ABS TRACT TEACHING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY: SUBJECTIVE, INTERPERSONAL AND OBJECTIVE KNOWING VERSUS THE TRADITIONAL METHOD BY Martha Lynn Aldenbrand Traditionally introductory psychology classes have been designed to orient the student to the scientific method and to the objective assessment of behavior. But according to Carl Rogers (1964), there are three methods by which people gain psychological knowledge: the objective, the subjective, and the interpersonal. The purpose of this thesis was to evaluate a new teaching method which attempted to increase knowledge in all three areas of psychological knowing. The new method divided class time equally between the three areas. One-third of the time was spent lecturing on experimental data and psychological concepts central to the understanding of psychology as a science. One-third of the time was spent on introspective exercises consisting mainly of Gestalt therapy techniques for expanding percep- tual, emotional and memory awareness, and for analyzing one's own historical development. These exercises, designed to enhance the individual's Subjective understanding, were assigned parallel to their concomitant subject matter in the Objective part of the course. One-third of the time was spent in modified T-groups or carrying out exercises designed Martha Lynn Aldenbrand to highlight interpersonal understanding and behavior. Data from the Experimental Class described above was compared with data from two Lecture Classes. Lecture Class I was composed of a representative sample of 60 students who volunteered from a large lecture population of 600 students; 80% of Lecture Class I were first term fresh- men. Lecture Class II volunteered from similar large lecture sections, and consisted of 27 students, 74% of whom.were second term freshmen. The Experimental Class consisted of 55 students from two small classes, 81% of whom were second term freshmen. All but two students from the Experimental Class participated in the research. Each subject chose one or two Others, depending on the class they were in, who completed the measures relating to Interpersonal understan- ding and behavior change. Two confounding variables arose from the use of these subjects: the effects of using an entire population versus a volunteer sample, and the effects of differences between first- and second-term freshmen. While a pre-experiment rationale was established to deal with the latter problem, it was unclear whether this ra- tionale was valid. Diverse instruments were used to assess each com- ponent of the Experimental method. Identical multiple choice test items were used to assess Objective psychology. An Interpersonal Behavior Change Questionnaire, an Interpersonal Behavior Understanding Scale, and an Interpersonal Behavior Change Scale were used to assess Interpersonal psychological Martha Lynn Aldenbrand growth. Subjective psychological growth was assessed by the Subjective Understanding Questionnaire and the Subjective Understanding Scale. A General Effectiveness Scale was used to assess the effectiveness of the class as a whole. In general, the behavior change measures correlated signifi- cantly with each other in the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II as predicted. The lack of significance in Lecture Class I was attributed to the variability of first-term freshmen. The Subjective understanding scores correlated only at the .10 level. This limitation was attributed to the 308's lesser ability to differentiate between people. Results from all three areas of psychological knowing were favorable to the Experimental Class. Although only one- third of the class time in the Experimental Class was devoted to Objective knowledge, compared with 100% of the Lecture Classes' time devoted to this end, these classes did not differ significantly in performance over identical multiple choice test items. Significant results favorable to the Experimental Class were found between the classes on the SUS (3" .01). When the probabilities of the E values between the Experi- mental Class and the two Lecture Classes were combined, dif- ferences significant at the .06 level were found on the change score of the SUQ, and differences significant at the .01 level were found on the positive-change score of the SUQ. Concerning Interpersonal knowledge, significant dif- ferences favorable to the Experimental Class were found on Martha Lynn Aldenbrand the IBUS (E.‘ .01) when viewed separately, and on the posi- tive-change scores of the IBCQ and the IBUS when the proba- bilities of the E values between the Experimental Class and the two Lecture Classes were combined (both p_<..001). Higher correlations and more significant differences were found on "understanding" scores, Subjective and Interper- sonal, than on "behavior change" scores. This was attributed to the relatively more complex nature of changing behavior, especially in an Interpersonal situation, than of changing understanding. Self and Other reports were found to differ significantly when the value dimension of the IBCQ was used in scoring, but not when the value dimension was omitted. Lastly, results from the General Effectiveness Scale showed very significant differences (p beyond .001) favorable to the Experimental Class. Important variables for further research, such as transferability of method and effects of novel teaching methods, were discussed. Approved: ()Z>&;A?L 42";22;¢v4:;: Committee Chairman Thesis Committee: Dozier W. Thornton, Committee Chairman Paul Bakan Lawrence I. O'Kelly TEACHING INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY: SUBJECTIVE, INTERPERSONAL AND OBJECTIVE KNOWING VERSUS THE TRADITIONAL METHOD BY Martha Lynn Aldenbrand A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1971 697050 TO THOSE WHO WAITED ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks foremost to Dr. Dozier Thornton, whose under- standing, warmth and empathic respect for my need for autonomy allowed me the freedom to discover the essential variables in this research. Thanks also to him for his criticisms of experimental design and to his willingness to use his class as a control even though it meant inconvenience to him in terms of collecting data. I shall always remember and ap- preciate his quiet and constant confidence that I would over-_ come the personal and research obstacles that I faced. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Paul Bakan and Dr. Lawrence O'Kelly for their participation on my committee and their criticisms of the content of the research in its written form. Finally I wish to thank my husband, John Hurley, for his concern, his restraint, and his invaluable help when asked for it. The completion of this thesis ends part of one relationship and begins another. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Research . . . . . . Objective Psychology . . . . . Subjective Psychology . . . . Interpersonal Psychology INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple Choice Test . . . . . . . College Qualifying Test . . . . . Interpersonal Behavior Change Questionnaire Subjective Understanding Questionnaire . . . General Rating Scales . . . . . . HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHOD 0 O O O I O O O O I O O I O 0 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of Classes . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . Sub-Group Differences Testing the Measures . Objective Method . . Subjective Method . Interpersonal Method General Evaluation . . Effectiveness of Objective Method Effectiveness of Subjective Method Effectiveness of Interpersonal Method Self vs. Other Reports . . . . . Between Class Differences . . . General Effectiveness Scale . . . General Criticisms and Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUS IONS O O O I O O O O O O O 0 iv Page mflubnh I" 13 13 14 15 19 19 21 24 24 28 31 33 33 35 35 36 37 40 44 47 47 65 65 71 SUMMARY . . FOOTNOTES . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES . APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E Objective, Subjective and Interpersonal Measures Administered to Subjects Subjective and Interpersonal Assignments Presented to the.Experimental Class Scores of All Subjects . . . . . . . Additional Data on the Adequacy of Questionnaires versus Scales in the Present Research Written Evaluatibns of Experimental Class Page 77 78 79 83 83 116 134 153 155 Table 1. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Means, standard deviations, and mean differ- ences between two classes constituting the Experimental Class. . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between selected entrance test scores and class test scores. . . . . . . . . Correlations between Subjective Understanding Questionnaire and Subjective Understanding Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between the interpersonal question- naires and scales as reported by Self and Others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between General Effectiveness Scale and other primary measures. . . . . . . Subjective understanding score means . . . . . . Eftests of Table 6 mean differences on subjec- tive understanding scores between all groups . Correlations between Self and Other reports on interpersonal measures. . . . . . . . . . . . Means for Self and Other reports on interper- sonal measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eftests between Self and Other reports on interpersonal measures. . . . . . . . . . . . tftest values between classes as reported by Self and Others on interpersonal measures. . . vi Page 34 35 36 38 41 45 46 48 50 52 61 INTRODUCTION Traditionally introductory psychology classes have been designed to give the student a broad understanding of the experimentation and basic conceptual formulations em- ployed in the field of psychology. The purpose has been to orient the student to the scientific method and to the objec- tive assessment of behavior. To accomplish this, introduc- tory classes typically involve a large number of students who are taught by the lecture method. The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate an alternative approach to teaching an introductory psychology course. This new method includes the objective or experimental approach to psychological understanding, but also directly deals with two other forms of psychological understanding: subjective and interpersonal knowing. The thesis embraces the conceptualization of Carl Rogers (1964) that all psychological knowledge is derived from three processes of data gathering: the thective, the subjective, and the interpersonal. These methods of psycho- logical knowing differ in the procedures they use to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses. Objective knowing, most commonly called the "scientific method," utilizes an external frame of reference and checks its hypotheses by external observable events in ways that have been agreed upon by the individual's external reference group, e.g. other scientists. Reliance upon operational definitions and statistical tests of signi- ficance are characteristic of this approach. Examples of this method include defining emotion by heart rate and GSR, aggression by striking behavior, and avoidance by physical movement away. Subjective knowledge is obtained by using oneself as referent, by checking one's own preconceptual experience as data. It focuses on the implicit data the individual uses to make sense out of his world, and may be more complex in some individuals than in others. When an individual tries to determine what mood he is in, or asks himself whe- ther or not he likes a certain person, he is using the sub- jective method of knowing. While subjective methods may employ external cues or stimuli, the internal flow of in- formation is the basis against which the hypotheses are checked. Interpersonal knowing comprises the individual's knowledge about the phenomenal world of other individuals, and includes knowledge gained through empathy and making per- sonal inquiries. The criterion for acceptance of an hypothesis is to confirm the hypothesis with the person him- self or with other persons who have had similar experiences or who know the person. An example of interpersonal hypo- thesis testing is the individual who checks with another individual what he thinks and feels when he is criticized. Consensual validation, then, is the method used to verify the hypothesis. This thesis maintains that all three methods of psychological knowing are important to introduce to begin- ning students in psychology and that the ability to use all three methods can be increased in the introductory psychology course. Moreover, it is contended that focusing on all three methods can be accomplished without substantially re- ducing the retention of traditional subject matter. In order to test this hypothesis, a traditional lecture class at Michigan State University (MSU) was compared with an ex- perimental class consisting of one-third lectures, one- third group interaction, and one-third introspection exer- cises. The lectures consisted of the traditional presenta- tions of scientific method and experimental and theoretical psychological data. These lectures were designed to increase the students' "objective" knowledge of psychology. The in- trospective exercises consisted mainly of Gestalt therapy techniques for expanding perceptual, emotional and memory awareness, and for analyzing one's own historical develop- ment. These exercises, designed to broaden the "subjective" understanding of the individual,were assigned parallel to their concomitant subject matter in the objective part of the course. The group interactions consisted of modified T-groups in which the students discussed their here-and-now interactions with each other or carried out exercises de- signed to discover and communicate their reactions to ‘o on u ’3 other people's behavior. These interactions were designed to broaden the "interpersonal" understanding of the student. BACKGROUND RESEARCH Although learning theorists from diversified back- grounds recognize more than one type of learning: Tolman (1949) differentiating between six types, Melton (1964) six types, and Gagne (1965) eight types; and although teach— ing theorists differentiate between types of teaching methods and orientations: Gage (1967) elucidating three methods, Siegel and Siegel (1967) two, and Sunderland (1967) two, little if any research has been implemented to show how these varying methods can be integrated into a workable course structure.1 For this reason previous research in each of three conceptual areas will be considered separately. The 1965-1969 Psychological Abstracts have been the index for the scope of this background research. Objective Psychology Objective psychology, since it has been the tradi- tional subject matter of psychology, has usually been used as the standard content against which all other contending methods of teaching have been measured. Large lectures, small discussion groups, programmed learning, and television methods all use the same presentational format: "(a) struc- turing, (b) presentation of ideas, (c) solicitation of a response, (d) response by the learner, and (e) reaction to the response. (Gage and Unruh, 1967, p. 360) And usually the same criteria have been used to evaluate their success: scores on quizzes or final examinations have been compared. The consequence of most of this research has been that no differences between the experimental and control groups on the recognition and use of psychological concepts are found-- to the point where many investigators suggest, according to Siegel and Siegel (1967), that any differences are due to the Hawthorne Effect. The present research employs the lecture method in both Experimental and Lecture classes. The only difference between the types of presentations is the ratio of lectures given and the size of the classes. One-third of the class time of the Experimental class was spent lecturing on ob- jective psychology, while the Lecture classes experienced a full lecture schedule (30 lectures, 10 recitations). The remaining two-thirds of the Experimental Class time was Spent in interpersonal groups and answering introspective assignments. The class size of the Experimental.01ass was 30 students per class, while the Lecture<21asses had 600 students per class. Large lecture classes were chosen as controls in- stead of small lecture classes because (1) large lecture classes are more representative of the method used to teach traditional classes than are small lecture classes, and (2) no small lectures were taught during Fall term, 1969, and of the few taught during Winter term, 1970, only graduate students doing their initial full-class teaching were avail- able as controls. Their participation was seen as tending to confound more than illuminate the potential comparisons. Research on small versus large lecture classes, as reported in a review of the literature by McKeachie (1968), has been equivocal. Longstaff in 1932 and Wolfe in 1942 re? port little differences in achievement between large and small classes, but equal final examination scores between the two groups. Attitudes toward psychology seem to be better in small classes (Macomber and Siegel, 1957). Since the present research uses three major examinations as cri- teria for comparison, the results mentioned above suggest that no differences will occur between the Experimental and Lecture Classes on the basis of class size. The effect of presenting one-third as many lec- tures to the Experimental Class as to the Lecture Classes would seem at first glance to be a clear detriment to the Experimental Class, but on three bases no differences be- tween the classes on the major tests are hypothesized. The justifications for this hypothesis are: (1) both classes are expected to read the entire textbook, (2) the textbook has a voluminous amount of material to be learned and tradi- tional classes characteristically expect students to learn more than they can integrate in one term, and (3) the sub- jective and interpersonal teaching methods add an integra- tive context into which experimental data can be assimilated more easily. Although no research has been reported to confirm or disconfirm the second reason, Siegel and Siegel (1967) suggest that external pressures, like parents and graduation requirements, compel the student to cull impor- tant information from the textbook and perform well on examinations whatever the teaching method. With regard to the third reason, both Maslow (1966) and Rogers (1961) point to the essential integration of abstract and eXperi- mental knowledge if deeper understanding of conceptual in- formation is to be obtained. A final area of concern with the objective method is whether the students began each class with equal academic potential. Many studies have shown the high correlation between academic potential and academic performance (Iglinsky, 1968; Brown, 1966; Pickle, 1967; Mangaroo, 1968; Redford, 1968; Brown, 1969). The present research compared classes on two dimensions of the College Qualifying Test, an M80 entrance examination, to determine whether significant differences existed between the classes. Subjective Psychology Perhaps due to the stigma of introspectionsim, the writer found only one article in the last five years (McGrory, 1967) in the psychological abstracts concerning the teaching of psychology introspectively. This one teach- ing method embraced Albert Ellis' concern with analyzing the irrational ideas and illogical thinking of the indivi- dual. Centering on the question, "What are you telling yourself?" students wrote essays or discussed with others their feelings and attitudes. All students praised the course and found the content helpful. There was no control group, however, with which to compare these results. From this meager information, there seems to be some indication that the subjective method used in the present research, although primarily emphasizing Gestalt awareness principles, will be seen as beneficial. Interpersonal Psychology Interpersonal knowing, derived as it is through con- sensual validation, lends itself best to learning through group experiences. Sensitivity training and the T-group are the methods used in the present research to facilitate interpersonal knowing.2 Campbell and Dunnette (1968) list six goals for T-groups. These can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of T-groups as well as the interpersonal method as a whole. They are 1. Increased self-insight or self-awareness concerning one's own behavior and its meaning in a social context . . . 2. Increased sensitivity to the behavior of others . . . [which] refers first, to the development of an increased awareness of the full range of communi- cative stimuli emitted by other persons (voice in- flections, facial expressions, bodily positions, and other contextual factors, in addition to the actual choice of words) and second, to the develop- ment of the ability to infer accurately the emo- tional or non-cognitive bases for interpersonal communications . . . 3. Increased awareness and understanding of the types of processes that facilitate or inhibit group func- tioning and the interactions between groups . . . 4. Heightened diagnostic skill in social, inter- personal, and intergroup situations; . . . diagno- sing conflict situations, reasons for poor communi- cation, and the like. 5. Increased action skill . . . [which] refers to a person's ability to intervene successfully in inter- or intra- group situations so as to increase member satisfactions, or output . . . 