University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

(USC Thesis Other)

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

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 65-9959
microfilmed exactly as received
ABBOTT, William Perry, 1923-
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SELF-CON
FRONTATION IN COUNSELING.
University of Southern California, Ed. D ., 1965
Education, psychology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
A W EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OP
SELF-CONFRONTATION IN COUNSELING
A D is s e r ta tio n
P re s e n te d to th e
F a c u lty o f th e School o f E d u ca tio n
U n iv e r s ity o f S o u th ern C a lif o r n ia
In P a r t i a l F u lf illm e n t
o f th e R eq u irem en ts f o r th e Degree
D o cto r o f E d u c a tio n
by
W illiam P e rry A b b o tt
June 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.
Dean
Guidance Comink
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................v i '
C h a p te r
I . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................... . 1
I n tr o d u c tio n
The Problem
Im p o rtan ce o f th e Study
The Method -
D e f in itio n o f Terms
A ssum ptions
O rg a n iz a tio n o f th e R em aining C h a p ters
I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................... . . 10
The P ro c e s s o f T herapy
O rthodox P s y c h o a n a ly tic A pproach
S u lliv a n ia n Therapy
L e a rn in g T heory T herapy
D ir e c tiv e T herapy
C lie n t-C e n te re d T herapy
R ole T herapy
Summary o f th e P ro c e ss o f T herapy
E x p e rie n c in g B eh av io rs and F e e lin g s
T ech n iq u es o f th e T h e r a p is t
F ree A s s o c ia tio n
F ree A s s o c ia tio n a n d .T ra n s fe re n c e
R e f le c tio n
R o le -P la y in g T echniques
L ife -S p a c e T ech n iq u es
Summary o f T h e ra p is t T ech n iq u es A id in g
C lie n t E x p e rie n c in g o f S e lf
Audio and V ideo T echniques
Summary o f Audio and V ideo R eco rd in g
Chapter Page .
T ech n iq u es A id in g C lie n t E x p e rie n c in g !
| o f S e lf
| R esearch M ethods I
i ;
! M ethods o f C o u n selin g R e sea rc h |
S tu d ie s o f C lie n t P ro c e s s e s in C o u n selin g '
I Summary o f R e sea rc h M ethods and M easures
| Summary
r ;
j I I I . PROCEDURES OP THE STUDY................................ * + 0
D evelopm ent o f th e S tim u lu s In stru m e n t
G en eral D esign
D evelopm ent o f S tim u lu s Item s
S tim u lu s S ta te m e n t S e le c tio n
P i r s t S c re e n in g o f S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
Second S c re e n in g o f S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
S e le c tio n o f P in a l S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
Tw enty-one S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
D esign o f C o u n selin g P ro c ed u re
C o u n selin g T echnique P i l o t Study
D e s c rip tio n o f C o u n selees
D e s c rip tio n o f C o u n selin g P ro ced u re
T reatm en t o f E x p erim e n tal and C o n tro l
C o u n selees
P ro c e d u re s f o r P ro v in g th e H ypotheses
Sam ples o f C ounselee B e h av io r Drawn
f o r S o rtin g
U n itiz in g C ounselee B eh av io r from th e
Sam ples
S e le c tin g th e Judges
C la s s if y in g C ounselee B e h av io r U n its
C lie n t C o n ten t j
C lie n t P e e lin g
C lie n t R e s p o n s ib ility - T a k in g B eh av io r
Ju d g es A greem ent !
C lie n t C a te g o rie s
i
iii
I ~ ...‘ ........................
!
! C h a p te r »
!
| D is tr ib u ti o n o f S en ten ce U n its
j D is tr ib u ti o n o f S ta te m e n t U n its
i
| C lie n t R e s p o n s ib ility - T a k in g S cale
<
! D is tr ib u tio n o f Judgm ents
Study H ypotheses w ith C r ite r i o n M easures
! S t a t i s t i c a l M easures
i
i Summary
IV . FINDINGS OF THE STUDY................... ................................
I n tr o d u c tio n
F in d in g s
H y p o th esis 1
T e s tin g H y p o th e sis 1
H y p o th e sis 2
T e s tin g H y p o th esis 2
H y p o th esis 3
T e s tin g H y p o th e sis 3
H y p o th esis * +
T e s tin g H y p o th esis
H y p o th e sis 5
T e s tin g H y p o th e sis 5
H y p o th esis 6
T e s tin g H y p o th e sis 6
Summaxy
V. SU M M A R Y OF THE FINDINGS, DISCUSSION,
CONCLUSIONS, AN D RECOMM ENDATIONS . . . . .
I n tro d u c tio n
Summary o f th e F in d in g s
D isc u ssio n o f th e F in d in g s
C o n c lu sio n s
Recom m endations
i BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... . .
| APPENDICES.......................................................................... . . . .
A ppendix A. T o p ics f o r S p eak e rs ...................
Page |
70
lOh
1 1 ^ i
123 |
i
1 2 5 :
iv
| Chapter Page
' A ppendix B. B ales* The System o f Cat'e-
| " g o r ie s Used i n O b se rv a tio n s
! and T h e ir M ajor R e la tio n s . . » 127
A ppendix C. D e f in itio n s o f S c o rin g
j C a te g o rie s . • ........................................ 132
i
A ppendix D. An E x c e rp t from "R ules f o r
D iv id in g In te rv ie w s in to
S e n te n c e s" ....................... 135
i
] A ppendix E . C lie n t C o n ten t C a te g o rie s . . . 139
v
LIST OP TABLES
T ab le Page
1 . A greem ent o f J u d g e s ............................. 56
2 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S e n te n ce U n i t s ........................... 57
3 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S en ten ce U n its by Sam ples . . . 58
V0 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S ta te m e n t U n its by Sample 1 . * 59
5 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S ta te m e n t U n its by Sample 2 . . 60
6 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S ta te m e n t U n its by Sam ples 1
and 2 . .. ... . 62
7 . A greem ent o f Ju d g e s A, B, and C; C lie n t
R e s p o n s ib ility - T a k in g . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8 . Ju d g e C; D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n s ib i lity -
T ak in g Judgem ents .. . . . ...................................... 6V
9 . R e s p o n s ib ility - T a k in g ; Mean R a tin g s . . . . . . 65
1 0 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S en te n ce U n its ; P ro p o rtio n
o f Type by T o t a l ..................................... 72
11. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S en te n ce U n its ; Change from
Sample 1 to Sam ple 2 . . . . . . . . ................... 73
12. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S e n te n c e s ; P roblem
S ta te m e n ts ................................. 7V
13. Chi S quare V alu es fo r.P ro b le m S ta te m e n ts . . . . 75
IV . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S e n te n c e s ; I n s ig h t
S ta te m e n ts . ................................. 79
1 5 . Chi S quare V alu e s f o r I n s ig h t S ta te m e n ts . . . . . 80
1 6 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S ta te m e n t U n its ; P ro p o rtio n
by Type o f T o ta l to w ard P e rso n ; Sample 1 . . 82
vi
Table Page
1 7 . D is tr ib u ti o n o f S tatem en t U n its ; P ro p o rtio n
by Type o f T o ta l tow ard P e rso n ; Sample 2 . • . 83
1 8 . D is tr ib u ti o n o f S tatem en t U n its ; P ro p o rtio n
by Type o f T o ta l tow ard P e rs o n . Changes
Sample 1 to Sample 2 ................................ 8^
19. D is tr ib u ti o n o f S ta te m e n ts; E x p re ssin g
P e e lin g s tow ard S e lf 86
2 0 . Chi Square V alu es f o r E x p re ssin g P e e lin g s
tow ard S e l f .......................................... 87
21. D is tr ib u ti o n o f S ta te m e n ts; E x p re s s in g
P e e lin g s tow ard O th ers ................................................91
22. Chi Square V alu es f o r E x p re ssin g P e e lin g s
tow ard O th e rs . . . . ........................ ..... . 92
23. D is tr ib u ti o n o f S ta te m e n ts; E x p re s s in g
P e e lin g s to w ard C o u n selo r ........................................... 95
2k, Chi Square V alues f o r E x p re s s in g P e e lin g s
tow ard C o u n s e lo r ....................................................................... 96
25 • R e s p o n s ib ility -T a k in g B eh av io r; Mean
R a t i n g s ................................ 100
2 6 . t R a tio s f o r R e s p o n s ib ility -T a k in g
B eh av io r ....................... 101
vii
CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM
In tro d u c tio n
Study o f th e c o u n s e lin g p ro c e s s h as been e x te n s iv e
s in c e th e 19^0’ s and c o n tin u e s w ith in c re a s in g s o p h is tic a -
jtf o n . The i n t e r a c t i o n o f th e c l i e n t and th e c o u n s e lo r
s t i l l r e c e iv e s m ajor a t t e n t i o n , and th e s k i l l s and te c h
n iq u e s im p o rta n t to t h a t p ro c e s s a re u n d er c lo s e s c i e n t i f i c
]
! s tu d y .
One a re a o f r e s e a r c h , p erh ap s s u g g e s tin g new
|te c h n iq u e s , h as in v o lv e d o b se rv in g re sp o n se s to s e l f - "
; c o n fro n ta tio n * Work done by G aier (35) and Bloom (12)
I in d ic a te d t h a t s u b je c ts were a b le to r e c a l l f e e lin g s p re -
j
jv io u s ly re p re s s e d when l i s t e n i n g to re p la y s o f t h e i r v e rb a l
exchanges in classro o m s i t u a t i o n s . N ie lso n (5^ and 55)
re p o r te d e s s e n t i a l l y th e same re sp o n se s by s u b je c ts when
v iew in g film s o f th e m selv es in s t r e s s f u l i n t e r a c t i o n s .
I
Spontaneous s e l f - i n s i g h t was r e p o r te d though no a tte m p ts
I were made to conduct c o u n s e lin g in te rv ie w s w ith th e sub
j e c t s .
I V arious te c h n iq u e s have been u t i l i z e d to h e lp th e
c l i e n t e x p re s s h im s e lf o p en ly so t h a t h o th c l i e n t and |
t h e r a p i s t c o u ld e x p e rie n c e th e r e a l p e rso n and p ro cee d
from th e r e to e x p lo r a tio n and e v e n tu a l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f
i
th e dynam ics o f h i s f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io r s . In th e f a c e I
I
o f c l i e n t d e fe n s iv e n e s s ( i n e f f e c t n o t w an tin g to c la im
I
h i s own f e e l in g s and b e h a v io r s ) , th e t h e r a p i s t h as employed!
v a r io u s te c h n iq u e s a s th e h is t o r y o f p sy c h o th erap y r e v e a l s .
I The Problem
T h is stu d y h a s e x p lo re d th e p o s s ib le u s e f u ln e s s o f
s e l f - c o n f r o n ta ti o n to c o u n s e lin g by p la c in g th e c l i e n t 's
own b e h a v io r, in th e form o f ta p e d r o le - p la y in g s i t u a t i o n s , :
i . '
b e fo re b o th c l i e n t and c o u n s e lo r a t th e o u ts e t o f th e coun-
i
js e i i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p .
The purpose o f th e stu d y h as been to in v e s t ig a t e
|th e e f f e c t s upon c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s when c o n fro n te d by h i s
:own b e h a v io r.
S ix m ajor' h y p o th e se s were h e ld . They a re l i s t e d
w ith t h e i r a p p r o p r ia te r e s e a r c h h y p o th e s e s .
jH y p p th e sis 1
i
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be more s e l f -
d e s c r ip tiv e th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
I C r ite r io n b e h a v io rs : S nyder Problem c a te g o r ie s ,
| Own and O th e rs: S en ten ce u n i t s . i
! ■ ■ 1
| a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g n i f i - !
c a n tly more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e a t th e f i r s t
s e s s io n th a n th e c c n tr o l g ro u p . !
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e a t th e
t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l not.becom e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e
from th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d s e s s io n
th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
h y p o th e s is 2
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be more i n s i g h t
f u l th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r i o n b e h a v io rs : S nyder U n d ersta n d in g
o r A ctio n Taken c a te g o r ie s : S en ten ce u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l a t th e f i r s t
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l a t th e t h i r d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l from th e
f i r s t to th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th e sis 3
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be more a c c e p tin g
o f own b e h a v io r th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r i o n b e h a v io rs : S nyder PNAv Q u o tie n t:
S ta te m e n t u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r
a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l
g ro u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r
a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l
g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own
b e h a v io r from th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th e sis
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be more a c c e p tin g
o f o th e r s b e h a v io r th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r i o n b e h a v io rs : S nyder PNAv Q u o tie n t:
S ta te m e n t u n i t s .
i a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g -
j n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs
j b e h a v io r a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e
! c o n tr o l g ro u p .
i b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g -
I n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs
| b e h a v io r a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tr o l g ro u p .
j c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs
b e h a v io r from th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
|
H y p o th e sis 5
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l a t f i r s t show more
b u t l a t e r l e s s r e s i s t a n c e to th e c o u n s e lo r th a n
w i l l th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r i o n b e h a v io rs : S nyder PNAv Q u o tie n t:
S ta te m e n t u n i t s .
a . ' The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t show more
p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r
a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l
g ro u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t show more
p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e c o u n s e lo r
a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tro l
g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
i s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p o s i t i v e tow ard th e
c o u n s e lo r from th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th e sis 6
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l ta k e more re s p o n
s i b i l i t y f o r e x p lo rin g problem s th a n th e c o n tr o l
g ro u p .
C r ite r i o n b e h a v io rs C arnes* C lie n t R e sp o n si
b ili ty - T a k in g S c a le : S tate m e n t u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more r e s p o n s ib le f o r e x p lo rin g
problem s a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tr o l g r o u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p w i ll n o t be s ig
n i f i c a n t l y more r e s p o n s ib le f o r e x p lo rin g
problem s a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tro l g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e s p o n s ib le f o r
e x p lo rin g problem s from th e f i r s t to th e
t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
Im p o rtan ce o f th e Study
Review o f th e th e o r ie s o f c o u n s e lin g r e a d i l y p o in ts
j to th e co n c ern f o r t h i s problem ; When i t was re c o g n iz e d
[ th a t f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io rs g iv in g d is c o m fo rt a re m ost
l i k e l y to be r e p r e s s e d , ig n o re d , o r d i s t o r t e d , th e r a p e u tic
m ethods o f f r e e a s s o c ia t i o n , tr a n s f e r e n c e , r e f l e c t i o n ,
; r o l e - p l a y i n g , and so f o r t h were em ployed to a id c l i e n t and
c o u n s e lo r a c c e s s i b i l i t y to th e " r e a l " c o n c e rn s . Thus coun-
i
s e l i n g r e s e a r c h and t r a i n i n g e f f o r t s have been h e a v ily
]d ir e c te d to w ard overcom ing c l i e n t d e fe n s e s th ro u g h i n t e r 7 .
(p e rso n a l te c h n iq u e s . The l i t e r a t u r e i s f u l l o f th e o ry and
i
:r e s e a r c h on th e n a tu re o f d efen se m echanism s, th e . s i g n i f i
can ce and e f f e c t s o f th e s e c o u n s e lo r te c h n iq u e s , and th e
61
c o tm s e lo r b e h a v io rs and a t t i t u d e s w hich prom ote c l i e n t
s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n .
W hile s e lf - c o n f r o n ta ti o n te c h n iq u e s have been !
I
em ployed a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity (K agan, K rath w o ld ,
and M i l l e r , ^3)> B -o s y s te m a tic stu d y o f th e c o n t r ib u t io n of!
i i
i
s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n to c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s h a s been u n d e rta k e n .
I t would be im p o rta n t to know t h a t au d io and v id e o
r e c o r d in g d e v ic e s , so commonly a v a ila b le to m ost c o u n s e lin g ;
s e t t i n g s , c o u ld be em ployed in su ch m anners a s to overcom e !
i ;
th e d i f f i c u l t and ham pering d e fe n se sy stem s t h a t impede
I c lie n t- c o u n s e lo r i n t e r a c t i o n .
I t would be im p o rta n t to h e lp th e c l i e n t e x p e rie n c e
b o th h is own r e a l b e h a v io r and th e f a c t t h a t a n o th e r p e rso n ,
i
th e c o u n s e lo r , had e x p e rie n c e d th e r e a l b e h a v io r a s w e ll ,
|th e m ost d i f f i c u l t ta s k he m ust a c c o m p lish i f he i s to
e x p e rie n c e s e lf - u n d e r s ta n d in g and p e r s o n a l g ro w th .
The Method
S ix te e n h ig h sc h o o l s tu d e n ts w ere p ro v id ed th r e e
c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s e a c h . O n e -h a lf o f th e s tu d e n ts w ere !
random ly a s s ig n e d to th e e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p . P r i o r to th e !
( f i r s t c o u n s e lin g .s e s s io n , each c o u n s e le e was p re s e n te d a
j : j
.s e r ie s o f tw en ty -o n e ta p e d s ta te m e n ts re c o rd e d by anonymous !
| |
(p aren t f i g u r e s . The c o u n se le e was ask ed to assume t h a t th e I
i ;
Iperson was sp e ak in g d i r e c t l y to him and was i n s t r u c t e d to
i
i
(rep ly to each s ta te m e n t a s he f e l t . These i n t e r a c t i o n s
w ere ta p e re c o rd e d . Each o f th e th r e e c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s
was hegun hy r e p la y o f one o f th e s ta te m e n ts th e c o u n s e le e
w ished to exam ine f u r t h e r . R ep lay s f o r th e e x p e rim e n ta l
c o u n s e le e in c lu d e d b o th th e p a r e n t - f ig u r e sp eech and h i s
r e p ly . Only th e p a r e n t- f ig u r e sp e ech was re p la y e d f o r th e
I c o n tr o l g ro u p . C o u n selin g c e n te re d on th e s e le c te d i n t e r -
|a c t i o n s and th e f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io rs r e v e a le d .
I R e sea rc h m ethods u t i l i z e d c o n te n t- a n a ly s is o f
I
j t y p e s c r i p t s . T hree ju d g e s c a te g o r iz e d c l i e n t sp eech
; b e h a v io r w hich was th e n u sed to t e s t th e r e s e a r c h h y p o th e
s e s .
D e f in itio n o f Terms
I ,
C o u n selo r
The i n v e s t i g a t o r co n d u cted a l l c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s .
i
C o u n selin g T echnique
C lie n t- c e n te r e d m ethods w ere u s e d .
C ounselee /C lie n t
T hese term s w ere u sed in te r c h a n g e a b ly . These were
a l l v o lu n te e r s .
! S e lf - c o n f r o n ta tio n
j 1
! T h is i s i n t e r p r e t e d to mean e x p e rie n c in g a g a in
:o n e’ $ own re c o rd e d b e h a v io r a s i t o r i g i n a l l y o c c u rre d .
8
A ssum ptions j
R e p re s e n ta tiv e n e s s o f P o p u la tio n
I t i s assum ed t h a t th e s e le c te d p o p u la tio n o f s t u
d e n ts was t y p i c a l o f m ost y o u n g s te rs in t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
| I
ih ig h s c h o o l.
: )
i
I Random ness: A ssignm ent to S tudy Groups
C o u n selees w ere a r b i t r a r i l y a s s ig n e d to ex p e rim en - ;
!t a l and c o n tr o l g ro u p s w ith no a p p a re n t b i a s .
I C o m p a ra b ility
i
j I t i s assum ed t h a t c o u n s e lin g m ethods w ere com-
t
ip a ra b le r e g a r d le s s o f g ro u p . T h is was c o n tr o lle d i n s o f a r
i
a s p o s s ib le by h av in g one c o u n s e lo r f o r a l l g ro u p s , th o u g h j
by n e c e s s i t y he knew w hich c o u n s e le e s p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e
!e x p e rim e n ta l m ethods.
i
I U n b iased Judgm ents
Ju d g es were n o t inform ed re g a r d in g c o u n se le e group
m em bership n o r c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s when re a d in g ty p e s c r ip ts .
! ■ i
- ■
O rg a n iz a tio n o f th e R em aining C h ap ters
.
j In C h ap ter I I a s e a rc h o f th e l i t e r a t u r e i s
i !
ir e p o r te d re g a rd in g th e p ro c e s s o f th e r a p e u tic movement by
| |
|th e c l i e n t and th e t h e r a p i s t ’s te c h n iq u e s to h e lp th e
|c l i e n t e x p re s s b e h a v io r and f e e l i n g s . A rev ie w o f th e
a u d io and v id e o te c h n iq u e s i n c o u n s e lin g and c o u n s e lin g -
".......................................... ' ..._ : ” 9
r e l a t e d e f f o r t s i s a l s o g iv e n . R e se a rc h te c h n iq u e s in
c o u n s e lin g a r e r e p o r te d a s w e ll.
The p ro c e d u re s u se d in t h i s s tu d y , in c lu d in g th e
developm ent o f r e s e a r c h in s tru m e n ts , a r e d is c u s s e d in
C h a p te r I I I . The outcom es o f th e stu d y a re r e p o r te d in
C h a p te r IV , and i n C h a p ter V th e s e outcom es a re d is c u s s e d
la s w e ll a s e v a lu a te d .
CHAPTER I I I
I :
!
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I
The rev iew o f th e l i t e r a t u r e p re s e n te d in t h i s
i :
ic h a p te r was g u id ed by s e v e r a l s p e c if i c p u rp o s e s . I t was
I
: im p o rta n t to fin d th e v ie w p o in ts o f t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t io n s
r e g a r d in g th e p ro c e s s e s c l i e n t s in th e ra p y e x p e rie n c e in
o r d e r to d ev elo p a b ro a d model f o r t h i s s tu d y . T h is rev ie w
was a ls o co n d u cted to exam ine th e v a r io u s te c h n iq u e s o f
1 ;
|t h e r a p e u t i c sc h o o ls to a id th e c l i e n t ’ s e x p re s s io n o f h i s
own f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io rs in th e th e r a p e u tic s e t t i n g . As ,
|a r e s u l t , th e te c h n iq u e o f s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n was g u id e d by
I th e s e f i n d in g s .
| R e sea rc h m ethods and m easu res u sed i n s tu d y in g
| c o u n s e lin g w ere rev ie w e d b o th to g u id e th e p ro c e d u re s o f
r e s e a r c h to be u sed and to su g g e st c r i t e r i o n m easu res f o r
th e c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s m entioned a b ^ v e .
These rev ie w s a re p re s e n te d a s fo llo w ss The P ro -
i c e s s o f T h erap y , E x p e rie n c in g B e h av io rs and F e e lin g s , and
iR esearch M ethods. A summary fo llo w s each s e c tio n and an
i 1
;a d d itio n a l summary i s made a f t e r th e l a s t s e c tio n .
I
i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10
11
The P ro c e s s o f T herapy j
j
A rev ie w and a n a ly s is o f th e m a jo r ap p ro ac h es to
j
th e ra p y r e v e a ls c e r t a i n co m m o n alities w ith re g a rd to c l i e n t j
i
p r o c e s s e s . I
O rthodox P s y c h o a n a ly tic
A pproach (8 ? )
The t h e r a p i s t h e lp s th e c l i e n t b rin g u n c o n sc io u s
and p re c o n s c io u s m a te r ia l in to c o n s c io u s n e s s th ro u g h th e
u se o f f r e e a s s o c i a t i o n . As th e c l i e n t u n co v e rs r e p r e s s e d ;
|f e e l i n g s tow ard p a r e n t s , sp o u se , s i b l i n g s , o r o th e r s i g n i f i
c a n t p e r s o n s , th e t h e r a p i s t i n t e r p r e t s a c c o rd in g to p sy ch o
a n a ly ti c th e o r ie s o f p e r s o n a l i t y .
D uring th e ra p y th e t h e r a p i s t rem ain s am biguous,
e n a b lin g th e c l i e n t to p r o j e c t f e e l i n g s onto him and th u s
ia c t o u t in c id e n ts from th e p a s t . As a r e s u l t an in te n s e
i
[ tr a n s f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p d e v e lo p s . The t h e r a p i s t i n t e r
p r e t s th e s e p r o je c tio n s f o r th e c l i e n t so t h a t he may
u n d e rs ta n d h i s f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io rs tow ard o th e r s i g n i f i
c a n t p e rs o n s in h i s l i f e .
| S u lliv a n ia n Therapy
| i
In S u lliv a n ia n th e ra p y (81 *) th e t h e r a p i s t s y s te m a t-
; i c a l l y u n c o v e rs in fo rm a tio n ab o u t th e p a t i e n t in o rd e r to
j i
u n d e rs ta n d him in th e c o n te x t o f h i s in te r p e r s o n a l re la tio n -!
s h ip s . The g o a ls f o r th e c l i e n t a re d eterm in ed by th e
i :
i t h e r a p i s t . He le a d s th e c l i e n t th ro u g h q u e s tio n in g and
12
I
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in a m anner w hich m in im izes extrem e t r a n s - j
| f e r e n c e , th o u g h he re m a in s am biguous i n o rd e r to p e rm it
