University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Counselor Rigidity - Dogmatism - Authoritarianism As Variables In Counseling Effectiveness

(USC Thesis Other)

Counselor Rigidity - Dogmatism - Authoritarianism As Variables In Counseling Effectiveness

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received
66-5801
CHARNOFSKY, Stanley, 1931-
COUNSELOR RIGID IT Y-DOGMATISM-
AUTHORITARIANISM AS VARIABLES
ENT COUNSELING EFFECTIVENESS.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1965
Education, psychology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
COUNSELOR RIGIDITY-DOGMATISM-AUTHORITARIANISM
AS VARIABLES IN COUNSELING EFFECTIVENESS
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Stanley Charnofsky
September 1965
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
D ate S e p t e m b e r , 1965............................................
Guidance Committee
Dean
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
II.
i
III.
Page
THE PROBLEM............................... 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Scope of the Investigation
Hypotheses
Definitions of Terms
Limitations
Summary
Organization of the Study
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 11
Rigidity-Dogmatism-Authoritarianism
Rigidity
Dogmatism
Authoritarianism
Summary
The Semantic Differential
Summary
INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES U S E D .......... 39
Instruments
The Test of Behavioral Rigidity
The Open and Closed Belief System
The California F Scale
The Semantic Differential
The Ranking Procedure
Procedures
In Collection of Data
In Treatment of Data
Summary
ii
Chapter Page
IV. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS . . . . ............... 63
Inflexibility and Supervisors' Rankings
Inflexibility and' the Semantic
Differential
Other Findings
Concept Relationships
Drop-Out Counselees
Summary
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................... 102
Summary
Conclusions.
Implications for Further Study
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 115
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: The Questionnaire.................. 124
Appendix B: The OCBS Inventory . . 127
Appendix C: CITS................................. 129
Appendix D: Word-Meaning Test ........ 133
Appendix E: Counselor Rating Form .............. 136
Appendix F: Answer Sheet for the OCBS Inventory . 138
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Rounded-Off Average of Factor Loadings . . . 41
2. Reliabilities, Means and Standard Devia
tions of Successive Forms of the Dogmatism
Scale................................. 44
3. Reliability of the F-Scale (Form 40 and 45) . 49
4. Rank Correlations between Total Pre-Tests
and Total Post-Tests of Inflexibility
for Counselor Trainees .......... 65
5. Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean
Flexibility Scores for Counselor Trainees . 66
6. Pilot Correlations for the TBR Questionnaire 68
7. Supervisors' Rankings of Counselor Trainees
Mid-Year and End-of-Year ................. 69
8. Rank Correlation between TBR Pre-Test and
TBR Post-Test for Counselor Trainees . . . 70
9. Rank Correlation between OCBS Pre-Test and
OCBS Post-Test for Counselor Trainees . . . 71
10. Rank Correlation between CFS Pre-Test and
CFS Post-Test for Counselor Trainees . . . 72
11. Rank Correlation between Supervisors' Mid-
Year Ranks and CFS-1 for Counselor
Trainees............................. 75
12. Rank Correlation between Supervisors' Mid-
Year Ranks and OCBS-1 for Counselor
Trainees............................. 76
13. Rank Correlation between Supervisors' Mid-
Year Ranks and TBR-1 for Counselor
Trainees............................. 77
iv
Table Page
14. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
Mid-Year Ranks and CFS-2 for Counselor
Trainees.................... 78
15. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
Mid-Year Ranks and OCBS-2 for Counselor
Trainees.................... 79
16. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
Mid-Year Ranks and TBR-2 for Counselor
I Trainees........... 80
i 17. Rank Correlation between Supervisors' .
Mid-Year Ranks and COT-1 (Grand Rank)
for Counselor Trainees .......... 81
18. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
Mid-Year Ranks and COT-2 (Grand Rank)
| for Counselor Trainees......... . ........ 82
19. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
End-of-Year Ranks and CFS-2 for
Counselor Trainees ............ 83
! 20. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
End-of-Year Ranks and OCBS-2 for
Counselor Trainees ....................... 84
21. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
End-of-Year Ranks and TBR-2 for
Counselor Trainees .......... 85
22. Rank Correlation between Supervisors'
End-of-Year Ranks and COT-2 (Grand Rank)
for Counselor Trainees..................... 86
23. Inflexibility Scores and Supervisors'
Rankings for Counselor Trainees ..... 87
24. Counselee Semantic Differential Mean.
Differences and Counselor Trainee
Inflexibility Rankings .......... 90
25. Rank Correlations between Counselee
Semantic Differential Mean Differences
and Counselor Trainee Inflexibility
Rankings.............. ................... 91
v
Table
26.
27.
28.
Counselor Influence on Actual Self-Ideal
Self Relationship Compared with Counselor
Inflexibility Scores and with Supervisors'
Rankings of Counselor Effectiveness . . . .
Significance of the Differences between "D"
Scares of Pre- and Post-Tests as the
Different Concepts Relate to my Actual
Self . . ..................................
Comparison of Continuing and Drop-Out
Counselees as they see the Different Con
cepts Related to my Actual Self ..........
Page
93
95
. 9 . 8
/
CHAPTER I
■ THE PROBLEM
Introduction
i ■
| Since the passing of the National Defense Education
Act (NDEA) in 1958, various colleges and universities
throughout the United States have been engaged in the pro
cess of counselor training- The requirements and prerequi-
l
jsites for all trainees are established* nationally under
[fitle Five of NDEA but, within those requirements, final
!
!
Selection of trainees remains a local responsibility. The
(director of the institute at each member school makes the
final choice of who is to be admitted to the training pro
gram. Thus, operationally, this choice has become a matter
of ascertaining criteria for effective counselor potential.
; The directors are left with the difficult question:
what makes a good counselor?,- and the sub-question: what
rudimentary "raw materials" must be present for the develop
ment of an effective counselor? (Indeed, there is at this
time nothing even close to a positive agreement as to what
is effective counseling!)
There has been an attempt, nationally, to patternize
the process of selection by the administration of various
1
2
ability tests. While a certain minimum ability level is
deemed necessary, it appears that, above that level, ability
and/or intelligence are not satisfactory as sole criteria
for assessing potentially effective counselors. Each direc
tor, when confronted by a prospective trainee, must, in
order to make an effective choice, be armed with criteria
other than an ability score (and perhaps his own intuition).
Several other variables require consideration. This present
writing is concerned with the investigation of some of those
other variables.
It is herein postulated that a dimension of person-
I
jality variously and loosely labled as rigidity, dogmatism,
authoritarianism, Einstellung or mental, set, might be a dif
ferentiating variable between potentially effective and in
effective counselors. The attempt has been made, then, to
investigate these (or a generalized "this") dimensions of
personality by correlating them with some criteria of coun
seling effectiveness. The work, in effect, has attempted to
validate certain instruments and standardize certain proce-
f
dures so that counselor-trainee selectors will be better
armed to make more efficient and more effective choices.
Statement of the Problem
It was the purpose of this study to compare rigidity--
dogmatism-authoritarianism variables among counselor-
trainees with their concurrent effectiveness, as counselors
and their rated potential as counselors. The variables of
rigidity-dogmatism-authoritarianism were arrived at through
the use of several instruments to be discussed shortly. The
attempt to assess "concurrent effectiveness as counselors"
was accomplished through the application of certain measure
ment devices to actual student counselees working with the
counselor-trainees. The "rated potential as counselors" was
a product of a ranking procedure as applied by the director
and the supervisors to the counselors-in-training.
It was the intent of this study, also, to ascertain
any relationship between the effects of training in counsel
ing and the mean scores on the rigidity-dogmatism-authori
tarianism variables.
j Scope of the Investigation
I The study involved the use .of the twenty-nine mem
bers of the 1963-1964 National Defense Education Act Guid
ance Institute at the University of Southern California,
their institute director, their three institute supervisors,
bnd student counselees from local high schools.
t
I
| The counselors-in-training at this institute were
chosen by the director on the basis of their ability scores
cn a standardized test, their backgrounds in the field.of
3ducation, and their impressiveness on an individual inter
view. The last-named is, of course, strongly subjective and
controlled by the unique value structure of the institute
director.
4
Generally, the above are the criteria used by each
director at institutes around the country. It is hoped that
findings on the local level can thus be generalized for use
fulness throughout the institute program.
Because of other controls imposed at the national
level, elements of previous experience and previous training
are eliminated as differentiating variables. This also
serves to enhance the generalizability of this study.
!
Hypotheses
j Stated in the null hypothesis, the study has at-
!
[tempted to affirm or refute the following:
! 1. Rigiditv-dogmatism-authoritarianism is not a
j
| factor in counseling effectiveness; those
!
| counselors with high R-D-A factor loadings
j 4
being generally as effective as those with
low R-D-A loadings.
A. Clients of high R-D-A counselors will
; generally show as much counseling move-
j
j ment as clients of low R-D-A counselors
as measured by the Semantic Differential.
B. Counselors found to be high in the R-D-A
factor will tend to be ranked as high on
supervisors' ratings of effectiveness as
will low R-D-A counselors.
5
2. There is little if any change in counselor
rigidity-dogmatism-authoritarianism as a
result of five months of controlled counselor
training, as measured by a comparison of
means and standard deviations of R-D-A scores
! prior to training and after five months.
s
j
! Definitions of Terms
i
Rigidity.— The rigidity factor as used in this stud^
is defined by Schaie as: "a tendency to perseverate and re
sist conceptual change, to resist the acquisition of new
patterns of behavior and to refuse to relinquish old and
established patterns" (Schaie, 1960, p. 3). It is important
for later reference to note the emphasis upon behavior in
I
ithis definition.
i
Dogmatism.— The dogmatism factor is defined by
Rokeach as: ."the extent to which a person can receive,
evaluate, and act on relevant information received from the
joutside on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrele-
1
i
vant factors in the situation arising from within the person
or from the outside" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 57). Note here that
the process of evaluating relevant information (cognitive
structuring) is given equal import with acting upon it (be
havior) .
Authoritarianism.— The authoritarianism factor is
operationally defined as: an attitude of inflexibility
6
leading to stereotypic behavior, primarily associated
(through use) with a far right or fascistic closed-belief
system. It must be pointed out that this definition is a
by-product of critiques of the California F Scale which has
been used in a great deal of research on authoritarianism.
i
| Counseling effectiveness.— This term will be defined
I
jas a characteristic of two criterion measures used to assess
it: judgmental opinions of qualified observers (super
visors), and "movement" of clients from before to after
counseling.
Limitations
One of the immediately apparent uncontrolled vari
ables in this work concerns the assignment of student coun
selees to the counselors-in-training. No attempt was made
to place counselees by characteristics; rather, they were
randomly assigned as counselor openings appeared. This,
then, raises a serious question about the criterion of
"movement" of the counselees to indicate effective counsel
ing; movement from what to what? If no effort was made to
match counselees, how can their movements be compared?
This limitation can be rebutted in part by noting
that directionality of movement in the Semantic Differential
was not predicted— merely movement per se. Since there are
no absolute scale points considered "best" or "worst," the
nounselee is not really compared against another counselee.
Rather, his post-test (after counseling) Semantic Differen
tial score is compared with his-own pre-test (before coun
seling) score. There is not, for example, a value judgment
being made of good or bad about a pre-test close relation
ship between actual self and father. Perhaps the relation
ship is too close and needs to be spread— or perhaps it is
v
too wide and needs to come together. It cannot, therefore,
be predicted that counseling should bring all students
closer to their fathers. In some cases perhaps they need to
jbe separated.
| It is, however, assumed that movement, in and of it-
!
‘ self, on the Semantic Differential, is an indication of some
|
success in counseling. It is granted that a more ideal de
sign would have been to pre-test twice as many students,
i
j
match and divide them on their concept relationships, and
bhen compare the post-test experimental group (intervening
counseling) with the post-test control group (no intervening
counseling) for relative movement. This, however, was not
feasible in this case.
Another limitation to be considered concerns the
number of counselees each counselor handled. The range was
from eight in one case to two in several others. It is dif
ficult to judge why some counselors counseled with so few
counselees over a period in which others worked with so
many. It might, in the first case, represent the creation
of a deeper, more penetrating relationship between counselor
8
and counselee; one which needed more complete "treatment."
Or, conversely, it might reflect a lethargic, groping ap-
•'proach by the counselor.
By contrast, the counselor working with as many as
eight counselees might either have been too shallow, or sim
ply very efficient.
For present purposes, there might be serious ques
tions about the reliability of the data from the counselor
who worked with as few as two counselees.
Yet, and again by way of rebuttal, it must be remem-
jbered that each counselee was compared on the basis of ten
jseparate concepts, and each of those was able to show move-
j
oaent on nine separate scales. Therefore, even with two
counselees, a fairly comprehensive picture can be drawn.
A third limitation concerns the rigidity-dogmatism-
authoritarianism scores of the counselors-in-training. The
instruments used (to be discussed in detail in Chapter III)
must, by any standard, be considered experimental. This is
especially true when applied to the subjects used in this
particular work. An investigation was unable to find any
indication of previous use of these instruments on similar
subjects. And, there is no knowing whether these subjects/
general stages of sophistication would have predisposed any
of them to "reading through" some of the test items.
In fact, in one case, a questioning of the institute
iirector produced (at least subjectively) a high rigidity
9
rating for a subject ranked low on effectiveness but also
low (by the tests used) on rigidity-dogmatism-authoritarian-
ism. It was suggested by the director and one of his super
visors that this subject had likely been exposed to those
types of tests before. Even one such instance could cer
tainly have an effect on the statistical relationships that
jwere obtained; and if there were others, the results would
jcertainly be suspect.
A final limitation involves the supervisors' ranking
procedure. Every supervisor did not know every counselor
equally as well, and only through a seminar-type discussion
were compromises and ranking agreements reached. The super-
i ,
visors concurred that, within any grouping of three ranked —
counselors, an exchange of position could have been pos
sible. Yet, the fact is that the list was left in its .
agreed-upon order thus indicating some slight weightings in
those directions.
i
! Summary
I
| This work attempts to study the influence of coun
selor rigidity-dogmatism-authoritarianism on effectiveness
of counseling. Counselors-in-training were ranked on the
basis of scores on tests purporting to measure the three
predictor variables. Effectiveness of counseling was ascer
tained in two forms: a ranking by the counselors' super
visors, and a shift in semantic meaning scores by counselees
tested before and after counseling exposure. Counselors-in-
10
training were also rated on the basis of changes on the
flexibility variable as a result of exposure to counselor
training. The meanings of the three personality criteria
are largely a product of use, although sources are cited to
distinguish between them. The study is limited as to re
sources and available samples; yet, it is felt that findings
have a certain generalizability for other counselor-training
situations.
Organization of the Study
The next chapter, Chapter II, cites available re
search concerning the concepts and techniques used in this
work. Chapter III details the procedural approach of this
study and an analysis of the particular instruments used.
In Chapter IV the findings and data are analyzed and their
treatment described. Chapter V is concerned with a summary
of the work and the conclusions to be drawn.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Riaiditv-Dogmatism-Authoritarianism
There is a tendency among some researchers and cer
tainly among lay people to amalgamate the various forms of
inflexible behavior into a generalized variable. Indeed.,
for the present final purposes this may be perfectly ade
quate. For this study there was, after all, an interest in
finding whether any one of the variables (rigidity-dogmatism-
authoritarianism) or all as a unit had a relationship with
effectiveness of Counseling.
Yet, the majority of researchers in the field tend
I
fco separate the variables, differentiating between their
manifestations, and defining them in different terms. For
this reason, the literature is reviewed in unit form, as it
congregates about a given type of inflexibility. Specifi
cally, there is concern with the literature related to
rigidity, dogmatism, and authoritarianism as defined through
the instruments herein used to assess each variable.
Rigidity.— Rigidity has already been defined as "a
tendency to perseverate and resist conceptual change, to
11
12
resist the acquisition of new patterns of behavior and to
refuse to relinquish old and established patterns" (Schaie,
1960, p. 3). In the literature, the term Einstellung has
been used to represent a given type of rigidity. This term
was defined by Warren (1934) as a certain kind of "set"
which immediately predisposes one to a given type of con
scious or motor act. It is sometimes called an "objective
set" since it stems from conditioning brought about in the
actual experimental situation as contrasted with a more
"subjective set" such as one brought to the experiment by
the subject. Many experiments have been conducted in which
there is an attempt to induce Einstellung, utilize it, and
then eradicate it. The concern, here, is primarily with
"subjective set" or the prepossessed rigidity-of-personality
variable; this does not deny that a "set" can be conditioned
in an experimental situation, but, in this work, there is
more interest in the kind of rigidity that is brought to a
situation rather than that kind created by_ the situation,
yet, in pursuit of a complete coverage of the research,
rigidity will be examined in all its varied forms.
In a basic study on "set" in problem-solving,
Luchins (1939) used a water-jar test technique on 1,039 sub
jects. Luchins found that the majority of subjects rigidly
adhered to one mode of solution and did not change to a
simpler method even when the method to which they had become
conditioned was no longer adequate. After many follow-up
- - 13
studies, Luchins raised the question whether or not his re
sults indicated a multi-factored quality of rigidity in
contrast to a unitary trait of rigidity. He held, and did
further experimentation to verify it, that a rigid "set"
could be "created" in an experimental situation and that
different situations would elicit differing patterns of
rigid to non-rigid behavior among the same subjects
(Luchins, 1951).
Goodstein (1953) while pursuing his thesis that in
tellectually rigid persons will have not only more consis
tent, but. also more extreme social attitudes than non-rigid
persons, found verification for Luchins' ideas. His results
showed that R was not a unitary trait. Goodstein defined
rigidity operationally as: "continuance of previously
learned techniques of problem solving when those techniques
presumably no longer represent the most efficient and direct
means of solving the problem" (Goodstein, 1953, p. 345).
Also favorable to Luchins1 approach was a study by
Forster, et al. (1955) on flexibility-rigidity in a variety
Df problem situations. Results showed little or no rela
tionship between flexibility in one kind of task and flexi
bility in another, even in similar situations.
Applezweig (1954) administered several rigidity
tests in an attempt to synthesize previous studies. His
findings showed no evidence of a generalized rigidity among
subjects across all "so-called" measures of rigidity.
I4
And Fink (1958) , in a carefully controlled study,
investigated for the consistency of the effects of rigidity.
His findings showed little evidence to support the stand
that rigidity effects tend to be generalized throughout most
aspects of an individual's mental behavior.
During this time, one researcher was attempting to
isolate specific kinds of rigidity, on the supposition that
identification of separate factors could prove useful in a
variety of specific situations. Scheier (1954) asked the
questions: can a rigidity factor be identified, can it be
common to both motor and cognitive tests of rigidity, or
will separate factors appear, corresponding to the differ
ences between motor and cognitive rigidity tests? His work
showed that the existence of a cognitive rigidity factor is
not confirmed, and that cognitive rigidity tests are largely
measures of other clearly defined mental abilities. Also
not confirmed was the existence of a distinct motor rigidity
factor.
Although logic tends to lean toward Luchins1 "multi-
factored" rigidity, one carefully designed study is most
critical of his experiments on behalf of that factor.
Prick, et al. (1959) in a factor-analytic study of flexibil
ity in thinking, analyzed the make-up of the flexibility-
rigidity variable. Their analysis was most critical of the
Luchins Water Jar Test as a supposed test of rigidity, stat
ing that it was more a test of general reasoning and logical
15
evaluation.
Luchins and Rokeach tend to disagree on the basic
generalizability of the rigidity trait. In an investigation
with highly ethnocentric subjects, Rokeach (1948) verified
his hypothesis that the rigidity employed in the solution of
a social problem among ethnocentric individuals is not an
isolated phenomenon. Rather, it is an aspect of a general
[rigidity factor which would manifest itself in a variety of
problems, social or not. Also verified was Rokeach1s second
r
hypothesis that ethnocentric individuals would employ a
|problem-solving mode of thought that was more concrete than
non-ethnocentric individuals; the latter would employ a mode
of thought that was more abstract in nature. This latter
finding is significant in the discussion of the differences
between rigidity and dogmatism, which will be considered
shortly. (Although it has not been obvious in the litera
ture, it is suspected that this concept of a general rigid
ity factor represents a segment of Rokeach's earlier think
ing— that more recently he would likely label such general-
ized patterning as docrmatic.)
Cowen and Thompson (1951), making use of the kind of
einstellung rigidity Luchins' tests purported to measure,
studied the relationship of such rigidity to certain vari
ables of personality and adjustment. They used the Bell
Personality Inventory, the California Test of Personality,
and the Rorschach in an attempt to relate extreme
16
personality children with extreme rigidity scores. Their
only significant correlation came with the Rorschach, where
protocols showed significantly poorer adjustment of the
"rigid” group.
Then, to increase the usefulness of a rigidity fac-
|
bor, Cowen, et al. (1953) developed an additional measure of
problem-solving rigidity, structurally similar to the water-
jar technique but, hopefully, tapping further areas of be
havior. They tested their hypothesis that there would be a
positive relationship between rigidity functioning as mea
sured by the several tasks. Results showed a low positive
j
but significant correlation between the different rigidity
!
I
measures.
‘ By way of general summary of research based on
i
i
Luchins' Water Jar Test, Levitt (1956) is cited. Of thirty-
one studies using the (WJT) five showed positive results
(more than 75 per cent of the reported correlations were
significant at the .05 level or beyond). Sixteen showed
[
negative results (less than 25 per cent of the correlations
were significant). Ten showed ambiguous results. From
:hese and other figures, Levitt concluded that the (WJT)
seemed to lack predictive validity. Levitt also noted that
only 18 per cent of the criterion tests appearing in the
literature had been replicated, and these replicated studies
generally yielded contradictory or inconclusive findings.
According to Levitt, it is still not clear whether rigidity
17
is a function of the situation or of the personality.
Cattell and Ghose (1949) and Fisher (1949) have at
tempted to bring together several measures of rigidity, the
former in a factor analysis of seventeen measures of rigid
ity (in which four basic factors were identified), and the
latter in a short history of experimental work in the area,
tracing treatment of some phases of the rigidity question to
Freud. Fisher (1950) also explored rigidity from an ana
lytic viewpoint and finally defined it -as differentiated
into many separate forms. In this latter work, Fisher
developed his Fisher Rorschach Scales of Maladjustment
Rigidity— but an examination of his findings showed that no
single rigidity measure of the entire battery was very use
ful in predictive efficiency; his correlations with validity
criteria were generally very low.
Schaie, the author of one of the instruments used in
this study (Test of Behavioral Rigidity, 1960), in an at
tempt to create an all-inclusive, useful tool for the as-
!
jsessment of a general rigidity factor, describes the source
of his items, the rationale behind them, and the validation
I
sample upon which they were used (Schaie, 1955). In a
Collow-up, he applies the findings from his validation study
to several personal traits, ranking rigids and flexibles on
the basis of education, income, mobility, age, etc. (Schaie,
L958).
18
Use of Schaie's rigidity tests was made by Shockley