6. Learning how to learn . . . [which] does not refer to. an individual's cognitive approach to the world, but rather to his ability to analyze continually his own interpersonal behavior. (p. 75) Some previous research on T-groups and T-group methods have analyzed all of these aspects. Most has concerned itself with assessing the achievement of one or two goals. Culbert and Culbert (1967) describe a class in "Leadership Principles and Practices" taught at UCLA in which students are said to gain sensitivity into their perception of others and others' perceptions of them, as well as sensi- tivity into interpersonal processes and how to facilitate them. Examples of growth into these areas is supplied through critical incident excerpts from the class, but no statistical data are supplied. Another report of the use of interper- sonal groups in a university setting (Stern, 1968) also reports increased awareness of self and others, but again, only anecdotal data are supplied. In a doctoral dissertation by Kraft (1967), secon- dary school instructors participating in a human relations laboratory with regard to a non-participating control group were perceived to be more willing to share information and provide truthful feedback, to make more effort to listen and 10 understand others, to be more willing to take a stand on issues and try new ideas, to have increased intellectual understanding of human behavior, to be more analytical and have a clearer perception of those with whom they interact, to be more conscious of group process of subcurrents and hidden agenda of the group members, and to be more con- scious of and sensitive to the feelings, needs and reactions of others. Self reports and reports of co-teachers and res- pective principals indicated a highly significant perceived behavioral change in on-the-job situations six months after the laboratory . Using pre-tests and post-tests, Burke and Bennis (1961) found that perceived actual self and perceived ideal self were more congruent at the end of a human relations training laboratory than at the beginning. The change re- sulted mainly from changes in the perceived actual self. Self-perceptions and others' perceptions of him were also more congruent at the end of the laboratory than in the beginning. Lundgren (1969) likewise found that self and other perceptions became more similar at the end of a lab- oratory than they were at the beginning. Bunker (1965) studying long range effects of parti- cipating in a human relations laboratory found that partici- pants changed more than controls in communicating more clearly and effectively with co-workers, sharing and encouraging responsibility and participation among peers, understanding human behavior and group process, being more sensitive to 11 the needs and feelings of others, and being more self-aware. Among the long range effects of laboratory training on par- ticipants were increased insight and the belief that personal changes had occurred in them as a result of the laboratory. Campbell and Dunnette (1968) reviewing research lit- erature on the effect of human relations training on indus- trial settings noted that significant post-laboratory changes have been found in increased interpersonal sensitivity, heightened equalitarian attitudes, greater communication and leadership skills, increased consideration for others and relaxed attitudes on the job. Castle (1965) found an improved sense of worth, and an increased interest in participation and practice in human relationships and leadership roles. He also found a de- crease in controversy, irritableness, and tension as train- ing progressed. Dyer (1967) found that college students participating in human relations training when compared with a non—participating control group reported more changes in interpersonal behavior and were ranked by their peers as having become more effective in interpersonal behavior than did the non-participating control group. Gold (1967), however, found no significant differ- ences between experimental and control groups on overall self-disclosure. Cabianca (1967) found no differences on self—esteem between students with a T-group laboratory ex- perience and controls without such an experience. Experi- nental group subjects showed a lower post—laboratory need 12 for autonomy and aggression and a higher need for deference, while the control group showed higher need scores for change and nurturance. Berenson, et. a1. (1965) used a quasi-therapeutic teaching technique which, while not a strict human relations technique, did increase interpersonal contact and discussion. Their results indicated best results from programs syste- matically implementing both didactic and experiential approaches with least interpersonal gains with groups not employing experiential training. A final sobering observation comes from Christopher (1969) and Maslow (1969). They report the near total lack of preparation college students have for investigating intrinsic learnings. They point out that students who are allowed to focus on experiential knowledge tend to want to ignore the extrinsic content of the course. This was so salient a finding to Maslow that he questioned whether both goals, intrinsic and extrinsic knowledge, should be pursued at once. His admonition was to keep them separate. While both authors felt that experiential learning was important, they felt that students overcompensate for their lack of intrinsic learning. INSTRUMENTS MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST Three multiple choice tests were constructed to assess the amount of conceptual and experimental data each student had assimilated from the objective part of the course. Since both classes read the same textbook: Kimble and Garmezy, Principles of General Psychology, 1968, Third Edition, the questions were taken from the Instructor's Test Manual, a compilation of multiple choice questions provided by the editors. Originally the tests for the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I were to be identical. However, because of a miscommunication between the instructors of the two classes, different chapters were assigned for the first test: chapters one through six for Lecture Class I and chapters one through seven for the Experimental Class. Because of the inequities in the amount of reading and studying time that this produced, the questions from chapter seven were dropped from the final analysis. The method for analyzing this data, therefore, was to perform an item analysis on the i tems that both classes took concurrently. A t-test was iPerformed on the percentage of students in each class answer- ing each question correctly. 13 14 THE COLLEGE QUALIFYING TEST The College Qualifying Test is part of a battery of general aptitude tests given to freshmen at Michigan State University during their orientation program. In addition to other tests it is used as the basis upon which students are enrolled for regular classes, honors classes, or remedial classes. The College Qualifying Tests consists of three sub- tests: (a) a "verbal" test measuring vocabulary and verbal abilities; (b) an "information" test measuring general infor- mation in the social and natural sciences; and (c) a "numerical" test measuring abilities involved in quantita- tive thinking. A "total" score is also derived from the sum of the CQT subtests. More recent editions also include "science" and "social science" scores; these are derived from the respective components of the "information" subtest. All scores on the CQT are given as percentile scores and are based on the scores of all entering freshmen. In this research the College Qualifying Test was used to check the hypothesis that student performance (multiple choice test scores) is positively correlated with achievement potential (College Qualifying Test), but that no differences between the classes existed in achievement po- tential. To test this hypothesis the CQT "total" (CQT ) tot test score and the CQT "social science" (CQTSS) subtest score were both correlated with the total multiple choice test.score, and t-tests were performed on CQTtot and CQTSS 15 scores betWeen the two groups. Because the "social science" subtest is a recent addition to the College Qualifying Test, having been in existence for one year, only subjects who were freshmen could be correlated on this variable. INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR CHANGE QUESTIONNAIRE The Interpersonal Behavior Change Questionnaire (IBCQ) is a Likert-type questionnaire in which the indivi- dual rates himself on one of seven categories between "very characteristic" and "very uncharacteristic" for sixty common interpersonal behaviors. The IBCQ is a substantially modi- fied form of an empathy questionnaire authored anonymously. Forty of the sixty items were taken from the empathy ques- tionnaire, twenty were added by the author. The forty items were divided into two groups: those dealing with two or three person interactions (21 items) and those dealing with group interactions (19 items). Examples of the first are: "friendly to others," "sarcastic," "asks for help." Exam- ples of the second include: "draws attention to himself in some way," "dominates and imposes his will on the group," "does not initiate, nor follow." The author supplemented the items in each group until both divisions had thirty items. Examples of the author's two or three person items are: "becomes hurt easily," "uses humor as defense." Ex- amples of the author's group items are: "frequently di- gremses from the tOpic," "speaks only when spoken to." Each group of thirty items was given to the subject. Separate l6 instruction to answer the last thirty items with reference to behavior in a group was provided. The method of scoring the IBCQ was devised by the author. It specifically measures behavior change by instruc- ting each individual to mark a "B" in the column which rep- resents where he was at the beginning of the term, and "N" in the column which represents where he would "like to be." The subject can mark more than one letter in the same column if he feels no change has occurred since the beginning of the term. U H 038 h! (3 m BEH U U) a: H U H [:1 B P1 m Ed E4 m E4 m - L) H m 64 2 C) m H 00 Hill mo Q BB 5: 04030 ugooggé gswamsé FAQs-1&2 UUE-IHB D gnomg >4 (DEX-‘10 >4 m § #1 C3 :4 U m g o-JZAZBJ UWDUJD> 1. FRIENDLY TO OTHERS B NL DJ 2. SARCASTIC B N Figure 1. Sample IBCQ items filled in with "B," "N" and “L" dimensions. The difference in the number of columns between the "B" and the "N" represents perceived behavior change the subject has made over the term. This has been designated 17 "IBCQch." The difference between the "B" and the "L," (IBCQb) represents the distance the individual was from his behavioral goal at the beginning of the term. The difference between the “N" and the "L," (IBCQn) represents the distance the individual is away from his behavioral goal at the end of the term. When the "B" is farther away from the "L" than the "N," a positive behavior change (IBCQ+ch) has taken place. When the "B" is closer to the "L“ than the "N," a negative behavior change has taken place. In Figure 1, the subject has made a positive behavior change on "friendliness to others": he has made 3 units of change and now is where he would like to be (IBCQ+ch' = 3; IBCQch = 3). In example 2 of Figure l, the subject has made five units of change on the "sarcastic" dimension, but the change was negative and he is now four units from where he would like to be (IBCQ+ch = -4; IBCQch = 5). Two forms of the IBCQ were used. One form, the Blue Fonm, is described above, and can be found along with all measures in Appendix A. This form was filled out by the subject himself. Another form, the Yellow Form, consisted of rating the same sixty behaviors, but only the "B" and "N" dimensions were used. This form was given to a friend (other) by the subject. The Other rated the subject on the Same behaviors as the subject rated himself. The "L" dimen- sion was not included on the Yellow Form for two reasons: (1) where the subject would "like to be" with respect to any: behavior is a personal decision which only the subject 18 could make; (2) if the "L" were defined as where the sub- ject's Other would "like to be," the Other would be making an external analysis (how much the subject had changed since the beginning of the term) and an internal analysis (where the Other himself would like to be) for each item. Be- cause of these error inducing complexities, the "L" dimen- sion was omitted from the Yellow Form. SU BJECTIVE UNDERSTANDING QUESTIONNAIRE The Subjective Understanding Questionnaire (SUQ) is a Likert-type questionnaire, written by the author, simi- lar in structure to the IBCQ. The individual rates himself on seven categories between "very characteristic" and "very uncharacteristic" on fifty common subjective psychological areas. Examples of these are: "what mood I'm in," "how to be at ease with others," "what makes me angry." The items are either assessments of the feelings an individual has or are assessments of the methods he knows to control himself in his environment. As with the IBCQ, the subject places a "B" in the column which represents where he was at the "beginning" of the term, and "N" in the column which represents where he is "now" (end of the term), and an "L" in the column which represents where he would "like to be." SUQb, SUQn, SUQch' and SUQ+ch scores are parallel to their IBCQ counterparts. No alternative forms were designed for an Other because, according to Roger's definition, only the individual himself 19 can know and evaluate his subjective understanding. GENERAL RATING SCALES Five general rating scales were devised by the author to measure in a more global form the amount of be- havior change and understanding the subjects had incurred. Each scale is a nine-point graphic scale with five brief descriptions at odd numbered points. The rating scales were designed (1) to assess the validity of the IBCQ and SUQ; and (2) to shed more information on the general nature of changes taking place in all the classes. The general rating scales can also be found in Appendix A. The general rating scales include an Interpersonal Behavior Understanding Scale (IBUS) and an Interpersonal Behavior Change Scale (IBCS). These scales were devised: (1) to determine if there was a difference in reported understanding and reported behavior change in the groups; (2) to determine if the IBCQ is more closely correlated with behavior change than with behavior understanding; and (3) to determine whether cumulative changes on specific items are correlated with general reports of change. The IBUS and the IBCS were presented at the end of the IBCQ booklet. Another scale exactly like the IBCS was given to the subject's Others. The only difference between this scale and the IBCS was that the Other did not rate himself, but the subject on the dimension of interpersonal behavior change. This scale was designed to compare self-report with .9! 0" su: ‘ l I n 0 l Q,“ ‘n., 20 other-report. A scale similar to the IBUS was not given to the Other because it was felt that while the Other could measure the subject's overt behavior, the Other could not accurately measure the subject's subjective understanding. A general scale similar to the Interpersonal Be- havior Understanding Scale was designed to measure general subjective understanding and to assess the validity of the SUQ. The Subjective Understanding Scale (SUS) was presented at the end of the SUQ booklet. The last general rating scale concerns itself with the introductory course itself. It asks, "How much of your increased interpersonal understanding was due to Psychology 151?" It was designed to assess the amount of behavior change the subject thinks is related to his taking the intro- ductory course. This scale was given along with the IBUS and IBCS at the end of the IBCQ booklet. HYPOTHESES EXPERIMENTAL SUB-GROUPS I. MEASURES II. III. IV. VI. No significant differences will obtain on any of the measures between the two classes composing the Experimental Class. Significantly positive correlations will obtain between the CQTtot and multiple choice test scores, and between the CQTSS and multiple choice test scores for the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I. Significant differences will not obtain between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I on the CQT and CQTSS. tot Significantly positive correlations will obtain between the SUQCh and the SUS, and between the SUQ+Ch and the SUS across all classes. Significantly positive correlations will obtain between the IBCQch and the IBCS, and between the IBCQ+ch and the IBCS across all classes. Significantly positive correlations will obtain between the IBCQch and the IBUS, and between the 21 VII. VIII. IX. 22 IBCQ+Ch and the IBUS across all classes. Higher correlations will obtain between the IBCQch and the IBCS, and between the IBCQ+Ch and the IBCS than will obtain between the IBCQCh and the IBUS, and between the IBCQ+Ch and the IBUS across all classes. No significant differences will obtain between the correlations of the GES and any of the primary measures within each class. Significantly higher correlations will obtain be- tween the GES and the primary measures in the Ex- perimental Class than in either Lecture Class. OBJECTIVE METHOD x. No significant difference will obtain between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I,on answers to multiple choice test items. SUBJECTIVE METHOD XI. XII. The Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the SUQch and SUQ+ch than will either of the two Lecture Classes. The Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the SUS than will either of the two Lecture Classes. 23 INTERPERSONAL METHOD XIII. Significantly higher correlations will obtain be- tween the Self reports and Other reports within the Experimental Class than will occur between the same measures within the Lecture Classes. XIV. No significant differences will obtain between Self reports and Other reports across the Experimental or Lecture classes. XV. The Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the IBCQCh and IBCQ+ch than will either of the two Lecture Classes. XVI. The Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the IBCS than will either of the two Lecture Classes. XVII. The Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the IBUS than will either of the two Lecture Classes. GENERAL EFFECTIVENESS XVIII. The Experimental Class will show significantly higher scores on the GES than will either of the two Lecture Classes. METHOD SUBJECTS One hundred forty-two introductory psychology stu- dents participated as subjects. The students came from three populations taught by different instructors: (a) "Lecture Class I": 60 students from a large introductory psychology class, enrollment approximately 600, taught during Fall term, 1968; (b) "Lecture Class II": 27 students from two similar large lecture classes taught Winter term, 1969; and (c) the "Experimental Class": 54 students from two small introductory psychology classes, enrollment approximately 30 per class, taught Winter term, 1969.3 Students in all classes met for the same number of class hours. Information obtained from the large introductory sections was gathered on a volunteer basis: experimental credit which could be used toward their class grade was given. The information obtained from the small classes was gathered by means of an assignment. Stu- dents who did not complete all forms were eliminated. This included 3 from the Experimental Class, 9 from Lecture Class I, and 8 from Lecture Class II. To check the representativeness of the sample volunteers from the Lecture Classes were compared with their respective populations on the variables of sex and class standing. Lecture Class I had 39 per cent males and 61 per cent 24 25 females; the volunteer sample selected from it had 43% males and 57% females. Lecture Class II had 53% males and 47% females, while the sample had 52% males and 48% females. Lecture Class I was composed of 80% freshmen, 10% sophomores, 7% juniors, and 3% seniors. Volunteers from Lecture Class I were composed of 73% freshmen, 15% sopho- mores, 9% juniors, and 3% seniors. Lecture Class II was composed of 74% freshmen, 17% sophomores, 7% juniors, and 2% seniors, while the sample selected from it was composed of 75% freshmen, 17% sophomores, 4% juniors and 4% seniors. Subjects also chose one or two friends (Others) who filled out the Yellow Form of the Interpersonal Beha- vior Change Questionnaire about the subjects. The subjects were instructed to choose a friend who had known them well over the term and who would be willing and competent to answer questions about changes they had made in interper- sonal behavior. One Other was chosen by each subject in Lecture Classes I and II, while two Others were chosen by each subject in the Experimental Class. The rationale behind choosing one Other in the Lecture Classes and two in the Experimental Class was based on the pragmatical difficulties in obtaining subjects. Since subjects were gathered in Lecture Classes by means of volunteering, and since subjects are often difficult to ob- tain, it was felt that asking each subject to secure two friends to answer the Yellow Form of the IBCQ would reduce the number and representativeness of students volunteering 26 to be subjects. Therefore in the Lecture Classes, one Other was requested. In the Experimental Class, however, the subjects were given the questionnaires to fill out as an assignment. Since it was thought that subjects would more readily comply if the task was "assigned," and since it was thought that two Others were optimal conditions for the assessment of the difference between Self report and Other report, two Others were requested from the Experimental Class. The purpose of obtaining two Others rather than one, which was an obvious incongruity, was to assess whether the difference between Self and Other reports was really a difference related to selffperception, or was just a dif- ference between the perception of any two people. Thus, if the two Others' responses correlated highly with each other but did not correlate with the Self reports, a dif- ference between the perception of Self and Others could be considered to be substantiated. However, if the two Others' reports correlated about as highly with each other as they did with the Self reports, or if one Other report correla- ted more highly with the Self report than with the Other report, no differences between Self reports and Other re- ports could be substantiated. Conceptually the subjects in Lecture Class I can be differentiated from the subjects in Lecture Class II and the Experimental Class by their recency in coming to the University. Eighty per cent of the students in III 0“ 27 Lecture Class I were first-term freshmen, while 74% of Lecture Class II and-31% of the Experimental Class were second-term freshmen. It was thought that there might be a