p r o je c tio n s o f th e c l i e n t * The c l i e n t 's a t t i t u d e s to w ard
i
th e t h e r a p i s t a re b ased upon p r o je c tio n s from th e p a s t and j
upon m e rite d a t t i t u d e s d e riv e d from th e r e a l i t y o f t h e i r
ongoing r e l a t i o n s h i p . The c l i e n t i s ex p e c te d to e x p lo re
j
th e s e a t t i t u d e s and r e l a t e them to h i s a t t i t u d e s i n o th e r
|im p o rta n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
L e a rn in g Theory T herapy
b o lla r d and M ille r (2 9 ) b ase t h e i r p ro c e d u re s p r i -
i .
jm a rily upon c o g n itiv e p r o c e s s e s . The c l i e n t i s h e lp e d to
I d is c r im in a te m eanings im p o rta n t to h i s p e r c e p tio n s . The
I c l i e n t i s p re s e n te d w ith le a r n in g ta s k s b ased upon th e
!t h e r a p i s t 's u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e c l i e n t 's problem s and h is :
|know ledge o f m o tiv a tio n and le a r n in g th e o r y . The c l i e n t
f r e e - a s s o c i a t e s in o r d e r to u n co v e r r e p r e s s e d f e e l i n g s .
The t h e r a p i s t e x h i b i t s calm ness and u n d e rs ta n d in g a s he
i n t e r p r e t s th e c l i e n t 's f e e l i n g s .
As s e lf - u n d e r s ta n d in g d e v e lo p s , th e c l i e n t i s
ex p e c te d to t r y new modes o f b e h a v io r. The c l i e n t d ev elo p s!
tr a n s f e r e n c e o f f e e l i n g s w hich b o lla r d and M ille r re c o g n iz e ;
1 1
to be somewhat r e a l i t y - b a s e d . These a ls o become im p o rta n t ;
I ‘ S
!to c l i e n t grow th s in c e th e s e f e e l in g s a re based in th e
p r e s e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith th e t h e r a p i s t r a t h e r th a n in
[O ther r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f th e p a s t .
I i
131
I
Directive Therapy j
| T h is i s th e p ro c e s s o f th e ra p y posed by W olberg
i ^
(9 1 ) in w hich th e t h e r a p i s t w orks f o r im proved m e n ta l h e a lth
i
o f th e c l i e n t by c a se h i s t o i y and d ia g n o s tic m ethods. The
j
jth e r a p i s t th e n d e c id e s upon a tem p o rary tre a tm e n t p la n which
■m ay be m o d ifie d a s th e ra p y c o n tin u e s . He b u ild s a s tr o n g
|
d ep en d en t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith th e c l i e n t and en c o u ra g es him « -
tow ard s e lf - u n d e r s ta n d in g th ro u g h q u e s tio n in g ', i n t e r p r e -
i
i t a t i n g , r e a s s u r i n g , a d v ic e - g iv in g , and in fo rm a tio n . As th e
c l i e n t w orks tow ard s e lf - u n d e r s ta n d in g , he i s e x p e c te d to
ta k e more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h is auctions a s d ir e c te d by th e
I
j ’
t h e r a p i s t . F e e lin g s to w ard th e t h e r a p i s t a re seen a s com-
1
ibined p r o je c tio n s and r e a l i t y - b a s e d e a rn e d a t t i t u d e s .
i
C lie n t-C e n te re d T herapy
The R o g erian t h e r a p i s t ( 6 9 ) e x p re s s e s u n c o n d itio n a l
p o s i t iv e re g a rd f o r th e c l i e n t , and h as an em pathic u n d e r
s ta n d in g o f th e c l i e n t ’ s p e r c e p tu a l fram ew ork. He communi
c a te s t h i s u n d e rs ta n d in g th ro u g h w arm th, a c c e p ta n c e , and
c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f f e e l i n g s ( r e f l e c t i o n ) .
The c l i e n t d is c u s s e s h i s problem s w ith th e t h e r a p i s t
u n t i l he re a c h e s s e lf-a c G e p ta n c e a t w hich p o in t he can th e n
make f u l l e r u s e s o f h i s a b i l i t i e s . T here i s m utual r e s p e c t ^
betw een c l i e n t and c o u n s e lo r and l i t t l e o c c u rre n c e o f tra n s-]
1 i
f e r e n c e o r c o u n te r tr a n s f e r e n c e . F e e lin g s o f th e c l i e n t
! - i
to w ard th e t h e r a p i s t a re r e a l i t y - b a s e d f o r th e m ost p a r t .
Role Therapy !
I In K elly * s r o l e th e ra p y d 5 ) * th e c l i e n t i s to form
L
; new c o n s tr u c ts o r r e v i s e o ld o n e s. The t h e r a p i s t d ia g n o se s
I i
! th e c l i e n t * s b e h a v io r, d e c id e s w hat th e ra p y can d o , and
d e v is e s r o l e s w hich in tro d u c e c o n s tr u c t r e v is io n o r d e v e l-
i
]opment in a s te p - b y - s te p p ro c e s s . The t h e r a p i s t q u e s tio n s ,
i
I
j i n t e r p r e t s , and i n s t r u c t s . He assum es m omentaiy r o l e s
|a c c o r d in g to p r o je c tio n s o f th e c l i e n t . Em phasis i s on th e .
p r e s e n t r a t h e r th a n th e p a s t . The c l i e n t i s
to su rv ey new d a t a , to re a c h t e s t a b l e h y p o th e se s
by s u c c e s s iv e a p p ro x im a tio n , to d e s ig n e x p e r i
m ents w ith o u t r i s k i n g to o much a t one tim e , and
to c a rr y o u t e x p e rim e n ta tio n w ith prudence and
c o u ra g e . (*+5:593) 7
|The c l i e n t makes u se o f th e r e a c tio n s o f th e t h e r a p i s t to
!
!d e te rm in e how e f f e c t i v e h is c o n s tr u c ts a r e . A cco rd in g to
;K e lly (*+5*593)» "The th e ra p y room i s a la b o ra to ry f o r th e
i • ;
t e s t i n g o f id e a s ." T ra n s fe re n c e and c o u n te r tra n s f e r e n c e
i !
a re d e a l t w ith as c o n s tr u c ts w hich a r e m is p e rc e p tio n s o f
r o l e s .
These r e p r e s e n t a t ive" d e s c r ip tio n s o f th e r a p e u tic
m ethods d e m o n stra te s e v e r a l common c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s :
i ( l ) th e p ro c e s s h e lp s th e c l i e n t in tro d u c e problem s o f
|c o n c e rn , (2) th e p ro c e s s h e lp s th e c l i e n t r e v e a l f e e l i n g s
I .
! ;
and b e h a v io rs tow ard h im s e lf and s i g n i f i c a n t o th e rs t h a t
|a re c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h i s p e r s o n a lity dynam ics, (3 ) th e
jp ro c e ss h e lp s th e c lie n t" u n d e rs ta n d th e s e f e e lin g s and ,
l ;
b e h a v io r s , and (*+) th e p ro c e s s h e lp s th e c l i e n t p e rc e iv e
and behave more i n t e g r a t i v e l y to w ard h im s e lf and s i g n i f i
c a n t o t h e r s .
T ruax and C a rk h u ff ( 8 6 : 860) sum m arize th e common
|them es o f th e v a r io u s m ethods ( p s y c h o a n a ly tic , c l i e n t -
c e n te r e d , e c l e c t i c ) o f p sy c h o th e ra p y .
j 1 . Im portance o f th e t h e r a p i s t 's a b i l i t y s e n s i
t i v e l y and a c c u r a te ly to u n d e rs ta n d th e c l i e n t .
2 . A c c u ra te ly and e m p h a tic a lly knowing th e
. c l i e n t 's "b e in g " and re sp o n d in g in such a
i
manner a s to com m unicate t h i s u n d e rs ta n d in g .
3* Im portance o f n o n p o sse ssiv e warmth and a c c e p t
ance o f th e c l i e n t .
*+. The t h e r a p i s t h im s e lf m ust be in t e g r a te d ,
m ature o r g en u in e w ith in th e th e r a p e u tic r e l a
t io n s h ip .
5. The c l i e n t m ust e x p lo re h i s f e e l i n g s , h i s
v a lu e s , h i s f e a r s , h is tu r m o il, and h is l i f e
c h o ic e s .
6 . E x p lo ra tio n o f s e l f i s c e n t r a l to the. p ro c e s s
o f p sy c h o th e ra p y .
W olberg (91*190-191) c h a r ts ah o u tlin e o f p sy ch o
th e ra p y in w hich he i d e n t i f i e s f o u r im p o rta n t p h a s e s .
1 . E s ta b lis h in g a w orking r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith
p a t i e n t .
- ' 161
2 . D eterm in in g c a u se s and dynam ics o f p a t i e n t 's |
d is o r d e r .
3 . T r a n s la tin g i n s i g h t and u n d e rs ta n d in g in to !
a c tio n . !
U. T erm in a tin g th e ra p y .
W olberg (9 1 s l5 5 “ l? 6 ) a ls o d e s c r ib e s th e m echanics
j
o f th e r a p e u tic change a s s
1 . Problem s ta te m e n t.
2 . E x p lo r a tio n .
3 . I n s ig h t .
*+. New p la n s and b e h a v io rs .
He se e s th e s e p ro c e s s e s a s b e in g accom panied by
:tr a n s f e r e n c e and s e lf - a c c e p ta n c e ,
Brammer and Shostrom (1 6 :9 0 -1 0 5 ) d is c u s s th e n a tu re !
o f th e p s y c h o th e ra p e u tic p ro c e s s a s h a v in g e ig h t g e n e ra l
! :
s ta g e s . j
1 . R e a liz in g t h a t th e re i s a c o m p la in t, p ro b lem ,
o r symptom, and t h a t th e r e i s a need f o r h e lp .
2. E s ta b lis h in g th e r e l a t i o n s h i p .
3 . E x p re ssin g f e e l in g and c l a r i f y i n g and e l a b o r a t - •
in g upon th e p ro b le m (s ),
!f. E x p lo rin g f e e l in g s (d e p th depending on ty p e and;
s t r u c t u r e o f th e p s y c h o th e ra p y ).
5. E x p re ssin g deep f e e l in g s and e x p lo rin g sym bol
ism s ( i f d e e p e r p sy c h o th erap y i s b ein g
a tte m p te d ) . i
! 1
17\
6 . W orking th ro u g h f e e l i n g s . j
7 . D eveloping i n s i g h t and p la n n in g a c tio n .
8 . E x te r n a liz in g and te rm in a tin g th e r e l a t i o n s h i p .!
i
!
Summary o f th e P ro c e ss
o f T herapy
F o r p u rp o ses o f t h i s s tu d y , th e fo llo w in g model o f ;
| ■
!c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s in th e ra p y seems to be su p p o rte d by th e
! l i t e r a t u r e .
1 . The c l i e n t b r in g s pro b lem s a s s o c ia te d w ith
p r e s e n t and p a s t e x p e rie n c e s .
i
2 . As th e c l i e n t r e v e a ls h i s co n c ern s to th e
c o u n s e lo r he i s fre e d to e x p re s s h is f e e l i n g s
and b e h a v io rs more o p e n ly .
3 . ^ th e th e r a p e u tic s e t t i n g th e c l i e n t i s
en a b led to u n d e rs ta n d h i s f e e l in g s and behaviois;
and to see im p lic a tio n s f o r a more e f f e c t i v e
e x i s te n c e .
!+. The c l i e n t im plem ents th e s e changed f e e l i n g s
and b e h a v io rs w ith in and o u ts id e th e th e ra p e u - :
t i c s e t t i n g .
E x p e rie n c in g B eh av io rs and F e e lin g s
The fo re g o in g re v ie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e i n d ic a t e s
t h a t a l l m ethods o f th e ra p y a g re e on th e im p o rtan ce o f
h e lp in g th e c l i e n t e x p re s s h is r e a l f e e l in g s and b e h a v io rs j
w ith in th e th e r a p e u tic s e t t i n g . May (51*33) s t a t e s t h a t
18
d e fe n s e s m ust be "b ro k en down" b e fo re t h i s p ro c e s s can ta k e
p la c e , and f u r t h e r t h a t th e p s y c h o th e r a p is t i s " s p e c ific a lly !
co n c ern e d w ith th e d i f f i c u l t te c h n ic a l p ro ced u re o f b re a k - j
I I
j in g down d e fe n s e s t h a t new le a r n in g may p r o c e e d .” j
E o g ers (6 9 :2 2 1 ) co n cern s h im s e lf w ith th e r o le o f
! th e c o u n s e lo r in t h i s r e g a r d . "The p u rp o se o f th e th e r a p is t
i
| i s to p ro v id e th e c o n d itio n s in w hich th e c l i e n t i s a b le to
j
|m ake, to e x p e rie n c e , and to a c c e p t th e d ia g n o s is o f th e
|
;p sy c h o g en ic a s p e c ts o f h i s m a la d ju s tm e n t.”
|
!T ech n iq u es o f th e T h e ra p is t
i
| f r e e in g th e c l i e n t from th e n e c e s s ity f o r co n -
is is te n c y o r d e fe n s iv e n e s s so t h a t he may e x p e rie n c e h i s
\
\b e h a v io rs and f e e l in g s in th e th e r a p e u tic s e t t i n g i s seen
a s one o f th e f i r s t ta s k s o f th e t h e r a p i s t and h as r e c e iv e d
iem phasis in th e o ry c o n s tr u c tio n s and developm ent o f t h e r a
p i s t te c h n iq u e s .
F ree a s s o c i a t i o n . The te c h n iq u e o f f r e e a s s o c ia
t i o n h as been f e l t to h e lp th e c l i e n t in tro d u c e s i g n i f i c a n t
d a ta o f th e c o n sc io u s and p re c o n s c io u s realm s and to r e v e a l ;
th e s e d a ta b o th to th e t h e r a p i s t (A d le r, in A nsbacher and
A n sb ac h er, 1 t:3 2 7 -3 2 8 ), and to h im s e lf (A le x a n d e r, 2 :2 8 6 ).
F reud (31 * ), D o lla rd and M ille r ( 2 9 ), and A d le r '
;(A nsbacher, *f) d ir e c te d th e to p ic s o f f r e e a s s o c ia tio n ■
a c c o rd in g to t h e i r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s j
19
o f th e c l i e n t ’ s p ro b le m s. The p a t i e n t was u rg ed by Freud
(3 ^ :1 3 ^ ) " to be a b s o lu te ly h o n e s t and n e v e r le a v e a n y th in g
o u t." A d ler (A n sb ach er, b:32?) prod u ced a l i s t o f to p ic s
to e l i c i t in fo rm a tio n known a s th e " I n d iv id u a liz in g Exami
n a t io n , " As th e c l i e n t f r e e - a s s o c i a t e d , A d ler in t e r p r e t e d
and worked to g e t h i s v ie w p o in ts a c c e p te d by th e c l i e n t .
I
j D o lla rd and M ille r (29*^02) u se d f r e e a s s o c ia tio n
so t h a t th e c l i e n t would r e c a l l m em ories o f p a s t e x p e r i-
Ien ces w hich cau sed th e same re s p o n s e s in th e remembered
s i t u a t i o n s and w hich w ere p r e s e n tly g iv in g d i f f i c u l t y .
i
A c tin g -o u t b e h a v io r, o r tr a n s f e r e n c e , was r e s t r i c t e d : "The
r u l e o f f r e e - a s s o c i a t i o n , th o u g h r ig o r o u s ly s t a t e d , i s
|g e n tly and g r a d u a lly t a u g h t." (29:2*+3) F or D o lla rd and
■ M iller, th e ra p y had two p h a s e s: (1 ) th e ta lk in g p h a s e , and
(2 ) th e phase o f p r a c t i c i n g and le a r n in g new re s p o n s e s o u t
s id e th e th e r a p e u tic s i t u a t i o n . The ta l k i n g phase i s
d e s c rib e d a s fo llo w s .
1 . F ear o f t a l k i n g becomes re d u c e d .
2 . T houghts and s e n te n c e s p r e v io u s ly b lo ck ed
from o c c u rre n c e a p p e a r.
3 . Words and th o u g h ts a re a tta c h e d to e v e n ts
" w ith in th e body and w ith o u t" w hich had p r e
v io u s ly b een b la c k e d , d e n ie d , o r ig n o re d .
*+. W ith th e new words and new ways o f th in k in g
ab o u t th e s e e v e n ts , th e p a t i e n t becomes b e t t e r
" 20|
a b le to com pare, c o n t r a s t , a b s t r a c t fro m , and !
in g e n e ra l to c o n c e p tu a liz e what i s h ap p en in g
w ith in h im s e lf in r e l a t i o n to th e w orld ab o u t
I
him . |
5. As th e p a t i e n t becomes l e s s a f r a i d o f th in k in g
and t a lk i n g ab o u t th e s e e v e n ts , he a ls o becomes
i *
l e s s a f r a i d o f a c t u a l l y d o in g som ething ab o u t
them (2 9 s331)*
The p u rp o se o f f r e e a s s o c ia tio n u n d e r t h i s sy stem
i
was to g e t th e re s p o n s e s n e e d in g m o d ific a tio n to o c c u r in
i
I th e th e ra p y s i t u a t i o n .
F ree a s s o c ia tio n and t r a n s f e r e n c e . O th er t h e r a p e u - ;
t i c m ethods u t i l i z e d f r e e a s s o c ia tio n and tr a n s f e r e n c e w ith :
g r e a t e r em phasis on th e a c tin g - o u t b e h a v io r w ith in th e
th e ra p y s e s s io n s . As th e c l i e n t became more sp o n ta n e o u s,
he p r o je c te d f e e l in g s upon th e t h e r a p i s t w hich b elo n g ed
r a t h e r in h is r e l a t i o n s h i p s w ith s i g n i f i c a n t o th e r s . Hank
( 6 3 ), A lex an d er ( 2 ) , W olberg ( 9 1 ) , and R ap ap o rt (6*+),
em phasize th e " l i v i n g th ro u g h c l i e n t p roblem s" w hich comes ;
by way o f th e tr a n s f e r e n c e phenomenon. As W olberg h as
s a i d , "Som etim es th e p a t i e n t w i l l d ev e lo p and show th e same ;
k in d o f u n re a s o n a b le im p u lses tow ard th e p s y c h o th e ra p is t
t h a t he h a s d is p la y e d in a l l h is p re v io u s r e la ti o n s h i p s "
(9 1 s i 5 1 ). Rank (63*1680 d e s c r ib e s th e tr a n s f e r e n c e b e h a v io r
o f th e c l i e n t in t h i s m anner: "R oles a r e t h r u s t upon th e
. 2 1 1
[
t h e r a p i s t by th e p a t i e n t , and th e n he w i l l b e g in to f i g h t '
t h i s v e ry r o l e ."
R ap ap o rt s e n s e s w e ll th e n a tu r e o f th e c o n t r ib u t io n j
i
o f tr a n s f e r e n c e to th e th e r a p e u tic p ro c e s s o f c o n c e rn to
t h i s s tu d y .
I t would seem t h a t th e b a s ic m ethod o f psycho
a n a ly s is i s th e m ethod o f in te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n
. . . more s p e c i f i c a l l y i t i s th e p a r t i c i p a n t -
o b s e rv a tio n v a r i a n t o f th e method o f i n t e r p e r
s o n a l r e l a t i o n . . . . Human b e in g s i n d e a lin g
w ith each a n o th e r r e p e a t th e p a t t e r n s th e y have
d ev e lo p ed in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s to s i g n i f i c a n t
o t h e r s , and th e s e p a t t e r n s . . . u l ti m a t e ly go
back to th o se w hich th e in d iv id u a l h a s d eveloped
to w ard s th e e a r l i e s t s i g n i f i c a n t o th e r s : f a t h e r ,
m o th e r, s i b l i n g s , n u r s e s , e t c . Such r e p e t i t i o n s
o f r e l a t io n s h i p p a t t e r n s a re th e e m p iric a l r e f e r
e n ts o f th e tr a n s f e r e n c e c o n c e p t. . . . The aim
o f th e p s y c h o a n a ly tic metho.d o f in te r p e r s o n a l
r e l a t i o n i s to b r in g ab o u t such tr a n s f e r e n c e s .
The aim o f th e m ethod o f p a r tic ip a n t - o b s e r v a tio n
i s to make th e s e tr a n s f e r e n c e p a t t e r n s con
s c io u s . (6 ^:1 2 5 )
R e f le c tio n . In R o g e rs' (70) e a r l y c o n tr ib u tio n s to
t h e r a p e u t i c te c h n iq u e s , th e co n c ep t o f r e f l e c t i n g was i n t r o
d u ced . R ogers was co n cern ed t h a t th e r e s is ta n c e d ev elo p ed
by c l i e n t s d u rin g th e tr a n s f e r e n c e p ro c e s s i n t e r f e r e d w ith
t h e i r p r o g r e s s . He f e l t t h a t r e s i s t a n c e was n e i t h e r an
i n e v ita b le n o r d e s ir a b le p a r t o f p sy c h o th e ra p y ( 7 0 : l 5 l ) .
R ogers f e l t t h a t r e s i s t a n c e o c c u rre d b ecau se o f th e i n t e r -
ip re tiv e a c t i v i t y o f th e t h e r a p i s t ( 7 0 :5 2 ) , and t h a t r e s i s t
an ce w ould prom pt b re a k in g o f f o f th e c o u n s e lin g r e l a t i o n
s h i p . As th e s e d e fe n s iv e a t t i t u d e s o f lo v e , h a t e , and so
f o r t h a ro s e i n th e c l i e n t he would p r o j e c t a t t r i b u t e s onto
th e t h e r a p i s t , w hich th e m se lv e s became s u b je c t to a n a ly s is
i
i
by th e c l i e n t and th e t h e r a p i s t . To t h i s R ogers resp o n d ed
w ith th e fo llo w in g o b s e r v a tio n .
| The c o u n s e lo r and h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s became
so m eth in g to be f e a r e d . To r e s i s t t h i s te m p ta
t i o n to i n t e r p r e t to o q u ic k ly , to re c o g n iz e t h a t
! i n s i g h t i s an e x p e rie n c e w hich i s a c h ie v e d , n o t
| a n e x p e rie n c e w hich can be im posed, is ' an im por
t a n t s te p in p ro g re s s f o r th e c o u n s e lo r. (7 0 :1 9 6 )
The b a s ic t e n e t s o f r e f l e c t i o n te c h n iq u e in c l i e n t -
c e n te r e d th e ra p y a re a s fo llo w s .
1 . The p a t i e n t s ta k e f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e
c o n te n t and d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i r p ro d u c tio n s .
2 . The t h e r a p i s t n e v e r le a d s o r d i r e c t s t h e i r
p r o g r e s s .
3 . The t h e r a p i s t fo c u s e s upon th e c l i e n t s '
f e e l in g s and p e r c e p tio n s .
In t h a t th e t h e r a p i s t can a c c u r a te ly r e f l e c t o r
" m irro r" th e f e e l in g s e v id e n t in th e c l i e n t p ro d u c tio n s
and c o n tin u e to be a c c e p tin g and n o n - e v a lu a tiv e , th e c l i e n t
re c o g n iz e s th e s e p ro d u c tio n s a s h i s own and n o t a s b e lo n g
in g to th e t h e r a p i s t . And, a c c o rd in g to R o g ers, th e c l i e n t !
tw ill re c o g n iz e and c la im th e s e p ro d u c tio n s in th e d eg ree to
w hich he i s f r e e to d e a l w ith th e s e in c o n s is te n c ie s
i • ;
d e f e n s e le s s ly (6 9 * 2 2 1 ).
R o le -p la y in g te c h n iq u e s . A n o th er method f o r h elp in g
th e c l i e n t e x p re s s h i s r e a l f e e l in g s and b e h a v io rs w ith in j
th e c o n te x t o f th e th e r a p e u tic s e t t i n g i s found in r o l e -
p la y in g te c h n iq u e s . Moreno (5 3 ) d e v is e d th e psychodram a inj
w hich in c id e n ts in v o lv in g s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and
m eanings were c r e a te d a c c o rd in g to th e t h e r a p i s t 's u n d e r
s ta n d in g o f th e c l i e n t 's n e e d s . When s p e c i f i c a l l y d e sig n e d
i f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t , tr a in e d p e rs o n n e l p o rtra y e d su p -
! p o r tin g r o l e s in m anners m eant to s tim u la te s i g n i f i c a n t
j .
i m a t e r i a l . In r e - e n a c tin g s i t u a t i o n s th e c l i e n t m ight p la y
|t h e r o l e , n o t o n ly o f h im s e lf , b u t a ls o o f o th e r s i g n i f i -
i ■ ■ '
ic a n t p e rs o n s in h is l i f e . T h is r o le r e v e r s a l h elp e d id e n
t i f y u n d e rly in g and c o n s ta n tly r e c u r r in g f e e lin g s and
ib e h a v io rs w hich b elo n g ed to th e c l i e n t and n o t in h e r e n tly
to th e r o le he was p la y in g . The m a te r ia l e l i c i t e d d u rin g
psychodram a i s u t i l i z e d in d is c u s s io n s w ith th e t h e r a p i s t ,
I !
K elly 5) d ev elo p ed a r o le - p la y in g te c h n iq u e in
w hich th e r o le - ta k i n g c o n tin u e d o u ts id e th e th e r a p e u tic
s e s s io n s . C lie n ts w ere ask ed to ta k e th e Role C o n s tru c t
R e p e rto ry T e st a lo n g w ith th e d ia g n o s tic in te r v ie w s . As
th e c l i e n t 's problem s came in to f o c u s , th e t h e r a p i s t
d e v ise d a f i c t i t i o u s p e rso n w ith c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p e r c e p tu a l
and b e h a v io r p a tte r n s h e a l t h i e r th a n th o s e o f th e c l i e n t .
; The c a r e f u l b u ild in g o f th e r o le c h a r a c te r to s tim u la te j
; r a t h e r th a n i n h i b i t gro w th o f th e c l i e n t i s im p o rta n t to
; th e m ethod. Once th e c l i e n t h a s been a s s ig n e d a r o le
2 * f j
c h a r a c t e r , he i e in v o lv e d w ith th e t h e r a p i s t and o th e r
c l i e n t s in r o le - p la y in g i n t e r a c t i o n s . G ra d u ally he e x te n d s
t h i s r o l e p la y in g to s i t u a t i o n s o u ts id e o f th e th e r a p e u tic ;
s e t t i n g u n d e r th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e t h e r a p i s t . H is in v o lv e -|
|
m ents a r e s p e c if ie d a c c o rd in g to movement n eed s a s se e n by ■
I ;
I .
| th e t h e r a p i s t . S u c c e s s fu l c a s e s e x p e rie n c e freedom to
i
j e x p e rie n c e new d a ta th ro u g h th e r o l e c h a r a c te r , and can
disavow th e r o le when i t i s to o s t r e s s f u l .
j :
L ife -s u a c e te c h n iq u e s : in d iv id u a l and g ro u p .
T h e ra p e u tic te c h n iq u e s o f t h i s c a te g o ry d i f f e r from r o l e -
; p la y in g m ethods in t h a t th e p a t i e n t i s accom panied in r e a l
s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s by th e t h e r a p i s t tho u g h th e s i t u a t i o n s
i
a re c o n triv e d f o r th e r a p e u tic g o a ls .
Group th e ra p y p ro c e s s e s o f S lav so n (78) and o f th e
N a tio n a l T ra in in g l a b o r a t o r i e s (B ra d fo rd , 15) a re re e d u c a -
i t i v e in t h a t w h ile th e c l i e n t may be s u f f e r in g d is tu rb a n c e
in r e l a t i o n s h i p s , th e th e r a p e u tic group o f f e r s th e o p p o r
t u n i t y to r e s o lv e some o f th e s e d is tu rb a n c e s by p ro v id in g
an atm o sp h ere w h erein he i s n e i t h e r r e j e c t e d n o r r i d i c u l e d
f o r h i s b e h a v io r. R a th e r h is b e h a v io r i s d is c u s s e d f r e e l y
and w ith su p p o rt from o th e r group m em bers. In a d d i tio n ,
: th e g ro u p s i t u a t i o n becom es a l i v i n g one in to w hich th e
:c l i e n t p r o je c ts h i s f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io r s , p e r m ittin g th e j
t h e r a p i s t to o b serv e th e dynam ics o f th e c l i e n t . The
i t h e r a p i s t i s th e re b y e n a b le d in in te r v e n tio n a c t i v i t i e s and
25
in in d iv id u a l s e s s io n s w ith th e c l i e n t .
A s im ila r m ethod i s t h a t o f R edl (66) w hich was
term ed th e L ife -S p a c e In te rv ie w , D eveloped in a t o t a l j
th e r a p e u tic en v iro n m en t f o r s e v e re ly d is tu rb e d young b o y s, j
t h i s p ro c e s s c l i n i c a l l y e x p lo ite d momentary l i f e e x p e r i
en ces o f th e c l i e n t s . T aking p la c e w ith in th e n o n c o u n s e l- ■
i
j in g a c t i v i t i e s o f t h i s tw e n ty -fo u r h o u r program , th e l i f e -
i ;
! space in te rv ie w was co n d u cted by a p e rso n seen by th e c h ild
| a s b e in g p a r t o f h is d a ily a c t i v i t i e s Siid a s h av in g some
|
I re c o g n iz e d r o le in th e management o f h i s l i f e . R edl (66)
; o u tlin e d two g o a ls f o r l i f e - s p a c e in te rv ie w in g : (1 ) c l i n i -
| c a l e x p l o i t a t i o n o f l i f e e v e n ts , and (2 ) "em o tio n al f i r s t
i '
| a id on th e s p o t." The f i r s t in v o lv e d m aking u se o f mean
in g f u l s i t u a t i o n s w hereby s i g n i f i c a n t problem s c o u ld be
; d e a lt w ith and worked th ro u g h t h e r a p e u t i c a l l y . The second
■ s tr a t e g y was an in te r v e n in g w ith s u p p o rt a t tim es when th e
y o u n g s te r was u n lik e ly to be a b le to cope w ith h i s own
d e fe n s iv e p a t te r n s in th e fa c e o f s t r e s s . Redl (6 6 :1 8 )