(1961). In this research, Shockley had attempted to use
Luchins-type tests, but found them impractical ("far too
many subjects failed to solve the set-inducing items1 1
[Shockley, 1961, p. 47]). He found and used Schaie1s full
Test of Behavioral Rigidity, comparing high and low scorers
as to ability in physical science classes. A pertinent
finding for our purposes is that the TBR was able to dis
criminate between superior and poor students on their per
formance in critical thinking, scholastic aptitude, and
reading proficiency; low rigids scoring higher in these
areas than high rigids. Shockley concludes that this "sug
gests that behavioral rigidity may act to control how effec
tively one may make use of his intellectual capacities"
I
(Shockley, 1961, p. 91). Further discussion of the useful
ness of the TBR as a measure of general rigidity will be
found in Chapter III.
| It is apparent, in reviewing the research, that
j
there is a tendency to associate the concepts of dogmatism
and authoritarianism more closely together, while placing
rigidity somewhat apart. The rigidity factor seems charac
terized as less encompassing, more superficial, more behav
ioristic, more specific, less generalized in the personality
structure (Rokeach, 1955, p. 87). The literature in recent
/ears deals more with the dogmatism-authoritarianism vari
ables, and less with rigidity.
19
Dogmatism.— Milton Rokeach seems to have popularized
the use of the word dogmatism in social research. In so
doing, it has become his responsibility to define it and to
distinguish it operationally. In his book, The Open and
Closed Mind, Rokeach defines the dogmatism factor as:
. . . the extent to which a person can receive, evalu
ate, and act on relevant information received from the
outside on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by
irrelevant factors in the situation arising from with
in the person or from the outside. (Rokeach, 1960,
p. 57)
This definition is noted a second time so that it
can be compared with Schaie1s definition of rigidity cited
earlier in this chapter. Rokeach sees a clear distinction
between the two concepts:
1 • .
j Whereas dogmatism refers to total cognitive organiza
tions of ideas and beliefs into relatively closed
ideological systems, rigidity, when genotypically
conceived refers solely to the degree of isolation
between regions . . . or to a property of a functional
boundary which prevents communication between neighbor
ing regions . . .; when phenotypically conceived,
rigidity is defined in terms of the way a person or
animal attacks, solves> or learns specific tasks and
problems. . . . Thus, dogmatism is seen as a higher-
order and more complexly organized form of resistance
to change. While dogmatism may well be hypothesized
to lead to rigidity in solving specific problems, the
converse is not necessarily the case. Rats, the
feebleminded, and the brain-injured, for example,.can
be characterized as rigid (also compulsive, fixated,
perseverative, inflexible) but hardly as dogmatic.
(Rokeach, 1955, p. 87)
Phis comparison recalls an earlier work by Rokeach, cited
previously, in which he hypothesized a general rigidity fac
tor somewhat opposed to Luchins1 multi-dimensional stand.
En that work, Rokeach found that ethnocentric, individuals
20
employed a more concrete mode of problem-solving thought
than did non-ethnocentrics, the latter using a more abstract
mode (Rokeach, 1948). Employing Rokeach's first finding
that rigidity is a generalized factor of personality, it
could be assumed that ethnocentric individuals tend to be
rigid in other than social situations; thus, rigid individ
uals employ more concrete problem-solving modes of thought.
According to Rokeach1s distinction between rigidity and
dogmatism, then, such modes of thought are manifestations
of rigidity, while the higher abstraction of ethnocentrism
is a dogmatic trait. The "earlier" Rokeach did not apply
these distinctive definitions; while the "later" Rokeach did
not bother to apply them to his earlier research.
While dogmatism and authoritarianism are closely
aligned, Rokeach wants a clear distinction between the two
understood, at least as concerns the way they are used in
research (Rokeach, 1960, p. 13ff.). The latter has come to
be the virtual name-plate for the use of the California F
Scale since most research on authoritarianism has used that
Instrument^ As such, it has the connotation of a Fascistic
type of inflexibility, since several works following the
Adorno, et al. (1950), tome have concluded that the F Scale
measures "rigidity" of the right, or Fascism (cf. Hyman and
Sheatsley, 1954; Christie/ 1954; Shils, 1954; Christie,
1958; Taylor, 1960).
21
It must be admitted that the literature is often
muddled in reference to this distinction, with some of the
researchers seeming to be less sophisticated and prone to
interchange the terms authoritarian, dogmatic, and rigid.
Several studies, however, have taken the cue from
Rokeach, employing his Dogmatism Scale for identification of
"dogmatic" subjects and providing for future research a
series of validation studies.
One of these, Ehrlich (1961), was concerned with the
closed cognitive structure of dogmatism and _its logical con
comitant— resistance to change. Ehrlich1s hypotheses were
confirmed that dogmatism was inversely related to the degree
i
i
jof learning in a classroom situation, and that such rela
tionship is independent of academic aptitude. In a recent
follow-up to Ehrlich's work, Christensen (1963), using a
sample of 166 introductory psychology students at the Uni
versity of Alberta, found no confirmation that the Dogmatism
Scale predicts classroom learning. He did find, however,
positive support for the finding that aptitude and dogmatism
are independent variables.
Adams and Vidulich (1962), meanwhile, did find sup
port for Ehrlich's dogmatism-learning relationship. They
showed that high scores on the Dogmatism Scale were related
to inferior learning of belief-congruent (e.g., "ball-
round") and belief-incongruent (e.g., "ball-square") paired-
associate lists. While learning of incongruent associates
_ _ _ _ _ _ . 22
was more difficult for all subjects, high dogmatics had more
difficulty than low dogmatics with incongruent relative to
congruent material.
Fillenbaum and Jackman (1961) examined explicitly
the relationship between dogmatism and anxiety, replicating,,
in part, Rokeach's work. Using the MMPI for the anxiety
scores, the researchers found that on the Denny Doodlebug
problem (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 171ff.), subjects low in dogma™
fcism performed more efficiently than those high in dogma
tism. There was no relationship between generalized anxiety
and performance on the Doodlebug problem; but a significant
positive relation (r = .49) was found between Dogmatism
jscores and Anxiety scores. While relationships were in the
jsame direction, these researchers used the entire range of
scores on dogmatism rather than extreme groups only, as did
Rokeach.
Kemp has used the Dogmatism Scale in a pair of
studies involving counseling and counselor training. In the
former (Kemp, 1961), he found that high dogmatics in a
school setting had more "problems" than low dogmatics, and
were less affected by counseling. The control group showed
:io change in the number of "problems" regardless of low or
high dogmatism. The second study (Kemp, 1962), valuable for
our present purposes, utilized fifty graduate students in
counselor training, and again employed Rokeach1s Dogmatism
.Scale. This work compared open and closed-minded counselor
23
trainees (1) on their tendency to simulate change in a hypo
thetical situation, and (2) with the use of understanding,
supportive, evaluative, interpretative, and probing or diag
nostic responses in actual counseling situations. Findings
r -
showed high dogmatics to simulate change more, in accordance
with the expectancies of the situation, but, in actual coun-
|seling, the high dogmatics changed from their hypothetical
i
i
responses toward fewer understanding and supportive re
sponses, and toward the alternative responses.
I Lichtenstein (1961) attempted to show that the Dog-
!
matism Scale was as susceptible to an acquiescent response
‘ set as was the F Scale. His data substantiated the claim,
I
and he suggests routine use of an acquiescence measure when
working with either the D or F Scales.
i
i
i Powell (1962) found that open-minded subjects could
better distinguish between and evaluate independently the
Content of a message and the source of the message than
Closed-minded subjects.
!
i Vidulich and Kaiman (1961) found that closed-minded
groups tended to agree significantly more with high status
chan with low status information sources. Open-minded groups
tended to agree more with low than with high status sources.
de Chantal Godfrey (1963) employed the Dogmatism
Scale in a study which showed Catholic children to be more
::igid and more digmatic, generally, than public school
children.
24
In all, research making use of Rokeach-'s Dogmatism
Scale has proven provocative and in the general direction of
approbation for its usefulness. The accumulation of norms,
other than Rokeach's own validation work (Rokeach, 1960), is
still a problem because of the diversified groups with which
it has been used.
Author it ar i ani sm.— It is not possible to point to a
single source as the origin of work on authoritarianism.
Actually, that concept has been the forerunner of many other
approaches to kinds of inflexibility, including dogmatism
and rigidity.
The classic work in the field is, of course, The
authoritarian Personality, sometimes called the California
Study (Adorno, et al., i960). But that comprehensive study
received its impetus from many isolated reports and investi
gations.
Stagner, for example, in 1936, studied Fascist atti
tudes and described them as more than merely political opin-
[
ilons; he saw them as part of an integrated system of beliefs
and attitudes, including group prejudices (Stagner, 1936,
p. 315). This work by Stagner and his follow-up on the
determining conditions of Fascism (Stagner, 1936) were in
fluential in guiding Edward's work (Edwards, 1941), also on
Fascist attitudes, from which several items were borrowed in
"he formulation of the California 1 3 Scale (the companion of
-;he F Scale) .
25
Even earlier work had made contributions to the
rationale of the Authoritarian Personality; Howells (1933)
identified extreme radicals and extreme conservatives and
found them to be entirely different in their personality
manifestations; and Moore (1925) found that radicals excel
in the ability toJ break long-established habits, and surpass
i
jconservatives in their ability to think in unusual terms.
The Authoritarian Personality itself touched off
volumes of subsequent research and critiques. The basic
critique, Studies in the Scope and Method of•"The Authori
tarian Personality" (Christie and Jahoda, 1954) contains
several controversial analyses as well as a review of work
taking off from the basic book.
Shils (1954) questions the "right" versus "left"
authoritarianism variable as treated in the original work.
He raises questions about the "rigid" low scorers (the com
munists) , and the genuine low scorers (the democrats); the
former being positively disposed toward totalitarianism in
jtheir thinking— yet both being opposed to Fascistic think-
j
ling.
Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) deal with the methodo
logical technique of the research design in the California
studies. This work is most critical of the controls, and the
relation between data and theory in the original study.
Christie (1954) reviews some selected literature
which has stemmed from the impact and controversy of the
26
basic study. He points out that "evidence as to the ability
of the F Scale to screen non-Fascistic authoritarians is
extremely meager" (1954, p. 130). Christie cites examples
to reinforce the point that F^ Scale items are likely "ideo
logical cliches representative of the authoritarian right"
I
j(1954, p. 133), and thus unlikely to measure general
t
"authoritarianism." What the F^ Scale does measure, accord
ing to Christie, is not exactly clear, although "it captures
something common to Fascistic philosophy" (1954, p. 140).
How well the F_ Scale measures whatever it measures has been
t
|the concern of several studies, the results of which
i
Christie, in 1954, had termed "encouraging" (p. 140).
| Milton (1952) administered a version of the F_ Scale
to 390 students at the University of Tennessee, and immedi-
I
ately afterward asked them to select one of six names of
candidates preferred as the.next president of the United
States. Those choosing Taft had the highest F Scale item-
mean-score, while those choosing Stevensen had the lowest.
I
MacArthur was immediately below Taft, while Eisenhower was
i
immediately above Stevenson. The same six were ranked for
authoritarianism by eighteen faculty members, and a rank
order correlation of .73 was found between F Scale scores
and the faculty choices.
Taylor (1960), in an intensive work, studied extreme
social attitudes centering on both poles of the conservative-
Liberal continuum. His contention was that such extreme
attitudes were, in reality, "alternative phenotypic mani
festations of the same or similar genotype" (Taylor, 1960,
p. 1). Specifically, he attempted to compare the perceptual
reactions of extreme scorers on the F Scale as to their
reproductions of relatively non-social material. The ex
treme liberals were low scorers on the F Scale, extreme
conservatives were high scorers. Findings showed that ex
tremes were similar with reghrd to perceptual closure, lead
ing to the general support of the contention that the social
attitudes of extreme -liberals and extreme conservatives had
basic similarities. Taylor has noted that earlier litera
ture viewed social rigidity as basically a specific and
independent attitude; while later work has regarded it as
"related to the entire personality, as part of a highly
i'
i
generalized system, manifesting itself even in situations
where social issues are not present" (Taylor, 1960, p. 1).
Taylor is critical of much research using the F Scale in
which liberality is assumed among low scorers and where
middle scorers have been entirely excluded from considera
tion. (Yet, the authors of The Authoritarian Personality
made no claims upon low scorers and, in fact, found them to
be relatively more diverse as a group.)
Another work, although employing a different cri
terion instrument, found also that low authoritarians were
not predictably more humanistic. Alper, Levin, and Klein
(1964), employed the 64 item FERPT scale of D. J. Levinson
28
(1955), eliminating one controversial item, and relating
high scorers to Freud's "harsh, punitive, convention-
bound . . . superego" (Alper, et al., 1964, p. 314), and low
scorers to Fromm's humanistic conscience. Results, gener
ally, support authoritarian predictions for high scorers,
but do not show significance between low scorers and human
istic predictions.
i
| Jackson and Solley (1957) interpret the reported
i
i
correlation between the Einstellung test and the F Scale as
an indication that both measures are reflecting tendencies
toward acquiescence, conformity and over-generalization,
rather than as an indication that authoritarians should be
labeled rigid.
! Mogar (1960), however, reversed the F Scales in
order to question acquiescent response set. Using a form of
the Semantic Differential, he found that F Scale scores were
positively related to the tendency to make extreme judgments
i
ion the Semantic Differential, while no relationship was
jfound between reversed scales and the Semantic Differential.
Fhus acquiescence was not confirmed.
Bass (1956) developed a 56 item scale of social
acquiescence, useful in assessing the effects of acquies
cence on scores from personality instruments such as the F
Scale. The author defines social acquiescence as "the ten
dency to accept any generalization about behavior" (Bass,
1956, p. 296).
29
Brown (1953) found that the correlation between
rigidity and authoritarianism was greater when conditions of
administration were designed to create an atmosphere that
was ego-involving rather than relaxing (i.e., anxiety about
achievement).
Weitman, in a recent study (1962) composed an
Acquiescence Test and compared scores with F Scale scores.
He confirmed the identification of three hinds of authori
tarians: Pro-Authoritarian (had high scores on the Acquies
cence Test), Anti-Authoritarian'(had low scores on the
Acquiescence Test), and Non-Authoritarian (had middle scores
jon the Acquiescence Test). He also confirmed a second
I
hypothesis that Pro- and Anti-Authoritarians would be less
effective than Non-Authoritarians in breaking up coherent
perceptual organizations— presumably because of their polar
needs either to resist or to uphold authority.
And in a follow-up study, which could be partially
considered a validity check on the F Scale, Weitman (1964)
identified Conformist (Pro-Authoritarian), Rebel (Anti-
Authoritarian, and Independent (Non-Authoritarian) subjects.
3y using sentence-completion type instruments, he found, as
anticipated, that Conformists regularly evinced No Answer
and Rebels regularly evinced Direct Evasion. Independents
avinced neither of these forms of task avoidance.
Summary.— The research on the rigidity-dogmatism-
authoritarianism variables have been examined by segmenting
30
the concept and approaching each area independently.
Rigidity is more often considered on the behavior
istic level, is a less abstract and a less inclusive term,
and has been characterized by a tendency to perseverate be
yond usefulness.
Dogmatism is more of a philosophical state of mind,
a personality concomitant. It has been defined and employed
by Rokeach, and is most often measured by Rokeach's Dogma
tism Scale. Rigid behavior can stem from a dogmatic person
ality make-up. - ~ '
Authoritarianism is primarily associated with a
socio-economic orientation. It tends to connote a far right
or Fascistic-type of closed belief due to its close identi
fication with the F Scale. The question is moot whether
|
authoritarianism (as operationally defined) can be general
ized beyond social attitudes and prejudices. It is likely
that those on the far left are equally susceptible to in
flexibility as those on the far right? by use, however,
these have been excluded from the "authoritarian" label and
must, therefore, come under the general closed-belief rubric
of dogmatic.
The literature has, in recent years, generally em
phasized the application of the various types of inflexibil
ity to other areas of social involvement and of human behav
ior .
31
Although there is no general agreement on specifics,
it is widely accepted that, given valid means of identifica
tion, the less flexible personality structure carries a
negative connotation.
The Semantic Differential
Osgood, et al. (1957), have reported on their inten
sive work at the University of Illinois in attempting to
develop an objective measure of meaning. Early work along
this line was performed by linguists, but with the goal of
discerning the relationship of signs to other signs; they
showed little concern with either the sociological or the
psychological matrices of meaning.
Osgood and his associates set about to establish a
psychological index for the meaning of meaning; "that pro
cess or state in the behavior of a sign-using organism which
Ls assumed to be a necessary consequence of the reception of
sign-stimuli and a necessary antecedent for the production
of sign-responses" (Osgood, et al., 1957, p. 9). This index
a certain kind of measurement operation, has been termed the
Semantic Differential. Presumably, it relates to the func
tioning of representational processes in language behavior
and is said, therefore, to serve as an index of those pro
cesses (Osgood, et al., 1957, p. 9).
In their book, The Measurement of Meaning, Osgood
and his co-workers offer a thorough analysis for the devel
opment of their instrument, including a review of research
32
on the background of the Semantic Differential (pp. 19-30).
The authors explain the rationale behind the instrument:
We begin by postulating a semantic space, a region of
some unknown dimensionality and Euclidian in charac
ter. Each semantic scale, defined by a pair or polar
(opposite-in-meaning) adjectives, is assumed to repre
sent a straight line function that passes through the
origin of this space, and a sample of such scales then
represents a multi-dimensional space. The larger or
more representative the sample, the better defined is
the space as a whole. (Osgood, et al., 1957, p. 25)
And, in regard to differentiating the meaning of a concept:
By semantic differentiation, then, we mean the suc
cessive allocation of a concept to a point in the
multidimensional semantic space by selection from
among a set of given scaled semantic alternatives.
(Osgood, et al., 1957, p. 26)
As the authors examined the dimensionality of this
semantic space through a series of factor analyses, it be
came clear that three major factors had been contributing to
the meaningful judgments by subjects. These three were, in
order of magnitude, the evaluative factor, the potency fac
tor, and the activity factor.
Again, the authors write:
A pervasive evaluative factor in human judgment regu
larly appears first and accounts for approximately
half to three-quarters of the extractable variance.
. . . The second dimension of the semantic space to
appear is usually the potency factor, and this typi
cally accounts for approximately half as much variance
-as the first factor. . . . The third dimension, usu
ally about equal to or a little smaller than the sec
ond is the activity factor. . . . (Osgood, et al.,
1957, pp. 72-73)
Briefly, the evaluative factor is concerned with
such polar adjectives as "good or bad," "pretty-ugly,"
’ valuable-worthless." The potency factor is concerned with
33
power and its associates: size, weight, toughness? such
polar adjectives as 1 1 strong-weak" and "hard-soft." And the
activity factor involves quickness, excitement, warmth, agi
tation, etc.? such polar adjectives as "fast-slow" and "ex
citable-calm. "
While the authors admit to a certain portion of
total variance still unaccounted for, the above three fac
tors have been the most clearly defined, have been checked
for reliability, and represent the great majority of the
total variance. Practically, the evaluative factor offers a
differentiation among concepts that is twice as fine as dif-;
ferentiation in terms of potency or activity, while they, in
turn offer significantly finer differentiations than any
other factor.
I
The authors present a formidable set of references
having employed the Semantic Differential in personality
research (Osgood, et al., 1957, pp. 217-271). Listed and
explored are several uses and potential uses of the instru
ment, including a vivid description of the semi-theatrical
ease of "Eve White," "Eve Black," and "Jane," the celebrated
"Three Faces of Eve" story. In this instance, the Semantic
Differential was employed as a clinical tool and showed
clear evidence of usefulness and potential.
Long before the publishing of the Osgood, et al.,
book, other research using the Semantic Differential form
34
had begun to accumulate. Mowrer (1953)/ in discussing ver
bal behavior changes during psychotherapy, reviews the then
rather new Semantic Differential concept with examples and
statistical applications. He portrays the three-dimensional
model which is the graphic representation of meaning at
tached to various concepts before, during, and after therapy
Correlation with clinical events is high, and Mowrer notes
that test-retest correlations on the markings of the con
cepts are "in the neighborhood of .85" (Mowrer, 1953,
p. 530).
And Endler, in a much later study (1961) valuable as
a reference for use of the Semantic Differential before and
after "treatment," found a significantly modified self-
concept (on the evaluative factor) as a result of therapy.
Movement was in the direction of greater self-valuation.
Endler suggests that his findings corroborate the theories
of Rogers (1951) and Snygg and Combs (1949), that "the phe
nomenal self is the key personality concept, and psychologi
cal adjustment is greatly determined by its significance or
meaning" (Endler, 1961, p. 108). (This use of the "self" as
the central concept around which all other movement is as
sessed, governs the rationale of this present study.)
Endler also explains that it is only logical that the evalu
ative factor would be the most affected since we perceive
personality disorders in an evaluative manner. Endler con
cludes that change in the meaning of the self-concept shows
35
promise as a criterion for improvement during therapy.
{This work shall again be cited in discussing the treatment
of collected data; Endler has employed many of the same
statistical techniques as have been used in this present
study.)
Cronbach and Gleser (1953), much earlier, had dis
cussed the rationale behind the "D" or distance measure
which Osgood and Suci went on to employ as the basic yard
stick formula for the Semantic Differential. They concluded,
prior to any formal use of the measure with the Semantic
Differential, that in assessing similarities between sets of
scores:
The most satisfactory model appears to be to conceive
of the tests as coordinates, and each person's score
set as a point in the test space. Then distances be
tween points, computed by the D measure, are an index
of similarity between score sets. (Cronbach and
Gleser, 1953, p. 472)
At that time, Cronbach and Gleser were actively pioneering
in work with the D measure, as were Osgood and Suci. Endler,
cited earlier, has made use, in his research, of the
Cronbach-Gleser analysis.
Osgood, in some continuing work on meaning and its
measurement (1962), presented an analysis of the learning
theory and the measurement models from which his and subse
quent work have derived. After discussing research con-
iucted in Japan and in the United States, Osgood concluded
that "there is no such entity as 'THE Semantic Differential,'
with a rigidly defined set of factors. ..." (Osgood, 1962,
36
p. 24) . Rather, the way is open for use of specifically
constructed instruments in the Semantic Differential form
for specific concept-types or classes.
Grigg, in an avowed validity study of the Semantic
Differential technique (1959), found a greater distance (D)
between "ideal self" and "neurotic" than between "self" and
"neurotic." Grigg interpreted his finding as one favorable
to the validity of the Semantic Differential.
And Miron (1961) studied the reliability of the
Semantic Differential technique by test-retest administra
tion, using changes in the instrument instructions: one
jroup being ashed to recall their previous markings, another
being asked to proceed at a slow rate, with control groups
not requested to recall the earlier pattern and not changing
from their earlier "fairly rapid pace" instructions. Miron
found uniformly high reliability coefficients, especially
within the evaluative factor, but cautioned that his immedi
ate test-retest design represented an extreme example of
Lack of independence due to memory effects. Osgood, mean
while, had allowed a three week interval between testing.
Miron also suggests that findings confirm the advisability
of the standard instructions to proceed at a "fairly rapid
pace" through the test.
Gulliksen (1958), in a basic work, reviewed the book
by Osgood, et al., raising questions about the scaling tech
niques. Gulliksen points to Osgood's own finding of zero
37
deviation in 54 per cent of test-retest responses (Osgood,
et al., 1957, p. 132), as a criticism instead of a boon.
His interpretation is that such high test-retest correlation
points to extreme influences of habit or memory, which are
undesirable for calculating the standard error of measure