great deal of difference between first-term and second- term freshmen on the amount of behavior change displayed, since a total change of environment and social expectations had occurred for the first-term freshmen. The second-term freshmen had had a term to adapt. Since it was impossible for Lecture Class I and the Experimental Class to be taught concurrently, and since Lecture Class II and the Experimental Class did not use the same textbooks or the same tests and therefore could not be compared on the Objective Psychology dimension, it was decided to use subjects from Lecture Class II to assess how much reported behavior change was related to Lecture Class I being a control group in terms of struc- ture and content and how much was related to Lecture Class I being primarily a class of first-term freshmen. The following pre-experiment rationale was formula- ted to distinguish between differences resulting from the experimental method and differences resulting from term dif- ferences between the classes. (1) If the results from Lec- ture Class I and Lecture Class II were not significantly different from each other, but were significantly different from the Experimental Class, differences resulting from experimental procedures could be strongly inferred. (2) If Lecture Class I and the Experimental Class were not signifi- Cantly different from each other, but the Experimental 28 Class was significantly different from Lecture Class II, confounding differences due to term differences were infer- red, and differences related to experimental procedures were accepted. (3) If Lecture Class II and the Experimental Class were not significantly different from each other, but were significantly different from Lecture Class I, the dif- ference was said to have resulted from term differences, not from the experimental procedures. Lecture Class II, then, was used to stabilize the results of Lecture Class I. STRUCTURE OF CLASSES Lecture Classes I and II were traditional introduc- tory psychology classes at Michigan State University and were structured similarly. They consisted of three large lectures and one recitation per week. The large lectures discussed general conceptual and experimental data in the field of psychology. The recitation sections answered ques- tions about or elaborated upon the material covered in the lectures. The recitation sections had an enrollment of approximately 25 students. The Experimental Class was structured in a markedly different manner. One-third of each week was spent lecturing on general conceptual and experimental data in the field of psychology (Objective method). One-third of the week was spent performing an assigned introspective task and writing an analysis of what had happened (Subjective method). And one-third of each week was spent in small groups of 29 approximately ten students. These groups were designed to discuss the interpersonal behavior and reactions of the group members (Interpersonal method). The Objective method used in the Experimental Class, while covering much of the same material as that covered in the Lecture Classes, could not cover as wide a variety of topics, nor go as deeply into them, as could the Lecture Classes. The topics covered included: the general methodology of psychology, central statistical concepts, the functioning of the sensory organs and the brain, atten- tion and perceptual organization, operant and classical con- ditioning, motivation, childhood development, conflict and defense, major personality theories, abnormal behavior, psychotherapy, and attitudes and dissonance theory. The lectures were concise, lasting 50 minutes, and little dis- cussion was allowed.- The Subjective method consisted of introspective exercises conducted outside of class on days specifically designated for subjective assignments. The subjective assignments can be found in full in Appendix B. The topics of the subjective assignments include: analyses of the psychological influences of the subject's family on the subject, analyses of the differential values of the sub- ject's family and friends, Gestalt experiments in percep- tion of the body and environment, Gestalt experiments in memory and emotion, descriptions of the learning process in actual learning situations, exercises in social awareness 30 by encountering and attending to unfamiliar social milieus, describing interpersonal and subjective change on the IBCQ and SUQ, and evaluations of what the subject had learned during the term and in what areas he needed improvement. The Interpersonal method consisted primarily of two types of interactions: interpersonal exercises designed to elicit specific forms of interpersonal behavior or con- tent which could be explored by the group, and open-ended T-group encounters designed to offer opportunities for the student to discover some of the underlying assumptions, values and strategies he uses in interpersonal situations, to test these for their universality, and to try out new forms of behavior when desired in a permissive atmosphere. The interpersonal exercises included: introductions to the individual's symbolic self; perceptions of the abstract qualities of others; group problem solving; interpersonal distance; alienation and reconciliation; Other-perception; openness, data seeking and data giving; and gift-giving. When the exercises were completed, discussions of them took place. A complete description of these exercises can be found in Appendix B. The T-group encouraged direct interpersonal inqui- ries, statements and feedback about the here-and-now func- tioning of the group. The subject matter, although spon- taneous, and therefore varied, usually included descriptions of how the members came across to each other; statements of like or dislike for certain behaviors; suggestions for 31 specific behavioral changes and discussions of the sugges- tions; questions of trust, alienation and affinity; sharing of fears and hurts; feelings of growth or lack of it; and explorations of group process. PROCEDURE The evaluation of the Experimental Class was con- ducted by measuring each of the three theoretical-structural components separately. The Objective method was evaluated by comparing the performance of Lecture Class I with the Experimental Class on three multiple choice tests. The questions for the tests were taken from the Instructor's Manual for the textbook: Kimble and Garmezy, Principles of General Psychology. These tests were given at the end of each third of the term. The CQT and CQTSS test scores tot which were correlated with the multiple choice tests were collected from the Psychology Department Office after the end of the term so they could not be influential in the instructor's teaching methods or style. Neither instructor knew the contents of the multiple choice tests before the last lecture preceding the test. The Interpersonal method was measured by the In- terpersonal Behavior Change Questionnaire, the Interpersonal Behavior Understanding Scale, and the Interpersonal Behavior Change Scale. These were given to the students to take home and fill out during the ninth week of the term. They were completed in the Lecture Classes as an extra credit 32 experiment and in the Experimental Class as a subjective assignment. Each student gave the Yellow Form (Other Form) to one or two Others who returned the data by the student or through the mail. The Subjective method was measured by the Subjec- tive Understanding Questionnaire and the Subjective Under- standing Scale during the tenth week of the term. As in the case with the Interpersonal method, the students in the Lecture Classes completed the data as an extra credit exper- iment and the students in the Experimental Class completed it as a subjective assignment. The General Effectiveness Scale, which measured the overall effectiveness of the introductory course, was com- pleted during the ninth week as part of the Interpersonal Change package. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A complete inventory of all summary data appears in Appendix C. The findings will first be discussed with rela- tion to the consistency of the sub-groups composing the Experimental Class. Then the intercorrelation and validity of the measures will be reported. The findings from the three conceptual areas: objective psychology, subjective psychology and interpersonal psychology will be presented next. Finally a general evaluation and summary will be given. Throughout the findings two-tailed tests of signi— ficance have been used. Results significant at or beyond the .10 level have been noted. All correlations are product- moment correlations. However, due to varying N's, correla- tions of the same magnitude may not be equivalent in statis- tical significance. SUB-GROUP DIFFERENCES Although the method used in both classes was identi- cal, two separate classes composed the category of "Experi- mental Class." In order for the results of the Experimental Class to be considered unitary, no significant differences should exist on the measures between the two groups. These Table 1 data differ significantly beyond the .10 level in 33 34 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and mean differences between two classes constituting the Experimental Class. Means St. Dev. M. diff. Cl. 1 C1. 2 Cl. 1 C1. 2 (I-2) (N=26) (N=28) CQTtot 43.15 44.68 25.23 26.62 -1.53 CQTSS 44.55 36.59 27.55 26.34 7.96 IBCQb 82.77 80.29 26.40 32.35 2.48 IBCQn 64.35 58.21 25.47 23.47 6.14 IBCQCh 32.27 36.68 21.79 23.81 -4.41 IBCQ+Ch 18.42 23.50 19.22 19.44 -5.08 IBCS 5.49 5.02 1.82 2.13 0.47 IBUS 6.40 5.83 .98 1.36 0.57* SUQb 118.42 114.00 42.75 36.11 4.42 SUQn 78.96 79.64 33.96 30.25 -0.68 SUQch 44.77 41.07 21.44 25.64 3.70 SUQ+ch 39.46 34.36 21.24 25.91 5.10 SUS 6.08 5.78 .81 1.21 0.30 GES 5.34 5.28 1.32 1.38 0.06 * p_( .10 35 only one of 14 instances. Therefore it can be assumed that for the purpose of the experiment the two groups can be combined without distorting the results. TESTING THE MEASURES Objective Method It was noted previously that class test scores (performance) usually correlate positively with entrance test scores (achievement potential). If this finding is confirmed by the data, the classes can be considered ini- tially equal with regard to achievement potential and any difference between test scores of the Experimental and Lec- ture classes can be said to represent differences related to teaching method. The results are presented in Table 2 for two relevant divisions of the Michigan State University entrance tests: the CQT-total score and the CQT-social science score. Table 2. Correlations between selected entrance test scores and class test scores. Exp. (N = 54) Lec. I (N = 60) *** *** CQTtot .554 .505 CQT .374** .514*** ss ** p (.01 *** E ( .001 36 The data in Table 2 show significant correlations at the .01 level or better to exist between both the CQTtot scores and the test scores, and the CQTSS scores and the test scores, firmly supporting the assumption that perfor- mance does correlate with achievement potential. Further, Eftests between the CQTtot scores and test scores, and between CQTSS scores and test scores were not significant (t,= .845 and .408 respectively). Therefore, the possible confounding variable of initially unequal po- tential can be considered to be inoperative. Significant differences between test scores should actually reflect performance differences related to teaching method. Subjective Method In order to test whether The Subjective Understand- ing Questionnaire actually reflects cumulative subjective change, the Subjective Understanding Scale was presented at the end of the SUQ booklet. It was hypothesized that the general SUS change score would correlate positively with the SUQ score if the SUQ items reflect subjective psychological change in a broad sense. Table 3. Correlations between Subjective Understanding Questionnaire and Subjective Understanding Scale. Exp. Lec. I Lec. II 4'- SUQ+ch .174 .230 .330 1- p_( .10 37 The data in Table 3 show that trends in three of the six correlations support the hypothesis, although no strong evidence is indicated. It seems likely that while the two measures are measuring much of the same content, other vari- ables may be confounding the results. Some additional data clarify this finding. (See Appendix D for questionnaire and specific results.) Since weakness concerning the reliability and validity of either the SUQ or SUS could confound the correlational results, a sample of students from the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II were given a short questionnaire related to their opinions of the adequacy of the scales versus the question- naires. The results indicate that 73% of the subjects thought the questionnaires "more adequately described their behavior" than did the scales. Eighty-eight per cent thought the questionnaires differentiated between people, while 52% thought the scales differentiated between people. These findings indicate that the low correlations between the SUQ and the SUS may be related more to the SUS than the SUQ. Therefore, while the SUS was designed to check the validity of the SUQ, it may not have had either sufficient validity or reliability to merit its use. Interpersonal Method As with the case of the SUQ and SUS scores, if the items on the IBCQ reflect a wide range of interpersonal be- havior change, the IBCQ should correlate positively with the 38 global behavior change scale, IBCS, presented at the end of the IBCQ booklet. If the IBCQ scores represent general be- havior understanding as well as, or in place of, general behavior change, the IBCQ should also correlate positively with the IBUS. It was hypothesized that the IBCQ would correlate positively with both the IBCS and the IBUS, but that the correlations would be higher in the case of the IBCQ-IBCS correlation because they both expressly measured behavior change. As can be seen in Table 4, the IBCQ change scores and IBCS scores correlate significantly at the .01 level or Table 4. Correlations between the interpersonal question- naires and scales as reported by Self and Others. Exp. (N=54) Lec. I (N=60) Lec. II(N=27) S 01 02 S 0 S O IBCQch- IBCS .423* .527** .563** -.093 -.014 .147 .580* IBCQ+ch- T IBCS .529** .355* .341* -.200 .025 .349 .303 IBCQch- IBUS .108 -.158 .067 IBCQ+ch' IBUS .137 -.094 .290 IBCS-IBUS .438’“Ir .491** .561* 1' p < . 10 * a < .05 ** p (.001 better in both the Self and Other reports of the Experimen- tal Class and in the Other report of Lecture Class II, but 39 correlate negatively in Self and Other reports of Lecture Class I. Looking at the correlation between positive-change scores on the IBCQ and the IBCS, the Self and Other reports of the Experimental Class again correlate significantly at the .05 level or better, trends in the Lecture Class II indicate positive correlations, while the Self and Other reports of Lecture Class I show negative correlations. These results indicate that for two groups the IBCQ and the IBCS do measure much the same content but that a confounding variable exists in Lecture Class I. As hypothesized ear- lier, when the results of Lecture Class I greatly vary from the results of the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II, the difference may be said to represent the term differ- ence of Lecture Class I. If we remember that the inter- personal adjustment to new norms and living partners is great as well as confusing for the first—term freshmen, it is more evident why a general feeling of growth, or lack of it, may not be directly related to amount of change reported on individual interpersonal items. One individual may come to the university and make many changes which seem insig— nificant in terms of those he still must make, while others may make a few changes they have been waiting to make for a long while and feel that they have grown substantially. By the time the second term begins most of these initial ad- justment changes will have already taken place, and their overwhelming nature will have been reduced. Correlations between the IBCQch and IBCQ+Ch and the 40 IBUS show no significant relationship, however they follow the pattern previously noted between the IBCQ and the IBCS, the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II showing posi- tive correlations, and Lecture Class I showing negative cor- relations. In addition, correlations between the IBCS and the IBUS are significant at the .01 level or better. These two factors indicate that interpersonal understanding is related to interpersonal behavior change as predicted. In general, the correlations between the IBCQ and IBUS scores are also lower than the correlations between the IBCQ and IBCS scores, indicating that the IBCQ, as predicted, is more closely related to behavior change than to behavior under- standing. General Evaluation The General Effectiveness Scale was devised to obtain a simple, but general evaluation of the classes as a whole. In order for the GES to be meaningful, it should not be correlated highly with any one primary measure to the exclusion of the others. However the correlations between the interpersonal and subjective measures should be higher for the Experimental Class than for the Lecture Classes since the Experimental Class actually experienced methods of learning related to interpersonal and subjective knowledge. 41 Table 5. Correlations between General Effectiveness Scale and other primary measures. Exp. (N=54) Lec. I (N=60) Lec. II (N=27) test scores .002 .009 x IBCQch .017 .227' .019 IBCQ+ch .061 -.187 .323 SUQch .307* -.097 .208 SUQ+Ch .381** -.155 .295 x = insufficient data 1' E_<'.10 * p_*(.05 ** p_ (.01 The results in Table 5 show similar correlational trends in the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II, although the correlations only become significant between the GES and the SUQ of the Experimental Class. Negative correlations, however, appear between the GES and the SUQ, and between the GES and the IBCQ scores in Lecture Class I. Although the term-difference hypothesis explains the dis- crepant results between the classes, the negative results in Lecture Class I are perplexing. They seem to indicate either that (1) Lecture Class I believes positive change in SUbjective and interpersonal areas should not be related to the effectiveness of the psychology class; or (2) the value sYStems of Lecture Class I are not consonant with the value 42 systems of the college community they are entering, and therefore positive-changes according to their old value systems are not as rewarding as they were in their pre- college milieu. The objective test scores were not highly correla- ted with the GES in either class. Since the Objective method was experienced by all classes, a significant cor- relation between the objective test scores and the GES would be expected. The lack of correlation seems to indi- cate that, to the students, variables other than objective tests are important determinants of class value. The interpersonal change and positive-change scores approached a significant correlation only in Lecture Class I. These results are contrary to the hypotheses that the IBCQch and IBCQ+Ch scores would correlate with the GES (l) as highly as the SUQ with the GES, and (2) more highly in the Experimental Class than in the Lecture Classes be- cause the Experimental Class had experienced the Inter- personal method of teaching. An explanation for the'first finding is that actual interpersonal behavior change, as measured by the IBCQ, is more difficult to complete in a ten-week psychology course than is subjective understanding, as measured by the SUQ, because it involves the behavior of two people (Self and Others) rather than one as in the case of subjective understanding. Therefore, correlations be- tween actual interpersonal behavior change and the GES will be lower than with the SUQ. Moreover, interpersonal 43 behavior change across all the groups, because of the short ten-week span, will not be significantly correlated. This latter explanation is upheld even by the results of Lecture Class I if both the change and positive-change scores are considered: the change scores correlate +.227 with the GES while the positive-change scores correlate -.187 with the GES, indicating much fluctuation. The GES, then, is not highly correlated with any of the three conceptual divisions in the Lecture Classes, but does tend to correlate highly with subjective understanding scores in the Experimental Class, indicating a loading fac- tor. EFFECTIVENESS OF OBJECTIVE METHOD Although only one-third of the class time of the Experimental Class was spent presenting the Objective in- formation to the students, while 100% of Lecture Class I's class time was spent presenting Objective information, the results show no significant difference between the two Groups on the items tested (E.= -l.198). Moreover, the inasults of an item analysis show a highly significant cor- relation (_1; = .818, p < .001 level) between the scores of each class on the individual items of the test. This indi- cates that either or both of two factors were functioning: (1) the same subject matter was stressed by both instruc- tional methods; (2) the same items proved easy or difficult for both classes. Thus, both Eftests and correlations : .1 l‘U o}- “I L). o.- u- ,‘ 44 support the hypothesis that no differences exist between the two groups on the objective criterion. EFFECTIVENESS OF SUBJECTIVE METHOD The hypotheses related to the evaluation of the Sub- jective method are: (l) the Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the SUQch and SUQ+ch scores than will either of the two Lecture Classes, and (2) the Experimental Class will show significantly greater gains on the SUS than will either of the two Lecture Classes. Although change and positive-change scores have been devised for the SUQ measure, it is important to take into account two other measures on the SUQ before accepting the suoch and SUQ+ch results as accurately descriptive. The first measure is the "before," or "beginning," measure (SUQb). It should be noted that if the SUQb scores differ significantly from each other between classes, the change scores may be distorted by the increased distance possible for some groups to move, i.e., more change is possible for some groups than for others. If the groups do not differ Significantly on SUQb scores, the differences in the amount ‘Jf possible change can be considered negligible, and poten- 1Zial problems with initial differences can be disregarded. Table 7 shows no significant differences between the tlhree groups on the SUQb. Therefore, the differences in the Groups on subjective understanding at the beginning of the term can be considered negligible. 