sum m arizes h i s d is c u s s io n on th e c h o ic e o f e i t h e r te c h
n iq u e a s b e in g d ep en d en t upon th e fo llo w in g .
1 . The s p e c i f ic g o a l we have in m ind.
2. W ith in a g iv e n s e t t i n g .
3 . W ith a s p e c i f i c ty p e o f c h i l d .
M -. In a g iv e n phase o f h is th e r a p e u tic movement.
26j
Summary o f T h e ra p is t T ech n iq u es A id in g
C lie n t E x p e rie n c in g o f S e lf
T h e ra p e u tic te c h n iq u e s p ro m o tin g th e e x p e rie n c in g
i
o f o n e ’ s f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io rs seem to be e s s e n t i a l
a s p e c ts o f a l l t h e o r e t i c a l p o s itio n s and ta k e d i f f e r i n g
| fo rm s. F o r some, such a s F re u d , D o lla rd and M ille r , and
I A d le r, th e c l i e n t e x p e rie n c e s h im s e lf th ro u g h th e i n t e r
p r e t a t i o n s o f th e t h e r a p i s t . When th e tr a n s f e r e n c e r e l a
tio n s h ip i s u t i l i z e d , a s w ith A le x a n d e r, Rank, R a p a p o rt,
j
and W olberg, th e c l i e n t e x p e rie n c e s h im s e lf t r a n s a c t i o n -
a l l y , t h a t i s , a s a consequence o f h i s ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n
w ith th e t h e r a p i s t . R ogers b e lie v e d t h a t r e f l e c t i o n p e r
m itte d th e c l i e n t to e x p e rie n c e h im s e lf a s th o u g h m ir r o r e d .1
R o le -p la y in g te c h n iq u e s (M oreno, K e lly ) , and l i f e - s p a c e
p ro c e s s e s (R e d l, S la v s o n ) , p ro v id e " r e a l l i f e " s i t u a t i o n s
in w hich th e t h e r a p i s t i s n o t a p a r t i c i p a n t in th e i n t e r
a c tio n b u t i s a co n cern ed o n lo o k e r who s h a re s th e c l i e n t fs
e x p e rie n c e .
The e s s e n t i a l p u rp o se o f th e s e v a r ie d te c h n iq u e s
; seems to be to make a c c e s s ib le to th e le a r n in g i n t e r a c t i o n ;
o f th e t h e r a p i s t and c l i e n t th e dynam ics o f th e p e r c e p tu a l ■
and b e h a v io ra l fram ew ork o f th e c l i e n t w ith w hich he
i !
e x p e rie n c e s d i f f i c u l t y .
i . i
! Audio and Video T ech n iq u es
Sound re c o rd in g o f c o u n s e lin g in te rv ie w s b eg an in |
27
th e e a r l y 19*+0*s, m ain ly f o r th e s c i e n t i f i c stu d y o f th e
c l i e n t and c o u n s e lo r p ro c e s s e s in v o lv e d . R e co rd in g s o f
i
c o u n s e lo rs i n t r a i n i n g and t h e i r c l i e n t in te rv ie w s a re
common in c o u n s e lo r t r a i n i n g c e n te r s to d a y . In such
in s t a n c e s , re c o rd in g s o f c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s p ro v id e exam
p le s o f th e c o u n s e lo r - tr a in e e * s " li f e - s p a c e " w ith w hich th e
I
i c o u n s e l o r - t r a i n e r and tr a i n e e d e a l a s in any c o u n s e lin g
r e l a t i o n s h i p . They se rv e n o t o n ly a s a i d s to te c h n iq u e
i
(im provem ent, h u t a ls o a s p e rs o n a l c o u n s e lin g o p p o r tu n itie s
!
' f o r th e c o u n s e lo r - t r a i n e e , d e a lin g w ith th e dynam ics o f
i c l i e n t f e e l i n g s and b e h a v io rs so t h a t s e lf - u n d e r s ta n d in g
jmay ta k e p la c e and b e t t e r c o u n s e lin g b e h a v io rs o c c u r ( 28) ,
Both Laudsman and Lane (*f9)j and W oltz and Johnson (92)
r e p o r t on th e u se o f v id e o -ta p e re p la y in c o u n s e lo r t r a i n
in g c e n t e r s .
i
G-aier (35) and Bloom (12) co n d u cted s tu d ie s o f
s e le c te d p e r s o n a lity v a r ia b l e s and c la ssro o m le a r n in g by
th e s tim u la te d r e c a l l m ethod. Sound re c o rd in g s o f c l a s s
room d is c u s s io n s w ere re p la y e d f o r each s u b je c t. At c r i t i
c a l p o in ts o f i n t e r e s t to th e i n v e s t i g a to r s th e re c o rd in g
|w as sto p p e d and th e s u b je c t was asked to r e c a l l and r e p o r t
I
th e th o u g h ts w hich he e x p e rie n c e d in th e s i t u a t i o n .
N ie ls e n (5*+) r e p o r ts on s tu d ie s begun in 1956 in
i
! th e P s y c h o lo g ic a l C lin ic Annex o f H arv ard u n d er th e d ir e c
t i o n o f H. A. M urray. One a s p e c t o f h i s work in in d iv id u a l
p e r s o n a l i t y in v o lv e d s tu d y in g th e p e rs o n in s o c ia l i n t e r
a c t i o n . N ie ls e n (55) r e p o r ts on th e u se o f v id e o -ta p e
r e p la y o f tw enty-tw o dyads a s p a r t o f M urray*s ongoing
s tu d y . The r e p la y m ethod i s term ed s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n and
i s b ased upon th e assu m p tio n t h a t lfa p e rso n i s a b le to
r e p o r t a number o f s u b je c tiv e e x p e rie n c e s w hich o c c u rre d
i
j in an e a r l i e r s i t u a t i o n i f he i s g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to
r e l i v e th e e v e n t'1 (5 5 :1 * 0 . O b se rv a tio n and r e c o rd in g o f
j th e s u b j e c t s ’ r e a c tio n s to s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n to o k p la c e
w ith in a week and one and o n e -h a lf y e a r s a f t e r th e o r i g i n a l
i
' i n t e r a c t i o n s . There w ere no o b je c tiv e m easures o f p e r
s o n a l i t y ch an g e, n o r was t h i s p a r t o f a th e r a p e u tic p ro
c e s s . However, c e r t a i n o b s e rv a tio n s r e l a t i v e to t h i s
stu d y w ere made. I t was o b serv ed t h a t when th e s u b je c ts
w ere c o n fro n te d w ith th e s e i n t e r a c t i o n s soon a f t e r th e y
! o c c u rre d th e y resp o n d ed and a s s o c ia te d w ith them , r e c a l l i n g
s u b je c tiv e e x p e rie n c e s and f e e lin g s f e l t d u rin g th e o r i g i
n a l i n t e r a c t i o n , and " s e lf - c o n f r o n ta t i o n f u rn is h e d th e su b
j e c t s w ith a u n iq u e o p p o rtu n ity f o r g a in in g s e l f - i n s i g h t "
(5 5 :1 8 7 -1 8 8 ).
B oring and D e a b le r (13) r e p o r te d on t h e i r u se o f
; ta p e re c o r d in g s in psychodram a w ith h o s p i t a l in m a te s . ;
j P a t i e n ts in te r a c t e d w ith s t a f f in c o n tr o lle d s i t u a t i o n s 1
I view ed by o th e r p a t i e n t s . Though no s y s te m a tic e v a lu a tio n I
j
‘was a tte m p te d , th e w r i t e r s f e l t t h a t r e p la y o f th e s e
j - 2 9 1
I
s i t u a t i o n s in w hich th e p a t i e n t was c o n fro n te d by h i s own j
b e h a v io r a s w itn e s s e d o r i g i n a l l y by th e e n t i r e gro u p was
b e n e f i c i a l . j
At Ohio S ta te U n iv e r s ity e x p e rim e n ta tio n w ith j
1 C o u n s e lin g -in te rv ie w -p la y b a c k h as been co n d u c ted .
j Schm eding (7*+) r e p o r ts t h a t m ost c l i e n t s u sed in th e s e
i ' - :
j e x p e rim e n ts a re w ith o u t s e rio u s p ro b le m s. No s y s te m a tic
: e v a lu a tio n h as been a tte m p te d a s y e t; how ever, th e work
I s u g g e s ts p o s s i b i l i t i e s . R eplay o f f i r s t in te rv ie w r e c o r d -
| in g s i s in tro d u c e d in th e second s e s s io n w ith i n s t r u c t i o n s ,
: to s to p th e p lay b ack i f -the c l i e n t w ish e s to comment. The ;
t
; c o u n s e lo r may s to p th e p lay b ack to h e lp draw o u t th e c lie n t*
| A v a r i a t i o n i s som etim es in tro d u c e d w hereby th e c l i e n t i s
i n s t r u c t e d to assume th e a t t i t u d e o f a c o u n s e lo r and view
h i s re c o rd e d s e l f a s th e c l i e n t . T hese s e s s io n s a re
i
| ;
re c o rd e d and t r e a t e d in a s im ila r f a s h io n in su b se q u en t
: s e s s io n s . I t i s f e l t by Schmeding (7^*66) t h a t , among
o th e r th i n g s , th e c l i e n t moves more q u ic k ly to r e c o g n itio n
ro f h i s d e fe n s iv e m ethods and c o n s e q u e n tly , to r e c o g n itio n
o f h is p ro b lem s, and t h a t a h ig h d eg ree o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
! i s e v id e n t in th e c l i e n t 's a t t i t u d e s . |
T ruax (86) r e p o r ts on h i s work a t th e W isconsin
P s y c h ia tr ic I n s t i t u t e w ith b o th in d iv id u a l and group
j
th e r a p y . In a p ro c e s s c a lle d V ic a rio u s T herapy P re tra in in g !
‘ (VTP) c l i e n t s a re p re s e n te d re c o r d in g s o f "good" c l i e n t
30
b e h a v io r, d e m o n stra tin g how c l i e n t s o f te n e x p lo re them - !
s e lv e s and t h e i r f e e l i n g s in s e s s io n s . VTP i s p re s e n te d
p r i o r to th e c l i e n t 's f i r s t s e s s io n s . R e s u lts seem to j
i n d ic a t e t h a t VTP g ro u p s show " h ig h e r l e v e l s o f i n t r a - j
p e rs o n a l e x p lo r a tio n o r th e d ee p er l e v e l o f th e r a p e u tic
p ro c e s s " (8 6 :8 6 3 ). I
t
The s tu d ie s a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity r e p o r te d !
! by K agan, K rath w o ld , and M ille r (*f3) in v o lv e th e v id e o -
i '
I
| ta p e r e c a l l o f c o u n s e lo r - c lie n t i n t e r a c t i o n s by c o u n s e lo r
| and c l i e n t s e p a r a te ly in su b seq u en t s e s s io n s w ith o th e r j
! i
c o u n s e lo r s . T his te c h n iq u e , c a lle d I n te r p e r s o n a l P ro c e ss
R e c a ll (IP R ), i s b e in g u t i l i z e d to v a l i d a t e th e o r ie s o f
I em pathy, to g a in I n s ig h ts re g a rd in g th e s u p e rv is o ry r e l a
t i o n s h i p , to e d u c a te c o u n s e l o r - t r a i n e e s , and to a c c e le r a te
p sy c h o th e ra p y . Though th e c o u n s e lo r and h i s c l i e n t a re in
■ s e p a r a te v iew in g rooms d u rin g r e p la y , each may s to p n o t
| o n ly h i s own p r o je c to r b u t t h a t o f th e o th e r . These
s e s s io n s a r e meant f o r e x p lo r a tio n and r e c a l l o f own
b e h a v io r and f e e l i n g s , an d , a s w e ll, f o r in c r e a s in g
! em p ath ic u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e o th e r . - Uo s y s te m a tic e v a lu a
t i o n h as been co n d u cted e x c e p t w ith one p a i r o f s u b j e c ts .
\ , j
t At th e tim e o f r e p o r t in g , th e m ethod had been u se d w ith
| th r e e p a i r s o f s u b je c ts .
j . 1
! Summary o f Audio and V ideo R eco rd in g Tech-
I n iq 'u es A id in g C lie n t E x p e rie n c in g o f S e lf
Though u s e s o f au d io and v id e o re p la y te c h n iq u e s
31 j
j
have v a r ie d a s shown i n th e fo re g o in g re v ie w o f th e |
r e s e a r c h , s e v e r a l im p lic a tio n s f o r t h i s stu d y seem a p p ro -
I
p r i a t e . I t would seem t h a t o n e 's own b e h a v io r and f e e lin g s !
can be in tro d u c e d in to th e th e r a p e u tic s e t t i n g w ith o u t th e j
j
in te r v e n in g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e t h e r a p i s t (W altz, Dem os).'
j
I t h a s been shown by N ie ls e n , Schm eding, Bloom, and G a ie r, 1
| t h a t one does become aw are o f h i s f e e l in g s and b e h a v io rs
| s p o n ta n e o u s ly . I t a ls o seems t h a t th e c l i e n t i s a b le to
|i d e n t i f y problem a r e a s in h i s own b e h a v io r r e a d i l y , a s
! ' ' 1
in d ic a te d by Kagan, K ra th w o ld , and M il le r , and by Schmeding^
P e rh a p s, a s P e rry and E s te s (5 8 :1 1 5 ) s u g g e s t:
i
th e c o u n s e lo r can se rv e h i s c l i e n t th ro u g h a
c o l la b o r a ti v e r o le w h ile s t i l l f r e e in g and
s u p p o rtin g th e c l i e n t 's s e l e c t iv e pow ers o f
i n i t i a t i v e in s e a rc h and w h ile a c c o rd in g him
th e d ig n ity o f th e f i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
a c c e p tin g o r r e j e c t i n g th o s e f in d in g s w hich
a p p ly to h is s e l f .
i
R e se a rc h Methods
S ince t h i s stu d y i n v e s t i g a t e s th e e f f e c t s upon .
c l i e n t th e r a p e u tic p ro c e s s e s when c o n fro n te d by t h e i r own
b e h a v io r, a s e a rc h o f th e l i t e r a t u r e was co n d u cted to fin d
; a p p r o p r ia te r e s e a r c h m ethods and c r i t e r i o n m easures f o r t h e :
; c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s i d e n t i f i e d in th e p re c e d in g two s e c tio n s
!o f t h i s c h a p te r .
j .
i
j •
I M ethods o f C o u n selin g R esearch
Por tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs o r m ore, r e s e a r c h on th e
| 32 !
p ro c e s s o f c o u n s e lin g h a s r e l i e d upon sound r e c o r d in g s . j
The e a r ly work o f L a ssw e ll (**7, 4-8), R ogers ( 7 1 ) , R obinson ;
( 6 8 ) , Covner (2 3 , 2k, 25), and P o r te r (5 9 , 6 0 ) , d em o n stra- j
te d th e p o t e n t i a l d a ta a v a ila b le by w hich th e p ro c e s s o f j
i
c o u n s e lin g co u ld be su b m itte d to s c i e n t i f i c s c r u t i n y .
| L a te r th e p o s s ib le e f f e c t s o f th e p re se n c e o f
I
| r e c o r d in g d e v ic e s in th e c o u n s e lin g s e t t i n g w ere s tu d ie d
j by G r e e n b la tt, e t a l . ( 3 9 ) , Lamb and Mahl (*f6), and W atson :
j
i and R a n te r (90) who fo u n d t h a t o b s e rv a b le b u t n o t h arm fu l
! ,
- e f f e c t s o c c u rre d .
C a rtw rig h t (2 1 ) i d e n t i f i e d two c l a s s e s o f r e s e a r c h
! in p sy c h o th e ra p y : (1 ) p ro c e s s r e s e a r c h in w hich o b s e rv a -
I t i o n s o f th e s u b je c t a r e made d u rin g th e tim e from th e
I
f i r s t to th e l a s t in te r v ie w , and (2 ) outcome r e s e a r c h in
; w hich o b s e rv a tio n s o f th e s u b je c t a r e ta k e n b e fo re th e
|
; b e g in n in g and a f t e r th e end o f th e ra p y .
Most o f th e p ro c e s s s tu d ie s u t i l i z e d c o n te n t-
a n a ly s is m ethods w hereby c a te g o r ie s o f b e h a v io rs o c c u rrin g
; i n in te rv ie w p r o to c o ls were i d e n t i f i e d by q u a l if i e d ju d g e s
: and t o t a l e d a c c o rd in g to th e c a te g o r ie s ( e . g . , Raimy, 61;
;R a s k in , 65; Seeman, 75; and -Snyder, 8 0 ). F o rm -a n a ly sis
m ethods a l s o made up a la r g e sh a re o f p ro c e s s s t u d i e s .
I These a r e g ram m atical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such a s c la u s e length^
i
; a d je c tiv e - v e r b r a t i o , and so f o r t h (Grummon, ^ 0 ; P a g e, 56; I
i
and R o s h a l, 7 2 ), f e l t to be r e l a t e d a s c r i t e r i o n b e h a v io rs
33
to r e s e a r c h v a r i a b l e s and p ro c e s se d in th e m anner o f !
c o n t e n t- a n a ly s is m eth o d s.
Outcome s tu d i e s have r e l i e d upon v a r io u s t e s t j
s c o re s in c lu d in g Q -s o rtin g and p h y s io lo g ic a l, p sy c h o m e tric ,;
and p r o te c tiv e d e v ic e s (Gordon and C a rtw rig h t, 38;
A n d erso n , 3; C a rr, 20; and G a lla g h e r, 3 6 ). The s tu d y by
i >
| R oshal (72) i l l u s t r a t e d an outcome stu d y where c l i e n t
i in te rv ie w b e h a v io r ( fo r m - a n a ly s is ) a t th e f i r s t and a g a in
| a t th e l a s t in te rv ie w was r e l a t e d to e x p e rim e n ta l v a ria b le s .:
: C o n tro v ersy re g a r d in g th e r e s e a r c h m ethods employed!
I
i
i in c o u n s e lin g r e s e a r c h h as fo c u se d m ain ly on th e is s u e o f
j
’'outcom e v e rs u s p ro c e s s " c r i t e r i a . In 1955} Auld and
! M urray (7*390) sum m arized t h e i r re v ie w o f c o n te n t- a n a ly s is ;
s tu d ie s a s h av in g b een u n a b le to . . i d e n t i f y th e m ain
v a r i a b l e s in th e ra p y . . . and . . . n e g le c tin g c l i e n t 's
i
i
; u n c o n sc io u s m o tiv e s ." Saslow and M atarazzo (73) rem arked
I
| t h a t outcom e c r i t e r i a had f a i l e d a s e f f e c t i v e p r e d ic t o r s o f
changes and o b serv ed t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s h a d , t h e r e f o r e , u sed
th e in te rv ie w f o r a s se ss m e n t b ecau se o f i t s f l e x i b i l i t y and
; u n iq u e n e s s , in s p i t e o f i t s n o to r io u s u n r e l i a b i l i t y a s a
ir e s e a r c h in s tru m e n t. P a r l o f f and R u b in s te in ( 5 7 ), in
■ sum m arizing th e 1958 c o n fe re n c e on r e s e a r c h in p sy ch o -
| th e ra p y , c r i t i c i z e d th o s e r e p o r tin g r e s e a r c h f o r a v o id in g
; th e is s u e o f outcome r e s e a r c h and f o r a v o id in g a tte m p ts
| ;
; to im prove i t s m eth o d s. A ctio n (1 ) in 1961 p u b lis h e d a !
3 V ,
c r i t i c i s m o f th e p r o f e s s io n f o r a v o id in g th e outcome v a lid a r
|
t i o n stu d y o f p sy c h o th e ra p y , and B e rg in (9) d e s c rib e d th e
problem a s b e in g b a s i c a l l y v a l u a ti o n a l is s u e s r e q u ir in g j
s u b je c tiv e judgm ents w hich we sh o u ld be more w i l l i n g to |
m ake.
; S tu d ie s o f C lie n t P ro c e s s e s
i i n C o u n selin g
| Review o f c o u n s e lin g th e o ry in th e f i r s t p a r t o f
| t h i s c h a p te r in d ic a te d t h a t c l i e n t s a re seen to move
; th ro u g h s e v e r a l p ro c e s s e s i n th e c o u rse o f th e ra p y : p ro b - ,
I
| lem s ta te m e n t, e x p lo r a tio n o f f e e l in g s and b e h a v io rs ;
[
i n s i g h t r e g a rd in g th e m se lv e s; and changed b e h a v io r and
' f e e l i n g s .
S tu d ie s by S nyder ( 8 0 ) , Seeman ( 7 5 ) , and B lau (11)
showed t h a t c l i e n t s who im proved te n d e d to d e c re a s e problem
s ta te m e n t and in c re a s e i n s i g h t s ta te m e n t tow ard th e end o f
j
th e r a p y . They a ls o e x h ib ite d more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s and
l e s s n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e end o f th e ra p y . A ll
th r e e s tu d i e s u sed c a te g o r ie s f o r c l a s s i f y i n g c l i e n t
b e h a v io rs d ev elo p ed by S n y d er. S tu d ie s by A ronson ( 5 ) s
R akusin ( 6 2 ), T ucker ( 8 7 ), and G ille s p ie (37) a ls o u sed
S n y d er’ s c a te g o r ie s in t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . S n y d e r’ s j
c a te g o r ie s o f c l i e n t b e h a v io rs a re c l a s s i f i e d u n d e r th e s e i
j ,
h e a d in g s : P roblem , U n d e rsta n d in g o r A ctio n T ak in g , Sim ple j
l . ;
: R e sp o n se, and M inor C a te g o rie s . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f c l i e n t j
jf e e l i n g s a r e c l a s s i f i e d a s fo llo w s : P o s i t i v e , N e g a tiv e , |
|an d A m b iv alen t, w ith s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f d i r e c t i o n o f
I - i
!f e e l i n g to w ard s e l f , o t h e r s , o r c o u n s e lo r . j
In a d d itio n to S n y d er’ s w ork, s tu d ie s u t i l i z i n g th e j
i i
c o n c e p t o f in s i g h t a s a c r i t e r i o n m easure o f c l i e n t p ro c e s s j
in c lu d e th o s e by Sherman (77)» Bergman ( 1 0 ), R akusin ( 6 2 ) , ;
i
:L eary and G ill (5 0 ), and C urran ( 2 6 ) , a s w e ll a s th o s e men-
!
;tio n e d ab o v e. C urran n o te d c l i e n t i n s i g h t by th e c l i e n t ’ s
i
I d is c o v e ry o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s betw een p re v io u s ly s e p a ra te
p ro b le m s. L eary and G ill in c lu d e d i n s i g h t a s one o f f iv e
I
ic a te g o r ie s o f c l i e n t b e h a v io r to be o b se rv e d . These
i ■ ;
s tu d ie s g e n e r a lly v e r if y S n y d er’ s f in d in g s t h a t i n s i g h t
ifo llo w s problem e x p lo r a tio n and r e le a s e o f n e g a tiv e f e e l -
j
in g s .
P e e lin g s o f th e c l i e n t tow ard h im s e lf and o th e r s
I have been u se d in many s tu d ie s in v a r io u s fo rm s. The
le a r n in g t h e o r i s t s L o lla rd and M ille r (29) posed d riv e
r e d u c tio n a s a p ro b a b le o c c u rre n c e in th e ra p y . The
L is c o m fo rt-R e lie f Q u o tie n t o f L o lla rd and Mowrer (30) n o te d
each word a s d r iv e , re w a rd , o r n e u t r a l . Raimy (61) d e v e l
oped a m easure o f c l i e n t 's a t t i t u d e tow ard h im s e lf w ith th e :
P o s itiv e -N e g a tiv e -A m b iv a le n t Q u o tie n t. S n y d e r's sy stem
:com bines th e a s p e c ts o f p o s itiv e - n e g a tiv e -a m b iv a le n t w ith
d i r e c t i o n d e s ig n a te d a s s e l f , o th e r s , and c o u n s e lo r a s
■ su b c a te g o rie s.
3 6 i
S tu d ie s by Bowman (1*+), Assum ( 6 ) , and Cover and I
!
Chance (2 2 ) u se d th e D RQ and found s i g n i f i c a n t in c r e a s e in
p o s it i v e a t t i t u d e s to w ard s e l f n e a r th e end o f th e r a p y . j
Raimy (61) found th e same when u s in g th e PNAv a lo n e and j
when u s in g b o th th e DRQ and PKAv (K auffm an and Raim y, ) . j
j S to ck (8 3 ) and S h e e re r (76) found in c r e a s in g p o s i t i v e f e e l - !
| in g s tow ard s e l f and o th e r s u s in g a f i v e - p o i n t s c a le f o r
i
j r a t i n g c l i e n t s in te rv ie w s ta te m e n ts .
The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f c l i e n t a t t i t u d e s and coun-;
I s e li n g p ro c e s s has been o b serv ed in s e v e r a l w ays. Some
I s tu d i e s seem to in d ic a t e t h a t s e lf - a c c e p ta n c e and p o s i t i v e
a t t i t u d e tow ard s e l f a r e r e l a t e d to c o u n s e lin g s u c c e s s
(Bowman, 1*+; B u tle r and H aig h , 17; and Xymond, 3 1 ). Con-
tin u i n g d e fe n s iv e b e h a v io r h as been found to a f f e c t th e
c o u n s e lin g r e l a t i o n s h i p a d v e rs e ly (S n y d e r, 81; G i l l e s p i e ,
: 37; and G a lla g h e r, 3 6 ) , w h ile in c r e a s in g freedom from
d e fe n s iv e n e s s f a c i l i t a t e d th e p ro c e s s (V a rg a s, 88 and
H aig h , 1 + 2 ). As th e c l i e n t u sed th e c o u n s e lin g r e l a t i o n s h i p
f o r h i s own p u rp o ses (C a rn e s , 1 8 ; E l t o n , 33)> He became
more s e l f - e x p l o r a t o r y (W a g sta ff, R ic e , and B u tle r , 89;
:R o s h a l, 72; and R a k u sin , 6 2 ) , and more c o m fo rta b le w ith
h im s e lf and o th e r s (Hymond, Gnumnon, and Seeman, 3 2 ) .
These s tu d ie s o f c l i e n t f e e l in g s and c o u n s e lin g
p r o c e s s e s u t i l i z e d a v a r i e t y o f m easu res f o r th e c r i t e r i o n j
b e h a v io rs o f c o n c e rn . S e lf-a c c e p ta n c e was m easured by * j
............... ■ ‘ “37]
Bowman, B u tle r and H aig h , and by I)ymond w ith th e Q -s o rt
m ethod (S te p h e n so n , 8 2 ) , and w ith TAT p r o to c o ls by lym ond,
Grummon and Seeman. P o s itiv e and n e g a tiv e f e e lin g s w ere
m easured w ith th e D R Q by Bowman, w ith v e r b a l s ig n s by Varga%
and by TAT p r o to c o ls i n th e 3fymond, Grrummon and Seeman
s tu d y . D efen siv e b e h a v io r was m easured on S n y d e r's C lie n t
i
I
jA ffe c t S c a le , by v e r b a l s ig n s by G i l l e s p i e , and by H aigh;
|G a lla g h e r u se d s e v e r a l s c a le s : th e T a y lo r A n x ie ty , Winne
i
iH e u ro tic ism , W elsh A n x ie ty , and th e W elsh I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n
!
jR a tio . U sing th e c o u n s e lin g r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r h is own
I •
1 g ro w th was m easured by R e s p o n s ib ility -T a k in g s c a le s i n b o th
!C arnes and E l t o n 's s t u d i e s . C lie n t s e l f - e x p l o r a t io n was
t
'm easured by f a c to r e d v e r b a l s ig n s in th e W a g sta ff, R ice and
B u tle r s tu d y , by R o rsch ach p r o to c o ls in R a k u s in 's w ork, and
by v e r b a l s ig n s , Type-Taken in R o s h a l's s tu d y .
E i
[ Summary o f R esearch M ethods
and M easures
R esearch m ethods a p p lie d to c o u n s e lin g s tu d i e s to o k
many form s a s shown in th e l i t e r a t u r e . The a d v a n ta g e s o f
!
outcom e r e s e a r c h m ethods w hich seemed p e r tin e n t to t h i s
stu d y w ere: (1 ) o b j e c t i v i t y th ro u g h n o rm a liz e d m e a su re s,
and (2 ) r e l a t i v e b r e v i t y , o r power in p ro p o rtio n to d a ta .
I t seemed t h a t a co m b in atio n o f in te rv ie w a n a ly s is
and b e fo re and a f t e r co m p ariso n s would b e s t s u i t th e n a tu re ;
o f th e d a ta and th e r e s e a r c h o b je c tiv e s im p o rta n t to t h i s
s tu d y . !
E x am in atio n o f S nyder*s in te rv ie w a n a ly s is m easu res
(7 9 ) re v e a le d a p p r o p r ia te n e s s to t h i s stu d y f o r th e y
d e s c r ib e c r i t e r i o n b e h a v io rs o f Problem S tatem e n t o f f iv e
ty p e s , U n d e rsta n d in g o r A c tio n -ta k in g o f two ty p e s , Sim ple
re sp o n se o f f o u r ty p e s , and M inor c a te g o r ie s o f s ix ty p e s .
In a d d itio n to th e ab o v e-m en tio n ed s tu d i e s u s in g S nyder
]c a t e g o r i e s , S nyder C7 9 s1^1) r e p o r te d a group r e s e a r c h
ip r o je c t where agreem ent o f seven ju d g e s a v e ra g e s 75 p e r
;c e n t on th e ab o v e-m en tio n ed c l i e n t - c o n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s . An
^ a d d itio n a l a t t r i b u t e o f S n y d e r's sy stem i s th e C lie n t
P e e lin g C a te g o rie s w hich c o n ta in m easures o f P o s i t i v e ,
N e g a tiv e , and A m bivalent f e e l i n g s . In th e same r e p o r t
■seven ju d g e s re a c h e d 83 p g r c e n t 'agreem ent.
C lie n t s e l f - d i r e c t i o n f o r g a in in g in s ig h t was a ls o
found to be an im p o rta n t v a r ia b le a c c o rd in g to t h i s s e a rc h
|
I o f th e l i t e r a t u r e and i t was f e l t to be an a p p r o p r ia te
c r i t e r i o n m easure o f c l i e n t p ro c e s s im p o rta n t to th e p u r
p o ses o f t h i s s tu d y . S tu d ie s by Sherman ( 7 7 ) , E lto n (3 3 )?
C arnes and R obinson ( 1 9 ) , and D avis (27) in c lu d e d m easu res
o f c l i e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - t a k i n g . C arnes (1 8 ) d ev elo p ed a