ment. He calls for not more than, perhaps, 20 per cent
identical results— and suggests the use of a 15 point or 20
point scale in place of Osgood's present 7 point scale
(Gulliksen, 1958, p. 118).
Finally, Kelly and Levy (1961) set out to test the
validity of the Semantic Differential technique "as a means
af measuring the differences in connotative meaning between
concepts" (Kelly and Levy, 1961, p. 57). Their findings
support the value of each Semantic Differential profile to
reflect some aspect of the meaning of the concept it depicts.
In effect, the authors wished to see if the instrument,
aside from its metric properties, was congruent with its im
plied psychological assumptions. Results were favorable to
its validity, although some limitations were found in the
sensitivity of the technique.
Summary.— The Semantic Differential technique has
proven useful as a research tool in the social sciences.
'Chere is evidence that it may become more useful as the
technique is refined and as the nature of symbolic represen
tation becomes more clear.
38
Research generally supports the conceptual, factor
ial, and scaling qualities of'the technique, although some
studies call for greater precision. The D measure appears
to be a useful and valid means of expressing Semantic Dif
ferential findings.
Osgood and others consider the instrument a tech
nique, not a stabilized test; thus it can be adapted for
individual use depending upon the concepts to be examined.
It appears to be quite usable as a before and after
test that reflects change due to some type of "treatment."
And the notion of "my actual self" tends to be somewhat
critical in the meaning matrix of subjects tested.
While this chapter has reviewed literature relating
to the Semantic Differential and to the criterion measures
of inflexibility, it remains for the next chapter to discuss
In detail the actual instruments used in this study. Also
Ln Chapter III is a presentation of the procedures used in
the organization and operation of "this worh.
CHAPTER III
INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES USED
Instruments
! The Test of Behavioral Rigidity.— The instrument
herein discussed is the creation of K. Warner Schaie, form
erly of the University of Nebraska. It is the aggregate
|culmination of his investigations of several estimates of
|
rigidity, plus his own inventiveness where improvisation
Iseemed necessary. According to Schaie:
i
j The TBR serves two distinct purposes. It is on the
i one hand a set of operations sampling various aspects
of behavior relevant to the rigidity construct and
providing normative data for the investigator who
| wishes to include measures of rigidity as a reference
vector in his investigation. The second purpose of
the TBR is to provide a measure of what is held to be
! an important variable in the developmental study of
! the prevalence and change of socially effective and
i mature behavior. (Schaie, 1960, p. 3)
| In succinct terms, Schaie, through the creation of
the TBR, is attempting to measure "the ability of the indi
vidual to adjust to the stress imposed upon him by constant
Environmental change" (Schaie, 1960, p. 3). Schaie felt
jthat his factorial studies indicated that the degree of an
Individual's behavioral rigidity could best be described
through three dimensions. He names these dimensions:
3_a
40
(a) Motor-cognitive rigidity, (to) Personality-perceptual
rigidity, and (c) Psychomotor-speed.
Each of the above three dimensions is defined toy
Schaie:
The "Motor-cognitive rigidity" score indicates the
i individual's ability to shift without difficulty from
one activity to another. It is a measure of effec-
| tive adjustment to shifts in familiar patterns and to
continuously changing situational demands.
I The "Personality-perceptual rigidity" score seeks
j to indicate the individual's ability to adjust readily
i to new surroundings and change in cognitive and en-
| vironmental patterns. It seems to be a measure of
j the ability to perceive and adjust to new and unfamil-
| iar patterns and interpersonal situations.
I The "Psychomotor-speed" score indicates the indi-
| vidual's rate of emission of familiar cognitive re-
| sponses. A high score would seem to imply superior
functional efficiency in coping with familiar situa
tions requiring rapid response and quick thinking.
| (Schaie, I960, p. 9)
j
| The nature of each task reflects, of course, the
dimension of rigidity being measured. Of the three, the
i
|
j"Personality-perceptual" factor, according to Schaie's own
i
statement, "may measure efficiency in dealing with 'prag-
j
matic' or interpersonal restraints" (Schaie, 1960, p. 10).
Thus, in the examination of this series of behav
ioral tasks for use in the study, there was an awareness of
"he importance of the following graphic information:
41
TABLE 1
i
ROUNDED-OFF AVERAGE OF FACTOR LOADINGS*
t
1
i
j Test Score
Motor
Cognitive
Rigidity
Personality
Perceptual
Rigidity
Psychomotor
Speed
Composite
Rigidity
t
Capitals-R .25 .083
Capitals-NR .60 .200
jopposites-Rl
i
.35 .117
:0pposites-R2 .40 .133
tappo s it e s-NR .40 .133
[R-Scale
1
.50 .1665
P-Scale
1
L — —
.50 .1665
*From Schaie, 1960, p. 12.
]Here it can be seen that only two tests in the battery are
\
contributing to the measurement of the "Personality-
perceptual rigidity" factor.
j By definition, and through examination of the kinds
of tasks required, it was decided to engage only those tests
i
Which were consistent in rationale with other measures of
i
inflexibility to be used; the most concern was with cogni
tive structuring and interpersonal relationships. The
i
choice, therefore, was to employ only the "R-Scale" and the
"P-Scale" from^the TBR.
1
J Since reliability data on the TBR are sparse, using
pnly a portion of the total test does not involve forfeiting
a highly stable instrument for an unknown. Rather, it is
42
going from one experimental device to another, shorter one.
Logically, however, the shortening of the test must limit
its reliability. And, in this case, further complications
added to the problem.
j
I The "R-Scale" is a modified version of Gough's
ICalifornia Psychological Inventory (1957) and contains 22
jitems (plus 44 masking items). The "P-Scale" is a 9-item
|scale adapted from an earlier Perseveration scale first used
jby Lankes (1915). Together, these 31 items comprise the
! i
i"Personality-perceptual rigidity" factor. After administra-
j
[tion, however, it became obvious that the "P-Scale" 9-item
|test was not, in any way, differentiating among the sub
jects. It was, in fact, uniformly severe on all subjects
j
|and showed little "face validity" or relationship to the
\ \
|22-item "R-Scale. "
! Despite the obvious limitations on its value, then,
i
jit was decided that, from the TBR, only the "R-Scale" would
i
i
be retained for this study.
Described, at this point, has been the 22-item ques
tionnaire from the TBR as the first of the instruments to be
j
jused in this investigation. While limited alone, it was
I
hoped that, in conjunction with the other instruments to be
j
smployed, this measure could prove useful. (See Appendix A
for a sample of the questionnaire.)
^Under "Procedures1 1 in this chapter there is a con
tinuing discussion of the "R-Scale" from the TBR as it was
used in two pilot samples pertinent to this study._________
43
The Open and Closed Belief System.— The second mea
sure of inflexibility chosen was Milton Rokeach's OCBS, also
known as the Dogmatism Scale. While still considered ex
perimental because of its very nature, the OCBS has been
1
i
jused many times with differing conclusions (cf. Chapter II
ion Dogmatism). Rokeach, himself, supplies us with basic
jnormative data, some of which are reproduced in Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 2, the OCBS was not used
with counselor-trainees in any of the normative work. Kemp
(cf. Chapter II, pages 22-23) did employ the Dogmatism Scale
jForm E on graduate students in counselor training. His re-
jsults showed high dogmatics to simulate a posture most
jlikely to be expected in a given situation; and also, in
i
^actual counseling situations, to use more evaluative, inter
pretative, and probing or diagnostic responses than under-
i
|standing or supportive responses. These findings are favor
able to the construct validity of the Dogmatism Scale.
For this present work, Form E of the Dogmatism
Scale was also used, a 40-item list which had been factor^
Analyzed through successive administrations until refined to
jits existing form. It is interesting to compare in Table 2
i _
^:he mean scores of the various groups tested by Form E. The
mean differences between the college groups tested and the
English workers is, according to Rokeach, highly significant
(Rokeach, 1960, p. 91). The only American group approaching
bhe English workers in mean score is the group of aged, ~
44
TABLE 2
RELIABILITIES, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE DOGMATISM SCALE*
1-----
[Form
Number
of
Items
Group
Number
of
Cases
Relia
bility
Mean
Std.
Devia
tion
! • A
1
57 Mich.St.U. I 202 .70 182.5 26.2
43 N.Y. Coil's 207 .75 141.4 27.2
I
i C 36 Mich.St.U. II 153 .73 126.9 20.1
i
i
Mich.St.U. Ill 186 .71 128.3 19.2
i
i
Purdue U. 171 .76 — —
I
! D 66 Engl. Coll's I 137 .91 219.1 28.3
; E 40 Engl. Coil's II 80 .81 152.8 26.2
i
|
Engl. Workers 60 .78 175.8 26.0
Ohio St.U. I 22 .85 142.6 27.6
i
l
Ohio St.U. II 28 .74 143.8 - 22.1
I
Ohio St.U. Ill 21 .74 142.6 23.3
i
i
i
i
-
Ohio St.U. IV 29 .68 141.5 27.8
i
Ohio St.U. Va 58 .71 141.3
143.2
28.2
27.9
1 Mich.St.U. IV 89 .78 —
—
VA Domiciliary 80
24
17
.93
.84
183.2 26.6
*Taken from Rokeach, 1960, p. 90.
^Fhe Ohio State U. V reliability was obtained by a
test-retest, with five to six months between tests. The re
liability of .84 for the VA group was obtained in the same
nay with at least a month between tests.
45
destitute veterans. Rokeach cautions us, however, against
considering the English workers and the veterans more closed
in their belief systems than college students. Instead, he
jsuggests the variables of less education, or senility or
(demoralization as possibly causing the subjects to agree
more often with statements presented to them.
j
i That the English college students score higher (but
not significantly so) than American college students might,
j • -
jsuggests Rokeach, be due to the presence of some Communists
!
jin the English group. Rokeach found (also favorable to the
j
(validity of the Dogmatism Scale) that Communists tended to
j
jscore higher in dogmatism than other political groups
I
'(Rokeach, 1960, p. 351). Interestingly, he found, in two
i
factor-analytic studies, that dogmatism and anxiety are al
ways positively correlated, and also tend to unite as a
|
single psychological factor. Yet, Communists and other
i
i
leftists scored relatively low on anxiety! Catholics, also,
[
tended to score relatively high in dogmatism while Protes
tants and Jews scored relatively lower. Catholics, though,
jalso scored high on anxiety (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 351-352).
! It seems that Form E of the Dogmatism Scale is a
fairly stable instrument, although work with the type of
subject used in this study is limited. Because of what it
purports to measure and because of its relative success in
related research, this 40-item OCBS (Form E) was chosen as
the second of the instruments attempting to measure
46
counselor inflexibility. (See Appendix B for a sample of
the OCBS questionnaire.)
| The California F-Scale.— The third measure in the
I
battery has been much employed, much critiqued and much
I
maligned. Its final form, that which is herein used, is
jagain a questionnaire list composed of 29 items. The F-
!
Scale was created by Adorno, et al., in their massive work,
i
The Authoritarian Personality (1950). But, as Rokeach
I
|(1960, pp. 12-13) points out, the original study began in
Si943 as a problem of unique and intense concern over the.
Fascistic anti-Semitism that was occurring in Nazi Germany.
When the F-Scale was published in The Authoritarian Person-
lality, it began to assume the title of "authoritarian per
sonality scale." This, according to Rokeach, "is an unwit-
|
jting leap from the particular to the general" (Rokeach,
|L960, p. 13). Rokeach goes on to explain how this scale is
i
rightly not qualified to consider general authoritarianism,
i
pr that kind appearing among other than the right-wing of
the political-economic spectrum.
j Subsequent critiques agree that the F-Scale is
Limited in its applicability. Yet, for present purposes, it
appeared that a measure of this sort could add to the gene
ral portrait of the flexible-inflexible variable in the per
sonalities of subjects in this work. Also, since it has
been the most employed of the three instruments, it was
hoped that it could be used as a keystone measure of
47
personality-configuration against which the other instru
ments could be compared.
(Of course as an addition to the battery, it at once
adds to the total flexible-inflexible picture of each sub-
j
iject, particularly as the scores are combined for a grand
i
R-D-A total. Not only is it the intent that each test re-
jflect upon each subject, but also that all tests combined
ieflect upon each subject. Thus, comparisons can be made
i
between each instrument's score and the total battery score
I
jagainst the measures of counseling effectiveness.)
| The authors of the original research on the authori
tarian-type personality are quick to point out that their
major emphasis was with the identification and analysis of
[
the "potentially fascistic" (Adorno, et al.. 1950, p. 1)
individual. They saw as more diverse and less classifiable
I
individuals who are extreme in the opposite, or antifascist,
i
direction. (Rokeach accepted the challenge of attempting to
j
keasure inflexibility along its entire right-left continuum
with the development of his Dogmatism Scale.)
| The originators of the F-Scale, keeping in mind
jtheir basic purpose, created each item from at least one
i
hypothesis, making note of how it related to prejudice.
They had first, of course, created an anti-Semitism (A-S)
Scale, and an Ethnocentrism (E) Scale, and had the experi
ence and knowledge of these scales for reference. They at
tempted to create the scale so that it "should not come
48
close to the surface of overt prejudice and it should appear
to be as far removed as possible from our actual interest"
(Adorno, et al., 1950, p. 241). They also insisted that
each item appear close to a rationale of truth, and yet not
contain such a universal element of truth that it could not
jbe refuted; thus it would better distinguish between extreme
i
believers.
f
| Several forms of the questionnaire were created and
jemployed, with each subsequent form more "purely" purporting
!
[to measure potential fascism. Form 40 and 45, a combined
i
[form, comprises what was the final presentation in the re-
}
i
Search (Adorno, et al., 1950, pp. 255-257).
| The choice for use in this study was a 29-item scale
I
printed in 1960 in Rokeach*s work, The Open and Closed Mind
(pp. 416-417). This scale was identical with Form 40 and 45
cited above, with the addition of one item.
Since normative data published by the authors deal-
!
ing with Form 40 and 45 reflect groups other than college
Students, a comparison of means and standard deviations,
while interesting, cannot, for purposes of this study, im-
|
portantly reflect upon the relative posture of the present
!
group. Reliability data, however, are valuable for present
use, and are enclosed in Table 3.
The means, standard deviations, and ranges in
Table 3 are based upon a seven-point scale with high score
indicating high fascistic-potential, and low score indicating
• 49
low potential.
The reliability coefficients, considering the nature
of the material, appear to be satisfactorily high. Subse-
1
quent research using the F-Scale further substantiates its
adequate reliability.
! TABLE 3
j RELIABILITY OF THE F-SCALE
! (Form 40 and 45)*
Group N Reliability Mean S.D. Range
i
Employment Service
Men Veterans
106 .89 3.74 1.04 1.2-5.8
1 _
Maritime School Men 343 .81 4.06 .77 1 . 6—6 . 1
(Combined Mean
!
449 .85 3.90 .90 1.4-5.9
' *
Adapted from
!
Adorno, et al. , 1950, p. 258.
i While validity of the F-Scale can only be related to
whether or not it actually measures authoritarianism, re
search has generally shown that it does reflect a kind of
closed thinking. Even if it is granted that it fails to
!
discriminate among other than fascistic-nonfascistic author-
i
j
jLtarianism, its proven consistency makes it a useful tool
for identifying a given facet of counselor inflexibility.
t
hus it has been chosen as the third instrument in this
tudy. (See Appendix C for an example of the F-Scale ques
tionnaire. )
50
The Semantic Differential.— While the previous has
been a discussion of why for the uses of this study one
instrument or another has been chosen, an evaluative device
is now considered whose form is standardized, but whose par
ticulars were created for this research. Osgood, et al.,
|in 1957, published a thorough analysis of the development of
i
itheir Semantic Differential technique. Subsequent work con
firms the "instrument" as a technique or a form rather than
i
!
|an absolute test (Osgood, 1962, p. 24).
i
I
| Thus, validity rests within the choice of items to
1 . ■
be employed in the Semantic Differential form; if the con
cepts chosen do indeed adequately reflect the end-goals to
j
be measured, then the instrument is likely to be valid. The
j
technique has been assessed as valid through previous re
search cited in Chapter II (cf. Grigg, on p. 36; Kelly and
i
i
Levy, on p. 37).
j Reliability of the technique is also considered
high. Mowrer found that test-retest correlations ran in the
neighborhood of .85 (Mowrer, 1953, p. 530). And Miron
|
|(1961), also using test-retest administrations, found uni
formly high reliability coefficients (especially as concerns
the evaluative factor). Gulliksen, infract, while granting
the highly adequate reliability findings for the technique,
was critical of the too-high test-retest correlations as re
flecting excess influences of habit and memory (Gulliksen,
1958, p. 118).
51
It remains, then, for an analysis of this work1s
particular concepts and factors to determine whether or not
2
this particular instrument is useful.
The subjects used, it must be remembered, were high
school seniors in the process of choosing their post-high
school activities. Their preoccupations were, generally,
with college, their careers, and their immediate environ-
i
ment. The instrument sought to assess the relationships of
these subjects with their present (and its life space),
their future (and its potential), and with their interper
sonal contacts. Thus, the concepts chosen were: my actual
self, people, father, my ideal self, mother, counselor, and
counseling (for assessing their present environmental and
relationship postures); and college, my future, and study
(to assess how they relate themselves to these future orien-
tations).
Taking the cue from Endler (1961), who worked spe-
I
cifically with the Semantic Differential, and from the
|
[theories of Rogers (1951) and Snygg and Combs (1949), this
i
l
work employed as the central concept that of "my actual
self." Thus, all other concepts were compared, for the po
sitioning of their meaning matrices, against the central
2
The basic concepts and factors chosen for this
study were originally created by Charles Stanley in 1962 in
work for his doctoral dissertation at the University of
Southern California. They were added to, analyzed, and em
ployed jointly by Mr. Stanley and this writer.
52
character of "my actual self." The theory was, of course,
that after exposure to counseling, there would be measurable
(change in how all concepts clustered about "my actual self"
jdepending upon the "effectiveness" of the counseling.
It is held that, in terms of face validity, the
(above concepts represent quite adequately the areas of coun-
i
seling objectives which the counselors sought to influence.
j
Ilf there has been success in tapping the areas of major
pressure upon the student-subjects, then, given the ade-
I
!
jquacy of the technique, there should indeed have been ere-
i
!
lated a satisfactory instrument.
As concerns the polar-adjective factors chosen as
j
jthe yardstick to set against each concept, logic again
|
guided the choices. The scale-sets were chosen to represent
l
(each major factor in the meaning matrix: the evaluative
j
(factor, the potency factor, and the activity factor. Thus
I
I
jwere employed those measures which make up the largest per
centage of meaning as isolated by Osgood, et al. (1957,
pp. 72-73).. The actual polar adjectives chosen are fairly
(obvious representations of each factor, and thus need not be
defended in and of themselves.
Since the conceptual-factorial choices represented
what were finally assumed to be valid reflections of the de
sired variables to be measured, and since previous research
has attested to the adequacy of the technique, the research
ers feel comfortable in the employment of the Semantic
53
Differential as it has been created.
For the specific purposes of this study, a fragment
ing and reporting of meaning shifts within each of the three
prime factors did not seem necessary. The interest is,
iafter all, in the total shifts of meaning through all fac-
i
!
tors of all subjects with reference to their actual selves.
I
jThus it is hoped that this instrument, as it has been chosen
and created, reflects over-all change in semantic under-
]
istanding by each subject, from a time just prior to counsel
ling to a time just at the close of counseling. (See Appen-
jdix D for an example of the Semantic Differential.)
! 1 '
The Ranking Procedure.— (Although the following is
j
jnore a procedure than an instrument used in this study, it
jdoes reflect the criterion measure of counselor effective-
i ’
ness, and is, therefore, positioned at this point so that
|all measuring devices can be categorically examined.) As
i
! pne means of ascertaining counselor effectiveness, the
director and the three supervisors of the counselor-training
institute were asked to rank all trainees as to their poten
tial as counselors. Judgments were based, of course, upon a
carry-over of past functioning performance; thus- the rated
potential became, in effect, an educated guess at how past
performance would affect future capability. The future
capability the judges were asked to assess needed, it seemed,
some kind of common criteria so that judgments could be more
reliably based. Thus each judge would more likely be in
54
procedural harmony with each other.
There was established, therefore, a set of criteria
i
jagainst which each judge was asked to rate each of the
twenty-nine counselor-trainees. (See Appendix E for an
example of the rating sheet and criteria.) But since each
i t
judge did not know each trainee equally well, it became
jclear that the rating procedure would have to become a con-
jsensus instrument, while keeping in mind, for purposes of
j
juniformity, a clear understanding' among all judges of the
I
jcriteria for classification.
I
| Each supervisor, then, rated the trainees he had
closely observed from one to ten. All ones were then con
sidered for consensus rank number one. All twos were then
I
j
jconsidered (along with the remaining ones) for consensus
rank number two. This was continued until a consensus rank-
i
ing was completed for the entire group, with the three
supervisors and the director all in agreement.
For the first ranking (after five months of train
ing) , judges discriminated only among the highest ten and
:he lowest ten. Thus the middle nine received a uniform
position of number fifteen. For the second ranking, how
ever, all twenty-nine subjects were ranked, with the only
reservation being that in any given group of three, rank
placements might possibly be interchanged. (An admission,
of course, of the lack of positive certainty in the rank
ings.)
55
To facilitate the reading of this paper, criteria
for the rank choices are reproduced below:
1. Supervisor's judgment as to quality of empa-
| thetic understanding counselor is capable
of demonstrating.
; 2. Supervisor’s judgment as to progress of
| counselor since the start of the program
in academic and practical counseling areas:
i
| a grasp and awareness of the philosophical
precepts of a counseling relationship.
| 3. Supervisor's subjective estimate of each
| counselor's potential for helping clients
| through the counseling relationship.
These criteria were created through an empirical process of
|
foliation and codification of numerous descriptions, defini
tions, statements, hopes, wishes, etc., concerning the goals
bf counseling. It is hoped that they reflect, generally,
i
what are most commonly accepted as prerequisite for effec
tive counseling.
I
Procedures
In Collection of Data.— A ready-made pilot study
presented itself as the logical first step in this work, at
Least as concerns one of the instruments in the battery. On
hand were TBR scores from the University of Florida and from
an earlier institute at the University of Southern Cali
fornia. Also available were supervisors' ratings from these
56
institutes (although there is no control information per
taining to the criteria used in these ratings).
The TBR scores and the ratings were ranked side-by-
jside, and a Spearman Rho Rank Correlation was run on each
!
pair of ranks. The resultant findings are presented in
Chapter IV. This pilot correlation represented a kind of
jvalidity check on the TBR, although there had been an ear
lier decision not to hinge the continuation of the complete
studies on the findings in this one segment.
The actual study began on Monday, September 30,
I
[1963, through the administration of the TBR, the OCBS, and
■
f
the CPS to the then new institute group. One of the thirty-
member group was absent and was tested later in the week
i
iunder controlled conditions. Another of the group soon left
the institute and was eliminated from the study.
i
| The tests were administered on a warm day in a well-
ventilated but still warm room. Testing time for'all three
instruments including directions was 50 minutes. Very few
I
questions were asked and those were of an interpretive na
ture. They were answered by a suggestion that the subject
apply whatever interpretation he most leaned toward. Two
people asked to have explained the purpose of the testing
and the research. They were told that this would be forth
coming.
The directions to all subjects were as follows:
57
You will be asked to answer a series of questions
which will aid us in examining and improving our in
stitute program. Please answer all questions to the
best of your ability. The exact purpose and nature
of this program will be discussed with you at a later
time.
i None of the instruments you will use is timed,
| -but you should work steadily and rapidly.
For each separate instrument there were also spe
cific directions which were written on the test booklets,
jonly with the OCBS were subjects asked to use a separate
i
janswer sheet. (See Appendix B.)
j
i
! The battery was administered and collected without
jincident, with one of the institute supervisors acting as an
assistant to this writer.
On Friday, February 14, 1964, at approximately 9:40
I
i
|a.m., the tests were administered a second time. _ There were
Itwenty-eight people present with one subject having been
i
dropped from the program and another ill. The missing sub
ject took her post-tests four days later under controlled
Conditions.
|
The weather was cool and dry. The group was frisky
bnd good-humored— quite obviously more friendly with each
Dther and at ease after one-half a school year together.
The group met in a small barracks-type bungalow room. Each
subject had an armchair desk of his own. There were no
questions asked regarding-the intent of the items. Again,
the battery, including directions, took 50 minutes to admin
ister.
58