45 Table 6. Subjective understanding score means. Exp. (N = 54) Lec. I (N = 60) Lec. II (N = 27) SUQb 116.13 115.68 111.96 SUQn 79.31 - . 84.23 85.22 SUQch 42.85 - 39.22 34.96 SUQ+ch 36.81 31.98 26.70 SUS 5.93 5.13 4.81 The SUQn scores also lend perspective to the SUQch and SUQ+Ch scores. If the Experimental Class's scores are not significantly lower (closer to where the subjects would like to be) than either of the Lecture Classes' scores, change scores may not represent change in a consistently positive direction. The SUQCh and SUQ+ch scores are two other ways for checking for this direction of change. As can be seen from Tables 6 and 7, SUQn scores are not significantly different between groups at the .10 level, but are in the desired direction, i.e. the mean of the Experimental Class is lower than are the means of either of the Lecture Classes. This indicates some support, but not conclusive support for the hypothesis. Now directly considering the change scores, in Tables 6 and 7 it can be seen that no significant differences exist between the groups at the .10 level. In each case, however, the means show differences in the desired direc- tion, i.e. the Experimental Class has a higher mean (more 46 subjective change) than either of the two Lecture Classes. Moreover, if the probabilities of the E_values between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I and between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II are combined, the probability of both results occurring together is signifi- cant at the .06 level. This indicates stronger support for the hypothesis. Table 7. ‘3 tests of Table 6 mean differences on subjective understanding scores between all groups. Exp. vs. Lec. I Exp. vs. Lec. II Lec.I vs. Lec.II SUQb .065 .456 .433 SUQn -.859 -.762 -.134 SUQch .711 1.542 .660 SUQ+ch .952 2.015* .853 SUS 2.998** 3.366** .782 * p_ H .omq «tmmm.h «abmo.v mH¢.H man. mmm. *HOH.N mmv.a LWmQ.H ¢NN.H mmm. omN.H va.l mmH.I mom.l Hmh. Haw. mNN. N .nuo H .nuo wamm HH .ooa .m> .mxm So. v m .2. mo.hv_m a oa. v m_.r «swum.> mmw _ homh.a mDmH mm¢.H can. mam.- momH +~mm.a vm~.H reoe.fl no+oomH Nam. m~e.- Hmm. nooomH HmH.H- ¢m¢.H- mae.n coomH mam.u mmm.- mam. noomH m .nuo a .nuo maom H .004 .m> .mwm .mmusmmofi Hafimmnomuousfl so mumsuo can mamm ha pmuuommu mm mommmHo somzumn mmsHm> uwmu I» .HH manna 62 significant at the .05 level. While the IBCQn does not take into account initial differences concerning distance from behavioral goals, the results do indicate that by the end of the course the Experimental subjects were signifi- cantly closer to their goals than were the Lecture subjects. The IBCQCh and IBCQ+ch scores do take into account initial differences between the classes, and should clarify the results of the IBCQn scores. Looking at the IBCQCh scores, Tables 9 and 11 indicate that when the amount of change per se is measured, a significant difference cannot be found between the classes; although in all but one of eight instances, the change is in a direction favorable to the ExPerimental Class. However, when viewing the most precise measure of interpersonal change, the IBCQ+Ch, differences significant at the .10 level can be found between the Self reports of the Experimental Class and both Lecture Classes, and between one Other group in the Experimental Class and the Other group of each Lecture Class. Moreover, if the probabili- ties of the E values between the Self and Other reports of the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I and the Self and Other reports of Lecture Class II are combined, the joint probability of these results occurring together is signifi- cant at the .001 level. The Self and Other reports of the Lecture Classes did not differ from one another. These findings indicate that while differences do not reach significance at the .05 level when viewed 63 separately, differences are significant on the IBCQn and IBCQ+Ch when the Self and Other probabilities are combined in class comparisons. This may be due to the amount of time needed for the students to analyze, integrate, change, and consistently display behaviors which they desire to change. If the results from the SUQ are added to these findings, it can be seen that differences between the Ex- perimental Class and Lecture Class II on the SUQ+ch are significant at the .05 level and differences between the Experimental Class and the Lecture Classes on the SUS are significant at the .01 level. If subjective change is viewed as less complicated because it involves less people and therefore, less expectations bound to old interaction patterns, the results from the IBCQn and the IBCQ+ch scores can be seen as a continuation of the positive changes oc- curring on the subjective level. This is also substantia- ted by the IBUS scores to be discussed later. Interpersonal behavior change was also rated by the IBCS. Tables 9 and 11 show, however, that no significant differences were found between the groups on this general behavior rating. The Self report of Lecture Class I even rated itself higher on the IBCS than the Experimental Class did, although this did not hold true for the Other report of Lecture Class I. The remaining means were in the desired direction. If the conclusion that consistent changes are difficult to produce in one term's time is accepted, it is 64 not surprising that the more global IBCS did not pick up significant differences between the classes, although the results were generally in the right direction. Finally, interpersonal understanding as measured by the IBUS did show substantial differences in the desired direction between the Experimental Class and the Lecture Classes. The crucial difference between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II was significant at the .001 level. In addition, if the probabilities of the E values between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I and be- tween the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II are com- bined, the joint probability of both results occurring together is significant at the .001 level. This further supports the conclusion that while differences occur, they may be less consistently worked through on the behavioral level than on the level of interpersonal understanding. As an overall evaluation, then, it can be said that the results showed significant gains between the Ex- perimental and Lecture Classes on two measures of posi- tive interpersonal behavior change, the IBCQn and the IBCQ+ch. Moreover, highly substantial significant gains were shown in interpersonal understanding between the Experimental Class and the Lecture Classes. The complexity of consis— tent behavior change and the brevity of the ten week term were suggested as factors influencing the results. The trend toward significance set by the understanding scores, SUQ, SUS and IBUS, was noted. 65 GENERAL EFFECTIVENESS SCALE The GES concerned the general effectiveness of the course as a whole. It was hypothesized that the Experimen- tal Class would show higher scores on the GES, signifying more satisfaction with the course and more changes related to the course, than would either Lecture Class. The re- sults in Tables 9 and 11 show that this was overwhelmingly the case. While the two Lecture Classes did not signifi- cantly differ from one another on the GES, they did differ from the Experimental Class beyond the .001 level (E.= 7.344 and 7.583 respectively). This finding that the stu- dents felt they benefited highly from the new method follow the trends of more behavior change and more satisfaction from subjective and interpersonal methods reported in the litera- ture (Macomber and Siegel, 1957; Castle, 1965; Bunker, 1967; Culbert and Culbert, 1967; Dyer, 1967; Kraft, 1967; McGrory, 1967; and McKeachie, 1967). Results from written evaluations of the Experimental Class can be found in Appendix E. These written statements strongly support the generally positive effect of the Ex- perimental Class on the students. No written evaluations were collected from the Lecture Classes to use as comparison. GENERAL CRITICISMS AND IMPLICA- TIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH A number of unanswered questions arise from this research, either resulting from flaws in methodology or from 66 the inability to include the whole range of meaningful variables in one research project. Primary among the former questions is: "To what extent did the divergent methods used in selecting subjects influence the results of the experiment?" Since filling out the questionnaires was a course requirement for some subjects and a source of extra credit for others, two different populations as well as two different response sets may have been operative. While vir- tually the entire population of the Experimental Class were included as subjects, only those who desired extra credit participated from the Lecture Classes. This may have selec- tively included the more diligent, more enthusiastic, more slavish, or more frightened extremes in the Lecture Classes. It excluded, at the least, the more apathetic students. On the one hand students participated by choice for extra credit--although some may have felt that extra credit is really a requirement--while participation was required in the Experimental Class. To the extent that the participation was novel, enlightening, or interesting, it may not have seemed too imposing a requirement; to the extent to which it was not, the research may have generated more hostility, stubbornness and subversion for the "required" group. More- over, "extra credit" has a different intensity than "re- quirement." Those who did the experiment for extra credit may have been more light-hearted and less diligent than those who participated out of a sense of duty. The experimental design employed did not permit assessment of these sample 67 differences. A second flaw in the methodology, although resulting from external circumstances, was the term difference of Lecture Class I with regard to Lecture Class II and the Experimental Class. Although a pre-experiment rationale was devised to explain the divergent results that might obtain, it remained uncertain whether so simple a rationale could explain the differences. Research on the effects of term- differences has been scant, if existant. Further study of this variable is clearly indicated. A third methodological limitation results from the methods used to ascertain the validity of the IBCQ and the SUQ. Only one signle-item scale was used to verify the soundness of a fifty- and sixty-item questionniare. If the scale is not reliable, the validity of the questionnaire cannot be ascertained. The results from a limited survey indicate that among the present subjects sampled, 68% thought that the questionnaires more accurately described behavior change than did the scales. Of these, 88% thought the questionnaires differentiated between individuals, while only 52% thought the scales differentiated between people. Since the scales were used to validate the questionnaires, a question arises about the backwardness of the assumption involved. It seems more likely that the questionnaires should be used to validate the scales. While the extra- experiment survey indicates the questionable use of the scales as'a measure of validity, it did support the face 68 validity of the questionnaires. In any case, further veri- fication of the questionnaires and the scales is desirable. Two issues arise around problems relating to values. Some previous research (Campbell and Dunnette, 1968) suggests that values may change as a result of using human relations techniques. Some measure of value differ- ences and value change, then, are important variables to assess. If values do change, what are the effects of the changes: are they long-range or short—lived, are they seen as major or minor, how are they coped with in terms of others? In addition to being meaningful per se, however, values may have an important effect on the "L" dimension. Since only the subjects indicate the "L" dimension, if the Others' values are different from the subject's, the Others may be expressing a different meaning in their estimations of the behavior change of the subject. Analyses should be performed to determine whether those items in which discrep- ant values exist between Self and Others are consistently related to other variables, e.g. do objective reports of change ("3" and "N" dimension) differ when values between Self and Others differ? A fifth concern arises around the assessment of the Objective method. Although most previous research has em- ployed multiple choice tests to assess factual learning, Siegel and Siegel (1967) have suggested that this method is too circumscribed. A more comprehensive investigation of objective learning might include problem-solving tasks 69 and student analyses in the classroom to measure immediate comprehension, the relationship of the method to complica- ted problem solving, and styles used to translate the material presented into the sutdent's workable knowledge. Other methods to assess the effect of the class on the students should also be compared. Besides the global GES rating scale and the changes in overt behavior, the written evaluations should be expanded to include all classes. Changes in attitudes toward psychology and the number of psychology classes subsequently taken could be measured. Finally questions arise concerning some unstudied dimensions of the present method. The first is the effect of class size. Although the rationale was used that introductory classes are usually taught to large lectures and that, therefore, large lectures would serve as the most reasonable control, it may be that one important variable of this method was simply that it was a small class where more personal contact could be experienced. Research cited earlier indicated little effect of class size on examina- tions, but it may be that interpersonal understanding and modeling are more available to small lecture classes. Closely related to this are two other factors: the ability of the instructor and the effect of novelty. It may be that the ability of the instructors in one or more rele- vant areas (rapport, competence, availability, concern, a source of modeling) differed between classes. In the pres- ent research, the instructors of the Lecture Classes had 70 longer experinece teaching and more training in psychology than did the instructor of the Experimental Class. Inde- pendent judgements of the ability of the instructors might be made. Beyond instructor differences, any new method may carry with it such novelty, interest and dedication that it will tend to be viewed as better than the traditional methods. Only extensive research could confirm this possi- bility, but if it is confirmed there is much to be said for expanding and supporting new models of teaching. Transferability is another issue to be explored. If this method has value in itself, beyond its novelty or the small class size, it is important to know whether it can be transferred to other instructors with the same results or whether it is an instructor-bound method. Although the theoretical bases for it are broad, being related to a Rogerian format and being supported by a growing interest in experiential techniques, it may be too complicated or personally bound to be transferred to others. Again, exten- sive research would be required to clarify this issue. Finally, only a more detailed look at the students can reveal the more specific factors related to the results obtained: whether the method is better for low-achievers or high-achievers, students who were already changing or who were dormant. The critical incidents that differentiated this method from the others should be examined. The written evaluations of Appendix E constitute the only current evi- dence on this issue. CONCLU S ION S General conclusions may be divided into two parts: an evaluation of the measures and an evaluation of between- class differences. With regard to the measures, it was deter- mined that (1) the use of multiple choice test scores to assess the Objective method was valid in that no differ- ences were found between academic potential scores (CQTtot and CQTSS) between the classes tested, although it was sug- gested that more diverse means of testing the Objective method be conducted. (2) The Subjective Understanding Questionnaire, although showing trends toward correlating with the more global Subjective Understanding Scale, did not correlate significantly at the .05 level. This was thought to result more from the variability of the SUS than the SUQ, as indi- cated by student estimations of the SUQ as the "most ade- quate description" of their behavior. (3) The Interpersonal Behavior Change Questionnaire, while correlating significantly with the Interpersonal Behavior Change Scale in the Experimental Class and parti- ally significantly with the IBCS in Lecture Class II, did not correlate significantly with the IBCS in Lecture Class I. The pre-experiment term-difference rationale was used 71 72 to explain this. Since a complete change of milieu was being experienced by Lecture Class I, increased variability in efforts to cope with new expectations were said to ac- count for the non-significance. (4) The IBCQ correlated more highly with the IBCS than with the Interpersonal Behavior Understanding Scale, indicating, as predicted, that it does measure behavior change more than behavior understanding and in that sense has face validity. As predicted the IBCS and IBUS signi- ficantly correlated with each other. (5) Similar correlational trends were found between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II on the General Effectiveness Scale, although the correlations only became significant between the GES and the SUQ of the Experimental Class. Lecture Class I showed some trends toward correla- tion with the IBCQch score but not with the IBCQ+ch score. This was seen as Lecture Class I's perceived need to change behaviorally to fit the new milieu, but their inability to find a stable understanding of the changes needed. Although some classes only experienced the Objective method, no significant correlations were found between the GES and the Objective method. This points to the lack of valuing the Objective method as the important dimension in class worth. The higher correlation in the Experimental Class between subjective understanding and the GES than between inter- personal change and the GES was said to result from the relative ease of changing understanding as opposed to 73 changing behavior. In general it may be said, then, that the primary measures showed substantial validity, but in order to ascer- tain their validity more definitely, additional research with a variety of criteria should be undertaken. The data showing the effectiveness of the methods between groups was varied. In addition, difficulties in securing comparable subject samples and term differences between classes were noted as confounding variables. How- ever, as predicted, (1) No significant difference was found between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I on the multiple choice test items. Since the Experimental Class spent only one-third of the class periods presenting Objective information, while Lecture Class I used the en- tire class time pursuing objective knowledge, this was seen as a significant accomplishment for the Experimental Class. (2) Results from the Subjective method show signi- ficant differences between the Experimental Class and both Lecture Classes on the SUS (p_( .01), but not between the Lecture Classes themselves. While no differences were found between classes on the SUQch when the classes were viewed separately, differences significant at the .06 level were found when the probabilities of the E_values between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I and between the Ex- perimental Class and Lecture Class II were combined. Sig- nificant differences were found between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II on positive-change scores 74 (p < .05) when viewed separately, and at the .001 level when the probabilities of the E values between the EXperimental Class and Lecture Class I and between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II were combined. These results were seen as indicating that the Experimental method is better at increasing Subjective understanding than is the Lecture method. (3) Data from the Interpersonal method are divided into two parts: Self versus Other reports and between- class differences. Contrary to predictions, the scores from the Experimental Class on the IBCQch, and the IBCQ+ch and the IBCS did not correlate more highly between Self and Others than did scores from the Lecture Classes. In fact, Lecture Class II had consistent positive correlations be- tween Self and Other on all three of these measures (p_( .05), while the EXperimental Class had no significant correla- tions. Lecture Class I had mixed results. Although conjec- tural, the explanation that seemed most reasonable for this was derived from noting that the groups which reported least positive-change had the highest Self-Other correla- tions. This was said to be due to difficulty in accurately noticing and describing change as opposed to no-change. Another consistent occurrence was to find signifi- cant differences in the amount of change reported by Self and Others only in the measures which utilized the "L" dimension. Since the "L" dimension was rated only on the Self reports, these differences between Self and Others 75 were said to result either from differing values between the Self and Others or from the unavailability of the Others to know the base from which the subjects operated. With regard to between-class differences, it was found that when Self and Other reports were viewed separa- tely, trends were established which showed differences be- tween the Experimental Class and the Lecture Classes only on the positive-change scores of the IBCQ. However, when the probabilities of the E values between the Self and Other reports of the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I and between the Self and Other reports of the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II were combined, the joint probability of these results occurring together were significant at the .05 level for the IBCQn, and at the .001 level for the IBCQ+ch. Highly significant differences were found on the IBUS when viewed separately and when the probabilities between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I and between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class II were combined (p.