;f i f t y - p o i n t s c a le w hich seemed u s e f u l to t h i s s tu d y .
Summary
In t h i s c h a p te r a rev iew o f th e l i t e r a t u r e was con
d u cte d f o r th r e e p u rp o s e s : (1) to f in d a b ro ad model o f
th e c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s d u rin g th e ra p y , (2 ) to examine th e
te c h n iq u e s u sed to a id c l i e n t ’ s e x p re s s io n o f f e e l i n g s and
¥
b e h a v io rs in th e ra p y , and (3 ) to exam ine th e m ethods and
m easu res in c o u n s e lin g r e s e a r c h . T h is s e a rc h su g g e ste d
d i r e c t i o n s t h i s stu d y m ig h t ta k e . F in d in g s w ith im p lic a
t i o n s f o r th e stu d y w ere sum m arized fo llo w in g each o f th e
th r e e s e c ti o n s .
In C h ap ter I I I th e p ro c e d u re s u sed in t h i s stu d y
a re r e p o r te d and th e d a ta c o l le c te d a re p r e s e n te d .
| CHAPTER I I I
I
| PROCEDURES OP THE STUDY
i
i
| S in ce th e p u rp o se o f t h i s stu d y was to i n v e s t i g a t e
c e r t a i n e f f e c t s upon th e c o u n s e lin g o f h ig h sc h o o l s tu -
; d e n ts when c o n fro n te d by t h e i r own b e h a v io r, th e fo llo w in g
p ro c e d u re s were a p p lie d to a group o f s ix te e n h ig h sch o o l
; s tu d e n ts .
In th e f i r s t s e c tio n o f t h i s c h a p te r p ro c e d u re s f o r
d e v e lo p in g th e s tim u lu s in s tru m e n t a re d e s c r ib e d . The
s tim u lu s in s tru m e n t was p ro v id e d to in tro d u c e th e s u b je c t* s
own b e h a v io r in to th e c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s .
In th e second s e c tio n th e p ro c e d u re s f o r d ev e lo p
m ent o f th e c o u n s e lin g te c h n iq u e u s in g th e s tim u lu s i n s t r u
ment a r e d is c u s s e d . The e x p e rim e n ta l and c o n tr o l s u b je c ts
o f t h i s stu d y a re a ls o d e s c r ib e d .
In th e l a s t s e c tio n p ro c e d u re s o f th e stu d y are
d is c u s s e d . C r ite r io n m easures and s t a t i s t i c a l m ethods
u sed a r e a ls o in c lu d e d .
D evelopm ent o f th e S tim u lu s In stru m e n t
G en eral D esign
S in ce th e p urpose o f th e s tim u lu s in s tru m e n t was to
s tim u la te in te r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n by th e s tim u lu s o f
sp e e c h , th r e e d im en sio n s w ere c o n s id e re d : (1 ) th e to p ic s
i
o f th e sp e e c h , (2 ) th e i n t e n t o f th e s p e a k e r, and (3 ) th e
r e l a t i o n s h i p im p lie d b etw een th e p a r t i e s o f th e in te r a c tio n .;
J T o p ics f o r th e sp e a k e rs w ere s e le c te d from Problem s
j — .
io f C oncern to T 'eenagers a s found i n a s iz a b le su rv ey by
|Hemmers and E a d le r (6 7 :8 0 -8 5 ). A p o p u la tio n o f a p p ro x i-
i i
jm ately te n th o u san d h ig h sch o o l s tu d e n ts had in d ic a te d prob-:
’lerns c o n c e rn in g them . F re q u e n c ie s o f problem s were recorded
i n p e r c e n ta g e s . Those problem s in d ic a te d a s o c c u rrin g 25
i
p e r c e n t o r more among th e t o t a l su rv ey p o p u la tio n w ere
exam ined f o r t h i s s tu d y . The problem s ta te m e n ts w hich
seemed to be d u p lic a te d and th o se w hich seemed to be
; i
l im ite d to th e co n c e rn o f one sex o n ly w ere e lim in a te d from
c o n s id e r a tio n in t h i s s tu d y . T w en ty -six problem s rem ain ed
when su b m itte d to th e above e lim in a tio n p ro c e d u re . These
p ro b lem s se rv e d a s i n i t i a l to p ic s to be s e le c te d by
s p e a k e r s . (See A ppendix A, p . 1 2 5 .)
I n te n t o f sp eech a s d e s c rib e d in th e I n t e r a c t i o n
P ro c e s s A n a ly s is system o f B a les (8 ) was u t i l i z e d . Twelve
c a te g o r ie s o f sp e a k e r i n t e n t found to be m ost fre q u e n t in
B a le s ’ stu d y p roved u s e f u l . These ran g e from o th e r -
s u p p o rtiv e to s e lf - s u p p o r tiv e s ta te m e n ts . (See A ppendix B,
1 ;
p . 1 2 7 .)
F o r p u rp o se s o f t h i s s tu d y , th e i n t e r a c t i o n o f
k 2
p a r e n t and c h ild was s e le c te d from among th e p o s s ib le r e l a - ;
tio n s h ip s a te e n a g e r m ig h t h a v e . C o n se q u e n tly , th e sp e a k
e r s i n th e s tim u lu s m a te r ia l to o k th e r o l e o f p a r e n ts and |
i
I u t i l i z e d th e v a r io u s i n t e n t s o f th e B a le s system when
!
| sp e a k in g on th e s e le c te d t o p i c s . -J v
| :
i ■ '
D evelopm ent o f S tim u lu s Item s
]
E lev en a d u l ts v o lu n te e re d to d ev elo p a p o o l o f
i —
ite m s w ith in th e above fram ew ork. The a d u lts were f i r s t
j ' !
o r ie n te d to th e B ales i n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s . D is c u s s io n w ith
t h i s g ro u p r e s u l t e d i n common u n d e rs ta n d in g s o f t h i s i n t e r
a c tiv e p ro c e s s a n a ly s is sy stem .
The e le v e n a d u l t s were th e n gi,ven th e l i s t o f
tw e n ty - s ix problem s o f te e n a g e rs repfcrtec^ ab o v e, from
w hich th e y s e le c te d th o s e o f i n t e r e s t . Each o f th e e le v e n
!a d u l ts ta p e -re c o rd e d s ta te m e n ts u t i l i z i n g th e tw elv e B a les
c a te g o r ie s f o r th e to p ic o r problem s th e y had s e l e c t e d .
The f i f t e e n to p ic s s e le c te d by th e e le v e n a d u l ts spoken
j
w ith tw elv e i n t e n t s r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l o f 180 p ro b leta
s ta te m e n ts .
S tim u lu s S tatem en t S e le c tio n
The 180 s ta te m e n ts were re c o rd e d by f iv e a d u l t s
1
( th r e e men and two women), ea ch o f whom was g iv e n t h i r t y -
s ix s ta te m e n ts to r e c o r d . The s ta te m e n ts w ere d i s t r i b u t e d
irandom ly a c c o rd in g to t o p i c , p ro b lem , and s p e a k e r. The
M ]
I
r e s u l t i n g s ta te m e n ts w ere th e n dubbed o n to two ta p e s o f 'I
n in e ty s ta te m e n ts e a c h . To ea ch o f th e s e ta p e s was added
a s e t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s and sam ples w ith s c o rin g i n s t r u c t i o n s
1
f o r th e f i r s t s c re e n in g p r o c e s s .
j
iF i r s t S c re e n in g o f S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
T h is s c re e n in g was to v e r i f y th e p e rc e iv e d i n t e n t
!
o f s p e a k e r s . T h ir ty h ig h sc h o o l s tu d e n ts o f e le v e n th and
i ;
j
! tw e l f t h g ra d e s m et in two g ro u p s o f f i f t e e n s tu d e n ts i n a
la n g u a g e la b o r a to r y c o n ta in in g in d iv id u a l b o o th s w ith
'r e c o r d in g and r e c e iv in g eq u ip m en t. The ta p e d s ta te m e n ts
w ere p la y e d to th e l i s t e n i n g s tu d e n ts . One s e t o f n in e ty
' V *
s ta te m e n ts was p la y e d to one group o f f i f t e e n s tu d e n ts and
th e re m a in in g n in e ty s ta te m e n ts w ere p la y e d to th e o th e r
f i f t e e n s tu d e n ts . D e f in itio n s o f s c o rin g c a te g o r ie s (s e e
!A ppendix G, p . 132) and s c o rin g s h e e ts had been p r e p a r e d .
As th e s tu d e n t ju d g e s l i s t e n e d th ro u g h ea rp h o n e s
t o th e ta p e d s ta te m e n ts , th e y c l a s s i f i e d th e i n t e n t o f
th e s p e a k e rs a c c o rd in g to th e B a les schem e. The t h i r t y
s t u d e n t s ' re s p o n s e s w ere t a l l i e d . T h e ir agreem ent w ith th e
p e r c e iv e d i n t e n t o f th e s p e a k e r was a c c e p te d . The sev en
s ta te m e n ts in each o f th e tw elv e B a le s c a te g o r ie s r e c e iv in g
|th e h ig h e s t num ber o f ag reem en ts w ere s e le c te d f o r th e
!second s c re e n in g p r o c e s s . T h is i n i t i a l s e l e c t i o n t o t a l e d
e i g h t y - f o u r s ta te m e n ts . I
W |
I
Second S c re e n in g o f S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
Ten s tu d e n ts ( s i x g i r l s and f o u r to y s ) met i n th e
la n g u ag e la b o r a to r y , each w ith a ta p e m achine and m ic ro - j
p h o n e. The e i g h ty - f o u r s ta te m e n ts had been dubbed w ith an j
i n t e r v a l o f tw enty se co n d s betw een e a c h s ta te m e n t. The ;
i ' I
| s tu d e n ts were asked to im agine th e p e rs o n s sp e a k in g to them
j
j and to resp o n d im m ed iately fo llo w in g each o f th e s tim u lu s
I '
j s ta te m e n ts . These re s p o n s e s were re c o rd e d in d i v i d u a ll y ,
i ' !
: S e le c tio n o f P in a l S tim u lu s S ta te m e n ts
I The fo llo w in g tw en ty -o n e s ta te m e n ts were s e le c te d
from among th e e ig h ty - f o u r s ta te m e n ts u sed in th e second
. s c re e n in g and found in th e re c o rd e d re s p o n s e s o f th e te n
: s tu d e n t ju d g e s . The fo llo w in g two c r i t e r i a were a p p lie d
; to s e l e c t th e f i n a l s tim u lu s s ta te m e n ts : (1 ) th e e v id e n t
| ;
I a b i l i t y o f th e s ta te m e n t to s o l i c i t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith th e
i .
s p e a k e r , and (2 ) th e e v id e n t a b i l i t y o f th e s ta te m e n t to
s o l i c i t a re sp o n se i n d i c a t i n g em o tio n a l involvem ent w ith
th e p ro b lem .
T hese tw en ty -o n e s ta te m e n ts w ere th e n dubbed o n to
a f i n a l ta p e w ith an i n t e r v a l o f tw en ty seconds betw een
: each s ta te m e n t.
I Tw enty-one s tim u lu s s ta te m e n ts
j
F em ale: • "W ell, w hat more can I do ab o u t h e lp in g
you g a in c o n fid e n c e in y o u r s e lf ? " !
| M ale: "H igh sc h o o l s tu d e n ts o f te n g e t in to
M ale:
F em ale:
M ale:
F em ale:
M ale:
F em ale:
M ale:
F em ale:
Male s
M ale:
M ale:
M ale:
-tro u b le b ecau se th e y l e t t h e i r em o tio n s
g e t away from them and go to o f a r w ith
t h e i r d a t e s ."
" U s u a lly , i f you need more s e lf - c o n f id e n c e ,
t a lk in g w ith a c lo s e f r i e n d w ill g iv e you
some id e a s ab o u t i t . "
"You have a v e ry good a t t i t u d e and a r e to
be c o n g r a tu la te d f o r w a n tin g to work t h i s
o u t. Y ou've g o t th e p ro b lem h a l f s o lv e d
by y o u r good a t t i t u d e . "
"S ay, you c e r t a i n l y have im proved. You*re
alm o st r i d o f t h a t bad h a b i t you h a d ."
"Why i t ' s q u ite n a tu r a l t h a t y o u 'd w ant
to do som eth in g about y o u r body b u ild a t
t h i s s ta g e o f th e game. I t ' s n o t a t a l l
u n u su a l f o r a p e rso n o f y o u r age to
re c o g n iz e t h a t he needs to firm up a
l i t t l e b i t . "
"W ell, t h a t 's no problem to s o lv e . I f
y o u 'r e co n cern ed about how f a r to go w ith
y o u r d a te you have no s e l f c o n t r o l."
"W ell, daydream ing i s r e a l l y a w aste o f
tim e . I w ish y o u w o u ld n 't do i t . "
" I'm s o r r y . I th in k t h a t g e t tin g r i d o f
t h a t bad h a b it i s j u s t so m ething y o u 'l l
have to work o u t e n t i r e l y f o r y o u r s e l f ."
" I'm n o t r e a l l y su re t h a t ease in s o c i a l
s i t u a t i o n s i s som ething you should g e t
too w o rrie d a b o u t,"
"You know, you alw ays w a it f o r th e o th e r
fe llo w to say 'H e llo ' f i r s t . I t m ig h t
n o t h u r t i f you to o k th e i n i t i a t i v e ."
" J u s t w hat do you mean when you w ant to
overcome b e in g to o c a r e l e s s ."
"What c o u ld we do to h e lp you u n d e rs ta n d
y o u r daydream ing?"
"W ell, i f y o u 'r e o ld enough to w orry ab o u t
how f a r to go w ith y o u r d a t e , maybe I 'd
b e t t e r have a m an-to-m an t a l k w ith y o u ."
k 6
Female: "I don't understand how a child of mine
could be so unpopular. Why, I was
always the most popular child on the
block!"
Male: "Well, being at ease in social situa
tions isn’t something I feel I can talk
with you about. Why don't you go see
your school counselor."
Male: "I don't know. I think probably you'll
just never be able to break that bad
habit."
Female: "Why, why don't you want to take personal
responsibility for being smarter. I
guess it's much easier to blame it . . .
to blame the problem on somebody else,
isn't it?"
Male: "Could I help you avoid being on the
go so much by reminding you when I see
you running around?"
Male: "I can well understand how you feel
when you don't have the answers to
questions that are discussed in class."
Female: "Oh, you, now listen to me! You have
all the dates that your father and I
think you ought to have anyway!"
Design of Counseling Procedure
; Counseling Technique Pilot Study
The purpose of the pilot study on the counseling
: technique essentially involved utilization of the stimulus
j materials in conformance with the theory of counseling
stated in Chapter II of this study.
The procedure required utilization of three tape
machines, one to play the stimulus instrument of twenty-one!
T 7 |
I
adult statements, a second to record responses of the coun-j
selee to these statements, and a third to record the entire
counseling session. !
Nine high school students from the eleventh and !
I
|twelfth grades (four girls and five boys) volunteered for
the pilot study* Five students had three sessions and four
i
j had four sessions in which the counseling procedures were
I developed. These sessions were taped and examined for
jmodification of procedures.
I As a result of this pilot study it was found that
ja fifteen-second interval for response of the counselee
to the stimulus statement was sufficient. Secondly, it
;was found that selection of statements of interest to
counselees could best be done by considering groups of
'seven statements from which a total of three statements
j (
could be selected. Thirdly, the response of the counselee ;
j to the role-playing demands resulted in less structuring
on the part of the counselor.
The original design of the counseling technique
was validated by this pilot study and was applied to the
study population as outlined in the following descriptions.
j
I Description of Counselees
i ■
The sixteen counselees in this study were volun-
i ‘ !
;teers from a group of twenty-three students who had
|enrolled in a six-week summer session course in psychology
1+8
on a high achool campus in Southern California. The course!
title was "Studying Human Behavior," At the beginning of
the last three weeks of this course, volunteers were
solicited to participate in individual study sessions.
These sessions were not part of the course requirements. 1
I The volunteers were tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade
| ;
| Caucasian students. The sixteen volunteers were assigned
I
I randomly to the experimental and control groups, three
\
boys and five girls to each. All counseling sessions were
conducted after class hours.
I • :
: Description of Counseling Procedure
All counselees received four sessions of counsel-
; ing, two per week. All but the first session were exactly
alike.
The first session involved presentation of the
; twenty-one statements as in the pilot study, each state
ment followed by a fifteen-second interval of silence into
which the response of the counselee was recorded. This
procedure required two tape-recording machines, one to
present the stimulus material and the other to record the
! response of the counselee and the initial stimulus material.
A third tape-recording machine recorded the entire counsel-i
:ing session.
The counselee was seated before three microphones
land three tape machines. Instructions were as followss
"I have here some recordings for you. You should imagine j
i
these people are right here speaking to you. You reply to
them. It makes no difference what you say as long as it |
seems to fit what they are saying. Now here is the first j
| person speaking. When she has finished, you reply."
|
Upon completion of the twenty-one statements and
i • '
i
|counselee responses the counselee was then asked to listen
to a replay of the entire twenty-one statements. These
i
were replayed in groups of seven statements, and as each
I seven were heard, the client was asked to select one for
further study. Eventually three statements were selected,
- '
one for each of the subsequent counseling sessions.
At each of the second, third, and fourth counseling
i
sessions the counselee was reintroduced to one of the
selected statements with the following instructions:
i
"Listen to this statement. There are now two people, you
and this other person. Who is this person? What is his
relationship to you? Tell me why he has spoken as he has.
What has caused his behavior? What are his feelings? What:
ieffect does his behavior have upon you and what do you
imagine your response to mean to him?"
i After these instructions were given, the selected
I
| statement was replayed and the client was asked to begin
! analyzing in the aforementioned manner. Prom this point
i '
!on, the role of the counselor was to ask the client to
! 7
explain further his descriptions of behaviors and meanings
prompted by the stimulus material. The counselor responded
to the direction of the counseling topics as developed by
the counselee in a collaborative manner. Client-centered
i
I
; counseling methods were employed throughout.
i
i
i Treatment of Experimental and
| Control Counselees "
I Since the experimental variable in this study is
!
I the introduction of the counselee's own behavior for study,
j the treatment of the experimental group differed from that
! of the control group at the point where the responses to
the stimulus statements were replayed for selection and
: further study. Presentation of the stimulus statements
involved recording responses of all counselees. However,
upon reply for selection and study, the experimental group
i
members heard the recording of the combination of the
stimulus statement and their own responses. Replay for
the control group members utilized only the original stimu
lus statements and did not include their replies to the
i speakers.
In this manner, therefore, the experimental group
members were confronted with the recorded interaction of
an adult figure and themselves, whereas the control group
members were confronted only with the original stimulus
I j
! statement of the adult figure and not their own initial I
i .
j ' !
response. i
Procedures for Proving the Hypotheses
I The counseling behavior of the students was studied;
^ i
in order to test the hypotheses in the following manner.
i
i
!Samples of Counselee Behavior
j firawn for Sorting *
I ' 1
The tape recordings of the counseling sessions with
| the sixteen counselees were originally organized by first
and third counseling sessions. Ten-minute samples from
|first and third counseling sessions immediately following
replay of the stimulus interaction were drawn from each
: of the experimental and control group sessions. These
samples were then prepared for the judges in the following
i way. All talk of both client and counselor found in the
samples was typed. These typescripts were unitized in
! order that sorting of counselee behavior by judges could
i |
occur*
Unitizing Counselee Behavior
from the Samples
Each counselee statement was divided into thought
units following the instructions of Auld and White. (See
;A ppendix D, p . 1 3 5 .) These th o u g h t u n i t s were e s s e n t i a l l y :
independent clauses. The author and one person trained in
sentence unitizing each independently scored all samples
■
according to Auld and Whited rules. Subsequently, where
disagreement occurred, a common judgment was made.
_ ^ 2 i
F o llo w in g t h i s , a l l s e n te n c e u n i t s w ere numbered c o n se c u
t i v e l y f o r a l l sam ples o f b o th g ro u p s .
U n itiz in g f o r s ta te m e n ts fo llo w e d th e r u le o f a l l
i
c l i e n t t a l k o c c u rrin g betw een two c o u n s e lo r s ta te m e n ts . |
; F o r p u rp o se s o f t h i s s tu d y , o n ly c l i e n t t a l k was u n i t i z e d . :
' Each c l i e n t s ta te m e n t was num bered c o n s e c u tiv e ly f o r th e
! t o t a l sam p le.
: S e le c tin g th e Judges
Two ju d g e s , b o th h o ld in g P h . D. d e g re e s in c o u n s e l
in g p sy ch o lo g y and p r o f e s s io n a lly em ployed a t th e tim e o f
: t h i s s tu d y , and th e a u th o r w ere s e le c te d to c l a s s i f y coun
s e le e b e h a v io r . Two s e s s io n s were h e ld f o r t r a i n i n g o f th e
: ju d g e s in th e s c o rin g c a te g o r ie s and u se o f s c o rin g sym bols
and s c o re c a r d s . In th e f i n a l s e s s io n , a te n -m in u te sam ple
I was in d e p e n d e n tly s c o re d . D is c u s s io n o f d if f e r e n c e s in
s c o rin g re s o lv e d th e judgm ent c r i t e r i a . Judges w ere th e n
g iv e n th e t y p e s c r ip t s f o r sam ples draw n f o r t h i s s tu d y .
A f te r o n e - f i f t h o f th e u n i t s had been judged in d e p e n d e n tly ,
an a d d i t i o n a l s e s s io n was h e ld to com pare and m odify c r i
t e r i a . Each ju d g e th e n com pleted th e sam ples in d ep en d en tly .
C la s s if y in g C ounselee B e h av io r U n its
. G u id e lin e s f o r a n a ly z in g th e c o n te n t o f c o u n se le e
; rem ark s c o n s is te d o f c r i t e r i o n s ta te m e n ts o f c o u n se le e
-b e h a v io r from S n y d e r's in te rv ie w a n a ly s is system (79)> and ;
! _ ^
from Carnes* C lie n t R e s p o n s ib ility Talcing S cale ( 1 8 ) . I
| C lie n t c o n t e n t . Ju d g es w ere ask ed to i d e n t i f y fiv e |
ty p e s o f c l i e n t c o n te n t b ased upon th e b ro ad c a te g o r ie s o f j
S n y d e r's sy ste m . The Ju d g e s Manual (s e e A ppendix E ,
j
| p . 139) r e ta in e d th e o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i v e s u b c a te g o rie s to
j a id u n i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F or t h i s s tu d y , s c o rin g o f c l i e n t
j !
! c o n te n t u t i l i z e d th e f iv e c a te g o r ie s w ith th e fo llo w in g
; d e s ig n a tio n s a p p lie d to a l l se n te n c e u n i t s .
1 . S ta te m e n t o f o n e 's own p ro b lem s.
2 . S ta te m e n t o f a n o t h e r 's p ro b lem s.
3 . S ta te m e n t o f in s i g h t i n t o o n e 's b e h a v io r.
if. S tate m e n t o f sim p le re s p o n s e .
5. S ta te m e n t o f m inor re s p o n s e .
C lie n t f e e l i n g . Ju d g es w ere ask ed to i d e n t i f y
e x p re s s e d f e e lin g s and a t t i t u d e s i n a l l c l i e n t s ta te m e n t
u n i t s a s fo u n d . R eg ro u p in g o f S n y d e r's C lie n t A ttitu d e
C a te g o rie s by d i r e c t i o n r a t h e r th a n by ty p e f e e l in g
r e s u l t e d i n th e fo llo w in g n in e c a te g o r ie s and a d e s ig n a
t i o n f o r th o s e s ta te m e n ts where no e x p l i c i t f e e l in g
o c c u rr e d . (See Ju d g e s M anual, A ppendix E , p . 1 3 9 .)
C a te g o rie s :
S e lf
1 . P o s itiv e
2 . N e g a tiv e
1
3 . A m bivalent
j O th er
i
I P o s itiv e
I
| 5. N eg ativ e
6 . A m bivalent
C o u n selo r
j
7. P o s itiv e
i
8 . N eg a tiv e
9 . A m bivalent
0 . No f e e l i n g e x p re s se d
C lie n t r e s p o n s i b ilit y - ta lc i n g b e h a v io r . Ju d g es
! w ere ask ed to r a t e each c l i e n t s ta te m e n t u n i t f o r assum p
t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e c o u n s e lin g p r o c e s s . M odifi-:
; c a tio n o f C a rn e s’ o r i g i n a l s c a le r e s u lt e d in a n in e - p o in t
d i s t r i b u t i o n a s f o llo w s .
I . ,
C lie n t d e s ir e s no C lie n t d e s ir e s
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o r to assum e a
ev en r e j e c t s i t g r e a t d e a l o f
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
1 ............ 3 . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . 4 - ..............5............. §'.......... . 7 . .......... § . ........... S
A d e s ig n a tio n o f 0 was u sed f o r th o s e s ta te m e n ts
; n o t c l e a r l y r e v e a lin g c l i e n t ’s assu m p tio n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
: Ju d g e s A greem ent
The a n a ly s e s o f th e ty p e s c r i p t s by th e th r e e
' in d e p e n d e n t ju d g e s w ere com pared to f in d th e amount o f
| ag re e m e n t. :
55 1
C lie n t c a t e g o r i e s . T able 1 shows t h a t two o r more
ju d g es ag ree d on 9 1 .1 6 p e r c e n t o f th e 2 ,3 3 0 se n te n c e
u n i t s . Those u n i t s r e c e iv in g agreem ent o f a l l th r e e judgesj
: co m p rised 5*+.67 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l .
T able 1 a ls o shows t h a t two o r more ju d g es a g re e d
i on 9 7 .2 5 p e r c e n t o f th e s ta te m e n t u n i t s and t h a t a l l
\
\ th r e e ju d g e s ag ree d on 73.83 p e r c e n t.
I t was th e r e f o r e d ec id ed to a s s ig n C lie n t C a te -
; g o r ie s to se n te n c e and s ta te m e n t u n i t s a c c o rd in g to th e
: agreem ent o f two o r more ju d g e s .
1 . D is tr ib u ti o n o f se n te n c e u n i t s . T able 2 shows
th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c l i e n t b e h a v io r a s found by two o r
more ju d g e s a s i t o c c u rre d in se n te n c e u n i t s . The s e n -
' te n c e u n i t s were d i s t r i b u t e d a c c o rd in g to C lie n t C a te g o rie s
i
f o r f u r t h e r c o m p u ta tio n . T able 3 shows th e d i s t r i b u t i o n by
group and by sam p le. C a te g o rie s o f b e h a v io rs found in th e
se n te n c e u n i t s were f a i r l y ev e n ly d i s t r i b u t e d among th e
g ro u p s. Only 8 .8 p e r c e n t o f th e se n te n c e u n i t s were n o t
u se d . I n b o th ta b le s C a te g o rie s and 5 w ere com bined
u n d e r "M inor" s in c e n e i t h e r were u se d in t e s t i n g h y p o th e
s e s .
2. D is tr ib u ti o n o f sta te m e n t u n i t s . Snyder P e e l
in g C a te g o rie s were a p p lie d to s ta te m e n t u n i t s . T a b le s * +
