping Behavior. New York: Academic Pfess, 1970. Aspy, David N., Empathy: Let's Get the Hell on With It, 1975a The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 2, 10-14. Aspy, David N., Helping Teachers Discover Empathy, Humanist 1975b Educator, Vol. 4, No. 2, 56-62. Avery, A. W., D'Augelli, A. R., and Danish, S. J., An Empi- 76 rical Investigation of the Construct Validity of Empathic Understanding Ratings, Counselor Educa- tion and Supervision, Vol. 15, No. 3, 177-183. Bachrach, Henry and Others, 0n Rating Empathy and Other Psy- 1971 chotherapy Variables: An Experience With the Effects of Training, The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol.36, No. 3: 445. Bandura, A., & McDonald, F., Influences of Social Reinforce- 1963 'ment and the Behavior of Models in Shaping Children's Moral Judgements, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963-67, 274-281. Bellingham, Richard L., On Researching the Researchers, The 1978 Counselinngsyghologist, Vol. 7, No. 3. Bleda, Paul R., Empathy, Sympathy, and Altruism, American 1976 Psychological Association, Washington, D. C. Borg, Walter and Call, Meredith, Educational Research, 1963 David McKay Company, New York. Borke, Helene, Interpersonal Perception of Young Children: 1971 Egocentrism or Empathy? The Journal of DevelOpmental Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 263-269. 163 Borke, Helene, The Development of Empathy in Chinese and Am- 1973 erican Children Between Three and Six Years of Age: A Cross-Cultural Study, The Journal of Developmen- tal Psychology. Bryan, J. H., Why children help: A Review, Journal of 1972 Social Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3, 87-104. Buchheimer, A., The Development of Ideas About Empathy, The 1963 Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 10, No. I, 70-71. Burns, N., and Cavey, L., Age differences in empathic ability 1957 among children, Canadian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 4, 227-230. Buros, Oscar K., Editor, The Sixth Mental Measurements Year- 1965 book, The Gryphon Press, HighIand Park, New Jersey. Buros, Oscar K., Editor, The Eighth Mental Measurements Year- 1978 book, The Gryphon Press, Highland Park, New Jersey. Campbell, Donald and Stanley, Julian, Experimental and Quasi- 1963 Experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNaIly & Company, Chicago. '.Campbell, Robert J. and Others, The Development and Validation ‘ 1971 of a Scale to Measure Affective Sensitivity (Empathy) The Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 5, 407-412. Caracena, Philip F. and Vicory, James R., Correlates of Pheno- 1969 menological and Judged Empathy, The Journal of Con- sultinngsychology, Vol. 16, No. 6, 510-515. Carkhuff, R. R. and Berenson, B. G., Beyond Counselingand 1967 Thera , Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York. Carlson, K. W., Increasing Verbal Empathy as a Function of 1974 Feedback and Instruction, Counselor Education and Supervision, Vol. 13, 208-213. Chandler, M. J., Greenspan, S., and Barenboim, C., The Assess- 1974 ment and Training of Role-taking and Referential Com- munication Skills in Institutionalized Emotionally Disturbed Children, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, 546-553. Christenberry, M. A., Who Shall Keep our Children? Use of 1976 Aspy's Scale. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Vol. 42, 38-43, Spring. 164 ChristOpolos, Florence, Keeping Exceptional Children in 1973 Regular Classes, Exceptional Children, Vol. 39, No. 7, 569-572. Clark, Kenneth, Empathy: A Neglected TOpic in Psychological 1980 Research, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, No. 2, 187-190. Comer, James P., and Schraft, Carol M., A Social Skills 1977 Curriculum for Inner City Children, Progress Report, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Conklin, R. C. and Hunt, A. S., An Investigation of the Vali- 1975 dity of Empathy Measures, Counselor Education and Supervision, Vol. 15, No.I2, 119-125. Cowan, P., Langer, J., Heavenrich, J., and Nathanson, M., 1969 Social Learning and Piagent's Cognitive Theory of Moral Deve10pment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 11, 261-275. Cronk, Mildred S., Attitude Change Toward Trainable Mentally 1979 Retarded: "Mainstreaming in Reverse", Paper pre- sented to Annual International Convention, Dallas, Texas, April, 1979. Cutrona, Carolyn and Feshbach, Seymour, Cognitive and Be- 1979 havioral Correlates of Children's Differential Use of Social Information, Child DeVelOpment, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1036-1042. Dalton, R. F., Jr., and