( .001). It was noted that higher correlations and more significant differences were found on the "understanding" scores, subjective and interpersonal, than on the "beha- vior change" scores. A possible explanation concerning the complicated nature of coordinating interpersonal change in a short period of time was offered. Since understanding involves only the Self, and interpersonal change involves at least the Self and one Other, it should take longer for 76 interpersonal change to be accomplished than it would for understanding subjective or interpersonal issues. Since significant differences favoring the Experimental Class were found on both understanding and behavior change scores, these results were seen as indicating that the Experimental method is better at increasing interpersonal understanding and behavior change than is the Lecture method. (4) Finally, data from the General Effectiveness Scale indicate much more behavior change and behavior un- derstanding resulting from class experiences in the Experi- mental Class than in either Lecture Class (p.< .001). When this general evaluation is supplemented by written class evaluations, more specific knowledge of critical incidents can add to its meaning. Despite the possible impact of such issues as class size, instructor variables, transferability of the method, and novel teaching methods on the present findings, the data indicate that the experiential method of teaching equals or surpasses the traditional method of lecturing to large classes from the standpoints of objective, subjective and interpersonal understanding and behavior change, as well as from the standpoint of class satisfaction. SUMMARY Results favorable to the Experimental Class were found on all measures related to the three conceptual areas of psychological knowing: Objective, Subjective, and Inter- personal knowing. While the Experimental Class only spent one-third of its class time on Objective understanding, no significant differences were found between the Experimental Class and Lecture Class I on identical multiple choice test items. The Experimental Class significantly exceeded the Lecture Classes on Subjective understanding as measured by the change and positive-change scores on the Subjective Un- derstanding Questionnaire and the Subjective Understanding Scale. Similar and significant differences obtained using the positive-change score of the Interpersonal Behavior Change Questionnaire and also the Interpersonal Behavior Understanding Scale. The global General Effectiveness Scale likewise showed significant differences favorable to the Experimental Class. These results seem to indicate that the Experimental method is a promising method for teaching introductory psychology. 77 FOOTNOTES FOOTNOTE S 1The types of learning, learning methods and ori- entations of those mentioned are: Tolman: cathexes, equi- valence beliefs, field expectancies, field-cognition modes, drive discriminations, and motor patterns; Melton: condi- tioning, rote learning, probability learning, skill learning, concept learning, and problem solving; Gagne: signal- learning, stimulus-reSponse learning, chaining, verbal as- sociation learning, multiple discrimination learning, principle learning, and problem solving; Gage: cognition, imitation and; Siegel and Siegel: cognitive and affective orientations; and Sunderland: skill cultures and inter- personal cultures. 2"Sensitivity training" and "human relations train- ing" will be used interchangably in this paper to denote the many forms of training in interpersonal sensitivity de- vised for normal individuals. The "T-Group" is one sensi- tivity training method which consists primarily of a group of 8 to 12 individuals and a non-directive leader who dis- cuss their interpersonal behavior and reactions to others in the present situation. 3Lecture Class I and the Experimental Class had originally been scheduled to be taught Fall term, 1968. However, an administrative decision postponed the teaching of the Experimental Class until Winter term, 1969, hence the unplanned need for Lecture Class II to serve as a term- difference control. 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Berenson, B.G., Carkhuff, R.R., and Myrus, P. The inter- personal functioning and training of college students. J. Counseling Psych., 1966, 13, 441-48. Bradford, L.R., Gibb, J.R., and Benne,K.D. T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. Brown, M.M. A study of the relationships of selected tests and grade point averages for a land grant institution. Dissert. Abstr., 1966, gl_(3-A), 664. Brown, W.T. Consideration of the relationship of five ap- titude and achievement factors in successful male undergraduate students at the University of Montana. Dissert. Abstr., 1969, 22 (lO-A), 3411. Bunker, D.R. Individual applications of laboratory train- ing. J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1965, 1, 131-48. Burke, R.L., and Bennis, W.G. Changes in perception of self and others during human relations training. Human Relat., 1961, 14, 165-82. Cabianca, W.A. The effects of a T group laboratory on self esteem, needs and attitudes of student teachers. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, g§_(8-A), 3014. Campbell, J.P., and Dunnette, M.D. Effectiveness of T- group experiences in managerial training and develop- ment. Psychol. Bull., 1968, 10 (2), 73-104. Castle, D. The effects of participation training on the self-system. Dissert. Abstr., 1966, 21 (2-A), 368-69. Christopher, P. Student reactions to humanistic teaching. New Directions in Teaching, 1969, 2(1), 3-5. Corey, G.F. An investigation of the outcomes of the intro- ductory psychology course in a junior college. Dissert. Abstr., 1967, 28 (4-A), 1262. 79 80 Culbert, S.A., and Culbert, J. Sensitivity training within the educational framework: a means of mobilizing po- tential. J. Creative Behav., 1967, 2 (1), 14-30. Dowell, B.M. The effects of various teaching methods upon the self-concept, attitude toward psychology, anxiety level, dogmatism level, and level of achievement in . general psychology of first semester Cedarville College freshmen. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, (lO-A), 3993-4. Dyer, R.D. The effects of human relations training on the interpersonal behavior of college students. Dissert. Eysenck, H.J. The concept of statistical significance and the controversy about the one-tailed test. Psychol. Rev., 1960, 61, 269-71. Gage, N.L. Psychological conceptions of teaching. Educat. Sci., 1967, 1 (3), 151-61. , and Unruh, W.R. Theoretical formulations for re- search on teaching. Rev. Educat. Res., 1967, 31 (3), 358-70. Gagne, R.M., ed. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Gold, J.S. An evaluation of a laboratory human relations training program for college undergraduates. Dissert. Gulo, E.V., and Nigro, M.R. Classroom learning as a function of presenting instructional materials. Psychol. Rep., 1966, 12, 971-77. Hurley, J. Alienation and Reconciliation Tasks for Sensi- tivity Training Groups, Unpublished manuscript. . Attribute Preference Inventory. Unpublished manuscript. Iglinsky, C.L. Intellectual and non-intellectual factors affecting intellectual success of college freshmen. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, 22_(5-A), 1423-4. Jordan, D.L. A comparison of the effects of didactic and experiential training on accurate empathy, nonpossessive warmth, and genuineness. Dissert. Abstr., 1969, 22 (9-3). 3487-8. Kimble, G.A. and Garmezy, N. Instructors Manual for Princi- ples of General Psychology. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1968. 81 . Principlesjof General Psychology. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1968. Kimmel, H.D. Three criteria for the use of the one-tailed test. Psychol. Bull., 1957, 53, 351-53. Kraft, L.J. The influence of human relations laboratory training upon the perceived behavioral changes on secon- dary school seminar instructors. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, 2§_(9-A), 3510. Lundgren, D.C. Interaction process and identity change in T groups. Dissert. Abstr., 1969, 22 (3-A), 961-62. Mangaroo, J. The relation of cognitive factors to the academic success of juniors at Ohio State University School of Applied Medical Professions. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, 22_(6-B), 2096-7. Marin, P. and Lindenfeld, F. Reflections on experimental teaching. New Directions in Teaching, 1968, 2 (2), 24-30. Maslow, A.H. Humanistic education vs. professional educa- tion. New Directions in Teaching, 1969, 2 (1), 6-8. . The Psychologygf Sgience: A Reconnaissaince. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,1§66. McGrory, J.E. Teaching introspection in the classroom. Rational Living, 1967, 2 (2), 23-24. McKeachie, W.J. Psychology at age 75: The psychology teacher comes into his own. Amer. Psychologist, 1968, 22, 531-57. McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics. (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949. Melton, A.W., ed. Categories of Human Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Morris, S.B., Pflugrath, J.C., and Taylor, B. Encounter in higher education. In Burton, A., ed. Encountery The Theory and Practice of Encounter Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1969, 189-201. Nichols, H.J. A study of the influences of selected vari- ables involved in student evaluation of teacher effec- tiveness. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, 22 (8-A), 2908. Owen, P.H. Some dimensions of college teaching: An ex- ploratory study using critical incidents and factor analyses of student ratings. Dissert. Abstr., 1967, 21 (lZ-B), 4590. 82 Perls, F., Hefferline, R.F., and Goodman, P. Gestalt Therapy. New York: Dell Publishing Co., I95I. Pickle, J.H. Analysis of the relation of entrance exami- nation scores and marks earned in eight semesters of graduates of the college of education. Dissert. Abstr., 1967, 2§_(2-A), 405. Redford, J. A comparison of selected factors in the pre- diction of academic success at Southwest Mississippi Junior College. Dissert. Abstr., 1968, 22 (4-A), 1109. Rogers, C.R. Toward a science of the person. In Wann, W.T., ed. Behaviorism and Phenomenology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. . On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Rubadeau, D.O. A comparison of learner-centered and teacher- centered learning. Dissert. Abstr., 1967, 22 (5-A), 1447-8. Schutz, W.C. Joy. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1967. Siegel, L. and Siegel, L.C. A multivariate paradigm for educational research. Psychol. Bull., 1967, 22 (5), 306-26. Stern, P.R. Group work: An exploratory project with col- lege students. Psychology, 1968, 5 (2), 53-55. Sunderland, S.C. changing universities: A cross-cultural approach. J. Appl. Behav. Sci., 1967, 2 (4), 461-68. Tolman, E.C. There is more than one kind of learning. Psychol. Rev., 1949, 144-55. APPENDICES APPENDIX A OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE AND INTERPERSONAL MEASURES ADMINISTERED TO SUBJECTS MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST ITEMS How can psychology include private experience as a part of its subject matter? (1) It cannot. Private experi- ence is unobservable and unobservables have no place in science. (2) By treating it as an intervening variable, inferred from the verbal and nonverbal behavior of or- ganisms. (3) By accepting private experience as the most important independent variable in psychology. (4) By recognizing that it is a dependent variable and, therefore, an important part of psychology's subject matter. (5) By understanding that consciousness is really a materialistic function of the nervous system and relating it to brain processes. Ans. = 2 The process of examining and reporting upon the content of one's own consciousness is (l) explanation. (2) abstraction. (3) theorizing. (4) introspection. (5) psychology. Ans. = 4 Which term does not belong in the list below? (1) Hun- ger (2) Aggression (3) Motivation (4) Attitude (5) Res- ponse. Ans. = 5 Which of the following statements is unacceptable to a science of psychology because it is untestable in prin- ciple? (l) The chief cause of schizophrenia is to be found in parent-child relationships. (2) Dreams predict future events. (3) There are certain universal charac- teristics of conscious experience. (4) If a child were kept from all human contact until the age of six, it would be feebleminded. (5) A person who completely isolates himself from the world is psychotic. Ans. = 3 S-R and R-R laws of necessity differ in (1) degree of precision. (2) type of independent variable. (3) ap- propriateness to a science of psychology. (4) type of dependent variable. (5) validity. Ans. = 2 The main point of the "Man from Mars" metaphor advanced by Bechterev was that the scientific psychologist must (1) always assume that other people's experiences are different from his own. (2) rely heavily upon his per- sonal knowledge of behavior lest he be led to erroneous conclusions. (3) base his interpretations upon what is objective: observable aspects of behavior and the circumstances under which behavior occurs. (4) avoid attempting to explain behavior in the terms that might be employed by someone from a different culture. (5) endeavor to develop explanations so powerful that they might apply to individuals from another planet whose makeup is unknown to us on earth. Ans. = 3 83 10. 11. 12. 13. 84 Your textbook describes a study in which a change in at- titude toward war against the Japanese might have been misinterpreted had there been no control group in the study. One way of viewing the contribution of the con- trol group would be as a way of dealing with (1) experi- menter bias. (2) the base rate problem. (3) the prob- lems of retrospective report. (4) errors arising from perceptual defense. (5) demand characteristics of the experiment. Ans. = 2 AnGN4 :3 ch a: E) 2.4 a a 3:3 ‘ a :3 is: 7% E. it) {co :3 co IE3 t> I 1 i E 7 ”T ” 1. SILLY 3‘1 ‘N L I g —- -— ---—:~ -~.---—+- - 2. FEAR OF CRITICISM I y ; BNL! ’ . 1 3 ' 3 9 i I I a n a...—.--w-c-——-—-‘- A -* —.-. u--. --....- ..-§- - ———- .o... —....... -- Example 1. This would be true of you if silliness were "very character- istic" of you at the beginning of the term, but only "slightly charac- teristic" of you now, and if you would have liked it to be "slightly un— charac teris tic" of you. Example 2. This would be true of you if fear of criticism were "slightly uncharacteristic" of you at the beginning of the term, were still "slightly uncharacteristic" of you, and you liked it that way and didn't want to change . Please answer all the items. /4m¢ How characteristic were these des— g criptions of at the ‘ beginning (B) of the term, and how ; D-~.0v-- to characteristic are they now (N)? SLIGHTLY UNCHARACTERISTIC SLIGHTLY CHARACTERISTIC DECIDED 0R DON'T KNOW -- ..- .. n—nc—o-oc—e .. Anon-...... . VERX UNCHARACTERISTIC O H E4 (f) , O H H a: L), I 64 Li! 1 H . I m , E4 v E" ' H ' IE3 9E3 . 7 £3 9 I . ' 1 : D: I T” ; 2 3 E f g;' E3: E : E; : O 1 D i 1 ; 5 >4 : g I 3 ' é ..- .1 i 4+ 4— ; ! 1. FRIENDLY TO OTHERS g g ‘ é — - ---~- - —-—-~- ~~ I, ' f , i f ~« 2. SARCASTIC ' ¥ ; 5 g i .. _._ + _l L A AAA"; ...- ' I 3. DOES WHAT HE THINKS IS RIGHT, EVEN i 3 i I l 3 IF AFRAID . f . ' I i : L _I_ -__,_.,__,____ ,_ '_____, 1 ." f I : . ; T" 1 : i I. ALWAYS TRYING TO PLEASE : g g : i i . I , . .....- - -.....LW. __.-- 1..-... ......— .._. .4..."- L~—-- —-. ,_ -- - ,—~ ; ' S. TRIES TO MANAGE OTHERS 3 t ' 3 i . ...—...... ,. - -..—..-.” -....._.. ...-...... -.....— ..- --- . “-..-.- ...... - --.-f".- .--4..... 1.4%...-“ .-,.-__.; . . ,,'._ - i 6. REPEATS HIMSELF . j g ; i i s F'— - --.~-- ......“ -- -- ...... Mc— — -.---._.......~..._.... “...--- ~—-——--T--— ~-#- w-T— -~~-; - ~- .---- - ---- - 7. SHOWS INTEREST IN PEOPLE AND THEIR . g ; i T IDEAS ' : '= , i .. .-..-___..... ...-.-,-_.__...-..-.__- . - ~--....__.,-.. ._, .. , .. . ...t- .... I--- ' - 8. ASKS FOR HELP . 3 t 3 , ': - .. - ..... .- ..-. “-....r . 6 -..-..T. .. 1-.. v- 1‘ , I 1 ' . 9. LETS YOU KNOW HON HE THINKS AND _, | _ T ! FEEIS I ' ! é ‘ ? ..--.. .-.-..L.-,__.__,____.._. ..-,.... 2 I -, -. ,3 AL..- 10. STICKS TO HIS POINT ARBITRARILY ; g i -..--...— -~—.--.-..-. .. ...—... .— ..... -- -... .. .. .-.—.7... -..... .. -... ... ...; ...-.~r_.—1— -. qt.- — —T—_—- T - —. 11. USES HUMOR AS DEFENSE , ' g g i , -.....__.....L-...---..., I... ._ ...... _ .---W... -. ----..__ .--, . ,, i 12. TREATS OTHERS GENTLI I 3 I T . - .. .. “mama“... ._ .---.- ..- 7 .. .-. _ ....“ --. .-....4. '“"‘+" -.. .... ..- l ... -‘L. - .- 13. AINAYS HAS TO BE RIGHT . g i i E i g --..--.__._.I..- -... -...--“ ,. _ -. ._ g- -7--- .. .._i I” . , 1h. BECdIES HURT EASILY ; i s 3 '§ ___ ......w-..._.,,...._..,-_-,--_._.- LLMTLI T" --.; ..... g 15. PAYS CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT IS - g g . 5 f g GOING ON ; i g g , g : ......w . L, M... ...--. -..“, _ __ ; i ! - . ' 16. ABLE TO FACE ANXIETY 3 , ; g ' . ...—....- w-~*-.C.—A- -~..—.‘__. up. . ./¢9/ .--“- ‘w—l ...-~ ..—~-.—...—-.—- - How characteristic were these des- criptions of'you at the beginning (B) of the term, and how charac- teristic are they now (N)? ‘Where , would you like (L) to be with regard to these descriptions? .. -- VERY CHARACTERISTIC -.m-. - SLIGHTLY CHARACTERISTIC SLIGHTLY UNCHARACTERISTIC UNDECIDED OR DON‘T KNOW I I -- -HNII_.I I ' VERY UNCHARACTEIISTIC CHARACTERISTIC UNCHARACTERISTIC _- 7..-..- ... ... ... .-. I o—a—c-u-n ; I7. OPEN ABOUT HIMSELF ’ g - - -4. -... .... .. _ . -....._..._.-...-- ...—...-.. -...-- -_.. ---__..-._. ......-...-...1'.....-.-.. '+”—“" 4.... ..-.-p...”_...1r-- - 18. UIIKIND TO OTHERS : i :— -- --~ -——~ - — — e f ’ E -—r ~v. - I 19. SEEKS FRIENDLY FEELINGS FROM 5 ; g I ; OTHERS Z I i i ’ I r * - ~ -- -.........._.._._.... ~-- -- ~-—--+- ', f' T rm *3 - ~ * 20. AHHIIITS MISTAKIS i g I L |_.--._ .. - .. . ...- -..... - -..—-----.” ..., - ----.-._.__ -..... ... - ..I- ...---iw ---...T _ ......x .. ... ... .- g 21. SEEMS TO BE REACHING OUT TO ; I I OTHERS -——-—'- ~—--— ~ - —" .—-..--.-_.-—*. -... ... ...—...m—‘A-w— ..-... .. .... .._.—g.-~- —-~--—7 -—-. -—.. oo- .- c 22. EVADES TRIPLEASANT TOPICS . . . . - - .-.- ....TI- ‘ 23. LISTENS WITH UNDERSTANDING OF j I g I I I WHAT OTHERS SAY I I . I ‘ I ...L ._ _-———‘—- -..... o. -. ...—.... .b- -.--—_¢.—_4 ...— u a . , I ‘ I n o ---. a...- ...—.... - w-.—. “vv--- --.- ..- a—u.--.—-— .q- ,, -. l V . . ‘ . I I a . n -.—— -——.—-—~a._———-—.-n-o-u——A -—o..—.-._-C-. I _ ‘ ; -6 .7 2A. HAS ANNOYING NANNE RISIIS a i ’7 I I g I I.““,--.__.. ..-“.L__-..._...L.._ ....L.-..-._..._uu._ I...i.qI._.--.....~,-,-I;.L-I, .I.I . , ' ' , I i 2 5. CONDEM NS SELF ' ; _ I , g --. .. -....._..............--.-._. --.... fi----_._.-_.._....__..... -..“..-r- _......-. “'I" ..-...l .....V‘L----..'f .i 26 . PROBES OTHER I S VIEIIPOINTS I ; . ; I ; g - ..-- .. -..”... ...-......m....__._.-- mm“.-- -. -..- . .- ..---- IL. - }-—-—.—+ .... 1;" - ..I “in”... » 27 . SYMPATHETIC , : I i 3 ..- ....--“ -..... .....- ...- -..- -..... -_ - .-.-.. --.... .. - 4--.”... -.- . .-.. ....-. I” 2 8 . SEEMS ANXIOUS, GUILTY AND SELF- I . 1 f I ; EFFACING : I 3 3 I 29. SEEKS SUPPORT FROM OTHERS ‘ I I '-. —- ..-. a. m . u-w-o. .-. I“-~ -..-...~—-~~- .—‘ a. . . .... -.-.. --.~ 3 30. TRUSTS OTHERS . . --.. ..,_._ ....I..- -.--,_..._..,.... -.-+.- .. .... —~—- no. /OF 7-..... . . g s 9 g ;S 5 i 53' ‘ i Assume that you were a member of a group o t ; 33 . : lg . this term. How characteristic would 3 g E f0: . 57' ' g3) ‘ g ‘0 these descriptions have been of your g 03 g :g z - a i '53. general interpersonal behavior at the 5 a i g i . 8 ! 53 cf g ‘ beginning (B) ofthe term, andhow 13:5; i ggm Ha: I characteristic are they now (N)? Also ; g H ‘0 i Q E i E. . where would you like (L) to be on this 9 i g ”>3 5 g E ; 0 E L dimension? g 0 0 {E * H E 5" i ; HM ' TD § E22) ' cm: § 2 g E ‘ D :03 i E i U) E E 2 - ....-. ...... —~ «- -— -—---——- 1‘ ‘T g 9 _: i Til—”J l. DRAWS ATTENTION TO HIMSELF IN SOME 1 i I '2 i j . 5 WAY 6 s 5 l. * l ; 5 -—-—-—~ - -- ----—-~ ... ~ I f“ A 7 , j a ; 2. ANARE OF WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING OR I 1 g i j 4 : i DOING Z A i 1 i 5 f . ‘ : I; _} T- ..... 1;. .. E 3. WILLING TO DO WHAT NsEDS TO BE DONE 2 ; f 1 § i z " T ‘f“" T TL“? ‘ T' f A. DONINATES AND IMPOSES HIS WILL ON = 3 a g . F 9 3 THE GROUP g g . : 3 , ....--“ .... ......H..._.._._. .fll . .. T ...... -1. . i i - - f... ...f j 5. STAYS OUT OE THE (HR-OUT: * ! 5 3 .' f E i M. __._-_____~_ m__ _ - .. L- + .! -47-... -- ~- "~ *4 - g 6. PROTECTS THE HIGHTS OF OTHERS IN ‘ t j , ' 3 ; : THE GROUP ‘ i ! g i 1. . - . "...—...... -...-- -..__.__......... ......a..- . .-.1.-_‘..;...-... ...-4...... “...—f... 1"»; 7. HELPS THE GROUP TO STAY ON TARGET ! ' i f .... - —- H .. ~ .-__ ...-..- -..... .. .... .. .. . ......,. -.-. - ‘“""'T""' -+¢_—.o-T—.—o--oo - --.--.'—-——-—---—-n—q:- —~-.- ! 8. SUSPIOIOUS A . , g . i 9. CONFUSING TO LISTEN T0 1 5 g i ' g - ......... -....- “....-.” .... -..-.. ”“1" .... 4.--- -_..._....II..-...,1 I , § 10. KEEPS PEOPLE PULLING TOGETHER AS - g f i A TEM i I Q i ! :-.- -... .....- ; T ...}...m ..— -1.--“ ..-- -.A- -f g ll. FIGHTS RATHER THAN WORKS _ i g . ' i ' ‘ W” ' ”' “" “'"" ’“ U " ‘4' “‘1'”“" f” T ' E v I 12 . GIVES SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HON TO 5 ; ! 3 ! ; i PROCEED ° T ; i § : 3 s “.--—..-- «.-..--..-—-.--—-—---.-.—— -»--—....-—.-~.-? ”Tm-utm- -~:.--——m:|,~-V-P~A ' ‘ 13. WANTS TO HELP WHATEVER THE JOB T i i g - i §~ -~—- - ---—-~-~ 4 *- ~+-§-~—¢;--»-~+~ -- +1 . IA. PLAYS FAVORITES ! ! : : g g g ; ~~~-~-v~---v—--——-~- ----~~-- “-----." -— ~ «+- ' g *1 - g T 't = 15. BLOCKS THE GROUP ' i ' ‘ i 3 ' “ "‘ ’“T‘” "" ‘ I" i ' l0} -..