and 5 show d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each s u b je c t by sam ple.
TABLE 1
AGREEM ENT OP JUDGES
S en ten ce U n its S tate m e n t U n its
Number P e r c e n t Number P e r c e n t
A greem ent 2330 100 12(30 100
None 206 8 . 8b
33 2 .7 5
Two o n ly 850 3 6 .b 8 285 2 3 .7 5
T hree o n ly 127b 5 ^.6 7
886
73.83
Two o r more 212^ 9 1 .1 6 1167 9 7 .2 5
T A B L E 2
DISTRIBUTION O R SENTENCE UNITS
FREQUENCY BY TYPE
C ounselee
S a m p 1 e 1
Counselee
S a m p 1 e 2
Problem
I n s ig h t Minor
T o ta l
Used
Problem
In sig h t Minor
T o ta l
Used Own O thers Own O th ers
E l
9
if 10 16
39 E l
3^ 7
Ilf 22
77
Ep 12 17 17
Ilf 60 Ep 21
3
6 10 IfO
J liO
52 19 18 22 111
E3
53
1 15 15 8lf
ei;
20 lif if 10 if8 Ek
15 12 lif 10
51
E 5 3^
12
33
8
87
E5
if7 12
25 6 90
E6
3?
29
Ilf 101
E6
29
Ilf 17 8 68
E7
6 2^f 28
13 71
E7 18 12 17 11 58
3
lb 0 lM - 10 38 Eg 22
3 9
12 if6
«1
3?
10 16
3
$ f
Cl 31
2 6 11 50
c2
6
3?
if 7 56
c2
Iflf
7
if
5
60
c 3
31
If 12 22
69
°3
If8
9
10
19 86
$
32 5 20 11 68
Of
kb
3
10 15 72
3
23
10
35
11
79 C5 lb lif
19
6
53
3£
9 23
16 82
°6
ifl 0
37
16 9*f
°7
25
2
19 15 61
°7
3?
2
3 5 ^9
08 3^
1
19 9 63 oq
6
23 13 7 If9
T o ta ls if06
189 301 201 1097 T o ta ls 506 12lf
219
178
1027
VJl
> 3
T A B L E 3
DISTRIBUTION OP SENTENCE UNITS
BY SAMPLE
Group
Problem
I n s ig h t M inor
Not
Used
Own O th e r
Used
E x p e rim e n ta l
Sample 1 186 109 153 107 55 555
Sample 2
239
&¥ 117 9^ 67 5l*f
C o n tro l
Sample 1 220 80 1^8
9^
h-6 5^2
Sample 2
26?
60 102 8* t 38 513 ;
T o ta ls 912
313
520
379
206 212* f
TABLE k
DISTRIBUTION OF STATEM ENT UNITS
FREQUENCY BY TYPE
SAMPLE 1
i
C ounselee
S e l f 0 t h e r s C o u n s e l o r
No
F e e lin g
T o ta l
P N Av P N Av P N Av
E1
2 0 0 b
5 0 b 1 0 11
27
E2 0 0 0 0
9
1 2 0 1 18
31
Eo ■i
3
0
7
21 If , 1 0 1 12
53
EC
0 0
3 5
2 0 1 0 0
9
20
E 5 11 8 2
5
6
3
1 0 0
25 61
e 6
2 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 16 38
Bn
8 0 1
5
1 2 1 0 1 25
bb
Eg
5 0 0 b 5 0 0 0
31
°1
11 0 1 7 i 2 0 0 0 6 28
c2
l 0 1 12 2 0
3
1 0 10 30
c 3
1
7 2 0 8 0 b 0 1 20
^3
c£
0 1 2
17 6 l 0 0 lb
*
G5
if 0 1
13 7 2 l 0 0 11
39
c6
5 0 1 10 2 2 0 1
3
8 32
c7 0 . 1 0
3
1 3 2 1 1 if 16
c8
10 0 1 if 8 2 0 0 12
^3
T o ta ls
77 19
lb
89
106 36 23
If 8 21* f 590
T A B L E 5
DISTRIBUTION OP STATEM ENT UNITS
FREQUENCY B Y TYPE
SAMPLE 2
Counselee
S e l f .0 1b h e r s C 0 u n s e l o r
No
P e e lin g
T o ta l
P N Av p N Av P N Av
E i
13
0 if 11 0 0 2 0 1 11 if2
Eo 2 1 1 7
0 6 0 0 0 20 37
3
0 2 7 9
1 0 0 0 11
33
E*
5
0 1 1
3
0 0 2 1
5 18
e 5
lb 1
7 13
6 1 0 0 0
13 55
E6
1 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 if2
E7
0 0 0
13
0 0 ■ 0 0 0 2* f 37
e 8
5
1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
23
°1
6 0 0 10 0 1 1 0 0 lif 32
c 2
6 0
3 7
1 0 1 1 0
3
22
c3 7 0 0 17 0 1 = 1 0 0 2if 50
°b
21
3 3 5
0 1 1 0 1
19
c 5
2 1 0 . 22 i+ if . 1 0 0 b7
c6
11 10 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 lb if1 *
°7
0 1 0 5
0 0 0 1 1 8 16
c8
1 0 0
9
1 2 0 0 0 12
25
T o ta ls 97
18
27
166 25 18 7 5 b 210 577
61
T ab le 6 shows d i s t r i b u t i o n by e x p e rim e n ta l and c o n tr o l
g ro u p s . N ea rly *f0 p e r c e n t o f th e s ta te m e n ts d id n o t
e x p l i c i t l y r e v e a l f e e l in g s o f th e s u b je c ts a c c o rd in g to two
o r more ju d g e s . I n s p e c tio n o f b o th T ab le s if, 5 and 6 su g - I
g e s t s i n s u f f i c i e n t d a ta to make f u r t h e r judgm ents i n a l l
I f e e l i n g c a te g o r ie s d ir e c te d tow ard th e c o u n s e lo r, in
a m b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s to w ard o t h e r s , and i n n e g a tiv e and
I a m b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s tow ard s e l f .
C lie n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - t a k i n g s c a l e . The ju d g e s
: had b een ask ed to r a t e ea ch s ta te m e n t f o r c l i e n t r e s p o n s i
b i l i t y e x p l i c i t l y show ing u se o f th e c o u n s e lin g in te r a c ti o n .
C lie n t b e h a v io r was r a te d on a n in e - p o in t s c a l e . T ab le 7
shows th e agreem ent o f th e ju d g e s . Each o f th e th r e e
ju d g e s was com bined w ith the^ re m a in in g two in o rd e r to
d e te rm in e th e s in g le ju d g e a g re e in g m ost f r e q u e n tly .
Ju d g e C was found to c o n tr ib u te th e g r e a t e s t ag reem en t in
71 p e r c e n t o f th e s ta te m e n ts . T h e re fo re , th e r a t i n g s
a s s ig n e d to each c l i e n t s ta te m e n t by Judge C o n ly w ere used
f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s .
1 . D is tr ib u ti o n o f .judgm ents. The d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f Judge C*s r a t i n g s o f C lie n t R e s p o n s ib ility - T a k in g i s
; shown in T able 8 . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f judgm ents a s shown
i n T ab le 9 i s a d e q u a te f o r d is c r im in a tin g s c o re s among th e
s u b j e c t s . Combined mean group s c o re s were r e l a t e d s t a t i s
t i c a l l y to th e h y p o th e s e s .
T A B L E 6
DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENT UNITS
Group
No F e e lin g
I d e n tif ie d
C
3 e 1 e 0 t h e 2 ? 3 C o u ns el o r
Not
Used
Used
P N Av P N Av P N Av
E x p erim en tal
Sample 1 129 32 11 6 38
60 15 10 1
3 7 305
Sample 2
103 * + 3 3 3-5 91
18 8 2 2 2 17 287
C o n tro l s
Sample 1
85 b$
8 8
51
1 + 6 21
13 3 5 3 285
Sample 2 107
5b
15
12 75 7
10
5 3
2 6 290
T o ta ls b 2b 17b
37
1 + 1 255 131 5^ 30 9
12
33 1167
Ov
r o '
T A B L E 7
AGREEM ENT OF JUDGES A, B A N D 0
CLIENT RESPONSIBILITY TAKING
A greem ent Number P e r c e n t
1200 100
None
13^
1 1 .1
A to B and C 766 6 3 .8
B to A and C 828 6 9 .0
C to A and B 852 71.0
T A B L E 8
JUDGE C
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY-TAKING JUDGEMENTS
1 2
3
k
5 6
7 8
9
Not
Used
Frequency 1 17 27 72
333
278 256 157 55
k
P e r c e n t 0
l.*f
2 .2 6 .0 27.8 2 3 .2 21
1 3 .1 5 .03
T A B L E 9
RESPONSIBILITY-TAKING
M EA N RATINGS
C ounselee
S a mp l e j 1 s a m p l e 2 Changes: 1 to 2
2
N M
2
N M M
Ei
125
26 **.80 2**2 b l
5.90 1 .1 0
E2 163 26 6 .2 6 192
33
5.81
- .**5
Eo
198 38 5.21 169 32 5.28 .0 7
ET
115
20
5 .7 5 119 17 7.00
1 .2 5
e 5
310 55 5.63 316 b7 6 .7 2
1 .0 9
e 6
211 32 6 .5 9
226 38 5.9*+ - .6 5
E7 178
35
5.08 23b b 2 5.5 7 .b9
n 139
28 *+.96 1 55 25
6.2 0 1.2**
G i
27
7 . 1b
165 31
5.32 -1 .8 2
C2
17** 28 6 .2 1 169 23 7 .3 b 1 .1 3
°3
227 1 *0 5.67 315 bS 6 .5 6
.89
G b
302 b7
6 A 2 288
51
5.6i*
- .78
c 5
211
35
6*02
275 b 2 6 .5 1 * .5 2
G 6
180
29
6 .2 0
295 37 7 .9 7 1 .7 7
°7
120 21 5.71 80
13 6 .1 5
.bb
c8
228
37 6 .1 6 13b
23
5.82
- .3 ^
ON
N J\ !
Study H ypotheses w ith
C r it e r i o n M easures
i The c r i t e r i o n b e h a v io rs o f c l i e n t s found in th e
I
j
j sam ples o f t h e i r in te rv ie w s were u s e d to t e s t th e h y p o th e
se s by th e use o f n u l l su b h y p o th e se s.
H y p o th esis 1 . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be
more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r io n b e h a v io rs : Snyder Problem c a t e g o r i e s ,
Own and O th e rs: S en ten ce u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g n i f i
c a n tly more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e a t th e f i r s t
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g n i f i
c a n tly more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e a t th e t h i r d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tro l g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e from
th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th esis 2 . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be
more i n s i g h t f u l th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r i o n b e h a v io rs : Snyder U n d e rsta n d in g o r
A c tio n Taken c a te g o r ie s : S en ten ce u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g n i f i
c a n tly more i n s i g h t f u l a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n
th a n th e c o n tr o l gro u p ,
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g n i f i
c a n tly more i n s i g h t f u l a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n
th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l from th e f i r s t
to th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th esis The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be
more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r th a n th e c o n t r o l group
C r ite r io n b e h a v io rs : Snyder PNAv Q u o tie n t:
S tate m en t u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r
a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tro l
g ro u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r
a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tro l
g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own
b e h a v io r from th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th esis *t. The e x p e rim e n ta l group w il l be
more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs b e h a v io r th a n th e c o n tr o l
g ro u p .
C r ite r io n b e h a v io rs : Snyder PNAv Q u o tie n t:
S ta te m e n t u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs
b e h a v io r a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tro l g ro u p .
b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t be s i g
n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs
b e h a v io r a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e
c o n tro l g ro u p .
c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t become
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e rs
b e h a v io r from th e f i r s t to th e th ir d
s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
H y p o th esis 5. The e x p e rim e n ta l group w ill
a t f i r s t show more b u t l a t e r l e s s r e s is ta n c e to
th e c o u n s e lo r th a n w ill th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
C r ite r io n b e h a v io rs : Snyder PNAv Q u o tie n t:
S tate m e n t u n i t s .
a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t show
more p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e
counselor at the first session than the
control group.
b. The experimental group will not show
more positive attitudes toward the coun
selor at the third session than the
control group.
c. The experimental group will not become
significantly more positive toward the
counselor from the first to the third
session than the control group.
Hypothesis 6. The experimental group will take
more responsibility for exploring problems than the
control group.
Criterion behavior: Carnes' Client Responsi
bility-Taking Scales Statement units.
a. The experimental group will not be sig
nificantly more responsible for exploring
problems at the first session than the
control group.
b. The experimental group will not be sig
nificantly more responsible for exploring
problems at the third session than the
control group.
c. The experimental group will not become
significantly more responsible for explor
ing problems from the first to the third
session than the control group.
Statistical Measures
Rata of this study employed the use of chi square
according to the procedures described by McNemar (52:219)
and the use of the formula 13.3 which is:
2 N(/BC - AD/ - N/2)2
x - -----------------------------------
(A+B)(C+D)(A+C)(B+D)
P v a lu e s f o r c h i s q u a re s w ere ta k e n from G u ilfo rd
(*+ls T ab le E ). A ll d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f d a ta were a rra n g e d on
! f o u r - f o l d t a b l e s ; t h e r e f o r e , d e g re e s o f freedom w ere e q u a l
I
to 1 .
I D ata w ere a ls o su b m itte d to t - r a t i o t e s t s a c c o rd
in g to G u ilf o r d 's fo rm u la 9 .3 0 w hich i s :
Ml - M 2
° " d M
L ev e ls o f s ig n if ic a n c e f o r t v a lu e s were ta k e n from
G u ilfo rd (*fl: T able D ).
These two s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s seemed b e s t where
la r g e sam ples o f b e h a v io r a l d a ta w ere ta k e n from a sm a ll
: p o p u la tio n and w h ere, t h e r e f o r e , s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s o f
sam ples w ere l e s s l i k e l y .
Summary
In t h i s c h a p te r th e p ro c e d u re s o f th e stu d y have
been d e s c r ib e d . The developm ent o f th e s tim u lu s i n s t r u
m en t, th e developm ent o f th e c o u n s e lin g te c h n iq u e , and th e
s e l e c t i o n o f th e s u b je c ts were d is c u s s e d . The c o n te n t
a n a ly s is system u se d and th e s e le c ti o n and t r a i n i n g o f
th e ju d g e s f o r th e s tu d y w ere a ls o re v ie w e d . R e s u lts o f
th e judgm ents w ere r e p o r te d and com pared. D ata to t e s t
th e h y p o th e se s w ere p r e s e n te d .
The f in d in g s o f t h i s stu d y a r e p re s e n te d in th e
; n e x t c h a p te r .
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS OF THE STOUT
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to find the contri
bution of self-confrontation to the processes of counsel
ing. Six major hypotheses were proposed to conduct this
investigation of self-confrontation in the counseling
sessions of sixteen high school students. Three null sub-
hypotheses were provided each major hypothesis and were
related to the data.
This chapter will report the findings of this study
by first considering the subhypotheses and then by drawing
conclusions regarding each major hypothesis. The null
hypotheses will be rejected at the .05 level of confidence.
Findings
Hypothesis 1
The experimental group will be more self-descriptive
than the control group.
This hypothesis was tested by comparison of the
occurrence of Own Problem statements and Other Problem
70
statements in sentence -units of the samples. Proportions '
j of these behaviors to total sentence units were computed
! j
j for each subject. Tables 10 and 11 show distributions of
the Own and Other Problem statements for Sample 1 and
Sample 2. Medians were computed in order to sort frequen
cies of subjects above and below into the four-fold tables,
! Composite medians of ,^5 and .52 for Samples 1 and 2 indi
cate that statements of Own Problems occurred more fre
quently than did Other Problems among the subjects and
increased from first to third counseling sessions, while
statements of Other Problems decreased from Sessions 1 to 2‘
! I
as evidenced by medians of .l1 * to .10 respectively.
Own Problem statements were distinguished from
Other Problem statements with the justification that sub
jects might avoid focus on themselves as a defense^from
self-disclosure. Therefore, the importance of Own Problem i
statements as an occurrence in therapeutic movement was
recognized when considering the effects of the self
confrontation technique.
Tables 12 and 13 show the distributions of experi-
mental and control subjects in relation to the mediansvand
the chi square values for these distributions.
Subhvnothesis a. The experimental group will not
be significantly more self-descriptive at the first session
than the control group.
DISTRIBUTION 0? SENTENCE UNITS
PROPORTION 0PTYP5 BY TOTAL ^
J ' ; ' '
Counsel ee
Samp lei
Counselee
Samp 1 e 2
I
Problem
* *
Insight
,
. S ,
A
Minor
Problem
Insight Minor
Own Other Own . Other
Ei .22 .11 .256 • Al Ei M .09
.182
.29
e2 .20 .28 .28 • •23, “
Ei
.53
.08 .15 .25
e|
A7 .17
.16 .20
e3
.63
.01 .18 .18
Ek >2 .29 .08 .21 El
.29
.2** .27 .20
e5 .39
.A-
.38 .09
E5
.52
.13
.28 .07
e6
.19 .29
. l k
e6
A3
. a .25
.12
e7
,08
.3^ .39
.18 e7
.31 . a .29
-1?
e8
.37 0 .37
.26
e8
A8 .0 7 .20 .26
Cl
.55 .16 .25 .05
C1
.62 .0** .12 .22
C2 .11 .70 .07 .13
c 2
•Z l
.1 2 .07 .08
c3
.**5
.0 6 .17 .32
°3
.55 .10 .12 .22
G$
A7 .07 .29
.16
c*
.61 .0*f .Ik . a
°5
.29 .13 M 3
. l k
c5
.26 .26
.359 .11
%
Ai .11 .28 .20
°6
M 0
.39 .17
°7
Al
.03 .31
.2 5
c7
.80 . 0^ .06 .10
°8
M
.02 .30 .I k
e l
.12 A7 .27
, 1k
Indian
Ai .I k .29
.20 Median .52 .20 • 20 .20
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTION OP SENTENCE UNITS
CH A N G E PROM SAMPLE 1 TO SAMPLE 2
PROPORTION OP TYPE BY TOTAL
C ounselee
P roblem
I n s ig h t M inor
Own O th er
E1
.22 - .02 - .07** - .12
e 2
*3?
- .20
- .13
.0 2
e 3
.16 - .16 .0 2 - .0 2
Ejf
- *13
- .0 5
.1 9
- .01
E 5
*13
” oOl - .1 0 - .02
E6
. 0* + .0 2 - . 0* * - .02
E 7
.23 - .13
- .10 .01
e £ .11
.0 7 - .1 7
0
C i .0 7 - .12 - .13 .1 7
°2
.6 2 - .58 0 - .0 5
C3
.10 . 0* f - .0 5 - .10
< 4 . 1* * - .03 - .1 5 .0 5
c 5
- .03 *13
- . 08* *
- .03
eg
*03
- .11 .1 1 - .0 3
c 7
.3 9
.01 - .2 5 - .1 5
08
- > 2 .1*5 - .0 3 0
M edian
.13 - .03
“ . 081*
.............
TABLE 12
DISTRIBUTION O S ' SENTENCES
PROBLEM STATEMENTS
S ta te m e n ts Sample 1
E C
Sample 2
E C
Changes 1 to
E C
Own
Problem s
O th ers
Problem s
TABLE 13
CHI SQUARE VALUES POE PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Statements
Samp lei Sam]3 1 e 2 Changes 1 to 2
Md. X2 Md. X2 Md. X2
Own
Problems M
2.25 .52 .25 .13 .25
Others
Problems
.1^ 2.25 .10 0 -.03 0
.05 level of confidence.
The null hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level of!
confidence. It would be rejected at less than the .10
level of confidence. Inspection of the cells in Table 12 !
shows more frequent statement of Own Problems by the con- |
i trol group and an equal chi square value of 2.25 for the
; greater occurrence of Other Problem statement by the experi
mental group in the first session.
Subhvpothesis b. The experimental group will not
! _ i
be significantly more self-descriptive at the third sessionj
j
than the control group.
The null hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level.
Chi square values of .25 for Own Problem statement and .0
for Other Problem statement shown in Table 13 indicate that
the two groups are more alike in reference to self-
descriptive behavior in counseling. Fewer of the experi
mental group and more of the control group were focusing
upon Other Problems in the third counseling session.
Subhvpothesis o. The experimental group will not
become significantly more self-descriptive from the first
to the third session than the control group.
The null hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level
with the chi square value of .25 shown for the difference i
in Own Problem statements occurring from Session 1 to ;
Session 3. Table 13 shows median change for Own Problems
I " .................................... . _ 77 ,
I
to be .13 while Other Problem statements decreased slightlyj
I
as evidenced by a median proportion of -*03. Total group
i
trends to increase Own Problem statements and decrease j
t
Other Problem statements is accountable to the dispropor-
! tionate increase in Own Problem statements by the experi- j
i . i
| mental group as shown in Table 12.
i ;
■ Testing Hypothesis 1
The expectation that the experimental group will
; j
be more self-descriptive is not proved statistically. The |
control group was more Own Problem oriented at the first
session with weak statistical support (the .10 level of
confidence was approached)-.
Hypothesis 2
The experimental group will be more insightful than!
the control group.
This hypothesis was tested by comparing occurrence
of Insight statements among the experimental and control
groups in the first and third sessions. Insight as an
expected outcome in counseling is a common expectation
and an important test of the contribution of the self
confrontation technique.
Proportion of Insight statements to total state
ments was computed for each subject in each sample as shown]
!
in Table 10. Values of changes in proportions from
Sample 1 to Sample 2 are shown in Table 11. Greater
. 78
frequency of Insight statements occurred in the first than 1
in the second sample for combined groups as shown by
medians of ,29 and ,20 respectively.
t !
j j
| S u b h v p o th esis a . The e x p e rim e n ta l gro u p w i l l n o t !
i be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l a t th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n ;
i ;
! ;
i the control group.
j
| The null hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level.
■ A chi square value for distribution of Insight statements
is 0. (Table 15.) Inspection of Table 1 * + shows equal
: occurrence of cell occupancy by experimental and control
; subjects.
S u b h v p o th esis b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n
th e c o n t r o l g ro u p .
A chi square value of .25 (Table 15) was obtained
for the distribution of subjects with above median fre
quency of Insight statements. Therefore, the null hypothe
sis is accepted at the .05 level of confidence. Inspection
of Table 1 *+ reveals an increase in experimental and
decrease in control membership above the median proportion.;
The combined group median of .20 indicates decline in
Insight statements for both groups.
S u b h v p o th esis c . The e x p e rim e n ta l gro u p w i l l n o t
; become s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n s i g h t f u l from th e f i r s t to th e |
TABLE lM -
DISTRIBUTION OF SENTENCES
INSIGHT STATEMENTS
Sample 1
E C
Sample 2
E C
Changes 1 to
E C
b b
.
5 3
+ b b
b b
-
3 5
»
b
TABLE 15
CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR INSIGHT STATEMENTS
Sample 1 Sample 2 Change; 1 to 2
Md. X2
Md. X2 Md. X2
.29 0
o
CM
*
.25 -.08*4- 0
.0 5 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e .
81
third session than the control group.
The null hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level.
A chi square value of 0 was obtained by the equal distribu
tion of subjects in the four-fold table as shown in Table
I1 *. A median change from first to second sample of -.08**-
j indicates that both experimental and control group frequen
cies of Insight statements declined, though the proportion
ate decline was less for the experimental group.
Testing Hypothesis 2
The expectation that the experimental group would
be more insightful than the control group is not statis-
;tically supported. Both groups declined in Insight state- ,
: ments and were nearly equal on each comparison of samples*
Hypothesis 3
The experimental group will be more accepting of
own behavior than the control group.
This hypothesis was tested by comparison of propor
tions of positive, negative, and ambivalent expressions
toward self. Tables 16 and 17 show distributions of atti- :
tudes toward Self, Others, and Counselor. Table 18 shows
changes, in proportion of attitudes from Sample 1 to Sample j
2. !
Attitude toward self is an important measure of
outcomes in counseling and was expected to gauge one effect]
T A B L E 1 6
DISTRIBUTION OF STATEM ENT UNITS
PROPORTION BY TYPE OF TOTAL TO W A R D PERSON
SAMPLE 1
Counselee
j
3 e 1 f Other C ou n s e 1 o r
P N Av P N Ay P N Av
Ei 1.00 0 0
M
.56 0 .80 .20 0
Ei
0 0 0 0
.9°
.10 .67 0
.33
E |
.57 A3
0 .22 .66 .12 1.00 0 0
ES
0 0 1.00 .71 .29
0 1.00 0 0
E5
e6
.52 .38 .10 .36
A3
.21 1.00 0 0
1.00 0 0 .*fO .60 0 0 0 0
e7
.89
0 .11 .63
.12 .25
.50 0 .50
E§ 1.00 0 0
.31 .31
.38 0 0 0
°1
.92 0 .08 .70 .10 .20 0 0 0
C2
.50 0 .50 .86 .l k 0 .75 .25 0
°3
.10 .70 .20 0 1.00 0 .80 0 .20
°k
.93
0 .07 .08 .68 . 2*f 1.00 0 0
°5
c6
.80 0 .20
.59
.32 .09
1.00 0 0
.83
0 .17 .72 •lk . l ^f 0 .25 .75
°7
0 1.00 0
A3
.l k
A3
.50
.25 .25
c8
.91
0
.09
.22 A5 .33
1.00 0 0
Mean .62 .10 .09 Al
. * * ■ 3
.15 .62 .06 .12
oo
}
T A B L E 1 7
DISTRIBUTION OP STATEMENT UNITS
PROPORTION BY TYPE OP TOTAL TO W A R D PERSON
SAMPLE 2
Counselee
'
S e l f 0 t h e r C o u n s e 1 o r
P N Av P N Av p N Av
E i .76 0 .2** 1 .0 0 0 0 .6 7
0
.3 3
e2 .50 .2 5 .2 5 . A 0 A6 0 0 0
e 3
.60 0 •ko A l .53
.06 0 0 0
.83
0 .1 7 .2 5 .7 5
0 0 .6 7 .33
e 5
e 6
.6k .Ok .3 2 .6 5 .30 .0 5
0 0 0
1 .0 0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e 7
e 8
0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.83
.1 7 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0
°1
1 .0 0 0 0
.91
0
.09
1 .0 0 0 0
c 2
.6 7 0
.33
.88 .12 0 .50 .50 0
C3
1 .0 0 0 0
.Sk
0 .06 1 .0 0 0 0
' Cj? .78 .11 .11 .83
0 .1 7 .50 0 .50
c 5
.6 7 .33
0 .7 3
• i 3
.13
1 .0 0 0 0
c6
Al .3 7 .22 0 .5o .50 0 1 .0 0 0
c 7
0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 .50 .50
c8
1 .0 0 0 0 .7 5 .08 .1 7 0 0 0
Mean .66 •lk .1 2 • Ik .l k .10 .2 9
.1*6 .10
oc
< J U
*
T A B L E 1 8
DISTRIBUTION OR STATEM ENT UNITS
PROPORTION BY TYPE O R TOTAL TO W A R D PERSON
CH A N G ES SAMPLE 1 TO SAMPLE 2
C ounselee
S e l f
0 t h e 3
1
C o u n s e l o r
P N Av P N Av P N Av
Et - ,2 k .2*f .56 - .5 6
—
- .1 3
- .2 0
.33
e | • 50 .2 5 .2 5
.5M - - .9 0 .36 - .6 7
----
- .3 3
Eo
.03 - > 3
.ko
.1 9 - .1 3
- .0 6 -1 .0 0 0 0
i
.83 - .8 3 - M
M
-1 .0 0 .6 7 .33
,08 - .3 ^
.22 .29
- .1 6 -1 .0 0
mm
0
_ _ —
.60 - .6 0
— —
E7
- .8 9
—
- .1 1 .3 7
- .1 2 - .2 5 - .50
— * - .5 0
Eft
- .1 7
.1 7
—
.6 9 - .3 1
- .3 8
—
WH*
C1
.08
- .0 8 .21 - .1 0 - .1 1
1 .0 0
— —
mmmm
c l .1 7
—
- .1 7
.0 2 - .0 2 - .2 5 .2 5
mm
c 3
.90
- .70 - .2 0 .9 ^
-1 .0 0 .06 .20 - .2 0
- .1 5
.11
.Ok
.7 5
- .68 - .0 7
- ,5 0 .50
c 5
" 6 7
- .1 3 .33
-.2 0 . l k - .19 .Ok
0
mm mm
- .k 2 .3 7
.0 5 - .7 2 .36 .3 6 .
- - - - -
.7 5 - .7 5
0 .5 7
- ,1k - M - .50 .2 5 .2 5
.09
- .0 9 .53
- .3 7
- .1 6 -1 .0 0
mm n
Mean .Ck - .0 1
i
.
o
.32
00
C \ 1
.
1
i
.
o
- .3 3 .11
CM
0
•
1
0 9
-r
| of self-under standing. Inspection of Tables 16, 17 and 18
S ■ ■ I
i reveals no expression of attitude by many subjects,
| ■ .
Presence of attitude as such was arbitrarily accepted by
I
i
the judges when expressed rather than inferred. There- j
j fore, for purposes of this study, positive attitude toward ;
| self was measured by presence of expressed positive state
ments and absence of expressed negative and/or ambivalent
statements.
Where less than 50 per cent of the population
expressed attitudes in both samples, distributions were
not shown nor were chi squares computed,
Frequencies above and below the mean are shown in
the four-fold tables. The mean was used rather than the
median to avoid zero scores as division points in the dis- ;
tribution.
' *
Subhvpothesis a. The experimental group will not