Others, Application of Principles of 1973 Social Learning to Training in Communication of Em- pathy; Carkhuff Scales,’ The Journal of CounSeling Psychology, Vol. 20, 378-383, July. Dalton, R. F., Jr., and Sundblad, Lloyd M., Using Principles 1976 of Social Learning to Training in Communication of Empathy, The Journal of CounSeling Psychology, Vol. 23, 454-457, September. Danish, S., and Kagan, N., Measurement of Affective Sensiti- 1971 vity: Toward a valid Measure of Interpersonal Per- ception, The Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 18, 51; 54. Deutsch, Francine and Madle, R. A., Empathy: Historic and 1975 Current Conceptualizations, Measurement, and a Cognitive Theoretical Perspective, Human Develop- ment, Vol. 18, No. 4, 267-287. DeWolfe, Alan S., The Many Faces and Facets of Empathy, 1977 North Carolina Journal of Speech and Drama; The- matic Issue: Empathy, Vol. 11, No. 1. 165 Dixon, W. R. and Morse, W. C., The Prediction of Teaching 1961 Performance: Empathic Potential, The Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, 322-329. Dobson, Russell and Others, Human Emotions/Feelings, Humanist 1977 Educator, Vol. 16, No. 1, 6-18. Duggan, Hayden A., A Second Chance, D. C. Heath & Company, 1978 Lexington, Mass. Dustin, R., Teachers Versus Counselors: Differential Effects 1973 of Empathy Training, School Counselor, Vol. 21, 40-44, September. Dymond, Rosalind, A Scale for the Measurement of Empathetic 1949 Ability: Self and Others, The Journal of Consul- ting Psychology, Vol. 13, 127-133. Dymond, Rosalind, A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation 1958 of Insight and Empathy, The Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 12, 228-2333 Egan, Gerald, The Skilled Helper: A Model for Systematic 1975 Helping and Interpersonal Relating, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CalifOrnia. Ekstein, Rudolph, Psychoanalyses and Education for the Faci- 1972 litation of Positive Human Qualities, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3, 71-85. Elardo, Richard, How Parental Behavior can Affect A Child's 1978 Social Development, "Perceptions" Newsletter, November. English, N. B., and English, A. C., A Comprehensive Dictionary 958 of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms, New York: Longmans Green. Feffer, M. H., and Gourevitch, V., Cognitive Aspects of Role- 1960 taking in Children, Journal of Personality, Vol. 28, 383-396. Feshbach, N. D., Empathy in Children: Some Theoretical and 1975 Empirical Considerations, The Counseling_Psycho- logist, Vol. 5, No. 2, 25-29. Feshbach, N. D., Studies of Empathic Behavior in Children in 1978 Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Brendan Maher (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1-47. Fine, Jo Renee, and Others, A Three-Year Evaluation of "Pro- 1977 ject Mainstream", Paper presented to Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York, New York, April. 166 Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., wright, J. W., and 1968 Jarvis, P. E., The Development of Role-takingyand Communication Skills in Children, New York: Wiley. Frentz, Bruck R., Development of Empathy in Helpers, Paper 1975 presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, 83rd, Chicago, Illinois, August 30-September 2. Fried, Robert, Introduction to Statistics, Gardner Press, 1976 Inc., New York. Gazda, George M., Human Relations DevelopmentL A Manual for 1973 Educators, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Mass. Glasser, William, Realitnyherapy: A New Approach to Psy- 1965 chiatry, Harper & Row Publishers, New York} Gompertz, K., The Relation of Empathy to Effective Communi- cation, Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 37, 533-546. Gove, Frederick and Keating, Daniel, Empathic Role-taking 1979 Precursors, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 6, 594-600. Greenson, Ralph, Explorations in Psychoanlysis, Paper Read 1959 at the let Congress of the International Psycho- Analytical Association, C0penhagen, July. Greenspan, D., Barenboim, C., and Chandler, M. J., Empathy 1976 and Pseudo-Empathy: The Affective Judgements of First and Third Graders, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 129, 77-88) Gribble, James and Oliver, Graham, Empathy and Education, 1973 Studies in Philospphy and Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, 29. Grinder, R. E., Relations Between Behavioral and Cognitive 1964 Dimensions of Conscience in Middle Childhood, Child Deve10pment, Vol. 35, 881-891. Guzzetta, Roberta A., Acquisition and Transfer of Empathy by 1976 the Parents of Early Adolescents Through Structured Learning Training, The Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, Vol. 23, No. 5, 449-453. Hackney, Harold, The Evolution of Empathy, Personnel and 1978 Guidance Journal, 35-38, September, No. 57, 144- 149, November, No. 57, 180-182. Hatch, E. J. and Guerney, B. C., Jr., A Pupil Relationship 1975 Enhancement Program, Personnel and Guidance Jour- nal, Vol. 54, 103-105. 