-.- . ‘ 1 f i E :3 E 1 1 0 Assume that had been a g o 1 3 E; i 5" . g E E , member of a group this term. How i E: 3 Ed ; :5: E3 1 :3 i characteristic would these descriptions 3 E i '1 S j 8 g i B {3 i have been of his general interpersonal ; L3 L E § § Q ! E ; 53‘ S i behavior at the beginning (B) of the ? o ; m :1: 8‘ g I E? d" 1. term, and how characteristic would i g ; E :j a >1 3 ‘53 g 1 . . C.) O 2theybenow(N)? “5.5.3.353 315'; g ’ a ' 5 I 9 1 m i < 1 >4 g -1 U L: ('3 tr? >4 3 u [I]: i g S a i H 3 5:3 CH E L I A 1_ i + 1 — ' .- T 1 ’ T . 17. TALKS SUPEIFICIALLY ; 1L 1 g 1 >— - -~-~-—-—~~- «~—-~---~-~— __1_ . . ; A ~ 1 18. GIVES HELP MORE THAN ASKS FOR IT 2 j i 3 3 5 --~~ - e1 1 IL I *+ 1 1 . ' i 19. SPEAKS ONLY HHSN SPOKEN TO 1 1 i 3 3 [ I r gr 1 1 1~~~+~~~ 20. INTERRUPTS OTHERS i i e f i 3 j 21. SEEKS AND FINDS A CENTRAL GROUND 7 f 1 j i I ; FOR RESOLVING DIFFE IENCES 1 ; i. g 1 1 “""" ‘ 1 5‘ 1 1 "‘ ‘ g 22. FRE"UENTLY DICRESSES FH 11 THE ' 1 1 . ! .1 i‘ __ .. ...—---... .— 7. A-.-—-+—---~..—-—-+~ .. l . i 23. OPEN ABOUT FE LlNGS ; f g , l 1 - - . . _ -.- .. ..---- .._ - - ..-. -. ....~_-.___..-1_....- -.....- _._?.._._......._ ..... ..T___.--_1L...- _ ..r..-.. :a... -.. ; 2A. FINDS WAYS TO HELP THE GROUP J z : 9 2 g i .-- -_ --~- - ~- n-A- --1--'-r-+-~-1--~.~- - 1 2 5. CAUTIOUS 1 f 1 1 T L i ~~ -~ —— -~---~—---~ —- -—-,+- 1- *3 “Tue—m -~—4~ -- 26. PUSHES THE GROUP TO ST 1T ON THE 1 3 £ : 1 § . CENTRAL AGENDA 1 1 I l j 1 3 1 -.-.-..........._.. ....-. -- .. ......“ ...—............._.....1 --..t ‘WT -... r o.»~+-o-«§ - .. ... ..1‘-.- - 27. COMES TO THE AID OF ANYONE B :1I1G : 1 f 3 i 1 ATTACHED BT OT {BBS 5 ; 1 1 . J; "‘“ """T‘T' __._.-_._._....._.. “.----- 7 ‘l : ‘7 *r‘ T ‘“" 28. KEEPS THE GROUP OFF RISKY TOPICS - 3 g 1 E t -- “-....- --— .... Maw-«- .—.—-..—.——-——.—-~ —.--~ --—- $—--r—-+-— ....l-...... -- ~--;—--—— t——-——-— 29. NAKHS TLETLY CC1::ENTS 1T 1 i ‘ T ; ! .... --.“..- _. .....-A..- ... ------ -..... ...-..J ..L -..—1...... - .'1-— .1- ...-«....-. —- 30. DOES NOT INITIATE , NOR FOLLOW i f: , 1 ; ? xoq ON THE WHOLE, DESCRIBE RON MUCH YOU HAVE GROWN IN UNDERSTANDING INTER- PERSONAL BEHAVIOR THIS TERM: PUT AN "X" ON THE SCALE TO DESIGNATE ‘WHERE YOU ARE AT PRESENT. I've grown somewhat, but I understand more than I vaguely understand it I expected to understand I I 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 l 1 1 no change I understand some my understanding has significant new things grown as fully as I possibly could have expected ON THE WHOLE, DESCRIBE HOW MUCH YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CHANGE YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR THIS TERM BASED ON HOW MUCH YOU HAVE GROWN IN YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF INTE2P2{SONAL BEHAVIOR: PUT AN "X" ON THE SCALE TO DESIGNATE'WHERE YOU ARE AT PIESSNT. I have made and am comfortable with quite sporadic and a few behavior changes, but I uncontrolled slip back to my old behavior change patterns every so often 1 2 3 'u S 6 7 8 9 no behavior some behavior change I'm a new person change especially when I try HOW MUCH OF'YOUR INCREASED INTERPERSONAL UWDERSTANDING'WAS DUE TO PSYCHOLOGY 151? PUT AN "X" ON THE SCALE TO DESIGNATE HOW HUCH‘WAS DUE TO PSYCHOLOGY lSl. helped very much helped a little, in a wide variety of areas but vaguely or areas of central importance 1 1 l 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 I 1 l 151 was helped pretty much helped me so much irrelevant by sparking some that I feel overwhelmed new awareness Ian? u--w~nh *0 *‘V " --AM .. Assume that you were a member of a group this term. How characteristic would these descriptions have been of your general interpersonal behavior at the beginning (B) of the term, and how characteristic would they be now (N)? Also where would you like (L) to be on this dimension? .-t.-._ ...“..- .- ....c. -..-a -o-—-.-.v " ....- 5 .- ~A- M... VERYVCHARACTERISTIC CHARACTERISTIC SLIGHTLY CHARACTERISTIC ..c ... . ...-.4 ...- UNDECIDED OR DON'T KNOW SLIGHTLY UNCHARACTERISTIC UNCHARACTERISTIC VERY UN C HARACTERISTIC l7. TALKS SUPE RFICIALLY - —'-- ...“.... . .4}. ....-.1}. - 18. GIVES HELP MORE THAN ASKS FOR IT 20. 19. SPEAKS ONLY WHEN SPOKEN TO . N ... . n”... vafl‘n—‘b-‘u _ INTERRUPTS OTHERS ....4 4-“- .-.... 21. SEEKS AND FINDS A CENTRAL GROUND FOR RESOLVING DIFFERENCES 22. FREQUENTLY DIGRESSES FROM THE TOPIC I 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. _ ”F.,. -... 29. 30. .- sun—..— OPEN ABOUT FEELINGS FINDS WAYS TO HELP OTHERS CAUTIOUS PUSHES THE GROUP TO STAY ON THE CENTRAL AGENDA L _ “WM-n..- COMES TO THE AID OF ANYONE BEING ATTACKED BY OTHERS KEEPS THE GROUP OFF RISKY TOPICS ...-...... -———-—- MAKES TIMELY COMMENTS DOES NOT INITIATE, NOR FOLLOW ‘1‘--_-. _-~.— -? _ ..«c-o-a-r—«v ‘c‘Lfla‘. -v .. ...-..JL .-- --.—III... .- ”-- .----.”‘H L-~v — Jr—vw-kwh.-- «La-«r‘... - +o‘—.- //0 ON THE WHOLE,DESCRIBE HOW.MUCH HAS CHANGED HIS INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR THIS TERM. PUT AN "X" ON THE SCALE TO DESIGNATE WHERE HE IS AT PRESENT. He has made and is comfortable with quite sporadic and a few behavior changes, but uncontrolled he slips back to his old behavior change patterns every so often 1 l 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 I I I no behavior some behavior change He is a new person change especially when he tries GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBJECTIVE UNDEISTANDING QUESTIONAIRE This questionaire seeks to know how much you have grown in your understanding of yourself during the term. Read each statement and decide how clearly you understood it and could relate it to yourself at the beginning of the term, and how clearly you understand and can relate it to yourself now. Then print a "B" (beginning) in the column which best fits the quality of your understanding at the beginning of the term and an "N" (now) in the column which best fits the quality of your understanding now. Finally, decide where you would like to be with regard to this statement, and put an "L" (like) in the column which best fits where you would like to be. Here is an example. -———o _-——-—..—— - -— T l ; g I T I How well did.you understand.yourself (3! (fig (D A with regard to these statements at Eflczzq E} l the beginning (B) of the term, and 2 ENE E2 ,5; how well do you understand yourself 0 fi :5. 0a :39, _ a: o o with regard to them now (N)? E‘Jhere E E“ :43 a 33 5" g; 253' E E would you like (L) to be with regard 5 f5; {:3 g Eh; gig g {3 g g: 53 tothem? g2 %:3“wgagoglfiefi 9* p'ggb’cnghflLDHISSEEFJgE - >4bueasgezcaggt>c>efi>aai e seeeseoesese c: Ssiiszc>u2e>§z>-kcESEeES p _.__- 1. How WELL-BEHAVED I APPEAR 'BNL : ; “ ”T v 2. WHAT I LIKE FOR BREAKFAST E ! B N . L ; - ~ ' 9 Example 1. This would be true of you if you had a"very vague under- standing" of how well-behaved you appeared at the beginning of the term, and were "more clear than vague" now, but you would like to be "very clear" on how well-behaved you appear. Example 2. This would be true of you if both at the beginning of the term and now you sometimes knew and sometimes didn't know what you liked for breakfast, and you liked it that way and didn't want to change. Please answer all the items, Your name IA/ II'Z. How well did you understand yourself with regard to these statements at the beginning (B) of the term, and how well do you understand yourself with regard to them now (N)? Where would you like (L) to be with regard to them? ...-...... —~A--‘- .— .. ...-...... a... -—.-- DON'T KNOW VERY VAGUE UNDERSTANDING MORE VAGUE THAN -‘oH‘. -.w-me EQUALLY CLEAR AND CLEAR UNDER§TANDING VAGU UNDERSTAN m :1: G DIN VAGUE UNDERSTANDING - ALMOST CLEAR - MORE CLEAR THAN ...—“o- -e --.. -m. 1. WHAT OTHERS LIKE ABOUT ME 2. WHAT OTHERS DISLIKE ABOUT ME .....- 3. WHAT I LIKE TO DO FOR RECREATION -1" 1:. WHAT MAKES ME ANGRY A“. ...—A “F— r 5. HOW TO BE AT EASE WITH OTHERS . 6. WHEN TO ASSERT MY VIEWS 7. HOW TO TELL WHAT OTHERS ARE FEELING "H” 01)..” WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE HELP ME MOST -.. 8 .9 WHAT I AM AFRAID OF 10. HOW MY FEARS ARE RELATED TO MY PAST 11. HOW MY PHYSICAL STATE INFLUENCES ME 12. HCM TO BE HONEST WITH OTHERS .. 13. HOW TO HELP OTHERS Alb. WHAT MAKES ME SEXUALLY SATISFIED 0 ~4Q~q~— .o— {L -— —--.~‘~— ---U_' __15. WHAT MOOD I'M IN .--- - AL.-- A 17. _.}§- WHAT I SAY THAT ALIENATES PEOPLE «I.- 4 ....---.—1—n‘4—-— HOW I AM RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY I LIVE IN M—e-po-oqb—uu --n‘ ‘- 18. HOW TO CRITICIZE CONSTRUCTIVELY l9. HOW TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS UNDERSTAN DIN G UNDERSTANDING VERY CLEAR I O -..— ‘—-~ -.....“ ...-... ll3 How well did.you understand yourself with regard to these statements at the beginning (B) of the term, and hOW'Well do you understand yourself with regard to them now (N)? would you like (L) to be with regard to them? Where 20- 'WHAT I WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE DON . T Iélicw VERY VAGUE G UNDERSTANDIN MORE VAGUE THAN CLEAR UNDERSTANDING .... EQUALLY CLEAR AND VAGUE UNDERSTANDING ~wm-m-flm MORE CLEAR THAN VAGUE UNDERSTANDING ALMOST CLEAR UNDERSTANDING VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING .‘.— 21. HOW MY FEARS ARE RELATED TO MY FUTURE WHAT ABOUT ME IS CREATIVE WHAT ABOUT ME NEEDS CHANGING HOW I WANT OTHERS TO SEE ME ‘WHEN I AM BEING DEFENSIVE ‘WHEN I AM TOO PUSHY ”37. ‘WHEN I CUT OTHERS DCWN 28. WHEN I BUILD OTHERS UP _'WHAT IT IS HARD FOR ME TO SAY ‘WHAT MY AESTHETIC TASTES ARE HOW I FEEL ABOUT MY APPEARANCE 320 ‘WHEN ARE MY BEST TIMES FOR DOING THINGS 33. HOW TO LISTEN TO OTHERS 3h. HOW TO LEAD PEOPLE CONSTRUCTIVELY 35. HOW TO FIND MY WAY AROUND 36. TVHAT MAKES ME FEEL AT EASE 3?. WHEN I SHOULD SPEAK UP 38. ‘WHAT I LOOK FOR MOST IN OTHERS I|4 P h2. .- ...—... ‘00-.- -..--.—. o . 0 How well did you understand yourself with regard to these statements at the beginning (B) of the term, and how well do you understand yourself with regard to them now (N)? would you like (L) to be with regard to them? _. ...... .—-.- L‘Jhere ,a. gone-co...— ...-{p 39. 'WHAT I AM FEELING RIGHT NOW --- .... hO. WHAT I AM DOING RIGHT NOW I. -... .w~m-~-‘ bl. 'WHAT I LIKE BEST ABOUT MYSELF 5 .— -— v“- VERY VAGUE UNDERSTANDING MORSTAG'UE THAN H I CL“ v... .u--- . H 13.: NG-. AR AND VAGUE UNDERSTANDING EMMHXCEE MORE CLEAR THAN -‘ AR UNDERSTANDI VAGUE UNDERSTANDING ‘ AIROST CLEAR U‘e‘IDERSTANDING A— If ; VERY CLEAR 2 UNDERSTANDING - "I‘L- “Hr..~fl-.~'—‘1L '- -—0- ~.—-—.—— - --_.-__ WHAT I LIKE LEAST ABOUT MYSELF -h3. WHEN I SHOULD BE QUIET Ah. WHAT I USUALLY DO POORLY .. 1:5. -u-—§--..—— ..- h6. - ---mm-r - o..— h7. MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS How TO TREAT OTHERS THE WAY I WANT TO How TO STOP BEING ANGRY IF I ! WANP TO STOP 3 1—---T---—-—-«—-—-~r—--——r —L HOW TO GET WHAT I WANT FROM 2 OTHERS WHEN I AM LYING TO MYSELF HOW TO RELAX . .- ”...-1’ —-—.¢.-- .- -. .....ov—o Now please go back and put an "X" in the left hand column by the statements that are most important to you. .- (Turn page over.) g Hf' ON THE WHOLE, DESCRIBE HOW MUCH YOU GROWN IN UNDERSTANDING YOURSELF THIS TERM: PUT AN "X" ON THE SCALE TO DESIGNATE WHERE YOU ARE AT PRESENT. I've grown somewhat, but I understand more than I vaguely understand it I expected to understand 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 t : I no change I understand some my understanding has significant new things grown as fully as I possibly could have expected ON THE WHOLE, DESCRIBE HOW YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT YOURSELF HAVE CHANGED THIS TERM BY PUTTING A "B" ON THE SCALE TO SHOW WHERE YOU WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF‘THE TERM AND AN "N" ON THE SCALE TO SHOW WHERE YOU ARE NOW. I usually don't I usually do like myself like myself I I 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 l t I I don't like myself-- it's even I like myself-- I'm not OK I'm OK APPENDIX B SUBJECTIVE AND INTERPERSONAL ASSIGNMENTS PRESENTED TO THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASS SUBJECTIVE ASSIGNMENTS The following are the Subjective assignments presented to the Experimental Class in the third of the course devoted to increasing subjective understanding. A short one to four page paper was required for each assignment. I. Family Influences. What are the important shaping influences used by each of your parents, i.e., what did they do to make you who you are? What are the most important aspects of your sibling relationships? (Or if you are an only child, how has this affected who you are?) What did a "significant other" give you that the others couldn't? II. Value Influences. Fill out the scale on the next page the way you think your mother, father, sibling, significant other, and yourself would answer it. What conclu- sions do you draw from this? (See Fig. 2). III. Perception. This exercise is designed to help you become more acutely aware of how you experience your bodily functioning. By watching what you become conscious of and how you become conscious of it, you may be able to read the cues é psychological as well as physical - that your body sends you. In addition, other people may become more understandable because you have more material to understand them with. Do this exercise, but take your time to concentrate on what is really happening to you. When you're finished, write a short paper on what you experi- enced. I. Sharpening the Body-Sense: l. (a) Maintain the sense of actuality - the sense ' that your awareness exists here and now. (b) Try to realize that on are living the experience; acting it, observ1ng it, suffering it, resis- ting it. (c) Attend to and follow-up all exper- iences, the "internal" as well as the "external," the abstract as well as the concrete, those that tend toward the past as well as those that tend taward the future, those that you “wish," those 116 117 FIGURE 2 - ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCE INVENTORY Instructions: After reading completely through the qualities or characteristics of persons, as listed below, assign number "1" to the quality or attribute which ygg_believe would be the most desirable quality in this list for a teenage per- son. Than assign "2" to the attribute which you regard as second most desirable, A "3" to the third post desirable and so on. Continue until you have assigned numbers 1 through 10 to all of these listed qualities. Or, you may prefer to begin with what you regard as the least desirable quality; if so, give it "10" and assign "9" to the next most undesired quality, etc. You lmay, of course, change your mind or correct any assigned numbers as you go along. Please assign a number to each of these attributes, even if you find it quite difficult to. make some choices. No tie scores, please. * SIGNIFICANT SELF LE TEENAGER RATHER. MOTHER SIBLING OTHER respogsible and trustwogthy eat and clean curiOus r———_ gnteracts well with others considerate and copperatiye Iassertive and selffrelignt able to make friegds respectful toward adults fun-loving and carefree .imaginative and creative When finished with this side, please turn the page over and continue. .118 This time we would like to obtain your preferences of the same list of qualities, but with reference to a FEMALE cf the same age, rather than for a'HALE. The rest of the instructions are the same as before. k LE TEENAGER . SIBLING , SIGNIFICANT OIHER SELF responsible and trustworthy FATHERTMOTHER Pfiat and clean curious interacts well with others considerate and cooperative .hssertive and selg:reliagt ble to makeL§riends ..grespectful toward adults . fun-loving and carefree imaginative and creative HA:dj 119 that you "ought," those that simply "are," those that you deliberately produce and those that seem to occur spontaneously. (d) With regard to every experience without exception, verbalize: "Now I am aware that . . ." So we proceed in such a simple fashion as this: "Now I am aware that I am lying on the couch. Now I am aware of the wish to do the awareness-experiment. Now I am aware of hesi- tating, of asking myself what to do first. Now I am aware that I meant to listen to that pro- gram. I am aware that I have stopped myself from wandering. Now I feel lost again. I am remembering the advice to stick to the surface. Now I am aware that I am lying with my legs crossed. I am aware that I have a pain in the back. I am aware of wishing to change my posi tion. Now I am doing that," etc. Try first to attend mainly to external events-- sights,sounds, smells--but without supressing other experiences. Then, in sharp contrast, concentrate on internal processes — images, physical sensations, muscular tensions, emotions, thinking. Then, one by one, differentiate these various internal processes by concentrating, as exclusively as you can, on images, then on muscular tensions, etc- Follow these through, as previously, by detailed recognition of the different objects or activities, or, if pos- sible, of whatever dramatic scene they may be components. Walk, talk, or sit down; be aware of the pro- prioceptive details without in any way inter- fering with them. As you sit or lie comfortably, aware of dif- ferent body-sensations or motions (breathing, clutching, contracting the stomach, etc.), see if you can notice any combinations or struc- tures - things that seem to go together and form a pattern - among the various tensions, aches, and sensations. Notice that frequently you stop breathing and hold your breath. Do any tensions in the arms or fingers or contrac- tions of the stomach or genitals seem to go with this? Or is there a relationship between holding your breath and straining your ears? Or between holding your breath and certain skin sensations? What combinations can you discover? IV. 120 II. Noticing the reaction in others. Pay attention to someone's voice. How does it sound?‘ Monotonous? Varying? High pitched? Strident? Melodious? Too soft in volume? Careless in arti- culation and diffiCult to understand? Too loud? Flowing or faltering? Forced? Easy? Now ask yourself two questions: first, what is your own emotional reaction to the particular qualities of that voice? Are you, for instance, irritated by the too-soft tone, frozen by the loudness? Second, what is the emotional background in the other person that produces the particular qualities in his voice? Is it whining, oily, sexy, angry? It often happens that, quite unaware of what he is doing, and often in contradiction to what he is saying, this other person is t in to produce in you, with his voice quality, preCISely the reaction that he does pro- duce! His words may be of a calm, soothing kind, but his voice is indifferent. Or the words may be wooing, but the voice angry and freezing. Can you now attend to the sound of your own voice? This is very difficult, as shown by the fact that our own voice, when heard for the first time on a recording, may seem quite alien to us. But be aware of the difficulties which you encounter in this attempt. Learning. Think about something which you cannot do or which you can't do well and that you wish that you could do better. Think about what you could do to im- prove where you are with respect to it. In other words, learn to do something which you would like to be able to do. Pay attention to 223 you learn and/or do not learn. For instance if you decide to learn to ski, watch how your body feels as you start. Are your movements coordinated? If not, what seems to give you the greatest difficulty? How much influence does your mind seem to have on your body? What methods of practice seem to work best? Describe the process of your learning in a paper. Experiencing the Continuity of Emotion (1) Attempt to mobilize some particular pattern of ’body-action. For instance, tighten and loosen the jaw, clench the fists, begin to gasp. You may find that this tends to arouse a dim emotion--in this 121 case,frustrated anger. Now if to this experience you are able to add the further experience-~a fan- tasy perhaps--of some person or thing in the environ- ment which frustrates you, the emotion will flare up in full force and clarity. Conversely, when in the presence of some frustra- ting person or thing, you may notice that you do not feel the emotion unless or until ypu accept as yours the corresponding body-actions; that is, it is in the clenching of the fists, the excited breathing, and so on, that you begin to feel the anger. (2) Lie down and try to get the feel of your face. Can you feel your mouth? Your forehead? Eyes? Jaws? When you have acquired these feelings, ask, "What is the expression on my face?" Do not inter- fere, but simply permit the expression to persist. Concentrate on it and you will see how quickly it changes of itself. Within a minute you may feel a number of different moods. (3) In fantasy relive over and over again, every time trying to recover additional detail, experi- ences which have carried for you a strong emotional charge. What, for instance, is the most terrifying experience you can recall? Feel it through again, just as it happened. And again. And again. Use the present tense. Perhaps in the fantasy some words will come up, words which you or somebody else uttered on that oc- casion. Say them oVer and over again aloud, lis- tening to yourself say them, and feeling yourself forming and expressing them. On what occasion were you most humiliated? Relive this repeatedly. As you do so, notice whether you tend to recall some still earlier experience of the same kind. If so, shift to it and work it through time after time. Do the same for as many kinds of emotional experi- ences as you can find the time for. Do you, for instance, have an unfinished grief situation? When someone dear to you died, were you able to cry? If not, can you do it now? Can you in fan- tasy stand beside the coffin and express farewell? When were you most infuriated, most ashamed, embar- rassed, guilty, etc.? Can you feel the emotion now? If not, can you feel what you did to block it? VI. VII. VIII. IX. 122 Social Awareness. Go somewhere you are not used to going and where people congregate. For instance, if you are middle class, go to a lower class restaurant or bar; if you are apolitical, go to a political rally; if you don't like modern music, go to Grandmother's. Keep in mind while you are at wherever you go that most of the people there are used to the kind of social functioning that is taking place. Try to get a feel for what they are thinking and feeling-- for the kinds of people that do this particular thing, for the kinds of peOple that identify with it. Notice in yourself what reactions you have: alienation, anxiety, calmness, surprise, and what these are reactions to. Also think about how your life would be different if you regularly came to such a social function. Give the social situation meaning. Interpersonal Behavior Assessment. (This Subjective assignment consisted of filling out the Interpersonal Behavior Change package, which included the Interpersonal Behavior Change Ques- tionnaire, the Interpersonal Behavior Understanding Scale, the Interpersonal Behavior Change Scale, and the General Effectiveness Scale.) Subjective Understanding. (This Subjective assignment consisted of filling out the Subjective Understanding package, which included the Subjective Understanding Question- naire, the Subjective Understanding Scale, a Gen- eral Attitude Toward Self Scale, and the Attribute Preference Inventory.) Evaluation. 