be significantly more accepting of own behavior at the
first session than the control group.
The null hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level
of confidence. Distributions shown in Tables 19 and 20
show above mean occurrence of control subjects in both
tables for Sample 1. This occurs because fewer experimen
tal subjects expressed attitudes toward self as revealed
by Tables 16 and 17. Negative statements occurred insuffi-!
ciently to compute chi square.
TABLE 19
DISTRIBUTION OP STATEMENTS
EXPRESSING PEELINGS TO W A R D SELF
S ta te m e n ts
P o s itiv e
A m bivalent
Sample 1
E C
Sample 2 Change: 1 to
EC EC
I f 6 +
3
I f 2
cm
5
k
5 2 + 6
3
3
6
mm
2
5
TABLE 20
CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR EXPRESSING
PEELINGS TO W A R D SELP
S ta te m e n ts
Sample 1 Sample 2 Changes 1 to 2
- M X2 M X2 M X2
P o s itiv e .6 2 0 .6 6 .266 .0*f 0
A m bivalent
.0 9
.2 5 .1 2 1 .0 1 - .0 3 1 .0 1
*
.0 5 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e .
S u b h v p o th esis b . The e x p e rim e n ta l gro u p w i l l n o t
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r a t th e
| t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
i
!
T able 20 shows c h i sq u a re v a lu e s o f .266 and 1 .0 1
j r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r P o s itiv e and A m bivalent s ta te m e n ts . The
I
! n u l l h y p o th e s is i s a c c e p te d a t th e ,0 5 l e v e l . I n s p e c tio n
i
; o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Sample 2 shows th e c o n tr o l group
j to be in c r e a s in g P o s i t i v e and d e c re a s in g A m bivalent s t a t e -
| m e n ts. S u b je c ts n o t e x p re s s in g a m b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s o c c u r
i
i more f r e q u e n tly in th e c o n tr o l group a s shown i n T a b le s 16
i and 17 w ith e x a c tly 50 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l group e x p re s
s in g f e e l i n g . Some w e ig h t can be g iv e n to th e tr e n d o f
: in c r e a s in g P o s itiv e s ta te m e n ts and d e c re a s in g A m bivalent
s ta te m e n ts among th e c o n tr o l group b ased upon th e l o g i c a l
in v e rs e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f th e s e two a t t i t u d e s .
i 1
N eg ativ e a t t i t u d e s o c c u rre d i n s u f f i c i e n t l y to com- I
p u te c h i s q u a re .
S u b h v p o th esis c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
become s u f f i c i e n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f own b e h a v io r from
th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The n u l l h y p o th e s is i s a c c e p te d a t th e .0 5 l e v e l .
Mean change o f .0 1 * i n P o s itiv e s ta te m e n ts and - .0 3 f o r
A m bivalent s ta te m e n ts o f a t t i t u d e o c c u rre d . The c h i sq u a re
: i
: v a lu e s o f 1 .0 1 in d i s t r i b u t i o n o f A m bivalent a t t i t u d e s f o r I
I Sample 2 and f o r Changes 1 to 2 S ap p ro ach th e .30 l e v e l j
| 89
o f c o n fid e n c e and s u g g e s t a tr e n d to w ard am b iv alen ce f o r
th e e x p e rim e n ta l group and away from am b iv alen ce f o r th e
c o n tr o l g ro u p .
T e s tin g H y p o th e sis 3
I t was e x p e c te d t h a t th e e x p e rim e n ta l group w ould
| in c r e a s e p o s itiv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard s e l f . A ll th r e e n u l l
|
su b h y p o th e ses were a c c e p te d a t th e .0 5 l e v e l . I n s p e c tio n
o f th e t a b l e s r e v e a ls an o p p o s ite t r e n d . The c o n tr o l
r a t h e r th a n th e e x p e rim e n ta l group became more p o s it i v e and
l e s s a m b iv a le n t tow ard s e l f .
i
i
H y p o th e sis
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l be more a c c e p tin g o f
o th e r s b e h a v io r th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
T h is h y p o th e s is was t e s t e d by co m p ariso n s o f
e x p re s s e d a t t i t u d e s tow ard o th e r s in th e same m anner a s
H y p o th e sis 3« i t was f e l t t h a t e x p re s s io n s o f p o s it iv e
a t t i t u d e s tow ard o th e r s would i n c r e a s e , w h ile n e g a tiv e and
a m b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s w ere ex p e c te d to be re d u c e d . S u f f i
c i e n t e x p re s s io n s o c c u rre d in com bined sam ples to p e rm it
a n a l y s i s o f a l l th r e e m easured a t t i t u d e s .
S u b h v p o th e sis a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e r s b e h a v io r a t th e
f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The n u l l h y p o th e s is i s a c c e p te d a t th e .0 5 l e v e l
o f c o n fid e n c e . Only s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n d is t in g u is h e s th e
j g ro u p s . In s p e c tio n o f T ahle 22 shows means o f .**1 and .**3
f o r P o s i t i v e and N eg a tiv e e x p re s s io n s r e s p e c t i v e ly , i n d i
c a tin g m a jo rity o f f e e l i n g e x p re s s io n s f e l l in th e s e two
c a t e g o r i e s .
S u b h v p o th esis b - The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
:be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e r s b e h a v io r a t th e
t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The mean o f .7*f (T ab le 21) f o r com bined g ro u p s ,
P o s itiv e s ta te m e n ts , r e f l e c t s an in c r e a s e o v e r S aitple 1 .
i
The tr e n d f o r th e c o n t r o l group was tow ard more p o s i t iv e
and l e s s n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard o t h e r s .
The e x p e rim e n ta l group t h i r d s e s s io n tr e n d s w ere
away from n e g a tiv e and a m b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s tow ard o t h e r s . ;
S u b h v p o th e sis c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
become s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a c c e p tin g o f o th e r s b e h a v io r from;
th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The c h i sq u a re v a lu e s f o r th e th r e e c r i t e r i o n
m easu res e q u a l z e ro ; t h e r e f o r e , th e n u l l h y p o th e s is i s
; a c c e p te d . T ab le s 21 and 22 show b o th g ro u p s te n d to
; in c re a s e p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard o th e r s and d e c re a s e
I n e g a tiv e and a m b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s a s ev id en ced by th e means
o f - .2 8 and - .0 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , and by th e mean change o f
.3 2 f o r p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s .
TABLE 21
DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENTS EXPRESSING
FEELINGS TOWARD OTHERS
Statements
Positive
Sample 1
E C
Sample 2
E ^ C
Change: 1 to
E C
Negative
Ambivalent
92]
i
i
TABLE 22
CHI SQUARE VALUES POE EXPRESSING
PEELINGS TOWARD OTHERS
S ta te m e n ts
Sample 1 Sample 2 Change:
i
1 to 2
M X2
M X2 H X2
P o s itiv e A l .2 5 . A .266 .3 2 0
N eg ativ e
A 3
.2 5 . A .333
- .2 8 o
A m bivalent .1 5
0 .12 1 .0 6 - .0 5 0
*
;0 5 l e v e l o f c o n fid e n c e .
..................................................... " " 9 3
Testing Hypothesis
It was expected that the experimental group would
become more accepting of others. Criterion measures of
i
p o s i t i v e , n e g a tiv e , and am b iv a le n t a t t i t u d e s e x p re s s e d were
d i s t r i b u t e d c o m p a ra tiv e ly f o r th e two g ro u p s . Each o f th e j
n u l l su b h y p o th e se s was a c c e p te d a t th e .0 5 le v e l o f c o n f i
d e n c e , in d i c a t i n g no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e
i !
I g ro u p s,
! !
| Analysis of Tables 21 and 22 indicated increasing
S . i
; a c c e p ta n c e o f o th e r s by b o th g ro u p s and d e c re a s in g n e g a tiv e
' a t t i t u d e s . The tr e n d f o r th e c o n tr o l group o c c u rre d I n th e
j ;
f i r s t sam ple and c o n tin u e d in th e se c o n d . The e x p e rim e n ta l
I group te n d e d to in c r e a s e p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s somewhat more
th a n d id th e c o n tr o l g roup and r e f l e c t e d th e s e ch an g es more
in d e c re a s e d a m b iv a le n t f e e l i n g s .
i
I H y p o th e sis 5
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l a t f i r s t show more b u t
l a t e r l e s s r e s is ta n c e to th e c o u n s e lo r th a n w ill th e con
t r o l g ro u p .
Criterion measures for this hypothesis were the
attitudes expressed toward the counselor and were applied
f y i
in th e same m anner a s i n H ypotheses 3 and. 4 . E x p re ssio n s
i o f P o s i t i v e , N e g a tiv e , and A m bivalent s ta te m e n ts to w ard
th e c o u n s e lo r w ere com pared f o r th e two s e s s io n s . i
I t was e x p e c te d t h a t th e s e l f - c o n f r o n ta ti o n te c h r
n iq u e w ould in c re a s e n e g a tiv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e co u n se
l o r . How ever, e x p l i c i t s ta te m e n ts o f f e e l in g s to w ard th e
c o u n s e lo r o c c u rre d i n f r e q u e n tl y . I t was n o t p o s s ib le to
a p p ly th e r u le o f 50 p e r c e n t o f re s p o n d in g s u b je c ts in
b o th s e s s io n s to S u b h y p o th eses b and c w hich w ere co n cern ed
! ■
|w ith e v id e n c e o f n e g a tiv e and a m b iv a le n t f e e l i n g s . T h ere
f o r e , o n ly p re se n c e o r ab sen ce o f p o s i t i v e e x p re s s io n s
i
I to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r c o u ld be c o n s id e re d f o r s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a l y s i s .
S u b h v p o th esis a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
| show more p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e c o u n s e lo r in th e
f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
T ab le s 23 and 2b r e v e a l com parable d i s t r i b u t i o n s
o f p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r in th e f i r s t
s e s s io n . Chi sq u a re v a lu e i s z e ro ; th e r e f o r e th e n u l l
h y p o th e s is i s a c c e p te d .
S u b h v p o th esis b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
show more p o s it iv e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e c o u n s e lo r i n th e
t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
T ab les 23 and 2b show d e c re a s in g com bined g roup
mean b e h a v io r w ith th e g r e a t e s t r e d u c tio n o c c u rrin g in th e
e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p . The c h i sq u a re v a lu e o f 2.*f f o r
S e s s io n 2 i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t b e t t e r th a n th e .20 b u t l e s s
TABLE 23
DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENTS EXPRESSING
PEELINGS T O W A R D COUNSELOR
S ta te m e n ts Sample 1
Sample 2 Change: 1 to 2
P o s itiv e
TABLE 2*f
CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR EXPRESSING
FEELINGS TO W A R D COUNSELOR
S tate m e n t Sample 1 Sample 2 Change: 1 to 2 1
M X2 M X2 M X2 !
P o s itiv e .62 0
.29
2.M -
- .3 3 .2 5
#
.0 5 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e .
97
th a n th e ,1 0 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e . The .0 5 l e v e l o f c o n f i
dence was n o t a t t a i n e d ; th e r e f o r e th e n u l l h y p o th e s is i s
a c c e p te d .
I n s p e c tio n o f T a b le s 16 and 17 show o n ly one p o s i-
| t i v e e x p r e s s io n to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r among th e e x p e rim e n ta l
!
jg ro u p . T here was i n s u f f i c i e n t re sp o n se to u se s t a t i s t i c a l
|
I a n a ly s is w ith c o n fid e n c e . I t i s e v id e n t t h a t th e e x p e r i -
i
!m e n ta l g roup e x p re s s e d c o n s id e ra b ly few er p o s it iv e a t t i -
i
i tu d e s to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r th a n d id th e c o n tr o l g ro u p in
th e t h i r d s e s s io n .
%
S u b h v p o th esis c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
become s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p o s itiv e to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r
from th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The n u l l h y p o th e s is i s a c c e p te d a t th e .0 5 l e v e l
o f c o n fid e n c e . Chi s q u a re f o r change i n p o s i t iv e a t t i t u d e s
to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r was .2 5 a s shown i n T able 2*f. The
mean d e c re a s e i n p r o p o rtio n s was - . 3 3 , in d ic a t in g fe w e r
p o s it i v e e x p re s s io n s to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r o v e r a l l . T h is
d e c re a s e i s a t t r i b u t e d to th e e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p . In s p e c
t i o n o f T ab le s 1 6 , 1 7 , 1 8 , and 23 show d e c re a s e in p o s i t i v e
a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e c o u n s e lo r to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f b o th
i g ro u p s .
i
T e s tin g h y p o th e s is 5
I t was f e l t t h a t s u b je c ts e x p e rie n c in g s e l f -
i
jc o n fr o n ta tio n te c h n iq u e s would a t f i r s t show r e s i s t a n c e
i 98
i
to w ard th e c o u n s e lo r h u t l a t e r e x p re s s l e s s r e s i s t a n c e a s |
m easured by P o s i t i v e , N e g a tiv e , and A m bivalent s ta te m e n ts .
t i
Chi sq u a re v a lu e s f o r th e f i r s t s e s s io n and f o r
change from f i r s t to t h i r d s e s s io n s w ere n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . I
| The c h i sq u a re v a lu e o f 2 .k f o r th e t h i r d s e s s io n in d ic a te d !
I some s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e betw een th e g ro u p s . Absence
j :
! o f p o s i t iv e e x p re s s io n was ta k e n a s r e s i s t a n c e tow ard th e
c o u n s e lo r . I n s p e c tio n o f T ab le s 1 6 , 1 7 , and 18 showed
l i t t l e e x p re s s io n o f f e e l i n g tow ard th e c o u n s e lo r a n d ,
t h e r e f o r e , o n ly te n u o u s c o n c lu s io n s can be draw n. The
m a jo r h y p o th e s is s ta n d s r e j e c t e d .
H y p o th e sis 6
The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l ta k e more r e s p o n s i b i l
i t y f o r e x p lo rin g pro b lem s th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
T h is c r i t e r i o n m easure was in tro d u c e d to e s tim a te
th e co m p arativ e e f f e c t s o f s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n te c h n iq u e
upon c l i e n t u se o f th e c o u n s e lin g s i t u a t i o n f o r h i s own
g ro w th .
The R e s p o n s ib ility -T a k in g s c a le a p p lie d by Judge C
who a g re e d m ost f r e q u e n tly w ith Ju d g e s A and B was u s e d .
The r a t i n g s were d i s t r i b u t e d a lo n g a n in e - p o in t s c a l e .
Mean r a t i n g s were g ro u p ed and s t a t i s t i c s com puted f o r each j
! sam ple and f o r e a ch o f th e e x p e rim e n ta l and c o n tr o l g ro u p s ;
in S u b h y p o th eses a and b . I n d iv id u a l mean changes w ere
1
! com puted f o r S u b h y p o th esis c . These f in d in g s a re re p o rte d ]
! 99
I
i n T ab le 21 *.
i
Mean s c o re s w ere com pared w ith th e t r a t i o on th r e e I
i
n u l l su b b y p o th e se s . A t r a t i o o f 1 .9 6 ( .0 5 le v e l o f c o n f i- j
i
!
d en ce) was a c c e p te d a s show ing s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . I
■
i ■
i
S u b h v p o th esis a . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
j ’ !
jb e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e s p o n s ib le f o r e x p lo rin g pro b lem s a t;
i ■ !
th e f i r s t s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The n u l l h y p o th e s is i s r e j e c t e d a t th e .0 5 l e v e l .
' j ' '
The mean R e s p o n s ib ility -T a k in g s c o re o f 5,5*+ f o r th e e x p e ri-
!m e n tal group i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s th a n th e mean o f 6 .9
|
f o r th e c o n tr o l group a s shown in T ab le 20. I n s p e c tio n o f
iT ab le 26 shows a t r a t i o o f 2 .2 0 3 .
S u b h v p o th e sis b . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e s p o n s ib le f o r e x p lo rin g p ro b lem s a t|
! th e t h i r d s e s s io n th a n th e c o n tr o l g ro u p .
I n s p e c tio n o f T able 25 shows means o f 6 .0 5 and
6.M-2 f o r th e e x p e rim e n ta l and c o n tr o l g ro u p s r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T h is d if f e r e n c e a t t a i n s a t r a t i o v a lu e o f 1 .0 0 (T a b le 2 6 ).
I The mean R e s p o n s ib ility -T a k in g sc o re o f th e c o n tr o l group
i s h i g h e r , b u t th e d if f e r e n c e i s n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i - s
c a n t a t th e .0 5 l e v e l . T h e re fo re th e n u l l h y p o th e s is i s ;
,a c c e p te d .
i j
S u b h v p o th e sis c . The e x p e rim e n ta l group w i l l n o t
I become s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e s p o n s ib le f o r e x p lo rin g
T A B L E 2 5
RESPONSIBILITY-TAKING BEHAVIOR
M EA N RATINGS
GROUP INDIVIDUAL
Sample 1 Sample 2 Changes 1 to 2
E C E C E
Mean
S ta n d a rd
D e v ia tio n
S ta n d a rd
E r r o r
5.9*
.709
.267
6 .1 9
M 5
.126
6 .0 5
.558
.211
6 .^ 2
.806
,30*t
.52
.728
• 27*f
.23
1 .0 7 2 ;
.WM- :
TABLE 26
t-RATIOS FOR RESPONSIBILITY-TAKING BEHAVIOR
E -^ t o E2 to Cg
El - 2 t0 cl - 2
t- R a t i o 2 .2 0 3 *
1 .0 0
.59**
*
.05 level of confidence.
problems from the first to the third session than the con- '
! trol group.
| i
The mean Responsibility-Taking score increased for I
i individuals in both groups from first to third sessions.
I The increase for the experimental group of .5 2 was greater '
| :
! th a n th e in c re a s e o f .23 f o r th e c o n t r o l g ro u p . T ab le 2*f
I shows a t r a t i o v a lu e o f • 5 9 * + in d i c a t i n g t h i s d if f e r e n c e
| to be n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 5 l e v e l . The n u l l h y p o th e
s i s i s th e r e f o r e a c c e p te d .
J T e s tin g H y p o th e sis 6
It was felt that Responsibility-Taking would be
significantly greater for the experimental group than the
control group. The t ratios for differences in group means
show the control group to be more responsible in both sam-
! pies.
In s p e c tio n o f T able 23 r e v e a ls t h a t th e ex p erim en
t a l g ro u p , w h ile s c o rin g lo w er in th e f i r s t sam p le,
in c re a s e d mean R e s p o n s ib ility - T a k in g s c o re s more th a n d id
th e c o n t r o l g ro u p . However, t h i s co m p arativ e in c r e a s e was
n o t fou n d to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 5 le v e l
o f c o n fid e n c e .
Summary
T h is c h a p te r h a s in v e s tig a te d th e e f f e c t s o f a
s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n te c h n iq u e upon th e c o u n s e lin g p ro c e s s
of sixteen high school subjects. The hypotheses considered!
j client processes of problem statement, insight development,:
i I
! and responsibility-taking. Client attitudes toward self, j
| !
i others, and the counselor were also investigated.
! The findings were not substantial enough to reach
; i
s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n if ic a n c e a t th e .0 5 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e .
However, a n a ly s is o f tr e n d s re v e a le d su p p o rt f o r some o f
th e h y p o th e s e s .
D isc u ssio n o f th e f in d in g s w i l l be found in th e
n e x t c h a p te r .
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OP THE FINDINGS, DISCUSSION,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This study considered the counseling problem of
helping the client express his own behavior and feelings
without the obstructing effects of defensiveness. Con
sideration was given to the use of recorded role-play by
the client as a technique for introducing his behavior into;
the counseling situation. Investigations of the spontane
ous positive effects upon subjects when viewing or hearing
their own behavior suggested possible contributions to the ;
field of counseling.
Two groups of high school students were provided
three counseling sessions. Prior to the first session
each subject responded to twenty-one taped statements by
parent figures. They were prompted to respond in their
typical fashion. These interactions were tape recorded
and contained both the statement of the parent figure and
the response of the subject. Each subject selected the
three taped interactions which most interested him. Only
105
j
the experimental group heard replays of their own respon- !
ses.
Each of three counseling sessions began with a
replay of the statement or interaction of interest to the
| subject and the suggestion to further describe and explain
i the situation and behaviors. The control subjects were
| not confronted with their responses to the adult speaker;
‘ the experimental group was. The remainder of the counsel-
; ing sessions were conducted normally.
Typescripts of samples from all sessions were pre
pared from tapes. Three judges analyzed the client talk
i
and designated the sentence and statement units according
: to interview analysis criteria. These data were treated
to statistical analysis and related to client content and
feeling criterion measures of counseling processes which
i
had been used in previous research.
Summary of the Findings
The first hypothesis held that the experimental
group members would focus more on their own problems as a
consequence of the self-confrontation technique. The com- '
;parisons of the two groups at the first and third sessions
: showed no significant differences at the .05 level of con-
: fidence. A strong indication of the reverse was found in
the first session with the control group members focusing
more on their own problems. The difference was significant
betw een th e .2 0 and .10 l e v e l s o f c o n fid e n c e . The d i f f e r
en ces betw een th e groups a t th e t h i r d s e s s io n d e c lin e d .
B oth g ro u p s came to fo c u s more on. t h e i r own problem s and j
l e s s on o th e rs* p ro b lem s, b u t th e d if f e r e n c e s w ere n o t s i g
n i f i c a n t a t th e .0 5 l e v e l . The e x p e c ta tio n t h a t s e l f -
]
c o n f r o n ta tio n would s tim u la te s u b je c ts to d e a l w ith t h e i r
own pro b lem s was r e j e c t e d .
The second h y p o th e s is h e ld t h a t th e e x p e rim e n ta l
group members w ould become more i n s i g h t f u l r e g a r d in g t h e i r !
b e h a v io r. The c h i sq u a re t e s t was a p p lie d a s i n th e f i r s t
h y p o th e s is . The two g ro u p s were n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n
e i t h e r th e f i r s t o r t h i r d s e s s io n s . There w as an a c tu a l
d e c lin e f o r b o th g ro u p s fro m th e f i r s t to th e t h i r d
s e s s io n s . These f in d in g s th e r e f o r e n e g a te d th e second
h y p o th e s is .
The t h i r d h y p o th e s is h e ld th e e x p e c ta tio n t h a t th e ;
e x p e rim e n ta l group would become more s e l f - a c c e p tin g . Chi
sq u a re t e s t s f a i l e d to y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s a t
th e .0 5 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e . H ow ever, some tr e n d s w ith
sm a ll s ig n if ic a n c e d id o c c u r w hich s u g g e s t t h a t th e e x p e ri-:
m e n tal group was fa c in g i t s e l f more o p en ly th a n was th e
c o n tr o l g ro u p .
The f o u r th h y p o th e s is t e s t e d th e p o s i t i o n t h a t
s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n would c o n tr ib u te to in c re a s e d a c c e p ta n c e
i
o f o t h e r s . None o f th e c h i sq u a re s ap p ro ach ed th e .0 5 i
107
level of confidence. Changes in attitudes toward others j
were noted to have several interesting directions. Both
groups increased positive attitudes toward others and i
I |
decreased negative attitudes. The experimental group j
! decreased ambivalent attitudes over the control group with
i ' ' ■
\ some statistical support, while its members maintained
i , ;
positive attitudes toward others.
; The fifth hypothesis proposed that the self
confrontation experienced by the experimental group would
result in more resistance to the counselor than would be
expressed by the control group. The hypothesis did not
stand the chi square test of significance at the .05 level.
Absence of resistance was measured by expression of posi
tive feelings which declined for both groups, but which
declined measurably for the experimental group. Frequency
of expressed attitudes of all three types (positive, nega- ;
tive, ambivalent) occurred so little that computation of
statistics was hampered.
The sixth hypothesis held that the experimental
group would take more responsibility for direction of the
counseling. One subhypothesis found significant differ
ences in responsibility-taking in the first session. The
control group showed more responsibility at the first
session. By the third session, however, the experimental
| group was taking more responsibility. Its increase from
108]
' ' I
f i r s t to t h i r d s e s s io n was more m arked th a n t h a t o f th e |
c o n tr o l g roup h u t i t d id n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
i
| The e x p e c ta tio n s h e ld f o r e f f e c t s o f s e l f - j
c o n f r o n ta tio n upon c l i e n t p ro c e s s e s w ere n o t d e m o n stra te d I
i
I
in s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s o f th e h y p o th e s e s . One su b h y p o th e s is !
! '
I re a c h e d th e .0 5 le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e . I t showed th e c o n t r o l
f ;
| g roup r a t h e r th a n th e e x p e rim e n ta l group to be ta k in g more