The findings from the tests administered as de
scribed above were not divulged to the institute super
visors. They, meanwhile, were asked to rank the twenty-nine
institute members on criteria as outlined earlier in this
writing. This was done in February, at the half-way point
jof the institute, and again in June at the conclusion. Thus
I
I
jtwo major portions of the data-gathering were completed, the
I
jinflexihility material, and one-half of the criteria for
i
icounseling effectiveness and potential.
j
Information from the Semantic Differential, the
second half of the effectiveness criteria, was gathered
V
throughout the institute year. Students from local high
!
[schools were identified and contacted. In all, 125 student-
J
^subjects proved useful for this study. Subjects who were
i
I
jasked to appear at the institute for their initial counsel
ling interviews were administered the Semantic Differential
|as a matter of routine prior to any contact with a counselor.
i
!
[After counseling was concluded, the subjects were re-admin-
i
istered the Semantic Differential. A standard form for re-
bording accurate attendance and verifying Semantic Differen
tial administration was employed.
Student-counselees were assigned at random to each
of the twenty-nine counselors as the counselors became
available. Counseling was done in private, on a one-to-one
basis.
59]
All counselors were given code numbers and the
Semantic Differential data were applied to them by such
numbers. In the treatment of data, which are to follow, all
names have given way to code numbers for purposes of ano
nymity.
In Treatment of Data.— Data, gathered as described
were then subjected to statistical treatment, the results of
jwhich are reported in Chapter IV.
Scores on the TBR, the OCBS, and the CFS were ranked
ifrom high to low and were paired with supervisors' ratings,
I
both mid-institute and post-institute. Spearman Rho Rank
Correlations were run (via the Computer Center at San Fer-
I
jnando Valley State College) between the following:
Pre-OCBS----- and----Mid-year Supervisors' Ratings
Pre-TBR------ and----Mid-year Supervisors ' Ratings
Pre-CFS------ and----Mid-year Supervisors' Ratings
Post-OCBS----and----Mid-year Supervisors' Ratings
Post—TBR----- and----Mid-year Supervisors' Ratings
Post-CE^S----- and----Mid-year Supervisors ' Ratings
Combined Total
Pre-OCBS-----
Pre-TBR------ and----Mid-year Supervisors' Ratings
Pre-CFS------
Combined Total
Post-OCBS----
Post-TBR----- and----Mid-year Supervisors' Ratings
Post-CFS-----
Post-OCBS---- and----End-of-year Supervisors 1 Ratings
Post-TBR----- and----End-of-year Supervisors 1 Ratings
Post—CFS----- and----End-of-year Supervisors' Ratings
60
Combined Total
Post-OCBS---
Post-TBR and End-of-year Supervisors' Ratings
Post-CFS-----
Also compared were the supervisors' mid-year ratings
with their end-of-year ratings to ascertain the consistency
i
jof counselor rank positions. And for purposes of assessing
the change in the rigidity-dogmatism-authoritarianism vari
ables from pre-institute to mid-year, the means and standard
deviations of the two sets of total scores were compared and
i
i
jchecked for significance of shift. In a sense, this could
i
I
be a reliability check on these instruments, but the inter-
i
!
jvening variable of counselor training would tend to influ
ence stability of scores.
| Also, a Spearman Rho was ultimately run between the
jinflexibility rankings and the counselors' rankings based
l
jupon movement scores of their counselees on the Semantic
!
^Differential.
j
| By means of the Semantic Differential, all counse
lors were able to be ranked, from one to twenty-nine, based
upon how much "movement" took place between the pre-counsel-
Lng S-D and the post-counseling S-D. Movement was guaged
around the central concept of "my actual self," by comparing
"D" (distance) scores of all other concepts from "my actual
self" on the pre- and then the post-tests. This was ac
complished by applying the geometric distance formula for
;he computation of "D," and also made use of the Computer
Center at San Fernando Valley State College.
61
When all "D" scores were computed, the pre-test
"D's" were then compared with the post-test "D's" by means
of the Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test (non-parametric). This
procedure produced a measure of the significance of each
change in- "D" scores for each concept as it related to "my
actual self." (While for the central purpose of this work
I
jthe breakdown by individual concepts is not necessary, it
provides additional interesting information reported in
Chapter IV.)
When all "D" scores were calculated, again through
pse of the computer, all indications of movement were summed
(regardless of direction) for all the counselees of each
counselor; the means and standard deviations of the movement
of each counselor1s totaled clients' scores were then calcu
lated. Thus there was an indication of which counselors
occasioned the greatest mean movement among their clients,
and an opportunity to rank them on the basis of this move
ment. This ranking was then compared, as stated above, with
i
rankings on the inflexibility instruments by means of a
fepearman Rho. The second criterion of effectiveness, the
movement of each counselor's clients, was thus correlated
with the flexibility variable.
Finally, for the sake of information, with the con
cepts of "my ideal self" and "my actual self," and using
direction of movement as a factor, Semantic Differential
movement was compared with the supervisors' rankings. This
62
was able to provide a measure of the relationship between
the two criteria of counseling effectiveness, and at the
same time, assess the value of allowing for direction of
i
semantic meaning shifts. The significance of this compari
son is noted in Chapter IV.
I
Summary.— Data on counselor inflexibility were
!
gathered at two sittings: once prior to counselor training,
and once after five months of intensive counselor training.
Data on counselor effectiveness were gathered in two ways:
by polling the institute supervisors at the five-month point
and then again at the conclusion of the institute, and by
assessing the movement in semantic meaning of respective
counselees after exposure to counseling.
Statistical applications were facilitated by use of
the Computer Center at San Fernando Valley State College.
Findings and statistical analyses of the data will follow in
Chapter IV.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Inflexibility and Supervisors1 Rankings
In reporting the statistical relationships between
the several pairs of ranked scores that have been corre
lated, it is important first to establish a clear and fresh
picture of what was being sought.
Hypothesized was the lack of a relationship between
the inflexibility scores of the counselors (each score sepa
rately and all scores combined) both before any counselor
training and after five months of training, and rankings on
counselor potential by the training supervisors both at the
midway point of training and at the conclusion of training.
It was important to establish the consistency of the
instruments being used so that valid comparisons could be
made. This presented certain problems, since intervening
counselor-training occurred between administrations of the
various inflexibility tests. It was expected, therefore,
that the relationship between the pre-institute inflexibil
ity scores and the mid-institute scores would be somewhat
less than ideal. If anything, it was thought that the rank
positions might remain somewhat the same, while the mean
63
64
scores would show general shifts toward more flexibility of
personality after training.
The rank positions did remain substantially the same,
as Table 4 will show, but the mean scores shifted signifi
cantly in only one of the three comparisons, as Table 5
indicates.
Table 4 shows the relationship between the combined
inflexibility scores prior to any counselor training (COT-1)
and the combined inflexibility scores after five months of
counselor training (COT-2). (Where C = California F-Scale;
3 = Open and Closed Belief Scale? and T = Test of Behavioral
Rigidity.)
The X-rank indicates the pre-training ranks, while
the Y-rank indicates the post-training ranks. The rank cor
relations were programmed through the computer using a
Spearman Rho Rank Correlation program. As can be seen in
Table 4 the correlation coefficient of 0.725 is significant
at better than the .01 level of confidence. This shows a
strong stability of scores and suggests that there was a
Lack of influence on the rank orders as a result of counse
lor training; less flexible counselors tended to remain in
their same relative position to more flexible counselors
after training.
In Table 5 we can see that in the case of each in
flexibility test, mean scores shifted in the direction of
more flexibility after counselor training. The TBR, however,
65
TABLE 4
RANK CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TOTAL PRE-TESTS
AND TOTAL POST-TESTS OF INFLEXIBILITY
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = COT-1 and Y = COT-2
3 1 2
Spearman Rho rs = 0.725
20 2 1
12 3 3
1 4 8
5 5 11
13 6 13
6 7 16.5
24 8 4
7 9 7
29 10 5
14 11 12
19
12 18
9
13 16.5
(Significant at
better than .01)
P < .01
25 14 28
10 15 21
16 16 9
27 17 6
8 18 20
28 19 4
15 20 16
26 21 15
2 22 19
30 23 24
-
23 24 27
4 25 25
17 26 10
18 27 23
21 28 22
22 29 29
I TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEAN FLEXIBILITY SCORES
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
Test Mean Median - SD
Lowest
Score
Highest
Score
Range
Significance
of Shift
TBR-1
TBR-2a
30.621
31.276
31.000
31.000
4.07
4.80
21.0
22.0
39.0
40.0
18.0
18.0
1.06 P > .05
OCBS-1
OCBS-2b
129.966
122.621
130.000
124.000
23.57
25.80
88.0
68.0
176.0
172.0
88.0
104.0
2.24 P < .05*
CFS-1
CFS-2'b
73.621
69.000
72.000
71.000
17.95
17.72
44.0
36.0
109.0
104.0
65.0
68.0
1.64 P > .05
*Signifleant at better than .05.
aWhere high score is more flexible.
Where low score is more flexible.
C T i
C T i
67
and CFS did not show significant shifts in the mean scores,
but the OCBS mean shift was significant at better than the
.05 level. The class as a whole, then, became significantly
less dogmatic after five months of counselor training, al
though their relative positions in the group tended to be
stable throughout the three measures of inflexibility.
It was thought valuable to establish a pre-study
validity coefficient for one of the inflexibility instru
ments used: the Questionnaire section of the TBR. This
involved collecting and correlating the TBR scores and the
supervisors' rankings of two previous NDEA counselor-
training institutes— one from the University of Florida and
the other from a previous University of Southern California
group. This was to serve, in effect, as a partial pilot
study. The results are shown in Table 6. Not only are the
relationships insignificant, but, in the case of the Florida
group there was a slight negative correlation. Use of the
TBR Questionnaire, in light of the pilot findings, was not
encouraged. Yet, it was decided to continue with the TBR,
if not for its individual usefulness, then at least as an
additive to the composite rigidity-flexibility picture.
There was next an attempt to establish the stability
of the supervisors' rankings by correlating their mid-year
counselor ratings with their end-of-year ratings. A Spear
man Rho Rank Order program on the computer was used, the
results of which are shown in Table 7. The coefficient of
68
0.751, as reported, is significant at well beyond the .01
level, and,demonstrates a high level of consistency in the
M b
supervisors' rankings. While this tells us nothing about
the improvement of each individual counselor-trainee, it
indicates the relative stability of their positions within
the group; the higher rated counselors tended to remain
highly rated, while the lower rated counselors retained
their relative low ratings.
TABLE 6
PILOT CORRELATIONS FOR THE TBR QUESTIONNAIRE
Group N Comparisons
Spearman
Rho
Signifi
cance
University
of
Florida
32
Supervisors 1 Rank
and TBR
-0.161 P > .05
University
of
Southern
California
29
Supervisors' Rank
and TBR
0.135 P > .05
Previously there was noted a high correlation be
tween the over-all pre-tests of inflexibility and the over
all post-tests of inflexibility (COT-1 and COT-2: rs =
0.725). To be more explicit a comparison was also made be
tween pre- and post-inflexibility scores for each separate
:est used. The results of the rank order correlations are
reported for the TBR in Table 8 (rs = 0.739), for the OCBS
in Table 9 (rs = 0.748), and for the CFS in Table 10
69
TABLE 7
SUPERVISORS' RANKINGS OP COUNSELOR TRAINEES
MID-YEAR AND END-OF-YEAR
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = End-of-Year
24 1 2
Spearman Rho rs = 0.751
7
2
1
29
3
3
17
4
4
25
5
6
23
6
7
27
7
8
6
8
27
8
9
9
12
10 5
5
11
12
4
12
14
3 13 22
(Significant at
better than .01)
P < .01
2
14 15
14
15
18
22 16 17
21 17 13
30 18 26
28 19 21
26 20 19
13 21 11
19 22 10
18 23 23
-
1 24 24
16 25 28
9 26 20
20 27 25
10 28 16
15 29 i 29
70
TABLE 8
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN TBR PRE-TEST AND
TBR POST-TEST FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank
Where X = TBR-1 and Y = TBR-2
7 1 2.5
3 2 4
12 3 7
5 4 7
20 5 1
9 6 2.5
Spearman Rho rs = 0.739
13 7 10.5
24 8 9
19 9 10.5
1
10 16
6 11 13
25 12 23.5
23 13 27
14 14 19.5
27 15 7
(Significant at
better than .01)
16 16 19.5
28 17 13
30 18 13
4 19 23.5
29 20 5
15 21
26
10
22
19.5
P < .01
2 23
16
8
24
23.5
17
25
16
18
26
19.5
22
27
28
26
28
23.5
21
29
29
71
TABLE 9
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN OCBS PRE-TEST AND
OCBS POST-TEST FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = OCBS-1 and Y = OCBS-2
1 1 5
20 2 2
13 3 14
3 4 3
24 5 4
12 6 1
29 7 10
Spearman Rho.rs = 0.748
5 8 8
19 9 17
14 10 6
6 11 12
27 12 9
15 13 21.5
25 14 25
10 15 19.5
(Significant at
better than .01)
8 16 ' 18
16 17 7
28 18 13
18 19 23.5
26 20 19.5
2 21 21.5
7 22 16
P < .01
30 23 26
17 24 11
4 25 23.5
9 26 29
22 27 27
21 28 15
23 29
28
72
TABLE 10
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN CPS PRE-TEST AND
CPS POST-TEST FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank
Where X = CFS-1 and Y = CFS-2
1 1 7
Spearman Rho rs = 0.646
12 2 6
3
3
2.5
20
4
1
6
5
22.5
7
6
9
29
7
4
10
8
17
5
9
24
26 10 2.5
9 11 16
14
12
14
16
13 8
(Significant at
better than .01)
P < .01
13 14 19
8
15
12.5
24 16 5
21 17 12.5
27 18 10
25 19 28
2 20 15
28 21 18
15 22 25.5
17 23 11
30 24 29
19 25 22.5
18 26 21
4 27 25.5
23 28 20
22 29 27
73
(rs = 0.646). In all three cases, it will be noted that the
relationships are significant at well beyond the .01 level.
This tends to establish a kind of reliability for the in
struments used, although intervening counselor training may
have influenced some trainees more than others, thus alter
ing their relative rank orders; without this influence, the
correlation coefficients may have been even higher.
It was then time to correlate the various inflexi
bility results, both pre-tests and post-tests, with the
supervisors' rankings, both mid-year and end-of-year. These
comparisons were all made by computer use of the Spearman
Rho Rank Order program. The results are reported in Tables
11 through 18 for the mid-year rankings with the inflexibil
ity scores, and in Tables 19 through 22 for the end-of-year
rankings with the inflexibility scores.
It is shown that in no case was any statistical
correlation significant at the .05 level or better. It is
interesting to note that, in Tables JL7 and 18, where the
mid-year rankings were compared with the over-all pre-tests
of inflexibility and over-all post-tests of inflexibility,
coefficients of 0.03 and 0.19 were obtained. Neither of
ohese is significant at the .05 level or better, although
che post-test coefficient is decidedly stronger than the
pre-test.
It will be noted also that the end-of-year ranks
were compared only with the post-tests of inflexibility.
74
And while no relationship was significant, all were in the
positive direction, and the relationship with COT-2 (grand
rank) in Table 22 was the highest of all the end-of-year
comparisons (rs = 0.168).
For the purposes of easy comparison, all correla
tions run between the various inflexibility scores and the
supervisors' ratings are recorded in Table 23. Thus it can
be readily seen that significant correlations were achieved
only between comparisons of test-retests or of mid-year and
end-of-year rankings. All other pairings show no signifi
cance.
Inflexibility
and the Semantic Differential
In comparing counselor inflexibility scores with re
sults on the Semantic Differential there was the attempt to
i
measure whether or not there was a relationship between ef
fectiveness of counseling and counselor personality. Ulti
mately, it was hoped that this could be done by ranking all
the counselor trainees from most to least flexible, and com
paring this rank with a rank of the shift in each counselor's
clients' meaning matrices. To do the latter, there was a
need first to make use of the computer, programmed to mea
sure the "D" or Distance statistic between concepts on the
Semantic Differential. The "D" statistic was used as a
means of measuring the distance in semantic space between
75
TABLE 11
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND CFS-1
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = CFS-1
24 1 16
Spearman Rho rs = 0.028
7 2 6.5
29 3 6.5
17 4 23
25 5 19
23 6 28
27 7 18
6 8 5
8 9 15
12 10 2.5
5 11 9
4 12 27
3 13 2.5
2 14 20
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
14 15 12.5
22 16 29
21 17 17
30 18 24.5
28 19 21
26 20 10.5
13 21 14
19 22 24.5
18 23 26
1 24 1
16 25 12.5
9
26
10.5
20
27
4
10 28 8
15 29 22
76
TABLE 12
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND OCBS-1
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = OCBS-1
24 1 5
Spearman Rho rs =0.059
7 2 22
29 3 7
17 4 23.5
25 5 15
23 6 29
27 7 12
6 8 11
8 9 15
12 10 6
5 11 8
4 12 25.5
3 13 4
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
2 14 21
14 15 10
22 16 27
21 17 28
30 18 23.5
28 19 18
26 20 20
13 21 3
19 22 9
18
23
19
1
24
1
16
25
17
9
26
25.5
20
27
2
10 28 15
15 29 13
77
TABLE 13
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND TBR-1
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = TBR-1
24 ^1 8
Spearman Rho rs = 0.155
7 2 1
29 3 20.5
7 4 25
25 5 11.5
23 6 11.5
27 7
16.5
6 8
11.5
8 9
24
12 10 3.5
5 11 ,3.5
4 12 16.5
3
13 2
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
2
14 22.5
14 15 16.5
22 16 26.5
21 17 29
30 18 16.5
28 19 16.5
26 20 28
13 21 8
19 22 8
18 23 26.5
1 24 11.5
16 25 16.5
9 26 5.5
20 27 5.5
10 28 22.5
15 29 20.5
78
TABLE 14
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND CFS-2
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y. = CFS-2
24 1 5
Spearman Rho rs = 0.109
7 2 9
29 3 4
17 4 11
25 5 28
23 6 20
27 7 ■
10
6
8 22.5
8
9
12.5
12 10 6
5
11
24
4 12 25.5
o
13 2.5
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
2 14 15
14 15 14
22 16 27
21 17 12.5
30 18 29
28 19 18
26 20 2.5
13 21 19
19 22 2.5
18 23 21
1 24 7
16 25 8
9 26 16
20 27 1
10
28
7
15
29
25.5
79
TABLE 15
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND OCBS-2
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = OCBS-2
24 1 4
Spearman Rho rs = 0.139
7 . 2 16
29 3 10
17 4 11
25 5 25
23 6 28
27 7 9
6 8 12
8 9 18
12 10 1
5 11 8
4 12 23.5
3 13 3
2 14 21.5
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
14 15 6
22 16 27
21 17 15
30 18 26
28 _ 19 13
26 20 19.5
13 21 14
19 22 17
18 23 23.5
1 24 5
16 25 7
9 26 29
20 27 2
10 28
19.5
15 29
21.5
80
TABLE 16
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND TBR-2
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = TBR-2
24 1 9
Spearman Rho rs = 0.135
7 2 2.5
29 3 5
17 4 16
25 5 23.5
23 6 27
27 7 7
6 8 13
8 9 23.5
12 10 7
5 11 7
4 12 23.5
•5
13 4
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
2 14 16
14 15 19.5
22 16 28
21 17 29
30 18 13
28 19 13
26 20 23.5
13 21 10.5
19 22 10.5
18 23 19.5
1 24 16
16 25 19.5
9
26
2.5
20
27
1
10 28 19.5
15 29 26
81
TABLE 17
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND COT-1 (GRAND RANK)
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = COT-1
24 1 8
Spearman Rho rs = 0.032
7
2
9
29 3 10
17 4 26.5
25 5 14.5
23 6 24
27 7 17
6 8 7
8 9 18
12 10 3
5 11 5
4 12 25
3 13 1
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
2 14 22
14 15 11
22 16 29
21 17 28
30 18 23
28 19
19.5
26 20 21
13 21 6
19 22 12.5
18
23
26.5
— ‘
1
24 4
16
25 16
9 26 12.5
20 27 2
10 28 14.5
15 29 19.5
82
TABLE 18
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' MID-YEAR RANKS AND COT-2 (GRAND RANK)
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = Mid-Year and Y = COT-2
24 1 4
7 2 7
29
3
5
17 4 10
25 5 28
23 6 27
27 7 6
Spearman Rho rs = 0.185
6 8 16.5
8
9
20
12 10 3
5
11
11
4
12- 25
3
13
2
2 14 19
14
15
12
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
22 16 29
21 17 22
30 18 24
28 19 14
26 20 15
13 21 13
19 22 18
P > .05
18 23 23
1 24 8
16 25 9
9 26 16.5
20 27 1
10 28 21
15 29 26
83
TABLE 19
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' END-OF-YEAR RANKS AND CFS-2
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = End-of-Year and Y = CFS-2
7 1 9
Spearman Rho rs = 0.164
24 2 5
29
3
4
17 4 11
12 5 6
25 6 28
23 7 20
27 8 10
8 9 12.5
19 10 22.5
13 11 19
5 12 24
21 13 12.5
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
4 14 25.5
2 15 15
10 16 17
22 17 27
14 18 14
26 19 2.5
9 20 16
28 21 18
3 22 2.5
18 23 21
1 24 7
20 25 1
30
26 29
6
27 22.5
16 28 8
15 29 25.5
84
TABLE 20
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS 1 _END-OF-YEAR RANKS AND OCBS-2
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = End-of-Year and Y = OCBS-2
7 1 16
Spearman Rho rs = 0.061
24 2 4
29 3 10
17 4 11
12 5 1
25 6 25
23 7 28
27 8 9
8 9 18
19 10 17
13 11 14
5 12 8
21 13 15
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
4 14 23.5
2 15 21.5
10 16 19.5
22 17 27
14 18 6
26 19 19.5
9 20 29
28 21 13
3 22
3
18 23 23.5
1 24 5
20 25
2
30
26
26
6 27
12
16
28
7
15 29 21.5
85
TABLE 21
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' END-OF-YEAR RANKS AND TBR-2
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = End-of-Year and Y - TBR-2
7 1 2.5
Spearman Rho rs = 0.152
24 2 9
29 3 5
17 4 16
12 5 7
25 6 23.5
■23 7 27
27 8 7
8 9 23.5
19 10 10.5
13 11 10.5
5 12 7
21 13 29
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
.
4 14 23.5
2 15 16
10 16 19.5
22 17 28
14 18 19.5
26 ’ 19 23.5
9 20 2.5
28 21 13
3 22 4
18 23
19.5
1 24 16
20
25 1
30 26 13
6 27 13
16 28 19.5
15 29 26
86
ni r
TABLE 22
RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN
SUPERVISORS' END-OF-YEAR RANKS AND COT-2 (GRAND RANK)
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
ID# X-Rank Y-Rank Where X = End-of-Year and Y — COT-2
7 1 7
Spearman Rho rs = 0.168
24 2 4
29 3 5
17 4 10
12 5 3
25 6 28
23 7 27
27 8 6
8 9 20
19 10 18
13 11 13
5 12 11
21 13 22 .
(Not significant
at the .05 level)
P > .05
4 14 25
2 15 19
10 16 21
22 17 29
14
18
12
26
19 15
9 20 16.5
28 21 14
3 22 2
18 23 23
1 24 8
20 25 1
30 26 24
6 27 16.5
16 28 9
15 29 26
87
TABLE 23
INFLEXIBILITY SCORES AND SUPERVISORS' RANKINGS
FOR COUNSELOR TRAINEES
Comparisons
Spearman Rho
Correlations
Significance
COT-1 and COT-2 rs = 0.725* P < .01
jMid-Year and End-of-Year
TBR-1 and TBR-2
rs
=s
0.751* P < .01
rs
=
0.739* P < .01
OCBS-1 and OCBS-2
pFS-1 and CFS-2
rs
=
0.748* P < .01
rs = 0.646* P < .01
kid-Year Ranks and CFS-1 rs
=
0.028 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and OCBS-1
1
rs
=
0.059 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and TBR-1 rs
=
0.155 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and CFS-2 rs = 0.109 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and OCBS-2 rs = 0.139 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and TBR-2 rs = 0.135 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and COT-1
(Grand Rank)
rs = 0.032 P > .05
Mid-Year Ranks and' COT-2
(Grand Rank)
rs
= :
0.185 P > .05
2nd-of-Year Ranks and CFS-2 rs
=
0.164 P > .05
Snd-of-Year Ranks and OCBS-2 rs = 0.061 P > .05
3nd-of-Year Ranks and TBR-2 rs = 0.152 P > .05
End-of-Ye.ar Ranks and COT-2
(Grand Rank)
rs
=
0.168 P > .05
*Significant at the .01 level or better.
88
two given concepts. In this case, the intent was to measure
the distances between every client's concept of his "actual
self" (a relatively stable concept) and all other concepts
in the instrument. There is ample precedent for this in the
work of Endler (1961), and in Osgood's own experimental work
(1957).
In this way the "D" score was arrived at for all
clients on their pre-counseling Semantic Differentials be
tween actual self and the other nine concepts. The "D"
scores were then computed for all clients on the same cri
teria for their post-counseling Semantic Differentials.
Thus two sets of "D" scores for each client were established,
i
pne reflecting pre-counseling meaning, and the other repre-
!
jsenting post-counseling meaning.
I
i
All the "D" scores belonging to each separate coun
selor's clients were then combined, first on the pre
counseling and then on the post-counseling Semantic Differ
entials. Each counselor's combined "D" scores were added
and their means calculated on both the pre- and post
counseling instruments. What then remained were two means
for each counselor, one representing his clients' pre
counseling "D" scores and the other his clients' post
counseling "D" scorjes.
The computer was again used to calculate the abso
lute differences in these mean scores, discounting direction
cf shift from pre- to post-test. Thus was established an
89
absolute mean difference between the "D" scores that each
counselor was able to influence as a result of counseling.
The next step was to rank all the mean differences,
from high to low, and compare these with a ranking of the
counselors based upon their flexibility scores. These two
sets of ranks are shown in Table 24. It can be seen that
the research was designed to compare the mean differences on
fche Semantic Differential with the pre-training flexibility
scores and the post-training (five months) flexibility
scores.
Again the Spearman Rho Rank correlation program was
run on the computer to determine the relationships between
the three ranks. The results of these calculations are re
ported in Table 25. As shown, the two Spearman Rho coeffi
cients are in a negative direction, and are not significant
at the .05 level or better. Thus, by this design and by
criteria herein used, the flexibility of the counselor had
no significant relationship to clients' meaning shifts.
It must be noted, however, that these comparisons
i
i
i
toere made on the mean shifts in meaning between all concepts
and "my actual self" without regard to direction of shift.
This was purposely done since the pre-counseling relation
ships of all concepts to "my actual self" cannot be con
sidered standardized. That is, there was no way to tell if,
for example, a shift closer together between “father" and
'actual self" was to be desired— perhaps the desired shift
90
TABLE 24
COUNSELEE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL MEAN DIFFERENCES
AND COUNSELOR TRAINEE INFLEXIBILITY RANKINGS
Counselor
Code
Number
Semantic Differential
Mean Differences
In Rank Order
Rank
COT-1
In Rank
Order
COT-2
In Rank
Order
24 2.218 1 8 4
| 19 2.024 2 12.5 18
! 26 1.965 3 21 15
02 1.954 4 22 19
21 1.953 5 28 22
13 1.907 6 6 13
18 1.880 7 26.5 23
! 25
!
1.802 8 14.5 28
1 15 1.741 9 19.5 26
23 1.692 10 24 27
04 1.648 11 25 25
29 1.612 12 10 5
20 1.584 13 2 1
09 1.571 14 12.5 16.5
22 1.559 15 29 29
06 .1.378 16 7 16.5
12 1.363 17 3
3
28 1.255 18 19.5 14
1.7
1.249 19 26.5 10
14 1.190 20 11 12
30 1.167 21 23 24
08 1.159 22 18 20
01 1.131 23 4 8
16 1.128 24 16 9
03 1.115 25 1 2
05 1.068 26 5 11
07 1.042 27 9 7
10 0.967 28 14.5 20
27 0.724 29 17 6
91
TABLE 25
RANK CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COUNSELEE
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL MEAN DIFFERENCES AND