1. Psychologically, what are the most important things you have learned about yourself this term? What things have become more clearly aware than they were before? 2. What are the most important things you have learned about others? 3. Considering what you know and feel about your- self right now, what do you need to change the most? What do you wish were different? Are there any specific ways you might go about changing what needs changing? 123 Since I will be teaching Introductory Psychology next term, I would like to know what parts of the course were most and least beneficial. What should be kept and what should be thrown out? INTERPERSONAL ASSIGNMENTS The following are the Interpersonal assignments presented to the Experimental Class in the third of the course devoted to increasing interpersonal understanding. These assign- ments supplemented the on-going T-group experiences. I. II. III. "What's your bag?" An introductory exercise in which each member of the group brings a bag containing items which symbo- lize who he is, who he wants to be, etc. Each member explains what the contents mean to him so that the group can get a better feel for who he is. One example is bringing a school book bag contain- ing a favorite book, a school pendant, a candle symbolic of favorite mood, a deck of cards, a class schedule, and an anti-war button. Abstract Impression Formation. An exercise used to start the group focusing on interpersonal differences in a non-defensive frame- work. One group member chooses another member to focus on without revealing the individual's name. The other group members ask the first member abstract questions about the unknown member, such as "What kind of animal is he like?" "What novel could he be found in?" "Where would he go on a vacation?" After approximately five minutes, each group member guesses who the unknown member is, and the name of the person is revealed. The person described tells how accurate he thinks the central abstractor was, and how he feels about being characterized as he was. Group Problem Solving. This exercise is designed to highlight styles of interpersonal interaction within small groups. The class is divided into groups of five people. Each member of the group is given an envelope containing 3 to 5 pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Before opening the envelopes, the members are told that each is to make a square from the jigsaw pieces contained in the envelopes, but that the pieces in any one en- velope may not make a square. In this case, the individual must obtain the correct pieces from the other group members. Two rules govern exchanging pieces: (1) no one may talk or in any way signal 124 IV. 125 another person, and (2) no one may take a puzzle piece from anyone else. The only sanctioned method of exchanging pieces is for one member to give a piece to another. The members are then in- structed to open their envelopes and begin making their puzzles. Frequent results are that group members think more about getting their own pieces than giving their pieces to others. Often the last group mem- ber to finish flounders in desperation without giving his pieces to someone else to solve, or without having someone else give him their comple- ted puzzle in anticipated exchange for his unfin- ished one. Lastly, the relationship of interactions in the group problem solving task to other group situations is explored. Interpersonal Distance. The purpose of this exercise is to illuminate interpersonal feelings of closeness or distance between group members, especially when the feelings have not been expressed verbally. Each group mem- ber takes a turn standing in the middle of the room, while the other group members stand at a distance from him which represents how close they are feeling toward the person at the present moment. In addition to this, each group member stands in a position which represents his relationship with the person in the center. Examples of positions are: standing on a chair above the person, standing in a fighting position, standing with one's back turned, kneeling on the floor. After each group member has assumed a position at a representative distance from the central figure, the central person asks those whom he wishes to explain their position and dis- tance. Feeling Indicator. This exercise is designed to bring the feelings each individual has about the group out in the open. It is especially useful when an undercurrent of feelings are thought to be influencing group beha- vior. Each member is asked to write down two words which express how he feels about the group at the present time. When everyone has finished, each person reveals his words and explains his reasons for choosing them. VI. VII. VIII. IX. 126 Alienation and Reconciliation. (See Exhibit 1.) Other-perception. This exercise is similar to the Feeling Indica- tor. It is designed to help each group member clarify how he is perceived by others. One member of the group volunteers to be the central focus. Then each group member writes down two words which he thinks best describe that particular member. When everyone has written his two words, each per- son reveals his words and explains his reasons for choosing them. Gift-giving. This exercise has two purposes: (1) to high- light the value of giving and receiving interper- sonal information, and (2) to increase the aware- ness of the receiver. Gift-giving is defined as giving something of value to another person. It is explained that the valued object need not be valued physically, but may have informational value. More- over, the primary importance of the information should be that it is useful. It need not be flattering. Keeping this in mind, each group member is asked to give a gift to each other group member. Members take turns being the receivers of gifts. Frequent results of this exercise are that indivi- duals reveal previously unexpressed feelings, thoughts and wishes. Examples are: "I'm jealous of you when we're with men"; "I like the way you listen to me"; "I wish you wouldn't assume you know what I think." Openness, Data Seeking, and Data Giving. Rankings of Behaviors You are asked to rate all the members of your _group, including yourself, on several dimensions of behavior using the definitions given below. Ex- clude your impressions of how these people act elsewhere, including all outside the group contacts. It is essential that you use the full range of ranks permitted (1 through 9) in making each rating. First, think of the individuals who represent the most and least of the described behavior in your group, and assign the extreme numbers (9 and 1) to them. Then work from the extremes toward the middle placing the others in relationship to the extremes. 127 OPENNESS: Think about how fully each person has shared, within this grou , personal reactions, thoughts, and feelings with the other group members. The emphasis is on "here and now" interaction, such as how one felt when confronted, challenged, or ignored by others in this group. Persons who have offered very limited or disguised presentations of themselves would be rated lower than those who have fully and authentically shared themselves. DATA SEEKING: Consider how fully each person in your group has sought to obtain authentic reac- tions and information about how he or she has been experienced by others within this group. How fully has each person sought to elicit and encourage others to share their reactions and views of him? Persons may block others from providing data in many ways, including a threatening manner, being too timid, by keeping in the background, by filibuster- ing, or even by disguising their interpersonal ten- sions. Consider only how fully each person has sought to obtain a better grasp of how he or she relates to others within this group. DATA GIVING: Reflect on how fully each person has attempted to give authentic reactions and informa- tion to others about how he experiences them within this group. How fully has each person sought to give feedback to others about how their expressions, feelings, or behavior are experienced? Also remem- ber that sometimes too many words tend to confuse, so persons who are especially clear in their communi- cation may give more data in a few words than others give in many words. Persons who tend to withhold such data should be rated below average. 128 EXHIBIT 1 INTERPERSONAL ASSIGNMENT VI Alienation and Reconciliation Tasks For Sensitivity Training Groups1 John R. Hurley Michigan State University Alienation is defined as an act or series of acts which either increases the psychological distance or decreases the harmony between two parties, be they individuals or groups. Plainly, then, alienation increases the likelihood of conflict between two parties, whether it takes the form of interpersonal strife or international war. Designed for use with sensitivity training groups, the present exposition deals with transactions between individuals. Intergroup alienation is not explicitly treated in this paper, although the basic ideas appear equally applicable to the behavior of both individuals and groups. A_perceived negative evaluation by the receiver of messages, be he listener or viewer, that his worth, importance, motives, or self-esteem has been impugned or denigrated by the message sender constitutes the essential initial stimulus to alienation. This perceived devaluation may be clear or only vaguely sensed; it may be in response to either subtle or blatant behavior by the message-sender, or it may even be the receiver's reaction to misperceptions or delusions which are objectively independent of the sender's behavior. More typically, however, the receiver is responding to a real message, whether or not the message sender is consciously aware of its delivery. A common instance of such subtle devaluating messages of this type occurs in inattentive behavior. Here, the sender may literally "not even hear" the receiver’s verbalized concerns, although the latter may accurately perceive the devaluing inattention when the sender responds quite positively to valued persons in this context of selective inattention. The inference, ”I'm unimportant to him:I may hardly be avoidable. Children commonly receive this kind of 'What you have to say is not worth listening to" response from their parents, as do other subordinates of all ages. A common variant of this is "Don't bother me now, I'm too busy.’ Another is the 'you bore me‘ message which may be communicated by yawns or other nonverbal expressions. Stronger devaluational messages may take the form of relatively open assaults upon the value of the receiver's work, beliefs, appearance, or merit. These should be distinguished from non-devaluing disagreements which are characterised by an unmistakable respect for the worth and dignity of both parties. This mutual esteem is painfully absent in the devaluing communication. Again, it is the "perception" of the receiver which is critical, for the person who refuses to "feel devalued,‘ even under circumstances of brutal and bombastic dissent, may not feel alienated. However, such instances are probably quite rare in our society. On the other hand, some individuals readily 'read in‘ devaluation to even the most cautious disagreement. Examples of middle-strength devaluating messages in the context of adult-to-adult interchange might be, “Why did you not do your task (teaching assignment, repairing the car, or cooking dinner) in the right way?” An illustration from parent-child or teacher-child interaction would be, "Why did you not do your work more neatly?" or ”Why did you do such a sloppy job? '(msking your bed, writing a test paper, eating, etc).' The note of smug, self- righteous superiority by the message sender is clear in these illustrations, and the receiver understands that he is supposed to feel apologetic or humiliated for a performance which the sender judged unacceptable. Usually it is clearly implied that the sender would have performed the task better. The impact of these messages is principally that of a reprimand. Plainly missing is an invitation to join in a constructive search for a.better understanding or a sounder relationship. ICopyright, 1968, John a. Hurley Ph.D. Do not reproduce without written permission 3129 In its strongest form, the devaluing message is a statement to the effect that the receiver is "no damn good" and morally inferior to the sender. Or, as Crabby Appleton, the cartoon character, phrases it, "you're rotten to the core." Other, slightly disguised versions of the strong devaluational message are, "you are less responsible than I," or "I am a much more ethical and moral person than you." A modest varia- tion in phrasing is, "I am a more mature and rational individual than you." While there may be occasions when certain elements of the foregoing mes- sages appear objectively defensible, it should be stressed that differ- ences in opinion or judgement are not intrinsically devaluing. To the contrary, it is difficult to imagine a fruitful relationship with another person which was not enriched by such differences. The critical missing element in the devaluing message is the element of respect for the other's worth. Typically, however, globally negative messages exclude this con- structive element and only the most insensitive or, perhaps, self? confident receiver will feel less than deeply annoyed with those who at- tempt to assault his self-esteem. Indicative of the difficulty of overcoming the tendency to alienate is the apparent historical fact that our religious institutions have tra- ditionally taken destructive approaches to their efforts to proselytize non-believers. Many bloody pages in history document the tendency of religious authorities, both Christian and non-Christian, to treat persons of different beliefs as not even deserving to live. Almost needless to add, non-religious power groups have rarely treated their opponents with greater personal respect than have the religious groups. Within the context of this formulation of alienation, please identify the individual within your T-group or microlab subgroup toward whom you feel the greatest alienation. Then using the attached Form 1, on the next page, follow the instructions which are intended to help you to for-‘ mulate: (A) a clearer picture of the ways in which this alienation was rooted in specific behaviors of this person, as you eXperienced or ob- served them; and (B) to more clearly identify your own contribution to the alienation by specifying how you "processed" or "decoded" these behaviors by your own assumptions or interpretations as to their "mean- ing." Read the "RECONCILIATION" instructions only after you have completed both tasks A and B. 130 as an as A; as due ...uoouonaooiL sauna 9.630.. «as: ...:ooaq: cons 303335 =3 BL gen... 8:53 on: :6... «>032. “Isaac—u one: ...aounuoo he and; e.goov on: ...03 uoomeou fence—v can: :6.- secs .5...qu n.2— uaeaeu on: as such «as use: «some «nonsense-u cases .395. poo-um .uoe @3300... 330 now assume use madness assess. any mongoose". ones so» :03: one: nausea—sous.“ no 303953.. on» 5.333 on has to: .m sooner. on”. wooed 23.3 and no 30338 35 user As he an an an Jun—=03 uo 3842.955 0.3%... one 25.3 3 30m gonuoarnaoo no use»? oauuoooa one needs gnu «use» he... 33:32pm orgasms: oosmouuoa sauna use» non—628m .oomoeuoa onus... mod—onus now—v3.5.5.3 use no on account no seem—summon .ausea>aeaa eoauaueoea an» acne assesses no» eases nauseous so engages 3302—» one... no n hug—83 .333 ooeuom 333034 05 6034323: vuzoouom BOP—223.: no 25.39% E .— Eon 1131 RECONCILIATION Reconciliation may be viewed as the opposite of alienation. It is opera- tionally defined by acts which decrease the psychological distance between parties and which increase the likelihood of transactions or interchanges which build mutual self-esteem or interpersonal competence. The essential stimulus to reconciliation is a_pggceived,positive_ey§lyation by one party that the other views them as an important and valuable potential ally. This perceived positive evaluation must be substantiated in subsequent contacts, of course, if it is to serve as a solid foundation for continued acts of mutual endorsement. Because most, if not all, humans possess some desirable and attrac- tive personal qualities, a potential for reconciliation seems at least latent in the vast majority of interpersonal relationships. Most of us, however, have acquired many ways of alienating, or at least of severely frustrating, others through devaluing verbalizations, irrational competitions, or other defensive behaviors aimed at extending or protecting our own sense of adequacy. These defensive mannerisms appear to be so distressingly omnipresent that it is rather uncommon for individuals to deeply value persons whose beliefs sharply differ from their own, regardless of whether the content of these beliefs is political, racial, economic, child-rearing, or religious. A powerful incentive to reconciliation can arise from a review of the pos- sible gains to be realized from decreasing this alienation. These gains include reduced isolation, increased feelings of competence, reduced hostility, increased affection, etc., as well as many more tangible and specific benefits associated with intimacy, ranging from friendly companionship to such physical gratifica- tions as food and sexual pleasure. The initial step to overcoming either isolation or alienation can be accom- plished in many ways, but one of the most profitable beginnings stems from an individual's search of their own techniques for either maintaining or escalating alienation. Usually these techniques are associated with some kind of sweeping negative judgements about the worth or value of another. Often these take the form of sentences such as "she's not intelligent," "he is just an irrational hot- head," "she is just plain lazy," "he is deliberately mean," etc. Typically these adverse judgements are a defensive reaction to some poorly handled (perhaps by both parties) interpersonal encounter which was sufficiently threatening to each person's sense of self-esteem to trigger the defensive counter-measures represented by these global negative evaluations. Such evaluations also serve, unfortunately, as a kind of cognitive fortress or mental prison which, although perhaps tempo- rarily offering an impenetrable refuge, also prevents constructive investigation of the prickly relationship. The decision to gggrch for one's own contributions to this alienation opens a channel for constructive reconnaissance. Even such a simple statement to the other person as ”I found that I reacted quite irritably to your question or statement" serves as an effective communication reopener when it is free of accusative undertones. Such a sentence may serve notice of a non- judgemental stance by the message sender and invites nondefensive responses. Even more powerful stimuli to reconciliation are franker or fuller acknow- ledgments of how one's own goofs have imperiled important relationships. Examples include a parent disclosing to his child that the child was spanked or reprimanded more because of parental harassment or irrationality about other life problems, than because the child really "deserved" the punishment; or a teacher disclosing that he had socially snubbed a colleague because of competitive sensitivities and hurts aroused when the colleague received Coveted recognitions. 