167 Hauser, Carl, Evaluating Mainstream Programs: Capitalizing 1979 on a Victory, The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 13, No. 2. Haynes, Lynda and Avery, Arthur, Training Adolescents in 1979 Self-Disclosure and Empathy Skills, The Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 6: 526-530. Henry, P. L. and Asbury, C. A., Efficacy of a Procedure for Facilitating Productive Preschool Training Encoun- ters; Use of Truax Scales, The Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 28, 48-51, January. Hill, Clara E., and King, Jean, Perceptions of Empathy as a 1976 Function of t e Measuring Instrument, The Journal of COunseling Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 2, 155-156 Hobart, Charles W., and Fahlberg, Nancy, The Measurement of 1965 Empathy, AmeriCan JoUrnal of Sociology, Vol. 70, 595-603. Hoepfner, Ralph, Editor, CSE-RBS Test Evaluations: Tests of 1972 Higher-Order Cognitive, Affective, and Interpersonal Skills, EvaluationTechnologies Program Center for the Study of Evaluation, Research for Better Schools, Inc., Los Angeles, California. Hoffman, M. L., Moral Development, In P. Mussen (Ed.). 1970 Carmichael's Manual of Child DeveloPment (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley. Hoffman, M. L., The Development of Altruistic Motivation, 1975 ERIC ED, 113-042, Psychological Abstracts, PS 008- Hoffman, M. L., Sex Differences in Empathy and Related Be- 1977 haviors, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84, 712-722. Hogan, Robert, Deve10pment of an Empathy Scale, The Journal 1969 of ConSulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 3, 307-316. Hogan, Robert, Empathy: A Conceptual and Psychometric Analy- 1975 sis, The ConnSeling Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 2, 14-17. Hornblow, A. R., and Others, Measuring Medical Students' Em- pathy: A Validation Study, Medical Education, Vol. 11, No. 1, 7-12. Horwitz, Michael B., A Comment on "An Empirical Investigation 1977 of the Construct Validity of Empathic Understanding Ratings", Counselor Education and Supervision, Vol. 16, No. 4, 292-295. 168 Hughes, James H., Attitude is Keystone to Success, School 1978 Shop, Vol. 37, No. 8, 76-80. Iannotti, Ronald J., The Nature and Measurement of Empathy 1975 in Children, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 2, 21-25. Iannotti, Ronald J., The Elements of Empathy, Paper pre- 1979 sented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, California, March 15-18. Kagan, N., Krathwohl, Dr. R., and Farquar, W., Developing a 1965 Scale to Measure Affective Sensitivity, Edu- cational Research Series No. 30, East LaEEIng: Michigan State University. Kagan, N., and Schauble, P. G., Affect Simulation in Inter- 1969 personal Process Recall, The Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 309-315. Ka an, Norman, Influencing Human Interaction, American Per- 975 sonnel and Guidance AssociatiEn, Washington, D.C. -Kagan, N., Werner, D., and Schneider, J., The Affective Sen- 1977 sitivity Scale, Paper presented at the American Psy- chological Association Meeting, August. Kagan, Norman, Influencing Human Interaction - Fifteen Years 1978 with IPR, Paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, July. Katz, Robert L., Empathy, It's Nature and Uses, Free Press 1963 of Glencoe. Kelly, E., and Others, Study of Two Empathy Training Models 1977 in Elementary Education, Journal of InStructional Psychology, Vol. 4, 40-46, Fall. Kipper, D. A., and Ben-Ely, Zion, The Effectiveness of the 1979 Psychodramatic Double Method, The Reflective Method, and Lecturing in the Training of Empathy, The Jour- nal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 35, No. Kirk, Robert E., Experimental Design: Procedures for the 1968 Behavioral Sciences, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California. Kohlberg, L., State and Sequences: The Cognitive Development 1969 Approach to Socialization, In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Chicago: Rand McNally. 