COUNSELOR TRAINEE INFLEXIBILITY RANKINGS
Semantic Differential
Mean Difference
Ranking
gemantic Differential
Mean Difference
Ranking
and
and
COT-1
Ranking
COT-2
Ranking
rs = -0.259*
rs = -0.318*
*Not significant at the .05 level.
92
should have been toward greater separation. Thus, direction
was ignored and the hypothesis was that movement per se was
an indication of flexibility in counseling. The hypothesis
was not substantiated by the data. By way of attempted
analysis, some of the reasons for the lack of relationship
will be considered in Chapter V.
It was thought, however, that a comparison between
"my actual self" and "my ideal self" could be calculated on
the basis of direction, since it might be widely agreed that
a closer relationship between these two concepts is to be
desired. (This, too, is debatable as will be illustrated at
a later point in this writing.) In pursuit of this thought,
i
jail the mean shifts between "my ideal self" and "my actual
jself" were totaled, allowing for the direction of the shift,
and then ranked by counselor. This ranking was then com
pared with the flexibility rankings, again using a Spearman
Rho. The results of this rank-order comparison are reported
in Table 26. Also shown, for purposes of comparison, are
relationships between mean "D" scores and supervisors' rank
ings of effectiveness. Since these are the two criteria of
effectiveness, it is interesting to note how they correlate
with each other.
As shown, none of the correlation coefficients is
significant at the .05 level or better. Thus, allowing for
direction of change, at least as concerns actual and ideal
selves, did not prove a significant factor in establishing a
93
TABLE 26
COUNSELOR INFLUENCE ON ACTUAL SELF-IDEAL SELF
RELATIONSHIP COMPARED WITH COUNSELOR INFLEXIBILITY
SCORES AND WITH SUPERVISORS' RANKINGS
OF COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS
My Actual Self
My Ideal Self
Rankings
and
COT-1
Ranking
rs = -0.169*
M:
M-
y Actual Self
y Ideal Self
Rankings
and
COT-2
Ranking
rs = 0.108*
My Actual Self
My Ideal Self
Rankings
^and^
End-of-Year
Supervisor —
Rankings
—> rs = 0.104*
Not significant at the .05 level
94
relationship between counselor flexibility and client
change. It will be noted also that there is no significant
relationship between the two criterion measures of counsel
ing effectiveness in this instance; that is, the counselors
who were most able to bring their clients1 actual and ideal
selves closer together, were not the counselors ranked most
effective by the supervisors at the end of the year.
Other Findings
Concept Relationships.— At the outset of this work,
it was noted that collection of data and use of this
pemantic Differential form were pursued jointly with another
researcher. It is important to note that several findings
I
|tfhich the combined work revealed offer related and interest
ing information to this writing.
As shown in Table 27, also compared were the shift
in "D" scores for every counselee on the basis of each con
cept-pairing and across all counselor lines. That is, there
was an attempt to show the differences in all the "D" scores
from pre- to post-tests as they related to "my actual self,"
regardless of which counselor a student had.
To do this, while dealing with non-parametric data,
Lt was necessary to employ the Wilcoxon Matched Pairs test.
The computer was programmed for the Wilcoxon test and fed
data for each concept pairing, both pre- and post-tests.
Results were presented in the form of Z scores which could
be converted to P or probabilities.
95
TABLE 27
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
"D" SCORES OF PRE- AND POST-TESTS AS THE DIFFERENT
CONCEPTS RELATE TO MY ACTUAL SELF
Run
Number
Concept Pairings Z Value Significance
1 College-Actual Self -3.132 P = .002
2 People-Actual Self -2.015 P = .04
3 Father-Actual Self -3.116 P = .002
i
4 My Future-Actual Self -2.711 P = .007
5 My Ideal Self-Actual Self -3.844 P = .00007
6 Study-Actual Self -1.909 P = .056
7 Mother-Actual Self -3.400 P = .0003
i 8
1
1
Counselor-Actual Self -2.509 P = .01
9
Counseling-Actual Self -1.971 P = .049
j
96
Though not noted in Table 27, Table A in Siegel
(1956, p. 247) gave the one-tailed probabilities under the
null hypothesis of Z. For the Wilcoxon a two-tailed test
was used, thus it was necessary to double the presented
value scores for P (as suggested by Siegel, p. 83). The P
values shown in Table 27, then, are the two-tailed probabil
ities under the Ho of Z.
As is shown, the Z scores all contain negative
signs. Through use of the Wilcoxon, the minority sign must
be calculated, therefore, in this instance, the minority
sign was negative in all cases. This means that the major
ity sign was a plus in all cases, or, in other words, in the
positive direction. Broken down further, this means that
all "D" shifts were in the positive direction, or, in the
- iirection of closer relationship to "my actual self."
The converted P values show that this shift toward
"my actual self" is significant at the .05 level or beyond
in every case, and extremely so with runs number five ("my
ideal self"-"my actual self"), and number seven ("mother"-
"my actual self"). Run number six is borderline signifi
cance at the .05 level.)
Thus, in all instances, shifts between concepts were
generally and significantly, after intervening counseling,
toward a closer identity with "my actual self." This is in
keeping with findings reported in Berelson and Steiner
(1964, p. 291) that "self-ideal" tends to close ranks with
97
the self-concept after counseling (therapy).
It is interesting to note that, although there is
this general significant shift across all concepts, no simi
lar relationship can be found when the conceptual pairings
are aligned with counselor influence. That is, counselor
flexibility, according to the findings, was not reflected in
client meaning shifts, although meaning did shift signifi
cantly after counseling.
Drop-Out Counselees.— Another finding which might be
labeled serendipitous, concerns those counselees who at
tended a preliminary counseling session, took the pre
counseling Semantic Differential, but then never returned.
(Again, this finding constitutes some of the basic work of
Charles Stanley who shared the labors of data collection
i
and treatment.)
The "D" scores were calculated for these forty-eight
"drop-out" counselee Semantic Differentials, in order to
astablish the pre-counseling distances for all concepts com
pared to "my actual self." Mr. Stanley calculated the means
of these "D" scores and then the significance of the differ
ence in the means between the "48" and the continuing stu
dents' pre-tests. To do this, he made use of the Mann
Witney U test (a non-parametric instrument) from which the
resulting Z scores are reported in Table 28. The Z scores
are converted to probabilities as illustrated. Table 28
shows, rather remarkably, that although the drop-out
98
TABLE 28
COMPARISON OP CONTINUING AND DROP-OUT COUNSELEES
AS THEY SEE THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS
RELATED TO MY ACTUAL SELF
Concept
Pairings
Mean "D"
Scores
Drop-Outs
Mean "D"
Scores
Continuing
Mann
Whitney
U
Scores
Signifi
cance
College-
Actual Self
7.32 5.35 6.147 .00003+
People-
Actual Self
5.87 5.63 2.366 .0178
iFather-
jActual Self
6.55 5.51 2.972 .003
My Future-
Actual Self
4.54 4.27 1.051 .2938
My Ideal Self
Actual Self
4.14 4.24 .189 .8497
gtudy-
iActual Self
i
5.96 5.83 .268 .7872
Mother-
Actual Self
5.42 5.93 1.295 .1936
Counselor-
Actual Self
5.56 5.32 1.302 .1936
Counseling-
Actual Self
7.24 5.41
__* __*
*Not available.
99
counselees saw a slightly but not significantly closer rela
tionship between their ideal selves and actual selves, they
saw a significantly more distant relationship between col
lege and their actual selves, and a wider distance between
people and between father and their actual selves, than did
the 125 students who continued in the counseling programi
yet, the drop-outs saw themselves as closer to their mothers
(although not significantly) than did the continuing stu
dents .
that the drop-out students identified less with college and
Less with people, and saw themselves as less in need of
counseling than did the continuing students. (It also sug
gests an important use of the Semantic Differential form as
a possible means of identification for counseling purposes.)
One factor in these findings relates back to a pre
vious point in this report. The shift in "D" score means
^arlier under the assumption that directionality between
:hese two concepts could be a factor. That is, it might be
expected that the desirable shift would be toward closer
identification between actual and ideal selves. At that
point, however, reservation was expressed about this possi
bility. If, as was likely with some of these drop-out
counselees, ideal self and actual self are close together
prior to counseling, it could represent, as one possibility,
These findings might be translated verbally to imply
II
my actual self" was calculated
100
a need for widening their distances. Thus, using a closing
of the distance as a general criterion for counseling suc
cess could prove faulty. Berelson and Steiner (1964,
pp. 291-292) report that there is a significantly wider
distance between "self-ideal" and self concept for clients
entering therapy than for the population in general. This,
of course, relates to disturbed individuals, and in the
|
speculation here, such a relationship may not be assumed—
the counselees who remained for help may possibly be better
i
integrated personalities than those who did not continue
(cf., the "actual self"-"people" relationship in Table 28).
Apparently those students who saw themselves as
close to their ideal but far from college saw little need
for continuation of counseling. But, it cannot therefore be
1
assumed that they could not have benefited from counseling,
nor that they had reached a point of congruence in their
lives. Just as it cannot be assumed, because of their lack
pf academic identification, that their actual-ideal rela-
i
|
tionship is a faulty one and needs adjustment.
While generally, a movement toward greater ideal- _
self actual-self identification should be desirable, it is
likely that in some instances such a shift could aggravate
an existing distortion.
101
Summary
The statistical relationships between the data that
have been collected are herein reported. Counselor inflexi
bility scores have been compared with supervisors' ratings.
Inflexibility scores have been compared with shifts of mean
ing on the Semantic Differential. And side findings have
been reported that relate to and are of interest to this
l
study.
In Chapter V findings will be summarized and at
tempts made to draw conclusions. There will also be a re
port on the possible uses of this work in future research.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The National Defense Education Act of 1958 provided
the original stimulus for this study by focusing interest on
counselor training and the factors involved in counseling
effectiveness.
The basic hypothesis, stated in the null was that
there would be no relationship between specified counselor
!
personality variables and counselor success. This presented
jthe obvious problems of identifying success of counseling
and of establishing the personality characteristics which
needed examination.
The choice settled, finally, on the variables of
rigidity, dogmatism, and authoritarianism as likely impedi
ments to counseling progress. And counseling effectiveness
'toas measured in two ways: through supervisor ratings of
counselor potential and performance, and through client
'movement" or progress on a semantic meaning instrument.
The variables of rigidity, dogmatism, and authori
tarianism were treated separately and as a combined index of
102
103
inflexibility. Each separate test was correlated with the
effectiveness criteria as were the combined tests.
The design called for testing of the twenty-nine
member counselor-training group prior to any exposure to
counseling and then again at the conclusion of five months
or one-half of their training program. Inflexibility scores
jwould then be ranked from most to least flexible on the pre-
I
jand the post-tests.
j Supervisors' rankings of counselor effectiveness
jwere gathered at the fifth month or mid-training point, and
then again at the tenth month or conclusion of training.
These rankings were then paired with the flexibility rank-
. / ■
f
ings and a statistical treatment applied. The Spearman Rho
Rank Order formula was used with the intent of showing the
i
presence or absence of statistical relationship between the
various sets of ranks. Had significance appeared, counselor
flexibility would have shown a relationship to supervisors'
opinions of counselor effectiveness. The absence of signif
icance would have questioned this relationship. Data were
reported in Chapter IV and relevant conclusions shall follow
ishortly.
The second criterion of effective counseling, coun-
oelee shift in semantic understanding after counseling, was
also compared with the scores on the flexibility variables.
Meaning shifts on the Semantic Differential instrument were
calculated, and such shifts were ranked by counselor and
correlated with counselor flexibility ranks. In this way
would be demonstrated either the presence or absence of re
lationship between counselor flexibility and client change.
Again, data are reported in Chapter IV, while conclusions
shall follow.
Counselor-trainee flexibility scores (pre-training
and after five months) were compared to determine if counse-
i
jlor training might have influenced the group's mean scores
jon flexibility. While in a previous context there was an
interest in whether rank-order was altered as a result of
training, here the intent was to measure the over-all group
shift in flexibility as a result of counselor training. Re
sults pertinent to this shift were reported in Chapter IV.
To facilitate the understanding of the conclusions
Which follow, the basic hypotheses upon which this study
were built, stated in the null, are paraphrased below.
1. Counselors with high inflexibility scores
will be generally no less effective than
i
those with low inflexibility scores.
A. There will be no less "movement" among
clients of inflexible counselors than
among clients of flexible counselors.
B. Supervisors will tend to rank flexible
and inflexible counselors as equally
effective in practice and potential.
105
2. Counselor inflexibility will show little
change after five months of counselor
training.
Conclusions
On the basis of this design, the instruments herein
used, and the findings reported, there is substantiation for
the first hypothesis, that less flexible counselors will
prove to be no less effective as counselors. The data re
ported in Chapter IV clearly indicate no significant rela
tionship between any of the inflexibility instruments and
counselor rankings of effectiveness. Nor is any significant
relationship shown between client "movement" following coun
seling and the inflexibility rankings.
That there were high correlations between the two
administrations of each test of inflexibility demonstrates
some degree of stability in those instruments. And, since
the two rankings of effectiveness by the supervisors showed
j a significant correlation (rs = .75), this one of the two
criterion measures of counselor proficiency demonstrates
stability. The other criterion measure, amount of movement
on the Semantic Differential, showed a significant shift in
:erms of over-all counselee movement from before to after
counseling, comparing all concepts to that of "my actual
self." This finding is important in establishing the use
fulness of such a technique for measuring effects of coun
seling. Yet, when the movement was analyzed by flexibility
106
rankings of counselors, no significant correlation was
found. It is necessary that these findings be analyzed
further in search of an explanation for this lack of signif
icance.
Counselor-trainee flexibility-inflexibility was mea
sured through three instruments representing the previously
described elements of inflexibility: rigidity, dogmatism,
authoritarianism. Each of these tests proved similarly in
effective when correlated with success of counseling. None
showed significantly greater discriminatory power than any
other. These instruments are examined as a first step in
the analysis of the results because it was with reservation
that they were originally chosen. The Test of Behavioral
Rigidity, it will be recalled, was not used in its entirety
i
!
since the nature of part of the test seemed unsuited to
present goals. The Questionnaire part which was used must,
at best, be considered somewhat unreliable since its reduced
Length contained only twenty-two items. The validity of the
zest must also be suspect on two counts: first, on a pilot
correlation between supervisors1 ratings and this question
naire for two earlier training institutes, no significance
was found (Table 6); and second, supervisors in this insti
tute had reason to believe that one (and possibly more) of
the counselor-trainees had had previous exposure to this
instrument.
107
The California F Scale admittedly measures a spe
cific type of inflexibility making its usefulness somewhat
limited. It was decided to use it anyway, for its stability
and for its additive power to the total picture. Sepa
rately, high scorers on the authoritarian test showed no
greater inability as counselors than did low scorers (rank
correlations between the F Scale and supervisors' rankings
were .03, .11, and .16; none was significant at the .05
level or better)? and in the combined battery, apparently
offered little to add to a significant relationship between
flexibility and counseling effectiveness. Again, however,
previous access or exposure to this instrument by one or
more trainees might have contaminated rankings.
The third instrument used, the OCBS or Dogmatism
Beale, it must be admitted, appeared initially to be the
most potentially discriminating test. Its lack of discrimi
nation as a separate instrument when ranked with effective
ness of counseling (rs = .06, rs = .14, rs = .06), can only
|
be laid again upon the overburdened and perhaps unjustly
weighted shoulders of "previous exposure." Yet, for all
rhese instruments, no trainee freely admitted having work
able knowledge of any or all of the tests— and several
seemed unable to ascertain their precise purposes even after
administration. But if one or more trainees had indeed pre-
read the instruments, or if they were even deliberately
reading through the test items because of a certain
108
sophistication, the tests must be suspect as basic person
ality measures. It is suspected that some of this sophisti
cation was operating in the taking of the tests.
That relative positions shoulcl remain close to the
same for the combined batteries from pre- to post-tests
(rs = .73) suggests that the relative degree of anxiety
about them remained in perspective for most trainees. It
also suggests, if one were to think along those lines, that
the ability to "see through" the tests remained in a rather
stable hierarchal position.
It might be wise here to suggest that in future use
Df measures of inflexibility, a candid answer from all sub-
i
jects as to their previous exposure to the instrument be
included on each booklet. Especially if the subjects feel
I
pnthreatened by the study, their answers could be expected
i
to be honest.
Not only must an issue be raised about the tests of
inflexibility, but also about the method of ranking on ef
fectiveness employed by the supervisors. While it is highly
unlikely that these various questionable procedures might
have caused significant shift in the findings, it is impor
tant to note that the supervisors admitted the possible
Interchange of any three' rankings in the set. Also, when
using supervisor judgment, it must be remembered that per
sonal bias is likely to be operating in at least some aspect
of the rankings. And finally, in this study, the super-
109
visors did not have equal knowledge of all trainees. Thus,
while the formula for ranking sought to overcome this weak
ness, it is highly likely that some trainees operating under
one supervisor may have been superior to several under
another; but the "fair play" concept of equalizing the high
rankings by taking some from each supervisor's group very
likely was a factor.
The above issues are cited because it is felt that
personality variables such as those herein isolated do in
deed play a role in effectiveness of counseling, despite the
lack of findings to this effect. One must look, therefore,
to weakness in the study rather than in the hypothesis for
explanations.
! It is particularly important to underscore the use-
|
i
Eulness of the Semantic Differential technique as a valuable
tool in measuring change. It has proven to be highly flex
ible and the potential for the directions it can take appear
exciting. And while the correlations between the Semantic
Differential and the inflexibility rankings are not signifi
cant, it is strongly felt that it is important to look to
:he latter and not to the former for modification. That
change per se did occur was demonstrated rather remarkably
by the unusually high correlations in Table 27. And that
students remaining in counseling had a significantly closer
identification with college than did those dropping out,
110
speaks well for the validity of the Semantic Differential
form that was employed.
The second hypothesis, that little change would
occur in counselor flexibility as a result of counselor
training, was tested by calculating the means of the three
flexibility instruments both pre- and post-tests, and check
ing the differences between those means for significance.
In all three cases the shift was in the direction of more
flexibility as a group after training, but in only one in
stance (the OCBS) was the shift significant: P < .05.
Thus, the second hypothesis can be partially substantiated,
that the group as a whole became less dogmatic after train
ing, but they cannot be considered as less rigid or less
authoritarian. This finding speaks well for the previously
mentioned "face" validity of the Dogmatism Scale (OCBS),
since it was suspected to be the most discriminating and
useful of the three instruments.
If it is known that counselor training can occasion
i
a shift away from dogmatism in the personality make-up of
■trainees, it still remains to be shown that dogmatism is a
key personality factor in counseling effectiveness. This
study failed to substantiate this. Subsequent research,
using tighter controls and more discriminating instruments,
may prove more successful.
Ill
Implications for Further Study
While less than ideal in the classical sense of un
covering unique and powerful facts to add to the body of
knowledge, this study has been challenging and provocative.
The work has been replete with implications for research
controls, for discriminating types of instruments, for per
sonality assessment in general, and for the role of "mean
ing" and its measurement in social science. Some of these
implications have been discussed in context for purposes of
clarity. Others will be explored here.
It has become clear, through the uses of this study,
that there is a need for an instrument or battery of instru
ments to assess adequately the broad personality variable of
inflexibility. While isolated instruments have attempted to
measure facets of this characteristic (e.g., rigidity, dog
matism, authoritarianism), none seems to get at the heart of
behavioral inflexibility. There is little agreement as to
whether inflexibility is a unitary or a general trait? that
|
is, is it manifested in certain situations, or is an "in
flexible personality type" apt to show this characteristic
throughout his behavior? Certainly these questions need
continued examination before subsequent significant research
can be undertaken.
It is also apparent that when dealing with semi
sophisticated subjects, controls must be rigorously tested
to avoid any kind of contamination. Counselors-in-training
112
with teaching experience behind them, cannot routinely be
administered personality inventories which have thin repre
sentational veils. Nor can they be introduced to any such
instrument with the assumption of primary exposure. Any
personality instrument can only be as valid as its built-in
ability to avoid deliberate profiling by the subjects.
One factor not included in this design, but con
spicuous as a possible element in future research, is the
ase of the Semantic Differential form on counselor-trainees.
It would appear to be a practical way of assessing their
positions relative to semantic understanding before and
after training. Also, it might afford a means of practical
comparison with counselees in order to judge whether certain
personality-type counselors tend to have more success with
similar personality-type counselees. Position in semantic
space on certain key conceptual comparisons might prove a
way of arriving at counseling "communion."
Another variation on this design might be to guage
:he inflexibility variables of the counselees. Thus, high-
flexible and low-flexible counselors could be paired with
high-flexible and low-flexible counselees, and compared for
effectiveness of counseling.
Since students who failed to continue in counseling
saw themselves (actual self) as significantly further from
college than those who did continue, an opportunity for
counselee identification through use of a Semantic
113
Differential seems plausible. With some imagination, a
Semantic Differential might be devised containing concept-
pairings which could adequately pinpoint those clients who
see their actual selves as very much in need of some kind of
counseling help. Conversely, many counseling hours might be
saved if such a technique could identify those clients need
ing a minimum of help, some kind of information session, or
perhaps a type of group work.
This study did substantiate previous findings that
actual-self and ideal-self tend to come closer together
after counseling. Yet, further research is certainly needed
to ascertain what elements of the counseling stimulated this
closure. Do "good" as well as "poor" counselors contribute
to this movement? The present findings could not answer
that question either negatively or positively. What are the
elements of "good" counseling, and how can they be measured?
The efforts herein can only hint at personality variables
which are present in the effective counselor; present find
ings do not show significant direction.
And finally, the question must be asked: if factors
t
hich make up effective counseling are uncovered, will these
_ hen be effective in most counseling situations? In other
Lords, are researchers able to generalize at all about the
actual counseling session— can there be imposed a set of
"how-to's" that will, by formula, equal success-in-counsel
ing? Or is there in fact some secret chemistry that occurs
114
between two people in a given situation that fails between
others in other situations— and which is indeed unable to be
predicted?
These, it would seem, are the germinal problems
which create so many others to challenge future research.
(From this writer's vantage point, it appears that
there is definite promise in continuing to study specifics
of personality as the primary factors in counseling progress
It is hoped that subsequent research will add to and build
upon previous work started before shifting onto more remote
side-paths. And while characteristics of both the counselor
and the counselee must be examined, to debate the relative
importance of each seems pointless— at least until our abil
ity to measure becomes more refined. It is felt that, given
a.basic minimum intelligence for the counselor, his pattern
Df personality and the way it synthesizes with his client's,
will be crucial to counseling success.)
i