1132 Commonly the maintenance of alienation serves a protective, defensive funcr tion which blocks the path to a mutually beneficial reconciliation. Sustained alienation also yields certain psychological gains or "payoffs" which, although damaging in the long run, may be more acceptable than more constructive efforts because they provide support for illusions of strength, self-righteousness, or competence. In this sense, these "payoffs" are much like a narcotic habit or, in a simpler example, too many cocktails. When feeling inadequate or insecure, humans frequently prefer a state of "splendid isolation" to the more demanding task of reconciliation. Perhaps this is because reconciliation efforts require a confrontation with reality which is likely to expose one's fantasies and delusions. These beliefs may be used to justify continued withdrawal or isolation, or even such alienation-escalating actions as exaggerated countereaggression. The extreme form of this case is represented by the paranoid psychotic who kills innocent by- standers, claiming that they were "enemies about to kill me." Frequently even serious reconciliation efforts will fall short of attaining the optimally desired outcomes of both parties, but such efforts promise at least a clearer understanding by both parties of their own and their opponents' posi- tions. Assuming that one has approached an alienated party with a frank revela- tion of some of one's own destructive inputs into the alienation phenomena in a manner which was neither self-righteous nor devaluing, the other person would ap- pear to have but three principal action alternatives: (1) joining the reconcilia- tion seeker's self-disclosures by similar self-revelations which would tend to minimize defensiveness and support a genuine search for constructive possibilities; (2) utilizing the reconciliation seeker's self-revelations to justify the mainte- nance of a defensive, alienated position; (3) demonstrating indifference or "blindness" to the meaning of the reconciliation seeker's efforts. My observations suggest that Type l responses are surprisingly common on those relatively rare occasions when the reconciliation seeker is genuinely self- disclosing and nonaccusative. This represents an optimal outcome because it pro- vides for reality-oriented, mutually enhanced feelings of competence and adequacy. It is not suggested that fragmentary and sporadic Type 1 reactions will quickly and easily lead to a state of eternal bliss, as most people in our culture regress and stumble often along the unfamiliar road to the mastery of this constructive behavior. Type 2 reactions can be brought into sharper focus and a potentially more beneficial confrontation if the reconciliation seeker can take the following position: "I have acknowledged at least some of my own contributions to our struggles while you seen only interested in examining my errors, rather than acknowledging your own. Please show me how this analysis of the situation is erroneous. Do you truly believe that you are totally innocent of responsibility for our alienation?" Often a persistent but non-accusatory probe of this kind by the reconciliation seeker will facilitate movement toward a Type‘l response. Should this fail, however, and the other party maintains a rigidly self-righteous stance, no more constructive alternative may remain than a temporary disengagement. Some self-righteous defenders are probably too deeply fixated in their punitive mode to respond positively to anything less than extensive psychotherapeutic inter- ventions. Type 3 reactions should be carefully reappraised to determine how truly nonaccusative and genuinely self-disclosing the reconciliation seeker has been. Such responses will generally prove resolvable into reactions of one of the two more basic types. Now turn to Form 2 on the following page and follow the instructions which are designed to provide you with an experience in applying these ideas about reconciliation. 1333 Fern 2 THE STRUCTURE OF RECONCILIATION Following the time schedule and instructions listed below, apply these steps to your relationship with the person you previously identified as alienated from you. 1. (2 minutes) Identify what you perceive to be 3 or more valuable and attractive attributes or competencies of that individual, such as being intelligent, spontaneous, articulate, sensitive, intuitive, etc. a) b) e) d) e) (2 minutes) Identify what you could conceivably gain from overcoming or bridging your estrangement from this person, such as increased sense of accep— tance, reduced hostility, increased attention, fuller communication, decreased isolation, increased sense of competence and adequacy, etc. a) b) c) d) e) _ p f) (3 minutes) Identify what you contributed to either the maintenance or esca- lation of this state of alienation, in terms of either overt or covert re- sponses or acts toward that person (counteraggression, withdrawal, etc.) and] or.your negative assumptions about his or her value, such as "basically hostile, "intentionally mean," ”poorly educated,“ "irreligious," "just a hot head,“ "a poor listener,‘ etc. a) . b) c) d) - e) (2 minutes) Now describe what you think would probably be the outcome of a serious effort on your part to share with this person what your own contribu- tion was to this alienation. (5 minutes) Now, returning to your Hicrolab subgroup of last evening, share your contributions to the alienation with that person. (2 minutes) Describe your appraisal of the effectiveness of your efforts in 5, above, identifying any clear remaining problems or hangups. APPENDIX C SCORES OF ALL SUBJECTS CUMULATIVE CLASS SCORES ON MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST ITEMS Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 ____Answer Item 1 2 Exp. N = 1 15 6 6 1 % = 3% 52% 21% 21% 3% Lec. N = 75 339 55 104 30 % = 12% 55% 9% 17% 5% Item 2 4 Exp. N = 1 0 0 28 0 % = 3% 0% 0% 97% 0% Lec. N = 5 7 14 576 9 % = 1% 1% 2% 94% 1% Item 3 5 Exp. N = 10 o 2 6 11 % = 34% 0% 7% 21% 38% Lee. N = 140 18 30 222 201 % = 23% 3% 5% 36% 33% Item 4 3 Exp. N = 1 12 6 6 9 % = 3% 41% 21% 21% 14% Lee. N = 26 312 94 101 78 % = 4% 51% 15% 17% 13% Item 5 2 Exp. N = l 18 0 10 0 % = 3% 62% 0% 34% 0% Lec. N = 28 441 14 110 16 _fi % = 5% 72% 2% 18% 3% Item 6 3 Exp. N = 1 1 24 l 2 % = 3% 3% 83% 3% 7% Lec. N = 58 10 493 32 18 _1, % = 9% 2% 81% 5% 3% Item 7 2 Exp. N = 9 7 4 5 3 % = 31% 24% 14% 17% 10% Lee. N = 112 215 92 73 117 % = 18% 35% 15% 12% 19% 134 13S Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 4 5 Answer Item 8 1 Exp. N = 19 3 2 2 3 % = 66% 10% 7% 7% 10% Lee. I N = 431 27 50 44 57 _ % = 71% 4% 8% 7% 7% Item 9 4 Exp. N = 7 2 9 ll 0 % = 24% 7% 31% 38% 0% Lee. I N = 74 27 133 344 32 % = 12% 4% 22% 56% 5% Item 10 *1 Exp. N = 15 1 3 9 1 % = 52% 3% 10% 31% 3% Lee. I N = 438 45 52 56 20 _ % = 72% 7% 9% 9% 3% Item 11 3 Exp. N = 5 ‘ 0 20. l 2 % = 17%' 0% 69% 3% 7% Lee. I N = 32 12 451 12 103 % = 5% 2% 74% 2% 17% Item l2~ 4 Exp. N = l 5 ll 10 2 % = 3% 17% 38% 34% 7% Lee. I N = 26 84 214 194 92 _j_g % = 4% 14% 35% 32% 15% Item 13 5 Exp. N = 0 3 1 l 24 % = 0% 10% 3% 3% 83% Lee. I N = 30 67 47 24 441 _:T_ % = 5% 11% 8% 4% 72% Item 14 ‘2 Exp. N = 2 6 2 16 3 % = 7% 21% 7% 55% 10% Lec. I. N = 60 173 46 274 55 % = 10% 28% 8% 45% 9% Item 15 5 Exp. N = 0 7 0 1 21 % = 0% 24% 0% 3% 72% Lec. I N = 42 95 22 28 421 % = 7% 16% 4% 5% 69% 136 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 5 Answer Item 16 1 Exp. N = 16 2 0 4 7 % = 55% 7% 0% 14% 24% Lee. I N = 385 22 22 32 147 % = 63% 4% 4% 5% 24% Item 17 3 Exp. N = 0 4 9 9 7 % = 0% 14% 31% 31% 24% Lee. I N = 14 59 180 160 196 _7 % = 2% 10% 29% 26% 32% Item 18 3 Exp. N = 1 12 10 0 ‘ 6 % = 3% 41% 34% 0% 21% Lee. I N = 11 277 207 45 70 % = 2% 45% 34% 7% 11% Item 19 3 Exp. N = 0 0 27 2 0 % = 0% 0% 93% 7% 0% Lee. I N = 13 23 527 34 14 .1 % = 2% 4% 86% 6% 2% Item 20 2 Exp. N = 7 9 4 7 2 % = 24% 31% 14% 24% 7% Lec. I N = 167 234 61 86 59 _7 % = 27% 38% 10% 14% 10% Item 21 2 Exp. N = 0 17 1 7 3 % = 0% 59% 3% 24% 10% Lee. I N = 31 358 62 88 65 ik_ % = 5% 59% 10% 14% 11% Item 22 5 Exp. N = 0 0 l' 0 28 % = 0% 0% 3% 0% 97% Lee. I N = 15 9 20' 27 539 % = 2% ' 1% 3% 4% 88% Item 23 2 Exp. N = 5 11 9‘ g 3 l % = 17% 38% 31% 10% 3% Lee. I N = 91 231 160 52 66 % = 15% 38% 26% 9% 11% 137 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3' 4 5 AnsweE Item 24 1 Exp. N = 17 2 2 4 4 % = 59% 7% 7% 14% 14% Lee. I N = 290 105 57 44 114 % = 47% 17% 9% 7% 19% Item 25 4 Exp. N = 0 2 5 9 13 % = 0% 7% 17% 31% 45% Lee. I N = 3 101 72 153 279 _ % = 0% 17%) 12% 25% 46% Item 26 5 Exp. N = 1 1 1 0 26 % = 3% 3% 3% 0% 90% Lee. I N = 31 4 23 9 540 v;_ % = 5% 1% 4% 1% 88% Item 27 4 Exp. N = 2 3 0 5 19 % = 7% 10% 0% 17% 66% Lec. I N = 113 46 49 100 301 % = 18% 8% 8% 16% 49% Item 28 3 Exp. N = 3 1 15 8 2 % = 10% 3% 52% 28% 7% Lee. I N = 82 43 383 76 25 % = 13% 7% 63% 12% 4% Item 29 2 Exp. N = 1 16 6 2 4 % = 3% 55% 21% 7% 15% Lee. I N = 8 444 54 25 79 % = 1% 73% 9% 4% 13% Item 30 4 Exp. N = 4 3 0 19 3 % = 14% 10% 0% 66% 10% Lee. I N = 63 23 14 432 77 % = 10% 4% 2% 71% 13% Item 31 3 Exp. N = 12 14 6 1 6 % = 41% 14% 21% 3% 21% Lee. I N = 120 79 252 37 122 % = 20% 13% 41% 6% 20% 138 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 5* Answer Item 32 1 Exp. = 14 7 5 2 1 = 48% 24% 17% 7% 3% Lec. I N = 185 136 108 22 159 % = 30% 22% 18% 4% 26% Item 33 5 Exp. N = 6 0 0 2 21 % = 21% 0% 0% 7% 72% Lec. I N = 75 4 15 155 357 % = 12% 1% 2% 25% 58% Item 34 5 Exp. N = 2 0 l 3 23 % = 7% 0% 3% 10% 79% Lee. I N = 52 16 11 46 484 % = 9% 3% 2% 8% 79% Item 35 2 Exp. N = 5 23 1 0 0 % = 17% 79% 3% 0% 0% Lee. I N = 117 302 42 73 75 % = 19% 49% 7% 12% 12% Item 36 1 Exp. N = 5 10 7 4 3 % = 17% 34% 24% 14% 10% Lee. I N = 219 162 70 116 41 % = 36% 27% 11% 19% 7% Item 37 2 Exp. N = 4 20 3 2 0 % = 14% 69% 10% 7% 0% Lee. I N = 68 407 64 56 16 % = 11% 67% 10% 9% 3% Item 38 1 Exp. N = 13 5 3 2 3 % = 50% 19% 12% 8% 12% Lec. I N = 367 91 _60 30 34 % = 63% 16% 10% 5% 6% Item 39 4 Exp. N = 3 2 4 l7 0 % = 12% 8% 15% 65% 0% Lee. I N = 52 19 151 299 62 % = 9% 3% 26% 51% 11% .r't v ll?“ i..- ‘xn i.) 139 Altgrnative Responses Correct 1' 2 3 4 Answer Item 40 4 Exp. N = 4 1 2 18 1 % = 15% 4% 8% 69% 4% Lee. I N = 48 14 55 403 65 . % = 8% 2% 9% 69% 11% Item 41 3 Exp. N = 6 1 15 l 3 % = 23% 4% 58% 4% 12% Lee. I N = 148 19 331 46 41 % = 25% 30% 57% 8% 7% Item 42 3 Exp. N = 7 0 11 7 1 % = 27% 0% 42% 27% 4% Lee. I N = 140 7 337 2 0 % = 24% 10% 58% 0% 0% ___ Item 43 5 . Exp. N = 3 3 0 2 18 % = 12% 12% 0% 8% 69% Lec. I N = 26 120 22 28 388 % = 4% 21% 4% 5% 66% Item 44 4 Exp. N = 2 6 2 13 2 % = 8% 23% 8% 50% 8% Lee. I N = 94 117 53 299 18 % = 16% 20% 9% 51% 3% Item 45 3 Exp. N = 4 0 9 8 4 % = 15% 0% 35% 31% 15% Lee. I N = 26 17 263 177 102 % = 4% 3% 45% 30% 17% Item 46 3 Exp. N = 5 1 9 1 10 % = 19% 4% 35% 4% 38% Lee. I N = 80 29 283 23 168 % = 14% 5% 48% 4% 29% Item 47 1 Exp. N = 14 7 3 1 1 % = 54% 27% 12% 4% 4% Lee. I N = 313 52 123 58 38 % = 54% 9% 21% 10% 6% 140 Alternative Responses Correct 1' 2 3 4 5 Answer Item 48 3 Exp. N = 5 5 13 1 2 % = 19% 19% 50% 4% 8% Lee. I N = 218 72 261 24 10 % = 37% 12% 45% 4% 2% Item 49 4 Exp. N = 2 0 1 21 2 % = 8% 0% 4% 81% 8% Lec. I N = 26 9 31 488 31 _*p_ % = 4% 2% 5% 83% 5% ____ Item 50 2 Exp. N = 1 8 3 11 3 % = 4% 31% 12% 42% 12% Lee. I N = 49 259 162 47 1 % = 8% 44% 28% 8% 0% Item 51 3 Exp. N'= 5 9 6 2 4 % = 19% 35% 23% 8% 15% Lee. I N = 52 132 270 71 59 :37 % = 9% 23% 46% 12% 10% Item 52 4 Exp. N = 10 l 5 8 2 % = 38% 4% 19% 31% 8% Lee. I N = 163 93 120 158 50 % = 28% 16% 21% 27% 9% Item 53 1 Exp. N = 10 1 1 5 9 % = 38% 4% 4% 19% 35% Lee. I N = 226 48 47 44 220 .1 % = 39% 8% 8% 8% 38% Item 54 5 Exp. N = 4 0 3 8 11 % = 15% 0% 12% 31% 42% Lee. I N = 123 20 36 105 301 % = 21% 3% 6% 18% 51% Item 55 4 Exp. N = l 9 5 4 7 % = 4% 35% 19% 15% 27% Lee. I N = 60 133 71 112 208 % = 10% 23% 12% 19% 36% 141 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 5 Answer Item 56 1 Exp. N = 6 6 4 9 1 % = 23% 23% 15% 35% 4% Lec. I N = 155 183 58 161 26 % = 26% 31% 10% 28% 4% Item 57 ‘2 Exp. N = 5 7 5 3 6 % = 19% 27% 19% 12% 23% Lee. I N = 109 216 102 53 103 % = 19% 37% 17% 9% 18% Item 58 4 Exp. N = 1 2 3 13 7 % = 4% 8% 12% 50% 27% Lec. I N = 13 27 135 257 153 % = 2% 5% 23% 44% 26% Item 59 5 Exp. N = 2 4 6 7 7 % = 8% 15% 23% 27% 27% Lee. I N = 47 46 128 153 210 % = 8% 8% 22% 26% 36% Item 60 2 Exp. N = 2 7 2 l4 0 % = 8% 27% 8% 54% 0% Lee. I N = 106 202 79 165 31 % = 18% 35% 14% 28% 5% Item 61 1 Exp. N = 12 7 2 3 3 % = 46% 27% 8% 12% 8% Lee. I N = 304 143 73 24 41 % = 52% 24% 12% 4% 7% Item 62 1 Exp. N = 10 6 1 6 3 % = 38% 23% 4% 23$ 12% Lec. I N = 222 82 57 152 70 % = 38% 14% 10% 26% 12% Item 63 5 Exp. N = 4 1 4 6 11 % = 15% 4% 15% 23% 42% Lee. I N = 58 14 26 211 197 % = 10% 2% 4% 51% 32% -|::J n 2;“ 142 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 _§__Answer Item 64 4 Exp. N = 0 l 2 16 7 % = 0% 4% 8% 62% 27% Lee. I N = 16 44 28 467 53 _ % = 3% 7% 5% 77% 9% Item 65 2 Exp. N = 5 13 1 0 7 % = 19% 50% 4% 0% 27% Lee. I N = 56 342 29 14 167 % = 9% 56% 5% 2% 27% Item 66 5 Exp. N = 4 9 3 2 8 % = 15% 35% 12% 8% 31% Lec. I N = 35 133 81 85 273 _. % = 6% 22% 13% 14% 45% Item 67 57 Exp. N = 6 0 2 7 11 % = 23% 0% 8% 27% 42% Lee. I N = 121 33 47 66 341 % = 20% 5% 8% 11% 56% Item 68 Exp. N = 1 0 l 4 20 % = 4% 0% 4% 15% 77% Lee. I N = 13 15 11 152 415 % = 2% 2% 2% 25% 68% Item 69 42 Exp. N = 2 13 1 6 4 % = 8% 50% 4% 23% 15% Lee. I N = 21 406 10 100 69 _ % = 3% 67% 2% 16% 11% Item 70 5 Exp. N = 0 15 3 3 5 % = 0% 58% 12% 12% 19% Lee. I N = 64 275 97 63 108 .e % = 11% 45% 16% 10% 18% Item 71 3 Exp. N = 1 0 9 9 7 % = 4% 0% 35% 35% 27% Lee. I N = 82 30 302 93 99 % = 13% 5% 50% 15% 16% 143 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 5 Answer Item 72 1 Exp. N = 13 6 4 3 0 % = 50% 23% 15% 12% 0% Lee. I N = 216 137 148 73 29 _fi fi;_, % = 36% 23% 24% 12% 5% Item 73 5 Exp. N = 7 9 6 1 3 % = 27% 35% 23% 4% 12% Lee. I N = 97 132 74 52 252 % = 16% 22% 12% 9% 41% Item 74 3 Exp. N = 4 5 6 10 1 % = 15% 19% 23% 38% 4% Lec. I N = 97 192 120 144 54 % = 16% 32% 20% 24% 9% Item 75 4 Exp. N = S 4 1 8 8 % = 19% 15% 4% 31% 31% Lee. I N = 54 48 128 229 147 % = 9% 8% 21% 38% 24% Item 76 2 Exp. N = 5 6 5 4 6 % = 19% 23% 19% 15% 23% Lee. I N = 226 87 131 76 87 4__ % = 37% 14% 22% 13% 14% Item 77 3 Exp. N = 5 0 19 l 1 % = 19% 0% 73% 4% 4% Lee. I N = 53 52 431 61 10 jfi % = 9% 9% 71% 10% 2% Item 78 4 Exp. N = 6 7 4 6 3 % = 23% 27% 15% 23% 12% Lee. I N = 52 99 109 284 63 % = 9% 16% 18% 47% 10% Item 79 1 Exp. N = 7 8 7 1 3 % = 27% 31% 27% 4% 12% Lee. I N = 273 82 106 90 56 % = 45% 13% 17% 15% 9% . .__ Lin-Iv 'm “mam-u ans... .3 . ‘ . 144 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 5 Answer Item 80 3 Exp. N = 6 1 19 0 0 % = 23% 4% 73%. 0% 0% Lec. I N = 98 32 401 56 20 % = 15% 5% 66% 9% 3% Item 81 5 Exp. N = 5 10 1 4 6 % = 19% 38% 4% 15% 23% Lee. I N = 171 122 93 121 100 % = 28% 20% 15% 20% 16% Item 82 2 Exp. N = 12 7 3 0 4 % = 46% 27% 12% 0% 15% Lee. I N = 138 224 101 26 119 % = 23% 37% 17% 4% 20% Item 83 I Exp. N = 13 1 4 3 5 % = 50% 4% 15% 12% 19% Lee. I N = 284 41 52 94 136 % = 47% 7% 9% 15% 22% Item 84 3 Exp. N = 8 7 6 1 4 % = 31% 27% 23% 4% 15% Lec. I N = 245 92 220 29 22 % = 40% 15% 36% 5% 4% Item 85* 5 Exp. N = 2 8 2 7 7 % = 8% 31% 8% 27% 27% Lec. I N = 43 169 28 143 223 % = 7% 28% 5% 24% 37% Item 86 1 Exp. N = 17 0 0 2 6 % = 65% 0% 0% 8% 23% Lee. I N = 419 48 20 22 96 % = 69% 8% 3% 4% 16% Item 87 5 Exp. N = 16 14 4 4 18 % = 29% 25% 7% 7% 32% Lec. I N = 151 56 70 16 313 % = 25% 9% 12% 3% 51% 145 Alternative Responses i___Correct 1 2 4 5 Answer Item 88 4 Exp. N = 17 12 1 25 1 % = 30% 21% 2% 45% 2% Lee. I N = 134 102 21 337 13 % = 22% 17% 3% 55% 2% Item 89 3 Exp. N = 9 0 34 7 6 % = 16% 0% 61% 13% 11% Lee. I N = 97 23 343 62 82 % = 16% 4% 56% 10% 13% Item 90 4 Exp. N = 3 13 3 22 15 % = 5% 23% 5% 39% 27% Lee. I N = 53 99 92 156 205 % = 9% 16% 15% 26% 34% Item 91 2 Exp. N = 4 33 14 5 0 % = 7% 59% 25% 9% 0% Lee. I N = 79 330 83 85 30 % = 13% 54% 14% 14% 5% Item 92 5 Exp. N = 18 11 10 9 7 % = 32% 20% 18% 16% 13% Lee. I N = 115 179 91 78 142 % = 19% 29% 15% 13% 23% Item 93 3 Exp. N = 6 4 38 3 5 % = 11% 7% 68% 5% 9% Lec. I N = 127 73 272 66 69 % = 21% 12% 45% 11% 11% Item 94 2 Exp. N = 15 36 4 0 1 % = 27% 64% 7% 0% 2% Lee. I N = 171 271 76 19 71 % = 28% 45% 13% 3% 12% Item 95 5 Exp. N = 1 2 3 15 35 % = 2% 4% 5% 27% 63% Lee. I N = 14 35 62 94 402 % = 2% 6% 10% 15 % 66% 146 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 _§__Answer Item 96 1 Exp. N = 19 7 13 11 6 % = 34% 13% 23% 20% 11% Lee. I N = 193 108 97 138 71 % = 32% 18% 16% 23% 12% Item 97 4 Exp. N = 13 10 12 18 3 % = 23% 18% 21% 32% 5% Lec. I N = 126 69 106 173 133 % = 21% 11% 17% 28% 22% Item 98 1 Exp. N = 18 11 0 6 21 % 32% 20% 0% 11% 38% Lee. I N = 286 50 16 92 164 % = 47% 8% 3% 15% 27% Item 99 2 Exp. N = 18 27 5 2 4 % = 32% 48% 9% 4% 7% Lec. I N = 165 276 54 41 70 % = 27% 45% 9% 7% 12% Item 100 1 Exp. N = 17 0 5 5 29 % = 30% 0% 9% 9% 52% Lec. I N = 189 7 61 70 280 % = 31% 1% 10% 12% 46% Item 101 3 Exp. N = 5 10 29 4 8 % = 9% 18% 52% 7% 14% Lee. I N = 69 75 304 50 109 % = 11% 12% 50% 8% 18% Item 102 3 Exp. N = 8 4 30 1 13 % = 14% 7% 54% 2% 23% Lec. I N = 129 51 313 19 96 % = 21% 8% 51% 3% 16% Item 103 5 Exp. N = 5 5 1 5 40 % = 9% 9% 2% 9% 71% Lee. I N = 58 63 27 81 379 % = 10% 10% 4% 13% 62% 147 Alternative Responses Correct 1 2 3 4 _§;_Answer Item 104 2 Exp. N = 1 47 3 4 1 % = 2% 84% 5% 7% 2% Lec. I N = 27 493 39 42 7 l, % = 4% 81% 6% 7% 1% ¥___ Item 105 2 Exp. N = 1 20 5 16 14 % = 2% 36% 9% 29% 25% Lee. I N = 29 193 24 126 235 % = 5% 32% 4% 21% 39% Item 106 4 Exp. N = 10 20 2 19 5 % = 18% 36% 4% 34% 9% Lee. I N = 77 177 24 268 60 4_ % = 13% 29% 4% 44% 10% Item 107 3 Exp. N = 3 6 25 10 12 % = 5% 11% 45% 18% 21% Lee. I N = 37 100 320 58 92 % = 6% 16% 53% 10% 15% Item 108 1 Exp. N = 43 1 9 1 2 % = 77% 2% 16% 2% 4% Lee. I N = 316 45 116 32 48 % = 52% 7% 27% 5% 8% Item 109 '3—— Exp. N = 11 5 4 5 31 % = 20% 9% 7% 9% 55% Lee. I N = 98 61 46 61 342 % = 16% 10% 8% 10% 56% Item 110 4 Exp. N = 9 7 20 9 11 % = 16% 13% 36% 16% 20% Lee. I N = 113 117 140 95 142 % = 19% 19% 23% 16% 23% Item 111 2 Exp. N = 23 15 l 8 9 % = 41% 27% 2% 14% 16% Lec. I N = 271 132 15 114 73 % = 45% 22% 2% 19% 12% mmmbmflmz EHBUmBDm 02¢ ézommmm ImMBZH and 20 mmmoum BUMBDW qHHQZH 148 ~14. Q." I .i‘le" . s A.,: M.O M.h O h h h NM OM MM MO MN MM OO OO OI NM Oh Oh NN NN HO MO ON N.O M h h N O.h OH HM NM HM OO HO NHH NMH ON OO NOH OMH hH OO OM Hh MN O O M M O . h NM NM NNH OhH N M HOH MOH HH hN NO MO OM MM HO MHH ON O.M M O N.O M M OO MM NOH HOH ON OM OO OO OH HO MO OOH OH MM Oh MO MN M M M M.M O M O O MO OOH OH hM MO MHH MI NM ONH MNH hH MN MO MHH NN O O O.M N.H O h OM OO OOH OON H hN OHH HHH O OH OO OOH O ON hOH HHH HN O M O.N M.O M O OO NM hO MOH HH ON MO OO O MN OOH MHH O ON hO HOH ON 0.0 h M.O H h O ON OM HO OO OI ON OO MO HHI ON HMH ONH MN MN OM Mh OH O O h O O h MOH OOH HM OMH OO MO OM OOH O HO MHH OHH MM hh hM NO OH O.h h O N.N h h HM MN. Hh NNH OH hM HO OO M hN NO MO O O OO OO hH O.h M.M O O M.O M.O MM MM OM hOH NH HM OM NO ON OO NM OO HH OO Mh OO OH M h H N N M MH hH HO OO O O HO HO M M hM OO O O OO hM MH M O O h M O NM NM OM OO MH HM Oh NO hM Mh OM OO OM OM OM OO OH M.O M.M M N O O hH OH hO OO OHI MN OO OO h MH Hh Oh O O NM HO MH O O h M O h OM OM HO MNH hH OO Oh MO N OM ONH ONH O ON MO OO NH M H.O M.M 0.0 O h O OM Oh Oh MI MH OHH MHH M M Hh Oh HO HO OO HNH HH M O M M h h hM OO NHH OOH M OM Mh Oh OH OM Mh MO HHI HO OO hM OH H.h N.M O.H N.O M M MO hM Oh MHH O ON OO OO OH OM Mh MO OI ON OO OO OO O m.M O O.h M h NO hO OOH OOH NOI hh OhH hMH hI OO HNH OHH hH OM OO OHH OO O 0.0 h.H O.h O _h OH OH OO OM O OM hh OO O O hO hO O NH MN OM hO M.O h h O M M.M OO hM NO HOH O OHH OOH MHH M MO NO hO OH OH OM Oh OO M M h O h h OM MO MNH NOH HM MO Nh MOH h O NO OO NO Nh OO OMH MO h h N M O O MM MM ON HO h HM HO OO M MM OM NO OH NM NM OM OO M H.h h h O M MN ON OO OO MH MN MO Oh MM NO Hh OOH MN hN hO Nh MO O h M.O O.H O O OM HO NO ONH OH NN OO NHH HI OM Nh Hh HH hH OO MM NO O O O O.M O.H. M MO MO Mh OHH \1NM OM Oh HHH NH ON OO OO M h NO hO HO O m I .1 I I S c. S e. I I I .1 I I I I . T. I T. I m s m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m S S S S + m. U 0. O O O o O O O .0 O O O O m «in. W. ..u q + m. u a. m. m. U a. u. m. u mqmm NO HO hqmm hqmm N mmmeo H mmmao mqmm H mmSU .HdBZNO—Hmwmxm 149 Illa-.14”, . ‘III M”: a lunar-anal!!! llllllm h M M.O h h h Mh Mh OH hO OI HO Oh OO ON Oh MO hOH ON NM HH OM OM M O M N.M H N MH MN Mh OO NI NM OO hO MHI HM MOH OO O OO Oh Oh MM M O O.H M H M OH NH NO NO MI hH OO hO MI HN OO MO NI N OM OO NM H.h M M.M M M h ON OM OO MO OI MM NO Oh N NH OO NO HH hH OM hO HM N O M M.O O O NN ON OM Nh OM HO OM MO MN hO Mh OO OH OM MO MO OM M O.M N.N M O h MN NO hOH OMH O OH Oh Oh MN MM Oh NOH NM OO Oh OMH OO M h O M M M OM OM OO NNH OM OM Oh OOH HI H hOH OOH hN HM OM hM OO O O H.O O N M MN NM ONH MOH O OH OO NOH HI OO hh Oh O OM hh OO hO M.M H.O O O M M OH hH OO OO O OM MO hO NMI OM MOH MHH HH hN Oh OO OO h O N.O h h O OO Nh MO NMH hI OM hO OM OHI MM OMH HMH OM OO OO OO MO M M.h M O h O OO NM NNH OhH MN HM HO OHH ON OM HO MO NN OM MNH hOH OO. h h O M O h OO hO MO HHH OHI OM OHH OO hI HN HOH OO OO NO HO hOH. MO O O h O O O OH OH Oh OO OM NO OO ONH O OM OO NOH N N MN MN NO O h O 0.0 O O OO NO OO OMH O MM OM hO OM MM OO MOH h hO hM OO HO O O H H O h MM MM OHH HMH O O hO hO N N OO OO HO OO HM NO OO m O.M O.M N.O h O m m oO HO H hm oMH HMH h: ON oHH moH cH OH me Oh an O O N N M O OH OM OOH OHH HI MN Hh Oh O OH OO NO h OM OM MO OM M O M.M M.N h O OO OO ONH MHN MI hH OOH OO H H NOH MOH NO NO OM HOH hM O.M h O N M.M N.O MO MO OOH MOH OH ON Oh OO N N OO NO OH OH MO NO OM M M M.O h O O OH OH OO OOH H hM OHH ONH OO OO Oh OHH HN HN OM Mh MM M.M M.h O M N.O O.M Oh Oh hM OMH MM Oh Oh OOH OO OO OO OMH MM OM Hh OOH OM m O N N.M h O NH NO hm OHH HH on hoH oNH o o hHH hHH hm om NO mm mm 0.0 N.M N M M M OM OM OO OO O .O hO hO OI OH OO NO O H OH MN NM O O h M O.M H.O MH OM ONH HOH O ON NOH HHH h MO HMH OMH hH MM hO OHH HM M 0.0 h M.H H M O O HO HO h OO Hh Oh O OH OO OO N O HM MM OM m m M.M h h m ow we on Oh NH NH co Nh .hm HO MO Nm Oh Oh Om OHH ON h h m N h O oh oh Om .OHH NH ON mm MOH NI N .ONH hNH mm mm mm ooH ON O O m H H O N mm ah HO OH me an coH NH OH OM OO oN OH On On hN DSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMNMMWW S c. as as ho no mu m0 ho .%u m0 .%u no Mu u my + m. u .H ...... ...... sq .... aumw II, mamm NO HO mHmm hHmm N mmzfio H mmmfio N wwdHU HdBZMZHmmmxm HN O M h O M O OM hO hO MN OO hHH h MN OO MO OM M M N O O NO NO hM Oh MI OM OOH HOH OH hH HO MO ON O.M M O N.H O.h ON ON OO OO HH OH hM OO OH OM MN MO ON N M O O M ON ON HO HOH OM OHH OHH OOH HH MN HM NO hN h O O h h M M OOH HMH O OO OOH NHH OH ON hO hM ON M O.M. h O.M O HN hM ONH hOH h h ONH hNH NN OM Mh MO MN N.H N.H N N.H N.H h HN ONH MMH hN MO OMH OOH O OH MHH OHH ON O M.O h M O hO hO MOH OhH O OH Oh Oh OH MM OO MOH MN O H.O M.O O.h O MN hO hO OO O ON HO MO hN hO Oh HOH NN h M.O N.M N.O h NNI NO MMH MMH OM OO NM OO h HM HM OM HN N M O.H N .M MH MH MOH OHH O O Nh Nh MH OH hO NO ON M O O.H M O NM NM OHH NOH O MM hO hO hH OM OO MO OH N O O h O hM hM hHH MMH M OM OOH MOH O O Mh Oh ,OH O M 0.0 O h MM MM OO NOH OH ON OO OO OO OM ON Nh hH N M O M O NO NN NO OO O OH OO OO OI O hO MO OH M M M.O M h N N ONH ONH ON Oh hO MO MI M Oh hO MH H O N O M NN OM OO HNH OHI MM MNH MHH OH OH OM .Mh OH M M N M M ON ON MO MO O hH Oh MO OH OH OO Oh MH NU M O O. M M N N OM OM OI OM MO IMO M HH MM OM NH .3 h O O.H O O OO OO MOH hOH NI OO OHH OHH OOI OMH MMH MO HH 11 H N O.M M M O O MO MO O NH OO OO O O OH OH OH H h h h h OI ON OMH NMH MI ON MHH OOH h MN Oh hh OO H M H O O NNH ONH Oh NOH h HO OO Mh OM OO OO OO OO H O h.M M h HH HH NO MM O OH MO OO M HH NO hO hO M h h h O OO OO OO NMH NHI ON hHH MOH OM OO MM Hh OO H O H h O MH MH HHH ONH NHI OM .Nh OO h h MO OM MO M M.O O M.M 0.0 NM NM HO MHH O O Mh Mh OH ON HO Oh OO N.M O N N.M N.M OM OM OO Oh h MH NO OO H M MM OM MO H O N M H.O OO OO MOH MOH OH MN OO Oh OM hM NO Hh NO h.H h.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 hM hM MOH OOH N NO OHH OHH MH HM OO HOH HO no S I I 71 S S S S I I I I .1 I .1 I m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m S S S + O U a. o o O O O O O o D U. + D U 0. + m. U a. q a q a U. U. mflmm mmeO mHmm mHmm mmmfio hHmm H mm