169 Kravas, Constance, Final NIE Report, The Development and 1974 Validation of a Simulation Device to Measure Tea- cher Affective Sensitivity, washington State Uni- versity. Kuchenbecker, Dr. Shari L. Y., A Developmental Investigation 1976 of Children's Behavioral, Cognitive, and Affective Responses to Empathically Stimulating Situations, Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Kurdek, L. A., and Rodgon, M. M., Perceptual, Cognitive and 1975 Affective Perspective Taking in Kindergarten Through Sixth Grade Children, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 11, 642-650. Kurkjian, J. W., and Banks, William, The PrOperties of Em- E 1978 pathy Explored and Developed Through Literature, I Personnel and Guidance Journal, June, 634-636. ' Larson, Harry J., and Others, The Effects of Least Restric- = 1978 tive Alternatives on Relevant Education Role Groups, A study, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, California, July. Leone, Peter, and Retish, Paul, A Handicapped Kid in My Class? 1978 Social Studies, Vol. 69, No. 1, 18-20. Lindgren, H. E., and Robinson, J., Evaluation of Dymond's 1953 Test of Insight and Empathy, The Journal of Consul- tingyPsychology, Vol. 17, 172-176. McGonigal, R. A., A Model for the Cross Cultural Interaction 1971 Training of Adults, Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D., Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan. McKalip, Keith J., DevelOping Acceptance Toward the Handi- 1979 capped, The School Counselor, 293-298, May. Mehrabian, A., and Epstein, N., A Measure of Emotional Empathy, 1972 Journal of Personality, Vol. 40, No. 4, 525-543. Mehrens, William and Lehmann, Irvin, Measurement and Evaluation 1973 in Education and Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York. Mood, Darlene and Johnson, James, Young Children's Under- 1973 standing of the Affective States of Others: Empathy or Cognitive Awareness, ERIC ED 092-216, PS 006- 999. Mussen, Paul and Eisenberg-Berg, Nancy, Roots of Caring, Sha- 1977 rin and Hel in , W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco, CaIifiornia. Nie, 1975 O'Hern, J. S., 1964 Parloff, M. B., 1978 Therapist Variables in Relation to Process and Out- come, Handbook of PsyChotherapy and Behavior Change: An Empiracal Analysis, Editors: GarfieId, S. L. and Bergin, A. E.,I2nd Edition, Wiley, New York. Parrella, G. C., Projection and Adoption: Toward a Clarifi- 1971 cation of the Concept of Empathy, Quarterly Jour- nal of Speech, Vol. 57, 204-213, April. Piaget, J., The Moral Judgment of the Child, New York: 1932 Harcourt. Putnam, Rosemary W., Books Can Introduce Your Class to the 1978 Mainstreamed Child, Learning, Vol. 7, No. 2, 118-120. Reynolds, Maynard C., and Birch, Jack W., The Interface Bet- 1977 ween Regular and Special Education, Teacher Educa- tion and Special Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 12-27. Rogers,C . R., The Characteristics of the Helping Relation- 958 ship, The Personnel and'Guidance Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1. Rogers, C. R., The Freedom.to Learn, Columbus: Charles E. 1969 Merri11[4(a5. Rogers, C. R., Empathic: An Unappreciated Way of Being, 975 The Counseling_Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 10. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Be- 1971 'hav10ral Sciences Holt, Rinehart & Winston,IInc., New York. Rose, Chris, The Placement of T.M.R. Students in the Regular 1978 Elementary School: An Analysis of Teacher and Stu- dent Attitudes, Journal of Special Education, Vol. 2, No. 4, 293-299. Rubin, K. H., Relationship Between Egocentric Communication 1972 and P0pu1arity Among Peers, 'Developmental Psycho- “10gy, Vol. 7, No. 2, 364. Runner, Kenyon, A Theory of Persons, Runner Studies of Atti- 1973 tude Patterns, The Runner Associates, San Diego, N. H., 170 J. G., Steinbrenner, K., Statistical Package fOr the McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Hull, C. H., Jenkins, and Bent, D. H., Social'Sciences, and Arbuckle, D. 8., Sensitivity: A Mea- sureable Concept? The Personnel and Guidance Jour- nal, Vol. 42, 572-576. Waskow, I. E., and Wolfe, B. E., Research on California. 