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, Else, Levinson, D.J., and
Sanford, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality.
New York: Harper, 1950.
Berelson, B., and Steiner, G. A. Human Behavior. An Inven
tory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, Inc., 1964.
Bogardus, E. S. Social Distance. Yellow Springs, Ohio:
The Antioch Press, 1959.
Christie, R. "Authoritarianism Re-Examined." In R.
Christie and Marie Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the
Scope and Method of "The Authoritarian Personality."
Gl-encoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1954, pp. 123-196.
i
jGarrett, H. E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. New
| York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1960.
Hyman, H. H., and Sheatsley, P. B. "’The Authoritarian
Personality1— A Methodological Critique." In R.
Christie and Marie Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the
Scope and Method of "The Authoritarian Personality."
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1954, pp. 50-122.
Mowrer, 0. H. "Changes in Verbal Behavior During Psycho
therapy. " In 0. H. Mowrer (ed.), Psychotherapy and
Research. New York: Ronald, 1953, pp. 463-545.
j
Dsgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The Mea
surement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1957.
Rogers, C. R. Client Centered Therapy. New York: Houghton
Mifflin, 1951.
Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1960.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956.
116
117
Shils, E. A. "Authoritarianism: 'Right' and 'Left.'" In
R. Christie and Marie Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the
Scope and Method of "The Authoritarian Personality."
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1954, pp. 24-49.
Snygg, D., and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior. New York:
Harper, 1949.
Warren, H. C. Dictionary of Psychology. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1934.
Periodical Articles
Adams, H. E., and Vidulich, R. N. "Dogmatism and Belief
Congruence in Paired-Associate Learning." Psycho
logical Reports, 1962, 10. , 91-94.
Alper, T. G., Levin, V. S., and Klein, M. H. "Authoritarian
versus Humanistic Conscience." Journal of Person
ality. 1964, 3 2 ., 313-333.
ftpplezweig, D. G. "Some Determinants of Behavioral Rigid
ity. " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
1954, 49, 224-228.
Bass, B. M. "Development and Evaluation of a Scale for
Measuring Social Acquiescence." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1956, 53., 296-299.
Brown, R. W. "A Determinant of the Relationship Between
Rigidity and Authoritarianism." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 469-476.
Cattell, R. B., and Ghose, Tiner. "The Varieties of Struc
tural Rigidity." Journal of Personality. March,
1949, 17, 321-341.
Christensen, C. M. "A Note on Dogmatism and Learning."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963,
66 (1), 75-76.
'Christie, R., and Cook, P. "A Guide to Published Literature
Relating to the Authoritarian Personality Through
1956." Journal of Psychology. 1958, 45, 171-199.
Cowen, E. L., Wiener, M., and Hess, J. "Generalization of
Problem-Solving Rigidity.” Journal of Consulting
Psychology. 1953, 17., 100-103.
118
Cowen, E. L., and Thompson, G. G. "Problem-Solving Rigidity
and Personality Structure." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 165-176.
Cronbach, L. J., and Gleser, G. C. "Assessing Similarity
Between Profiles." Psychological- Bulletin. 1953,
50, 456-473.
Edwards, A. L. "Unlabeled Fascist Attitudes." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1941, 36, 575-582.
Ehrlich, H. J. "Dogmatism and Learning." Journal of Ab
normal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62. 148-149.
Endler, N. S. "Changes in Meaning During Psychotherapy as
Measured by the Semantic Differential." Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1961, J3, No. 2, 105-111.
Filleribaum, S., and Jackman, A. "Dogmatism and Anxiety in
Relation to Problem-Solving: An Extension of
Rokeach's Results." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1961, 63, 212-214.
Fink, D. R. "Negative Evidence Concerning the Generality
of Rigidity." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy
chology, 1958, 57, 252-254.
Fisher, S. "Patterns of Personality Rigidity and Some of
Their Determinants." Psychological Monographs,
1950, 64, No. 1.
Fisher, S. "An Overview of Trends in Research Dealing with
Personality Rigidity.” Journal of Personality,
March, 1949, 17, 342-351.
Forster, N. C., Vinacke, W. E., and Digman, J. M. "Flexi
bility and Rigidity in a Variety of Problem Situa
tions ." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
1955, 5 0 ., 211-216.
Frick, J. W., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., and
Merrifield, P. R. "A Factor Analytic Study of
Flexibility in Thinking." Educational and Psycho
logical Measurement. Winter, 1959, 19, 469-495.
Soodstein, L. D. "Intellectual Rigidity and Social Atti
tudes ." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1953, 48, 345-353.
Srigg, A. E. "A Validity Study of the Semantic Differential
Technique." Journal of Clinical Psychology. April,
1959, 15, 179-181.
119
Gulliksen, H. "How to Make Meaning More Meaningful." Con
temporary Psychology, 1958, III, 115-118.
Howells, T. H. "An Experimental Study of Persistence."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19337 38,
14-29. !
Jackson, D. N., and Solley, C. M. "How 'Rigid' is the
'Authoritarian'?" Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1957, 54, 137-140.
Kelly, J. A., and Levy, Leon H. "Discriminability of Con
cepts Differentiated by Means of the Semantic Dif
ferential." Educational and Psychological Measure
ments , 1961, 21. No. 1, 53-58.
Kemp, C. G. "Influence of Dogmatism on the Training of
Counselors." Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1962, 9, 155-157.
Kemp, C. G. "Influence of Dogmatism on Counseling." Per
sonnel and Guidance Journal, April, 1961, 39_, 662-
665.
Lankes, W. "Perseveration." British Journal of Psychology,
1915, 1, 387-419.
Levinson, D. J., and Huffman, P. E. "Traditional Family
Ideology and its Relation to Personality." Journal
of Personality, 1955, 23, 251-273.
jevitt, E. E. "The Water Jar Einstellung Test as a Measure
of Rigidity." Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53,
347-370.
Lichtenstein, E., Quinn, R. P., and Hover, G. L. "Dogmatism
and Acquiescent Response Set." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology. 1961, 63, 636-638.
iuchins, A. S. "The Einstellung Test of Rigidity: Its Re
lation to Concreteness of Thinking." Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15. 303-310.
•uchins, A. S. "Proposed Methods of Studying Degrees of
Rigidity in Behavior." Journal of Personality,
1947, 15, 242-246.
iuchins, A. S. "Mechanization in Problem Solving." Psycho
logical Monographs. 1942, 54, No. 6 (whole No. 248).
120
Milton, O. "Presidential Choice and Performance on a Scale
of Authoritarianism." The American Psychologist,
1952, 7_, 597-598.
Miron, M. S. "Influence of Instruction Modification Upon
Test-Retest Reliabilities of the Semantic Differen
tial. " Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Winter, 1961, 21, 883-893.
Mogar, R. E. "Three Versions of the F Scale and Performance
on the Semantic Differential." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology. I960, 60, 262-265.
Moore, H. T. "Innate Factors in Radicalism and Conserva
tism. " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1925, 20, 234-244.
Osgood, C. E. "Studies on the Generality of Affective
Meaning Systems." American Psychologist, 1962, 17.
10-28.
Powell, F. A. "Open-and-Closed-Mindedness and the Ability
to Differentiate Source and Message." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65 ., 61-64.
Rokeach, M., and Fruchter, B. "A Factorial Study of Dogma
tism and Related Concepts." Journal of Abnormal and
| Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 356-360.
t
Rokeach, M., McGovney, W. C., and Denny, M. Ray. "A Dis
tinction Between Dogmatic and Rigid Thinking."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51,
87-93.
Rokeach, M. "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism." Psycho-
j logical Review, 1954, 61, 194-204.
Rokeach, M. "Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and
Reification of Thinking." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 83-91.
Rokeach, M. "Generalized Mental Rigidity as a Factor in
Ethnocentrism." Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology,' 1948, 43_, No. 3, 259-278.
Schaie, K. W. "Differences in Some Personal Characteristics
of 'Rigid' and 'Flexible' Individuals." Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1958, XIV, 11-14.
Schaie, K. W. "A Test of Behavioral Rigidity." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 604-610.
121
Scheir, I. H. "An Evaluation of Rigidity Factors."
Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1954, 8., 157-163.
Schulberg, H. C. "Authoritarianism, Tendency to Agree, and
Interpersonal Perception." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1961, 63., 101-108.
Stagner, R. "Fascist Attitudes: An Exploratory Study."
Journal of Social Psychology, 1936, 1_, 309-317.
Stagner, R. "Fascist Attitudes: Their Determining Condi
tions." Journal of Social Psychology, 1936, 7., 438-
454.
Taylor, I. A. "Similarities in the Structure of Extreme
Social Attitudes." Psychological Monographs, 1960,
74, No. 2 (whole No. 489).
Vidulich, R. N., and Kaiman, I. P. "The Effects of Informa
tion Source Status and Dogmatism upon Conformity
Behavior." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol
ogy. 1961, 63, 639-642.
Weitman, M. "Forms of Failure to Respond and Varieties of
Authoritarianism." Journal of Personality. 1964,
32. 109-118.
Weitman, M. "More Than One Kind of Authoritarian." Journal
of Personality, 1962, 30, 193-208.
Unpublished Materials
3e Chantal Godfrey, Sister Jane. "Flexibility in Thinking
and the Social Attitudes of Catholic and Public High
School Seniors." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California, June, 1963.
iuchins, A. S. "The Einstellung Effect in Learning by
Repetition. 1 1 Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
New York University, 1939.
Shockley, J. T. "Behavioral Rigidity and College Physical
Science Instruction." Unpublished Doctoral Disser
tation, University of Southern California, January,
1961.
122
Gough,
Schaie,
Tests
H. G. The California Psychological Inventory. Palo
Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press,
1957.
K. W. Test of Behavioral Rigidity. Palo Alto,
California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1960.