! r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in th e f i r s t s e s s io n . The re m a in d e r o f th e
; s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s d id n o t re a c h s u f f i c i e n t s ig n if ic a n c e
to d e m o n stra te outcom es in fa v o r o f o r opposed t o th e major^
i
h y p o th e s e s .
D is c u s s io n o f th e F in d in g s
The e f f e c t s o f t h i s te c h n iq u e o f s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n
upon c o u n s e lin g p ro c e s s e s have been a n a ly z e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y
> in C h a p te r 17 and sum m arized in th e p re c e d in g s e c tio n o f
i t h i s c h a p te r . An e x a m in a tio n o f th e e f f e c t s o f t h i s
ex p e rim e n t w ith o u t s tr o n g s t a t i s t i c a l p ro o f y i e l d s s e v e r a l
im p lic a tio n s when i t i s fo cu se d on th e re s p o n s e s o f th e
e x p e rim e n ta l group to s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n .
The e x p e rim e n ta l group m em bers, when c o n fro n te d
by t h e i r own b e h a v io r, a t f i r s t fo c u se d more on th e problem
; I
ib e h a v io r o f o th e r s . L a t e r , in th e t h i r d c o u n s e lin g session^
i th e y fo c u se d more on t h e i r own problem s th a n d id th e co n -
■ t r o l g roup members.
T h is would s u g g e s t th e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t c o n fro n tin g ]
1091
i
their own behavior did threaten the experimental subjects, j
However, it is interesting that, while both groups con-
! :
tinued to deal with their own problems, the experimental j
group members were confronting their own behavior and j
| learning to focus on their own problems more than were the |
control group members,
i ;
j A corollated finding was discovered with regard to
i self-acceptance. In the face of self-confrontation, the
; experimental subjects maintained positive self-regard, but |
became increasingly ambivalent toward themselves. Con
versely, the control group subjects maintained positive
self-regard and became less ambivalent toward themselves.
Since it was found that insight declined in expres
sion, consideration should be given to the possibility that
the experimental group members began to uncover some real
concerns about themselves about which they were gaining
little understanding. The control group members, on the
contrary, could be considered to have uncovered fewer con
cerns about themselves, evidenced by fewer own problem
statements and fewer expressions of ambivalent feelings
toward self. ,
The self-confrontation technique possibly had an
I effect upon attitudes toward others. Both groups became
j i
i increasingly positive toward others. However, while the
! i
I control group subjects became less negative they maintained]
110
feelings of ambivalence toward others. Following the |
i
initial self-confrontation, the experimental group was
i
found to be more negative toward others than was the con- j
trol group. By the third counseling session the experimen-
| tal subjects had become less negative and a great deal less
i |
i ambivalent toward others.
i j
| It is likely that the experimental subjects, facing
! their own problems and becoming increasingly ambivalent
: toward themselves, began to lose some of their strong feel-*
; ings toward others, though they still were without insight j
into themselves. They could be described as beginning to
face themselves more openly and to accept some things
regarding themselves and others.
While the control group was significantly more
responsible at the first session than the experimental
group, this was not true at the third session. Both
groups increased responsibility-taking behaviors, but
greater gains were made by the experimental group.
" This finding may also be related to the decreased
expressions of positive attitudes toward the counselor.
All expressed attitudes toward the counselor decreased to
the point where neither negative nor ambivalent expressions]
could be tested statistically. It would seem that the
effect of self-confrontation on the experimental subjects
i
;was to give more self-direction to their own growth with
Ill
I
less dependence upon the counselor. It also could be
i
argued that the counselor was being rejected because self- ,
insight was not yet occurring. |
In summary, the responses of the experimental groupj
j !
j members to the experience of self-confrontation suggest
| that facing their own behavior in the counseling setting
I
i
| did result in uncovering self concerns and motivations to
! understand themselves. These observations are not sup-
| ported by the statistical results of this study.
Conclusions
Conclusions based on statistically significant
findings of the effects of the self-confrontation tech
nique on counseling processes relate to one concern of this
study. It was demonstrated that self-confrontation
resulted in less responsibility shown by the client for
the process of counseling at first. However, self
confrontation did not prevent the clients taking respon
sibility later in the third session as well as did the
control group. This effect would seem to minimize client
growth. However, this has not been demonstrated in the
findings of this study. Sufficient strength in some of
the hypotheses was indicated but not supported by statis
tical values of confidence to hold that self-confrontation j
techniques have value beyond that which has been demon- i
i
strated here.
112
Re c ommendat Io n a
1 . F u rth e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n a s
a c o u n s e lin g te c h n iq u e sh o u ld he c o n d u c te d , b ased on th e j
r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y . |
2 . U s e fu ln e s s o f t h i s te c h n iq u e in h ig h sc h o o l
c o u n s e lin g where m ost c o u n s e le e s a re n o t s e l f - r e f e r r e d !
sh o u ld be c o n s id e re d .
3 « I f t h i s s tu d y sh o u ld be r e p l i c a t e d w ith a much ,
l a r g e r p o p u la tio n and th e number o f c o u n s e lin g s e s s io n s ;
w ere in c r e a s e d , i t i s p o s s ib le t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s
betw een th e e x p e rim e n ta l and c o n tr o l g ro u p s would be found.:
V
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 . A c tio n , A, W. "The F u n c tio n a l Autonomy o f P sycho
th e r a p y ," A m erican P s y c h o lo g is t. XVI (1 9 6 1 ),
7 5 -7 8 . |
2 . A le x a n d e r, F . F undam entals o f P s y c h o a n a ly s is . i
London: A lle n and tTnwin L t d ., 19*+£.
!
3 . A n d erso n , R. P . "An I n v e s ti g a ti o n o f th e R e la tio n s h ip ;
betw een P h y s io lo g io a l and V erb al B eh av io r
_ d u rin g C lie n t-C e n te re d P sy c h o th e ra p y ," J o u r n a l!
o f C o u n se lin g P sy c h o lo g y . I l l (1 9 5 o ), 17^-1^*+.!
A n sb ach er, H. and A n sb ach er, Rowena. The I n d iv id u a l i
P sy chology o f A lfre d A d le r . New Y o r k : B a s i c
Books In c . , 19 551
* 1
1
5. A ronson, M, A. "A S tudy o f th e R e la tio n s h ip s b etw een !
C e rta in C o u n selo r and C lie n t C h a r a c t e r i s ti c s
i n C lie n t-C e n te re d T h e ra p y ," in W. TJ. S nyder
( e d . ) , Group R ep o rt o f a Program o f R e se a rc h
i n P s y c h o th e ra p y . P sy c h o th e ra p y R e se a rc h
G roup, P e n n s y lv a n ia S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953-
P p. 39-5*+.
6 . Assum, A. L. and L evey, S . J . "A n a ly sis o f a Non-
B i r e c t i ve Case w ith F o llo w -u p I n te r v ie w ,"
J o u rn a l o f Abnormal and S o c ia l P sy ch o lo g y .
a oiw, w -8 9 .
A u ld , F. J r . and M urray, E . J . " C o n te n t-A n a ly s is
S tu d ie s o f P sy c h o th e ra p y ," P s y c h o lo g ic a l
B u l l e t i n . L II (1 9 5 5 ), 377-3W *
8 . B a le s , R. F . I n t e r a c t i o n P ro c e s s A n a ly s is : A Method
f o r th e S tudy o f Sm all G roups. C am bridge.
M a s s a c h u s e tts : A ddison W esley, !9*+0•
9 . B e rg in , A. E . "The E f f e c ts o f P sy ch o th e ra p y : Nega
t i v e R e s u lts R e v is ite d ," J o u r n a l o f C o u n sel
in g P sy c h o lo g y . X ( 1963) , 2M *— 250.
1 1 * +
!
| 1 0 . Bergm an, D. V. "C o u n se lin g Method and C lie n t R espon-
I s e e ," J o u r n a l o f C o n s u ltin g P sy ch o lo g y . XV
(1 9 5 1 ), 216-22M-.
!
I 1 1 . B la u , B. A. "A C om parison o f More Improved w ith L ess
| Im proved C lie n ts T re a te d by C lie n t-C e n te re d
! M eth o d s," in W. U . S nyder ( e d . ) , Group R ep o rt
o f a Program o f R e se a rc h i n P sy c h o th e ra p y .
P sy c h o th e ra p y R e se a rc h d-roup, P e n n sy lv a n ia
S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953* 120-126.
i
!
j 1 2 . Bloom, B. S . "The Thought P ro c e s s o f S tu d e n ts in
D is c u s s io n ," in S . G rench ( e d . ) . A ccent on
T e a c h in g . New Yorks H a rp e r, 195*+ • P;p. 23"
W .
i ' i
| 1 3 . B o rin g , R. 0 . and D e a b le r, H. L. "A S im p lifie d
P sy ch o d ram atic A pproach i n Group T h erap y ,"
J o u rn a l o f C l in i c a l P sy c h o lo g y . V II (1 9 ^ 1 ),
■$1-376.
i
I
! l*f, Bowman, P . H. "A S tudy o f th e C o n siste n c y o f C u rre n t,:
W ish, and P ro p e r S e lf C oncepts a s a M easure
o f T h e ra p e u tic P r o g r e s s ." U npublished
D o c to r’ s t h e s i s , U n iv e r s ity o f C hicago, 1951.
! 1 5 . B ra d fo rd , L. P . ( e d . ) . "Group D evelopm ent," S e le c te d
R eading S e r ie s One. W ashington, D. C .;
N a tio n a l T ra in in g L a b o r a to r ie s , N a tio n a l Edu
c a tio n A s s o c ia tio n , 1961.
1 1 6 . Brammer, L. M. and S hostrom , E . L . T h e ra p e u tic
P sy ch o lo g y ; F undam entals o f C o u n selin g and
P s y c h o th e ra p y . New J e r s e y ; P r e n tic e - H a ll
I n c . , i 9 6 0 .
1 7 . B u t le r , J . M. and H aig h , G. V. "Changes in th e R e la - ;
t i o n b etw een S e lf-C o n c e p ts and I d e a l C oncepts j
C onsequent upon C lie n t-C e n te re d C o u n se lin g ,"
in C. R. R ogers and R o s a lin e F . lymond ( e d s .) ,i
P sy c h o th e ra p y and P e r s o n a lity Change.
C h icag o ; U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 195M-. P p. 55-7 5 .
1 8 . C a rn e s, E . F . "C o u n selo r F l e x i b i l i t y : I t s E x te n t,
and I t s R e la tio n s h ip to O th er F a c to rs i n th e
I n te r v ie w ." U n p u b lish ed D o c to r's t h e s i s ,
Ohio S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1 9^9.
!
1 9 . C a rn e s, E . F . and R o b in so n , F . P . "The Role o f C lient!
T alk in th e C o u n selin g I n te r v ie w ," E d u catio n al!
and P s y c h o lo g ic a l M easurem ent. V III (1 9 ^ 8 ), I
....................535-6H4. : . J
116
2 0 . C a r r , A. C. "An E v a lu a tio n o f N ine N o n -D ire c tiv e
P sy ch o th e ra p y C ases hy Means o f th e R orschach,"
J o u r n a l o f C o n su ltin g P sy c h o lo g y . X I I I (1 9 ^ 9 ),
l^ b -2 0 5 .
2 1 . C a rtw rig h t, D. S . "A nnotated B ib lio g ra p h y o f R e sea rch
and T heory C o n s tru c tio n i n C lie n t-C e n te re d
T h e ra p y ," J o u rn a l o f C o u n selin g P sy c h o lo g y .
IV (1 9 5 7 ), 8 2 -1 0 0 .
2 2 . C o fe r, C. N. and Chance, J . "The D is c o m fo rt-R e lie f
Q u o tie n t in P u b lish e d C ases o f C o u n selin g and
P sy c h o th e ra p y ," J o u rn a l o f P sy ch o lo g y . XXIX
(1 9 5 0 ), 219- 22**.
23* C ovner, B. J . " S tu d ie s in P h o nographic R e c o rd in g s o f
V erb al M a te ria ls I . The Use o f P h o n o g rap h ic
R e c o rd in g s in C o u n selin g P r a c tic e and
R e s e a rc h ," J o u rn a l o f C o n s u ltin g P sy c h o lo g y .
VI ( 1 9 ^ 2 ), 1 0 ^-1 1 3 .
2**. _________ . " S tu d ie s in P h o n o g rap h ic R eco rd in g s o f
V erb al M a te ria ls I I I . The C om pleteness and
A ccuracy o f C o u n selin g In te rv ie w R e p o r ts ,"
J o u rn a l o f G en eral P sy ch o lo g y . X X X (19M *),
m , " 1 8 2 , m . — —
2 5 . _______ _ • " S tu d ie s in P h o n o g rap h ic R eco rd in g s o f
V erb a l M a te ria ls XV. W ritte n R e p o rts o f
I n te r v ie w s ," J o u r n a l o f A p p lied P sy c h o lo g y .
x x v i i i ( i 9w , 69- 9 8 .
2 6 . C u rra n , C. A. P e r s o n a lity F a c to rs i n C o u n s e lin g .
New Yorks Grune and S t r a t t o n , 19^5.
2 7 . D a v is , S. E . "An I n v e s tig a tio n o f C lie n t C h a r a c te r is
t i c s in In te rv ie w B e h a v io r." U n p u b lish ed
D o c to r 's d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S ta te U n iv e r s ity ,
1953.
2 8 . Demos, G. "S u g g ested U ses o f Tape R eco rd in g s in
C o u n selin g S u p e rv is io n ," P e rso n n e l and Guid
ance J o u r n a l . X LII ( 19o*f) , 7o*f-705.
2 9 . D o lla rd , J . and M ille r , N. E. P e r s o n a lity and
P sy c h o th e ra p y . New Yorks M cGraw-Hill Book
Company I n c . , 1 950.
3 0 . D o lla rd , J . and M owrer. 0 . H. "A Method o f M easuring
T en sio n i n W ritte n D ocum ents," J o u r n a l o f
Abnormal and S o c ia l P sy c h o lo g y . XLII (1 9 4 7 ),
____________ 1 = 3 2 1 — ________________________
r ~
1 1 7
31. lym ond, R o s a lin d P . "A djustm ent Changes o v e r T herapy
from S e l f - S o r t s ," in C. B, R ogers and
R o s a lin d P . iymond ( e d s . ) , P sy c h o th e ra p y and
P e r s o n a li ty Change. C hicago: U n iv e r s ity j
P r e s s , 195H-. fcp. 76-8*f. |
3 2 . , Grummon, D. L ., and Seem an, J , " P a tt e r n s J
o f P e rc e iv e d I n te r p e r s o n a l R e la t io n s ,"
S o c io m e try . XIX (1 9 5 6 ), 1 6 6 -1 7 7 .
3 3 . E l t o n , C. P . "A S tudy o f C lie n t R e s p o n s ib ility :
C o u n selo r T echnique o r In te rv ie w Outcome?"
E d u c a tio n a l and P s y c h o lo g ic a l M easurem ent.
3 T (l9 5 0 > , 7 2 8 - 7 3 7 . ---------------------- -----------
3*+. P re u d , S. "1912-1915 P a p e rs on T e c h n iq u e," in i
J . S tra c h e y ( e d . ) , S ta n d a rd e d i t i o n , V o l. X II,
London: H o g arth K re s s , 1958.
35. G a ie r , E . L . " S e le c te d P e r s o n a lity V a ria b le s and th e ;
L e a rn in g P ro c e s s ," P s y c h o lo g ic a l M onograph.
LXVI (1 9 5 2 ), 1 -2 8 .
36 . G a lla g h e r, J . J . "The Problem o f E sca p in g C lie n ts in
N o n -D ire c tiv e C o u n s e lin g ," i n W. U. S nyder
( e d . ) , Group R ep o rt o f a Program o f R e se a rc h
i n P s y c h o th e ra p y . P sy c h o th e ra p y R e se a rc h
G roup, P e n n sy lv a n ia S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953*
P p. 2 1 -3 8 .
37. G i l l e s p i e , J . P . "V erb al S ig n s o f R e s is ta n c e in
C lie n t-C e n te re d T h e ra p y ," in W. U. S nyder
( e d . ) , Group R ep o rt o f a Program o f R e se a rc h
i n P s y c h o th e ra p y . P sy c h o th e ra p y R e se a rc h
G roup, P e n n s y lv a n ia S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953*
P p. 1 0 5 -1 1 9 .
i
38. G ordon, T . and C a rtw r ig h t, D. "The E f f e c t o f P sy ch o - |
th e ra p y upon C e rta in A ttit u d e s to w ard O th e rs ," ;
in C. R. R ogers and R o s a lin d P . lymond ( e d s . ) ,
P sy c h o th e ra p y and P e r s o n a lity Change.
C h icag o : UniA X n iv e rsity P r e s s , 195^
3 9 . G r e e n b la tt, M ., D iM ascio, A ., S u te r , E . , W atson, P . D .>
and X a n te r, S . S . "The P o ly g ra p h A pproach to j
R e sea rc h on P s y c h o th e ra p y ," J o u r n a l o f N ervous 1
and M ental D is o r d e r s . CXX (1 9 5 * 0 , *+l5-*fi5. |
*+0, Grummon, D. L. "An I n v e s ti g a ti o n in to th e Use o f
G ram m atical and P sy chogram m atical C a te g o rie s
o f Language f o r th e S tudy o f P e r s o n a lity and
TlBj
f
P s y c h o th e ra p y ." U n p u b lish ed D o c to r's t h e s i s , |
U n iv e r s ity o f C hicago, 1 9 5 0 .
*fl. G u ilf o r d , J . P . Pundam ental S t a t i s t i c s i n P sy ch o lo g y
and E d u c a tio n . New f o r k : M cG raw -liill, 1 950. !
^ 2 . H a ig h , G, “D e fe n siv e B eh av io r i n C lie n t-C e n te re d
T h e ra p y ," J o u rn a l o f C o n s u ltin g P sy c h o lo g y .
I ( 1 9 W , lS l- 1 8 9 .
! 1
i*+3. K agan, N ., K ra th w o ld , D. R ., and H i l l e r , R. "S tim u -
I l a t e d R e c a ll i n T herapy U sin g Video T ape: A
i Case S tu d y ," J o u rn a l o f C o u n selin g P sy c h o lo g y .
| X (1 9 6 3 ), 237r 2W . !
Kauffman, P. E. and Raimy, V. C. "Two Methods of
A s s e s s in g T h e ra p e u tic P r o g r e s s ." J o u r n a l o f
Abnormal «.wd S o c ia l P sy c h o lo g y . XLIV (1 9 4 9 ),
3 7 9 - ^ 5 . '
M. Kelly, G. A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs.
IX . Clinical Diagnosis and ^svchotheranv.
Hei York! W . W . K r to n , 1 $ S 5 .-------------
^ 6 . Lamb, R. and H a h l, G. P . " M a n ife st R e a c tio n s o f
P a t i e n t s and I n te r v ie w e rs to th e Use o f Sound ;
R e co rd in g i n th e P s y c h ia tr ic I n te r v ie w ,"
A m erican J o u r n a l o f P s y c h ia tr y . CXII (1 9 5 6 ),
V31-73/C
7 . L a s s w e ll, H. D. " C e rta in P ro g n o s tic Changes d u rin g
T r i a l ( P s y c h o a n a ly tic ; I n te r v ie w s ," P sy ch o
a n a ly ti c R eview . X X III (1 9 3 6 ), 2^1-2WyT
^ 8 . . "V erb al R e fe re n c e s and P h y s io lo g ic a l
Changes d u rin g th e P s y c h o a n a ly tic In te rv ie w s
A P re lim in a ry C om m unication," P s y c h o a n a ly tic
R eview . XXII (1 9 3 5 ), 10-2*f.
^ 9 . Laudsm an, T. and L an e, D. "A V M edia, X ess D ep erso n -j
a l i z a t i o n , N o," Audio V is u a l I n s t r u c t o r .
V III (1 9 6 3 ), 2b-2ET~ "
50. L e a ry , T. and G i l l , M. "The D im ensions and a M easure !
o f th e P ro c e s s o f P sy c h o th e ra p y : A System f o r j
th e A n a ly s is o f th e C o n ten t o f C l i n i c a l Evalua-|
t i o n s and P a tie n t- T h e r a p is t V e r b a li z a t io n s ,"
i n E . A. R u b in s te in and M. B. P a r i o f f ( e d s . ) ,
R e sea rc h in P sy c h o th e ra p y : P ro c e e d in g s o f a
C o n fe re n c e . A p r il. 1 9 5 b . W ashington! I). C.
W ash in g to n , D. C .: N a tio n a l P u b lis h in g Com-
L .......... p a n y , 1 9 5 9 . Pp. 6 2 -9 5 .. ... J
51. May, R.
52. McNemar
53. M oreno,
51 *. N ie ls e n
55. N ie ls e n
56. P a g e , H
57. P a r l o f f
58. P e r r y , 1
59. P o r t e r ,
60. ____
119
" H is t o r ic a l and P h ilo s o p h ic a l P re s u p p o s itio n s
f o r U n d e rsta n d in g T h e ra p y ," in 0 . H. Mowrer
( e d . ) , P sy c h o th e ra p y i T heory and R e s e a rc h .
New York’ s The R onald P re s s Company, 1953*
Pp. 9 -^ 3 . . |
, Q. P s y c h o lo g ic a l S t a t i s t i c s . New Yorks
John W iley and Sons I n c . , 1^ 62.
J . L . Paychndm m ft. New Yorks Beacon H ouse,
19^ 6 .
, G. "The Method o f S e lf - C o n f r o n ta tio n ," in
R. W. W hite ( e d . ) , The S tudy o f L iv ess E ssay s
on P e r s o n a li ty in Honor o f Henry A. M urray
New Yorks A th e rto n , 1963. P p. 124-m -2.
i G. S tu d ie s S e lf - C o n f r o n ta tio n .
C le v e la n d : Howard A lle n I n c . , 196*+.
, A. "An A ssessm ent o f th e P r e d ic tiv e V alue o f
C e rta in Language M easures i n P sy c h o th e ra p e u tic !
C o u n s e lin g ," in W. U. S nyder (e d * ), Group
R e p o rt o f a Program o f R e sea rc h in P s v c h o th e r- 1
a p y . P sy c h o th e ra p y R e sea rc h G roup,
P e n n s y lv a n ia S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953. P p . 88-
93.
, M. B. and R u b in s te in , E . A. "R esearch P ro b
lem s i n P s y c h o th e ra p y ," i n E . A. R u b in s te in
and M. B. P a r l o f f ( e d s . ) , R esearch i n P sycho- ;
th e ra p y s P ro c e e d in g s o f a C o n feren c e . A p r i l. I
1 958, W ashington, D. C. W ashington, 2). C.s
N a tio n a l P u b lis h in g Company, 1959. P p. 276-
292.
f. G ., J r . and E s te s , S . G. "The C o lla b o ra
t i o n o f C lie n t and C o u n s e lo r," in 0 . H. Mowrer
( e d . ) , P sy c h o th e ra p y t T heory an d _ R ese arch *
New York! The R onald P re s s Company, 1953.
P p. 9 5 -1 1 9 .
E . H. "The D evelopm ent and E v a lu a tio n o f a
M easure o f C o u n selin g In te rv ie w P ro c e d u re s ,"
X. The D evelopm ent, Edu c a t io n a l and Psycho
l o g i c a l M easurem ent. I l l (19^3)» 1 0 5 -1 2 6 .
"The D evelopm ent and E v a lu a tio n o f a
M easure o f C o u n selin g In te rv ie w P ro c e d u re s .
I I . The E v a lu a tio n ," E d u c a tio n a l and Psycho- ;
l o g i c a l M easurem ent. I l l (19^3)* 2 1 5 -2 3 8 . j
1 2 0 j
i
6 1 . Rainey, V. C. " S e lf-R e fe re n c e i n C o u n selin g I n t e r
v ie w s ," J o u rn a l o f C o n s u ltin g P sy c h o lo g y .
X II ( 1 9 W V 1 53-163.
6 2 . R a k u sin , J . M. "The R ole o f R o rsch ach V a r i a b i l i t y in.
th e P r e d ic tio n o f C lie n t B eh av io r d u rin g
P sy c h o th e ra p y ," i n W. U. Snyder ( e d . ) , Croup j
R ep o rt o f a Program o f R e search i n P sycho
th e ra p y . P sy ch o th erap y R esearch G roup, !
^P ennsylvania S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953. £ p . 60- i
7 ® + .
6 3 . R ank. 0 . W ill T herapy and T ru th and R e a li ty .
New Y ork! " A lfre d & o p f ,” 1950.---------
6*+. R a p a p o rt, B. The S tru c tu r e o f P s y c h o a n a ly tic T h eo ry i ;
a S y s te m a tiz in g A tte m p t. P s y c h o lo g ic a l
I s s u e s , Volume I I , Number 2 , Monograph 6 ,
I9 6 0 . P . 158.
6 5 . R a s k in , N. J . "An O b je c tiv e S tudy o f th e L o c u s-o f-
E v a lu a tio n F a c to r in P s y c h o th e ra p y ," in
W. W olff*and J . A, P re c k e r ( e d s . ) , S u ccess in
P sy c h o th e ra p y . New Yorks Grune and S t r a t t o n ,
1952. P p . 143- 1 6 2 .
6 6 . R e d l, P . " S tr a te g y and T ech n iq u es o f th e L ife Space
I n te r v ie w , The L ife Space In te rv ie w W orkshop,
1 9 5 7 ," A m erican J o u r n a l o f O rth o p s y c h ia tr y .
XXIX (1 9 5 9 ), i - 1 8 .
6 7 . Remmers, H. H. and R a d le r, D. H. The A m erican
T ee n a g er. In d ian a p o lis-N ew Yorks The Bobbs
M e r r ill Company I n c . , 1 957.
6 8 . R o b in so n , P . P . P r in c ip le s and P ro c ed u res i n S tu d e n t
C o u n se lin g ! New Y ork: H a rp er, 1950.
6 9 . Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Bostons
H oughton M if f lin Company, 1951.
7 0 . . C o u n selin g and P sy c h o th e ra p y . B oston:
H oughton Mifflin Company, 19^2.
7 1 .___________ ; . " E l e c t r i c a l l y R ecorded In te rv ie w s in
Im proving P s y c h o th e ra p e u tic T e c h n iq u e s,"
A m erican J o u r n a l o f O rth o p s y c h ia try . X II
(1 9 ^ 2 ), 4 2 9 -^ 3 5 .
i
7 2 . R o s h a l, Je a n M. G, "The Type-Token R a tio a s a M easure
o f Changes in B eh av io r V a r i a b i l i t y d u rin g !
121
P sy c h o th e ra p y ," in W. U. S nyder ( e d . ) , Group
R ep o rt o f a Program o f R e search in P sycho
th e ra p y J P sy ch o th e rap y Re s e a rc h Group,
P e n n sy lv a n ia S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1953. £ p . 94- !
104.
73* S aslo w , G. and M a tarazzo , J . P . "A T echnique f o r I
S tu d y in g Changes in In te rv ie w B e h a v io r," in
£ . A. R u b in s te in and M. B. P a r l o f f ( e d s . ) ,
R esearch in P sy c h o th e ra p y : P ro c e e d in g s o f a
C o n fe re n c e . A p r i l. 1 9 !?8. W ashington. D. C.
W ashington, D. C .: N a tio n a l P u b lis h in g Com
pany, 1959. P p. 276 -2 9 2 .
7 4 . Schm eding, R. W. "The Use o f th e P lay b ack in th e
C o u n selin g S i t u a t i o n ," V o c a tio n a l G uidance
Q u a r te r ly . XI (1 9 6 2 ), 6 4 -6 7 . '
7 5 . Seem an, J . "A Study o f th e P ro c e s s o f N o n -D ire c tiv e
Therapy," Journal of Consulting Psychology.
X III 11949 5 ~ , _1 57-16#.
7 6 . S h e e re r, E. T . "An A n a ly s is o f th e R e la tio n s h ip
betw een A cceptance o f and R esp ect f o r S e l f
and A cceptance o f and R esp ect f o r O th ers in
Ten C o u n selin g C a se s." J o u rn a l o f C o n s u ltin g
P sy ch o lo g y . X I I I (19‘t9 )7 - I 5 F T 7 5 7 '^ -----------
7 7 . Sherm an, D. "An A n a ly s is o f th e Dynamic R e la tio n s h ip j
betw een C o u n selo r T ech n iq u es and Outcomes in
L a rg e r U n its o f th e In te rv ie w S i t u a t i o n ."
U n p u b lish ed D o c to r’ s d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S ta te ;
U n iv e r s ity , 19*+5.
7 8 . S la v s o n , S. R. An I n tr o d u c tio n to Group T h erap y .
New Y ork! Commonwealth Fund, 1943.
7 9 . S n y d er, W . U. "A Com parison o f One U n su c c e ssfu l w ith ;
Pour Successful Non-Directively Counseled
Cases," Journal of Consulting Psychology.
XI (1 9 4 7 ), 3 8 -4 2 .
80• . "An I n v e s ti g a ti o n o f th e N atu re o f Non-
Directive Psychotherapy," Journal of General
Psychology. XXXIII (1 9 4 5 ), 1 93"22^. i
8 1 . ^ ______ . The P sy ch o th erap y R e la tio n s h ip . New Yorks i
M acm illan, 1961.
8 2 . S tep h en so n , W. Study o f B e h a v io r. C hicago: U n iv e r- |
s i t y o f C hicago P r e s s , 1953* I
122
I
8 3 . S to c k , D. "An I n v e s ti g a ti o n in to th e I n t e r r e l a t i o n - j
s h ip s b etw een th e S e lf-C o n c e p t and P e e lin g s !
D ire c te d to w ard O th er P e rso n s and G ro u p s,'1
J o u rn a l o f C o n s u ltin g P sy ch o lo g y . X III (19^9) ? i
1 7 6 -1 8 0 .
!
8*+. S u lliv a n , H. S. The P s y c h ia tr ic I n te r v ie w . New Yorksj
W. W. N o rto n , 19 51 *. '
8 5 . Thompson, C ., M azer, M. and W ite n b e rg , E , ( e d s . ) . An j
O u tlin e o f P s y c h o a n a ly s is . New Y ork: Random !
H ouse, 1 9 5 5 .
8 6 . T ru a x , C. B. and C a rk h u ff, R . B. "The Old and th e
New: T heory and R e se a rc h i n C o u n selin g and
P sy c h o th e ra p y ," P e rso n n e l and G uidance Jo u rn als
XL11 (1 9 6 * 0 , 860r S6F^ |
8 7 . T u c k e r, J . E . "M easuring C lie n t P ro g re s s i n C l ie n t -
C e n tered T h e ra p y ," i n W. U. S nyder ( e d . ) ,