171 Savage, Jr., A. L., Increasing Empathic Capabilities of In- 1975 structional Developers; Evaluation of a Three-phase Instructional Strategy; Use of Affective Sensitivity Scale and Profile Similarity Method. AV Communica- tion Review, Vol. 23, 415-426, Winter. Schneider, J., Kagan, N., and Werner, D., The Development of 1977 a Measure of Empathy: The Affective Sensitivity Scale, Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, California, August. Scranton, Thomas R., and Ryckman, David B., Sociometric Sta- 1979 tus of Learning Disabled Children in an Integrative Program, Journal of LearningyDisabilities, Vol. 12, No. 6. Selman, R. L., and Byrne, D. F., A Structural-Developmental 1974 Analysis of Levels of Role-taking in Middle Child- hood, Child Development, Vol. 45, 803-806. Semmel, Melvyn I., and Cheney, Christine 0., Social Accep- 1979 tance and Self-Concept of Handicapped Pupils in Mainstreamed Environments, Research Notes, Educa- tion Unlimited, Vol. 1, No. 2, 65-68. Shaftel, Fannie and Shaftel, George, Role-Playing for Social 1967 Values, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Shantz, Carolyn U., Empathy in Relation to Social Cognitive 1975 Development, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 2, 18-20. Shultz, J. L., Looking for a Way to Improve Your Empathy 1975a Skills? Vocational Guidance Quarterly, Vol. 23, 368, June. Schultz, J. L., Empathy: Revisited and Updated, Vocational 1975b Guidance Quarterly, Vol. 24, 181, December. Siperstein, Gary N., and Others, Effects of Group Discussion 1977 on Children's Attitudes Toward Handicapped Peers, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 70, No. 3, 131-134. Smith, Henry Clay, Sensitivity to PeOple, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1966 New York, New York. Smith, Monte D., Prediction of Self-Concept Among Learning 1979 Disabled Children, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 12, No. 10, 30-351 Smither, Suzanne, A Reconsideration of the DeveloPmental 1977 Study of Empathy, Human Development, Vol. 20, 253-276. 172 Speroff, B. J., Empathy and Role Reversal as Factors in 1953 Industrial Harmony, The Journal of Social Psycho- logy, Vol. 37. Stanford, Gene and Roark, Albert, Human Interaction In Edu- 1974 cation, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston. Staub, E., The Use of Role-playing and Induction in Children's 1971 Learning of Helping and Sharing Behavior, Child Development, Vol. 42, 805-816. Stotland, Ezra, Empathy, Fantasy and Helping, University of 1978 Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Strunk, 0., Empathy: A Review of Theory and Research, Psy- 1957 chological Newsletter, Vol. 9, 47-57. Tai, Simon W., Social Science Statistics: Its Elements and 1978 Applications, Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., Santa Monica, California. Therrien, Mark, and Fischer, Joel, written Indicators of Em- 1978 pathy in Human-Relations Training: A Validational Study, Counselor Education and Supervision, 272- 277, June. Thompson, Ross and Hoffman, Martin, Empathy and the Develop- 1980 ment of Guilt in Children, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2, 155-156. Thurman, S. Kenneth and Lewis, Michael, Children's Response 1979 to Differences: Some Possible Implications for Main- streaming, ’Exceptiona1'Children, Vol. 45, No. 6. Truax, C. B., A Scale for the Rating of Accurate Empathy. 1967 In C. R. Rogers (Ed.). The Therapeutic Relationship and its ImpaCt: A Study of Psychotherapy with Schi- ZOphrenics, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R., Toward Effective Counse- 1967 ling and'PsychOtherapy: Training and Practice, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Urberg, K. A. and Docherty, E. M., Deve10pment of Role-taking 1976 Skills in Young Children, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 12, 198-203. Vogelsong, Edward L., Relationship Enhancement Training for 978 Children, Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 272-279, April. Walker, B. S., and Little, D. F., Factor Analysis of the 1969 Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory, The Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol.16, No. 6, 5l6-52l. 173 Walpole, Ronald, Introduction to Statistics, Macmillan 1974 Publishing Company, New York. Ward, Ted W., Designs for Role Play, Michigan State Uni- ' 1978 versity, East Lansing, Michigan. Ward, Ted W., Education 823 Instructional Simulation Defini- 1978 tions, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Wight, Albert R., Project Director, Measurement of Affect and 972 the Humanizing of Instruction, Instrument Develop- ment and Use, Part II, Salt Lake City, Utah. Wight, Albert R., Project Director, Measurement of Affect and 1973 Humanizing of Education, Searchlfor Affective Ins- truments and Measurement Procedures, Part IV, Salt Lake City, Utah. Wolf, Lois C., Children's Literature and the Development of 1975 Empathy in Young Children, The Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 5, No. 1. Woodbury, Dorothy J., A Hierarchy of Empathy Applied to Child 1976 and Adult, Response to Filmed Literature, ERIC ED 136-299, CS 203-285.