APPENDIX A
TBR QUESTIONNAIRE
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Page 7
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Read each or the following statements carefully, decide how you feel about it, and then mark your
answer in the space provided.
If you agree with the statement or feel that it applies to you, make a heavy mark in the space for
TRUE. If you disagree with the statement or feel that it does not apply to you, make a heavy mark in the
space for FALSE. There is no right or wrong answer to any question.
All these statements are about things concerning which people have different opinions. The best
answer is your own opinion. Be sure to answer every statement, even if you have to guess at some.
Since your first response will usually be the best indication of your opinion, try to work aB fast as
possible and do not change your answers unless you feel that you misread the question. There is no time
limit.
Please be sure to answer all the following questions. If you are in doubt give the answer which applies
to you best and most of the time. Remember there is no right or wrong answer; your own opinion is the
correct response.
T F
□ □ A person who does not vote is not a good citizen.
Q O It's no use worrying my head about public affairs; I can't do anything about them anyhow.
□ □ I never make judgements about people until I am sure about the facts.
EH ED I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no matter what the consequences.
EH EH When Bomeone does me a wrong I feel that I should pay him back when I can just for the
principle of the thing.
I I| | Every family owes it to the city to keep their sidewalks cleared in the winter and their
lawns mowed in the summer.
[][] It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily routine.
EH EH Sometimes I feel like swearing.
Q EH When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement.
EH EH I usually work things out for myself rather than get someone to show me how.
EH EH People who seem unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfortable.
EH EH I am fascinated by fire.
□ □ I was a slow learner at school.
EH EH 1 think I am stricter about right and wrong than most people.
EH EH 1 would like to wear expensive clothes.
EH EH I always like to see to it that my work is carefully planned and organized.
EH EH Everything is turning out just like the Prophets of the Bible said it would.
EH EH I lih® to read newspaper articles on crime.
EH EH I am often sorry because I am cross and grouchy.
EH EH My parents often disapproved of my friends.
EH EH 1 strong person will be able to make up his mind even on the most difficult questions.
EH EH I would be ashamed not to use my privilege of voting.
EH EH 1 wish people would be more definite about things.
EH EH I have never been in trouble with the law,
EH EH 1 don't like to work on a problem unless there is a possibility of coming out with a
clear-cut and simple answer.
EH EH 1 can honestly say that I do not really mind paying taxes- because I feel that's one of the
thingB one can do for what one gets from the community.
EH EH When prices are high you can't blame a person for getting all he can while the getting is good.
EH EH In school I found it very hard to talk before the class.
[H EH For most questions there is just one right answer once a person is able to get all the facts.
EH EH- We ought to let Europe get out of its own mess; it made its bed, let it lie in it.
EH EH I like science.
I I EH The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough.
EH EH It is hard for me to act natural when I am-with new people.
EH EH I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it.
EH EH I often start things I never finish.
[H EH Police cars should be specially marked so that you can see them coming.
EH EH As long as a person votes every four years he has done his duty as a citizen.
P L E A S E TURN TO NEXT P A G E AND C O N T IN U E
125
38. □ □ If I get too ouch change in a store, I always give it back.
39. □ □ I set high standards for myself and feel others should do the same.
40. G G It makes me angry when I hear of someone who has been wrongly prevented from voting.
41. G Q I liked school.
42. G G Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle.
43. Q G I enjoy a race or game better if I bet on it.
44. G G Every citizen should take the time to find out about National Affairs even if it means
giving up some personal pleasures.
45. G D We ought to pay our elected officials better than we do.
46. Q Q I don't like things to be uncertain and unpredictable.
47. G Q When a person "pads” his Income Tax Report so as to get out of some of his taxes, it is
just as bad as stealing money from the government.
48. G Q It is alright to get around the law if you don't actually break it.
49. G G It is annoying to listen to a speaker who cannot seem to make up his mind bb to what he
really believes. j
50. G G There is no use in doing things for people; you only find that you get it in the neck
in the long run.
51. G G Once I have my mind made up I seldom change it.
52. 'G G School-teachers complain a lot about their pay, but it seems to me that they get as
much as they deserve.
53. Q Q I like to read about science.
54. G Q Our thinking would be a lot better off, if we would just forget about words like
"probable", "approximately" and "perhaps".
55. G Q I have had very peculiar and strange experiences.
56. G G It's a good thing to know people in the right places so that you can get traffic tags,
and such things, taken care of.
57. G O I like to have a place for everything, and everything in its place.
58. G Q As a youngBter I was suspended from school one or more times for cutting up.
59. Q G A large number of people are guilty of bad sexual conduct. ■
60. G Q I am known as a hard and steady worker.
61. G D We ought to worry about our own country and let the rest of the world take care of itself.
62. G G Maybe some minority groups do get rough treatment, but its no business of mine.
63. G G I find that a well-ordered mode of life, with regular hours and an established routine,
is best suited for my temperament.
64. G G When I work on a committee I like to take charge of things.
65. G G I wouldn't sneak into a movie even if I could get in without being caught.
66. G G It is hard for me to sympathize with a person who is always doubting and unsure about
things.
67. G G When you have to do something in the near future, such as a special job, a trip, etc., do
you often think about it in the days preceding it?
68. G Q Do you often notice that a tune, line of poetry, phrase or problem comes back to your mind
again and again, without your intending it?
69. G G Would you prefer to have frequent change in the things you do and the friends you have?
70. Q Q Do you feel strongly inclined to finish whatever you are doing in spite of being tired of
doing it?
71. Q G When somebody speaks to you unexpectedly or asks you a question about something you know
well but have not been thinking about at the moment, can you answer readily and quickly at
once?
72. G G Are you dreaming more often about some past experiences than about things you have
never thought of before?
73. O G When you have once begun something, or done it a few times, do you feel like sticking to
it and doing it again and again even if you have no longer any reason for it?
74. G O When you are interrupted in your work, iB it easy for you to pass on to other things?
75. G D When stepping off a train or bus before it has completely stopped, or sitting in a train
or bus when it starts and stops, do you feel a considerable shock?
R key (line 4)
P key____(line 5)
Page 8
THE QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)
T F
38. □ D If I get too much change in a store, I always give it hack.
39.
□ □
I set high standards for myself and feel others should do the same.
j
40. □ □
It makes me angry when I hear of someone who has been wrongly prevented from voting.
41. □ □ I liked school.
i
42. □ □ Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle.
1
j
43. □ □ I enjoy a race or game better if I bet on it.
j (
44. □ □ Every citizen should take the time to find out about National Affairs even if it means
giving up some personal pleasures.
45. □ □ We ought to pay our elected officials better than we do.
46. □ □ I don't like things to be uncertain and unpredictable.
I 47.
□ □
When a person "pads" his Income Tax Report so as to get out of some of his taxes, it is
just as bad as stealing money from the government.
48. □ □
It is alright to get around the law if you don't actually break it.
j
49. □ □
It is annoying to listen to a speaker who cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he
really believes.
j
50. □ □
There is no use in doing things for people; you only find that you get it in the neck
in the long run.
j 51. □ □
Once I have my mind made up I seldom change it.
i
52. □ □
School-teachers complain a lot about their pay, but it seems to me that they get as
much as they deserve.
53. □ □ I like to read about science.
1
54. □ □ Our thinking would be a lot better off, if we would just forget about words like
"probable", "approximately" and "perhaps".
i
i
55. □ □
I have had very peculiar and strange experiences.
56. □ □
It's a good thing to know people in the right places so that you can get traffic tags,
and such things, taken care of.
i
57. □ □ I like to have a place for everything, and everything in its place.
58. □ □
A s a youngster I was suspended from school one or more times for cutting up.
j
59. □ □
A large number of people are guilty of bad sexual conduct.
60.
□ □
I am known as a hard and steady worker.
—
61.
□ □ We ought to worry about our own country and let the rest of the world take care of itself.
62. □ □ Maybe some minority groups do get rough treatment, but its no business of mine.
63. □ □ I find that a well-ordered mode of life, with regular hours and an established routine,
is best suited for my temperament.
'
64.
□ □ When I work on a committee I like to take charge of things.
65. □ □ I wouldn't sneak into a movie even if I could get in without being caught.
i
66.
□ □
It is hard for me to sympathize with a person who is always doubting and unsure about
things.
g
y
67.
□ □ When you have to do something in the near future, such as a special job, a trip, etc., do
you often think about it in the days preceding it?
i
i
68. □ □ Do you often notice that a tune, line of poetry, phrase or problem comes back to your mind
again and again without your intending it?
\
69. □ □ Would you prefer to have frequent change in the things you do and the friends you have?
\
i
70.
□ □
Do you feel strongly inclined to finish whatever you are doing in spite of being tired of
doing it?
i
i
71. □ □
When somebody speaks to you unexpectedly or asks you a question about something you know
well but have not been thinking about at the moment, can you answer readily and quickly at
once?- . . . . . . . . . . .
5
I
I
{
72. □ □ Are you dreaming more often about some past experiences than about things you have
never thought of before?
|
73. □ □ When you have once begun something, or done it a few times, do you feel like sticking to
it and doing it again and again even if you have no longer any reason for it?
!
74. □ □ When you are interrupted in your work, is it easy for you to pass on to other things?
75.
□ □
When stepping off a train or bus before it has completely stopped, or sitting in a train
or bus when it starts and stops, do you feel a considerable shock?
R key _____(line 4)
P key _____(line 5)
9ZT
TRUE. If you disagree with the statement or feel that it does not apply to you,'make a heavy mark in the
space for FALSE. There is no right or wrong answer to any question.
All these statements are ahout things concerning which people have different opinions. The best
answer is your own opinion. Be sure to answer every statement, even if you have to guess at some.
Since your first response will usually be the best indication of your opinion, try to work as fast as
possible and do not change your answers unless you feel that you misread the question. There is no time
limit.
Please be sure to answer all the following questions. If you are in doubt give the answer which applies
to you best and most of the time. Remember there is no right or wrong answer; your own opinion is the
correct response.
T F
.
1. □ □ A person who does not vote is not a good citizen.
2.
□ □ It's no use worrying my head about public affairs; I can't do anything about then anyhow.
3.
□ □ I never make judgements about people until I am sure about the facts.
4.
□ □
I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no natter what the consequences.
5.
□ □
When someone does me a wrong 1 feel that I should pay him back when I can just for the
principle of the thing.
6.
□ □ Every family owes it to the city to keep their sidewalks cleared in the winter and their
lawns mowed in the summer.
7.
□ □
It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily routine.
8.
□ □
Sometimes I feel like swearing.
9.
□ □
When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement.
10. □ □ I usually work things out for myself rather than get someone to show me how.
11*. □ □
People who seem unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfortable.
12.
□ □
I am fascinated by fire.
13.
□ □
I was a slow learner at school.
14.
□ □
I think I am stricter about right and wrong than most people.
15.
□ □
I would like to wear expensive clothes.
16.
□ □
I always like to see to it that my work is carefully planned and organized.
17.
□ □
Everything is turning out just like the Prophets of the Bible said it would.
18.
□ □
I like to read newspaper articles on crime.
19.
□ □
I am often sorry because I am cross and grouchy.
20.
□ □
My parents often disapproved of my friends.
21.
□ □
A strong person will be able to make up his mind even on the most difficult questions.
22. □ □ I would be ashamed not to use my privilege of voting.
23.
□ □ I wish people would be more definite about things. i
24. □ □ 1 have never been in trouble with the law.
25. □ □ I don't like to work on a problem unless there is a possibility of coming out with a
clear-cut and simple answer.
26. □ □ 1 can honestly say that I do not really mind paying taxes because I feel that’s one of the
things one can do for what one gets from the community.
27.
□ □ When prices are high you can’t blame a person for getting all he can while the getting is good
28. □ □ In school I found it very hard to talk before the class.
29.
□ n
For most questions there is just one right answer once a person is able to get all the facts.
30. □ □ We ought to let-Europe get out of its own mess; it made its bed, let it lie in it.
31. □ □ I like science. ^
32. □ □ The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough.
33. □ □ It is hard for me to act natural when I am - with new people.
34. □ □ I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it.
35. □ □ I often start things I never finish.
36.
□ □
Police cars should be specially marked so that you can see them coming.
37.
□ □
As long as a person votes every four years he has done his duty as a citizen.
PLEA SE TURN TO NEXT PAG E AND CONTINUE
APPENDIX B
THE OCBS INVENTORY
THE OCBS INVENTORY
by
Milton Rokeach
Instructions;
The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a
nunfcer of important social and personal questions. The best answer to each state*
ment below is your personal opinion. We have tried to oover many different and
opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the
statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about
others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that
many people feel the same as you do.
Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or
disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3,
depending on how you feel in each case.
+1: I AGREE A LITTIE >1: I DISAGREE A LITTUS
+2: I AGREE ON THE WHOIE >2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOIE
+3* I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH
_____ 1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.
2. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of
democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.
_ 3* Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it
is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political
groups.
_ 4. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance
with the ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes.
5* Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.
_ 6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place.
_ 7- Most people just don’t give a •damn1 ' for others.
_ 8. I'd like it if I cound find someone who would tell me how to solve my
personal problems.
9. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.
10. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in.
11. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop.
12. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several
times to make sure I am being understood.
13* In a heated discussion I generally become so absoxbed in what I am
going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying*
14* It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.
- 2 -
15* While I don’t like to admit this even to myself, my secret ant) it ion is
to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.
16,. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important.
17. If given the chance I would do something of great benefit to the world.
18. In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful of
really great thinkers.
19. There are a number of people I have come to hate because of the things
they stand for.
20. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived.
21. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life
becomes meaningful•
22. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is
probably only one which is correct.
23. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a
pretty ‘ •wishy-washy” sort of person.
24* To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it
usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.
25. When it ccmes to differences of opinion in religion we must be careful
not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do.
26. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers
primarily his own happiness.
27. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the people
who believe in the same thing he does.
28. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard against
ideas put out by people in groups in one’s own camp than by those in
the opposing camp.
29* A group which tolerates too much differences of opinion among its own
maabers cannot exist for long.
30. There are two kinds of people in this world, those who are for the
truth and those who are against the truth.
31. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he is
wrong.
32. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt.
33* Host of the Ideas which get printed nowadays aren’t worth the paper they
are printed on.
34* In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what’s going
on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.
35* It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what’s going on until
one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects.
- 3 -
36. In the long run the best m y to live is to pick frionds and associates
whose tastes and beliefs are the sane as one’s own.
37. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future
that counts.
33. If man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes necessary
to gamble "all or nothing at all".
39- Unfortunately, a good many people with whan I have discussed important
social and moral problems don’t really understand what’s going on.
40. Most people Just don’t know what’s good for them.
I
*
APPENDIX C
130
CFS
The following are statements with which some people agree
and others disagree. Please mark each one in the left mar
gin, according to the amount of your agreement or disagree
ment, by using the following scale:
#1: slight support, -1: slight opposition,
agreement disagreement
+2: moderate support, -2: moderate opposition,
agreement disagreement
+3: strong support, -3: _strong opposition,
agreement disagreement
1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most
important virtues children should learn.
2. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding
can hardly expect to get along with decent people.
3. If people would talk less and work more, everybody
would be better off.
4. The business man and the manufacturer are much
more important to society than the artist and the
professor.
5. Science has its place, but there are many impor
tant things that can never possibly be understood
by the human mind.
6. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but
as they grow up they ought to get over them and
settle down.
7. What this country needs most, more than laws and
political programs, is a few courageous, tireless,
devoted leaders in whom the people can put their
faith.
8. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think
of hurting a close friend or relative.
9. Nobody ever learned anything really important ex
cept through suffering.
131
10. What the youth needs is strict discipline, rugged
determination, and the will to work and fight for
family and country.
11. An insult to our honor should always be punished.
12. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children,
deserve more than mere imprisonment; such crimi
nals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse.
13. There is hardly anything lower than a person who
does not feel a great love, gratitude, and re
spect for his parents.
14. Most of our social problems would be solved if we
could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked,
and feeble-minded people.
15. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and
ought to be severely punished.
16. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best
for him not to think about it, but to keep busy
with more cheerful things.
17. Every person should have complete faith in some
supernatural power whose decisions he obeys with
out question.
18. Some people are born with an urge to jump from
high places.
19. People can be divided into two distinct classes:
the weak and the strong.
20. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology
can explain a lot of things.
21. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by
an earthquake or flood that will destroy the
whole world.
22. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we
have enough will power.
23. It is best to use some prewar authorities in
Germany to keep order and prevent chaos.
24. Most people don't realize how much our lives are
controlled by plots hatched in secret places.
132
25. Human nature being what it is, there will always
be war and conflict.
26. Familiarity breeds contempt.
27. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people
move around and mix together so much, a person
has to protect himself especially carefully
against catching an infection or disease from
them.
28. Nowadays more and more people are prying into
matters that should remain personal and private.
29. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans
was tame compared to some of the goings-on in
this country, even in places where people might
least expect it.
NAME
j
i
APPENDIX D
WORD-MEANING TEST
Mane
WORD-MEANING TEST
Date
The purpose of this test is to measure the meanings of certain things
to various people by having them judge them against a series of de
scriptive scales. In taking this test, please make your judgments on
the basis of what these things mean to you. On each page of this book
let you will find a different concept to be judged and beneath it a
set of scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales in
order.
Here is how you are to use these scales:
If you feel that the concept at the top of the page is very closely
related to one end of the scale, you should place your response as
f0II0W8:
fair ll : I 1 ; I i ; I 1 ; H : i I ; 1 I unfair
£air -II ; H : H : I I j 1 I j I I : B unfair
If you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one or the
other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your re
sponse as follows:
£air 1 1 : ^ = I I : I I : I! : I | : 1 I unfair
or
fair I I : I I : I 1 : I I : 11 : ft ; |{ unfair
If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as opposed to
the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should mark as
follows:
fair 1 I : 1 I : 1 i : I 1 : : I J : I 1 unfair
£air -1 I • I I ’ M : II : I I : I I : 11 unfair
The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of
the two ends of the scale seem most characteristic of the thing you're
judging.
If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, both sides of
the scale equally associated with the conceptj or if the scale is com
pletely irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should place
your response in the middle space:
fair I I : 1 1 : I t : &$ : I T : 1 1 : I I unfair
Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Work at fairly high
speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over Individual items.
It is your first impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the items,
that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because we
want your true impressions.
based on Osgood, et al
Form HS-1
COLLEGE
M asculine 11 ; 11 : 1[ ; I I : 11 : II : 1 I Feminine
. Slow ..il..,: JJ_: J,l_: JLl.: , 1 1 . jJj-U L Fast
Good I I : I 1 : I I : t 1 : 11 : I | : I I Bad
Strong 11 : 11 : I I : il : Il : I I . ".1.1 Weak
Passive 11 : |1 : | I : I | : It : j I : I j Active
Dirty | j : J ) : I I : 1 I : 1 j : | | : I 1 . Clean
Hard (J : LJ_:— Li_: LL_: J J : ] f : Li Soft *
Du11 J L 1 ...= -I.L U I 1 > . U...=_LL.i, I L Sharp *
I
Valuable 11: 11: 11: 1 I : I I : I I ; I I Worthless
MY ACTUAL SELF
Masculine 11:1 I 1 I : I I : il : I I : I I Feminine
Slow Fast
Good ..II : II : I I : 11 : I | : 1 1 Bad
Strong 11 : I> : II: j I : 11 : I I : I I Weak
Passive It: ]I : ( I : I | : 11 : i I : I I Active
Dirty II : _1 _) : I 1 : I I I 1 : 11 : H Clean
Hard Soft
®“11. Mill: I I : I I 1 I : I I ; H Sharp
Valuable II : I I : II: 11: 11: 11:11 Worthless
PEOPLE
Masculine H : I I : I I : !I ; 1 1 : I I : I 1 Feminine
Slow Fast
Good Bad
Weak
I I Active
Dirty Clean
Hard Soft
Dull 1 j : 11 : I I ; 1 | : I I : I I : I 1 Sharp
Valuable Worthless
FATHER
M asculine 1 I : I I : I I : I I : 1 1 : I I : 1 I Feminine
Slow 1 |
_ i= H : U :_L J_:_L i_ _ ;..L1_U l _
F a st
Good | [ : |l :
J.l_: U _ :_ lL
Bad
S trong | (
» ■ I._L _LL.:_Ll— :. l i . :_J_1 _:_Ll__
Weak
P assiv e | |
:- l L = - 4 - L :- U - :_LL : U . . U I
A ctive
D irty | |
_;_IJ_:__LL U .I_=_LL L L ;.L I
Clean
Hard }|
_ L L ; L L O l : . LI, O J
S oft
D ull 1 |
11, _LL'- L l : II : J _ L :., 1J
Sharp
V aluable l|
; j [ «
L b . l b J J
i I I : | | W orthless
MY FUTURE
Masculine II : I I : I I : 11 : ll : I I : I ) Feminine
Slow II : 11 : II : 11 : I) : I > : { I Fast
Good II : I I : I I : I \ ; 11 : I | : I I Bad
Strong 11 : I I : I I; II : It : I I : ll Weak
Passive I I : 11 : \ \ ' . I 1 : 11 : i I : I I Active
Dirty I i I I : I I : I I : II i I I : I I Clean
Hard 11 : II : I I : |_| : I I ; I I ; I I Soft
Dull ..It i-ll :. J h Ll:lli I I..: ll. Sharp
/
; Valuable 11 : I I : II: 11: 11: 11: 11 Worthless
I
MY IDEAL SELF
Masculine II : 1 I : 1 I : I I : ll : 1 1 _ : 1 . 1 Feminine
Slow 11 : It : 11 : i 1 : I j : I 1 : I Fast
Good,. | \ : |1 : t I : 1 \ : 1) 1 j. Bad
Strong 11 ; I I : I I : i 1 : 11 - It t 1 I Weak
Passive 11 : 11 : | I : 1 ( : 11 : j 1 : 1 1 . Active
Dirty _11 ; I I : 1 1 : 1 1 : M : M ; I 1 Clean
Hard U = It ;--1 I : l i t 11 : 1 1 • • 1 I Soft
Dull _{J— .: J l L:,Ll,.,iJJ_;i „ Ll.jJl. Sharp
Valuable 11 : 1 . 1 1 : t I : II: 1 I ; 11 Worthless
STUDY
Masculine 11 : 11 : 11 : I I ; 11 : I I : 1 I Feminine
slow II = 11 : H ? I 1 : l| = I I : | I Fast
Good I | : II • H : I 1 : 11 ' • I 1 H i Bad
Passive 11 ; j ) ; ( I : t | : 11 ; j | : I I Active
Dirty Ij ; t ! ; I I : II : Ij : 11 : I I Clean
Hard H : 11 : I I : I I : U : 1 I : I I Soft
Dull I I : 11 1 1 : I \ : t I : 1 1 ; I I Sharp
Valuable H : 1 , 1 : 1 I : 11; It : 11: 11 Worthless
MOTHER
Masculine Ji_=_LL=_lL--Feminine
Strong _U_: Weak
Passive 1 1 : it : { 1 : I j : it : i I : 1 i Active
Dirty 11 : II : I t : II : 11: 11: 11 Clean
Hard —LL:—LL;_U—: Soft
Dull ij :— i J— :— !-]_* — U - :- J 1 - U - D J J - Sharp
Valuable J JL;J.L ---L L--JJL’.. .1J -t-L D ., LL Worthless
Counselor
Masculine ) I : - j I ; M : I I ; 11 : 1 I : I 1 Feminine
Slow I L.i. U : 11 : 1 . 1 : I) : I 1 : | 1 Fast
Good 1i_: 11 : It : M : : 1 | = I I Bad
Strong I) ; I 1 : I I : j | : 11 : t 1 : 1 I Weak
Passive Ii : H : | I : I \ : 11 ; i | : I t Active
Dirty 11 i_l I : ) I : i I : I 1 : I 1 : Ll Clean
Hard 11— 11 : M s II: >1 : M : II Soft
J
Dull —Ll— •— t-L' • — !-L:_ .L l_ • .1-1 1 t JL. = } Sharp
Valuable _ _ l l_ : 1 I : [1 1 j : 1 I : 1 I : I I Worthless
Counseling
Masculine Feminine
Slow II :ll : II ; 11 11_:_L_L_;J1_ Fast
Good If : II : I I : \\ : 11 JJ__ Bad
Strong Weak
Passive
J Active
Clean
Hard I I : 11 : I I : 1 I : I I i I I : I I Soft
Sharp
Valuable II : I I : II: I I : I I : I I : I I Worthless
APPENDIX E
COUNSELOR RATING FORM
vooo'-jcr^tn^t.oroi—■
137
COUNSELOR RATING FORM’
Counselors are to be rated for effective
ness based upon the following criteria:
Supervisor's judgment as to quality of
empathetic understanding counselor is
capable of demonstrating.
Supervisor's judgment as to progress of
counselor since the start of the program
in academic and practical counseling areas:
a grasp and awareness of the philosophical
precepts of a counseling relationship.
Supervisor's subjective estimate of each
counselor's potential for helping clients
through the counseling relationship.
PLEASE RANK EACH COUNSELOR-TRAINEE FROM 1 to 30
BASED UPON THE ABOVE CRITERIA OF EFFECTIVENESS:
11. 21.
12. 22.
13. 23.
14. 24.
15. 25.
16. 26.
17. 27.
00
H
28.
19. 29.
fo
o
•
30.
CRITERIA:
1.
2.
Supervisor’s Signature
APPENDIX F
ANSWER SHEET FOR THE OCBS INVENTORY
i
139
Name
ANSWER SHEET FOR THE OCBS INVENTORY
Date
Acre Sex Training Institution
1 • 21.
2. 22.
3. 23.
4. 24.
5. 25.
6. 26.
7. 27.
8. 28.
9. 29.
10. 30.
Ll. 31.
12. 32.
13. 33.
L4. 34.
L5. 35.
L6. 36.
L7. 37.
L8. 38.
L9. 39.
20. 40.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Nonverbal Communication In Counseling: An Exploratory Study