Group Report of a Program of Research in
Psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research Grroup, i
Pennsylvania State University, 1953. £p. 55-
59.
8 8 . V a rg a s, M. J . "Changes in S elf-A w aren ess d u rin g
C lie n t-C e n te re d T h e ra p y ," i n C. R. R o g ers and
R o sa lin d P . Iiymond ( e d s , ) , P sy c h o th e ra p y and
P e r s o n a lity C hange. C hicago: U n iv e r s ity
P re s s i 195m -. Pp. l*f 5-1 6 5 .
8 9 . W a g s ta ff, A. K ., R ic e , L. N. and B u tle r , J . M.
" F a c to rs o f C lie n t V erb al P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
T h e ra p y ." C o u n selin g C e n te r D is c u s s io n P a p e r s .
Volume fa, Number 9 . C hicago: U n iv e r s ity o f
C h icag o , I9 6 0 . 1 M - p p .
9 0 . W atson, P. D. and D a n te r, S . S, "Some I n flu e n c e s o f
an E x p e rim e n ta l S it u a t io n on th e P s y c h o th e ra
p e u tic P ro c e s s : A R e p o rt Based on W T r e a t
ment I n te r v ie w s , o f th e R e a c tio n s o f a P a t i e n t
and T h e r a p is t to O b s e rv a tio n , R e c o rd in g , and
P h y s io lo g ic a l M easurem ent," P sy ch o m etric
M e d ic in e . X V III (1 9 5 6 ), b57J%70.
9 1 . Wolberg, L. R . The Technique of Psychotherapy.
New Y ork! Grune and S t r a t t o n , 195M-.
9 2 . W o ltz , G. R. and Jo h n so n , J . A, "C o u n selo rs Look a t
T hem selves on V ideo T a p e ," J o u rn a l o f C o u n sel-j
in g P sy c h o lo g y . X (1963)> 232-236. j
f
APPENDICES
I
I
APPENDIX A
TOPICS FOR SPEAKERS
TOPICS FOR SPEAKERS
The Stimulus Instrument
1 . P e e lin g i l l a t e a s e a t s o c ia l a f f a i r s
2 . P e e lin g n erv o u s
3* P e e lin g g u i l t y a b o u t th in g s I ’ve done
Must alw ays be on th e go
5. How f a r h ig h sc h o o l s tu d e n ts sh o u ld go
6 . How to keep boy ( g i r l ) i n t e r e s t e d in me
7 . T ry in g to g e t r i d o f an u n d e s ir a b le h a b it
8 . B i tin g my n a i l s
9 . Overcome b e in g c a r e l e s s
1 0 . A fra id o f m aking m is ta k e s
1 1 . T ro u b le k ee p in g my tem per
1 2 . P e e l I'm n o t a s sm a rt a s o th e r s
13* Want to g e t r i d o f p im p les
l*f. W orrying ab o u t l i t t l e th in g s
15. C a n 't h e lp daydream ing
1 6 . Want to im prove my p o s tu re and body b u ild
1 7 . D o n 't have a boy ( g i r l ) f r i e n d
1 8 . Need to d ev elo p s e lf - c o n f id e n c e
19 . Have a c ru s h on a boy ( g i r l )
2 0 . Do th in g s I r e g r e t l a t e r
2 1 . Seldom have d a te s
2 2 . Wish I were more p o p u la r
2 3 . Get s ta g e f r i g h t b e fo re a g ro u p
2 k . Want to g a in o r lo s e w eig h t
2 5 . Want p eople to l i k e me more
26. Want to make new f r ie n d s
1 2 5
APPENDIX B
BALES! THE SYSTEM OP CATEGORIES USED IN
OBSERVATION AND THEIR MAJOR RELATIONS
BALESJ THE SYSTEM OP CATEGORIES USED "IN
OBSERVATION A N D THEIR MAJOR RELATIONS
S o c ia l
E m o tio n al
Area*
P o s itiv e
Task
A rea:
N e u tra l
S o c ia l-
E m o tio n al
A rea:
N eg ativ e
KEY: A*
B.
C.
D.
<
B
1
1 . Shows s o l i d a r i t y . r a i s e s o th e r s s t a t u s ,
g iv e s h e lp , rew ards
2 . Shows te n s io n r e l e a s e , jo k e s , la u g h s ,
shows s a t i s f a c t i o n :
3c A g re es* shows p a s s iv e a c c e p ta n c e , u n d e r
s ta n d s , c o n c u rs , co m p lies
G ives s u g g e s tio n , d i r e c t i o n , im p ly in g
autonomy f o r o th e r :
5. G ives o p in io n , e v a lu a tio n j a n a ly s is ,
e x p re s s e s f e e l i n g , w ish:
6 . G ives o r i e n t a t i o n , in fo rm a tio n , c l a r i f i e s
r e p e t i t i o n , c o n firm a tio n :
7. Asks f o r o r i e n t a t i o n , in fo rm a tio n ,
r e p e t i t i o n , c o n firm a tio n :
8 . Asks f o r o p in io n , e v a lu a tio n , a n a ly s is
e x p re s s io n o f f e e l in g :
9 . Asks f o r s u g g e s tio n , d i r e c t i o n , p o s s ib le
ways o f a c tio n
1 0 . D is a g re e s . shows p a s s iv e r e j e c t i o n ,
f o r m a lity , w ith h o ld s h e lp
1 1 . Shows te n s io n , a sk s f o r h e lp , w ithdraw s
o u t o f f i e l d :
1 2 . Shows an tag o n ism , d e f la t e s o th e rs* s t a t u s
depends o r a s s e r t s s e l f :
POSITIVE REACTIONS
ATTEMPTED ANSW ERS
QUESTIONS
NEGATIVE REACTIONS
a .
b .
c .
d .
e .
f .
Problem s o f com m unication
Problem s o f e v a lu a tio n
Problem s o f c o n tr o l
Problem s o f d e c is io n
Problem s o f te n s io n r e d u c tio n
Problem s o f r e i n t e g r a t i o n
D e f in itio n s o f th e B a le s C a te g o rie s
Shows s o l i d a r i t y , r a i s e s o t h e r 's s t a t u s , g iv e s h e l p ,
re w a rd : j
a* I n i t i a l and re s p o n s iv e a c t s o f a c tiv e s o l i d a r i t y
and a f f e c t i o n . j
b . I n i t i a l and re s p o n s iv e s t a t u s - r a i s i n g a c ts (w hether!
i n i t i a l s t a t u s o f th e a c t o r i s assum ed to b e highez;
e q u a l, o r i n f e r i o r to t h a t o f th e o t h e r ) .
c . I n re sp o n se to C ateg o ry 1 1 .
d . In re sp o n se to C a te g o rie s 10 and 1 2 .
Shows te n s io n r e l e a s e , jo k e s , la u g h s , shows s a t i s f a c
t i o n :
a . S pontaneous in d ic a tio n s o f r e l i e f .
b . Jo k in g ( i f th e elem en t o f a g g re s s io n i s s tr o n g e r
th a n th e e lem e n t o f f r i e n d l i n e s s , th e a c t sh o u ld be:
c l a s s i f i e d in /L 2 . The a c t m ust in d ic a te some
s e n s i t i v i t y to th e r e a d in e s s o f o th e r s to la u g h ,
o th e rw is e e x c e s s iv e eg o -in v o lv e m en t i s assum ed and
b e lo n g s i n $1.1, a s in d i c a t i v e o f a n x ie ty , o r in $L2:
a s in d i c a t i v e o f s t a t u s s e e k in g ) .
c . L au g h in g .
A g re e s, shows p a s s iv e a c c e p ta n c e , u n d e r s ta n d s , c o n c u rs ,
co m p lie s:
a . In re sp o n se to C a te g o rie s 1 , 2 , if, 5, 6 , 1 0 , 1 1 ,
12.
b . In re sp o n se to a c t s o f d e c is io n i n th e same c a t e
go ry ( 3 ) .
G ives s u g g e s tio n , d i r e c t i o n , im p ly in g autonomy f o r
o th e r :
a . The p ro c e s s o f c o o p e ra tiv e a c tio n i t s e l f i n i t s
c o n a tiv e - in s tr u m e n ta l a s p e c t .
b . The d e s ir e d a c tio n o f th e o th e r a s th e o b je c t o f
c o n a tiv e - in s tr u m e n ta l e f f o r t (e m o tio n a lly to n e d
r e q u e s ts f o r h e lp f a l l in C ateg o ry 11)*
G ives o p in io n , e v a lu a tio n , a n a l y s i s , e x p re s s e s f e e l i n g ,
w ish :
a . The p ro c e s s o f a c tio n i t s e l f in i t s i n f e r e n t i a l and
a p t a t i v e a s p e c t s .
b . The s e l f and own m o tiv a tio n a s o b je c t o f in f e r e n c e
and e v a lu a tio n ( s e lf - d e f e n s iv e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s
f a l l in ^L 2. N e g a tiv e ly to n e d e v a lu a tio n s o f s e l f ;
o r co n d u ct f a l l in $L1, Sim ple r e c a l l o r re p o rtin g !
o f o n e 's e x p e rie n c e , w ith o u t in f e r e n c e f a l l s #6),
c . The o t h e r , o r h i s m o tiv a tio n a s th e o b je c t o f I
in f e r e n c e and e v a lu a tio n ( s ta te m e n ts m eant to expose
o r d e f l a t e f a l l in ^1 2 . S ta te m e n ts o f sim p le '
......................... 129
r e p o r t o r r e c a l l a b o u t th e o th e r w ith o u t in f e r e n c e
o r d ia g n o s is f a l l i n $ S ) . :
j d . The o u te r s i t u a t i o n a s th e o b je c t o f in f e r e n c e and ;
e v a lu a tio n .
6 . G ives o r i e n t a t i o n , in fo rm a tio n , r e p e a t s , c l a r i f i e s , j
c o n firm s : j
a . The p ro c e s s o f a c t i v i t y o r com m unication i t s e l f a s !
th e o b je c t o f c o g n itio n .
b . The s e l f and own m o tiv a tio n a s th e o b je c t o f co g -
| n i t i o n .
e . The o t h e r , o r h i s m o tiv a tio n a s th e o b je c t o f cog
n i t i o n .
d . The o u te r s i t u a t i o n a s th e o b je c t o f c o g n itio n .
7 . Asks f o r o r i e n t a t i o n , in fo rm a tio n , r e p e t i t i o n , and
c o n firm a tio n :
a . The p ro c e s s o f a c tio n a s th e o b je c t o f c o g n itiv e
e f f o r t .
b . S e l f , o th e r , o r o u te r s i t u a t i o n a s th e o b je c t o f
c o g n itiv e e f f o r t ( i n t e r r o g a t i v e s ta te m e n ts designed!
to r e d e f in e , c l a r i f y , o r r e d e s c r ib e a f e e l i n g f a l l s
i n e i t h e r C ateg o ry 5 o r 6 ) ,
8 . Asks f o r o p in io n , e v a lu a tio n , a n a l y s i s , e x p re s s io n o f
f e e l i n g :
a . The p ro c e s s o f a c tio n i t s e l f a s th e o b je c t o f
i n f e r e n t i a l o r e v a lu a tiv e e f f o r t .
b . S e l f , o t h e r , o r o u te r s i t u a t i o n a s th e o b je c t o f
i n f e r e n t i a l o r e v a lu a tiv e e f f o r t .
9 . Asks f o r s u g g e s tio n , d i r e c t i o n , p o s s ib le ways o f
a c t i o n : The p ro c e s s o f a c tio n i t s e l f , th e s e l f , o th e r
o r o u te r s i t u a t i o n a s th e o b je c t o f a c tiv e m o d ific a
t i o n (a p p e a ls f o r s u g g e s tio n s w hich have an e m o tio n a l
u n d e rto n e o f dependence r a t h e r th a n s h a rin g th e r i g h t
to d eterm in e d i r e c t i o n , o r i f th e em o tio n a l to n e
becom es m arked, f a l l in C ateg o ry 1 1 ) .
1 0 . D is a g re e s , shows p a s s iv e r e j e c t i o n , f o r m a lity , w ith
h o ld s r e s o u r c e s :
a . In re sp o n se to C a te g o rie s 1 , 2 , and 3 (more p o s i
t i v e and a g g r e s s iv e ly to n e d a c t s o f r e j e c t i o n f a l l
i n C ategory 1 2 ) . !
b . In re sp o n se to C ateg o ry * + (more p o s it iv e and
a g g r e s s iv e ly to n e d a c ts o f d em u rral f a l l i n C a te
g o ry 1 2 ) .
c . In re sp o n se to C a te g o rie s 5 and 6 (m oral judgm ents j
o r d is a p p ro v a l a p p lie d to e x p re s s io n o f f e e l i n g o r [
s u g g e s tio n s r e f l e c t i n g on th e o th e r f a l l in / L 2 ) . j
130j
I
d . In re sp o n se to C a te g o rie s 7 , 8 , 9? 1 1 , 12 ( a s th e
a c t i v e , o u tg o in g a g g re s s iv e elem en t in c r e a s e s th e
a c ts f a l l i n C ateg o ry 1 2 ).
e . In re sp o n se to p re v io u s a c t s i n C ateg o ry 1 0 . j
; I
1 1 , Shows te n s io n : a s k s f o r h e lp , w ith d raw s o u t o f th e |
f i e l d : i
a . D iffu s e t e n s io n .
| b . D iffu s e a n x ie ty .
c . Shame and g u i l t .
I d . F r u s t r a t i o n .
| e . A sking f o r h e lp o r p e rm is s io n .
] f . W ithdraw al o u t o f th e f i e l d .
' 1 2 , Shows a n ta g o n ism , d e f l a t e s o th e r s s t a t u s , d e fe n d s o r
a s s e r t s s e l f :
a . A u to c ra tic c o n t r o l.
b . Autonomy.
c . S ta tu s d e f l a t i n g .
d . S ta tu s d e fe n d in g .
e . S ta tu s s e e k in g .
f . D iffu s e a g g r e s s io n .
APPENDIX C
DEFINITIONS OP SCORING CATEGORIES
DEFINITIONS OF SCORING CATEGORIES
1 . P r a i s e s , re w a rd s, a d m ire s, shows b e l i e f i n ,
s o lid a g ree m en t, g iv e s a f f e c t i o n .
2 . Shows s a t i s f a c t i o n ; jo k e s , la u g h s in f r i e n d ly
and u n d e rs ta n d in g m anner; shows r e l i e f .
3* A grees; go es a lo n g w ith , u n d e rs ta n d s 4 fo llo w s
d ir e c tio n b e in g ta k e n by th e o th e r .
G ives s u g g e s tio n s o r d ir e c t io n s b u t im p lie s th e
o th e r h a s freedom to make h i s own d e c is io n .
B S 5 . G ives o p in io n , a n a ly z e s , ex am in es, ju d g e s ,
e x p re s s e s a f e e l in g o r w ish ab o u t th e s i t u a t i o n ,
6 . G ives in fo rm a tio n , makes c l e a r , e x p la in s th e
s i t u a t i o n .
7 . Asks f o r in fo rm a tio n o r e x p la n a tio n in o r d e r to
u n d e rs ta n d ; q u e s tio n s to make s i t u a t i o n c l e a r .
8 . Asks f o r o p in io n , judgm ent o r a n a ly s is ,
e x p re s s e s f e e l in g ab o u t th e s i t u a t i o n .
9 . Asks f o r a s u g g e s tio n o r d i r e c t i o n , p o s s ib le
ways o f ta k in g a c t i o n , b u t r e ta in in g freedom
to make h i s own d e c is io n .
1 0 . D is a g re e s , te n d s to go a g a i n s t , w ith h o ld s u n d e r
s ta n d in g .
D ^ 1 1 . Shows te n s io n , f r u s t r a t i o n , sham e, g u i l t ; a sk s
f o r h e lp ; w ithdraw s o u t o f th e s i t u a t i o n .
1 2 . Shows a n tag o n ism , d e f l a t e s th e o th e r , d efen d s
h im s e lf, g iv e s d e f i n i t e o r d e r , s e t s s e l f a p a r t
w ith firm n e s s .
A. P o s itiv e
B. A ttem pted answ ers
C. Q u e stio n s
D. N eg ativ e r e a c tio n s
1 3 2
Sample
APPENDIX D
AN EXCERPT PROM "RULES FOR DIVIDING INTERVIEWS
INTO SENTENCES," BY PRANK AULD, JR., AND
ALICE M. WHITE, IN THE JOURNAL OP
PSYCHOLOGY. XLII (3956), 273“2B1
AN EXCERPT PROM "ROLES FOR DIVIDING INTERVIEWS
INTO SENTENCES," BY PRANK AULD, J R ., AND
ALICE M. WHITE. IN THE JOURNAL OP
PSYCHOLOGY. XLII ( 1956) , 2?3“ 2 8 l
B. R u les f o r U n itiz in g
The r u l e s f o r d iv id in g in te r v ie w s in to s e n te n c e s
a re a s fo llo w s :
1 . The u n i t c o n s i s t s o f an in d e p e n d e n t c la u s e ,
s ta n d in g by i t s e l f o r o c c u rrin g a lo n g w ith one ,
o r more d ep en d en t c l a u s e s .
2 . A c la u s e i s a s ta te m e n t c o n ta in in g a s u b je c t
( e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d ) and a p r e d ic a te , w ith o r
w ith o u t com plem ents o r m o d if ie r s .
3 . An in d e p e n d e n t c la u s e can o f te n be d i s t i n
g u ish e d from a d ep en d en t c la u s e by th e f a c t s
t h a t
a . When two in d e p e n d e n t c la u s e s a re c o n n e c te d ,
th e seco n d may be in tro d u c e d by a c o o r d i
n a t in g c o n ju n c tio n o r a c o n ju n c tiv e ad v erb j
and
b . D ependent c l a u s e s , w hich a re alw ays u se d
a s p a r t o f sp e e c h , a re in tro d u c e d by sub
o r d in a tin g c o n ju n c tio n s o r by pronouns
such a s who, w h ich , o r t h a t .
Some c o m b in a tio n s o f w ords w ith o u t an e x p re sse d
s u b je c t and p r e d ic a te can make com plete se n
te n c e s (a n d , t h e r e f o r e , u n i t s ) . These a re
c a lle d e l l i p i t i c a l s e n te n c e s . Exam ples:
a . "S p ea k ." ( a command);
b . "G oodI" (an ex c la m ato ry s e n te n c e );
c . "W hat?" (a supplem ent q u e s tio n ) ;
d . T h e r a p is t: "What room d id th e y g iv e you?" ;
P a t i e n t : "The same one I had b e f o r e ." |
( P a t i e n t 's u tte r a n c e i s a c o m p letiv e se n
te n c e .)
1 3 5
136 j
i
5 . P a ls e s t a r t s do n o t co u n t a s s e p a ra te u n i t s .
Exam ple: "And Wednesday n ig h t u h I more o r
l e s s — I d id n ft h ig h - p re s s u r e him " (one u n i t ) .
"And Wednesday n ig h t u h I more o r l e s s , ” i s
n o t s c o re d a s a s e p a r a te u n i t . L in g u is ts c a l l j
t h i s c o n s tr u c tio n " a n a c o lo n th o n ."
i
6 . U tte ra n c e s la c k in g some e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e o f a j
com plete s e n te n c e b ecau se o f an i n t e r r u p t i o n byj
th e o th e r s p e a k e r o r a la p s in g in to s il e n c e a re I
c o n s id e re d s e p a r a te u n i t s w henever th e m eaning
i s c l e a r . L in g u is ts c a l l t h i s c o n s tr u c tio n
" a p o s io p e s is ." Exam ple: "And he would b r in g
th e fem ale to th e p o in t where she would become !
a v e ry e r o t i c " When th e s p e a k e r h a s n o t
s a id enough to make h is m eaning c l e a r , we do
n o t c o n s id e r h i s u tte r a n c e s a u n i t , and we
b ra c k e t th e p h r a s e .
7 . A ffirm a tio n s and n e g a tio n s a re n o t c o u n te d a s
s e p a r a te u n i t s i f th e p a t i e n t go es on to am plify
o r e x p la in . Exam ple: "Y es, I was happy a t
home" (one u n i t ) . But i f th e a f f ir m a tio n
s ta n d s a lo n e , i t i s s e p a r a te ly u n i t i z e d .
Exam ple: T h e r a p is t: "D id th e tre a tm e n t h e lp
you?" P a t i e n t : "Unh h u h ./ I w as, I was
s t r i c t l y on an u l c e r d i e t . / " (Two u n i t s f o r
p a t i e n t 's u t t e r a n c e .)
8 . P h ra se s l i k e you know, I g u e s s , and i s n ' t i t
when added on to s e n te n c e s a r e n o t c o n s id e re d
s e p a r a te u n i t s . Exam ple: "Some v ery s e r io u s
th in g may be h ap p e n in g , you know ." ' !
9 . I f one in d e p e n d e n t c la u s e i s i n te r r u p te d p a re n
t h e t i c a l l y by a n o th e r in d e p e n d e n t c la u s e , each
i s sc o re d a s a s e p a ra te u n i t . Exam ple: "And
th e u h — a g a in I d i d n 't u h go to any fre n z y o r
have any a l l - o u t e m o tio n a l e x h ib itio n on my
p a r t , e x c e p t t h a t I e n jo y ed i t . / But i t w a s n 't
to o o b v io u s , I d o n 't im a g in e ./ E njoyed i t in a
p a s s iv e way, I g u ess y o u 'd s a y ./ " T h is exam ple
i s t y p i c a l i n i t s c o m p le x ity . The f a l s e s t a r t j
a t th e b e g in n in g i s n o t c o n s id e re d a u n i t . One
u n i t i s : "B ut i t w a s n 't to o o b v io u s, I d o n 't j
im a g in e ." A second u n i t i s : "A gain I d i d n 't
uh go to any fre n z y o r have any a l l - o u t emo
t i o n a l e x h i b i t io n on my p a r t , e x c e p t t h a t I !
en jo y ed i t , . . en jo y ed i t in a p a s s iv e way,
I g u ess y o u 'd s a y ." As e x p la in e d in R ule 8 ,
1 3 7
th e p h r a s e s , " I d on*t im agine" and " I g u e s s
you*d say " a r e n o t c o n s id e re d s e p a r a te u n i t s .
1 0 . Each f i v e seconds o f s il e n c e i s c o n s id e re d a
u n i t . W e assum e t h a t when th e r e i s a s i l e n c e ,
th e p a t i e n t m ig h t be t a l k i n g . I f he i s n o t,
we w ish to n o tic e t h a t f a c t .
APPENDIX E
CLIENT CONTENT CATEGORIES
CLIENT CONTENT CATEGORIES*
P roblem C a te g o rie s
1 . S ta te m e n ts w hich d e a l w ith c o m p la in ts , symptoms o f
m a la d ju stm e n t o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s o f co n c ern to th e
c l i e n t . (Sym ptom atic s ta te m e n ts .) To in c lu d e th e
c a se o f th e c l i e n t who s t a t e s , " I d o n 't know w hat to
t a l k a b o u t to d a y ."
2 . S ta te m e n ts w hich r e p o r t th e s i t u a t i o n s , in c id e n t s o r
f a c t s r e l a t i n g to th e p roblem . T hese a re d e s c r ip tio n s ;
o f th e c o n d itio n s u n d e r w hich th e symptoms a re p re s e n t.!
T hese a re expanded and e x p la n a to ry s ta te m e n ts .
3 . S ta te m e n ts w hich c l e a r l y r e p o r t th e p re -s c h o o l e t i o l
o g y , h i s t o r i c a l background o r developm ent o f p r e s e n t
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s , c o m p la in ts o r sym ptom s.
S ta te m e n ts i n w hich th e c l i e n t s t a t e s h i s problem in
a n t i c i p a t o r y te rm s j th e c l i e n t i n d i c a t e s c o n s id e r a tio n
o f h i s problem in te rm s o f th e f u t u r e .
5. S ta te m e n ts w hich in d ic a t e r e l i e f o r r e d u c tio n o f th e
c l i e n t 's p ro b le m s, c o m p la in ts , symptoms o r d i s s a t i s
f a c t i o n s in c lu d in g s ta te m e n ts o f p le a s u re o r s a t i s
f a c t i o n .
6 . S ta te m e n ts by th e c l i e n t in w hich he v e r b a l iz e s th e
c a u s e s o f h i s b e h a v io r o r c l e a r l y r e l a t e s one c h a ra c
t e r i s t i c o f h i s b e h a v io r to a n o th e r .
7 . S ta te m e n ts r e v e a lin g th e c l i e n t 's d e c is io n s r e g a r d in g
*W. U. S n y d er, " C lie n t C o n ten t C a te g o r ie s ," Appen
d ix V. Grout) R ep o rt o f a Program o f R e se a rc h in P sy ch o -
U n d e rsta n d in g o r A ctio n -T ak en C a te g o rie s
therapy. Psychotherapy Kesearcn tiroup, Pennsylvania sxaxe
I 1 L f ° i
! f u t u r e a c tio n s o r i n t e n t i o n s to change h i s a t t i t u d e s . I
D is c u s s io n o f p re v io u s p la n s i s e x c lu d e d . The c l i e n t ,
! d is c u s s e s some f u tu r e a c tio n in r e f e r e n c e to th e re so -j
l u t i o n o f a p ro b le m . '
f |
i ;
Sim ple B esponse C a te g o rie s
\
\ 8 . Any q u e s tio n s o f th e c l i e n t w hich re q u e s t a f a c t u a l
r e p ly from th e c o u n s e lo r. These f r e q u e n tly in c lu d e
j r e q u e s ts f o r a d v ic e , in fo rm a tio n , o r f o r re a s s u ra n c e ;
i th e y a re n o t co n c ern ed w ith e n d in g th e c o n t a c t .
9- A r e p ly to a d i r e c t q u e s tio n by th e c o u n s e lo r. Sim ple
a c c e p ta n c e o f a c o u n s e lo r 's c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f f e e l i n g
i s n o t in c lu d e d .
1 0 . S im ple a c c e p ta n c e o f a c o u n s e lo r 's s ta te m e n t o r c l a r i
f i c a t i o n o f f e e l i n g . Does n o t in c lu d e r e p l i e s to
d i r e c t q u e s tio n s by th e c o u n s e lo r .
1 1 . Any s ta te m e n ts by th e c l i e n t w hich c l e a r l y r e j e c t o r
d is a g re e w ith any s ta te m e n t by th e c o u n s e lo r. T h is
d o es n o t in c lu d e n e g a tiv e r e p l i e s to d i r e c t q u e s tio n s .
M inor C a te g o rie s
1 2 . Any s ta te m e n ts co n cern ed w ith e n d in g one c o n ta c t o r
m aking a rra n g e m e n ts f o r f u tu r e c o n t a c t s .
1 3 . Any s ta te m e n t co n cern ed w ith e n d in g a s e r i e s o f i n t e r
v ie w s o r i n d i c a t i o n s o f th e c l i e n t 's d e s ir e to d is c o n
t i n u e th e s e r i e s o f in te r v ie w s .
l*f. S ta te m e n ts w hich a r e n o t r e l a t e d to th e c l i e n t 's p ro b
lem and do n o t in v o lv e r a p p o r t - g e t t i n g a tte m p ts .
i
i 1 5 . F rie n d ly d is c u s s io n w hich i s u n r e la te d to th e c l i e n t 's
p ro b lem and u s u a lly s e rv e s o n ly th e purpose o f e s ta b
l i s h i n g good r a p p o r t u s u a lly found a t th e b e g in n in g o r
e n d in g o f a c o n t a c t , and in c lu d e s th e u s u a l s o c ia l
I a m e n itie s .
CLIENT ATTITUDE CATEGORIES*
N e g a tiv e A ttitu d e s
| •
I C lie n t s ta te m e n ts w hich c l e a r l y r e v e a l p re se n c e o f :
j f e e l i n g o r a t t i t u d e s w hich e x p re s s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , d i s - {
l i k e , d is c o m fo rt, a n x i e ty , f e a r , w o rry > h a t e , a n g e r,
I d e r o g a tio n . The o b je c t o f th e f e e l i n g s can be s e l f , others,;
j t h i n g s , o b je c ts , s i t u a t i o n s .
P o s itiv e A ttitu d e s
C lie n t s ta te m e n ts w hich c l e a r l y r e v e a l p re se n c e o f
f e e l i n g o r a t t i t u d e s w hich e x p re s s s a t i s f a c t i o n , p le a s u r e ,
e n jo y m e n t, c o m fo rt, freedom from w orry o r a n x ie ty , lo v e ,
a f f e c t i o n , w arm th, a c c e p ta n c e , l i k i n g , h a p p in e s s . The
o b je c ts o f th e f e e l in g can be s e l f , o t h e r s , th in g s ,
o b j e c t s , s i t u a t i o n s .
A m bivalent A ttitu d e s *
C lie n t s ta te m e n ts w hich c l e a r l y r e v e a l th e c o n c u r
r e n t p re se n c e o f N e g a tiv e and P o s itiv e f e e l in g (a s d e fin e d
above) tow ard th e same o b j e c t , w hich can be s e l f , o t h e r s ,
o b j e c t s , th in g s , o r s i t u a t i o n s .
SCORING KEY
C lie n t C o n ten t C a te g o rie s
1 . Own Problem s
2 . O th ers Problem s
3 . I n s ig h t
*f. Sim ple R esponse and M inor C a te g o rie s
C lie n t A ttitu d e C a te g o rie s
S e lf
1 . P o s itiv e f e e l in g s
*
S n y d er, l o c . c i t .
I*f2
2 . N eg ativ e f e e lin g s
. 3 . A m bivalent f e e lin g s
O th ers
P o s itiv e f e e lin g s
5, N eg ativ e f e e lin g s
6 . A m bivalent f e e lin g s
C o u n selo r
7 . P o s itiv e f e e lin g s
8 . N eg ativ e f e e lin g s
9 . A m bivalent f e e lin g s
Oi No f e e lin g ex p re sse d
C lie n t B e s n o n s ib ilitv T a k in g B eh av io r (18)
C lie n t d e s ir e s no
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o r
even r e j e c t s i t
C lie n t d e s ir e s
to assume a
g r e a t d e a l o f
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
1 2
3
k 5.............6 7 8
9

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Nonverbal Communication In Counseling: An Exploratory Study

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

A Methodological Investigation Of Affect Response Bias

PDF

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Positional Response Set In The Multiple Choice Examination

PDF

Counselor Rigidity - Dogmatism - Authoritarianism As Variables In Counseling Effectiveness

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An Exploratory Study Of The Development Of Selected Generalizations In Social Studies

PDF

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

PDF

A Critical Study Of Transition Devices In Selected Junior College Districts

PDF

The Relationship Of Creative Thinking Abilities To School Achievement

PDF

'Cost' And 'Utility' In The Prediction Of The Successful Junior College Student

PDF

An Investigation Of Two Language, Two Memory, And Two Perceptual Abilities In Retardates Of Mental Age Four

Asset Metadata

Creator Abbott, William Perry (author)

Core Title An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

School School of Education

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

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Carnes, Earl F. (committee chair), Lefever, David Welty (committee member), Naslund, Robert A. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-163882

Unique identifier UC11359223

Identifier 6509959.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-163882 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6509959.pdf

Dmrecord 163882

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Abbott, William Perry

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