PDF

Selection Factors Relating To Success In A Counselor Education Program

PDF

A Study To Compare The Effectiveness Of Individual And Group Counseling Approaches With Able Underachievers When Counselor Time Is Held Constant

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The School Psychologist In The State Of California

PDF

The Validity Of The Graduate Record Examinations As Used With English-Speaking Foreign Students

PDF

Upperclassmen As Academic Advisers To Freshmen In An Undergraduate College: An Experiment

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

PDF

An Empirical Comparison Of The School And College Ability Tests And The American Council On Education Psychological Examination

PDF

An Investigation Of Changes In Knowledge And Attitudes Of Counselor-Trainees During The Course Of An Ndea Guidance Institute And Their Relation To Counseling Competence

PDF

To Attend Or Not To Attend College: Some Factors In The Decision Of Qualified High School Graduates

PDF

Non-Cognitive Factors Related To Achievement Which Can Be Ascertained From Freshman Autobiographies

PDF

A Comparison Of Students' Evaluation Of Guidance Services Under Varying Plans Of Organization

PDF

A Study Of The School Achievement And Adjustment Of Children From One-Parent Homes

PDF

Utilization Of The Earliest Childhood Recollection In Detecting Maladjustment Among Junior College Students

PDF

A Critical Study Of Transition Devices In Selected Junior College Districts

PDF

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

PDF

A Comparative Guidance Study: Group Counseling Methods With Selected Underachieving Ninth Grade Students

PDF

The Rehabilitation Of School Dropouts Through An Intensive Summer School Program

PDF

A Study Of The Effectiveness Of Teaching Methods Of Study To Selected High School Freshmen

PDF

Librarians' Perceptions Of Librarianship

Asset Metadata

Creator Charnofsky, Stanley (author)

Core Title Counselor Rigidity - Dogmatism - Authoritarianism As Variables In Counseling Effectiveness

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Carnes, Earl F. (committee chair), Lefever, David Welty (committee member), Martin, David W. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-195863

Unique identifier UC11360058

Identifier 6605801.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-195863 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6605801.pdf

Dmrecord 195863

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Charnofsky, Stanley

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA